Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am keen that the industry learns a lot of lessons from the McNulty report. That important report was set up by the previous Government, although it reported to us, and it has set out ways in which we need to improve the operations of the railways. However, I would point out that there are a number of tickets in this country that are cheaper than those in Europe.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Given that the National Audit Office has warned that higher rail fares could lead to greater profits for the train companies, why has the Secretary of State caved in to those companies by giving them permission to increase their fares by up to 5% above his so-called cap?

[Mr McLoughlin]

We have had this argument before. As I have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members, we are following exactly the same policy as the previous Government—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) is shouting from a sedentary position, but they changed it for one specific year. I would point out that the previous Labour Government planned that 70% of costs would be met by fare payers by 2013-14.

High Speed Rail

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This will give faster journey times, and I think that people will welcome that, but one of the overwhelming reasons for High Speed 2 is capacity. It is a fact that no new railway line has been built north of London for 120 years, and it is high time that that was put right. If we are to add to the capacity, it is right that we should take advantage of high-speed trains, which every other country in Europe and all our major competitors have already adopted.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

This will be good news for the Greater Manchester economy, albeit some time in the future. May I press the Secretary of State on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) about connectivity? If the Greater Manchester economy is to get maximum benefit from High Speed 2, we will need proper connectivity with the continent, with London and with Heathrow airport. We can do better than the plans set out in these proposals. Will the Secretary of State commit to providing proper connectivity with Europe and with Heathrow airport?

[Mr McLoughlin]

What we have announced today is exciting for the north and for the future of the rail industry in this country. The hon. Gentleman talks about connectivity, but this is a matter of connectivity not only with the south but with the major cities of the north. As I said earlier, it can take longer to get from Manchester to Derby than from Manchester to London. This is about connectivity between the major city regions in our country, and we are determined to work towards that. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I hope that we can satisfy his requests at least in part.

Rising Cost of Transport

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I will in a moment. These companies are doing that off the back of struggling commuters and passengers. The pain is not yet over. This year, we are set to see even greater pressure from the rising cost of transport as the Government unveil their rail fares and ticketing review, with proposals for even higher fares at the times when most people need to travel.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Is not the really sneaky thing the Government’s allowing train companies to regain the power of so-called flexibility, which enables them to increase rail fares by up to 5% on top of the regulated fare increase? The Labour Government removed that power from them in 2009.

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Even now, this Government could put that right by simply removing that power from the train companies, as we did in office. I invite the Secretary of State, who is relatively new to his job, to consider that.

We have Transport Ministers and a Government who are so out of touch with the pressures that families are under that they are making it easier for the private train and bus companies to hike fares and increase their profits off the back of struggling commuters and passengers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for this support for our measures, which include large sums of money allocated yesterday through the local sustainable transport fund, which will also benefit cycling. The sum of £50 million will be available to local authorities on a match-funding basis. We are encouraging them to contribute, and the more they contribute, the more likely it is that they will be successful in securing money from the Government for their dangerous junctions.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

T9. Following last week’s publication of the east coast franchise, does the Minister think passengers on the east coast should expect an eye-watering 8% above inflation fare increase, which my constituents travelling on the west coast main line will face in years ahead?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

This Government are determined to get the cost of running the railways down. That is the way we deal with the concerns that passengers have about fares. If the Opposition think concerns about fares started in May 2010, they are living on another planet. We need reform to get the costs down so that we can respond to passengers, and it is time Labour started producing its own reform plans if it insists on rejecting ours.

Cost of Living

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

It is good that the Transport Secretary has made it here for the debate—indeed, she made it from the beginning. We have all enjoyed her attempt to revive the 1970s-style public information films, with her call to the public to re-route, re-mode and re-time their travel. The Opposition were worried that “re-moding” would mean she might have still be en route from Putney, but she was here right from the beginning—so congratulations to her. I am even more pleased that she is closing the debate, because had it been the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), he would probably have sent a DVD, as he now frequently chooses to do—presumably to avoid having to face the outside world. That probably explains why he is still using expressions such as, “Get into the groove”, as he does in this now infamous film.

The debate has focused on the cost of living crisis. We have managed to get 23 Back-Bench contributions into the debate, which is a decent number. It has been a wide-ranging and excellent debate, and we have heard good and powerful speeches from Members on both sides of the House, but particularly from my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches—especially from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who declared himself a devout Keynesian before uncompromisingly demolishing the record and credentials of both parties in government. I particularly enjoyed that speech.

We have heard excellent contributions, including on social care from my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), on consumer issues and in particular payday lending, from my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). On transport issues, I enjoyed hearing from my hon. Friends the Members for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd). We heard interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) and for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman). We heard interesting contributions on fuel costs from across the House.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) set out so well at the start of the debate, the Government’s legislative programme for the year ahead contains not a single measure to address the rising cost of living. Just as the Government have shown that they have no practical answers to address the rising energy bills facing households, nor do they have any solutions to tackle rising rail and bus fares or to reduce the pressure on motorists. The truth is that this is a Government completely out of touch with the impact that rising transport costs are having—on household budgets; on families struggling to make ends meet; on those who want to work or stay on in education or training; and on pensioners who want to stay active rather than becoming isolated.

The rise in transport costs is happening not in isolation from the decisions that have been made by this Government, but as a result of them. Cutting investment in the rail network too far and too fast, creating a black hole that has to be filled with inflation-busting fare rises; cutting funding for local transport too far and too fast, forcing local authorities to reduce their support for bus services, with one in five supported services already lost and with fares rising too; increasing VAT, which has contributed to prices at the pump reaching record levels—these are choices that have been made by the Chancellor and the Transport Secretary because they are out of touch with the pressures that families face and with the consequences of their decisions. It simply is not good enough for Ministers to use the deficit as a catch-all excuse for rising costs—as they seek to do all the time—because the decisions they have taken will make it harder to reduce the deficit. Indeed, they have already led to the Government having to borrow £150 billion more than they had planned.

There is no joined-up government, and making the wrong choice comes at a price. For example, the Government are telling young people to stay on in education post-16, yet many young people are no longer able to take up college courses because the bus into town has been cut or the concessionary fare scheme has been axed.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a superb case in respect of the bus services to college. Let me give her an example from my constituency of a barmy outcome of bus deregulation. We now have different bus companies operating the buses going to the schools from those operating the buses coming back, which means that parents are having to pay twice for their children’s bus fares.

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is correct, of course. The Government have said that those who are out of work should be willing to travel for up to 90 minutes to take up a reasonable job offer or lose their jobseeker’s allowance. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said:

“The truth is there are jobs. They may not be absolutely in the town you are living in. They may be in a neighbouring town…We need to recognise the jobs often don’t come to you. Sometimes you need to go to the jobs.”

Not only is he out of touch about the extent to which there are actually jobs, but he seems to have no concept of the cost of travel under his Government. Those on the minimum wage will have take-home pay of just over £10,000 a year, but a season ticket for the 90-minute journey between Newark Northgate and King’s Cross would cost more than £8,000. Under the Government’s policy, therefore, they expect someone to spend up to 77% of their take-home pay just to get to work. Coming into London from Braintree would cost someone in a minimum wage job 46% of their take-home pay. There are other examples. The cost of transport is making it harder for people to take up jobs or to stay in education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield made clear in the examples that he gave.

Of course we need to bring down the deficit, but we need the right balance between a plan for reducing spending and a plan for jobs and growth. That is why I have supported more than two thirds of the Government’s cuts to transport spending—difficult cuts, which we would have had to make in government as well, to the Highways Agency, Transport for London and major transport schemes. However, £6 billion is two thirds of the reductions in expenditure planned across this Parliament. We would not have cut support for rail and local transport services so far or so fast. We could then have relentlessly focused on keeping down the cost of transport, helping households through tough times and not adding needlessly to the pressures that they face. We would have held fare rises at 1% above inflation during this Parliament, and without the need to cut one penny from the investment in the network that the Government are rightly taking forward. We could also have protected local bus services and kept fares down.

Of course, Ministers are so out of touch that they claim that those fare rises and cuts to services are not actually happening. In his autumn statement, the Chancellor claimed that he had succeeded in keeping increases in rail fares at just 1% above inflation. He said:

“RPI plus 3% is too much. The Government will fund a reduction in the increase to RPI plus 1%...It will help the millions of people who use our trains.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 810.]

Why did fares rise in January by as much as 11% on some commuter routes? What the Chancellor perhaps forgot to mention was that the Transport Secretary—not this one, but her predecessor—had given back to the train companies the right to add up to a further 5% increase on top of that cap. [Interruption.] That was banned when we were in government once times were getting tough. By not cutting the rail budget so far and so fast, we would set the minimum—[Interruption.] If the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) wants to intervene, perhaps she would like to do so properly instead of chuntering from a sedentary position. By not cutting the rail budget so far and so fast, we would not only set the maximum fare rise at 1%—

Rail Fares

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I will give way to the Minister, who I expect will be winding up the debate, and then to my hon. Friend.

[Maria Eagle]

The right hon. Lady is wrong to say that there was no intention to continue with that. She can try to rewrite our policy as much as she wishes, but my noble Friend Lord Adonis made it perfectly clear in oral and written evidence to the Transport Committee that the ban on flex would continue into subsequent years, and that remains our policy.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that it was the previous Labour Government who got rid of train operating companies’ ability to fiddle the fares. Was she as astounded as I was at the lack of knowledge displayed earlier by the Prime Minister, who did not even know that it was his Government who had reinstated the right for those companies to clobber hard-working commuters?

[Maria Eagle]

I must say that I was quite surprised that the Prime Minister did not seem to have that information. It was only after my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had asked him three times that the Prime Minister managed to claw his way towards an accurate answer, but that is what we have come to expect from him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

First, we have retained the bus concession in its entirety when many thought that was vulnerable in the current financial circumstances—that has not been chopped in any way. Secondly, the senior citizen railcard continues to exist, and it enables those people to receive a significant discount on rail travel. Thirdly, as I have said, National Express, which is by far and away the largest coach provider, is intending to put its own scheme in place, and I am sure it will do that. I say that, first, because it makes commercial sense for National Express to do so and, secondly, because the profits on its coach division increased by 14% in the last six months.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

This proposal beggars belief—only on planet Norman can this be a good idea. Does the Minister not understand that removing the concessionary coach fares—an entitlement for almost 12 million pensioners and an additional number of disabled people—will, as Age UK puts it, have a “devastating effect” on many people, who will struggle to afford their coach journeys in future? Does he not see that by cutting too far and too fast his approach is having an unfair impact on pensioners and disabled people, and increasing the chances of them being socially isolated?

[Norman Baker]

That was rather over the top, if I may say so. The fact is that National Express operated its own coach concession arrangements before 2003, and it indicated last year that it believes the situation is manageable and that it intends to introduce a further concession. As I said a moment ago, the profits of the UK coach division of National Express have increased by 14%. Indeed, the profits of the National Express Group—a very successful company—have risen by 26% in the first half of this year. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the public purse should subsidise the profits of National Express, that would be an odd position for the Labour party to take.

Bus Industry

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) on securing this very important debate, as I know that he has taken a keen interest in these issues for a number of years. I welcome the chance to contribute to the debate from the Opposition Front Bench. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Streeter.

On the specific issue of competition in the bus industry, we need to examine the deregulation of the buses to understand how we have ended up with the current situation. As my hon. Friend outlined, it is now 25 years—almost to the day— since the deregulation of the bus industry outside London. Of course, in London, Transport for London, which is accountable to the Mayor, specifies in detail which services are provided. It decides the routes, timetables, fares—everything down to the colour of the buses. The services themselves are operated by private companies through a competitive tendering process, but there is no on-road competition.

In the rest of the country, such as in the Greater Manchester constituencies that my hon. Friend and I represent, there is, in theory at least, a free market, so anyone can start up a bus service as long as they meet minimum safety and operating standards. Bus operators are practically free to run whatever services they like, charge whatever fares they like and, as we saw with the UK North debacle in Manchester, use whatever vehicles they like. Monitoring and regulation of reliability and vehicle cleanliness is largely minimal. Although it is supposed to be a competitive market, the majority of services are provided by just a few bus companies. As my hon. Friend correctly outlined, the vast majority of commercial services in my south Manchester constituency are operated by Stagecoach, in contrast to his north Manchester constituency, where the predominant provider is First. Local authorities will fill the gaps where there is an inadequate commercial service, and such local authority-funded routes are operated by private companies through a competitive tendering process.

My hon. Friend was right to raise concerns about how some of these big companies play the deregulated system. In 2004, before I came to the House, I was a local councillor on Tameside metropolitan borough council. Just before the general election in 2005, Stagecoach Manchester removed the well-used 375 bus service, which used to link Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport, Stockport town centre, Denton, Ashton town centre and Tameside general hospital. That service between the two district general hospitals was an important link for the communities along the route.

The route was commercially viable, making about £50 a week profit, but it was never going to make Stagecoach Manchester a lot of money. Nevertheless, it was a commercial service, it was commercially viable and it made a profit, albeit at the margins. However, Stagecoach decided to withdraw the service to the two district general hospitals, so that the route went only to Stockport and Ashton. Anyone who wanted to go to the hospitals had to get on another bus at Stockport bus station or Ashton bus station.

Stagecoach then decided to split the new service in two. The 375 became the 317A and the 317B. In the middle of the route, people had to get off one bus and wait for the next one to arrive. That made the service non-profit-making overnight. There was no change to the route, but splitting it in two meant that it was not commercially viable. Stagecoach therefore went cap in hand to the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority for not one public subsidy, but two. That highlighted loud and clear how Stagecoach Manchester played the system, turning a service that was profit-making—albeit marginally—into two subsidised services, which is outrageous.

Across the country, the picture on deregulation is mixed. In some areas, services have undoubtedly improved, as we heard from the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley), and some bus companies have invested in new bus fleets. In many areas, however, it is fair to say that deregulation over the past 25 years has resulted in a much worse service, which costs taxpayers and passengers alike much more. Figures produced by the Passenger Transport Executive Group on behalf of the passenger transport executives in the six metropolitan conurbations outside London show that bus fares have increased by 94% in those areas in the years since deregulation, while the number of those using buses has fallen by 46%. In some PTE areas, the decline has been even greater, with ridership down by 65% in South Yorkshire since deregulation.

Deregulation has had a number of other negative knock-on effects. It is much harder for local authorities to put in place long-term bus networks or to properly integrate bus services with other transport modes, such as rail and light rail, particularly where those services are operated by competing businesses, as in north Manchester, where, until recently, the trams were operated by Stagecoach and the buses were predominantly operated by First. As my hon. Friends have said, deregulation also makes it much more difficult to provide a competitively priced multi-modal ticketing system like the London Oyster card.

One of the more worrying aspects of the changes is the effect on socially necessary bus services, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright). There has been a gradual reduction in off-peak and lifeline estate services, with more focus on more profitable major bus routes. In a market-driven environment, commercially driven bus operators will of course concentrate more on the more profitable commuter routes and less on socially necessary services. With the scope for cross-subsidy removed, the cost of the diminishing subsidised network has increased massively—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

It is 10.24.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate continues until 11 o’clock. Continue.

[Andrew Gwynne]

With many bus services used disproportionately by people on lower incomes and by those without access to a car, the socially excluded are worst hit by service reductions. For example, two out of every five jobseekers say the lack of transport is a barrier to getting a job.

When considering bus services, we really must take account of the policies being implemented by the current Government. Many of the cuts are happening not by chance, but by choice. The Government have made a number of critical decisions that I do not just fear but know will have a real effect on bus services. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton said, there is the 28% cut to local authority funding for local transport, which includes money for subsidising unprofitable bus routes. Support will be reduced by £95 million between 2010-11 and 2011-12.

Secondly, the Government are changing the way councils and bus operators are reimbursed for the concessionary fares scheme for older people, taking £223 million from the scheme between 2010-11 and 2011-12. Thirdly, from January 2012, they are reducing by a fifth the rebate for additional fuel costs for running unprofitable bus services, and that will particularly affect rural areas, as my hon. Friend said. That will take away a further £254 million in support for bus services between 2010-11 and 2011-12.

We are already seeing that these changes mean the end of council-funded rural, evening and weekend buses in many parts of the country. With rising costs, the need to maintain profit margins and the state of local budgets contributing to fare rises, the changes will largely mean service reductions in some of the most isolated parts of the country.

When the Prime Minister made his election pledge to protect free bus travel for pensioners, or at least to protect their passes, he did not tell them that, in doing so, he would take away their bus services instead. The sad fact is that the situation on bus cuts is likely to get worse. Forecasts by PTEG show that, by 2014, fares will have increased by a further 24% in real terms in metropolitan areas, while service levels will decline by 19% and patronage will decline by 20%.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

It is interesting to look at what the Prime Minister said before the election. In my constituency, at least some pensioners would rather pay half fares than face the possibility of having no buses at all. They would like to pay their bit on the buses.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Indeed. In places such as Greater Manchester, there was a long-standing concessionary fares scheme before the national bus pass scheme was introduced, and pensioners paid a small amount. Under the bus pass scheme, the concessionary fare was available on peak services until it was removed this year—in the peak period, pensioners now have to pay the full fare. My constituents make the same point as the hon. Gentleman’s and would sooner pay something than lose their service altogether. It is clear that all parties at the last general election pledged to protect the bus pass, but there is no point people having that bit of plastic if they do not have the buses to use it on.

The situation is already bad, but it will undoubtedly become increasingly difficult to maintain current service levels when spending reductions deepen in successive years. In non-metropolitan areas outside London, there have been significant cuts to supported bus services, with some local transport authorities withdrawing funding from all such services, and we have heard first hand about the appalling situation in Hartlepool.

Let me turn briefly to the level of competition between the bus companies. As we know, the Competition Commission is investigating the local bus market and published its provisional findings in May this year. Its provisional findings included the view that profits are higher than they would be if the market were competitive and that too many operators face little or no competition in their areas. The competition authorities recently looked at tactic co-ordination between bus companies, and that has certainly raised a few questions about how truly competitive the bus industry is. The interim report also found that short-term bus wars on the streets, such as we experienced a few years back in Manchester, when the big bus companies used an extremely aggressive approach to drive out the smaller competition and secure their monopolies, were not the way forward, and that more should be done to facilitate multi-operator ticketing. Although we await the full report later this year, the interim report makes interesting reading and helps to inform our debate today.

Of course it was the previous Labour Government who set the ground for improvements to be made to local bus services. We set in progress ways of tackling some of the worst effects of deregulation. Indeed, quality contracts—or the provision for them—were introduced by the previous Government as a key to improvements in bus standards. In hindsight I think that our party would like to have gone further with those improvements to service provision for passengers, and with the implementation of quality contracts. Certainly, those contracts could allow bus companies to concentrate on developing the local market for bus travel, but it is understandable, given the points that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton, and given the burden of risk on local authorities as opposed to the bus companies, that those measures have not been pursued as vigorously as they should have been. Quality contracts would help to set minimum standards, making it possible for them to be more stable, with less frequent changes to fares, times and frequencies. In turn that would help bus services to be more reliable, because they would be monitored and good performance would be incentivised.

It is fair to say that the current set-up does not always benefit the passenger, and we need to consider other ways of making our local buses work more effectively. We need to think about ways of addressing the issues that have been raised today, and ways of empowering local authorities and communities, allowing them more of a say in the way their bus services are run, and what the routes should be. Perhaps we need to look at ways to make it easier for passenger transport executives and local transport authorities to enter into voluntary partnerships, statutory quality partnerships and a more balanced quality contract system. That could allow for a system of franchising bus services to local transport authority specifications, similar to the system used to provide bus services in London, allowing a service that is responsive to what passengers want and reintroducing some long-term planning to the system.

I want to ask the Minister what consideration the Government have given to allowing local authorities more powers over local bus services. What assessment has the Minister made with regard to quality contracts? Does he view them as a way to set minimum standards and to make service levels more stable and reliable? What assessment has he made of the greater powers that Transport for London has over local buses and the performance in relation to bus services in London, as compared with what happens outside London, particularly in major conurbations, although the problem is not exclusive to big cities, but also exists in large and medium-sized towns and rural areas?

There is clearly a wider debate to be had about the way we look at restructuring our bus industry. Deregulation has largely failed, and that has been recognised in the debate. We need to think about restructuring our bus industry. I am sure that the discussion we have had today will help to inform the ongoing debate.

High-speed Rail

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) on securing the debate and on putting her case. She added a distinctively Welsh dimension to the debate on high-speed rail. As someone who studied at college in north-east Wales, and who travelled weekly from the Shotton and Wrexham stations to Manchester for a good three years, I fully understand the issues she raised about connectivity, particularly with north-west England.

Across the world, our major competitors are investing in high-speed rail, and it is important that Britain is not left behind in the race for faster connectivity. As my hon. Friend said, the prospect of bringing our major cities closer together brings with it the potential to boost investment and economic growth in the regions of England—and particularly in the north of England—Scotland and Wales.

During its period in government, the Labour party began the process of moving Britain into the high-speed age. Through electrification, more advanced trains and investment in new technology, we cut journey times on our major inter-city routes. Where there was a need for a new line, we delivered it, constructing the first major new railway for more than 100 years, between London and the channel tunnel.

Before we left office, we began to plan the next stages of the process of moving our rail network into its high-speed future. We prepared for the next phase of electrification and the procurement of the new generation of more advanced inter-city trains. We began to work with Network Rail to identify the next priorities for investment to increase capacity and reduce journey times, such as the northern hub proposal.

We therefore welcome the Government’s decision to take forward much of the electrification that we planned, although we are disappointed at the decision not to stick to our commitment to electrify the final part of the great western main line between Cardiff and Swansea. A commitment should also have been made to ensuring that the midland main line is the next important priority for electrification. We also welcome the decision to proceed with the inter-city express programme following the further review carried out by the Secretary of State, although we still have to hear an adequate explanation of why the number of new trains has been scaled back so considerably.

Of course, Labour Members also welcome the Government’s decision to continue to plan for the new high-speed line that is proposed to address the capacity issues on the west coast main line, which will get worse in later years, as we have heard from the hon. Members for Northampton South (Mr Binley), for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans). Within the next 20 years, the average long-distance west coast main line train is projected to be 80% full and routinely to have very severe overcrowding for much of the time. The new line will also bring reductions in journey times.

We welcome the Government’s decision to drop their pre-election insistence that passengers should have to go via Manchester to get to Leeds, which the hon. Member for Pudsey mentioned. We also welcome the alterations that have been made to the route to do more to mitigate the scheme’s impact on local communities and the environment, although there is still concern about the impact of the new line, and that needs to be addressed.

Thanks to the decision to take only the powers needed for the route from London to Birmingham, there is considerable scepticism about the Government’s commitment to take a new line further north. Labour’s plan was always to have one hybrid Bill for the entire new Y-shaped line. Of course, that would have meant that the Bill was delayed—perhaps by a year—but it would have saved considerable parliamentary time across the project. I therefore urge the Minister, as I did in a previous contribution, to think again about that.

The Minister cannot be surprised at the scepticism that exists, when even her own MPs are giving the game away about the true reason for the Government’s conversion to high speed. Only yesterday, writing on ConservativeHome, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), who was here for the debate earlier, said:

“Indeed, the genesis of the project was a response to relentless business criticism of the Party’s decision to oppose a third runway at Heathrow. HS2 allowed the Conservatives in Opposition to cloak itself in a visionary, environmentally friendly, long-term transport policy.”

That suggests that, for the Government, the policy is not necessarily about narrowing the north-south divide, but a fig leaf for their lack of an aviation policy and, I might even add, a growth policy.

In contrast, the Labour party’s support for increasing speed and capacity is something we delivered on in government and is rooted in our genuine commitment to the rail network. It is vital that we think it terms of a single high-speed rail network across Britain, and that we achieve reduced journey times and increased capacity through a programme of electrification, new advanced trains and new lines, where that is the best way to address capacity issues.

In the policy review we are carrying out, we are looking at what the future strategy should be for rail in Britain as a whole. It makes no sense to look at proposed new lines in isolation or to preclude them from our review. A number of issues are being raised with us as part of our review, and the same is no doubt true of the Government’s consultation. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s response to a number of those issues.

First, there is considerable concern that any new lines should be fully integrated into the existing rail network. We must ensure that we can maximise the benefits of the proposed new lines, with rail all over the country and with major London projects such as Crossrail and Thameslink.

There is a view that the precise alignment of the route the Government have chosen is driven very much by the very high top speeds proposed for the new line. That speed is considerably above that on high-speed lines in use across the world, and some countries—notably China—are even slowing down their high-speed trains to address cost, energy use, safety and environmental concerns. Some believe that the need for the route to go through a sensitive part of the Chilterns is entirely down to the speed calculations that have been made. It would be helpful if we had some clarity on that.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Do the Opposition intend to respond to the consultation by 29 July?

[Andrew Gwynne]

The Opposition will take full part in all these debates, I assure the hon. Lady of that.

There is widespread incredulity at the fact that the cost of actually using the new lines does not feature at all in the current consultation, when, surely, that is a critical factor. If the whole point is that passengers will make the switch from the existing lines to reduce overcrowding on them, how can any assessment have been made of the likelihood of that happening without any knowledge of the likely difference in ticket price between the two lines? We know that it costs more to travel on High Speed 1 than on other services along that route, and there is no reason to believe that the proposed new line will be any different. Speaking of HS1, the Secretary of State for Transport announced in an interview in the Financial Times a few days ago that, just as with HS1, he proposes to sell the new line even before it has been built—something I would have hoped he might announce to Parliament.

A further issue that comes up frequently in our policy review is the decision not to join up the new line to Heathrow from the start, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) suggested. That is of course our only major hub airport. In opposition the Minister said that

“failing to take HSR through Heathrow would be a big mistake”.

Instead, what is proposed is an expensive further spur to be built at a later date.

Not surprisingly, the cost of the scheme continues to cause concern. It has previously been acknowledged that the construction costs for major projects in the UK are significantly higher than for comparable projects elsewhere in Europe. It is vital that the Government work with Infrastructure UK to find ways to ensure that the cost to the taxpayer of the scheme is kept under control.

Finally, I repeat the concern already raised that the proposed hybrid Bill includes only part of the new line. Surely one hybrid Bill on high speed is enough.

Rail is thriving in Britain. More people are travelling than at any time since the 1920s. There are 1.3 billion journeys by train every year, and predictions of a doubling of that figure in 30 years. Increased capacity and continuing reductions in journey times are essential to the continuation of such success. That is why we made great strides towards high-speed rail in government, and why the debate about how any new lines that are needed are delivered is so important.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

The industry needs to do a lot better on its ticket machines and to ensure that passengers are properly informed about the ticket choices available. We will continue to challenge the industry to do that through our fares review and the White Paper on the future of the rail industry which we intend to publish in November.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Given the Government’s decision to increase rail fares by 3% above inflation for each of the next three years, many commuters will have to spend a fifth of their household income—more than their mortgage or rent—just to get to work. Incidentally, that would be equivalent to the Minister of State having to pay almost £20,000 a year. Instead of asking commuters to plug the hole caused by the transport budget being cut too far and too fast, will she think again?

[Mrs Villiers]

We faced the largest peacetime deficit that we have ever faced. To continue with the biggest programme of rail upgrades in modern history, we unfortunately must ask passengers to make a contribution. The blame lies fairly and squarely with the previous Government for leaving us with a deficit and letting the cost of the railways spiral out of control.