High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to follow that extremely powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), with whom I agree entirely. I speak in favour of the reasoned amendment and against the Bill because of my strong reservations about the route alignment, the business case and the compensation arrangements. I do so with great regret, because it did not need to be like this. If the argument had always been about capacity, and a little more common sense had been in evidence over speed—we do not need trains travelling at the speeds proposed—we could have had a very different proposal that might have been much more acceptable to my constituents, even if the route had gone through my constituency, and to the country at large.

I fully accept the need to increase capacity, and sensible alternatives, including new lines, have been put forward and dismissed with too little consideration—contrary to what the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who is no longer in his place, said earlier. I also accept the fragility of the existing network and that we need new, 21st-century lines, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and others have argued, we should make much better use of the existing transport corridors, such as the M40 corridor through the Chilterns. I urge the Government to look at that argument again when they consider phase 2—as should the Committee on phase 1.

I want to speak up for those who have opposed the work of HS2. Those people have spent their own time and money because they believe it is not in the interests of the country or of their communities. It is not that they do not want development. In my constituency, we already host the M6, which is being widened to allow the managed motorways scheme, and both branches of the west coast main line. Recently, we have had the four-tracking in the Trent valley and we will shortly see, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), the Norton Bridge flyover, which will bring four new train paths an hour on the west coast main line. Those projects have been accepted because they are in the national interest.

What my constituents do not accept is a line constructed with little regard for the communities that it splits and the landscape that it degrades. In my constituency, we have five communities that will be split, or very nearly so—Ingestre, Hopton, Yarlet, Marston and Great Haywood. Those affected are not, as some people say to me in e-mails, wealthy Range Rover drivers; many are people who invested their very limited lifetime savings into property that they see falling sharply in value or becoming unsaleable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) said. Very few of those currently blighted are receiving proper compensation. I am glad that the Secretary of State referred to better compensation being on offer. I would welcome that, but urge him to listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said earlier.

I will not go into the details of the business case, as others have done so, but I will mention two things. The cost, as far as I can see, excludes the cost of money—interest of several billion pounds over the course of the project. I would ask HS2 to tell me that I am wrong; so far it has not done so. I am also concerned about the lack of a sound business case for the west coast main line post-HS2. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) spoke powerfully about that. The case for HS2 depends on a fully functioning west coast main line continuing, yet to date I have seen no proper business case for it. Let us not forget that the west coast main line will lose much of its profitable business traffic. As we have heard, it will continue to require substantial maintenance and probably increasing public subsidy. Where is that to come from?

My constituents in Stafford willingly bear a substantial weight of national transport infrastructure—the M6 and two parts of the west coast main line—and they benefit from it, but they need to be convinced that an additional line will be built sensitively and sustainably. Regretfully, I believe that that is not the case with the proposal on the table.

Flooding: Transport Disruption

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am very pleased to say that the Government will be electrifying the whole of the line to Sheffield, which has been called for for a very long time. The electrification of our railways—we are committed to electrifying more than 800 miles in the next control period between 2014 and 2019—is very important for the long-term future of the railways in this country.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention resilience and the importance of building that into any future lines. We have world-class tunnelling expertise from Crossrail, so can we ensure that far more of our rail lines are put in tunnels rather than deep cuttings? Earlier, he mentioned Shugborough tunnel in my constituency, which was put there to ensure that local residents—particularly, I believe, the Earl of Lichfield—were not disturbed by the line.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I cannot think what other tunnelling my hon. Friend might have in mind. Next year, we will see the completion of tunnelling for Crossrail, which has been a substantial investment in the rail infrastructure of this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

3. What recent progress has been made on reducing the House’s running costs.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)]

May I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and all the staff who serve us so well a very merry Christmas?

On Monday the Commission agreed to lay an administration estimate of £201.3 million for 2014-15. The estimate originally agreed for 2010-11 was £231 million. After adjustments for transfers and so forth, that is equivalent to a 17% reduction in real terms. Savings of £15.3 million are being delivered this year and next through a number of initiatives.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Happy Christmas, Mr Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for the work that the House of Commons Commission is doing in rightly reducing costs. The other side of costs are benefits. Has the Commission analysed the benefits of the House of Commons? There are not only tangible benefits that additional visitors and tourism bring to the local and London-wide economy, but intangible benefits such as education for our school children and showing the values of a parliamentary democracy to the world.

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point about the contribution that the House’s activities make to the wider community in which we sit. We have not undertaken such work, but I will take his suggestion away and look at it in the new year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

The important thing is that there will be a connection between HS1 and HS2. That will allow direct access for trips right through Europe from places that at present do not have those connections. That is important. We believe the three trains per hour that will be able to go directly from Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds to Paris or Brussels or other European destinations is a very positive move.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, the preferred route for HS2 phase 2 goes straight through the village of Hopton in my constituency, as well as Ingestre, Yarlet and Marston and close by to Great Harwood. What measures can HS2 take to mitigate the effects on these communities, either through extra tunnelling or realignment of the route?

[Mr McLoughlin]

What I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) in my original answer was that the consultation for phase 2 is still ongoing and it would be wrong of me at this stage to pre-empt it. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) will be making strong representations through the consultation process, and I will consider them in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

Indeed. The hon. Lady who chairs the Transport Committee embarks on an important point. One key problem that any future Government will face is that of capacity on the network, as well as speed, and this line is also very much about capacity. If we made the improvement that some people suggest on the present line, it would lead to capacity increases of about 53% between London and Birmingham. HS2 will lead to a capacity increase of 143%. That is why it is so important to meet the objectives that we both have.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend says that HS2 is about capacity rather than just speed, so will he instruct HS2 to cut the speed so that the route can be more flexible and do less damage to dozens of communities along the route, including five in my constituency?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I have tried to say that the case for HS2 is not just about speed and that capacity is one of the main reasons for it. Although the reduction in journey time between London and Birmingham is not huge—it will be in the region of 30 minutes—for great cities in the north such as Manchester and Leeds the reduction will be very beneficial. There is not just one reason; there are many reasons for doing this project. Even if we took the line down to a lower speed limit, it would not reduce the cost by much—we would be talking about 90% of the present cost, rather than 100%.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Earlier this year, hundreds of my constituents awoke to find that the value of their homes had been substantially reduced and those who had plans to move discovered that purchasers could no longer get mortgages. That remains the case. The reason was the announcement of the preferred route for HS2—a route that followed none of the previously published options nor an existing transport corridor. Furthermore, the project will not see a shovel in the ground for 13 years and will only be completed in 20 years, meaning uncertainty and disruption for a generation. It was also a route that, I have been told, can hardly be altered, because it is designed to take ultra-high-speed trains travelling at up to 250 mph and hence must be straight. As a result, it goes through five villages in my constituency and comes very close to others.

I have long advocated sensible investment in rail in the UK. When the previous Government proposed to build new track for the west coast main line across my constituency in order to cut journey times and improve capacity, I supported it, but I believe that HS2 is the wrong solution. The Government have rightly said that a new rail network needs to be designed to increase capacity, rather than speed, so I cannot understand the fixation with speeds of 225 mph to 250 mph, if that means that routes are so inflexible that they cannot follow existing corridors, such as motorways, as many have argued. No railway in Europe travels at that speed. The maximum is 200 mph.

Then there is the question of capacity and demand. I imagined that HS2 had done a lot of detailed work on this point, so I wrote asking for current figures for the utilisation of west coast main line services as well as projected figures to 2035. The answer from HS2 was:

“I am sorry but we do not have information on the current figures of WCML services. The Department of Transport may do.”

[Mrs Gillan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that Virgin is starting a major advertising campaign to attract people to travel on the west coast main line means that it can hardly have a capacity problem?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I do. The first-class coaches are almost never full. Indeed, I have often seen one person per first-class carriage. It needs to make at least two of them standard class.

I had also imagined that HS2 would be largely used by business travellers, so I was surprised to have the reply from HS2 stating that 70% of journeys on HS2 were expected to be for leisure purposes. I fully recognise the value of leisure travel to the economy, but where is the justification for an ultra-high-speed line, such as that which HS2 seems so determined to build, if 70% of those using it are doing so for leisure?

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does my hon. Friend recall that the initial estimates of capacity usage for HS1 were overestimated by 30%?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Yes, and I fully understand the problems mentioned by some of my hon. Friends. We need to do something about that, but an ultra-high-speed line is not the answer.

I come now to the business case for HS2. There has been a lot of argument about whether it is valid. I am not an expert in these matters, but there are several things that make me sceptical. The first is the apparent lack of knowledge at HS2 about current demand. The second is the surprising fact that HS2 is to be largely a leisure railway rather than a business railway. Since leisure passengers are much more sensitive to price than business passengers, especially premium business, I wonder whether this price sensitivity has been fully incorporated in the business case. The third reason is the large question mark over whether this is the right way to help the midlands and the north to develop. Just this week, plans were unveiled for a vast new commercial development at Old Oak common in London at the proposed junction of Cross Rail and HS2. I welcome that, but it underlines the concerns of those who worry that HS2 will simply bring more development into London, possibly at the expense of the midlands, the north and Scotland.

Then there is the business case for the west coast main line after HS2 comes into service. The line will remain an essential part of our national transport infrastructure, so it is essential that its post-2035 business case be at least as strong as that for HS2, but I have not had that case from HS2, despite my asking for it. Given that HS2 is so dependent on leisure traffic, I am concerned about what will be left for the west coast main line. Clearly, there will be an increase in freight and some leisure, commuter and regional services, but will it be sufficient to maintain the line without very substantial subsidy? And if a subsidy will indeed be required, has that been factored into the business case for HS2?

I fully support the comments made by north Staffordshire MPs about the real concern over the connectivity of Stoke-on-Trent, which is one of the top 10 conurbations in the country. I ask the Secretary of State to take that matter very seriously. On compensation, I entirely agree with those who support the idea of a property bond. That must be done. In France, people receive well over the market rate for their property, and everything goes through much faster. Let us be generous, as many Members have suggested.

I have no pleasure in opposing the proposals before us. If this were a Bill to provide for additional capacity in the network by using existing corridors at a sustainable cost and without a fixation on ultra-high-speed trains, I would support it wholeheartedly, but I am afraid that it will achieve none of those things.

High Speed Rail

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Gentleman says that that would unite the House in a more cohesive way, but it is fairly united for such a controversial subject, as has been clear from the exchanges so far. As I have said, the proposals to go from north to south would mean further delay, and I point out that the first part of the route was actually published by the previous Government, who also thought that the right way to go was from London to Birmingham in the first instance.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement. It is vital that the best possible mitigation, including some realignment, is offered to those of my constituents who will be affected by the route. If HS2 is to bring jobs and prosperity, as he desires, to the wider west midlands region, a stop on the route is required in Staffordshire. May I ask him to take that fully into account?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I certainly will. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The route goes substantially through his constituency and areas that are not near motorway corridors or the like, and I will certainly look at his representations.

West Coast Main Line

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I cannot yet go into the full details of what will be in the interim two-year agreement. However, the hon. Lady has made the case for Stockport station not just today but on other occasions, and, knowing her, I have the feeling that she will continue to do so every time I appear at the Dispatch Box.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Stafford station is to receive a welcome £3 million upgrade, and my constituents are looking forward to several other improvements in fares and services, particularly—here is another bid for my right hon. Friend—later departures from London and Liverpool in the evening. Can he confirm whether these improvements will be possible under the two shorter franchises?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am very pleased to hear that my hon. Friend’s station is being improved. I should like to point out that Derby station is being improved as well, but that was agreed some time before I arrived at the Department. On his request for further services to Stafford station, which I know well, I will certainly try to ensure that when the enhanced services are negotiated, Stafford also gets the benefit.

West Coast Main Line

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

Obviously, there is a difference in view between the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who praised the current operators of the west coast main line. Indeed, a number of people have praised the operators so I am rather surprised that when I have made a decision to keep the service with them, some people have found a way to attack that decision. The short period involved means that the best way to ensure continuity of service is to do a deal with Virgin, and we are about to embark on that.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Those bidding for the franchise offered a number of improvements that were welcome to my Stafford constituents, including fare reductions. Will my right hon. Friend see whether it is possible to introduce some of those improvements in the interim period, along with his welcome cap on rail fares?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I thank my hon. Friend. As I have pointed out, there will be a two-year franchise that will be negotiated some time next year, and I hope that some of the benefits that were initially to come from a longer-term franchise agreement can be replicated in it.

West Coast Main Line

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Monday 17th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) on instigating the debate and congratulate everybody who has taken part so far. In the few minutes remaining, I want to stress why the debate is of great importance to my constituents.

More that 1 million people a year use Stafford railway station—the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) mentioned 650,000 at Runcorn, which is indeed an extremely important station. They are from not only the town of Stafford, but over the Shropshire border and throughout the rest of Staffordshire. The reaction over the past few years to the service offered by Virgin has been generally positive. There were clearly some problems at the end of the ’90s and in the first part of the previous decade, particularly after the Hatfield rail crash, which was obviously nothing to do with Virgin, but due to the state of the rails.

In a situation such as this the Government are really caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, we can applaud the Virgin service and say that we want that or, indeed, a higher standard of service to continue. We can say that, in Virgin, to some extent we have a safe bet: it has proved itself over the past few years and is likely to continue to do so. However, if that had been the criterion, and the Government had accepted £1.4 billion less—or, in net present value, £700 million, which is perhaps a more accurate number—again, questions would have been raised about why the Government, on behalf of taxpayers, have accepted £700 million less, at net present value, simply because they liked the service that Virgin delivers, when a competitor claimed that it would deliver an equal service. The decision was not at all easy, which is why so many Members, including the instigator of this debate, have mentioned that the process is so important. We must see not only that it has been properly followed, but that it is the right process for future franchises.

I also have to say that I was glad that the final two bidders are headquartered in the UK. One bidder was Abellio, which is the Dutch railway; I think it also runs railways in Germany, and it runs Chiltern services very well. I wanted whoever runs the most important railway line in the United Kingdom to be a British-headquartered company. Notice that I say “British”, because both final bidders are based in Scotland—at least, Stagecoach and FirstGroup, if not Virgin, are.

I want to comment on the effect on staff. Clearly, a number of my constituents are affected, and it is extremely important that the transition, however it goes, should first and foremost be done with regard to staff, as well as to passengers. They have clearly been put into a state of some trepidation, although I am glad to hear the reassurances given by FirstGroup about the continuation of services. The issue is not only about the continuation of employment; it is also about how the company treats its staff. It is extremely important that staff are seen as the most valuable asset—not just on paper, but in reality.

When I met the managing director of FirstGroup, I made that quite clear. I have also said that it is extremely important that the service is maintained or improved. I was therefore glad to hear him offer to come to Stafford at least yearly, if not more frequently, to talk to passengers about the service. It is vital that, if and when the transfer goes ahead, it is not just that a service is promised at one point in time, but that, month in, month out, that promise is maintained and that passengers are able to have a direct input into the company running the service.

Clearly, it is extremely important for people in Stafford to see the maintenance of vital hourly services. However, there is also the important question of later and earlier services that I and my predecessor, David Kidney, have frequently raised with both Network Rail and Virgin. Most continental railways have much later services both from the capital to other towns and cities, and vice versa. Stafford is on the Liverpool line and, from what I have heard, I know that people in Liverpool would also like later services and ones earlier in the morning for that great city. I realise that that will be subject to the limits of the track, but with the improvements—particularly those around Norton Bridge just outside my constituency; it is in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—that are coming up in the next year or two, I want to see whether it is possible, with additional train paths and improvements to time, to introduce either a later or an earlier service or, indeed, both.

I suppose that, as well as the staff and the service for passengers, the Government are equally concerned about the return to the taxpayer. To me, what it is absolutely key is the confidence that the winning bidder—in this case, FirstGroup—will fulfil its commitment; that is vital. There is a penalty of some £280 million, which is clearly substantial, but that is not a deal maker or a deal breaker. Far more important, as other Members have already said, is reputation. FirstGroup is, according to its website, the largest transport group in the world. It runs Greyhound buses in the States, as well as many yellow school buses and other franchises in Britain. To me, it is absolutely beyond question that any company that walks away from a rail franchise should have no further part in the UK rail industry. That must be absolutely clear: we cannot have confidence in a bidder that fails to fulfil its commitments. I want to hear the Minister’s response on that, and whether that is part of the thinking. This is too big a deal—not only for my constituents, but for the entire country—to allow people yet again to walk away from the firm commitments that they have made.

I have two other questions for the Minister. The first refers to the process. Whatever happens in this case, will he look very closely at the process for future bids to ensure that it is watertight and cannot be subject to the kind of public disquiet and challenge that we are now having. Above all, secondly, do he and his colleagues believe the passenger figures that we have been given? To me, that is the crux of the matter. If those passenger figures are realistic and have been calculated in a way that demands respect and is robust, I see no real problem with the contract going ahead. However, we have to be convinced that the Minister and his Secretary of State, who will stand behind the decision, are themselves convinced of the figures, and I want to hear that from the Minister today.