Business of the House (No. 1)

Lord McLoughlin Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

I beg to move,

That the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Secretary Patrick McLoughlin relating to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill and (notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 16) the Motion in the name of Mr Andrew Lansley relating to Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 not later than four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the Questions may be put after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.

This is the second day of debate relating to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill and has been arranged in response to calls for more time to consider this important Bill. It has meant that we were able to spend all yesterday considering the Bill itself and we now turn to these important motions.

The business of the House motion allows the House to take the four motions together for debate. All of them relate to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill that was given a Second Reading yesterday, in particular the establishment and working of the Select Committee for the Bill, so it seems entirely sensible to take them all together. Overall, the House will have had more than 10 hours to debate the Second Reading and the motions, compared with fewer than seven hours for the same debates on Crossrail and HS1. I commend the motion to the House.

Contingencies Fund Advance

Lord McLoughlin Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

I hereby give notice of the Department for Transports’ intention to seek an advance from the Contingencies Fund. The Department requires an advance to meet an urgent cash requirement pending parliamentary approval of the main estimate 2014-15.

It was announced on 23 April that Network Rail borrowing directly from Government rather than issuing debt in its own name would provide better value for money for the taxpayer. The Department for Transport has included in total £6,500,000,000 in the main estimate 2014-15 for this change in borrowing arrangements—this amount includes £550,000,000 which will be taken as a Contingency Fund advance.

Parliamentary approval for capital of £550,000,000 for this new expenditure will be sought in the main estimate 2014-15 for the Department for Transport. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £550,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

The advance will be repaid immediately following Royal Assent of the Supply and Appropriation Bill in July.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Lord McLoughlin Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

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

It is 120 years since we last built a main line railway north of London. It is even longer since, in 1833, this House voted to start what is known as the west coast main line. The line was not meant to be a national route; it became one almost by accident. It was a railway built with twists and turns to placate landowners, for slow steam trains pulling open-top carriages. It is worth recalling that in 1832 Parliament rejected the initial Bill because some people objected, arguing that canals were all we would ever need for long-distance travel. Today, we ask far too much of the line. If we were talking about roads, it would be as if traffic still had to go up Watling street, as if the M1 and M6 had never been built, and we tried to solve our transport needs by just patching up old roads—a roundabout here, a bridge there—as if incremental change could make all the difference. Well, we tried that: we spent £9 billion upgrading the west coast main line a decade ago, and most of that work did not even get south of Rugby. Cities and towns in the north deserve better. Scotland deserves better. Britain deserves better.

That is why I stand at the Dispatch Box today to support High Speed 2, a new north-south railway line. I do so with much humility and not a little trepidation, but also with confidence, because although I wholly understand the concerns of hon. Members whose constituents are affected by the route, I also know that this is a decision we cannot duck. We have waited long enough. The west coast main line can take no more; it is increasingly full. More than that, London and the south-east are also increasingly full, caught in a cycle of rising house prices, some of the most expensive commercial rents in the world and transport congestion, while cities in the north want to grow. It is time to help to break that cycle—time to connect great cities such as Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and Liverpool.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has said in the past that Coventry would benefit, but can he tell me how? If we are not careful, there could be economic problems with investment in Coventry.

[Mr McLoughlin]

If I may, I will come in a little while to how I think places such as Coventry, Northampton, Rugby and elsewhere will benefit from the building of HS2. It is not just a matter of time; it is also a matter of the capacity available to the United Kingdom in its railway network. However, I will come to that.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am happy to give way to colleagues, but I am aware of the number of people who want to speak in this debate, so I will be a bit cautious.

[Paul Farrelly]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Clearly everywhere in Britain deserves better, but there are fears, as he will know, that great cities such as Stoke-on-Trent and Coventry will simply be bypassed. What meetings has he had, in particular with Stoke-on-Trent city council, in the past three months about either a stop on HS2 at Stoke, or a spur from HS2 along the route through Stoke station?

[Mr McLoughlin]

It is important to note that the Bill before us deals with the route from London to the west midlands, which does not go as far north as the hon. Gentleman describes. That route—basically, from the end of the line we are discussing today to Manchester and Leeds—is still out to consultation. Sir David Higgins did a report, “HS2 Plus”, which I very much welcomed. I accepted part of it—removing the HS1-HS2 link—but there are other parts, on which I am asking for urgent work to be done, that are not contained in the Bill before the House today.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I just inform the House that Stoke-on-Trent is in the west midlands?

[Mr Speaker]

That is not a matter for the Chair, but a matter of intense interest, not least to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr McLoughlin]

As a former Staffordshire county councillor—indeed, I was a member of Staffordshire county council for seven years—I do not need any reminding of where Stoke-on-Trent is, although it is true that Stoke-on-Trent is now a unitary authority and not controlled by that fantastic, first-class Conservative county council of Staffordshire.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter of Stoke-on-Trent and other issues, but is not the real concern about the Bill that there has not been a proper, rigorous and strategic environmental assessment? In other words, whether or not the Y route beyond Lichfield goes via Stoke-on-Trent or elsewhere, there has not been an opportunity to properly assess HS2 phases 1 and 2 in the round.

[Mr McLoughlin]

One of the questions is “Where is the biggest capacity problem?” and, whether I like it or not, the biggest capacity problem is on the southern part of the route—the route coming into London—but I well understand the concerns of hon. Members representing Stoke-on-Trent and other areas regarding the importance of getting the route right as far as they are concerned. That is why we are in the process of consultation and I am happy to meet and hear representations from those areas, although I am mindful of the huge number of consultations.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that we are talking today about a very big item of public spending, not an investment, because the business case makes it very clear that none of the debt can be repaid out of fare revenue and much of the interest in the early years will also fall on the taxpayer?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I believe there is a good cost-benefit ratio. We estimate the cost-benefit ratio to be 2.4 and it is worth pointing out—I will come on to this in my speech—that the initial cost-benefit ratio for the Jubilee line was less than 1% and if that had not been built I do not think we would have seen the subsequent development in Canary Wharf. However, I do not want to be tempted too much away from the very detailed contextual part of my speech, which I have worked out.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Following on from that point, given that the Government have failed to meet their targets in reducing the structural deficit, more than 60% of the cuts wait for the next Parliament, and therefore there will be a real shortage of capital does the Secretary of State really think that even if this line is built to Birmingham, it will go beyond? Secondly, given the scarcity of capital, would not the north gain more from a major link between Liverpool and Hull, rather than worrying about coming into London?

[Mr McLoughlin]

There is a slight problem in giving way even to colleagues and Opposition Members whom I respect greatly, because they keep asking me about further parts of my speech. If I can make a little more progress, I will be coming on to that point, but I will just point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, as he well knows, at the moment there is a huge amount of investment going into places like the northern hub, which will have very significant benefits for Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester and Hull in getting better east-west connections across the country and not just between the north and south parts of the country.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

I agree with the change of emphasis the Secretary of State has brought, from one of speed to one of addressing the capacity issue, which is clear and apparent to anybody who wants to see it, and I believe Coventry potentially will benefit from the proximity of the nearest non-London station, but can he ensure there is proper connectivity not just to Birmingham city centre, because the west midlands is far more than just Birmingham?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McLoughlin]

Indeed it is, and in fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, we might consider the words of the Secretary of State in launching this project when he was last a member of the Cabinet. It is fair to say that the noble Lord Adonis did say that

“over the next 20 to 30 years the UK will require a step-change in transport capacity”

and connectivity, both to promote and to respond to long-term economic growth. That was a statement made by the last Labour Secretary of State, so to say the scheme has always only ever been about speed is to misrepresent what the last Government intended and also what this Government intended.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), and then I really must make some progress.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has mentioned the northern hub rail investment, because many people against this project ask “Why not spend the money elsewhere?” I hope he will be emphasising the fact that this investment is as well as, not either/or. We are getting electrification of the trans-Pennine route, and I have just this morning been through Wakefield Westgate, a new £9 million station. This is about spending money elsewhere as well as, not instead of, on this project.

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend is right. Over the next five years Network Rail will spend £38.5 billion on the existing railway network. That is separate from the money being earmarked for HS2.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will give way one final time in this part of my speech, to the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern).

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. When does he expect to respond to the phase 2 consultation?

[Mr McLoughlin]

If the hon. Lady will be patient, I shall deal with that point a little later in my speech.

I was telling the House that it is time to connect great cities such as Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds. It is time for better links between north and south and between east and west, and time to connect to world markets to make the most of their skills and talents. It is time for HS2; time for a new north-south railway line.

Today, we can get a high-speed train from London to Lille but not to Leeds, and from London to Brussels but not to Birmingham. That has to change, but of course our investment plans must also run much further. More than £38 billion is being invested in the existing rail network between 2014 and 2019, including about £16 billion of Government support as part of our plans to invest £73 billion in all forms of transport between 2015 and 2021. We are trebling the budget for our major road schemes to £15 billion between 2015 and 2021; we are investing £14 billion in local transport schemes between 2015 and 2020; and next year, the Davies commission will propose options on future airport capacity. We need to do all this because if we are to support our economy, we need our infrastructure to work. Two years after the Jubilee line reached Canary Wharf in 1999, 27,000 people were employed in that area. By 2012, the figure was over 100,000.

We begin, it is true, with the advantage of our Victorian inheritance, but others are catching up. At the start of 2007, China did not have a single high-speed railway line; today, it has more than 6,000 miles in service, and by 2015, that will be 11,000 miles. France and Germany have been reaping the benefits of a high-speed rail network for decades, while we have just 67 miles from London to Kent and the channel tunnel.

Of course we have a good existing network, but we need to improve it, and upgrading Britain’s rail infrastructure is a key part of this Government’s long-term economic plan. In the south and south-west of Britain, the great western line is receiving more investment over the next five years than any other route. This will bring huge benefits to people working in that region.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has said that HS2 is not about speed but about capacity. Given that only 8% of the population regularly use trains, what percentage of the population does he think will actually use HS2 and who does he think will benefit from it?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I was happy to give way to my hon. Friend, but I am mindful of what he said about me yesterday on Radio 4, bits of which I agree with and bits of which I am slightly worried about. He said:

“Patrick McLoughlin is an excellent Cabinet Minister”—

I agree with him on that—

“and a former Chief Whip of the Conservative party. Indeed, if you had a difficult policy you wanted to push through Parliament, Patrick is your man. I would maintain that if the PM wanted the Herod Bill, Patrick would be the man to see that through Parliament.”

I am not quite sure whether to take that last bit as a compliment. When I talk about the need for capacity, I am talking about the need to free up capacity on other lines as well.

One of the great successes in the rail industry in this country is the massive growth in the railways, and I shall say more about that later. If we look at the tables, we see that 20 years ago, rail passenger numbers in this country were constant. Over the past 20 years, however, the numbers have risen from 750 million to 1.5 billion passenger journeys a year. The numbers continue to grow, and we need to address that fact. That is why we are right to do what we are doing with HS2.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

All the northern councils and chambers of commerce back HS2 unequivocally as a source of growth and extra capacity. Is it not the case that all major infrastructure projects are objected to at the time of their creation, and that 50 years on, the objectors fully support what took place?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I understand and respect those people who object. If some new piece of infrastructure is going to have an impact on their lives, there will be a fear of what might come. As we saw with HS1, there was a fear of what might come, but once it had been built, people said that it represented a vast overall improvement to this country’s rail network.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that those of us who object to HS2 are not flat earthers? We know that our rail infrastructure must be renewed and that there are real problems with capacity and much else, but this proposal is deeply flawed, and has never been scrutinised properly or planned properly. That is what we worry about, because so many of the independent inquiries find on the negative, not on the positive, about this HS2.

[Mr McLoughlin]

In the last Parliament, the hon. Gentleman was an absolute supporter of the Government of the day. Today, we hear him attack the scheme so violently, but he did not do that when he was sitting on the Government Benches behind that Government when they proposed it in the first instance. I am happy to accept the support he gave it in the first instance.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman has said that we have only 67 miles of high-speed rail in England, linking to two independent countries, France and Belgium. Does that not add to the argument that if Scotland were independent, there would be a greater push for rail north, as two sovereign Governments would be working on this rather than one?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I was expecting an intervention from the Scottish National party, but I am not quite sure which sea the hon. Gentleman is thinking of going under, how long the tunnel would be and which continent he is thinking of connecting up to separately with an independent part of Scotland. What I say to him is that I believe high-speed rail is very important for the whole country—it will be important for Scotland, too—and Scotland, part of the United Kingdom, will be much better off.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr McLoughlin]

I give way to the former Foreign Secretary.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

May I offer the right hon. Gentleman, without any caveats, my full support and say to him that most colleagues representing constituencies in the north actively back this scheme, for the very reasons he has spelt out? Does he also accept that those who represent some home counties through which this route is going of course have legitimate constituency concerns but that, for example, the Chiltern railway line has benefited twice over from investment—from the last phase of investment by British Rail and from Evergreen—and that the M40 was far more disruptive to people living in the Chilterns but nobody would now suggest it should be abandoned or greened over?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I completely agree with him. One of this morning’s papers, I believe it was The Daily Telegraph, said that this Bill will certainly have been scrutinised more than any major infrastructure project we have dealt with, across the whole piece.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will give way to my hon. Friend but then I will want to make some progress.

[Michael Fabricant]

I hope my right hon. Friend can assure me that he has not got anything in his folder about what I might have said yesterday. He spoke earlier about the importance of global trade and of HS2. Does he not accept that it is extraordinary that with this design, HS2, which I do not disagree with in principle, does not have a link with the channel ports, with HS1 or even with whichever airport will be chosen by his own Department to have the third runway?

[Mr McLoughlin]

As for notes on what my hon. Friend might have said yesterday, I do not think I have enough pages in the Department for what he might have tweeted out yesterday. I will address why I think this is the right scheme a little later, because I want also to talk about the links between—

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will give way for the last time and then I will want to make some progress.

[Mr Cash]

Phase 2, which affects my constituents directly, will have compensation arrangements which will clearly be based on the proposals being put forward with regard to phase 1—London to Birmingham. Given that, and given the scale of this operation, does my right hon. Friend accept that the only proper and reasonable basis for properly compensating the people concerned is if they get full value in relation to the losses they incur and not just the kind of provision currently on offer?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I want to talk about the compensation package a little later and indeed about the fact that I announced a new compensation package before the House rose for Easter, but that matter is out for consultation.

Before I took those interventions, I was talking about the improvements in the great western main line. We will also see improvement in east-west links, with faster electric trains between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle and a reopened railway between Oxford and Bedford. In London, we will see the Crossrail and Thameslink upgrades, which between them will cost £21 billion—about the same amount that is being spent on the first phase of High Speed 2. It is the scale of spending on London that has brought about amazing transformations at places such as St Pancras and King’s Cross stations. In the 20 years that I have been using those stations, they have become places that people wish to visit, destinations in their own right and places of which we can be proud. However, that necessary investment in London should not come at the expense of the rest of the country. Demand for travel is growing everywhere.

Twice as many people travel by train every day as they did 20 years ago. More people drive and fly, too, and that is because our horizons broaden in a better-connected world. Digital links do not replace travel; they fuel it. Smartphones and broadband are not an alternative to things such as HS2; they are part of the same growing links between people and businesses, and that pressure is felt acutely on our north-south rail corridors.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s praise for the two brilliant stations in my constituency, one of which was started and finished under the Labour Government and the other of which was started under the Labour Government. Will he confirm that according to the documents of HS2 and his Department, Euston will be able to provide extra capacity only if there is investment in Crossrail 2, at a cost of an extra £15 billion to £20 billion?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The documents about Crossrail 2 have been put out by the Mayor of London. We shall see the completion of Crossrail 1 in 2018, which will make a massive difference to London overall. I know that the right hon. Gentleman feels very strongly about this matter and is proud of the stations in his constituency, but the truth is that when I first came to this House, we regarded Euston as the best station of the three. It is now way behind the other two stations. HS2 gives us a once in a lifetime opportunity to make a transformational change to Euston station, which will bring it into line with the other two stations.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), but then I must make some progress.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way while he is laying out his case. However, the case he is making for HS2 fails to recognise that there will still have to be an awful lot of work on our classic railway. It would be wrong if he did not tell people that the west coast main line is crumbling and will still need major investment and repairs, and that our classic railway will suffer. I hope that the money will be there for those railways, too.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not think that I have been misleading. I have been very open about the west coast main line. I do not think it is crumbling—as I have said, there has been £10 billion upgrade on the line north of Rugby. Between 2014 and 2019, we shall be spending £38 billion on the existing railway network, on things such as the electrification of the midland main line and a number of other schemes that I have already mentioned.

Even on moderate forecasts, services will be increasingly full by the mid-2020s. If we do not create extra capacity, people at stations such as Milton Keynes and Northampton will have to queue to get on a train to get to work. That is despite the £9 billion that we have spent on the west coast main line in recent years. More upgrades like that will not provide the extra capacity that we need. A new north-south railway line is the right answer. From day one, it will improve journey times and train services to Manchester and to the north-west and Scotland, because HS2 trains will continue on the existing network. It will free up more space for commuters and freight on existing routes, and places up and down the country will benefit from more services and seats. Although it is too early to talk about precise timetables, Milton Keynes, an area of particularly close interest for my Parliamentary Private Secretary, could get 11 trains an hour to London compared with six now, and places such as Rugby would get more non-stop journeys to London.

Today's debate is about phase 1, but when it is complete HS2 will be a wider network. We have consulted on phase 2, and I know that many Members have a strong interest in ensuring that we get the plans right. That should include serving cities on the eastern leg through the east midlands, Sheffield and Leeds as well as the north-west, and we will set out more details later this year.

Of course we must design HS2 well and build it carefully, which means making sure that our young people have the skills to get the engineering jobs it will create. We have therefore announced plans for the first new further education college in 20 years, backed by HS2. Soon we shall announce the winning location for the central facility and a network of outposts. I know that many places are keen to take part, such as Aylesbury college, Manchester and Birmingham.

One of the things that matters most about HS2 is the huge opportunity it offers to the next generation. There will be 2,000 apprenticeships—not just one-off jobs building the line, but careers. The numbers involved mean that we will take the skills base in this country to a new level, so the country will not only be better connected but better trained with the skills we need to compete not only in transport but across a range of industries. This is not just investment in steel and rolling stock; it is a huge investment in our people across the nation.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State mentions apprenticeships and training. With HS1, the building of Stratford and, up to a point, the Olympics, there was a clear commitment that local people should be used on those building projects and that training schemes would be put in place to ensure that they had those opportunities. Will that same commitment apply to HS2?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Definitely. A little later, I shall go on to my obligations under the paving Bill, which will, I hope, go some way towards reassuring the hon. Lady.

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

In response to an earlier intervention, the Secretary of State answered a question about Crossrail, which, of course, qualified for full Barnett consequentials. Today we are debating high-speed rail between London and the west midlands, which seems to me to be an England-only railway. Why are the UK Government not awarding Barnett consequentials in this case?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Because, as I said in earlier, the simple fact is that the trains will run on to Scotland. I think that Scotland will get the benefits from the first day that the new railway line is open. I have got used to people from Scotland and Wales talking to me about Barnett consequentials, and we will obviously follow any rules that require such consequentials, but my belief is that the benefits will go to both Wales and Scotland from the point at which HS2 first opens.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Well, I will give way to my hon. Friend, but this will be the last intervention for some time.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend wants to give way to me. Given that some of us approve of the principle of the Bill but believe that the route could be improved, will he say a little more about whether the Select Committee will have some latitude, given the instruction that it should consider only the broad alignment of the current deposited plans? Will it be able to consider matters such as the route to Heathrow?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Scrutiny is one thing that the Bill has not been short of since it was published. The Select Committee will be given certain instructions, which will be debated tomorrow, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to raise his point in that debate.

It is essential that we get this investment right. That is why I welcome Sir David Higgins’s recent report “HS2 Plus”, which took a hard look at the plans. He proposes better developments at Euston, getting services to the north sooner, integrating HS2 more effectively with the existing rail network, and working with local authorities and businesses across the midlands and the north to ensure that they get the right railway for their needs. The Government support him in all that.

It is also right that the project should be built to budget and that is an essential part of the task we have set. In his report, Sir David says that the current £21.4 billion budget for phase 1 is right, but he goes on to warn that time is money. He cannot reduce the contingency budget of around £6 billion at this stage while the legislation has not yet been passed. In short, he throws a responsibility to all of us in the House; yes, a responsibility to consider the Bill properly, but not to delay it needlessly.

Sometimes people ask why we are rushing HS2. Some people ask why on earth it is taking so long. The answer is that we are doing it properly and to the timetable set out by the last Government in 2010, so that the first services run in 2026. But the final choice lies with Parliament. Last year, we passed the paving Act, which prepared for a new high-speed route to the midlands and the north. With support from the Government and Opposition, the House voted for the Act by 350 to 34. The Bill before us today will provide the detailed authorisation. As Parliament considers the Bill for phase 1, we will prepare our proposals for phase 2, responding to the Higgins challenge to accelerate and improve it so that the most can be made of this investment—a commitment to get high-speed services to more towns and cities in the midlands and the north, and, crucially, to make sure that we get the most out of the economic opportunities it will bring.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way to me a second time. He said earlier that he would say what benefits cities such as Coventry would get from this project. Will he tell me now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McLoughlin]

I think I did so a short time ago, but the simple fact is that Coventry will have the potential to get much better train services than if we failed to build HS2. There will be a far greater chance for commuters from Coventry to Birmingham or Leeds to have seats as longer distance passengers transfer to HS2. Without HS2 it is likely that trains to Birmingham and London from Coventry will become increasingly congested, with there being little chance to book a seat. Coventry residents will also have the opportunity to use the nearby Birmingham Interchange station. I was on a train from Birmingham to London last Tuesday in the middle of the day, and by the time it reached Coventry it was very nearly full. There is a capacity problem.

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

I am following my right hon. Friend’s arguments closely. Can he put a date on bringing forward the route to the north, and can he put a figure on how much the north can be expected to benefit if we are not to have any connectivity? I believe that the economic development between Manchester, Leeds and York is being held back by the lack of investment in that route.

[Mr McLoughlin]

We are investing in the new intercity express programme, or IEP, trains, which is a massive upgrade of the railway network serving my hon. Friend’s constituency and region, and in this spending round we will be electrifying more than 800 miles of line throughout the country, which will benefit the northern hub, which I have just talked about.

I thank the Commercial Secretary for his work in leading the growth taskforce, developing proposals for maximising the benefits of HS2, alongside senior industrialists, senior trade union leaders and city leaders. That task matters because designing and planning work on the project is already under way and construction is set to begin in 2017, just three years away. Firms throughout the country are bidding for contracts, and places from Penzance to Edinburgh can benefit. Engineering students, currently sitting in classrooms in our towns and cities, will be the ones shaping and delivering the scheme, and pupils who are today in secondary school will be using it.

I come now to the content of the Bill. Put simply, Parliament is being asked to grant planning permission and the other powers needed for the first phase. A number of motions have been laid to facilitate the Bill’s passage, most of which will be debated tomorrow. Tonight the House is being asked to vote on the principle of the Bill: that there should be a high-speed railway between Euston and a junction with the west coast main line at Handsacre. The railway should include a spur to Birmingham Curzon Street and intermediate stations at Birmingham Interchange and Old Oak Common. If agreed tonight, this means it cannot be re-aligned or extended as part of the Bill. The proposed link to High Speed 1 will be removed from the Bill. It is not part of the principle of the Bill; instead, we are working on proposals to improve connections between the rail network and HS1.

Of course, projects of this size do not come without negative impacts. Rather than shy away from the challenges, however, we have been transparent. Parliament, as the decision maker, has a duty to ensure that the Government have met their legal obligations. We have carried out the largest environmental impact assessment of a major project ever undertaken in the UK. We have considered the alternatives, invited the views of the public and presented an environmental statement to Parliament alongside deposit of the Bill. We have observed all the European requirements, taking measures to protect species, to avoid harming special areas of conservation and to comply with the water framework directive. It is, however, not only about meeting our obligations, but about ensuring that we carefully balance the scheme’s progress with its impact. It is right that those directly affected by the scheme will have the opportunity to be heard by the Select Committee.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Nearly all those who support the scheme are pleased that the route in the Bill, which the Secretary of State has just outlined, has substantive support across the House. There is, however, one exception. Given that the London chamber of commerce and industry has said that it is unlikely that Heathrow will close in the foreseeable future, why can the Secretary of State not be clear about what link there will be to the airport?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not want to pre-empt the review of the Davies commission, which is doing excellent work, but there is no doubt that Old Oak Common will serve Heathrow as far as Crossrail is concerned.

Our proposals strike the right balance. More than half the route is in tunnels or cuttings and more than two thirds of the line’s surface sections will be insulated by cuttings and landscaping. No grade I listed building is affected and only some 100 homes will be demolished in the nearly 100 miles of the rural part of phase 1. The line is designed to be secure against flooding. Indeed, it is notable that while weather affected many rail lines this winter, the HS1 line in Kent ran as normal.

We have also consulted and changed. There will be a longer tunnel at Northolt, a new tunnel at Bromford and a bypass at Stoke Mandeville. We have worked hard on state-of-the-art noise mitigation, but if more can be done by spending the budget better, I will ensure that that happens.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr McLoughlin]

Who said, “Me first”?

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Is it not true that some 240,000 dwellings lie within a kilometre of the route, many of which are totally ineligible for any form of compensation under the current scheme, and that many people will go to their graves having been trapped in houses that they could not sell because of HS2?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not accept what my hon. Friend says, which was not reflected in the experience of building HS1.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend’s written statement mentions the express purchase, which is

“being launched today and is for those people living closest to the line, in…the ‘surface safeguarded’ area.”—[Official Report, 9 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 20WS.]

Will he clarify how far from the line that would be, as it is not clear from his written statement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will come on to compensation in a little while, but I am slightly constrained in what I can say because the issue is being consulted on.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I am glad that the Secretary of State wants to keep an open mind about getting the final designs right. High Speed 2 will be of huge benefit to the city of Birmingham, but we must not leave east Birmingham behind. The current proposal to destroy a space the size of 105 football pitches, where we have plans to create 7,000 jobs in the worst unemployment hot spot in the whole United Kingdom, is not a good idea. Birmingham city council will oppose the proposal during the petitioning stage. Will the Secretary of State keep his mind open to the idea that there could be a better site for the rolling yard that would not destroy east Birmingham’s economic future?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, and indeed Birmingham city council, is very supportive of the overall scheme. Of course we will want to make those presentations to the Select Committee during the passage of the Bill. That site was looked at very carefully when we considered those that were available, because a new railway line requires areas where trains can be serviced. A number of people can argue about whether we have the right sites or the wrong ones, and of course that will be taken into consideration.

Of course I understand the depth of concern that the line has caused in some places, which is why I have made it clear to my officials that there is no place in the Department or in HS2 for talk of luddites or nimbys. We must respect people and try to meet their concerns.

[Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comment about luddites and nimbys, terms that were used unhelpfully at the beginning of the process. As he will know, there is still a great deal of concern. Will he say a little more about what can still be done during the process?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I understand the particular concerns that have been put to me by many Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright)—they never cease to remind me of them. I certainly agree that we need to do what we can to help. Aylesbury is, after all, the largest settlement near the route between London and Birmingham, and there may be more that we can do. We will continue to talk to people in the Hawkslade part of Aylesbury, for example, and the National Trust about its idea for a land bridge near Hartwell house. I am sympathetic to the specific concerns in Wendover about any noise impact on St Mary’s church, which has become a really successful concert venue, thanks to local efforts. There are creative things that can be done along the route, such as planting tree screens to cut noise, which also makes ecological sense by creating green corridors. For places such as Fairford Leys, the line offers a chance to create new woodlands.

As I have said, I well understand that the people directly affected by the route are concerned about it. As Members have said in interventions, that is the case for all major infrastructure schemes. There is no doubt that major infrastructure schemes will inconvenience a number of people. That was certainly true when we rebuilt St Pancras and King’s Cross stations, and indeed with Crossrail, as we can see at Victoria station at the moment. Ultimately, however, we usually see a huge improvement for the general infrastructure of the nation as a result.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am slightly concerned about the amount of time I am taking, but I will give way to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson).

[Frank Dobson]

King’s Cross and St Pancras are both in my constituency. They had the support of the local council, the support of the local MP and the overwhelming support of local people, even those directly affected. That is not the case with the proposals for Euston.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am not sure what point the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make. If we only built infrastructure projects when we had the support of everyone concerned, we would be building very little infrastructure in this country.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for acknowledging that some parts of the country will take all the pain of this project but get none of the gain, unlike with the M40, which benefited Buckinghamshire and contributed to its economy by enabling people to get on and off it. I hope he is not ruling out looking at further mitigation, particularly for the area of outstanding natural beauty, which concerns not only my constituency but that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington). If one is to have environmental credentials, it is important to protect our environment to the highest degree when implementing projects of this nature.

[Mr McLoughlin]

Of the 20.8 km of the route that passes through the Chilterns, only 3.3 km will be on the surface—at the moment the rest will be below ground level. I understand my right hon. Friend’s point, and that is something we need to bear in mind. She is right that her constituents benefited directly from the M40, and that was paid for by taxpayers across the whole country, rather than just by those in that area. I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), as she has not yet intervened.

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

My constituency is not directly affected but my constituents have concerns about this, which have not been helped by the fact that the Major Projects Authority’s report on the risk has been suppressed or vetoed. If we are going to have projects like this, greater transparency is needed in respect of them.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I cannot think of an infrastructure project that has had more reports on it than this one. I set out my reasons for withholding the MPA report: it is important for civil servants to be able to speak freely and in confidence to Ministers. I made a full statement on that particular matter at the time I took the decision.

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

I declare my interest as a commissioner of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. The commission had serious concerns about the elements of deregulation in the Bill that remove protections for monuments and burial sites where Commonwealth war graves are sited in this country. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that organisations like the Commonwealth War Graves Commission will be consulted as the Bill goes forward?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Yes. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance on a matter that was raised with me privately by another member who served on the commission. We certainly will consult.

Of course, we must also get the property compensation right. I have announced an enhanced property compensation package and I wish to consult quickly on the further proposals. I want to do more, so we will introduce a need-to-sell scheme, which I want to be easy to understand and to work fairly. It is more than just a re-labelling of the previous exceptional hardship scheme. It will be more generous, too, but it does not stop there.

Let me outline the powers that the Government are seeking through this Bill. It provides the authority to undertake works required for the construction and maintenance of phase 1 of HS2: deemed planning permission for the railway; the power to purchase compulsorily the land required for the phase 1 route, as well as for business relocation and regeneration; modification of existing legislative controls that are not designed for a hybrid Bill—a process based on that used for HS1 and Crossrail; and the ability to nominate a person or organisation to deliver phase 1 on behalf of the Secretary of State.

I believe that the Bill before us today has the power to change our nation profoundly and for the better. Yes, HS2 is ambitious; yes, it will take a great deal of investment; yes, it will take time to complete—but so did the canals, the railways and motorways that previous generations left as their legacy. Our age can achieve something just as great. I am from the midlands—I was born in Staffordshire and I represent Derbyshire—and I know the potential of Britain. I know that, built right, on time and to budget, High Speed 2 can help our great cities thrive.

The choice comes down to this: do we invest in modern transport links to make sure that every part of Britain can compete for the best jobs, or are we really happy for London and the south-east to power ahead while the rest get second best? Put like that, the answer is clear to me. Yes, this project deserves careful scrutiny—the processes are in place to ensure that—but it also deserves to go ahead. Britain needs it to go ahead. Tonight, I hope that we will make good progress towards that end. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

I want to compare the relative wealth of the home counties, including Buckinghamshire—with Chesham and Amersham and many other constituencies—with that of the north-west, using figures provided to me by the House of Commons Library. Sixty years ago, the GDP per person in the home counties was just below that of Britain as a whole, and it was identical to that of the north-west. In the four and a half decades to 2001, a large gap opened up. By 2001, the home counties were on average nearly 20% better off than the average for mainland Great Britain, while the north-west had fallen back relatively to more than 10 percentage points below the average, 30 percentage points below the home counties. Similar data apply to the north of England as well.

Part of this widening gap is a consequence of factors that were, to a great extent, beyond the control of any Government—not least the fact that mass manufacturing migrated to the east of the globe. It was also due to factors within our control, however. I am not suggesting that, in the intervening period, the great cities of the north—Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle—have sat and wallowed in self-pity. When my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) was leader of Manchester city council, for example, that city pulled itself up by its bootstraps. A big gap remains, however.

Among many others, there is one significant reason for that gap. Ironically, a clue is to be found in today’s report by the Institute of Economic Affairs that is otherwise noteworthy only for its internal incoherence. In the report, the institute comments on the regeneration of London’s docklands, which it says

“has been subsidised by taxpayers through large sums spent on government transport schemes and other projects”.

It lists some of those projects. They include

“the Jubilee Line Extension, Docklands Light Railway…the south-east leg of Crossrail”,

as well as many road schemes. This is the same engine of growth that has benefited Buckinghamshire and the home counties, and that has led to the widening gap.

I do not blame any Member for speaking up for their constituency. I have no direct constituency interest in this matter. In any configuration, the line will not go through Blackburn, but I believe that it will greatly benefit us. I part company with those who have spoken in defence of their constituencies, however, when they try to elevate their understandable constituency concerns into some overall economic case against the project; that is frankly disingenuous.

The amendment speaks of its acceptance of the need to increase overall railway capacity. Had I been able to make an intervention on the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) in her untimed speech, I would have asked her, given that she accepts that need for increased capacity, how she intended to achieve it in the absence of HS2. I have been in the Chamber since the moment the debate started, and everyone has accepted that the west coast main line is full to capacity—[Interruption.] I hear someone say no. They have obviously not been on that line.

[Mr McLoughlin]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the biggest problems of capacity relates to the feed into London? That is our biggest capacity problem. A lot of people have said that we should start in the north, but although that is tempting, the biggest capacity problem is in the south.

[Mr Straw]

I accept that. I came into the House a long time ago, when the line to Manchester and Liverpool was so slow that there was still a need for sleeper trains. They were very reliable, because they went slowly. I accept that for those travelling from the north-west and from the midlands, the main capacity constraints are those south of Rugby. The amendment proclaims a need for greater capacity, but it fails to provide further and better particulars on how to achieve it.

One reason that the west coast main line upgrade took so long and cost so much was that it had to be added on to the existing infrastructure. That was far more disruptive and costly than the provision of additional lines. I look forward to hearing alternative suggestions, but the only way I have heard of providing additional capacity for passengers and, critically, for freight is through the provision of additional two-track capacity. That would be far less disruptive than the construction of the M40 or any other motorway, and it would produce benefits to constituents in the home counties, as well as to those in the north and north-west, by relieving the present capacity constraints.

I am passionately in favour of the HS2 proposals—all the way: phase 1 and phase 2—but they can go ahead only on an all-party basis. I welcome the decisions of the Cabinet and the shadow Cabinet to back the Bill now and for whoever wins the election to back it, the other side of the election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Lady is saying that people in her constituency would have to do this by tomorrow. The Bill does not refer to her constituents.

[Natascha Engel]

I am saying that the people who are affected will be given an incredibly narrow window between tomorrow’s date, 29 April, and 23 May, but for my constituents this may not happen until the process is further down the line. Those constituents who are affected will have a very narrow window in which to respond and they will have to pay, individually, a cost that may be too high for them. They will also have to submit the petition in person after filling in forms from a petition kit. The process is so complicated that, rather than encouraging people to get involved in the consultation process, it will stop them doing so.

I am really concerned that the whole project has been run along those lines. It has excluded the voices of those people most severely affected by it. It excludes those whose homes and communities will be destroyed, and it does not give a real opportunity for their concerns to be heard. It does not bring them any benefit and it takes away what they already have, and for that privilege we are asking them to pay £50 billion through their taxes. At the same time, local regeneration projects that have been blighted for years will continue to be blighted while all the economic regeneration gets sucked back into the cities again.

The true reason those people are not being consulted and nobody is trying to make the case to them is that the financial and economic case is so weak. The large majority with which this Bill will be passed tonight will tell the large number of people who have concerns that we think we know what is better for them. They disagree and we are denying them a right to say so.

In conclusion, the case for HS2 is no more sophisticated than saying, “We need to do something to improve our transport infrastructure, and this is something.” That is not a strong enough argument to destroy the lives, homes and local economies in the areas, towns and villages—like mine in North East Derbyshire—that are most deeply affected, and that is why I will oppose the Bill’s Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), I have taken part in a number of lively debates on this issue, and there is a danger of repeating what many people have already said. We have heard that demand for long-distance rail has doubled. The lines on the west coast in particular are busy, but the east coast will soon catch up. I know from personal experience that the situation is bad enough at peak times now and is set to get much worse. Yes, we can tinker with the system again, or make the minor adjustments that we have seen, but that is expensive and will not solve the long-term problems. We need to be bold and ambitious.

Today, I want to focus on the needs of my city of Leeds and the wider northern economy. I realise that this debate is about phase 1, but without that we will not get up to my city. HS2 really must connect to Leeds. The Government’s commitment is critical to the exciting plans that the city and the wider city region have to boost our local economy. Not only will this provide much needed greater capacity in our rail network, but it will help us to reshape the economic geography, be a catalyst for regeneration across the city, and provide a real boost for jobs and skills.

I note that the Secretary of State did not mention in his speech that Leeds is bidding for the HS2 academy, so may I remind him that there is another bid from a great city in the north?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am well aware that many cities are bidding, and I just mentioned a few. I am very sorry to have missed out my hon. Friend’s.

[Stuart Andrew]

Apology accepted.

I might be biased, but Leeds is an outstanding city. It is a major UK business centre and one of the best places in Europe to locate a business. It has one of the most diverse economies of the many UK centres that we have, which has helped it to survive and recover from many of the recessions that we have experienced—better, in fact, than many of the business centres in other European countries.

Between 2001 and 2008, Leeds enjoyed the fastest jobs growth of all the core cities. It is no coincidence that at the same time it has seen rail passenger numbers grow by 90%—again, the highest growth—and Leeds station is now the busiest station in the north, clearly demonstrating that good links bring along a good economy. Leeds is determined to build on its success and wants to be a brand new kind of city; a city at the heart of a city region that is the second largest economy in the UK with 106,000 businesses, the largest manufacturing base in the UK and eight universities. Bringing HS2 to Leeds and locating the new station on its south bank will help it to realise that goal, creating the opportunities that we need for growth and development on an unprecedented scale.

The regeneration of Leeds’ south bank covers 136 hectares—60 acres of land that is prime for development—and has the potential to deliver more than 10,000 jobs for the city. It will create a 3.5 hectare city centre park and the jobs that young people growing up in the city need. It will add to what is an already exciting part of south Leeds, which includes the HQs of Asda, Eddisons and aql and cultural attractions such as the Royal Armouries, and will provide homes for local people. It will also help to generate a growing economy across the city region and across the north as it will link into the additional investment that we are already seeing in rail infrastructure across the north of England. It will help to improve connectivity, creating a powerful non-London economic zone and help us truly to rebalance our economy. HS2 will bring Leeds within far faster reach of Sheffield City Region, the Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire local enterprise partnership, Birmingham and, of course, London. All that, along with east coast connectivity, provides us with a real chance to reshape the economy of the north.

Today, the Leeds economy is worth some £18 billion and has grown almost 40% over the past decade. There are 25,000 businesses in the city alone, which has the highest ratio of private to public sector jobs of all major cities bar London. It has also been resilient in these difficult times. Employment is up 11,000 since 2011. In 2013, we saw the opening of the £350 million Trinity retail centre. A new arena opened this year, which will also see the start of the new Victoria Gate development that will bring John Lewis to the city. The prospect of HS2 has seen Leeds and Manchester working together to set an ambitious growth strategy.

All that is incredibly important, but I am worried that it could all be at risk if we do not get our north-south connection working effectively. We need to ensure that we face the creeping problem of capacity. We need to connect our major cities so that they can do business with each other. We need a modern line that deals effectively with the problem, and not the usual make-do approach. We need a transport system that can cope and complement, and for me, HS2 is it. Let us be ambitious, let us spread the wealth, let us create the opportunity, and let us get HS2 going.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless]

Yes I certainly do agree, and I think that is because of those improved journey times, including to Folkestone. The idea that there would be more jobs in Folkestone if the journey time were two hours rather than one hour, or that if we somehow had a man with a red flag in front of the train that would bring the greatest possible economic growth to the north or to Folkestone, is frankly absurd.

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point. He is also making the same point that Sir Albert Bore and Sir Richard Leese would be making to us if they were able to address the House. They are the leaders of their councils and they would say that these lines will bring tremendous benefits to their cities. They are in the best place to know.

[Mark Reckless]

I agree with the Secretary of State. I would add, however, that further benefits to these northern cities and Birmingham could be accrued if we did more than just fulfil the intention of the direct links through to the continent of Europe. Although I understand why the previously proposed way of doing that has not gained support, I hope that we will still look at the possibility of reinstituting a direct connection between HS1 and HS2, and that when we look at the costs and benefits of that we look not only at the benefits to the north of being able to get through to Europe, but at the benefits for people from Manchester or Birmingham of being able to go directly through to east London, Kent or East Anglia from a connection at Stratford. The work Greengauge 21 did on that shows that the benefits will be huge. Yes, there would be benefits for my constituents and people in east London from being able to go from Stratford or Ebbsfleet through to Old Oak Common and on to the north, but a connection would also significantly add to the benefits for people coming from Birmingham and the north. I hope we will look at that.

I believe that there is scope within this Bill to make such improvements. From listening to some of the opponents, it is as if they assume that the costs are going to spiral out of control and that the benefits are all grossly exaggerated, but when I look through the work and the detail of the estimates and calculations, they strike me as extraordinarily conservative.

We have learned the lessons from the great infrastructure projects of the past. If we consider Crossrail or the Olympics, we see it is possible to deliver projects to time and to budget, and possibly faster or cheaper. Part of the reason for that is the very big estimate for contingency. Some people criticised, and we have heard Opposition Front Benchers saying that perhaps they would not support a project if costs were spiralling, but actually a substantial contingency had been factored in: £14.5 billion of the £42.6 billion is contingency. It is not contingency in order to get to our best estimate of what the cost is going to be; the contingency has been padded to the degree that we are 95% certain that the cost will come in below the number given. It is expected that more than £4 billion of that contingency will not be used, so perhaps some of that could be put towards providing a decent quality link between HS1 and HS2, to everybody’s benefit.

Abellio Greater Anglia Franchise

Lord McLoughlin Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

During recess my officials concluded negotiations with Abellio Greater Anglia on a new directly awarded franchise, which will see the company continue to provide passenger rail services for 27 months. This will secure continuity of service until the new competed franchise, expected to start in October 2016, is let.

The agreement secures tangible benefits for passengers, including a refresh of the Mark III rolling stock fleet that will see the installation of power sockets, new carpets, new seat covers and better lighting. The new agreement also requires Abellio Greater Anglia to install controlled emission toilets on to their train fleet, which will significantly reduce the amount of waste dropped onto the tracks on the network.

New service improvements secured as part of the franchise agreement will double the current levels of off-peak services between Cambridge and Stansted airport (between 09.00 and 16.00) on Mondays to Fridays and provide a significant number of additional Sunday services on some of the branch lines operated by Abellio Greater Anglia.

This direct award lays the groundwork for the competed franchise to continue the improvements made to rail services in the region. It will also allow the findings and recommendations of the Norwich in 90 taskforce to be considered when the next franchise specification is developed.

This new contract continues my Department’s successful franchising programme in line with the schedule I set out in March 2013 and recently. The Government will continue to work in partnership with the private sector to deliver benefits for the industry, passengers and taxpayers.

Intercity Express Programme

Lord McLoughlin Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

On 24 July 2012, at the same time that the Great Western intercity express programme (IEP) fleet was financed, commercial close was reached for the east coast fleet of IEP trains. On 18 July 2013, I informed the House of my decision to exercise a pre-priced option within those contracts to extend the IEP train order for the east coast main line by 270 further class 800/801 vehicles, in addition to the existing order for 227 vehicles. The process to reach financial close for the whole fleet and to reach commercial close for the extended fleet has now finished, and I wish to inform the House of the results.

I am pleased to announce that the east coast IEP contract has been financed by Agility Trains East. Agility Trains will design, build, maintain and service the rolling stock and maintenance facilities for 497 new vehicles over the 27.5-year contract term. The value of the contract is £2.7 billion. I would like to thank Agility and its constituent entities, Hitachi and John Lang, for their support.

The IEP will see state-of-the-art new trains brought into operation on the east coast main line in 2018 following their introduction on the Great Western main line in 2017. These faster, higher-capacity and more environmentally sustainable trains will improve passenger experience and comfort, and will provide 28% more seats into Kings Cross at peak times, while delivering more reliable and efficient services. The trains will be operated by the winner of the intercity east coast competition that is currently live.

Agility Trains has financed the fleet, but the Government are investing £330 million on the east coast main line, to ensure that the trains will be able to reach all of the destinations served by the current fleet.

Overall the Government are investing £38 billion to transform the rail network over the next five years—a record amount of funding that will generate growth, create jobs and boost business. The intercity express programme is a vital part of that transformation with the trains being assembled in Newton Aycliffe, creating 730 jobs and securing more in the supply chain.

The Government are committed to using investment in transport as an engine for growth. This deal will benefit passengers and communities both along the east coast main line and in other parts of the country.

HS2 (Property Compensation)

Lord McLoughlin Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

I am today announcing to the House the outcome of the 2013 consultation on property compensation for the London to west midlands HS2 route (phase 1).

That consultation, which ran from 12 September to 4 December 2013, set out a package of assistance for owner-occupiers of properties affected by phase 1 of HS2 that went beyond the legal requirements for compensation in recognition of the exceptional nature of the HS2 project.

While elements of today’s decision will be launched immediately, I want to make sure we get this decision absolutely right, so I will be asking for further views on the newer aspects of this package before we finalise it.

The details of the package are as follows:

Express Purchase—This is being launched today and is for those people living closest to the line, in what is known as the “surface safeguarded” area. Under this scheme owner-occupiers may be able to sell their home to the Government, if they wish to do so at its full unblighted market value (as it would be if HS2 did not exist), plus 10% (up to £47,000) and reasonable moving expenses, including stamp duty.

Voluntary Purchase—For people in rural areas outside the safeguarding area and up to 120 metres away from the line. Owner-occupiers in this area may be able to sell their home to the Government for its full unblighted value at any time up until a year after the line opens. We intend for this to be launched later this year.

Need to sell—This scheme does not have a boundary and is available to owner-occupiers who have a compelling reason (including job relocation, ill health) to sell their house but are unable to do so because of HS2. The Government would pay the full, unblighted value for these properties. We also intend to launch this later this year, when it will replace the exceptional hardship scheme which will continue to operate in the meantime.

All three options will be accompanied by a rent back option. This is for owner-occupiers who, having sold their property to Government, would prefer to carry on living there and may be able to rent it back, subject to property suitability checks. This will also be implemented immediately.

These compensation arrangements incorporate a range of improvements to our original proposals, taking account of points made by members of the public, property experts and others during the consultation. For example, I have decided that the “need to sell” scheme, as the name suggests, will require applicants only to show they have a compelling need to sell, rather than demonstrating that they would suffer hardship if they could not sell.

In recognition of the exceptional nature of HS2, we are also considering going further than providing compensation and will undertake a further limited consultation on the following proposals:

As an alternative to the voluntary purchase offer, we are proposing a cash payment of between £30,000 to £100,000—for owner-occupiers in rural areas outside the safeguarding area and up to 120 metres away from the line who do not want to sell their home and move.

Home owner payment—This is proposed to apply to owner-occupiers between 120 metres and 300 metres from the route in rural areas. This could enable people in these areas to share in the benefits of HS2, which will run near them but will not provide them with a direct benefit. The details of (amounts and eligibility) any payments would need to be determined following consultation.

Initial thinking is that payments could be from £7,500 to £22,500 depending on how near the route the property is located. This would come into effect following parliamentary approval of the HS2 route between London and the west midlands.

These decisions and the forthcoming consultation do not apply to other proposed HS2 route sections. I intend to bring forward further proposals for supporting property owners alongside future decisions on extensions to the HS2 route.

In addition to these proposals, we need to ensure residents’ views have an effective way of being heard. HS2 Ltd will develop a residents’ charter, designed to help residents know their rights and will appoint an independent residents’ commissioner who will ensure that they adhere to the commitments made in the charter. The charter and commissioner will provide residents with a voice and representation.

Together, the charter and the commissioner will ensure that residents are informed of any developments fairly and efficiently. The charter will contain a number of principles against which HS2 Ltd will be measured in their communications with people affected by the development of the railway.

I have decided not to introduce a “property bond” which was one of the proposals that was consulted on in 2013. I appreciate that this will disappoint many who were advocating such an approach. We studied the idea very carefully but felt that it was untried, would not facilitate the smooth operation of a normal property market and would add to uncertainty rather than reduce it.

I believe these proposals represent the best possible balance between properly compensating people affected by the line and providing value for money for the taxpayer. The voluntary purchase offer and the need to sell scheme are intended to be launched later this year, following the further consultation which I aim to commence shortly and intend to conclude before the end of the year.

A full description of these proposals is in today’s Command Paper, “Property Compensation Consultation 2013 for the London-West Midlands HS2 route: Decision Document”. I have published this report on: www.gov.uk and provided copies to the Libraries of both Houses.

HGV Road User Levy

Lord McLoughlin Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

For the benefit of Members of the House, I am pleased to announce that from 00:00 this morning, all HGVs at or above 12 tonnes using UK roads have been required to pay a new time-based road user charge, the HGV road user levy. The introduction of the levy is a coalition Government commitment, and following the introduction of the HGV Road User Levy Bill in October 2012, has been delivered nearly a year ahead of schedule.

The introduction of such a measure in the UK has been called for over many years by our domestic haulage industry. The levy must be paid by foreign-registered and UK-registered HGVs alike, and creates a fairer system by removing some of the inequality UK hauliers feel when paying to use many roads abroad. The introduction of the levy ensures all HGVs make a contribution to the costs of UK road maintenance, irrespective of their country of origin.

The levy is structured in a series of bands to reflect vehicle type, maximum weight and axle configuration, with heavier, more road wearing HGVs paying the most. For a given vehicle type, the annual rates of levy and six-month rate of levy are the same for foreign and UK-registered HGVs.

The vast majority of UK hauliers will notice no difference. For over nine out of 10 UK-registered HGVs, the cost of the levy will be fully offset by reductions in vehicle excise duty (VED). The levy will be paid alongside VED in a single transaction so that unnecessary administration costs are not incurred.

Foreign HGVs must pay the levy before they use UK roads and can purchase for between a day and a year, with discounts available for longer periods. The introduction of the levy is one of a number of initiatives designed to help the haulage industry. We have introduced a trial of longer semi-trailers. We are spending £6 billion on maintaining motorway and trunk roads between 2015-16 and 2020-21 and providing over 500 miles of additional lane capacity to the strategic road network.

Duty on standard diesel is now lower than it was in October 2010. VED on HGVs has remained frozen during this Parliament and we have announced a decade’s worth of lower levels of duty for methane gas fuelled HGVs. The introduction of the levy is expected to bring in circa £20 million in taxation revenue and could lead to economic benefits through international haulage market share increases.

For ease of use, foreign operators making regular visits to the UK have been encouraged to pay online using registered accounts on gov.uk. Infrequent visitors to the UK can chose to “pay and go” and can make purchases online, at some point of sale facilities or by phone.

Non-payment of the levy is a criminal offence. The offence will generally be dealt with at the roadside via a fixed penalty notice of £300. On summary conviction a fine of up to level 5 on the standard scale—currently £5,000—will be payable for non-compliance. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) are leading on levy enforcement in Great Britain, and the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) in Northern Ireland. Both agencies intend to enforce the levy through a combination of additional targeted stops and as part of existing road safety related stops. The police also have enforcement powers.

High-speed Rail

Lord McLoughlin Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

The past few days have brought important proposals to make the most of High Speed 2. They will help us to build the line better, bring benefits to the north sooner and support job creation and economic growth. I wanted to update the House at the first opportunity and I am sorry that, for unavoidable reasons, I was unable to do so last week.

The proposals are welcome, because HS2 is a vital project. It can do for future generations what the Victorian railways did for previous generations and what the motorways did for ours. That is why it has the strong support of the Government and why cities in the midlands and the north are calling for its benefits to be spread as widely as possible. We must heed that call, but if that is to happen, we must also get the basics right, stick to the cost, plan well, listen, respect the environment, build what really works and what we need for the future, and ensure that people get the benefits as quickly as possible.

I know, too, that HS2 is just part, although a vital part, of our long-term economic plan—one that will see better infrastructure for all parts of our country. It is a clear and ambitious plan that is already paying dividends, as shown by last week’s welcome decision by Hitachi, the company that invented the bullet train, to move its global rail headquarters to Britain. That is the sort of opportunity presented by HS2.

First, let me respond to the report by Sir David Higgins. He began work as chairman of HS2 in January and the first task I set him was to consider how to maximise the benefits of HS2 and manage the costs. Last year, Parliament backed the principle of a high-speed rail link to the north with 350 votes in favour and only 34 against. It is now up to us to make that happen and, given his great track record, there is no one better suited to the job than Sir David Higgins. Let me turn to his proposals.

First, on costs, Sir David has reviewed the cost estimates for constructing phase 1 and confirmed that they are realistic. The budget set by the Government in 2013 stands. As experience shows, in Britain we can build great projects on time and on budget, such as High Speed 1, Crossrail and the Olympics. At this early stage, however, before Parliament has considered the hybrid Bill, we must include a proper contingency. Of course, for popularity’s sake, one option would have been to slash the contingency and claim that as a saving. Sir David said that that would be wrong and I agree, but, as he also says, with growing certainty comes growing confidence. That will be the stage at which we can bring down the contingency.

Let me turn to Sir David’s second proposal. I have heard many hon. Members asking why we cannot build in the north sooner. I agree, and we can. Sir David’s report suggests opening the new line to a new hub station in Crewe six years earlier than planned. Direct trains will of course be able to run off HS2 lines to serve places such as Stoke, Liverpool, Manchester, north Wales and Scotland, and faster too, and the line to Crewe sooner would mean journeys that are shorter than they would be under phase 1—journeys that are quicker to Manchester, quicker to Liverpool and quicker to Scotland. That is a welcome proposal and I am commissioning HS2 Ltd to undertake the work to allow it to be considered in detail, but that must be an acceleration of phase 2 and not an alternative. Sir David says that we must make the most of this investment so that as many towns and cities as possible benefit. I agree, and we will make sure that that happens.

Let me turn to Sir David’s third proposal, for the south-eastern end of the line. Our priority must be to get the benefits to the midlands and the north as soon as possible. In short, we must put the money and time where they can do the most good. Sir David is clear that he does not think that the existing proposals for a HS1-HS2 link meet the test. The HS1-HS2 link proposed in the hybrid Bill has not secured consensus. It requires too many compromises in terms of its impact on freight, passengers and the community in Camden. I therefore intend to remove the link from the hybrid Bill and withdraw safeguarding as soon as possible. I will also commission a study of options for ways to improve connections to the continent, which could be built once the initial stages of HS2 are complete.

I also agree with the report that much more can be made of Euston station, not just to build something of which we can be proud but to maximise the economic potential of the line, to use a site that has been neglected and to generate private sector investment that can reduce the overall burden on the taxpayer. I will therefore ask HS2 and Network Rail to develop comprehensive proposals for the redevelopment of Euston.

Our ambitions for Euston must not, however, conflict with our commitment to control costs. I want to see a substantial private sector investment to ensure that. Let me therefore turn to the report from the HS2 growth taskforce, published last week. It comes from an impressive panel including business leaders such as Sir John Rose, Alison Nimmo and Ray O’Rourke, city leaders such as Julie Dore from Sheffield and the general secretary of the TUC, Frances O’Grady. I thank everyone involved, and especially the commercial secretary for his committed leadership. Their message is clear: we need HS2, and we need to act on how to squeeze the most jobs, skills and growth from it. The taskforce’s recommendations are plain common sense. They are things that business, the Government and cities can do together, and must start doing now: on skills, proper training to make sure that our young people get the best jobs on the project; on planning, ensuring that the line brings new strength to our cities; and, on transport, making sure that we link the existing road and rail network properly to HS2 and plan investment to bring them together.

Regeneration and economic growth are vital parts of HS2. City leaders have already started to put plans in place, but the Government have a role to play, too. That is why I am asking HS2 Ltd and London and Continental Railways, which developed the King’s Cross-St Pancras site, to come forward with proposals for a regeneration company that will respond to the growth taskforce’s recommendations on regeneration. This matters because, as I have said before, HS2 is a project that will be built over many Parliaments—and no doubt Governments, too—and will serve many people through the generations. It is not the only answer to our transport needs, but it is a central part of the answer, and that means designing it carefully and building it right. It is about something that works, something of which we can be proud, and something that benefits as many people and places as possible at the lowest cost.

We are on schedule to open the line in 2026 which, by the way, is exactly the date that the previous Government set in 2010, or ahead of time in the case of the Crewe proposals. The Government are keen to rise to the challenge and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will do the same.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice and early sight of the statement. May I also congratulate Sir David Higgins and Lord Deighton on their substantial and thorough reports?

Transforming rail capacity south of Birmingham and improving connectivity north of Birmingham are vital and will transform our great cities. We support HS2 because of the capacity constraints that too many commuters on our railways face. We will continue to hold the Government to account for keeping costs down on the project. We will vote in support of the hybrid Bill when the Government finally bring it to Parliament.

David Higgins has made it clear that there are significant savings to be made if Ministers get a grip of this project and stop the delays. He says:

“a lower budget for Phase One could be set at some point...but only when the legislative timetable becomes clearer and more certain.”

What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the phase 1 hybrid Bill is put before the House as soon as possible? The Government must now act so that the scheme can be delivered under budget.

Sir David recommended, and the Secretary of State has acted, scrapping the link between HS1 and HS2. That is welcome because the link was set to cause huge disruption to large parts of Camden. At Euston, Sir David proposes central London’s biggest regeneration site, with a mix of retail, office and residential units. Given the acute affordable housing crisis in Camden, a significant proportion of any new housing must be social housing. Does the Secretary of State agree that the community and council must be fully involved in those plans?

At Old Oak Common, where significant regeneration is planned, there is as yet no decision from the Government about the relocation of the First Great Western and Heathrow Express train depots. When can we expect a decision about linking HS2 and Crossrail into the west coast main line at Old Oak Common? That is key to maximising the development potential of the area and to improving the capacity for commuter services into Euston, which is crucial if there is to be a longer construction phase at Euston. When will those three important decisions be made? What contact has the Secretary of State had with the Mayor about setting up a development corporation to take regeneration plans for Old Oak Common forwards?

Sir David has listened to concerns from cities such as Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby, Stoke, Leigh and—yes—my city of Wakefield about how the line will connect to the current railway network and how their services into London can be improved. When can we expect the Government’s response to those significant issues in Sir David’s report?

On phase 2, we are glad that HS2 will link to future Network Rail classic rail investment and that the connections between our great northern and midland cities that we have called for have replaced the Government’s previous take-it-or-leave-it approach. We want a coherent transport plan for the north and the midlands, which have been historically underfunded, and for proper east-west links between Liverpool and Manchester and Leeds and Hull. A rebalancing of railway investment into the regions to close the economic divide: that is how we maximise the benefits for the whole country from this project.

We welcome the faster construction of phase 2 to bring benefits more quickly to the northern cities and north Wales. Will the Minister tell the House when the hybrid Bill for phase 2 would need to be completed in order to get to the north-west by 2026, as Sir David recommends? Sir David also recommends that discussions between council and business leaders and the Government should be conducted on a regional rather than a bilateral basis. When do the Government envisage such meetings starting, given the imperative to work fast to reduce costs? When will the Government announce their response to the phase 2 route consultation in order to get it started more quickly?

I turn to Lord Deighton’s growth taskforce report. He is correct that HS2 must become the spine for jobs, growth and regeneration in our country. His report wants cities to set up locally led delivery bodies to maximise the regeneration that High Speed 2 will bring. He warns:

“Even the very best authorities will be stretched to manage a project as complex and large as HS2”.

What help will the Government give councils whose budgets have been cut by 40% over this Parliament in order to do that? He says that land for development should be bought early before land prices rise and to reduce blight around the station sites. When will the Secretary of State set out which costs will be included in the costs of the High Speed 2 railway and which are excluded, so that councils can budget accordingly?

On transport, Lord Deighton wants the Government to set out their plans for commuter rail in non-high speed areas by the end of the year. Will the Secretary of State undertake to publish such a plan?

On skills, Lord Deighton warns that the railway work force are ageing. Some 10,000 new people are needed to work on the railways in the next five years alone, and he also states:

“Railways have an image problem.”

How does the Secretary of State plan to transform that image to entice young people of both sexes to work on the railways?

When will the site of the High Speed 2 skills college be announced? Wherever it is located, it must not be a stand-alone institution; it must reach out to cities and towns across the UK that have young people who want to work on High Speed 2. Which Minister is overseeing that skills work and how can procurement processes drive up the number of apprentices on the project?

On small and medium-sized enterprises procurement, the Minister must learn lessons from Crossrail, where SME contract numbers are high on volume, but the total value of those contracts is uncertain. We must ensure that the High Speed pound reaches all parts of the UK. It is vital that we maximise the opportunities that the new north-south line brings to our country. We are behind the project. We wait for the Government to rise to the challenge.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support. I am not sure how many questions she asked me, but I will try to answer the vast majority of the points she raised. There will be other points on which I shall respond to her in due course.

The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) has been a long-time critic of the HS1-HS2 link. It is right that we needed not only to listen to what local communities said, but to look at how we get a better link between the two stations of Euston and St Pancras. We are talking about a fundamental redevelopment of the whole of Euston station, which I think is the right thing to do. Anybody who has looked at those three stations over the past 20 years will have seen stations, particularly St Pancras and King’s Cross, where one would not really have wanted to spend any time at all. Today, they are destinations in their own right and show what can be done with proper work and careful consideration. That is why I think that a complete regeneration of Euston is necessary. I hope that we can address those problems. With regard to Old Oak Common, the Mayor has already announced his intention to set up a development corporation. I have regular meetings with him. In fact, I have one coming up this week.

It is right that we look at the overall cost, which of course is an important consideration. There is a £14 billion contingency built into the current budget of £42 billion. It has been left in place because at this early stage that is thought to be the right thing to do. One of the reasons why costs have gone up—it is important to reflect on this—is that we have taken exceptional steps to try to meet some of the environmental concerns that have been raised by many hon. Members, their constituents and communities. I do not apologise for that, because it is right that something that will be there for the next 150 years is built correctly and properly, as it will be.

The hon. Lady made an important point about skills development and the opportunities that that can bring, for example through apprenticeships. I will be looking at Crossrail, which I think has done incredibly well in trying to spread the benefits across the country, even though it is a London project. It benefits London in particular, but it also brings great benefits to the United Kingdom and the regions. I will also be looking at how Crossrail has tried to improve apprenticeships and develop skills across the industry. By the time it ends, the shovels will be on the sites for HS2, so hopefully there will be some cross-over.

This should send out a message to young people that the railway industry has a great future. What has happened to the industry over the past 20 years, with the number of passenger journeys rising from 750 million to 1.5 billion and continual growth each year, shows people who want a long-term future that the industry certainly offers good opportunities and work prospects. That is why it is important. I will write to hon. Lady in due course on the other points she raised.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

The Higgins report is excellent and fully justifies Sir David’s appointment. However, can my right hon. Friend give the House a categorical assurance that the money that is to be spent on High Speed 2 will in no way affect the record billions being spent in control period 5 on the conventional railway and what is likely to be spent in control periods 6, 7 and 8?

[Mr McLoughlin]

May I first put on the record my appreciation for the contribution my right hon. Friend made to this project? He was also the last Minister to meet Hitachi in Japan and so might have had a great influence on its decision to move its rail headquarters to the UK. I congratulate him on that. He is absolutely right: some £38.5 billion will be invested in the rail network over the next five years, excluding the money being spent on HS2. It is absolutely essential that we make that long-term investment in our railways.

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

The reports from Sir David Higgins and the taskforce are very important documents. However, following the question from the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), how can the Secretary of State demonstrate that investment in High Speed 2 will go together with investment in the existing classic line so that the whole network benefits?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Lady, as Chair of the Transport Committee, has spent a lot of time looking at that, and indeed has taken evidence from me, Network Rail and Sir David Higgins over recent months. She will know that there is huge investment. In her city, for example, in May this year we will see the first express train running from Liverpool to Manchester, which I welcome. It is part of the northern hub, with over £500 million of investment linking Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and, eventually, Hull.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

It is a reflection of the poor genesis of the project that, four years down the line, the Secretary of State is still making fundamental adjustments to the plans for HS2. It does not matter how many studies or justifications he puts forward, he needs to understand that for many of my constituents, it is like putting lipstick on a pig. However glossy the lipstick, HS2 is still a pig.

I am sad that the Secretary of State can stand at the Dispatch Box and say that he respects the environment when we are still not to have full tunnelling under the whole area of outstanding natural beauty in the Chilterns and when neither Front-Bench team has had the decency to talk about compensation. My constituents, and many people up and down the line, still do not know what the compensation package is, and it is about time that he came to the Dispatch Box and announced the generous and fair compensation that the Prime Minister promised.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I hope very soon to be able to make announcements about the Government’s proposals for compensation. I would just say to my right hon. Friend that on the one hand I am attacked for listening to people, and then on the other hand I am attacked for not listening to people. I suppose that is just one of the problems of dealing with big infrastructure projects—wherever we take them, there will always be people who are directly affected, and they will not be convinced of the necessity of them. However, I am convinced of the necessity of high-speed rail for our cities in the north.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to abandon the ridiculous proposal for the High Speed 2-High Speed 1 link across Camden Town, and I also welcome Opposition Front Benchers’ support on that matter. However, I cannot say the same about the proposal to go ahead with an even bigger redevelopment of Euston than was proposed before. It will mean that the homes of more than 500 people will be destroyed, and that the lives of about 5,000 people will be subjected for a decade to the noise, filth and disruption of the biggest engineering project in Europe. I hope that, even at this stage, at a time when looking back, looking forward and coming to different decisions is apparently still on the cards, the Government will at least consider having the initial London terminus at Old Oak Common.

[Mr McLoughlin]

The right hon. Gentleman has been consistent on the HS1-HS2 link. I do not need to tell him about the difference that has been made to the area around King’s Cross and St Pancras in his constituency—it is plainly there for all to see. Those of us who use St Pancras station faced a lot of inconvenience at the time when that development was going on, but given what we see today, it was worth it.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know that Lichfield will be badly affected by HS2, with phase 1 ending and phase 2 beginning in the constituency. As a consequence, a line running from east to west will join what was to be the end of phase 1 with the west coast main line. That work will transform the leafy lanes of Lichfield into the marshalling yards of Lichfield. What hope can he give my constituents that the temporary east-west line will no longer have to go ahead, and that there will be significant improvements in the environmental plans proposed for Lichfield?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am always ready to listen to my hon. Friend’s comments and points on these matters. I believe that, overall, HS2 will bring great benefit to the midlands, including Birmingham, which is an important city close to his own city of Lichfield. It is a matter of ensuring that areas such as his can also benefit from high-speed rail.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Higgins report specifically highlights poor east-west connectivity as a problem on the rail network, such as that between Manchester and Leeds, to which I would add that between Manchester and Sheffield, which is directly relevant to Stalybridge and Hyde. Will the Secretary of State go into more detail about how he plans to integrate Network Rail’s existing investment plans with the relevant phase of HS2, specifically to address the east-west connectivity issue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the rail line that goes through the top end of my constituency, so I am familiar with his points. Our plans for the northern hub will greatly enhance the services he receives, as will ensuring that we build them in to benefit from HS2, which is possible. On Thursday a number of parliamentary colleagues will come on the high-speed Javelin line. It goes to Ashford and continues to service other parts of Kent, and it has been very successful.

[Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making the statement to the House. My constituents and residents in the London borough of Hillingdon look forward eagerly to the statements on compensation. As I am sure he is aware, the borough of Hillingdon still has some outstanding matters, and the most pressing—which I ask him to look at urgently—is the relocation of Hillingdon outdoor activities centre. That is a valuable asset, and we must resolve its future shortly.

[Mr McLoughlin]

My right hon. Friend has never lost an opportunity to make that case for Hillingdon, and I assure him that I will look into it. I reassure him that I hope to say something about compensation in the very near future.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

These are two excellent reports, and the Secretary of State is right to talk about ensuring that rail links help to provide the economic benefits from the high-speed links. When lines in the north of England are electrified, can he guarantee that, following the fiasco of the TransPennine Express, there will be electric trains to run on them?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Before we start talking about fiascos and the TransPennine Express, I chide the hon. Gentleman for not pushing a bit further and getting more electrification when he sat on the Government Benches, and getting more rolling stock—[Interruption.] He says he did, but he did not succeed. We are doing it, we are succeeding, and we will order the rolling stock.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I support linking our northern cities with high-speed rail, but does the Secretary of State understand the concerns on the east side of the Pennines about the announcement of the Crewe hub? All along we were given assurances that the link to Sheffield and Leeds would happen at the same time as that to Manchester. Will he commit to looking at the “High Speed UK” proposal that links more cities more quickly and for considerably less cost?

[Mr McLoughlin]

There is a recommendation on the Crewe hub and I have not made a full decision on it yet. A consultation is going on about the Y section from Birmingham to Manchester and Birmingham to Leeds. It is important I do that properly, which is exactly what I will do.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

The recommendation for the line to reach Crewe by 2026 is welcome, but does it allow for any possibility of the other sections of HS2 further north being completed earlier—and if not, why not? How does the Higgins study impact on the study being carried out by the UK and Scottish Governments to ensure that the benefits of HS2 reach Scotland as soon as possible?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The extension to Crewe will have a positive impact on Scotland. As I have said, trains will be able to continue running on, and the fact that they will go further up will have a positive benefit. That should reassure the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State knows, my constituents are completely against these proposals and have been from the beginning. Furthermore, they are looking for proper compensation on principles that he knows I put forward in amendments to the project. Will he consider increasing compensation in line with the criteria that have already been provided to him in my amendments?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The full consultation process for the part of the line that goes through my hon. Friend’s constituency is ongoing, and no final decision has been made. I hope to be able to say something about the compensation relating to phase 1 very shortly.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

May I thank the Secretary of State for the report and congratulate Sir David Higgins on it? Does the Secretary of State accept that the data on page 8 of Sir David Higgins’s report, which show that investment per head in London and the south-east has been running at least three times that of any other region, emphasise his point that this is not a zero-sum game between HS2 investment and investment in other services but rather the reverse—that this investment, properly co-ordinated with control period 6, should beget further investment in rail services across the north?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; I think he is right. I will not chastise him about when this huge extra expenditure in London was first committed to—we will leave that to one side. What is important is getting the long-term investment in infrastructure right for all the northern cities. That is vital to all of us who care about those cities, and those connections, and about making sure that they have the right opportunities. As I said in my statement, this kind of project does not happen over one Parliament but runs over several Parliaments. That is why it is so important to have as much cross-party support as possible for such a big scheme. I believe that this will be an evolutionary change in transport. As I said, it will do for future generations what the motorways have done for today’s generation.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will clearly come to the House in due course with a statement on compensation. Will he give an undertaking that during the proceedings on the hybrid Bill he and ministerial colleagues in the Treasury will be willing to listen to suggestions on how the compensation scheme can be further refined, improved and targeted?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Of course I am always prepared to listen; that is partly what we have been doing in consulting on the existing scheme. People often come forward with proposals that increase the cost and then complain that the cost has been increased, so it is quite important that we get the balance right on these projects.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

In view of the Secretary of State’s commitment on Government funding to look at the prospects for opening up the line to Crewe that much earlier, what are the implications for the alternative proposal made by Stoke-on-Trent?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Sir David has made a recommendation to me and I am asking for work to be done on it. It is right that I then consider that alongside the representations that have been made by other cities in the north as part of the final consultation process. I am still engaged in that process, and I will do so.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

I am all in favour of better links with Europe, at least in this context. Does the Secretary of State accept, however, that most of the demand for an HS1-HS2 link will be domestic? Will he learn from the sub-optimal interchange at Stratford and consider installing a travelator to get people quickly and easily between St Pancras and Euston?

[Mr McLoughlin]

One of the problems at the moment is that people cannot get to the northern cities by high-speed trains, yet they can get to Europe in that way. I want the people of Birmingham and Manchester to have the same opportunities as those who wish to travel from London to Paris or London to Brussels. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need to have a good link between Euston and St Pancras. Sir David says in his report, and has said to me, that that can be done at a much more efficient rate than what is currently planned under the High Speed 1-High Speed 2 link, which will now be removed from the Bill.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s continued commitment to the Old Oak Common interchange, but I am alarmed that they are handing control of the whole area, including Wormwood Scrubs, to the Mayor of London, with instructions that any development must exclude separate funding schemes. Some 24,000 new homes are planned for Old Oak. How will the Government ensure that some of these are affordable homes for Londoners, and not the empty luxury flats for foreign investors that the Mayor prefers?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong about what the Mayor prefers. I think I am right in saying that he was one of the supporters of a Mayor for London. Perhaps he just does not like the democratic outcome and the Mayor he has today. I think the Mayor knows exactly what is needed at Old Oak Common and will act on it.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

As someone born in Crewe, I add my gratitude for any proposals to improve this transport renaissance. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the connection to the west coast main line at Crewe will obviate the need for a connection at Wigan, as was proposed earlier? I do not wish to restrict the shadow Health Secretary’s future freedom of manoeuvre in this regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McLoughlin]

I did not realise that my hon. Friend originally came from Crewe, which given its connections is a very important railway town, always has been and always will be. I will want to consider his point about the later connections on to the west coast main line in the light of Sir David Higgins’s recommendations.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Given that Coventry will not benefit from high-speed rail, what will the Secretary of State do about the potential investment vacuum in Coventry and similar cities, and what will he do about negative equity?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I very much believe and hope that HS2 will be beneficial to Coventry. The entire west midlands benefits from HS2 and Coventry is certainly part of that wider west midlands conurbation. I want to see greater interconnection between the cities, and we have the time to plan and get that right. In this control period and the next one for Network Rail, we will be able to build on certain proposals that I know Coventry wants. Representatives of Coventry have been to see me and made recommendations about certain line improvements that they want to see.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

KPMG predicts benefits of more than £200 million for Worcestershire’s economy from HS2, so I broadly welcome the statement, but can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that nothing in it precludes investment in faster trains between London and Worcester to address the absurdity that a journey of 130 miles, which took under two hours in 1910, takes more than two and a half hours today?

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend is right. One of the problems that HS2 addresses in a way that no other proposals put before us will address is capacity. I very much hope that it will free up other journeys so that we can have faster journey times from cities such as Worcester.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will be aware that concerns have been expressed about the time for redevelopment at Euston and the potential impact on the west coast main line from Glasgow. Will he say more about that and about any impact on the Caledonian Sleeper service, which is important to the Scottish economy?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I fully accept that while huge works are going on at a station, there is disruption, so one of the questions that must be asked in the planning phase that HS2 is currently going through is how we minimise that. Inconvenience was caused at St Pancras for a number of years while redevelopment was going on, but, as I said earlier, nobody doubts that it was worth going through the pain as we have a far better station than we had previously, and I very much hope we can do the same for Euston.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

As the Transport Secretary knows, my constituency is a major hub for the rail freight industry. The growth taskforce suggested that the Government should invite the rail freight industry to set out how best it can take advantage of extra capacity on the existing network. Can my right hon. Friend outline what plans he has for this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McLoughlin]

One thing that is curtailing growth in the freight market in the UK is the capacity problems. I hope that, by freeing up capacity, we will see a lot more freight travelling on our railway lines. I urge the freight industry to come forward with proposals on how we can improve the situation, which I think we can.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

In the light of the taskforce’s recommendations, will the Secretary of State confirm when he will set out the Government’s plan for how HS2 will affect the rail services of cities that are not on the route, such as Newcastle?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Newcastle will benefit from faster trains running up to Leeds and being able to continue on their current routes. The hon. Lady is right that more work needs to be done on that. It will be done and I will come to the House when it is complete.

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

I welcome the report and the Secretary of State’s statement. Opponents of HS2 in the north-west have claimed that although it might be beneficial for Manchester, it might suck investment out of other towns and cities in the north-west. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a new regional hub at Crewe will allow the benefits of HS2 to roll out to places such as Liverpool, north Wales and, of course, Chester, and support economic growth in those areas?

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend represents a great city, which I have visited on many occasions. It will receive benefits from Crewe. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who joins me on the Front Bench, has made it clear that the station will not only be very important for his constituency, but will serve the whole of the north-west, including the great city of Chester.

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

The Labour Welsh Government recently changed their view on the Barnett consequentials from HS2, following questions from the Financial Times on why they were not backing Plaid Cymru’s position on a fair share for Wales. What representations has the Secretary of State received from the Welsh Government or the official Opposition to demand a fair share for my country?

[Mr McLoughlin]

There is no doubt that Wales will benefit from HS2. North Wales, in particular, will benefit from the proposals in Sir David’s latest report to build the line faster further north, because Crewe is a major interchange that serves north Wales.

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

If I understand the Secretary of State’s announcement correctly, high-speed rail will get nearer to Lancashire earlier, which obviously is a good thing. What implications does that have for earlier planning for an HS3 that goes beyond Manchester and Leeds?

[Mr McLoughlin]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I think that that is a debate for another occasion. He is right that HS2 will have a major impact on the cities it serves and that we will have to go further as a result.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Despite the reports, it remains the case that the initial preferred route for the second part of HS2 will devastate parts of Warrington, with the loss of businesses and jobs, and will possibly give us a worse service in the long run. Does not the proposal of a regional hub at Crewe give more impetus to the suggestion by Warrington borough council and others of a preferred route that would be of huge benefit to the western part of the region?

[Mr McLoughlin]

As I have said, a period of consultation is going on and I am listening to the representations. No firm decision has yet been taken. The Higgins report states what Sir David believes would be the best way forward at the moment. I will certainly consider that, but I will also consider other recommendations and representations.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I very much welcome the cross-party support for this transformative project. On the Higgins report and the proposed new Crewe interchange, will the Secretary of State do everything he can to give clarity and certainty to the Yorkshire leg of the Y, so that we can crack on with investing in and regenerating the areas around the proposed new stations at Leeds and Sheffield, and along the branch lines, such as the one from Huddersfield to Sheffield which goes through my constituency, that will bring better connectivity?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is asking us to take on board the wider implications of HS2 across the area that it serves. I will certainly do that.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State echoes Sir David Higgins’s call for the benefits to be brought to the north-west and north of England faster. Other than the Crewe interchange—which I welcome, but which should not be seen as the only solution—what other avenues is he looking at? Will he speak to leaders of local authorities in places such as Manchester to bring forward funding and proposals sooner rather than later?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am in touch with Sir Richard Leese, the leader of Manchester city council about the issues. Manchester has made some imaginative proposals on how the station should be built alongside Piccadilly station, and they are being looked at. There are good communications between the northern leaders and the Government on this issue.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend knows that the people of the far south-west do not speak much about high-speed rail: our focus is simply on rail and getting reconnected to London after the storms of the winter. Can he assure us that, at the same time as spending all this money on the north and midlands, he will have sufficient to invest in an alternative or additional route between Plymouth and Exeter as soon as it has been identified by Network Rail?

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend has long been an advocate of better rail services in the south-west. Following the storms, I said that I had asked Network Rail to do some detailed work on possible alternatives for the south-west, and that is happening. Network Rail is doing a huge amount of work to ensure the swift reopening of the Dawlish line, which is on course to happen on 4 April.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

In congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) on his tenacity and hailing the relief of Camden as a consummation devoutly to be wished, may I tell the Secretary of State that the dispassionate observer would still feel that the lack of connectivity between HS1 and HS2 represents a problem for the future? Will he give thought to the possibility of an underground connection from Old Oak Common?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Many suggestions have been made for the connection between HS1 and HS2. First, all the high-speed trains are likely to stop at Old Oak Common, which will also be served by Crossrail, and secondly Euston and St Pancras stations are not that far apart.

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

HS2 could have real benefits for Cornwall, especially if the First Great Western train depot at Old Oak Common were relocated to Penzance. My right hon. Friend has received proposals from me, First Great Western and the local enterprise partnership. When will he let us know his decision?

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend raises one of the many issues that need to be considered and resolved, but Old Oak Common is likely to become a major new transport focus for future generations, and will have an important role to play. Getting the maximum development in that area will also be very important.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and declare my interest, in that HS2 phase 2 will go directly under my house. Will he confirm the future journey times from Euston to Manchester airport in my constituency, now that phase 1 has been extended to Crewe?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. I am delighted to see him in his place, but I wish that his predecessor was still there—as I am sure we all do. He was a big supporter of HS2 and believed that it would bring tremendous benefits to his city of Manchester—I agree.

If we build to Crewe, as suggested by Sir David Higgins, it will result in immediate time improvements for Manchester, but I know that what people want to see is the connection to Manchester airport as well as to the city itself.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Speeding up delivery for this major infrastructure project for the north is to be welcomed, but—as my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) suggested—deep concern is felt in west Yorkshire that economic advantage may come for the west side of the Pennines earlier than it will in Yorkshire if the extension goes beyond Birmingham before it goes to Manchester and then Leeds. I urge my right hon. Friend to engage more with the west Yorkshire councils to ensure that they have a strong, positive and simple message about the advantages of HS2, as their colleagues on the west side of the Pennines did, and which I am sure has influenced Sir David Higgins in his recommendation to extend on that side first, rather than ours.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. There has, rightly, been involvement: Julie Dore, the leader of Sheffield city council, was a member of the taskforce. The taskforce has stated that cities need to prepare, so that we can consider the long-term consequences of overall transport investment. They need to prepare for the benefits that HS2 will bring to their areas.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State used the two words “north Wales” in his statement. He will have my support for the speedy development at Crewe to link to north Wales. Does he accept that this is about not just speed, but capacity? What steps will he take to increase capacity to north Wales, and, by extension, to Ireland?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Too many people talk about high-speed trains as though they are just about speed. They are not just about speed. When Lord Adonis launched the initial plans he talked a lot, as I have done since I have been Secretary of State for Transport, about the need for additional capacity. One of the biggest reasons for the new railway line is capacity on links between north and south, and the extra capacity we need at Euston. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we need to ensure that that capacity serves north Wales well.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

The success and efficacy of HS2 in the north-east would be greatly improved if we reopened the Leamside line in future control periods. Will the Transport team look at this crucial improvement, and consider creating the HS2 skills academy in the north-east?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Surprisingly, my hon. Friend is the first Member today to mention locating the skills academy in his region. That is probably because other Members have been asking questions on the details and might have felt that they would be testing your patience, Mr Speaker, if they also made a bid for the academy. The skills academy is essential to getting the message across to young people that engineering and the railways offer good opportunities for them in the long term.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

My constituency of Darlington is the indisputable birthplace of the railways—I do not think there are any Members for Stockton present—and my constituents currently enjoy a very good service to London. They are delighted that people in Leeds will soon be able to enjoy a good service too, but are concerned that that must not be at the expense of investment in the east coast main line. Will the Secretary of State commit to that not being the case?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Indeed I will. We are committed to providing brand new rolling stock for the east coast main line: one of the biggest orders placed for the railways has been signed off by the Government. I am delighted we have done that.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Sir David Higgins stresses the importance of existing lines and HS2 working together. Will the Secretary of State reconsider the current plans for trains from Scotland to Birmingham and London to bypass Manchester and Leeds? Is this an opportunity to reconsider the possibility of linking them up?

[Mr McLoughlin]

It is essential that all these suggestions are considered. HS2 will fundamentally change capacity on our railway lines. It will give us many more opportunities not just for passenger numbers, but for more freight. In the past 10 years, there has been a 60% increase in freight. The issue of capacity is what is holding back a further increase. The west coast main line is the busiest railway line in Europe. An increase in capacity will free up a lot of other services and opportunities.

[Mr Speaker]

I am pleased to be able to advise the House that 37 Back Benchers were able to contribute in 37 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time. I suggest that the Secretary of State issue his manual on pithy replies to all members of the Cabinet, who would profit greatly from reading that text. The journey time was very satisfactory.

InterCity East Coast Franchise

Lord McLoughlin Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

On Friday, 21 March 2014, I published the invitation to tender (ITT) for the InterCity East Coast franchise. This marks the next step in the formal competition to find a new private sector partner to run passenger rail services on the east coast main line.

I have also published the InterCity East Coast stakeholder briefing document, which provides an update to the InterCity East Coast consultation summary report published in October 2013.

The ITT asks bidders to set out detailed proposals on what improvements for passengers they will deliver and how they will build on the multi-billion pound investment planned for the east coast main line and should they win the franchise. The invitation to tender includes:

the requirement to introduce the new world-class fleet of trains from the inter-city express programme;

continuation of services to all current destinations;

faster, more frequent services to/from King’s Cross by May 2020;

faster average journey times to Leeds and Edinburgh from May 2020;

the potential for improved services to destinations such as Lincoln;

an opportunity for bidders to serve five new routes including Huddersfield, Scarborough, Harrogate (via York), Middlesbrough and Sunderland (via Newcastle); and

a fund that will drive innovation for passengers and deliver long-term benefits for the franchise and wider rail industry.



It is anticipated that the successful bidder will be announced in November and that the new franchise will start in March 2015 and run for eight years and four weeks, with a possible one year extension callable at my sole discretion.

Services along the east coast main line are set to be transformed over the coming years through £240 million worth of investment which will improve reliability and boost capacity for passengers and freight. The route will also benefit from the Government’s £5.8 billion inter-city express programme, which is set to deliver a new fleet of state-of-the-art trains which will improve journey times and deliver a boost to the customer experience.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord McLoughlin Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

1. What steps he is taking to relieve congestion on roads.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

The Government are committed to reducing traffic congestion and investing in our road infrastructure. Spending on strategic roads over this and the next Parliament will be £24 billion. A £500 million programme of pinch point schemes specifically targeted at tackling congestion is being progressed on both the strategic and local road network and a further £800 million is being invested in 25 local authority major road schemes. I am sure my hon. Friend will also join me in welcoming the additional £200 million that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in yesterday’s Budget for pothole repairs.

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. The Prime Minister visited Lowestoft in January and saw for himself the fantastic opportunities in the offshore energy sector. Unfortunately, they could be choked off by congestion such as that experienced in the past fortnight. The problem could be solved by a new crossing at Lake Lothing. Suffolk county council, with the help of the local enterprise partnership and Waveney district council, has commissioned a study to come up with the right solution. Will the Secretary of State visit Lowestoft to see the problem for himself?

[Mr McLoughlin]

It has been a considerable time since I last visited Lowestoft, but following my hon. Friend’s invitation I shall certainly do so. Ministerial colleagues, including the Prime Minister, have visited. My hon. Friend’s points are well made, and they have been made to me by other colleagues.

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

Congestion would be much improved if the potholes in the roads were removed. Although I welcome the money that was made available yesterday, how will it be distributed? How much of it is coming to Scotland?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Scotland will get its share according to the Barnett formula as part of the announcement made by the Chancellor yesterday. It will be up to the Scottish Government to decide how they share the money between the authorities in Scotland.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the A12 through Essex and into Suffolk and Norfolk is a main road to the ports at Felixstowe and elsewhere? Given that a significant proportion of it from the M25 to Chelmsford is already three-lane, would it not be sensible to relieve congestion into the East Anglian hinterland by turning it into a motorway?

[Mr McLoughlin]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. No doubt he will pursue that argument with me and the authorities on a number of occasions to come.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

What is the Secretary of State doing about the congestion at Tollbar End, which is affecting businesses, particularly those in the export market, and people getting to work? I contacted his Department last week but I still have not had an answer.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not had an answer. I could compare the time delays in reply to correspondence under this and the previous Government, but instead I will try to get the hon. Gentleman an answer as quickly as possible. We are investing significant amounts in road infrastructure, more than that invested by the previous Government. That shows this Government’s overall commitment to infrastructure investment in the United Kingdom.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

One of the worst sections of road for congestion is the A27 from Eastbourne to Lewes. It has been appalling for many decades and I know that it is being considered by the Department for Transport. Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way to solve the congestion would be a new dualled trunk road?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has met the Minister responsible for roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), to make that point, which has been made to me, too, by other people in Eastbourne. However, there is some controversy, not least because the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) has a different view on the matter.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Traffic jams cost UK motorists 30 hours each last year and were often made worse by a £10 billion backlog in the road repair programme. As local road maintenance was cut by nearly a sixth between 2010 and 2013, is the Secretary of State surprised that the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday of a pothole challenge competition hardly has many motorists shouting “bingo” today?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman makes such a point, because I do not know whether he can get the shadow Chancellor to commit to investments such as those we are putting into this country’s road infrastructure. As I understand it, he is not allowed to make any commitments whatsoever. I am very glad not only that the Chancellor yesterday announced an extra £200 million to invest in our roads but that later today I will announce the allocation of the £140 million that I announced a few weeks ago to all local authorities. I hope that they will use the £140 million along with the £200 million announced yesterday to make significant improvements to our roads.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

2. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of public transport links to Durham Tees Valley airport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

3. When he next plans to meet representatives of the Passenger Transport Executive Group.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

There are no arrangements in place at present. However, while it has been some time since my last meeting with the group, I have met representatives individually in the intervening period. I would therefore welcome the opportunity to meet PTEG or indeed with representatives of any of the local government organisations from Newcastle.

[Mr Brown]

There is quite a lot to discuss—for example, quality contracts—but of immediate concern is the impact of the new combined authorities on the existing joint boards. Can the Secretary of State say anything today that would reassure the employees of the existing joint boards, who are uncertain about their future?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The proposals for the combined authorities would see the passenger transport executives continuing to provide an executive function on transport issues across the board. The exception to that is west Yorkshire, where the local authorities have decided to dissolve their PTEs in addition to the integrated transport authority. The powers and duties of the PTE will be transferred to the new combined authority. I am more than happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss his worries.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The next time my right hon. Friend meets PTEG, will he invite representations on the progress of the Dover Priory railway station project, which is being held up by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs?

[Mr McLoughlin]

If my hon. Friend had not asked that question, I do not think that I would have done, but as he has, I will certainly look into it and write to him.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

When the Secretary of State next meets representatives from PTEG, they will no doubt tell him that bus fares are rising year on year and that routes are being cut. Should not operators such as Stagecoach, which make a huge profit off the back of the taxpayer subsidy, start behaving more responsibly, rather than threatening legal action at the prospect of a quality contract in Tyne and Wear?

[Mr McLoughlin]

We want to see good co-operation between the passenger transport executives, the combined local authorities and the bus operators that provide the services in their area. They need to work together to give the best services to local people. Bus services are incredibly important to people and are vital in enabling them to go about their daily business and to get to work and to their leisure activities.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

4. What progress he has made on implementing recommendations of the “Get Britain Cycling” report of the all-party parliamentary cycling group. [R]

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

5. What assessment he has made of Network Rail’s planned control period 5 investment programme.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

Network Rail is about to embark on CP5, which runs from 2014 to 2019, during which it will spend £38.5 billion on the railways—a significant increase on the £32 billion spent in the previous five-year period.

[Stuart Andrew]

May I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend for ruling out the introduction of car parking charges at stations in west Yorkshire and by congratulating him on the significant amount of electrification that is taking place on our railways, compared with the pitiful amount under the previous Government? Does he agree that if he wanted it to be really impressive, to put the icing on the cake, electrifying the Caldervale line through New Pudsey would make it even better?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am very glad that car parking charges have been ruled out, despite some people’s claims that they would be introduced. It was partly my hon. Friend’s vigorous campaign that led to that decision. He is absolutely right about the huge amount of electrification taking place on our railways—over 800 miles, compared with the 9 miles electrified during Labour’s 13 years in government.

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

The planned investment is very welcome, but what will the Secretary of State do to ensure that the correct rolling stock is available when electrification is completed so that we do not have a repeat of the current fiasco with TransPennine Express?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I think that it is absolutely right that we get rolling stock. I am sure that the hon. Lady, and indeed the whole House, will join me in welcoming the announcement made by Hitachi overnight that it will base its world headquarters for rail development in this country. That is incredibly good news and I am sure it will be welcomed by all. The point she makes about rolling stock overall is important. It shows the kind of development that is needed in railway rolling stock orders.

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

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the campaign in the Humber to bring electrification through to Hull. Does he have an update on that important project for our area?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I have met hon. Friends and other hon. Members from the Hull area to discuss the representations they have made. I am very pleased to be able to announce today that I can make available the £2.5 million to take this project up to GRIP 3—governance for railway investment projects. That notification will be going to Network Rail and I will write to colleagues today to tell them that I am making the money available.

[Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)]

Although we all welcome investment in Network Rail, does the Secretary of State think that it is acceptable that the procurement programme for traffic management is going forward before a full and independent review can establish whether £1 billion of savings is possible?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The right hon. Lady has written to me on this matter, and I have not only corresponded with the company concerned and other interested Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), but visited the company. Anna Walker, who chairs the Office of Rail Regulation, has written me a letter showing how it will investigate the points that have been made by DeltaRail.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

What proportion of the money that the Government are spending and plan to spend on the railways is being spent on schemes that were initiated or started under the previous Labour Government?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The schemes that have been put forward in CP5 have been approved by this Government.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

We welcome electrification of the railways, but not if there are no trains to run on the tracks. One of the achievements of this control period will be the electrification of the Liverpool to Manchester line, which should mean better services, but the Department’s incompetence on franchising has put that progress at risk, as some TransPennine Express trains will transfer to Chiltern Railways next year. What is the Secretary of State going to do about it?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I realise that the hon. Lady has to try to find some things to attack and criticise us on, but I would have thought she welcomed a very significant increase in the investment into the railways. There were 9 miles of electrification during the 13 years of the previous Government; there will be 880 miles of electrification under this Government. Of course it is absolutely right to get the rolling stock right. Part of the problem with rolling stock has been the dismal performance of the previous Government in ordering it.

[Mary Creagh]

If it was so dismal, I do not understand why Hitachi has moved here because of the intercity express programme, but we will move on from that, because it was a Labour decision that caused that announcement today. [Interruption.] It was an order made under a Labour Government, not a Conservative Government.

The point of railway investment is to make life better for passengers, not worse. The Secretary of State talks about the electrification of the midland main line in control period 5, but again there are no answers on which trains will run on those tracks. Handing down older trains from the east coast line will lead to slower journeys on midland line trains than with the current diesel trains. What reassurance can he give the House that his botching of the TransPennine Express and Northern Rail franchises will not happen again in his own backyard?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The simple fact is that rail usage in this country has been a tremendous success that should be celebrated across the House. There were 750 million passenger journeys when the railways were privatised; there are 1.5 billion rail journeys now. I am very pleased about that. We are investing huge amounts in the railways. Of course there will be some problems with rolling stock, but it is this Government who have confirmed the intercity express programme orders for the east coast line and the great western line, and this Government who are signing off the contracts.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What estimate his Department has made of the number of people who will be killed or injured in road traffic collisions in the UK between 2014 and 2030; and if he will estimate the economic value of preventing such casualties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

10. What steps he plans to take to improve road and rail infrastructure into Devon and Cornwall.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

My Department is reviewing the resilience of the transport network to extreme weather events. This will include the south-west. The current priority is restoring rail services through Dawlish. We have announced £31 million for 10 resilience projects and commissioned Network Rail to identify a resilient rail route west of Exeter. There is £183.5 million available nationally to help repair local roads and we are undertaking a feasibility study to improve options for the A303.

[Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the proposal for a new railway line from Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton and Tavistock. May I urge him to take it very seriously and perhaps to visit Okehampton with me to meet local business people and others in order to have the case for the economic advantages of that route presented to him?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I have asked Network Rail to do a substantive piece of work, which I expect to get this July and which will address some of the options. I very much hope to visit Dawlish shortly and if a visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency can be arranged at the same time, I will try to do so.

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

I will not go down the route of disagreeing with the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) about the Okehampton option. The Secretary of State knows of my support and admiration for those involved in keeping the south-west open for business. There are, however, some issues: there was nothing in the Budget for road or rail transport in the south-west and, to be frank, we have a franchising dog’s breakfast which has cost the taxpayer £55 million. People and businesses in the south-west deserve better. Will the Secretary of State press his colleague the Chancellor to ensure that commitments for finance for investment will be made either before or during the next autumn statement?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I hear what the hon. Lady says. I was able to announce some improvements that were welcomed with regard to an early service from Plymouth to London. I hope that goes some way to answering the question. I appreciate the points made by the hon. Lady and the way in which this particular incident had a dramatic effect on the south-west. We need to look at resilience down there. We also need to look at what we can do with regard to both rail and road, and we have already committed ourselves to an intensive investigation of the A303.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Further to that, it is important that we get a resolution on the temporary franchise as quickly as possible. In congratulating my right hon. Friend on getting a solution in Dawlish, may I ask which Government Departments contributed the finance to ensure that that very expensive project was brought to a conclusion?

[Mr McLoughlin]

May I use this opportunity to place on record my thanks to Network Rail—I am sure that I speak on behalf of colleagues in the south-west as well—for responding magnificently to the problems that were faced in Dawlish? Anybody who has read about the continuing work to restore that link will be only impressed with the work that has been put in by Network Rail, which is often criticised for actions on the railways. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about finding the funds. The Government will find them and I am not too worried about which Departments they will come from.

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

11. What steps his Department is taking to support the take-up of low- emission vehicles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

Following the wettest winter on record, I recently announced an extra £140 million for urgent repairs to local roads, bringing the total fund to more than £170 million. Today, I am announcing the individual allocations of that funding among local authorities. Some £47 million will be allocated to councils in the south-west that were particularly badly affected. I expect councils to spend the money wisely and quickly, and councils that do so will be particularly well placed to bid for additional funds for road repairs in the next financial year from the £200 million pot announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in yesterday’s excellent Budget.

[Mr Bain]

Thirteen months ago, the Public Accounts Committee told the Secretary of State that serious fundamental errors in the franchising process for the west coast main line had led to more than £55 million of public money being flushed down the drain. What action has he taken to make sure that that Tory franchising fiasco never happens again?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I announced a number of follow-ups that I took as a result of that particular franchising problem—I was incredibly open with the House about it—through both the Laidlaw inquiry and the Brown inquiry. I do not recognise the £55 million figure that the hon. Gentleman talks about.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

T3. Will the Minister commit to looking at the electrification of the Penzance to Paddington route, a scheme which, at a fraction of the cost of HS2, would benefit everyone in the south-west, unlike some of the other promoted schemes that would benefit only some people at the expense of others?

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

First Great Western was originally due to pay more than £800 million in premium payments over the years 2013 to 2016, but the Government have now handed over the franchise for just £17 million a year. If there is now a further five-year extension on the line, with no competition, at the same time as Ministers are selling off the successful East Coast operator, will not taxpayers once again pay the price for this Government’s incompetence and ideology?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Lady should be careful about the points that she makes about that matter. She talks about First Great Western’s right to cancel the contract, but that right was given to it by the last Government when they negotiated the franchise. All it was doing was exercising an option that the last Government gave it. If she is saying that the last Government made a mistake in dealing with that matter, she might be right. I am determined to ensure that the people who are served by that franchise on that route get better services. That is why we will insist that first-class carriages are converted to standard class to provide more capacity on the line, and why we are improving the sleeper services down to Cornwall—something that has been welcomed widely.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

T5. I am a big supporter of high-speed rail, but it has to link to the north and then to Scotland to bring benefits. May I ask the Secretary of State to do what the previous Government failed to do, which is to look at the viable alternative to HS2, “High Speed UK”, which would cause less environmental damage, would be £14 billion cheaper and would connect more cities than just Birmingham and London?

[Mr McLoughlin]

What we have to do with high-speed rail is vastly to increase capacity, which HS2 does. That is vital. I think that HS2 is the right scheme to go ahead with. Of course it has to link in. In the excellent report that was published this week, David Higgins showed how we will do that and how we will get a train service that is adequate for this country not just for 10 or 20 years, but for the next 150 years.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

T2. This morning, like many Members, I caught a London bus on my way to work. Quality contracts are one reason why London has bucked the national trend of rising fares and falling passenger numbers. Will the Secretary of State join me, Tyne and Wear public transport users group and his friend, the Mayor of London, in supporting quality contracts for quality bus services?

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that it is somewhat surprising that more has not been said in this Question Time to congratulate Hitachi on its decision to bring its rail business headquarters to England? Does he agree that, ever since he gave it the contract for the intercity express programme rolling stock, it has gone from strength to strength? The irony is that, in some years’ time, we could be a net exporter of rolling stock, rather than having to import it.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I have mentioned that once or twice, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning it again. It is fantastic that Hitachi has announced that it will locate its headquarters in London and that it is building its manufacturing plant in Newton Aycliffe. That follows the contracts to build the new IEP trains that were awarded and signed by this Government.

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

T7. The Government say that there is no time in the next 14 months to bring forward a dedicated taxi Bill. Instead, they are pushing through proposals to lower standards and deregulate the taxi market outside London in the Deregulation Bill. Given that there is so little for Parliament to do most weeks, will Ministers explain their actions and say why they cannot take a taxi Bill through the House in the next 12 months?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am not in a position to announce what will be in the future legislative programme for this House. It is no secret, given that it has been announced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, that the state opening of Parliament will be in June. There is certainly no time left in this Session.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

The Institute of Directors surveyed more than 13,000 directors for its spring report to gain their views on HS2. More than half of them thought that it was poor value for money and more than 60% thought that the budget that is earmarked for the project would provide a better return if it was used to improve the existing road and rail networks. Why do the Government not listen to the wider business community, rather than to the lobbying of businesses with vested interests, such as the High Speed Rail Industry Leaders Group, most of whom turned out to be on the Government payroll?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I listen to the Institute of Directors, and I also listen to the CBI, which supports HS2, and to the British Chambers of Commerce, which has written to the Prime Minister about it. I also listen to the local authority leaders, who are united in their view that HS2 is the right thing to do to close the north-south divide in this country and provide the north with the type of rail services that it deserves. I would also point out that we have had significant investment in London transport, and it is about time that the rest of the country got some of the investment as well.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

May I join the Secretary of State in welcoming Hitachi’s announcement that it is moving its global rail operation to the UK? That will create a lot of jobs in my constituency. Will he acknowledge two things, however? The first is that Hitachi had identified Newton Aycliffe as its manufacturing base before the last election because of Labour’s intercity express programme, and the second is that it has moved here also because we are in Europe, and it would be a disaster to leave the European Union.

[Mr McLoughlin]

One reason why this country has been so successful in getting inward investment is the long-term market changes that we have made in the United Kingdom, which were started by Baroness Thatcher. I well remember when Toyota came to this country, which was the largest single investment ever made here at more than £800 million. I also remember when Nissan came here. I very much welcome Hitachi, but it follows a number of other Japanese companies in coming to this country, investing in it, providing good, long-term employment and doing very well for the United Kingdom.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

Yesterday, the owner of Manston airport in Kent announced the proposed closure of that important airfield. Given that Manston has the fourth longest runway in the country and is a major diversion field and a search and rescue base, will the Secretary of State review the matter in the national interest to see how Manston may be kept open?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Secretary of State make bus driver disability awareness training compulsory in his Department’s review of the EU bus and coach regulation this month?

[Mr McLoughlin]

That has been mentioned to me, and I will certainly want to look into it. I will write to the hon. Gentleman in more detail.

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

Pokesdown railway station, in my constituency, is in dire need of upgrade. The lifts have not worked for a number of decades. In response to a parliamentary question, the Minister said that we should blame South West Trains. I wrote to South West Trains, and it said that we should blame the Government, because that is not part of the franchise agreement. All that the people of Bournemouth want is for the lifts to be working. May I invite the Minister to come to Bournemouth to take a look at the situation?