Ministerial Correction

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in the answer I gave to parliamentary question 4042 on 7 July 2010, Official Report, column 265W, about what new rolling stock orders have been placed for each rail franchise since 2007. The table was incomplete and omitted the order, placed in April 2009 by National Express East Anglia, for 120 new EMU vehicles. The full table is reproduced below.

Crossrail: Annual Update

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

During the passage of the Crossrail Act through Parliament, a commitment was given to Parliament that a statement would be published at least every 12 months until the completion of the construction of Crossrail, setting out information about the project’s funding and finances.

In line with this commitment, I am therefore publishing this statement within 12 months of the previous statement, which was published on 16 July 2009, and set out below the information required to fulfil the commitment to Parliament:

Oral Answers to Questions

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

3. What information his Department holds on the effect of industrial action involving airlines on the number of passengers on flights operated by those airlines.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

The Department does not routinely monitor or hold information on airline passenger loads. However, most publicly listed UK airlines, including British Airways, regularly publish traffic and capacity statistics.

[Caroline Lucas]

Is the right hon. Lady aware of testimony from British Airways staff that British Airways has run commercially unviable flights in periods of industrial action, with low to zero numbers of passengers, to give the impression that it is unaffected by industrial action? Will you condemn any carrier for such environmentally unsustainable behaviour and investigate any report from BA staff?

[Mr Speaker]

I will neither condemn nor investigate, but the Minister might.

[Mrs Villiers]

It is clear that this Government are determined to provide encouragement to airlines to fly greener planes and to switch to flying fuller planes. That is what is behind the proposals we will make on reforming air passenger duty, and it will help to address the concerns around so-called ghost flights.

Turning to the hon. Lady’s specific example, that is primarily a matter for British Airways. I understand from the airline that some planes flew with low passenger loads, some were freight-only, and some had only crew on board, to ensure that the aeroplanes were in the right place to resume passenger operations once the dispute ended. That is a concern to us because of the environmental impact of empty flights. Unfortunately, that is another negative consequence of the industrial dispute and another reason why I urge the parties to get back round the table to ensure that it is resolved as soon as possible to prevent a recurrence.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

4. What plans he has for the future of the national concessionary bus fare scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

7. What plans he has for the electrification of the mainline railway between Wales and London.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

We support rail electrification because it helps to reduce carbon emissions and cut running costs. However, we are in the early stages of the new Government and Ministers are considering the full range of transport policy to ascertain what is affordable.

[Kevin Brennan]

I welcome the Minister to her post and thank her for her answer. In considering those matters, does she understand the importance of electrification on the line between Wales and London? I am glad that she did not simply repeat the mantra of her right hon. Friend, which is becoming as boring as a vuvuzela at the World cup—the one-note symphony we are getting from the Government. However, does she understand the importance of this kind of infrastructure? It is not just about the budget deficit, but about the future growth of the economy.

[Mrs Villiers]

I understand the importance of this issue, including in Wales, but the previous Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member, had 13 years to do this and failed. Just a few short years ago, the 30-year strategy they published for the railways had virtually no place for electrification. Then we had a last-minute change of mind, made at a point in the cycle when, as Labour’s outgoing Chief Secretary made clear, there was very little money left. We support electrification—it was in our manifesto and the coalition agreement—and we will take forward those projects that are affordable in the light of the deficit left to us by the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

8. What priorities he has set for departmental expenditure on the road network.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

9. Whether his Department’s value for money evaluation of the proposed Surrey Canal Road station on the East London line extension has been completed.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

We recognise the importance of Heathrow as the country’s international hub airport—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that the Minister has the wrong brief. I may be mistaken—if I am wrong, I apologise to her—but she is answering a question about the Surrey Canal Road station on the East London line. That is what is of interest to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock).

[Mrs Villiers]

I apologise, Mr Speaker.

A value for money assessment of the proposed Surrey Canal Road station was carried out by Transport for London and Lewisham council last year. The Department for Transport has some concerns regarding the business case. I have asked officials to provide full advice on the matter and expect to make a decision in the near future.

[Joan Ruddock]

I welcome the right hon. Lady to her position, and I am grateful for that reply. However, she needs to remember that Transport for London has found that the proposal more than meets the business case that was applicable to all other stations in London, and that it is pivotal to the development of 2,500 new homes and to the job prospects of the 2.9 million people expected to use the station. Will she meet with me to see how to get the station built now, alongside the construction of the railway?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am happy to meet the right hon. Lady as soon as possible to discuss this important issue. She has fought hard on the campaign, and I am looking into the proposal with great care. I am discussing it with officials and, as I have said, I have asked them for extra briefing. It is important to take into account local views, TfL’s views and the views of other stakeholders. However, I must also make it clear that we need to assess such programmes carefully for affordability, given the state of the public finances and the deficit that we have inherited from Labour.

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

Does the Minister accept that this issue has a cross-borough and cross-constituency resonance, and that there is widespread support for the proposal across the parties? Will she meet all of us who have an interest in it? I hope that we shall be able to persuade her of its merits, because we have a very good case.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Just say yes!

[Mrs Villiers]

Yes.

[Mr Speaker]

Excellent! Things are getting better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

My constituents do not want the pollution that additional runways at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick would entail, but they do want shorter queues, fewer delays and better service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are plenty of ways of achieving that through improving operations at those airports?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the Secretary of State has established a taskforce to look into the ways we can make good on our promise to make Heathrow better. We have rejected a third runway because of the huge environmental damage it would cause, but there is more we can do to improve the regulatory structure and we are bringing forward legislation on that to incentivise the airports to focus on the quality of service for passengers. We need to keep security measures under review so that passengers are kept safe and we can mitigate the hassle that those measures cause. We need to work with the stakeholders and the airlines to get the right solution to integrate high-speed rail with Heathrow, to provide a viable alternative to having many short-haul flights and to relieve overcrowding problems at the airport.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

T5. What is happening about the sell-off of BAA, its monopoly—particularly north of the border—and the imposition on passengers, especially in Glasgow, of charges for being picked up after their holiday flights, and the requirement to walk for an exorbitant distance? It is an absolute disgrace, and it is time that such companies were brought to book and made to compete.

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to a consumer issue which, I know, greatly concerns his constituents and many other users of that airport. It is just the type of issue that we hope our new airport regulation Bill will address. We intend to give airports stronger incentives to look after and respond to their customers.

The proceedings of the Competition Commission in relation to the ownership of various airports around the country are a matter for the commission, but we have often highlighted the benefits that diversity of ownership in the United Kingdom airport sector can yield to customers.

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

Is the Minister aware that Arriva buses recently introduced a completely new network and timetable in Milton Keynes? At a public meeting last Friday many of my constituents, especially pensioners, told me that they had been greatly inconvenienced by the changes, and that they had not been properly consulted. Will the Minister do all that he can to ensure that operators consult their passengers properly before introducing such radical changes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will protect runway alternation at Heathrow?

[Mrs Villiers]

I can give that confirmation. We support the current protections of runway alternation. We defeated Labour’s proposals for mixed mode when we were in opposition, and we will not revive them now that we are in government.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

Does the new, post-bureaucratic age of transparency extend to a commitment to publish bus and rail timetables in digital format for open public reuse?

[Mrs Villiers]

We are looking at that issue at the moment. I think there are considerable benefits to be gained from a more open approach to timetabling, and I would be delighted to have a discussion with the hon. Gentleman if he wants to give me further indications of his ideas on this, so that we can ensure we get the maximum benefits for passengers.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Vehicle excise duty remains unpaid on 2 million vehicles, 80% of which are uninsured and 70% of which are owned by people with criminal convictions. Given that these vehicles kill 160 people a year and injure 23,000, may we have a crackdown?

Rail Franchising

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

The Department for Transport will shortly begin a consultation exercise on the future of rail franchising policy. This consultation will provide industry partners with the opportunity to comment on the Government’s approach to rail franchising and whether bidders for longer franchises would be able to offer investment in improvements to trains and services. It will also allow the industry to set out its proposals for improving the efficiency and value for money of rail franchises, for both taxpayers and fare payers. I will set out further details to the House in due course.

To enable the next Greater Anglia and Essex Thameside franchises—which are currently in the process of being re-let—fully to reflect the changes resulting from this review of policy the competitions for these franchises, which were started in January 2010, are to be cancelled.

It is currently expected that a new competition for the Greater Anglia franchise will be advertised by the end of the year, after the consultation responses have been considered, with the Essex Thameside franchise following in autumn 2011.

It is also expected that there will be some consequent changes to the procurement time scales previously published for the InterCity East Coast franchise. Rail services will continue to run as normal on all affected franchises. A prior information notice (PIN) setting out the Department’s proposed future rail franchising programme will be issued in due course.

Volcanic Ash (Impact on Aviation)

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I am grateful, Mr Benton, that you should be presiding over this debate; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

The debate is being held in Government time to allow us to consider the severe problems caused by volcanic ash in April. We are all too aware of the significant inconvenience and unhappiness caused to those who were stranded by the crisis or whose travel plans were disrupted. That alone merits the House’s giving careful consideration to how the crisis was handled and how we should deal with the continuing threats caused by volcanic ash.

Hon. Members will be aware that the source of the problems is the Eyjafjallajokull volcano. I hope that the House will forgive my rudimentary attempts at Icelandic pronunciation; I plan to say the volcano’s name a few more times today, so it might improve. For brevity’s sake, however, hon. Members may prefer to call it E15, not least because mispronouncing it has caused a number of problems for media outlets across the world.

A key point is that the distinctive individual characteristics of different volcanoes can have a significant impact on the level of disruption generated by their ash clouds. Eyjafjallajokull has a number of features that are relevant to the matters that we are considering this afternoon.

First, previously recorded active periods show eruptions of varying intensity taking place over many months. That is in significant contrast to volcanic eruptions such as those at Mount St Helen’s or Pinatubo; those were very intense, but they lasted only a matter of hours. Secondly, E15’s caldera is capped with ice. Initially, the magma erupted through the ice cap, which caused rapid cooling of the magma, leading to its explosive disintegration into fine particles of ash. I am advised that fine particles of ash are more easily conveyed over long distances by the prevailing wind, and they remain in the atmosphere for longer than the larger particles produced by eruptions like Mount St Helen’s.

Thankfully, E15 stopped emitting ash on 22 May. However, that does not mean that the crisis has gone away or that we should ease off with important activities meant to deal with the threat to flying posed by volcanic ash. The volcano could erupt again at any time over the next few months. Moreover, it is located 15.5 miles west of a larger volcano called Katla. Historical evidence indicates a worrying correlation between activity at E15 and subsequent eruptions at Katla. The risk of activity at Katla remains present. For a number of reasons, there remains an urgent need to address the issue and to ensure that we get the right safety and regulatory framework in the event of a recurrence of volcanic ash problems.

I am sure that everyone here will agree that safety must be our paramount concern. Volcanic ash presents a problem for modern jet-powered engines for two principal reasons. First, the ash is silica-rich and therefore abrasive, especially when it hits aircraft at high speed. That affects forward-facing surfaces such as the windshield and the leading edges of the wings, and it can also lead to accumulation of ash in surface openings—including, most importantly, the engines. Secondly, the composition of most volcanic ash is such that its melting temperature lies within the operating temperature range of modern large jet engines.

The risks have been illustrated in a number of previous incidents, and I draw the House’s attention to two of them. On 24 June 1982, a BA 747 jet, on its way from London to Auckland, flew into a cloud of volcanic ash 100 miles south-east of Jakarta. In rapid succession, all four engines flamed out and shut down. The aircraft entered a glide, dropping from 37,000 to 13,500 feet before the pilot was able to restart the engines; one of the engines failed again soon afterwards. Similarly, on 15 December 1989, a KLM 747 flying from Amsterdam to Tokyo flew into volcanic ash on the approach to Anchorage airport. Again, all four engines shut down. The plane dropped 14,000 feet before the pilot was able to restart the engines. Damage to the plane was reported to have cost more than $80 million.

I return to the crisis that we face in this country. The initial reaction of air traffic controllers and regulators in Europe was to follow the internationally established procedures set down in the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s volcanic ash contingency plan for the European region. That plan is based on experience, and it provides that aircraft should avoid flying in volcanic ash. The scope of the zone affected by volcanic ash was determined by a computer model run by the Met Office, in its role as the volcanic ash advisory centre for the north Atlantic. Using data about the ash emitted from the volcano, the model is used to predict where the north Atlantic winds will carry the ash, and the potential peak concentrations of that ash. As a result, the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS imposed movement restrictions in UK airspace that had the effect of grounding commercial aircraft between 15 and 20 April.

That decision undoubtedly triggered controversy. However, it mirrored similar measures taken throughout Europe. It also reflected the advice of aircraft manufacturers at the time that aircraft should not fly in areas if there was a risk of ash being present. Whatever the merits of the choices made during the tenure of the previous Administration, it soon became clear that a rule that required complete avoidance of volcanic ash in affected areas would not be a long-term solution in Europe’s congested airspace. That is why the CAA brought together airlines, regulators, and aircraft and engine manufacturers, to develop a new approach to reducing the disruption caused by Eyjafjallajokull.

After a review of test flight data, and in consultation with the airline operators, manufacturers and international partners, the CAA issued new guidance on the use of airspace on 20 April. That guidance reflected revised ash tolerance levels, as determined by the engine manufacturers. Put simply, it was established that there was after all a level of ash concentration that was consistent with safe flying. The area in which it was safe to fly was thus expanded, and aircraft were permitted to start flying again in UK airspace. That, of course, was immensely welcome.

The new regulatory framework designates three airspace categories. The first consists of airspace predicted to be free of ash, when no special restrictions apply. The second is a red enhanced procedures zone, when low ash density is predicted and aircraft are permitted to fly so long as increased safety and maintenance checks are carried out. The third category is a black no-fly zone, when predicted ash levels exceed safety limits and no commercial flights are permitted.

That was the situation in place when the new ministerial team took over the Department for Transport in mid-May. Given the hassle caused to passengers and the economic impact on airlines, the volcanic ash problem was clearly one of the most important issues for the new team to address. In the days immediately following the new Government’s taking over, officials had to work around the clock to deal with the matter. We need to pay tribute to their hard work, under both this Administration and the previous one. The new Secretary of State’s first official decision was to declassify the five-day ash concentration forecasts of the Met Office and authorise their publication, to assist the aviation community to tackle the crisis. He has focused time and effort on this matter every day since his appointment.

We have been working hard with officials, the Civil Aviation Authority and industry to ensure that such disruption to UK aviation is not repeated, even if there is renewed volcanic activity. Finding a safe way to achieve that goal is a high priority for us, which is why we put this debate on the agenda this afternoon. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions and comments on this important matter.

Central to our efforts is an attempt to engage with manufacturers, to distinguish between concerns about safety and concerns about the commercial impact of ash damage to engines. Given that the issues cross both the aircraft’s body and its engine, a key task for the CAA and the airlines has been to press the aircraft and engine manufacturers to establish, with clarity, what level of ash their engines can safely tolerate. That is a key question, and the Department continues to be actively engaged in that important process.

The general approach that I have outlined was endorsed at an international conference hosted by the CAA on 13 May. The conference brought together more than 100 representatives from organisations such as the European Commission, the European Aviation Safety Agency and Eurocontrol, as well as from the airlines, airports and manufacturers. I am pleased to say that on 17 May further progress was made. The CAA established an additional area for safe flying—a new time-limited zone—which is between the black no-fly area and the red enhanced procedures zone. Aircraft and engine manufacturers agreed that it was safe to allow operations in the new grey zone for a limited time at higher ash densities than were previously permitted.

To operate in the new zone, airlines need to present their national supervisory authority with a safety case that includes the agreement of their aircraft and engine manufacturers. Essentially, there was a doubling of the ash threshold for safe flying from 2,000 to 4,000 micrograms per cubic metre, which was a significant and a welcome step forward. However, I want to emphasise that the new Government are not letting up the pressure. We are also pushing for progress on the matter at an international level, both within the European Union and more widely in the International Civil Aviation Organisation. We want to see ICAO take forward the development of a new global standard on volcanic ash.

Turning now to the impact of this incident on passengers, I have immense sympathy with those who had their travel plans disrupted or who had difficulty getting home for work, school and other commitments. The situation must have been a nightmare for thousands of families stranded around the world during the Easter holidays. Certainly, the efforts made by the previous Government in aiding the repatriation of those passengers were subject to some controversy and criticism, and I imagine that during the course of the debate, hon. Members will want to recount the problems experienced by their constituents.

We need to acknowledge that many passengers felt angry and frustrated about how the situation was handled. Particular controversy surrounded the Madrid hub that was established by the previous Government to help bring home long-haul passengers. Nevertheless, to be fair, we should acknowledge that the Foreign Office did provide consular assistance to thousands of British nationals around the world. Additional capacity was also provided on Eurostar, the channel tunnel, cross-channel ferries and domestic rail to help passengers return home. Moreover, we should recognise the efforts made by the airlines and travel companies—initially to get people home by road, rail and sea and then by laying on extra flights once air space reopened.

Most passengers have statutory entitlements under one or both of the denied boarding, cancellation and delay regulations or the package travel directive, depending on the type of holiday that they bought. I do not propose to go into the detail of the rights accorded by such regulations, but further advice on them can be found on various internet sites, including that of the Air Transport Users Council. In practice, a proportion of passengers were provided with food and accommodation by their airline or tour operator until they could travel. Others covered by the regulation who opted for re-routing but who were not provided with up-front assistance are entitled to claim reasonable costs from their airline.

Most people acknowledge that the regulations did not work perfectly, but they were being applied in an unprecedented situation. There can be little doubt that the eruption of an Icelandic volcano was not a scenario uppermost in the minds of the legislators who drafted the rules. Their operation, therefore, clearly needs to be reviewed.

The response to the ash crisis is an important matter on the agenda for the next meeting of EU Transport Ministers, which will take place on 24 June and which the Secretary of State is planning to attend. Whatever the debate about the future of these rules, it is important to make one thing very clear and put it on the record. Despite the controversy surrounding the denied boarding rules and the undeniable burdens that they have placed on the airline industry in what was an unprecedented situation, we expect pending claims under those rules to be processed fairly, expeditiously and in accordance with the current law.

I should like briefly to address some issues around the impact of this episode on the aviation and travel industry. A number of organisations and trade associations from air transport and related industries have asked for financial assistance from the Government to help meet the costs of looking after passengers, and to cover lost business during April. In the last couple of weeks, the Secretary of State has met the chief executives of the major UK airlines to discuss a number of topics, including this one. We appreciate and understand the concerns expressed by the companies that were hit with an unexpected bill so soon after the end of the recession and so soon after what everyone has acknowledged has been a very difficult period for the aviation industry generally.

The Government have not ruled out providing support for airlines, but I do not want to raise expectations. The starting presumption must be that it is for businesses to meet their own operating risks and legal liabilities. Moreover, EU state aid clearance would be needed if assistance were to be given. Even more importantly, the state of the public finances means that such assistance may not be affordable. My understanding is that although Governments across Europe may sympathise with the plight of the airlines, they are also constrained by similar concerns about affordability. Such a view can come as no surprise to anyone given the current financial situation, which has been all too apparent in news bulletins recently.

In conclusion, this was and remains an unprecedented situation. It required the rapid development of a new approach to air safety regulation and lessons need to be learned to deal with similar emergencies in the future. Indeed, they are already being learned, as is shown by the urgent work that the new Government have undertaken to seek improvements to the robustness of the regulatory framework and its ability to adapt and to respond to the challenge posed by volcanic ash.

In that regard, it is worth noting that with the adoption of the 17 May set of changes, which I outlined earlier, the maximum concentration of ash designated as being consistent with safe flying has risen by a factor of 20 since the decisions that were made at the start of the crisis in April. But let me emphasise that both the CAA and the Department for Transport are continuing to work hard with engine and aircraft manufacturers with the goal of establishing a further increase in safe ash tolerance levels.

Eyjafjallajokull may have stopped erupting for the moment, but no one can rule our further volcanic activity and further disruption during the coming months. So I want to close my opening remarks by assuring the House that the new Government will work hard to see that every effort is made to minimise any disruption, with the goal of avoiding a rerun of the events in April that caused so much mayhem and unhappiness for so many passengers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

With the leave of the House, we have had a very constructive discussion. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), correctly pointed out, the debate has been remarkably consensual and good natured across all parties. I fear he is correct that that will not necessarily be repeated on every occasion when we discuss transport matters in the main Chamber or this place.

Before dealing with hon. Members’ individual points, I want to mention a subject that cuts across a number of the speeches made this afternoon: the impact of data. The lack of data about the impact of ash on engines was clearly a big part of the initial problems, and there was also a need for more data on identifying where the ash concentrations actually were. As I outlined in my speech, significant progress was made on that problem relatively rapidly, and progress has accelerated. However, all hon. Members who mentioned that matter were correct to say that efforts to ascertain the facts about those two issues are pivotal to ensuring that we have a robust regulatory framework under which safety is paramount and the disruption caused by volcanic ash episodes is minimised and reduced.

Work on that matter is continuing with airlines and, crucially, with aircraft and engine manufacturers. The CAA is also actively engaged with that work, as is the Department for Transport through the active and energetic involvement of the Secretary of State and Ministers, who are engaging with the process and encouraging progress to be made. Such work is obviously hugely important if we are to be successful in preventing a recurrence of disruption on the scale that we saw earlier this year. In that regard, work is also being done on test flights. That kind of data will be important in improving the regulatory framework and making progress on the matter.

A number of hon. Members asked whether there should have been more advance preparations and why the scale of disruption was so much more significant in this case than it has been in relation to other volcanic incidents around the world. That point leads me back to some of the remarks that I made at the start of my speech. It was the type of volcano and its location that played a significant part in the degree of disruption caused. The fact that the ash was particularly fine meant that it was dispersed over a wide area and, geographically, the volcano was close to a very congested area of airspace. That unfortunate combination played a significant part in the extent of the disruption caused and is one of the reasons why we must make progress in improving the robustness of the regulatory framework to deal with such an unprecedented situation.

Turning to some of the comments made about the efforts to repatriate passengers, I emphasise that work on that is under way. We all hope that there will not be significant disruption in the future, but we must prepare for the eventuality that it might occur. The Government as a whole, under the auspices of the civil contingencies secretariat in the Cabinet Office, are looking at contingency planning should there be another significant eruption. That work is considering all modes of transport, not just aviation. The Department for Transport is also working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which would lead on the issue of repatriating stranded British nationals. We will be placing a priority on preparations for that kind of effort to deal with disruption, if such a situation occurs again.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) made some interesting remarks about Newcastle International airport, which has an important place in the economy—not just for her constituency, but for the north-east as a whole. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) also made it plain that regional airports play a significant part in regional economies. Many regional airports have experienced significant difficulties as a result of the ash crisis, which is certainly something that we will take on board.

On compensation, I am afraid that I cannot add to my previous remarks. We understand the concerns of the airlines, the airports and travel-related industries, but, in an era of constrained public finances, the issue of compensation is very difficult. The kind of compensation that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North would like to be paid simply might not be affordable, but we will be devoting care and attention to the matter before a final decision is made. She also emphasised the issues surrounding data, some of which I have already responded to.

I turn to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Gordon. He outlined some of his own travel problems, with which I have great sympathy. He was right to point out that it was, literally, an ill wind that blew nobody any good—although some of the train operators did quite well as a result of the crisis. He was also right to say that one of the things that we must work on, just in case these events recur in some form or other, is trying to get as much information to people as early as possible, so that they can plan their travel.

One of the Secretary of State’s first acts was to release some of the hitherto classified Met Office data for five-day forecasts, to help the airlines plan in the eventuality of further disruption and, in turn, help their customers.

The right hon. Gentleman also rightly referred to the importance of improving work on forecasting the location of ash concentrations, and I have outlined that. He mentioned that the crisis had caused some people to reconsider their travel plans and to look at alternatives to flying. Some people did go through that process but, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East also pointed out, the incident has shown us the important part that flying plays in our daily lives and our economy. Although it is useful to look at the environmental benefits associated with finding alternatives to flying, that is obviously not a solution when there is disruption on the scale that we experienced a few weeks ago.

The right hon. Member for Gordon went on to talk about losses at Aberdeen airport, and I think that I have covered that point. He also emphasised the importance of UK authorities working closely with European ones, and I can assure him that that is under way at the moment. He asked whether the UK needed special considerations and perhaps special rules, and whether we would always be in line with what the rest of Europe was doing. That is a point to note, because our being closer to the volcano than other countries has an impact on the decisions that we can make on airspace, and it perhaps played a part in the slight differences between the timings of the relaxation of restrictions. In response to what has been said by other hon. Members about the timing of that relaxation, it is worth bearing in mind that the work done by the CAA led the debate and formed one of the reasons why airspace across the rest of Europe was reopened. Some of the work done by the CAA was, I understand, adopted and used by other European countries in making their decisions to reopen their airspace.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire spoke very eloquently about East Midlands airport and its importance to her constituents, and also about Rolls-Royce’s superb manufacturing facilities in her constituency. She told us about some of the difficulties that local residents had in getting home. She asked for leadership on the issue, and we are determined to provide that; I appreciate how important it is for all her constituents who work at East Midlands airport and at Rolls-Royce. We put this debate on the agenda this afternoon precisely to enable Members such as my hon. Friend to make those kinds of points, to listen to Parliament’s concerns and to ensure that we provide the leadership needed to take forward the improvement to the regulatory system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) talked with eloquence about the inconvenience suffered by her constituents. I am sorry to hear that her election campaign was disrupted somewhat by the volcanic ash; that happened to a number of people. I had conversations with Conservative party HQ about the fact that Icelandic volcanoes were not included in its list of contingency plans for election tours. Nevertheless, the election efforts carried on undiminished. It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend’s comments about the impact on Birmingham airport. She, too, emphasised the importance of further research on the impact of volcanic ash on engines—a point I think I have covered. She paid tribute to Willie Walsh for his work in a test flight, and she welcomed the work done by easyJet, with its AVOID system.

Turning to some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, I, colleagues and the CAA very much welcome easyJet’s efforts to contribute to the debate. EasyJet’s efforts and the technology that it is trialling are being carefully considered. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East urged us proceed swiftly to deliver safety certification, but I am sure that he would not suggest that we cut corners. Interesting work is being done, and no doubt the CAA will monitor it carefully and go through the appropriate steps to ascertain whether and when it might receive the safety certification that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. That is, however, a matter for the CAA to determine, taking into account all the relevant facts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) spoke with great authority about the impact of the crisis on both passengers and the aviation industry. One of his questions was about the famous Madrid coaches. I have a long, full list of coaches, which I do not propose to read out, but I can send it to him. The total number of passengers transferred from Spain to Calais was more than 1,000, with a significant number of coaches leaving from Madrid, Barcelona, Malaga and Alicante.

My hon. Friend also referred to the difficult issue of waiving night flight restrictions. For his information, night flight restrictions were waived briefly when airspace first reopened after the prolonged restrictions on flying. Making an exception to the night flight rules is always a very difficult decision. I am a strong supporter of the protection that people are given as a result of the restrictions on night flights but, given the scale of the emergency, it was felt that a brief relaxation was justified.

In the event of a similar emergency in the future, I am sure that airspace authorities would give careful and due consideration to the difficult competing concerns. One wants to make every possible effort to normalise travel as soon as possible, but night flights have a corrosive impact on people’s quality of life and one therefore needs to act with extreme care, even when referring to only a very brief lifting of such important protections. My hon. Friend also urged me and my colleagues to work with the airlines, the agency and the industry on technology. We are definitely doing that—it is the only way forward. He also called for common sense to prevail, and I shall certainly try to ensure that that is the case.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East asked a number of questions, some of which I have addressed already. He asked, in particular, whether the UK is working with ICAO on its work to revise the volcanic ash rules and the programme for Europe. Yes, work is going on with ICAO on precisely that. He also asked whether the Government would impress on the airlines the importance of paying out in line with their obligations under the denied boarding and cancellation rules. As I sought to set out in my opening remarks, we believe that, whatever debate there may be in the future about those rules, it is important that the airlines pay out under their legal obligations in the rules as currently drafted, and that claims are settled as expeditiously as possible. He was right to raise the concerns of those who are awaiting settlement of reasonable claims under the provisions.

The hon. Gentleman urged me to prevent any dilution of EC regulation 261/2004. We need to look at it in the round to see whether there are ways to make the whole system work in a better and fairer way. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the matter will be discussed by EU Transport Ministers in the near future, at their next meeting.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman spoke about adapting the allocation of emissions permits under the emissions trading scheme so that the interruption in flying does not have a distortive effect on the allocation of permits when that is decided. That is a fairly technical matter, but I hear the point he is making and shall pass his comments on to those in the Department who are dealing with the mechanics of getting the ETS into operation. We need to see whether we can ensure that the interruption of flying as a result of volcanic ash does not have a perverse or distortive effect on the decisions that will be made in the future on the allocation of emissions permits.

With that, I shall close. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for participating in this constructive debate on an issue that is extremely important to our economy, as well as to holidaymakers, as we make progress on improving the robustness of the regulatory framework and its response to volcanic ash.

Question put and agreed to.

High Speed Rail

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Betts. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on securing a debate on this important topic. For many of the reasons that he so articulately set out in opening the debate, the issue is significant for the future of our transport system, our economy and our environment,

I can assure hon. Members that high speed rail plays a core role in the new Government’s vision for the future of travel in the United Kingdom. I am therefore grateful for the strong support that has been displayed across the parties in the debate, and particularly by the new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). That support has been reflected in many speeches this morning, and I welcome the contributions from not only the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, but from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Sir Peter Soulsby), my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and the hon. Members for Solihull (Lorely Burt) and for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). I shall address a number of the issues that they raised. As well as supporting high speed rail, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury reflected on some of the issues for local communities that might be affected once a route is chosen. I will come to that later.

The Conservatives championed high speed rail in opposition. We transformed debate on the issue in October 2008, when we pledged to start the long process of building a national network. At the time, the Labour Government had dismissed high speed rail as an option, and their 30-year strategy for the railways contained no place for it. Nevertheless, I very much welcome the change of heart that occurred after our announcement and with the appointment of Lord Adonis. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow North East in welcoming and paying tribute to the work that Lord Adonis did on the issue.

The change of heart from the previous Government signalled the emergence of a broader cross-party consensus on the principle that high speed rail is essential for Britain’s transport system. The new Government’s support for high speed rail was clearly and explicitly included in the coalition agreement. Our programme for government includes the creation of a high speed rail network. Our ambition is the creation of a genuinely national high speed network, although we recognise that that will have to be achieved in phases over a number of years. However, in answer to the questions about that national network, let me say that a genuinely national network of course embraces destinations in the east midlands, Scotland and Wales—the areas that have been specifically highlighted this morning.

Let me take this opportunity to emphasise that the Government’s ambitions for high speed rail do not stop at Birmingham. Although the previous Administration had a change of heart on high speed rail, their focus was still just on detailed plans for a route to Birmingham. It is manifestly clear that we will not reap the full benefits of high speed rail unless we go much further than the west midlands, important though a link to the west midlands obviously is. We want to make progress as rapidly as possible towards the creation of a national network that connects to the rest of Europe via the channel tunnel.

In opposition, both coalition partners emphasised the importance of taking high speed rail to Scotland. It is clear in the devolution settlement that the Scottish Government are responsible for rail infrastructure north of the border. Delivering cross-border high speed rail services and a cross-border high speed rail line would therefore obviously require close co-operation and careful joint working between Holyrood and Westminster on a range of issues, including, of course, funding. That is why, in my role in opposition, I visited Scotland for constructive talks with John Swinney on how that co-operation might go forward. There are extensive and close contacts between the Department for Transport and its counterparts in Scotland. The Secretary of State also looks forward to working with his Scottish counterpart in developing a high speed rail strategy that incorporates Scotland.

Issues relating to the timetable were at the heart of the questions from the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. The Secretary of State is considering the timetable set out by HS2 Ltd. He is also considering questions relating to the integration of Heathrow into the high speed rail network, which I will come to in due course. He will report to Parliament in due course on the timetable and on how things will be taken forward. However, the intention is to go forward with the consultation as promptly as possible, after that statement to Parliament.

The Government intend to present a hybrid Bill during this Parliament. We also intend to start enabling work by 2015. That is a somewhat more aggressive timetable than that set by the previous Government, but we are determined—the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith questioned me on this—to take the process forward promptly. Further work is already under way on lines beyond Birmingham. We will also continue to assess the appropriate delivery vehicles.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I thank the Minister for her answers so far, but may I be clear about one point? She said that she envisaged work starting in 2015, but what kind of work does she mean? Such work would be welcome, but 2015 is quite soon, so perhaps she will elucidate.

[Mrs Villiers]

As I said, the intention is for enabling work to start in 2015. Given that there will be a detailed and expansive consultation process before decisions are made on a route, it would not be appropriate or realistic for me to say exactly what type of work we would intend to start by 2015 and in what locations.

[Sir Peter Soulsby]

The Minister has talked about a route going beyond Birmingham, and about Scotland. Do the Government remain committed to the Y-shaped link that was part of the previous Government’s proposals?

[Mrs Villiers]

The previous Government talked about a line north of Birmingham, but had no clear commitment. It was the Conservatives who championed a national network that would bring the benefits of high speed rail to a wider range of areas than was envisaged in the core part of the previous Government’s proposals.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned fares, and it is important that the high speed rail line should be affordable for ordinary families. The analysis done by the Conservative party in opposition and by HS2 Ltd under the previous Government makes it clear that the line will be affordable and deliverable with a contribution from future fares revenue, even with fares that are reasonable and broadly in line with existing levels on existing services. We can deliver the line without necessarily assuming that the fares will be unreasonable and out of the reach of ordinary families.

[Sir Peter Soulsby]

I thank the Minister for her response on fares, but she did not respond to my question about the Y-shaped link. I am interested in the link not north but east of Birmingham, serving the east midlands, south Yorkshire and, of course, the north-east.

[Mrs Villiers]

As I have made clear, our ambition is a national network, and we believe that it is vital to make progress promptly and to ensure that we achieve the benefits of high speed rail as widely as possible. We have also made it clear that merely going to Birmingham is not enough. We need to ensure that other parts of the country share in the benefits of high speed rail. We shall publish details of the timetable in due course.

[Greg Mulholland]

I welcome the Minister to her new job. She is aware that I have been heavily involved in the lobbying campaign for a direct high speed link to Yorkshire, working with you, Mr Betts, and with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), in a cross-party campaign with the Yorkshire Post—its “Fast Track to Yorkshire” campaign. The Y shape is not the only way to create a direct link to Yorkshire and the important cities of Sheffield and Leeds, which are the economic hubs of their areas. The High Speed North proposal merits further consideration. May we be clear, and have a commitment that the Government will, when the relevant phase happens, create a direct link to Yorkshire—not a link via Manchester, which does not make sense?

[Mrs Villiers]

I have made it clear that the ambition is to create a national network, and it is of course vital that the north of England, Manchester and Yorkshire should be included in that network. In due course, decisions will be taken about the exact route to be selected. However, as I have emphasised, there is a long process to be undertaken before final decisions are made on the route for new high speed rail lines.

The case for high speed rail is undeniable. It has the potential to make a huge contribution to the long-term prosperity of the country and the efficiency of its transport system, and it can play a crucial role in achieving the goal of a lower-carbon economy. In the next 20 to 30 years, key inter-urban routes are likely to become increasingly congested, with negative consequences for our economy and quality of life. High speed rail could provide a massive uplift in capacity, as well as dramatically reduced journey times.

We have been discussing the areas to be served directly by high speed rail, but we must not lose sight of the fact that a high speed network also relieves pressure and overcrowding on existing railways. It allows more space for commuting and freight services, so it produces significant benefits for passengers and the economy even in areas that are not directly served by a line or station. It will create huge benefits in growth, regeneration and jobs, which will be felt far more widely than in the destinations directly served by new lines and services. I believe that it will provide valuable help in addressing long-standing prosperity differences between the south-east and the rest of the country, and thus create a more stable and balanced economy.

To return to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Leicester South, of course it is vital, in parallel with taking high speed rail forward, to continue a programme of work on upgrading and improving the existing rail network.

[Sir Peter Soulsby]

On that point, I would be very grateful if the Minister gave way again.

[Mrs Villiers]

I would rather make a little progress. I have been very generous in giving way, so I will proceed with my remarks for a moment.

We all acknowledge that there is a downside to the proposals—the impact on the environment of the localities through which new lines could go. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury explained, hon. Members have understandable concerns about the potential impact of high speed rail on their constituents. The Government of course recognise the gravity of those concerns. There will be a detailed and inclusive process before final decisions are made about our approach to high speed rail overall, and the route it should follow. I am happy to engage with colleagues and hon. Members during the process. It goes without saying that reducing and mitigating the local environmental impact of high speed rail will always be a high priority for the Government in advancing the project. It will inform our decisions on the selection of the route.

I am happy to take on board my hon. Friend’s ideas on benefiting the communities that may be subject to the environmental impact of high speed rail lines. Ideas are already under discussion about the possibility of burying power lines, and the new Government’s commitment to high speed rail has already brought about a benefit, because it has enabled us to say with confidence that we strongly oppose a third runway at Heathrow. The fact that it will not go ahead provides significant benefits for some communities that may be affected by high speed rail, because there will not be the massive uplift in aircraft noise to which many of them might have been subjected had the election gone a different way and if a Labour Government had been elected and proceeded with their plans. As to existing transport corridors, in assessing the route, the potential benefits of their use will be fully considered. However, that approach is not a panacea. It cannot provide the answer in all cases, but it is worth considering.

We made it plain before the election that we reserved our position on the route that HS2 has recommended. The process of formal consultation on the hybrid Bill will provide extensive opportunities for people to make their voice heard and have their point of view properly and fairly considered before a route is finalised. We also recognise that concerns in that respect are not confined to fears about the future. In some places, the impact is being felt today in the instability of local property markets.

A key goal for the new Government is to press ahead expeditiously, taking on board the continuing consultation, with the finalising of arrangements for an exceptional hardship scheme, so that we can swiftly and equitably give assistance to those who most need it. The consultation is due to end in a week, and we shall look with great care at the respondents’ suggestions in deciding how to proceed.

As part of the work that we are doing to reconsider and review the HS2 proposals on the route, we need to find the right option for connecting Heathrow to the new network. As we made clear in opposition, we believe that it is vital to integrate the country’s only major long-haul hub airport to the high-speed rail network that we propose to build. Lord Mawhinney was asked by the previous Government to assess the alternatives. His review was established against the background of Labour’s policy of supporting a third runway at Heathrow.

In answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, one of the first acts of the new Secretary of State was to agree with Lord Mawhinney an amendment to his remit, to reflect the approach of the coalition. The new Government strongly oppose a new runway at Heathrow, as the Prime Minister confirmed and reiterated in one of his first actions on taking office. Heathrow needs to be better, not bigger. A key part of our programme for improving it is to integrate the airport into the proposed new high speed rail network. That would improve public transport links to the airport, and help to relieve the problems with air quality and congestion in the area by encouraging people to switch from road to rail when travelling to Heathrow.

In response to questions on the subject, we are obviously carefully considering whether high speed rail could be integrated with Crossrail. As a number of colleagues said, integrating Heathrow should also facilitate a major shift from air to rail. Experience in Europe shows that high speed rail provides an attractive alternative to short-haul flights. For example, Air France has completely stopped flights between Paris and Brussels, choosing instead to charter carriages on the TGV rail link.

Maximising the scope for switching from air to rail is an important goal in environmental terms, as high speed trains emit significantly less carbon than aviation. Indeed, the gap between the train and the plane is likely to widen as we proceed with the vital task of cleaning up our electricity generation sources. A further benefit of the air-to-rail switch would be to free up space at Heathrow by providing an alternative to the thousands of short-haul flights going in and out of the airport. That is how we plan to relieve capacity pressure.

We believe also that it is essential to have a direct link between the new domestic line and existing international services on HS1, and we have asked HS2 Ltd urgently to assess the best way to deliver that. It would be a mistake to consider rail only in relation to domestic aviation when it is clearly a viable alternative for travelling to a number of important near European destinations such as Brussels, Paris, Amsterdam and Rotterdam.

In conclusion—

[Sir Peter Soulsby]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am sorry, but I am going to conclude. There is a huge task ahead of us as we contemplate delivering an infrastructure project as big as any since the 19th century, when the Victorians revolutionised our economy and our society with the nation’s first railway network. It is worth remembering that Britain’s first, and so far only, 68 miles of high-speed track owed much to the unlikely combination of John Prescott and Michael Heseltine. As we press forward with realising this great ambition, I hope that we can continue to count on cross-party support.

[Sir Peter Soulsby]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

I have given way on a number of occasions. I am now going to conclude.

[Sir Peter Soulsby]

rose—

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister is indicating that she will not give way.

[Mrs Villiers]

I have no doubt that there will be difficult times ahead, not least in relation to decisions about the route and how we mitigate and reduce its impact on surrounding communities and the landscape. However, I firmly believe that future generations will thank us for displaying determination and persistence in delivering this crucial upgrade to our transport system. We need to inject some of the long-term thinking that transport policy has so often lacked in the past. The new Government are determined to rise to that challenge and deliver the high speed vision for Britain’s rail network—one that could have a transformative impact on our transport system, our economy and our quality of life.

Crossrail

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Thursday 3rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) on securing a debate on this very important topic. I first became a supporter of Crossrail around 10 years ago in my former role as one of London’s Members of the European Parliament, but my involvement has been brief in comparison with the right hon. Gentleman’s long track record. I am sure that everyone will join me in paying tribute this evening to his long and distinguished record of campaigning for Crossrail in general and for Woolwich station in particular.

It is a great honour for me to address the House from the Government Dispatch Box for the very first time. I also count it an honour that my debut here today gives me the opportunity to focus on a project that is so important not just for south-east London but for the capital as a whole, and, as has already been pointed out, for the whole of the UK economy. I reiterate, and warmly welcome, the right hon. Gentleman’s statement on the benefits of Crossrail, which he so eloquently set out this evening.

Crossrail received support from both the coalition partners before the election. That support has been carried through to the formal coalition agreement setting out our programme for government, and the new Secretary of State has made it clear that we are committed to Crossrail. Crossrail is under way: it is happening, it is being built, spades are in the ground, and no decisions have been taken to change the scope of the project.

Our challenge is to deliver an affordable world-class railway. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Department for Transport is working hand in hand with Transport for London, the Mayor and the leaders of the Crossrail project to secure that result. That is why Crossrail Ltd, the company tasked with delivering the project under the leadership of Terry Morgan and Rob Holden, is undertaking the full range of work to ensure that the scheme remains affordable, on budget and on time.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about the timetable, I am sure that he would not expect me to take the pressure off those delivering the project; it is my job to hold their feet to the fire and ensure that they deliver on time. It is vital to ensure that each element offers value for money. Indeed, hon. Members familiar with basic project management techniques, as I well know the right hon. Gentleman will be, will appreciate that this work is essential good practice for all construction schemes—and Crossrail is no exception.

I can assure the House that real progress is being made on Crossrail. There are already around 2,000 people working on the project. Last month saw the first anniversary of the commencement of construction work on the Canary Wharf station, which is now progressing ahead of schedule. Enabling work, as I think we all know, is very visible at numerous sites around London, including at Tottenham Court Road, Paddington, Liverpool Street and Bond Street stations. Further work is about to start on the ticket hall at Farringdon. Much of the land needed for construction has already been purchased. Less visible—but, I say to the House, no less important—are the efforts Crossrail Ltd is making to develop detailed designs and plans for different parts of the project. Work is also under way on how services will be operated and how best to integrate them with the rest of the capital’s transport network.

In these difficult times it is more important than ever to ensure that every element of the scheme is tested and retested for value for money. To put it simply, we owe it to all those funding the project, to the business contributors and taxpayers of today and to the fare payers of tomorrow to do all we can to keep this project affordable and to deliver the best value for money. Working closely with the Mayor and the Crossrail team, it is the Government’s duty to ensure that every pound invested is well spent and delivers maximum value.

[Mr Mark Field]

I entirely endorse what the Minister has said about the need to secure maximum value for money—we would all agree with that—but has not one of Crossrail’s difficulties been caused by the publication of headlines referring to £15.9 or £16 billion, when in reality the central Government element of the expenditure has been considerably less than that? Earlier in her speech the Minister talked about spades in the ground, but as she will recognise, it is rather more than that. Over £2.5 billion has been spent on compulsory purchase and on works already undertaken. Does she agree that, although this does not detract from her central argument about the need to ensure that there is good value for money in the future, we are, in a sense, beyond the point of no return?

[Mrs Villiers]

My hon. Friend has made a strong point. We need to concentrate on the work that is going on, rather than on the speculation and scare stories that have appeared in parts of the London media.

The work under way at Canary Wharf station already provides a clear example of innovative engineering techniques that have offered significant savings without compromising delivery. We need to learn from that example when delivering other key elements of Crossrail. I know that Crossrail Ltd is committed to the highest standards of procurement practice to bear down on costs and ensure that the project remains affordable, and that must continue to be a key goal for the Crossrail team as progress is made towards letting contracts later in the year.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I welcome the Minister to her new position, and congratulate her on her appointment. Some of us expected to see her as Secretary of State—but hey, she has plenty of time, and I am sure she will get there in due course.

The Minister referred to the building of the station at Canary Wharf. My understanding is that Canary Wharf undertook the funding of that development. This reinforces the point made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field). The private sector has put its money where its mouth is. The question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) and other Labour Members have been asking is whether the Government are as committed as the private sector.

[Mrs Villiers]

As I have said, we support Crossrail and are committed to it. The project is going ahead. It is vital to ensure that all assumptions about the risk that the scheme involves are tested rigorously by Crossrail Ltd to ensure that those risks are properly identified and reflected in cost estimates, and so that sensible steps can be taken to reduce them. The latest innovative value engineering techniques have the potential to reduce costs significantly, and Crossrail Ltd has already been able to identify 18% savings in overall indirect costs through measures such as reducing administrative and staff costs and renegotiating IT contracts.

[Stephen Pound]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She has been extremely generous, and I echo others in welcoming her to her post. I think that the least we could do is consider opening a new station adjacent to Charing Cross, perhaps in Villiers street.

Does the hon. Lady agree with one of the central points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford)—that Crossrail is not just about London but about the south-east, and the national economy? Does she agree that it is a driver for economic growth and expansion?

[Mrs Villiers]

I entirely agree that Crossrail will be a hugely important driver for economic prosperity, not just in the capital but throughout the United Kingdom economy.

Energetic work is continuing to find more efficiencies, and I am sure all Members will accept that the principles I have described are basic elements of good project management and simple good housekeeping.

Let me now turn to the important issues raised by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich about Woolwich station. I am well aware—as, I am sure, are all who have followed the twists and turns of Crossrail’s long history—of the pivotal role that he has played. He fought a long and successful campaign to add a station at Woolwich to the Crossrail Act 2008. As he said, such a station could deliver significant regeneration benefits to his constituents and to south-east London more widely.

Let me make absolutely clear that I recognise the importance and magnitude of those benefits, that I hope we can find a solution, and that the Department and I are working hard with Transport for London in trying to find a way forward. However, a clear agreement was reached that the costs of building and fitting out the station would be borne by the private sector. That agreement limited the taxpayer contribution to the money saved because a station at Woolwich would reduce costs, given that some of the work originally included in the overall project would no longer be necessary.

In short, the plans to include a station at Woolwich have always depended on contributions from the developers who stand to benefit most from it. That was the case when the last Government took the decision to add the station to the Crossrail Act, and it remains the case under the new Government. It is abundantly clear that the debt crisis left by Labour has placed intense pressure on the public finances, so we cannot default to a position where a shortfall in the promised private sector funding for the station simply pushes up the costs for the taxpayer.

[Mr Raynsford]

While I understand entirely the basis on which the agreement was reached in 2008, does the hon. Lady recognise that what has happened subsequently in the housing market has inevitably impacted on Berkeley Homes, the developer, whose contribution is critical to delivering this? While not asking for public contributions, I did specifically encourage flexibility on the part of the Government, to make it possible to reach an agreement with Berkeley Homes that is affordable for the company. The Secretary of State agreed in his letter to me that that was the Government’s objective. Will the hon. Lady tonight confirm that they will try to get an agreement on that basis?

[Mrs Villiers]

I want to set this out very clearly. The private sector contribution was pivotal to the station getting the go-ahead when the decision was made to add it to the Act, and it remains so. The Government cannot offer additional taxpayers’ money over and above what has been agreed within the current funding programme to replace the shortfall in the private sector contribution that Berkeley Homes promised to provide. However, we can seek flexibility in other areas, as the Secretary of State outlined in his letter.

Both the Department for Transport and Transport for London stand ready to help broker an alternative solution among interested parties to try to address the funding problems. Both the sponsoring bodies have been in extensive discussions with Berkeley over the past year, to seek a way to enable the company to honour its commitments. They have written to me only today with more constructive ideas. Naturally, one of the most significant of those interested parties is the London borough of Greenwich. In this regard, it is important to assess whether development opportunities around the station and the alternative funding that they might generate have been fully explored.

I know that Greenwich council is actively engaged in the issues that we have discussed this evening. It is now important for all of us who care about Crossrail to assess thoroughly the possible alternative funding sources that could be available between the interested parties if Berkeley Homes does not step up to the plate and deliver what it promised. Therefore, while I cannot promise additional funding from the Department and the taxpayer, we do stand ready to try to help the interested parties find a solution to enable Woolwich station to go ahead. The right hon. Gentleman can have my absolute assurance on that.

I would like to mention briefly some of the wider issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised about transport in his constituency. He warmly welcomed a number of the recent improvements, and it is worth noting that several important programmes in recent years have benefited his constituency, such as the refurbishment of the East London line as part of the London overground network, new interchanges with the tube and bus networks, and the extension of the docklands light railway, which the right hon. Gentleman described with such eloquence.

I thank all Members who have taken part in the debate, especially the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that it has provided a valuable opportunity to consider important issues around the Crossrail project in general and its impact on his constituency in south-east London in particular. After long years of waiting, the commencement of work on Crossrail was warmly welcomed, particularly within the business community, where Crossrail has always enjoyed strong support. The CBI recently made it clear to the Secretary of State that it is pleased to see progress continuing under the new Government.

I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Government, to thank the Canary Wharf Group, BAA plc, the Corporation of London and its members for the considerable financial contributions that they are making. I am sure that we would all like to express the same gratitude to the other businesses in the capital whose rate supplements are providing a hugely important element of the funding package.

This project has the potential to deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits for the capital and for the country. Those benefits will be felt well beyond the areas directly served by the new line and its stations. The challenge facing all of us who are interested in Crossrail is to ensure that costs are kept down. That means engaging in an active, energetic pursuit of best value for money procurement processes, urgently seeking ways—