Transport Infrastructure (West and South Cumbria)

Lord Walney Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Reed]

It is absolutely in the best interests of Carlisle to develop the A595. Considering that we have all worked on a cross-party basis for many years to try to get the airport developed there, it needs to be served by good road infrastructure, otherwise the benefits from it will be not what they should. I will come on to the health service in due course.

In reality, more than 10,000 people work on the Sellafield site, and it will soon be one of the biggest construction sites in Europe as decommissioning progresses, whether or not new missions are secured. The report goes on to state:

“Without any interventions, planned development is likely to result in further deterioration in network performance.”

The case for investment to upgrade the A595 is overwhelming. It is undeniably in the national interest, and the Government should recognise that fact and act accordingly. In less than a fortnight, a petition arranged by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness has gathered well over 1,000 signatures. It calls for investment, and more people add their support daily. A few testimonies from the many people who have signed the petition show just how much of an impact the A595 has on their daily lives. One person said:

“I am the manager of a health centre and cannot get to work by any other road. When it blocks, we cannot get essential staff to work. When this happens, our patients are affected.”

Another said:

“Every day my travel to work of 17 miles exceeds one hour, ten minutes.”

I would like to see people in London put up with that kind of delay. Another simply added:

“Something needs to be done.”

My constituents rightly demand that the Government take a lead on this matter. As I have repeatedly said, this infrastructure is of national importance and the economic case is indisputable. West Cumbria can be a world leader when it comes to the creation of skilled jobs, and we are already hugely significant in that regard. Imminent inward investment from around the world means that our position as a global centre of excellence will be not only maintained but enhanced. Our vision is to become a global centre of nuclear excellence and through that to diversify and grow the economy through spin-outs, but the only way we can realise that potential is to have the infrastructure in place to support the growth and make it stick. It is a clear example of where a return on investment would greatly outweigh any initial costs and would improve the lives of many thousands of people.

So far I have spoken mainly about the economic benefits of new investment in the A595 and the economic cost of inaction, but a failure to invest would have wider ramifications, not least for health care, as the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) pointed out. There is great strain on ambulance services in the region, but North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust envisages more patient transfers in the coming years. The journey time between West Cumberland hospital in Whitehaven and the Cumberland infirmary is already upwards of two hours bed to bed. As congestion worsens, that travel time is set to deteriorate further. Without investment in the A595, there will be serious ramifications for the health of my constituents, and that is unacceptable. It is also a key reason why patient services should not be further stripped from the West Cumberland hospital. This is not the place to air those issues, but let me be absolutely clear: there must be no further erosion of services at the West Cumberland hospital and no more unjustifiable transfers of services from Whitehaven to Carlisle. Not even the best road in the world would be capable of shortening the 42 miles between the two hospitals. No road upgrade could ever justify further service erosion.

In west Cumbria, we are building a 21st-century economy on 19th-century infrastructure. By failing to act, any Government would be knowingly acting against the economic interests of the region and the country as a whole. Cumbria simply cannot reach its full potential if we do not have the roads to enable us to achieve our ambitions and to make the unprecedented investments coming our way stick. The ambition of west Cumbria is there. It is manifest in our community spirit, our ambition and our determination, all of which bind our local economic ambitions—north, east, west and south.

Will the Minister make a commitment to undertake a feasibility study of what improvements will be necessary to cope with future economic developments in the area and future demands on the road network? The scope of that work need cover not simply road improvements but how more Sellafield workers, for instance, could be located away from the Sellafield site in Whitehaven town centre and right across Copeland in new office buildings, thereby achieving town centre regeneration and reducing site risk and road congestion. Will he also give a commitment to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness to discuss the issues in more detail? The Minister is usually amenable, and I know that he is a committed and passionate public servant when it comes to dealing with requests from all parts of the House.

In west and south-west Cumbria, we are about to receive the single largest private sector investment we have ever seen. It has been hard won over many years, and it has not happened by accident. These are once-in-a-generation investments, and every opportunity must be seized. West Cumbria’s best days are ahead of us, but we can only reach our true potential if significant improvements are made to the A595. These are not tiresome partisan issues, but issues of national strategic importance. Will the Minister back our drive for growth?

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

If the hon. Gentleman has permission, he can make a speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

Thank you for your forbearance, Mr Hood. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I know that you must particularly look forward to these debates on A roads. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) on securing this debate and on leading the campaign on the A595 with such energy. It is an urgent issue. My hon. Friend put the case so well, but for a couple of minutes I will add a few brief points.

Nearly 400 people travel from my constituency to Sellafield every day. As the area realises its ambition to become a global centre of nuclear excellence alongside the building of a new nuclear submarine fleet in Barrow-in-Furness, it will become an extraordinary powerhouse of nuclear expertise. As the travel-to-work area spans that geographic footprint, there will be much greater use of the A road in both directions, yet parts of it are barely worth calling a road. There is an infamous bit in my constituency that is literally a farmyard. If the Minister has time, I urge him to watch the videos that intrepid safety campaigners in the Kirkby area have made. For drivers on this stretch of road, it is an almost daily occurrence to see huge juggernauts coming towards them with, at points, no way around.

We have seen 18 deaths and 550 injuries on the road in the past five years, but there has been no upgrade in spending, which is vitally needed. We need better public transport and transport infrastructure investment that matches both the scale and ambition of the growth and the amount of value that will be added to the UK economy—not just the economy of our area. I want much better engagement from the train companies and the Government for park and ride schemes in Askam or Broughton going up to Sellafield and the new Moorside sites, but that cannot come at the expense of the investment that is so clearly needed. We are not asking for all the money up front, right now. All we have asked for in writing is for the Government to pay for the feasibility study. Will the Minister confirm that they will do that? If his view is that there should be a bridge across the Duddon, say that now. We need an option, and it needs to be properly looked at. We need the money for the study.

Morecambe Bay (Tunnel)

Lord Walney Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. May I be clear about what he is saying about this project? When he originally mooted it, I thought it was directly tied to the tunnel being built for power lines under the bay. Is he now saying that this is an entirely separate venture? I ask that because, of course, National Grid says that if this tunnel scheme was to be part of the work to put power lines under the bay, that would be delayed by at least a decade, and probably more.

[David Morris]

I can clarify that this project would have nothing to do with the power cabling. Originally, when the tunnelling experts and I talked, it was suggested that the transport tunnel would have been an escape route for the power lines tunnel, but now the transport tunnel would not be the same tunnel at all. The transport tunnel is a completely separate project from that proposed by National Grid, which already has investment for the power lines tunnel. However, if National Grid would like to come on board with this project, I am absolutely certain that bodies can talk together and reach agreement.

I understand that this transport tunnel is a big idea and will require considerable investment, but I have a can do attitude. I firmly believe that, having secured funding for the M6 link project after it had been planned for 60 years, there is no scheme too big to be delivered. I look for guidance from my hon. Friend the Minister about how best to go about the scheme, and how to make it a reality that would economically boost both my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale, and the Barrow peninsula, as phase two of my infrastructure plan.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

It is always a joy to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris)on securing this debate about a tunnel under Morecambe bay, and on his vision and ambition for transport as a driver of growth. This Government recognise the crucial role that effective transport plays in facilitating growth across the country, in creating a more balanced economy and in connecting communities and enabling people to access jobs, services and leisure. That is why we have been determined to secure significant levels of investment in infrastructure, and in road, rail and other public transport services. We are committed to ensuring that this investment benefits all parts of the country, from north to south.

Before setting out how much we are doing to deliver real change for transport in the north, I must make it clear that the tunnel my hon. Friend referred to forms one of the options that National Grid is currently consulting on, regarding the proposal to connect the proposed Moorside nuclear power station to the electricity transmission network, although—as he made clear in his speech—the two tunnels may not be co-located. His suggestion is for a tunnel separate from the one that National Grid is proposing. Nevertheless, I must say that any subsequent planning application by National Grid will be decided on by the appropriate planning authorities and Ministers. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to give a view on the particular details of this transport tunnel project, as I am sure my hon. Friend will understand.

I must also point out that this tunnel scheme is not a new idea. Indeed, I have a record of the debate that took place in the House on 10 May 1965, when Hector Munro—who I recall would go on to become Sir Hector Munro—asked a question of the Minister for Land and Natural resources:

“If he will make a sum of money available to Strathclyde University and to universities in England to enable them to investigate the Solway and Morecambe barrage schemes.”

The Minister in question—the hon. Member for Sunderland North, Mr Frederick Willey—replied:

“Not at this stage. The Water Resources Board is now conducting feasibility studies into the Morecambe Bay barrage project and jointly with the Scottish Office, into that for Solway Firth. We must first see how these studies progress.”

Hector Munro came back:

“Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that three Ministries have been making enthusiastic statements about these barrages for six months but that not a penny has been made available to the universities to set up study groups?”

In turn, Mr Willey came back, saying:

“I am anxious to encourage co-operation with the universities, but in this particular case we have feasibility studies in hand and we must see how they go. These are properly with the Water Resources Board and the engineering consultants.”

I have to say that that is just the sort of stuff my officials give me to read out from time to time. More importantly, the hon. Member for Farnham—a Conservative, Sir Godfrey Nicholson—asked:

“Is the Minister aware that in Morecambe Bay there are millions of shrimps? Who will watch their interests?”—[Official Report, 10 May 1965; Vol. 712, c. 15-16.]

However, it was not clear whether he had an environmental or gastronomic interest in the shrimps.

This country certainly leads the world in tunnelling. Indeed, in my own constituency there is an application for a potash mine that would incorporate two 23-mile tunnels carrying conveyor belts from the mine to Teesside. Tunnelling has come on a long way.

I now turn to transport in the north in general. I have a very clear view about the benefits that this Government’s strong commitment to transport is delivering. For example, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, after years of prevarication and delay by previous Governments we are finally delivering the £120 million-plus Heysham link road, which will link the port at Heysham with the M6 and thereby significantly enhance growth opportunities locally.

That is just one example of the way in which this Government have taken decisive action to tackle long-standing problems in the north-west. We have listened to what local businesses, organisations and communities have told us, and we have responded by investing in all modes of transport, to improve connectivity across the north-west and between the north-west and other parts of the country.

Regarding this Government’s commitment to infrastructure investment, we have already announced increased levels of Government funding to deliver improvements all around the strategic road network, which are targeted at supporting economic growth. Our commitment to deliver a step change in future investment in transport infrastructure was made clear by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement in June 2013, which announced the conclusions of the Government’s 2013 spending review.

[John Woodcock]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he read my mind. I would love to be able to magic up a tunnel under Morecambe bay. I would love to be able to promise my constituents a personal helipad or a teleporter in Barrow town hall to take them anywhere in the country. If I did that six months before an election, my constituents would rightly think that I was just making something up to appear more electable and would not give me much credibility. Does the Minister agree that perhaps the best thing for the Government to do is to find funds to give the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) a spade and then ask him to get digging? That may be the most realistic way of making the tunnel happen in the near future.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman produces a wish list of projects, but I must make it clear that there is no point in a wish list if there is no budget to go with it. The Government are committed to putting in £3 billion a year—some £24 billion—into roads over the next five to six years, which is more than three times the previous Government’s investment. Indeed, I seem to recall that when the Blair Government came to power in 1997 they announced a moratorium on road building, which was not good news for people struggling with congestion in the north. Coupled with the investment already mentioned, we are investing £38 billion in the classic rail network. In addition, we have ambitious plans for high-speed rail in the north, which will from day one connect the north—cities such as Carlisle and Glasgow—and will not stop at Birmingham, but will keep going.

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend need not convince us of his campaigning zeal in getting the best deal for his constituents and ensuring that they and the north get their fair share of the pot. I also represent the north, so I am conscious of the criticism that all the money is being invested in London’s infrastructure and big projects such as Crossrail. It is important that the north gets its fair share in the Chancellor’s vision for High Speed 3.

The Treasury’s Command Paper “Investing in Britain’s Future” set out the fact that the Government will invest over £28 billion in enhancements and maintenance of both national and local roads in the period up to 2021, including £10.7 billion for major national road projects and £4.9 billion for local major projects. More than £12 billion has been allocated for maintenance, with nearly £6 billion for repairs to local roads and £6 billion for maintenance of strategic roads, including resurfacing 80% of the network.

On future investment planning processes, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Highways Agency is currently conducting its route strategy process. Route strategies will provide a smarter approach to investment planning across the network and see greater collaboration with stakeholders to determine the nature, need and timing of future investment that may be needed on the network. A set of strategies is being developed for the entire strategic road network, covering Lancashire, Cumbria and the north-west, London to Scotland west, and the south and north Pennines.

The route strategies are to be delivered in two stages. The first stage identified performance issues on routes, future challenges and growth opportunities, taking full account of local priorities and aspirations. Using that evidence base, the Highways Agency will establish and outline operational and investment priorities for all routes on the strategic road network. The first stage is now complete, and finalised evidence reports were published on 23 April. The second stage will use the evidence to prioritise and take forward a programme of work to identify indicative solutions to cover operational, maintenance and, if appropriate, road improvement schemes to inform future investment plans.

We are also taking action on the strategic road network in Lancashire and Cumbria now by delivering junction improvements at, for example, junction 32 of the M6 and junction 1 of the M55, on the A585 at Windy Harbour, and at junction 65 on the M65, and making safety improvements on the A590 to Barrow at Greenodd roundabout and at the A595 Mirehouse road junction near Sellafield in west Cumbria. The Highways Agency is also currently developing a scheme for a new junction on the M55 to support the Preston city deal, as well as proposals to feed into the roads investment strategy that we will announce later this year.

The schemes are tackling problems that were flagged up to us by local authorities, local enterprise partnerships and the business community—

[John Woodcock]

And me! On the Greenodd roundabout, it was me and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I suggest that he does so, rather than making comments from a sedentary position.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to ask about that particular example.

[John Woodcock]

I am sorry. Just on the Greenodd tunnel, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and I pushed rather hard over a considerable number of years to get that, so the Minister might want to mention it.

[Mr Goodwill]

This Government are always keen to take representations from all sections of the political community. Indeed, looking at some of the investment projects, we can certainly not be accused of pork barrel politics given that much of our investment priority is for the north of England. Indeed, we have been collaborating with the leaders of the great cities in the north to ensure that projects that will support prosperity are delivered.

The Government are also investing significantly in local roads. Through our current “local majors” programme, we are making significant resources available to local authorities to take forward the transport schemes that their areas need. For example, as already highlighted, we are providing £111 million to Lancashire county council towards the £123 million Heysham link road, which will provide a much needed and long-overdue improved link to the port at Heysham, as well as providing congestion relief to the centre of Lancashire.

We are not just working on major programmes. Our pinch point programme is helping local authorities to tackle the hotspots and constraints on local roads that are holding up economic growth. Over the four rounds of the local pinch point programme, we are funding four schemes in Lancashire and Cumbria that are vital to the connectivity needs of local businesses and communities. All are due to be completed next year.

The Government recognise that the local road network is one of this country’s most valuable public assets and that we therefore need to ensure that our local roads are fit for purpose. That is why the Government are providing over £4.7 billion between 2010 to 2015 to local highway authorities in England for the roads that they are responsible for, including the £200 million we provided to councils in March 2011 to help repair damage to local roads caused by the 2010 winter, and the further £183.5 million in March 2014 following the wettest winter on record. More recently, we announced a further £168 million to councils through the pothole fund in the 2014 Budget. The 2013 spending round confirmed that just under £6 billion will be given to local highway authorities over the six-year period from April 2015 to March 2021, equating to £976 million per year and highlighting our commitment to maintaining the road network.

The Government believe that local people and organisations are best placed to understand the needs of their areas to support and boost growth. That is why we are devolving significant resources through the local growth fund to local enterprise partnerships. In the first wave of growth deals announced on 7 July, funding of up to £6 billion for local projects was awarded to the 39 LEPs, including some £3 billion of Government funding for new local transport schemes, reflecting local priorities for what is needed to support local economy growth.

The two LEPs in Lancashire and Cumbria secured significant growth deals with Government. The Lancashire LEP was awarded over £233 million, including over £70 million for vital road infrastructure around Preston to support its city deal growth aspirations, for vital rail schemes in Blackburn, a range of transport improvements in Blackpool, including an extension to the town’s iconic tram service, and a new link road in St Annes. The Cumbria LEP received over £26 million to improve station facilities at Maryport and Workington in west Cumbria as well as to address congestion in Ulverston and Kendal to support growth. Both LEPs will now be able to take forward a range of transport schemes that will support their growth aspirations.

In conclusion, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale for securing this debate. I hope that what I have said today demonstrates the Government’s real commitment to transport in Lancashire, Cumbria and the north in general.

[John Woodcock]

The Minister has not said anything about the prospect of a tunnel under Morecambe bay, unless I fell asleep during that bit. Does he think it is remotely realistic?

Furness Line

Lord Walney Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on securing this debate, on making such an excellent case, on being generous in his words and on giving me the chance to contribute. Before I move on to the substantive part of my speech, I echo his words about Peter Robinson, whose death was a sad loss to his family and the community.

There has been much talk about investment in the northern rail network over the past few days, but once again, the so-called HS3 proposal concentrates on linking the major cities of the north, ignoring smaller towns and communities. It comes down to the kind of country we want to be. If we are not prepared to see smaller communities decline and fade, it is not good enough just to say it. Our rail links in the south Lakeland and Furness area are just as vital as those anywhere else, and yet in the case of the Furness line they are under threat of being downgraded.

Amazing things are happening in south and west Cumbria in addition to the great potential of the visitor economy. We have the most advanced manufacturing in the country at Barrow shipyard, which will be taking on an extra 1,000 people in the years to come; civil nuclear expansion up the west coast; cutting-edge biopharmaceuticals at GlaxoSmithKline in Ulverston; offshore wind; and increased estimates of gas reserves in the Irish sea. This is an economy powered by entrepreneurial talent and an incredibly skilled work force, but we need the Government to play a role in tackling our biggest challenge, which is geographic isolation.

We know that the Government can act. Just yesterday, Ministers confirmed £2.8 million to rescue the air link between Newquay and Gatwick. In many ways, the south-west peninsula’s transport situation resembles that of south and west Cumbria, and yet the potential economic, energy, defence, and research and development contribution to the nation that would be unlocked by the Furness line is significantly greater than that of links in the south-west peninsula.

I am proud to have launched the Cumbria Better Connected campaign, and to have seen the way that people have rallied around it. When I questioned the Secretary of State for Transport last week, he promised to read our report carefully; in truth, he may have meant that he wanted the Minister who is here today to read it carefully. The report makes it clear that not only is the current service on the Furness route already below the required standard but that the threat to direct services to Manchester and its critically important international airport has the potential to damage our economy severely, putting in jeopardy all our amazing potential.

My constituents have already seen our rail service deteriorate in recent years. In addition to the cuts to services that my hon. Friend outlined, we have of course seen the reintroduction on the line of the depressing Pacer units, which are 30-year-old buses on rail bogies and which are completely unsuited to journeys of more than an hour along the Furness line. Now the axe hovers over the direct service to Manchester again. The recently closed consultation about the new specifications for the Northern and TransPennine franchises raises the possibility of removing Barrow and Ulverston’s direct trains to Manchester entirely, downgrading them to stopping services or diverting them away from the airport. Electrification of the rest of the TransPennine network leaves Furness as a diesel outlier that is under threat of returning to a branch line, which is hardly fitting or suitable for an area that is about to receive industrial investment on the scale of the investment in the London Olympics.

I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. When will the Government publish their response to the consultation on the Northern and TransPennine franchises? Will she listen to the clearly expressed voices of the passengers and businesses in the area saying that a fast, regular and high-quality direct service from Barrow to Manchester airport is essential for the area? Will the next franchise holder be provided with modern and fast diesel units, enabling them to operate on the busy west coast main line, regardless of whether those services are part of the TransPennine or Northern franchises? Given the ongoing need for such units in the north on routes such as the Furness line, will the Minister prevent any further transfer of express diesel trains to other areas, which—as my hon. Friend has said—happened with nine TransPennine units that moved to the Chilterns? Will she commit to the removal of Pacer units from the Furness line at the very earliest opportunity, please? And finally, so that representatives of Cumbria do not have to restage this battle every few years, will she ensure that, as my hon. Friend suggested, a serious study of the economics and practicalities of electrifying the Furness line features in future Network Rail work programmes?

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister with responsibility for rail to respond to the debate.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship; the phrase “the Thin Controller” is running through my mind.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on securing the debate and the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on his stirring contribution. It is quite clear that everyone who is in Westminster Hall loves their trains and is passionate about the railway. I also pay my own tribute to Mr Robinson for all he did in working with the group that secured, saved and promoted what is a vital railway line. The Furness Line Community Rail Partnership has done sterling work over the years, as indeed has the Furness Line Action Group, whose reports and submissions my team and I have gratefully received and read.

Community rail is a vital and innovative part of the rail industry. It gives responsibility for services to local people who care so much about them. On this line in particular, community rail provides a wonderful—indeed unique—travel experience for passengers. I myself use a wonderful line—it runs down to Pewsey, Bedwyn and beyond—but although Wiltshire offers beautiful scenery of white horses, we cannot offer passengers anything on the scale of the Furness line. Of course, it is for that reason that the Furness line particularly boosts tourism, as it helps us to show off some of Britain’s most beautiful areas.

We do not want community rail simply to survive. We want it to thrive, and that most certainly goes for the Furness line. However, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness so eloquently put it, the line is about not only taking people to see wonderful scenery, tourist opportunities and wildlife, but providing a vital economic artery for south Cumbria.

I was struck by page five of the report to which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred, which says that the Furness line has a “twofold” purpose:

“To carry local traffic, and to provide a…link to the regional centre of Manchester and its airport.”

That is absolutely right, and I recognise all the work that the community rail partnership has done to promote the service locally and to improve the station facilities. We already see that work starting to come through. However, I also recognise the disappointment that was caused when the through services between Barrow and Manchester were reduced in May.

One thing I have learned in this job is that our rail network is terribly complicated. We end up with all sorts of dependencies against a backdrop of unprecedented passenger growth. There has been a doubling of passenger growth in the past 20 years, and in this particular area, the fare-box revenue—the value of growth—went up by 6.4% just last year. Indeed, some of the most crowded services in the country are now outside London. Against that backdrop, may I say that we have had decades of under-investment? Investment has failed to keep up with the growth, so we end up with operators struggling to deal with some of that growth and sometimes having to make decisions about reorganising train services.

In this case, as we know, the reduction in the through service was prompted by the launch of the new timetable for TransPennine Express, which takes advantage of the widely acclaimed electrification between Manchester and Scotland. That allowed for an increase in services, including a fifth TransPennine Express train each hour between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and York. However, that had the consequence that some other services were lost, although the Furness line’s services to Manchester airport are still over and above the minimum set out by the 2014 passenger requirement.

[John Woodcock]

I guess that the Minister’s previous comment is, in very strict terms, true, but the services are above the minimum requirement only because her Government changed that requirement by radically taking it downwards.

[Claire Perry]

Part of the direction of travel is to allow operators to change services, especially when there is unmet demand, and I shall say a little about the overall structure of the TransPennine franchise. However, in a way it is a testament to the busyness and value of the line that the operator decided to deliver over and above the service requirement. Of course, there is still a vital weekday peak-time morning service from Manchester, which is timed to arrive before 11 am.

I reassure the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale and for Barrow and Furness that the reduction of services in no way reflects the importance that the Government place on the line. Let me put things in context. As I said, the national network suffered from decades of under-investment, and we have been dealing with huge growth in passenger numbers on an ageing and intensively used network throughout the country. That is why we need High Speed 2, of which I am a strong supporter, not only because it will reduce journey times, but because it will deliver vital increases in capacity to these north-south links. I also take the point about HS3 being a vital east-west link. The view of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that it should go from Hull to Liverpool will be of interest not only to passengers, but to the freight industry, as we have important freight paths across the country, running north, south, east and west. That is why the delivery of this £40 billion rail modernisation programme—the biggest investment since Victorian times—will transform services right across the country, especially across the north of England, where there has not been investment for decades. There will be more capacity, better connectivity, shorter journeys, cleaner trains and greater reliability.

Hon. Members will have seen the improvements in the stations to which our constituents travel. The new Manchester Victoria station is nearly complete, and other schemes will follow. I say gently to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness that the last time the Northern and TransPennine Express franchises were let in 2003 and 2004 by the then Labour Government, that was done on a zero-growth and zero-investment basis, which was an incredibly short-sighted decision. If we believe in growth throughout the country, we have to invest in the vital rolling stock that moves people and goods around. I am passionate about the need to change that mindset, which is why these enormous capital investment programmes are coming to fruition. We have signed the agreement to provide the first electric trains on the Northern Rail network at the end of 2014.

To refresh hon. Members on the timetable for the letting of the franchises, earlier this year we launched the competition for the TransPennine and Northern franchises. The process is due to start in February 2016. Planning for passenger growth and better services will be at the heart of those franchises. Crucially, we are taking the franchises forward in concert with local authorities. I do not underestimate the importance of the involvement of Rail North and Cumbria in specifying what these communities need and what the service should look like. We do not want to leave that to officials sitting in Whitehall. We want local communities to say what is important to them, what services work and what sort of trains are required to run those services.

The hon. Gentlemen raised a vital point about the importance of rail to the overall economic vibrancy of a region. We cannot think about rail just in a silo. It is a vital part of stimulating economic growth and also of responding to economic growth. As we heard, this is an area that is attracting huge investment from a business point of view.

The consultation posed tricky questions about the future operation of the Furness line, and it is important to ask tough questions so that we get answers. We asked about the appropriate number of through services and shuttle services to Lancaster, and the more than 20,000 responses to the consultation that we received enable us to see how we can design the specifications for the two franchises. I assure hon. Members that we are giving careful consideration to views that are expressed. They will understand why I cannot go into details, but the invitation to tender will answer a lot of the questions, and that will be issued in December.

The question of the class 170s has been raised several times. Hon. Members have my personal commitment, along with that of the Department, that the cascade problem will be solved by the end of the year. The situation is unfortunate, but there is a huge desire to resolve it and to ensure that there is no interruption in rolling stock.

Work is already being led by Network Rail to consider the strategic priorities for further investment for the next control period, starting from 2019. Again, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness rightly pointed out, rail investment cannot be thought of in a narrow cost-benefit silo within the Department. We have to think about gross value added and the vital importance of connectivity to economic growth, and such thinking will inform future investment strategies for the railways.

Of particular interest to the future of the Furness line will be a refresh of the industry’s electrification strategy, on which consultation is due next year, and the northern route study, on which work is due to start in 2016. I understand the importance that the hon. Gentlemen place on the future electrification of the Furness line. I hope that they are both aware that the Secretary of State announced last December the creation of the northern taskforce, which is made up of three north of England MPs and two council leaders nominated by Rail North, with representation from Network Rail, to advise on priorities for the next generation of electrification projects in the north of England. The task force is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), and its members include my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) and the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). It is considering all remaining non-electrified rail lines in the north of England, including the Furness line. Its interim report is due in early 2015 so that the recommendations can be put against Network Rail’s draft electrification strategy.

We will continue to hear how the Government are progressing HS2, which will provide the capacity and connectivity that the country needs in the long term. As I said, the Prime Minister and Chancellor have given their backing to the development of HS3 to create a northern economic powerhouse.

I shall try to answer the specific questions asked by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness. If the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale would like to write to me about some of the specific things he asked today, just to make sure I get the full detail, I would be delighted to respond.

We are expecting a response to the 20,000 consultation responses at the same time as the invitation to tender is published in December. We will of course listen to all views before taking decisions, and I will be happy to meet any or all hon. Members affected. New diesel rolling stock is absolutely vital, and I want to flag up that although electrification is a hugely important part of the rail strategy, passengers want to be able to get on a train, have a reliable journey and pay a reasonable amount for their tickets, and that may well sometimes involve a diesel train. Even if there is an electrification ask further down the line, it should not prohibit us from putting in place new investment right now.

The point about the Pacers—the buses on bogies—which I saw lined up at Doncaster station only last week, was very well made by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, and he is not the first to make it. He will know that the ITT will ask for a fully priced option to replace the Pacers. However, I am told, following reading through responses to the consultation, that there may be times when the use of a Pacer might be appropriate. Indeed, local communities have said they would rather have a Pacer than nothing at all. I do not want to make blanket statements about Pacers, but I do take the point about using them on commuter lines, as many people have explained their shortcomings.

I hope I have answered the majority of the questions that I have been asked. I hope also that I have been able to provide some reassurance to the hon. Gentlemen that the Government are addressing the problems that have held the railways back in this country, which invented the railways, for so long. For me and for the Government, investment in railways is investment in growth, and that is just as relevant to the Furness line and to south Cumbria—

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Walney Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I will look at that. However, I stand by what I have said. We have ambitious plans for electrification and it is right that we ensure they are delivered in a practical and timely manner.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Electrification in the rest of the north-west is adding to the worry that the Furness line might lose its direct service to Manchester and Manchester airport, which is vital. Has the Secretary of State read the report by the Railway Consultancy, which was funded by businesses in my constituency through Cumbria Better Connected, and will he pay attention to the irrefutable case to keep and improve that service?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will take the hon. Gentleman’s representations seriously and ensure that I re-read that report.

Rolling Stock (North of England)

Lord Walney Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

I hope that colleagues will forgive this cuckoo in the nest—a Scottish MP intruding on the debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) for securing the debate. Continuing my animal analogy, I want to address the elephant in the sitting room. Hon. Members, who are rightly angry on behalf of their constituents at decisions about rolling stock and franchises, will be disappointed if they believe that chastising a Minister, of whatever party, for the decisions of civil servants at the Department for Transport can be the equivalent of a magic wand, and make everything right. The structure and nature of the industry simply will not allow train operating companies to make their own decisions about which rolling stock is most appropriate for their passengers.

I have never been an advocate of the wholesale nationalisation of the railway industry and I am not about to follow in the footsteps of the late lamented Bob Crow by doing a 180° turn on that policy. However, I draw the attention of the House to my early-day motion 954, which points out that under the present Government the railway industry is about to be nationalised. The largest part of the railway industry is Network Rail. From September, it will be recategorised as a central Government body. It will therefore come under the remit of central Government: Whitehall—civil servants. It will no longer be a private company without shareholders, as it is today. May I therefore congratulate the present Conservative Government on nationalising the British railway industry?

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Like many of my hon. Friends I am very much in favour of genuinely free markets. However, is not the point the fact that the market is mangled? It is not delivering for the customers—businesses and passengers—who are investing a lot of money, and for whom a properly functioning railway in the north of England is vital, just as it is in the south.

[Mr Harris]

My hon. Friend is correct, but I want to issue a caveat, and point out, in defence of the Minister, the Government and the previous Government—

High Speed 2 (Heathrow)

Lord Walney Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Dr McCrea, for the opportunity to speak. It is a great pleasure to serve under you in the Chair.

I congratulate the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing this important and timely debate today. I commend him for making a speech that had many excellent and vital points. He will be delighted to hear that I will reinforce those points in my own speech.

This debate is important because, despite the step change when Heathrow was linked to the national network in 1999 and which has already been referred to, its rail links remain inferior to those of most of its European competitors and indeed to those of many smaller UK airports. And this debate is timely because last week we had not only the very welcome news of investment in a western rail link to Heathrow but a continuation of the silence about the central issue of airport capacity in the south-east. Of course, this debate is closely tied to that issue. In addition, the issues surrounding the Boston Manor viaduct on the M4 have underlined the fragility of existing transport links to Heathrow, as well as the need for infrastructure resilience and a range of alternative routes.

The proposed construction of a rail spur to link destinations to the west of Heathrow directly to the airport could bring real improvements. Removing the need for a journey via Paddington or a coach from Reading will reduce journey times and it will make rail a more attractive option for hundreds of thousands of airport users each year, cutting congestion on the M4 and other roads. Both the draft aviation strategy framework and the high-level output statement are short on detail, so perhaps the Minister will fill in some of the gaps. What is the status of the £500 million of funding mentioned for the scheme? Does she expect the aviation industry to foot some of the bill? What is the timetable for putting together a business case for the programme, and can she confirm the planned opening date of 2021, which has been mentioned in the media? Is it intended that the link will provide through services from the west of England and south Wales to Heathrow, or will local trains simply shuttle between Reading, Slough and the airport?

[Mr Donohoe]

Has my hon. Friend considered how long the connection to Scotland will take?

[John Woodcock]

That, I know, is a continuing and important longer-term issue for High Speed 2. Every time it is raised it is incumbent on us all to stress that even the first phase, as it is currently set out, would reduce journey times to Scotland. Obviously the further north the high-speed line goes, the faster those journey times will be, which we all want.

A western link would provide welcome improved connections, as will the commencement of Crossrail in 2018; but if Heathrow is to function better as a major national airport it needs national connectivity. The airport currently has 70 million passengers a year. Whatever decisions are eventually made on south-east expansion—if they are made—Heathrow will remain dominant for the foreseeable future. Yet for much of the country, it is cosmically hard to access, at present, except by car or a domestic flight. To take the example of my constituents in south Cumbria, there are many business or holiday destinations to which only Heathrow offers a direct flight, and if people want to avoid a five-hour drive and hefty parking charges they consider taking the train. However, they find that that will take just as long and will require four changes, which is not much fun for people with a lot of luggage, those with a young family, or people who have limited mobility. Instead, many take a domestic flight from Manchester, at financial and environmental cost, or they fly via a European hub airport.

High Speed 2 could help to solve that problem and significantly strengthen Heathrow as a truly national airport. Linking Heathrow into HS2 at the earliest possible opportunity would allow for faster, far better integrated journeys between the airport and various northern destinations. Connecting Heathrow would, as has been well explained in several speeches today, make it possible to boost the economies of the regions, reduce road congestion and cut short-haul flights, and, in doing so, begin to address Heathrow’s chronic capacity problem. We deeply regret, therefore, that Ministers have chosen to reject Labour’s call for the first phase of HS2 to run via Heathrow. Instead, they have opted thus far for an expensive branch line, which it appears will not even be legislated for as part of phase 1 and will not be built until an unspecified future date. Can the Minister provide any more clarity on that point?

An Old Oak Common interchange with Crossrail would indeed make for an easier journey to Heathrow for many people; but it is no substitute, as has been explained today, for a through train. As the hon. Member for the Cotswolds eloquently explained, the sad thing is that the Minister used to get that. If she does not mind, I shall quote her. In March 2010, just before the general election—how things change—she told the House of Commons that

“the idea that some kind of ‘Wormwood Scrubs international’ station is the best rail solution for Heathrow is just not credible.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 451.]

Hear, hear: but just two years on, that is exactly what the Minister proposes—at least until 2033. Why the volte face? Will she take this opportunity to condemn the potentially deeply damaging briefings from somewhere in Government, suggesting a wobble on the entire project? If she is not wobbling, it is important that she should say so now, and I am delighted to give way.

[Mrs Villiers]

There is no wobble on this project. HS2 is going ahead.

[John Woodcock]

The Minister is not for wobbling and we are very pleased to hear it.

Any aviation strategy—and it would be nice to have one—must have as its starting point maximising the efficiency of the capacity that already exists. It is far better to use a slot to land 600 passengers from Beijing than 200 from Manchester. Ministers are right to cite, in their recent document, the potential for code sharing to promote through tickets from international flights to trains; but the key to that success is that the high-speed train should stop at the airport, not several miles away. Further, as has been mentioned, an HS2 link into Heathrow could provide a connection to the existing line to the channel tunnel, raising the possibility of high-speed trains replacing hub flights to nearby European destinations.

There is still time for Ministers to reconsider their stance on HS2. The right hon. Lady knows that high-speed rail commands support across the House. It has the full support of the Opposition, and we are keen to work together to get the necessary legislation on the statute book and to get spades in the ground. However, we will continue to argue that Heathrow should be part of phase 1 of the scheme. A failure to connect Britain’s hub airport to its first domestic high-speed line would epitomise the failure to join up UK infrastructure planning—a failure in transport that has bedevilled the country for too long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

Yes. It depends on the circumstances. It is important to appreciate that a significant cost associated with tunnelling is the disposal of spoil. In certain instances, combining two tunnels might reduce the cost of such disposal, so tunnelling does not end up cheaper than doing something on the surface in every case. However, where we can get synergies between two different projects that reduce the cost of spoil disposal, we can deliver an overall reduction in cost.

On the route options, whether for western access to Heathrow via conventional rail or, in due course, the high-speed rail spur to the airport, we will seriously consider what is viable regarding tunnelling, just as we have done in relation to the rest of the HS2 route. It is too early to make the decisions because they are subject to consultation and further processes, but we will, of course, seriously consider that, given the areas through which the new lines would go.

In response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, if things progress smoothly, the new line giving western access to Heathrow could be operational by around 2020 or 2022. No final decisions have yet been made on timetables for direct trains, but we expect there to be through trains from destinations in the west, because that would be the better way to realise the benefits of the programme.

Our high-level output specification proposals, announced last week, to improve access to Heathrow from the west will complement our work on HS2, which we expect to provide greatly improved access to the airport from destinations in the midlands and the north of England. We are taking a phased approach to HS2.

In phase 1, when the London to Birmingham line is built, we want passengers from the west midlands, Manchester and other cities in the north to be able to connect as seamlessly as possible with the Heathrow Express at a new station at Old Oak common. Phase 1 is expected to open in 2026, and will include a direct connection to Birmingham airport. I welcome the interesting ideas proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South about how we might use that improved surface access to Birmingham to help the airport flourish and attract more aviation passengers, potentially from the south-east, given the improved rail access that HS2 will deliver.

Phase 2 will follow in 2032-33, when the HS2 line will be extended to Manchester and Leeds. A direct connection with Heathrow is planned as part of the second phase.

[John Woodcock]

Why has the Minister changed her mind? Has the Secretary of State for Transport just taken a different view?

[Mrs Villiers]

A huge amount of work has been done to analyse the options, including one of the biggest consultations ever undertaken in this country. I would be arrogant to ignore the results of that work and that consultation. I am absolutely convinced that the preferred route, which will be proposed in a hybrid Bill, is the right one, and I will explain why in due course.

[John Woodcock]

You have not said that you agree with it.

[Mrs Villiers]

I do agree with it. I give the shadow Minister my firm assurance that the preferred route that we are proposing, after the consultation and consideration of all the consultation responses, is the right one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Walney Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I would be delighted to look at that. I know my hon. Friend has raised this issue before. We are determined to improve connectivity. Looking far longer term, High Speed 2 will do that for many parts of the country and I am determined to make sure that his part of the country continues to get more investment in addition to the Great Western line investment that is already going in and the new intercity express programme trains that will also give him more capacity.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

But the Secretary of State and the Chancellor need to recognise that announcing something is one thing, but actually doing something about it is completely different. The breakdown of the autumn statement total suggests that only 17% was due to be made in the last financial year. In this year, with the country back in recession, only a further 5% of the total is due to be spent. Regardless of the issues with the level of influence the right hon. Lady has with the Chancellor, can she really tell the House that she thinks this is having sufficient impact?

Civil Aviation Bill

Lord Walney Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Those who have been listening to the debate will realise that the Minister and I are not a million miles apart on the new clause and the amendments. Clearly, we have the joint objective of improving and protecting the passenger experience. However, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) said, the UK Border Agency and UK Border Force experience has not improved over the past few months and years. I recognise that that is a Home Office matter and is not covered by the amendments, but we accept that clauses 83 and 84, which cover the CAA’s requirement to procure information and publish the data on the passenger experience, could deal with the matters that we have raised in new clause 2 and in amendments 8 and 10.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said in an intervention on the Minister that resilience was absolutely critical at airports such as Heathrow that operate at 99% capacity. The CAA has published the indicative licence—a copy is in the Library of the House—and it incorporates a requirement to address resilience and passenger welfare plans. That completely satisfies us that the CAA understands that it ought to be part of its requirement to monitor those elements, and that requirement should therefore be part of the licence. Given the experience of recent years, we do not believe that our proposal would be over-burdensome in terms of bureaucracy or application. It should therefore be incorporated into the Bill. We will seek leave to withdraw new clause 2, but we are unconvinced that the Minister has given us adequate reassurance on amendment 9, so we shall take the view of the House on that at the appropriate time.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Risk-based aviation security regime

‘(1) The Secretary of State may direct the operators of airport areas to implement an outcomes-focused, risk-based aviation security regime to govern the exercise of their functions in relation to aviation security.

(2) When making directions under this section, the Secretary of State must by order set out the framework for the introduction of the outcomes-focused, risk-based aviation security regime.

(3) An order under this section must be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’.—(John Woodcock.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 11, page 49, line 31, clause 80, at end insert—

‘(2A) The CAA may also provide advice and assistance to such persons in connection with security checks performed on users of civil air services who have religious clothing requirements in order that their dignity be maintained without compromising the rigour of those security checks.’.

Amendment 13, page 51, line 10, clause 82, at end insert—

‘(3A) Before making a scheme under this section the Secretary of State must review the impact of such transfers on the security functions of the CAA.’.

Government amendments 17 and 18.

[John Woodcock]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise a number of issues relating to aviation security. This is an immensely important subject, and one on which the Bill before us has something to say, but we believe that additional safeguards are strongly in the public interest. There are questions that my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State raised on Second Reading, and that I and other Labour Members raised in Committee, to which we have not yet had satisfactory answers. We believe that this proposal provides an opportunity for increased safeguards and scrutiny, and that is why we seek to amend the Bill today.

The UK has a relatively strong record on aviation security. The current arrangements have evolved to meet the threats that have faced the UK from Lockerbie onwards, through the various plots that have emerged since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. As terrorists have increased the sophistication of their efforts to cause death, destruction and disruption, so the UK aviation security system has, generally, shown an ability to adapt and stay one step ahead.

The Bill proposes a major change in the security regime, shifting responsibility for overseeing security arrangements from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority. A number of issues flow from that. The first involves staffing. Although the move has broadly been welcomed by the industry, we raised concerns in Committee regarding the transfer of specialist security staff from the Department for Transport to the CAA. The Minister has not yet fully addressed those concerns, but I hope that she will do so shortly. Under the terms of the Bill, 85 members of staff will be transferred from the Department for Transport to the CAA. There is concern that some will choose not to transfer, and will instead leave public service. That could represent a serious loss of expertise in an area where finding suitable replacements could be difficult. To ensure the security of our airports and planes, we need to retain that experience.

On Second Reading, the shadow Secretary of State asked the Government to consider seconding at least some staff, rather than transferring them. The Transport Committee has also made that recommendation. In Committee, the Minister told us that it was possible that some staff would be seconded. Our amendment 13 would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of staff transfers before she gave the go-ahead to move responsibilities to the CAA. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to inform the House of the Government’s current position on secondments, and to tell us whether they have got beyond the stage of simply hoping that staff will not walk away.

We have also tabled new clause 3, because we again want to give the Government the opportunity, which they passed up in Committee, to subject to parliamentary scrutiny their proposed shift to an outcome-focused, risk-based approach to aviation security. Without our new clause, the move to risk-based security would not be mentioned in the Bill at all. We should be clear about what the reform will entail. Under the Government’s proposed new security regime, rather than directing specific measures that airports must undertake in order to maintain security, Ministers will instead specify a number of key risks that need to be mitigated. It will then be for the airports themselves to undertake their own risk assessment. They will be tasked with analysing their local vulnerabilities, and with designing and implementing appropriate mitigating measures. I know that the Minister will agree that this represents a major change to the UK’s aviation security regime.

[Gavin Shuker]

My hon. Friend presents a picture of changing security regimes under this Government, but does he accept that there are also changes coming through from Europe, particularly on issues such as liquids? Is not the best way of looking at security and exercising correct parliamentary oversight of it to look at the issues in more detail as the picture becomes clearer after the Bill has been introduced— exactly as the new clause outlines?

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I intend to touch on Europe shortly.

Carrying out such an approach presents a challenge to the industry. Directions from Europe, with which any UK regime will have to comply, usually mandate a blanket approach. As my hon. Friend says, that may well be changing. Through the new clause, we seek to require parliamentary scrutiny and approval before Ministers are permitted to undertake what would be one of the most significant reforms to aviation security in the past two decades.

In Committee, the Minister suggested that Labour Members have set our face against moving towards a risk-based approach. That is not the case. We simply believe that any such move is serious enough to require parliamentary scrutiny—at the point and in the circumstances where the Government seek to make it.

The Government’s impact assessment predicts significant reductions in regulation and costs. If they were to emerge in practice, they would, of course, be welcome—provided they did not result in security being compromised. There is support for such a reform from airlines and airport operators, and we have listened carefully to their opinions.

[Graham Stringer]

My hon. Friend accurately relates what the Government’s regulatory impact statement says. Will he acknowledge that, as we debated in Committee, Manchester and other airports strongly dispute those figures and believe that there will be a huge increase in the regulatory burden on airports?

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend raises a good point and accurately reflects some of the concerns that cast doubt on the impact assessment, which I know will have been thoroughly engaged in and scrutinised by Ministers and others across the whole Department, as it is now in Whitehall. There was much debate in Committee over whether the assessment thus far made presents an accurate picture.

On an issue that is literally a matter of life and death, it would be deeply irresponsible to make such a major decision on the grounds of cost and regulatory burden alone. Ministers must make it clear how such a move would enhance Britain’s capacity to keep aviation secure.

In their impact assessment, Ministers have argued that a move to a risk-based regime is consistent with the principles of better regulation. The drive to improve and lessen regulatory burdens, where appropriate, is one that we pioneered in government and continue to support now. However, moving away from the current “direct and inspect” regime for aviation should not automatically follow from that. Requiring specific parliamentary approval for this reform would give Members the opportunity for more detailed probing of some of the claims made by Ministers for this change, and how they would fit with EU directions at the time the change is proposed.

In Committee, we did indeed question the reliability of the predicted costs of the reforms—supposedly £23.7 million over 10 years. Parliament should have the opportunity to consider the reliability of those figures in the light of consultation responses. Furthermore, adopting a risk-based approach will inevitably create variation within security procedures adopted at different airports—again a major step change from the present.

[Jim Shannon]

One thing brought to my and perhaps others’ attention is the different focus on security at different airports. Security might be frustrating for some, but it is necessary for us all. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that with the legislative changes ahead, the focus on security will be similar across all the airports, which is vital?

[John Woodcock]

Of course the aim of the Government’s reforms is to have a similar focus on security. It might be carried out in different ways, but it will maintain the same effect—that we keep the country and our passengers secure. The cause of our questioning these measures and of our seeking extra scrutiny of the process is that the Government have not yet been able adequately to make the case that that effect will follow.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

As a regular traveller, like my friend from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I know that the inefficiencies of the service are such that there is a crying need for a universal approach to security. In circumstances where the airport that passengers go through has a different regime in place, should not the regulation be attached to the idea of having uniform security across the whole of the airport system of the United Kingdom?

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend has a lot of experience in this matter. One issue that the Government have not yet set out—and if they do not accept the new clause, they might not be required to do so before the House—is how the changes they seek to implement will not lead to increased fragmentation and a potentially less effective system as well as a more burdensome one for passengers.

[Nigel Mills]

But would the hon. Gentleman not accept that having every airport doing exactly the same thing all the time might be quite risky and that we might be better off having airports doing things a little differently, using different processes and techniques, which would make it harder for people trying to break the system to know exactly what they will be subjected to?

[John Woodcock]

As I have said, we have not set our face against the idea of a risk-based approach, but the Government have not yet done enough to set out how it would work in practice or how it would fit in with a potentially conflicting or contradictory approach from Europe. Ministers are not saying that they want to move to this approach now; they say they want the freedom to do so at some point in the future. At this stage, we do not know what the regime emanating from Europe will be. If the Government seek to press ahead with such a move, it is right to debate and scrutinise it at the time it comes into force when we should know what the European regime is likely to be. That is better than its going forward without scrutiny, which has been the position up to now. I hope that the Minister will seek to change what has been her preferred option.

Those who seek to disrupt, maim and kill users of air transport and innocent people on the ground are constantly testing the defences that the country has put up. That is why we need Ministers to explain to this House the basis for their confidence in individual airports’ ability to assess and counteract risks adequately. In moving away from the current one-size-fits-all approach to security, we cannot permit there to develop a soft underbelly of smaller airports, where defences are lowered because they self-assess their risk to be low. Those intent on doing us harm will always look for opportunities. We currently see that on our television screens daily in the testimony from Oslo. We know from bitter experience that Britain is a nation with a heightened risk of terrorist attack. There can be no grounds for complacency, and I know the Minister agrees.

We also need real consideration of the ability of a risk-based system to implement the necessary response to specific and sudden threats, such as the example of the liquid bomb plot in the summer of 2006. The discovery of this credible threat led Ministers to take the decision to ban liquids, and for a while most hand luggage, from flights to and from the UK. There is no suggestion that Ministers would lose the ability to take such steps in an emergency if they considered that to be necessary, but questions do arise about whether the ability of airports to carry out such emergency procedures might be hindered by their abandonment of uniform security provision. If each of more than 60 airports in the UK operates its own security regime, how straightforward will it be to ensure that emergency measures are adopted with uniformity, rigour and speed should circumstances render that appropriate?

Major changes in aviation security policy cannot be undertaken lightly. I know that the Minister will cite the broad support of airlines and airports for the proposed shift, but it would be wrong if this were Parliament’s only opportunity to debate such a major change in the context of an Opposition amendment, and to seek ministerial assurances.

The Minister will, I am sure, agree that cost and the principle of lessening regulation are not in themselves sufficient justifications for a root-and-branch reform of aviation security. The public rightly expect their elected representatives to maintain their security and safety in the skies. Ministers are proposing not a mere technical change, but a major overhaul. New clause 3 would require them to explain their proposals to both Houses, and to secure approval for a change when they wish to make it. I urge Members to support this extra safeguard.

I want to say a little about amendment 11. The subject of ensuring the dignity of passengers with specific religious clothing requirements was touched on in Committee, and I am pleased that we have an opportunity to debate improvements now. I am well aware that the subject has been of particular concern to the Sikh community, and that Members on both sides of the House have pushed for guarantees of better treatment for their constituents. I am particularly grateful for the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) have pursued the issue in recent months.

Aviation security is always paramount, and we make that clear in the amendment, but we believe that it is possible for a rigorous security regime to exist alongside dignity for passengers with specific religious clothing requirements. The way in which security staff treat the Sikh turban is a particularly good example. In 2010, the European Commission introduced requirements for religious headwear to be subject to manual searches. It has been suggested that, given that the UK is the only EU member state with a substantial Sikh community, Europe failed to understand the specific sensitivities of the turban: that it should not be touched by another person, and that its removal should not be required.

The UK reached an agreement with the Commission enabling airports to opt into a trial allowing the swabbing of turbans for explosive residues, a compromise that was broadly welcomed by the Sikh community. However, a number of UK airports have chosen not to opt into the trial, which has caused significant distress and anger among Sikhs. We want to see a more consistent approach which would ensure that people with specific religious requirements, whatever their faith, are treated with dignity.

[Gavin Shuker]

My hon. Friend is making some compelling observations about the Sikh community and security, with which I entirely agree. Does he agree with me that—as is demonstrated by, for example, 1970s legislation on motor cycle helmets—political leadership is sometimes required to bring about action on issues that are vital to communities represented in constituencies throughout the House, and that bureaucrats may not always be able to make the necessary judgments?

[John Woodcock]

As ever, my hon. Friend has made an excellent point, and the amendment presents an opportunity for such leadership to be shown.

[Mrs Villiers]

Perhaps I can illustrate that by reminding the House that as soon as the problem began to emerge, when the new EU rules were introduced, the former Secretary of State for Transport instructed airports to stop applying the EU rules and revert to the old rules until a trial was developed. He took decisive political leadership then, and we will continue to adopt that approach.

[John Woodcock]

The Minister is right to point out that action has been taken in this regard. The point that we are making today, with which I hope she will agree, is that some airports are still not applying sensitivity as we would wish them to do. That remains an issue, but we now have an opportunity to do something about it.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an issue which I think is understood by Members on both sides of the House. On Sunday a constituent told me that, at a European airport, her husband had been asked to remove his turban in front of others, which caused great distress to him and his children. What does my hon. Friend think could be done to ensure that people are treated with dignity, not just through processes but through staff training and the increasing of awareness?

[John Woodcock]

Training is an excellent example. We believe that the amendment would empower and encourage the Civil Aviation Authority to take the necessary action in its regulatory role. Too often we find that airports are lacking in this regard, owing mostly to ignorance.

[Gavin Shuker]

My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way. Can he confirm that if new clause 3 and amendment 11 and were not passed today, the House would have no further opportunity to express its views about the security regime in relation to particular items of religious headwear?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

I believe so. That is why it is so important for our amendment to be accepted, and for the Minister to provide substantive reassurances.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the UK, for historic reasons, has the largest Sikh community. That confers a particular responsibility on Ministers and officials in the Department for Transport to ensure that these sensitivities are understood in European discussions. Does my hon. Friend think that the passing of the amendment would reinforce their ability to ensure, in such discussions, that other countries with less experience of the issue appreciate its significance?

[John Woodcock]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Passing the amendment would send a strong signal to our European neighbours that the UK attaches great importance to the issue, and would empower our Ministers and officials to go out to Europe and secure the necessary safeguards.

Our amendment seeks to write into law the role of the CAA in providing airports with advice and assistance on ensuring that dignity is maintained. Any move to a risk-based system reducing the uniformity of security provision between airports would make that all the more important. I hope that the amendment will be supported by Members throughout the House. If our aviation security regime is to command the confidence of all communities in this country, we must do more to ensure that they can be certain of being treated at all times with fairness, dignity and respect. This is a simple amendment, which I believe will help to achieve exactly that.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have heard today that the Deputy Prime Minister may be planning to visit my constituency. That has caused me to make various inquiries. I began by ringing the Deputy Prime Minister’s departmental office and I was told that if he is visiting Hull East tomorrow, it will not be on ministerial duties. I then received a phone call from Lib Dem HQ, telling me that they were very sorry and that there had been some sort of mistake as the Deputy Prime Minister will, indeed, be in my constituency tomorrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

In our mind, there is no question at all that emergency provisions such as those introduced after the liquid bomb plot would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, so I do not understand why the Minister is suggesting otherwise.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am afraid that that is how I interpret the new clause. There would be a serious risk that it would have that result, although I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has assured the House that that is not the intended outcome. He will appreciate that that would be damaging to our efforts to keep people safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

I will seek the leave of the House to withdraw the new clause, but I hope that the Minister will continue to look at the staffing issue raised by amendment 13, given our concerns about the potential for problems further down the track. The Minister has given clear reassurances on religious clothing and headwear, and I hope that the strength of feeling expressed in today’s debate will strengthen her hand in achieving the necessary requirements.

On the issue of the parliamentary scrutiny of risk-based security, I continue to fail to see how our amendment could hold things up in an emergency, as the Minister suggests. We will withdraw the new clause, however. I simply urge the Government to continue to take the issue incredibly seriously, and to consider ways in which the House could properly scrutinise the issue, as and when she decides that a move would be appropriate and would enhance security. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Accounts and audits

‘(1) Section 15 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (Accounts and audit) is amended as follows—

(a) In subsection (1), leave out paragraph (c) and insert—

“(c) to send copies of the statement of accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General before the end of the November following the accounting year to which the statement relates.”.

(b) In subsection (2), leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) The National Audit Office shall examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts received under subsection (1) and shall lay copies of the statement of accounts and its report thereon before each House of Parliament.”.

(2) In the National Audit Act 1983, Schedule 4 (Nationalised Industries and Other Public Authorities) Part 1, leave out “Civil Aviation Authority”.’.—(Jim Fitzpatrick.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Walney Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I assure my hon. Friend that I recognise the impact that plans for High Speed 2 are already having on individuals, communities and businesses along the line of route. That is why we will shortly consult on a package of measures that will help property owners. It is an important step for the Government and enables those affected or interested to respond to the consultation and help shape Government policy. She talked about a bond-based property purchase scheme. I assure her that I am committed to making sure that the package is fair.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

The minutes of the Whitehall meeting between Addison Lee chairman John Griffin and the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), now the Secretary of State for Defence, on 13 October last year record that the then Transport Secretary said that

“he was interested to listen to the views of someone in the industry”

about opportunities to bid for plum Government chauffeur contracts. Given the cash for access scandal hanging over her Government, will the Secretary of State say whether she or her predecessor had any other private hire firms on the sofa pitching for business? Or do people get that chance only if they pay enough to become a premier league donor to the Tory party?

[Justine Greening]

If the hon. Gentleman’s proposal is that one should not be able to speak to any organisation that gives money to one’s party, it will certainly free up a lot of time in the Labour party’s diary. Labour Members could cut out all those union meetings. The bottom line is that this Government and my predecessor and I have always approached all our meetings with absolute propriety, and that is the case on this matter, too.

Amendment of the Law

Lord Walney Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that I will come on to that matter shortly. After all, this is a speech on infrastructure. I hope that when the Opposition spokesman responds, he will take the time to set out some kind of alternative plan. That would be of real interest to us all.

Five months into this job, I could reel off a long list of the transport investments that we are making. We are electrifying the trans-Pennine railway and the Great Western line from London to Cardiff, far surpassing the 39 miles of electrification that happened under the previous Government. That would not even stretch from Cardiff to Swansea, let alone from London to Cardiff. We are upgrading the Tyne and Wear metro. There are 45 local authority major schemes to improve connectivity across the country. We are finally progressing with the first parts of the northern hub project, which is so important to many Members.

I could continue, Mr Speaker, but we are investing in so many projects that you would probably call me out of order for speaking for too long. Therefore, let me summarise. The spending review set out more than £30 billion of investment for road, rail and local transport projects across the country. On our roads, we are investing billions to unlock extra capacity and ease congestion. We have set up the £560 million local sustainable transport fund, which gives local communities more power to design and deliver local transport systems. We have put in place the Growing Places fund to kick-start infrastructure projects.

We have given the green light to High Speed 2, a national high-speed rail network that will radically improve the connections between our great cities and, by doing so, help to create jobs and generate growth and prosperity. That sits alongside our unprecedented investment in the existing railway network, from new stations and rolling stock to line electrification, which will help to decarbonise the industry. That amounts to the biggest modernisation programme since Victorian times.

Hand in hand with additional resources for our railways goes the reform of our railways. The rail Command Paper sets out our vision for an efficient, effective and value-for-money rail industry. Our reforms will put the customer first and allow us to end the era of inflation-busting regulated fares increases once the vital savings are made.

Building on all those investments, the Chancellor announced further measures on Wednesday to improve our country’s transport links. He announced a £323 million package that includes a range of projects. There is an extra £150 million contribution towards the Growing Places fund, which will facilitate the economic growth, jobs and house building that our country needs so badly. There is £15 million for cycle safety in London, which will enable the innovative redesign of some of the capital’s most dangerous junctions for cyclists. There is £11 million more for low-carbon buses, which is part of the £101 million bus investment package that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) is announcing today.

In addition, the Chancellor has announced that the rail industry will benefit from £130 million of funding from Network Rail to improve rail connectivity in the north of England by giving the go-ahead to further parts of the northern hub project. That will include increasing line speed and capacity on the Sheffield to Manchester Hope Valley line, and reducing journey times on the Manchester to Bradford via Rochdale and Halifax line and the Manchester to Preston via Bolton line. We are linking up the great counties of Yorkshire and Lancashire in the way that they have always wanted to be linked. That all adds up to passengers enjoying better connections, faster services and more seats.

Our national road network is also a key part of our national infrastructure. The strategic road network carries two thirds of all the freight on Britain’s roads, and it is vital for all types of business from mail order retailers to industrial parks and shopping centres. We have already announced, in last year’s growth review, £1 billion of additional investment in the nation’s strategic roads, on top of the £2.3 billion planned investment in major improvements announced in the spending review. However, as the Budget makes clear, we want to go further and examine the opportunities for more private investment in the road network in future. We want to consider where we can learn lessons from other industries, and we want to build on the proposals in Alan Cook’s report on the Highways Agency.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State spell out what will constitute a capacity improvement that could lead to extra tolling on existing roads? That is unclear.

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the work on how we can improve the A14, for example, and some of the options being considered could include tolling. If he is interested in finding out more about how the Government are approaching the issue, he can meet up with people who are involved in the A14 challenge. That programme of improvements will deliver for the community in that region in a way that his party’s Government failed to in 13 years.

The hon. Gentleman is looking at the sky and shaking his head, but I have a very, very long list of investments that the Government are making, whereas the Labour party delivered precious little. The biggest irony, of course, is that we ended up with all this debt, but what did it get spent on? Not the things that would have made a real difference to Britain—not roads, not trains. Labour frittered it away and wasted it on an unprecedented scale.

This Government understand that Britain is not just an island nation but a trading nation, so our ports must be world-class global gateways. That is why we are backing major container port developments such as Liverpool, Bathside Bay, Felixstowe South, London Gateway, Teesport and the port of Bristol. It is also why we want to see a successful and sustainable future for that other crucial global gateway, our aviation industry.

We should remember that our country and our capital are right up there with the very best when it comes to international connections. Only China and the USA have aviation networks more extensive than ours. We are directly connected to 356 international destinations, and no European country can match our connections to the world’s great commercial centres. There are more than 9,000 flights every year to New York, 3,000 to Hong Kong, 2,500 to Singapore—I could go on. To each of those important destinations and many others, Britain is the world leader.

Nevertheless, if we are to maintain that status, we have to take on the tough challenges facing the industry, whether it is improving the passenger experience or enhancing capacity and connectivity, while tackling the industry’s impact on climate change and the local environment. We are determined to look at those difficult issues. As the Budget makes clear, we will set out our thinking on aviation capacity and a sustainable aviation framework this summer. We are determined to ensure that we retain our aviation competitiveness and hub status in the decades to come.

An economy built on success requires investment in infrastructure that is built to last. That is why we need to invest in, reform and modernise our transport networks to make them the very best that they can be at not just national but local level. This Budget helps to lay those foundations for Britain’s future economic success.

We will not follow the Labour party’s advice to spend more, borrow more and put our economic credibility at risk. We will hold our course to cut Labour’s deficit, rebalance our economy and forge a path to sustainable growth. We will make the investment decisions needed to ensure that our economy is well placed to compete in the decades ahead. Tackling today’s challenges and investing in tomorrow’s future—that is what this Budget is about and what this Government are about, and we will build a country that we can be proud of again.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

I begin by passing on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, for not being present today. It turns out that Ministers were on to something when they refused the offer to speak at the TUC’s railway event earlier this week. Conservative Members often seem to think that our brothers and sisters in the trade unions must be contagious, but on this occasion there is no getting around it—I am afraid they made my hon. Friend ill.

It therefore falls to me to point out what the Secretary of State already knows—that over the past 48 hours, the Chancellor’s Budget has unravelled at astonishing speed. We now know that it will inflict pain on the millions, so that millionaires can be spared. On the subject of transport, the Secretary of State has shown that she and the Chancellor are wedded to a platform of pain today and more pain in the future, with woefully little to return to the country the jobs and growth that we so desperately need.

We must not be unfair, for action has been taken to ease transport costs in at least one area. Fares on cable-based transportation systems carrying fewer than 10 people will now be subject to 5% VAT. That is unalloyed good news, and I am sure Government Members will think it is a clear sign of a Chancellor with his finger on the pulse of the lives of hard-working families up and down the country. If people travel to work by cable car, they are laughing, but if they are among the millions of motorists and train passengers squeezed as never before, facing the prospect of whole new charges in future, they are definitely not laughing.

[Gavin Shuker]

My hon. Friend is extremely well informed on cable-based transportation systems. Are any cable-based transportation systems proposed in Luton South, where families are feeling the squeeze of the Budget?

[John Woodcock]

I am not aware of any, but my hon. Friend might make proposals as a result of that excellent tax cut.

Yes, there are tough choices to be made, and the Opposition have set out the choices that we would have made. Of the £9 billion of cuts and efficiencies being made by the Department for Transport, we have accepted more than £6 billion.

[Helen Goodman]

I am sorry to take my hon. Friend back to the issue of cable transport, but I have a cable lift in my constituency on Mickle fell. I wonder whether people who use it will benefit from the Chancellor’s generosity.

[John Woodcock]

I am sure that businesses will now see a great opportunity to set up offices at the top of Mickle fell as a result of this great tax cut.

Ministers are making decisions that will make our economy more fragile and that expose where their true priorities lie.

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman said that he supported £6 billion of the £9 billion of spending cuts in the Department. Which £6 billion does he support? Will he give us a summary?

[John Woodcock]

I will be happy to, within the constraints of time, but I want to try to keep to the same time as the Secretary of State took. If you will allow me to go slightly over that time, Mr Speaker, I can do so.

We have not opposed £3.36 billion being taken from the Highways Agency’s budget, out of the total reduction of £3.86 billion. We have not opposed £1.73 billion being taken from the Transport for London budget, which represents the full reduction. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State looks surprised. If she had paid a little more attention to what we have been saying over the past several months, she might not have had to ask the question now.

We have not opposed £794 million of the road maintenance budget out of total reductions of £1.23 billion or £528 million of cuts from the Network Rail passenger budget out of total reductions of £1.29 billion. We have not opposed the efficiencies that are being made to the Crossrail budget, or the £231 million from the local authority major transport teams out of a total reduction of £731 million. The Secretary of State asked for the list and has got it. I hope she is happy.

[Matthew Hancock]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Woodcock]

I will not give way on that point, because I want to make progress.

I am afraid that the priorities the Government and Secretary of State have set out are not—

[Justine Greening]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Woodcock]

As the right hon. Lady is the Secretary of State, I will give way once more, but I want to make a little more progress.

[Justine Greening]

So where does this £3 billion come from?

[John Woodcock]

I am glad the Secretary of State asks me that. I would expect a little more humility from the Government given that on their own plans they are set to borrow £150 billion more. We strongly believe that the cuts we do not accept represent a false economy that will act as a drag on the nation’s growth and stop us returning to the prosperity that this country desperately needs.

The Government’s priorities are not with the family who are struggling to make ends meet, with the small business that wants to create more jobs or with the employee who wants to be able to afford to turn up to work in the morning.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Woodcock]

I am not going to give way at the moment because the Secretary of State has taken up the hon. Gentleman’s time.

On all those counts, Wednesday’s Budget was a great disappointment. I will give the Secretary of State one thing: at least she is consistent. When we dig beneath her unrealistic claims that everything will be peachy, we see that she is not gearing up to deliver jam tomorrow after the pain today. Instead, with the Budget the Government set out this week, motorists, train passengers and bus users will be squeezed today, tomorrow and for years into the future. The effect will be a decade-long drag on jobs and growth, with the prospect of drivers and commuters being priced out of getting to work, or left stranded at a bus stop wondering why the service has been axed.

The Chancellor offered nothing to hard-pressed motorists this week. In fact, he has made things worse. He has raised the prospect of finding new ways to make things harder in future. Even from the comfort of No. 11 Downing street, the Chancellor cannot have failed to hear the growing calls for some relief on fuel taxation. If he refused to listen, it was the Secretary of State’s job to prise open his ears and tell him just how hard it is for Britain’s motorists. In the Budget negotiations, however, she secured diddly squat—[Interruption.] Instead, faced with rising and record petrol prices, she set her face against calls for relief in fuel tax, including the call for a temporary—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In response to the Minister, who inquired whether the use of the term “diddly squat” was parliamentary, I would say to the hon. Lady and the House that it is matter of taste rather than of order.

[John Woodcock]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall take that as a lesson.

Faced with record and rising fuel prices, the Secretary of State set her face against all calls for relief, including the Opposition call for a temporary VAT cut.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that this April petrol duty will be a full 10p lower than it would have been under the previous Government’s plans. That will save the average family £144 and be a massive benefit—a far greater benefit than if Labour had remained in office.

[John Woodcock]

That shows just how out of touch the hon. Gentleman and Government Members are. I would like to see him go to the forecourt in his constituency, or any forecourt around the country, and say, “Let’s welcome the further rise in fuel taxation that you’re getting this week. What a great job the Government are doing in keeping fuel prices down!”

Families in Britain, worried by energy bills, clobbered by spiralling rail fares and made poorer by cuts to tax credits, are, thanks to this Secretary of State’s inaction, once again being squeezed even harder at the fuel pump. There is pain today and pain tomorrow. The ultimate victims are jobs and growth, and the nation’s return to prosperity. What is the Chancellor offering motorists in return for their growing fuel bills? He is offering only vague promises, which might well turn out to be yet another ratchet with precious little reward.

The National Audit Office has warned the Government that they are creating a vicious cycle of deteriorating roads and higher long-term costs. A plague of potholes is making our road network less safe for all users, less green and more congested. The road network is a brake on, and not an agent of, jobs and growth. There is no movement on the cuts already set for local roads—that is good news on potholes but bad news for everyone else—but what about our trunk roads, which the Secretary of State mentioned? We need long-term strategic investment in the road network, and we also need to look at how we lever in that investment, but Britain’s drivers and cyclists will have little confidence after seeing Ministers tying themselves in knots in recent days.

Before the Prime Minister’s speech on infrastructure on Monday, those pesky anonymous briefers, who seem to be everywhere in this Government—good luck in trying to catch them, Mr Speaker—said that tolling would be considered only for brand new roads. However, in the speech, “new roads” became “new capacity”. We now know for certain that charging is being considered when improvements take place on existing roads because the Budget document confirms it. We are told that the shortlist of options include “widening some sections” of the A14,

“rationalising access to the route, and improving the route of the southern bypass for Huntingdon.”

In other words, the A14 will be not a new road, but the existing one with added tolling.

Britain’s motorists, already squeezed to breaking point, demand plain speaking from the Government, so I will give the Secretary of State another opportunity. Will she tell us what will constitute a capacity improvement on an existing road that could lead to tolling? Will that include an extra lane, a contra flow, a new slip road, a roundabout or a bollard? Motorists deserve to know what the Government have in mind.

[Matthew Hancock]

As the A14 runs through my constituency and is rather a long way from Barrow, may I point out to the hon. Gentleman that adding extra capacity, even if it is tolled, will help all those who go on the free bit of the road, because they will be able to get home faster? That is why the proposal is supported locally, even if there is opportunistic opposition from Labour.

[John Woodcock]

The hon. Gentleman seems to have more information about how the scheme will work than either me or the Secretary of State, who does not seem to know how exactly motorists will be clobbered with tolls.

Who, if anyone, will police tolls? Will contracts stipulate that tolls must be removed when improvements have been paid for? How will we avoid people being driven off the motorways and dual carriageways and back into the communities and road networks that the toll roads were built to relieve?

In addition to the fear of massively increased tolling, there could be a further, lasting sting in the tail for motorists from this Budget. Buried on page 70 of the Red Book are plans for what can be described only as a new stealth tax hike on motorists. The Government say they will consider reforming—by which they clearly mean “increasing”—vehicle excise duty. Ministers need to come clean on how much extra they plan to squeeze out of motorists through that new stealth tax increase. They also need to say what it will mean for motorists who behave responsibly and opt for fuel-efficient vehicles.

On a less testing note on the subject of sustainable road travel, let me say that the Opposition welcome the £15 million the Chancellor has found to help to make London’s roads safer for cyclists. The spate of injuries and deaths in the capital has been truly appalling, and the Opposition fully support the campaign, led by The Times, for significant change. As the Secretary of State will know, however, the Budget contained only this one-off grant for London—the fact that there is an upcoming mayoral election is a complete coincidence, I am sure. Labour has committed to reserving a portion of the roads budget to dedicated cycle facilities on roads across the country, not just in the capital. Will she make a similar commitment?

If transport on the ground is up in the air with the uncertainties created by the Government, transport in the air, aviation, remains at serious risk of being grounded—if Members follow me. On aviation capacity, the Government still do not know—and we still do not know after the Secretary of State’s speech—whether she is taking off or landing.

[Justine Greening]

What?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

Well, you know. [Laughter.] I am here all week.

The Chancellor told us on Wednesday that the country must confront the lack of airport capacity in the south-east. He is right, but his words would carry more weight had the Government not spent the past two years dithering and delaying on producing any sort of aviation strategy. What did we actually get this week? We got not one but two further delays. First, the Chancellor announced that the strategy that the Department for Transport’s business plan told us to expect in March will now appear late this summer; and now the Secretary of State seems to have put back the date even further to this winter or next spring—more dithering, more delay, while competitor hubs in continental Europe get on with providing new capacity that could transform their economies.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Woodcock]

I will not give way any more because I am running on and I want to give other Members time to speak.

The Government came to power with just one policy on aviation capacity—to abandon the Heathrow third runway. Since the election, the Government have come up with no practical thinking on alternatives. Instead, they seem to have outsourced their aviation strategy down the river to a Mayor who is more interested in trying to grab attention than in finding a plan that will work. That is no way to treat a vital economic driver that is critical to the country’s future growth.

As the Secretary of State is well aware, the plans for an airport in the Thames estuary are being met with a barrage of opposition from the area, including from her own party’s MPs and councillors. She would be even clearer on that if, like my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, she had been to north Kent and talked to local people in the areas affected. The idea of building a new airport from scratch in the Thames estuary is a huge distraction from the real need for airport capacity here and now. It is obvious why so many people, but apparently not the Secretary of State, see an estuary airport as a complete non-starter—there is the impact on local communities, the destruction of internationally important habitats, the safety threat from explosive-laden wrecks, a liquefied petroleum gas terminal and a huge offshore wind farm.

[Mike Gapes]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason the Government have not yet come out explicitly on these issues is that they do not want to damage Boris’s chances in the mayoral election and undermine his fantasy island proposal? The reality is that this proposal is completely opposed by whole sectors not just in Kent but north of the River Thames, including in my constituency.

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Frankly, Britain deserves better.

The overwhelming majority of the aviation industry agrees that Heathrow would struggle to continue in its current form alongside an estuary airport, placing at least 140,000 jobs in west London and the M4 corridor under threat. I hope, then, that when the Secretary of State finally publishes her thinking, she will choose a sensible course based on providing additional capacity at existing airports, not a strategy based on a pie-in-the-sky estuary airport.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Woodcock]

I will not at this stage, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State is still waiting for a response to her letter offering cross-party talks on tackling capacity at existing airports. Perhaps the Secretary of State could pop her reply in a “get well soon” card and send it over with a nice bunch of grapes. I am running out of suggestions to make her agree to this proposal, which seems eminently sensible to Opposition Members. The aviation industry, businesses and passengers need certainty to guarantee investment, and we are offering to help her achieve that.

On the railways, we strongly welcome a number of the investment decisions made in the Budget, particularly the Secretary of State’s support for the vital northern hub project. I pay tribute to the hard work put in by colleagues on both sides of the House from across the north of England on ensuring that support for the hub transferred from the last Government to this one. We need clarity, however. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced £130 million of support for a £500 million project, but we need details of what remains to be funded.

Although that infrastructure investment, when it arrives, will be welcome, the Secretary of State knows that with no help on Wednesday for rail passengers struggling with fares that for some have already risen by up to 11% this year, there was nothing to reassure commuters that the next two years of RPI-plus-three increases will not be going ahead, and nothing to change the franchises about to be awarded by her Department that will allow for 15 years of fares increasing by up to 8% every year. All over the country, families are finding themselves paying more for their journey to work than for their rent or their mortgage. They will not welcome this inaction on fares. These sky-high increases price people out of jobs, stunt growth and discourage sustainable travel choices.

Britain’s bus users, too, who are already being hit by reduced services and rising fares, will have noticed that they warranted no mention at all in the Budget, and there was only a passing reference in the Secretary of State’s speech today to a paper to be produced later today. From next month, bus operators are being hit by a 20% cut in the bus service operators grant. In my constituency, like those of many hon. Members, that is threatening to lead to more services being taken off the road and a hike in fares for those who remain.

Buses are the backbone of our transport network and essential to ensuring that many people—especially young people—can access jobs and training. Labour is calling on bus companies to set up a free travel scheme for 16 to 18-year-olds in return for the financial support they receive. Let us compare that to the approach by Ministers, who seem content to wash their hands of the entire sector. When they could be helping tackle youth unemployment, they risk making a bad situation even worse.

At the end of his statement on Wednesday, the Chancellor boasted that he had

“not settled for a do-nothing Budget.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 807.]

But to motorists, businesses, and the millions who rely on public transport across the country, that is exactly what he has done. On rail fares, he has done nothing; on the crisis facing our buses, nothing; on aviation capacity, nothing; and on fuel costs, well, he has done something—he has made them even higher. In defending the Budget, the Secretary of State and her Ministers need to explain whether they do not understand or simply are not bothered about the damage they are doing to family budgets and the impact it is having on Britain’s ability to get moving again.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—