HGV Road User Levy Bill

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I, too, commend the Minister and the Government for bringing this Bill forward. I fear that it will be lost in the media tomorrow, given the previous business in the Chamber today. However, the wider population would welcome the Bill. When I speak to hauliers across my constituency, I know that they are grateful for the freezing of fuel duty, but this Bill starts levelling the playing field up.

I hear what the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said about hypothecation and Kent, and all the rest of it, but I would make this argument. People might think that the High Peak is a little rural backwater, but believe you me, they probably all walk, sit and drive on the limestone that comes from our area. If we are going to hypothecate, which I do not think we should, I would argue for more money because our roads get so much stick from the wagons that carry that limestone.

[Michael Connarty]

The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I support him on that point, because the roads are in a terrible state throughout the whole country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bingham]

That was what we inherited in 2010, but we will do what we can.

I welcome the proposals, as I have said. We have lots of haulage in the High Peak. I know that the local quarries try to use rail when they can, but road is the best option because of the rurality of the area. I see more and more foreign wagons coming in and out. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who is no longer in his place, made the point about foreign wagons not following their sat-navs. On Saturday night, I was trying to get through part of my constituency and, lo and behold, a huge wagon was blocking the road for the umpteenth time. It had got stuck under a low bridge, and the driver had probably not seen the road signs. That seems remarkable to me, as Derbyshire county council does everything it can to divert those wagons, but it still does not seem to work. The big operators in the High Peak, many of which have dozens of wagons, and even the small owner-operators who cart stone will welcome the measures, given the amount of foreign wagons that are coming in. This is all about supporting our local British businesses, and the Bill goes some way towards doing that.

I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton about what we can charge. I would like to charge more, provided that the discount on vehicle excise duty was available for our own wagon drivers, and I hope that one day we will be able to do so. We shall have to see how the EU goes on that one. There is unfair competition at the moment, and the foreign wagons have the advantage, which is wrong. When our wagons go across to Europe, the drivers have to pay road tolls. That applies, for example, to those who drive the length of France, unless they avoid the main autoroutes. These measures are trying to straighten some of that out. As I have said, I would like to see the maximum charge increased if possible. We have also talked about the damage to the roads. Those wagons are big, and many of us will have had people come into our surgeries to complain about the noise of them going past at all times of the day.

I welcome the Bill. We had a good Committee stage, with quite a few amendments and some good discussions. It was quite a pleasant Committee to be on, actually. I applaud the Minister for bringing forward the Bill. I will resist the temptation to go on about how nothing happened for 13 years, but I have got it on the record anyway. I thank the Minister and everyone involved in the Committee. Let us now bring it on and get the measures up and running by next April, or as soon as we can. I can assure the Minister that I am not saying all these nice words just to get my bypass, but will he bear it in mind?

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

As the hon. Gentleman rightly recognises, the scheme in the national programme was withdrawn in 2009 by the Labour Government. A considerable amount of work has been done since at a local level. Because I have considerable sympathy for areas where there is significant road congestion, and although there must now be a local approach to finding a solution, I or one of my ministerial colleagues would be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) if they would like to discuss the matter further.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

Not only do the residents of Tintwistle in my constituency feel the ground shaking beneath their feet as wagons thunder by inches from their front doors, but the economic growth of the whole of Glossopdale is, in my view, being hampered by traffic congestion. Given that economic growth is a vital part of the future of the country, does the Minister agree that problems such as the Mottram, Tintwistle and Longdendale bypass assume even greater importance for local communities in towns such as Glossop?

[Mr Burns]

My hon. Friend raises a valid point, as did the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) in his question. The fact is that the scheme came out of the national programme in 2009. Therefore, the approach must be to find a viable local alternative to reduce congestion for the hon. Gentleman’s and my hon. Friend’s constituents, and to help to increase economic growth. I am sure my hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman and local communities and stakeholders will contribute to that. However, as I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman, if he and my hon. Friend would like to come and see me or one or my ministerial colleagues to discuss the matter further, we will be more than happy to meet them.

HGV Road User Levy Bill

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I will not detain the House for long, as there is further business that we want to get to. I want to add my voice to those who have paid tribute to the Government for introducing the Bill. It is long overdue and very welcome. I am also pleased to see that it has gained cross-party support.

My constituency has a large number of haulage contractors because we have a lot of quarries. Those contractors run many wagons up and down the country, and the Bill will help and support them. They move the finest limestone in the world to various parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) mentioned John Lewis products being in everyone’s Christmas bags this year. I dare say that most hon. Members’ houses contain a little piece of High Peak limestone somewhere.

Those hauliers have been operating under more and more pressure as a result of foreign hauliers coming into the country. They use our roads, which results in wear and tear. We hear the thunder of wagons trundling down the roads in the High Peak day and night, and many of those wagons come from abroad. There has been much talk about levelling the playing field to give our own hauliers the competitive edge that they need. I believe that the Bill will achieve that, and I applaud it.

When our hauliers go abroad, they pay tolls and user charges on foreign motorways such as the autoroutes in France, the autostrade in Italy and the autopistas in Spain. Our hauliers pay to help with their upkeep. I am not wont to quote anything European, but when European HGVs come here, the French pay rien, the Italians pay niente and the Spanish pay nada—that is, nothing. The Bill will address that issue. As we have already heard, foreign haulage contractors also use cheaper fuel.

This is a great Bill, so let us speed it through. Let us give our hauliers and the wagon drivers they employ a level playing field. I used to supply haulage companies with machinery, and I know that other people’s jobs rely on those companies. They include mechanics, suppliers and those in the oil industry. The Bill is a great thing for British hauliers and the British economy, and, together with the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill that we debated yesterday, it shows that this Government are serious about helping small and medium-sized enterprises up and down the country. They are not just talking about it; they are actually doing it. I commend the Bill to the House.

HGV Road User Levy Bill (Ways and Means)

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I add my support for the measure, echoing Members across the Chamber. Call me biased for saying so, but my constituency produces probably the finest limestone in the world. The quarries try to move much of their product out by rail, but that is not possible, so the majority is moved out by road using their own wagons and by owner-drivers. More worryingly, there is an influx of foreign wagons. The measure is fantastic because it gives us the level playing field that our hauliers need.

In a previous life I supplied engineering equipment, much of which went into haulage companies, and I realised how tight their margins were. They move the product and have very little room for profit, so foreign wagons can undermine their profitability and viability. We have heard about the other things that our hauliers have to pay. When they go abroad, they face road tolls and various other charges that must be paid. The diesel here is dearer, so the measure redresses the balance, giving us the level playing field that our contractors need.

We must remember that haulage contractors employ a significant number of people, not just the guys who drive the wagons. I was particularly taken with a remark from the Opposition Benches earlier. The phrase that was used was “our professional hauliers”. There is a misconception that is slowly but surely disappearing. I remember my days on High Peak borough council, when we had discussions about wagons. Somebody made a comment about wagon drivers, and “professional” is a word that we should never forget to use when we talk about the wagon drivers and hauliers of this country. They are moving huge machines around the country with tonnes and tonnes of product on them, and they must be professional to do such a job. I was pleased to hear that point made earlier.

I hope the Minister will address the question of revenue. I am pleased to see the compensatory factor. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who is no longer in his place, commented on the fact that we have had to introduce the measure to get round the vagaries of the EU. I, like him, will not miss the chance to bash the EU on this issue. I am glad we have found a way round, but it is a shame that we had to do so. It would have been nice if it had been simple and straightforward. Thank you, Brussels—for nothing.

I want the revenue to go to our roads, because that is what it is all about. While the Minister is in his place, I shall make the first bid and propose that the Mottram and Tintwistle bypass is the first recipient of such extra revenue. He may wonder where that is, but I assure him that he will soon find out. His boss, the Secretary of State, well knows where it is, as his is the neighbouring constituency.

There is one other point that has not been mentioned—it is more anecdotal than anything else. There is a small part of my constituency where we have difficulty with a low bridge. The local authority has tried everything to divert wagons, because when they get to the bridge, which is at a little place called Chapel Milton—I dare say this is the first time it has been mentioned in the Chamber—they find a dead end with no space to turn around. They then try to go under the bridge but end up taking the corner off it. Local hauliers increasingly realise that, but foreign hauliers rely on sat-nav, which does not pick up on the difficulty. The damage and upheaval caused is often the result of foreign drivers not understanding the danger. Perhaps that something that could be looked at, once we have paid for the Mottram and Tintwistle bypass, of course.

The Bill will enable our hauliers to compete on a level playing field. We are going to have wagons on our roads, so let us make them UK wagons and give them a fair chance. There are some wrinkles in the proposals, to which colleagues have alluded, but I am sure that they will be ironed out bit by bit before the Bill reaches the statute book. The one thing I urge the Government to do is get this done as quickly as possible to give our wagon drivers and haulage contractors in High Peak and across the rest of the country the best chance of survival.

Rail Investment

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The Micklefield to Selby electrification opens up a second route to the north of Leeds, as my hon. Friend will be aware. It also means that potentially we can have three trains an hour serving London. He is right: electrification means that we have a lower-cost railway, which is the key to getting off the hook of having to pass on above-inflation rail-fare rises to passengers every year.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I welcome the investment in line speed and capacity improvement on the links between Manchester and Sheffield. The Hope Valley line through my constituency provides a vital link for freight and passengers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that investment in that line will benefit not only the two great cities but many of my High Peak constituents?

[Justine Greening]

Yes it will. The more freight we can get off the road, the better. The more options we can give people to get off the road, the better.

Cycling

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bradshaw]

That is encouraging.

It is also important that the Ministers in his Department speak with one voice. I have noticed a slight discordance in respect of some of the things that the Minister has said and of some of things that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning)—I am not sure whether he is still the Road Safety Minister—has said, including two completely different responses to letters about liability.

I was extremely pleased to hear what the hon. Member for Cambridge said about liability. It is important. If we look at all the other northern European countries that have a much better record on cycling and cycling safety than we do, we will see that they all have a liability rule. It will make a real difference in this country, making motorists much more careful and wary around cyclists. The Minister’s letter on the issue was quite positive, and it gave me hope that the Government might do something about it. However, I am afraid that the letter from his hon. Friend in the same Department, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, pretty much ruled it out. It is important that the Government speak with one voice on the matter, that one Minister takes leadership on cycling issues and that the matter is led, as I said, right from the top.

The Times’s manifesto is fantastic. I would say that it is a modest manifesto. I hope that my own Front Bench will endorse it; I do not see any reason why the manifesto should not be endorsed in all its detail.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on The Times’s manifesto. Does he agree that we must not forget rural areas in cycling? The roads are narrower, and there are people in my constituency who commute by cycling. I would like to see more about that in the manifesto.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Absolutely, although contrary to most people’s prejudices, I have one of the most urban seats in the country. It is surrounded by beautiful countryside, where many of my constituents go cycling. They feel safer in the city of Exeter than they do on country lanes, largely because of the absolutely intolerable speeds that people drive at on many country lanes. I feel much safer cycling in my constituency, in urban areas and in London than I do in the country, specifically because of the speeding problems; I know that horse riders face similar danger and nervousness.

If the Government go down the route of raising the speed limit on our motorways to 80 mph, I hope that as a quid pro quo, they will introduce 20 mph speed limits in our urban areas. That would be a huge step forward to improve cycling safety. We all know the statistics about how likely it is that someone will survive or die if they are hit at 30 mph or 20 mph. It would make a big difference.

Sustainable Transport

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

Obviously, the population of the south is different from that in the north, which is one factor in question. We are keen to ensure that we achieve the two targets of creating growth and cutting carbon, and we also recognise that there are particular areas where unemployment is a problem, which we are keen to help as far as possible, so we will bear those factors in mind when bids come in. We certainly want to see a reasonable balance to the money that is distributed.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has already agreed to visit the High Peak to discuss the Mottram-Tintwistle bypass—a visit that we are all looking forward to with great anticipation. While in the High Peak, will he meet officials from our local authorities to discuss the best way in which they can take advantage of the new local sustainable transport fund?

[Norman Baker]

I fear that my diary is filling up, but yes, I will be happy to do so.

Mottram-Tintwistle Bypass

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for giving me the chance to raise with the Minister responsible for roads—especially when the prevailing weather conditions are occupying his thoughts at this difficult time—the vital need for a bypass around the village of Tintwistle and the surrounding area in my constituency. As the final parliamentary act of 2010, I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for attending this evening at a time when, like many of our colleagues, he would rather be heading off home to his family and his constituents.

The relative serenity in the Chamber tonight is something that many of my constituents living adjacent to the A57 and A628 in Glossop and Tintwistle crave. Every day, about 36,000 commuting cars and heavy lorries drive through the two places, creating severe traffic jams and pollution on those two trunk roads. They are also ruining some stunning local landscapes and shaking parts of the village of Tintwistle to their very foundations. This is also having a knock-on effect as the congestion forces many other vehicles on to small back roads through tiny villages such as Charlesworth, pushing congestion and traffic dangers into a wider area.

When I made my maiden speech, on 8 June this year, I stressed the urgent need for this scheme. I recognised then that money is tight and will be for some time, but subsequently I have had the Prime Minister’s assurance that some £30 billion is still available for transport investment, which means that there will be schemes that can go ahead. I hope to get the Minister to see that this scheme should be one that gets the green light.

The need for a bypass is not new. When researching for this debate, I found a parliamentary question answered in 1962. The then Minister’s response informed the House that a scheme for the improvement of this road was included in the five-year trunk roads programme, so for almost 50 years my constituents have been given such promises. For almost 50 years, they have put up with the congestion and the rumbling of around 4,000 heavy goods vehicles a day pounding through their villages and past their schools. For almost 50 years, they have been told yes, but not now—later.

The need for this bypass is older than I am. My aim tonight is to convince the Minister not that Tintwistle and Glossop need a bypass—as I will explain, that case has been made already. Instead, I hope to convince him that they have a compelling case for being one of the sites to be developed during this round of spending. If I cannot get him to agree to that tonight, I will look to him to confirm at the very least that he will agree to come and see the need for himself. He could, of course, take the quick and easy option and simply give the scheme the go ahead today—after all, it is Christmas, and miracles have happened at Christmas before.

If the Minister is in need of further persuasion, however, and agrees to come to my constituency, he will see why the Highways Agency is so convinced that a bypass is the only way forward. The status quo is untenable and detrimental not only to local communities but to the local and regional economy. The plans for a bypass in the area date back to the 1990s, following publication of the 1989 “Roads for Prosperity” White Paper. A route was chosen in October 1993, but then plans were put on hold in 1996, when the national road building programme was revised.

Ministers from several administrations have visited High Peak, and seen the beauty of the area and how it, and the lives of the people who live there, were being badly affected by the constant stream of traffic. They each recognised the importance of such a scheme, although gaining support from the top has not guaranteed action. I understand that one Minister made the journey, promised that something would be done, but was sacked on his journey back to London. According to Lord Pendry, the former Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, the former Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson), visited the area and tried to cross Manchester road to attend a meeting at the then Tintwistle parish council offices, whereupon she narrowly escaped being knocked down by a truck.

Unsurprisingly, that proved to be a persuasive argument, and in 1998 the Labour Government published “A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England”, which included the bypass. Then, however, more difficult arguments started to emerge as the preferred route for a bypass became an issue. The new road entered the Peak District national park, whose representatives naturally raised concerns. However, many objections were also raised by people who were not familiar with the area and assumed that all of the new bypass would be in the park. The Highways Agency’s submission to the regional planning bodies in November 2002 concluded that there was no realistic alternative to a bypass if we are to solve the problems that exist.

A public inquiry was convened in June 2007, but was adjourned indefinitely in 2008, after the Highways Agency admitted that it had submitted incorrect data. Later that year, the scheme was officially abandoned because the cost of undertaking the project had escalated and funds had been redirected to other areas. Some £20 million had been spent on investigations at this point—an utter waste of public money spent raising and then dashing the hopes of local people that the misery they endured daily had an end in sight. Indeed, I believe that the Minister tabled questions on this subject in the previous Parliament. So, with £20 million already spent and almost 50 years of acceptance that the route is a problem and that something needs to be done, the sad story that is the Mottram-Tintwistle bypass, like the traffic through the villages, rumbles on.

The problems that a bypass is needed to address can be clearly identified, and I will take a few moments to outline them. Many will recognise part of the A57 by another name—the snake pass. Particularly with the snow at the moment, it is often mentioned on the radio. It is the name given to the higher reaches of the road that are notoriously dangerous because they snake across the Pennines. This route, which takes motorists from the M67, through the centre of Glossop and on to Sheffield, is one of the busiest A roads in the country. Linking Greater Manchester with Sheffield and south Yorkshire, the road passes through Glossop, where there are numerous junctions and pelican crossings, which cause long delays for traffic, especially where on-street parking makes the road narrow, causing great disruption to the flow of the massive level of traffic trying to get through the town.

The congestion created in Glossop is not only causing misery for motorists and residents alike, but is now having a detrimental effect on the economy of this famous old town. My constituent, Gareth Lewis, of Online Selling Ltd, tells me that the congestion

“has stopped our business clients coming to visit us”,

which causes his company to hold client meetings as far away as Manchester airport in an attempt to avoid the jams. Mr Lewis goes on to ask what the point is of taking office space in Glossop when his clients refuse to visit due to the congestion. In my work with Glossopdale businesses before and since I was elected, this has become an all-too-familiar story.

The second major road that would be relieved by a bypass is the A628, which is also known by another name—Woodhead road. It is of particular concern to my constituents from the small village of Tintwistle, which, together with neighbouring Mottram, in a neighbouring constituency, gives the bypass its name. Tintwistle is a small Derbyshire village, which, if it were a typical small Derbyshire village, would be quiet and peaceful, but it is not. The village shakes and shudders, as wagon after wagon and car after car trundle through relentlessly. Another of my constituents—a resident of Tintwistle called Anthony Hall—wrote to me only last month to tell me that he had

“counted over 50 HGVs rumble past my home in the last half hour.”

Many houses in Tintwistle are only a yard from the side of the road—or, from their frontages. What Mr Hall described is not something that I would wish to tolerate. I am sure that it is not something that the Minister would wish to tolerate, and it is not something that I wish my constituents to tolerate for much longer either.

Although I do not wish to give the Minister an exhaustive account of each and every bend of the A628—unless forcing him to beg for mercy would help my case—while I have his ear, let me point out that the eastern end of the A628, through the village of Dodworth, has already enjoyed significant investment and road improvements. My constituents deserve the same concern, the same action and the same relief from their ongoing nightmare. Time and again, they have been told that the case for the bypass has been made. Time and again, they have been told that their misery will come to an end, that funds have been set aside and that work will start. Time and again, programmes have been redrawn, money has been diverted and bureaucracy has got in the way, and still the villages tremble at the freight vehicles thundering through, choking our businesses to the point that they cannot function.

The bypass would relieve not one but two major roads connecting the west of the country to the east. It would provide relief not for one, but for numerous small villages, both along the route and beyond, and would make existing roads immeasurably safer. I know that there are environmental questions that will doubtless be asked, but as I watch stationary cars and wagons belching out exhaust fumes in Glossop, Tintwistle and beyond, I am convinced that this can only be worse than having free-flowing traffic. My constituents have suffered too long and too much. That is why, as a fitting end to my first year in this House, I have asked to bring the issue before Parliament this evening. It would be a merry Christmas indeed for my local residents if we were able to make some progress tonight.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) on securing this debate, and on providing an opportunity for the House to debate funding for highways and, specifically, the bypass that he so keenly wants for Tintwistle. This is an issue on which he has already made representations to me, and on which he clearly sets a high priority. His constituents can take comfort from the fact that he is actively championing their cause here in the House.

Let me preface my remarks by referring to the recent statements by both the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chancellor, and the related documents, which have been placed in the Library, on investment in strategic highways, and local major transport schemes. As the Chancellor stated in the October spending review announcement, the Government are determined to invest in Britain’s long-term economic growth, through areas such as transport, science and green energy, as these will help to ensure that the economy is broadly based and less susceptible to failures in one sector. It is for that reason that transport spending has been prioritised as one of the main areas of capital investment over the next four years. On 26 October, the Transport Secretary was able to announce his plans for investment in strategic and local roads. On the strategic road network, he was able to commit to completing the eight major road schemes currently under construction by 2015, at a total cost of £900 million, as well as a further £1.4 billion to fund new strategic schemes between now and 2015.

In addition to that, we are able to provide more than £1.5 billion for local authority major schemes over the same period. Around £600 million of that is for schemes that are already under construction or that have conditional approval, including two schemes that will provide some benefit to the area in question, namely the £120.9 million Metrolink extensions from Chorlton to East Didsbury, and from Droylsden to Ashton, and the £40.5 million Greater Manchester retaining walls maintenance scheme. On top of that, we are committed nationally to a further £900 million of investment for new local authority major schemes. Taken together, that level of investment is greater than the average Department for Transport spend on local authority major schemes over the last 10 years.

In taking our decisions, we have looked carefully at the value for money offered by schemes, their strategic value—whether for local, regional or national journeys—and the degree of development and certainty of deliverability, as well as important non-monetised impacts including, of course, environmental impact. As a result of this prioritisation exercise, we are satisfied that we have chosen the most appropriate strategic schemes to start between now and 2015, subject to the reviews announced by the Transport Secretary. Although we are committed to significant investment in local major schemes as well as schemes on the strategic road network, it is inevitable that we have had to prioritise and make some hard decisions to select those schemes that offer the best value for investment.

I shall turn now to the specific issue that my hon. Friend has raised tonight. He has made a number of points about the long-standing ambitions to develop road solutions in Tintwistle and the surrounding area. As I have mentioned, he and other local MPs have already contacted me to ask why a scheme to deal with this problem was not prioritised as part of the spending review. The reason, as the Transport Secretary explained on 26 October, is that a fundamental requirement used to decide whether a scheme would be considered for funding, when spending review decisions were being made earlier this year, was that the Department needed to have received a business case before 10 June 2010, the date on which the Transport Secretary announced the suspension of all scheme work pending the outcome of the spending review. Given that no agreed solution has yet been proposed for Tintwistle and the surrounding area, we simply do not have a scheme sufficiently worked out that could be considered for funding.

It is also clear that, despite our considerable investment, the number of the schemes prioritised under the previous system of regional funding allocations is no longer affordable, and we are having to do our best to rationalise the programme. That is why the spending review reconfirmed that the 29 schemes with full approval, many of which are already under construction, would go ahead. In addition, three schemes have conditional approval, and we have placed a further 10 schemes in the supported pool and 22 schemes in the development pool. There are a further 34 schemes in the pre-qualification pool.

I should make it plain to my hon. Friend that the problem that we inherited—apart from the appalling financial situation, with which he is doubtless familiar—was a complete over-promise by the previous Administration of what could sensibly be delivered. They left us with an enormous pipeline of schemes all over the country, which, even if the economy had been working to its best effect, could not have been delivered within the available resources. They led many Members and individuals up the garden path, because they simply could not deliver on their promises.

The Secretary of State therefore had to bring the portcullis down, if I can put it in those terms, on 10 June, and to consider, in the light of the moneys available, which schemes had got past a certain point. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend’s scheme had not got past that point on 10 June, for reasons with which he is familiar. So what happened was not a commentary on the value of his proposal; it was simply a recognition of how far the scheme had progressed through the pipeline by that point. That is why we are in this position now. I strongly regret that people across the country were led up the garden path by the previous Government and led to expect something that simply could not be delivered.

We have protected the transport budget significantly in the spending review, and the Department for Transport has done very well on capital projects because the Government recognise the value of investment in them. Even with that good settlement, however, the enormous pipeline of schemes that we inherited simply could not be delivered. I am very sorry for my hon. Friend’s constituents, who have had to wait 50 years for a solution to this problem, and I fear that I shall have to disappoint him again tonight. I understand the issues that he has raised, however, and he is quite right to do so.

I fully appreciate that there is a long and complicated history to the particular problems in Tintwistle and the surrounding area, stretching back many years, with strong views for and against any proposals. More recently, a full bypass of Mottram, Hollingsworth and Tintwistle was identified by the Highways Agency as a means of addressing the disturbance from high volumes of traffic on those sections of the A57 and A628. A local authority scheme known as the Glossop spur was also promoted by Tameside metropolitan borough council and Derbyshire county council to provide a link to Glossop from the proposed bypass. It was dependent on the Highways Agency scheme being constructed.

A public inquiry commenced in June 2007, but in September 2007 errors were found in the Highways Agency traffic model on which the evidence for the scheme was based. That was clearly very unfortunate. Pending production of revised traffic forecasts incorporating new national traffic growth forecasts, the inquiry was adjourned in December 2007.

In July of the following year, revised cost estimates were produced which showed the central scheme cost estimate rising to some £270 million, with a potential maximum cost of some £315 million. That made the scheme unaffordable under the proposed timetable. It was deferred by four years until 2016-17 in the north-west regional funding advice programme, with the Glossop spur development consequently also deferred until 2017-18.

The delays led the Highways Agency to recommend to the then Secretary of State in March 2009 that it should withdraw from the public inquiry, and that recommendation was accepted. The scheme was subsequently removed from the Highways Agency’s programme to allow regional partners to undertake further consideration of the most appropriate scope of future work to solve the transport problems in the area. I am afraid that there are currently no plans to reinstate the Highways Agency scheme in the programme, but the agency continues to monitor conditions on the A57 and A628, and will invest in its future maintenance in line with its established approach for safe roads.

I understand my hon. Friend’s frustration at the ongoing difficulties experienced on that section of the network, but it is now for the parties to consider the options in the current funding environment. Let me put that in context. The total contribution requested from the Department for Transport for new major local authority schemes that we are considering in the current spending review period—after the coming down of the June 2010 portcullis—is £1.7 billion, nearly double the available finance of £900 million for such schemes. We are trying to reduce the ratio through improved funding offers from promoters and through sifting of schemes, but it means that at present we cannot consider schemes other than those already announced for the current spending review period, or accept any new bids for schemes that were not prioritised in the last Government’s regional funding allocations process.

I want to view the future constructively. We intend to work in partnership with local communities to develop a new framework for the funding of major local transport schemes over time. We want it to involve a reduced role for central Government and give a proper voice to locally elected representatives and business interests, with local enterprise partnerships—individually or in consortiums—playing a role in strategic investment choices in functional economic areas. In that context, we intend to enable local communities to identify and invest in what they consider to be their priorities in the next spending review period. So one possible avenue is central Government funding after 2015, if the present arrangement continues; another is the creation of LEPs which will be able to influence local priorities.

However, other avenues might be explored. They could include tax increment funding, details of which will be announced in due course, and the local sustainable transport fund, for which I am responsible and details of which I announced recently. Although the LSTF is not designed to support the cost of a full major scheme, it would potentially fund a package of complementary measures to support economic growth and reduce carbon. For parts of the route, Greater Manchester might choose to look to its own resources through the transport fund that it has created for a possible solution, particularly if it can free up resources as a result of successful bids to the regional growth fund or the LSTF for other projects. There could be a knock-on effect.

I understand that earlier this year Tameside metropolitan borough council, together with the Government office for the north-west, led a study group which included the Highways Agency and Greater Manchester to steer the development of an alternative integrated package of options, mainly in the Longdendale area, known as the Longdendale integrated transport strategy. I imagine that my hon. Friend is familiar with it. I understand that Tameside has since consulted on a list of options including new and improved railway stations—I must confess that, having looked at the map, I am not sure where they would be, but perhaps my hon. Friend knows—a short bypass of Mottram together with a revised Glossop spur, and innovative new treatments for the existing trunk road including new junctions, bus lanes and reduced speeds.

[Andrew Bingham]

My hon. Friend is right about the smaller scheme, but Tameside council designed it without consulting High Peak, and many of its proposals were not in its gift because they required the consent of the Highways Agency and Derbyshire county council. In my view—I was and still am a councillor, and of course am now the local Member of Parliament—it did nothing for High Peak, nothing for Tintwistle, and nothing for Hadfield. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said about the general scheme of things and I understand the position, but the proposal that was advanced earlier in the year did not strike me as beneficial to my constituency in any way.

[Norman Baker]

I hear what my hon. Friend says and I am sorry that that is the analysis locally of the proposals put forward in the transport strategy. I was trying to find some crumbs of comfort for him in a difficult situation.

I understand that no final recommendations have been identified or proposed for that strategy, but Tameside council tells me that it intends to publish early in the new year the results of the consultation exercise which it thinks has been carried out. I understand that before the spending review, Greater Manchester authorities had also identified £100 million to fund the agreed outcome of the strategy, but that relied on a significant contribution from the regional funding allocation budget, which no longer exists. It is up to the Greater Manchester authorities whether they wish to proceed with their own funding for that.

For the future, any new scheme to deal with the traffic problems in Tintwistle and the surrounding area will have to meet the challenge laid down by the Secretary of State in his October statement to compete for finite resources against other projects in future spending rounds. Serious consideration needs to be given to how schemes can be delivered more efficiently and economically—in other words, to get the cost down and the cost-benefit ratio up—particularly where greater access is possible to alternative sources of funding, including the private sector.

I fully understand my hon. Friend’s desire to see a positive decision on the funding for a solution to the transport problems in Tintwistle and the surrounding area. However, I hope he will acknowledge that the Government have had to make some difficult decisions on the best use of the funding available for an unrealistically large number of competing projects. It will now be important to look at how schemes can be made more cost-effective, and to identify new funding sources and systems for funding. Although I will continue to consider any future proposals for dealing with the transport problems in the area, I am afraid that I can offer no particular assurances at this stage regarding the future availability of funding for such proposals.

My hon. Friend asked whether I would come and visit his constituency. I do not wish to raise false hopes, for the reasons that I have given tonight, but if he wants me to come and visit, I am happy to do so and look at the problems first hand. I cannot give him a Christmas present of a bypass, but I can give him a Christmas present of a visit, although the precedent that he mentioned when a previous Minister went up there and got sacked on the way back does not encourage such a visit.