Highways Agency

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Written Statements

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

In October 2013 the Government began a period of public consultation on proposals for transforming the Highways Agency into a Government-owned company.

Today I am publishing the Government’s response to this consultation. This document summarises the main views and issues raised by respondents on the consultation questions and explains the Government’s final decisions made as a result of the views provided.

Following the broadly positive response to most of the proposals we consulted on, today’s publication confirms our intention to:

Set up the Highways Agency as a Government-owned strategic highways company—with the legal powers and duties to manage and run the roads, appointed by licence from the Secretary of State for Transport which sets clear conditions about how the company must act.

Put in place a robust system of governance for this company—giving the road operator the flexibility needed to operate, manage and enhance the strategic road network effectively, while ensuring clear accountability to the Secretary of State, Parliament and road users. We intend to make drafts of the governance documentation, including licence, the framework agreement and the articles of association, available over the summer to support the legislative process.

Establish—for the first time—a “road investment strategy” which will detail the performance standards the company will achieve and an investment programme it will deliver over the next five years. We will publish this before the end of the year.

Set up new, discrete units within Passenger Focus and the Office of Rail Regulation—to represent the interests of all those who use and rely upon the strategic road network, and to monitor the efficiency and performance of the company.

This change represents a clear break from short-term thinking and the stop-start culture that has characterised the sector in the past, enabling the operator to deliver the biggest ever upgrade of our road network while saving the taxpayer at least £2.6 billion over 10 years.

It will put in place the structures, commitments and relationships to support a more ambitious infrastructure programme, and allow the strategic highways company to operate more like the best-performing infrastructure companies in other sectors. It will allow Government to adopt a more strategic role in managing the road network, meaning those running the roads day to day can be better held to account for the services they deliver, ensuring that the roads are run responsibly and in the public interest.

We believe these reforms will deliver significant benefits to road users and to the country as a whole, including:

a longer term investment programme, which is vital for the many companies who help plan, build and maintain our roads who can start thinking about the skills and equipment needed well in advance;

enabling delivery of national road infrastructure fit for the 21st century, to support jobs and growth up and down the country;

providing road users with a better quality service;

driving down the cost of improvements;

creating a more transparent system with clearer accountability;

ensuring effective scrutiny and a stronger voice for road users.

Transforming the Highways Agency is an essential component of success in delivering these benefits. It will give the road operator the ability to develop a more business-like approach, attract and retain skilled staff and to deliver more efficiently—as proposed by Alan Cook in his 2011 review.

Taken together, these reforms will provide a strong, certain framework for managing our roads. It will strengthen accountability, drive efficiency and increase transparency. It will also create far more certain conditions for investment, enabling the supply chain to gear up for the Government’s ambitious plans for the future. This will support the economy, promote jobs and skills and ultimately transform the quality of our national infrastructure. We look to move to the new model with minimal disruption.

A copy of the Government’s response to the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The document is available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transforming-the-highways-agency-into-a-government-owned-company

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Select Committee

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am also the Minister for phase 1 of HS2.

I beg to move motion 3,

1. That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.

2. That the following Members be appointed as members of the Select Committee: Mr Henry Bellingham, Sir Peter Bottomley, Ian Mearns, Yasmin Qureshi, Mr Robert Syms and Mr Michael Thornton.

3. (1) That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee

(a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office between 29 April 2014 and the closing date (inclusive), during the hours specified in a notice published by the Private Bill Office, and

(b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office during such hours and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Select Committee, being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves or through Counsel or Agents.

(2) The closing date for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a) is-

(a) in a case where the Petition is that of a local authority (except a parish council) or a business, 16 May 2014, and

(b) in any other case, 23 May 2014.

4. That, notwithstanding the practice of the House that appearances on Petitions against an opposed Private Bill be required to be entered at the first meeting of the Select Committee on the Bill, in the case of any such Petitions as are mentioned in paragraph 3(1)(a) above on which appearances are not entered at that meeting, the Select Committee shall appoint a later day or days on which it will require appearances on those Petitions to be entered.

5. That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of that person’s Petition, be entitled to be heard in person or through Counsel or Agents upon that person’s Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.

6. That in applying the Rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body.

7. That the Select Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before it.

8. That three be the Quorum of the Select Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

With this, we shall discuss the following:

Amendment (b), at end of paragraph 3(1)(b), insert:

‘(c) any other Petition, which, while initially not conforming to the rules for Petitions, has been resubmitted within seven days of the Petitioner receiving notice and explanation of any defect in their Petition,’.

Amendment (c), leave out paragraph 3(2)(a) and (b) and insert ‘10 June 2014.’.

Amendment (d), at end of paragraph 3(2)(b), insert

‘3A. For the purposes of petitioning on the Bill, electronic deposit of petitions shall be permitted.’.

Amendment (e), at end of paragraph 3(2)(b), insert

‘3B. For the purposes of petitioning on the Bill, the £20 fee shall be waived.’.

Amendment (f), at end of paragraph 3(2)(b), insert

‘3B. For the purposes of petitioning on the Bill, electronic money transfer for payment of petitioning fees shall be facilitated.’.

Amendment (g), in paragraph 5, after ‘in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House’, insert

‘and shall be given six weeks’ notice of the date on which the Committee shall hear their Petition’.

Amendment (h), at end of paragraph 5, insert:

‘5A. That each Petitioner whose Petition has been referred to the Select Committee shall be consulted on whether they wish to be heard at Parliament or in the parliamentary constituency in which they reside, and that the Select Committee shall seek to accommodate all requests to be heard in the relevant parliamentary constituency.’.

Amendment (i), at end of paragraph 5, insert

‘5A. The Committee shall visit each parliamentary constituency on the proposed route to look at the route so proposed.’.

Amendment (j), in paragraph 8, leave out ‘three’ and insert ‘four’.

Motion 4—High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Instruction—

That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill is committed to deal with the Bill as follows—

1. The Committee shall, before concluding its proceedings, amend the Bill by

(a) leaving out provision relating to the spur from Old Oak Common to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, and

(b) making such amendments to the Bill as it thinks fit in consequence of the amendments made by virtue of sub-paragraph (a).

2. The Committee shall not hear any Petition to the extent that it relates to whether or not there should be a spur from Old Oak Common to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.

3.–(1) The Committee shall treat the principle of the Bill, as determined by the House on the Bill’s Second Reading, as comprising the matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (2); and those matters shall accordingly not be at issue during proceedings of the Committee.

(2) The matters referred to in sub-paragraph (1) are:

(a) the provision of a high speed railway between Euston in London and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Handsacre in Staffordshire, with a spur from Water Orton in Warwickshire to Curzon Street in Birmingham and intermediate stations at Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange, and

(b) in relation to the railway set out on the plans deposited in November 2013 in connection with the Bill in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons, its broad route alignment.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Amendment (a), after paragraph 1(b), insert:

‘(c) making such amendments to the Bill as are necessary to provide complete protection to any areas of outstanding natural beauty, classified ancient woodland, sites of special scientific interest and national monuments.’.

Amendment (b), at end of paragraph 1(b), insert

‘1A. The Committee shall consider whether the statutory and non-statutory provisions for compensation available to those who may be injuriously affected by the exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill merit any change.’.

Amendment (e), in paragraph 2, leave out from ‘whether’ to ‘Link’, and insert

‘the spur from Old Oak Common to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link referred to in the Bill; but the Committee is not prevented by this instruction from hearing any Petition relating to the need for the Bill to:

(a) include an alternative to the spur;

(b) facilitate the provision at a later date of the spur; or

(c) facilitate the provision at a later date of an alternative to the spur, by reason only that (a), (b) or (c) shares some of the same characteristics as the spur or would encompass facilitation of the spur referred to in the Bill.’.

Amendment (c), leave out paragraph 3.

Amendment (d), at end of paragraph 3(2)(b), insert:

‘4. The Committee shall comment on and report to the House for its consideration any issue relating to the environmental impact of the railway transport system for which the Bill provides that is raised in a Petition against the Bill, including whether alternative or additional environmental protections and mitigations should in the Committee’s opinion be further examined.’.

[Relevant document: Thirteenth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, on HS2 and the environment, HC 1076.]

Motion 5—High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Carry-Over—

That, notwithstanding the practice of the House, the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill:

Suspension at end of this Session

1. Further proceedings on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill shall be suspended from the day on which this Session of Parliament ends (“the current Session”) until the next Session of Parliament (“Session 2014-15”).

2. If a Bill is presented in Session 2014-15 in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in the current Session–

(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;

(b) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of the same Members as the members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the current Session;

(c) any Instruction of the House to the Committee in the current Session shall be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill in Session 2014-15;

(d) all Petitions presented in the current Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any Petition presented between the day on which the current Session ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in Session 2014-15 in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2014-15;

(e) any Minutes of Evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the current Session shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2014-15;

(f) only those Petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (d), and any Petition which may be presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any proposed additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in Session 2014-15, shall stand referred to the Committee;

(g) any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee in Session 2014-15 shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of that person’s Petition, be entitled to be heard in person or through Counsel or Agents upon the Petition provided that it is prepared and signed and in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition;

(h) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day Minutes of Evidence taken before it;

(i) three shall be the Quorum of the Committee;

(j) any person registered in the current Session as a parliamentary agent entitled to practise as such in opposing Bills only who, at the time when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the current Session, was employed in opposing the Bill shall be deemed to have been registered as such a parliamentary agent in Session 2014-15;

(k) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the current Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session 2014-15.

Suspension at end of this Parliament

3. If proceedings on the Bill are resumed in accordance with paragraph 2 but are not completed before the end of Session 2014-15, further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which that Session ends until the first Session of the next Parliament (“Session 2015-16”).

4. If a Bill is presented in Session 2015-16 in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in Session 2014-15–

(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the current Session or in Session 2014-15, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session 2015-16; and

(c) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with–

(i) paragraph 5, if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,

(ii) paragraph 6, if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,

(iii) paragraph 7, if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended,

(iv) paragraph 8, if the Bill was waiting for third reading when proceedings on it were suspended, or

(v) paragraph 9, if the Bill has been read the third time and sent to the House of Lords.

5. If this paragraph applies–

(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in Session 2014-15;

(b) any Instruction of the House to the Committee in the current Session or in Session 2014-15 shall be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill in Session 2015-16;

(c) all Petitions presented in the current Session or in Session 2014-15 which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any Petition presented between the day on which Session 2014-15 ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in Session 2015-16 in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2015-16;

(d) any Minutes of Evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the current Session or in Session 2014-15 shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2015-16;

(e) only those Petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any Petition which may be presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any proposed additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in Session 2015-16, shall stand referred to the Committee;

(f) any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee in the first Session of the new Parliament shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard in person or through Counsel or Agents upon the Petition provided that it is prepared and signed and in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition;

(g) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day Minutes of Evidence taken before it;

(h) three shall be the Quorum of the Committee;

(i) any person registered (or deemed by paragraph 2(j) to be registered) in Session 2014-15 as a parliamentary agent entitled to practise as such in opposing Bills only who, at the time when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in Session 2014-15, was employed in opposing the Bill shall be deemed to have been registered as such a parliamentary agent in Session 2015-16.

6. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.

7. If this paragraph applies–

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee; and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.

8. If this paragraph applies-

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered; and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.

9. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.

Other

10. The references in paragraphs 1 and 3 above to further proceedings do not include proceedings under Standing Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).

11. That the above Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Amendment (a), in paragraph 2(i), leave out ‘three’ and insert ‘four’.

Amendment (b), in paragraph 5(h), leave out ‘three’ and insert ‘four’.

Motion 6—Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009

That the Chair of the select committee appointed to consider the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill is specified for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.

[Mr Goodwill]

Yesterday the House voted comprehensively in favour of the principle of a high-speed railway between London and the west midlands. Today we turn to the practicalities of how the parliamentary process for the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill will work. We have four motions before us this afternoon. The first is a motion to establish a Select Committee to hear petitions against the Bill; the second is an instruction to that Committee to clarify the principle of the Bill for its purposes; the third is a motion to allow the Bill to be carried over into the next Session, and also into the first Session of the next Parliament in 2015-16; and the fourth allows the payment of a salary to the Chair of the Select Committee, in the same way as for any other Select Committee Chair.

The second motion refers the Bill to a Select Committee of six members, as nominated in the motion. The motion also sets the period in which petitions against the Bill need to be submitted to be heard by the Committee. The period starts today and concludes on 16 May 2014 for petitions from local authorities, other than parish councils, and businesses.

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

Having spoken with the Public Bill Office earlier, I understand that the petition period starts tomorrow, not today, because there was some query about the length of the debate on Second Reading of the hybrid Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

If that is the case, I stand corrected. The petition period will then be extended by an additional day. I had not been made aware of that by the House authorities. Of course, the way the petitions are controlled and the way the Committee carries out its work is a matter for the House; it is not one over which Ministers can have any influence.

The period closes on 23 May 2014—or perhaps 24 May—for members of the public, parish councils and other groups or organisations. Such an approach of having different periods for different types of petitioner is standard for hybrid Bills, having been used for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 and the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. That allows 16 days and 23 days respectively for petitions, which is longer than most other hybrid Bills to date.

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

My hon. Friend and I go back a long way, and I know him to be a true Yorkshireman who will look after money well. On a practical point, where does the £20 fee for petitions go, what is it used for and can it be presented only in cash, or can payments by cheque or credit card be accepted?

[Mr Goodwill]

That will be a matter for the House authorities, but I am sure that it would be acceptable to pay the £20 in cash. I know that one of the amendments refers to electronic payments and tabling, which we will resist. The money will ultimately go to the taxpayer, as the House is a taxpayer-funded authority. We do not believe that a fee of £20 would be prohibitive for any organisation or individual seeking to petition the Committee.

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

Can the Minister explain why there is a £20 fee? HS2 Ltd, which is spending hundreds of millions of pounds on consultants, does not have to make any contribution to the cost of running the House, so why should individuals? Certainly, for some of the individuals in my constituency who will see their homes demolished, £20 is a rather large part of their weekly income.

[Mr Goodwill]

HS2 itself has spent considerable taxpayer funds on trying to mitigate many of the environmental implications of the line, which might well head off petitioners. Indeed, I was speaking with representatives of the Ramblers Association only the other week, when we went on a 10-mile ramble in my constituency. They told me that they were hopeful that, because of the engagement with HS2, they might not have to petition, as their concerns had been answered. HS2 has been engaging with a number of potential petitioners, including local authorities, to try to allay some of their concerns and fears without the need to petition. That money has been well spent in addressing those issues.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it would antagonise the public more if, when their house was threatened with demolition, they were charged £20? Does he not see that that could have an adverse effect?

[Mr Goodwill]

We do not believe that the £20 fee is prohibitive. Of course, if some of the amendments were agreed to today, we could have a situation in which e-petitioning was allowed, and at the same time no fee was payable, and we could find the work of that Committee being frustrated by large amounts of electronic petitioning, perhaps done in a vexatious way designed to hinder the progress of the Bill, rather than to improve it, as the petitioning process is designed to do.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Could such complaints from a number of sources be combined and presented with one £20 note, or would a £20 note have to be submitted for every person involved?

[Mr Goodwill]

I can allay my hon. Friend’s concerns. Yes, a group of people can petition together and only one fee is payable. The people who petition can appear at the Committee, and they can be represented by an agent or by a number of people from that group. I do not feel that the fee is prohibitive. It is set by the House and has not increased since 1988. It is a matter for the House to administer these costs, not a matter for the Government. Members might like to raise the question with Mr Speaker, as it is a House matter.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a matter for which the Minister may be responsible, how long does he expect the Committee to sit? When does he expect its life to end?

[Mr Goodwill]

We have already made it clear that we do not expect the Committee to conclude its work, which must be done thoroughly and in a way that we believe responds adequately to concerns raised in petitions. The Secretary of State indicated that he expects it to continue after the next general election, which is why there is a double carry-over motion before the House. That means that the Committee can continue its work not only into the next Session of this Parliament, but beyond the general election. It is a matter for the Committee how it organises its work and how it considers the petitions. That is not a matter for me as the Minister.

[Chris Bryant]

I think the Minister just said that he does not expect the Committee to conclude. In other words, it will go on for ever and ever. That is what the motion allows for, yet later today we will be asked to contribute to the pay of the person who is to chair the Committee. We are going to be paying this person in perpetuity, yet it seems that the Minister has nothing to account for.

[Mr Goodwill]

Any motions passed in the House today can be amended in future by the House. If, for example, the Committee was not sitting and it was felt that the Chairman therefore did not deserve his fee, that could be revisited by the House. In view of the precedents of previous hybrid Bills, we believe that the period of time needed will take us past the next general election—I hope not far past the next general election, but given the number of petitions that we expect and the work that the Committee will have to carry out, it has the possibility of sitting during the recess to try to improve the speed at which it can carry out that work. This is a reasonable way of going forward and of giving that Committee the resources and the time it needs to do its job thoroughly.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I have almost forgotten what I was going to ask after that rather lengthy—but welcome—contribution to the debate. The Minister has already said that the Committee that we are appointing—we are naming the members of the Committee in the motion before the House—will continue after the general election. It is quite clear that this is providing a safe berth for a Conservative Member of the House. When we win the general election next May, will the Committee membership and the chairmanship automatically change party?

[Mr Goodwill]

The membership of the Committee is a matter for the House. When after the next election we have a majority Conservative Government, if necessary we could revisit that. It is a matter for the House. We are voting on it today and there is nothing written in stone today that cannot be changed in future by a further motion put before the House and voted on.

The motion sets out that anyone who submits a valid petition is entitled to be heard by the Select Committee, either in person, or through a parliamentary agent or counsel. The motion gives some latitude to organisations petitioning to authorise different officers as their representative before the Select Committee, should they need to do so. The motion provides for the Committee to meet during recess should it wish to do so, and also to hold its hearings away from Parliament if it so wishes. I know that one of the amendments tabled refers to its meeting in other parts of the country. It would be for the Committee to decide if it would be useful to do so.

However, our hope is that people will not feel the need to petition. HS2 Ltd has produced a significant number of information papers which are published on its website. These attempt to address the key concerns that people have about the project, such as the impacts of construction and noise. I encourage hon. Members and their constituents to read those papers, as this might stop unnecessary petitions.

It is established practice that the Select Committee cannot hear petitions against the principle of the Bill. That principle was agreed by the whole House on Second Reading yesterday, and it would not be appropriate for a Select Committee to consider changes that might undermine the decision made by the whole House. This instruction, therefore, sets out the principle of the Bill for the Select Committee: the provision of a high-speed railway between Euston and a junction at the west coast main line at Handsacre in Staffordshire, with a spur from Water Orton in Warwickshire to Curzon Street in Birmingham. The principle also includes the intermediate stations at Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange located near the airport, and the broad route alignment set out in the plans and sections deposited with the Bill. This principle should give the Committee sufficient scope to address the issues of petitioners without sacrificing the desired capability of the railway to give the benefits expected.

The instruction also addresses the Secretary of State’s decision to remove the HS1 link. The removal of the link was agreed as part of Second Reading yesterday. The instruction, therefore, requires an amendment to be made to remove the link and then treats the Bill as though the link were not included in the principle. Therefore, there is no need for people opposed to the link to petition against the link, as it will be removed. It is also not possible for the Committee to hear petitions in favour of a link, in the same way as it is not possible for the Committee to hear petitions in favour of an extension to Newquay, for example, or anywhere else. That is beyond the principle of the Bill.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I agree that it should not be for the Committee to devise an alternative link, but can the Minister clarify whether the Committee could hear petitions for passive provision, which would future-proof the project if a link were deemed desirable at a future date?

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Indeed, there is already passive provision in the first phase to allow the Heathrow spur to be constructed, should it be decided to go forward in that way. From an engineering perspective, it would be very expensive and disruptive to try to join that link. Similarly, in relation to the passive provision for the HS1 link, it is ultimately for the Committee to decide whether or not a petition should be heard. The Committee may choose to hear petitions relating to a future link not being precluded, but the work of the Committee is about the railway before it and it cannot get bogged down considering the merits of links that may or may not happen.

[Frank Dobson]

Much as I welcome the dropping of the preposterous HS2-HS1 link, as do all the people whose lives would have been ruined by it, in view of the fact that until about three weeks ago HS2 was saying that there was no possibility of dropping the link, no one in the area believes a word that HS2 says. I warn the Minister of that. The motion says that the Committee shall not hear a petition if it relates to the link. That is fine, because the link has been dropped. Supposing that, after the Committee stage had concluded, the House as a whole decided to reinstate the link; would people then be allowed to petition? If not, they would think they were being swindled by officialdom, as would indeed be the case.

[Mr Goodwill]

I hope that, following the decision to scrap the link, I have a few more friends in Camden than before. If the Committee were to decide to make changes to the Bill that affected potential petitioners who were not affected before, there would be another opportunity for them to petition, and a similar period would be allowed for that to happen.

Let me underline that for a whole variety of reasons that I will not go into but the right hon. Gentleman will understand, we do not believe that the HS1-HS2 link represents value for money or that it is practical. There are all sorts of logistical problems. From a security perspective, the journey would have to be designated as international because we could not have a situation where some people on the train had gone through passport control and some had not. There might be rather frugally minded Yorkshiremen such as me who decided that, rather than buy a through-train ticket to Paris, they would buy two tickets and make the short stroll between Euston and St Pancras, or get the underground, or even use some other means such as a travelator, which could transport people quickly and easily between those two locations.

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

I am pleased to hear the Minister refer to a travelator for efficient and easy travel. He said that the HS1-HS2 link would be an international route and everyone would have to go through passport control. Will he consider the possibility of domestic services regarding a future link? Research from Greengauge 21, paid for by Kent and Essex county councils, among others, suggests that demand for those services would be very substantial and potentially much higher than for international travel.

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. However, having analysed this carefully and brought in Sir David Higgins, who did the work for us and has a wealth of experience in major projects of this sort, we concur with him that the link does not represent value for money and we have therefore scrapped it; the House voted last night to do so. Although there may be an opportunity for the hybrid Bill Committee to consider passive provision so as not to obviate any potential future link, it is certainly not in our plans at the moment—nor, having heard the comments of Opposition Front Benchers, would Labour wish to press for it, should there be, God forbid, a change of Government at the next election.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

About 20 years ago, I chaired the Committee on the hybrid Croydon Tramlink Bill. At that time, we accepted that there could be changes to the Government’s proposals and recommendations could be made. Is the Minister saying that no changes are going to be allowed if people want to introduce a spur or different forms of link?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am saying that if the hybrid Bill Committee proposed changes that the Government agreed to, there would be a further opportunity for people who are directly affected by those changes to petition. The Bill cannot be changed in a way that affects people without their getting a second bite of the cherry, because they may not have considered petitioning in the first place.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is getting himself back on to my Christmas card list, from which he was rejected last night. Are the Government completely closed to the idea of a different, better HS1-HS2 link than the one we rightly rejected last night?

[Mr Goodwill]

Any link between HS1 and HS2 is not part of the Bill that was before us last night or the provisions we are considering today, and we as a Government are certainly not planning to look at it in the near future. This project will be in operation for many centuries, we hope, and who knows what might happen in future? At the moment, the Government’s position is absolutely clear: we have abandoned the link—we voted on that in the House last night—and we do not wish to revisit it. We will be looking into making it easier to get across from Euston to St Pancras. Although it is not a long walk and there is an underground train service, there may be better ways of dealing with the situation, and HS2 is looking into that.

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

I will not pre-empt what I have to say when I move my amendment, but will the Minister clarify what he meant when he talked about passive provision and referred to Heathrow? Is he saying that passive provision is already in existence, or would it have to be made?

[Mr Goodwill]

The passive provision for the Heathrow spur is included in the first phase. That is because if the spur goes ahead—it is already part of the second phase that is being consulted on—breaking into the line to put in a link would be very expensive and disruptive. The spur—the passive provision for the Heathrow link—is part of the first phase. We are consulting on the second phase, part of which is the Heathrow spur.

I must point out that the first phase of HS2 includes a very good connection to Heathrow airport via Old Oak Common, with up to eight trains an hour and 11 or 12-minute journey times. That is a very good way of getting to Heathrow and to other stations served by Crossrail. Old Oak Common is currently a little-known backwater, but very soon, I promise, it will become as famous as Waterloo, St Pancras or Victoria stations and be an integral part of this country’s and this capital’s transport system.

[Ms Stuart]

May I make this clear? The passive provision for Heathrow is already in place, and passive provision to provide for a potential HS1-HS2 link could be put into the legislation as it is now. It would have to be put in because it is not there by virtue of the Heathrow passive provision, and it could not be added by dint of the Committee deciding to do so.

[Mr Goodwill]

Yes, I think the hon. Lady has got it right. There is an opportunity, should anyone wish to take it, to petition the Committee to put in some passive provision for a future connection. We have commissioned HS2 Ltd and Network Rail to look at options for better connecting the rail network to HS1, but any conclusions that require powers would not be taken forward in this Bill.

On the carry-over motion, hybrid Bills can be carried over Prorogations because Standing Order 80A does not apply. This is a completely standard part of the process for hybrid Bills, as they generally take longer than public Bills.

[Mark Reckless]

Is one study taking place or two? There is the question whether we have a travelator-type arrangement to connect Euston and St Pancras for passengers going from HS1 to HS2, but is there a separate question of how we connect HS1 to the broader railway network, which may be a case of a train-in-a-tunnel HS1-HS2 link for the future?

[Mr Goodwill]

Those are two separate matters that are mutually exclusive. We are looking at whether better provision can be made for the short journey between Euston and St Pancras for those who wish to continue their journey internationally, or indeed to use King’s Cross or St Pancras for domestic journeys. A separate process is going on whereby HS2 Ltd and Network Rail are looking at how we can better improve the connectivity of HS1. That is being done in the light of the decision to abandon the HS1-HS2 connection, which was very popular in places such as Camden.

The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill was carried over two Prorogations. The Crossrail Bill was carried over two Prorogations and a Dissolution for a general election. The House is due to prorogue shortly for the Queen’s Speech—

[Chris Bryant]

When?

[Mr Goodwill]

I haven’t a clue. Even when I was in the Whips Office, we did not get to hear about that.

Because of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, we know with a degree of certainty when Parliament will be dissolved for the next general election. Although we had hoped that the hybrid Bill would secure Royal Assent before the next general election, I am clear that in all likelihood it will not do so.

[Chris Bryant]

The Select Committee that was appointed to consider the Crossrail Bill had 10 members, so why has the Committee under discussion got only six and, therefore, a different quorum of three?

[Mr Goodwill]

To be absolutely honest with the hon. Gentleman, many people who volunteered to consider the Crossrail Bill did not realise what a commitment it would be. We have found six Members—some of whom have been volunteered—who are prepared to put in the time and commitment to do this, and I think we will be well served by them. We are very grateful to them for putting their names forward. It would be a big ask to find a large Committee to do this work, given the large amount of time those Members will have to take out of the other parliamentary duties they carry out on their constituents’ behalf. We are very grateful that they are volunteers rather than pressed men.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

As I understand it, this is a general debate about all the issues, as encapsulated in the motions and the various amendments. Next week will be my 30th year in Parliament and, having spent a lot of my previous life dealing with hybrid and other Bills, I entirely concur with my hon. Friend on the burdens involved in the privilege of being given the opportunity to take such an active part in the Select Committee stage. Does he accept that there is recognition in one of the Bill’s schedules for property bonds, and does he agree that the Select Committee should take that issue into account when it decides what kind of compensation should be paid?

[Mr Goodwill]

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the compensation package at this stage, given that consultation is still taking place, but we recently announced a package that I believe to be generous, particularly in rural areas. It also has to be fair to the taxpayer, who will ultimately pick up the bill, and the compensation is in marked contrast to that which other people around the country might receive if a bypass, new railway spur or goods marshalling yard were to be built in their area.

The carry-over motion reflects the certainty provided by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. It allows the Bill to carry over into the fourth Session of this Parliament and the first Session of the next. That will avoid the need unnecessarily to use up the House’s time with another carry-over motion later in the year when it is clear to everyone when the general election will take place and that this Bill will not have secured Royal Assent by that point.

The motion provides for suspension of the Bill from the end of the Session, but that will not prevent the depositing of petitions after Prorogation should it precede the end of the petitioning period. The motion also provides for the continuity of the membership of the Select Committee and maintains any instructions given to the Committee by this House, the standing of roll B agents and all the elements of whatever progress the Bill has made from each Session into the next. In providing for carry-over into the next Parliament, the motion caters for the fact that the Bill could have reached a range of different stages by that point. In each case, the motion provides that the progress made up to the end of the fourth Session be carried over into the next Parliament.

As the House is aware, the Chairs of departmental Select Committees are paid for the additional responsibilities the role brings, as allowed under section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. The role of the Chair of a hybrid Bill Select Committee is no less demanding —indeed, in some cases it may be more demanding—and the Chair of the Crossrail Select Committee was paid a salary equivalent to that of a departmental Select Committee Chair. The motion allows the Chair of the HS2 Select Committee to be paid an equivalent salary, and I am sure the House will agree that that is appropriate, given the significant responsibility the role carries.

In conclusion, I commend the motions to the House. HS2 is a vital national project and it is important that we make swift progress. However, it is equally important to ensure that those affected by the railway have appropriate opportunity to have their say. I believe that the motions strike the right balance. They establish a Select Committee with the flexibility to hear and deal with the concerns of those directly and specially affected, but they do not import unreasonable delay. Everyone wants certainty—petitioner, promoter and the general public—and I believe that the motions provide that certainty and that they will allow people to have their say, have their issues addressed and get on with their lives. I think that everyone in the House wants to see that, and I hope they will support the motions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which extends the point that I am making without labouring it. The members of the Select Committee will bring common sense and the view of the Member of Parliament to the Committee, but they will still have to rely on the people who have the expertise to take them through the detail.

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way today. The advice that the Committee takes and the expertise that it chooses to draw on will be a matter for the Committee itself. Of course, the expertise of HS2 will be available to the Committee, should it wish to avail itself of that. Many of the petitioners may well be experts, in particular the environmental non-governmental organisations that wish to petition. I do not think that there will be a shortage of offers of advice to members of the Committee. However, that is a matter for them as they conduct their work and not for Ministers.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am grateful for that intervention. I am using this debate as a vehicle to raise these questions. They might not all be directed at the Front Bench, but I am raising them in this forum because I see no other opportunity for Members to raise them. I take on board what the Minister has said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

I have learned that making a presumption about this project is always dangerous. I, too, would have presumed that, but I also would have presumed that when engineering experts asked for the calculations and costs associated with the tunnelling that was being promoted by HS2 Ltd, they would have been made freely available. The reply has always been that they are commercial in confidence, and I am trying to get around that, because it is important to ensure that the Committee has access to the costs. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would support me on that, but I would not make the mistake of presuming.

On amendment (i), I want to know how often the Committee will sit. I appreciate that it could sit through the recess, and I am grateful that the motion states that it may adjourn from place to place. I believe that it will need to visit the areas affected and publish the details of its sittings, and it should confirm when and how there will be public access to its meetings.

I would also like to know whether Committee members will fly the whole route of phase 1 of HS2. When I was looking at what National Grid was doing across Wales when it was building the gas pipeline, I found it of great advantage to go up in a helicopter and look at the work along the whole route. While I am on the subject, I must say that National Grid did a fantastic piece of work in negotiating with more than 80 landowners with very little trouble. It also did fantastic environmental reinstatement work across some sensitive land, including the Brecon Beacons national park. I was impressed with its operations, and I wish I could say that I had been as impressed with HS2’s negotiations with property owners and landowners so far.

On amendment (c), the petitioning process will be open from tomorrow at 10 o’clock. The Minister will know that we have to get our facts right, and the parliamentary website, in a section entitled “How and where do I present my petition?”, states:

“Petitions will be accepted from 10am to 5pm on 30 April—not on 29 April”,

as the Minister said earlier,

“as the House will not consider the petitioning motion setting the petitioning dates until the afternoon of 29 April.”

There is some useful information on the Parliament website under the title “FAQs on the High Speed 2 Hybrid Bill”, and I recommend that anybody who is watching these proceedings and wishes to petition has a look at that excellent document, which the Clerks of the House have produced.

Is three weeks really long enough for the petitioning process? May the House have confirmation that if I receive any petitions in my office in Amersham, I can seal them in an envelope with the £20 cheque or payment and then bring them here for the convenience of my constituents? Will handing them over to staff of the House in that way be sufficient, and will I be able to get a small receipt so that I can confirm to my constituents that that has happened?

There has been some confusion about the deadlines for petitioning. I should like the Minister to make it absolutely clear that town councils have the same deadline as parish councils, 23 May, whereas there is an earlier date for county and district councils.

[Mr Goodwill]

rose—

[Mrs Gillan]

I will give way to the Minister, and I would also like to know why county and district councils have been given a week less. The reason is not obvious to me, but maybe I am just missing something.

[Mr Goodwill]

May I confirm to my right hon. Friend that town councils are in fact parish councils? The councils that do not have the longer deadline are borough and district councils.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am most grateful. Does the Minister also want to tell us why there is a week’s difference in the deadlines? Why could we not just have one deadline?

[Mr Goodwill]

We are just following previous practice. My right hon. Friend will be aware that many local authorities have been preparing their petitions for many weeks and months, so the focus on the timeline for delivering them is rather a spurious argument. The project has been known about for many months and years, and she will know that many petitions have already been prepared.

[Mrs Gillan]

That is all well and good, but the process is complex and I was just seeking to simplify it by having one closing date rather than a tortuous process of two dates. Frankly, I would have thought that we should set new precedents on such a large issue rather than rely on old ones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

No one would be more delighted than I would be if the Committee concluded its work by the next general election. However, in the likelihood that it will not, the motion will facilitate its work to carry on past the election.

[Mrs Gillan]

I understand that. I cannot say that I would want the Committee to conclude it work before the general election, but to rule it out at this early stage and give the impression that the Government have given up on it, is not a particularly good tactic.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate as the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras. I think some people think that the St Pancras part of the constituency name refers to the station, but it refers to the parish of St Pancras, which has two St Pancras churches. We also have three major main line stations: St Pancras, King’s Cross and Euston. The history of what has been proposed for those stations over the years has to be borne in mind by anyone considering the current proposals. Ministers need to understand the background.

I have never questioned the integrity of the Ministers and I tell people that I do not question their integrity, but everyone questions the integrity of the officials that they have had to deal with over the years. The background is that the first proposal for a channel tunnel link to London was for it to terminate at a concrete box under King’s Cross station. We were told that there was no possible alternative to it; that it was “perfection”. Eventually, that daft idea was abandoned. An idea was then taken up—I was the first person to put it forward—for St Pancras station to be used as the channel tunnel link terminus. When I first suggested it, sneering remarks from all sorts of railway aficionados were the result. In the end, it went ahead and it has worked very well, as I think everyone accepts. Although it involved problems for local people, they went along with it because they could see the merits of it, both from their point of view and from everyone else’s.

Similarly, the recent improvements at King’s Cross were welcomed by virtually everyone, including the council, me and local organisations. That is not the case with Euston. We still need clarification to satisfy people in my constituency. When the proposal for the channel tunnel link was first put forward, I said to officials that it would need a great deal of engineering work to make it work and that that would be very troublesome for the people adjacent to the part of the line above ground. They said, “No, no, it won’t need major engineering works.” When I said that at a public meeting, one of the consultants—not an official—came along and said, “Oh no, no; we can assure everyone it won’t need major works.” Lo and behold, it was eventually accepted that major engineering works would be needed, because some new factors had arisen, including the need to widen the route. Somebody who thinks they can put a line across Camden town for an additional service without widening the route ought not to be allowed to advise the Government or anyone else.

Time and again, people said the proposition was ridiculous and they were sneered at and snarled at, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who speaks from the Front Bench, would confirm. I very much welcome the position taken by her and our hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), as do people in my constituency, that we do not accept that the link is a good idea. It is a bad idea and it should, without a shadow of a doubt, be wiped out altogether. That is why I could not possibly support amendment (e), in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), which would raise the possibility of the damn thing being revivified. I could not bear the thought of that.

The other point I would like to make, before I come to all the amendments, is that the procedure that we are talking about is archaic, difficult for human beings to cope with and ridiculous. We might compare it with a public inquiry into a similarly large proposition, where people have the opportunity to make representations without having to engage with an A4 page of all sorts of archaic rubbish and ridiculous language before actually getting round to putting their point, and without time limitations on submitting their petitions, which are then vetted to see whether they are valid. For what might be described as normal human beings—or, for that matter, small businesses, which do not have a great secretariat or legal advisers and suchlike—the time limits proposed are already too short and ought to be extended. In relation to businesses, I have a query for the Minister that I hope he can clear up. As I understand it, the restaurants in Drummond street will, because they are businesses, have the short deadline for submitting their petitions. Is that right?

[Mr Goodwill]

The small businesses along the route—shops or, indeed, farms—can petition either as businesses, in which case they will have the short deadline, or as individuals, in which case the longer deadline will apply. I hope that clarifies matters.

[Frank Dobson]

The next question is this: does the business restriction apply to the association of businesses in Drummond street? The Minister might not know the answer to that—I would not necessarily expect him to know that.

[Mr Goodwill]

I stand to be corrected by wiser authorities than me, but an association would be in the same category as businesses, some of the non-governmental organisations and larger local authorities. However, members of an association could collectively petition as individuals and then delegate one of their representatives or parliamentary counsel to speak on their behalf.

[Frank Dobson]

I am grateful for that clarification, but I am sorry about the direction of it.

[Frank Dobson]

I entirely share the hon. Gentleman’s views about that. I am glad that Camden council is organising workshops for individuals and small businesses and making its best efforts to ensure that their petitions are in order and, in some cases, that the £20 is handed over and logged, and then passed to me, so that I can personally hand it in, in the hope that their petitions will be valid.

That leads me on to the £20 fee. It is said, generally speaking, that it is not a deterrent. Well, if it is not a deterrent, why do we have it? People do not have to pay a £20 fee to give evidence at a public inquiry. The fee will raise quite a trivial sum. Even if thousands of people submit petitions, at £20 each, the fee will not raise any worthwhile amount of money for the House of Commons. If the fee is not a deterrent, why do we have it? I think it will be a deterrent for the worst-off. As the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) said, it is a fifth of a single pensioner’s pension, which is a lot of money for a pensioner—or some pensioners, anyway—to find. Whatever the outcome in this case, the whole hybrid Bill approach needs to be looked at. We talk about modernising, and by God there is some modernising needed for this hybrid procedure.

That takes me back to the instruction that the Committee

“shall not hear any Petition to the extent that it relates to whether or not there should be a spur from Old Oak Common to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.”

No one trusts the processes involved, so there is something that is still not clear to me. I am sure the Minister is trying to get the truth out, but to return to the proposition that I was trying to explain earlier, let us suppose that the Committee complies with that instruction—as it must—and cannot reintroduce the proposal for a spur from HS2 to HS1, but the matter returns to the House after the Committee has looked at it and made all its recommendations. As I understand it, the House could then reinstate the link, if it wanted to. If it did, would there be any procedure to enable petitions from those affected? If not, in effect we are banning people’s petitions from being examined now, while they might not be able to petition later if there were a further proposition.

[Mr Goodwill]

To clarify, if any changes that result from the Committee responding to petitions affect people who were not affected previously, a new petitioning period would be triggered. People who were then affected could petition, so they should not be frightened that something could be slid under the door without their having the opportunity to petition.

[Frank Dobson]

I understand that; my question is this. Let us suppose the matter comes back to the House and the House as a whole wishes to change things in some way that affects people. Will those affected then have the opportunity to petition against those changes?

[Mr Goodwill]

I will correct this if it is not right, but my understanding is that if that happened—there are no plans anywhere at all to do that; I must make it clear that we have scrapped the link—that would initiate the whole process again. It would be a new process and a new Bill, and there would be a new hybrid Bill Committee, but that is not the situation. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman can allay the fears of his constituents, in that we have indeed abandoned the HS2-HS1 link as part of this project and the petitioning process could not resurrect it, because it is not within the scope of the Bill before us.

[Frank Dobson]

I thank the Minister for that; I am 99% reassured.

As the Minister knows, the Bill’s proposals for Euston have been abandoned—or are to be abandoned—and are to be replaced. The engineering and other studies have only just commenced. My next question to the Minister is whether he can confirm that when the new proposals for Euston are formulated, they will be subject to the usual procedures requiring HS2 to produce a new environmental statement, that there will be opportunities for people to respond to it and that people will then be able to submit new petitions against the new proposals that the Government wish to include in the Bill. Am I right about that?

[Mr Goodwill]

I shall comment on that when I sum up at the end, so that I do not misinform the right hon. Gentleman. I rather suspect, however, that I will be able to reassure him that that is the case.

[Frank Dobson]

I welcome that reassurance.

I am particularly concerned, too, about the statutory and non-statutory provisions for compensation. Outside London, some people whose homes will not be demolished but whose property and general lifestyle will be adversely affected by a railway perhaps 50 yards away will be compensated, which I think is right. The situation in my constituency, however, is that people whose homes are 5 yards away from the line or 5 yards away from 10 years of engineering works will get no compensation. I hope that the Minister, the Department and HS2 Ltd are aware that the immediately preceding Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Keir Starmer, has given us an opinion that the procedure followed in respect of my constituency is actually in breach of the law. I therefore hope that at least the House will have an opportunity to review it, even if the Committee cannot. I view it as strange that we are talking about a Committee supposedly looking at mitigation and compensation that is apparently not allowed to look at compensation. That needs to be revised.

My last but one point is that I very much support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. I hope that the Government, as well as our Front-Bench team, will go along at least with the spirit of it.

My final point is about the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston. I believe that if we are to have a High Speed 2, it is ludicrous for it not to be connected to High Speed 1. That does not mean that it makes any sense whatever to have the HS2-HS1 link that was originally proposed, which was crackers in practically every aspect and certainly does not go to the right place. I agree with those who believe that there needs to be a connection—and the best place to receive that connection, if that is the right word for it, is Stratford.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because he is not only a dedicated member of our Select Committee, but an incredibly knowledgeable one. The fact that we had so much evidence about the failure to map areas and the huge gaps in information shows how unfit for purpose the environmental assessment has been so far.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Lady is aware that in some cases we did not have access to land because the landowners would not give us that access. If they then petition, they can, presumably, bring forward the information as to the effect on the particular environmental habitat they are concerned about.

[Joan Walley]

I am grateful to the Minister for that, and I absolutely agree with what he says. Indeed, we heard evidence from the Country Land and Business Association that there has not been the proper access to be able to survey, and without a survey and audit we cannot go on to monitor, mitigate and do all these other things. The issue at the heart of this is that that has not been done, yet we are being told—or I imagine we will be told—that we do not need my amendment because we already have Standing Orders 27 and 224A. They, however, go up only as far as Second Reading and do not continue through the work of the Select Committee. We have a huge gap in knowledge and people all over the country want to have cast-iron assurances that all the land that needs to be surveyed has been surveyed. That has not been done yet, and if we do not give a sufficiently flexible remit to the Select Committee, how is it going to deal with what has not already been done?

Although people will have opportunities to petition on this aspect, and that petitioning will now be coming forward at great haste, my amendment seeks to address the issue of who is going to take responsibility for the consequences of those petitions. So far we have had a summary of issues that people have raised and a commitment to consult on those, but we have not had a proper procedure of impact assessment to address how we deal with those issues that are raised. I would like the Minister to say how that will be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burns]

I understand. I would be very surprised, given the nature of these Committees, if the number of members present each day was not far higher than 50% and if the full complement of six members were not present most of the time.

[Mr Goodwill]

We could also have the situation that happened to me when we had a Regional Select Committee in Barnsley town hall. When one member had to pop out to answer a call of nature, the Committee had to suspend. If we had a bigger quorum, that could happen and that would be rather embarrassing for the Committee.

[Mr Burns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the tactful way in which he makes his point. I am almost certain that the Committee on the King’s Cross Bill, which had only four members, had a quorum of three. That put a strain on the Committee, particularly when situations arose such as the one that he describes.

I also do not share the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, expressed in her amendment, about the ability to carry over the Committee into a new Parliament. I think that this is the appropriate time in which to make that point and enshrine it in the rules governing how the special Committee will work. In many ways, it would look rather ridiculous not to have that provision, given that we all know—because of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011—that we will have an election at the beginning of next May.

I am also not so concerned about the fact that, after the election, for a variety of reasons, there might be some changes to the Committee’s membership. There are many examples of changes of personnel in Public Bill Committees, which do equally significant work in studying line by line some very important legislation. Sometimes, if it is the wrong time of year or of the cycle, Ministers taking a Bill through Committee can suddenly disappear and be replaced. The strength of this House is that the sum total of knowledge that Members bring to subjects and Committees means that there would not necessarily be the problem and hiatus that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham fears. Of course, she is right that mechanisms must be there to assist the Committee, in an independent manner, to brief Members who, for whatever genuine reason, have been unable to attend a sitting.

I was also interested in my right hon. Friend’s amendment about the Committee going out to areas that will be affected by HS2. That is an interesting concept. It brings closer to the public the workings of Parliament, particularly on a matter that is so sensitive because it has such an impact on people’s lives. Raising that in an amendment is extremely valid as we all seek to make Parliament more relevant and closer to the people we represent. However, that must ultimately be a matter for the Committee to determine when it forms and decides how to conduct its business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. In fact, the blight applies from the moment people are made aware that construction sites will be located next to their properties. Since March 2010, people have been waiting for over four years and are unable to sell, so we know that construction works have exactly the same impact on the need to get on with their lives.

[Mr Goodwill]

I hope that I can allay some of my right hon. Friend’s fears by explaining how the Committee can address issues about the compensation package. Let me state for the record that anyone “directly and specially”—the wording used in the Bill—affected who feels that the available compensation does not address the impact on them is free to petition the Committee and ask for additional compensation. The purpose of the Committee is to hear these petitions, but not to review the national compensation code.

[Mrs Spelman]

I think that is a very valuable outcome, because it helps Members to understand that we can assist individuals and groups in our constituencies who are blighted by the construction works but ineligible for compensation in preparing a petition to which we can lend our names. Although we cannot petition as MPs, we can lend our support to such petitions. I think that everyone affected by the project has learned something important today.

That brings me to an important remark made by the Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), when he took through the paving Bill. He frequently stated that compensation would be fair and generous. With regard to construction compounds, at the moment no fair or generous compensation is available. I hope that the House will understand why I lent my name to amendment (b) to motion 4.

The next amendment to which I shall speak briefly as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee is the important one that takes the recommendations of the inquiry by the Select Committee and turns them into an instruction to the Select Committee when it takes the hybrid Bill through Parliament to pay close attention to the environmental consequences and to the Government’s stated aspiration to be the greenest ever, and to give expression to that through something new in law—biodiversity offsetting. The key words in amendment (d) to motion 4 are

“alternative or additional environmental protections”,

because there is more than one way of providing environmental protection, and we should seek to do that to the highest possible standard. That aspiration is shared by the National Trust.

In the natural environment White Paper published during my time as Secretary of State, we set down a clear commitment to achieve net gain. Overall, we are going backwards in terms of loss of species and loss of habitats. Inevitably, this large infrastructure project will result in the loss of habitats, because it will be necessary to dig up green spaces and displace species, some of them vulnerable, from those areas. I urge the Minister to take seriously the exhortations of my friend, the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), and to give the House an undertaking that should something come up during the Select Committee stage which pertains to environmental protections, the Government will make time on Third Reading to enable us all to debate those significant points. I hope the Minister will be able to give me that undertaking later today.

Finally, I shall speak in support of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who has led the charge from the west midlands over the importance of not precluding the link between High Speed 1 and High Speed 2, which is all-important for the west midlands and regions outside London. The regions—not just the west midlands, but the east midlands, the north-west and the north-east—were all led to believe when High Speed 2 was first mooted in 2010 that there would be through-trains. That is undoubtedly what other non-London-based Members such as me will have mentioned to our constituents at the time, as part of the expectation of what HS2 will deliver. There is not a little disappointment about the fact that that is to be precluded from inclusion in the hybrid Bill as it stands.

To me it is unacceptable that in the 21st century an American passenger can land at Birmingham international airport, clear customs, get on a high-speed train by which they aspire to arrive on the continent, have to get off on the east side of Euston station and schlep their luggage in our rather indifferent weather to St Pancras station, pass immigration control again, and board another train to the continent. I am convinced that in the 21st century we can do better than that.

Inextricably linked to the question of the link is the Euston problem. Euston is a problem, but it was clear from the paving Bill that there is more than one model for solving the problem. In defence of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), the difficulty for his constituents is that every time we publicly change that model, more and more properties are blighted by that effect.

We in the west midlands are keen to see a through link. For us that is integral to the project. As I mentioned yesterday, Birmingham airport will be 31 minutes from London on High Speed 2. If there is a stop at Old Oak Common, as the Prime Minister observed on visiting Birmingham international airport and opening its extended runway, he could get to Birmingham airport from Notting Hill as quickly as he could get to Heathrow. The under-utilised runway at Birmingham would become competitive given that faster running time, but much of the competitive benefit is lost if the interchange to a high-speed service by train to the continent is not achievable. I urge the Government to heed this very important point, which is not just about the west midlands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate. I do not know whether other constituency MPs often feel frustrated, as I do, that many processes such as planning inquiries and the operation of health trusts and other bodies seem to be beyond the control of us as elected Members. In this case, the hybrid Bill Committee at least means that the process will happen within Parliament.

I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and her boss, the shadow Secretary of State, for the co-operative way in which we have been able to work together. It has been a little bit like Christmas day on the western front, but no doubt when we have Transport questions next Thursday the howitzers will start to roar again across the no man’s land between the two Dispatch Boxes.

Hybrid Bills come along rarely, and changes to their rules and procedures seem to be even rarer, so it is important that these motions receive the House’s full consideration despite the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) said, they might seem arcane. Members have raised important issues about the Select Committee stage of the process, and I will address the amendments to the motions. I hope that I will allay many of the fears that have been raised, and that none of the amendments will be pressed.

I turn first to the points that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made about the Heathrow link. I reassure him that Transport and Works Act orders can be applied only to extensions of under 2 km, so the Heathrow spur, which would be much longer than that, cannot be authorised in that way. I hope that sets his mind at rest.

[John McDonnell]

You’ll do it bit by bit, then.

[Mr Goodwill]

We would need a very good lawyer to get that passed.

I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) came from Bavaria. I think a socialist in Bavaria is a very rare breed indeed. She talked about passing a provision for the HS1 link. As I said, it is ultimately for the Committee to decide whether a petition should be heard, and it may choose to hear petitions suggesting that a future link should not be precluded. Its work is on the railway proposal before it, and it cannot get bogged down in considering the merits of links that may or may not happen, but it could certainly consider ruling out any future provision should it choose to do so.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, made a number of points about the environment, and I share her ambition to ensure that the environmental impact of the project is minimised. Of course, she is aware that we published a 48,000-page environmental impact report. I recognise the Environmental Audit Committee’s intention, and we are seeking to have no net loss of biodiversity. It is a hugely ambitious scheme, equal to that on any comparable project worldwide. We are building 140 miles of railway, and in biodiversity terms, it will be as though it were not there. In many cases, of course, there will be biodiversity gains. As I think I mentioned to the Committee, in some places where there is arable farming and monoculture we will put in something better than the current oilseed rape or wheat crops, which have little biodiversity and offer little in the way of habitat.

[Joan Walley]

Does the Minister agree that what the Government and HS2 Ltd intend to do is one thing, but the instructions to the Select Committee on the Bill are a slightly different thing? I would be grateful if he addressed how the Select Committee can be given the flexibility in its remit that it needs.

[Mr Goodwill]

The Committee will certainly be able to examine how measures in the Bill and the project will affect individual petitioners, and non-governmental organisations and other groups will also be able to petition. The overall scheme itself will not be under consideration, however, because it was decided last night.

I reassure the hon. Lady that I am not being dragged kicking and screaming into giving environmental reassurances, and I am keen for us to leave something for future generations. I am very aware of the problems of trying to restore ancient woodland. Unfortunately, 36 hectares of ancient woodland will have to be removed, and we are doing what we can to try to replace that. We cannot replace ancient woodland straight away, but we can do whatever possible to ensure that it regenerates and, in the fullness of time, replace that environment. Indeed, there may be other opportunities. For example, as research goes on to produce ash trees that will be resistant to the big problem of ash dieback that is starting to develop in this country, there will be a good opportunity, as we carry out tree planting, to ensure that there is a new generation of ash trees to replace those lost because of that terrible disease.

[Joan Walley]

A point was raised about having time on Third Reading to discuss feedback on environmental issues from the Select Committee. Is the Minister able to offer some kind of commitment on that?

[Mr Goodwill]

Certainly, regarding the hon. Lady’s amendment I can reassure her that that base is already covered. The introduction of Standing Order 224A, which she referred to, means that the amendment is unnecessary as it essentially copies part of the instruction given to the Crossrail Bill Committee at a point when there was no Standing Order 224A. The instruction to that Committee was to ensure that any environmental information in petitions that related to the principle of the Bill and therefore could not be heard by the Committee was reported to the House on Third Reading when the principle of the Bill was reconsidered. I hope that that allays her fears.

Standing Order 224A means that the amendment is not required because it introduces a process of consultation for any supplementary environmental information provided at the Select Committee stage. All consultation responses are summarised by an independent assessor in the same way as they have been for the environmental statement consultation. If a petition includes environmental information that does not touch on the principle of the Bill, it is wholly within the scope of the Committee to consider that. If the Committee considers that some reasonable and practical mitigation could be introduced to address the issue, it will amend the Bill to do so. That is a key part of its role and its conclusions will be included in its special report.

[Joan Walley]

What expertise and capacity will be available to the members appointed to the Select Committee to assist them in that?

[Mr Goodwill]

Obviously, within the limitations of the resources made available by the House to the Committee, it can enlist whatever expert advice it wants, just as the hon. Lady’s Committee will have advisors who give it expert and scientific advice and so on. That is a matter for the Committee, but I hope it will enlist the best advice to assist it in its work. Indeed, many of the environmental NGOs that produce petitions might themselves be providing what they consider to be expert advice, and it will be up to the Committee to consider how much weight to give it.

We must also comply with directives such as the habitats directive. As a Member for five years of the European Parliament’s environment committee, I was involved in many such directives. Even if some aspects of the project do not come within the scope of the petitions, we must comply with environmental protections that we have agreed at European level.

[Mrs Spelman]

The Minister mentioned that there would be an independent assessor. Who will that be, and will the Government make use of agencies such as Natural England to provide the kind of advice that the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee suggested would assist the Bill Select Committee in its work?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am not aware that an assessor has been appointed, and neither do we need to appoint one at this stage. Therefore, I am not able to tell my right hon. Friend who it would be, but under the definition of the word “independent” it would be a person not connected to any vested interest.

When we started this debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) touched on the Major Projects Authority report. As we have heard many times from the Dispatch Box, the MPA does not routinely publish its reports on the major projects it scrutinises, and a founding block of the effective function of the MPA is the confidential nature of the reports it produces and the way it can be used as a tool within government to ensure that projects are delivered efficiently.

[Mrs Gillan]

I understand what the Minister is saying and it is absolutely accurate. What I asked was whether, for the purposes of examining the project in detail, we could treat the Committee members as Ministers and give them confidential access to the MPA reports, so that they can fully see the risks that have been identified by the very body set up by the Government to scrutinise such projects.

[Mr Goodwill]

The work of the Committee will be done in public and I would be very nervous about giving confidential information of any sort to it. That would not be appropriate. The report that my right hon. Friend refers to is from 2011, so its relevance erodes by the day. I really do not think that it would bring anything to the Committee’s work.

My right hon. Friend mentioned electronic payments, and identified that Parliament’s website has much useful information for petitioners. This includes the information that payment can be made by cash or cheque, and by credit and debit cards except, I am told, American Express.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; it is good to be able to have a proper debate. He refers to the MPA report being from 2011, but he must appreciate that the costs being used on the project are also 2011 costs. He says that the Committee will sit in public and so he would be nervous about giving its members confidential material. Does that also mean precluding Committee members from having access to the financial information and financial calculations made by HS2 Ltd on, for example, tunnelling activities?

[Mr Goodwill]

The Committee already has the budget before it. I do not want to add anything to what I have said already.

My right hon. Friend talked about further instructions to the Committee. It is the case that further instructions to the Committee can be made only by a motion in the House. The Government believe that these instructions are correct and we have no plans to change them.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

The Minister is on weak ground if he does not make the MPA report available to Committee members and if the Committee does not have access to something so significant. Virtually every Select Committee I have ever been on has, at some stage or other, talked to Ministers and been shown confidential documents.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am sure that were the Committee to make a request for either this type of report or commercially confidential material it will be considered at that time, but at this stage the Committee has not been formed and no such request has been made.

The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), as we heard from his contribution, is a man ahead of his time. His predictions have come to pass—at least the ones that he referred to; he may have made other predictions that have not. I would be keen to have dinner with him at one of the restaurants at Euston and see the problem first hand. Maybe I should go incognito; I suspect he is so well known he could not go incognito. As a fellow Yorkshireman, I suspect that there may be a problem at the end of the meal when we have to decide who is going to pay.

[Frank Dobson]

I am very happy to take up that invitation. As a fellow Yorkshireman, I suggest we go at lunchtime when there is a brilliant buffet that costs a lot less than eating in the evening.

[Mr Goodwill]

How could I refuse such an invitation?

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we could confirm that any new Euston proposals would require a new environmental statement, consultation and petitioning period. The answer is yes. A consultation would be required by Standing Order 224A. The change would then be subject to a new petitioning period.

The right hon. Gentleman also talked about petitioning by business associations. I think I can go further than I did in my intervention. A business is defined in the terms of this measure as an organisation that exists to make money for its owners. A business association would not seem to meet this definition and so would have the longer deadline. I suspect that if he found a different lawyer he would probably get a different result, but that is the position of this Government at this Dispatch Box and I hope those associations will be reassured by that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) talked about the green belt. The Bill includes powers for local authorities to approve plans and specifications for the railway, which should ensure that any structures in the green belt are designed sympathetically.

This debate has been an important stage in the progress of this Bill for phase 1. I hope I have explained why many of the amendments are superfluous to the effective operation of the Committee.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

I may have missed the Minister’s—very brief—response to my amendment.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Lady’s amendment was about the link. I made the point that it would be possible to petition to ensure that a link was not obviated, but the link itself, whichever route it might take, was not covered. Therefore, in the same way that we have provision for the Heathrow spur in phase 1, it would be possible to petition to ensure that the construction of phase 1 would not rule out any future link. I thought that was one of the very first points I made—if the hon. Lady was paying attention then.

[Lyn Brown]

I have paid great attention to everything the Minister has said, both today and yesterday, and I cannot remember hearing the word “Stratford” come from him at the Dispatch Box. Given that I have listened to every word he has said, I am hoping I will be able to add him to my Christmas card list, as he now gives Stratford some confidence.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am certainly happy to mention Stratford, but Stratford is not within the scope of the Bill at this stage. I made it clear in my opening remarks that this is about constructing a railway from Euston to Birmingham, with the intervening stations and other works, and not, at this stage, about including Stratford. In fact, the Bill does not include Stratford, so perhaps she should get to work on her policy people in the Labour party. I am sure they will be beavering away, busy writing their manifesto, and she might be able to be slightly more persuasive.

It is interesting, because people in Sheffield were keen to make the point to me that they wanted phase 2, which is not within the scope of this Bill, to go into Sheffield city centre, because a station was needed there. I am now being told that stations are needed way out. The idea that we could be served by Stratford and Old Oak Common, without the need for a city centre station, is the exact opposite of what I heard in Sheffield.

[Lyn Brown]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Olympic games were held in Stratford in 2012? The idea that Stratford is “way out” shows that he is himself a little distanced from the reality of what London is. Stratford offers interconnectivity through the rail networks in the east of England and to the north. It also offers economic opportunity. The idea that we will be wandering down roads with our suitcases in the rain shows the limit of his imagination. I would ask him gently—because I like him very much—whether he would reconsider his position.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Lady makes some very good points, I am sure. I would merely make the point that the distance from Meadowhall station, outside Sheffield, to the centre of Sheffield is less than the distance between Stratford and the centre of London. It is interesting that when we talk to cities such as Nottingham, Sheffield and others that are served by parkway stations rather than city centre stations, they see the importance of having a station in the city centre. However, I understand the point she makes about Stratford.

Should the House approve the motions, the matter will move to the Select Committee to start hearing the petitions of those affected by the scheme. This is a crucial moment in the process and one that many have waited many years for. I therefore believe that the House has an obligation to ensure that we swiftly progress to that point. I believe that the motions as drafted provide a fair and reasonable framework for both petitioners and the Committee. As I have said, I do not believe that the proposed amendments would add to the Committee’s ability to hear petitioners or progress its work effectively. Indeed, in some cases the amendments seem to work against the interests of the petitioners and should be rejected. Indeed, as I read them, many of the amendments gave me the impression that they were designed to frustrate the Committee’s work, rather than facilitate it, but maybe that was one of the objectives.

[Mrs Gillan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am moving to my conclusion. My right hon. Friend was not very generous yesterday, but I will not reciprocate.

[Mrs Gillan]

No, I was not very generous yesterday; the Minister is right, but it was because I was trying to leave enough time for others to speak in the debate. Let me say to the Minister that none of my amendments was intended to delay. There is a four-hour limit on the debate and the amendments were tabled in good faith to try to elicit more information from the Government. Once again, I remind the Minister that people have been abused in the process to date and I do not want him to continue that from the Dispatch Box.

[Mr Goodwill]

I merely make the point that if amendments were designed to waive the fee for petitioning while at the same time encouraging electronic petitioning, that could be used by some who seek to frustrate the Bill rather than to work with the Committee, using the provisions as a way of preventing the Committee from carrying out its work.

I commend the motions to the House and urge Members to vote in favour of them and against the amendments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I understand that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) does not intend formally to press any of her amendments. Is that correct?

Ultra-low Emission Vehicles

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced today the key elements of a comprehensive package of measures to support ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEVs) between 2015 and 2020. This follows the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 2013 spending round that the Government will make £500 million available to support ULEVs in this period.

The outline package of measures confirms the UK Government’s strong commitment to making the UK a premier location for the design, manufacture and adoption of ULEVs. It aims to provide a long-term, stable and comprehensive policy framework backed by a significant funding commitment. The package gives certainty on grant support for consumer incentives, provides funding for vital infrastructure, recognises the importance of other vehicle sectors including buses, taxis and HGVs and provides guaranteed funding for ULEV-specific R and D. It also encourages innovative measures from cities to turn their areas into exemplars for ULEV take-up.

Key elements include:

At least £200 million for the continuation of the plug-in car grant, with the grant cap remaining at £5,000 per car until a review in 2017, or the first 50,000 vehicles, whichever is the sooner;

£100 million for ULEV-specific R and D;

£35 million for a new city scheme competition, to support flagship cities in introducing innovative local measures;

£20 million for ULEV taxis;

£30 million for low-emission buses;

£32 million for infrastructure including rapid chargers;

£31 million for other ULEV types including vans; and

£4 million for HGV gas refuelling infrastructure.

I can confirm that the Government are also seeking to adopt a flexible approach. Not all the £500 million funding is allocated here, and minimum allocations are given which could be extended to reflect market conditions. Many elements of the package, including the consumer incentives, are also subject to securing the necessary state aid approvals from Europe.

More information on the package can be found at, www.gov.uk/olev and further detail will be made available by autumn 2014.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). Perhaps, for once, we will vote in the same Lobby. I want to express my gratitude and that of other Government Members from the north to the Labour leaders of the great cities of the north for the impact that they have had on the shadow Front-Bench team over the past few months.

Last year, my neighbours and hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) sat down with Virgin Trains to consider the possibility of providing a direct train from London to Blackpool, with a stop at Poulton station, to assist the regeneration of Blackpool and Fylde. That would have an impact on my constituents in Fleetwood and on the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North. Virgin said that it could put on two direct trains a day to Blackpool, which would have changed the whole situation. However, when we got to Network Rail, we were told that no room existed on the west coast main line for those direct trains. The capacity issue is having an impact now—not in a few years time. It has prevented those trains from running.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the point that he is making applies equally to Shrewsbury, which has had similar problems in getting a path down the network?

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I agree absolutely with the Minister.

To be fair, the amendment recognises the need for extra capacity from the north to the south. I am grateful to the supporters of the amendment for that. I accept their criticism of the fact that the project does not start in Manchester or Leeds. That makes it a funny hybrid amendment, but perhaps a hybrid amendment to a hybrid Bill is fitting. The amendment then seems to say that everything can be done with the existing line. As I have pointed out, that line is already at capacity. As hon. Members from across the House have mentioned, the last time we attempted to upgrade the west coast main line, there were more than 10 years of overruns and we had different figures for the costs, which were about £10 billion. As people who use that line know, it is still not finished. If anybody was travelling on Saturday night, as I was, they would know that there are still more problems around Watford. In the summer there had to be improvements north of Warrington, which again caused delays on the line. It is simply impossible.

Other hon. Members have mentioned a suggestion that I made a couple of years ago about having double-decker trains, but apparently that is not practical given the bridge situation and so on. Those things have been considered, and we are left with a need for a new line. If we are going to build a new line, presumably it must be the latest development; I am sure that we—except for the enthusiasts, perhaps—would not want to build a line with steam trains on it at the moment.

I will oppose the amendment and support the Bill, even though I represent Lancaster and Fleetwood, which is not directly affected by this issue. Interestingly, if we consider High Speed 1 and the new Javelin trains that go from King’s Cross to Folkestone and use the high-speed line and transfer at Ashford to the normal “classical” line as I think it is referred to, I can see that there could be massive improvements in terms of the impact on stations north of Manchester, and indeed north of Crewe if we get there in the short term. We will enjoy those benefits because we will have trains travelling on both lines and improved connectivity.

For me the biggest reason for HS2, which has been mentioned by other Members, is the coalition Government’s promise when we got elected to do something about the widening north-south divide. That divide got wider and wider in the 13 years before we were elected and we said that we were going to do something about it. We have started to do something, and I accept that railways are not everything. We have started to do something about roads, and for the first time we have an M6 link road around Lancaster to Heysham. A scheme promised in the 1930s is now being built by this Government. The extension of broadband will be massively important in the north-west, but we must also deal with railway capacity, and it seems to me that there is no available alternative but this project.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) said that we should not go ahead with this scheme and compared it with London, but I find amazing the argument used by some that in London we can spend £6 billion on Thameslink—still not finished, by the way—and £15 billion on Crossrail 1. We are now proposing to spend £16 billion on Crossrail 2, and apparently those projects will have massive impacts on the London economy. Great, they will, but then I am told by some hon. Members that a high-speed line to the north will have minimal impact in terms of regeneration. What is good for one city is good for other cities and beyond, and we must rebalance the situation in terms of spend and connectivity.

As many Members have said, we need this debate literally to get moving at high speed, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) said—I totally agree—we should not delay the Bill, which is what this hybrid amendment seems to be about. We should support the Bill and then go on to debate High Speed 3 to Glasgow and Edinburgh, and possibly High Speed 4 to Cardiff, and get on with truly uniting this Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The debate has highlighted not only the need for HS2 but the importance of getting it right. This is a scheme that will play a vital role in creating the necessary conditions for economic growth, but that does not mean we should press ahead unchecked. We must be clear about the impacts and act responsibly in addressing them by providing appropriate mitigation for any adverse environmental consequences, and fair compensation for those affected by the new railway.

Let me summarise how we respond to those crucial issues. First, we have been clear about the cost. It is a considerable investment but it is spread over 10 years, delivering benefits over decades, perhaps for centuries, as the Victorian network continues to deliver. This is also a project that will stand the test of time, and it is not at the expense of other investment, as we have heard. It is alongside high levels of investment in roads, in the existing rail network and in local transport schemes. This is one part of a rounded transport strategy.

It is incumbent on us to ensure that the scheme sticks to its schedule and budget, so that taxpayers get value for money, and they will. To assist us, we have recently appointed leading experts, Sir David Higgins and Simon Kirby, to lead the delivery and construction of the scheme. Following his recent review, Sir David confirmed that the scheme is on track for construction to begin in 2017.

Secondly, unfortunately it is not possible to construct a project such has this without having some impacts on the environment. However, since the very beginning, identifying those impacts and developing proposals for appropriate mitigation have been key priorities. We have carried out environmental assessments and proposed mitigation measures. We are committed to no net loss of biodiversity, as I explained to the Environmental Audit Committee recently, and we are replacing habitats for wildlife. We are generally tunnelling under rather than travelling through the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, and we are integrating the railway into the landscape, hiding much of it from view. We are incorporating natural and man-made barriers to reduce noise and vibration, and we have set binding commitments to control the impacts of construction. On all of that we have consulted extensively. We have taken on board suggestions for improving the scheme, and before the Easter recess, the House received an independent report summarising consultation responses to inform its decision tonight.

Thirdly, I come to the measures to support those properties that may be affected, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and others. People living near the proposed route are understandably worried. They deserve generous assistance and they will receive it. We have already helped more than 100 households under the exceptional hardship scheme, and we have now launched an express purchase scheme for land safeguarded for phase 1, helping owner-occupiers to sell quickly and with less fuss, regardless of whether their property is needed for HS2. [Interruption.] They get the full, unblighted open-market value of their property, plus 10%, plus reasonable moving costs, including stamp duty. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Conversations are going on on both sides of the House. I want to hear the Minister, as I am sure do all Members’ constituents. Minister Goodwill.

[Mr Goodwill]

Later this year, we will launch an enhanced need-to-sell scheme to help owner-occupiers who need to sell their property but cannot because of HS2. I stress that there is no distance test to pass in this case. We will also launch a voluntary purchase scheme giving owner-occupiers in rural areas up to 120 metres from the line the choice to sell their property and receive its full unblighted market value. We will also consult on offering them a new choice of a cash alternative, and we will consult on new home owner payments for owner-occupiers in rural areas between 120 and 300 metres from the line to help share more of the expected economic benefits of HS2 with rural home owners, not just helping those who want to move, but also those who need to stay in their homes. We appreciate that for some no amount of money or help will be enough, and we do not pretend that these proposals will satisfy everyone, but we believe that they are fair and represent the best possible balance between properly helping people and providing value for money for the taxpayers.

I come now to some of the comments made in the debate. I thank Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition for their support. It was their idea after all. As a fellow Yorkshire MP, the shadow Secretary of State recognises the benefits to the north, and we also agree that the project should be delivered in a cost-effective way. Indeed, another Yorkshire MP, the shadow Chancellor, agrees with us that it is absolutely right—possibly for the first time. The shadow Secretary of State is correct in holding us to our word on the environmental mitigation included in the scheme. She asked me about the response to the HS2 phase 2 consultation. We will respond in the autumn and make further decisions following that.

The shadow Secretary of State also mentioned resilience in the south-west and we will certainly not ignore other parts of the country. I was recently in Dawlish and saw the work carried out there. I also drove on the A30 and A303 in the west country between Stonehenge and the Blackdowns, which is an important route, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile).

Who could not have been impressed by the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) for HS2 and for the advantages for God’s own county? He said that Yorkshire could aspire to have a second London, but I think we could do better than that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) is a stalwart campaigner on the behalf of her constituents and raises concerns about the cost of the project. She cannot have it both ways. One reason why costs have increased is the unprecedented environmental mitigation, including the more than nine of the 11 miles of the line in her constituency that is in either a tunnel or a cutting. She is perfectly entitled to her own opinion of the project, but she is not entitled to her own facts.

I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chair of the Transport Committee, for her support. I see the Select Committee as a critical friend and look forward to its future reports.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) drew attention to the struggle to build projects such as HS1, which spanned generations, and the need to reduce overcrowding by not only increasing capacity on the new north-south railway, but also freeing up capacity on existing lines for passengers and freight.

The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) welcomed the scrapping of the HS1-HS2 link, but not much else.

I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) that the excavated material from the tunnel in the Chilterns will not be disposed of in his patch.

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) outlined the advantages for Manchester and the north-west, as did the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), and drew attention to historical objectors to rail projects. I was reminded that the east coast main line would have gone through Stamford were it not for Lord Burghley’s interests in the coaching industry. Instead, the line went through a little-known place called Peterborough and look at the benefits it brought there. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said that the quicker we do this, the better, and I say “Hear, hear.”

The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) outlined the advantages to Birmingham and its airport, and I heard her concern about the properties of the National Trust, with which we are working to protect the setting of Hartwell house.

The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) described how HS2 will bridge the north-south divide, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw).

I understand the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O’Brien) about construction in his constituency. He suggested that double-decking could be a solution, but that would not only be just a stop-gap but result in years of weekend engineering closures and replacement buses on the west coast main line.

For their supportive comments, I thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Mr Binley), for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), for Redditch (Karen Lumley), for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), for Warrington South (David Mowat), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who stressed the importance of the project to Leeds.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) supports the scheme, but I understand his concerns about the Washwood Heath maintenance depot.

I agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that it is wrong to brand people with genuine concerns about the line’s impact as nimbys.

Tonight the House faces a great decision, one of national importance that will profoundly affect the way our economy develops for generations. The House must be satisfied with the need for HS2, and it must be satisfied that the appropriate measures are in place to deliver the scheme in a sustainable way, both economically and environmentally. HS2 will help drive this country forward. It will create new capacity and enable better use of existing transport corridors. It will join up our great cities and strengthen our economy. As a result, it will help open up opportunities currently held back by lack of investment. Along the way, it will be subject to careful, detailed scrutiny. Tonight’s vote is an important step in taking HS2 forward and I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support the Bill for phase 1.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Manston Airport

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) for securing this debate about the future of Manston airport. In recent years, the increasing demand for commercial air travel has heightened the need to improve the capacity and efficiency of UK airports. This is absolutely essential to meet the Government’s commitment to maintain the UK’s aviation hub status.

In the 2013 aviation policy framework, we recognised the crucial role that regional airports play in providing airport capacity and the vital contribution they can make to the growth of their local economies. Indeed, I prefer to refer to them as local international airports, rather than just regional airports. We are therefore determined that the UK continues to benefit from the services that regional airports offer, and we welcome the ambition of those that are investing in their infrastructure, increasing accessibility and facilitating more services to more destinations.

I am aware of Manston airport’s proud history, which can be traced back to the first world war. It also played a crucial role in world war two, first in supporting troops during the Dunkirk evacuation and then by playing a front-line role during the battle of Britain and providing vital air support during the D-day landings. During the war, the length and width of the runway were improved, meaning that it can now handle the largest jets, such as the new Airbus A380. Manston was even identified as a contingency runway for landings of NASA’s space shuttle programme. It was after the war and during the 1960s that the airport began to be used by commercial airlines and enjoyed relatively steady commercial air operations for several years. That allowed many people in the area to experience their first foreign holiday. However, services and passenger numbers declined steadily from the 1970s onwards, as charter operators moved to larger airports with better surface transport connections. In recent years, Manston has struggled to attract and retain consistent air passenger services, and there have been periods when the airport has had no regular services.

I am aware that Manston airport’s owners have begun a consultation with staff regarding the airport’s future, and I recognise concerns about the impact its possible closure could have on the local and regional economy. I hope that a resolution can be achieved which sustains the commercial viability of Manston airport to keep it as a going concern. I welcome the news that my hon. Friend held the first meeting of the Manston working group earlier today. The meeting brought together representatives from Thanet district council, Kent county council and the local enterprise partnership, and was supported by Departments to explore options for the airport’s future. I commend his tireless work in this regard, but whatever the result of efforts to secure such a resolution, the Government are unable to intervene directly, as we believe that UK airports and airlines operate best in a competitive and commercial environment. It is therefore for individual airports to take decisions on matters of future economic viability.

KLM’s decision to discontinue the route between Manston and Amsterdam will undeniably impact the profitability of the airport. The route was the airport’s main source of passengers and offered a connection with KLM’s international services through the airline’s Schiphol hub. The remaining passenger services offered by the airport are mainly summer charter services, and will likely offer limited air traffic. I am aware that Manston also serves as a destination for air cargo operations, as well as a number of aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul, and airframe breaking and spares recovery businesses, which operate on the airport site. As with airports, airlines must take commercial decisions regarding the routes they operate according to what is in their best interests. It is not possible for the Government to compel airlines to operate certain routes.

There have been additional concerns about the closure of the airport and the possible loss of the Lower Airspace Radar Service—LARS—unit, an information service used by some airspace users. Although closure would result in a gap in the LARS system, it would be no larger than elsewhere in the UK. More importantly, the loss of the system would not be seen as a safety-critical issue. We have been assured by the Civil Aviation Authority that the London Flight Information Service provides an appropriate alternative, and the CAA has stated that it would not support the retention of an airport or air traffic unit for LARS provision, particularly as it is unclear how costs would be covered.

As I said earlier, the UK’s aviation sector is overwhelmingly in the private sector and operates in a competitive international market. The Government support competition as an effective way to meet the interests of air passengers and other users. I restate our determination that the UK continue to benefit from the contribution that regional airports can offer. The Chancellor recently announced that applications will now be allowed for start-up aid for new air routes from UK regional airports. To be eligible, airports must handle fewer than 5 million passengers per annum and meet new European Union state aid guidelines. The Department for Transport is working with the Treasury to determine how the funding process will operate in practice, and over this summer will develop guidance for those organisations seeking to make applications for supporting air routes. Should Manston airport be eligible, we would encourage it to apply for this funding.

As hon. Members will be aware, the independent Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, was established to identify and recommend options to maintain this country’s status as an international hub for aviation. In preparing its interim report, the commission undertook a detailed assessment of the UK’s future aviation demand and connectivity requirements. The commission's interim report, published in December 2013, details its shortlist of long-term options for further study to increase airport capacity along with recommendations for the short term to make the best use of our existing infrastructure.

The commission has explained in the materials supporting its interim report why the expanded use of Manston airport was not selected as an option for further consideration. It concluded that Manston’s distance from London and other significant population centres meant that it was unlikely to be able to play a substantial role in meeting future passenger demand in London and the south-east in the long term, although I did hear what my hon. Friend had to say in relation to transport times as opposed to distance.

The commission also recognised that, in the short and medium term, Government do not have effective levers to redistribute traffic to less congested airports such as Manston, even if it were desirable to do so. The Government are carefully considering the recommendations in the interim report and intend to publish a response to the short-term recommendations shortly. All the shortlisted long-term options will now be the subject of more detailed analysis and consultation by the commission. To protect the integrity of the process, the Government will not comment on any of the shortlisted options.

My hon. Friend also raised the issue of landing and take-off slots in relation to freight. The allocation of slots is governed by EU airport slot regulations, which prescribe the allocation, transfer and exchange of slots at London Heathrow and other “co-ordinated” airports in the UK—that is, those airports where capacity is shown to be insufficient to meet all actual or planned airline operations.

Any decisions about how airlines use the slots allocated to them at busy airports like Heathrow are a commercial matter for those airlines to determine, and that includes freight slots. The European Commission looked at recasting the slot regulation in 2011 as part of the “better airports” package, but progress stalled in late 2012 owing to issues with other aspects of the package. However, the European Commission hopes to reinstate the slots element of the “better airports” package within the European presidency’s transport agenda, and my officials will continue to engage with the process to ensure that the UK aviation sector's interests are fully represented.

Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. The Government are committed to improving the capacity and efficiency of UK airports to maintain the UK's aviation hub status. Though fully aware of the importance that regional airports play in this, the Government are unable to intervene directly in the case of Manston. It is ultimately the responsibility of the airport owner to determine whether or not it is commercially viable.

Question put and agreed to.

Airspace Restrictions (Glasgow Commonwealth Games)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Written Statements

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

The 20th Commonwealth games are due to take place in Glasgow this summer. While overall responsibility for the security of the games rests with Police Scotland, aviation is a matter reserved to the UK Parliament under devolution legislation. Police Scotland has, therefore, requested that the Government develop a set of temporary airspace restrictions from 13 July to 6 August to help protect the games venues from potential airborne risks.

Initial proposals were developed during the autumn of last year, based on a scaled-down version of the model used successfully during the London 2012 Olympic games. Police Scotland, working with colleagues from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), has subsequently engaged extensively with aviation representatives from the airports located within the proposed airspace restrictions to test the proposals and to develop mitigations to minimise the impact on business as usual.

As a result of that engagement work the Government, with the assistance of the CAA, refined their proposals and have now prepared the necessary statutory instruments to give effect to the temporary airspace restrictions that will be put in place for the Commonwealth games. NATS, the UK’s en route air traffic service provider and publisher of the UK’s aeronautical information, will be publishing the details of these regulations on 17 April 2014 in a number of aeronautical information circulars. In addition, full details of the planned airspace restrictions, including maps, will be published on the airspace safety initiative website at www.airspacesafety.com

In total there are six sets of regulations, two covering the Glasgow area (a core prohibited zone over the city’s Commonwealth games venues and athletes’ village, surrounded by a larger restricted zone), and four smaller restrictions of shorter duration, protecting specific events—the cycling time trials at Muirhead, the triathlon events at Strathdyde country park, the diving competition at the Royal Commonwealth pool in Edinburgh and the shooting competition at the Barry Buddon range near Dundee.

All the regulations have been designed to allow aviation business to continue as usual so far as possible, while ensuring the safety and security of the Commonwealth games. They also provide specific exemptions for aircraft such as those operated by the police or emergency medical services to enter the protected airspace. We do not expect that any airports within the restricted airspace will need to close as a result of the planned measures, and there should be no impact on scheduled air services that will be vital to competitors, officials and spectators.

The Government’s paramount objective is the delivery of a safe and secure 2014 Commonwealth games for all, and the airspace restrictions will help to provide this while minimising the impact on the aviation community, so far as possible. However, the Government reserve the right to implement additional airspace security measures should the need arise.

Local Authority Parking Enforcement

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell.

I appreciate the work that has been done by the Select Committee in looking at the issue of parking and bringing forward its views, which the Government are considering along with other recommendations that have been brought to us. It is indeed an opportune time to discuss parking issues following the publication of this excellent report and also the Government’s consultation on parking, which concluded on 14 February.

Let me say straight away that we are currently considering over 800 responses to the consultation, and will be responding in full in due course. [Interruption.] I do not know whether, when the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) was in the Department, he had to respond to things in due course, but I reassure him that this matter is in my in-tray and I am giving it a great deal of attention. It has not been parked in the tray marked “too hard to attend to”.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The Minister knows that he is held in high regard by the Opposition, as he is by his Government colleagues. I wish him every success with his in-tray.

[Mr Goodwill]

I wonder whether the reason why, in the report, there was a small “l” for the party name after the hon. Gentleman’s name is that the word “labour” is used not only as the name of a party but as a reference to someone’s working very hard on a subject. That could well be the reason.

This debate is timely. It is not simply a case of responding to the consultation and considering all the points but ensuring that we have agreement across Departments and across the coalition, as different Ministers may have different priorities when they arrive in Departments.

We ask parking and traffic management to deliver a number of objectives in parallel, and managing those competing demands on our roads will never be simple. The UK has more motor vehicles per mile than France, Germany or even the densely populated Netherlands, and traffic on our roads is forecast to increase. That is why we are investing £24 billion in the strategic road network in this Parliament and the next, a tripling of previous investment levels seen in this country. By 2021, we will be spending £3 billion every year on improvements and maintenance, which is the most significant upgrade of our roads ever. It is also why parking and traffic management have a vital role to play. Effective management enables people, goods and services to get to where they are needed and is essential for a growing economy.

Over the past few years, we have seen major changes in how parking is enforced. More than 90% of local authorities have taken over the civil enforcement of their parking services. I wrote to the other 10% today suggesting, without wanting to impinge on their local decision-making processes, that they look closely at the advantages of opting for civil enforcement. It has improved compliance, reduced congestion, freed up the police and, most importantly, made our roads safer.

When effective parking management breaks down, as in Aberystwyth, and in Scarborough in my constituency, where a couple of enterprising former police officers, armed with tape measures and copies of the science manual, managed to delay the introduction of our civil enforcement, the result is chaos. That is not good news for motorists and certainly not for businesses because it causes real problems. We must keep a close eye on the matter. How parking is managed matters to us all at some level, and we must ensure that the basic rules and regulations help councils to deliver balanced and effective parking strategies.

We are here today to discuss the Transport Committee’s recent inquiry into local parking enforcement and the Government’s recent wide-ranging parking consultation, which invited views on many of the Committee’s main recommendations. Despite what some press reports have claimed, we have not already reached a decision on changes to Government policy following the consultation. I will look carefully at all the responses, and am very aware of the wide range of views among stakeholders about sensitive issues such as camera enforcement.

The Select Committee’s inquiry and our consultation were prompted by three big issues for parking and traffic management: first, the challenges facing our high streets; secondly, the potential for the deployment and use of new technologies to improve the use of our roads, recognising that, in some cases, they cause the public concern; and thirdly, the widespread belief among motorists that some councils seem to view parking enforcement primarily as an opportunity to raise revenue. I will say a few words on each of those issues.

Our high streets are essential to our national life. They bring people together and are at the heart of our daily life and economy. In London, more than half of the jobs in the capital are spread across just 600 high streets, and two thirds of Londoners live within a five-minute walk of their local high street. However, our high streets are going through long-term change. Those changes are significant and require communities to play an active role in shaping their high streets. There are far too many empty shops throughout the country. We have put in place a £1 billion package of support to help local people reinvigorate their high streets. Recent figures show that the number of empty shops on UK high streets fell in December 2013, which was the first time the rate has fallen below 14% since July 2010.

Ensuring that convenient and safe parking is available at reasonable cost is part of the answer and many areas need to improve. During her recent review, Mary Portas found that in many areas

“parking has been run-down, in an inconvenient place, and most significantly really expensive.”

The recent survey from the Association of Town and City Management and the British Parking Association found that some mid-range areas were charging 18% more for parking than larger and more popular retail locations. Indeed, many such locations have free parking. The question for local businesses and residents is: what more is needed to get the local council to improve parking provision in their area?

In the consultation, we suggested one way that could be achieved: by allowing local residents and firms to be able to petition the council to initiate a review of parking policy in their area. That might be a request for lower charges, for a review to see if additional spaces could be provided, or for better street lighting to improve safety.

The second issue is the potential for new technologies to help to manage our roads more effectively. The introduction of GPS-based systems, new sensor technologies and increasing integration with smart-phones can revolutionise parking. When I parked at York station this week, I used my phone and if my return is delayed, I can update my parking period using my phone without the anxiety of perhaps being fined for overstaying.

Better and more efficient parking services can be delivered in real time, bringing benefits to high streets and road users throughout the UK. However, the capabilities of new technologies bring with them an increased responsibility to ensure that parking is enforced fairly and proportionately. I firmly believe that most of those involved in the parking industry, from local authorities to private sector service providers, aim to do just that. However, the use of CCTV, in particular, causes public concern.

The Department’s guidance states that CCTV cameras should be used only where parking enforcement is difficult or sensitive, and enforcement by a civil enforcement officer is not practicable. Cameras can be more contentious than boots on the ground, and the Select Committee took evidence that resident permits and blue badges may not always be visible to cameras. The Committee reported that in some cases cameras are used routinely for on-street parking violations, despite my Department’s statutory guidance. Our consultation also asked about options to address those concerns, bearing in mind that, as the Committee pointed out, cameras can have a useful role in some circumstances, such as outside schools and in keeping bus lanes clear. We must look at the needs of all road users in the round and look for balanced solutions to the issues.

Finally, there is a real problem with the public’s view of local authorities’ approach to parking and traffic enforcement. The Select Committee said that there is a

“deeply rooted public perception that local authorities view parking enforcement as a cash cow”.

From 1997-98 to 2010-11, net surpluses from parking rose from £223 million to £512 million. Net income from local authority parking services is expected to rise from £601 million in 2012-13 to £635 million in 2013-14, an increase of 5.6%. That headline figure reflects parking charges as well as penalties, but I am determined that public confidence in enforcement should not be undermined. The Committee has identified the importance of the Government mandating the production of annual parking reports by local authorities, so the public fully understand the strategies, and where the money from parking goes. We have been very clear that the ring fence on surpluses will remain. Fines for those who break the rules will be used only to improve the roads or environment for those who play by the rules.

The Select Committee asked whether the current system is as fair as it can be for those who inadvertently make a mistake. First, it asked whether independent traffic adjudicators should be able to allow an appeal when they determine that a council has ignored statutory guidance. Secondly, it asked whether the current system acts as a disincentive for people to appeal. There is a legitimate concern that discounts on prompt payment following appeal would result in every charge being appealed so, following the Committee’s recommendation, we have asked whether the introduction of a 25% discount for motorists who pay within seven days of losing an appeal might be worth while. In addition, it might be worth considering whether discount for appeals that are lost could be allowed only if the appeal was made during the period for which the initial discount applied. We will consider that in more detail.

Thirdly, the Committee recommended that the statutory guidance should stipulate a grace period after the expiry of paid-for time. The British Parking Association’s response to the consultation states that in practice most local authorities do that already, so we are also considering whether mandating a grace period of perhaps five minutes after the end of paid-for parking might provide the public with reassurance that they will never be issued with a ticket just one minute after the meter runs out.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) made several points. She talked about the possibility of validating tickets so that someone who pays in a local authority car park can use that ticket to obtain a discount in a local shop, which would presumably be reimbursed by the local authority—or perhaps by the shop itself as part of a local discount scheme. That already works in some supermarkets to encourage customers only to use those supermarkets, but that is a matter for local councils, as is free parking for short periods at certain times, such as Christmas, which Scarborough borough council provides as a way of getting people into that excellent shopping location.

Are local authorities following the code of practice? If people appeal on the ground that the code of practice was not followed, the adjudicators will see that as important. They will often be sympathetic if people make honest mistakes.

The hon. Lady talked about the response to our consultations. I have some of the responses here. For example, the question was posed:

“Do you think motorists who lose an appeal at a parking tribunal should be offered a 25% discount for prompt payment?”

The overall response was: yes, 44%; no, 56%. However, among individuals, as opposed to organisations—I suspect that quite a lot of councils were among the organisations—54% favoured the rolling forward of the discount and 46% were against, while among organisations only 23% were in favour of rolling forward, while 77% were against. Therefore, even among individuals there was a mixed result.

We also posed the question:

“Do you think that authorities should be required by regulation to allow a grace period at the end of paid for parking?”

There again, the results were balanced. Overall, the response was exactly 50:50. Among individuals 51% were in favour and 49% were against, and among organisations 45% were in favour and 55% were against. The picture from the consultations is not clear on the rolling forward of the discount or the period of grace at the end of paid-for parking. As I have already said, however, many local authorities already have a grace period.

The hon. Lady also asked about pavement parking. We have given local authorities powers on pavement parking, but we do not collect statistics on how many authorities have used those powers. In London, of course, there is an enforceable general ban on parking on the pavement. On guidance issued to local authorities, we are considering the responses to the consultation and we will reply in due course.

On local authority transparency, the Department for Transport does not know whether all local authorities are fully transparent regarding their fine revenues, as that matter is reported to the Department for Communities and Local Government.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Before the Minister continues on transparency, he was answering the question on pavement parking that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside and I raised. That is a huge issue for organisations such as Guide Dogs and Living Streets, which campaign for people with mobility difficulties. He said that he is waiting on the responses and on further consideration by his Department, but will he assure us that he will look carefully at that? As he said, in London the protocol is that such parking is forbidden unless specifically allowed, whereas elsewhere it is almost the reverse of that. Those campaigning organisations would rather see more emphasis on looking after people with disabilities and mobility difficulties than allowing a free-for-all.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I am sure that, like me, he gets letters from constituents complaining about pavement parking. People are often surprised to discover that in many parts of the country such parking is perfectly legal. We have a similar problem with motorcycles in bus lanes, in that we do not have a consistent approach throughout the country.

There was also discussion about non-UK vehicles and whether we engage in cross-border agreements with other member states. We are talking not just about foreign vehicles breaking regulations in the UK, but British drivers caught contravening rules in other parts of the European Union. Although I am sure it would be popular in the UK to ensure that foreign vehicles fully comply with our rules, I suspect that we might see stories in the Sunday newspapers and some of the tabloid press about people being unfairly penalised for potential offences carried out in other parts of the EU where their ability to appeal might be restricted by language difficulties and so on. It does work both ways. Indeed, there is a system for the heavy goods vehicles levy whereby a deposit payment is taken in advance of a court case. In many cases, when the offence is admitted, the deposit is taken in default of the actual penalty.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse talked about fines and foreign-registered vehicles. As the law stands, parking companies and local authorities can and do use European debt collection agencies. We recognise, however, that that may not always be economically realistic and that sharing of vehicle-keeper information to pursue those debts is not currently covered by international treaties. Many member states have reservations about data sharing across borders and any proposal in that area would need to be carefully thought through.

In conclusion, I believe that the majority of local authorities and parking providers are doing very good work. The challenge now is to deliver equally high standards throughout the parking sector as a whole. That means preventing the examples of poor management or bad practice that are so prominent in the media.

As I mentioned, we have received more than 800 responses to the parking consultation. I have no illusions about just how important these issues are, and following those responses and our useful debate I will be looking carefully at the options going forward. Parking and traffic management is important to the public and to our communities, and it is vital to the health of our local economies.

Drug Driving

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Written Statements

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

In May 2012 the Government introduced primary legislation to Parliament that would create a new offence of driving with a specified controlled drug in the body above the specified limit for that drug. The Crime and Courts Act 2013 inserted a new section 5A in the Road Traffic Act 1988 and sets out the framework for the new offence.

Regulations now need to be made to specify the drugs to be included in the legislation and the limits to be specified. I have today published the summary of responses to the two consultations which sought views on these regulations.

The summary concludes that overall there is support for the Government’s proposed approach and I intend to lay regulations in Parliament on this basis.

However, the Government have also concluded that there are significant concerns on the proposed limit for amphetamine. I have therefore asked my officials to reconsider the limit for this drug, with a view to consulting again later in the year and including the new limit in further regulations at a subsequent date.

By taking this approach to the new offence our roads will be safer by making it easier for the police to tackle those who drive after taking illegal drugs and clarifying the position for those who take medication.

Copies of the summary of responses will be laid in the Libraries of both Houses.

Rail Services (Eccles)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Mr Davies, for calling me to speak. I also thank the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) for securing this afternoon’s debate. My goodness, she is persuasive, isn’t she? She has raised a subject of interest to many of her constituents and others. I hope to address some of the points that she has raised.

The people of Eccles are served by a station that opened on the Liverpool and Manchester railway in September 1830—the world’s first major inter-city passenger railway. They have considerable pride in their local station, although we heard from the right hon. Lady about the tragic circumstances of the opening of the line. That local pride is demonstrated by the passion of the Friends of Eccles Station, which she has spoken about today.

By the way, I wonder whether George Stephenson had the same problems building his railway line as we are having building the High Speed 2 line. In Stephenson’s time, the major argument deployed against rail was, “Why do we need a railway when we have got the canals to use?”

[Hazel Blears]

I can help the Minister with that query. Apparently, Robert Stephenson had the same problems. He brought a Bill forward in the House of Commons; it was rejected; there was a revised Bill for a new alignment; and the revised alignment had a problem crossing Chat Moss, which was apparently a bottomless peat bog. I have no doubt that Stephenson faced exactly the same difficulties that the Minister might face in the future, but he persevered, had determination and got there in the end. I am sure that the Minister will want to do the same.

[Mr Goodwill]

“Plus ça change,” as I am tempted to say. I am told that only one thing is more difficult than building a new railway line: closing an existing one.

I welcome the investment made at Eccles station during 2013, which included a brand new ticket office building. That £235,000 project was funded by the national station improvement scheme, with contributions from TFGM and Salford City council. It provides a waiting area that offers much-improved facilities for passengers, and a raised section of platform—I am told it is called a “Harrington Hump”—has been provided on the eastbound platform. That will reduce the stepping distance from the platform to trains at Eccles, making it easier for people with reduced mobility or those with baggage or pushchairs to board trains to Manchester.

Northern Rail is installing a cycle hub at Eccles, which is due for completion next month. Having said all that, I understand that having a waiting room is no good if people have to wait too long for their train.

In July 2013, the Secretary of State for Transport unveiled a plaque at Eccles to commemorate the substantial completion of the first phase of electrification of the Liverpool and Manchester Chat Moss route. I commend the efforts of the volunteers who form the Friends of Eccles Station group, which has made such a contribution to improving the environment at Eccles station and promoting the benefits offered by the local railway, working with Northern Rail’s client and stakeholder manager and others.

Freccles, as we have to call the group, is just one of the groups of friends, station adopters and community rail partnerships made up of local people who volunteer their time and energy to improve their local stations and promote train services in the north of England.

[Barbara Keeley]

I did not want to let the Minister mention Freccles, an excellent group that does great work, without also mentioning Friends of Patricroft Station, a station near Eccles. That group is also campaigning for two trains an hour, as well as for the implementation of Sunday services. For some of these stations, a Sunday service would mean everything. It seems crazy to build up the numbers of passengers and the footfall during the week without having a Sunday service.

[Mr Goodwill]

It seems that there is not a friendless station in Lancashire. These volunteers who we have heard about make a considerable contribution at Eccles, other stations in the north and right across the Northern Rail network.

I am aware that Freccles wishes to see additional train services calling at both Eccles and Patricroft. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who also mentioned air quality issues in a brief intervention, wrote to the Secretary of State on this subject on 7 March.

I appreciate the view of Freccles that additional trains at Eccles could provide local people with a broader range of direct journey opportunities to Liverpool, Chester, north Wales and Manchester airport for work and leisure. That would make it easier for people to travel to work opportunities by train, including the opportunities at Manchester airport and the growing Media City in Salford.

Local train services at Eccles and Patricroft are sponsored and specified by TFGM, which is a co-signatory to the Northern Rail franchise agreement. The Government believe that TFGM, as the local transport authority, is well placed to decide how best to deliver local transport to serve new employment opportunities such as those at Media City, and to offer sustainable and convenient journeys that bring economic benefits and access to jobs and leisure, while helping to reduce carbon emissions from transport.

The railway industry has to develop services that best balance the competing needs and aspirations of all passengers within the capacity of the infrastructure and the funding available. A balance has to be struck between people making local journeys, who wish for trains to call at a number of stations, and other passengers making longer journeys, who are attracted to the train because it can offer a quick journey between main city centres. It is for train operators to decide, in partnership with TFGM, whether there is an appropriate business case for their existing train services to make additional calls at Patricroft and Eccles stations.

Although there may be little obvious cost in an existing express train stopping at those stations, operators have to consider whether the additional fare revenue from new passengers is likely to cover the increased use of fuel and other industry costs. There would also be an impact for existing passengers from extending journey times. By offering quick journey times, express trains offer people a competitive alternative to other modes of transport.

An additional station call would require changes to the timetable, as a station call typically adds two or three minutes to a train’s journey. At busy junctions around Manchester, slowing a train by only a few minutes could mean that it arrives at the same time as a train that is currently running behind it or one that crosses the junction in a conflicting move. The railway infrastructure around Manchester Piccadilly is used to full capacity at peak times. Additionally, train operators need to consider how busy their existing trains are. For example, would a greater number of passengers making short journeys on an existing train lead to those making longer journeys having to stand?

[Hazel Blears]

I am listening carefully to the Minister, and I am afraid he is not giving me a great deal of hope—my heart is not fluttering and I do not feel that, after 10 years, we might be making some progress. These are exactly the same arguments that I have been pursuing for the past few years with Arriva and Northern, and they would not change the situation because of financial reasons. Then there were issues about the time scale, and about the two minutes here and there. I understand that those are all genuine matters, but TFGM said in its letter to me that it shares our frustration and wants to get two trains per hour at “the earliest opportunity” possible. It also says that the Department for Transport is launching the consultation.

I am afraid I am asking the Minister for more than his simply saying that the issue has nothing to do with the Department and it is all a local matter, because, clearly, he has overarching responsibility. I should like to hear from him that he agrees that we have an excellent business case for making sure that we get these trains.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am merely outlining the problems, although they are not insurmountable. A balance needs to be struck between the needs of the express passengers, who want a quick journey, and passengers who may wish to stop at intermediate stations.

Passenger demand on Northern services has increased by more than 40% since 2004 and its trains are now used by some 85 million passengers per year. In the same period, passenger numbers at Eccles have doubled, as they have on TransPennine Express services. Such increases in demand for trains and track capacity are among the reasons why the Government are investing more than £500 million in the northern hub scheme over the next few years. That will increase capacity on the railway network serving Manchester and the cities of the north of England, enabling more trains to be operated in 2014, with further capacity improvement and more electrification due to come into use in 2016.

The right hon. Lady knows that Government investment in the railways of the north-west includes electrification of the lines between Liverpool and Manchester via Newton-le-Willows and Eccles, and from Liverpool to Wigan and Manchester to Preston and Blackpool North via Bolton. The first phase saw TransPennine Express introduce a fleet of 10 brand new four-coach electric trains between Manchester and Scotland, running via Wigan North Western. These entered service from 30 December 2013, with the full fleet now delivered.

From May 2014, TransPennine Express will provide additional carriages across its network, increasing overall capacity by 30%. That will include non-stop expresses between Liverpool and Manchester for the first time in several decades. These new train services will offer probably the fastest and most frequent express trains ever to run along the original Liverpool and Manchester railway.

Network Rail is nearing completion of the work for the next phase of electrification from Newton-le-Willows to Liverpool. Electric trains will be able to operate along the Chat Moss line from December. Some two years later, in late 2016, electric trains will be able to use the route from Manchester to Blackpool North via Bolton, too. That is all part of the Government’s massive electrification and investment project, providing more than 850 miles of electrification, which I probably do not need to remind the right hon. Lady is 842 miles more than delivered by the previous Labour Government in respect of improving our railways.

Although subject to reaching agreement, it is expected that a small number of train services between Liverpool and Manchester via the Chat Moss route will be provided using cascaded electric trains from the start of the December 2014 timetable. The planned phased introduction of four-coach electric trains will enable the operator to provide electric trains offering additional capacity for passengers travelling to Eccles and Patricroft during 2015.

[Hazel Blears]

I trust that the Minister will conduct the rest of this debate in the consensual way that has prevailed so far, otherwise I might be tempted to offer a different tone. Transport for Greater Manchester said:

“In the immediate short term, the major concern within TfGM is that the Department for Transport…has not confirmed when and how many electric units will come north to operate services over the newly electrified…line from this December.”

Will the Minister say how many are coming, to enable us to have that capacity?

[Mr Goodwill]

I will have to write to the right hon. Lady with precise details. I would not want to mislead the Chamber by giving the incorrect figure.

If agreed, it is hoped that the introduction of electric trains will enable a small number of the diesel trains used today to move to other routes. It is hoped that that will enable additional places to be provided for passengers travelling from Bolton and local stations on that line to Manchester at peak times, from the December 2014 timetable change.

Investment is being made on the Chat Moss route, to reinstate two tracks between Roby and Huyton that were removed in the 1970s. Initially, there will be a third track, but in a few years’ time, a new section of four-track railway will enable express trains to overtake local services, increasing capacity and reducing journey times.

In conclusion, we welcome the popularity of the railway in the north of England. Although I recognise that that has led to some services becoming very busy, the Government are investing to provide more, longer trains and to introduce electric trains and reduce journey times. I have outlined how the Government are working with operators and stakeholders to deliver increased capacity to the railway network, so that operators are able to provide passengers with more carriages and new, improved train services over the next few years. I hope to see electric trains calling at Eccles before the end of 2015, with operators working with TFGM and other local stakeholders to offer a more frequent service where there is a business case for doing so.

[Hazel Blears]

My heart fluttered a little when the Minister said “before the end of 2015”. Does that mean that he foresees the possibility, by the end of 2015, of two trains an hour—a half-hourly service—rather than the hourly service that we have now?

[Mr Goodwill]

The right hon. Lady mentioned this summer’s consultation and the opportunity that the new franchise may present. Let us hope that I have also seen that glimmer of hope, too, and let us hope that, in this case, it is not a false dawn.

I thank the right hon. Lady again for bringing this matter to my attention. If enthusiasm was a way of getting this matter pushed through, she would certainly have the train already. I appreciate that it is difficult for people to plan their lives around a train service that runs only on the hour. I have a similar problem with the Northern Rail service to Whitby in my constituency, where there is also a campaign for a second train, to give us an early morning service. The problems faced in Eccles are not confined to the western side of the country; they are also encountered in my constituency.

I appreciate the opportunity to make the case and to respond to the right hon. Lady’s points, and I look forward to seeing what developments come in future.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

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

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

My assessment is that public transport links to Durham Tees Valley airport are very poor. However, we stated in the aviation policy framework that we will work with airports, transport operators, local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to improve surface access to the UK’s airports.

[Ian Swales]

In the year to last March, the station at Durham Tees Valley airport had eight passengers—not per hour or per day, but in the whole year. Only one service a week stops there, cynically avoiding the costs of a real closure. This is a symbol of the long-term neglect of the area and its airport. Will the Minister require the airport operators to link their passenger terminal to proper public transport services, timed to serve their flights?

[Mr Goodwill]

I know that this is what is known as a parliamentary service, which does save the cost of closure, but given that the passenger numbers were 900,000 in 2006 and 161,092 in 2013, action on more than just public transport links will be required to ensure the airport’s future.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that the Tees Valley metro was seen as a key component in establishing better links to the airport. That concept appears to have slipped somewhat. Will he meet me to discuss the viability of the Tees Valley metro so that we can pursue our economic ambitions right across the Tees valley?

[Mr Goodwill]

I will be more than happy to do so, and ensure that Teesside has the same good transport links from which many other parts of the country benefit.

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

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

My hon. Friend chaired the all-party parliamentary cycling group yesterday when I outlined the Government’s commitment to cycling. With regards to the all-party group’s recommendations, the Government provided an update to Parliament last month.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for coming to speak to us yesterday. We made a number of recommendations, which were endorsed by this House when we debated the subject. Two of those would have a cross-departmental action plan and sustained funding at £10 per head. We have had some pots of money, but not at that level. Will he update us on those two issues?

[Mr Goodwill]

The first point that needs to be made is that, compared with the previous Government, we have doubled spending on cycling. Indeed, the eight cycling ambition cities have benefited from that funding, and Cambridge is one of them.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

If we are to get more people cycling, the physical fear—real or imagined—must be removed, particularly on busy roads such as those near my constituency where a number of people have died. How can the Government address that and take away the physical fear of cycling on busy roads?

[Mr Goodwill]

The Highways Agency is spending £40 million on cycling improvement schemes. I think that some of the media coverage, particularly in London last year, gives the impression that cycling is more dangerous than it actually is. It is safer now than it ever has been.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Local communities in Northumberland are keen to access the future cycling fund. Will the Minister meet me and representatives from Northumberland to discuss how the local enterprise partnership and individual communities can access future funds, and when that will happen?

[Mr Goodwill]

We are certainly always keen to meet local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to look at imaginative ways of encouraging more cycling. Indeed, we will publish our cycling delivery plan later this year.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

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

Road casualties have followed a declining trend over recent decades. With unprecedented investment in roads and continued improvements in vehicle technology, there are signs that this trend will continue. The economic cost of each casualty has been calculated at £1.7 million.

[Mr Sheerman]

The Minister knows of my long-term interest in road safety as chairman of the parliamentary advisory council for transport safety. Are we not in danger of becoming complacent? From now until 2030, it is likely that a third of a million people will be killed and seriously injured on Britain’s roads. The cost to families, to communities and to the national health service is going to be dreadful. Should we not act now to improve our performance?

[Mr Goodwill]

The UK leads Europe in road safety. Only Malta has a better record, and our record is twice as good as that of France. However, that is no reason for complacency or for letting up in the measures that we can take further to improve road safety.

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

My hon. Friend’s constituency and mine are served by the A64, and there will inevitably be casualties and fatalities on that road. Will he take this as a representation on improving it to reduce the likelihood of any such future casualties or fatalities?

[Mr Goodwill]

There are a number of single-carriageway trunk roads where we have particular concerns about the fatality and casualty levels. The Department collates data and produces a list of the worst blackspots which we can then identify for future investment.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

7. What plans he has to review funding for mountain rescue teams.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

9. What his plans are for the Severn bridge tolls when the current operator’s licence ends.

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

The UK Government are committed to the continued successful operation of these vital crossings. No decisions have been taken on future management or tolling arrangements on the crossings after the end of the current concession. However, any future regime would need to recover the costs it has incurred relating to the crossings, make provision for maintenance of the crossings and reflect the interests of roads users in England and Wales.

[Kevin Brennan]

If the toll since the first bridge was built in 1966 had increased simply in line with inflation, it would be just over £2 today, yet it is now £6.40 for a car. That is a tax on the south Wales economy, as the tolls operate only in one direction. Should the Government not give careful consideration to reducing the tolls when the opportunity arises or getting rid of them altogether?

[Mr Goodwill]

At the end of the concession period VAT will no longer be payable, so the Government of the day could take a decision based on that. Tolls for heavy goods vehicles are comparable with those at other crossings. For example, after taking account of the fact that crossing is free in one direction, the toll at the Humber crossing is £12 to save 45 miles, and the toll at the Severn is £9.60 to save 52 miles.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

The Minister will know from the recent debate in Westminster Hall that the old Severn bridge is entirely in England and half of it is in my constituency. When he is considering the future use of toll revenue, will he bear in mind my request for consideration of a third Severn crossing to relieve traffic congestion in my constituency, and whether toll revenue may be used to part-fund that if that is entirely necessary?

[Mr Goodwill]

The Government should certainly consider that. Indeed, the announcement in yesterday’s Budget on the Merseylink crossing indicates that there can be some cross-subsidisation of crossings to fund new provision.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Government have committed up to £900 million to promote the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles. Measures include a £5,000 buyer incentive and funding for charge points, including at people’s homes and locations such as train station car parks and the public sector estate.

[Mike Thornton]

I welcome the pioneering initiative the Government have put in place and the efforts to ensure that this country becomes a global leader in the field. However, I recently met representatives from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, who brought to my attention the danger that these very quiet vehicles can hold to those whose sight is impaired and to older people and children. These people rely on vehicle noise to help them judge whether it is safe to cross the road. Is the Minister aware of the research that shows that such quiet vehicles are involved in 25% more pedestrian collisions than conventional vehicles?

[Mr Goodwill]

The latest advice I have is that there is not a higher level of accidents involving these types of vehicles. We have an awful lot of vehicles that make no noise on our roads—they are called bicycles and people have to be aware of them as well.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Minister initially said that the Government would spend £400 million supporting low-emission vehicles. Answers to parliamentary questions have shown that £170 million of that will not be spent by the end of this Government’s life. Last year, the Chancellor cut the first-year capital subsidy for low-emission vehicles, as a result of which no right-handed vehicles are being produced in the UK. What will he do to incentivise this industry, and to ensure that the emissions causing the deaths of 29,000 people each year are cut down?

[Mr Goodwill]

As more manufacturers produce these vehicles, they are becoming much more mainstream, and people are getting used to the issues about range anxiety. As a Yorkshireman, I was particularly pleased to hear that the new Volkswagen model is to be called the e-up!

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking to ensure adequate supply and stability of rolling stock until 2018.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

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

It certainly is disturbing news, given the importance that we place on regional airports. It is disappointing that Manston has not been able to attract some of the low-cost carriers that it hoped to, but I am certainly happy to meet my hon. Friend to see whether there is a way forward.

[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?