Rail Network (Disruption)

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend makes interesting points that are worthy of a longer debate rather than just a very short answer. The truth is that Network Rail was reclassified last September when it came on to the public books. What I felt then was the most important thing, and still do, is that the work being done as a result of the huge investment that is going in to make the railway both safer and a better system should go on with minimal disruption. The executive board he mentions is not of the size he suggests, and it is a way of trying to involve the general public as well. But the points he makes concern issues I will certainly look at.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

We have heard much rhetoric from the Secretary of State about additional investment in the railways. In December, did not his Department, under his direction, cancel the investment in phases 1 and 2 of modular signalling improvements in north Wales? Will he confirm that he has authorised that?

[Mr McLoughlin]

What I will confirm is that we are investing some £38 billion in the railways, which is more than any previous Government have invested. In 13 years, Labour electrified 10 miles of track. We will be electrifying more than 800 miles, which is a record of which this Government are incredibly proud. [Official Report, 7 January 2015, Vol. 590, c. 1-2MC.]

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

It is a fair question, and the amendment—which was not selected—in the name of various nationalists is understandable, but the fact is that the Government have to legislate for what is now, not what might be or could be, and we are indeed legislating for what is now.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I am going to make progress. I have been incredibly, and typically, generous, and I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion. [Hon. Members: “One more!”] Members are testing my generosity, but I do not want to lose my reputation for being the nicest man in the House, so I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Ian Lucas]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; I think I am the only Member he has refused to give way to thus far in this debate.

The concern we in Wrexham have is not whether fracking is dealt with by the Welsh Government or the UK Government but whether it is safe. This is a novel process, and the right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to the planning process not having been changed. Does he understand that this new process is causing genuine concern to many people, and that we need to work much harder to persuade honest people that there is no cause for concern, if, indeed, that is the case?

[Mr Hayes]

With a certain elegance, the hon. Gentleman has conflated three matters and I shall try to deal with each of them. He talked about the planning process and he is right that it is not directly affected by this Bill, but it is also right that we need to make sure that information is made available in digestible form. He then mentioned safety. The Environment Agency continues to have responsibility for safety in this regard, as it always has, and some of the particular issues, such as waste water, have been dealt with by the EA—as they are in all water-intensive industries, by the way—and will continue to be so. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman talked about broadcasting the right kind of information in the right way to the right people, and that is precisely why as Energy Minister I established the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil, but he is right that we can do more, we must do more and we will do more to assuage doubts, to scotch those false assumptions that people have, and to make it clear that this can be done properly and safely in all our interests.

The Bill will allow Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to participate in the extractive industries transparency initiative and meet the UK’s commitment on higher international transparency standards.

Some of the changes in the Bill, like driving forward development of our shale gas reserves or reforming the Highways Agency, are potentially hugely transformative, while others may right smaller wrongs, but taken together they will undoubtedly deliver benefits that can be felt by people and communities right across the UK. In this Bill we have measures from seven Government Departments—which is why I have taken rather longer than I might have done ordinarily to make the case for this important measure. That is evidence that the Government see infrastructure not through a single lens, but as a kaleidoscope of interconnected elements. Whether it is building and maintaining our strategic roads, major schemes such as HS2 or nuclear power stations, housing developments such as new garden cities, or new industries such as shale and geothermal, or existing ones such as North sea oil, we must never lose our focus on the big prize—invest, improve, build, develop, and ultimately prosper.

Let us no longer look back in anger on the bad days of under-investment and mismanagement. I am not going to focus on the previous Government’s many failures; let us instead focus with the anticipation of a long-distance runner on the exciting road ahead.

Too often the stance of the Labour party on these matters brings to mind the conversation between Alice and the Cheshire Cat as envisioned by Lewis Carroll. Alice asked to know

“‘Which way I ought to go from here?’

‘That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,’ said the Cat.

‘I don't much care where—’ said Alice.

‘Then it doesn't matter which way you go,’ said the Cat.”

Sadly, the Labour party remains in Wonderland: stuck down the rabbit hole, and presenting the economy with a bottle labelled “drink me.” In contrast to Labour’s shrinking potion, the measures in this Bill promise an effect similar to the cake labelled “eat me”: measures that enable the economy to grow at the same burgeoning pace.

I simply say this to the Opposition: they must be careful. As Disraeli once said:

“It is easier to be critical than correct.”

There are times for clever criticisms and there are times for meaningful scrutiny; times for short-term hard-edged politics, and a time for the long view. The Opposition should recognise that the time for this Bill has surely come.

This is a Bill fashioned by a Government determined to do the people’s will, and a Minster who, as the Opposition know, is the people’s voice. This Government with this Bill confirm our courage and our willingness to put long-term thinking at the heart of our programme. This Government with this Bill concrete our confidence—confidence in a vision that is bold and ambitious for Britain. This Government with this Bill cement our reputation as a regime. There is hope for our nation’s future, a future for our people as glorious as our past. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lucas]

Does my hon. Friend think it would be helpful for the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) to attend a meeting of the all-party motor group and to arrange a visit to Nissan in Sunderland to see the Nissan Leaf, an electric, non-petroleum-driven motor car, to see the innovation being taken forward by the motor industry on a real green agenda?

[Richard Burden]

My hon. Friend is right on that point. As well as being a shadow Minister with responsibility for roads, I have the honour of chairing the all-party motor group. Fortunately, the days of seeing the motor vehicle as an inevitable enemy of environmental protection are long gone. There is a great deal of innovation going on in the automotive industry. Although the hon. Lady has some very serious points to make, she should understand who brought in the Climate Change Act 2008, and who was Energy Secretary when some of the best initiatives on preserving the environment were taken in Britain. That should give her a little more confidence that the Opposition take our environmental responsibilities seriously.

Another area that the Bill does not tackle is that of local roads. The Minister talks about a roads revolution, but in reality this Bill addresses just 2% of the road network, as 98% of the roads in this country are local roads. Two-thirds of traffic is on local roads. Motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, HGV drivers and motorcyclists all rely on roads to get around. Nearly all our journeys start and finish on local roads, but it is those roads that are the most creaking part of our road infrastructure. A third of local roads are in urgent need of attention. There is a £12 billion pothole backlog that will take 12 years to fix, and congestion on local roads is set to rise by 61% by 2040. A record 91% of the public are dissatisfied with the condition of local roads. Nearly 90% of businesses surveyed by the CBI expect local roads to get worse, not better. That is not surprising, because spending on local road maintenance is down 11% since 2010. Under this Government, it will decline further in real terms by 2020. There is a risk that the Bill will make the situation worse.

Local government and transport campaigners have warned that giving strategic roads management to an arm’s length company could create a two-tier road system, pushing traffic on to local roads and into our towns and cities. We need proper joined-up planning between strategic and local road networks, with devolved bodies and local authorities having greater powers over local transport and traffic management to tackle congestion. That is why we on the Opposition Benches are committed to English devolution. City regions face huge congestion pressure between now and 2040. They are planning their 20-year growth strategies, and need confidence that the Highways Agency, or whatever it is called, is working to similar horizons. We need an independent commission to take that long-term view.

Ring-fencing money for environmental protection, innovation, cycling and safety is important, which is why I am pleased that there is a £100 million budget for cycling on strategic roads. The problem is that it is yet another one-off announcement. It is not the long-term commitment to funding to get Britain cycling. As far as I can tell, the Department for Transport still has no clear budget for cycling, and funding is set to end by 2016 when the local sustainable transport fund finishes. It seems ludicrous that we will have five years of that.

After two years of calling for safety targets to be reinstated, I am pleased that the Government have finally recognised that axing them was a mistake. It is good to see in the road investment strategy a target to cut deaths and serious injuries by 40% on strategic roads by 2020. However, if it is right to have road safety targets for the strategic road network, why cannot we have safety commitments and targets for all UK roads?

It seems ludicrous that we will have five years of road and rail plans that will not be joined up. One of the most pressing transport problems is that, too often, decisions on road, rail and airports are taken in individual silos. Investments are not joined up and maximised. The Government’s proposals to study the options for HS3 include a tunnel under the Peak district and other trans-Pennine road improvements, but they are being considered separately when they should be looked at together. Where is the requirement for the new company and Network Rail to share forecasts, and to map and plan investment in a co-ordinated way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

The important thing in relation to these provisions is that regulation is robust and effective and that it happens at the most effective and correct level. We know that the Smith commission has made some specific suggestions, which we will be considering, and there are other issues that we can talk about. The important thing is that it works. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) was absolutely right to say that what the public want to know is whether it will work.

[Ian Lucas]

I think that a pragmatic approach is the correct one. My personal opinion, on the point the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) raised, is that it makes sense for this to be devolved, since so much of the planning regime in Wales is devolved.

[Richard Burden]

My hon. Friend is right that the most effective place for planning needs to be the place where these regulations operate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lucas]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the fact that such extraction will take place on land in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland differentiates it from extraction in the North sea? We must satisfy the public by being much more open about the regulation. Is that not why we need a different approach?

[Charles Hendry]

We need to satisfy the public, but the principle remains the same: the best way to deliver the toughest standards is by putting an unlimited obligation on companies to meet them, and by using the best technology and skills available to do so. That has put us in a position where our system is trusted, and people from across the world look at it to understand how well such a system can work. I hope that in this debate and in the wider debate on shale, we can start to differentiate the legitimate concerns about the transportation of liquids, what is injected and water management from the wholly bogus claims that are often made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

Opposition Members are calling for much more local housing as well. What we are discussing is the right way to deliver that. I am arguing that localism, if properly delivered, will empower local communities to make responsible decisions, and will produce the housing that is necessary. I do not believe that the planning inspector’s intervention will help to bring about consensus, or will produce the houses that are needed. I urge the Government to keep faith with the localism that they promised, to continue to back the development of local plans, and not to allow the inspectorate to make heavy-handed decisions that can undermine it.

[Ian Lucas]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. Will he be opposing localism this evening by voting in favour of a Bill that limits the rights of local people in respect of shale gas exploration, and takes away their rights to the expression and acceptance of their views?

[Nick Herbert]

I shall deal with precisely that issue in a second. Let me say first, however, that if the Bill is given a Second Reading, I shall table amendments to restrict the power of the planning inspectorate to rewrite local plans, as we pledged to do, and, indeed, to abolish the inspectorate so that we can have a proper discussion about how localism should be delivered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lilley]

Well, 300 metres is 10 times as deep as the London underground. The Bill states that deep-level land is at least 300 metres down, but normally drilling will be about a mile down because—as the hon. Gentleman will know from serving on the Energy Committee—about 7,000 feet of rock is needed to compress the shale sufficiently to turn it into gas or oil.

Rightly or wrongly, mineral resources in this country were nationalised before the war and, unlike in the USA, landowners do not have the right to extract them. I do not see why landowners should have the right to prevent the extraction of a national resource that is collectively owned by us all. After all, we do not have the right to prevent aircraft from flying over our property, although frankly the chance of an aircraft falling on our property is rather greater than that of anything welling up through a mile of rock and affecting our homes.

In theory we could revert to the pre-war situation, as in America, and give landowners rights over subsurface minerals and their exploration. If we did so, the general taxpayer, who stands to benefit from a 61% tax on profits from any shale gas, not to mention royalties and fees, would be the loser, while landowners lucky enough to own land above any of that natural resource would become richer—I am not sure whether that is the direction in which the parties of Keir Hardie or the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) are going, but I think we should keep things as they are. The resource is collectively owned; let us open it up for sensible, properly regulated and environmentally sound exploitation.

In the USA, when landowners are given the choice between preventing or allowing the exploitation of land from which they will profit, they overwhelmingly say yes. Despite strong campaigns to discourage the development of the fracking industry in north America, 2.5 million wells have been drilled and not a single person has been poisoned by contaminated water, nor a single building damaged by the minute seismic tremors that fracking can cause.

A lot of letters I receive say, “But this is against the laws of trespass. This is terrible. You’re trespassing under my land, which is as bad as trespassing on it.” Actually there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the law of trespass. My father did not have many political opinions but he was a libertarian. When we went out in the country and saw a sign saying, “Trespassers will be prosecuted”, he would say, “My son, as a free-born Englishman, you have the right to go anywhere as long as you do not cause damage. The landowners are bluffing and cannot stop you.” He was right, of course. Subsequently, Mr Fagan wandered into Buckingham palace and the Queen’s bedroom, but he could not be prosecuted because he had done no damage.

[Ian Lucas]

It’s the right to roam.

[Mr Lilley]

Indeed. Why on earth is it a sin to drill a hole a mile from where we live and separated from us by a mile of rock, when we do not prevent people from walking through woods as long as they cause no damage? I think we can dismiss the trespass argument. Of course, if there is damage on the surface from such activities, it is right and proper that people are compensated for that disturbance.

The organised opposition to shale gas drilling is part of a wider attack on fossil fuels. There is a legitimate case for opposing all drilling for oil and gas if we believe that hydrocarbons should be left in the ground to prevent emissions of carbon dioxide, and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley)—I do not know whether she is still in her place—honestly and frankly made that case. She does not want the stuff extracted because she does not want it to be burned, the energy used, or the CO₂ emitted. I respect her and those who openly argue for that, but they know that they will not convince the people of Britain to give up using fossil fuels because our whole economy is based on them. If we were to try to transform our economy and move away from fossil fuels—well, we have been for 50 years, but with remarkably little impact—it would impoverish us and would be enormously disruptive. Those who cannot get that argument across therefore make it their duty to deploy unfounded scare stories and exaggerate them. They claim that fracking will harm the water table and trigger earthquakes, that it will use vast amounts of water and be of no advantage to society.

People with those fears should read the report by the Royal Society—our principal scientific body—and the Royal Academy of Engineering, which in its opening words concludes:

“The health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing…can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation. Hydraulic fracturing is an established technology that has been used in the oil and gas industries for many decades. The UK has 60 years’ experience of regulating onshore and offshore oil and gas industries.”

Why do eco-alarmists say that we must believe the Royal Society when it tells us that CO₂ may increase the temperature by a degree or two in a century’s time, but ignore it when it says that we can frack safely in this country as long as we adhere to regulations that we have developed over 60 years, with some sensible amendments that have been proposed?

A number of Members have said that fracking is a novel technology, but 2.5 million wells have been drilled and fracked since the process was developed in 1948. As the Royal Society report states,

“more than 2,000 wells have been drilled onshore in the UK”,

of which 200 have been fracked, although relatively modest amounts of water and pressure were used compared with what is now proposed. I am not aware of any objections to those 200 wells. On the use of water the report states:

“Estimates indicate that the amount needed to operate a hydraulically fractured shale gas well for a decade may be equivalent to the amount needed to water a golf course for a month…and the amount lost to leaks in United Utilities’ region in north west England every hour.”

In other words, the idea that we do not have enough water in this country for fracking is an absurd exaggeration.

On seismic threats, the report states that we have “naturally occurring” seismic tremors, which infrequently reach force 5 in this country and force 4 rather more frequently. There is consensus that the maximum seismic tremor that could be caused by fracking would be less than force 3. Forces 3, 4 and 5 sound close together, but for each move from force 2 to force 3, or from force 3 to force 4, power is multiplied 32 times. We have “naturally occurring” tremors in this country, and, as Members will know, 32 times 32 is just over 1,000, so those tremors are 1,000 times larger than the largest seismic tremor likely to be triggered by fracking.

In truth, shale gas represents a tremendous opportunity for this country if it exists in the quantities that we hope it does and it is economic to extract—we do not know that, and will not know until we have tried. Either shale gas will bring down the price of gas in this country, or if the price remains at the same level as on the continent, the profitability and tax revenues to the British taxpayer will be enormous. If successful, we will reduce either households’ energy bills or their tax bills. What is more, it will create jobs in the areas of the country that need them most, and in the areas of our economy—manufacturing and related industries—where that is most important, and it will improve the security of our supply.

I hope that we will continue, using the powers in this Bill and in other legislation, to develop this industry with proper environmental and safety controls, not throw it away because of scare stories spread by people whose ultimate objective is simply to prevent it from ever getting off the ground, even if it would cause no damage in this country, as it has not done anywhere else it has been applied.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), who I think has many certainties where I have many doubts. If his understanding of the law of trespass is anything to go by, my doubts are well founded, and I doubt his certainties, because trespass is a civil wrong that can indeed be the subject of a civil action. Although it is impossible to prosecute people for trespass, it is a civil wrong and so does in fact exist. I am sure that his father was a wonderful man, but he was not right about trespass.

My constituents also have worries. They are worried about an application for boring in a place called Borras, just north of Wrexham. Planning permission was lodged locally, dealt with by the local authority and rejected. That decision was overridden by the planning inspector and the boring process went ahead, which has created a very febrile atmosphere locally. People are upset because a local decision has been overridden and there is genuine concern about the fracking process. That honest concern is based on the fact that it is indeed a novel process for us.

It does not appear to me, either from this debate or more generally over the past few months, that the Government have listened at all to what our constituents have been saying. The Government seem determined to pursue shale gas extraction whatever the consequences. I am sorry that they have not shown the same enthusiasm in their pursuit of renewable energy goals.

Wrexham has a strong culture of using renewable energy. We have a company, Sharp UK, which in 2004 commenced production of solar cells in the town, and at one stage more than 1,000 people were employed in that. Visitors to Wrexham often observe that a large number of homes in the constituency have solar cells on their roofs, which is a tremendous example of renewable energy in a local community, and that is supported by all parties locally. Unfortunately, this Government’s policy on feed-in tariffs, which contradicts the far-sighted policy introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, undermined the market. As a result, Sharp’s solar cell factory in Wrexham has closed its production line, so those 1,000 jobs have gone, as have the local jobs created in the construction industry for putting the cells on roofs. That renewable energy had an immediate and beneficial impact for our local economy and community.

People in Wrexham are much less convinced about the benefits of fracking. The Government, however, have resembled a runaway train on the issue, with their latter-day “dash for gas”. Their cavalier attitude to public concern about safety is feeding into a widely held view that they are pursing this process with scant regard for public safety.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman, whose constituency neighbours mine, is speaking eloquently, but he must realise that the licences that cover both Chester and Wrexham are the same and that they were granted in 2008 by the previous Government. Did he speak so eloquently against their decision to grant those unconventional gas licences?

[Ian Lucas]

I am speaking about the application in my community currently, which is leading to large-scale demonstrations, which I will be pleased to take the hon. Gentleman to see if he is so interested. All I am talking about is responding to the public concerns that are being expressed to me.

I live less than a mile from the Borras site and know from speaking with neighbours and people who live locally that there is broad concern about the issue. I try to deal with these matters pragmatically and approach people in a straightforward way, and they are expressing genuine concerns to me. There is real frustration that local decisions have been overridden—a concern we heard earlier from the Government Benches—and replaced by those of the planning inspector.

The Government need to make it absolutely clear that they will not countenance fracking unless it can be shown to be a safe process. That is not the message they are sending at the moment. I understand that the Labour party will be tabling amendments to the Bill specifically to require environmental impact assessments in all cases; public recording of well-by-well extraction of frack fluid; and all sites to be monitored for methane and CO₂ leakage. Such amendments are vital if the process is to continue. They appear to me to be eminently sensible, perfectly reasonable and the type of amendments that would build public confidence in the process.

[Mark Menzies]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about monitoring on behalf of his constituents. Does he agree that it is important that that is done by the Environment Agency and not left to the company doing the drilling?

[Ian Lucas]

I entirely agree with that important suggestion.

I would also like to see a much clearer process for addressing community concerns in individual cases. For example, the Borras site is only a few hundred metres from the scene of the 1934 Gresford mining disaster, which killed 266 coal miners. Sincere, legitimate and profound local concern has been expressed about exploration in the immediate area, where the bodies of the deceased miners lie. At present there is no process for those views to be taken properly into account. Will the Minister please explain how such local concerns will be addressed by the planning and regulatory process that will be put in place for fracking?

I am also unconvinced about the local benefits that will accrue to Wrexham as a result of the process. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) that the benefits should attach not to the landowner, but to the local community. Wrexham, as an industrial town, still bears the scars of its industrial past, and not only the memories of events such as the Gresford disaster, but physical scars such as slag heaps, quarries and spoiled land. If fracking can be shown to be a safe process, then before it goes ahead I want to be sure that Wrexham and the local area will benefit. Fracking is not a sustainable energy process, and before the Bill passes into law I need to hear far more about how my community will benefit from the extraction that is taking place locally and causing a great deal of controversy.

I urge the Government to listen much more closely to the concerns about fracking being expressed up and down the country and to make it much clearer why they think it is so important that the process goes ahead. It is a non-renewable technology that can be of benefit to our community, but it is not being projected to our constituents in that way or with the intensity that it needs to be if it is to carry public support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I take the point Minister’s point, but I still think we are lacking a structure that will effectively link more strategic planning for roads with local planning and delivery. Perhaps that is something that he and I can discuss in Committee.

[Ian Lucas]

Are not the days of largesse being distributed by central Government for transport and infrastructure projects gone? The responsibility and the decision making need to be devolved to a much more local level so that people who know about these instruments, rather than people who hold a stakeholder event on a flying visit, make the decisions.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is why I spoke of the importance of devolving powers to local authorities.

On the deemed discharge of planning conditions, conditions are there for a reason, which is often to make a development acceptable to local residents. Deemed discharge, if not done properly, risks losing the support of local communities and slowing up developments. According to the Government’s consultation, the main problems for local authorities are

“delays caused by third parties and resource constraints”.

The Bill does nothing to address those issues. Deemed consent needs to be appropriate to the issues concerning a specific development. We will study the impact of the changes closely in Committee.

Speeding up the transfer of land to the HCA is clearly to be welcomed, but I look forward to receiving further information from Ministers in Committee about how much additional land the changes are expected to bring into the system. It would also be helpful to know how many stalled sites the measures are expected to bring forward. Does the Minister envisage that the proposals will lead to the availability of more land for garden cities?

Given the recent announcements by the Government, the Bill is surprisingly quiet on measures that will deliver new garden cities in line with garden city principles, rather than just housing schemes. New housing is, of course, to be welcomed, but new housing developments do not become garden cities just because the Government label them as such. Again, it appears that the Bill represents a huge lost opportunity for the Government to update the new towns legislation and deliver the homes that our country so desperately needs.

If I am flummoxed as to why there are no measures to support new garden cities in the Bill, I am equally at a loss in trying to understand why the changes to the Land Registry are necessary. The Government have given no real rationale for that measure. That has led many Opposition Members and others to worry that the purpose is simply to fatten up the Land Registry for privatisation. Perhaps the Minister could reassure us on that specific issue when he sums up.

We have concerns about watering down the standards for zero-carbon homes, and that was mentioned by a number of hon. Members. A bit of advice I would give to the Minister is to listen to his right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell), who seems to have a pretty good grasp of what the Bill should contain.

On fracking, my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Warrington North (Helen Jones), the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) and for Angus (Mr Weir), my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and others said they were very concerned that there were not sufficient regulations on fracking to allay public concern, and that they will be tabling amendments, as will the Opposition, in Committee. Clearly, the Government need to address this issue further.

In conclusion, I share the sentiment of many in Parliament and beyond that the Bill could have done much more to enable economic growth and deliver the infrastructure our country so desperately needs to modernise and develop. In government, Labour delivered on infrastructure: £93.7 billion on the road network and £32 billion on the decent homes standard; and we invested heavily in renewable energy. By contrast with this Government, Labour will put measures in place to promote growth, ensure that it is defined by quality and inclusion, and encourage development that will enhance the built and natural environment of the nation. I would like hon. Members to support the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Lady may know that I am a trade unionist. My father was a shop steward, and my grandfather was chairman of his union branch.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

What went wrong?

[Mr Hayes]

I saw the light.

On the specific question the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) asks, I have had regular dialogue with unions to do just what she describes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, this issue is rightly raised by a number of hon. Members. We have taken action to reduce noise on some key roads and I hear what he says about the M27. There will be money for extensive resurfacing—we are talking about resurfacing 80% of the nation’s roads—and I will look at his case in that spirit.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State aware that the rail investment in Cheshire is between Wrexham and Chester, where the Labour Welsh Government are redoubling the single track line created by the Tories in the 1980s? Will he therefore commit to supporting investment in rail infrastructure in north Wales in the same way that the UK Government have invested in south Wales?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am pleased the hon. Gentleman recognises the huge amount of electrification in south Wales. We need to look at how we improve connections in north Wales. I am talking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about that.

Cycling

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Austin]

I am disappointed by the plan that was published today, for all sorts of reasons, about which I shall say more shortly, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to give that example.

A study published today by academics from the universities of Leeds and Cambridge and commissioned by the CTC shows the benefits that investing in cycling would bring. We face an epidemic of illnesses linked to inactivity and obesity, but investment equivalent to £10 per person to boost the proportion of trips made on bikes from 3% to 10% could save the NHS budget nearly £1 billion a year. The wider health benefits could be worth £6 billion by 2025 and £25 billion by 2050. Investment in cycling would prevent heart disease, reduce the number of strokes, and cut diabetes and colon cancer rates. As The Times says in an editorial today,

“Meeting this demand is not to ask for preferential treatment... the requested level would take total funding up to £600 million a year—3 per cent. of the transport budget for 3 per cent. of the trips taken.”

A report entitled “Benefits of Investing in Cycling”, written by Dr Rachel Aldred and commissioned by British Cycling, also shows that such investment would make a massive difference to society. It demonstrates that cycling can have an overwhelmingly positive effect on everyone, whether they cycle or not. The possible benefits range from saving the NHS £17 billion to increasing the mobility of the nation’s poorest families by 25%. Getting more people cycling would enable more people to get the exercise that they need, and would make Britain healthier. Traffic delays in London cost £1.5 billion a year. An increase in cycling would tackle congestion and pollution, and would make our roads safer and our transport system more efficient. It would enable people on low incomes to travel more easily, would make our town and city centres more pleasant places, and would support local economies.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I know that many more people in my constituency would like to cycle. The biggest barrier is safety. Why does the United Kingdom have so few segregated lanes in comparison with the countries that I visit in mainland Europe?

[Ian Austin]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. The best way of making cycling safe is to get more people on their bikes, and we will do that by improving the facilities that are available for cycling.

Cross-border Rail Services in Wales

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) tell us about Rhyl station. Big changes have happened in north Wales and in the rest of the country over the past 30 or 40 years. For the benefit of the Minister, it is important to appreciate that north-east Wales, and its economy, is among the most successful and progressive areas of the country. North-east Wales has world-beating companies in the aerospace, automotive and pharmaceutical sectors that compete internationally to secure jobs and high-quality investment for British industry. In a globalised economy, it is important that the world knows we have infrastructure that is competitive, enabling those businesses and people in north Wales to journey to north-west England and beyond.

There is good news for my constituency of Wrexham, because the Welsh Government are investing some £44 million in dualling the line between Wrexham and Chester. In the 1980s, the Conservative Government made the absurd decision to limit the infrastructure for rail services between the largest town in north Wales, Wrexham, and Chester, which therefore inhibited regular rail services. Ever since, we have been able to have only one train an hour between Wrexham and Chester. In fact, we re-established an hourly service only in 2007—the impact had been so negative that rail usage substantially diminished.

Since the reintroduction of hourly services in 2007, there has been a massive increase in the use of rail services, which I see every week when I travel to London. The economy of this important economic area has developed, Glyndwr university has been established and we have seen a large increase in rail usage.

It is important that we use this opportunity to introduce three trains an hour between Wrexham and Chester, which would provide a major boost to the local manufacturing and retail economies by increasing the connectivity between Wrexham and Chester. Businesses that operate on both sides of the border would benefit from access to new markets. Such investments are important, and there are massive further opportunities in the immediate area of north-east Wales.

Another cross-border line runs between Wrexham and Liverpool, and my hon. Friends from north Wales will forgive me for mentioning it again. It runs from Wrexham, the largest town in north Wales, by the Deeside industrial estate, which has businesses such as Toyota, and goes through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), up through the Wirral, very close to the GM factory at Ellesmere Port, then up through to Birkenhead, and links in to Liverpool. The service is interrupted by a necessary change at the Bidston interchange. Direct access along that line would be a massive boost for north-east Wales, the Wirral and north-west England as a whole, so it is important that we consider looking at that line again and designing an improved infrastructure.

In my role as a shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, I visit other countries, particularly in the middle east and Africa, and it is striking to see the investment and support for infrastructure that our competitors are introducing to their economies. Those people are keen to secure the jobs that our own constituents have at the moment and that our young people wish to have in future, so we must focus on delivering improvements to our infrastructure. Although we have had some improvements, particularly on the longer journeys from north Wales to London, which my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd mentioned, the connectivity between north-west England and north Wales is still limited and needs to be much better.

Focusing on the airports is massively important. The airports that serve north Wales are Manchester and Liverpool, but it is virtually impossible to travel to either by public transport. The region has an increasingly choked road system that was essentially designed in the 1970s and 1980s, and in substance has not changed since. It is absolutely imperative that we focus on delivering an improved public transport system to service the airports and to increase connectivity. If we do not do so, we will lose out in the longer term to our competitors.

For me the real frustration over the years has been the investment system, which is too centralised to be able to deliver local transport projects. I am pleased by the tone and content of the Adonis review, which was issued yesterday and talked about the importance of much more regional approaches to investment across England. The lesson also applies in Wales. We cannot have a top-down system only in Whitehall or Cardiff Bay—away from the localities that actually understand the need for local investment and how to facilitate it—determining investment in regional rail projects. That is one of the major reasons why our infrastructure system is so bad.

Contrast that with, for example, Frankfurt in Germany. On a recent visit, I saw the connectivity between the rail system and the airport system. The city is a major regional power player in Germany. There is a regionalised system of cities such as Hamburg, Munich and Berlin, which all contribute massively to their regional economies. The fact is that in the United Kingdom—this issue affects all our constituents—there is a massive focus on south-east England. The major transport infrastructure investments have gone to south-east England. That is unbalancing the economy throughout the country. It is a central issue not only for our constituents, but for the whole United Kingdom.

A tide is flowing in all political parties that recognises the importance of that issue. The practical impact of the policies we are pursuing is that we do not have the regional investment to facilitate projects that could create world class infrastructure. It is important that we have the capacity and the authority in north Wales to develop regional infrastructures. The development of lines such as Wrexham and Chester and Wrexham and Liverpool would facilitate investment in the rail system, which would support business and jobs in the local economy. Give us the responsibility, authority and power to make decisions, and we will continue to deliver a powerful economy in north-east Wales that will be able to compete in future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

My hon. Friend is right that good service access is essential for airports. He is right to point out that the Secretary of State said on Tuesday that we regard Birmingham and Manchester not as regional airports but as important national airports in their own right. I am happy to look at the Whitacre link proposals. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue to discuss the development of the business case with the local enterprise partnership and Centro, so that it can be brought forward.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the Wrexham-Liverpool line, where capacity constraints are inhibiting further development of one of the strongest industrial areas in the UK?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that point. I would point out that we are spending a huge amount of money on train services that link into the north. The northern hub will bring a substantial improvement. Huge improvements are also going on at Manchester Victoria station.

Transport Infrastructure

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

My right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman will be a formidable team in their campaigning approach to this matter. I know they will do so, but I also urge them to submit their views to the commission as it moves to its next phase in preparing its final report.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The Aerospace Growth Partnership, with strong environmental safeguards, is supported by all three main parties—even the Liberal Democrats have signed up. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) made the good suggestion that all three parties should commit to the outcome reached by the Davies inquiry. Will the Secretary of State explore that with all main parties?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend will remember that I met him and a delegation from the island earlier in the year. I promised then to meet Wightlink, and have done so. There are more than 200 sailings to and from the island each day, so there is no apparent market failure. I hear my hon. Friend’s plea to put public service obligations in place and we will continue to keep them under review, but at the moment there is no case to do so.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

Since I was last at the Dispatch Box, my Department has announced £94 million in funding to boost cycling in eight cities and four national parks. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has today published a consultation on the long-term property compensation measures for phase 1 of HS2. The Government have always been clear that they intend to go further than the existing discretionary scheme in order to assist affected property owners. The consultation proposals that we are setting out today are designed to do just that.

I am also announcing today important changes to the discount scheme, which will help local people who use the Dartford-Thurrock crossing, following a persuasive campaign by my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). From March 2014, those registered on the schemes will be able to make unlimited trips over the crossing for just £20 a year. For the first time, we will include privately registered vans, offering a welcome boost to small businesses.

[Ian Lucas]

The Wrexham-Bidston line, in one of the most successful industrial regions in the UK, north-east Wales and west Cheshire, is crucial to the development of the region’s economy. What comfort can the Secretary of State give to local businesses who have expressed the concern to me that HS2 will divert investment in any proposals in that region?

[Mr McLoughlin]

As we pointed out earlier in Question Time, we are making significant investment in the whole railway system. That will come sooner than HS2. We are spending £37.5 billion between 2014 and 2019. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has also talked to me about the line my hon. Friend has just referred to, and I will be looking at how improvements can be made to that line as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

The Government commissioned Lord Brown to advise on the future of franchising. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, his report has now been published, and the Government are looking at it. I understand that proposals have indeed been drawn up, and the Government will happily consider those proposals. I suggest that my hon. Friend should try to meet my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the eastern rail summit, which will be held in the spring.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Do not the failures of the east coast and, now, the west coast franchise demonstrate that the policy of reusing a bad system is a bad one? Will the Minister please consider alternative models such as the mutualisation adopted by Welsh Water, which has led to increased private investment, efficient services, and reasonable charges for customers?

West Coast Main Line

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I realise how very important the service on the west coast main line is to my hon. Friend’s constituency. That is why I am keen that, for the sake of continuity, we carry on with the present service operators until such time that we can re-tender for a short, interim franchise. I know he will insist that the service that his constituents get now will continue.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State ask his independent inquiries to consider a mutual model for the railways? Welsh Water in Wales has delivered a 6% reduction in charges since 2001, billions of pounds’ worth of investment, and stability for business. That is what we want on our railways. Why is he so wedded to a broken system?