West Coast Main Line

David Mowat Excerpts

Monday 17th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Rosie Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman raises several of the points that I am about to discuss in more detail, but I absolutely agree with him.

Surely projections about the contract should score highly on the basis of value for money for the taxpayer and the commuter. There is a belief that passenger growth could continue to be 10% per annum. However, such growth figures were achieved at the top of the economy. Even for a non-economist such as me, it does not take a great leap of faith to think that such growth rates are not sustainable in an economy that is in the doldrums and with fears of a double-dip recession not having gone away.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is quite right to say that all these projections for the future are estimates and guesses, that they may be too low or too high and that FirstGroup made very aggressive ones. However, is not the key point of a procurement process to ensure that the risk in respect of those projections is with FirstGroup’s shareholders and not with the passengers? The issue is how we manage that risk and not what the estimates were.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Cooper]

Oh, I think there are a lot of Dick Turpin-type figures about.

I would very much like to hear from the Minister on this precise point: has the Department applied its own rules or not? Given the whole handling of the process, a judicial review has been applied for, which has left us in a position where re-nationalising the line is being considered. The new Secretary of State for Transport has stated that he would seek to re-nationalise the west coast main line if there is a failure to reach an agreement before 9 December.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Lady suggests that an operator might walk away from a franchise having made the money in the early years of the contract. Is it not key for the Government to make it clear at this point that if the operator did that—giving the keys back, as she said—it would do no further work with the Government in any other contract? Therefore, for all intents and purposes, they would be barred from any further procurement processes in the future. If the Government made that clear, they would be acting in a much more private sector-type mentality, in a way that Governments often do not do. Does she agree?

[Rosie Cooper]

I would agree that, initially, we need a proper figure to mitigate taxpayer risk, to ensure that taxpayer costs are covered in the eventuality. However, if we have any more shenanigans, those operators should be barred from Government contracts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; of course the route also serves Chester and the north Wales coast, and I will refer to that a little later.

We have had a summary of the respective bids, but to assess fully whether the FirstGroup bid is deliverable in preference to the Virgin bid, we would need to see the very detailed evidence that supports the headlines we all know about. My contention is that we cannot expect to see that while the bidding process is ongoing, because the bids contain commercially sensitive information. That would be like a card game in which each player has to reveal their hand before they play.

[David Mowat]

My hon. Friend is right that the bids contain a huge amount of detail that is very hard for anyone here to understand. In his Select Committee role, he might like to investigate—I have heard this several times—the Virgin bid not being evaluated against the other bid because of the £250 million price gap, which has been highlighted by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper). That would be worth understanding.

[Iain Stewart]

That is a fair question. I cannot answer, but perhaps the Minister will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

Perhaps it is a case of whether we see the glass as half-full or half-empty. I see an attractive proposition for growth in use. Why would FirstGroup, an experienced rail operator, want to tarnish its reputation by not delivering on what it promises? I will come on to one difficulty that I anticipate—or on which, at least, I would like reassurance. However, I think First’s ambition is genuine. As I have tried to explain, I think that there is underlying growth in the market, and that First will be able to innovate with new products to attract people on to the railways.

I do not want to continue much longer, because other hon. Members want to contribute. I have a concern about one aspect of the matter, and the hon. Member for West Lancashire touched on it. There will be considerable work on the west coast main line over the franchise period, particularly in the Euston area, if it is decided that that will be the High Speed 2 terminus. That may have an impact on the ability of the line to deliver the extra capacity. I should be grateful for a comment from the Minister, whom I welcome him to his post. He has long taken an interest in rail, and richly deserves his position. Perhaps he could say a little about how the upgrade work at Euston and elsewhere on the line will be accommodated, along with growing passenger numbers, over the period in question. I believe that there are solutions. For example, it might be possible to divert some commuter traffic on the London midland line into the Crossrail terminus while Euston is being upgraded, and for extra capacity to be created there. If the Minister would say a few words about that, I should be grateful.

[David Mowat]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Iain Stewart]

I will give way one last time, but then I must conclude.

[David Mowat]

The thrust of my hon. Friend’s remarks is that if there is an issue with Euston or the revenue projections, that is a problem for the Government, but it must be a problem for FirstGroup, and the contractual basis must make that clear. Such points, although interesting, do not mitigate FirstGroup’s liability. That must be a principle.

[Iain Stewart]

That is a fair point. I genuinely do not believe that FirstGroup would be making the bid if it did not believe that it could deliver. However, we do not have the full details, and I do not think that we can. I believe that the process has been rigorous. The bids were anonymised; the Government could not have displayed any commercial bias for or against any operator.

In conclusion, it is healthy that we have such a high level of ambition and competition. It is to the benefit of all who use the railway that different companies want to develop the line in innovative ways. I hope that my constituents and those of other hon. Members will see an improvement in their rail services over the life of the franchise.

Transport and the Economy

David Mowat Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The hon. Lady raises an important point about the discrepancy in the level of spend in London and the south-east, which occurred under the previous Government, as the Select Committee report made clear, and is apparently continuing under this Government, as the IPPR figures that she cited made clear. Did she and her Committee consider why the methodology by which transportation schemes are assessed continues to drive an answer that skews the cash so much towards one small part of our country?

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The imbalance to which he refers dates back many years and decades, spanning many Governments. The Committee did examine the issue and has stated, in recognition of it, that congestion should not be the only factor taken into account when deciding where investment should be made. The importance of economic development and the potential of transport investment in relation to that should be recognised too. The Committee made a specific recommendation on this in its most recent report, stating that the Department should publish an annual analysis of its “regional spend” and publish information about the “regional impact” of its announcements.

More clarity is required on the information published generally by the Department about its spending decisions. When the Department’s budget was cut after the 2010 election, details of which specific items of expenditure were reduced were not published until a parliamentary question was tabled requesting that information. The Transport Committee also discovered that the Department had underspent on its 2010-11 budget to the tune of £1 billion and had returned £500 million to the Treasury. The underspend was far greater than the budget cut made during the year and it was larger than the cuts to bus subsidies, which have caused so many difficulties to bus users across the country. Funding made available for transport should be used for transport and should not be returned to the Treasury. I hope that we will all be able to have more confidence in the Department’s budgeting in the future.

Most rail projects are agreed as part of a five-yearly control period process. We are currently waiting for the Government to set out schemes they would like Network Rail to take forward during the 2014 to 2019 period, and to identify the funds that will be available. This approach has helped to protect rail from indiscriminate budget cuts at the time of the spending review. The Chancellor’s autumn statement included support for some rail schemes, such as the new Oxford to Bedford line. The Committee has asked the Minister to make it clear whether those schemes are additional to the projects that will be announced as part of the normal funding process or are simply being brought forward for slightly earlier implementation. There is a need for much more clarity when announcements are made on whether the schemes are genuinely additional to those that have already been agreed or whether they are agreed schemes being brought forward at an earlier date.

The National Audit Office has recently suggested that the Government should have a mechanism to reopen control period settlements in order to have more flexibility to make cuts, if necessary. I oppose that suggestion. The arrangements for rail have helped to provide a relatively transparent and stable way of investing, which is necessarily medium and long-term, but would be undermined if the Department could reopen earlier settlements.

The recent strategic review of the Highways Authority has recommended that a similar five-yearly funding settlement for road projects should be introduced, and it has been suggested that that could lead to a more efficient procurement and supply chain, delivering significant savings. That is an interesting suggestion that I am sure my Committee will want to examine in due course.

Government expenditure is essential to political decisions, particularly during a time of austerity. The Transport Committee will continue to focus on financial issues and has specific plans to examine the cost of the railway when the Government’s response to the McNulty report is finally published. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ views today and urge the Minister to support our key recommendations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

Indeed, but the previous solution was a template solution, a one-size-fits-all solution, a “this is the way we must do it” solution, which did not necessarily reflect the economic realities. As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) pointed out, in the north of England it was not one regional development agency, but a collaboration of three. As I observed earlier, in certain parts of the country structures well below the regional level developed and delivered more efficient transport solutions.

I hope that in reading the report the Minister will not be deflected from the idea that solutions of differing sizes will fit different parts of the country, and that LEPs have been in place for a relatively short time. Just as regional development agencies were able to collaborate and co-operate, there is little doubt that LEPs will be able to do the same. It is also true that in certain parts of the country integrated transport authorities and passenger transport authorities will provide the lead in regional structures. The clear message must be that there are differing appropriate sizes and structures.

[David Mowat]

I agree that the jury is out on LEPs and that the RDAs were not a panacea in this area, but the real point is that neither the RDAs nor the LEPs can compete with the velocity of spending which is so skewed away from the regions and towards London and the south-east. For example, when the Chancellor announces £30 billion of spend, of which 80% was in London, that dwarfs the amount available to the RDAs or the LEPs. The real issue is how we fix that problem, rather than tinkering with the LEPs, which I hope, as I am sure does my hon. Friend, will work in time.

[Stephen Hammond]

I certainly agree with the latter point. It is beyond the scope of my comments this afternoon to go into the differing amounts of regional money. I accept that there clearly is some imbalance in subsidy between varying regions of the country. It is important to analyse what that can deliver and its efficacy. It is interesting to speculate what Crossrail might bring to London in future, as opposed to what the northern hub might bring to the north. I suspect that the benefits of the northern hub might be greater than those of Crossrail. We will wait and see. I am sure the Minister and the DFT will continue to reflect on that.

As a practitioner of the dark art of economics, I know that different economists will always have differing views on everything. Reading the report, I was struck by the comments of the former chief economist at the DFT. Although those may have been made only in response to the question that he was asked, it seemed to me to miss out quite a lot when he said that if one looks at the history of the British economy, it is clear

“how little the underlying rate of economic growth has varied.”

He went on to add that transport had done very little to affect the overall growth rate of the British economy. That seemed to miss out the fact that we have had wildly varying periods across history.

The witness's analysis went back almost 200 years. Over that time, we have had wildly differing levels of infrastructure investment, and there have been periods when the growth rate of the UK economy has been well in excess of the 2% that he mentioned. His analysis also failed to consider the impact of under-investment, which is a well known phenomenon, how that would have dragged down the underlying potential growth rate of the economy even in a period when investment had resumed, and the potential growth rate had there been consistent investment. Although the analysis that Mr Riley presented to the Committee may or may not be valid, it seems to me that it falls foul of the law of averages. I think that the analysis should look at the potential for economic growth with a consistent approach to investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate the Select Committee on their coherent report and I want to focus on one aspect of it, which is the issue of regional imbalances in spend and how they happen, and to give some of my thoughts on how we can avoid them. Those thoughts are about the appraisal mechanisms used in the Department for Transport and the Treasury, the approach to appraisal and the Treasury Green Book.

Let us get the facts out of the way first. Table 2 of the Committee’s report makes it clear that in the period under review—2008-09—one region received substantially more funding than any other, and that was London. In broad terms, London received about two or three times more per head than the English regions. That matters as billions of pounds of capital spend generate high-quality private sector jobs that translate, through the power of the economic multiplier, into prosperity. The effect is transformative.

I cannot be the only Member of the House who thinks that it is odd that under the previous Government, in 2009, the discrepancy in gross value added per head between London and the English regions doubled at a time when that capital spending was being poured into London. That discrepancy by a factor of two between the capital city and other parts of the country does not exist in any other European country; it is unique to Britain.

I had hoped that after the election we would get all that sorted out with the new Government, and I was confident that serious attempts would be made to use the power of capital spending to fix the north-south divide. I was disappointed, like others who have already spoken, to see that in the autumn statement 84% of the £30 billion accelerated capital spend was allocated to London. Let me put it in context: that is £2,731 per head in London compared with £150 per head in my region, the north-west, and £5 per head in the north-east. I have heard Ministers talk about and challenge those figures and I would like the Minister to address that specific point.

The difference in spend is partly but not entirely to do with Crossrail, Thameslink and the underground, but even after those projects are removed from consideration, London and the south-east still receive approximately double what is received in the north. This is very serious and makes a mockery of our attempts to use the regional growth fund, and previously the regional development agencies, to redress that balance. If we put capital spend of that quantity into one part of the country in that way, then giving £1 billion here and £1 billion there in regional spend does not make much of a difference. I am not a conspiracy theorist: I do not think that the Opposition, when they were in government, or my own Government have done that on purpose. There is a deeper issue here—a systemic bias that drives these decisions—and it is to do with the method of appraisal.

As far as I can make out, the mechanism that the Department for Transport uses—the new approach to appraisal—leans heavily on a system of multiplying small, incremental changes by the number of people involved to generate the business case. The system specifically is not allowed to take into account wider economic benefits. The consequence of that appraisal mechanism, which has been used both by the previous Government and by this Government, is that there is a bias towards the parts of the country that are most congested and where the greatest number of people will benefit from relatively small changes in journey times to create a huge economic benefit. As a consequence of that system, resources for projects are continually allocated to one part of the country.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the House’s attention the disparities with proposed investment packages in transport. Ministers will try to argue this away but they cannot argue away the extent of the disparity when more than £2,500 per head of population is being spent in the south-east compared with just a fiver in the north-east.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Gentleman echoes the point I am making. Just to take the politics out of it, let me point out that broadly the same thing happened under the previous Government, so we go back to my previous point: something systemic is happening here in the way that projects are appraised within the Department for Transport. I do not believe that either the previous Labour Government or the current Government wished that to be the out-turn. Frankly, the resulting disparity is not even very good for London, because the consequence of having a mechanism that removes congestion is to enable further congestion to gravitate towards our capital city and we start all over again. Enough is enough—Ministers have to challenge the appraisal mechanism.

I have thought about how the system could work and I shall leave the Minister with my suggestion. We should allocate capital budgets by region as the starting point for where money is spent. Then we would not get the issue with the north-east getting £5 a head while London gets £2,700. I understand that one risk of such a system would be sub-optimisation and that there is a need to manage cross-regional projects, but that could be done—other organisations do things of that nature. It clearly is not satisfactory for things to carry on as they are. I would like the Minister to give his view on why the appraisal mechanisms used by the Department continue to give the answers they do.

Northern Rail Hub

David Mowat Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) on securing the debate, which comes at an important time. Network Rail is looking in detail at the northern hub proposals. The Government have asked Network Rail to revisit the proposals before any final decisions are taken to ensure that the scheme will bring value for money. It is extremely important that we are able not only to talk about the importance of the northern hub, but to show the degree of cross-party support and the spread of geographical support for this major scheme.

I emphasise the importance of the northern hub as a strategic investment in the north. The proposals came from big, strategic thinking. The three northern regional development agencies came together and thought about how the regional economies could be improved, which led to the setting up of the Northern Way and the development of the schemes for the northern hub. Today we are looking at the detail and reaching the final stages of approval.

The northern hub is about individual projects and individual areas. It is about additional platforms and tracks, and it is hopefully about new trains. It will affect a wide variety of places—Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Newcastle and Hull, to name but a few—and it will improve access to Manchester airport. In my constituency, people will be able to get from Liverpool to Manchester in half an hour, and trains to Leeds will take 80 minutes. In addition, there will be more of them. Those are great improvements, which will be of great assistance in developing Liverpool’s potential.

The northern hub is about more than simply individual areas, however, important though it is for each area named. It involves investment of half a billion pounds, which will lead to a £4 billion boost for the northern economies, with the potential for the creation of 20,000 to 30,000 jobs. That massive investment of half a billion pounds will have a significant outcome. As hon. Members have mentioned, it lies beside the £14.8 billion investment in Crossrail, just under £5 billion of which comes directly from the Government. A recent study of the regional pattern of investment in transport showed that about three times as much was invested on a per-head basis in transport in the south and south-east as in the north.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

On the point about the difference in spend between the north and the south, the hon. Lady may have seen in the Transport Committee the report from the Institute for Public Policy Research, which evaluates the projects that the Government brought forward in the spending review in the autumn. Infrastructure spending amounted to £30 billion, and the spend per head was £2,700 in London, £134 in the north-west, £200 in Leeds and Humberside, and £5 in the north-east.

[Mrs Ellman]

I have seen that report. It is significant that we register such great disparities, but it is even more important that we try to do something about them, and the northern hub represents a major opportunity to do that. The Transport Committee has taken a particular interest in the northern hub, which we refer to as an important proposal in our report on transport and the economy and our report on high-speed rail.

The Committee supports high-speed rail, but we registered a number of concerns, including about the importance of ensuring that investment in necessary high-speed rail did not take place at the expense of investment in the existing, classic line. We cited the importance of investing in the northern hub and invited the Government to demonstrate their commitment to investing in the existing line by investing in both the northern hub and high-speed rail. Perhaps they will soon be asked to show their position on the matter and to demonstrate their commitment to investing in the existing line.

High-speed Rail

David Mowat Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I do not think I can add anything further to my comments about my commitment to the Y network. In terms of the time it will take us to develop the hybrid Bill, we are doing it as fast as we can. I want to make sure that the Bill comes to the House in a proper and robust state, and that means doing a proper environmental impact statement and working with local communities, which will take some time. This is a big project and we are going to get on with it, but I will make sure that it has the time that all that will take. At the moment, it looks as though the Bill will come to the House in late 2013.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

With a benefit-cost ratio of over 2.5, HS2 is a much better business case than Crossrail, which has just been accelerated. Will the Secretary of State consider accelerating phase 2 of this scheme so that it can reach the north before 2032?

[Justine Greening]

I am looking at all the ways in which I can progress this project as fast as possible. At the moment, it looks as though the 2032-33 time frame is the fastest by which we can bring it to fruition. I hope that the House has seen today my desire to get on with this project and I will continually look at ways in which we can deliver it faster.

High-Speed Rail

David Mowat Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Even though I am a member of the Labour party, I am always slightly cautious about having the perfect plan. When one is involved in transport plans or economic development—it does not matter whether it is in the private or the public sector—one has to be opportunistic and take what is there. Sometimes it can take too long to wait for the perfect plan. That does not mean that we should not think about how we can connect different parts of the system.

Like the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, Action Alliance makes the point that high-speed rail does not automatically bring with it economic benefits. Let us take, for example, the economies of Manchester and London, or Birmingham and London. Some argue that high-speed rail exposes them to bigger markets, which is true because the train goes both ways. A dynamic city or region is at a real advantage. What city would not want to be in a bigger market so that they can attract more people and investment? Although it is possible to fail in such an area, it is easier to succeed if there is high-speed rail.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I, too, was struck by the Action Alliance analysis that when we improve connectivity, the stronger city benefits and the weaker city loses out. If we follow that logic through to the end, it means that we should close the M6, the M1 and the west coast main line, which is ridiculous.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I was not expecting to be called. I would have preferred to wait a little before making my speech. I will be fairly brief. I want to touch on the business case figure for high-speed rail, which is estimated at 2.6, including the wider economic benefits. That is considerably higher than the business case of Crossrail. I know that we can all doubt the Department’s methodology, but nevertheless let us put that on the table first.

One of the arguments against the project is whether we can afford it. It costs £32 billion and we are in a time of recession. It is also worth saying that it will cost £2 billion a year, which will kick in more or less when Crossrail finishes. On a cash-flow basis, therefore, it is not too tough. The business case is predicated on capacity constraints. I have some conservative figures here. Over the last decade and a half, rail journeys have increased by around 5% a year. This business case assumes an increase of 1.6% a year. We do not know whether that will happen; it may not, but the figure is certainly not aggressive.

The business case has been criticised because it does not take into account people’s ability to work and be productive while travelling and therefore overestimates the benefit for time saving in terms of economic activity. It has been shown in a number of debates that such a view is false because if these trains are so full that everyone is standing up, no one can work on PCs or anything else. The business case is supported if we assume that.

In his excellent remarks, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) talked about the north-south divide, for which this project is not a panacea. However, to say that it will not make a contribution is just fatuous. We have already talked about the pamphlet from Action Alliance—I like to call them the Amersham-based Action Alliance—that came out today. The argument that the benefits would accrue more significantly to the bigger city does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny. It implies that the M6 and the M1 are bad because they fix the north-south divide and I find that hard to believe.

I will not speak about the wider benefits of the project other than to say that the chambers of commerce in the north-west, Leeds and Scotland have come out strongly in favour of these transformative—actually, transformative is not a bad word—benefits. The impact on the north-west economy is calculated to be around £10 billion and we need that. It is easy to unpick the business case by saying, “Actually, my town is not really on the route and it is not too good for my town because we will have to do this and we will have to do that.” The truth is that we have to look at some of these decisions regionally. If £10 billion is injected into the north-west economy, it is just not possible that that will not help Warrington, whether or not Warrington is on the spur.

I have three points for the Minister. One is about timing. Once we accept and buy into the transformation benefits, there is an issue for the north-west in how the Government are going about this. Broadly speaking, Birmingham and the west midlands will receive this infrastructure, in which we all believe, about a decade sooner than Manchester and a further decade before Scotland, which is not even on the map yet.

[Mr Donohoe]

Does that not back up the argument that if this were to be a project that was about to begin, it should start in Scotland and move south, as well as from the south moving north?

[David Mowat]

There is certainly a case for not necessarily starting all the construction work in London and coming north. I do not know whether it should start in Scotland, Warrington or Manchester, but there is a case for going both ways. Let me come back to this timing point. There could be a decade of benefits accruing to Birmingham in inward investment, and a decade of benefits accruing to the west midlands in better links. We are all guilty in this debate of talking about links to London. It is about links not to London but to the continent of Europe through St Pancras. That decade is a worry. Given the current fashion for bringing forward infrastructure projects and the fact that the business case for this project is stronger than that of Crossrail, will the Minister tell us why we are not taking the opportunity to start some of the construction work in the north more quickly? That would take away the problem of the lost decade, which, without wishing to sound as if I lack confidence in our project management abilities, can sometimes turn into a lost decade and a half. Therefore, I am interested in hearing what the Minister has to say about the timing of the project.

We also need to pin down some of the existing uncertainties, especially on the north-south dimension. I may be wrong, but I do not think that it has even been accepted for certain that Piccadilly will be the final destination. That needs sorting out, as does the link to the airport. I do not want to become embroiled in the arguments about having a third London airport, but if we have a high-speed link between Manchester airport and Heathrow—a journey of, for example, 60 or 70 minutes, which would not be much slower than the journey to Gatwick—I find it difficult to see how there will not be some impact on, or some marginal benefit to airport congestion in the south. The whole issue of Scotland needs to be sorted out, at least in relation to the north. We have a plan—a business case—and we are beginning to understand where the route will be. However, I also want some assurance about when the route north of Birmingham will be set out, because we can then start to plan and to put in place the sort of local initiatives that we need to make the whole project work.

Finally, on local initiatives, I was struck by evidence that the north-west is a little different from Birmingham in terms of shape. Manchester and Leeds sit at the bottom of the north-west, which has a much longer shape, so connectivity matters much more, while Birmingham is more central to the west midlands. The northern hub has been mentioned, as has the need for it to be clearly linked with the whole project. I completely agree with that point, but I also agree with those who have said that we cannot just do nothing until everything is sorted. I am keen to hear assurances from the Minister on those three points.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

May I remind hon. Members that if they have requested to speak via the normal channels, but wish to speak at a certain point in the debate, they should let the Chair know, so that they can be listed accordingly?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am trying to set out the grounds for a consensus. I might suggest that if people did not keep intervening on me—[Interruption]––and disagreeing with me, I might be able to make more progress.

[David Mowat]

Will the Shadow Minister give way?

[John Woodcock]

I will give way one more time and then I really need to make some progress because I have only 10 minutes.

[David Mowat]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Shadow Front-Benchers have been ambivalent about this issue over the past 18 months? The Evening Standard recently stated that Labour had announced:

“a root and branch review of…transport policy with nothing ruled in or out,”

including high-speed rail. Is that no longer the position?

[John Woodcock]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been in the House over the past couple of weeks for the important Back-Bench debate on high-speed rail, in which we set out with crystal clarity our support for the project. We were absolutely right to look at the project again in Opposition because it is a major one and will require substantial and sustained investment. We have concluded that we will back the Government, and try to strengthen their resolve when we think they are not giving enough of a commitment to the north.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Mowat Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I will certainly look into the specific case that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned and write to him about it. I emphasise that access for all funding is continuing under this Government and is part of a major programme of upgrades that we have committed to undertake, despite grappling with a deficit that is as serious as anything in our peacetime history.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

11. What plans he has to review the business case for (a) High Speed 2 and (b) Crossrail.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Economic cases for large projects are periodically refreshed—for example, to reflect the latest economic forecasts. A robust economic case for HS2 was prepared for the recent consultation, with a benefit-cost ratio of 1:2.6. An update will be published later this year. The latest update of the Crossrail economic case was published in July 2011, with a BCR of 1:1.97. I should make it clear that the economic case is only one of the criteria used in decision making for transport infrastructure projects.

[David Mowat]

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. As he made clear, the business case for HS2 is stronger than the business case for Crossrail. The HS2 business case gets even better if the link north of Birmingham is taken into account. Given that fact, will the Minister consider bringing forward the construction of HS2 in order to stimulate the economy in the same way as has been mooted for Crossrail?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the HS2 project. Let me give him an example to reinforce his point. At the time the decision was made to build the extension to the Jubilee line, the BCR was less than 1, but I do not think that many people would argue today that we could possibly do without the Jubilee line extension. The construction profile and overall project profile for HS2 are based on the requirement to obtain parliamentary and other statutory consents and the cash-flow limitations of the Treasury’s ability to fund a project on such a scale. Unfortunately, it will not be possible to accelerate it.

High-speed Rail

David Mowat Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Susan Elan Jones]

I would hope not. On HS2, the 2008 Atkins report concluded that a high-speed rail network would deliver more than £60 billion-worth of benefit to the UK economy in its first 60 years. In 2009, the British Chambers of Commerce calculated revenues and benefits to the economy worth £55 billion. The Government’s consultation paper puts the benefits at around £71 billion in revenue and benefits.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

On the subject of benefits and the point about delay, it might be worth putting on the record that the business case for High Speed 2 puts the net benefit ratio of the project at 2.6, which is higher than Crossrail, Thameslink or HS1.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but not with the Taxpayers Alliance, which suggests that the business case is unproven. I confess that that is not the only thing I disagree with the Taxpayers Alliance on.

Wendover Action Against Chilterns HS2 Routes claims that passenger demand forecasts have been overestimated. It ignores the fact that, after 10 years of 5% annual rises in passenger numbers, HS2 envisages just 1.4% annual growth. Again, it does not offer its own projected profit figures. The RAC has offered the following gem of a critique:

“the analysis so far has been largely uni-modal and future analysis will need to be multi modal so as to assess HSR against rival and complimentary investments, particularly in the air and road sectors, whilst further work may also be required to analyse the inter-relationships with the classic rail sector and to test the robustness of modelling results”.

Perhaps we can pass that on to the Plain English Campaign, so that it can translate it for the rest of us. Ultimately, it is clear that the experts all agree on one thing: there will be economic benefits and, even if we cannot agree on every penny, we know they will be hefty. Whether someone lives in the Chilterns or not, they cannot escape the economics. If it is done properly, high-speed rail works. Once we accept that, it only remains for us to consider whether those benefits are outweighed by any overriding negatives. As we have heard, the Secretary of State for Wales believes that one such negative is the fact that the line will pass through her backyard. Putting the right hon. Lady’s begonias aside, what are the real facts on environmental impact?

I totally agree that areas of outstanding natural beauty must be protected. Indeed, a new such area is on its way in my constituency. I believe that they must be protected and preserved wherever possible; I do not accept, however, that HS2 will cause unacceptable blight in the Chilterns. In fact, all but 1.2 miles of the route through the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty will be in tunnels, and one cannot get much less obtrusive than that. We will not be able to see it—it will be under the ground. Other parts of the route will be hidden in deep cuttings, or run alongside motorways. A lot of work has gone into ensuring that the line will cause minimum disruption. In fact, route changes mean that only 340 properties will be affected by noise, of which 210 are in central London, itself hardly a haven of peace. Just 10 properties will be affected by high noise levels. That does not add up to irreparable damage to the countryside. The fact that it will be possible to see and hear this rail line in the distance does not outweigh the very real economic and social benefits it will bring.

I have one point to add, regarding the residents in Holborn and St Pancras whose homes may be demolished. That may be classed as irreparable damage and I would not want to see that outcome; I hope very much that a solution can be found to avoid that demolition. I would back any amendment to the plan that could avoid the destruction of homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

I think that the Government are being conservative in their estimates of passenger numbers and who will use the high-speed network. I was about to say that even with our current creaking transport network, Leeds enjoys the second largest financial sector in the country. If we have a high-speed route to Leeds, the prospect of increasing and expanding that financial sector could become a reality.

Figures suggest that current proposals for a line between London and Birmingham will generate 40,000 jobs. When we move to the Y-shape, there will be greater prosperity and more jobs. Globalisation means that we need to start meeting the demands of a much smaller world so that those of us on the periphery, as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said, can also enjoy the benefits of that.

Let me refer to some of the criticisms of the scheme. Too often we hear people referring only to the line to Birmingham. The whole point about HS2 is that it will go beyond that. The Y-shaped route was the best decision made by the Government. If they had chosen only the line that went to Manchester and then Leeds, I, too, would be a critic, but the fact is that the Y-shape will bring benefits to the whole country, as was confirmed by the Prime Minister on 22 June. I have heard critics say that the line will never get that far north, but the Prime Minister has been clear on the issue.

[David Mowat]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the consultation being for only the leg between London and Birmingham, which is the hardest part to achieve and the part with the weakest business case. The business case for the entire project is much better, because the line becomes easier to build as we go north. Does he agree that even though the business case for the initial part is stronger than those for Crossrail and Thameslink, it is a problem that there is consideration of only that first part?

[Stuart Andrew]

I completely agree. That is why I say that we must consider the project in its entirety and think about going beyond what is currently proposed and on to Scotland. We must think of the very long term, not just the short term. On the one hand, people say, “Oh, this is too many years in advance. It’s not worth doing,” but there is no excuse for doing nothing and we have to plan now to deal with the problem. On the other hand, however, people say, “We shouldn’t be spending this amount of money when times are hard,” but construction will not happen until 2017 and it will take place over two decades. I believe that the cost will be about £2 billion a year, which is similar to the cost for Crossrail, and if that was good enough for London, it is good enough for the rest of the country.

Yesterday, I sat for a short while at the back of the room in which the sitting of the Transport Committee was taking place and I heard the arguments against HS2. They seemed to centre on the claim that existing infrastructure would miss out. In fairness to the Department for Transport, it has invested lots of extra money for projects. When the people appearing before the Committee were asked what they wanted instead, they said, “Roads.” Well, we have seen what has happened before in that respect. They said that the M25 junctions could be improved, which would be very helpful to those of us in the north—thanks very much.

HS2 is not a panacea, but it will dovetail into the northern hub so that we can get people to the north and around the north, and so that business can thrive. That is something that we cannot wait for and Britain needs to catch up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) on securing the debate. I have not hidden my full backing for the proposed high-speed rail link, and I certainly cannot be accused of hiding my disdain for some of the bogus arguments made by its opponents, who have now given up even pretending that they are not nimbys. Take the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), for example, who just this week said:

“There’s nothing wrong with being a Nimby, openly and absolutely.”

However, I do not intend to waste any more time on them.

The last time that we had a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall, I focused on busting the myths of the opponents. In this debate, I shall explain how my constituents and the constituents of the hon. Member for Coventry North West—indeed, all our constituents—will massively benefit from a high-speed rail link between London, Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester. When I say “our constituents”, I really mean our constituents’ children and grandchildren, because this is a long-term decision, not an election gimmick or a vanity project. Most of us in the Chamber will not be around to take the credit when the first high-speed trains arrive in Manchester. This is about taking the right decision now to ensure that our economy can compete in the decades ahead so that the next generation, which has already been saddled with huge levels of debt thanks to the previous Government, is not also stuck with a jammed-up rail network, which would have crippling effects on our international competitiveness. After all, we would not want to run a 21st-century economy on A and B roads when we could build motorways.

All our major global competitors already have high-speed rail lines or are investing in them right now. If we do not go ahead with High Speed 2, we will be left behind. Network Rail estimates that London-Manchester passenger demand will grow by 61% by 2024. It is clear that “upgrading is not enough” and that

“incremental improvements in the existing network are unlikely to be able to keep up with rapidly growing passenger demand”.

That should be a warning to opponents.

[David Mowat]

I want to touch on one quick point that my hon. Friend and others have made in error. They suggest that this is all about Manchester to London, Leeds to London or Edinburgh to London, but it is not—it is about getting to Europe as well. The links to High Speed 1 are fundamental to our communities, and we must not let the debate become polarised so that it focuses only on London.

[Graham Evans]

I am most grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention and I take his point.

Network Rail is clear about what the solution should be. It says that High Speed 2 “solves the capacity challenge” and that the proposed line would

“deliver a very large increase in capacity, including freeing up capacity on the existing network for freight, more frequent services for cities not served by the high-speed line and increased commuter services.”

That means that the constituents of the most earnest opponents of High Speed 2 will benefit directly from the plans. The point about freight is also crucial. If we are to rebalance our economy, with more northern-based manufacturing—figures show the Government are already making strong progress on that—that will involve demands for additional freight capacity.

High Speed 2 therefore directly benefits a wide range of people, from commuters in Cheshire to manufacturers in Coventry. A lot of flim-flam will be spoken about the business case for high-speed rail by its opponents, but the business case is strong. The estimated benefit to the economy is more than £40 billion pounds.

High-Speed Rail

David Mowat Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Kelvin Hopkins]

High-speed networks work brilliantly in areas where there are long gaps between major conurbations—in Spain, France and so on. Britain is much more densely populated. There are many stops and more towns en route. As I have suggested, we need more investment in the conventional railways that we already have, so that we can get to those destinations more quickly. I am sure that we can easily raise the speeds to Leeds, and certainly to other areas, with a lot of investment.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The point is often made that high-speed rail works better over longer routes. Would he concede that the Paris-Lille, Osaka-Tokyo and Cologne-Frankfurt routes are all about 120 km long, which is quite similar to the first part of high-speed rail that is planned?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

We would have to be prepared to spend that kind of money. I have been on the Cologne-Frankfurt route and it is fantastic. A third of it is in tunnels, which are vastly expensive. The Germans have decided to build that route and it is a wonderful line. We do not have the resources to build lines like that everywhere. Some high-speed routes do not go through much on the way; we almost invariably have significant towns en route that have to be served on the same line.

[David Mowat]

I was responding to the hon. Gentleman’s point that high-speed rail works only over vast distances. The examples I quoted are not vast distances; they are very similar to what is envisaged in the first part of high-speed rail.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

In the best of all possible worlds, it would be nice to have fast routes everywhere. However, we must consider the resources involved. The significant routes are where people would choose to travel by air, rather than by land; people would go by aeroplane from Madrid to Barcelona, for example. Routes become economical where large numbers of people want to travel between conurbations that are fairly widely spaced, there is not a great deal in between, and it is easier to get the high-speed track without too much cost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

Yes, indeed. There have been plenty of anecdotal reports from low-cost airlines suggesting that they would welcome the opportunity to put on more cheap long-haul flights.

I plan to challenge four aspects of the case for HS2: the business case, the environmental case, the claims about job creation and the potential for regeneration. I am a firm believer that one cannot attack something without providing an alternative. I will therefore also discuss a viable alternative to HS2. I have based my challenges on phase 1 of HS2, in spite of the fact, unfortunately, that the consultation incorporates the entire Y-shaped project. There is too little detail on the assumptions underlying phase 2 to be able to assess the figures properly. I also need to point out that the original business case, written by Atkins for the Department for Transport in March 2010, was updated last month. The new business case is considerably less attractive than the old one.

I will deal first with the business case for HS2. HS2 Ltd claims a net benefit ratio, which includes the wider economic impacts, of 2. That means that for every pound spent, there will be £2 of benefit. That is about the minimum return that could be expected from a rail project—the bar for roads projects is significantly higher. Even that modest claim, however, makes enormous assumptions. Specifically, one of the core and somewhat ludicrous assumptions is that all the time spent on a train journey is wasted, and therefore that every minute of a train journey that is saved can be given a value in pounds—the number of minutes saved, multiplied by the earnings of an individual. That would not matter so much except that the journey time savings account for more than 50% of the £20 billion of total economic benefit claimed for the project. I urge the Department for Transport to look again closely at that point.

[David Mowat]

On the first point, the ratio of 2 is for the London to Birmingham link. As my hon. Friend will know, the ratio is 2.6 for the link to Manchester and to Leeds. Including the wider economic benefits, it is 2.6. I have the business case for Crossrail, which my hon. Friend may have had the chance to have a look at. The business case in that is 1.87. The final point that my hon. Friend might wish to consider is the idle time point, which is very important.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. We have had too many questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robinson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was trying not to participate in nimbyism. I have been sworn not to do that. I make no apology: I am here to represent Coventry’s interest. Call me a nimby or whatever. I can find nothing in the proposal that brings any benefit to Coventry. I think that if my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) were here he would agree with that point. I can see that many others have a different point of view. We want capacity, we want modernisation, we believe we can get it, there is an alternative, and we want it evaluated. I cannot see what is wrong with that proposition. I cannot see how anyone could oppose it when, looking at capital costs on present forecasts, it would cost half of what HS1 cost.

[David Mowat]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Robinson]

We have taken up a bit of time. The hon. Gentleman will have better use of his time if I curtail mine.

Welcome as a public consultation is, it is no more than an opportunity for the pros and cons to be stated on a large project on which the Government have already made up their mind. Opening up the mind is very good, and I appreciate what the Minister has said on that point. I have to warn all those who for personal and national reasons are joining us in opposition to HS2 that it is going to require a sustained, strong exercise in parliamentary and people power to get the Government to change their mind. Do not underestimate the difficulties we all face in that respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Byles]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat)

[David Mowat]

I want to make the same point. A recent survey by the West Midlands Chamber of Commerce, which I think includes Coventry and north Warwickshire, estimated that there would be £6 billion of wider economic benefits. Does my hon. Friend not believe that some of that would go to his constituency?

[Dan Byles]

North Warwickshire council and, I believe, Warwick district council, as well as Warwickshire county council and Staffordshire county council, have all come out formally against the proposal. They obviously do not believe that there will be wider economic benefits for the midlands and their council areas.

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) demonstrates that we need to do more work before spending 17 billion quid of taxpayers’ money. If some reports say one thing, and others say something else, where is the fundamental, independent, root and branch economic analysis of existing high-speed rail systems in other countries around the world? I genuinely do not believe that what HS2 and the Department for Transport published represents that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson]

I know the Minister is an optimist, but if she thinks I am going to leap to the defence of Lord Adonis, she is a super-optimist. There was no connection—oh dear, the great strategists clean forgot. Now they have bodged a connection. There will be a third bore—if hon. Members will excuse the term—from Old Oak Common, coming out at Primrose Hill. The tunnel will be bored in parallel with the other two tunnels coming into Euston, and will proceed along the North London line to connect to HS1. So far, no one has explained whether it will connect to HS1 through the HS1 line, or by going into the HS1 part of St Pancras station. Perhaps the Minister can elucidate, but I doubt it because I do not think the people at HS2 quite know what they are talking about. Something else that did not appear in the announcement is that the proposal is for that tunnel, and the bit on the North London line, to proceed only at conventional speed. It will be HS2, then a slow bit, then HS1—and we are still supposed to regard the people who came up with that proposition as a set of railway strategists.

When HS1 was being built, I recall that the people from Bechtel looked at the possibility of using the North London line as the route into St Pancras. They decided that the cuttings, embankments and bridges along that line were so lousy that it would be cheaper to bore through to St Pancras, which was a considerable distance. When I pointed that out to someone from HS2, they were unaware of that small and apparently irrelevant fact.

If we talk of strategy, we must look at the promises made for the high-speed rail network. People have been told that it will be a great network, and that we will continue it further north. Under the strategy, the line will split at Birmingham and part of it will go to Manchester and eventually to Glasgow. In the east it will go first to Leeds and then to Newcastle and Edinburgh. The proposal is for the line to get as far as Birmingham by 2026. I, however, am confident enough to make two forecasts of my own about the London to Birmingham line. First, it will not be in operation by 2026, and secondly it will cost more than the present estimate. I am willing to take bets from any hon. Members present at the end of the debate. If I lose, they will no doubt have to pursue my grandchildren for the debt.

I do not pay attention to the prognostications, if there are any, about the likely weight of traffic on the route, or what the scheme is likely to bring in. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) said, if the Office for Budget Responsibility cannot come up with a suggestion for what is likely to happen at the end of the current year, there are slim chances of anyone—whether for, against or doubtful about the project—coming up with an accurate prognostication about what will happen in 2025-26 or, in the case of Leeds and Manchester, 2035 or 2040. Then there are Glasgow and Edinburgh. My grandchildren, who now reappear in this story, are likely to go on the train from London to Glasgow using their senior railcards; that is the time scale we are talking about.

[David Mowat]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks well about the difficulties in forecasting, particularly far into the future. That is why it is extremely important that the business case for the scheme is based on a conservative estimate. Does he admit that while long-distance rail travel has increased by 5% per annum over the past 15 years, in its business case, the Department for Transport has put that increase at 1.4% over the next decade or so? That is pretty conservative.

[Frank Dobson]

I do not wish to be rude, but the only thing to add to the hon. Gentleman’s contribution is, “Or I will eat my hat.” I do not have the faintest idea which of those estimates is true, and the odds are that neither will prove true. He knows that as well as I do. We should not be whacking in all this money on the basis of estimates that nobody can back up. All we are really faced with is the proposition that we should support a fast shuttle between Birmingham and London.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing this debate. I shall start by agreeing with her on a few points, but, unfortunately, our paths will then diverge. We should not do high-speed rail just because the rest of the world is doing it. Just because every other country in Europe is forging ahead with this does not mean that we should—I accept that argument. We should not do High Speed 2 just because the business case for High Speed 1, and the reason why it went to St Pancras, was that it could be linked to the north. That should not be the reason why we do it. We should not do it just because of the carbon saved. As has been pointed out, the modal shift is quite small. We should not do it as cover for our plans in relation to Heathrow.

We should do it only if three conditions exist: the business case has to be robust; we must be satisfied that there are transformational benefits; and, on a cash-flow basis, it has to be affordable. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) has talked about that final point, and I shall address that first. Roughly speaking, the cost in cash-flow terms is £2 billion a year, which is a great deal of money. However, it is, roughly speaking, the same as we are currently spending on Crossrail—I see the Minister nodding, which encourages me—and, by and large, it will start as Crossrail finishes. I support Crossrail and have no issue with it, but it is important that that point is understood.

We agree that the business case is vital, and this debate must centre on it. Some of the points that have been made about the business case during this debate are misinformed. Yes, there have to be forecasts of the future—that is what a forecast does. As I said in an intervention, rail usage has increased by 5% per annum over the past decade and a half. The business case upon which this project is justified assumes that it will continue to increase at 1.4% per annum. I agree that that might be too high, but it is certainly not radical.

The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) made the point that the project is predicated on time savings. Yes, it is—it is a transport project and that is how we tend to justify such projects in terms of benefit. That is how Crossrail was justified and it will be how this is justified.

Another point is often made—I want to address this before it gets too much currency. We can work on the train these days. We have personal computers and so on, and are therefore productive. That is true and the business case does not properly take it into account. It does not take into account the fact that productivity of that nature exists and that, if someone is standing up on a crowded train, the losses are enormous. In fact, that precise issue is addressed on page 51 of the Department for Transport’s business case. The fact is that the business cost ratio increases if productivity due to internet usage on a train is taken into account.

I want to put a couple of things on the record in relation to transformational benefits. We can take the Barcelona view or we can take other views. During an earlier speech, somebody said that the train might not stop at Warrington. I agree, but that is not the point. The point is that the North-West chamber of commerce believes that the scheme will bring £8 billion-worth of benefits to my region. Those benefits will accrue to Warrington in the same way that they will accrue to Banbury and—dare I say it—Northampton. Let us at least get that clear.

A recent report that KPMG produced for Greengauge 21 estimates that there will be an incremental, steady-state increase in jobs of 40,000 in the north and the north-west due to the scheme. That might not be right—I am pleased that the Select Committee on Transport is going to validate the numbers—but these are important transformational issues, and they must be taken seriously.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) is signalling to me—I think he wants to speak next. This debate must not be tarnished by nimbyism and all that goes with it. It is more important than that and too important for it. I accept that the most vociferous opposition comes from those counties that are impacted the most. In all fairness, I live in Cheshire and it may well be that, when the next bit is announced, I will be a nimby as well. Members are entitled to respect their constituents. I want to put on the record that I discovered during my research yesterday that two of the consultants who represent one of the most influential rail action groups against the proposal both live in Great Missenden. It is important, as we evaluate the scheme, that we get it right.

Finally, mitigation is important and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) has made some good points about it. We need to take it seriously, but it is not as important as the transformational benefits that may accrue from the scheme if it happens.

Rail Investment

David Mowat Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. He is right—high-speed rail has to go in a straight line and it is much more expensive to create that, which greatly limits the number of stops. I have heard it said that the line needs to go from London to Birmingham for the purpose of speed and to solve the north-south divide. I agree with those hon. Members who have said that that alone will not solve the north-south divide and that other decisions will need to be taken. We need to consider the whole of Britain. From the point of view of many constituencies along the way between London and Birmingham, if the line were to be made viable with interim stops, so that there were some sharing of the benefit, it would be more attractive.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

No one would claim that high-speed rail on its own could solve the north-south divide. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber, including my right hon. Friend the Minister, would attempt to do that. However, will my hon. Friend admit that the creation of 40,000 jobs—that is KPMG’s estimate—in the north-west, north-east and Yorkshire as a result of high-speed rail would contribute to it? She said that other projects could be equally effective in helping to solve the north-south divide. Perhaps she will say which of those she would put her money on. Finally, three or four hon. Members have made the point that incremental improvements in rail are very effective in the short term. That is correct, but we cannot just make incremental improvements for ever—at some point, the Government have to call it.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. However, I am not of the old USSR view that we should just do public project after public project for the sake of creating jobs. There needs to be a clear rationale for having the high-speed line in the first place. Any project needs to stand on its own merits and not be done just because it creates jobs, so I do not agree with my hon. Friend in that respect.

I have seen evidence—I hope that the Minister will comment on it—that the west coast main line, through incremental improvements that would not cause disruption, could come very close to providing the same increase in capacity as HS2. My central point is that that would be a much cheaper and less disruptive alternative means of achieving the same improvements in our rail infrastructure.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Mowat Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I think I caught the hon. Lady’s gist in relation to membership of the Cabinet, and I simply point out that she should look at the balance in the previous Cabinet under the Labour Government. The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that he has a commitment to ensure that a third of ministerial places are taken up by women by the end of the Parliament.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

9. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on custodial sentences for women with children.

[The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)]

No recent discussions have been held on this issue. Sentencing is entirely a matter for the courts, which take account of all the circumstances of the offender and the offence. This will include consideration of whether or not the offender is a primary carer. We have a continuing programme of work under way to divert women away from custody for those who do not pose a risk to the public. We must ensure that women who offend are successfully rehabilitated, whether they serve sentences in custody or in the community.

[David Mowat]

I thank the Minister for that response. She will be aware that, according to the Corston report, one third of custodial sentences for women go to women who are lone parents. That has severe knock-on effects for their children. What further guidelines can the Minister issue in this area?