Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the Transport Committee’s report published today on alternative fuels? One of our recommendations is to build on the work the Government have already done on SAF by introducing a contracts for difference model, which would help to make the UK a world leader in this technology.

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his report and the work he is doing as the new Chair of the Transport Committee. We are aware of the calls for CfDs. He may have seen the report published by Philip New on this issue. We are already working on not merely the mandate but a clearing house to support testing and certification. Of course, we will continue to look at the question of CfDs, but the mandate and the work we are doing towards that remains the Government policy, and rightly so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the rail Minister will be aware that services on the Marston Vale line serving my constituency are currently suspended because Vivarail, which maintains the rolling stock, has gone into administration. The replacement bus service is far from ideal, which is causing significant difficulties for my constituents, especially young people going to school and college. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he is doing everything he can to ensure the earliest possible reinstatement of that rail service?

[Huw Merriman]

The Chair of the Select Committee has raised this point on a number of occasions, and he is right to do so. It is incredibly sad to see Vivarail, which is pursuing good, innovative technology, have to go into administration. I am keen to work with him to ensure that West Midlands Railway puts on a service as soon as possible. Together we will look into whether contractors can contract into West Midlands Railway and whether those contractors have the essential skills that are needed. I will work with him in partnership to ensure that his constituents have that service back up and running.

Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to make a short contribution to the debate on this important Bill, as Chair of the Transport Committee. I welcome the Bill, although I appreciate that it is not the full solution to the issues that were uncovered by the disgraceful behaviour of P&O earlier this year. Following that incident, the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee held a joint evidence session, and produced a number of recommendations.

One of those key recommendations was that the omission of seafarers from the extension of the national minimum wage, which happened in 2019-20, should be removed, so that the national minimum wage applies to seafarers on journeys to and from the UK. I am pleased that this Bill delivers on that recommendation, but it is not the whole solution to the problems. I welcome further progress on the nine-point plan that the Secretary of State has outlined today.

I have a number of questions on the practicalities of implementing this Bill, which perhaps the Minister could address in his response. I appreciate that some are quite technical, so if he would prefer to write or address them in the Bill Committee, that would be helpful. The first is to pick up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord). International maritime law is very complex. I would like to probe to ensure that nothing in the Bill will inadvertently cut across provisions in international legislation. I am not a lawyer—I freely admit that. I have done a quick scan of the relevant law and I do not think that the Bill has unintended consequences, but one of the duties of Parliament is to prevent that. If the Minister could give me some reassurance, that would be welcome.

The second point picks up on what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) raised on port hopping. Are harbour authorities the best body to enforce breaches of the law? I am reassured by what the Secretary of State said in response to the hon. Gentleman, but I would like to probe a little further. Would the Maritime and Coastguard Agency be a better body to enforce breaches of the provisions of the Bill to prevent the port hopping risk? I do not think it is a serious risk but it is worth exploring further to have a comprehensive settlement.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning my intervention. The concern of Opposition colleagues is in relation to when the ferry operator has a commercial stake in the harbour authority. I wonder whether there should be an automatic pass-through where there is a commercial link, so that powers automatically go to the Government and there can be no suggestion of any conflict of interest in the regulation of those fines and surcharges?

[Iain Stewart]

That is a fair question. I was reassured by the Secretary of State’s answer that the Government have thought about that. That is why the Secretary of State has the power to intervene when he thinks that the harbour authority has a conflict of interest. I am sure that it will be explored further in Committee. I was satisfied on that point; my concern was with regard to a vessel that might skip around different ports or adjust the timetable, as was mentioned, to get around that. I am not saying that the MCA is the most appropriate body, but I would like to check that.

The third point I want to raise is on the minimum wage corridor that the Secretary of State mentioned. The joint Select Committee session flagged this up. Work is ongoing with a number of European countries to try to establish those, but an update on how those discussions are going would be welcome. This is a good Bill and I welcome it. It is not the full solution but is a very welcome step forward.

Finally, if you would indulge me a minute, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is probably the last time I will speak in the Chamber this year. May I add my good wishes to all the staff of the House for Christmas and the new year? I particularly thank the Clerk of the Transport Committee and her staff who have made me so welcome as the new Chair and have been very helpful steering me in the right direction.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the new Chair of the Select Committee on Transport, Iain Stewart.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement last week that capital transport investment will be a central pillar of the Government’s growth agenda. May I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he will be able to set out a little more detail on which projects he will be prioritising, and make a bid for the next stages of East West Rail to be among the early ones?

[Mr Harper]

First, I am very pleased to welcome my hon. Friend to his place as Chair of the Transport Committee. I look forward to working with him and with all members of the Select Committee, whichever party they come from, to focus on these important transport issues.

Over the coming weeks my colleagues and I will be looking at our priorities across the whole portfolio of capital projects, and we will set those out in the House in due course. I have noted his bid; he will know that the Chancellor committed to East West Rail in the autumn statement, and I hope that gives him some comfort.

Rail Passenger Comfort

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful for this opportunity to speak about what I fully accept is not the most pressing issue on the railways today, and I make it clear at the outset that I know that many passengers on lines affected by the chaos from the new timetables on Northern and Govia Thameslink Railway would welcome any train, not just one that is comfortable.

The Transport Committee, on which I serve, is currently examining those matters, so in no way do I wish to diminish the importance and urgency of those issues, which I hope will be short term and resolved relatively soon. However, I wish to speak on a more longer-term, strategic issue for the railways: ensuring that passengers have a decent level of comfort while travelling by train. The problem is not a lack of investment in our railways—quite the reverse. Most franchises in the country have either had or are in line to have wonderful new trains that are technologically superior and will offer faster journey times, lower emissions and generally much better performance.

Train company order books are healthy, which is much to be welcomed, but there has been considerable criticism from passengers on the most recently introduced trains that the seats are—not to put too fine a point on it—extremely uncomfortable. The passengers have often paid large sums to travel on those trains. There has been particular criticism of the new Thameslink trains, the class 700s. They have what are described as “ironing board” seats, which are as comfortable as that name suggests; they also have minimal leg room and no tables on which to put a laptop or a cup of coffee.

Another line that has attracted considerable criticism is the Great Western. The intercity express programme trains—the flagship new rolling stock—are wonderfully technically superior, but the seats are not comfortable, and journeys can last for up to five hours for people who are travelling all the way down to Devon or Cornwall. Similarly, Eurostar has refurbished, or bought new trains, which are also wonderful—I travel on them regularly—but the seats are greatly inferior to those on the trains that they replaced.

My personal gripe is this. Is it really beyond our ability to align seats and windows? On too many trains, one ends up sitting next to a window pillar throughout the journey and can therefore see very little out of the window. The rot set in during the late 1970s, when the original generation of rolling stock—particularly the electric trains—was replaced by what are known as the mark 2 electric multiple units. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I grew up in the greater Glasgow area. We had a wonderful fleet of trains known as the Glasgow Blue Trains, which had wonderfully springy seats and very large windows. One could sit at the front of the train, look forward towards the driver’s cab and see what was coming. Then the trains were refurbished and made dreadfully uncomfortable. All the seats ended up being next to window pillars, and one could see very little. Technology and safety requirements have evolved, and today seats must conform to fire and crash safety regulations. In no way do I wish to diminish the importance of that.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I am massively impressed by his technical knowledge of rolling stock and comfortable seats. Passenger comfort and safety are obviously important, but so are the comfort and safety of the people who operate and work on trains. On the Severn Beach line, a local service in my constituency, it is virtually impossible for conductors and other staff to move along the trains at peak times. Not only does that have significant implications for their own comfort and health and safety, but they cannot always collect tickets and then report accurately on how many people are using the service, which could affect its long-term viability.

[Iain Stewart]

I should declare that I am a railway buff and therefore have an unhealthy level of detailed knowledge about these matters. My hon. Friend has made a good point. There is a trade-off to be made between having comfortable seats and having enough seats. I shall return to that in a moment, but he is right to say that the comfort and safety of those who work on our railways are as important as the comfort and safety of passengers, and if he will bear with me, I shall touch on that as well in a little while.

As I have said, I do not want to see any diminution of the existing safety requirements. It has been suggested that that is the reason for the uncomfortable seats, but I think that that is incorrect, because there are plenty of seat designs that would comply with the safety requirements. I have to conclude that, owing to specifications from the Department for Transport and cost issues for the train operating companies, they have gone for the cheaper alternatives. The TOCs have a financial incentive in terms of their balance sheets to have the cheapest fitted-out carriage, but I will come on to argue that that is a false economy if they wish to sustain their business into the long term.

The Department specifies that new trains must have a certain passenger capacity, which is why seats are increasingly jammed together with minimal legroom, and there is always going to be that trade-off between having enough seats on a train and making them comfortable, but my contention is that that balance has been skewed too much in favour of cramming everyone on.

It is also wrong to claim that passengers are just as happy with the new seats on trains as they were with those on the trains they have replaced. That is a false comparison again. On the Great Western, the IEP trains that have been introduced replace the old InterCity 125s but not in their original configuration, which were very comfortable. First Great Western, as it was then, went through a so-called refurbishment programme a number of years ago and made the trains very uncomfortable indeed, with garish lighting and high seats that passengers could see very little around. To compare the new seats with those horrible ones is therefore not much of a comparison.

I accept that there are different requirements for different types of line. Clearly, I am not asking for a luxurious Pullman coach or a restaurant car to be added to a high-density metro service, such as the central line up to Epping—although that would be a wonderful innovation and fitting for Madam Deputy Speaker—but it is not practical: high-density metro services have large numbers of people coming on and off at frequent stops. But on intercity services, on regional services and on longer distance commuter ones, perhaps of more than 30 minutes in duration, higher priority should be given to passenger comfort, and it is possible to do so. I recently visited Sweden and travelled on its intercity line between Gothenburg and Stockholm. In its standard class, the seat pitch and comfort was comparable to many of the first-class coaches on British lines, so this is perfectly possible.

Why is this important? It comes down to the railways keeping their share of the market on lines that will have a large discretionary element. Some commuter lines are the only viable way to get into, or out of, a major city, but many railways are competing: each TOC is competing with other train operators and with other non-rail modes of transport. It is instructive to look at the example of Virgin Trains East Coast and ask why it got into trouble. It did so not because it was losing money or running a bad service; its problem was that it did not grow its passenger numbers and consequently revenue as much as it planned when it won the franchise. That gap proved too big to be sustainable, and we all know what happened.

Part of the reason why those numbers did not grow as much as possible was that passengers were choosing to drive or take long-distance coaches or fly between many of the long-distance destinations. That is a warning sign for the railways. Passenger numbers are beginning to plateau as work and retail habits change. Increasingly, there is new technology, too: cars are getting better, petrol is comparatively cheaper, and if technology evolves and we get more semi or fully autonomous cars, that will be a major source of competition for the railways.

The railways counter that by giving a good customer environment in which to travel, and I think there is a huge untapped market. Travelling by rail is one of life’s great joys if we have a good journey—if we have a comfortable seat with legroom and space to relax, to work, to gaze out of the window, chat with friends and enjoy a refreshment. There are many ways of having a pleasurable experience. We have only to look at the popularity of Michael Portillo’s “Great British Railway Journeys” to see the appetite of the country for enjoying these experiences.

We also need 21st-century facilities on trains. Wi-fi is increasingly a key requirement for travellers, as is a space for them to use their laptop or tablet and the ability to charge them up. We also have to look at the converse cost involved when passengers have a hellish journey and arrive grumpy, sore and stressed. How productive are they at work, compared with when they have had a good journey?

This leads me to the slightly wider consideration of how we calculate the cost-benefit analysis of investment. Yes, it might be cheaper at the moment for train companies to install the cheapest and most basic type of seating configuration, but if that drives passengers away, is it really in the companies’ financial interests? There is also a wider economic point for the country. We want to increase our productivity, and one way to do that is to ensure that passengers arrive at their destination in a good frame of mind and willing to do some work. This was touched on when we were debating High Speed 2. The calculation of the economic benefit was done solely on how quickly people could get from one point to another, rather than looking at the quality of the time they spent on board and how productively they could use it while travelling to their destination. I urge the Government to draw their boundaries more widely in this regard.

I welcome the fact that the Rail Safety and Standards Board has started a consultation into the minimum specifications for seats to ensure that they are safe. Once we have established that baseline, we can look at what the upward options might be. When does the Minister expect the RSSB to report, and will he tell us how he and his colleagues plan to implement its findings? Will he also look again at how the Department for Transport can specify the specifications for rolling stock? There have been instances of the Department specifying the types of seats required and the cost envelopes for them, and this has resulted in very good seats being installed on trains. If he wants the details, I can tell him that it involved the class 175 and the class 180 specifications a few years ago. Will he also consider imposing minimum standards in future franchise consultations?

Travelling is one of life’s great joys, and it dismays me that on many modes of transport passenger comfort is being diminished in the calculations. The airlines have been at it for years, with seat pitches getting smaller and smaller, making air travel a real displeasure in many cases. I really hope that the railways can change the recent trend of squeezing more and more people on, with scant regard for their comfort. I want the railways’ renaissance to continue in this country, and I believe that changing the specifications for seating arrangements in the carriages would represent a major step towards achieving that.

National Policy Statement: Airports

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Just outside the boundaries of my constituency lies a charming little village called Cublington. I mention that because 50 years ago, in 1968, the Roskill commission started its inquiry on airport expansion in the south-east. Its conclusion was that a new airport at Cublington should be recommended. Fifty years on, we are still dithering, and the time for a decision is now.

I have been a member of the Transport Committee for the majority of my time in this House. I have been part of two inquiries into airport expansion. The first, which was in 2013, was not scheme-specific, but looked at the general pros and cons of all the options for London and the south-east: Boris island, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and the others. Since then, I have been part of the current Select Committee’s inquiry on the scheme-specific proposal for Heathrow.

I started my journey with an open mind—I did not have a preference for any airport. Indeed, I was not even convinced that we needed airport expansion in the first place. I looked favourably on suggestions that a proper high-speed rail network would free up enough domestic capacity at our international airports to create space for the long-hauls. However, having looked at all the evidence in detail, I am convinced that we do need the expansion of a hub airport over point-to-point capacity—both are important, but we need the hub option—and that the location for that should be Heathrow. Gatwick has many advantages, but it is on the wrong side of London for most of the rest of the country. It is also one of the primary freight hubs, and we need that freight capacity in the holds of passenger aircraft to make many routes viable. It is essential for our long-term international trading interests that we have this expanded capacity.

I was agnostic about whether we should choose the third runway or the Heathrow hub option. Neither of the options is perfect; each has its advantages and disadvantages. We also have to contend with the uncertainty of forecasting many decades into the future.

It is important to point out that the current Select Committee’s inquiry looked only at the current Heathrow option; it did not conduct a comparative analysis of Gatwick or the Heathrow hub option. That was not in our remit, but had we done that, I am sure we would have found shortcomings in the other schemes as well.

We also did not look at the comparative costs of not proceeding—the huge economic cost to this country of not building new airport capacity at this point, when Schiphol, Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle, Istanbul and Dubai would mop up our markets. What is the opportunity cost environmentally of not proceeding at this point, given the emissions from aircraft both circling in the air and on the ground now?

I am satisfied that the Government are listening to the Select Committee’s recommendations, if not in the NPS then at some other point in the process. I am also satisfied that technology will help to address many of the justifiable concerns that people have. Aircraft technology will deliver quieter and less polluting planes. Electric vehicles will remove many of the surface access concerns, and there are solutions so that moving aircraft from the stand to the runway involves less emissions. All in all, we cannot afford to delay this decision.

Confidence in the Secretary of State for Transport

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Obviously, I echo the sentiments expressed by the two Front-Bench spokespersons about the accident yesterday and the workers who helped to keep people safe.

Another week, and here we are having another transport debate or statement. I am a little unsure of the Labour party’s tactics in trying to shift the Transport Secretary from his position, because it seems to me that the longer he stays in post, the more incompetent he shows the UK Government to be—and they, unlike the franchises, have real competition. He finished by saying there was a lot of political point scoring and that we should all work together, but it would be best if he took on board some of the criticisms. Any criticisms made—or even valid observations—are dismissed out of hand as political point scoring, when they are not, especially given that the franchise system is on its knees.

We have seen time and again that the Secretary of State is blinkered and ideological. He is a hardcore Brexiteer with the mantra, “Everything will be just fine. We just need to get on with it”, as illustrated by his proclamation that there will be no border checks post-Brexit and that lorries, just like on the US-Canada border, will not need to be stopped and checked. I have pointed out several times that that is wrong, but I have never had an admission of wrongdoing from the Secretary of State, and that is part of the problem.

The Secretary of State’s ideological zeal is at its most visible when it comes to the railways—private sector equals good, nationalisation or public ownership equals bad and inefficient—yet, under the current set-up, state-owned railway companies from all over the world run franchises in the UK. The UK franchise system, based on the premise that public ownership is bad, is subsidising railways across the world. Chiltern Railways, CrossCountry, Northern, and Wales and Borders are run by Arriva, which is owned by Deutsche Bahn. Essex Thameside is run by Trenitalia UK, which is owned by the Italian state railway. Greater Anglia and ScotRail are run by Abellio, which is owned by NedRailways, and Abellio is also involved with the West Midlands franchise, along with the East Japan Railway Company. Southeastern, Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern are run by Govia, which includes Keolis, which is owned by the French state rail operator, SNCF. Keolis is also involved in TransPennine Express and will be part of the re-let Welsh franchise later this year.

Italian, French, German, Dutch, Hong Kong and Japanese state rail companies are running franchises in the UK. When I weigh this up, I start to wonder whether the UK franchising system should be classed as foreign aid—because that is what it seems like. Money is flowing out of the UK to these other countries. It illustrates perfectly the pig-headed attitude of the Secretary of State and Tory Back Benchers.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many British firms operate railways in other countries? For example, National Express has just won a contract to run some railways in Germany.

[Alan Brown]

That misses the point. The German state railway company can bid for its own work in Germany. The whole point is that the UK Government refuse point blank to allow UK companies to bid for the franchises.

As I have said time and again, when it comes to the merits of privatisation and franchising, the Transport Secretary wrongly connects cause and effect. He has always played up the increase in investment in the railways since privatisation, along with the subsequent increase in passenger numbers, as if all that had happened magically just because of the sell-off and break-up of British Rail.

We know that British Rail had been struggling and had poor rolling stock, and that much of it was outdated, but that was because of the constraints imposed on British Rail by the UK Government, who did not allow any borrowing or investment. Once the Major Government had sold it off, the franchising allowed private borrowing to be levered in—borrowing that could be recovered only through fares or a Government subsidy. The fact that the current Secretary still does not acknowledge that shows a lack of understanding or an ideological blind spot. The fact is that the original sell-off was the private finance initiative on tracks, and that remains the case to this day.

Another myth, which we have already heard today, is that somehow the taxpayer pays no money to the franchises. According to the recent library briefing on rail franchises, all but two received Government subsidies in 2016-17, amounting to £2,330 million in that year alone.

A further indication of the failure of the franchise system to which the Secretary of State still adheres is the fact that by 2020, 12 of 16 franchise allocations will be direct awards. Where are the innovation and competition when three quarters of the franchises are direct awards to the companies themselves?

The Secretary of State’s blinkered attitude also permeates the failed East Coast franchise. He more or less shrugs his shoulders and says “Stuff happens: some franchises fail.” The reality is that private investors and companies either make money or they walk away. It has been argued there has not been a £2 billion bail-out of Virgin Trains East Coast, but the fact is that VTEC has walked away with a £2 billion IOU to the Government in its back pocket. It has not had to pay the money back, so if the Government do not want to call that a bail-out, it must be called a write-off. The Government have not tried to chase up the money, and it has not reached the stage of being a bad debt. The Government have simply let VTEC off straight away. I only wish that the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would do the same when things go wrong for my constituents. Those bodies are relentless, so why should VTEC walk away owing £2 billion?

Airports National Policy Statement

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Absolutely. One of the key benefits is that this multi-billion pound project will serve the entire United Kingdom. Both the airport plan and the supply chain that supports it will create thousands of jobs and thousands of new apprenticeships. The supply chain will be across the United Kingdom, and it will create jobs and opportunities, in the Year of Engineering, for a new generation of engineers.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

As a member of the Transport Committee, I thank my right hon. Friend for accepting our recommendations. As the champion of the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge corridor, I am heartened by his proposal to link the Chiltern line into Heathrow. I urge him to bring forward those plans as soon as possible, because that connectivity will help to realise the Government’s wider ambitions for Britain’s brain belt.

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on that latter point. I am working with HS2 to make sure that provision is made in the development of Old Oak Common to put in those Chiltern line platforms. The Oxford-Cambridge corridor is crucial to the development of our economy. It will need connections into our premier hub, and this is the best way of achieving that.

Rail Timetabling

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

This problem needs to be fixed as quickly as possible. I respectfully remind the Opposition that a private rail company is involved. Opposition Members keep telling me that we should nationalise it and have the Government running the trains, so they cannot have it both ways.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Enormous investment has gone into the Thameslink programme, with a new fleet of rolling stock and a state-of-the-art digital signalling system. Can the Secretary of State assure me that these new systems are working as planned and that the cause of the problem is not a technical failing?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The real frustration is that this is a consequence of major investment programmes and the delivery at the end of those programmes has gone wrong. The thing I find most frustrating about all this, and I absolutely feel for every single passenger who has waited for a cancelled train in the past week—I get the train every day, and I am as fed up with this as everyone else—is that this is the consequence of a change that resulted from a massive investment programme in the railways. We should now be seeing the fruit of that investment programme. We are not yet seeing it, and we have to make sure that we see it pretty quickly.

Transport Secretary: East Coast Franchise

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. As a member of the Transport Committee, I hope to inject a rational perspective into proceedings. As has been mentioned, the Committee is currently scrutinising this issue. I should add the caveat that our proceedings are still under way and we might receive further evidence later.

The first point I wish to make is that this is not a failing railway in the sense that most passengers would understand it. It operates efficiently; there are high levels of passenger satisfaction; there is growing usage of it; and, yes, there is investment in it. Under Virgin, many of the trains have been refurbished and, although I appreciate that this is not a direct part of the franchise, King’s Cross station has been transformed in recent years, so the passenger experience is being enhanced.

The issue at the heart of this debate is that something went wrong with the revenue projections for the line. That is what we need to scrutinise. It is important to understand the nature of the east coast main line franchise. It has a much larger discretionary element than most other rail franchises, by which I mean that the passengers who use it have many more options for making their journeys. Those options are both on the railways, with other train operating companies running services on large parts of the line—at the southern end of the line, Hull Trains and Grand Central offer alternatives to the Virgin Trains, and further north there is TransPennine Express and ScotRail, meaning that there is a discretionary element to which service passengers use—and, because of the long-distance nature of the network, passengers can choose non-rail alternatives, including flying between Edinburgh and Glasgow or driving between some of the key towns and cities. That makes it much more difficult for anyone in the public or private sector accurately to forecast revenues over a lengthy period. I have had conversations with other train operating companies this week, and they said, “We don’t bid for these long-distance franchises because of that element of uncertainty.”

[Chi Onwurah]

The hon. Gentleman is saying that the issue with the east coast line is that there is competition and that Virgin could not handle that competition so should be bailed out. Does he realise that he is undermining the entire argument, because he is saying that when there is competition, franchising fails?

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

No, my point is that Virgin is making a profit on the line and is very able to meet the competition, but what is difficult to forecast accurately—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady stops chuntering and listens to what I have to say, I will answer her point. The revenues have grown, but they have not reached the very ambitious levels that we set. Many factors behind that are completely unrelated to the rail industry. I shall touch on some that are related to the rail industry, but those that are not include fuel costs, which are considerably lower than was envisaged at the time the franchise was let—

[Helen Goodman]

That should help!

[Iain Stewart]

No; if it is cheaper for people to use motor vehicles, they are more likely to do that than to use the train. There is a question mark over the extent to which Network Rail’s non-delivery of some of the upgrade projects is a factor; that is part of the picture about which I do not yet know and is something that we will scrutinise. There is also something more fundamental happening in the nature of rail usage, relating to different travel-to-work arrangements and work patterns. There is currently no clear idea of what is behind that, but it will affect other franchises, as well as the east coast line.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend and I served together on the Transport Committee for three years, and his speech is compelling and highly knowledgeable. Does he feel that nationalisation should be part of the solution to the problems we face?

[Iain Stewart]

Absolutely not. I will come to that point and refer to the evidence that the Select Committee heard on Monday from Iryna Terlecky, who has many decades of experience in the rail industry.

The shortfall in projected revenue would have happened irrespective of who owned and ran the railway. The difference is that under a nationalised system, the public purse would have taken an immediate hit from the loss of revenue, whereas under the system we have, the parent company and the bond that it put up has taken the brunt of it.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Iain Stewart]

No; forgive me, but I have three minutes left and the hon. Lady’s previous intervention was not really up to scratch.

There are of course lessons to be learned about how we base our revenue projections over a long period. There need to be more cautious forecasts of rail revenues over the long term. Indeed, I think that that has already happened in respect of some of the franchises that have subsequently been let. We need to revisit some of the Brown recommendations on the balance of risk that an operator takes against extraneous factors that are not to do with the direct operation of the railway. In the end, though, the franchise system does work; it does deliver enhanced performance. I, too, remember what British Rail was like when I was a child, and it was not a glorious existence.

Let me conclude on what I hope is a more consensual point. I am a sentimental old railway buff and I cheer the reintroduction of the LNER brand. LNER was one of the big four private companies that transformed this country’s rail system in the first half of the previous century. May I make one little plea? LNER had iconic liveries, from the apple green of the Flying Scotsman to what is called the garter blue of the Mallard and the Gresley class, and the teak colour of the carriages. Please can we have that back and rekindle the romance of the railways of those years? I am absolutely certain that that would help to keep passenger numbers high and ensure that this important railway line has a bright future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]