House of Commons

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

Thursday 25 November 2010

The House met at half-past Ten o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

1. What estimate he has made of the likely amount local authorities will incur in redundancy costs in the next 18 months.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

It is for individual councils locally to determine redundancy policies based on their own circumstances. Decisions about when and how to make and manage work force reductions, including policies on redundancy payments, are rightly for individual councils to make as the employers.

[Mr Blunkett]

Ministers do not have the first idea what the cost will be to local taxpayers. Is this not a triple whammy, whereby families and individuals lose their services, communities find that provision is taken from them and individuals lose their jobs? Is it not correct that instead of paying for services, council tax payers will have to pay for redundancies for services that are being withdrawn? Is it not a scandal that the Government do not know what the impact will be?

[Robert Neill]

The Government have endeavoured to assist the most vulnerable local councils by increasing the amount of money available in the formula grant that is not ring-fenced, moving more money into formula grant, reducing the amount of ring-fencing and rolling more grants into one. I imagine that when his Government were in office, the right hon. Gentleman would have complained greatly about their removal of working neighbourhoods funding for his city of Sheffield, which will cost the city some £38 million. We will endeavour to find the means to cushion that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are talking about redundancy costs, so we must get on with it.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I gather that in the comprehensive spending review the Government allocated £200 million for the capitalisation cost of redundancy payments. I also gather that local authority chief executives and treasurers suggest that the costs might be between £1.5 billion and £3 billion. If they are correct and the Government estimate is much lower than the actual sums involved, what are the Government going to do about it?

[Robert Neill]

Capitalisation, which enables local authorities to treat revenue expenditure as capital and borrow for it is an exception to the accounting rules, so there has always been a need for some control, and capitalisation for a number of streams has never run at 100%. It is also worth bearing in mind that local authorities have been aware for some time that reductions in expenditure were inevitable—they were planned by the previous Government. A shrewd authority will therefore have planned to deal with the problem in advance.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Local government now predicts an 11% cut in council budgets next year, with 140,000 jobs lost and a redundancy bill in excess of £2 billion—not the £200 million originally predicted by Ministers. Is local government right? Do Ministers know, or is the truth that they simply do not care about the public servants they will lay off or the public services that they will lay to waste?

[Robert Neill]

The greatest threat to public services for the future is failure to tackle the unprecedented deficit that the previous Government left us. We are prepared to work with local government to deal with those issues, but the hon. Gentleman and his party clearly have no answers whatever.

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

2. What steps he is taking to reduce the number of unauthorised encampments.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to reduce the number of unauthorised encampments.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

Local authorities will be responsible for determining the right level of Traveller site provision in their area to meet local needs and historic demands. We will encourage councils to provide sites with incentives through the new homes bonus scheme and grant funding for local authorities to deliver new sites.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

Will my right hon. Friend give us some idea of the time frame for the withdrawal of planning order circular 01/06? In the meantime, does he take the view that the Government’s intention to withdraw this circular should be a material consideration at both the planning and appeal stage?

[Mr Pickles]

We have certainly stated our intention to repeal circular 01/06 and we shall shortly start consultation on an alternative to it. In the meantime, given that the localism Bill will substantially change planning on these matters, I can say that our intention almost certainly is a material consideration.

[Jonathan Lord]

Residents of the village of Normandy in my constituency are fed up with the never-ending cycle of encampments on green-belt fields, retrospective planning applications and seemingly unenforceable planning refusals. Does my right hon. Friend really believe that the measures he has described will provide a proper and permanent solution for my concerned constituents?

[Mr Pickles]

The short answer to that is, of course, yes.

I am afraid that the policy pursued by the last Government left us in a very difficult position. Let me give an indication of how difficult it has become. I remind Members that in 1997 there were 887 unlawful encampments. That figure was bad enough, but it has now shot up to 2,395. As for the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, we intend to restrict retrospective planning applications substantially.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I warn the Secretary of State of a new type of unauthorised encampment? In my city of Nottingham, the chief executive of Framework, a major charity for the homeless, warned this week that there would be hundreds of rough sleepers in tents in the woods or in sheds on industrial estates as a result of the swingeing cuts that the Secretary of State has implemented in the Supporting People budget. Will he please think again?

[Mr Pickles]

I think that the hon. Gentleman may be a little mistaken. As he will know, the Government have passported £6.5 billion to local authorities to support people, and we expect that money to be passed on to the most vulnerable.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that no element of human rights legislation contains any provision allowing antisocial behaviour, or enshrining any kind of right or protection allowing people in unauthorised encampments to participate in such behaviour?

[Mr Pickles]

We are trying to achieve a balanced approach. The last policy was unrealistic. To hit the 2011 targets set by the last Government, we would have to wait for a further 18 years because we are so far behind. I believe that that policy was predicated on conflict, whereas we want to ensure that there is firm action on retrospective planning applications and enforcement. We will end the continuous process of appeal on application, subsequent application and stop notice, but at the same time we hope to introduce mainstream provision for Travellers by including provisional sites in the new homes bonus.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

3. What representations he has received from local authorities on likely changes to funding from his Department since the publication of the comprehensive spending review.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

I have received a number of representations about the challenging but fair settlement for local government. We will shortly announce details of our proposals for funding local authorities in the provisional local government finance settlement.

[Simon Danczuk]

The Secretary of State’s failure to stand up for councils in the CSR is having a devastating impact on jobs and services in Rochdale. Provision for the homeless, community centres, adult care and many other services are being cut. The situation is so bad that six Liberal Democrat councillors resigned last week, and yesterday the Liberal council leader stood down. Because of the Secretary of State’s cuts, the local authority is in turmoil. When will he stand up for local government?

[Mr Pickles]

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would congratulate the coalition Government. We recognise that a number of authorities are more dependent on grant than others. We face a particularly difficult task in relation to Rochdale, as we must bridge just short of £6 million that the Labour Government took from the working neighbourhoods fund, but we will certainly seek to provide that cushion. My advice to the hon. Gentleman is “Go back to Rochdale, put a bit of lead in their pencil, and let them get on with protecting front-line services rather than fighting among themselves.”

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree, on the basis of the representations that he has received from local authorities, that every progressive authority in the country will have planned for the reductions in expenditure? Does he intend to ensure that councils are able to freeze council tax following the years of rapid increases under Labour?

[Mr Pickles]

Absolutely. What was going to happen to local government was well showcased. It was clear from the previous Chancellor’s statement in autumn 2009 and the Budget earlier this year, before the general election, that at least £5 billion was coming out of local authorities and that that would be front-loaded. I would therefore expect prudent local authorities and prudent chief executives to have taken the necessary precautions.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The worst aspect of these cuts to local authority budgets, which amount to 28% in real terms over the next four years, is that they are front-loaded. The hardest hit councils are facing reductions in their grants next year of 14%, 18%, 20% or even more. That means they have to plan their service cuts and redundancies now, so may I urge the Secretary of State to think again about the scale of these cuts or to alter their phasing so that councils are not forced to take what will be very damaging crisis measures?

[Mr Pickles]

“As we look forward”, regeneration spending is

“not the biggest priority we face”

as there are “other competing priorities.” I apologise: perhaps I should have made it clear that those were the words of the now Leader of the Opposition, speaking on the Radio 4 “Today” programme on 12 April, just before the general election. That is the dilemma. The Opposition have a blank piece of paper. They oppose everything when they know, as we know, that they were going to impose £5 billion of front-loaded cuts on local authorities.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

May I ask the Secretary of State to join me in congratulating my council, Dudley metropolitan borough council, on engaging in discussions with Wolverhampton, Walsall and Sandwell councils about rationalising services and reducing back-office costs without affecting front-line services?

[Mr Pickles]

I have to say that that is the future of local government. We expect local authorities to merge services and to protect the front line. Prudent councils are doing that. Councils that are more content to use the poor and the vulnerable as a battering ram against the Government will seek to protect the centre and not seek to protect front-line services, whereas good councils will protect the front line.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

4. What progress has been made in devolving more powers and financial autonomy to local authorities.

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

In six months, the coalition Government have ended the ring-fencing of all but two revenue grants, simplified over 90 separate funding streams for local government to fewer than 10, scrapped comprehensive area assessments and abolished 4,700 central targets on local government. The localism Bill will give many more new powers to local councils, including a general power of competence. This Government are reversing decades of top-down control, which has led to Britain being one of most centralised countries on the planet.

[Mr Raynsford]

The Minister may be aware that, in responding to his Department’s recent paper on proposed changes to social tenancies, Councillor Richard Kemp, leader of the Liberal Democrats in local government, described the proposals as “an irrelevant fantasy” and added:

“No council with any sense of the realities on the ground is going to be interested in this”.

Does the Minister—and, perhaps more interestingly, do his coalition partners—agree?

[Greg Clark]

The consultation my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government has launched has been well received across the sector because it introduces a right, not an obligation, and when we have a homelessness crisis, I think it is right to give registered social landlords more flexibility than they currently have in allocating to homeless tenants.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Like many other local authorities, South Lakeland district council would desperately love the autonomy to be able to scrap the second-home council tax subsidy, which costs the council tax payer in South Lakeland £1.25 million every year. At this time of hardship, difficulty and restraint, is it not time to look again at whether we should give a 10% subsidy to those who can afford it the most?

[Greg Clark]

We have made a lot of progress already. My hon. Friend is right that localism involves there being greater control of resources locally. A further set of measures will be considered in a review that will start in January, and I will make sure that his proposal is considered in that.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

The Minister for Housing and Local Government was not in the House on Monday to answer questions on the housing consultation paper so, while we are on the subject of devolving powers, may I ask his colleague about this? The Government have repeatedly said that they will not allow social landlords to change the rights of existing tenants, yet question 13 of that consultation leaves the door wide open for them to do exactly that in the future. Can this Minister give the House a personal guarantee that the Government will not now or in the future permit changes to the rights of existing social tenants?

[Greg Clark]

Yes.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

5. What requirements local authorities have to report their expenditure to his Department.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

10. What recent steps he has taken to increase transparency and accountability in local government spending.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

We are replacing bureaucratic accountability to central Government with democratic accountability. People should be able to hold their local council to account over the taxes it spends. More and more local authorities are publishing details of spending items of more than £500 online. Next month, I will consult on a code of recommended practice for local authorities, which will address issues such as scope, formatting and timings for publishing data.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Although I do not want to add to the administrative burdens of local authorities, it would be useful to have data against which performance, quality and reach of services, and efficiency could be measured. What tools will be made available to this House and the public to do that?

[Mr Pickles]

It is most important that we continue to press ahead with the agenda and, in particular, with the public right to know how money is being spent. It is no use talking about cuts in public spending and cuts to front-line services when we find that we have excessive pay among chief executives and excessive numbers of middle management, and that local authorities are not offering value for money. So the important thing is that all authorities will put this online. I have to tell my hon. Friend that the Portsmouth, Great Yarmouth and Norfolk authorities have not put these amounts online. I hope that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) will urge them to do so.

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. I know that Great Yarmouth’s authority is set to go live with this online in January. Does he agree that having the new transparency in place will mean that voluntary sector organisations and small businesses across the country will have a much more even playing field when bidding for contracts?

[Mr Pickles]

Yes, and we will be taking this a step further: not only will voluntary organisations be able to compare the costs and the spending, and the public will be able to judge those, but in the new localism Bill we will give voluntary organisations the right to bid for services and to run them directly if they can produce them better and more cheaply than local authorities.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

What plans does the Secretary of State have to encourage local authorities to publish the expenditure that they are undertaking on big society projects? If he has plans to scope out that expenditure, could that report contain a particular section on funding for citizens advice bureaux? The representations that I am receiving suggest that they are going to get a hammering as a result of his funding settlement.

[Mr Pickles]

They should not get a hammering, as that would be foolish of local authorities. That applies whether the authority is Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative or hung; it applies to councils of whatever colour. If local authorities seek to deal with this country’s financial crisis by simply paring back on grants, salami slicing and taking X% out of all departments, they will fail. They have to restructure, they have to change and they have to share services. If they do not do that, they will rue the day when they cut back on Citizens Advice and similar voluntary organisations.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

On the issue of reporting expenditure to central Government, and pursuant to the Secretary of State’s previous answer about protecting the front line, has Westminster council informed him of its intention to close a disability centre that provides luncheon facilities and a hydrotherapy pool to many severely disabled people, many of whom are also losing their levels of care services, as they, too, are being retrenched?

[Mr Pickles]

I will look into that issue and write to the hon. Lady. I have to say that Westminster council has a fantastic record in dealing with vulnerable people, but I will look into the specific case.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

7. When he plans to publish the localism Bill.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

12. When he plans to publish the localism Bill.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

14. When he plans to publish the localism Bill.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

17. When he plans to publish the localism Bill.

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

The localism Bill contains a wide range of measures to shift power from central Government into the hands of individuals, communities and councils. The Bill frees local government from central and regional control and strengthens local democracy. In addition, it gives greater power over planning, housing and other services and allows councils and councillors to be better held to account. The Bill will be published imminently.

[Julian Sturdy]

I thank the Minister for his response. May I ask him to go into a little more detail on how the localism Bill, through empowering local people, will help protect the green belt in my constituency of York Outer?

[Greg Clark]

Of course. One of the real opportunities in the localism Bill is to remove the threat to the green belt that comes from the regional spatial strategies. The concern up and down the country that green belts could be deleted through those strategies will be buried once and for good by the localism Bill.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State confirm that material consideration should be given by councils to circular 01/06 on Gypsies and Travellers, although some, including mine, have not been doing so. May I ask the Minister to outline what benefits that will present to neighbourhoods and to villages such as Welford-in-Avon in my constituency?

[Greg Clark]

The Leader of the Opposition has said that the previous Government looked down their noses at local government. Nowhere was that more true than in the case of parish councils. The charge of parochialism needs to be turned round and we need to regard an interest in locality through parishes as a positive measure. The localism Bill will allow parishes, as neighbourhoods, to set their own plans, to have them adopted and to give effect to them in the planning system.

[Julian Smith]

May I ask my right hon. Friend to go a bit further on the role of parish councils? Skipton and Ripon is packed with hundreds of excellent parish councils and they are asking me what specific role they have in relation to district councils. Will he go into a bit more detail on that?

[Greg Clark]

The planning provisions in the localism Bill will allow every neighbourhood in the country, including parishes, to set its own local neighbourhood plan. That will mean that they can design the look and feel of their neighbourhoods going forward into the future and in so doing take away the bureaucracy that is involved in taking planning applications through the development control process. If we capture it in the plan, we will not have that bureaucracy and uncertainty.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to include local referendums in the localism Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the results of those referendums are not binding, their status will be only marginally higher than that of an ordinary petition, although they will be a lot more expensive? Will he bring in proper referendums that are legally binding?

[Greg Clark]

I know that my hon. Friend is a great champion of referendums, as he has organised one in his own constituency. The localism Bill contains binding referendums on subjects such as whether to introduce mayors, the neighbourhood plans that I mentioned earlier and excessive increases in council tax. It also contains provisions for advisory referendums that will test public opinion and can influence policies. Sometimes it is appropriate to nudge councils to do the right thing. This will be perhaps more of a shove than a nudge, and I think it will be difficult to ignore.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

How can the Minister keep a straight face when he talks about localism and local democracy when later today his Government will ram through legislation to take away that local democracy from Exeter and Norwich with our recently restored unitary status?

[Greg Clark]

I am advised that the right hon. Gentleman did not even table an amendment to the Bill, such is his commitment. I shall stand corrected if I am wrong. During the previous Government’s time in office, this country became one of the most centralised countries. We want to revive local democracy by transferring power from central Government to local government and down to communities. We will take no lectures from the Opposition, who have driven that centralisation.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

What discussions has the Minister had with the Welsh Government on devolving extra powers to the National Assembly under the localism Bill?

[Greg Clark]

We have had discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government. Clearly, if we want to devolve powers to the lowest possible level, those discussions will vary according to the different provisions in the Bill. It is quite a detailed matter and the hon. Gentleman will see the outcome of the discussions when the Bill is published.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister say what proportion of local expenditure should be raised locally, thereby bringing direct accountability to local communities on delivering localism?

[Greg Clark]

I do not think it is terribly localist to prescribe what that percentage should be, but it is right that as we take a more localist direction, we want a greater connection between the behaviour of local councils and the revenue being raised. That is the direction in which we are going, but it would be wrong to prescribe a percentage.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

Two weeks ago the High Court ruled that the Secretary of State acted unlawfully when he scrapped regional housing plans, comparing him with Henry VIII. His Majesty’s reply was that it did not matter because the Government were going to abolish them in the localism Bill anyway, but that could take nine months to become law and the confusion that the Government have created has undermined the construction industry and led local councils to ditch 1,300 new homes every day. Will the Minister confirm that, in the mean time, local councils should get on with supporting the construction of the homes that the country so badly needs?

[Greg Clark]

The right hon. Lady makes a mistake that afflicted the Government of whom she was a member—the fatal flaw of confusing plans with homes. In many cases there was an inverse relationship: the higher the target, the lower the number of homes actually built. That is why we want to reform the planning system. The Government’s intention has been absolutely clear. There is not a councillor, planner or developer in the country who does not know that the regional strategies are on the way out and will be buried and interred for ever.

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

8. What his policy is on the distribution of reductions to local authority funding over the comprehensive spending review period; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

We will announce our proposals for the local government finance settlement in the usual manner in due course.

[Dr Pugh]

It would be rational to accept that the size of the front-loaded cuts coupled with the council tax freeze in the first year will create a huge problem for even prudent local authorities, necessarily giving them less time, less flexibility and less chance of saving front-line services. Does he agree?

[Andrew Stunell]

No I do not. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that we have proceeded at a rapid rate with de-ring-fencing and breaking down the silos between different funds coming to local councils, reducing the number from more than 90 to around 10. We are also putting large sums of money at the disposal of local authorities. I also want to draw his attention to the option that local authorities have of raising their council tax income by up to 2.5% and receiving a compensatory grant so that their residents do not have to bear that cost, thereby protecting residents and giving councils the opportunity to generate more revenue.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Treasury’s green book confirms that funding for local councils will be cut by 28% over the next four years, but the spending review framework document says that the Government will limit the impact of the reduction in spending on regions that are heavily dependent on the public sector. As we are all supposed to be in it together and in order to ensure fairness will the Minister confirm that the cuts faced by local councils will be based on their total budget requirement and not on their formula grant? As he knows, the formula grant accounts for up to 80% of the budget requirements of some councils and less than 20% of others.

[Andrew Stunell]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the picture is very complex. That is why when the settlement comes, he will see that the Government have responded to the points he has raised.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to reduce the number of squatters.

[The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)]

On 8 November I published an online guide for home owners affected by squatters, setting out the rights and action they can take. We are also taking steps to help get empty homes back into productive use and will be helping to reduce the scope for squatting by doing this.

[Michael Ellis]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but we have some long-established squatters in Parliament square. What are we going to do about them?

[Grant Shapps]

As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the Government share the concerns about the current state of Parliament square. I can inform the House that we intend to introduce legislation shortly.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

11. What recent steps he has taken to reduce homelessness.

[The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)]

The Government are committed to tackling and preventing homelessness. We have established a cross-departmental working group on homelessness, taking in eight Departments, and the homelessness grant has been fully protected at £400 million.

[Andrew Selous]

Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Government could learn lessons from the recent successful scheme by the charity Broadway, which got a number of long-term homeless people off the streets and into their own accommodation at an average cost of £794, compared with the many thousands of pounds spent on them while they are on the streets?

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Broadway scheme is excellent and innovative. It has taken funding and allowed the people who are involved with homelessness provision and the service users to decide how best to use it. I congratulate Broadway, which has managed to get a lot more done for £794, rather than the average of £3,000. It is an excellent scheme from which others can learn.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm whether now or in the future he plans to reduce homelessness by changing either its definition or the categories of people who are entitled to assistance and re-housing because they are homeless?

[Grant Shapps]

We have no plans whatever to change the categories of reasonable preference—those categories that councils have to take into account in order to state whether somebody is homeless and, therefore, provide statutory help. We have already changed the terms—the measurement—of homelessness as defined by rough sleeping, which, under the hon. Gentleman’s Government, meant that there were only 440 people sleeping rough on the country’s streets. We discovered very quickly, once we had counted such people properly, that there are actually 1,294.

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

13. If he will estimate the proportion of the funding for the new homes bonus scheme which will be spent in Milton Keynes.

[The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)]

The new homes bonus will match-fund the same amount of council tax for every single home built for an additional six years, and we have published a very helpful calculator on the Department’s website, where people can go today to find out how much they will get for the additional homes built.

[Iain Stewart]

I warmly welcome the new homes bonus, which will go a long way to providing the infrastructure that new housing estates need, but will local authorities have the discretion to use that bonus for capital and revenue items?

[Grant Shapps]

The new homes bonus is available for local authorities to spend as they see fit. Under the localism Bill and the flexibility that we now provide, it is absolutely possible for local authorities to use that money potentially even to borrow against, because the income stream is guaranteed for six years. It is a simple, very straightforward approach to making sure that people get more money to their area. To give Members an indication of the calculator, I should say that for every 100 homes that are built in any given area £1 million is likely to go to it over the six-year period.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Specifically on Milton Keynes, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart)?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Milton Keynes and Slough are both in the same region, and they both face similar issues, because the homes in their areas are more likely to be in a lower council tax band than the homes in neighbouring areas. Is it fair that those neighbouring areas, which build bigger, richer houses, will get more money than places such as Milton Keynes and Slough, which have more band D places?

[Grant Shapps]

We can usefully draw out a couple of points from the consultation that is before the House. First, we have set the banding equally throughout the country, so a band D home represents the average band D home throughout the country. Secondly, bigger homes obviously take up more space, so people will get less money because they cannot build as many. Thirdly, the hon. Lady will be interested to know that we have over-compensated for affordable house building, ensuring that every single affordable home that is built will get more than £350 in additional money. That represents a figure of more than 125% for every affordable home built. We should get more built—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am very grateful to the Minister.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

15. If he will take steps to encourage community ownership of local assets and facilities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

The Government will make it easier for communities to take on community assets through the community right-to-buy provisions in the localism Bill. Practical help is already available from the Government-funded asset transfer unit and from the Communitybuilders programme, and the big society bank will step in to help social enterprises and voluntary sector organisations early next year.

[Esther McVey]

Does the Minister agree that the Government need to do more to empower communities to improve their local areas and take over amenities, such as community centres and allotments? What steps will the Government take to ensure that those initiatives are taken up in the forthcoming localism Bill?

[Andrew Stunell]

First of all, I commend Wirral borough council for setting up its own fund for the transfer of community assets and for making the launch of those much more feasible. I hope that other local authorities will look at that example.

The community right to buy will be a powerful option for neighbourhoods and community groups that want to take on assets, and that will be backed by money. The asset transfer unit and Communitybuilders, a project lasting through to 2014, will be there to provide support. I also want to make quite sure that the House understands that the big society bank will be there to assist as well.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

16. What steps his Department is taking to return empty homes to productive use.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

My hon. Friend’s question is well timed, as it is empty homes week. I am sure that there will be concern right across the House at the fact that there are currently 738,000 empty homes in this country and that more than 300,000 of those have been vacant for six months or more. They are a blight on the community and a waste of housing that we cannot afford.

The coalition agreement says clearly that we are planning to tackle the issue, and we have made the first steps. We intend to provide £100 million over the spending review period to bring empty homes back into use—that is a tripling of the money contributed by Labour in the last comprehensive review period. We are consulting on how the new homes bonus can also be used to bring more homes back into use.

[Amber Rudd]

In Hastings, more than 2,300 families are on the housing waiting list and there are more than 800 empty homes. Has the Minister considered whether there is any additional incentive that we can give to councils to try to bring the more difficult properties, which have been empty for more than two years, back to productive use, as against the slightly easier properties, which have been empty for six months?

[Andrew Stunell]

Every effort needs to be made by local councils. They have some statutory tools at their disposal—statutory improvement notices, enforced sales and the empty dwelling management orders. However, I hope that the fact that we are tripling the investment for bringing empty homes across the country back into use will give my hon. Friend some assurance that we are serious about the issue and will work with local authorities to deliver a much improved record.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I am glad that you have mentioned that there are 738,000 empty properties, many of them long-term empty. Can you give some quantitative indication of—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I can give no quantitative indication at all, but the Minister might be able to. Carry on.

[Graham Jones]

Sorry, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister give a quantitative indication of the extent to which he hopes to reduce the figure over the period—100,000 or 200,000? By how much will he reduce it?

[Andrew Stunell]

Some £100 million is intended to assist in bringing back 3,000 empty homes into use, and that is direct financial support. I draw the House’s attention again to the impact that the new homes bonus can make in increasing that, and there are of course the statutory levers that local authorities should use to make sure that the blight of empty homes is reduced.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s remarks about the new homes bonus. However, will he go a little further and confirm that that bonus will be payable to local councils that bring empty properties back into use, so that councils such as Basildon and Thurrock can benefit from the measure?

[Andrew Stunell]

I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that this is a matter on which we are consulting. We have that intention, and I hope that he will write and encourage us to carry forward that proposal.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

18. By what date he expects the residential property tribunals system for park home owners to be in full operation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on her staunch work on behalf of mobile home owners. Subject to parliamentary approval, we expect residential property tribunals to begin hearing cases under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 in spring next year.

[Annette Brooke]

I very much welcome the Minister’s response. However, I am sure that he is very much aware that it will not address some of the appalling practices to which some park home owners are subjected. What further action will he set in motion?

[Andrew Stunell]

As my hon. Friend knows, I attended the lobby that she organised, and I have absolutely no doubt about the serious problem that residents face with a small minority of rogue landlords. We need to see how the Tribunals Service can deal with these complaints and matters. Certainly, we shall be looking very hard to see what progress we can make. The Minister for Housing and Local Government is looking at a range of measures that will help to combat the mismanagement and abuse that some residents face, and he will shortly make an announcement on his plans.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

19. What estimate he has made of the change in number of first-time buyers in the housing market in the last 12 months.

[The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)]

According to data from the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the number of first-time buyers has fallen slightly over the past 12 months, by around 5% in total.

[Mr Robinson]

Is the Minister aware that those figures are among the worst ever for first-time buyers? Is he further aware that the calculations put out by the British Bankers Association on Tuesday of this week show that the level of new mortgage approvals is at its lowest for 19 months, and that the level for gross mortgage lending is the lowest for 10 years? This is a disastrous situation for hundreds of thousands of young couples who want to get into the housing market. What is the Minister going to do about it?

[Grant Shapps]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in that analysis; I completely concur with it. It is a disaster for first-time buyers. One of the first things I did as Housing Minister was to reverse the policy of the previous Minister to say that I believe in the aspiration of people owning their homes. The reason we ended up with this problem in the first place is related to the enormous deficit and boom and bust, which was led by housing in particular. We need a more stable economy in place—not like the one that we were headed for or like the Irish one, but one that is stable for the long term. That means that cutting the deficit is the No. 1 move. I am also very aware that there are effectively only five lenders on the high street, which means that there is very little competition for first-time buyers. The banking review will report next June. It is very important that competition is opened up and we reverse the situation for first-time buyers.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

This week my Government will be co-operating with interfaith week, celebrating how faith communities are adding to the well-being of our society. We have published details of our plans to build 150,000 more affordable houses over the next four years. We have welcomed the decision of the Local Government Association’s chief executive to take a cut of £200,000 a year, and we hope that more town hall chiefs will follow his example in these austere times.

At the 2010 British curry awards, the Government paid tribute to the spice industry’s £4 billion turnaround—a real bhuna for the British economy. From bin collections to small business tax relief, we will do our utmost to ensure that Britain’s curry industry is second to naan.

[Mr Blunkett]

Sorry, Mr Speaker, I can hardly follow that.

The proposal to refund 2.5% of income to councils freezing their council tax next year, which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), will have the perverse outcome, will it not, of top-slicing the money from all councils and then rewarding the wealthiest, high rateable value authorities such as Surrey twice as much as the poorer low rateable value authorities such as Hull, Newcastle or Sheffield? Given that those three councils are Liberal Democrat-controlled, will the Secretary of State tell me which conjuring trick he managed to do in persuading the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues that this was fair or even acceptable?

[Mr Pickles]

I am sorry to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is wrong about the top-slicing. It is in fact new money, and we will not be top-slicing the authorities. I face a great dilemma. As the money that each local authority has varies, the grant differs considerably; he alluded to that. The particular problem I face is the decision taken by the Labour Chancellor to remove £300 million from the working neighbourhoods fund, which will hit Sheffield particularly hard. At the moment, I am trying to ensure that Sheffield and all those authorities are cushioned against Labour cuts.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

T3. Mindful of the recent floods in Cornwall and the fact that from April next year, upper-tier and unitary authorities will have responsibility for flood risk management strategies, will the Secretary of State confirm that money for that purpose will be guaranteed in the comprehensive spending review? Will he please apply planning policy guidance note 23 to inappropriate developments on floodplains?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

Our colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs remain committed to funding fully local authorities’ new burdens under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Up to £36 million a year in total will be provided directly to lead local flood authorities for all those new burdens, and in addition local authorities will spend money supported by formula grant from our Department. I will certainly consult my colleagues on the PPG to which my hon. Friend refers.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

It is not really turning out to be a very good day for the Secretary of State, but you know what, it has not actually been a very good fortnight since he told council leaders on 6 November that talk of front-loaded cuts was “fiction”. Now it seems that reality is beginning to dawn on him. According to a report in the Local Government Chronicle, he has been attending emergency meetings with the Treasury to plead for more money to mitigate the effect of those cuts, which could mean some councils losing up to 20% of their funding by April 2011. Whether or not it is true that the Secretary of State has been lobbying the Treasury to come up with more cash, may I urge him to start listening to the concerns of local government and ensure that councils get a fair deal that stops the damage caused by the heaviest cuts falling in the first year?

[Mr Pickles]

I am sorry to say to the right hon. Lady that I have not necessarily found the Local Government Chronicle a very accurate reflection of what is going on in my Department, ripping read though it undoubtedly is. I must also admonish her in the mildest possible terms for using a partial quote. What I said was ridiculous was the idea that councils would face a 20% cut in their total spending ability in the first year.

The right hon. Lady has to recognise that she needs a policy. She knows, I know and the House knows that the Labour party Government were going to impose £5 billion-worth of cuts on local government, which would have been front-loaded.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

T4. Analysis of the impact of reforming the formula grant on concessionary travel support suggests that most of the options currently being considered have urban-centric criteria and therefore could lead to more money going to urban areas and less to rural areas. What assurance can my hon. Friend the Minister give to places such as Cornwall, which rely on concessionary fare support, that they will not be disadvantaged by the changes?

[Robert Neill]

I understand very well the concern that my hon. Friend raises and the importance of the issue, particularly for shire districts. He is right that we have consulted on that, and we are considering the results of that consultation. I have to ask him to be patient, because we will announce our proposals for the local government finance settlement in the usual manner in due course.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

T2. What incentive does the Minister think cities such as Southampton will have, under the terms of the new homes bonus, to avoid losing millions of pounds of housing funding by having to build more homes each year than have been built in the city since the aftermath of the second world war, and on land that, because of the urban nature of such cities, does not actually exist?

[The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, because people often say that more homes cannot be built in a city, so perhaps the new homes bonus will not operate there. Interestingly, however, when I go to some of the most crowded places, such as Kensington and Chelsea or Westminster, I am told that even those areas have space to build and will benefit greatly from the bonus. I recommend that his local authority looks for some of the space it has and gets building.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

T5. Will the Secretary of State inform the House what guidance there will be following the proposed revocation of planning circular 04/07 to inform local authorities such as mine in Selby about planning permission for travelling show people or others wishing to develop land for use as a permanent site for travelling show people?

[Mr Pickles]

I have had a meeting with the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain, kindly organised by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley). We talked about what would replace those planning guidelines, and we will do our best to meet what the guild is looking for—sensible co-operation with local authorities.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

T6. Many small voluntary organisations in my constituency that provide services to the most vulnerable, such as Durham Action on Single Housing, are extremely concerned about their futures following local government cuts. What will the Minister do to ensure that homelessness does not increase in my constituency and elsewhere as a result of the cuts to local government spending?

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

It is very important that every local authority reflects on the contribution that the voluntary sector can make. We are decentralising funds from central Government to local government, and I expect local government not to draw up the drawbridge, but to treat voluntary organisations fairly and, indeed, to allow them greater access so that they can provide more services than they currently do.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

T8. The Secretary of State recently visited the Nine Elms development area, which includes Battersea power station in my constituency. We talked about the importance of tax increment financing being available to councils involved in major regeneration projects. Will he press for TIFs to be brought in as soon as possible?

[Mr Pickles]

I thought the development was very interesting. It will transform the south of the river; indeed, Members of the House will be able to look across to one of the more exciting developments in our capital. I very much recall my visit, which was just before my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced our intention to move forward on TIFs at the Liberal party conference. We will be including this in the localism Bill, which will be introduced in this House very soon.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

T7. On Monday, the Government set out plans to reform social housing, including the scrapping of guaranteed long-term tenancies. These reforms have been described by leading charities as “a deliberate attack on the poorest in society”.Does the Housing Minister agree with the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, who said of the Government’s proposal:“it is not a Liberal Democrat policy, it is not a coalition policy, it was not in the election manifesto of either party, it was not in the coalition agreement…our party would need a lot of persuading that it has merit”?

[Grant Shapps]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that, because a lot of misinformation has been put about on these reforms. For one thing, on the flexible tenure—the idea that a tenure from two years could be provided—we are thinking about special cases, such as that of my constituent Matthew Hignett, who was paralysed from the neck down after a motorcycle accident. He cannot apply under any of the current rules for social housing, but thanks to flexible tenure—because we are making the system more flexible—he will now actually get the help and assistance that he requires. Some of the charities have made comments on that, but some, such as the YMCA, have said that they appreciate and welcome flexible tenure, so, no, I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s comments.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

My constituents welcome the fact that Milton Keynes council will become the sole planning authority for the city, but they are concerned that some of the assets currently controlled by Milton Keynes Partnership may not be used for community purposes. Will the Minister meet a delegation from the city to discuss some innovative ideas about how those assets could be used?

[Mr Pickles]

It is always a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend, and I look forward to meeting him and representatives from Milton Keynes in due course.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T9. What support will the Secretary of State give the campaign that I am launching to ensure the retention in Retford of the full-time fire station and service, which has been there ever since the inception of local government?

[Robert Neill]

It is for individual fire authorities to decide the manning levels and the nature of the duty systems at fire stations, consistent with their obligations under fire services legislation and their integrated risk management programmes. It is not for the Government to interfere, because those authorities are best placed to assess the needs, priorities and risks in their areas.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

Will the Minister confirm whether the requirement on local authorities to front-load the budget reductions is in any way connected to the protection of the Olympics budget?

[Mr Pickles]

No, it is not.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

What steps did the Secretary of State take within the Government to protect communities in London and the south-east that have not been able to take advantage of the national insurance holiday that other areas have enjoyed, precisely because they were more, rather than less, reliant on public sector workers? Surely, that must have stuck in the Secretary of State’s craw just as much as it did in mine.

[Mr Pickles]

There needs to be consistency from Opposition Members. They cry, “What are the Government doing to help the north of England?” but the national insurance holiday is a tangible measure that the previous Government were unable to take. The hon. Gentleman should congratulate this Government. After all, only when we get through the reduction in public expenditure and get our economy back on to an even keel can we look forward to—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I thank the Secretary of State.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

Will the Minister give a brief account of progress on the FiReControl contract?

[Robert Neill]

The Government inherited the FiReControl contract from the previous Government. As I have indicated to the House already, we have concerns about the contractor’s persistent delays in delivery. In consequence, on 8 November, we placed the contractor in material breach, which requires a response within 20 working days.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

In October, the Secretary of State told the House that it was outrageous for me to suggest that the money announced in the comprehensive spending review for elderly care would be wiped out by overall cuts to local government. Will he tell me what he disagrees with in the London Councils’ estimate that overall funding, in relation to the personal social services budget, will decrease by £885 million, or including inflation, £1.8 billion?

[Mr Pickles]

I think that the London Councils’ analysis is overblown, and that it errs a little on the side of hysteria. Let us be clear. What we know is that the local government settlement is £6.5 billion for Supporting People, and, for care for the elderly, for an extra £2.2 billion will come directly from the NHS.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Further to my questions in the House, the Secretary of State has challenged local government to get its house in order on executive pay-offs. Will he therefore commend the approach taken by Bristol city council, which has applied a cap of £700 per week in redundancy payments for each week’s pay in the settlement? That has cut redundancy costs by 30%, and it affects only the highest paid 10% of the work force.

[Robert Neill]

It is absolutely right that Bristol council has used existing flexibilities to reflect the circumstances that apply to it. That is the right approach, and why, as I indicated in relation to a previous question, it would be inappropriate for the Government to restrict the ability of local authorities to respond to their own circumstances in such matters.

Business of the House

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

11:32

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

The business for the week commencing 29 November will include:

Monday 29 November—A motion relating to banking reform, followed by a general debate on the regulation of independent financial advisers. The subject for both debates was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 30 November—Opposition day (7th allotted day). There will be a debate on school sport funding, followed by a debate on tuition fees—both debates will arise on an Opposition motion—followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2010.

Wednesday 1 December—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, followed by a general debate on national policy statements.

Thursday 2 December—Motions relating to the publication of information of complaints against Members, power of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to initiate investigations, and lay membership of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, followed by a debate on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The subject for debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 3 December—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 6 December will include:

Monday 6 December—Opposition day (8th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.

Tuesday 7 December—Second Reading of the European Union Bill.

Wednesday 8 December—Estimates day (1st allotted day). There will be a debate on police funding for 2011-12 and the Department for International Development’s assistance to Zimbabwe. Further details of the second of those debates will be given in the Official Report.

[The information is as follows: “DFID’s Assistance to Zimbabwe” (8th report from the International Development Committee of Session 2009-10, HC 252); Government response, Cmd 7899.]

At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

Thursday 9 December—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No.2) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.

The House will also wish to be reminded that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his statement on the autumn forecast on Monday 29 November 2010. I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 2 and 9 December will be:

Thursday 2 December—A debate on fisheries.

Thursday 9 December—A debate on the future of pubs.

[Hilary Benn]

I thank the Leader of the House for his answer. Will he confirm that there will be the debate on Europe that traditionally takes place before the December European Council? The Foreign Secretary said in the Queen’s Speech debate that it would happen in good time, and this one will be especially important given the problems affecting a number of eurozone countries.

We now know that the vote on lifting the cap on tuition fees will take place before Christmas—in other words, long before the promised White Paper on higher education. As the Government are clearly desperate to get this out of the way, will the Leader of the House assure the House that the necessary orders will be taken and voted on on the Floor of the House, so that every single voter can see every single Liberal Democrat MP who goes through the Aye Lobby and breaks the pledge that they made? It is not so much the new politics, but very old politics—say one thing, do another.

Talking of which, two weeks ago the Deputy Prime Minister said that he should have been more careful about signing the pledge. This morning, we learn that he now “massively regrets” not keeping his word. Can we expect a further statement next week from him that he is now really, really, really sorry about breaking his word, and if so, can we have a debate on crocodile tears and could he lead it?

Last week, the Bill that will reduce by 50 the number of representatives in this House—to cut the cost of politics, we are told—had its Second Reading in the other place. In the very same week, the Government decided to increase by 54 the number of new life peers in the other place. I make that a net gain of four parliamentarians, so can we have a debate on incoherence, and could the Deputy Prime Minister lead that one as well?

Two weeks ago, I raised with the Leader of the House the Education Secretary’s arbitrary decision to take away all the funding from school sport partnerships, which, as we know, have been highly successful in getting more children to take up sport, including 1 million more doing competitive sport. Yesterday, extraordinarily, the Prime Minister chose to describe that as “pathetic” and “failing”. I will give the Leader of the House some other words that have been used by those involved to describe the decision—“unforgivably cynical”, “despicable”, “catastrophic” and “heartbreaking”. May we have a debate on irrational decision making, so that the Prime Minister can first apologise for rubbishing the efforts of all the people who have made this happen and secondly explain why he has not told his hapless Education Secretary to think again?

Christmas is coming, and some geese are getting very fat indeed. I refer, of course, to the traditional start of the bankers’ bonus season. Yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to confirm that he will enact Labour’s legislation to provide transparency on salaries and bonuses of more than £1 million a year, and yet in the very same week we were told that the Minister for Housing and Local Government wants local authorities to require new council tenants to disclose how much they get paid. Apparently, that is in case their earnings are too high, in which case they could be evicted from their homes after just two years. Given that the Government now have one rule for bankers and another for just about everyone else, can we have a debate on double standards? And could that be led by the Deputy Prime Minister as well?

Finally, last week, Lord Young was sacked for saying that we have never had it so good. On the day that the happiness index is officially launched, would the Leader of the House like to take this opportunity to make it clear that the personal happiness that he expressed last week is not at an all-time high? Given that the Prime Minister is ruthless when it comes to people saying the wrong thing, but useless when it comes to Ministers doing the wrong thing, we would hate to lose the Leader of the House simply for being too cheerful.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the range of questions that he asked. On his first question, I would remind him of paragraph 145 of the Wright Committee report, which was accepted by both sides of the House and which we are implementing—something that his party refused to do. Paragraph 145 makes it absolutely clear that the days for the pre-European Council debates are now a matter for the Backbench Business Committee—something that we established, which he and his party failed to do in office. Therefore, the question of that debate falls to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and her Committee, not the Government.

On tuition fees, we hope that the motion that will be tabled by the Opposition on Tuesday will clarify whether the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Leader of the Opposition is in charge of Opposition policy, and whether there will be a commitment to a graduate tax. We wonder whether the shadow Chancellor will wind up that debate, so as to make it absolutely clear that his views are the same as those of the Leader of the Opposition. On the specific question that the shadow Leader of the House posed, the answer is yes: there will be a debate on the Floor of the House and a vote on lifting the cap on tuition fees.

I will take no lectures from the Labour party on the appointment of life peers. We could not conceivably match the record of the Labour party and Tony Blair in appointing people to the upper House, however long we were in office. I gently point out to the right hon. Gentleman that some of those nominated last week for the upper House came from his party. If they want to make a contribution to reducing the size of the upper House, to respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s injunction, it is perfectly open to them not to take their seats.

There will be a debate on school sports on Tuesday, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, but in response to the substantive issue I can tell him that the coalition Government are anxious to devolve decisions down to the local level. We have removed ring fences in local government and education, because we think that it is right to let local people decide how best to allocate the funds. That is what has happened to school sports.

On bankers’ bonuses, we are doing exactly what Sir David Walker recommended. Labour appointed Sir David Walker to look at bankers’ bonuses, and he is absolutely clear that this country should not take unilateral action. We are following the advice of the person whom the previous Government commissioned.

On tenancies, it is important that people do not go around saying that after two years people will be evicted. That is not the policy at all. We are suggesting that some tenancies be initially for two years, and the position reviewed. It is in the interests—[Interruption.] It is in the interests of those on the waiting list that there should be more mobility in the social housing stock, in order to make progress in allocating homes to those who desperately need them.

On the happiness index, mine went down this morning when I heard that England had been bowled out for less than 300, but I am sure that they will rebound. However, I would just ask the right hon. Gentleman how happy he is in a shadow Cabinet where his party leader is being undermined by fellow members, and where they are at war with each other on the 50p tax and the graduate tax, as well as on other issues, such as whether there should be one member, one vote for leadership elections. I think that the shadow Leader of the House will find that we on the Government Benches are far happier than he is.

[Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

May we have an early debate on the proposed cuts to the staffing hours and acquisitions budget of our Library? The Library is one of the few resources available to all Members in their work of scrutinising the Executive. Given that importance, there must be other areas where savings could be made, not least in the top-heavy bureaucracy of this House.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee on Finance and Services is seeing how reductions of around 17% might be made in the House of Commons budget. I know that the Committee will want to pay serious attention to his view that, if reductions are to be made, they should not be made at the sharp end, and nor should they take away from the ability of Members of Parliament to hold the Government to account. I pay tribute to the work that the Library does in that respect.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

In view of the launch of the happiness index—mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)—on which the Prime Minister is so keen, will we get a statement in the near future on how happy are those who will be the subject of the savage cuts in jobs and services that are coming shortly? As far as yesterday’s demonstration is concerned, it was marvellous, and gives a lead to others to follow.

[Sir George Young]

I do not think I have ever seen the hon. Gentleman look happy. Wherever the index is, it will be dragged down by his appearance in the House. I wonder whether, on reflection, he would describe yesterday’s demonstration as “marvellous”. Hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage was done in Westminster, and the demonstration was ruined by a minority of irresponsible people. I pay tribute to the way in which the police responded.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

In the light of the imminent publication of the report of the Select Committee on Transport on the North review, can we have a debate on the future of drink and drug policy?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government will introduce a police Bill, which will cover issues relating to alcohol licensing, and that may provide the opportunity for my hon. Friend to clarify his views on those issues. We take the matter seriously, and we are moving towards publication of a document on drug policy.

[Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester South) (Lab)]

In response to my question last week, the Leader of the House kindly agreed to arrange for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to publish a list of land owned by the Forestry Commission in each constituency. We now have that list, and it shows that more than 170 constituencies will be affected by the fire sale of our national assets. In view of the widespread concern on both sides of the House, can we have a debate in Government time on the way in which the sale is proceeding and its threat to our natural national assets?

[Sir George Young]

The House will have an opportunity to debate the Public Bodies (Reform) Bill when it has completed its passage in another place, and that will be the right forum for the hon. Gentleman to make clear his concerns about disposal of national forests.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

In the light of the announcement this week about the proposed cap on immigration, can we have an early debate on the need to provide skilled, ethnic cuisine training, because the curry industry and other ethnic cuisines will be particularly hit by that announcement?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That point may have been made on Tuesday during the exchange following the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The point was well made, and there would be no need to import chefs from Bangladesh and other countries if we were able to provide the necessary skills in this country. My hon. Friend makes a valid point.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

On Monday, the Government announced that a £200 million project to transform the Meadows estate in Nottingham will not go ahead. The estate suffers from serious deprivation, a poor reputation, fear of crime, and high unemployment. Although local people and community groups, such as the Meadows Partnership Trust, are doing wonderful work to tackle those problems, they are hampered by poor housing and poor quality infrastructure. The scheme would have transformed the area, making the Meadows estate a more sustainable community and a place where people would choose to live and work. Can we have a debate on the decision by the Department for Communities and Local Government to scrap the housing private finance initiative, which has so dismayed my constituents?

[Sir George Young]

We have, of course, just had questions to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was able to ask her question then.

The Decentralisation and Localism Bill will devolve more responsibility to local authorities, but I say in response to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) that, because of the legacy that we inherited, it is not possible to go ahead with all the projects that are being urged on us by Opposition Members. I remind Opposition Front Benchers that the shadow Chancellor has insisted on a nine-stage process before they enter any financial commitments.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

Improvements in sporting facilities wherever possible and certainly in my constituency are always welcome. The coalition agreement states:

“We will use cash in dormant betting accounts to improve local sport facilities and support sports clubs.”

Will the Leader of the House agree to have a debate on that matter, which would be very beneficial to my constituency?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has asked my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) to do some work on dormant betting accounts, and I understand that he has made some inquiries and before the end of the year will produce a report suggesting how the matter might be taken forward. There may be a possibility of legislation later.

[Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)]

I note the response of the Leader of the House to the question from my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House on the Europe debate. We have exactly the same situation with the annual fisheries debate, which always took place during Government time, and provided a key opportunity for those of us with fishing constituencies to hold the Government to account. I have been advised by the Minister with responsibility for fisheries that his Department is no longer allowed to organise such a debate, which seems strange. Will the Leader of the House advise me why the Government have chosen to use the extension of democracy to Back Benchers to reduce Departments’ accountability?

[Sir George Young]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election to the House of Commons Commission last night. I find this line of attack from Opposition Members astonishing. The Government decided to give up their responsibility for deciding what the House would debate, and we have allocated roughly one day a week to the Backbench Business Committee. Among the issues for which we are no longer responsible are the fisheries debate, the European Council debate and the four days of debate on defence. Those matters now fall to the Backbench Business Committee, and if the hon. Gentleman wants a debate on the European Council or on fisheries he has to go to the Committee’s Chair, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who is sitting next to him. He will know that her Committee has allocated time for a debate on fisheries in Westminster Hall, which I announced a few moments ago.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

May I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motions 1046 and 1047?

[That this House recognises the enormous contribution by members of Her Majesty's Armed Services from each of the UK Crown Dependencies in wars and conflicts over the years, fighting for Queen or King and Country; believes that the sacrifices of all these brave men and women should be fully acknowledged in a similar way to members of the Commonwealth of Nations, by granting representatives from the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark the right to lay a wreath in their own right at the annual Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph in Whitehall, each year on Remembrance Sunday; and calls on the Government to ensure that all the appropriate arrangements for this to happen are in place in time for Remembrance Sunday to be held on 13 November 2011.]

[That this House recognises the enormous contribution by members of Her Majesty's Armed Services from each of the British Overseas Territories in wars and conflicts over the years, fighting for Queen, or King and Country; believes that the sacrifices of all these brave men and women should be fully acknowledged in a similar way to members of the Commonwealth of Nations, by granting representatives from Ascension Island, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha, Turks and Caicos Islands, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands the right to lay a wreath in their own right at the annual Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph in Whitehall, each year on Remembrance Sunday; and calls on the Government to ensure that all the appropriate arrangements for this to happen are in place in time for Remembrance Sunday to be held on 13 November 2011.]

They deal with the laying of a wreath on Remembrance Sunday by representatives of the British Crown dependencies and overseas territories. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Chancellor to make a statement to the House on why our British territories are still refused the right to lay a wreath on Remembrance Sunday to remember their war dead, while other Commonwealth countries are allowed to do so?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend has pursued this issue with diligence. I think I am right in saying that the Foreign Secretary lays the wreath on behalf of the British Crown dependencies, but I will of course raise this important issue with him and others, to see whether we might make some changes in the future.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

In previous years, questions about Europe and matters for debate prior to European Councils have always been dealt with in Government time. Instead of hiding behind the wording of the Wright report, will the Leader of the House explain the real reason that the Government are afraid to have a debate prior to the European Council on 19 December? Is it because of internal divisions with his Eurosceptics, or is it because he cannot get an agreement with the Fib Dems?

[Sir George Young]

Again, I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should criticise the Government for implementing a measure that empowers Back Benchers. We have given up the monopoly on deciding what the House debates. Paragraph 145 of the Wright report deals with set-piece debates, and one of the subjects mentioned is

“two days for pre-European Council debates”.

It makes it absolutely clear that the responsibility for fixing those debates transfers to the Backbench Business Committee. We have honoured our obligations and set up the Backbench Business Committee; it is now for the Committee to decide which debates are held and when. We cannot have a position in which the Government transfer the days to the Committee but remain responsible for fixing all the debates that would be held on those days. Even the hon. Gentleman must be able to see that that would be a very one-sided deal.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Will there be an opportunity for the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House about the use of kettling, particularly with regard to schoolchildren?

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be answering questions in the normal way. As I have said, I think that the police handled yesterday’s demonstration well. It was an enormous improvement on what happened last time. I am not going to criticise from the Dispatch Box the tactics that they used in order to protect public property and prevent more extensive damage from being done, but there will be an opportunity at the next Home Office questions for my hon. Friend to raise that issue.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that we are having a vote on tuition fees soon, but does the Leader of the House agree that, prior to that debate, it is vital to have a debate on the difference between a pledge and a promise, to assist Lib Dem Members?

[Sir George Young]

There will be opportunities in the debate on Tuesday and in the subsequent debate on the Browne report and raising the cap on tuition fees. I remind Labour Members that they had a pledge not to introduce tuition fees—a pledge that they broke.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Yesterday, young violent thugs disrupted a peaceful protest. Those thugs were wearing face coverings so that they could not easily be identified by the police. At the next sitting dealing with private Members’ business, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) is introducing a private Member’s Bill—the Face Coverings (Regulation) Bill—to outlaw such practices. Will the Government make a statement on whether they will be supporting his Bill?

[Sir George Young]

When that important private Member’s Bill is reached, there will of course be a Minister on the Front Bench, and, during the course of the debate, the Minister will make clear the Government’s response to the Bill.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the Ministry of Defence on what progress, if any, has been made on compensation payments for the Christmas Island veterans, and, indeed, victims? I say this from a non-partisan point of view, because my own party, when in government, could and should have done more for those people.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue and I will pass on his request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to see whether we can make some progress.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, you are the anecdote to verbal diarrhoea—[Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the word for which the hon. Gentleman was vainly searching was probably “antidote”.

[Mr Ellwood]

It is always good to get off to a good start, Mr Speaker. I stand corrected. The rules that you impose during the week are not being adhered to on Fridays in the Chamber. Next Friday, we will debate the Daylight Saving Bill, for which the excellent publication “Time to change the clocks” has been produced—I recommend it to all Members—but my worry is that the Bill will not see the light of day because Members will try to talk it out. Is it not time to change the draconian rules that apply on Fridays to ensure that good ideas are able to be debated by the entire House?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to prove himself an expert in verbal diarrhoea.

[Sir George Young]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on a good recovery. If I may say so, Mrs Malaprop would have been proud of him. There is a serious issue about Fridays and about the procedure for private Members’ Bills, which he has touched on. The Procedure Committee is conducting an inquiry into the parliamentary calendar, which will include the use of Fridays. That will absorb the whole question of how we deal with private Members’ Bills, and will provide my hon. Friend with an opportunity to make representations to the Committee to determine whether there is another way of dealing with them, in order to overcome the problem that he, eventually, correctly described.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

There is clearly surprise and unease on both sides of the House about the fisheries debate and the EU Council debate. The matter was raised last week, not only on this side but by Lib Dem Members, and it has been raised again this week. Given that clearly a number of people feel that this decision is wrong, may I ask the Leader of the House what we can do to bring about a change to the recommendations of the Wright report, and to take those matters out of the hands of the Backbench Business Committee?

[Sir George Young]

I would regard it as a retrograde step if time were taken away from the Backbench Business Committee and given back to the Government. The whole direction of travel is the other way. I have announced the Second Reading of the European Union Bill, which will provide an opportunity to raise European issues. Also, there is going to be a fisheries debate. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who chairs the Backbench Business Committee, and I have made it absolutely clear that if Members want a debate on the European Council, they have to make representations to the Committee in order to secure such a debate. As I understand it, no such representations have been made.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

May we have a debate on unaccounted Government spending, and on how that can happen? Bearing in mind the irrational decision making mentioned by the shadow Leader of the House, can we make the specific subject of the debate the £38 billion committed by the Ministry of Defence over 10 years without accountability?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is quite right to say that we inherited a number of obligations from the outgoing Government, and that the resources were not there to honour them. The Ministry of Defence provides a very good example. We had an opportunity to debate that when we discussed the strategic defence review, but I am sure that there will be other opportunities for my hon. Friend and others to remind the House and the country of the irresponsible action of the outgoing Government and the unsustainable expenditure that they left us to sort out.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of the lead story in the Western Mail last week, in which it was disclosed that powers have been transferred on numerous occasions to the Welsh Assembly Government without the corresponding financial resources. Will he ask the Chancellor to make a statement on how these liabilities will be addressed?

[Sir George Young]

I understand that the Welsh Assembly has had a relatively generous settlement compared with that of other public bodies. Against that background, I am not sure how much substance there is in that suggestion.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of the media coverage of the predatory paedophiles who were convicted yesterday of grooming and raping children. It is well documented that this vile and criminal activity has also happened in my constituency. Will the relevant Ministers make a statement outlining what the Government are doing to stamp out this abuse of children?

[Sir George Young]

I am sure that everyone was appalled by what was revealed yesterday. I saw the interview with Emma on “Newsnight” and I was horrified by what had happened. It is crucial to learn the lessons and make sure that that never happens again. I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend’s request to the Secretary of State for Health to see whether some ministerial response might be made to what was revealed yesterday.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on British representation at the Oslo Nobel peace prize ceremony award to Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese pro-democracy dissident? The Chinese are bullying countries like mad not to turn up. Could we raise our representation to ministerial level and ask our EU and NATO partners also to send Ministers, because the only language bullies understand is that of someone standing up to them?

[Sir George Young]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is important that we do not succumb to pressure from the Chinese and that this country—and, indeed, NATO countries and all countries—should send strong representations to the ceremony so that the Chinese understand that on this issue they are alone.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House agree that it would be better if large and volatile demonstrations were routed away from Parliament to end in a rally in a park, where just grievances and speeches could be heard? Does he agree that the Police Act 2005 has to be amended so that the commissioner can refuse a particular route?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My understanding is that section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 allows the police to place conditions on a march, where they consider that without such conditions the march would result in serious public disorder. These conditions would include the duration, the location and the size of the march. I therefore think that the police may well already have the powers that my hon. Friend wants them to have.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the Government’s cruel decision to cut the mobility component of disability living allowance for people living in residential homes, as the Prime Minister seemed totally to misunderstand the question asked about it at Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday? We need to discuss the impact of this decision on severely disabled people like my constituent Pam Coughlan.

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did understand the question yesterday. There will be an opportunity to debate this when the Government bring forward the necessary measures in the welfare reform Bill. My right hon. Friend’s answer yesterday was that if people are sponsored by the NHS, their mobility component is removed whereas it is not removed if they are sponsored by a local authority. That is an anomaly, which the Government’s proposals are designed to address.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

A serious situation has developed this week in Korea. If the situation deteriorates, will the Leader of the House undertake to ensure that we have a statement? China is launching its first aircraft carrier and America is sending an aircraft carrier there. Does that not underline the fact that the procedures of this House and our defence configuration must be prepared for a very unpredictable and dangerous world?

[Sir George Young]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister has been in touch with President Lee of South Korea, making clear this country’s condemnation of the unprovoked North Korean attack and offering condolences for the loss of life that has occurred. My right hon. Friend also agreed that we would work together on the next steps that need to be taken in the United Nations Security Council. We are now indeed in discussions with our Security Council partners on those next steps.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

In Communities and Local Government questions earlier this morning, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), indicated that the localism Bill was likely to be published imminently. I listened carefully to the statement by the Leader of the House, but I heard no reference to the localism Bill in the business announced for the next two weeks. Given that the Government are clearly having increasing difficulty matching their actions to their words, will the Leader of the House tell us the meaning of “imminent” and whether we can expect a debate on this rather important and controversial Bill before Christmas?

[Sir George Young]

The Bill will be published shortly. Second Reading will follow after a decent interval.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 1090?

[That this House notes the Harrington Report, and its criticisms of the French multinational company ATOS, who have a £54 million contract to assess benefit claimants through medical checks; welcomes the Government's agreement with the Harrington Report and its promise to implement the Harrington proposals in full; concludes that ATOS has damaged the public perception of medical assessments, and has also created a serious risk of maladministration of incapacity benefit checks, following the shocking reports on their systems in the national media; further notes frequent complaints in this regard from Harlow constituents and others; and therefore calls on the Government to act swiftly so that medical assessments are more localised, humane and sympathetic.]

Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the Harrington report and the maladministration of incapacity benefit checks, following the shocking report into the private company ATOS? A number of my Harlow constituents have been maltreated by this company. Does he agree that urgent action is needed?

[Sir George Young]

We are grateful to Professor Harrington for publishing his report on the work capacity assessment and we accept all his recommendations. He did indeed find that improvements should be made. He has now started the next stage of the next review. We will improve the medical assessment conducted by ATOS by putting in place champions with additional expertise in mental, cognitive and intellectual conditions.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Given this week’s independent report indicating that the removal of speed cameras could lead to 800 extra deaths on our roads and the fact that some Tory councils have already removed their cameras, may we have a debate on the effects of the removal of those cameras and whether those individual councillors should be held directly accountable for their actions?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue relating to road safety, and it strikes me that it would be an appropriate subject for a debate either on the Adjournment, in Westminster Hall or through the Backbench Business Committee. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of Transport, who will be here shortly.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May we have an urgent debate on Burma? I am sure the whole House would welcome the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, but the fact remains that 7,000 political prisoners remain incarcerated. May we have a debate to put pressure on the Burmese Government to be more serious about political dialogue?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is right that there are still a substantial number of political prisoners in Burma. I hope that the release of Aung San Suu Kyi will enable her to have a dialogue with the military regime to see whether a way forward can be found that introduces some sensible human rights measures in that regime which are absent at the moment.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

In recent evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Gun Trade Association, the Countryside Alliance and others expressed concern about the violent content of video games and their effect on some people who buy firearms. At this time of year especially, it is important for parents to have an understanding of the content of some of these games. When can we have a statement or a debate on the Government’s response to the Byron inquiry?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the inquiry that his Select Committee is conducting into firearms. We have made a commitment to having a debate when his report is published. That would be a good context in which to explore further the impact on young people of videos and games that involve firearms. We could then establish whether any further legislation was necessary.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Given the recent revelation by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that the last Labour Government wasted nearly £81 million developing regional spatial strategies, and given the recent attempts by developers to raise these, zombie-like, from the dead, would it be appropriate to have a debate on regional spatial strategies and their current status?

[Sir George Young]

This takes us back to the localism Bill. We will shortly, imminently and very soon introduce the localism Bill to Parliament. That will sweep away the last of the outgoing Government’s controversial regional strategies. It is clear that top-down targets have not worked; we propose to move to a different regime, giving local planning authorities some real incentives to get on with house building in their area.

[Valerie Vaz]

(Walsall South): Alumwell business and enterprise college in my constituency has seen a 14% improvement in GCSE results by getting marked papers, but it has had to pay for them. May we have an urgent debate so that state schools can get the marked scripts free, just as they do with standard assessment tests?

[Sir George Young]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on the good results in her constituency. I will raise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education the question of whether these documents can be made available without charge.

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

Over the past three years, failures in the cross-border commissioning protocol between the Department of Health and the Welsh Assembly Government have caused NHS Western Cheshire to lose about £19 million. Despite having been involved in a formal dispute since 2007, they seem to be no nearer to ending it. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the operation of the protocol?

[Sir George Young]

I am afraid that I shall not be able to find time for a debate. I understand that the shortfall to which my hon. Friend refers is not due to a failure of the protocol. A transfer was made from the Department of Health to the Welsh Assembly under the terms of the protocol, but discussions are now under way to review the protocol before it expires in March 2011. They will include discussion of the funding arrangement, and I will ensure that they are informed by what my hon. Friend has said.

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

May we have a debate in Government time on whether we really are all in this together, especially those of us who live in the north, in the light of the withdrawal of £160 million for housing from Orchard Park in Hull? Hull is the 11th most deprived area in the country, but its funds are being cut by 25%, unlike those of Reigate and Tunbridge Wells, which are being increased by between 25% and 37%.

[Sir George Young]

Of course I understand how strongly the hon. Lady feels about her constituency. However, only a few moments ago, when I came into the Chamber, I heard the Government being criticised for focusing help on national insurance relief on the north and not extending it to London and the south-east. Opposition Members must sort out their priorities.

I suggest to the hon. Lady that the £1 billion regional development fund might be a suitable place for her to seek solutions to the problems that she has outlined.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

May we have a debate on broadband? I strongly support the Government’s review of broadband and its focus on rural communities, but I fear that cities such as Milton Keynes may miss out. We have specific problems because of our 1970s infrastructure. May I simply ask the Leader of the House to ensure that Milton Keynes is included in the review?

[Sir George Young]

That question is slightly beyond my pay grade, but my hon. Friend has made a strong case for a debate on rural broadband. I too represent a rural constituency, and I know that it is vital for those who live in rural areas to be able to compete on the same terms as those in towns and cities. I think that the issue is a strong candidate for a debate, but perhaps not in Government time.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his answers to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the shadow Leader of the House, and my hon. Friend the. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on the subject of debates set up by the Backbench Business Committee? The Committee’s Standing Orders make no reference to the Committee’s having responsibility for those debates. A dangerous precedent is being set, because those on the Opposition Front Bench who are responsible for holding the Government to account cannot do so. The Government have avoided arranging the debates in Government time and Opposition Front Benchers cannot make representations to the Backbench Business Committee. The Government are thus dodging the issue. May we have those debates in Government time?

[Sir George Young]

Labour Members must make it absolutely clear at some point whether or not they agree with the Wright Committee’s recommendations. They supported them throughout the last Parliament, although towards the end of that Parliament they did not implement them by setting up the Backbench Business Committee.

If the hon. Gentleman reads the Wright Committee’s report, he will see that it makes a distinction between Government business and House business, and makes it clear that the debates to which he has referred are House business. It is up to the Backbench Business Committee, which has been allotted 35 days, to find time for those debates—if it wants to hold them—in competition with other bids. We cannot allow a position in which the Government, having allotted 35 days to the Backbench Business Committee, are then held responsible for all the subjects included in the transfer.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Yesterday, when responding to questions about the education White Paper, the shadow Secretary of State for Education suggested that many young people could not be expected to obtain five C-grade GCSE passes in academic subjects. May we have a debate on the depressing poverty of ambition that affects Members in many parts of the House and our education establishments?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must raise the ambitions of our young people. Following yesterday’s statement there will be an education Bill, which will give Members an opportunity to examine the issues in more depth.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We need a debate on school sport partnerships. We know from his mother that the Secretary of State for Education hated games when he was at school, and avoided them as much as possible. Before we have that debate, will the Leader of the House persuade the Secretary of State to put on his tracksuit and perhaps a pair of trainers, apply some embrocation, get out into the real world—away from la-la land—with the school sport partnerships, and find out what great work they have been doing?

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it absolutely clear yesterday that he was in favour of competitive sports and regretted the record of the outgoing Government in failing to promote them. If the hon. Gentleman is here on Tuesday he will have the opportunity to make a longer speech, which will be robustly rejected by whoever replies to the debate.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

We have already heard Members refer to early-day motions this morning. EDMs are hugely important in enabling Members to raise the profile of issues for themselves, constituents and organisations. However, given that the House is seeking to reduce its costs, does my right hon. Friend agree that this is the right time to arrange a debate so that we can examine the cost of publishing EDMs? The contract with The Stationery Office means that it is currently more than three quarters of a million pounds a year.

[Sir George Young]

As I said in reply to an earlier question, the Finance and Services Committee is considering how economies can be made in the running of the House. As my hon. Friend may know, older EDMs have not been reprinted weekly since the start of the current parliamentary Session, which has saved 2.5 million sheets of paper and up to £300,000 a year in printing costs. I will pass his comments to the House of Commons Commission and the Finance and Services Committee.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on the Government’s migration policy? In response to questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and me, the Home Secretary said—I cannot do the French accent—

“Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once: we aim to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament.”—[Official Report, 23 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 183.]

A few hours later, No. 10 Downing street issued a statement saying that that was an aspiration. If I may use the language of the new Government, is it an aspiration, a target, a milestone or a horizon?

[Sir George Young]

Before she made those remarks, the Home Secretary said that she would “say this only once”, and I think that that was the right thing to do.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman find Government time for either a statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), or the Lord Chancellor, or a debate about the cutting of civil legal aid for social welfare cases? In my constituency, the citizens advice bureau represented or advised 14,000 of the most vulnerable and economically and socially deprived people in the area. The Under-Secretary’s response was that people should go and see their Member of Parliament. I am a superwoman, but I do not think that that is the way forward.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concern, but it must be said that the legal aid regime in this country is relatively generous in comparison with those of most other countries. We were not able to exclude it from the difficult decisions that we had to make to control the deficit, but what we have announced requires legislation. There will be a legal aid Bill, which will give the hon. Lady an opportunity to press her concerns.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The North East illegal money lending team has helped communities in my constituency to beat loan sharks in communities such as Easterside. It has helped to set up credit unions, and to break up gangs selling counterfeit and fenced goods. Will the Leader of the House please press Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to allow a debate on the subject, and will he impress on them the need for me to have personal meetings with them, along with other Teesside Members, so that we can discuss the agency?

[Sir George Young]

I commend the group in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency for what it has done. I will certainly find out whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government can meet him and his colleagues to take the agenda further forward.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

This weekend, the Tamil community in the United Kingdom will commemorate the war dead and martyrs from the recent civil war in Sri Lanka. Next week, President Mahinda Rajapaksa is due to come to this country on a private visit, reportedly to speak at the Oxford union. May we have a debate to discuss the situation in Sri Lanka and war crimes associated with its president?

[Sir George Young]

The Government do not propose to find time for a debate on the issue, however important it is, but it strikes me that it would be an appropriate candidate for an Adjournment debate at the end of one of our sittings.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Luciana Berger.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

My constituent Martine Taylor’s husband went missing one year ago. He left behind three young children and tens of thousands of pounds of debt, including two loans worth £34,000 from RBS, a bank which is 80% owned by the taxpayer. RBS has now sold that debt to bailiffs who may force Miss Taylor to sell her home to recover the debt, while RBS refuses to discuss my constituent’s case because the debt is not in her name. Please may we have an urgent debate on the debt recovery practices of Government-owned banks?

[Sir George Young]

I am very sorry to hear of the misfortune of the hon. Lady’s constituent. I will raise the current regime for pursuing debts with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and ask him to see whether there is any action the Government can take to help this poor lady and to write to the hon. Lady.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the statement—

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that points of order follow statements. We will hear from him later.

Rail Investment

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

12:20

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government’s plans for investment in rail infrastructure and rolling stock.

These plans build on the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the outcome of the spending review. As we have consistently said, tackling the deficit is our top priority, and by taking the tough decisions on current spending we are able to secure our future growth by making vital infrastructure investments. Over the next four years, we will provide £14 billion of funding to Network Rail to support capital maintenance and infrastructure investment, and £750 million for high-speed rail. We will also fund the Crossrail project, the tube upgrade programme and light rail projects in Birmingham, Tyneside, Nottingham and Sheffield, and provide additional funding to franchisees for extra rolling stock.

I can also confirm today that we will fund and deliver the Thameslink programme in its entirety, virtually doubling the number of north-south trains running through central London at peak times. This huge investment will link Sussex, Kent and Surrey, through central London, with Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire. But the original programme for the rebuilding of London Bridge station to increase through-running as part of this project was always ambitious, with substantial risks in respect of delivery and operation of existing services during construction. To reduce these risks, we have re-profiled the delivery of the programme to achieve completion in 2018. This will enable Network Rail to make the further efficiencies in the design and delivery of the programme that we require to ensure value for money. Passengers will start to benefit from incremental improvements on the Thameslink routes from the end of 2011. As part of the Thameslink programme, we will procure a new fleet of trains—up to 1,200 new carriages. That is in addition to about 600 new carriages that will be provided for the Crossrail project.

Together with the tube upgrades, these projects represent a step change in rail capacity in London, providing a significant boost to economic growth potential in the capital. New Thameslink and Crossrail rolling stock will enable the redeployment of hundreds of serviceable electric carriages currently used on Thameslink services. These carriages belong to rolling stock leasing companies, but we expect they will be available at competitive leasing prices for re-use elsewhere, thus justifying further electrification of our network.

As a first step, I can announce today that Network Rail will electrify the commuter services on the great western main line from London to Didcot, Oxford and Newbury over the next six years. Electric trains will speed up journeys, improve reliability and reduce the impact on the environment on these busy routes.

The Chancellor also announced on 20 October the electrification of the lines between Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Blackpool, representing an investment of up to £300 million. I expect work in the north-west to begin next year and to be completed at about the same time as work on the Thames valley commuter lines, in 2016. Some sections will be completed well ahead of this, notably Manchester to Newton-le-Willows in late-2013, allowing new electric trains to operate from Manchester to Scotland. As with Thameslink, we will require Network Rail to keep a tight rein on costs. The redeployment of electric rolling stock to these routes will, in turn, free up hundreds of diesel units, which will be available to train operators to lease as they become available in the period after 2015.

This will all be welcome news to passengers. The Public Accounts Committee recently found that many services are unacceptably overcrowded, and I understand the frustrations of rail travellers who have to travel on packed trains. More investment is clearly needed. That is why I argued for additional rail investment in the spending review, and it is also why I have taken the difficult decision to allow regulated fares to rise by 3% above inflation for the three years from 2012, to help us pay for these investments.

In January 2008, the previous Government published a plan to bring 1,300 additional carriages into service by March 2014. That plan was never deliverable. In total, only 206 of the 1,300 carriages had entered service by May this year. My predecessors quoted a grand total of rail carriages, but never referred publicly to the fact that delivery of that total was subject to so many caveats and qualifications as to render it effectively meaningless. According to their published plan, the 1,300 was not fixed and subject to

“value for money, affordability…linkages with other interventions or with other rail projects…infrastructure constraints…supply chain constraints”

and “credibility”. The document went on to say that

“the final outcome could well be different”.

In other words, it was not so much a plan as a press release.

So let me set the record straight. I can today confirm that an additional 650 carriages will have been delivered to the network between 6 May 2010 and March 2014. That is in addition to the Thameslink and Crossrail carriages I have already mentioned.

But it is not just about rolling stock. Network Rail has already started work on station improvements, with funding confirmed for developments at Reading, Birmingham, London King’s Cross and Gatwick airport. Investments on the east coast main line and midland main line and improvements in Yorkshire, on trans-Pennine routes, around Manchester and in south Wales will improve line speed, reliability and capacity of services.

Beyond these investments, there are far-reaching decisions to be made about inter-city services. In February 2009 the intercity express programme, launched by the previous Government, identified the Agility Trains consortium as preferred bidder to build a new fleet of inter-city trains. Then, this February, my predecessor invited Sir Andrew Foster, former head of the Audit Commission, to provide an independent assessment of the programme. Sir Andrew presented his report to me at the end of June, recommending further work on the Agility Trains proposal and a detailed study of the alternatives. I can now tell the House that we have narrowed down the options, from the four Sir Andrew identified to two. I have ruled out the option of requiring passengers to change from electric to diesel trains at a point in their journeys, recognising the value to passengers of preserving through-journeys. I have also ruled out the option of a wholesale refurbishment of the existing diesel InterCity 125 fleet, some of which dates back to the 1970s.

The remaining options are, on the one hand, a revised, lower cost proposal from Agility Trains envisaging a mixed fleet of some all-electric trains and some electric trains equipped with under-floor diesel generators, and on the other hand, a fleet of new all-electric trains which could be coupled to new diesel locomotives where the overhead electric power lines end. Both of these options would allow us to preserve through-journeys between London and parts of the rail network which are not electrified. Both of them would deliver faster journey times too. For example, we expect to see time savings of at least 15 minutes for the journey between Cardiff and London, bringing it below 2 hours. This is a major decision that will affect inter-city rail travel for decades to come, and we must get it right.

To address the outstanding issues on choice of train type and further electrification on the great western main line, additional work will be required within the Department, with Agility Trains, and with the Welsh Assembly Government on the business case for electrification into Wales. When this work, and discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, has concluded, I expect to announce a final decision on the IEP and on further great western electrification in the new year.

The package I have confirmed today has been possible only because this Government have been prepared to take the tough decisions to protect investment in Britain’s future. This is a commitment to our railways that will benefit Britain for generations to come, and I commend the statement to the House.

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

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for early sight of his much-delayed statement. We first read the details of the statement in the Sunday papers three weeks ago, we read them again two weeks ago and we saw much more detail in the press this morning. I know that he tabled this statement as a written ministerial statement today so that he could get away with spinning it on the “Today” programme, but his whole handling of this announcement is an insult to this House, which should be the first to hear about major Government policy decisions, not the last.

Despite all the spin and the re-announcing of decisions taken by the previous Government, many passengers will be bitterly disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman’s announcement today, because it amounts to delaying investment but bringing forward massive fare hikes. The real losers of today’s statement are commuters, who already suffer some of the highest fares in Europe and the worst overcrowding. Because of the cuts he has had to make to his budget, their fares will rise by 3% above inflation from next year and they now face waits of up to a decade for the new trains that will ease overcrowding and speed up journeys.

The statement delays the completion of Thameslink by two years to 2018, following the right hon. Gentleman’s previous decision to delay the completion of Crossrail by a year. His Department is already missing its targets for extra spaces by 15% at peak time in London and 33% in other major cities. Does he not understand the frustration there will be at his decision to delay the delivery of the new carriages that are vital to addressing this overcrowding?

On new carriages, the right hon. Gentleman tries to claim that the plans that Labour announced in government for 1,300 carriages were somehow a work of fiction. Perhaps I could remind him that his permanent secretary told the Public Accounts Committee in September that

“it was a commitment of the previous Government to deliver 1,300 carriages, for which they had a £1.2 billion budget.”

He made it clear that

“we had plans—clear plans—that we could evidence to the National Audit Office…to have acquired around 950 carriages and spent around £900 million.”

He also said that he had plans in place that

“would enable us to get to probably around 1,300 carriages and to develop the full capacity, using the full budget of £1.2 billion.”

Will the right hon. Gentleman now accept that he has cut the number of new carriages that we planned to be delivered in this spending review period, and that he must stop spinning? Why are commuters going to face overcrowding, which will not be substantially alleviated for almost 10 years, when the fares hikes that he says are to end overcrowding start this January?

People in Wales will feel most betrayed by the right hon. Gentleman’s announcement, following his decision to delay giving the green light to electrification of the great western line beyond Bristol. His manifesto was very clear on this, so let me remind him that it said:

“We support…the electrification of the Great Western line to South Wales.”

Perhaps no Welsh MP was in the room during the coalition negotiations, because that commitment was subsequently downgraded to a general statement of support for

“further electrification of the rail network.”

Today, we see why: it was because there was clearly never a commitment to Wales.

We are told that the Secretary of State for Wales is threatening to resign if high-speed rail goes through her English constituency. She does not seem to be threatening to resign over the fact that Wales, whose interests she represents in the Cabinet and is supposed to champion, is to remain the only European country other than Albania and Moldova with not a single metre of electrified track. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision not to approve the electrification of the great western main line to Swansea, as was planned by the previous Labour Government?

The right hon. Gentleman has also today ducked giving the green light to the intercity express programme. We are used to this Government going back on things they promised to do in their manifesto, but today’s statement sees him going back even on what he promised in his Department’s comprehensive spending review statement this October. I remind him that he said:

“Because aspects of Thameslink and HLOS rolling stock programmes, as well as projects to electrify the Great Western Mainline, and the rail routes around Manchester and Liverpool, are interdependent with the IEP decision, a full announcement on all these programmes will be made at the same time.”

Will he tell the House what has changed? Will he now tell us the real story behind the repeated delays to today’s statement and the real reason he has had to push so many of his decisions into next year? Is it true, as some believe, that by changing the specification of the IEP carriages after a preferred bidder was announced he now risks a legal challenge from other bidders?

Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman understand the anger felt by passengers up and down the country at his decision to allow rail fares to rise by such a large amount? His coalition agreement said:

“We are committed to fair pricing for rail travel”.

Can he tell hard-pressed commuters up and down the country why he thinks that allowing rail fares to rise by 3% above inflation after next year demonstrates his commitment to fair pricing? How does driving people off the railways and back into their cars help either our economy or the environment? Does he accept, as his Department has admitted, the very big impact on road congestion that is likely to be caused by his decision?

Is not the reality that he has come to the House today only because he said in his departmental plan that he would do so by the end of November 2010 and because his repeated briefings to the media have created an expectation that a statement was imminent? Does he not accept that his departmental plan commits him not to a statement, but to decisions? Has he today not just missed the first of his own targets in the departmental plan, which was supposed to be the Prime Minister’s way of keeping Secretaries of State on track to deliver Government promises?

Is not the reality of today’s statement that beyond re-announcing a whole series of investment decisions taken by the previous Labour Government and put on hold by him after the election, he has delayed the completion of Crossrail by a year, delayed the completion of Thameslink by two years to 2018, delayed giving the green light to electrification of the great western line beyond Bristol—that is a real betrayal of people in Wales—delayed giving any indication of when electrification of the midland main line will take place and delayed giving the green light to the intercity express programme? His statement pushes the delivery of projects into the next spending review period and ducks decisions on some of the country’s most vital transport infrastructure projects. His delayed statement is itself nothing more than one long series of delays.

[Mr Hammond]

In her second response to me at the Dispatch Box, the hon. Lady adopts a rather churlish tone. She talks about wanting decisions to be made. She will get decisions from this Government, but they will be properly thought through decisions based on value-for-money cases and proper consideration of all the matters that need to be dealt with; they will not be press releases made up on the spur of the moment by a Government who have gone on a regional junket and need something to announce to keep the regional press happy.

The hon. Lady complains that we issued a written ministerial statement this morning, but she ought to be able to understand that the content of this statement, because it touches, in particular, on the procurement of the intercity express programme, is market sensitive, so it was essential that we made a statement this morning before the markets opened.

The hon. Lady talks about fares, and I readily acknowledge that nobody in the commuter fraternity will welcome the increase in the cap on regulated fares that we have proposed for 2012 to 2015. But that is one of the tough decisions that we have had to take to protect the programme of investment in our railways. I have to say to her that I see no sign that anybody on the Opposition Front Bench is prepared to take tough decisions or to understand that without the ability and the willingness to do so they will simply have no credibility in the difficult debates on how we prioritise limited public expenditure.

The hon. Lady criticises the delay in delivering the complete Thameslink project—the 24 trains an hour in both directions. I do not apologise to her or to the House for taking a decision that the programme, as originally set out, contained too many risks—there were risks of cost overruns and risks to existing commuter services into London Bridge station. With Network Rail, we have revised the schedule to create a lower-risk alternative that is both less costly and less disruptive to existing commuter services.

The hon. Lady talks about the midland main line—she seems to have discovered it this morning. There was not a word about the electrification of the midland main line during the 13 years for which the Opposition were in government, but today she wants to bring it up as though it were some Labour priority we are abandoning. For the record, the case for electrification of the midland main line remains strong and we will consider it as a project for control period 5, which begins in 2014.

The hon. Lady attacks me for describing the 1,300 rail carriages to which her predecessors apparently committed as a work of fiction. She is new to the job, I understand, and these are difficult numbers—[Interruption.] I am quite new to this, too, and I can tell the House that they are difficult numbers. If she drills down and has a look, she will see that the figure of 1,300 was maintained early this year only by the inclusion of 400 of the 1,200 Thameslink carriages in the total—a complete and ongoing fabrication to avoid abandoning a number that was never sustainable. The Opposition could not have delivered them because they are not prepared to support any of the decisions that have allowed capital investment to continue. They do not support the fare increase, they do not support cuts in welfare expenditure and they do not support cuts in public expenditure to allow prioritisation of capital investment.

The hon. Lady has the audacity to raise the issue of Wales, but, as she says, Wales has not one metre of electrified railway—after 13 years of a Labour Government. We will take no lectures from her on electrification in Wales.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. As hon. Members can see, a number of them want to ask a question. We are time-limited, but I shall try to call as many Members as I can. You can assist me by asking just one question and, clearly, we need short answers, too. If Members were not in the Chamber for the full statement, I ask them not stand to ask a question: they must have listened to the entire statement.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will ensure that the design of the new franchise for Greater Anglia will maximise the incentive to the successful bidder to contribute to investment in track so that passengers on the West Anglia line and the Great Eastern line will get the advantages from such investment as he has outlined in his statement today?

[Mr Hammond]

I can assure my right hon. Friend that in re-designing the franchise arrangements, as we have committed to do, we will want to consider the opportunities for train operators to contribute to infrastructure improvements and to work more closely with Network Rail. We will also ensure that train operators’ financial interests are clearly aligned with passengers’ interests so that, under new franchises, when we have an overcrowding problem it will be in the train operator’s interest to deal with that problem with its own money rather than, as under the current system, having to come to the Government cap in hand to ask us to solve the problem.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I have a direct question for the right hon. Gentleman. Will the outcome of the further long-grass review that he is considering for south Wales, Bristol and the whole line to London deliver rail electrification all the way to Swansea—not to Bristol, but to Swansea? In the run-up to the election in May, all parties stood on a platform of delivering rail electrification all the way to Swansea. The Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), has made a principled point on behalf of her constituents, saying that it is a resigning matter if a different link goes through her constituency. Will she apply the same principle if she fails to deliver rail electrification into Wales?

[Mr Hammond]

I can answer the hon. Gentleman’s question to me, but I cannot answer for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales; he will have to address his question to her in person. There has to be a business case for electrification. We will work with the Welsh Assembly Government to strengthen and build that business case over the next few weeks and I shall make an announcement to the House as soon as we have made a decision on the IEP procurement that will cover both IEP and further electrification on the great western main line.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that what was originally called Thameslink 2000 by the previous Government will at last be delivered by this Government. Will the Secretary of State also direct those responsible to ensure not only that we have the new London Bridge station in my constituency, and all that goes with it, but that the maximum number of commuter lines are continued in south London? That is obviously of interest to people who live in London as well as those who live further afield.

[Mr Hammond]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is quite right to observe that we must get the balance right between building large new infrastructure projects and maintaining existing services. I have been out this morning to the site of the Blackfriars station development and seen just how incredibly difficult it is to build such a major project on a running railway line with trains passing backwards and forwards. It is very complex, and allowing a little extra time will ensure that we do not have catastrophic disruption during the programme.

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

I welcome the news of investment in rail, although I am concerned about the three-year delay in the electrification of the Liverpool-Manchester-Blackpool line as well as the uncertainties on electrification of the great western line. Will the Secretary of State explain the percentage growth in rail that he is planning within these figures so that rail can grow without overcrowding and without the overpricing that drives people off the railways?

[Mr Hammond]

I do not know where the hon. Lady gets the idea about three years’ delay with north-west electrification. As I said, the Manchester to Newton-le-Willows section will be completed in 2013. Work will start next year. The team that is doing the work will then roll on to complete the electrification of the Liverpool-Manchester section and finally the Preston-Blackpool section. It will all be completed by 2016.

Let me explain the time scale. Electrification will allow the electric carriages released by the delivery of the new Thameslink carriages to be deployed. There is no point completing that electrification, except for the section from Manchester to Newton-le-Willows, until those electric carriages are available. The timetabling is perfectly logical and the early completion of Manchester to Newton-le-Willows will allow brand-new electric trains to be operated on the Manchester to Scotland routes.

The hon. Lady asked about capacity. The total announcements on Crossrail, Thameslink and the additional 650 carriages to be delivered before 2015 will amount to a 17% increase in the capacity of the network.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Commuters in my constituency, particularly those who use Three Bridges and Gatwick stations, will greatly welcome—as do I—the announcement about increased rolling stock through Thameslink. Will my right hon. Friend assure my commuters and constituents that the rolling stock will be of the highest available quality to ensure greater comfort and convenience?

[Mr Hammond]

The trains deployed on the Thameslink route will be brand-new trains with 1,200 brand-new carriages.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State’s statement is the fourth time that the desperately needed new trains for the east coast line have been delayed. Will he tell us what he means by “in the new year”? What time scale is he talking about? Will he go for the dual-fuel trains?

[Mr Hammond]

The bi-mode trains are one option that we will consider. Let me explain again the reasons for the complexity and the delay. We have a preferred bidder, selected by the previous Government. That preferred bidder, Agility Trains, has come back to us with a revised proposal that is significantly more attractive than the original proposal. We have been asked by Sir Andrew Foster’s review to reappraise the Agility Trains bid and to consider specific alternatives. We are carrying out that work. There are technical complexities and legal complexities, because of the procurement process. Of course, we must build a value-for-money case and compare the two options. I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement in January, and I expect it to be made early in the new year.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s sincere commitment to the economic renewal of the north, but what does my right hon. Friend say to people in Buckinghamshire who challenge both the route and the national interest case for high-speed rail?

[Mr Hammond]

I say to them that they will have an opportunity to make their case when we go to consultation on a preferred route in the new year.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Every analysis of the south Wales economy and its competitiveness shows that the single most important thing that could be done to improve the competitiveness not only of Cardiff, Swansea and Newport but all the valleys communities is the electrification of the line all the way to Swansea. Is there not therefore a strong business case, if one really believes in growth in the economy, for making sure that electrification goes ahead as soon as possible?

[Mr Hammond]

That is precisely what we will be looking at working with the Welsh Assembly Government to achieve—a strong business case. The hon. Gentleman might reflect on what he did in the years that he sat on the Government Front Bench when not a single metre of railway line was electrified in Wales.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

I welcome this announcement and I thank my right hon. Friend for delivering an honest assessment of what is achievable. Will he confirm that improvements to Yorkshire and trans-Pennine routes will include upgrades to carriages and increased numbers to improve the journeys of the hard-pressed commuters who have suffered badly thanks to the neglect of the Labour party?

[Mr Hammond]

We expect that additional carriages will be delivered to the northern and trans-Pennine franchises, but my hon. Friend will understand that these are commercial matters and that we have to enter negotiations with the franchisees as single-tender actions. We have to negotiate with them on the reimbursements they envisage for operating those additional carriages, so it is not possible to give him a precise number today because that would remove our negotiating power in the franchise discussions.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Thousands of my constituents travel every day by Thameslink, as do I. The Secretary of State has disappointingly delayed this scheme by two years, euphemistically describing the delay as “reprofiling”. He has specifically mentioned London Bridge, but what about Blackfriars, which he and I have visited? Will he at least confirm that the Blackfriars interchange with the Circle line will be completed on time and will not be delayed?

[Mr Hammond]

My understanding is that, yes, the station’s new interchange with the Circle line will be completed by the end of next year and that 12-car train-running through Blackfriars will begin at that time. His constituents will see the first tangible benefits from the Thameslink project at that time.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

I welcome the encouraging implications of the Secretary of State’s statement for the maintenance of through-direct links from the north of Scotland to the London metropolis, particularly for the Highland Chieftain—his Department accepted the well-backed petition of The Inverness Courier on that. What is his prognosis for overnight services—the sleeping-car rolling stock—between the Scottish cities, plus Fort William, and London? They are long overdue and much needed.

[Mr Hammond]

It is for train operators to decide which specific services to offer on those routes, but the decision we take on IEP will define the type of rolling stock that is available to operate those services. I would be happy to discuss off-wire services north of Edinburgh with him if that would help.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

When will electrification of the Manchester-Chorley-Preston part of the line, which runs right through my constituency, take place? It seems to be missing each time there is a statement.

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Lady tests my geography of the north-west. If she is referring to the cord that passes from Manchester to Newton-le-Willows, rejoining the west coast main line, that will be in 2013. The rest of the electrification programme will be rolled out between 2013 and 2016.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s whittling down of the options for the great western railway, but we in Swindon are waiting anxiously on the platform for a final decision on the electrification of the main line. May I urge him to make a decision that will benefit Swindon and the west country—in favour of electrification—and hold him to his promise to make a decision early in the new year?

[Mr Hammond]

As I have already said, that is my expectation, but, as hon. Members will understand, when complex legal, technical and commercial decisions are to be taken, we have to do the homework before we make the announcement—unlike the previous Government.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I recognise that future investment plans depend on economic growth and I represent one of the most productive towns in the country on the most old-fashioned railway line—the great western main line. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and a group of companies from Slough that are anxious about the impact of other lines between Slough and Paddington, about the effect of Crossrail on the frequency of trains and about the lack of any connection from the west into Heathrow? Will he meet us to discuss his plans?

[Mr Hammond]

I should have thought that the hon. Lady welcomed the electrification of great western main line commuter services and the benefits that her constituency will see from Crossrail. I also have a great interest in the Airtrack project as my constituency is just south of Heathrow. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss these issues.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

One benefit of High Speed 2 will be a release of capacity on the commuter section of the west coast main line from Euston to Milton Keynes. Will the Secretary of State confirm that as a result of today’s statement, rolling stock formerly used on Thameslink might be released to ease congestion on that line?

[Mr Hammond]

The release of rolling stock from Thameslink will provoke a cascade through the system so that Thameslink vehicles will be available for use on other lines. In some cases they will displace diesel units that will become available for use on still further lines. At the bottom of the pile, some old rolling stock is likely to be retired. By releasing large numbers of carriages into the pool we expect to change the market dynamics for leasing rolling stock, making it cheaper and therefore more affordable for the taxpayer and passenger alike.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State knows that if the Agility train project goes ahead it will create thousands of jobs in north-east England, including hundreds in my constituency where the trains will be built. If that does not happen and the door is slammed on north-east England—if the other option is chosen—will the contract have to go out to retender, thereby causing further delays while the tendering process takes place and delaying the intercity express programme further?

[Mr Hammond]

As I have said, there are complex legal and commercial issues to consider. The hon. Gentleman will understand as well as anyone the process of negotiating with Agility trains as the preferred bidder and that everything we do has to be within the constraints of the European procurement directive.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I, too, welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. Will he outline in more detail the benefit that will come from the 650 new carriages that he has announced for 2010 to 2014 and how the investment in Network Rail will benefit the east coast main line?

[Mr Hammond]

Network Rail is making significant investments on the east coast main line, which explains to some extent the less than exceptional service performance on the line in the past few months as that work has been carried out. It will bring benefits in due course in terms of greater line speed and reliability. The 650 additional carriages will be distributed across the network. Some of them have already been contracted with individual franchisees and some of them will be the subject of further negotiations, which we will now commence, but there will be benefits for all parts of the country.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

There will be bitter disappointment not just in Wales but in the south-west of England about the Secretary of State’s decision to shelve the previous Labour Government’s plans for the electrification of the great western line. Will he agree to publish in full the criteria that have informed his decision?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes. In accordance with our transparency agenda, we have made it clear—I made it clear in my previous announcement on roads—that we will in due course publish the business case analysis that informs decisions about projects that go ahead and projects that do not.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

There is a pressing need for additional carriages on the Cardiff to Portsmouth line—indeed, a literally pressing need around Bristol, and on trains serving Bradford-on-Avon. Will it be need and overcrowding, or the commercial positions of franchisees, that drive the allocation of the 650 new carriages?

[Mr Hammond]

This is not about the commercial position of franchisees; it is about the economic benefits. We are not just looking at costs and revenue. If revenues were able to justify the costs, franchisees would be able to do the work on their own, without Government support. We are looking typically at situations where the revenue from fares does not cover the costs, but the wider economic benefits justify the investment of public money.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

My constituents are served by Southeastern and face the highest fare increases in the south-east network. They also suffer from pixies on the line—or rather, PIXCs: passengers in excess of capacity—at peak times, and there is a plan to deliver 12-car trains at peak times on that section of the network. Do the Government still intend to deliver those 12-car trains and relieve the congestion on the line?

[Mr Hammond]

That is part of the Thameslink project—12-car trains running with Southeastern—and it will go ahead.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I hugely welcome the proposed new fleet, but, given the delays that Bombardier caused for First Capital Connect by the late delivery of trains, what discussions will the Secretary of State have with those who are to build the trains, to ensure that they deliver the rolling stock on time?

[Mr Hammond]

When we contract for, or enter into arrangements to support the contracting of, rolling stock, we will look to see that there are effective penalty arrangements to make it extremely costly for anybody to fail to deliver on time what they are supposed to deliver.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has made it clear that he has drilled down hard on the numbers and taken an objective and exigent view of the returns that he expects from the investment. Can we expect a similar approach to HS 2? In the consultation, about which he was very open on the “Today” programme this morning, but has been less so with the House so far, will it be possible to look at alternative routes, not just geographically but in order to run HS 2 down existing lines?

[Mr Hammond]

I am delighted to hear from the hon. Gentleman. Not many people who have addressed me on HS 2 have asked me to alter the line so that it runs through their constituency, as I think he has. I am grateful for his enthusiastic support for the project. The HS 2 consultation will include the detail of the route from London to Birmingham, the wider strategic principles of the high-speed rail network and the selected route corridors, so his constituents, his local authority, and indeed he himself, will have an opportunity to make that point.

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

My right hon. Friend is correct to assess carefully the different options for the intercity express programme, but when does he expect the first IEP trains to enter service?

[Mr Hammond]

At this point I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer; it will depend on which option is selected. Of the two remaining options, one is for a novel technology—the Agility Trains proposal for a bi-modal train, which is an innovation—and the other is for a standard high-speed electric train set with a diesel coupling at the end of the wires. Clearly the latter option could be delivered more quickly, but our decision must be based on the best long-term interests of the UK’s railway.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State will acknowledge that, in my constituency certainly, there will be huge disappointment that midland main line electrification did not merit even a mention in his statement. Some of my constituents could be forgiven for thinking that he has something of a grudge against the east midlands, although I am sure—and we all hope—that that is not the case. When will the decisions on control period 5 be taken, so that we might at least have the prospect of that much-needed investment?

[Mr Hammond]

No, I will not acknowledge that there will be huge disappointment. Only a few months ago people were telling me, and relevant publications were saying, that all this investment would have to be cancelled because of the squeeze on public spending. We should rejoice in the fact that we have managed to focus on and prioritise public capital infrastructure investment that will support economic growth in this country. I am a little disappointed that the hon. Gentleman does not sing the praises of the decision to support and invest in the Nottingham tramway, but I will say one thing for him: I cannot blame him for the actions of the previous Government, because he was not in it.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and thank him for his personal interest in the developments at Reading station. He knows, however, that there is particular overcrowding on the route from Reading to Paddington, so will he spell out the improvements that his announcement will make to commuting from Reading to Paddington?

[Mr Hammond]

The decision to electrify the line as far as Didcot will mean that services to Reading are more reliable and faster. It will also enable them to be more frequent, and they will have more passenger capacity. Put together, those factors will deliver a step change in the service that my hon. Friend’s constituents experience.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Will the light rail improvements in Sheffield, which I think I am going to welcome, include not merely the four extra trams but the nationally significant tram-train pilot? The lack of electrification of the midland main line is a disappointment, but will the track improvements go ahead and include the extra £23 million requested, so that we can significantly reduce travel times to London, to less than two hours for the first train, and reduce times for the second train, too?

[Mr Hammond]

There are two separate projects in that context, at least as far as the Department is concerned: the additional vehicles for the supertram, about which we have already made an announcement; and a further proposal, for which—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) tells me—there is a submission on my desk as we speak. I shall be happy to look at it and let the hon. Gentleman know how we can take it forward.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

I welcome the decision to continue running through-trains to Aberdeen and Inverness, and the fact that that uncertainty has now gone. In choosing the rolling stock that takes those journeys, will the Secretary of State ensure that we can maximise the journey improvements north of Edinburgh on the unelectrified part of the line?

[Mr Hammond]

Judging by the technical information that I have seen so far, I believe that both options would deliver almost exactly the same journey time, so I do not think that our choice of IEP mode will affect the journey time to Aberdeen or Inverness.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Wirral businesses have worked hard to build our local economy, and they expect me to ask questions of the Secretary of State. He says that he expects work in the north-west to begin in the next year, but given the delays that we have seen, will he return to the House to confirm absolutely that the work he has set out today will in fact go ahead?

[Mr Hammond]

I can save myself a trip by confirming now that work will begin next year and be completed in 2016—barring some completely unforeseen catastrophe. That is in the programme agreed with Network Rail.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I welcome today’s announcement of an extra 650 carriages for rail franchises outside London, as it could really help the vital London to Penzance service and the maritime line in my constituency. What assurance can the Minister provide that he is working with First Great Western to ensure that people in Cornwall benefit from the investments announced today?

[Mr Hammond]

First Great Western was first off the blocks today to welcome the statement, and we will continue to work with it. We expect additional carriages for First Great Western to be contracted as part of the 650-carriage programme, and of course, when decisions are made on the IEP and on further electrification of the great western main line, the company will ultimately be a significant beneficiary.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The Minister knows that I am delighted with the extensions to our tram network, but unfortunately we cannot travel to London on it. Electrification of the midland main line would make it possible to reduce the travel time from Nottingham to London to an hour and a half. The Minister acknowledged that the economic case for electrification is strong—I would say “overwhelming”. Can he assure me that the Government have a strategy to achieve “Nottingham in 90”, pending the development of High Speed 2?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Lady will have noted that the last Government failed to deal with the issue of the electrification of the midland main line. I thought for a minute that I was going to get a bid for a tramway extension to London; to be honest with the hon. Lady, I prefer the option of midland main line electrification. There is a strong business case for electrifying the midland main line. The Government strongly support electrification, but we have, of course, to work within the envelope of affordability. We will be looking at projects for the next Network Rail investment control period, which begins in 2014. Midland main line electrification will have a strong case for inclusion in that programme.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the decision to proceed with the entire Thameslink programme, including the vital redevelopment of London Bridge—and the news that that will be done in a way that does not disrupt commuter services in south London. There is also the additional rolling stock for Thameslink, which should have a knock-on benefit for Southern passengers. It would be greedy to ask for more in this control period, but may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider improving the west London line in the next control period, so that south London, Gatwick, Surrey and Sussex have access to the High Speed 2 route?

[Mr Hammond]

I do not think I said that there would not be any disruption to commuter services during the massive reconstruction of London Bridge station; I certainly hope that I did not. I said that the reprofiling we have done will reduce the risk of serious disruption during that period. However, it will be a very major reconstruction project, and some disruption is inevitable. On west London services, of course we will examine proposals over the next couple of years as we prepare for the next Network Rail investment control period. Furthermore, the Mayor of London has an input into rail investment decisions for London commuter services.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I would like to return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). I think I heard the Secretary of State say that the additional Thameslink carriages would facilitate the lengthening of the overcrowded trains that run through our constituencies to 12 cars. Will he just confirm that?

[Mr Hammond]

I thought that the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) was referring to Thameslink services that will run out to the south-east. If I have misunderstood that, I shall look carefully at the question that he asked, and will write to both him and the hon. Lady.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

I too welcome the news on new carriages, particularly given the broken promises of the previous Government. The Secretary of State has recognised the need for additional carriages on the Northern Rail franchise, but I remind him of the need to deliver those sooner rather than later.

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the broken promises of the previous Government. He will know that they promised 182 new carriages on the Northern Rail franchise, ordered 18, and delivered none. I hope that we will be able to do better than that for him.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement because I represent a constituency that needs support from the Government. I also have an interest in the matter as a former railway employee. The First Great Western railways in my constituency are generally very overcrowded. I think the Secretary of State knows the geography of the area, which is not far from his own constituency; if he does not, I will invite him to my constituency so that he can see the overcrowding. Can any extra resources be put in through First Great Western, so that there can be extra carriages to enable people to travel freely and comfortably?

[Mr Hammond]

I do know the geography of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency; I enjoyed going there to campaign against him when he was elected at a by-election. [Laughter.]

The good news for the hon. Gentleman is that Crossrail will draw away some of the traffic that is using the services on which his constituents rely, and the electrification of the First Great Western main line commuter services will also provide them with additional capacity, faster services and greater reliability.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

From his own experience, the Secretary of State will know that the London-Ipswich-Norwich line could qualify as a heritage line; it has hand-me-downs that are not deemed fit for the west coast main line. To be fair, I must add that that situation has obtained for 150 years. Would it be good for us to be included within the IEP, so that for once we would get new rolling stock—fresh, not second hand?

[Mr Hammond]

The question of brand-new rolling stock versus cascaded rolling stock depends ultimately on the business case that can be made. It is expected that some brand-new rolling stock will be deployed on the Greater Anglia franchise. I cannot tell my hon. Friend that that will necessarily be used on the London-Ipswich-Norwich line, but it is expected that there will be some new rolling stock in that franchise.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). On the High Speed 2 consultation, will the Government be expressing a preference about the Heathrow link based on their acceptance of the Mawhinney report? While the Secretary of State is at the Dispatch Box, will he say when the interim McNulty report will be published?

[Mr Hammond]

Sir Roy McNulty’s interim report will be published shortly. I intend to make a statement to the House in the near future about how we intend to take that process forward, looking at the structure and affordability of the railways. I should make it perfectly clear that the consultation on HS 2 will be around a preferred route. It will be open to other parties to suggest alternative routes, but the Government will put forward one preferred route.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to ensuring value for money from the Government’s investment in British railways. He is well aware of the importance, or potential importance, to the north-east economy of the Agility Trains bid for intercity express. Will he continue to accept representations from hon. Members from all parties who represent north-east constituencies and would like the investment to come to our region?

[Mr Hammond]

I shall be very happy to accept such representations. I talk regularly to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) about these things. I was in the north-east last week and met some representatives of local authorities there. However, my hon. Friend will understand that the European procurement directive imposes a framework of rules around what we can and cannot do in a procurement such as this.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

The Secretary of State may be interested to know that journey times between Cardiff and London Paddington actually increased during the 13 years of Labour Governments. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is working closely with the Welsh Assembly to build a business case for the electrification of the main line. Will he also meet Welsh Members of Parliament and Welsh Assembly Members so that they can help him with his homework before he comes to a conclusion about this important decision for the Welsh economy?

[Mr Hammond]

I shall be very happy to do so. I assure the hon. Gentleman that whichever of the two options under consideration is chosen, quite independently of the question of electrification, that will deliver a saving on the journey time to Cardiff that will get us back firmly below two hours.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Commuters in my constituency were hit very hard by the previous Government. Fares went up by 10.3%; furthermore, RPI plus 3 for Kent was introduced in 2006, while trains to Victoria and Cannon Street were cut. May I ask for special consideration for commuters in the south-east in terms of both resources and fares?

[Mr Hammond]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Southeastern franchise fare formula was set on the basis of the need to contribute to and justify the huge investment in Javelin trains providing a super-fast service from Kent to London St Pancras. An objective analysis would say that commuters in the south-east have had a fair crack of the announcement today. Some 1,200 new railcars are to be delivered to the Thameslink service and some of the 650 additional cars to be delivered by 2014 will go to areas of south-east commuterland. There is also the commitment to proceeding with Crossrail. All those things will add massively to rail capacity into and around London.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and the fact that stations were not overlooked. Clapham Junction in my constituency is one of the two busiest interchanges in the country. To make the railways really work, we need great modern interchanges. Although Clapham Junction never made it in any of the three previous control periods, will he join me in hoping that it will be closely considered by Network Rail for the next control period?

[Mr Hammond]

Network Rail is considering the section of line from Clapham Junction into Waterloo, and I will discuss its plans with it over the coming months and years. My hon. Friend might like to know that I have been told this morning that when the work at Farringdon is completed, Farringdon will overtake Clapham Junction in terms of train movements.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

Like many north-west MPs, I travel on the Glasgow to Euston Virgin Pendolino trains, which are heavily overcrowded during the main journey times. I understand that new rolling stock has been delivered for these trains, but Virgin Trains is not allowed to use it until the Government give it permission to do so. Will the Minister give Virgin permission to use those extra carriages, which are in stock, to alleviate the overcrowding on that line?

[Mr Hammond]

There seems to be a little bit of misunderstanding about this. The new Pendolino carriages have not been delivered. An acceptance test train will be delivered—in 2011, I believe—and acceptance trials will be required for certification of the additional train carriages. Virgin Trains Ltd is contracted to integrate those carriages into the Pendolino train sets, independent of what happens at the termination of the Virgin franchise on the west coast, so that work will go ahead.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

I echo the calls to electrify the great western line fully, but I would press the Minister at least to secure the new fleet of all-electric trains with dual diesel use, to deliver much-needed faster journeys and greater capacity for my Swindon residents.

[Mr Hammond]

I have noted my hon. Friend’s point, and will take his comments into consideration.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I welcome the statement on behalf of my constituents who use Thameslink. However, can the Minister advise me whether he will ensure that the Government’s investment is not undermined by the unions? Under the previous Government, First Capital Connect staff worked to rule and Ministers refused to intervene, because many of them were dependent on RMT and other union funding.

[Mr Hammond]

I must say that I have been disappointed by the reaction of the unions to this morning’s announcement. Far from welcoming this huge additional investment in the railway and this statement of confidence in its future, they have picked away at it much as the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) has done. We need to restructure the way in which franchises are let to give the train operators proper incentives to work with all their stakeholders, including the unions, to find long-term solutions to the challenges on the railway. We have to get the cost of the railway down, and make it more reliable, affordable and sustainable for fare payers and taxpayers alike in future.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State and his team on announcing such a significant amount of investment despite the economic legacy left to them by the previous Government. I also welcome his clear comments about midland main line electrification; I appreciate that we shall have to wait for that. His statement did, however, mention the midland main line—a fact that seems to be lost on Opposition Members. Could he enlighten the House about the improvements that will be made to the midland main line in the current period?

[Mr Hammond]

In Network Rail’s current control period, there is a programme of capital improvements to the midland main line that will deliver enhanced line speeds, and thus an improved service.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the substantial investment in our rail network, but will he explain how much smaller projects such as the important Coventry to Nuneaton rail upgrade will be assessed for future funding?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend has on a previous occasion asked me to meet him and Opposition Members representing the area. I have agreed to do so, and I look forward to having a meeting with him in due course.

[Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)]

I welcome the news that travel times from London to Cardiff will be reduced by 15 minutes; as has been mentioned, that will take us back to the travel times of about 15 years ago. When making a final decision on electrification of the great western main line all the way through to south Wales, will the Secretary of State take into account the extremely strong view of businesses, politicians and commuters across south Wales that electrification is absolutely critical to the future prosperity of the region?

[Mr Hammond]

Of course we will take into account the views of the business community, in particular, but we will also look at the evidence. I now want to work with the Welsh Assembly Government on building that evidence.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

For 13 years, Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire received the fluffy end of the lollipop when it came to transport policy. I therefore welcome the announcements on the trans-Pennine express and the east coast main line, which my two Yorkshire colleagues got to mention first. However, we also have in northern Lincolnshire some exciting open access proposals, including a line from Cleethorpes through Scunthorpe and direct to London. Will the Secretary of State work with those open access providers, and have his officials work with them, to help to bring those new services to our region?

[Mr Hammond]

We are always happy to see additional services being provided, but decisions on open access applications are for the rail regulator, not for the Secretary of State.

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

I welcome the certainty that electrification out of Paddington will continue as far as Didcot. However, does the Secretary of State agree that it is a reasonable economic assumption that a continuous project of rolling out electrification through to Swindon, Bristol Temple Meads, Bristol Parkway and through the Severn tunnel is likely to provide better value for money than a piecemeal project where engineering teams, recruitment contracts and so on have to be reassembled?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I should make it clear that we will make the decision on the total extent of electrification of the great western main line long before the physical work begins.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome this statement, which is clearly overwhelmingly good news for rail customers and for the environment. However, may I also press for full electrification to Wales and the west country, and ask for the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s new methodology for calculating the future cost of carbon to be fully factored into the Department’s necessarily careful evaluation of the business case?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We have made a commitment to changing the formula that we use to assess transport projects to reflect the latest values of carbon.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

Is the Secretary of State aware of the research published by the East of England Development Agency about the £3.7 billion of potential economic benefit that greater investment in the great eastern main line would bring? Will he take that into the strongest consideration in his discussions with the franchisee?

[Mr Hammond]

There is not a franchisee on the east coast main line—[Hon. Members: “The great eastern!”] I am sorry, yes, the great eastern main line. Of course we will take into account all the evidence of economic benefits when we consider the future of this franchise.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Last, but certainly not least, I call John Pugh.

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

On a final jarring note, there is an impression that capital investment in rail usually means rail investment in the capital. What can the Minister do to disabuse me of my prejudice, perhaps by publishing per-region figures?

[Mr Hammond]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is of course true that two huge rail projects are going ahead in the capital—Thameslink and Crossrail. The good news is that because both projects will between them deliver 1,800 new rail carriages, they will release large numbers of perfectly serviceable electric rail cars, which themselves make the case for further electrification of commuter lines in the north-west and on the great western main line. There are benefits for everybody, not merely for London and the south-east, deriving from the Crossrail and Thameslink investments.

Point of Order

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

13:28

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you would be so kind as to convey to Mr Speaker the very real concerns of attendants and office keepers across the estate about possible loss of jobs due to the cost reduction programme. Many of those attendants and office keepers have worked in the House for years, and some of them are approaching retirement. They are concerned that their jobs will go to the Post Office or to outside contractors—and if they go to outside contractors there will probably be no savings at all. Will you ask Mr Speaker to look benignly on these wonderful servants of the House, who have given many, many good years of their lives to the service of the House of Commons?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am grateful for notice of that point of order. I think that everyone in the House appreciates the great work of the people of whom the hon. Gentleman is talking. He is an experienced Member and he will know that only occasionally do the services and facilities of the House give rise to real procedural points of order. As the House knows, Members are being consulted about savings in the running costs of the House. The Commission welcomes comments on individual proposals, which should be made to the Finance and Services Committee, and Members can always raise such issues directly with the head of the relevant House department. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s words will be noticed by all the relevant people.

Local Government Bill [Lords]

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.

Third Reading

13:30

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This is a short, two-clause Bill that reverses the proposed creation of unitary authorities in Norwich and Exeter and puts to an end the uncertainty regarding reorganisation in the county of Suffolk. It was first debated and considered in some detail in the other House, then considered rigorously but briskly in this House both on Second Reading and subsequently in Committee. It reflects a coalition agreement and manifesto commitments of the two coalition parties, as well as the Government’s desire, which we believe is well supported by the people in the areas concerned, to put an end to needless disruption, uncertainty and cost for local government. The issues have been well aired within their narrow compass, and I will be happy to respond to such issues as are raised in the debate.

13:31

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I have some sympathy for the Minister, who is having to try to justify the Government’s position on the Bill. Essentially, as he knows, he is trying to defend the indefensible. He knows that unitary councils are far more efficient than the two-tier model that he seeks to retain, and that they save money. He knows that the people in Norwich and Exeter want unitary councils. They want to have some control over their own destiny, and they do not want to be subject to the two-tier system that he seems to think is so wonderful.

The Minister also knows that most of the councillors in Exeter and Norwich support unitary status for those great cities, and that the unitary model is a better governance model for the local authorities there.

[Robert Neill]

Does it follow, then, that it is the official Opposition’s policy that there should be unitary authorities across the country?

[Chris Williamson]

The Minister knows that we support local determination, and we know from the facts surrounding Exeter and Norwich that local councillors and the local people support unitary status for those cities. It is a fact that it offers a better governance model than the two-tier system.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain why it took 13 years for the previous Labour Government to come to that view, by which time, with a general election so close, they knew that there was a fair chance that they would never be able to deliver on it?

[Chris Williamson]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s proposition. If he looks at Labour’s record of supporting local government and unitary councils around the country, he will see that we have supported unitary status where local authorities have requested it. Indeed, the previous Conservative Government created dozens and dozens of unitary authorities. I do not understand why the current Government take a different view from the Conservative Government of the 1990s.

I would also make the point that, for local people, a unitary council is a model that is much more easily understood. Where there is a two-tier system, people are confused about which authority is responsible for which services, and in some areas there is a degree of duplication in service provision. That leads to considerable confusion, which I suspect is one reason people overwhelmingly want unitary councils in Norwich and Exeter.

The Minister is also aware, as members of the Government parties across the piece must be, that cities are a significant engine for economic growth. Freeing up local authorities through the creation of unitary councils enables those councils to innovate much more effectively than they can under the two-tier system. I shall give a few illustrations of what I mean by that from the three cities in my own region, the east midlands.

Let us take the example of Nottingham city council, which was made a unitary authority in the mid-1990s by the previous Conservative Administration. It has developed a wonderful tram line infrastructure in the city, which is the envy certainly of the region and probably of the country as a whole. It has certainly been an economic driver in bringing new inward investment into Nottingham.

Similarly, Leicester is another council that was made a unitary authority in the 1990s by the previous Conservative Administration. It, too, has been extremely successful in securing inward investment, and the Queen recently opened its wonderful new Curve arts centre, a multi-million-pound project that is very well used and much admired by residents in and around the city. It is a wonderful, new, innovative arts facility not only for the people of Leicester but for people in Leicester’s hinterland and county area. That is the sort of thing that can be done if an authority is given the power to innovate through unitary status.

My own authority of Derby has also used the ability to bring inward investment into the city as a result of being a unitary council. Two or three years ago, I had the privilege of opening a wonderful new shopping centre that the council was instrumental in bringing about. That would have been considerably more difficult had it continued to be a lower-tier authority. Derby was yet another local council made a unitary authority by the previous Conservative Administration in the 1990s.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is making a case for unitary authorities, but does he not recognise that district councils do an equally good job in the county of Northamptonshire? The Corby district has just opened the new Cube building, a fantastic facility, and in Daventry district, which I represent, there is the iCon centre, which is a centre of excellence for construction. Surely there are points on both sides of the argument. I understand his point about self-determination, and surely that is the point of this exercise.

[Chris Williamson]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, and he points to excellent examples of district authorities innovating, bringing about wonderful new facilities and generating economic activity in their areas. However, Norwich and Exeter are looking to secure freedoms that would enable them to innovate and deliver improvements such as those achieved by the district councils he mentions, but much more easily and effectively. That will be even more important in these straitened economic circumstances.

The Minister made a very short opening speech, perhaps because he is rather embarrassed to be standing here supporting the indefensible. He knows that he has to close ranks with the Secretary of State, who in effect has hung him out to dry.

With swingeing cuts being imposed on local councils, unitary status in Norwich and Exeter would offer some protection for front-line public services. It is an undeniable fact that it would be a far more effective and efficient use of public money to make unitary authorities responsible for all council services in their areas. That would eradicate duplication and free up funding, which could offset some of the swingeing cuts that will be imposed. Over the next four years, as we know from the comprehensive spending review, there will be 28% cuts on average, although some local authorities will see even bigger cuts, and it remains to be seen how Norwich and Exeter will be affected. If we can eliminate some of the duplication in Norwich and Exeter, authorities there would have a fighting chance of at least protecting a few more front-line services, which would otherwise be put to the sword.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Will the hon. Gentleman outline some of the duplication in Norwich or Exeter?

[Chris Williamson]

It is pretty obvious, where councillors from the county authority represent Norwich and Exeter, and councillors represent the districts in Norwich and Exeter, that that in itself is a duplication. We heard the Conservatives say in the run-up to the election, and we know from their gerrymandering Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, that they want to make politics more cost-effective, but if they are genuinely serious about that, they would support the unitary status bid in Norwich and Exeter. That, then, is a duplication of the political process. There is also the duplication of the chief officers and the fact that the backroom activities of Norwich and Exeter duplicate those of Norfolk and Devon to some extent. I could go on—there is a long list of areas where there is duplication. That is surely a given.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

On the hon. Gentleman’s comment about Norwich, is it not correct that, even if there was a Norwich unitary, under the previous Government’s proposals there would still be a Norfolk county council, so there would be no change in the number of chief executives? The hon. Gentleman’s point does not make sense.

[Chris Williamson]

Yes, there would still be a Norfolk county council and a Devon county council, but the fact remains that there would be far fewer councillors than there are now. There would certainly be the reduction in backroom staff in Devon and Norfolk that is necessary at the moment. That fact was recognised by previous Conservative Governments, which is why they were so keen to create so many unitary councils, which Derby, Nottingham, Leicester and many other local authorities around the country benefited from. The hon. Gentleman is on shaky ground if he is suggesting in some way that there is no duplication in the two-tier model that we have in Norwich and Exeter.

[Simon Wright]

What is the hon. Gentleman’s assessment of the savings that would be produced by reducing the number of councillors? He said early in his speech that that was one of the main savings. I ask that particularly as the shadow boards that were set up paid considerable salaries to councillors who were already earning a council allowance.

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. Gentleman should not get too hung up on the issue of councillors. I explained that reducing their numbers represented not one of the main savings, but just one of the savings. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the impact assessment that was carried out at the time, he will see that it illustrated that the savings across the piece for Norwich and Exeter would be about £6.5 million per annum. That is an unanswerable fact, and I should have thought that the Government supported it.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Is it not absolutely astonishing that the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) is not aware of the figures in his own Government’s impact assessment? They show quite clearly that there will be net savings within six years and then savings of £6.5 million every year. Those are not our figures—they are the Government’s figures, but the Government have completely ignored them.

[Chris Williamson]

I agree with my right hon. Friend: what the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright), who represents one of the cities affected, says is astonishing. It is even more incredible given that the Liberal Democrat party in the hon. Gentleman’s home city supports unitary status for the city. I do not quite understand why he has come here to justify and defend the indefensible. I know that the Liberal Democrats are on the leash of the Conservative party, but the hon. Gentleman perhaps takes things to the extreme.

The swingeing cuts that the Government are imposing will have a devastating impact on people around the country. I appeal to Government Members to consider for a moment what that will mean not only for people who work for the authorities affected, but, most importantly, for the recipients of those authorities’ services. I should have thought that Government Members would have a moral obligation to look for ways to ameliorate the full impact of the cuts to which local authorities are subject. Giving Norwich and Exeter unitary status would go a long way towards ameliorating that impact, so I call on Government Members to look into their hearts and ask themselves whether they are making the right decision. Are they simply being driven by some dogmatic imperative or are they prepared to reconsider their position? Are they—this is why hon. Members are elected to this Chamber—prepared to stand up for ordinary people and to protect their interests. By supporting the position of the Opposition and of the people and councillors of Norwich and Exeter, they would be fulfilling the role for which they were elected to this Chamber.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I promise that I will not trouble the hon. Gentleman again, but how can he stack up the comments that he made earlier about making savings in back-office functions, and therefore making people redundant, with his comments now about trying to prevent cuts in the public sector?

[Chris Williamson]

The fact is that there will be cuts as a result of the decisions being taken by the Government, who are in charge of funding for local councils, but the Opposition do not accept that it is necessary to make cuts on the scale that is being proposed.

As for how I reconcile the points that I have made, I acknowledge that there will be some cuts, irrespective of whether Exeter and Norwich became unitary councils. My point, however, is that the savings that would be generated by unitary status could be used to protect front-line services. Moreover, freeing up Norwich and Exeter would give them the ability to bring in new inward investment and to innovate in a way that would create jobs in the private sector. The Government and the Office for Budget Responsibility claim that 2.5 million jobs are required in the private sector. We should support local authorities such as Norwich and Exeter in bringing in new inward investment and assisting the private sector to innovate and create the jobs that will be desperately required.

I just wonder what happened to the brave new world of Tory localism. Hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong, but did the Secretary of State not say that he wanted to put

“town halls back in charge of local affairs”?

The Government’s position on this issue calls that statement into question—it is something of a sick joke. If the Secretary of State genuinely wanted to put town halls back in charge of local affairs, he would support the democratic wishes of the elected officials in Norwich and Exeter and of the people who live in those cities. This is a bad Bill—it has all the hallmarks of a political stitch-up. It is more to do with placating Tory county backwoodsmen in Norfolk and Devon than with modern, progressive local democracy.

The Bill is not about looking forward at all. It harks back to the disastrous period for local councils in the 1980s, when the Secretary of State was the leader of Bradford council. If passed, the Bill will represent a sad day for the people of Norwich and Exeter, and a sad day for local democracy. For all the Secretary of State’s blustering hyperbole, it seems that he has already written the obituary for democratic localism even before the ink has dried on his much-vaunted localism Bill.

13:50

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

I do not wish to detain the House for long on Third Reading, because much was said on Second Reading and in Committee and we have covered the issues. However, I wanted to update the House on the Norwich and Norfolk situation.

The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) referred to the potential savings, which in Norwich were just under £2 million. That sounds good, but there is an up-front cost of £20 million, and most savings would be made only after five or six years. In most organisations, such potential savings are never delivered after that amount of time because things change.

[Chris Williamson]

I urge the hon. Gentleman to look at the impact assessment. He is right that the cost of implementing unitary status in Norwich and Exeter is around £40 million, but the savings over that same period work out at £39.4 million, so the net cost of implementation is only £600,000, and there is an additional, ongoing saving of £6.5 million per annum.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman helps me to make my point: just think how much we could save if we did not have the up-front costs of a top-down, forced unitary authority. In Norfolk, local authorities and the county council are working together to find ways of sharing services and to make the savings of £6 million a year—or potentially more—across Norfolk without going to the trouble and cost of creating a unitary authority that is forced on them from the top down.

We must remember there was no screaming desire on the part of people in Norfolk or indeed Norwich for that change, and no opinion poll showed that they wanted it. The only review—published by the previous Government—showed an overwhelming desire for the status quo across Norfolk and that if there was a preference for unitary, it was for a Norfolk unitary rather than Norwich unitary, which could have meant an awful lot of savings. Changing Norwich city council, which has not had a great track record recently, into a unitary would not save anything in officers or councillors. The real benefit to Norfolk will come from local authorities working together and sharing services. Those discussions are ongoing, and I hope that savings can be made much earlier than they would have been made under a unitary authority. That might even happen before Christmas.

13:53

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) said, this is a sad day for two of our great, historic English cities. I was brought up in one of them—Norwich—and I have represented the other in the House since 1997. The Government’s measures will not be lost on the voters of either city. Indeed, in local government elections in September—they were forced on us by the Bill—the Conservatives did very badly, the Liberal Democrat vote completely collapsed, and Labour retook control of the council. I predict a similar bloodbath for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in Norwich when voters there have the opportunity to use their democratic right.

The quisling stance of the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) will not be missed by the voters of Norwich. As a candidate, he advocated Norwich’s unitary status; since then, he has voted with the coalition Government in favour of the Bill and against our amendments that would have kept the ambitions of Norwich and Exeter alive.

There is a long history to the Bill. For hundreds of years before 1974, Norwich and Exeter enjoyed self-government. Long before county councils were even thought of, let alone invented, Norwich and Exeter had their own unitary local government that made decisions on behalf of their citizens. In 1974, the then Conservative Government robbed those two great, historic cities of their right to self-determination in their reorganisation. They handed most of the services, including the most important ones—education and social services—to the county councils.

We have heard a lot in debates on the Bill about dealing with the problems of two-tier local authorities. That principle used to be held by all parties in the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North reminded us, the previous Conservative Government were very permissive in granting unitary status, including to the two other main urban areas in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay. It is funny that they were happy to grant Conservative Plymouth and Conservative Torbay unitary status but not Exeter, which is of even greater economic importance and value to the wider sub-region. The Conservatives have completely changed their position, and it is not really very clear what the Liberal Democrats position is.

There are many reasons to advocate unitary government, and they have been taken up by all parties. My hon. Friend spoke of the economies involved, but almost as important to my constituents is the feeling that they have some democratic control, and that councillors have some democratic accountability. They do not currently have that. Countless decisions that affect Exeter and Norwich are made by county councillors who are not from those cities and who do not have their interests at heart. That is one reason why all parties in the House have supported unitary government in the past. It is more efficient and cheaper, and there is a direct line of democratic accountability, which voters prefer and value.

In the course of debates on the Bill, the Government have been absolutely unable to produce evidence for it. Their own impact assessment made it quite clear that unitary status would mean significant savings to the taxpayer in the medium and long terms. They have been unable to challenge the fact that unitary status in Exeter and Norwich enjoyed widespread support. In my own city of Exeter, every single party on the local council, including the Conservative party, the Liberals, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party, supported Exeter’s unitary ambitions, as did our university and business community. In Norwich, support was almost but not quite as unanimous—the Conservatives were the only party on that local authority to oppose Norwich’s bid.

The Government have produced absolutely no evidence for what they are doing today. My hon. Friend was quite right, therefore, to imply that the only possible reason for the Bill is political spite. There is no other reason for it at all. The voters will long remember and not forgive that, but all is not lost. I was pleased that in an earlier debate on the Bill, Labour Front Benchers gave a very clear commitment that under a future Labour Government, the just and rightful aspirations of the people of Exeter and Norwich will be honoured.

13:58

[Robert Neill]

With the leave of the House, I will briefly reply to the debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) on a remarkable display of political chutzpah. I kept my opening speech brief not because I am embarrassed by the Bill—I am not remotely embarrassed by it—but because when I was a young barrister, those who taught me often said, “The stronger the case, the shorter the argument should be.” As briefly as possible, I shall briskly rebut some of the points that were made in the debate.

First, the Bill is not about the merits or otherwise of unitary authorities per se, but about the specific proposals for Norfolk and Norwich and Devon and Exeter, and the hangover arrangements relating to the county of Suffolk—no more than that. That came about, I observe, because the former Labour Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), attempted to rush through these unitary proposals, against the advice of his Department’s accounting officer and his own party predecessors, in the dying days of the last Parliament. That was struck down as unlawful by the High Court, however, so the matter remains outstanding and has to be brought to a close.

[Chris Williamson]

If this is not an argument against the merits or demerits of unitary councils, it would seem that the Minister has inadvertently conceded that this is an act of political spite.

[Robert Neill]

On the contrary, it is clearing up an act of partisan manoeuvring by the previous Government, who abandoned their own criteria. It is worth remembering that a previous Labour Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), concluded that neither the Exeter bid nor the Norwich bid met the value-for-money test that she had set. Was she acting out of political spite? I rather doubt it. It was also concluded that the Norwich bid was questionable on the affordability test. So the Labour party set out certain criteria, but these proposals did not meet them, and it then completely changed its tune. It is the ultimate hypocrisy, therefore, for Labour Members to accuse the Government of having changed their stance; it is they who have been so inconsistent that the High Court overturned their attempted gerrymandering.

[Chris Williamson]

How does the Minister respond to the point that the impact assessment concluded that there would be ongoing savings of £6.5 million per year? Surely that is an example of good value for money, and it would be brought about by creating unitary councils in Norwich and Exeter.

[Robert Neill]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises the impact assessment, which I was going to come to, because throughout this debate Labour Members have singularly failed to understand how the impact assessment operated. First, it set out and commented on the costs and savings by reference to the previous Government’s assessments. If they think there is a problem with the previous assessments, it is not our difficulty—we did not create them. It was the previous Labour Government who judged that these proposals did not meet the financial criteria and, in the case of Norwich, the value-for-money criteria as well. They cannot have it both ways; their impact assessments were used by their own Ministers to condemn proposals that they later chose to bring forward—so I will not hear any arguments on the impact assessment.

Secondly, it is quite clear—there is ample evidence from across the country, from joint working by local authorities, including those in Devon, Suffolk and Norfolk—that considerable savings can be made through collaborative working without the on-costs and up-front costs of reorganisation. So we can have the benefits without the costs.

At the end of the day, this was a political act by the Labour Government, who, finding it inconvenient to stick with the decisions of their own Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, decided to wriggle out of it by inventing a reason that had never existed before for departing from their own criteria. That was struck down by the High Court. We have concluded that enough is enough, and that this would not serve the good interests of the governance of the counties of Devon and Norfolk, of which the cities concerned are an integral part. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Business without Debate

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft National Assembly for Wales Referendum (Assembly Act Provisions) (Limit on Referendum Expenses Etc.) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 21 October, be approved.—(Mr Goodwill.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That the draft National Assembly for Wales Referendum (Assembly Act Provisions) (Referendum Question, Date of Referendum Etc.) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 21 October, be approved.—(Mr Goodwill.)

Question agreed to.

business of the House

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Thursday 2 December, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Kevin Barron relating to Publication of Information about Complaints against Members, Power of the Parliamentary Commission for Standards to Initiate Investigations and Lay Membership of the Committee on Standards and Privileges not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved.—(Sir George Young.)

welsh grand committee

Ordered,

That—

(1) the matter of the implications for Wales of the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration; and

(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 1 December at 9.30 am and between 2.30 pm and 4.30 pm to consider—

(a) a statement by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury; and

(b) the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above.—(Sir George Young.)

UK Veterans Administration

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Goodwill.)

14:04

[Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for offering me the opportunity to debate a matter that I know will be of particular concern not only to Members of the House, but to the entire country.

The ceremonies of Remembrance Sunday are fresh in our minds. I know that most hon. Members in the Chamber this afternoon will have had the honour of recently laying a wreath in their own constituencies—in my case, under the auspices of our amazing branch of the Royal British Legion in Corby and east Northamptonshire. It is perhaps appropriate that time has been made to debate how our country treats its veterans, and whether we have the prospect of a better model in front of us, in this month of November. It is my contention that the UK needs a fully fledged veterans administration.

A great opportunity lies before the Government, and I am full of hope because both in the manner of their conception, and the way they have governed since, the coalition Government have eschewed the piecemeal. Things are not being done by halves. They are a Government of big ideas, sweeping reforms and profound change. From the universal credit to free schools, from the spending review to the alternative vote referendum, the Government, like the infant Hercules strangling the serpents, have not failed to grasp nettles and do things differently, even in their earliest days.

Our veterans need things to be done differently. I am sure that all Members support the amazing work of the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, whose wrist band I am wearing today, ABF The Soldiers’ Charity and the plethora of other worthy military charities operating in our country. However, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister will be aware, there is a great feeling out there among the public that it is shameful that our veterans rely so greatly on voluntary bodies and charitable giving.

As a candidate, I was heartened to see my party campaign on restoring the military covenant, and now, as a coalition Back-Bench Member, I welcome all the various steps the Government have taken for our troops—for example, the doubling of the operational allowance and the military covenant being sealed in statute. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as almost one of his first acts in office, announced a welcome review by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) into mental health care for veterans. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State for Education has announced that the pupil premium will apply to the children of military families, and to great acclaim has recently announced a troops to teachers programme, bringing ex-servicemen’s expertise and valour into the classroom, so that they can benefit the nation’s children.

All of that, taken as a package, is extremely heartening. However, I urge the Minister to consider whether the Government’s efforts on behalf of troops and veterans do not point the way to a more comprehensive and unitary approach and a single co-ordinating veterans administration taking care of everything, rather than to the provision of piecemeal help from individual Departments.

I shall return to the theme that I took up in my maiden speech, because the matter is so important to me. The UK is the only country in the English-speaking world not to have a veterans administration, veterans department or something similar, and that is a rebuke to this House. New Zealand has Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand, with its own dedicated Minister; Australia and Canada both have Departments of Veterans’ Affairs; and of course the United States has the gold standard in the Veterans’ Administration.

In an article written for the website Conservative Home about his review of mental health care on behalf of the Government, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire said:

“Throughout my review I have been struck by the almost grudging beneficence of past British governments towards uniformed men and women in stark contrast with that of other nations, particularly our Anglophone partners. I doubt our warriors will ever enjoy the hero worship that Uncle Sam lavishes on America’s finest”.

But why should that be? Since they are every bit as heroic—many of us would say more so—why should they not enjoy it? I urge the Government to go further than their already welcome efforts have. It is not simply a matter of cost. It is true that the budget for the US Veterans’ Administration is a monstrous $87 billion—and because a good politician is a pragmatic politician, I am not asking the Government to go in that direction—but the budget for the Canadian Department of Veterans’ Affairs is only 3.4 billion Canadian dollars. In this country, however, what is first required is not excessive extra cost, but merely co-ordination. The original United States Veterans’ Administration was founded in 1930 with a mission to

“consolidate and co-ordinate Government activities affecting war veterans”.

And we need nothing more in this country.

Today, we have the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency, but I regret to say that it is nothing like enough. The SPVA was created in 2007. In its own words, there are

“many organisations…from Government and the voluntary sector”

that provide help to veterans. Describing that scattergun approach, the SPVA says:

“This can at times be confusing for those seeking help as they are unsure about which organisations provide what services.”

I regret that that quotation is verbatim. The SPVA website, Veterans-UK, is supposedly the first portal through which our veterans are meant to access its services. It is an embarrassment, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is that really the best that we can do for our veterans, our serving troops and their dependants? If, as a soldier, you want to go online and find out why you are not entitled to priority in local housing—unless you are Welsh—this website is for you; and should you wish to be directed to a number of charities, which may or may not be able to help, this is for you. Anyone wishing to look up the Government’s apparent “review of veterans policy”, which the site is linked to, will be directed to the Minster for Veterans—no, not my hon. and gallant Friend on the Front Bench this afternoon, but a smiling photograph of my colleague on the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), who has not been the Minister for more than four years. That is the level of service that this country currently offers.

Written answers to questions from Members from all parties, in all parts of the House, including the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who had such a long-standing interest in veterans’ affairs, have revealed, for example, a lack of data kept on the number of ex-servicemen in prison. Another answer showed that no estimate of the cost of family breakdown arising from veterans’ mental health problems has been made. Far too many written answers from the Ministry of Defence concentrate on charities. The world is starting to notice. Sergeant Neil Duffy recently returned his medals to the Prime Minister in a protest over benefits cuts that had left him suicidal. That was apparently down to a Department for Work and Pensions error, but a co-ordinating veterans administration would have avoided any confusion between military benefits and civilian entitlements.

On 4 November, The Economist ran an article condemning our country’s veterans provision, writing that

“a lavish American-style GI Bill of Rights is unlikely”—

and nor, I should emphasise, am I asking for one this afternoon—and quoting the director general of the British Legion as saying that he plans for

“a bow-wave of demand for our welfare support”.

The Economist, I hope like the House, concludes that, in honouring our war dead, we

“ought perhaps to think also of a future that, for some servicemen, is likely to be bleak”

There are many things that a veterans agency could do that would cost the Government absolutely nothing at all. Had I won the ballot on private Members’ Bills, I would have introduced a Bill making it illegal to discriminate against a member of Her Majesty’s forces on the grounds that he or she is wearing the Queen’s uniform. I would like to see a drive, led by the Government, on cultural change, perhaps through education programmes in schools and public information programmes, to develop practices such as those that I witnessed when living in the United States with my ex-husband for several years, where military personnel are regularly thanked for their service. When I have taken the opportunity, as a Member of this House, to thank troops whom I have come across for their service, I am often told that nobody has ever thanked them before. Surely that is a crying shame.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire will, in the end, be surprised, because our troops deserve all the honour—all the hero-worship—that the Americans render to theirs. I hope that the Minister this afternoon will consider creating a fully fledged, co-ordinating veterans administration or department, bringing the UK into line with the rest of the English-speaking world. He is not only a Minister, but a distinguished former soldier. May I therefore take this opportunity to thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his service, and to commend this project to him, as the final seal on restoring the military covenant, to which my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are so committed?

14:13

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

May I begin by thanking you for allowing me to speak in this Adjournment debate about veterans, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) on securing it in the first place? Needless to say, representing Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, I am delighted to have this opportunity to talk on behalf of one of the finest strategic naval bases—indeed, one of the finest naval bases as a whole—and one of the most historic naval ports and cities that our country has.

There are two things that I would like to speak about in the next few moments. I will try to ensure that I do not take up too much time, but, first, if my hon. Friend the Minister and the Ministry of Defence are going to make a decision about the location of the national veterans weekend in 2012, I would like to ensure that Plymouth is up there in their considerations, as it most certainly should be. There is a genuine feeling that Plymouth was rather let down under the previous Administration and that Chatham pipped it at the post, but Plymouth has a good story to tell. Indeed, it is interesting to note that as we debate an incredibly important issue for my constituency, and for other Army, naval and Royal Marine bases, no members of the Labour party are here to participate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that this is an Adjournment debate that was secured by the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe). She has given him permission to participate, but normally the convention is that only she speaks.

[Oliver Colvile]

Thank you for reminding me of that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The second issue that I should like to raise is the whole business of combat stress and the mental health issues that go with it. I have been hearing some sad and depressing stories about how it can take 14 years for some veterans to come forward with combat stress. I have also heard stories of serving personnel who experience very big problems in their homes, because they have been overcome by their mental health issues. Unless we take action on that, we will face a whole series of related issues, including more drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness and all those other mental health issues.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has produced his report, which I understand has gone to the Prime Minister and which, according to the Secretary of State, will be fully implemented. That is very good news. The report makes the point that we should incorporate a

“structured mental health systems enquiry into existing medical examinations performed”

while servicemen and women are still serving, which is very important indeed. The report talks about uplifting

“the number of mental health professionals conducting veterans outreach work from Mental Health Trusts in partnership with a leading mental health charity,”

which is absolutely vital. The report refers to:

“A Veterans Information Service…to be deployed 12 months after a person leaves the Armed Forces,”

which is vital, as is the

“Trial of an online early intervention service for serving personnel and veterans.”

All that is absolutely vital, because if we do not do something about these issues, we will see more people admitted to our mental health units, increasing numbers of people going to prison—and mental health issues in prison are a very big worry indeed—and an enormous amount more homelessness on our streets.

When I was first selected to be the candidate in Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, I was struck by the story of a man whom I met at Bretonside bus station who was living on the streets. He told me about how his relationship had broken down once he had left his regiment in the Army—the whole thing had gone very wrong for him—described the problems that he then encountered and explained how difficult he was finding it to get back into work. The whole issue of combat stress is vital, but caring for our veterans after they have served so gallantly on behalf of our country is vital too.

Combat Stress, the well-regarded national charity, told me earlier today that it has seen a vast increase in the number of people suffering from mental health issues since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so the more help we can give our veterans and the better we can take care of them, the better. That is what we should be about.

14:09

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Let me start, as is traditional, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) on securing this debate to discuss the important topic of how we look after former members of our armed forces. I am glad to hear that I, too, am expected to grasp nettles like the infant Hercules; I am not sure whether there is a mixed metaphor somewhere in there, but there probably is, although that is my fault, because I am not such an illustrious author. By the way, I am not a very distinguished soldier either—although it was very sweet of my hon. Friend to say that I was. Never mind, I take all flattery when it is given.

I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) here today, and I have heard his submission for Armed Forces day 2012. I am sure that he will make it again, but I will note it and take it into account when decisions are made.

I confess that I was rather sorry to hear that the title of the debate had changed from “Care for UK Ex-Servicemen” to “UK Veterans Administration”. Although I am officially the Minister for veterans, I cannot help feeling that many of those who have served are more comfortable with a term that highlights exactly what they have done—that they have served their country in a way that is unique. My only qualification would be to add that today more and more ex-servicewomen swell the ranks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Corby raised several important points, and I shall respond at length on one or two. I do not want to take up too much time, and I may not have all the information to hand, but we will enter into correspondence about the issues. I do not agree with everything she said, as I shall explain, but what has come across clearly is that she and I, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, share two fundamental principles. The first is that the nation and the Government have a moral obligation to care for those who have made a commitment by joining the armed forces, and taking on the duties and sometimes the sacrifices that service requires. I will return to the question of the armed forces covenant later.

The second principle is that when we provide support, we must place the ex-serviceman or woman at the heart of what we do. Organisations and structures are only the means to an end, and what matters is how we can best help each individual, such as the person whom my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport met in a bus shelter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Corby highlighted the range of services that former service personnel may need to call on during their lives, and the variety of agencies that provide them. She argues that it would be more cost-effective to provide those services if they were brought together in a single administration. I do not agree, because when a service is already provided by one Department for the majority of the population, there needs to be a very strong case to set up a separate organisation to do the same thing for the remainder. Ex-service personnel live among us; they are not separate from the community that they have worked to protect. There are three ex-regular army officers in the Chamber and one former Territorial officer. We are here; we are not separate from the rest.

For the most part, veterans’ needs are the same as those of their fellow citizens, whether they involve health care, housing or benefits. Most of our ex-service personnel do not want that period in their lives, which may be quite brief, to be the dominant factor in deciding how they access services for the rest of their lives. A great friend of mine, General Sir Robert Fry, recently said that some of the reaction to the armed forces at the moment is somewhat mawkish, and that is true up to a point. I do not mean that the armed forces, the House or I myself do not relish the fact that people are now giving due respect where it is deserved—but we must be careful that we do not adopt a mawkish attitude to people who are just getting on with their lives in the service of this country.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Some people might not consider that to be mawkish. From my time in Northern Ireland, I know some soldiers who would benefit greatly from better veterans’ services. Our problem with mental casualties will increase hugely. On average, one person is killed for eight wounded, but in the Minister’s and my time that was one to three. The problem will get worse, and we must ensure that our services for those veterans are as good as possible.

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. and gallant Friend not only spent a longer time in the armed forces than the rest of us in the Chamber today, but came away much more covered in glory and honour than anyone else. I assure him that I and the Government appreciate, as did the previous Administration, the long-term problems that may arise from many of the casualties in Afghanistan. I will return to mental health shortly, because I want to raise several issues.

The US model is often held up for comparison, but the great difference between ourselves and our American friends is, of course, that in this country we have a national health service within a welfare state. It has the vocation to provide the very best care for everyone. Since 1948 the NHS has given excellent service day in, day out to millions of ex-servicemen and women and their families.

Ex-service personnel are entitled to priority in NHS treatment for conditions resulting from service. The main problem has been lack of awareness of that entitlement among ex-servicemen and women, and especially among practitioners, which is why we have supported recent steps to publicise it more effectively. At the new Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham, we see evidence every day of the superb level of care that the NHS provides to our people who are injured in Afghanistan. They are still serving, of course, but that shows the first-class co-operation that can and does exist between different parts of Government. We must ensure that that is everyone's experience.

We must also recognise that part of the support for ex-service personnel comes not from the Government but from the voluntary and community sector; my hon. Friend the Member for Corby mentioned that. Sometimes the service charities are described as substituting for what the Government should be doing. I believe that that does them a great disservice. I say philosophically that Government bureaucracy is not necessarily the best way to deliver some of the extra services and care that service charities deliver. The help that charitable and voluntary organisations and—dare I say it?—the big society have given to people returning from warfare goes back a long way. It is not for the state to do everything, and the state is not necessarily best placed to do that. We all have social responsibilities, and service charities are an excellent example of the big society in action. I pay tribute to their vital and irreplaceable role in our national life.

This week—it seems to have been quite a long week—I had an opportunity to visit the Royal British Legion on the south bank, and Combat Stress, two organisations that work as active and independent charities, but collaborate closely with the Government in the interests of ex-servicemen. Several formulae have been suggested over the years to strengthen the focus on ex-service issues in the UK. They range from the full-blown US-style Veterans Administration to more modest changes to Government machinery. Some give a greater role to the Ministry of Defence; others look to central Government to take on the responsibility. The creation of a Minister for veterans can be seen against that background, but my role, quite properly, has its limits. I can act as an advocate or as an interlocutor for ex-service personnel, but I do not want to tell the Department of Health and its devolved equivalents how best to deliver health care. Rather, I want to see ex-servicemen and women treated correctly across government, and not pigeonholed.

If we are to rely on our current range of providers to support former members of the armed forces, that will impose two requirements on us. The first is that the services that the nation provides should be attuned to the particular needs of veterans, where that is appropriate. Mental health has been mentioned, and it is an excellent example. It is generally acknowledged that ex-service personnel who are suffering problems as a direct result of their service—for example, those with post traumatic stress disorder— might respond better to an environment in which their particular experience is recognised and understood. I have heard this referred to as “cultural sensitivity”. Hence the importance of the six mental health pilots, designed to trial best practice in this area, which are going on now.

Getting our mental health services right, and tailoring them to the needs of the ex-service personnel who need them, is a matter that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has considered fully in his recent report. We are now taking forward his recommendations. To illustrate the priority that we attach to this, when I visited Combat Stress headquarters earlier in the week and had a chance to learn more about its activities, I was joined not only by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire but by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns). I hope that represents a true example of joined-up government. I heard exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said on these matters, but rather than going into them in great depth now, I want to discuss one or two of the issues with him later. Perhaps he could buy me a cup of tea.

[Oliver Colvile]

indicated assent.

[Mr Robathan]

Ah, good. [Interruption.] He is quite well off, I think.

That joint approach brings me to the second requirement, which is co-ordination between providers. I think that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who used to do my job, will agree that the co-ordination between providers has not always been good. Ex-service personnel want services that meet their needs efficiently and effectively. They do not want to be shunted about, or to fall down the cracks. That has happened in the past, and it is still happening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Corby has referred to the efforts that the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency makes to co-ordinate the different services that ex-service personnel can call upon. Its helplines are very successful, for example, handling 150,000 to 200,000 calls each year. When I visited Norcross earlier this year, I listened to some of those calls, and heard good practical advice being given in a clear and sensitive way. I would like to put on record today my appreciation for what the SPVA staff do to assist ex-servicemen and women. Whether it involves managing pensions and compensation, staffing the helplines, delivering the veterans welfare service or issuing veterans badges—which are very popular—they make a real difference.

We must ensure that Government Departments work together as a matter of course. They need to take into account the needs and concerns of former service personnel at all stages of their work, from developing policy to delivering services on the ground.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I completely concur with the hon. Gentleman’s point about co-ordination at local level. We piloted the welfare pathway—I understand that he does not like that name—and I wonder whether he is going to roll it out further. It was all about getting people at local level talking to each other.

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I recognise and pay tribute to the work that the last Administration did. If we look back 10 years, or even five, the situation was not what it is now—let us not blame whoever was in government 10 years ago—and I pay tribute to what they did. Now, the situation is very different from what it was even three years ago. He is quite right to say that I do not like the term “pathway”; it sounds a bit like new Labour-speak to me. However, in answer to his question, we are making no commitments at the moment, but we are certainly looking towards this way, because if it works, it will be the best way forward.

As I was saying, Government Departments need to work together as a matter of course, and to take into account the needs and concerns of veterans at all stages of their work, from developing policy to delivering services on the ground. I have even put into my speech here that I believe that the previous Government were right to emphasise that principle, when they published the command paper “The Nation’s Commitment: Cross-Government Support to our Armed Forces, their Families and Veterans”. To ensure that that happens, the Cabinet Office chairs a Committee at senior level to bring Departments together.

What we have been discussing is at the heart of the military covenant. Our own commitment to rebuilding the covenant featured prominently in the coalition programme for government. That programme includes a range of proposals to benefit ex-service personnel, from mental health to troops to teachers, which was mentioned only yesterday and, I noticed, was the subject of a headline in the Evening Standard. I am not sure that I quite understood the newspaper’s interpretation of the proposal, but there we go. On Troops for Teachers, I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education yesterday confirming our commitment to a scheme that will help both ex-service personnel and our schools.

I suggest to the House that the key to making things work better for ex-service personnel is that kind of holistic, co-ordinated approach, working together to a common end, rather than an organisational upheaval. Our intention is that the new tri-service armed forces covenant will set the tone of what we do across Government.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby for giving us the opportunity to discuss these issues today. I will take up many of the points that she has raised and discuss them with her further. Her interventions remind us that one of the yardsticks by which a Government are judged is how well they treat their ex-servicemen and women. We are determined to treat them with dignity and respect and to reflect the huge debt, which my hon. Friend spoke about, that we all owe to all of them. It is our moral duty to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

14:35

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Thursday 25th November 2010 Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 25 November 2010

Communities and Local Government

Thursday 25th November 2010 Ministerial Corrections

Departmental Legal Costs

[Graham Evans]

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much (a) his Department and its predecessors and (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on legal advice in each year since 1997.

[Official Report, 15 July 2010, Vol. 513, c. 905-906W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Robert Neill:

Errors have been identified in the written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) on 15 July 2010.

The errors are in lines one and six, and the total of the table:

Line 1: Communities and Local Government: £9,564,505. The figure should in fact be £4,894,583.

Line 6: Homes and Communities Agency: £11,913,217. The figure should in fact be £10,081,889.

Total: £25,690,648. The figure should in fact be £19,189,397.

The Housing and Communities Agency should read Homes and Communities Agency.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Robert Neill]

The following table shows total spend on legal advice for the last financial year for (a) the Department and (b) its agencies and non-departmental bodies. Details of expenditure in earlier years could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

[Robert Neill]

The following table shows total spend on legal advice for the last financial year for (a) the Department and (b) its agencies and non-departmental bodies. Details of expenditure in earlier years could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 25th November 2010 Westminster Hall

Thursday 25 November 2010

[Mr James Gray in the Chair]

Backbench Business

Thursday 25th November 2010 Westminster Hall

Transport (CSR)

Thursday 25th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Relevant document: uncorrected oral evidence taken before the Transport Committee on Wednesday 24 November 2010, on Transport and the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review, HC 630-i.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr Newmark.)

14:30

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

I am delighted to have this opportunity to discuss the outcome of the comprehensive spending review in relation to transport. I am pleased to see the Minister of State, Department for Transport, in her place this afternoon. I look forward to hearing her comments and, hopefully, her replies to the questions that I raise. I am also pleased to see here today my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), and I congratulate him on his new position as shadow Transport Minister. He will bring to the post considerable expertise in the transport field.

I welcome the Government’s recognition that transport infrastructure is vital in supporting economic growth. The Department has described it as an engine for growth. Repeated statements and announcements have emphasised the Government’s commitment to transport, and long-term investment in transport, in supporting our economy. Indeed, good transport links are essential to the movement of goods and people both locally and around the country. We cannot have a successful economy without a good transport infrastructure. However, we need good infrastructure throughout the country. Although I support continued investment in transport in the south and south-east, it must not be at the cost of investment in the north and other parts of the country. I will return to that theme a little later on.

I support what the Government are saying about the importance of investing in transport infrastructure for our future. Looking at the detail of the comprehensive spending review in relation to transport, however, it is apparent that there are many important questions that need to be asked and pursued.

In relation to rail, I am pleased that some commitments previously entered into have been maintained; indeed, it would have been very difficult to abandon them. I am particularly pleased that the allocation to Network Rail and to rail, 2009 to 2014, has been maintained, and that the essential part of the investment in Crossrail has also been honoured. A saving of £1 billion has been found. None the less, that cannot disguise the fact that there are to be major cuts to the transport budget.

According to the Department for Transport’s own figures, the overall cut over the four years of the comprehensive spending review comes to 15% in real terms overall. Capital spending is down 11% and resource spending down 21%. Those are major cuts and come on top of the in-year cuts in 2010-11.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. The Labour party submission to the comprehensive spending review suggested that cuts in unprotected Departments such as transport should average no more than 20%. Actually, they have averaged out rather less than that and the Department for Transport significantly less. If she is arguing for even lower cuts in transport budgets, which Departments does she suggest should make greater ones?

[Mrs Ellman]

The purpose of today’s debate is to focus on transport and the implications of the comprehensive spending review for transport services. Indeed, that is the remit of the Transport Committee, so I am concentrating on transport today.

According to the Passenger Transport Executive Group, capital funding for local transport outside London was cut by 19% in 2010-11. It is true that the outcome could have been worse, and comparisons have been drawn with other Departments, but that does not hide the severity of the cuts that will be put in place. There are to be new funds from which transport projects could be supported. The regional growth fund, which started off as a business fund to replace the budgets of the regional development agencies, has been expanded to include transport and some housing projects, and there is to be a local sustainable transport fund. There is no way in which those two funds can even start to replace some of the major cuts that are contained in the comprehensive spending review figures.

At the moment, my Committee is considering the relationship between spending on transport and economic growth. One issue it is considering is the distribution of transport investment around the country. Three times as much transport investment per head is made in London and the south-east as in the northern regions and the midlands. How will the comprehensive spending review impact on the distribution of that transport investment? Will such disparity be reduced or increased? I am very interested to know the answer and whether such an assessment is thought to be important. In relation to budgets, it is extremely important to consider the impact on places around the country as well as nationally.

Many transport schemes are strategic rather than local in nature. In the past, business-led regional development agencies, working with Government offices for the regions, have enabled local government, working with business, to decide on regional priorities and to make representations to Government. That will end. The Secretary of State for Transport has made it clear that the proposed local economic partnerships will not be sufficient on their own to replace those arrangements. He told the Transport Committee only yesterday that he thought that local economic partnerships—I do not know whether he knew exactly how they would be put together—would need to work together, or some other arrangement might be required to look at those very same projects. To my concern, he also said that he did not think that that would be achieved until the end of the Parliament. If those alternative arrangements happen and they do not take place until the end of the Parliament, will the Minister tell us how regional rather than local priorities will be determined? Will the decisions on such projects become centralised? What are the arrangements to be? We cannot wait until the end of the Parliament to know the answers.

Let me turn to roads investment. There are some big questions to raise on the implications of the Budget on roads. The budget for road maintenance is to be reduced by 20%, which is a big reduction. We are told that that will be achieved by efficiency savings rather than by cutting back on important maintenance. We all know that if routine maintenance is not done when it is required, a lot more will be required to be spent at a later date. What kind of mechanisms are in place to monitor how that reduction is to be met? Will it be through efficiency savings or will it mean that important maintenance on our roads is simply not done?

The Highways Agency’s capital budget is to be cut by around 50%. That is also a matter of great concern. Seven schemes have been cancelled and the much needed upgrade of the A14 has been sent back to the drawing board. Does that mean the end of major new road-building in Great Britain? It would be helpful to know whether the major cutbacks in that sector are to do with the problems of our times—the Government’s wish to move very quickly to remove the deficit—or a basic change in transport policy.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that, at a time when money is tight, it is better to invest in public transport than in roads?

[Mrs Ellman]

It is important to keep a balance in spending. I certainly support continued and, indeed, increased investment in public transport. However, there may be particular road schemes that are very significant to particular areas or that are important to strategies to support economic development in certain parts of the country. Therefore, I would not rule out any particular type of investment, but I am certainly a supporter of investment in public transport.

The Secretary of State announced that 66 major local authority road schemes, which are due to cost £1.7 billion, are competing for more than £900 million-worth of funding. Will the Minister tell us what kind of result she expects to come from that great reduction in funding? Will priority be given to strategic schemes? If so, how will that be assessed and monitored?

Rail is a great success story. During the last decade, rail patronage has increased in a very dramatic way. More and more people want to use rail. Unfortunately, rail’s popularity has not been matched by the provision of sufficient or adequate rolling stock to meet that increased need. Therefore, while we have more and more people using rail, we also have more and more overcrowding and I think that we have seen the development of a rather complacent attitude to the health and safety issues related to that overcrowding.

This week, discussion has focused on the concerns raised about the proposed increase in train fares. The coalition agreement spoke about the need for

“fair pricing for rail travel.”

It now seems that that “fair pricing” means that regulated fares will be increased in the future not on the basis of the retail prices index plus 1% but on the basis of RPI plus 3% from 2012 onwards. The Government tell us that that is in order to fund much needed investment in rail.

The Association of Train Operating Companies presented such increases as average increases. However, average figures are meaningless to the individual wishing to embark on a rail journey. Already, increases of 13.8% and 9.3% have been reported as planned increases when the new policy comes into force. A lot more should be done also to provide much greater clarity about rail fares, with much greater openness about how cheaper fares can be obtained without the complexities and difficulties of interpreting the rules of different train companies on what constitutes peak-hour travel, so that travel can be made easier for more people.

There is a consequence to increasing rail fares beyond the difficulties it causes individuals, for example in getting to work. The Campaign for Better Transport estimates that fares could be 31% higher by 2015 than they are today. One result of what may well be pricing people off the rail network is that more people may go back to their cars, at a time when we are trying to encourage people to leave their cars and make use of public transport. Indeed, the Government estimate that there will be 4% fewer trips by rail than there would otherwise have been as a direct consequence of the planned fare increases.

Our concern is partly about the economic impact on individuals, including the specific difficulties that individuals may experience in getting to work, but we also have growing environmental concerns. The Climate Change Act 2008 has targets to reduce UK greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. In 2009, the transport sector accounted for a quarter of domestic carbon dioxide emissions, with 90% of those emissions coming from road transport and 55% from domestic cars alone.

Why, at a time when we are so concerned about environmental issues and when we now have the Climate Change Act, would we deliberately want to price people off rail and encourage them to get back into their cars? Furthermore, are we really so certain that the Government’s claim that those increased fares will lead to better investment and improved facilities on the rail network will actually become a reality? The rail structure is very complex and there are big questions to be asked about whether all of us—the traveller and the taxpayer—are getting good value for money from the investment put into rail.

Sir Roy McNulty’s report on the rail system and value for money issues will be very important, as will the decisions about rail franchises for the future. If we are to get value for money for the essential funding that goes into rail, it is extremely important that we look carefully at what emerges from Sir Roy McNulty’s study. Although I know at this stage that some preliminary conclusions have been drawn, there is no full report yet. I would be pleased to hear from the Minister her understanding of what Sir Roy McNulty might say and what she thinks might be the policy implications of his report.

I welcome this morning’s announcement about rail investment, particularly the commitment to electrification of the line between Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Blackpool, and the electrification of the Great Western line. However, I want to be quite sure that that electrification will go together with increased provision of rolling stock and carriages on those lines, and indeed on other overcrowded lines. I would also like to know what kind of monitoring will take place of the promises that we heard this morning—promises about other schemes, as well as the two I have mentioned—to ensure that the investment goes ahead as planned and that we have more capacity, more efficient and environmentally friendly rail travel and better value for money at the same time.

I also welcome the Government’s statement on their commitment to High Speed 2 and the funding for it. However, it is very important that the benefits of HS2 are maximised and that there is no neglect of investment in the classic network.

Rail freight is also very important. Freight moved by rail accounts for about 9% of all goods moved in the UK and I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving investment in rail freight links, specifically those between Southampton and Felixstowe. When the Transport Committee visited Hull recently, to take evidence as part of our inquiry into transport and the economy, we were told about the importance of relatively minor improvements that could enhance access to the Humber port. I hope that those improvements can go ahead and indeed I hope that similar improvements can be made in the Merseyside area. When we talk about rail investment, that debate is often dominated by discussions about passenger rail. We should always remember the importance of freight on rail, too, and the importance of investing in it.

It is also important to look at investment in buses. Indeed, more people travel on buses than on any other mode of public transport. In 2009-10—the last year for which we have figures—5.2 billion passenger journeys were taken on local bus services in Great Britain. That compares with 1.3 billion passenger journeys on rail.

I am extremely concerned about the implications of the comprehensive spending review for funding local bus services. The bus service operator grant will be cut by 20%, local authority revenue for bus services will be cut and we do not yet know how effectively the Local Transport Act 2008 will work to ensure good value for money. We are awaiting the results of the Competition Commission inquiry into the setting of bus fares.

The Government say that they believe that the cuts in the bus service operator grant and other local authority funding, which could have an impact on support for local buses, will have a low impact on services. I am mystified by that and would like to know how the Government arrived at their figures. It seems to me that a 20% reduction in the bus service operator grant, a 28% reduction in local transport revenue funding and the removal of ring-fencing puts a big question mark over how many services that are essential to local people but not necessarily profitable for individual bus operators will be able to continue. I would be grateful for a response.

It is welcome that this Government are honouring their commitment to maintain the national concessionary fares scheme introduced by the previous Government, but the administration of the scheme has changed, and there are now queries about whether the funding for that scheme will go directly to the transport services. Again, I would be grateful for a response on that from the Minister.

Road safety is an important issue that is perhaps not discussed enough—it has not been discussed sufficiently in relation to the comprehensive spending review—but one of the successes of the past decade or so is the reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. In 2009, some 2,222 people were killed on our roads and more than 24,000 were seriously injured. Behind every one of those numbers lies a tragedy, and often a broken family, yet the figures represent an improvement on previous years: 38% fewer people were killed on our roads than in the late 1990s. More progress must be made. I am concerned that the reduction in local funding, combined with the abolition of ring-fenced grants for road safety, will halt the progress made and the decline of deaths and injuries on our roads.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Will she join me in recognising the value of free advanced driver training from organisations such as the Institute of Advanced Motorists, which is available at very little cost to drivers, in raising driving standards and improving safety?

[Mrs Ellman]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I recognise the value of the training that he mentions, but the reason why we have made such progress in reducing the number of deaths and injuries on our roads, although those numbers are still far too high, is that combined efforts have been made not only to improve training but to improve road design, increase publicity through campaigns, reduce speeds and improve enforcement. It has been a combination of efforts by individuals and organisations, led by strong Government focus and guidance. I am concerned that those things might now recede into the background. That must not happen. I welcome an assurance from the Minister that transport safety, including road safety, will be high on her agenda.

Hidden within the comprehensive spending review are decisions to cut funding in important security areas such as aviation security and major changes, also involving funding reductions, to TRANSEC, which is responsible for security in transport. It is not clear what those changes will mean. When the Select Committee on Transport questioned the Secretary of State for Transport about it yesterday, he said that some of the responsibility for funding aviation security would be transferred from Government to the aviation industry. He also said that he could not say a great deal more about changes to TRANSEC. My concern is that we lack information and clarity about what is happening. It is important for us all to know what is being planned. Is the policy change an effort to increase the effectiveness of security, or is it driven by a wish to reduce costs? Transport security could be put at risk at a time of heightened concern. We need to know more about what is happening.

I also draw attention to concerns about the future of passenger representation. Passenger Focus has done an excellent job of drawing attention to the needs of passengers and travellers. It started with excellent work on the rail industry and has recently been given new responsibilities relating to bus travel, yet the Government’s quango hit list stated that Passenger Focus was due for significant reform and changes to its core tasks; I think that those were the words used. How are those core tasks to be defined? Do the Government want to change Passenger Focus’s funding and remit because it has been too successful in representing passenger needs? However committed any Government might be to public transport or indeed anything, it is essential to have an independent body that can speak out for the public about those services. I would be concerned if passenger representation were downgraded.

Finally, questions must be asked about the proposed cut of more than 30% to the administration of the Department for Transport and its agencies. First, what does it mean? Is it about being more efficient, or does it mean that the Department and its agencies will not be able to deliver what they are required to deliver with such significantly reduced funding? What does it mean for the Department’s agencies? We have already heard about cuts to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, including the removal of emergency vessels, which it appears is being done without prior consultation. It is unclear what it is all about, and it is concerning. Such drastic reductions in the administration of the Department and its agencies must ring alarm bells. Is it about being efficient—will services be delivered—or is it about more hidden cuts, particularly to those agencies where what is happening is not always immediately apparent?

In conclusion, I welcome the Government’s stated commitment to investment in our infrastructure and recognise, looking at what has happened to other Departments, that the cuts could have been much worse. However, great concerns remain about the impact on transport of the comprehensive spending review’s cuts. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the points that I have made and assure her that the Select Committee will be pursuing the issues in the months ahead. I hope that she will be pleased to receive an invitation from us before too long. We will be pleased to continue this discussion in another room.

14:58

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing this debate. I do not intend to speak for very long, as the hon. Lady has comprehensively covered the issues that the Select Committee on Transport is considering and, as a member of that Committee, I do not wish to go over the same ground. For the same reason, I do not intend to comment on the specific projects announced in the comprehensive spending review or subsequent announcements.

I welcome the success of my right hon. Friend the Minister and her colleagues in securing the assessment in the comprehensive spending review. I have to say that I feared it would be much worse and that transport would be one of the easy victims of the cuts that, sadly, must be made. By their very nature, transport projects are long term. If cuts are made, the impact is not always immediately felt. It was very bold and brave of the Government to give priority to the schemes that are for the long-term benefit of the country.

I want to focus on what follows the CSR period. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside mentioned, one of the Transport Committee’s current inquiries is into transport and the economy. As we are in the middle of that inquiry, I do not want to prejudge its conclusions, but I want to put on the record my concern and desire that we should take a longer-term perspective on transport planning in this country. We should take a more strategic, joined-up view. We have had plenty of laudable policies, schemes and reviews of individual modes of transport, whether rail, aviation, roads or maritime. However, historically, we have not taken a joined-up view and considered different modes of transport and how they fit together.

High Speed 2 is a classic example. I will not revisit the debate we had in Westminster Hall earlier this week, but we should not consider that sort of project in isolation. In considering the economic benefits, we look solely at what High Speed 2 can deliver, but such projects should be considered in conjunction with a long-term aviation policy for the United Kingdom. Before we fix the route of High Speed 2, we ought to consider how it should join up with airports in the south-east and the rest of the country. Germany has a multiple airport hub that is well connected by high-speed rail services. High Speed 2 is a multi-billion pound, long-term project and we will get one shot at making it right. Before we commit to a specific route and a vast sum of public expenditure, we ought to make sure that it is thought through strategically.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that the project needs to be carefully considered in a strategic context. However, if the logic of high-speed rail is, among other things, to compete with aviation and draw people away from aviation to reduce carbon emissions, surely there is not a terribly strong strategic logic to the scheme making it easier for people to get to airports.

[Iain Stewart]

I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. There will be competition between high-speed rail and short-haul aviation, and I would like the United Kingdom to be part of a Europe-wide high-speed network, so that it is feasible to travel by rail from Birmingham to Paris or Frankfurt. However, it is an inescapable fact that the demands on medium and long-haul air travel will increase and, until an engineer comes up with a solution, we cannot yet take trains across the Atlantic or other expanses of water.

As part of the Transport Committee’s inquiry, we visited Birmingham airport a few weeks ago. The people who work there are excited about the High Speed 2 line, because the journey time from the London area to Birmingham airport will be less than 40 minutes. That opens up the prospect of having longer-haul flights from Birmingham and relieving the capacity pressures on south-east England airports. That might not be the only answer, but it is the sort of long-term consideration that transport planning should include.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Can I take it from the hon. Gentleman’s remarks that he accepts the principle that the UK needs an international hub airport, as well as airports that function for shorter haul, and that he believes Heathrow is very important to the UK economy?

[Iain Stewart]

The United Kingdom certainly needs a hub airport in the broadest sense. I will not go into the relative merits of all the options in this short debate, but if my right hon. Friend the Minister wishes to promote me to the Government, I would be happy to make such decisions. At the moment, I am afraid such decisions are above my pay grade and that of the hon. Gentleman.

We need to think strategically about what we want the long-term aviation policy of the United Kingdom to be. That might involve Heathrow—although from all the evidence I have seen, I suspect not—or a broader south-east hub and Birmingham, Manchester or other airports in the United Kingdom. The point is that such a long-term view should be considered in conjunction with other strategic projects, such as high-speed rail.

If I may anticipate the comments that I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) will be sharing with us in a short time, we should consider specific transport projects in different locales around the country. There are exciting projects in the Leeds area involving trolley buses and other local schemes, which should also be factored into this country’s long-term planning. As a small aside, I shall mention that it is my hon. Friend’s birthday today. As a birthday present, perhaps the Minister can announce something helpful on the Leeds trolley bus scheme. However, I shall not press that matter any further.

In this country, we are poor at long-term transport planning. Part of the problem is that the tenure of Secretaries of State in the Department for Transport has been very short. Let us consider the average time for which Secretaries of State have served in the past. In the 18 years of Conservative Governments between 1979-1997, there were 12 Secretaries of State for Transport. Under the previous Labour Governments, there were seven Secretaries of State in 13 years—they did not last much longer on average. Transport needs to be pushed up the priority list in government. Again, it is way above my pay grade to determine ministerial appointments and tenure, but I hope that an individual is given the necessary time in post and the flexibility to develop a long-term view.

Those are the main points I wish to put on the record. I have the great pleasure of representing the Transport Committee at a European conference on transport and infrastructure this weekend. I am not a great fan of most things European, but Europe has had a comprehensive, strategic transport plan since 1990. I would like us to replicate that domestically in the United Kingdom. The settlement that my right hon. Friend and her colleagues have secured is, as I have said, very welcome in the context in which we operate. I hope that it will be a sound basis on which we can build a truly long-term national strategic transport plan.

15:08

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Gray, to serve under your chairmanship in this debate on transport and the impact of the comprehensive spending review. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on the excellent way in which she opened the debate.

I want to talk about the proposals made by the Highways Agency to add an additional lane to the M60 between junctions 12 and 15 near Worsley. The decision announced in the spending review to go ahead with that scheme is wrong because it is not a safe option, it will damage the quality of life of my constituents and it does not represent value for money. By going ahead with the scheme in the current restrained financial climate, the Government are opting for what was described by Highways Agency officials at a residents’ meeting as a “cheap and cheerful option,” rather than making a proper assessment of the causes of the congestion that the additional lane scheme purports to solve.

There are several reasons why the scheme will not improve that stretch of the M60 for motorists. It will also create many issues that will affect my constituents’ quality of life. First, the additional lane will not be effective in relieving the congestion on the M60 at peak times. The current congestion is caused not simply by a lack of capacity but by the number and poor design of the junctions in the affected area. On that short stretch of motorway, the M60 interfaces with the M602, the M62 and the A580 East Lancashire road. Traffic on the motorway has to slow down significantly as other traffic weaves across lanes to enter or exit at the junctions. The distance between junctions 12 and 13 is less than half a mile, and on that short stretch, motorists heading into Manchester city centre and or to the busy Trafford centre nearby must cut across each other to get to the right part of the motorway.

Secondly, I believe that the plan itself will put motorists at serious risk. That stretch of the M60 is already dangerous—I will give some statistics later—given the number of closely spaced junctions and the prevalence of heavy goods traffic heading to Manchester city centre and the nearby Trafford Park industrial estate. In fact, the number of large lorries is already set to increase because Peel Holdings, a local firm, has been given the go-ahead to build a large traffic venture called Port Salford at Barton in my constituency. The Highways Agency’s proposals will make that stretch of motorway more dangerous still, because the additional lanes scheme will create four much narrower lanes with no hard shoulder. My constituents are very worried about that. As one wrote to me:

“There is very little margin for error when driving alongside a huge transcontinental lorry. What will it be like with narrower lanes?”

Thirdly, the Highways Agency has failed dismally to take into account the views of local residents on the proposals. The M60 passes extremely close to the homes of my constituents in Worsley, Roe Green and Barton, and even minor motorway works or changes in patterns of traffic can have a major impact on their lives. That stretch of road was not originally a motorway, or even an outer ring road. It started as the Stretford bypass, but residents now have a three-lane motorway, with the threat that it will become a four-lane motorway. Something that starts as a bypass should not end up as a four-lane motorway without much consideration being given to how it will affect local people’s lives.

[Steve Baker]

In my constituency, Wycombe, the M40 had similar beginnings, so I recognise the hon. Lady’s point. Noise is a dreadful problem for my constituents who live along the motorway. Is noise also a problem in the case she describes?

[Barbara Keeley]

I will come on to that point later, but it is difficult to see how any motorway, with increasingly heavy traffic thundering by at various times of the day, can be anything but noisy, so I sympathise with that problem.

The initial consultation run by the Highways Agency was dreadful. Having heard nothing at all about the scheme as the local MP, I received a leaflet on a Wednesday informing me that the consultation was due to start on Thursday and would run only until Saturday morning. Most of that short consultation time was during the working day, and across just two days, so most local people could not attend. Hardly any of the residents affected heard about the consultation or were able to attend at such short notice, and there are around 800 households right next to the motorway. Indeed, the few people who were able to attend were shocked to discover, having talked with the engineers present, that the project would entail significant work to move service cables and take the traffic physically closer to their homes and gardens.

We managed, at my insistence, to get the Highways Agency to attend a packed meeting of hundreds of residents. Indeed, we had to turn people away because it was not judged safe to let many more into the hall. The meeting turned into a series of angry exchanges, and the quality of information given by the Highways Agency was very poor. Residents were left feeling confused and with no information. That situation occurred under the previous Government, and I was as critical of the Transport Ministers then as I am now about the scheme, so it is in no way a partisan point. Since then, the Highways Agency has promised regular newsletters, but only one has emerged. It was initially delivered to entirely the wrong residential area, reaching none of the people who will be affected by the changes.

For my constituents, the environmental impact of the widening is a big worry. They are worried not only that traffic will be brought close to their homes but about what will happen to existing measures to deal with noise. There is an acoustic fence and a narrow barrier of trees at different points along the motorway, but that is all that stands between my constituents and all the traffic on the motorway. Indeed, the acoustic fence was installed only after much campaigning by my predecessor, Terry Lewis MP. Any changes to that fence or to the tree barrier would leave local residents much more exposed to noise and to visual and atmospheric pollution, which they do not want.

One resident has already experienced a distressing accident in which a heavy goods vehicle ploughed through the acoustic fence, down the bank and into her garden, killing the driver. She must now face the fact that it is planned to bring that traffic even closer to her home and garden. Another resident was concerned about the impact that the additional lane of traffic would have on the safety of his young children playing in the garden or on the street. Indeed, I understand that a sloping grassy bank with mature shrubs at the end of one small street will be replaced by a vertical brick wall.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady will forgive me, but perhaps she would return to the effect of the comprehensive spending review on the Department for Transport. I know that it is a general debate and that she is describing important constituency matters, but perhaps she would come back slightly to the topic of the debate.

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed. What I am seeking to show, Mr Gray, is that the scheme, which was authorised in the spending review, represents very poor value for money and that the decision should be reversed. I know that there are many such schemes across the country for which Members are seeking to find funding. I suggest that the scheme for the M60 is of such poor quality and represents such poor value for money in the spending review that it should be changed. As I have mentioned, the scheme is currently priced at between £43 million and £50 million, which is to be spent on development such as replacing the grassy bank with a vertical brick wall. That would be a major change, as many of the residents have rooms that face the motorway.

With regard to whether that decision, which was taken in the spending review, is the right one, I am most concerned about the safety of residents who live adjacent to the motorway. Why does the consideration of reducing congestion not also have to take into account the safety of those who live nearby? Without a hard shoulder, as I have mentioned, traffic will be closer still to residents’ homes and gardens, and there has already been more than one incident in which vehicles have ploughed through fences and trees and ended up in gardens, much to the distress of local people.

Statistics on safety from the House of Commons Library show that between 2005 and 2009 there were 189 accidents, involving 310 casualties, between junctions 12 and 15 of the M60. It seems to me that any scheme that causes traffic to speed up in the narrower lanes of that busy stretch of motorway will increase that danger, particularly because it will bring traffic closer to residents’ homes.

I believe that the Government need to take a longer-term view and wait until funding is available for a proper and fundamental redesign of the key motorway junctions, because that would deliver a longer-lasting and safer solution for the area. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said that we were poor at long-term planning. The proposed scheme is not a good example of any sort of planning. It is unpopular with local people and will be an expensive white elephant, because it will be dangerous, noisy and polluting and will not solve peak-hour congestion problems on the M60. The Government should not be wasting scarce resources on it but should use the money for the many bypasses and much-wanted schemes put forward by hon. Members in various areas of the north-west and throughout the country.

As it happens, a constituent sent me an e-mail today at 1.25 pm, stating:

“At question time in parliament yesterday the MP for Glossop was seeking funds for a bypass scheme in his constituency, which he said would improve the lives of his constituents. Why is the above scheme going ahead, which not one single constituent wants, and which would make life for the likes of me intolerable during the construction phase and render the value of my property considerably less?”

When I asked about the scheme at Transport questions, the Minister replied that there would be a consultation and that residents could express their concerns. I hope that she is listening today and I urge her and her ministerial colleagues to withdraw the scheme and use the funding elsewhere.

15:19

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing the debate. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak. Some of the decisions that affect transport infrastructure are particularly important to my constituency.

Cleethorpes is, as hon. Members will appreciate, the premier resort of the east coast. However, they should also be aware that it takes in the major ports and industrial complexes of Immingham, and the area along the south Humber bank up to Barton-upon-Humber, where the Humber bridge crosses the estuary. I shall return later to the subject of the bridge, and the problems caused by heavy tolls.

First, I welcome the Government’s approach within the comprehensive spending review. Despite the difficulties, they have recognised the vital role of transport in allowing business to flourish and bringing growth and employment throughout the country. Public transport of course plays a vital role in the city regions by connecting local people to jobs and other opportunities, including health care and leisure. It ensures that business has access to as wide a labour market as possible. The depth of labour is a critical competitive advantage in the city regions and it is essential to maximise the level of investment and, hence, employment in the economy in the years ahead.

Although investment in transport infrastructure takes a long time to implement, starting now on schemes that will be completed in a few years will not only create much-needed employment at a time of recession in the engineering and construction centres; it will mean that new and improved opportunities are available as the economy improves. Improving the quality, scope and performance of local transport systems is critical to supporting recovery and growth, since competitiveness, and especially the labour market, depend on them. To ensure that city regions retain their cohesiveness and underpinning opportunities, it is vital that we boost the connectivity between the secondary centres. I welcome the Government’s increased attention to more effective transit-oriented development, which links spatial, economic and transport strategies. Research has shown that better co-ordination and integration of transport networks can have a sustained impact on economic performance.

Despite a CSR that has been, on the whole, much better, as other hon. Members have said, than was perhaps anticipated, there have been some disappointments in my constituency, particularly over delays to the A160 upgrade and the A18-A180 link road. The A160 upgrade is the link between the M180 and Immingham docks. It has long been a national priority to improve access to our major ports. Measured by tonnage the Immingham-Grimsby dock complex is the largest in the UK. The Humber bank is an established centre for energy refining and chemicals and is ideally placed to become a hub for the renewable energy sector following the granting of planning permission for the south Humber gateway project, which will provide about 4,500 jobs in the first five years and the prospect of many more in the following decade. Access via the A160 has, as I mentioned, been delayed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and I met senior executives from the developers, Able UK, only yesterday. They remain optimistic, and reassured us that there will be no delays in their plans, but they would like reassurance from the Government that if their development proceeds ahead of schedule consideration can be given to rescheduling the A160 upgrade. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to give an assurance on that today, but I want to flag it up as one of the points that will be raised when a delegation meets one of her colleagues in a couple of weeks.

I welcome the increased investment in the Yorkshire and Humber region, although it still falls behind that in many other regions. There is general acceptance, however one calculates the figures, that spending in our region has, measured on a per capita basis, been well below that in other regions. That is even more true for those of us on the periphery of our region. The Lincolnshire part of the Yorkshire and Humber region has every justification to think that it has not been well served by various Departments and agencies. Only yesterday, my constituent Steve Ashton drew my attention to the Government publication “Transport and the Economy” which gave the 2008 figures as £248 per head of population for Yorkshire and Humber, compared with £259 in the west midlands and £287 in the north-west. Needless to say, there were very much larger figures for London and the south-east.

Not only is my constituency located at the edge of the region; it is also on the boundary between the east midlands and the Yorkshire and Humber region. Both regions have suffered over the years from reduced spending. We would benefit from the upgrading of the A46 from Lincoln through to Cleethorpes, and the extremely dangerous A15 between Lincoln and Scunthorpe. I accept that that is not an immediate prospect, but I want to flag it up for the future because it is vital for the tourism and industrial sectors.

I welcome the answer that the Secretary of State gave yesterday to the Select Committee on Transport, when he said that the Department had made a significant contribution to the regional growth fund and mentioned his hope that transport projects will benefit from the fund. That is clearly a possible funding stream for the very modest £8 million A18-A180 link road that would increase access to Immingham docks, and relieve congestion, giving much relief to Immingham residents.

To turn to the subject of rail services, earlier this week my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole and I met executives from Alliance Rail, which is an open access provider looking to introduce four direct services per day from Cleethorpes, via Scunthorpe, to King’s Cross. That is extremely helpful. Many of the established franchise operators tend to want to increase capacity by just increasing the number of services on existing well-served routes, whereas the open access providers, as has been demonstrated by Hull Trains, Grand Central and so on meet areas such as mine, on the coast, which are not on the direct services.

Finally, perhaps I may remind the Minister, as I said I would, about the problem of Humber bridge tolls. She visited the area about this time last year, and the Treasury-led review that she promised then has now come to pass. I plead with her to do all that she can to ensure that a sustainable result comes from the review. We have had years of tinkering, which has helped at the edges, but we urgently need the job opportunities that will open up to local people without that barrier between them.

I welcome the Government’s decision taken in the CSR, which has proved to be much better than we hoped. It would be much appreciated if the Minister would consider those of us on the periphery.

15:27

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing the debate.

I shall try to keep my remarks short, because other hon. Members want to speak, but it is important to remember the context of the debate. There is no doubt that we are living in incredibly challenging times and the debt that we had was spiralling out of control. When we look further afield, particularly at Ireland, Portugal, Greece and Spain, we see that dealing with the debt is a necessity. The deficit reduction plan is not easy but, for the sake of future generations, it is our duty and responsibility to deal with it. Despite the fact that we face that huge challenge, I, like my hon. Friends, welcome the fact that the Department for Transport has managed to limit the reduction to about 15% in real terms. That is quite an achievement, given the severity of the economic situation, particularly as the Labour party had plans for a 50% reduction. That plan would have meant many more projects falling off the list. It is a testament to the Department’s hard work that we have achieved this settlement.

The importance of the transport infrastructure cannot be overstated. It is one of the keys to growing our economy in these difficult times and it enables people and businesses to travel effectively and help the UK become even more competitive.

Transport really does provide the crucial links that allow people and businesses to prosper. As a Northern MP, I am acutely aware of how important it is, particularly if we are to encourage growth across the country and ensure that the increased prosperity that we hope will come spreads beyond the south-east.

I have long campaigned and complained about the lack of a fair settlement for Yorkshire when it comes to transport, at the same time recognising that investment in London and the south-east encourages more economic growth for the whole country. However, Yorkshire has had a poor deal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said. Not so long ago, Leeds and Yorkshire and Humber had £100 a head less spent on transport compared with the national average—not just London but the national average. As a result, we have been left with congestion and overcrowding problems.

Leeds has enjoyed a renaissance over the past 20 years, but our transport system has been struggling to cope. The increased economic activity over those years has resulted in people from all over West Yorkshire travelling in and out of the city and clogging up the roads, particularly the M62. I am therefore delighted that the Transport Secretary announced additional capacity on the M62 near Leeds around junctions 25 to 30. That will help enormously in moving traffic from the north-west into Yorkshire and back.

I also welcome the fact that the Department and Ministers have secured funding for south access to Leeds railway station. That station is one of the busiest in the country, but it is accessible only from the northern side. The south access will mean that journey times for the southern part of the city will be cut. At the same time, it will offer an opportunity for economic growth in that part of the city, which has lagged behind the rest of Leeds.

One of the most significant announcements that we have had from the Government was about High Speed 2. It is no exaggeration to say that people and businesses in Yorkshire are delighted with the decision, particularly the decision in favour of the Y route. There was a great deal of concern that the Government might have gone for the other option, which would have involved sending us all to Manchester before sending us on to Leeds. I would not be as complimentary to my right hon. Friend the Minister if she had come to that decision. I am very grateful, and I want to put on the record the thanks of the people of Yorkshire and the north-east.

In fact, HS2 is a real chance to break down the north-south divide, which has been a problem for successive Governments of all parties. That, coupled with the announcement today about investment in our railways, is considerable news, given our hopes for a better economic climate.

There are also several projects in the development pool and, if Members will indulge my continuing to be a little parochial, I would like to mention two. The first, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) referred, is the New Generation Transport trolley bus. Leeds has been led down the garden path over many years. We were promised a supertram, millions of pounds were spent preparing for it, and then the rug was pulled from under us. We were told to go back to the drawing board, and now we have come up with the trolley bus scheme. One of the big problems that people face and businesses complain about is the fact that there is no integrated transport in the city of Leeds. This project will really help to get people around the city once they are in it.

We look with envy at the transport systems in cities such as Manchester, Sheffield and Nottingham, and are simply asking for a bit of the cake. We recognise that more work has to be done, and people on the city council and in Metro are working incredibly hard—they have done a tremendous amount of work, it has to be said—to try to make the scheme affordable. I commend their work.

Another scheme in the comprehensive spending review is the Leeds city region rail growth package. There is no doubt that Leeds and Yorkshire as a whole would benefit greatly from it. Improving access to the region’s wider rail network will provide capacity for future demand while reducing congestion in city centres and major transport corridors. The package represents strong value for money. It would make best use of existing infrastructure, and fill gaps and pinch points.

Under the proposals, there would be two new stations: one at Kirkstall Forge, to be delivered in early 2014, and the other at Apperley Bridge, to be delivered 12 months later. Those two stations are of particular concern to my constituency.

To give a bit of background, there were many mills in my constituency over the years; sadly, they have gone. In their place, we have many new residential developments, but there has been no investment in infrastructure to cope with the increased population. As a result, the one main road that takes people from the north side of my constituency into Leeds is heavily congested. Those two stations would offer a real solution to getting people in and out of the city effectively, sustainably and, obviously, in an environmentally friendly way.

What is good about the project is that 17% of the costs will be met by the Commercial Estates Group and its investors—well over the minimum requirement of 10%—and stakeholder support has been secured from Network Rail, Northern Rail, CEG, Bradford city council, Leeds city council and Metro. The Kirkstall Forge station would bring numerous benefits to Leeds, with £350 million of investment flooding into the area. Approximately 1,100 homes, flats and duplex apartments are included in the scheme. The impact on employment in the area would be significant: it is estimated that approximately 2,400 new jobs will be created. There would be a £4 million contribution from CEG’s investors to delivery of the rail growth package, which will cost £23 million. I cannot emphasise how important both the stations would be to our city, but particularly to my constituency.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South was kind enough to mention earlier, it is my birthday. I do not want a card or a cake, but if I can have two stations, I would be very happy.

15:37

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I, too, commend the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) for leading this debate.

The overall context of this debate is the comprehensive spending review and the need to tackle the country’s deficit. The overspend inherited from the previous Government is so great that one could cut the entire Department for Transport budget—every penny of Government money spent on buses, trains, roads, tube lines and so on—10 times over and still be overspending. That is the scale of the task faced by the Government in trying to rebalance the economy.

In that context, for the Department to have achieved a cut of only 15% over four years is to be genuinely celebrated. It is well below the average for Government Departments, and is reflective, I hope, of a good and robust case put to the Treasury. It certainly reflects the importance of transport to this Government, which is very much to be welcomed. From a Liberal Democrat perspective, the importance of transport is that it will help to improve the economy again, and it will also help us to achieve the boldly stated aim of being the greenest Government ever. Those two in combination should lead to a model of more sustainable prosperity, which is very much to be desired.

Some of the expectations of the comprehensive spending review have genuinely been confounded. We spoke a little about the bus service operating grant. Any cut in it is to be regretted, and I am sure that Ministers regret it as much as I do, but it was widely discussed as potentially 50%. A cut of only 20% is relatively benign, and I believe that bus service operators have assured Ministers, including the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), that it can be absorbed, hopefully without increases in fares. I shall return to the bus service operating grant later.

Comment in the transport press has been favourable. Local Transport Today, a newspaper that I am learning to read avidly, commented in an editorial:

“Philip Hammond will be a happy man this week...The DfT’s 15% budget reduction over the next four years is lower than the 19% Government average and the Department’s reduction in capital funding (11%) is far better than the 29% average.”

That is all to the good. As part of the package, there are new Government funding lines that are particularly to be welcomed. The local sustainable transport fund of £560 million over four years reflects the importance of localism to this Government, and has an explicit link to the reduction of CO₂ emissions, which is very welcome. I hope that grants made under that scheme are for measures to increase the importance of cycling and walking at a local level, as well as for more traditional travel projects.

As the Secretary of State confirmed in an answer to me earlier today, there is also the use of the new methodology for calculating the future cost of carbon. One of the most disastrous calculations by the previous Government was their use of an adulterated version of what was recommended by the Stern review to calculate the future cost of carbon emissions, which is, in effect, the value of future lives lost by climate change. They so heavily discounted that rate that projects such as the third runway at Heathrow looked economic when the cost of climate change was taken into account. It took only a change in the calculation for the idea of a third runway to look as bad as it does, and for the project to be rightly stopped. I am pleased that the new methodology will be adopted in calculations relating to all future projects.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Notwithstanding how carbon is calculated—I do not for a second accept that the methodology was in any way, shape or form flawed—does the hon. Gentleman actually believe that if Heathrow ceases to be a hub, aviation will decrease? Does he not accept that logically Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle or Frankfurt would become the European hub, which would probably be welcomed by Brussels, and that the UK economy would then be in disbenefit?

[Martin Horwood]

I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the methodology was not flawed. It was changed in March, and the now leader of the Labour party, the former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, rightly presided over that change, which this Government, who took office shortly afterwards, took up. I think that the hon. Gentleman needs to be careful about his calculations.

As far as the other airports are concerned, it is very important that aviation is constrained across the European Union, and indeed around the world, as part of our assault on the threat of climate change. Unless the hon. Gentleman is challenging the methodology used by Sir Nicholas Stern—now Lord Stern—in his review, which was commissioned by the previous leader of the Labour party and Prime Minister, he will have to explain what methodology he would use to reflect the true economic cost of the threat of climate change. The methodology has been widely accepted in business and by investors and is now part of business calculations, and the use by the previous Government—until they changed their mind at the very last minute—of an incorrect and adulterated version of the cost of carbon, deviated from good business practice, apart from anything else.

On assessing project impact, I recommend that Ministers look carefully at the new approach to appraisal—NATA—assessment framework, and ensure that environmental and quality-of-life benefits are properly reflected. My noble Friend Lord Bradshaw in another place has made some very valuable and typically learned critiques of NATA, and I commend them to Ministers.

On railways, Ministers can be very happy indeed. The overall balance of investment in the Department will shift from 49 to 60% for rail by 2014-15, and that is exactly the right direction of travel. I am delighted that major projects such as Crossrail, Thameslink, the tube upgrades and, of course, High Speed 2 are all secure and that High Speed 2 in particular will, assuming that it is extended to Scotland, in the very long term deliver substantial reductions in aviation within the UK. I take the points made by other hon. Members on this earlier, but High Speed 2 is a very important contribution to rebalancing and making more environmentally friendly our whole approach to transport; that has been the experience of high-speed rail wherever it has been introduced around the world in competition with aviation.

Today, significant investment in new rolling stock was announced, with 600 new carriages for Crossrail and 1,200 for Thameslink, which in turn will free up hundreds of electric carriages for redeployment on newly electrified routes elsewhere and help to make the case for those new routes economic, which is very important. That, in turn, will free up diesel rolling stock for other routes, and help to support their economics. We have had additional announcements on developments at Reading, Birmingham New Street and other stations, on the east coast and midland main lines, and in Manchester and south Wales, and the confirmation, which is very important to colleagues in Scotland, that the inter-city express programme has been narrowed to two options, both of which include absolutely through services, and do not therefore raise the prospect of parts of Scotland being cut off by the need to change trains.

I would also welcome the schemes previously announced by the Department, which are reflected in the settlement for light rail, trams and ultra-light rail schemes. Those mentioned are Greater Manchester Metrolink, the Blackpool and Fleetwood tramway upgrade and the Tyne and Wear metro upgrade, and there are plenty of others that we could consider. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) made a very powerful case for Leeds, and the Leeds new generation transport scheme is in the development pool, which means that it has a fair chance of success. I wish him well in putting forward a strong case for the Leeds light rail system.

There are other schemes even further into the future, and I must mention the ultra-light rail system being fought for in Gloucestershire. We recognise that it is a long way off in terms of public funding, but important steps can be taken to support it. Most obviously, since it is intended that the system will reuse railway lines that were closed down by Dr Beeching, Ministers could look, perhaps with the Department for Communities and Local Government, at the new planning framework to ensure that nothing is done that prejudices such development. That would be an important way to support the future development of ultra-light rail.

On roads, I welcome many of the announcements, including the confirmation that support for electric car-charging infrastructure will go ahead. With the possibility of “hybrid hybrid vehicles”—those that run on electric batteries until the batteries run out and then revert to more conventional hybrid vehicle technology—we might be within sight of escaping the chicken and egg situation, in which the car-charging points cannot be rolled out until the electric vehicles are there to produce the demand for them, but the demand for the electric vehicles cannot be there until there are charging points. There is now the prospect of beginning to move forward in the electric car market, and the Government’s clear support for that is very important.

I am pleased that the main focus of the Department’s spending is shifting more towards maintenance and away from new roads, but the Liberal Democrats might have gone further and looked rather more critically at many of the other new road projects. I was very interested in what the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said about the M60 project. It certainly sounds as though the Highways Agency’s consultation process has left a very great deal to be desired in that case, and could be critically looked at again. I also suggest that Ministers cast a particularly critical eye over the suggested upgrade of the junctions between the M4 and the M5 in my part of the world. I travelled the M4 and the M5 recently by car, and found no particular problems at the junctions or with the interaction between the two motorways, so I am not sure what the justification for the project is. I urge Ministers to keep all new motorway projects under very close review.

Not all road projects are bad, however. The Mersey gateway bridge project, which is in the supported pool and is therefore certainly being given a fair wind by the Government, could substantially reduce carbon emissions by increasing walking and cycling and considerably shortening car journeys in Merseyside. It would obviously also bring economic benefits. One last comment on roads is that with snow and ice possibly being a topical issue even before the end of the week, it is very welcome that the Local Government Association reports substantial extra investment in the provision of grit by local authorities, but I urge Ministers to keep a weather eye on that because we have seen some disasters in the past, when grit has run out. Grit suppliers particularly need to be encouraged to maintain supplies to local government as a high priority.

I am concerned about buses. I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, who emphasised the importance of the number of bus users in the country. Some 5 billion to 6 billion bus journeys are undertaken a year. The bus sector faces a potential triple whammy from the CSR. There is an admittedly modest reduction in the bus service operator grant, but the maintenance of the concessionary fares scheme is an important political commitment, which I support in principle. In fact, I should like it to be extended to 16 to 18-year-olds, in line with the policy of the UK Youth Parliament. That scheme is imposed on local authorities in a way that is inflexible for them and they have no way to control its costs. Its incorporation into the formula grant in future will lead local authorities to make some difficult choices about how to spend money locally. Since local authorities also subsidise many bus routes, those three things could combine and put a lot of local bus services at risk. That would damage our commitment to public transport and greener transport and would put rural bus services in particular at risk, which would not be welcome. Will Ministers meet their colleagues from the Department for Communities and Local Government and local council leaders from the Local Government Association, urgently to discuss the likely impact of the CSR on the bus sector?

Some responses could be made to the threat to the bus sector that do not involve spending large amounts of public money. It is instructive that bus journeys in London are on an upward trend, whereas bus journeys in the rest of the country are on a downward trend. Those of us outside London might mention the probably well deserved but quite generous subsidy that public transport in London gets relative to the rest of the country. But we could also mention the Oyster card and the use of smart technology, which makes it easier for people to use buses in London and the enormously better marketing and provision of information about routes in London at every bus stop and online. Certainly, that is in sharp contrast to the situation in Gloucestershire and many other parts of the country, which makes buses virtually incomprehensible and difficult for consumers to use reliably.

[Mrs Ellman]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the distinction between the rise of bus services in London and, until recently, reduced use in the rest of the country is attributable largely to the fact that deregulation was never applied in London in the same way as it was in the rest of the country? Does he agree that the provisions in the Local Transport Act 2008 to give local authorities more powers over bus operators must be implemented?

[Martin Horwood]

Deregulation played a role. In terms of the co-ordinated provision of information and marketing and selling bus transport to local populations, it is much more difficult in areas where buses have been so comprehensively deregulated. I do not think that the renationalisation of bus services nationwide is likely. Much as I would love to overturn some of Mrs Thatcher’s legacies, we probably should not concentrate on that one.

My point is that there are solutions to trying to support commercially viable bus routes, or making those routes more commercially viable, that do not necessarily involve large sums of public money and might be about smarter and more intelligent policy locally.

I should like to highlight two local issues. On the Dartford crossing, a small but locally important part of the CSR will maintain the toll regime for its 150,000 users a day. I understand the Government’s case for that, because it is part of an investment in future transport provision in that area and traffic management will be improved, and so on. But the original idea was that the toll would cease when the Dartford crossing had been paid for. I am afraid that it has now been paid for, so there is some fairly justifiable anger locally that this is continuing.

The Minister knows that none of my speeches are complete without a reference to the redoubling of the Swindon to Kemble line in the south-west of England. That is potentially the only rail project that the Government might cancel, which would be regrettable. It is important to the west of England and south Wales, and to Welsh Members and, I suspect, to my neighbour the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael).

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is an excellent neighbour. We both make the same point, which is that the Stroud-Kemble line should be redoubled, if at all possible. The case for that is strong both in terms of business and tourism. It is a good idea to encourage people to use the rail system by ensuring that the magic figure of less than two hours for a rail journey from Gloucester to London is achieved.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case that all Gloucestershire MPs from all parties agree with. Even when there were Labour MPs in Gloucestershire, they agreed too and strongly supported it. That project would increase the reliability and the number of through services in many ways, which is important for Gloucestershire and for the rest of the network in the area, not least because of what one Welsh Assembly Member described as

“an insurance policy against interruption in the Severn Tunnel.”

The Swindon to Kemble line has regional implications. It was, I think, a strange aberration by the Office of Rail Regulation not to include that line in the Network Rail major investment plan. I hope that the Government will see a way to rectifying that mistake.

Overall, the picture from the CSR, as the dust settles on the battleground, shows that the Government have secured substantial investment in transport, particularly shifting the balance of investment towards more environmentally sustainable forms of transport, which is important for the period of the CSR and for future generations for many years to come, and I congratulate Ministers on achieving it.

15:57

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to contribute to this debate, because I represent a constituency that is at the heart of the logistics sector and for which the transport infrastructure and its efficiency is essential.

At a time when the public purse is under such pressure, the Government’s determination to protect spending on transport infrastructure should be commended. I congratulate my colleagues on securing what was, in the end, a good settlement for the Department. However, the pot of money is finite and a number of road projects have had to be shelved. Naturally, I understand the need for that, but I am mindful of the overall need to encourage growth in our economy so that we can repair the state of our finances. The Government have made the wrong call in respect of the proposed improvements at junction 30 of the M25, which have been postponed. This is not a parochial point, for reasons that I will explain.

The M25 is by far the busiest stretch of road in our country. It is also a vital element of our national road infrastructure and an essential artery for the lifeblood of our economy. It was therefore essential that the Government proceeded with the widening of the M25, recognising that too long had been spent talking about that project but not enough had been said about its delivery. The Government have shelved planned improvements to junction 30 until later than 2015, which will cause disadvantage not only to my constituents, but to the business community across south Essex and to UK plc.

For colleagues who do not appreciate the geography of my constituency, let me quickly explain. Thurrock is adjacent to London. The M25 runs through the western part of my constituency and joins the Dartford crossing, which the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) mentioned and which starts southbound at Purfleet. The A13 is the main arterial road, running from London through the borough of Thurrock and intersecting with the M25 at junction 30. Junction 30 is also adjacent to 31, which is where the M25 intersects with the old A13.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but can I ask her to keep her comments to the CSR as it affects public transport? Of course, almost any transport project is affected by the CSR, and I understand that, but perhaps her points could be general rather than particular.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

Thank you, Mr Gray. I have come to the end of the geographical comments. The point is that junction 30 is the place where so much traffic is impeded. It serves the Lakeside shopping centre and the port of Tilbury, which obviously needs access to transport goods around the country. About 92% of people travelling to the Lakeside shopping centre by car use that junction, and hon. Members will understand the impact of that volume of traffic. The traffic often spills on to the local road network and causes congestion, as well as going on to the M25 and, of course, the Dartford crossing.

We have a considerable number of local businesses which, as I mentioned, have an impact on UK plc. We must tackle junction 30 to enable south Essex to grow and business opportunities to expand. If I may crave your indulgence, Mr Gray, I will give two examples: the supply of Fairy liquid for the whole of Europe is made in my constituency, as is every jar of Hellmann’s mayonnaise. That needs to be transported around the country, and one can see the importance of West Thurrock as an industrial hub.

I have spoken with local businesses about the impact of junction 30 and congestion at the Dartford crossing on their business. Carpetright has its corporate headquarters at West Thurrock; 80% of the carpets that it supplies to the nation are cut on that site, generating £212 million. It told me that there are 3,500 lorry movements a year, which will have to attack the M25 via junction 30. It also estimates that 100 man hours a week are lost in traffic delays. Charles Gee, a local haulage firm, concludes that congestion around junction 30 and the Dartford crossing increases its fuel costs by £35,000 a year. That is the overall picture. I firmly believe that the congestion at junction 30, where the M25, the Dartford crossing and the A13 intersect, causes serious problems for local businesses and inhibits their opportunities to grow.

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Lady makes a strong case about junction 30 of the M25. Does she find it as puzzling as I do that, to take two congested stretches, the scheme that she mentions is shelved and does not go ahead, despite the strong case that she makes, but the totally unwanted scheme—the additional lane on the M60 that local people do not want at all—is to go ahead? I would generously offer up our scheme for the one that the hon. Lady wants.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I hope that the Minister was listening to the hon. Lady; I was struck by what she said. When I hear the business community in my constituency crying out for increased local investment and telling me that their biggest concern is the poor transport infrastructure, I am sure that such a plan would be welcome. It would be interesting to know why such a conclusion has been reached.

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

Let me set the record straight after the comments made by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). The project under discussion has not been “shelved”; it is in the programme that we hope to take forward post-2015. There has been a postponement, but not a cancellation.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I am grateful to the Minister. The point is that for my business constituents, the improvements cannot come soon enough. That brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham about the Dartford tunnel. As I said, we are at the northbound point of the Dartford crossing. There is light at the end of the tunnel for the funding of improvements to junction 30, and that is the Dartford tunnel. As the hon. Gentleman said, the CSR proposed a 66% increase in tolls, and there is a lot of local anger about that. The deal was for the tolls to be cancelled once the crossing had been funded, but we have long passed that point. Having said that, my constituents are really quite hacked off with the number of times that they get caught on the local road network, and they would take it on the chin if the tolls were increased as long as they got something out of the deal. If we are looking at where funding from that increase in tolls is to be spent, I hope that my corner of south Essex gets its fair share.

Let me re-emphasise the need to invest in improvements to junction 30. I would also like to see the proposals in the CSR for an additional crossing brought forward sooner rather than later. The congestion on the M25, and the crossing in particular, have been neglected for far too many years. We must have a consensus on where an additional crossing should be constructed. As we know, traffic volume continues to grow exponentially and we are always playing catch-up with such things. I understand that revenues will be hypothecated for transport investment, and my plea is for Thurrock and south Essex to be looked on favourably. That would be good not only for my constituents but for UK plc and the businesses that I have mentioned.

16:06

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

I am delighted to contribute to the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing this important debate.

I am going to echo many of the remarks already made by colleagues. Given the economic situation that the coalition Government inherited, we might have expected a transport settlement that was significantly grimmer than turned out to be the case. I congratulate the Department for Transport on doing so well in difficult times. We can all be relieved, to say the least.

I speak as a London MP, and I will unashamedly limit my remarks to London. Hon. Members will be glad to know that I also intend to keep my remarks brief. In my view, London has done rather well out of the transport settlement: Crossrail, tube upgrades, Thameslink and extra rolling stock are all good announcements for London. I know that hon. Members from other regions often view London as being rather greedy in its funding needs. However, I must point out that London is our capital city, and it will be one of the great driving forces behind getting back to economic growth. I cannot resist the danger of irritating hon. Members even further by directing their attention to an interesting article in The Economist that points out that investment in capital projects such as those in transport in London and the south-east tends to get a much better return than investment in other regions. Investment in transport projects around London is always money well spent.

[Martin Horwood]

I would like to point out that I was not accusing London of being greedy. I welcome investment in many London projects, particularly Crossrail, which will enable people to get into London, through it and out the other side quite quickly.

[Angie Bray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that additional helpful remark. Crossrail has always been a huge issue for my constituency and it sits at the heart of our plans for regenerating Ealing and Acton town centres. We hoped so much to get the news that the project would definitely go ahead, and there was a huge sigh of relief around my constituency once that announcement was made in the comprehensive spending review. We hope that Crossrail will bring greater numbers of visitors to both town centres. It will be our task to find ways of persuading people off the Crossrail trains and into those town centres, where we hope that they will spend considerably more money. I understand that there may be some time slippage in the Crossrail project, but I suspect that that may also be due to tunnelling problems that have been encountered. Nevertheless, it is great to know that the project is going to go ahead in its entirety.

I have a plea for the Minister. Ealing Broadway station is one of the busiest transport hubs in west London. It is also one of the most hazardous, with steep stairs, no disabled access to the platforms and a small ticket hall that becomes crowded to an incredibly dangerous degree. Can work be expedited at that station, if at all possible? I hate to say this, but it is an accident waiting to happen.

The problem has been that people living in Ealing have been told for so many years that they cannot have any improvements because Crossrail is just round the corner. As we all know, however, Crossrail has been just round the corner for decades. Now that it really does seem to be on the home straight—in sight—please can there be no more delay for Ealing Broadway station? We have been waiting somewhat impatiently for the option designs for the stations, but I am now hoping to have a meeting with representatives of Crossrail in the next couple of weeks, so that we can see those more detailed options.

The London tube upgrades are another essential investment that will now go ahead. All of us experience the London underground at some stage as we spend time here in the capital city, and I think that all of us would say that the London underground broadly delivers a reasonable service, albeit that we sometimes feel like we are being herded into cattle trucks, particularly at certain times of the day. The problem is that there are continual and frequent problems on all the lines at one stage or another.

The signal box at Edgware Road is a good example. I am reliably told that it dates back to the 1920s. It sits across some incredibly busy and important lines. When we consider that so many passengers are under the control of a signal box that goes back that far, we recognise the importance of getting the London underground up to date if London is to retain its position as one of the world’s premier cities, and as we move back towards economic growth.

I was delighted to hear that the Thameslink programme had been given the green light, so to speak. That will be great news for taking pressure off many of the other services going through London and into and out of London. I was particularly pleased to hear today the announcement of extra rolling stock. West London services are very congested for quite a lot of the time, particularly during peak hours. A recent survey conducted by a local transport group showed that a very large percentage of passengers going in and out of central London from all the stations across Ealing have been finding not only that the trains are impossibly crowded, but that quite often they cannot get on them at all. First Great Western has been putting in bids for extra rolling stock for some time. I hope that as the extra rolling stock is rolled out, the Minister will have a particularly keen ear for the bids from First Great Western for extra help on some of those west London services.

Obviously, the less popular flipside of the coin is the fare increases. There is no doubt about this. No one likes having to pay more for a journey that at best is only ever the same, but quite often seems to be getting worse as the carriages get more crowded or there are delays or other problems. Clearly, however, a balance must be struck between the interests of taxpayers and of passengers. That is always the problem.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside says that she fears that higher fares will encourage more people off public transport and back on to the roads. I accept that that may well be something to be concerned about, but surely it is equally true that only if we can provide new, modern, improved public transport will we encourage more people to use public transport. That is where the difficult balance lies. It always has to be a balance, and that balance has to be set, of course, in the context of what the public purse can afford.

16:14

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. This is the first time that I have spoken from the Opposition side of this Chamber. I would naturally rather be where the Minister is and I certainly was there for a couple of years. It reminds me of the question asked by many people about what it is like being in opposition after 13 years. As a former Minister responsible for road safety, I use a roads analogy. I tell people that it is like when they go to Europe for the first time and drive on the right-hand side of the road. It is strange, but I get it; I know what I am supposed to be doing. However, every junction and every occasion have to be approached with additional care.

Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), on securing the debate, on the way in which she introduced it and on the way in which she leads her Committee. She is very highly regarded in the House, as all new Members will quickly come to realise, if they have not already.

Conservative Members may not be surprised to hear that I do not accept their rosy view of the impact of the comprehensive spending review on transport. The CSR settlement will mean a scaling back of Labour’s plans for transport infrastructure and a significant increase in the burden that falls on passengers through increased fares. I shall try to comment on hon. Members’ contributions later in my remarks.

The Department’s budget has suffered a 15% cut in real terms. That includes not only savings of 21% from the resource budget but, more worryingly, an 11% reduction in capital spending. The implications of that will be felt not just by the travelling public. Because investment in infrastructure projects is vital to growth, it will also affect the recovery, manufacturing and jobs.

[Mrs Villiers]

rose—

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am delighted to give way to the Minister.

[Mrs Villiers]

The Budget produced by the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member put in place a predicted 50% reduction in capital spending. In the light of that, is it not the case that an 11% cut for transport is really not a bad result in comparison with what other Departments are subject to?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I do not for a second, in any way, shape or form, do anything other than congratulate the Ministers on fighting their corner for transport, but when I explain later why I am disappointed with the outcome, the details of the position will become clearer.

The Secretary of State has been over-spinning his settlement as a great success when it is nothing of the kind. Even the Institute for Fiscal Studies listed the Department for Transport as a “loser” in the CSR. Combined with the huge reductions in funding for local government, the impact will be felt by passengers throughout the country.

The Government are trying to get away with these myths: that Labour was planning a much bigger cut in capital spending and that the present Government are proceeding with even more spending on capital projects than was planned by Labour. Both claims are not true. First, the Government have set out spending plans to 2015, for the whole five-year Parliament. They are therefore never comparing like with like. That is classic smoke and mirrors, and I cannot believe that any Government would get up to such tricks.

Secondly, the Government insist on changing the point that they use as their baseline to suit their case. The reality is that even before the CSR, the Government had made £683 million-worth of spending cuts, including £309 million from local transport grants—made up of £61 million from major local authority schemes, £151 million from integrated transport block grant, £8 million from the urban congestion fund, £17 million from the road safety capital grant and £20 million from the road safety revenue grant—£108 million from Transport for London, £100 million from Network Rail, resulting in the scrapping of the better rail stations programme to upgrade 10 key national interchange stations judged the worst in the country, £54 million by deferring schemes and £112 million in internal cuts from the DFT, including staffing.

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman is identifying certain cuts that he alleges are being made, which clearly he is concerned about. If he will not accept reductions in certain transport programmes, where does he expect the reductions to come in order to tackle the deficit that the Government he was a member of left to us?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

We do not accept for a second, as was clearly outlined by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor in a speech only last month, that it was a Labour deficit. The deficit was created by an international banking crisis that started in the US. Most other countries copied the UK Government’s solution in restabilising their financial institutions and trying to ensure that the economy was in a position to recover.

We accept that cuts have to be made. We do not demur from that in any way, shape or form. I shall come to that in a second.

[Stuart Andrew]

Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that the Government he was a member of did not put money aside in the good times so that when the bad times came we were in a better position to deal with that, as other countries such as Australia did?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

No, I do not accept that position either. The year before the crisis hit, we were borrowing 2.4% of GDP, compared with the 3.4% that we inherited from the previous Conservative Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). Almost all our borrowing financed capital investment in schools, hospitals, road and rail.

The second myth about our record is that even if the public finances overall were under control, we were spending too much. We do not accept the allegation that what we were spending on schools and hospitals was excessive given the size of our economy. It was in line with other industrialised countries.

[Angie Bray]

rose—

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I give way to the hon. Lady—the debate has certainly livened up, Mr Gray.

[Angie Bray]

The facts show that from 2002 onwards, Labour Chancellors were £30 billion short of what they were spending. Whatever they were spending money on, they were spending too much. From 2002, we were running a £30 billion deficit year on year. That is how we got to the level of debt that we now have, regardless of the breakdown of the banks.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate has livened up, but it is also ranging fairly widely.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I will do my best to close that down and get back to my text, which I assure you, Mr Gray, is focused on the CSR.

To respond to the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), spending under Labour was not out of control. It was strongly supported by both coalition partners at the time. Indeed, there were criticisms from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Chancellor when they were in opposition that we were not spending enough. I therefore do not accept the hon. Lady’s argument.

To follow your admonition, Mr Gray, and return to my text, the shadow Chancellor has proposed additional taxation on the banking industry that would raise £7.5 billion and enable us almost to halve the Government’s cut of a third to infrastructure spending. As I have said to the Minister, there would have been cuts under Labour, but they would not have been so severe and the burden would not have been put on passengers through huge hikes in fares.

As an aside, the UK Chamber of Shipping president, Mr Jan Kopernicki, was recently quoted as saying that not bringing forward the new Type 26 frigates from 2020 to assist in dealing with piracy would cost the UK economy and endanger British and other shipping. I ask the Minister to pass that message back to the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence.

In government, Labour delivered major improvements to our rail network, resulting in greater reliability, faster journey times and more passengers than at any time since the 1940s. We set out an ambitious long-term vision for conventional rail alongside our ambitious high-speed rail plans. Our plans included new capacity, better infrastructure and a strategic freight network. We had no plans to make passengers pay more for less, because if people see fares increasing when plans for new capacity and infrastructure are being cut, fewer people travel by rail and there is increased congestion on our roads.

I welcome the fact that the Government have changed their position and now support the Labour Government’s proposed route for High Speed 2. That was more of a Y-turn than a U-turn. There are clearly splits in the Cabinet over this issue and even, we read, threats of resignation. I assure the Minister that the Opposition understand the economic importance of the project. It will bring the west midlands within about half an hour of London and deliver journey times of 75 minutes or less from Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester to the capital. Connections to existing tracks will enable direct high-speed train services to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle and Liverpool.

We also welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation this morning that some of Labour’s plans for additional investment in rail infrastructure will go ahead, including electrification projects, new carriages and station improvements. We do not welcome the delays and reductions in vital projects such as Crossrail, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton. Crossrail will make journeys across London faster, allow direct access from Heathrow to the City, enable 200 million passenger journeys a year, add 30,000 high-value jobs to London in the first 10 years of its operation and add an estimated £20 billion to the UK’s GDP.

[Mrs Villiers]

I had hoped that the shadow Minister would recognise that it is a great result that we have been able to save Crossrail despite the crisis in the public finances. He should also acknowledge that the lengthening of the delivery time for the central section was the result of an engineering-led review on how to deliver the project in the most cost-effective way for the taxpayer.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I do not want to be churlish and I fully welcome the commitment to Crossrail. This project has been on the stocks since about 1880. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton said that it had been decades, but it has actually been planned in one shape or form for more than a century. I hope that the Minister will be generous enough to congratulate the previous Prime Minister, who ultimately grasped the nettle and said that the project must go ahead, in conjunction with the Mayor of London, the City and the CBI. I would be grateful if she updated us on the time frame for the completion of the branches of Crossrail to Shenfield, Maidenhead and Abbey Wood. I am not sure whether it is on track to meet the time scale mentioned by the Secretary of State this morning.

We oppose the Government’s decisions on fares. They have made two decisions that we believe will drive people off the railways and back on to the roads, increase congestion and hit competitiveness and growth. First, they chose to reverse the decision that Labour took in government to require train companies to apply fare limits to all fares equally, rather than hike some significantly and offset that by making smaller reductions on others. This week, we have seen the result of that change, with commuters being stung by rises of well over 10% on some routes, just at a time when families are being squeezed by wage freezes, the coming VAT increase and cuts to tax credits and child benefit.

Secondly, the Government decided to make things even worse for rail passengers by allowing fares to rise by 3% above inflation. Since 2004, the cap on increases to regulated fares has been RPI plus 1. From 1999 to 2003, it was RPI minus 1, and from 1995 to 1998, it was equal to RPI. The Secretary of State keeps claiming that increases across the CSR period will be only 10%. By our calculations, RPI plus 3 delivers a cumulative increase of more than 30% on the inflation forecasts of the Government’s Office for Budget Responsibility. The Secretary of State’s constituents will see their annual season ticket from Weybridge rise from £2,272 to more than £3,000. As shadow Secretary of State for Transport, the Minister warned that such a rise would price people off the railways. Her Department has confirmed that it expects that passengers will opt for other forms of transport. That is a betrayal of passengers by the coalition, which said in its programme for government that it was

“committed to fair pricing for rail travel.”

It is an even bigger betrayal by the Liberal Democrats, who pledged a real-terms cut in rail fares in their manifesto.

Not only rail passengers but bus users have been hit by Government. The cut to the bus service operators grant, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members, will have a devastating effect on many local bus services, particularly in rural and remote areas, which will not survive without subsidy. The BSOG is a subsidy to bus operators that covers most of the cost of fuel duty. It helps operators to keep fares down and to continue running less profitable or unprofitable services. According to Department for Transport figures, without BSOG we would see a 6.5% increase in fares and a 6.7% fall in bus usage. The social and economic effects would be even greater. With more services becoming unprofitable, more would be taken off the road.

The Government are telling people to get on the bus to find work, but people have to be able to afford to do so. The impact of this cut will be felt especially by those who are out of work and looking for a job. Two thirds of jobseekers do not have a driving licence or access to a car. Research by the social exclusion unit discovered that 38% of jobseekers found that transport was a major obstacle to finding work. People should be getting on the bus to find a job, but there must be a bus there in the first place.

The impact of the CSR settlement on local transport spending will soon be felt by the public. Labour doubled investment in local transport between 1997 and 2010 because we understand how vital local transport schemes are to reducing congestion, to making city and town centres more accessible, and to the creation of local and regional economic growth and jobs. The £309 million a year cut to local transport grants will be followed by significant cuts throughout the spending review period of 28%.

The Secretary of State has cut the number of transport grant schemes from 26 to four under the guise of simplification. We support making the system simpler, saving councils time and money on bids to different funding streams, but he knows that the cut is being used to disguise the significant reduction in the funds available to local government.

Road schemes are being hit hard. We were clear that we would have had to make reductions in the road budget. The Government, however, have pushed back many schemes that we would have taken forward, and even the money allocated to fund the schemes that have been given a green light will require major cuts of, on average, 25%.

Finally, there is real concern at the impact of the cuts on road safety. Cuts to road safety grants to local authorities were part of the Department for Transport’s in-year savings announced in May—£17 million from the road safety capital grant and £20 million from the road safety revenue grant. Following the reform of transport grants to local government announced in the spending review, there is now no specific grant funding for road safety.

Local authorities, facing cuts to their budgets of a third, will be under pressure to cut the funds for road safety and for speed cameras. Only this week, research has shown that 70 more people will die and 700 more will be injured if speed cameras are removed. It is staggering that the Government have admitted, in answer to a parliamentary question this week, that they carried out no assessment of the impact on road accidents and deaths of the decision to cut road safety grants and to end funding for speed cameras.

We have not seen so far the publication of an updated road safety strategy—a parliamentary answer that I received this morning said that it would be published early in the next year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, the Chair of the Select Committee, remarked, we have seen a gradual and significant 20-year decline in the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. I hate to say it, but that trend is in jeopardy as a result of some of the decisions.

On aviation, the coalition is poised to add further increases to air passenger duty. Does the Minister realise that adding air passenger duty to the cost of a visa from, for example, China, means that the cost of visiting the UK will be £612?

[Mrs Villiers]

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the increases to air passenger duty which have just been implemented were legislated for by his Government? They are his decisions. How can he criticise us for going ahead with them?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The increases that were being introduced—further increases are being considered—are not being introduced in the way that we planned.

My point is that, if we add the cost of APD to the cost of a visa from China to the UK, it comes to £612, compared with £212 to go to Paris, flying economy. Flying business class, it costs £952 to London, compared with £332 to Paris. Might that explain why France received 688,000 Chinese visitors in 2008, when the UK only managed 108,000?

Will the Minister take that message to the Prime Minister? His recent mission to China was important, and we fully supported it, but to ensure that it is the Chinese destination of choice the UK must be as attractive as possible. Those figures seem to undermine the recent visit and the message that the Prime Minister took to the Chinese Government that UK plc is open to business—the strong message is that the Chinese should come via Paris, because it is much cheaper.

I will not raise the issue of aviation capacity in the south-east again, other than to say that our only international hub losing out to Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt or Schiphol will act as another disincentive for business people to come to London. Given that Dubai now has six runways and offers access to the Americas for people from India and further east, we need to ensure that the UK is as accessible as possible, to attract those people.

[Mrs Villiers]

Can the hon. Gentleman set out his party’s position on a third runway at Heathrow? Is Labour for it or against it?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The Minister is teasing me. She knows full well that we just lost a general election on a policy of an additional runway at Heathrow and that my new leader—who, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) mentioned earlier, had a particular view when Secretary of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change—has announced that we are reviewing all our transport policy. I do not accept, by the way, that the methodology was flawed, although I accept that it has been upgraded and improved—“flawed” suggests that there was some skulduggery somewhere, which I do not buy in any way, shape or form.

The last question on aviation hubs is whether the Minister is worried that Brussels might be happy for Heathrow to lose its international hub role in favour of other parts of Europe.

[Angie Bray]

On the issue of six runways in Dubai, does the hon. Gentleman accept that Heathrow has no chance on earth of having six runways because of its geography? The problem with setting up Heathrow as a hub that can permanently compete with other cities that have their airports where they can continue to expand them—to four, five or six runways—is that we can never do that. We are utterly constrained by the geography. The third runway was about as much as we could ever have got anyway, and then only by jamming it in. To continue to compete in that way, therefore, is just throwing good money after bad.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I hear the hon. Lady’s comments and, as I said to the Minister, the electorate have expressed a view—certainly in west London—on additional capacity at Heathrow. I understand that the Department will be instigating a review of south-east capacity running to 2015, which seems a long time scale, and that the aviation policy will be written in a few months’ time. With the greatest of respect to the hon. Lady and to some of her colleagues who are new members of the Transport Committee, a hub airport is a critical piece of infrastructure for any country. Heathrow is running at 98.5% capacity—we will not have a hub if it is not Heathrow.

A strong point of view is that we should not have a hub and that we should deter and discourage people from travelling by air. The problem is that the impact on the UK economy, as a result of what aviation brings to UK plc, will be harmful. That is my personal point of view, but colleagues may want to consider the views of the CBI, the London and UK chambers of commerce, London First and the business community about the impact and role of Heathrow and whether capacity is needed.

[Angie Bray]

Nothing can change the geography. No one can change the geography of the area—one cannot get six runways in there.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I apologise. The hon. Lady mentioned six runways, and she is absolutely right—the third runway was about it. I only mentioned six runways to demonstrate that other countries are investing heavily in aviation infrastructure. A 25% increase is expected in China and south-east Asia over the next 10 years. People will fly—they will fly to the Americas from India, China and Australia, but, if they use Dubai as the stopping point for that part of the world, it will become increasingly difficult to get them to come to northern Europe. If we get them to come to northern Europe, they will not come to Heathrow if it is not functioning as effectively as we all want it to—again, that is an impact on UK plc. However, on the six runways, the hon. Lady is absolutely right, forgive me—I mentioned them only because I had been to see Dubai’s Aviation Minister, and had seen the runways and how amazing that was.

My last point on aviation is that I agree with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, the Chairman of the Select Committee, about the future of TRANSEC and the impact of the CSR on security at airports and ports. More information is needed. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment, but obviously I understand the sensitivity around security issues. Perhaps she can comment, however, on the loss of expertise from TRANSEC as a result of impending retirements—early retirements due to potential redundancies—and, indeed, of redundancies. TRANSEC is an important organisation, and none of us want to see it damaged. It plays too important a role in our national security.

I will refer briefly to some comments of colleagues and reinforce points to which the Minister might wish to respond. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) raised the issue of high-speed rail. He got close to being drawn into aviation policy by his hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, but managed to stay away from it. I am sure his time on the Transport Committee will allow him the opportunity to examine closely the whole aviation issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) asked a number of questions of importance to her constituents and about the value-for-money issue. I look forward to the Minister’s response, especially as my hon. Friend was saying that the Highways Agency described the scheme she was concerned about as cheap and cheerful and not managed as we expect our modern motorways to function—without overhead signs controlling flows and changes to bridges. I understand that the scheme was referred back to the Highways Agency, but it has now been decided to plug ahead. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South strongly said, it is regarded as a waste of money. Indeed, she offered it to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). I am not sure whether that generosity of spirit is normal between opposing parties, but I see that the point was well taken.

Among other matters, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) raised questions on the role of ports and shipping. I agree with him that that sector’s profile does not match its economic significance. As a former Minister with responsibility for shipping, I look forward to hearing more from him in the years ahead.

The hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) cast an envious eye at Manchester and Sheffield; he asked for only two stations at Leeds. As it is the hon. Gentleman’s birthday, I would be interested to see how that request tests the Minister’s generosity.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham said that business accepted the need for restrictions on aviation. As I said earlier, I am not sure that I agree, and I shall not go there again.

The hon. Member for Thurrock spoke about the junction between the M25 and the A13. I am fairly familiar with it, as I lived in Barking for 20 years before moving to Poplar, Limehouse and Tower Hamlets. I know, as the hon. Lady does, that the new ports being built will add to the volume of traffic. Improvements to the junction were being considered by the previous Government in conjunction with the industry and the local authorities, because it is clearly a choke point. Something needs to be done.

As an aside, I believe that there are some 23 crossings on the Thames to the west of Tower bridge and only three to the east. With the regeneration of docklands, at least half of London’s population will be living east of Tower bridge, and there will be much more development on our side of the capital in the years ahead. I look forward to the Mayor of London revisiting the question of an additional crossing, which might marginally help the hon. Member for Thurrock. When the Mayor—Boris Johnson or his successor—comes forward with a proposal, as I am sure he will, I hope that the Department for Transport will support and encourage it. It will obviously be a financial risk for London, not the Department, but DFT support will be critical in ensuring that the project moves forward positively.

The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton raised a hugely important question on London’s transport, as did several colleagues, saying that if London does not function efficiently the whole of UK plc will suffer. Although some cast an envious eye on London and the support that the capital city gets, if London does not function the whole country suffers. I know that all parties in London are supportive of the hon. Lady’s comments.

The comprehensive spending review settlement is far from the huge triumph being spun by Ministers. It will see investment in our transport infrastructure being reduced far faster and more brutally than would have been the case under Labour. Not only will passengers be paying more for less, but they will feel the real burden of the cuts. The reality is that the Government are investing in rail schemes that they inherited from the previous Government, but with delays. Although passengers will see the benefit, the cost will fall on commuters through hikes in fares.

The Government have covered up a massive cut in funding for local government, disguising it as a commitment to localism, local decision-making and simplification, but the reality is that they are leaving the pain of making the inevitable cuts to local authorities and letting them take the blame. The comprehensive spending review settlement for transport is bad news for passengers, particularly commuters, bad news for safety on our roads, bad news for those who rely on buses to get to work or to find work and, most of all, bad news for business, competitiveness, jobs and growth.

16:43

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

It is a pleasure, Mr Gray, to serve under your chairmanship. I am delighted that the Backbench Business Committee chose to put this debate on the agenda, and I pay tribute to all who have taken part, especially the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), and I thank the hon. Lady for her cogent and thorough introduction to the important issues that we have been debating this afternoon.

On 20 October, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the coalition Government’s four-year plan to tackle the most urgent issue facing Britain today—mending our public finances and putting them on a sustainable footing. Several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), said that the situation that the Government inherited from our predecessors has put us in an extremely difficult position. Left unchanged, the spending position that we inherited would have seen Britain paying out £70 billion a year by the end of this Parliament, which is more than we spend on educating our children and defending our country put together.

We heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside that, as part of the CSR settlement, the Department for Transport will reduce overall spending by 15%. Savings of 21% will need to be made from resource budgets, and 11% from capital. There is no doubt that cuts on that scale mean that difficult choices will have to be made. We very much wish that we did not have to make them, but the reality is, as many Members have acknowledged, that transport has come out of the spending review in a far stronger position than many expected. Among those who made that point were the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and my hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey, for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray).

The Government want to break away from the recurrent pattern of spending squeezes of past years when, more or less inevitably, the axe fell first and hardest on transport infrastructure projects. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) acknowledged, transport has been given a high priority in the spending review, which reflects the economic benefits that can be generated by investing in our transport infrastructure. Cutting waste, reforming the welfare system and scaling back lower priority programmes has enabled us to prioritise spending in order to boost long-term economic growth. That includes an extensive programme of investment in the nation’s transport infrastructure. As the hon. Member for Cheltenham said, it also recognises the importance of addressing climate change by supporting programmes to decarbonise mobility and travel.

I turn to a matter that was of huge importance to many who spoke this afternoon, albeit from different perspectives. That, of course, is balancing the needs of the various parts of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) made a passionate plea for priority for north Lincolnshire and for the needs of peripheral regions. As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey made a case for Yorkshire; those of my hon. Friends who represent Yorkshire constituencies always make articulate representations in transport debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton pointed out the benefits that can accrue to the whole of the UK through investment in the capital’s infrastructure, as it is a major generator of economic growth.

We have a clear commitment to rebalance our economy; we are committed to addressing the north-south divide; and we are clearly committed to dealing with the challenges faced by regions such as the north-east, which have a particularly strong dependence on jobs in the public sector. In making our decisions on transport spending, we sought to take account of those priorities and commitments, as well as the competing needs of the different regions. We can never come up with a solution that pleases everyone, but we have made great efforts to be fair, and we are proceeding with a number of major schemes in the English regions, many of which are in the north.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside rightly emphasised the importance of local involvement in prioritising transport projects. It was not possible to get the entire local enterprise partnership decision-making process up and running in time to influence and inform the decisions that we had to make in the CSR. We have to get on with those projects, as many have argued. We could not stand still and wait for the new structures to be created, so we depended on the advice of the older structures—the regional ones. When taking future decisions on transport priorities, we will seek to engage with local stakeholders and LEPs as soon as practicably possible. We cannot just wait for five years and not engage locally. As soon as the LEP structure is up and running, we will seek to engage LEPs in our transport decisions.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Forgive me, I should know the answer, but do LEPs cover the whole country, or only parts of it?

[Mrs Villiers]

I understand that all local authorities will have the opportunity to set up LEPs, but I am not an expert in how the process works. As has been acknowledged, there is a good case for LEPs getting together, so that we can consider transport matters across a wider area. It obviously makes a great deal of sense to consider units such as travel-to-work areas, which may be considerably larger than the LEP areas themselves. LEPs working together will be constructive.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the right hon. Lady for attempting to answer my question. Will she acknowledge that there is still a major problem in that LEPs have not been formed in many parts of the country? When the Committee visited Hull, local businesses expressed grave concerns about the inadequacy of the LEP structures. Although she states that her Government will not wait until the end of this Parliament to set up an appropriate structure to deal with transport issues, can she give me any timetable for when she will be able to do so? After all, if she decides to destroy one structure, she should have a better one already in place.

[Mrs Villiers]

As soon as LEPs are up and running, we will engage with them about our decisions on transport projects. If there are gaps in the LEP map, we will engage with the local authorities in those areas that are not covered by LEPs and take on board their views and concerns.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham mentioned reform of the appraisal system. As he acknowledged, we have made efforts to reform the New Approach to Appraisal system to put a more realistic price on carbon, and to address the anomalous emphasis on additional fuel duty revenues for the Exchequer being discounted from the overall cost of the project. Further reform is planned, but it is important to reform the system so that we have a more realistic assessment of the carbon impact of different transport choices because we want to choose the projects that are consistent with our climate change goals.

The Chairman of the Transport Committee expressed concerns about emergency towing vehicles. Ship salvage is a commercial matter between a ship’s operator and the established salvage industry, and we have every confidence that there is capacity in the salvage industry to support ships in difficulty from September 2011 at commercial rates.

As for rail, it is very clear that we have had to take a difficult decision on fares. Of course, I wish that we could have avoided that, but the scale of the deficit that we inherited severely constrains our choices. Without the three years of retail prices index plus 3% increases that we announced, it simply would not be possible to deliver vital capacity improvements that passengers need.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside emphasised the importance of rail services in tackling climate change; I agree and that is why we have made such a major commitment to investment in rail. She also emphasised the importance both to passengers and taxpayers of getting value for money from the railways. She asked me to pre-empt the publication of the McNulty review. I had better not do that, but she will appreciate that one of the key problems that has been identified across the industry is the mismatch between incentives. Aligning incentives more effectively between the train operators and those responsible for maintaining and running the tracks is one possible way in which we can start to reduce costs in the rail industry and put our railways on a more sustainable financial footing. That is essential if we are to deliver value for money for passengers.

The hon. Lady also called for more transparency around fares; there is scope for that. Greater efforts are under way to ensure that consumers know exactly what deals are available. Increasing consumer understanding of the range of rail fares is an important goal. She also recognised that some fares are considerably lower than in past years. That is not something that one would recognise from reading the papers, but lower fares are out there, and increasing numbers of passengers are taking advantage of them. That said, we understand the concerns of many commuters about rail fares. As I have said, we have been forced into a difficult decision by the deficit that we inherited.

We have seen a shift in departmental priorities. Rail has come out much better from the spending review than other transport programmes. The programme of rail capacity upgrades is extensive—arguably, the most extensive in modern history. Crossrail is going ahead according to its original scope. Despite all the scare stories, there has been no announcement that the limbs will be amputated. We expect services to be phased in from 2018 across the Crossrail network. Savings worth some £1 billion have been identified through addressing risks and undertaking an engineering-led review of the most cost-effective way to deliver the central section, including lengthening the delivery time by around a year. We continue to work with Crossrail Ltd, the Mayor and Transport for London to optimise the scheme’s value for money.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton emphasised the importance of pressing ahead with work on the new stations. I am pleased to hear that she will be able to see the station designs for Ealing Broadway soon. Our goal is to keep up the pressure to ensure that we meet the delivery timetable that has been set.

The Chairman of the Transport Committee expressed concern about the position of TRANSEC and the budget allocated to transport security. There will be reductions of 25%, but it is well worth emphasising that the total industry spend on aviation security is more than £350 million. The bulk of the spending on aviation security is made by the industry because it delivers aviation security on the ground. She will appreciate that the 25% reduction that was discussed in the Committee yesterday relates to departmental activity, which is the overview, the policy, and the regulatory and supervision aspects. The savings are deliverable without compromising security outcomes. We recognise that maintaining passenger safety and security is of paramount importance. Administrative reform and reorganisation—rationalising certain training programmes, having to target our research programme and reducing some of our network of aviation advisers around the world—will enable us to deliver those savings without compromising passenger security.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the 25% savings will not have a negative impact on security because of redundancies or early retirements?

[Mrs Villiers]

The shadow Minister makes an important point about the reductions in head count that need to be made not just at TRANSEC but across the board. In making those decisions, it is a top priority to keep hold of the people whose skills are most vitally needed. That is the case with TRANSEC and across the Department.

Subject to the outcome of a rigorous and comprehensive consultation, our plan is to proceed towards construction of a new high-speed rail line, connecting London and Birmingham, and then on to Manchester and Leeds. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South emphasised the importance of getting the route right; I completely agree with him, which is why we will have an extensive consultation. He also talked about the importance of getting right the connections to airports; I agree on that and work is under way on those issues. We need to look at not just Heathrow but Birmingham airport and then Manchester airport to see how we can connect them effectively to the new high-speed rail network.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside emphasised the importance of ensuring continued investment in the conventional network alongside high-speed rail; I agree and that is what we have committed to do. The coalition has also confirmed £2.1 billion to fund Network Rail’s station improvement programme, which includes £650 million to complete the work on transforming Birmingham New Street into a gateway worthy of the UK’s second city.

Schemes are also going ahead to improve the passenger experience at King’s Cross and Gatwick airport stations. The funding has been confirmed for the works under way at Reading, which will improve reliability across the whole of the Great Western main line. Work on the Midland main line will deliver faster and more reliable journeys in the east midlands and South Yorkshire. Improvements on the east coast main line will improve journeys in the north-east and Scotland.

Funding has been confirmed for vital rail freight improvements between Southampton and the west coast main line, and between Felixstowe and Nuneaton. I welcome the support from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside on that issue.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I just wanted to ask the right hon. Lady about the impact of the changes at TRANSEC on ports. Obviously, most people associate TRANSEC with aviation and airports. There is no specific reduction in respect of that transport mode. Regarding shipping and interconnectivity, can she tell us what the spend is for upgrading the freight lines from ports?

[Mrs Villiers]

Regarding the changes at TRANSEC, in making the efficiencies that we have to make, of course we will fully take on board any impact on ports and shipping. Obviously, the bulk of TRANSEC’s work and the bulk of its funding tends to be focused on aviation, but that does not mean that we should underrate the importance of ensuring that we maintain high levels of security for our ports and shipping, too.

Regarding the rail freight upgrades, we are committed to carrying forward work on the strategic freight network. I always think that that is one of the programmes on which the previous Government did some of their best work. There was a lot of engagement with the industry to focus on those upgrades that would have the biggest economic impact and that would have the most impact on taking freight off the road and on to rail.

The comprehensive spending review announced electrification of the railways between Preston, Blackpool, Manchester and Liverpool. Work will also go ahead to improve journey times on the crucial route between Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside asked me to ensure that careful monitoring was undertaken to ensure delivery. Of course it is absolutely right that she should ask that and I know that the Office of Rail Regulation will be very focused on keeping Network Rail to its timetable. She also asked if electrification would be accompanied in due course by new rolling stock. Yes, of course—there is no point electrifying a railway unless there is some rolling stock to use on it. So that improvement will be part of the improvements that we want to see in the north-west.

This morning, the Secretary of State informed the House that funding for Thameslink had been confirmed. Thameslink will virtually double the number of north-south trains running through London. To reduce risks, we have lengthened the delivery programme, so completion is now expected in 2018. My right hon. Friend also gave the green light for the addition of 650 carriages, which will address some of the worst overcrowding hot spots around the country. Those carriages will be in service by March 2014 and they are in addition to the 800 net additional carriages for Thameslink and for Crossrail.

Several points were made in the debate about rolling stock; I think that we heard from several hon. Members about the importance of introducing more rolling stock. I listened with interest to the references to discussions on the Leeds trolley bus by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey. I am not able to give him a “yes” today, even though it is his birthday, but he has made his representations very strongly. I also took on board the statements he made about the Leeds rail proposal, which includes Kirkstall Forge. Officials at the Department for Transport will continue to work with the sponsors and the local authorities to see how best we can make progress on that proposal. He will appreciate that it is one of those schemes that is in with a chance of funding, and we will certainly do our best to work constructively with the people who I know passionately support the project.

This morning, the Secretary of State also confirmed a programme of electrification on the Great Western line between London, Didcot, Oxford and Newbury. An announcement on the extent of further electrification on the Great Western line will be made in the new year, alongside our final decision on the inter-city express programme. My right hon. Friend confirmed to the House that we have ruled out wholesale refurbishment of the High Speed 2 inter-city 125 fleet as the solution to the IEP problem. We will buy a new inter-city train fleet. After careful consideration of the Foster report on the IEP, the Government have narrowed down the options to just two: first, Agility’s revised proposal for a fleet of electric and bi-mode trains; and secondly, procuring a fleet of electric trains that would be hauled by new diesel locomotives at the end of the electrified network. I want to emphasise that both these options allow us to retain through journeys to destinations beyond the electrified network, including through journeys to Inverness and Aberdeen, which I know will be warmly welcomed by colleagues, including the hon. Member for Cheltenham who mentioned such journeys in his remarks.

I turn now to the points made this afternoon about roads and local transport. We propose to drive efficiency and reform at the Highways Agency by appointing a non-executive chair and a performance-monitoring group. Our goal is to reduce the cost of delivering a national road network that is in a safe and serviceable condition, and to deliver a more efficient traffic officer service that prioritises traffic management.

The Chairman of the Select Committee specifically referred to the A14 and her concern was that we had essentially sent that project back to the drawing board. I think that the cost of the project had simply got out of control. We were not convinced that it was the best way to deal with the problems on that transport corridor. We need to think more imaginatively about those types of programmes, to see if there is a more cost-effective alternative, and I think that the work that we are doing on the rail freight routes between Felixstowe and the west Midlands will also make an important contribution to addressing issues around the A14.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I will give the right hon. Lady another opportunity to have a sip of water. She mentioned that a more efficient Highways Agency will look at trying to achieve better traffic management. Does she accept that the other major role of the Highways Agency is about traffic safety, particularly in relation to foreign heavy goods vehicles? They have been a big concern to the Transport Committee and to colleagues right across the country. The enforcement regime at the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency allows these vehicles to be pulled aside, and the new regulations that we introduced only last year allow these vehicles to be impounded and not moved without either the necessary repairs being effected or insurance documentation and other documentation being produced. I hope that she is not saying that that regime will suffer as a result of moving the emphasis to road management as opposed to road safety.

[Mrs Villiers]

I will come on to road safety in a moment, but it remains an extremely high priority for the Government. However, the shadow Minister makes a key point about the importance of enforcement in relation to overseas-run HGVs. We will continue to put a priority on those enforcement mechanisms. I cannot give him the precise figures. Across the board, we will be looking to do things in a more efficient way, but if we can, we will prioritise resources to help us to deal with that very significant problem—I agree with him that it is a major problem.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside also asked whether there was a departure from road-widening and building towards more of a traffic management approach, including a managed motorway approach. I think that there is some truth in that. We want to make greater use of a managed motorway programme as a more cost-effective way to deliver more capacity. Regarding road improvements, our focus is on trying to target the worst traffic bottlenecks, because remedying those bottlenecks will deliver the greatest economic benefit. So we recognise that making better use of our existing road capacity should be a very important part of our strategy.

We also need to look, in a balanced way, at whether we can address a transport problem by using a public transport outcome. We need to look afresh at the way that we approach the national roads programme overall.

The Chairman of the Select Committee also expressed concern about cuts in the budget allocated to road maintenance. We are continuing to allocate very significant funds to road maintenance at both a national and local level. However, we recognise the need to deliver more for less. Safety is, of course, paramount. However, the road network is one of the nation’s most valuable economic assets, so we must ensure that we spend appropriately to maintain it in a good condition. Nevertheless, we feel that better commercial management and better contracting can lead to considerable savings, and we feel the same is true of making the most of collective national buying power, encouraging local authorities to link up together so that they can build their buying power, and reviewing some of the technical standards to extend the life of assets. All those methods are ways to cut costs without compromising safety.

However, there is no doubt that we have had to take some difficult decisions about spending on both local and strategic roads. To help local authorities to deal with spending reductions, we will cut red tape to give them more freedom to make their own decisions. We are carrying out a radical simplification and reform of local transport funding. Our plan is to move from 26 grant streams to four, beginning in 2011-12. That will include £560 million for local sustainable transport projects, including Bikeability cycle training.

Several hon. Members discussed buses. The hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Liverpool, Riverside expressed concern about the reduction in the bus service operator grant commencing in 2012-13. I understand their concerns; that was probably one of the most difficult transport decisions in the CSR. I hope that they recognise that the reduction is far less severe than many predicted. We argued the case passionately with the Treasury. We recognise how crucial bus services are to people on a wide range of incomes and in a wide range of areas, which is why we put the case so strongly in the CSR in order to get a fair outcome on buses.

[Martin Horwood]

I acknowledged in my remarks how well the Department had done in defending the bus service operator grant relative to expectations, but the Minister will recall that the combined impact of the cut in BSOG, the funding arrangements for the concessionary fares scheme and the cuts in local government spending could have a high-risk effect on bus services, particularly rural ones.

[Mrs Villiers]

I appreciate that the position on buses is affected by decisions made about Department for Communities and Local Government funding. We are happy to work with DCLG to minimise the ultimate impact on bus passengers. We have also committed to retain the concessionary fares statutory entitlement. In implementing administrative savings—a programme that we inherited from the previous Government, who also committed to reducing the cost of administering the scheme—we will, of course, seek to ensure a fair outcome for both local authorities and bus passengers.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham emphasised the importance of Oyster-style ticketing on bus services outside the capital. The Government agree fully, which is why we have committed to extend smarter ticketing technology across the country and accelerated the plans that we inherited from the previous Government.

I assure the Chairman of the Transport Committee that road safety is an extremely high priority for this Government. We welcome the progress made in recent years; it is a major achievement by the Government of which the shadow Minister was a member. We are determined that that progress will continue. Concern was expressed about the in-year savings to local authority funding. The revenue stream associated with road safety has been reduced, but it was selected because that was a way to give local authorities the greatest flexibility in how they make reductions. It was also a way to prevent the in-year savings from falling disproportionately on local authorities; that was one of the most even-handed ways to make the reductions. With the withdrawal of ring-fencing, it is up to local authorities how they implement those savings. We hope that they will continue to focus on road safety and make the savings that they need in other ways: for example, through efficiency savings.

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not know whether the Minister is aware that in the Chamber this morning, we discussed the fact that some local authorities are facing grant reductions next year of 29%, 30% or 35%. Does she really believe that those authorities—particularly urban metropolitan authorities in the north, some of which are represented here—will have any flexibility?

[Mrs Villiers]

It is our intention to give them flexibility so that they can make decisions in the local interest. Given the huge importance of road safety to local communities the length and breadth of the country, I am absolutely confident that local authorities will continue to put an extremely high priority on road safety spending.

We will continue to invest in our road and local transport infrastructure. The spending review confirmed that more than £400 million will be devoted to the uptake of ultra low-carbon vehicles in order to comply with our commitments on climate change and the pressing need to reduce emissions from driving. In his CSR statement to the House, the Chancellor confirmed various important road programmes, including the A11 dualling programme at Thetford, which will generate major economic benefits for the whole of East Anglia and provide the missing link of dual carriageway to connect Norwich to the rest of the country. That got the biggest cheer of the comprehensive spending review debate. On 26 October, the Secretary of State announced a further 16 large-scale road and public transport projects, as well as a fund of more than £600 million for other schemes to be selected from a pool through a bidding process.

Several individual schemes have been referred to, including the Leeds trolley bus, on which work will continue, as I said. I hope that it will be possible to make progress on the scheme. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) spoke with eloquence about her concerns for the M60 and its impact on her constituents. I emphasise that safety issues are, of course, taken into account in decisions on which schemes to fund, and both safety and the environmental impact on communities will be explored fully in the planning process, as is appropriate. That is how we ensure that such issues are addressed. I am concerned to hear about the problems that she believes have arisen with the consultation, and I urge her to take it up with the Highways Agency.

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank the Minister for giving way. The Roads Minister was going to meet me and local residents in my constituency to understand the issues that I have raised, and I have stated that the Highways Agency consultation was a mess. Given that and the fact that the scheme’s start date is now later than originally proposed, although still before 2015, will the Minister take back a request to review the matter further? I do not think that the scheme is value for money, and it is competing with schemes that are much more wanted and more certain to deliver value for money.

[Mrs Villiers]

With all such schemes, the process of assessing value for money is ongoing. The scheme is conditional on the planning process, which is the proper opportunity for the hon. Lady’s constituents to make their voices heard and express their concerns about what will happen. It is not for me to pre-empt the planning process in this debate.

Several hon. Members mentioned the Dartford crossing. The hon. Member for Cheltenham was concerned about the nature of the charges. They were converted by the previous Government to congestion charges; the charges originally imposed related to the construction costs of the bridge. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock expressed her concern about the increase in tolls. Again, that is unfortunately another melancholy consequence of the fiscal crisis that we face. Tolls could help us fund a new crossing, which, as the shadow Minister said, would generate significant benefits to the economy and relieve congestion. We continue to work to address the congestion problems and flow of traffic on the Dartford crossing, and that work includes a commitment to lifting the barriers in extreme cases where they are causing congestion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock also expressed concerns about junction 30 of the M25. As I emphasised, the project has not been cancelled but postponed. There is a good chance that it will go ahead, and the Highways Agency will continue to work on that. She has put on record her concerns about how important it is, not least because of the need to transport Hellmann’s mayonnaise and Fairy liquid around the country. She is no doubt a strong campaigner for the interests of her constituent.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I intervene only because one group of constituents who have not been mentioned are long-suffering West Ham fans from south and west Essex, who must fight their way across the M25 to get to Upton Park every other Saturday.

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman puts that representation well. I am sure it will be duly taken on board as the scheme progresses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham expressed anxiety about the fate of the Swindon-Kemble project. The hon. Member for Cheltenham said that it could end up with the dubious label of being the only rail project cancelled by this Government. In reality, the funding was never in place from the previous Government. It was never confirmed. I believe that the business case is good and that it would be great in terms of increasing the resilience of services to Wales. There are all sorts of good reasons to do the project, but at the moment it just does not look affordable. However, there is every chance that we could seek to take it forward in the next Network Rail spending control period.

[Martin Horwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

I shall carry on; otherwise the Committee Chairman will not have a chance to speak at the end.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), expressed concern about type 26 frigates. I will certainly take that back to my colleagues in the Department. I have noted his concern about the impact that that might have on piracy. That is obviously a crucial issue we need to address today. He also asked when a road safety strategy will be published. It will be published in due course at some point in the new year. I was somewhat surprised by his comments on air passenger duty because, as I pointed out to him, the increases about which he is concerned were set out in the Labour Chancellor’s Budget and implemented through a Finance Bill that was enacted during the term of his Government. He has had something of a road to Damascus conversion on APD.

I have already dealt with the hon. Gentleman’s points on TRANSEC and the personnel there. He also made the valid point that ports and shipping often do not get the attention they deserve, given their huge importance to the economy. I certainly agree. Whether or not we are in government, it is vital that we recognise the importance of our history as a maritime nation and the economic benefits generated by ports and the shipping industry.

In conclusion, faced with the scale of the deficit we inherited, the easy option would have been to slash capital spending on transport projects. We have chosen not to do that; we have chosen to look at the long-term interests of the economy. That is why, over the next four years, we will spend more than £30 billion on road, rail and local transport projects across Britain, despite the dire financial situation that we inherited from our predecessors. I thank everyone who has taken part in this very interesting debate.

17:21

[Mrs Ellman]

Thank you, Mr Gray, for your chairmanship this afternoon. I also thank the many hon. Members who have demonstrated the significance of national decisions for local facilities and for their constituents. I thank the Minister for her very full replies, but such fullness cannot disguise the fact that a 15% cut in transport, an 11% cut in capital expenditure and a 21% cut in resource expenditure, are major cuts. Yes, it could have been worse, but those are major cuts.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), the shadow Minister, has retained all his expertise and knowledge about transport and I am glad to see it being put to such good use this afternoon. Some promises and commitments have been given, but there are clearly still some gaps and major problems. I am sure that my Committee, in the months and perhaps years ahead, will monitor those promises and continue to raise issues of concern. I look forward to the Minister appearing before our Committee to follow up some of the very important matters raised this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

17:22

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Thursday 25th November 2010 Written Statements

Thursday 25 November 2010

General Affairs Council/Foreign Affairs Council

Thursday 25th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The General Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council were held on 22 October in Brussels. I represented the UK.

The agenda items covered were as follows:

General Affairs Council (GAC)

The Belgian presidency (Foreign Minister Vanackere) chaired the meeting. The full text of all conclusions adopted can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/117939.pdf

Follow-up to the October European Council and preparations for the December Council

The discussion was dominated by economic issues, in particular the establishment of a permanent crisis mechanism, treaty change, and the process leading up to any decision by the European Council in December.

Along with others, I stressed the need to keep changes to the treaty to a minimum and ensure that national Parliaments were fully involved. Others also emphasised the importance of careful presentation and handling of economic policy matters, in order to avoid unnecessary market speculation.

On the EU budget, I reiterated our determination that EU expenditure should reflect consolidation efforts being made by member states. The December European Council will discuss how the EU budget can contribute to these efforts.

European Commission 2011 Work Programme

The Commission presented their work programme for 2011. They hoped it would increase the predictability of the discussions in the year to come. They were actively seeking feedback from national Parliaments. The UK (Sir Kim Darroch) said this exercise would aid transparency, and noted that much of the content was useful, especially on sustainable growth. However, the UK also stressed that any proposals needed to be considered against tests on subsidiarity and the avoidance of regulatory burden.

Videoconferencing at Councils

The presidency introduced proposals for a staged upgrade in the Council’s video conferencing capability. These were approved without discussion.

Disaster Response

The Commissioner for International Co-operation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response (Ms Georgieva) presented the Commission’s ideas on European disaster response. She stressed the need to address the increased frequency and intensity of disasters, and to use the EU’s new institutional arrangements. She underscored the primary responsibility of member states, the need to be cost-effective, and the importance of UN leadership externally.

Many speakers welcomed the ideas but made clear they could not accept EU control of national assets. Any legislative proposals had to reflect the different structures in Europe, and the primacy of the UN in humanitarian operations. The UK (Sir Kim Darroch) stressed the need for flexible and pragmatic solutions, noting that future Council conclusions could broadly endorse moving forward but should not prejudge technical discussions. Others emphasised the importance of greater EU visibility and enhanced co-ordination.

The presidency concluded that there was broad agreement to proceed to Council conclusions at the December GAC.

Transparency Register

Under AOB, the European Commission informed the GAC that they had reached agreement with the European Parliament on a transparency register covering all lobbyists and NGOs who sought to influence the two institutions. The text of the agreement would be forwarded to the Council.

Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton, chaired the meeting. The full text of all conclusions adopted, including “A” points, can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/117948.pdf

Middle East Peace Process (MEPP) - Gaza/Lebanon

Over lunch, Ministers focused on the efforts to encourage Israel and the Palestinians to restart direct talks. Many speakers emphasised the need for the EU to support the efforts of the US. There was also concern about continuing settlement activity, particularly in East Jerusalem. Baroness Ashton said that it was important to maintain momentum to improve conditions in Gaza, reiterating the EU’s readiness to contribute to this. She added that the EU would continue to work with the international quartet. On Lebanon, a number of Ministers argued that the EU should support the special tribunal. Conclusions were agreed.

Iran

Baroness Ashton updated the FAC on the latest developments on the nuclear dossier.

Sudan

Baroness Ashton invited me to lead discussion on Sudan, following the special session of the UN Security Council on Sudan on 16 November chaired by the Foreign Secretary. I highlighted that this was a defining period for Sudan: the EU needed to work energetically to support a peaceful outcome. The EU should ensure that contingency preparations were ready to be signed off at the next FAC on 13 December. The EU also needed to consider how to engage Khartoum, to complement the US package, and to strengthen the role of moderates in the north. I argued that debt relief might be an important element. Additionally, we should not lose sight of Darfur.

Other speakers echoed these themes, particularly on the need to explore quickly options on debt relief. Assistance for the three kidnapped Latvians and one Hungarian in Sudan was also raised.

Baroness Ashton announced that she was setting up a Sudan taskforce headed up by Dame Rosalind Marsden, the EU Special Representative for Sudan. Conclusions were agreed.

Preparations for forthcoming Summits and relations with strategic partners

The FAC discussed preparations for the forthcoming EU summits with Africa (29-30 November), Russia (7 December) and India (10 December), and for the OSCE summit (1-2 December). The discussion also covered the EU’s strategic relations with the US, Russia and China.

Much of the discussion focused on relations with Russia, specifically visa liberalisation and Russia’s WTO membership. Baroness Ashton proposed that Ministers discuss these issues further on 13 December ahead of her presentation to the December European Council.

Burma

Ministers discussed developments in Burma, including deeply flawed elections and the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. Strong concern was expressed at the continued detention of 2,200 political prisoners, and there was agreement on the need for caution in the EU’s response to recent events, and on the need to co-ordinate with other key partners, including the US.

Iraq

There was a brief exchange of views on the political situation and recent developments in Iraq. A number of speakers emphasised the need to pay close attention to the situation of religious minorities. Conclusions were agreed.

Belarus

The FAC was briefed by the Polish Foreign Minister on his joint visit with the German Foreign Minister to Minsk on 2 November. The Lithuanian Foreign Minister reported on the recent visit to Minsk by the Lithuanian President.

Women, Peace and Security

Thursday 25th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I wish to inform the House that, today, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, will publicly launch the UK’s national action plan on women, peace and security.

Ten years ago, the UN Security Council agreed Resolution 1325 and we committed to reduce the impact of conflict on women and girls and to promote their inclusion in conflict resolution. Ten years on, there is clearly more to do. Our new national action plan sets out how we will pursue progress through a range of initiatives and through incorporating our commitments into our diplomatic, defence and development activity.

The key commitments are:

to make “Women, Peace and Security” an integral part of our conflict policy, including through providing specialised training to civilian and military staff; placing women at the front and centre of our development policy; and the deployment of female military personnel as “Female Engagement Officers” in support of UK battle groups to improve military engagement with female Afghan civilians;

to implement specific action plans for priority countries, starting with Afghanistan, Nepal and DRC;

to strengthen the action taken by the international community, including by taking a strong advocacy role at the United Nations and supporting the enhancement of UN structures that assist women in conflict.

Revision of the national action plan has been carried out by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, in consultation with civil society, particularly the civil society coalition group: Gender Action for Peace and Security (GAPS).

The plan will be reviewed annually, incorporating feedback from civil society focus groups. Progress will be reported to Parliament and civil society through the Associate Parliamentary Group on Women, Peace and Security. A full evaluation of the plan will be carried out after three years.

I am placing a copy of the national action plan in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk).

Violence Against Women and Children Action Plan

Thursday 25th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

Today, I formally launch the Department of Health action plan, improving services for women and child victims of violence. This document sets out how the Department, in partnership with others, will take action in response to the findings of the independent taskforce on the health aspects of violence against women and children (VAWC), which were published in March 2010.

The work programme aims to lay the foundations for embedding high-quality evidence-based practice within the national health service in response to violence and abuse and is set around four key themes: awareness-raising; workforce, education and training; improving quality of services; and evidence and information.



The action plan takes into account the key findings from the independent taskforce, which were informed by focus groups with women and children service users. An NHS implementation group on violence against women and children, established in June, will oversee progress of the implementation work.



The Department’s work in this important area also feeds into the cross-Government programme on violence against women and girls. This highlights the importance of partnership-working at both a national and local level to tackle violence and abuse.



I am placing a copy of the report in the Library and copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office.

Carers Strategy

Thursday 25th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

We are today publishing a cross-Government strategy—“Recognised, valued and supported: next steps for the Carers Strategy”. This sets out the Government’s priority areas for the next four years to ensure the best possible outcomes for carers and those they support. The strategy recognises the vital role that carers already play in providing support and care to people, and the importance of having a life outside the caring role. It also recognises the importance of a “whole family” approach to supporting young carers, so that they do not take on inappropriate caring roles.

The strategy sets out how the Government will reciprocate the support carers provide with measures that support the responsibilities of caring:

supporting those with caring responsibilities to identify themselves as carers at an early stage, recognising the value of their contribution and involving them from the outset both in designing local care provision and in planning individual care packages;

enabling those with caring responsibilities to fulfil their educational and employment potential;

personalised support both for carers and those they support, enabling them to have a family and community life; and

supporting carers to remain mentally and physically well.



The strategy identifies the actions that the Government will take to support these priorities. These include:

providing £400 million additional funding over the next four years for breaks, and further resources for GP training, to increase GPs’ awareness and understanding of carers’ needs for support. The Department for Education has already announced that additional funding recycled from the child trust fund will be used to support short breaks services. The legislative process to place a duty on councils to commission a short breaks service should be completed in the new year;

the Department for Education will make a new early intervention grant available to local government from April 2011-12, bringing together a range of funding streams for early intervention services for young people and families, including young carers;

the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will issue a consultation document next year to consult with business on how best to take forward the coalition commitment to extend to all employees the right to request flexible working;

the Department of Health and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will examine how small local enterprises can be encouraged to provide good quality, reliable and consistent replacement care either to give carers a break from caring responsibilities or to enable them to work alongside caring responsibilities; and

the Department of Health and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will work with industry and statutory and voluntary sector stakeholders to identify the barriers and enablers to market growth in assisted living technologies, and to support further uptake and boost innovation.

The Department of Health is also publishing a guide on emerging evidence—“Carers and personalisation: improving outcomes”. This includes examples to illustrate how the principles of personalisation have been applied, emphasising the value of finding ways forward that make sense and work best locally.

A copy of “Recognised, valued and supported: next steps for the Carers Strategy” has been placed in the Library and copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office.

“Call to End Violence against Women and Girls”

Thursday 25th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Government’s ambition is nothing less than ending all forms of violence against women and girls. This is a key priority for us and today, on the international day for the elimination of violence against women, we have set out our guiding principles for this over the coming spending review period. This includes a commitment to provide more than £28 million for specialist services for victims of domestic and sexual violence over the next four years.

We will take a cross-departmental integrated approach to ending violence against women and girls by tackling its root causes and dealing fully with its effects. For the first time we have also included the work that we do at an international level to promote women’s rights globally and reduce the impact of conflict on women and girls.

We will publish the detail of the supporting actions in the spring.

The “Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls” strategic narrative is available on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/vawg and a copy will be placed in the House Library.

Rail Investment

Thursday 25th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

This statement sets out the Government’s plans for investment in rail infrastructure and rolling stock. It builds on the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the outcome of the spending review.



Over the next four years, we will provide £14 billion of funding to Network Rail to support capital maintenance and infrastructure investment; and £750 million for high speed rail. We will also fund the Crossrail project, the tube upgrade programme, light rail projects in Birmingham, Tyneside, Nottingham and Sheffield; and provide additional funding to franchisees for extra rolling stock.

Today, I can confirm we will fund and deliver the Thameslink programme in its entirety, virtually doubling the number of north-south trains running through central London at peak times. But the original programme for the rebuilding of London Bridge was always ambitious, with substantial risks around delivery, and operation of existing services, during construction. To reduce these risks, we have re-profiled the delivery of the programme to achieve completion in 2018. This will enable Network Rail to make further efficiencies to their design and delivery programme.

As part of the Thameslink programme, we will procure a new fleet of trains—up to 1,200 new carriages. This is in addition to around 600 new carriages which will be provided for the Crossrail project. The new Thameslink and Crossrail rolling stock will enable the redeployment of hundreds of serviceable electric carriages currently used on Thameslink services. These carriages belong to rolling-stock leasing companies, but we expect they will be available at competitive leasing prices for re-use elsewhere, thus justifying further electrification of our network.

As a first step. Network Rail will electrify the commuter services on the great western main line from London to Didcot, Oxford and Newbury over the next six years. Electric trains will speed up journeys, improve reliability and reduce the impact on the environment. Network Rail will also electrify the lines between Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Blackpool—an investment of up to £300 million. Work is expected to begin next year and to be finished in 2016. As with Thameslink, we expect Network Rail to keep a tight rein on costs.

The redeployment of electric rolling stock to these routes will, in turn, free up hundreds of diesel units which will be available to train operators to lease as they become available in the period after 2015.

I can also today confirm that an additional 650 carriages will have been delivered to the network between 6 May 2010 and March 2014. This is in addition to the Thameslink and Crossrail carriages I have already mentioned.

We have funding confirmed for developments at Reading, Birmingham, London Kings Cross and Gatwick Airport. In addition, investments on the east coast main line and midland main line and improvements in Yorkshire, on trans-Pennine routes, around Manchester and in South Wales will improve line speed, reliability and capacity of services.

Beyond these investments in the commuter railway, there are far-reaching decisions to be made about intercity services. The Intercity Express programme, launched by the previous Government, identified the Agility Trains consortium as preferred bidder to build a new fleet of intercity trains. This February, my predecessors invited Sir Andrew Foster, to provide an independent assessment of the programme. Sir Andrew recommended work on the Agility Trains proposal and a detailed study of the alternatives. Following this work, the four options Sir Andrew identified, have been narrowed down to two. I have ruled out the option of requiring passengers to interchange from electric to diesel trains, recognising the value to passengers of preserving through-journeys. I have also ruled out the option of a wholesale refurbishment of the existing diesel “Intercity 125” fleet, some of which dates back to the 1970s.

The remaining options are, on the one hand a revised, lower-cost Agility Trains proposal, which envisages a mixed fleet: some all-electric trains, and some electric trains which are also equipped with under-floor diesel engines. And on the other, a fleet of new all-electric trains which could be coupled to new diesel locomotives where the overhead electric power lines end. Both these options would allow us to preserve through-journeys between London and parts of the rail network which are not electrified. Both of them would deliver faster journey times. For example, we expect to see a time saving of at least 15 minutes, for the journey between Cardiff and London bringing it below two hours.

This is a major decision which will affect intercity rail travel for decades, and we must get it right. To address outstanding issues on choice of train type and further electrification on the great western main line, additional work will be required within the Department, with Agility Trains, and with the Welsh Assembly Government on the business case for electrification into Wales. I expect to announce a final decision on IEP, and on further great western electrification, in the new year.

This package I have announced today has only been possible because this Government have been prepared to take the tough decisions to protect investment in Britain’s future. I will make a further oral statement to the House on the issues raised in this statement later today.

Opposition Day Debate Clarification (Housing Benefit)

Thursday 25th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

In the course of the Opposition day debate on housing benefit, 9 November 2010, I stated that:

“We now know that, according to the Office for National Statistics, the private marketplace in housing—Labour Members are completely wrong about this—fell by around 5% last year. At the same time, LHA rates, which the previous Government had set and left to us, had risen by 3%”.— [Official Report, 9 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 167].

The correct answer should have been:

“We now know that, according to national statistics, the private marketplace in housing—Labour Members are completely wrong about this—fell by around 5% between November 2008 and February 2010. At the same time, national LHA rates, the system the previous Government left us, had risen by 3%”.

The source of this statistic, as published in DWP’s analytical supplement to the Work and Pensions Select Committee inquiry of 3 November, is the Find a Property private rental index. This source for rental data has been used by the Department and wider Government since 2008 when the Department for Communities and Local Government stopped producing their own private rental index. The Find A Property index is the biggest national private rental property website with an extensive amount of nationwide data.

“For where problems do arise, we have tripled the discretionary housing payment to £140 million".—[Official Report, 9 November 2010; Vol. 518 c. 174].

I am happy to clarify that discretionary housing payment funding will be £130 million and that £10 million will be available from Communities and Local Government funding for homelessness prevention, hence totalling £140 million over the spending review period. Funding on discretionary housing payments will indeed triple in year from 2012-13.

“Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to explain how the figures show that the real-terms increase over the past five years was 50%, not 18%”.—[Official Report, 9 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 149].

I can confirm that housing benefit expenditure has increased by 50% in real terms from £14 billion in 2000-01 to a forecast £21.5 billion in 2010-11.

Work Programme (Framework Providers)

Thursday 25th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

The Government have previously announced their plans for radical reforms of the welfare-to-work system and the implementation of the Work programme.

Work to deliver the programme is progressing quickly and we are on track to deliver nationwide by the summer of 2011.

Today we announce the providers who will be invited to bid to deliver the Work programme and subsequent employment-related support initiatives. These providers have been named on our framework for employment-related support services, which is the commercial vehicle through which the Work programme will be delivered. The list of suppliers will be released at 1pm today, and can be found here:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-DWP/what- we-buy/welfare-to-work-services/work-programme

We are delighted that we received so much interest in the framework and we had strong competition from the market. The providers we have selected represent the very best of organisations from both the private and voluntary sectors. There is a good mix of existing suppliers and new entrants to the market, including innovative partnerships.

The Work programme is the Government’s flagship welfare-to-work programme, and will be built around the needs of individuals: we will give providers longer to work with customers and greater freedom to decide the appropriate support for them. We will also offer stronger incentives for providers to work with harder-to-help customers, and to get people into sustained jobs.