High-Speed Rail

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Tony Baldry

Thursday 31st March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am glad that we are seeing all-party support as well as opposition to High Speed 2 today. I believe that the UK needs and deserves high-speed rail. Notwithstanding the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), I wonder who now regrets the building of High Speed 1 or the channel tunnel. Crossrail was a very difficult project to get through. Again, it affects my own constituency. The Thames tunnel is another one of those major infrastructure projects that this country used to be well known for, and used to have the courage to go ahead with, but which we are now seen to be fearful of pursuing. Unfortunately, the spirit of Brunel does not seem to have infected many of those on the Government Benches.

Why should the benefits of high-speed rail, whether as an alternative to air travel, as something that provides commercial benefits for trade or simply as a more civilised way for people to get around and meet friends and relations, be restricted in this country? Why should people in this country be restricted simply to getting to the continent and getting beyond that? Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), I would praise the contribution of Lord Adonis. He took it by the scruff of its neck and pushed it forward. I shall resist praising the Secretary of State, because I may be lynched if I mention his comments to Metro. He said:

“There is not much more to their argument than Nimbyism. I hear lots of arguments about whether the country can afford it, value for money and the business case. But 95 per cent of these arguments come from people who just happen to live in Wendover, Aylesbury or Amersham.”

I suspect that invitations to the Secretary of State for constituency dinners are rather fewer; perhaps that is why he said what he did. I rarely disagree with my right hon. Friend, but I do on this occasion. I have never before heard Shepherds Bush described as a parkway.

I visited the site of the Old Oak interchange two weeks ago; it is in the north of my constituency. It is a large brownfield site that has always been railway land, and it is a wholly suitable location. There will be six new platforms for High Speed 2, and eight new platforms for the Great Western line, Crossrail and the Heathrow express—and, indeed, the direct link to High Speed 1. It seems entirely sensible to put the interchange just outside London; it is only a few minutes away from Euston but it gives a direct link. It will be the UK’s major rail interchange, and it is a sensible place to put it.

[Tony Baldry]

It seems that the hon. Gentleman does not have any constituents whose homes will be demolished. Does his speech not reinforce what Lord Adonis said—that with the HS2 project everyone wants the stations but no one wants the track?

[Mr Slaughter]

I shall say a word in favour of nimbyism in a moment.

Yes, it is true that my constituency will suffer no loss of property, and I am obviously delighted by the fact. Indeed, 5,000 jobs and a minimum of 1,600 homes will be created by the new infrastructure. It will be a positive development in one of the most deprived areas of the country—White City, Shepherds Bush and Old Oak. I should say that I live five minutes from there, but it will put my constituents 10 minutes from Heathrow and just over 40 minutes from Birmingham. These are the sort of projects of which the country used to be proud, and it used to seek mitigation for them rather than avoiding them altogether on the basis that such decisions are difficult to make.

Having said that, I believe that the project is good not only because the route and the interchange have some parochial benefit but because they give direct access to the Great Western line, Crossrail, the Heathrow express and HS1 just a few minutes outside central London. That is an improvement.

I have two caveats for the Minister, if she will take the advice. First, the Government need to look for friends wherever they can, but they have not done that so far. Last year’s debate was on 11 March, almost a year ago, and the Minister was then Opposition spokesman. Her aggressive stance rather belied the fact that she supported the announcement made by Lord Adonis. Her questions then are ones that she could answer today. She asked:

“Will they match our commitment to start work immediately on taking the line beyond Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds as part of stage 1?...Why will they not match our commitment to start construction by 2015? What guarantees can they give that fares will be kept within the reach of ordinary families on modest incomes?”

Those are all questions that the Minister might want to answer today. Rather churlishly I thought, she then said about Old Oak:

“Although we do not rule out use of that site for dispersal, the idea that some kind of ‘Wormwood Scrubs international’ station is the best rail solution for Heathrow is just not credible.”— [Official Report, 11 March 2010; Vol. 507-08, c. 450.]

I remind the Minister of this every time the subject comes up, and I know that she is happy to eat those words.

Building Schools for the Future

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Tony Baldry

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Tony Baldry]

This is an important point. The hon. Gentleman is implying that the Secretary of State misled the House last week when he said very clearly, in terms, that an individual had received more than £1 million. I am confident that the Secretary of State would not have misled the House, either knowingly or unknowingly.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tony Baldry]

Let me finish this point.

That is all the more reason why we need an independent inquiry into the BSF programme and the chaos in which the previous Government left it.

[Mr Slaughter]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tony Baldry]

Let me finish my next points.

The money that went in consultancy fees could have gone into the front line. The BSF scheme took no account of the fact that, in many parts of the country, there is a real need for new school building as a result of the growing population. That is particularly true for primary schools, but the BSF project simply did not cover primary schools at all.

In the run-up to the general election, the previous Government sought to pretend that there was more money in the BSF programme, but they did so on the basis of hoping that they would get funds from the Treasury through the use of end-of-year flexibility of capital. It is becoming apparent, as the permanent secretary to the Department for Education has now made clear, that that was never properly cleared with the Treasury by the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), then Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. The Treasury has said clearly that the right hon. Gentleman was playing fast and loose with that particular capital stream. The Treasury has made clear its opposition.

I would very much welcome an inquiry into what went wrong with the Building Schools for the Future programme and Partnerships for Schools under the previous Government. It is very unreasonable to attach any culpability to new Ministers for a grim situation that they clearly inherited and are having to deal with.

Banbury school, a large comprehensive in my constituency, was put into the Building Schools for the Future programme. Its principal has written to the Secretary of State and she has made her comments clear in local newspapers. I should like to share with hon. Members what she said in her letter to the Secretary of State:

“I wanted to write to support your decision to stop the vast majority of BSF projects currently under way, and for the reasons that you outlined. Whilst Banbury School was one of the last schools to be included in the BSF programme, nevertheless, the huge bureaucratic hurdles and ridiculous amount of wasted time in meetings with advisors and consultants, etc, means there could never be value for money for the investment…On an immediate positive note, both myself and our Senior Vice Principal now have days released from former BSF meetings, where we can spend time looking directly at our school, the needs of our youngsters and how we can support further improvement in standards.”

Even the schools in the BSF programme thought that it was a bureaucratic nightmare.

[Tony Baldry]

The hon. Gentleman can make his points—[Interruption.] No, the hon. Gentleman can make his points about his constituency because I am not in a position to cross-examine or test the evidence. What I am giving hon. Members is the primary advice—the primary evidence—of a principal in my constituency. Let me repeat what that principal said:

“bureaucratic hurdles and ridiculous amount of wasted time in meetings with advisors and consultants…means there could never be value for money for the investment.”

With all due respect to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), I am content to take the advice of the principal of Banbury school on this matter.

[Mr Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman was in a position to assert that a single individual received £1.35 million. He has been asked to name that individual. It appears from his comments that he was simply parroting what the Secretary of State said in the House. If the hon. Gentleman cannot name that individual, will he withdraw that accusation today?

[Tony Baldry]

The position of the Opposition on this issue is pathetic. They come to this Chamber with synthetic anger, having got the country and schools up and down the country into a real position of difficulty, and they then have the audacity to suggest—[Interruption.] No, they then have the audacity to suggest that the Secretary of State was misleading the House. That is what the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) has been saying.

I want to make it very clear to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) that I will trust my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education implicitly on this, because I do not believe that he would have misled the House on this matter. If that is the best point that the hon. Gentleman can make to defend the previous Government’s being so incompetent that they gave more than £1 million to an individual consultant, it is a very sad situation.

The Secretary of State has made it clear that the present Government intend to continue to invest in school capital projects, whether they involve primary or secondary schools, either to ensure that the most dilapidated schools are repaired as quickly as possible or to provide extra school places where they are needed in areas of growing population. It would be helpful if the Minister gave us all an indication of how the Government intend to approach that. I think that all Government Members recognise that the Building Schools for the Future programme was a travesty of a scheme, but there clearly are schools that require capital investment.

It is clear, for example, that Banbury school, on my patch, still requires capital investment. It serves an area that includes a number of wards with a disadvantaged school population and it has some very mature buildings. I hope that the review that the Secretary of State has set up will make recommendations about capital investment that adhere to the principles of value for money and ensure that capital investment goes to the front line to benefit pupils and schools, not consultants. It would be helpful to have an indication of how the Government intend to invest money in school buildings in the future.

Another important point is that in the Building Schools for the Future programme, the previous Government simply ignored primary schools, although often in our constituencies it is in primary schools where the school population is growing. In counties such as Oxfordshire, there is a double whammy at the moment. The fact that the previous Government left our nation’s finances in such a parlous state, with one pound in every four being spent on interest, means that it is increasingly difficult for county councils, through their schools capital programme, to allocate money for new school building projects.

For example, the Grange school in Banbury, which has a number of temporary classrooms, was hoping that it would be able to receive money from the county council’s own capital programme. That is looking increasingly difficult, simply because there is not the money in the budget.

None of us in any way underestimates the difficult decisions that have to be made by Ministers. I hope that this Minister will not be distracted by the rather synthetic anger from those on the Opposition Benches, because they are the guilty men who have got us into this situation. Rather than coming to this Chamber and chuntering as they are this afternoon, they should be ashamed of themselves for the position in which they left our nation’s schools and our nation’s education.

No debate or contribution on education should pass without our remarking on the fact that 10 years ago, the United Kingdom was fourth in the world for the quality of our science education; we are now 14th. Ten years ago, we were seventh in the world for the quality of our children’s literacy; we are now 17th. Ten years ago, we were eighth in the world for the quality of our children’s mathematics; we are now 24th. So we are talking about every area of academic endeavour over the past 10 years. It is not just the Building Schools for the Future programme that the Labour party left in a shambles, but educational standards as a whole. The present Government will have to sort out all that in the coming years.