Railways: High Speed Rail

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord’s first question because I do not know what inflation is going to do. As to his second question regarding whether HS2 will benefit only London: no, HS2 will play an important role in rebalancing our economy, thereby enabling British cities to work together as an economic powerhouse. I have already said that eight of the 10 top cities will be linked together. London will have Crossrail; it is now the turn of Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield and the east Midlands, with further benefits to Scotland and a whole host of cities in the north. We are not simply building a railway—a way to get between two points more quickly—we are connecting people and markets, and providing a platform for development and regeneration around station sites.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I offer my wholehearted support for the Statement and the Government’s strategy on High Speed 2. It is 50 years this year since the Beeching report and 30 years since the Serpell report, which noble Lords may have forgotten had as one of its options a national network of just 1,400 miles. The transformation in the popularity of rail travel and the recognition of the role that rail can play in our transportation has been little short of astonishing. The fact that we can talk credibly about new high-speed railways to the north of England and Scotland demonstrates the fact that demand for conventional rail travel is almost at bursting point, as the Minister said.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister one question and make a further point. Today is very much an endorsement of the approach of my noble friend Lord Adonis, who introduced the very first White Paper on High Speed 2 and set this whole process underway. It would be right for the House to pay tribute to him and his foresight in paving the way for the announcement that the Government have been able to make today.

With reference to what the Minister said about high-speed trains running north on conventional railways, particularly on the west coast main line, can he give an assurance that signalling and other infrastructure on the west coast main line will be sufficiently upgraded to allow these trains to run—obviously not at 300 kilometres an hour but certainly closer to a line speed of perhaps 140 or 150 miles an hour? That will require improvements to the signalling. In that way, it might be possible to achieve the target of reaching Scotland within three hours, which I agree is a very desirable aim.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I have no difficulty at all in paying tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. This project is going to cover the life of certainly several Parliaments and maybe even several Governments.

The noble Lord talked about speed on the conventional system. One of the problems if we do not do HS2 is that we will have to do upgrade projects on the west coast main line that might look attractive in terms of a business case but, actually, one will eventually run out of capacity on that line, having spent billions of pounds on those projects. The noble Lord is right. I am not sure of the technical points on how we will reduce the journey times from Scotland to London to three hours, but I will happily write to him on that.

Helicopter Flights: Central London

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review the extent of helicopter flights over central London.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, helicopter operations in central London are strictly controlled, and last week’s accident was the first fatal helicopter accident in London since civil aviation records began in 1976. We are waiting for the Air Accidents Investigation Branch to complete its investigation to ensure that the reasons for the accident are understood before we consider whether any further measures are necessary. There is no reason to believe that helicopter operations over London are unsafe.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, the safety record of helicopter flying in London has indeed been very good, as the Minister said, but does he not agree that the number of new high-rise buildings around Vauxhall Cross has made the approach to Battersea heliport increasingly hazardous? Can he give an assurance that the inquiry into last week’s accident, which could have been so much worse, will include consideration of whether that heliport should continue to operate?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is not for me to prejudge the result of the investigation or to tell the Air Accidents Investigation Branch how it should conduct its operation, as I am sure the noble Lord understands. The Civil Aviation Authority is closely involved in the planning process, and it is unlikely that planning permission would be granted for a high building in the face of opposition from the Civil Aviation Authority.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Friday 18th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 2 and 3. These three government amendments relate to the expiry and review of the Act. The Government made a commitment during the Bill’s Report stage in the other place to lay these amendments and I hope that noble Lords will view them in good favour.

Amendment 1 inserts an expiry clause into the Bill whereby the Act will automatically expire five years after commencement of the licensing requirement in Clause 1. Clause 18 contains a review provision and I would expect the Government of the day to carefully consider the outcome of the statutory review and bring forward an appropriate response to provide some long-term certainty for the regulation of the scrap metal industry.

While I am sure that the industry would prefer longer-term certainty, the review and subsequent expiry will see early action if this regulation is proving costly, difficult, or ineffective. That said, the Government are confident that the provisions in the Bill will have the desired effect and that any subsequent legislation will be based around this regulatory regime. However, having listened to the arguments made during the Bill’s passage in the other place for the inclusion of an expiry clause, we agreed to its inclusion, which is why we have laid this amendment today so that the Bill will automatically expire five years after commencement.

Amendment 2 modifies the review clause from five to three years. The statutory review will require the Secretary of State to assess the extent to which the Act’s objectives have been achieved and a shorter review period will therefore allow this consideration to be made at an earlier stage. This review will play a pivotal role in the development of future legislation and tie in with the timetable for bringing forward any new legislation after five years.

Finally, Amendment 3 reduces the scope of the review to remove the need to assess whether the Act should be repealed. This requirement is no longer necessary because Amendment 1 inserts a sunset clause—the expiry clause—and the Act will therefore automatically be repealed after five years. The review should, however, focus on assessing the effectiveness of the regime and recommending any future legislation required.

These three amendments will achieve the right overall framework for the future of this regulatory regime and allow for the Government of the day to bring forward effective long-term regulation following an assessment of the effectiveness of the Bill before us. I beg to move.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I hold the noble Earl in the highest regard, so I know he will not take personally the criticism that I going to direct at the amendment which he has moved this morning. In my time here, I can recall a number of occasions when attempts have been made in this House to add a sunset clause to a Bill that has come to us from another place. In every case, these clauses had been felt necessary in order to improve an otherwise unsatisfactory Bill—often to insert a safeguard into a measure that was controversial or threatened civil liberties and human rights. That is not what we have in front of us this morning. This amendment will not improve the Bill; indeed, it will damage it in two material respects.

First, passing the amendment will delay the Bill’s enactment, as it would have to go back to the other place to get the amendment agreed. Given the track record of a small number of Conservative MPs who routinely try to use procedural devices to block Private Members’ Bills, who can be certain that those who threatened to talk out this Bill on 9 November—or some of their friends—would not attempt to do the same thing again? If, however, we pass the Bill unamended, it would not need to return to the House of Commons and could obtain Royal Assent almost immediately.

My second objection to the sunset clause is that it sends the worst possible signal to all those who are desperately attempting to tackle and defeat the metal thieves. Heroic efforts have been made in the last year by the British Transport Police and the civil police, local authorities, trade associations, reputable scrap metal dealers, the churches, the War Memorials Trust, the energy companies, Network Rail and the train operating companies and the Home Office. They have all worked tirelessly to bring down the incidence of metal theft, catch the offenders and ensure convictions.

As I said at Second Reading, as a result of all this activity, the British Transport Police told me that,

“there has been a decrease in reported metal theft of 52%”.—[Official Report, 30/11.2012; col. 412.]

There have been numerous press reports of successful prosecutions and convictions. In my own area recently, we saw the conviction of all eight members of a Romanian gang which had travelled from Birmingham to the Cotswolds to steal engineering cable from the railway worth nearly half a million pounds on the line between Evesham and Moreton-in-Marsh—two towns not known for their incidence of high crime. How can it make sense for this House now to agree an amendment which would take this vital new law off the statute book altogether in five years’ time and give whoever is in government then the headache of having to pass such a law all over again?

Thanks to the diligence of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and the Commons sponsor, Richard Ottaway MP, we have an excellent Bill in front of us, which, as every noble Lord who spoke on 30 November believes, will do the job expected of it. I am aware that the Minister in another place gave a commitment to give this House the opportunity to consider the addition of a sunset clause—not to improve the Bill, but in order to buy off the two Members who habitually cause trouble for Private Members’ Bills. The noble Earl has fulfilled that commitment by moving that amendment this morning. It does mean that the House is obliged to accept it.

Airports: Capacity

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

I agree with my noble friend that if you use bigger aircraft you can get more passengers through Heathrow for the same number of flights.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, what proportion of the capacity at Heathrow do the Government estimate will be released if their plans to build High Speed 2—initially to Birmingham and then to Manchester and Leeds—are fulfilled? Is it not the case that when high-speed railways are built on the continent, domestic aviation diminishes and as a result there is spare capacity at airports?

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord makes an important point, but it will not solve our underlying problem that we will still eventually run out of capacity at the London airports.

Public Bodies (Abolition of the Railway Heritage Committee) Order 2013

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

As an amendment to the above Motion, at end insert, “but that this House, whilst welcoming the Government’s acceptance that the heritage of Britain’s railways is sufficiently special to justify the continuation of the Railway Heritage Committee’s powers of designation and their transfer to the Trustees of the Science Museum Group, regrets that the opportunity was not taken to bring within scope those railway organisations wishing to be covered by the new designation arrangements”.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has introduced the debate and set out the proposed new arrangements, and I thank him for the kind comments he made about me. I shall reciprocate by saying some nice things about him and two of his ministerial colleagues in a moment.

I start by declaring some relevant interests, all of them unpaid. Until 2009, I was chair of the Railway Heritage Committee. I am president of the Heritage Railway Association and I am a trustee of the Science Museum Group and serve as chair of the newly-established Railway Heritage Designation Advisory Board, to which the Minister referred. I am also an officer of both the rail and heritage rail all-party groups. As the Minister said, the order provides for the statutory designation powers of the Railway Heritage Committee to pass to the Science Museum next year, assuming of course that this House and another place pass this order.

This has been a bit of a tortuous journey, but it is one which I hope will have a happy ending. It started badly. The first anyone knew of the Government’s intention to abolish the Railway Heritage Committee came in a leak to the Daily Telegraph on 23 September 2010, which listed all the public bodies down for abolition. This was followed on 14 October by a statement from the Department for Transport saying:

“The Government believes that the RHC cannot be justified as no equivalent protection applies to the heritage of any other transport sector”,

and that the RHC will therefore be abolished. That was it. There was no consultation whatever leading up to that decision, but this was followed by a huge outcry in the specialist press and in the heritage world, and scores of letters were written to Ministers and MPs asking the Government to think again. Interestingly this unease appeared to be shared by no less a person than the Prime Minister. Writing to one of his constituents on 25 October, Mr Cameron said:

“I understand the significant role railways have played and continue to play in the life of the nation. I also recognise the value of preserving evidence significant to our railways heritage”.

The continuation of statutory powers of designation is of particular importance to the heritage railway movement. This covers around 111 working heritage railways and tramways, as well as 60 steam museum sites. There are more than 399 stations on these lines—more than on the Underground network—and there is a fleet of around 800 preserved steam locomotives. Artefacts that are designated, and thus preserved, often find a new life on the heritage railways, and that brings many benefits to local communities and to local employment, skills training and tourism.

The Railway Heritage Committee’s existence and operation stemmed from three distinct Acts of Parliament, two of them passed by Conservative Governments and one by the recent Labour Government, each supported by all political parties. The Railways Act 1993 set up the Railway Heritage Committee at the time of the railways privatisation. The Railway Heritage Act 1996 brought artefacts and records that had passed into the private sector back into the scope of the committee after attempts by Ministers to set up a voluntary scheme was seen to be unsuccessful. That is a point that we need to bear in mind when we hear about voluntary arrangements in future. The Railways Act 2005 conferred NDPB status on the committee following the demise of the Strategic Rail Authority, and the 2005 Act also brought military railways owned by the Ministry of Defence within its scope.

The principle that the nation’s railway heritage is worth preserving goes back a long way. At the time of the railways nationalisation in 1948, the big four private railway companies were meticulous in passing over their principal heritage items to the newly established British Railways. Section 144 of the Transport Act 1968 transferred responsibility for the British Railways Board’s historical artefacts and certain of its records to the Department of Education and Science, and in 1975 the National Railway Museum was established in York. Had the abolition of the RHC gone through as originally intended, much of that good work would have been lost. Not only would nothing of significance to the nation’s railway history have been preserved in future but all 1,300 artefacts and thousands of important historical documents previously designated would have had to be de-designated, with many of them being put at risk.

Fortunately, it was possible to discuss these matters sensibly with Ministers, and I am happy to praise the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach—I am pleased to see him in his place—who sought me out after the Second Reading debate on the Public Bodies Bill, and also Theresa Villiers, the then Minister of State for Transport. I should also mention in dispatches the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, whose role in this was also extremely helpful. Quite quickly, we were able to agree an alternative way forward which retained the statutory powers of designation by transferring them to the trustees at the Science Museum, and this is provided for in this order.

There is, however, one aspect of the new arrangements which is not entirely satisfactory and it is the reason I am moving this amendment to the Motion. This is the question of scope. The list of organisations covered by the statutory powers of designation does not adequately cover the modern railway industry. The previous Government recognised this when my noble friend Lord Adonis was Secretary of State. In 2008 and 2009, the DfT carried out an extensive consultation exercise to gauge the degree of support for extending the scope of the RHC following changes in the structure of the railway industry since 1996. There was virtually unanimous support for this proposition. Indeed, Transport for London specifically asked that London’s Underground railways should come within the committee’s scope, as did, perhaps surprisingly, the railway trade unions, which, whatever their discontent with the privatised industry, very much saw themselves as part of the railway family. As a result, a new statutory instrument was drafted and circulated in 2010 but, sadly, was never tabled following the change of Government.

Reverting to where we are today, the Minister has referred to the consultation on the new arrangements that the department undertook earlier this year. This produced almost unanimous support for retaining the powers of designation and transferring them to the Science Museum. One reason why there is so much support within the railway industry for the RHC is that it has always worked happily with the industry and with the grain of the industry. The industry members see it as a helpful partner which not only relieves them of much of the burden of worrying about preservation matters but complements their own very serious commitment to railway heritage.

Writing to Theresa Villiers on 1 August this year, Peter Hendy, the Commissioner for Transport for London, repeated that TfL would welcome inclusion under the scope of the new designation arrangements. He said that he made this point for a number of reasons. I received his permission this morning to quote directly from his letter, which states:

“First it demonstrates the strength of commitment we in TfL have towards our unique railway heritage, and our determination that nothing of significance to the nation’s railway story should be lost. Secondly, bringing TfL within scope would solve an anomaly, in that some of TfL’s operations, having formerly being British Rail services, are in-scope—for example, London Overground—whilst the Underground is not. Thirdly, not being in-scope adds to our regulatory burden, because management time has to be expended unnecessarily on dealing with requests from members of the public—especially railway enthusiasts—to preserve artefacts, when it would be much more efficient and cost-effective to refer such demands to an independent body possessing statutory powers, able to judge objectively what is important”.

These seem to be pretty compelling arguments. They were good enough to persuade Mrs Villiers repeatedly to ask her officials to come up with a formula which would achieve what Mr Hendy and the rest of us wanted. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was not unsympathetic either in conversations with my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham and me.

The legal advice seemed to rest on the fact that to extend scope required a negative statutory instrument, while the abolition of the RHC had to be done by affirmative order. However, bearing in mind that a draft SI had already been prepared in 2010 to achieve exactly what is needed now, it seems to be a pretty feeble reason for not taking the steps before the designation powers transferred to the Science Museum. Mrs Villiers never sent a reply to Peter Hendy or me because she was promoted in the government reshuffle on 4 September. Instead, it seems that within hours letters were put in front of the new Ministers saying, effectively, “Nothing doing on the scope issue”, and they were signed by Simon Burns and Stephen Hammond and sent to Peter Hendy and me.

We are advised to rely on voluntary agreements with organisations wishing to come within scope. The advisory board which I am chairing at the Science Museum will do its best to come up with a suitable short-term solution. However, the Minister knows very well that this cannot be permanent and that a new SI will be needed before long. This amendment to the Motion is about a missed opportunity to get this right from the start. However, I stress that the decision to retain the RHC’s existing powers of designation is warmly welcomed, and I thank the noble Earl for his part in achieving it. I beg to move.

[Lord Bradshaw]

My Lords, I will add to what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has said. I have a feeling that many people might think that we are interested only in collecting engine numbers, steam trains and old things. I was present at the National Railway Heritage Awards last week, and among the winners were some remarkable feats of engineering and advanced technology. These included the repainting of the Forth Bridge in such a way that it should not need doing for 25 years, and the magnificent fourth span at Paddington station which pushed technology a long way. I also mention that much of this work is supported by the industry itself and by a huge number of volunteers. It pushes science and preservation forward and, because of the attractiveness of a lot of this to tourists and our own people going about the country, it is worth preserving for reasons other than sheer nostalgia.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful for the kind words from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. Noble Lords supporting him seemed to be a bit more strident than the noble Lord himself. As your Lordships will be aware, I am also very keen on the preservation of our country’s transport heritage, particularly road transport vehicles. Sadly, I do not have enough time to get involved with railway preservation. However, no one should underestimate the sterling work of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. You can have thousands of volunteers on the ground, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, but you need the support of people such as the noble Lord to skilfully interface with central government.

In moving his amendment, the noble Lord talked about the scope of the order. The noble Lord will know that Ministers gave very careful consideration to these matters but, for the reasons outlined in my opening remarks, it was not possible to accede to his request. However, we recognise that the structure of the rail industry has changed in recent years, and indeed a number of respondents to the consultation indicated that they should be included in the scope of the designation powers.

Wider changes to the way in which the designation process operates, which would require changes to the 1996 Act, would also be beyond the scope of what can be done in relation to the RHC under the Public Bodies Act. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport will carry out a review within three years, after the designation function has transferred to the board of trustees of the Science Museum, in order to establish whether further bodies, or classes of bodies, should be included within the scope of the 1996 Act and whether the burden on bodies, as a result of the exercise of the designation function, can be reduced.

The noble Lord referred to the problem of well meaning members of the public and the benefits of having the RHC, or an equivalent, to determine these designation matters. I agree entirely. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, with whom I have never debated before, spoke about the work and the need for the designation function. He is quite right—that is why I was able to persuade my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to retain the designation function.

The noble Lord, Lord Snape, made a great speech but seemed to have missed the point that his noble friend had saved the designation function. It will carry on, as requested by my noble friend Lord Cormack. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked what the difference was between the RHC and the Science Museum Group. It is not just about the costs but about improving efficiency and effectiveness.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, will feel free to withdraw his amendment and that the House will agree my order.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate and I thank every noble Lord who has taken part in it. In all parts of the Chamber, there have been impressive demonstrations of support for the work of the Railway Heritage Committee, for the cause of railway heritage as a whole and, indeed, for the role of our railways in our society. I thank every noble Lord who has participated.

As I shall be playing a part in the work of the Science Museum advisory board, I hope very much that I will be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and my noble friend Lord Snape that in future we will do as good a job as the Railway Heritage Committee has done. I am particularly pleased that there has been such praise for the work of the Railway Heritage Committee, which I have not been a part of for the past three years. I am sure that the members of that committee will be very gratified that there is such support for the work that they have done and that their efforts are being appreciated. I have to tell noble Lords that back in 2010 they did not feel that they were being appreciated and it appeared that the committee was being abolished almost by a stroke of the pen.

My noble friend Lord Snape referred to the sterling work by Mr Michael Portillo in saving the Settle to Carlisle line. If he is interested, and if I might be allowed a small commercial, your Lordships will find in the Library a book, of which I am the co-author, that was published last week called Holding the Line: How Britain’s Railways Were Saved, in which the saving of the Settle to Carlisle line is described in some detail.

[Lord Snape]

Can my noble friend assure me that I get a mention? Otherwise I will not read it.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

The noble Lord, Lord Snape, has a very good mention in it, which I hope that he will appreciate; not least because he was the source of information that has subsequently appeared in it.

The Minister has asked me not to press my amendment. I am getting pressure from behind me to do that but, in view of the fact that the Government have moved a very considerable distance, and I certainly do not want to fall out with the Minister, who has been extraordinarily helpful, as has his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, I do not intend to press it this afternoon. I will read very carefully what the Minister has said about the review to be conducted by the DCMS within three years; that is the first time that we have heard that. We will study those words very carefully, and if this can lead to a future new statutory instrument, then that will solve the problem. It is a missed opportunity but it is a great deal better than where we were in 2010. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

British Transport Police

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will recognise the British Transport Police for the purposes of the Firearms Act 1968.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government recognise the need to amend the Firearms Act 1968 to address the anomalous position of the BTP in relation to firearms licensing. We are continuing to seek a suitable legislative vehicle to make the necessary amendment to the Firearms Act 1968. We hope that it will be possible to do so during the third Session Bill programme.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, there is widespread admiration in your Lordships’ House and elsewhere for the work that the British Transport Police do, particularly in tackling metal theft, as we heard in the debate on Friday. In May last year, the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the British Transport Police could arm its officers. However, for the reason the Minister mentioned—because the definition of “police” in the Police Act 1996 does not include the BTP—its officers are not regarded as Crown servants under the Firearms Act 1968. Is he aware that, as a result, BTP officers do not enjoy the legal protection afforded to other police officers and that they have to apply for firearms certificates individually as if they were members of the public? The Minister referred to legislative opportunities—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

I will finish very quickly. The Minister referred to legislative opportunities. Will he look at a late amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill or the introduction of a statutory instrument under the Railways and Transport Safety Act?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right in his analysis of the problem. Unfortunately, we cannot make any suitable amendment to current legislation going through your Lordships’ House. I am advised that other routes, such as a regulatory reform order, are not suitable, so we will have to wait for a suitable slot in the primary legislation. However, the noble Lord’s point about legal uncertainties is extremely important.

Transport: Isles of Scilly Ferry Link

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I cannot agree to review the statement that I made to the House because it is considered government policy. I accept that there are difficulties in the Isles of Scilly, particularly the dependence on the tourist trade.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

Is the Minister aware of the great concern in both the Isles of Scilly and Cornwall over the long-term viability of the helicopter service that presently serves the islands in addition to the ferry? I understand that it is about to move from Penzance to Newquay but there is concern over whether it will survive in the long term. Does the Minister’s briefing cover that matter?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my briefing covers that. There are two air services. There is a fixed-wing aircraft, which goes from St Mary’s to a few destinations on the mainland, and there is the helicopter service, which is by definition much more flexible in where it can land. There is an issue over the condition of the runway at St Mary’s; it will not last for ever.

European Rail Market: EUC Report

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, on the excellent way in which she introduced this debate. I do not think that she said a word with which I disagreed. I also congratulate her and the other members of the sub-committee on producing a very impressive report.

As many of your Lordships know, I am a passionate supporter of the railways and I am keen always to see their role in the provision of national and international transport expand. It is clear that the sub-committee shares that view. Fifty years ago, the railways of Europe looked very different from how they look today, but common specifications set out by the International Union of Railways meant that rolling stock could cross the continent regardless of national boundaries, albeit with a change of locomotive at frontiers.

Some of us are old enough to remember the blue sleeping cars drawn up at Calais Maritime behind a steam locomotive ready to take British passengers from Calais to the south of France or to Venice. You could take a direct train from Paris to Istanbul or from Ostend to Moscow. Trains of fruit from Spain, motor scooters from Italy or manufactured goods from Germany and France crossed on train ferries, as did the night ferry sleeping car train each night from Paris and Brussels to Victoria. Then, in the 1970s, with the development of high-speed routes, new multiple-unit trains and the move to containers, this universal compatibility broke down. The market failed to deliver a common solution, national railways focused on internally set objectives and the European Commission was slow to react to those changes.

From being the odd one out in Europe in the 1960s, Britain is now at the heart of railway technical and operational development. Eurostar shows how trains can cross frontiers seamlessly, not just between Britain and France but on into Belgium as well, and soon further into Germany and the Netherlands. Far from changing the locomotive at the frontier, the train crews themselves work right through to Paris and Brussels. In this case, the different technical standards in each country have been overcome with the remarkable trains that can, at the turn of a selector in the driver’s cab, handle four different types of traction current and signalling systems.

Today’s debate is important because, as the noble Baroness said, there is scope to attract more people to use international rail services and because much more needs to be done to encourage rail freight through the tunnel. The sub-committee’s report makes an important contribution to moving this argument forward.

Cross-channel services are always going to be more complex to operate than domestic services because of the involvement of Eurotunnel, which has its own shuttle services to consider, and the fact that the only link to the rest of Europe requires the active co-operation of SNCF between Coquelles and the Belgian border.

On the freight side, international traffic via the Channel Tunnel seems not to be a priority for SNCF. In the past, this has been reflected in poor reliability and problems in arranging additional trains at short notice. Whatever technical or legal solutions are proposed, clearly a lot of work needs to be done to encourage a different approach by SNCF.

On freight, it is always going to be difficult to build rail market share when the cost of taking a container through the tunnel can be lower using a lorry on Eurotunnel’s shuttle compared with a freight train, and this reflects the usage charge. There needs to be a move towards charging avoidable costs for freight—as is the case on Network Rail at home—if market share is to have a chance to grow.

There is little in the way of fair competition between road and rail freight. European hauliers do not pay towards UK infrastructure costs, for example, nor do they pay fuel duty if they fill up before crossing to Folkestone. The choices are difficult: there needs to be either some form of subsidy or cross-subsidy for rail freight operators to use Eurotunnel’s infrastructure or a charge for other European hauliers to use the infrastructure that Britain currently provides at no cost to them.

The sub-committee is right to draw attention to the inherent contradictions surrounding Eurotunnel’s operation. This is Britain’s only fixed link to mainland Europe. It is a privately owned concession where the concessionaire also runs a shuttle service for freight and passengers, and, at the same time, it is the infrastructure authority for through trains, which themselves have to fit both Eurotunnel’s train paths and the available paths on Network Rail and its French equivalent.

Up to now, this process has been left to the market. The sub-committee’s report shows that this is not working and, as demand increases, action will be needed to optimise the use of the one pair of tracks that link the British and French rail networks. Our own British experience on the east coast main line is that the only way to optimise capacity on a constrained railway with multiple operators is by strong focused planning of the way in which that capacity is used. In the case of the east coast main line, this has been done by the Department for Transport as the specifier of franchised services on the route, but the needs of freight and two open-access passenger operators have been protected as well.

The question therefore is: can Eurotunnel perform that role or does this need action by the IGC or a specially convened group of train planners from Network Rail, Eurotunnel and the French infrastructure owners? I am advised by Eurostar that Eurotunnel declines to take part in any of the intra-European path allocation discussions and it has not been keen on changing passenger train paths, even when that would reduce journey times or allow more trains to use the tunnel at peak times.

Eurostar also makes the point that the current structure of access charges needs to be reviewed. The per-passenger toll is preventing new markets from being developed which would otherwise be able to cover the direct operational costs. There needs to be a lot more openness and transparency in the allocation and recovery of costs and there needs to be a proper policy for discounts.

As an example, if we compare a London to Paris journey, the total infrastructure charges—that is, terminal costs, handling fees and landing charges—for a flight are around £2,400; for a Eurostar train to Paris they are £21,500, of which the tunnel accounts for £12,500. Even taking account of the fact that a Eurostar train tends to carry two and a half times as many people as a plane, that is still a huge difference.

The sub-committee is right to draw attention to the spare capacity that exists in the Channel Tunnel, to which the noble Baroness referred, but it is not hard to see why that exists. It is my belief—I think that the Government share this view—that the future lies with longer-distance high-speed rail travel. I hope that the Minister will say that when he replies. The desirability of building a new high-speed railway obviously has not been part of the sub-committee’s remit for this inquiry, but I suggest that it is relevant when taking a rather longer view, particularly taking into account the Government’s decision to abandon the building of a third runway at Heathrow or to expand other capacity at other airports in the south-east—a policy that I support, as the Minister knows. The correct approach, in my view, is to manage demand for short-haul air travel and for us to follow other countries by building high-speed rail capacity. The central part of that approach will be to make proper use of the Channel Tunnel, which is why I think that the sub-committee is on the right lines.

Finally, I want to say something about another barrier to long-distance international rail travel that we have erected for ourselves in Britain. One weekend last month, I travelled by train from Budapest to Berlin and then back to Brussels, passing through five different countries. I was not subjected to a single passport or security check throughout the journey. When I got to Brussels and took the Eurostar to St Pancras, there were three passport examinations and my luggage was searched before I got on board. With great respect to the Government, it is not good enough for them to assert that these checks are necessary because Britain is not part of Schengen, and the sub-committee is right to draw attention to that. We are not searched when we board long-distance trains in Britain and I see no reason why the railway should be dragged down to the level of the airlines in this respect. I am disappointed that the Government’s response to the Select Committee report seems to be so inflexible on this issue.

I conclude as I began, by expressing my admiration to the sub-committee for producing a good report, which if implemented would be of real value to the railways, rail passengers and the country as a whole.

Airports: Heathrow

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 28th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a number of points. She referred to aircraft coming from distant countries. It is important to remember that if we insist on a later arrival time in the UK, a plane may have to leave the Far East later at night and that may cause a problem there. My noble friend talked about quieter and noisier aircraft. A quota system takes into account the noisiest aircraft, which cannot fly until later in the day.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that, when the Government conduct their assessment into whether to allow more night flights, they will take into account the economic disbenefits, as well as the effects of sleep deprivation and other social effects of night flights, set against the economic benefits that may come from having more planes arriving earlier?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we will do exactly that.

Railways: Level Crossings

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they are giving to Network Rail’s efforts to improve safety at railway level crossings.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, overall, level crossing safety performance is currently high and an industry safety framework exists to manage risks. The legal duties for safety at level crossings lie with Network Rail as the safety duty holder, while their monitoring and enforcement are the responsibility of the Office of Rail Regulation. We welcome Network Rail’s continuous efforts to reduce risks and improve level crossing safety.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I take it that the Minister accepts that rail travel is now safer than it has ever been, and that the greatest risk on the railway now comes from user-worked crossings and from motorists and other road users running red lights or weaving around barriers. British Transport Police advises us that last year there were 2,637 cases of people failing to obey traffic signals at level crossings. Can the Minister assure us that shortage of funds will not stop Network Rail installing the latest technology at the 600 riskiest user-worked crossings? Secondly, what are the Government doing to support the trialling and introduction of red light enforcement cameras? Is he aware that the Home Office is taking up to 24 months to test and approve a product for railway level crossings that is already in widespread use on A roads and motorways?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord has asked quite a few questions. User-worked crossings are indeed very hazardous. There are 2,500 of them and they are often used as farm crossings. He also asked about their financing. It can be very difficult to build a good business case because of the low risk of an accident occurring at each individual crossing. He also asked me about the trialling of cameras. I am aware of this problem. Similar problems arise in respect of roadside drug-testing equipment. It is important to recognise that approval of this equipment is an important component of our legal system. I understand that the British Transport Police has not yet submitted a formal application. For my sins I am the Home Office spokesman and I will draw this matter to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.