TfL (Funding and Station Staffing)

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing this debate on Government funding for TfL and station staffing levels. Let me begin on a consensual note, because that may not carry on through my speech. As the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) said, I often use the underground, and I did so this morning. I recognised, as I always do, the valuable role that the workers on the London underground play.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) asked whether I would tackle some of the myths and misinformation that are circulating. I hope that I will be able to reassure her—I am not sure that I will ever be able to reassure all Opposition Members—that the changes will make London underground staff more visible. They will be there to help with ticket barriers, ticket machines and platform safety in a way that has not been seen before.

[John McDonnell]

The Minister, and possibly the Mayor, might be able to convince people, but in order to convince people it is necessary to meet them. The Minister and his colleagues meet the RMT and other unions regularly. Why cannot the Mayor do so?

[Stephen Hammond]

I understand the fixation on the Mayor, because he is the leader of London. However, Mr Brown, who runs London Underground, meets the unions, and I understand that Sir Peter Hendy has done the same.

I was asked several questions, and I will try to answer some of them in the short time that I have. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington asked me about the response to a parliamentary question about the planned changes. The response stated that according to the equality impact assessment, the changes would be

“positive or neutral for all equality target groups”.—[Official Report, 6 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 121W.]

That information was provided to us by TfL, which has also guaranteed that it will run an engagement exercise throughout this year with disabled and older people to ensure that they understand exactly how services will continue to be accessible.

The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) spoke about the great achievements of the previous Mayor, but it is important to recognise that under the current Mayor, platform staffing levels have risen by 12% and demand by 23%. The Government recognise that transport is the key to unlocking growth and jobs, and they provide the financial settlement that allows the Mayor to fulfil his responsibilities for transport and operational matters. The Government are providing more than £10 billion to TfL over the current Parliament, which includes more than £4.5 billion to support the tube upgrade. The Jubilee line upgrade has been completed. The Victoria line upgrade features new trains, tracks and signalling and a 21% increase in capacity. The Metropolitan line has a new fleet of air-conditioned trains. The Government have provided the Mayor with a guarantee that enables him to move ahead with the proposed Northern line extension to Battersea. The upgrade of the sub-surface lines, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster and I take a particular interest, will increase overall capacity by 33%. The spending round announcement last summer included a huge commitment of £5.8 billion in capital grant and a further £3.8 billion of borrowing power for TfL to 2021, which will be absolutely crucial to the delivery of Crossrail and the Thameslink project.

The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) challenged the Mayor on trust. Memories are short on so many things; I remember the previous Mayor telling us in 2004 that there would be no increase in fare levels if he were re-elected, but the following January fares went up by a minimum of 4%. One must be careful when talking about trust, because that contention applies as much to Mayor Livingstone as to Mayor Johnson. The hon. Lady questioned me about fares, and the Mayor has said clearly that the extra accommodation that is needed can be found from TfL’s budget by a combination of efficiencies and increased commercial revenue. In the huge budget provided by the Government, there is scope for TfL to find the relatively small amount that the hon. Lady mentioned. The Mayor has decided, quite rightly in my opinion, to hold London fares down to RPI plus zero. I think it will be possible to find the amount required to do that, and it will be sustainable if he continues to deliver efficiencies and value for money and ensures that the money that the Government give to TfL is best spent.

Everybody has pointed out that London continues to grow. We are set to see a further 1.8 million people by the 2030s, which is enough to fill an extra tube train per week. It is quite right therefore that TfL set out its vision for the future of the tube on 21 November. The core commitment at the front of that vision is that all stations will be staffed and controlled when trains are running and there will be more staff visible on platforms and in ticket halls to help customers.

However we look at it, the way in which passengers choose to pay for their travel is changing. That is an incontrovertible fact, even though we may not like the 3% figure. Over the past five years, demand for travel has risen by 23%, but ticket office sales have fallen by 43%. At the same time, to meet customers’ expectations, station staffing needs to increase. The ticket office is not the heart of the station; it is simply a room. The staff are at the heart of a station’s operation. TfL’s vision for London will allow them to be better equipped with technology and information in the ticket halls and at the barriers, so that they can step out of the ticket office and improve customers’ journey experience.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will the Minister assure me that the closure of ticket offices will not be accompanied by yet more retail opportunities at tube stations?

[Stephen Hammond]

That is an operational matter for TfL. The hon. Gentleman should recognise the key points in TfL’s vision. A 24-hour tube service will run at weekends; the reliability and capacity of the tube will be further improved with new, more frequent trains; there will be enhanced signalling at stations; all tube stations will be controlled and staffed while services are operating; and staff will be more visible. TfL aims to deliver improvements and secure the best value for money.

In addition, the vision contains a commitment to the staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster was absolutely right; although some 950 staff work in lightly used ticket offices, the overall decrease in station staff will be less than that, because TfL proposes to create 200 new jobs in ticket halls and on stations. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, TfL has made a commitment to provide a job at London Underground for anyone who wants to continue working there, and the changes will be made with no compulsory redundancies.

Despite the comments about the Mayor, London Underground continues to speak to staff and involve them at various stages of the change. The transformation will create 200 new jobs on top of the significant increase in numbers of staff available in ticket halls, at barriers and on platforms to provide reassurance about safety and to give advice. Those are not the figures portrayed by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. The numbers are available, and I am sure that he will want to look at them.

I am aware that RMT has announced two 48-hour strikes, and I urge the RMT and TSSA leadership to work with TfL to shape the plans. Customers want hassle-free journeys, and they expect customer service that is fit for the 21st century and beyond. With Government investment, the vision for London ensures that the tube will continue to be fit for purpose, safe, affordable and reliable, and that it will meet the expectations of passengers throughout the 21st century.

Inter-City Rail Investment

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

I think that it is. I do not propose to reiterate all that has been said by so many of my Opposition colleagues in several of the debates we have had on this subject about how East Coast has performed. Given the history, it is particularly frustrating. As I have campaigned on the issue and talked to people about it, I have found that the levels of support we get are extremely high.

People who are not politicians and who are not involved in the debate at that level are baffled as to why, when the east coast main line has already been through two difficult franchising periods, this should be happening in that way. Given what we have learnt, they ask, “Why are we doing this if it is working well? If it is working well, why not leave it in place and see what happens?” As I have said, that would not necessarily have prevented the Government proceeding with other franchises, if that is what they were determined to do—some people would certainly have preferred it if they had not been. It seems particularly perverse to pick this one. That is what many members of the public feel, and not just those who travel on the line regularly.

There is a lot of concern about how this will work out. If East Coast had been performing badly in the public sector, it would have made sense. An imperative to turn it around might have trumped the disadvantages of negotiating extensions on the west coast main line and the Great Western main line. But East Coast was and is performing well, and that defence is simply not available to Ministers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady, who says that there is no excuse. She will of course want to point out that, in terms of punctuality, the east coast main line is the worst performing long-distance franchise and that it has been so for at least the last year.

[Sheila Gilmore]

It is quite clear from the figures on punctuality that the problems East Coast has faced have been substantially about track and weather. A previous speaker referred to the problems with the lines, particularly in the Peterborough area, over the past couple of years. Those problems need to be addressed well in advance of any other changes. If we discount those problems, I do not think that anybody in the rail industry is suggesting that that has been due to the operator.

My contention is that we have reduced our ability to get improvements on other important lines and that that is regrettable at a time when there is real support and appetite for rail investment, and for good reasons. That has given us an opportunity to move ahead with this and perhaps make up for past mistakes. It seems to me to have been an opportunity missed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) on securing this important debate. I apologise, as others have, for the fact that I shall discuss a line that connects to London. I accept his broader point that we should not be so southern-centric, but I hope he will forgive me, given that my constituency depends a lot on the line between Brighton and London.

I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby), who is not in his place—I hope this is an area on which we can have cross-party agreement—that the current rail system is failing our constituents in Brighton and Hove. The Brighton-to-London commuters I meet almost every day are, without exception, frustrated and angry about the poor quality of the service that they pay through the nose to use. It is a huge amount of money and, as has been said, the cost just went up again earlier this month. An annual season ticket between Brighton and London Victoria is nearly £4,000; to be fair, there would be £28 change, but that is still a huge amount. What do people get for their £4,000? The main line from Brighton is in dire trouble. It struggles and creaks through inadequate capacity.

Last month I attended a Network Rail event on the future of the Brighton main line to make the case for more capacity between the capital and Brighton. The connection between the two cities is critical to my constituents and we do not want to wait for the crumbs from the table. Many Members have said that this is not a debate about HS2 and it certainly is not, but I think we should remind ourselves of the amount of money that can be found when the political will is there to invest in our rail infrastructure. I would far rather that that money was invested in the general rail systems on which so many of our constituents depend, rather than what I see as pretty much a massively expensive vanity project that will not deliver the gains that we need.

Brighton is a dynamic, internationally successful city and a major tourist destination, but it needs more investment in its rail lines: far too often the city is cut off because of problems at East Croydon or elsewhere on the line. We need some real vision and commitment to invest to get Brighton the second London line that we so desperately need. It is essential to have not only increased capacity, but a fast alternative route for passengers at times of disruption.

In October, Baroness Kramer, the Transport Minister in the other place, said:

“It is anticipated that Network Rail will provide a copy of its Brighton Main Line Pre-Report…to this Department before the end of the year. It will include…the potential role of new line schemes, including Lewes to Uckfield.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2013; Vol. 748, c. WA166.]

Have Ministers received that report, and if so when will it be made public so that we can see it? In the autumn statement, the Chancellor said that he will accelerate the Network Rail study into improvements in the Brighton main line. Is that the same pre-report that was supposed to have been done by December, or is it an additional study? Weary commuters would welcome some clarification. Either way, we need to know the exact official terms of reference of the report and when we will get to see it. It is critical that the study should be a thorough review of capacity between the Sussex coast and London, covering all the options to end the chaos that we so regularly experience on this critical rail artery into London.

As well as talking about the specific needs of Brighton, including for a Brighton main line 2, I will say a few words about this country’s broader rail system. I believe that it is failing us, which is unforgivable in the sense that there is an alternative to the overcrowded, unreliable, overpriced and fragmented private services that we have to put up with. We could have an integrated, publicly owned and run railway that does not waste money on profit, and there is a model for doing that gradually and affordably.

Despite the standard mantra that privatisation saves money, the cost to the public purse of running the railways has risen by a factor of between two and three since they were sold off. The report “Rebuilding Rail” from the Transport for Quality of Life group makes clear the key reasons for that increase, which include high interest payments to keep Network Rail’s debts off the Government balance sheet—the Government have recently been made to put those debts on the books—as well as debt write-offs, costs arising from the fragmentation of the rail system into many organisations, profit margins of complex tiers of contractors and subcontractors, and dividend payments to private investors.

The only way to sort out that mess and waste, as well as the rising fares, overcrowding and the rest is for the state to take back control of the railways. That is why I am actively campaigning for them to be brought back into public ownership through my private Member’s Bill, the Railways Bill. I hope that the official Opposition will make it clear in their response whether they might back that Bill. If we want to improve our inter-city services, we have to nail the myth that buying back assets that have been sold off would be too expensive. The step-by-step approach in my Bill would allow the assets of the railways to be reacquired for the public at minimal cost, with substantial ongoing savings over time as franchises expire or companies break the terms of their franchise agreements. There is strong current evidence that it is better for passengers, railways and taxpayers when franchises are in public hands.

The Minister has been chuntering—if I may use that word—during my speech. I have not picked up what he has said, but I suspect that he is not entirely in agreement with me. I challenge him about the east coast main line. He put some facts and figures to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), but, frankly, they are misleading. The east coast main line was brought back into public hands because of market failure, but it is the UK’s most successful rail franchise. Its passenger satisfaction levels are the highest on record, and it pays millions back to the taxpayer, as opposed to most other train companies, which deliver millions to shareholders.

The Minister mentioned punctuality, so let us look at that. The facts show that the punctuality of the east coast main line is 0.1% different from that of the west coast main line: on the east coast main line, with very little Government investment, it is 82.8%, but on the west coast main line, with massive Government investment, it is 82.9%. That seems to suggest that on overall efficiency, the east coast main line is doing very well.

The Office of Rail Regulation agrees with me. It says clearly that the east coast main line is the most cost-efficient line. Even the Financial Times says that it is

“the most efficiently run rail franchise in terms of its reliance on taxpayer funding”.

It receives the lowest level of Government funding.

However much the Minister chunters, there is plenty of evidence—this Government like to say that they are an evidence-led Government—from the east coast main line that bringing rail back into public hands works. It is precisely the threat of a good example that makes the Government want to sell it off as quickly as possible, so that it is not there as a standing embarrassment to the rest of their rail policy. It really does beggar belief that the Government want to re-privatise the line.

[Stephen Hammond]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Lucas]

With pleasure.

[Stephen Hammond]

Let us look at the evidence if that is what the hon. Lady wants to do. She should know that the rolling stock costs for the east coast main line came in at £85 million in 2012, whereas the bill for Virgin was £302 million. That is a substantial difference. The access charge costs are substantially lower and are likely to rise. Those are two pieces of evidence that place question marks over her line that it is the most efficient railway line.

[Caroline Lucas]

It is not just my line. As I have said, it is the line of the Office of Rail Regulation. I would suggest that there is cherry-picking going on in the figures that are being presented. There are questions over what the start time is and over how much of the responsibility for the costs can be laid at the door of Directly Operated Railways and how much at the door of the previous private franchises, given the lack of investment that went in earlier. My position stands strongly and I am backed up by independent regulators and others.

If the Government really want to make savings and to improve our transport network for everyone, they should recognise that privatisation has failed and bring railways back into public ownership as the franchises expire. According to calculations in the “Rebuilding Rail” report, reuniting the railways under public ownership could save more than £1 billion a year of taxpayers’ money. To put that figure in context, if all unnecessary costs were eliminated and the resulting savings were used entirely to reduce fares—I am not saying that that would necessarily be the best thing, but it gives one a sense of what we are talking about—it would equate to across the board cuts of 18%. Fares that are price regulated because of their social importance could be cut substantially more.

Under public ownership, all the public money that is invested in the railways could be used to deliver a better service for passengers, while also achieving wider social and environmental goals, rather than to line the pockets of private shareholders. Train travel could once again be a pleasure and something to be proud of. That is the kind of bright future that I want for our railways. I urge Ministers to wake up to the potential of public investment in our inter-city infrastructure and to look at the evidence clearly and objectively, rather than cherry-picking the figures, as I fear the Minister has done this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

It is an honour to address the debate this afternoon. I congratulate the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) on securing the debate and on the way he conducted it. His speech was interesting and thoughtful, and he proved by his journey time calculations and recalculations that he can do mathematics.

We heard some fascinating contributions from a number of other Members. The three Members from the south-west were united across the political divide in wanting to see improvements to train services in the south-west, particularly the three-hour train to Plymouth. I remember campaigning in the city, along with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), back in 2007. The failure of investment about which she complained has not happened only under this Government. I can, of course, bring her good news. She quoted a fare of £271. Should she choose to travel tomorrow morning, there is a return fare of £92, so one needs to be careful about saying that only one fare is available.

I heard the pleas of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) about Mayflower 2020 in Plymouth. I do not know whether he will see President Christie turning up there. He invited me to come to a meeting, and I would be delighted to do so. I follow his lark in saying that I hope he is here for rather longer than just for 2015, and I am sure he will be.

I say to the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) that I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to go back to the constituency in the middle of the night to find that the film has been lost. The prospect of corresponding with him fills me with unbounded joy. I look forward to receiving and acting on his suggestions none the less.

The two Members representing Brighton shared a moment of political unity. I certainly hear their pleas. I can confirm that the Department received a draft in December of the report to which Baroness Kramer referred—the London to south coast rail study, which was carried out by Network Rail—and I expect to see a final version within the next couple of months.

I can bring some good news to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) on the basis that Thameslink will see 116 new trains of eight and 12 cars coming into operation, which will directly benefit his constituents. I am delighted to tell him that when he opens his post tomorrow morning, he will find a letter from me accepting his challenge to come and travel on the early morning train. I very much look forward to doing that.

I was not entirely surprised to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). He and I have enjoyed sparring over issues for the last few years. I listened with interest to his comments about the Birmingham Snow Hill line, and I am sure that he will want to raise his point about it with us again.

I understand the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) for more initiative and private sector innovation in franchising. I hope that, through the direct award and the new refranchising process, we will be able to deliver that for him.

I enjoyed the contribution from the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), although I had obviously heard it before in previous debates of this nature. The simple fact is that the east coast main line is the worst-performing of the long-distance franchises. Its passenger satisfaction figure may be up, but it is still six points behind the figure for the west coast main line.

We heard a wide range of contributions today, and I am grateful to Members for taking the time to be here. The debate has shown how valuable the railways are to our country, and to communities throughout it.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

As for what was said by the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), let us have some honesty in this debate. When Labour was in office it crashed the economy, and gas and council tax bills doubled. Had her party been in office today, the average fare would have risen by 11% rather than 3.1%. Moreover, in 13 years, we saw just 9 miles of electrification. Just as we are dealing with the economic mess that was left behind by the last Government, we are determined to deal with the massive infrastructure deficit that we inherited. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) must not shout from the Dispatch Box. She was listened to in silence for a considerable time, and she must let the Minister finish his speech.

[Stephen Hammond]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

According to the World Economic Forum, in 1998—just after the last Conservative Government left office— the United Kingdom ranked seventh in the world for infrastructure spending. By 2009-10, we had fallen to 33rd. I am pleased to note that we are rising again, but there is much more work to be done. The failure of the last Government is epitomised by the fact that, according to the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, between 2000 and 2007, the UK’s infrastructure investment was lower than that in any other OECD state.

Rail is just one part of an unprecedented programme of transport investment that this Government are introducing to drive growth and job creation. As a result of the tough decisions that we made in order to get the public finance mess that we inherited under control, we have been able to achieve the longest period and the largest amount of rail modernisation since the Victorian era. That will mean faster journeys, more seats, improved access to stations, better freight links, and a rail network of which the country can be proud. The Government are delivering their vision of a railway that will be more financially and environmentally sustainable, support growth and deliver benefits for both passengers and freight customers. It has been agreed on both sides of the House that since privatisation the railways have been successfully carrying more passengers, more safely, on many more and newer trains, many of which arrive more punctually, and that levels of passenger satisfaction have been higher than ever before.

At the heart of the growth to which I have referred, and at the heart of today’s debate, are the historic inter-city routes, which provide a vital link between the towns and cities of the country. The impact of those routes is clearly significant: they provide links for communities, businesses and freight, and drive the country’s economy. They are important because they do exactly what a railway should do. They serve local communities, they serve people, and they serve markets. They move people to jobs, connect industry with its markets and suppliers, and connect regions with one another. The high capacity and reliability of inter-city networks is crucial.

As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Redcar, it is easy to think of inter-city services as merely connecting one end of a route to the other, but it is important to recognise the importance of intermediate stops and the rail networks that spread out from them. They provide the inter-regional and intra-regional connectivity that allows us to keep the country moving. Good inter-city rail services make it possible to live in one place and work in another, or to live in one place and socialise in another. They open up opportunities for employment throughout the country. We must therefore continue to invest in increasing, extending and enhancing services that are already improving rapidly during the current period of investment.

As many Members said, the inter-city network is all too often seen only in terms of connections to London. It must not be so. It is a driver of change in the economic geography of the country, decreasing journey times and improving links between all our nation’s major cities and regions, providing agglomeration benefits for business, increasing productivity and, importantly, providing access to new markets. The major cities of the north—Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield—will soon benefit from the huge investment in the northern hub, a transformative package of rail enhancements radiating from Manchester.

Investment needs to flow not only from the Government and Network Rail. We must continue to find ways to adapt our contracts and contacts with the private sector to ensure that we work in partnership with them, allowing them to bring real innovation through their own investments in projects that will genuinely benefit their passengers. The west coast main line is a great example of successful inter-city investment. Working in partnership with Network Rail, over £9 billion has been spent to modernise the route and improve journey times from 2008. That investment has been so successful that in order to meet the increased demands and expectations of passengers, further investment on the franchise has been necessary. Some 28,000 more seats per day were provided on the line by 106 new Pendolino carriages procured when the direct award was negotiated with Virgin at the end of 2012. To those who say no benefits come from direct awards, I say I suspect that the passengers who fill those 28,000 extra seats may well feel there is some benefit.

This Government are also investing a huge amount in electrification. Our rail investment strategy included our plans for the “electric spine.” This major investment links the core centres of population and economic activity in the west, east midlands and Yorkshire with the south of England. It will complete the full electrification of the midland main line out of London St Pancras and provide electrification of the lines from Nuneaton and Bedford to Oxford, Reading, Basingstoke and Southampton. All this will provide faster, more reliable services on many important strategic routes, and not just routes into London. This is massive investment from this Government on a scale not previously seen. By 2020, three quarters of the passenger miles travelled in England and Wales will be on electric trains, compared with 58% today and under 40% previously.

The Department has big plans for the inter-city East Coast and Great Western franchises. At the heart of revitalising those railways is the £5.8 billion intercity express programme, which will deliver 122 new state-of-the-art trains across those vital routes. The majority of the construction for those new trains will be carried out at Hitachi’s new factory in the north-east. This investment is great news for British manufacturing, creating more jobs for the area and strengthening the supply chain in the UK. This programme, together with the major investment in Thameslink in the south-east, will open up the opportunity for a cascade of rolling stock to other parts of the network, where, as we recognise, it is needed. This is all aimed at upgrading rolling stock and improving inter-city services.

As we have seen in recent weeks, regardless of the levels and types of investment, some situations will always prove challenging. The rail network’s performance and resilience has, with some exceptions, been sorely tested by the severe weather this autumn and winter and done reasonably well. There is no room for complacency, however, and I hear the points made by Members from the south-west about the spend on resilience and I am sure that will be borne out in Oxfordshire and a number of other places. The Government are determined to ensure we have the best resilience in place.

The Government’s commitment to investment in inter-city rail services cannot be in question. We must work with the industry to ensure investment is used to its maximum potential across the country and delivers real benefits for passengers and taxpayers. This significant investment in our inter-city routes will transform travel across the nation, and future capacity challenges must also be met. Only by committing to this new route and this investment—we are making the hard decisions and putting the economy right—can the Government continue to promise a programme of investment in inter-city routes unparalleled and unseen before.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to invest in local railway branch lines.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

It is for local authorities, working with local enterprise partnerships, to determine whether investment in a local branch line is the best way to meet local transport needs. Local enterprise partnerships have been invited to bid for the local growth fund, and we encourage them to bid for funds to invest in transport schemes.

[Charlotte Leslie]

The Minister knows that I have long campaigned to reopen the Henbury loop line. There are advanced plans for a large stadium development as well as significant housing in the area that the Henbury loop would serve. Does the Minister not think that such large infrastructure projects could have a massively positive impact on the business case for such a line?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s long-standing campaign. She would not expect me to comment on a specific scheme, but stadium developments such as those are exactly the sort of thing that local enterprise partnerships and local authorities will want to look at. I met representatives of the West of England LEP on 22 November, and I am aware of phase 2 of its MetroWest scheme. It has been allocated £44.9 million for improvements in the six-year period to 2021.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

May I draw to the Minister’s attention the bizarre situation that has arisen in respect of the Todmorden curve in east Lancashire? After years of campaigning, work on the curve has been completed at a cost of £8 million, and we all welcome that. It will facilitate a service from Blackburn, Accrington and Burnley through Rochdale to Manchester Victoria, which is excellent. The problem is that there are no trains. Will the Minister agree to intervene on this matter, and to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones)?

[Stephen Hammond]

The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I have already been lobbied on this matter by a number of other Lancashire MPs. He will of course recognise the huge amount of investment that is going into the railway network. I recognise the issues involved in this case, and I have already intervened. I expect to have good news for him on rolling stock next year, but I would nevertheless be delighted to meet him and other hon. Members.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The branch line from Kettering to Corby that was introduced a few years ago has been hugely welcome, but a negative knock-on effect is that the service on the main line going north from Kettering has been cut from a half-hourly service to an hourly service. Now that line speeds on the midland main line have increased, will the Minister put pressure on East Midlands Trains to reintroduce a half-hourly service going north from Kettering on that line?

[Stephen Hammond]

I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. He will obviously want to recognise the huge amount of investment that is going into the railway network, including £70 million around Kettering. I will look closely at his request in the context of the franchise renegotiations.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

A lot of work has been done locally to assess the possibility of reopening the Halton curve, which would improve the links between Merseyside and Liverpool and all the way down to Shropshire, as well as across to north Wales. Will the Minister do all he can to expedite that project, which would benefit Merseyside, Cheshire and Wales?

[Stephen Hammond]

Again, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the huge amount of investment that is going into the railways under this Government. We recognise the benefit of that. It is for Network Rail to prioritise these matters, along with the local train operators and the local authorities. Should he want to write to me about this particular scheme, I would be happy to look into it in more detail.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

3. What assessment he has made of the most recent estimate of the costs to the public purse of High Speed 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

Question 4, sir.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

The Government have committed funding to electrify more than 880—

[Mr Speaker]

I believe that the hon. Gentleman was grouping this question.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

8. What recent progress he has made on railway electrification.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

My apologies, Mr Speaker. With permission, I would like to group Questions 4 and 8. So excited was I about electrification that I wanted to mention that the Government have committed funding to electrify more than 880 miles of railway by 2019. Last week, we announced the Wigan-Bolton electrification, and a joint taskforce is being set up to explore where next we can look for rail electrification in the north of England.

[Stephen Mosley]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Last week, a taskforce was launched to examine electrification in the north. In those proposals, we are examining Chester-Crewe and Chester-Warrington. There is a huge amount of enthusiasm in Chester in support of these plans. How can members of the public put their views forward to the Minister and to the taskforce?

[Stephen Hammond]

Local Members of Parliament will be invited to be members of that taskforce, so undoubtedly my hon. Friend will be able to represent his constituents directly, but the taskforce will, I am sure, want to accept representations from local people as to the benefits of electrification for them.

[Diana Johnson]

In Hull, we need rail electrification not least because of the vast number of visitors that we will want to come to the city while Hull is city of culture 2017. Given that, as I understand it, the taskforce set up to look at the proposal for Selby to Hull electrification will not report for 12 months, does that not rule out rail electrification for 2017? Will the Minister meet a delegation from Hull to discuss this matter?

[Stephen Hammond]

I understand the hon. Lady’s aspirations, given that Hull is the city of culture in 2017. It sounded like her Christmas present list being reeled off. The previous Government played Scrooge and electrified only 9 miles, whereas this Government are playing Santa and electrifying almost 900 miles. I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady. She is right: that taskforce is looking at lines for electrification post-2019.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

I am delighted that the Leeds and Harrogate line through Horsforth is to be considered for electrification, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) for the work that he has done on that. In sounding a bit like Oliver, please, sir, can I have some more? The Calder Vale line between Leeds and Bradford through New Pudsey is an important line between those cities and desperately needs electrification. I would be grateful if the taskforce could look at that too.

[Stephen Hammond]

At this time, I clearly would not want to be the beadle Mr Bumble and put Oliver out in the cold, so I will consult the taskforce to see whether there is a possibility of adding that to the list for its consideration.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the Minister explain how accountability for extending rail electrification could be affected by the basic change in the status of Network Rail announced by the Government earlier this week?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady that there will be no change in accountability as a result of the status.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the potential wider economic effects of High Speed 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of staffing levels at maritime rescue co-ordination centres.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in paying tribute to the professionalism of the coastguards, who in a very busy summer dealt with 25% more incidents this year than last. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency certainly recognises that it has more coastguard vacancies than it would like, but the hon. Lady should be aware that it has managed to recruit 58 new coastguards. A further recruitment campaign is under way, and every effort is being made to fill every vacancy.

[Katy Clark]

I thank the Minister for his answer and associate myself with what he says about the work of those in coastguard stations. He will be aware of the concerns that I have been raising about maritime safety off the west coast of Scotland following the closure of Clyde coastguard station. In the summer, which, as he pointed out, is the busiest time, staffing was at unsafe levels on 142 out of 184 shifts. Will he meet me and colleagues again to discuss what is being done, particularly in relation to the west coast of Scotland?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Lady will want to recognise, of course, that I met her and colleagues in July. I promised at that stage that I would meet her again later in the year, so I am happy to meet that obligation. I point out, though, that 58 coastguards have been recruited since that time. As we have now been able to secure a deal with the Treasury, we expect retention rates of coastguards applying for new posts to go up in January. She will be aware, as I have replied to her to this effect several times, that specific arrangements are in place to ensure safety on the west coast of Scotland. However, I reiterate that I am happy to meet her and colleagues.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and thanks to the Minister for praising the coastguard services; I entirely associate myself with that. But, oh dear, can he not see what a sorry tale of complacency and badly executed change this coastguard saga is? Does he feel happy with vacancies up by over 250% since 2010, poor morale, recruitment and transfer rates, a critical Select Committee report, and coastguard centres at Liverpool, Humber and Belfast all over a third below safe staffing levels? With more closures in the new year, will he get his Department cracking with an urgent action plan to ensure proper staffing levels so that our coastguards and those who live on our coastlines can feel safe and secure?

[Stephen Hammond]

There is no complacency at all on the part of the Government—and the hon. Gentleman’s question sounded like a Christmas cracker joke. He will know that since the announcement of the deal, which has been welcomed by the Public and Commercial Services Union, there have been a number of expressions of interest about coastguard vacancies. The retention rate is likely to go up in January. We have recruited 58 new coastguards. Specific arrangements are in place at all co-ordination centres to ensure safety and doubling of shifts. There is nothing to suggest that the timetable has been delayed, and the plan is going ahead as announced in this House in November 2011.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

9. What recent assessment he has made of the potential benefits of Birmingham airport expanding to become a hub airport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

10. What his Department’s service specification priorities are for the new Thameslink franchise.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

The Department’s priorities are, of course, to ensure successful delivery of the £6 billion Thameslink programme, to maintain and enhance service quality for passengers while the Thameslink works are going on, and to bear down on the overall costs of running the industry.

[Heidi Alexander]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Lewisham commuters are very keen to reap direct benefits from the new franchise and infrastructure programme through increased train frequency and capacity. Many people share the aspiration of having four trains per hour on the Catford loop. Can the service specification for the new franchise be changed at this late stage, and could such a service be accommodated without detriment to other Lewisham services?

[Stephen Hammond]

The Thameslink programme will be completed in 2018 and will, as the hon. Lady knows, provide a minimum of two trains per hour all day to stations on the Catford loop. That will be supplemented by additional standards and services under the Southeastern franchise, at least in peak periods. The detailed specification for those additional services will be determined nearer the time.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

T7. The Secretary of State made it clear yesterday that he hopes that Birmingham airport can expand. Currently, the 15-mile journey between Tamworth and the airport takes 45 minutes by rail. Does he therefore agree that infrastructure projects such as the Whitacre rail link, which would reduce the journey time to 18 minutes, could be beneficial to my constituents and the airport?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

My hon. Friend is right that good service access is essential for airports. He is right to point out that the Secretary of State said on Tuesday that we regard Birmingham and Manchester not as regional airports but as important national airports in their own right. I am happy to look at the Whitacre link proposals. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue to discuss the development of the business case with the local enterprise partnership and Centro, so that it can be brought forward.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the Wrexham-Liverpool line, where capacity constraints are inhibiting further development of one of the strongest industrial areas in the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will the Transport team look at two places where we could link the north-west of England with north Wales? The first is the Halton curve, which my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) mentioned, and the second is the Wrexham-Bidston line. Like Scrooge, I am not asking for those things for Christmas past or Christmas present, but perhaps, in the spirit of Christmas, the Secretary of State could look at those issues for Christmas future?

[Stephen Hammond]

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard my reply to the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and the response that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) about the Wrexham line. We are looking into those matters and I have said that I am happy to meet the hon. Member for Halton. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will want to join him.

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

The proposed public service obligation on the economically vital Newquay to London Gatwick route will run for four years, but funding might be in place for only two years. What assurance can the Minister give that funding will be in place for the duration of the public service obligation on that route?

Northern Lighthouse Board and Trinity House (Triennial Review)

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

We will shortly commence a triennial review of Trinity House in its capacity as a General Lighthouse Authority, and the Northern Lighthouse Board. Trinity House provides Aids to Navigation (AtoN) in England, Wales, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar; and the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, operating as the Northern Lighthouse Board provide AtoN in Scotland and the Isle of Man.

Reducing the number and cost of public bodies is a coalition priority. The triennial review process has been established to continue the Government’s work in ensuring accountability in public life by examining all non-departmental public bodies NDPBs at least once every three years.

The review will be conducted as set out in Cabinet Office guidance (“Guidance on Reviews of Non-Departmental Public Bodies, June 2011”). This review has two aims:

To provide a robust challenge of the continuing need for both organisations. The first stage of the review will examine both their key functions and the form in which those functions are delivered, which will include an assessment of a range of delivery options.

If it is agreed that these two lighthouse authorities should remain as Executive NDPBs (as defined by Cabinet Office), then stage 2 will review the control and governance arrangements in place to ensure that both bodies are complying with recognised principles of good corporate governance for NDPBs, having regard to their legal and constitutional positions.

Further details of the review, including detailed terms of reference, will be published on the www.gov.uk website shortly.

If you would like further information, or to contribute to the review, please contact Helen McGill by email ([e-mail]).

I remain committed to the continuing review of public bodies and my Department continues to work with the Cabinet Office to develop forward plans of reviews.

The report of the review, which is expected to be completed in spring 2014, will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

EU Transport Council

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I attended the final Transport Council of the Lithuanian presidency in Brussels on Thursday 5 December.

The Council noted progress on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Railways and repealing regulation (EC) no 881/2004 (part of the fourth railway package). This regulation would define a range of new tasks for the European Railway Agency following changes in the recast railway interoperability and safety directives. The presidency noted the importance of completing this regulation which would conclude consideration of the technical pillar of the fourth railway package.

The Council reached a general approach on the proposed directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure. With member states divided in terms of levels of regulation they would like to see the presidency successfully reached a compromise position acceptable to all which removed EU-level binding targets. There were reservations from three member states, who had hoped for more ambitious binding targets for electric vehicle recharging infrastructure deployment. There was widespread support for harmonised technical EU standards for infrastructure, with the general approach text successfully safeguarded to allow for a multi-standard approach for electric vehicle plug types, ensuring that member states can continue to support existing standards. The upcoming Greek presidency will seek to reach a first reading agreement with the European Parliament in early 2014.

The Council noted progress made on the review of a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and regulation (EC) No. 2027/97 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage. The presidency pointed to progress made in a number of areas including time/distance triggers for compensation and what would constitute an extraordinary circumstance. Greece will seek to reach an agreement within the Council on this dossier during its presidency.

The Council agreed a mandate for the Commission to open discussions with Brazil to secure an EU comprehensive air service agreement. The Commission stressed the importance of securing a positive outcome from the forthcoming discussions, especially given the rapid development of Brazil and the opportunities presented by the World cup and Olympics that would take place over the next few years.

Under any other business, the Commission reported on the latest developments on aviation emissions trading noting that although the revised Commission proposal was legally sound, it had not been received well at international level due to its inconsistencies with the outcome of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Assembly in October.

I commented that our primary concern should be to agree a global market based measure (MBM) in ICAO, and I raised concerns that a negative reaction to the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) at international level could jeopardise progress in ICAO. I therefore agreed with others, who supported the extension of the 2013 intra-European ETS to 2020 with a review in 2016 which could assess progress and make any appropriate amendments to the ETS.

The Commission suggested that comments made by Transport Ministers should be forwarded to their environment colleagues who would be meeting on 13 December. The Commission felt that this needed to be resolved at national Government level and the threat of a trade war remained very real. The presidency concluded that Council take note of the positions expressed.

The Commission presented its information paper on passenger ship safety and called for a constructive and co-ordinated approach at International Maritime Organisation (IMO) on this issue. The UK supported the Commission’s aims and would consider a future joint EU submission to the IMO following further discussions at the technical level. The Council took note.

On state aid—Denmark outlined their concerns with the Commission’s interpretation of the Leipzig-Halle case and the consequences this could have on existing and future infrastructure projects. The Commission confirmed that it had no intention of preventing the development of infrastructure on the grounds of state aid.

The Commission reported that Galileo and EGNOS programme had become a success story and was moving forward positively. In the Commission’s opinion, there remained no obstacles to the launch of the next satellites which would occur towards the end of 2014.

The Commission updated Council on progress on the blue belt initiative. The Council took note.

The incoming Greek presidency outlined their transport presidency programme over the next six months. They said that maritime transport would be the key element of their residency, focusing on progressing the ports services regulation, the, IMO co-ordination, blue belt and integrated maritime policy. Other priorities included the fourth railway package, Shift2Rail, eCall and weights and dimensions for land transport, passenger rights and noise for aviation and cleaner power for transport would be the main focus for horizontal issues. The key dates for their presidency would be Transport Councils on 14 March in Brussels and 5 and 6 June in Luxembourg. An informal council would be held in Athens on 7 and 8 May.

West Anglia Rail Line

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) on securing this evening’s debate on investment in the West Anglia line. I was, of course, slightly perturbed when he opened his speech with remarks about castigating every Government since, I think, 1970—I cannot quite remember the year.

This is an important matter to my right hon. Friend and his constituents, to other Members of Parliament and their constituents and, of course, to all passengers using the line. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) and for Harlow (Robert Halfon) have all made the point that the two-track commuter line between London and Stansted and Cambridge is very busy. The commuter flows it carries are some of the busiest around. It covers not only the areas they have talked about but carries commuter flows from Essex and north-east London and provides the link with Stansted airport.

I recognise that demand has been growing quickly and significantly. To explain to my right hon. and hon. Friends some of the investment that has been made, it might be helpful to consider the line in separate parts. Demand has been growing quickly, particularly in the lower Lea valley, and the Government’s rail investment strategy has provided approximately £80 million to deliver three and four-tracking at the south end of the route. That will allow the introduction of some new services, will increase operational reliability, and should support regeneration in the lower Lea valley. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will recognise that that shows that the Government are aware of the need for four-tracking.

The Department also rightly recognises that there is some suppressed demand as regards the need to connect the West Anglia line with Stratford in east London. My right hon. Friend made that point. We are taking steps to address it and Stratford is increasingly becoming a destination for leisure, retail and entertainment in its own right. It is therefore becoming a significant transport interchange. It is important that we ensure that the connections into that significant place in east London are operationally the best they can be.

From 2019, Stratford will become part of the Crossrail network through Crossrail 1, providing direct connections to a large number of destinations. I accept that that will have a knock-on effect through London and the West Anglia line. The important point is that as soon as the Crossrail operation starts in 2017 there will be the chance to introduce new connections to the West Anglia line. I recognise that this is not in my right hon. and hon. Friends’ constituencies, but to suggest that the Government have done nothing about the line is not exactly true as there has been investment in new stations at the southern end of the line and the new stations fund is also starting to work through, as can be seen with the new station at Lea Bridge and the new services between Angel Road and Stratford.

[Robert Halfon]

As I mentioned to my right hon. Friend, I have done a survey with commuters. We know about Harlow Town station, but one of the big concerns was the lack of facilities at Harlow Mill station. The ticket office is open only during weekday mornings, closing at 11.15 am. There are no toilets and very little shelter from bad weather, despite trains to London leaving once every hour. Will my hon. Friend look at this and see whether there are any plans for the Government to invest in this station?

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the concerns of his constituents. As Ministers, we try not to get into the micro-management of the toilets of various stations, as he will understand. None the less, I will look at the matter.

The point which I hope my hon. Friend will consider is that, yes, there are some concerns about ticket offices and this is a feature across the whole network, but many people are choosing to buy their tickets in different ways. Although important, ticket offices are not central to many people’s buying habits. He is right that there should be facilities, and there has been a new stations fund and a station improvement fund.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden spoke about the new franchises and what might happen. I hope he might have had a chance to look at the east coast prospectus. Although we are not saying that every new franchise will be of a particular length, we are encouraging longer franchises, particularly in that franchise and the prospectus that we have released. I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends will acknowledge that we have given the operators the chance to recognise some of the things they could do to the benefit of customers outside the standard package. There is a real determination from the Department in the new round of franchising to understand that the consumer must be at the heart of the franchise bids. I hope the prospectus that we have released for the east coast main line will show that.

There is demand not only at the southern end of the line. Cambridge is a fast- growing economy, making a significant contribution to the local and the national economy. That is why we continue to make significant investments in that part of the route as well. The station at Cambridge will undergo significant redevelopment, provided the planning authority comes through. In addition, we are working with Network Rail and Cambridgeshire county council to develop plans for a new station at Chesterton, approximately 2 miles north of the city centre, as well as providing direct access to the rapidly expanding science park, for which rail connections are key.

Throughout the line brand-new 379 class trains are already operating the service between London Liverpool Street and Cambridge, which is benefiting customers along the whole West Anglia main line, including, as my right hon. Friend rightly acknowledged, his constituency, particularly at Audley End. These trains are modern, spacious, high performing, high capacity and highly reliable, and they are widely recognised by passengers as a benefit and an increase in the service.

I shall make a few specific remarks about my right hon. Friend’s constituency, or I would be castigated for failing to do so. I have just mentioned the 379 class trains and I know he recognised that his constituents were benefiting from them. I hope the introduction of those trains will see continually improving reliability on the route. My right hon. Friend, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow and for Hertford and Stortford, commented on the concern about overcrowding. This is undoubtedly the challenge for the next decade. It is the challenge of the success of the railways. Twenty years ago I used to travel from Hertford North and Hertford East. Services may or may not have got worse in the past 10 years, but they are a significant improvement on 20 years ago when the line was known for its unreliability. This is the challenge of success. Privatisation has brought a doubling of the number of passengers on broadly the same network as we had 40 years ago. That success means that we now have to meet the challenge of overcrowding.

With the introduction of the new Thameslink trains, which will come into service post 2016, and some of the financing of that rolling stock cascade, there will be an opportunity for the trains currently being used on Thameslink to be cascaded to other locations. There is no reason why they could not be used on the West Anglia rail line in future.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

My hon. Friend moved rather swiftly from lauding the type 379 as a high-performance train to identifying some Thameslink trains that might be passed down to us. There is quite a distinction there. I had rather hoped that he might indicate that we would not lose the 379s in the way I suggested, or indeed that he might try to give some encouragement to the idea that whoever gets the franchise after 2016 will be committed to having more of the 379s or their equivalent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

I can give my right hon. Friend some Christmas cheer by confirming that the 379s will be staying on the West Anglia rail line and will not be moved in the way he suggested. When we consider the new franchise for post October 2016, I am sure that the need for rolling stock enhancement will be part of the tendering process.

As I highlighted at the beginning, I recognise that there is a key limitation on the West Anglia rail line: it is a very busy two-track railway. The plans to three-track and four-track some of its southern sections will undoubtedly be welcomed right along the line. However, my right hon. and hon. Friends are right to recognise, and to pursue, the aspiration for faster and more frequent services. That could be met only by infrastructure interventions.

Four-tracking of the route could undoubtedly be part of that intervention. Unfortunately, if we look at it in the short term, that is unbelievably expensive. The plans developed by BAA in 2007, when it ran Stansted airport and there was higher demand, merely to three-track a section of the route were estimated to cost between £800 million and £1 billion. At the moment, such investment would represent a significant portion of the Government’s rail investment budget. It would therefore require a robust business case. In the medium term, that business case might be made, but my right hon. Friend was right to acknowledge that the Government are spending more on railway infrastructure—£19 billion between 2014 and 2019. None the less, my right hon. and hon. Friends are right to make that case, and I hear them making it.

In the medium term, the Government are supporting the development of the Crossrail 2 proposals, which would link the West Anglia rail line with the South West main line via a tunnel under central London and free up capacity for increased services. Plans are still in the early stages, but the Government are supportive.

In the shorter term, there are still some opportunities for us to improve capacity, reliability and journey times along the route. With the active participation and support of local stakeholders, I am keen to look at some of the short-term operational restrictions linked to level crossings and user-worked crossings. Where trains currently need to reduce speed on the approach to such crossings, I would like to see them able to maintain running speeds and therefore reduce journey times and improve operational reliability.

The Government are looking to develop the rail investment strategy beyond 2019. That work will be influenced significantly by an Anglia route study that Network Rail is shortly to begin. The study, which is due to report in 2015, is aimed at identifying the priorities for investment in the Anglia network. Right hon. and hon. Members will also be aware that the Chancellor announced in his autumn statement that the study will place special attention on the services between London and Stansted, and that extra focus should deliver benefits to passengers right along the West Anglia rail line.

I heard the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford about the London First proposals, which are currently just that. In addition, the interim findings of the independent Airports Commission are due shortly. Clearly, Ministers are not aware of what its recommendations might include, but they will provide some greater clarity on the long-term future of Stansted airport and the future capacity that it might need regarding the rail network, and that will inform decisions regarding my hon. Friend’s constituents.

On the Network Rail study, I encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends and, indeed, all Members representing constituencies along the route to make clear and reasoned submissions to Network Rail. It is important that those representations come from local authorities, local enterprise partnerships, businesses, passenger groups, and of course Members of Parliament. That will help to make a compelling case for future investment. I have no doubt that if that case is made, the Government’s rail investment strategy post-2019 will feature the West Anglia rail line very heavily.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden asked about devolution to the Mayor and TfL. The devolution proposal applies to only three routes, it will happen post-2015, although no formal dates have been agreed as yet, and it will result in a transfer of staff and trains to the Mayor’s jurisdiction. I understand that that will probably not make my right hon. Friend as happy as my earlier announcement.

[Robert Halfon]

While I completely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), will my hon. Friend consider extending Oysterisation to Harlow, as has been considered in the past, or at least examine the possibilities of smartcard technology so that the many Harlow residents who commute to London can get the benefits that people commuting from other stations, including Ware, now have?

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend will know that we are undertaking a smart ticketing trial in various other parts of the south-east network. I am happy to consider his proposal. If he were to write to me and seek a meeting, I would be delighted to discuss it with him in greater depth, and with any other Members who wish for the further extension of smartcards to their area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford mentioned several times the problems we had with the storm a few weeks back. I particularly remember travelling on that line all those years ago when it was one of the worst-hit lines. I think he will recognise that in certain places a large number of trees overhang the line, more so than on many other commuter routes, simply because of its structure. I am afraid that there was also a certain amount of overhead line damage that significantly delayed the reintroduction of services. None the less, he can be assured that the Secretary of State and I, and other Ministers in the Department, took a great interest in the situation and were in discussions with Network Rail about trying to ensure that lines were brought back into service as quickly as possible.

As I said, it is important that passengers and other interested parties influence the West Anglia route study. That is a chance to make an important contribution to the case for significant investment in the line post-2019.

I am delighted to have been able to respond to this important debate. My right hon. and hon. Friends have rightly made the case that we should not take our eyes away from the problems of overcrowding that their constituents suffer. I have been able to talk a little about some of the investment that is going in and is planned. I hope that that will have given my right hon. and hon. Friends at least some reassurance that the Government take the West Anglia main line very seriously.

Question put and agreed to.

EU Transport Council

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I will attend the final Transport Council under the Lithuanian presidency (the presidency) taking place in Brussels on Thursday 5 December.

The presidency will provide the Council with a progress report on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union agenda for railways and repealing regulation (EC) No. 881/2004 (part of the 4^th railway package). The UK will be seeking to ensure that necessary revisions are put in place to reflect agreements in the general approach texts for the recast railway interoperability and safety directives. This includes the UK’s proposals to give applicants a choice to apply to national safety authorities for an interoperability authorisation or a safety certificate where operations would be restricted to one member state. The UK also supports the Commission’s proposals to harmonise the management and administration of all European Union decentralised agencies which have been incorporated in the revised text.

The Council will be asked to reach a general approach on a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure—clean power. The UK recognises that alternative fuels infrastructure is an area that can benefit from regulatory support, but is not convinced that setting rigid, mandatory targets for the deployment of technology specific infrastructure is an effective way of building consumer confidence in new technology. So we welcome the approach taken to replace the targets proposed with a more comprehensive and detailed approach to the national policy frameworks. This will allow us to provide transparency and predictability to the market, and mitigate the risk of technology-specific infrastructure being outpaced by future innovations and advancements, and ultimately becoming redundant.

We support the proposals to adopt common technical standards for refuelling across the EU, but are clear that this must not create additional barriers or disadvantage early movers, who must be able to retain confidence that infrastructure installed across the EU today and in the future is available and compatible for them to use.

There will be a progress report on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and regulation (EC) No. 2027/97 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage. The UK will continue to look to ensure that additional burdens and costs on UK industry are minimised, while retaining an appropriate level of protection for passengers.

The draft decision of the Council and of the representatives of the Governments of the EU member states, meeting within the Council, authorising the Commission to open negotiations with the Federal Republic of Brazil on a comprehensive agreement on air transport services will be adopted. The UK supports the revision of the European Commission’s mandate which should enable resumption of negotiations of a comprehensive air services agreement with Brazil.

Under any other business, the Commission will provide information on the aviation emissions trading scheme (ETS), on passenger ship safety, on the impact of state aid rules on large-scale infrastructure projects in Europe, on progress on Galileo and EGNOS programme and on the blue belt project.

Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords]

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) on moving the Second Reading of this private Bill. We welcome the opportunity presented by the debate, and we have listened to a number of the interventions. This Bill will certainly enable the successful film-making industry in Hertfordshire to prosper. I suspect my hon. Friend will enjoy many happy hours in Committee scrutinising this Bill.

Let me make it clear from the start that the Government do not oppose the Bill. We accept that it largely replicates previous legislation, including the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2008 and the Kent County Council (Filming on Highways) Act 2010, but we had some initial reservations about the limited procedural protection offered to property owners and the travelling public. These are similar issues to those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who can be reassured that the Government have had discussions with Hertfordshire county council. We are grateful that the council reassured the Government that when it puts in place film orders and film notices, it will—to the extent that there are no mandatory requirements in law—follow the procedures similar to those set out in the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992.

I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) musing on why Buckinghamshire county council should have asked him to sponsor a private Member’s Bill on a similar subject. I can assume only that, after his long hours of parliamentary scrutiny, it considers him to be the House’s expert.

[Mr Chope]

The council did not ask me to sponsor the Bill; it asked for my advice.

[Stephen Hammond]

I am happy to have that correction put on the record, but equally, I am sure that his advice was sought for exactly the same reason, given my hon. Friend’s extensive hours of scrutiny over various private Members’ Bills. I heard his comments and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) about the potential for looking at national legislation, and given that I am known as a most generous Minister, I am happy to offer the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) for a meeting if they wish to pursue the point. None the less, the Government wish this Bill well on its Second Reading, and we have no objection to its moving forward through the House of Commons.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I am delighted that we have reached Third Reading and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on his efforts in promoting the Bill. He and many other Members present have sought to make changes to, and contribute to extensive scrutiny of, the Bill during its passage through Parliament. The debate has been healthy and constructive, and the Bill has undoubtedly been improved as a result. The Government have made it clear throughout that we support the principle of the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend for his work in steering it through the House and Third Reading, and I hope it will receive Royal Assent. With that, I reiterate the Government’s position.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

East Coast Main Line

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Hodgson]

Yes, I agree. That is exactly the point. Instead of profits generated by the franchise benefiting British commuters through investment in service improvement and dividends to the Treasury, the Government prefer profits to be channelled to other European countries, in some cases to subsidise fares in those countries. If we are to achieve the modal shift from cars to rail that we need to ease pressure on our trunk roads and to reduce carbon emissions, we must have the investment and the ambitious targets and standards in place to ensure that services are reliable and can carry on improving. Unfortunately, it appears that the Government intend to put that improvement into reverse over the next few years.

It was brought to my attention yesterday that in the past couple of weeks, the Office of Rail Regulation has published a document setting out the desired outputs for the whole rail network for the next five-year control period. That document makes it clear that the standards expected of whichever company wins the east coast franchise will be significantly lower than the national average, and possibly even lower than those of most European routes. For example, the national standard for cancelled or seriously late trains—which I have had some experience of on the east coast over the past month: the fault for that lay not with the company but with all the storms and so on—is no more than 2.2% of journeys. The east coast’s standard will be 4.2%.The national standard for just mildly late trains, which can be anything between 10 minutes and two hours, will be 8.1% in the first year. For the east coast, it will be 17%, which is more than double the national standard, and equates to more than one in six journeys. That rate will be required to come down to 12% by 2018-19, but it will still be much higher than the national rate of 7.5%.

Over the control period, we could see an additional 15,500 trains officially late and more than 2,500 trains cancelled without the operator being deemed to be breaching its required standards. Why should the east coast be given a lower standard? It is way below what the public would expect, and way below the standards set by Labour for the current control period. The apparent loosening of the required standards does not appear in any of the preceding documents on which the public have been consulted, but has now appeared at a point when they can no longer have their say. Will the Minister explain why the standards are set so low and have been revealed in a document on which the public will not be consulted? Will he give us an assurance today that that is in no way linked to the tendering process, or the Government’s desire to get the most money for the franchise to hold up as a sign of success? If we move the goalposts and make things easier for whichever train operator comes in, it makes the deal more attractive to them, and that is what seems to be going on here.

If the Government are to go through with the privatisation, it is important that the Exchequer get as much cash as possible now and over the course of the contract. However, we cannot sacrifice performance standards to achieve that goal, because people will just give up on trains that are allowed to be late on one in six, one in seven or even one in eight journeys.

If the proposal is not linked to the tendering process, perhaps it is related to the fact that investment in tackling congestion over the coming control period will be less than half the £500 million that the Labour Government allocated. That investment has resulted in improvements in north London, flyovers at Doncaster and Hitchin, and the upgrading of a parallel route for slow freight between Doncaster and Peterborough. Will the Minister assure us that service standards are not being lowered to match the investment the Government are prepared to make? Our constituents rightly expect not just a punctual service but a decent service, particularly when they might be on the train for three or four hours or more when travelling to or from the north-east or Scotland—it can take up to six hours to get all the way up to Inverness.

Will the Minister rule out the introduction of a lower-tier or third-class service, which is allegedly in the prospectus that was sent to potential bidders? Indeed, will he rule out any degradation of standard-class service in a three-class system by a future operator?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

There is no suggestion of a third-class service in the prospectus. One version of the document was leaked, but even that did not refer to a third class, but to the possibility of a service between standard and first class. Some might like to call it premium economy. No one has ever called it third class. Can we just lay that myth to rest?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I am sure the Minister is aware that the National Society of French Railways introduced a “no frills” service in France this year, below standard class. If Keolis and Eurostar win the contract, will he guarantee that we will not see the same here? I am happy to give way to the Minister if he wants to make that guarantee now; perhaps he will make it in his closing remarks. By way of assurance, perhaps he could place a copy of the document in question in the Library. I know he said that such a claim was never in the document, but if there is such a document, could he place it in the Library so the public can see that we are not being sold down the river—or in this case down the railway line? The Government are always keen to bolster their transparency credentials, and this would be an excellent way of conducting themselves in an open and honest way.

[Stephen Hammond]

This Government are so open and transparent that all those documents are available for the hon. Lady to see now. I am surprised she did not choose to read them before the debate today.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I will go away and look more closely at the matter. I may have missed the part to which the Minister refers. Perhaps he could write to me about it, so we can be assured that there will not be a third-class rail service.

I will conclude because many Members wish to speak in the debate. I leave the Minister with the words of one of his departmental predecessors, the noble Lord Adonis. He was regularly cited by Ministers as being against public ownership when he was Secretary of State, and that was correct. However, given the success of Directly Operated Railways, he recently had this to say:

“In the last four years East Coast has established itself as one of the best train operating companies in the country, both operationally and commercially…This has fundamentally changed the situation, and it is right and proper that East Coast should be allowed to continue as a public sector comparator to the existing private franchises.”

Lord Adonis is a wise man. He had an opinion. He looked at the evidence that contradicted his opinion and, like many a wise man before him, accepted that his opinion had been wrong and changed his mind. There is still time for the Minister and his colleagues to demonstrate similar wisdom and halt this process before more money is spent by the Department and the companies that might bid. They should accept that this experiment in public ownership, forced upon a reluctant Secretary of State at the time by the failure of a private provider, has been a success and can continue to be a success.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

It is a great delight to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for securing the debate, which provides yet another opportunity to present the benefits of rail franchising and to talk about the east coast main line franchise.

I have listened to a number of Members speak this morning, and I hope to address some of what they have said and asked for on behalf of their constituents. Regrettably, I cannot deal with all the points, because we are engaged in a commercially confidential and sensitive procurement exercise to appoint the right service delivery partner for this vital and historic railway. On 25 October, we began the competition for the inter-city east coast main line franchise by publishing a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, and publishing the inter-city east coast prospectus and the pre-qualifications documents, so that prospective bidders can apply to take part in this important competition. The prospectus set out some of the new policies to be included in the new franchise, such as capitalisation requirements and the GDP support mechanism to mitigate the kinds of failures we have seen in the past. The Government have learned the lessons from the west coast main line and put in place new procedures and policies. I am confident that the competition will run smoothly.

We are now in the pre-qualification stage of the competition, so it is only right that I am careful in my comments this morning not to prejudice the competition. As is normal, the Department has set up clear processes, which I must follow, for the transmission of information to the market throughout this competition.

[Mrs Hodgson]

The Minister mentioned the prospectus that is in the public domain. Will he explain the difference between that and the leaked prospectus to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) referred and from which I obtained information about the proposal for third-class rail travel? Where did that leaked prospectus come from, and does it even exist? It was printed in The Daily Telegraph, which I am sure he thinks is a jolly good paper that would not print something that did not exist.

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Lady is drawing me into commenting on The Daily Telegraph, and I would rather not do that at the moment, for obvious reasons. The Government rightly do not comment on leaked documents. If the hon. Lady wants to rely on it, it is for her to do so, but the Government rely on the prospectus that we have issued.

I shall pick up some of the questions asked this morning. There has been a whiff of mischief in this debate. Much has been said about political dogma and the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) gave himself away when he said that he supports renationalisation of the railways. That is what this debate is about. It is not about securing the best deal for passengers, the railways or the east coast main line. It is about renationalisation.

The whiff of mischief continued from the Labour Front-Bench spokesman who was keen to point out what she believes is the benefit of nationalisation, but failed to point out that the previous Labour Government saw the benefits of the franchising system and privatisation, and continued with that process throughout their 13 years in office. Moreover, I gently remind the hon. Lady that when she starts a catalogue of failures, she might remember who had not done enough work on the franchising process in 2007 when National Express took it over.

[Mrs Gillan]

On the spirit of mischief, does my hon. Friend find the attitude of Labour Members rather odd? I understand that Labour is considering supporting HS2 if the Secretary of State raises the extra private sector funds by selling a 30-year concession on HS2 for £10 billion. Does that not sit rather oddly with the arguments that have been deployed today?

[Stephen Hammond]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point and alludes, as I did, to the whiff of mischief that we are hearing from Labour Members today.

The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West asked about the prospectus and where she might find it. It is available in the Library—and I have a copy here—but I will ensure that a copy is sent to her. She commented on performance, and I refer her to page 67, which states that the franchise agreement will include three levels of benchmarking for the performance metrics that any franchisee will have to meet.

The hon. Lady referred to third class. I intervened to say that we will not specify that and have not specified it, but I gently guide her to Eurostar, which has a standard premier class to make better use of off-peak first-class coaches. If someone wanted to make better use of first-class coaches during off-peak times, I am sure that she and her constituents would regard that as a benefit.

[Ian Mearns]

The Minister is generous in giving way. If a franchise runs a first-class, a standard premium class and a standard class, does not standard class, de facto, become third class?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman would argue that with British Airways, and I am not sure why he should do so with the franchise. His point is nonsense.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I know that I cannot tempt the Minister to discuss the existence of the leaked document, but page 66 of the publicly available document states:

“We would be open to variations in the ratio of first to standard class accommodation…We would be unlikely to consider any variation which delivers a worsening of passenger experience”,

which I believe third class would. Will he confirm that no third class will be allowed under the franchise?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Lady is dancing on a pinhead. I have made it clear that in the document we will not and have not specified a third class. I would have thought that she and her colleagues supported utilising first-class coaches, so that more passengers can have a better experience.

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) who told us that it was impossible to argue that the decline in ridership on the railways between the early 1900s and the 1990s was due to public ownership, or that the benefits of privatisation, which has seen ridership double, could be established. He then proceeded to use exactly those arguments for the east coast main line, which was slightly surprising.

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) who referred to securing new rolling stock under the public sector. The inter-city express programme has been running for some time. The trains will be procured by Government and will also be used by Great Western, and that is currently being operated by First Great Western. To suggest that the IEP process was not running beforehand was wrong.

It is equally odd that some hon. Members sought to suggest that the Government have been panicked into the inter-city east coast main line refranchising. What they forget is that the franchise consultation had already been held prior to the west coast franchise being stopped. It had already been announced back in 2011 that the intention was to publish the invitation to tender in January 2013. To contend that this is a rushed privatisation—we may discuss the word “privatisation” in a moment—is simply nonsense.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does the Minister accept that the original plan was for the east coast main line to be the last of the three lines to be refranchised, so the only reason that it now seems to be in line with the original date is that the whole thing was put on hold due to the complete debacle of the west coast main line?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Lady cannot argue that we are rushing it through when she has just said that we are keeping to the original timetable. The then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) announced a timetable and we had already started the consultation prior to the west coast refranchising process being stopped, so it is nonsense to argue that this is rushed.

[Graeme Morrice]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I appreciate that time is running out. Will he confirm what public consultation there has been with passengers and passenger groups, and what the outcome was?

[Stephen Hammond]

We followed the absolutely standard procedures. We had a public consultation between June and September 2012, and there will be further consultation when the ITT has been finalised. The Government are putting in place the refranchising process that will deliver the best partner to deliver the best benefit for all customers on the east coast main line. That is the way forward.