Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I am not a London MP—

[Claire Perry]

No? You’re kidding!

[Ian Lavery]

I think the Minister has recognised that fact from my accent.

I am not a London MP, and I believe it is really important to understand that it is not just London MPs who have a view on this serious issue. Although I live 300 miles away, I can smell a rat. This is not just about meandering on about Transport for London; it is much more detailed than that. It involves the housing crisis. It involves housing that is really unaffordable. Coupled with the issue faced by TfL, this is about the casino world of property development rather than a conscious decision by that wonderful public service to improve the transport infrastructure of our great capital city, and that really does pose a great threat. The deal being sought under clause 5 of the Bill could expose huge swathe of public finance to unlimited liability.

The Minister has said on more than one occasion that Transport for London is doing a fantastic job and that it is one of the best companies in the world, operating one of the finest transport systems in the world, but is it not a fact that the Government reduced its operational funding by 25% in the 2013 spending review? That has put a huge financial burden on TfL.

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

In the light of what my hon. Friend has just said, does he understand the surprise felt by London Members on hearing the Minister talking about the benefit of lower fares that the Bill will bring? Part of the context for the Bill is that fares for journeys between outer London and central London—from Harrow to Baker Street or Westminster, for example—have risen by 60% under the present Mayor.

[Ian Lavery]

I fully agree. The fares issue was absolutely outrageous. Does anyone really think that, if this Bill is passed, the impact will be a reduction in fares in central London or the outskirts? By the way, I am part of this as well, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just because I come from a different part of the country and do not live in London does not mean that I should not have a say.

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend should not feel intimidated because he is not from London. He would be very welcome to come to Harrow, particularly to use Harrow on the Hill station, which is crying out for investment and for the sort of lifts that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) has plenty of in the Caledonian Road station—she has four and we do not have any. My constituents have been waiting for an extremely long time to have that sort of accessible service. I do not see this Bill delivering that service—I hope I am wrong, but at the moment I do not see it. I hope that my hon. Friend might be persuaded to come not just to central London where we are now but out to Harrow to see for himself the sort of investment that we need in Harrow on the Hill.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Of course I welcome the opportunity to visit his constituency to see what he has described.

[Emily Thornberry]

While my hon. Friend is doing a tour of London’s stations, perhaps he could visit Angel tube station, which has the longest escalator in the country, but no lifts. In fact, a Norwegian student skied down the escalator, which my hon. Friend can see on YouTube. Disabled people are unable to get to the Angel, because there are no lifts available for them.

[Ian Lavery]

I have never had so many kind invitations in my life. I will enjoy the two visits that have been lined up. I wonder whether there is a third such visit.

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend could not possibly fail to come to Finsbury Park, because that leads into the Stroud Green part of my constituency. Indeed, we have a problem with step-free access. Perhaps I will use this opportunity to lobby the Minister on that matter. We have long been promised step-free access at Finsbury Park. We have also been promised proper ticket barriers; ours is the only station in London without proper ticket barriers. My hon. Friend is welcome at any time to join us in Finsbury Park.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I am pleased that you said that, Madam Deputy Speaker, rather than me making that determination. Of course I will go to Finsbury Park station on my visit in the not too distant future. I have listened to all the experts—the people who live in the city and the Members of Parliament who discuss this issue with constituents. It has just been said by colleagues that there is a huge underinvestment in the transport system in London, and there is no doubt about that.

I mentioned the fact that there had been a 25% reduction in operational funding, which was announced in the 2013 spending review. Some £16 billion of savings were also identified to be made by 2021. That is enormous, and will have a hugely detrimental effect. How can we fix the stations to which my hon. Friends refer if Transport for London has not got the finances to do it? That is what the Bill is about. It has been mentioned that the spending review next week could see a further cut of £700 million from the Transport for London budget. That will be a disaster. This is a world class city in which people live. The tourists who come to this fantastic city have to use a system that is totally and utterly underfunded. That does not portray us as the best capital city in the world.

What is the history? TfL promoted a Bill in the last Parliament that would give the organisation new financial powers. The Opposition could live with parts of this Bill, following, of course, more debate and discussion. Parts of it are vaguely acceptable, but the main problem—the crux of the matter—lies in clause 5.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

As a fellow non-London MP—

[Cat Smith]

It is a shame, as my hon. Friend says.

Does my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) share my concern? As Peter Hendy, who was perhaps the architect of the Bill when it began its journey at TfL, has now moved to the position of chairman of Network Rail, the provisions in the Bill, which would immediately affect London, might go on to affect his constituency and mine in the north of England.

[Ian Lavery]

Of course. I could not put it better myself and I fully agree.

Let me get back to the issue. The Bill is about property developments that have contained very low levels of affordable housing. It has been suggested that the likes of the now infamous Earls Court development potentially contain only 10% affordable housing.

[Andy Slaughter]

The master plan for the Earls Court and west Kensington area shows the construction of 8,000 properties, which will include no social rented housing additional to that currently on the site, of which only 11% will be affordable housing. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said, “affordable” can mean 80% of market sale or rental value. I am afraid that in central London, that is unaffordable to anyone at all.

[Ian Lavery]

That is the point, really. The Bill is about the fact that Transport for London has been totally underfunded. It has undergone a huge reduction in funding and there will be more reductions in the spending review. The Minister let the cat out of the bag when she said that we will have to take difficult choices. As far as the Conservative party is concerned, that means taking money away. Wait until next week and see what the reduction in the spending review will be.

[Andy Slaughter]

We all noticed that the Minister did not deny that £700 million might be withheld from TfL, but it is also the case that in any of the proposed developments in zone 1 or 2, about which the sponsor of the Bill talked, TfL has no intention of providing any affordable housing at all.

[Ian Lavery]

Again, that is extremely concerning. I am not from the area, but I am sure that such cases have been experienced many times in many constituencies in the city. If any of my hon. Friends wanted to give any examples, I would be interested. The House should be prepared to listen to past experiences and to what has happened, as that is what we are likely to see if clause 5 is agreed to.

[Catherine West]

Will my hon. Friend accept as an example what happens now in the private rented sector, as opposed to the possibilities we might have had under a social housing deal? An income of £75,000 is needed for a household to rent in Finsbury Park. This is not Chelsea: in Finsbury Park, a family with three children wanting to rent in the private sector needs an annual income of £75,000. Is not that why we have such a desperate need for affordable homes? TfL has proved severely wanting as regards the Earls Court scheme and other schemes and that is why we are so desperate to stay in the Chamber at this late hour debating this important matter.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; £75,000 is a king’s ransom to many people. It is not affordable in any way, shape or form.

[Emily Thornberry]

I can give my hon. Friend another example of public land that has been frittered away by the Mayor of London: Mount Pleasant, which used to belong to Royal Mail. It was privatised and has since been used for luxury flats. There are no affordable homes there for Islington residents. It is a disgrace. The Mayor of London railroaded that change through, in the teeth of united opposition from local people who are desperate for housing.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend for that fine example. It appears that there is huge potential for land development in central London. Property developers snap up public sector properties for luxury homes, driving those who cannot afford to buy them out of central London. This will keep going, believe me; that is what is happening in the capital. She mentioned that in her constituency alone, there are 21,000 people on the housing list. How will the proposal help any one of them, in any way, shape, or form? How many children are associated with those 21,000 people? How many people just want a decent property to rent? Many people cannot even afford to rent these properties, but big property dealers snap them up. Someone mentioned gangsters, I think with tongue in cheek, but international corporations and individuals with money to burn will buy these properties in the city. They will be snapped up in seconds. That land, which is really owned by, and should be for the use of, the public—constituents—in London, will be lost for ever.

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

With the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), who is no longer in his place, I think I am the only Labour Member from outer London taking part in this debate. [Interruption.] I beg the pardon of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). There is a further concern for those of us from outer London who have an open mind about development on TfL sites. I think that the Harrow on the Hill site might benefit from development, but my worry is that if the Bill goes through without further assurances, it will concentrate TfL’s mind purely on developing zone 1 and 2 sites. Development of outer London sites, where investment in access and other things is needed, might be delayed even further, because the Bill will be seen as a gold mine so long as there is a focus on zones 1 and 2.

[Ian Lavery]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Gold-diggers with money to burn will buy the properties, and will not use them at all.

[Andy McDonald]

We talk about outer-London MPs, and there are no more outer-London MPs than those from the north-east and Scotland. This is not just a matter of London votes for London laws; it is a matter for everybody. What we have been seeing in this capital city are safety deposit boxes in the sky, with nobody living in them. Those properties could provide proper housing for the population of London, rather than investments. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is indicative of the way the Government are going? I do not know whether it is true, but I strongly suspect that a contractor might be able to get away without even putting proper finishes on such properties, because nobody is ever going to live in them.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend. That is the point that I have been making from the outset. The essence of communities in the capital city and elsewhere across the country is affordable properties. Nobody would disagree that we also need private properties. The right balance is needed, and the right balance is different in different areas. But if a huge swathe of properties without the proper finishes is bought up by property developers who live across the globe, what will that contribute to the local economy? Nothing. It will lead to the development of ghost towns in this wonderful city. That is something we must all try to avoid.

The main point of contention, as I mentioned, is clause 5, which refers to limited partnerships. Clause 5 would give Transport for London a new power which would enable it to enter into limited partnerships with private developers and to incur unlimited liabilities. That is a huge gamble with public funds. It is a casino-type economy, which we cannot afford when the economy generally is not at its best. Not only that, but if the Bill is passed, Transport for London could undertake wider activities than it is permitted to undertake now.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend rightly focuses on clause 5. Does he agree that the reason there is such freedom in the arrangement, as opposed to the return that is going to be made, is self-evident? If somebody is given the maximum possible return, it is because of the freedoms that that delivers. There is a lack of transparency and a lack of accountability in that arrangement which is utterly dangerous. Does my hon. Friend agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

Indeed. Although the Bill is not long, it lacks transparency. A limited partnership differs slightly from a limited liability partnership. A limited partnership is a form of agreement between parties, not a distinct legal entity, with unclear consequences for public transparency measures, such as the Freedom of Information Act. In the other form of partnership, the general partner assumes unlimited risk, whereas the secondary or limited partners are liable only for the value of any investment they make. The limited partner may not be involved in the management of the partnership.

Although it is assumed that Transport for London would primarily take the role of a limited partner, the Bill would not prevent the organisation from acting as a general partner. If it assumed the role of limited partner, Transport for London would not be able to end the arrangement without the agreement of the general partner, as has already been mentioned.

[Catherine West]

Does my hon. Friend agree that those on the Labour Benches would feel much more generous towards the Bill had there been examples of Transport for London achieving what Londoners want, which is 50% affordable housing on all such deals? We got that in the case of Earl’s Court, rather than 10%. We need genuinely affordable homes—not the current definition of “affordable”, which is 80% of the market rate. We know that 80% of the market rate in London is completely unaffordable for the average earner, who is on about £28,000, £29,000 or £30,000 a year.

[Ian Lavery]

That is another excellent intervention that explains what a lot of people in this city are experiencing.

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

May I underline the concern that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) raised? For those who read the proceedings, as one or two poor souls in Transport for London will have to do, it is important that they take full note of the concern, at least among Labour Members, about the lack of appetite from Transport for London for genuinely affordable housing. If they gave us some reassurance on that point, perhaps the Bill would have a chance of making progress. Old Oak Common, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) so ably demonstrated, is a huge factor that hangs over the Bill and is responsible for many of the concerns that we are hearing from the Labour Benches.

[Ian Lavery]

I am not sure I would be comfortable with assurances from the likes of Transport for London on the split between private and public. I have the simple view that Transport for London, as its name suggests, should look after the transport systems in London. It should involve itself in upgrading and updating the transport infrastructure in London, and perhaps not in property development. I would draw the line there. Perhaps my view is wholly different from that of other people on that issue.

[Emily Thornberry]

That is a point well made, but if there is land that can be developed, I, for one, would not stand in the way of that. If we get a promise from TfL that half the property will be social housing—that, frankly, is what affordable housing means in inner London—it may well find that it has more friends than it thinks it does. At the moment, we are nowhere near that. In fact, we have the exact opposite. We are told that zones 1 and 2 will not even have what is laughably called affordable housing.

[Ian Lavery]

That is interesting. It shows that Labour Members are open to the potential development of land, as long as assurances are given by Transport for London that guarantee the split of the asset. I am not sure whether I would accept such guarantees, but it is important that people recognise that if guarantees were given, there would be room at the table for much more consultation and discussion.

[Ian Mearns]

A question has to be posed if there is no guarantee from Transport for London. There is no doubt that London has a housing crisis, particularly in the affordable housing sector. If not Transport for London with its property portfolio, who will provide the land for the much needed affordable housing that must be provided for the workers of London?

[Ian Lavery]

That raises a whole new question that has not been discussed by anyone on either side of the House. It is a valid question that needs answers.

[Ms Buck]

I, like a number of colleagues, am keen to see land released for development, as long as it is fair and balanced, includes affordable housing and does not substitute for significant cuts in spending on services. Does my hon. Friend agree that a number of people are very jaundiced by the sale of police stations by the Mayor of London? Two police stations in my constituency were sold off, but that did not provide affordable housing; nor did it lead to an investment in front-line policing, which we were told would be a guaranteed consequence of the property sale. We are therefore very jaundiced at the idea that the experience with Transport for London will be any different.

[Ian Lavery]

Are not people right to be jaundiced? They are sick to death of austerity. When the Government close fire stations, police stations, public buildings and public toilets, they always give the excuse that it will result in a better service for the public purse, and on every occasion the opposite is the case. That is why we need to ensure that this issue is discussed and that the people involved—not just the politicians, TfL and the developers, but everybody—understand what is likely to happen if the Bill is passed.

There have been many arguments about this issue. It has been suggested that TfL should not be able to enter into these partnerships until it proves that it can manage them properly, and I think that is fair. Why should an organisation—a first-class organisation, as the Minister called it—that was created to look after transport infrastructure be allowed to go into property development without proper accountability? I think that is a fair and reasonable question. The Bill would give TfL more power to enter into speculative developments on the sites it owns. We have discussed whether the property prices for these developments are affordable. That needs to reflect what people in the city actually need.

There is also an argument about whether TfL should be getting involved in these limited partnerships, and whether it has the financial competence to do so, because the people it will be getting into bed with under clause 5 are no mice or shrinking violets; they will be used to delivering development projects not just in this country but around the globe, so they will be shrewd cookies. We want to ensure that, whatever happens, the people of London get the best deal.

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to be very suspicious of those partners. He said that he thought it might be a slight exaggeration to say that we are dealing not only with people who might take commercial advantage, but with actual fraudsters. That is not so. In relation to the Earls Court development, TfL’s partner, Capco, went into partnership for another part of the site with the Kwok brothers, one of whom is currently serving a five-year sentence for corruption in Hong Kong. If they are the sorts of people who will be involved in the deals, frankly we should have nothing to do with them.

[Ian Lavery]

I think that it is really wise counsel to scrutinise the qualifications of the people involved with TfL, to see whether they have any nous at all with regard to this. Somebody mentioned gangsters earlier, and perhaps gangsters are getting involved in this. I am sure that more than one has ended up with a five-year prison sentence. Who knows what has been happening behind the scenes, and who knows what is likely to happen if the Bill goes ahead?

[Claire Perry]

I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s speeches, but I just want to reassure him on a couple of points. First, for TfL to participate in one of these limited partnerships, the Secretary of State’s consent must be sought, and that has to be done through the affirmative resolution procedure. Secondly, before the House gets carried away vilifying limited partnerships, let me point out that the Electoral Commission suggests that since 2010 the Labour party has accepted donations of £3.1 million from limited companies and limited liabilities partnerships—about 5% of its donations. Let us not get carried away vilifying a corporate structure that is used perfectly legitimately right across the country, and, indeed, that has raised funds for the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman should accept the reassurance that the Secretary of State has to sign off any of these partnerships that are put together.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank the Minister for that intervention. I am not criticising limited partnerships but the potential for bad limited partnerships, and I am wondering whether it is in the best interests of people in the capital city for transport in London to become part of these limited partnerships. She mentioned the donations that the Labour party has received from limited partnerships. I wish I had done my homework to find out exactly how much the property developers, rather than limited partnerships, have donated to the Conservative party.

[Andy McDonald]

Is there not also a concern about the stamp duty arrangements that are made on these potential transfers down the track? As I understand it, if those are transferred to the limited liability partnerships there will be an exemption from stamp duty. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that before this debate is out we should hear from the Minister the assessment made of the loss of stamp duty as opposed to the returns that will be got on this deal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I am sure that the Minister will have heard what my hon. Friend says about stamp duty and respond accordingly.

[Claire Perry]

Again, I would like to give some facts. I cannot answer on stamp duty, which is a good point, but let me gently point out that the sector that has donated the most to the Labour party after the trade unions is the property sector, with £2.1 million raised from individuals or companies involved in that business. If Labour Members would stop scaremongering and consider the benefits that these sorts of flexibilities could bring to their constituents, we might make some progress and get this Bill sorted.

[Ian Lavery]

I am not sure whether that was an intervention or another speech, but I thank the Minister.

[Catherine West]

This is not about the private sector per se, but the track record. In a large investment such as Earls Court, 10% affordable homes is not acceptable. The fire station in Clerkenwell closed because the Mayor of London was keen to see posh flats instead of services. Muswell Hill police station closed and is about to be sold for half a dozen posh flats. There is the continual sense that we are being ripped off. Transport providers are not necessarily the best people to be running property developments.

[Ian Lavery]

That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who mentioned that ordinary people in London are jaundiced by the experiences they have had before. The police station or the fire station is bulldozed, there are the luxury flats that people do not live in, and then we have ghost towns, which means that there is a downward spiral in the local economies. The only people who make anything from it will be the property developers.

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. The fact is that our communities are being hollowed out. We do not object in principle to people coming from all over the world to live in London, as they always have done, so long as they do live here—it is buying properties and leaving them empty that is the problem.

[Ian Lavery]

That is a good point. London is a fantastic multicultural community, and we welcome people from all corners of the globe. We welcome them coming here to spend their money—of course we do. What is unacceptable is what the people of London could face if this Bill goes through. Property developers will be coming in, snapping up the land, and giving money to Transport for London that it should have had in the first place if it had not had these huge cuts, with more to come. That is the real issue.

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friends and I have dwelled on the experience of Old Oak Common. One would think that TfL would have learned from that experience and sought to reassure Members about its commitment to building affordable housing in future. In actual fact, it has created an advisory board to drive its property development, and no one on that advisory board has experience of building, developing and owning social housing—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. There are several Members who still wish to speak. The hon. Gentleman knows that that was too long for an intervention. He is seeking to catch my eye, but if he makes a very long intervention, his chances of catching my eye go down considerably.

[Ian Lavery]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). I wonder whether he could repeat exactly what he said. [Laughter.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was taking liberties and it was said merely in jest.

In conclusion, it is widely accepted by many of the British public that Transport for London needs to be saved from itself. It faces financial challenges that we had all, in the main, hoped would be different.

[Andy Slaughter]

I know my hon. Friend is about to conclude, but Transport for London is being saved from itself by the process of scrutinising this Bill. The Minister, who has become garrulous now that she does not have to take interventions, should have added that the only reason the Secretary of State’s consent is needed on clause 5 is that that concession was achieved in the Bill Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I did not think so.

[Ian Lavery]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). This great city cannot afford TfL’s being speculative and gambling on the property market, which will only benefit people who have the money to buy hugely luxurious properties. Simply put, TfL needs proper funding, not the projected cuts of £700 million. I hope the Minister will say that there will be no further reductions in central Government funding to TfL. It will be interesting to see whether that actually happens.

We need to look after the people we represent. I and the Labour party firmly and clearly believe that this dangerous Bill should be opposed, for the simple reason that it is not about enhancing the lives of people in London or of people who use the capital city, or about enhancing transport infrastructure, whether it be tubes, trains or buses. It is about underfunding a great service and putting strains and pressures on Transport for London to look elsewhere to raise finances so that it can keep its head above water.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will make inquiries into what my right hon. Friend has just informed me about. I do not know about the specific case, but I can assure him that I will do by later on today. He is absolutely right about the need to improve the rolling stock availability and that is one of the things I hope the invitation to tender on the line will do.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

T2. What measures is Network Rail taking to ensure that skilled rail jobs no longer appear on the tier 2 shortage occupation list?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, of the huge amounts of steel bought by Network Rail, the vast majority—some 95%—is bought from UK production, but if I have understood his question wrongly, perhaps he could write to me and I will write back to him.

Tyne and Wear Metro

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I could not agree more. Investment is needed so that we can roll out the Metro, because that would help our economy, although we need to fix the faults first. It is not right that a large part of our area is not accessible by the Metro.

I suspect that the Minister will try to sidestep my constituents’ complaints by saying that the running of the Metro is a devolved matter. It is right that regions and cities should have control over transport, and Opposition Members have been pushing for even greater devolution. Nexus and the North East combined authority have been holding DB Regio Tyne and Wear to account by imposing penalties where appropriate, but it would be wrong to say that all the issues we are seeing can be attributed to the operator. Even the best management cannot compensate for trains that have come to the end of their lifespan and can no longer be relied on. There is a clear need for investment.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution. Although the Tyne and Wear Metro does not extend to Northumberland, I am sure the Minister will give a cast-iron guarantee that that is only a matter of time. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Tyne and Wear Metro has a fantastic workforce, from the drivers to the cleaners, the one problem it has is that workforce numbers have dropped from 315 to 281? Eighteen drivers have left over the past year, which is nearly double the average over the past three years. Does she agree if the Metro does not have the workforce or the staff, it is highly likely that its productivity will be reduced?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I agree with my hon. Friend. For the Metro to work, it needs to have the staff and structure. I have already spoken to Nexus about staffing and the lack of staff available on the platform to advise passengers when there have been problems. There is clearly a need for investment. The Metro will not serve our area without that investment. I hope the Minister will recognise that today and tell us more about what the Government can do to bring that investment forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

Thank you very much, Mr Gray, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for what I think is the first time in my new role.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on securing the debate and on highlighting the importance of the Metro system to her area, as well as the problems with its services that local people are experiencing. Those problems came across strongly in the remarks by her colleagues from across the area, and I know that Nexus is also listening to this debate.

The Government recognise the important role that the Tyne and Wear Metro has played in the life of the north-east. I too remember it arriving; I suspect that those of us of a certain age—our early fifties—all remember it. It was exciting—an indication of confidence and a little bit of pride. Apart from the transport infrastructure benefits it provided, the Metro was a sign of resurgence and growth, and it has played an important role in the north-east. Light rail and local transport play an important role in the whole area.

[Ian Lavery]

Local transport is important, but the problem in my constituency, which is in the south-east of Northumberland, is that the Metro does not go anywhere near it, which presents a problem of connectivity for anyone seeking employment and so on in the big cities. Will the Minister agree to support the reintroduction of the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne line, which would eventually link up with the Metro, hopefully at Regent Centre, and give greater connectivity and more opportunities to people in my constituency?

[Andrew Jones]

I cannot make pledges off the cuff, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, but do I think that rail investment drives economic growth? Do I think that we are struggling with our capacity? Our rail network is a victim of its success. There are as many passengers using our network now as there were in the late 1920s, but the network is only a fraction of the size it was then. During the last 20 years, passenger journeys have gone up from 750 million per year to more than 1.6 billion per year. That is the driver of some of the congestion and pressures that we now see—it is coping with success. Also, part of the challenge is the long-term historical underinvestment in our railways, which has taken place under Governments of both colours over many years, and we are now playing catch-up with our infrastructure. So can I back the hon. Gentleman’s campaign immediately? I cannot make that pledge and I think he knows that—I can tell from his little smile just now that he probably knows that. But on the general principle of whether we can do more to invest, I say yes—but goodness, this Government are doing that already.

Let me go back to Metro as it stands. I recognise that other Members have talked about the capacity to extend Metro and I can see much appeal in that. I think it was the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) who made the point that the constant desire to see Metro extended to new destinations just underlines how important it is in the area and how popular it is with passengers. I hope the potential for new extensions will grow. The extensions to the light rail services in Manchester and Nottingham have been very positive developments, and I hope that the North East combined authority considers such an extension as part of its transport plan. I would support such a proposal.

Metro is an important and formidable asset for the area. It copes magnificently with certain big events in the area, such as carrying 100,000 people for the Great North Run. Metro is a success story. Notwithstanding the operational problems detailed by hon. Members, this is the busiest light rail network outside London, and the fastest growing. Passenger journey numbers have increased by 2 million in the past year, and there are now more than 38 million in total. The revenues of Nexus, which owns and manages Metro, have grown by 4.4% and it now funds its day-to-day operation entirely from fares revenue and central Government metropolitan rail grant, without having to ask the local authorities for funding, as in the past. The Government have supported Nexus in its 11-year £350 million capital investment programme. As the hon. Member for South Shields highlighted, the programme—essentially one of asset renewal—is still running. It is delivering significant benefits now and will continue to do so over the next few years.

I take a keen interest in the performance of all rail services in the country, but the performance of Metro is a devolved matter. Nexus and its operating concessionaire provide regular updates at meetings of the North East combined authority, where its performance has been scrutinised. I understand that Nexus’s performance will be on the agenda at an authority meeting next week, on 9 July, and local councillors can directly question the senior management team from Nexus and the operator.

I have had a brief conversation with Nexus and undertaken to visit it in the next few weeks. It accepts that the day-to-day performance of Metro does not match the standards it sets for itself and which passengers expect. The main reasons for poor performance are clearly the train fleet’s reliability and the availability of train drivers. Nexus, the public body owning the network, has instigated a performance improvement plan, working closely with its concessionaire to identify the most common and recurring causes of faults in the trains and the actions needed to address them. As a result, the most common problem—door faults—have come down by one third since April, and train power faults have been reduced by a half compared with the previous quarter.

The operator has accelerated its recruitment and training process for drivers, which the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) mentioned. The company has suffered from the impact of an ageing workforce: many drivers who started with Metro in the early 1980s are now reaching retirement age. The operator is taking on 24 new drivers this year, and two thirds have already completed training or are about to do so. As a result, train cancellations due to no driver being available have been reduced and will continue to fall. There is also recognition that communications with customers need to improve, particularly when Metro is not running to timetable. The operator is committed to new training for its front-line staff and Nexus is to invest more than £20 million in new radio and train management systems as part of its investment in Metro, supporting better communication right through the system. Although there is further to go, Metro is heading in the right direction, and we want to be in a position to support it.

The Government are committed to the long-term investment plan, launched by the previous Labour Government, which will continue until 2021. In the last financial year, under that plan, we invested £30.9 million in securing Metro for some decades to come, and we are looking to invest a similar amount in this financial year. The real value of that investment is in giving Nexus the strength and security to plan projects over a number of years, in the same way that the Government structures investment in national rail infrastructure. One problem in our rail sector has been a stop-start—frequently stop—approach to investment over many years, which has meant that we do not have some of the skills or continuity of supply in industry to deliver our aspirations and expectations. That is part of the long-term failure to invest in transport that I mentioned earlier. This investment has focused on the key engineering assets on which Metro and its passengers rely, including new track, replacement of cable routes and renewal of lifts and escalators at stations. This investment has already improved the service for passengers by reducing faults.

Long-term planning and security of investment has helped Nexus to drive down projects’ overheads by a quarter, releasing a further £20 million that will be invested where it is needed in new assets for Metro. The investment has allowed Nexus to invest in people as well as infrastructure—for example, it has taken on 30 new apprentices in the last three years. Those young people can look forward to rewarding careers in engineering, thanks to that investment.

Government investment has also gone towards refurbishment of stations and trains. We have talked quite a bit about rolling stock, which I will come to in a moment. The investment has been focused on raising accessibility to modern standards as part of a commitment to providing a railway open to all. The refurbished trains provide more space for passengers, while refurbished stations offer tactile surfaces, double handrails, better lighting and proper bench seats to cater for the needs of all.

Alongside this programme, Nexus has, with the support of the Department for Transport, invested in smartcard travel. The smartcard is the reason Nexus has invited me to visit and see its operation. It is already used by more than 100,000 local people on the system. High-quality cycle storage at stations—another part of the integration that colleagues have talked about—which goes right across the system, is funded through the local sustainable transport fund.

It might help if I highlight the impact of ongoing investment. That is not to say that there have not been operational difficulties, because there clearly have been, and Nexus know it, but work is under-way to get this right. Nexus is trying to do a good job.

Metro is owned and run locally, but the Department works with it and in support of it. The Department is now working with Nexus and NECA to understand what future investment is required, to ensure that it continues to play a vital role in making the north-east economy work. Our discussions on replacement of rolling stock are at the very earliest stages. Colleagues have asked if I can make a commitment on rolling stock. I cannot make that commitment today, but I recognise that 40-year-old rolling stock—by the way, that is not unusual in our rail infrastructure—is coming to the end of its life and we are looking towards a new train fleet. The refurbishment will see the fleet through for a period, but it will not make it fit for decades into the future. Future rail fleets will certainly be required.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

We will be setting out in the coming weeks a timetable for the completion of a series of schemes associated with this strategy. We need to set out the detail to maintain confidence that we will carry through our intentions. In that context, I will happily discuss with my hon. Friend the timetable for that scheme.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of variations in eligibility for young person or child fares on public transport.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

Mr Speaker, forgive me if this is a slightly long answer, but I am trying to cover both forms of public transport. On trains, fares for children under 16 are half of the adult fare and 16 to 25-year-olds can buy a young persons railcard providing a discount of one third off most adult fares. Bus operators, as the hon. Gentleman will know, set their own fares. The Department estimates that three quarters of under-16s and half of 16 to 19-year-olds in England receive a discount of at least one third, but there are variations across the country as local authorities must specify how they will support 16 to 19-year-olds, which may include specific financial support.

[Ian Lavery]

One of the failures of bus deregulation is that it allows bus companies to set their own fares. In my constituency, Arriva is exploiting young people by charging the full adult fare to 14-year-olds, yet only a few miles away that age limit rises to 16. Does the Minister agree that that is totally unjust and unfair, and will she agree to investigate?

[Claire Perry]

I have looked at the numbers, and I know that Arriva has a teencard that provides a 40% discount. I will certainly look at the age specification, but I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter for local authorities. In Conservative-controlled Staffordshire, the Your Staffordshire card allows 11 to 19-year-olds to travel on any bus in the county for just £1. I suggest he takes this eloquent pitch to Labour-controlled Northumberland council.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Michael Connarty, not here.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

T10. Following the Smith commission last week, I have a great fear that my constituency, which is lodged between the last city in England and the Scottish borders, will fast become a political no man’s land. With that in mind, will the Secretary of State ensure that the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne line is reintroduced without further delay? Will he agree to meet me and other interested parties further to discuss the issue?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I understand that Northumberland county council intends to undertake a more detailed study into the reopening of the line. I will be interested to see the results when it is completed. In the meantime, I can confirm that the next northern franchise will be required to co-operate with the development of the project. I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman if he wishes.

Transport Infrastructure (Northumberland)

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

One of the best advances of the Secretary of State has been the creation of the electrification taskforce, and I am glad that a northern MP—in this case, the Member for Harrogate—is leading the way, such that we can make representations. The longer term must see electrification of the Tyne Valley line, as it sits between the east coast line and the west coast line, both of which are electrified. Frankly, without that forward movement we will struggle in the longer term, so I will meet my hon. Friend, as will other Members interested in this area, and I genuinely welcome his intervention.

The increased capacity, customer service and satisfaction, which I understand are the key points of a franchise, are what we seek going forward, and I can only add that the longer the franchise is awarded for, the greater the prospects are for improvements.

Given the time left to me, I will briefly make the point about the Tyne Valley line that along with electrification we need to review the signalling processes and address the maximum speed on the line. I could talk at length about the stations and the Network Rail issues that apply to the line, but I will simply say that I have a forthcoming meeting with Network Rail, at which I will raise the crossing points that concern so many people, as well as everything from the upgrades needed at Prudhoe station and to Bardon Mill station that are being proposed.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that funding is found for the Ashington-Blyth-Tyne line, to allow people from south-east Northumberland access to the Metro, and to Newcastle, Sunderland and other areas, which will benefit the local economy, jobs and the rest of it?

[Guy Opperman]

It is crucial—and I will make the point in relation to Gilsland station—that this is part of the local enterprise partnership’s strategic economic plan, and that the plan is tied into the work done by the LEP, the county council and the rural growth network, and to the support that is then given, so that we have the integration and development of the transport links that we all look forward to. The electrification that we seek in Northumberland should certainly include the parts of the line that my hon. Friend mentions.

I am completely behind the Campaign to Open Gilsland Station. The work of Julie Gibbon, local councillors and so many local people too numerous to name needs to be applauded and supported.

Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, and to have this opportunity to raise some important issues in relation to the Deregulation Bill. I am delighted that the Minister is here to respond.

I am speaking up for my constituents in Easington who are likely to be affected by the amendments that the Government made to the Deregulation Bill in Committee. I am also speaking up for Unite the union—of which I and many taxi drivers are members—and the GMB. I am also speaking on behalf of a number of stakeholders who feel disfranchised by the Government’s truncated consultation.

It might be useful if I mention the background and where we stand with consultation. Back in July 2011, the Government asked the Law Commission to consider wide-ranging reforms to taxi and vehicle licensing legislation. The Department for Transport asked the Law Commission to undertake a comprehensive review with the aim of modernising and simplifying that legislation. There is no doubt that taxi and vehicle licensing is a complex area, and many right hon. and hon. Members have concerns about the effect that the amendments are likely to have in their constituencies.

In May 2012, the Law Commission launched a wide-ranging consultation on the Government’s proposals. Indeed, the industry has many stakeholders who have been involved in that ongoing process over the past two years. In parallel with the Law Commission’s ongoing review, however, the Government launched another review with a truncated 10-day informal consultation on three specific new clauses that were added to the Deregulation Bill in Committee.

The long consultation process under the auspices of the Law Commission is still ongoing, but I understand that stakeholders and industry and union representatives were told on Friday 14 March 2014 that the new clauses would be added to the Deregulation Bill. That is unacceptable. Will the Minister give an explanation? I have sought advice from a number of stakeholders not just within my trade union but within the trade, and the only conclusion I can draw is that the Government have decided that there is insufficient time to allow due consideration of the Law Commission’s draft Bill before the general election in 2015.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Is he saying that the Government have pushed through three amendments to the Deregulation Bill while there is an ongoing consultation?

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that the Minister is able to clarify the Government’s thinking, because the shortened consultation was launched with barely a week’s notice before the amendments were considered by the Public Bill Committee. That must concern parliamentarians who are keen to ensure that there is full and proper consultation on controversial and contentious issues.

The Cabinet Office guidance on consultations states:

“Timeframes for consultation should be proportionate and realistic to allow stakeholders sufficient time to provide a considered response… For a new and contentious policy, 12 weeks or more”—

that is 12 weeks, not 12 days—

“may…be appropriate. When deciding on the timescale for a given consultation the capacity of the groups being consulted to respond should be taken into consideration.”

As has been demonstrated by the objections raised by all concerned parties outside Whitehall, the policy is clearly contentious and there are a number of different viewpoints. Indeed, I have had a couple of debates over the past few days, including one this morning on local radio, and there is a huge degree of contention on the pros and cons of the three new clauses. Nowhere in the guidance do I see a reflection of the current situation, in which such a disparate industry with such disparate views, and with many different stakeholders and interested parties, was given only 10 days’ notice of the proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

It is important to recognise that 99.9% of taxi drivers, if not more, provide a fantastic service to many of the public. A lot of taxi drivers go beyond their duty, at times. We are not here to have a go at taxi drivers—quite the opposite. We are here to support them and the industry as a whole.

I am not sure why on earth the three new clauses to the Deregulation Bill were tabled. It is beyond me. If it is believed that there is a need for legislation, and if that is contentious, perhaps it is in everyone’s best interest to consult the people who work in the industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) eloquently said, the Cabinet Office suggests that there should be at least 12 weeks’ consultation for any contentious legislation.

Where was the consultation in the present case? Why has there been none? There were 10 days’ consultation—what on earth was the reason for that? I know the Minister will give a full-hearted answer to that question; I just will not be sure about it. What I am sure about is that when the coalition Government come forward with legislation—particularly to do with the Deregulation Bill—it will never be good news for the people working in an industry. I am positive that that is true about the issue we are debating.

The Law Commission is currently drafting a Bill, which is due by the end of April. Is it not slightly confusing that the Government should have commissioned it to draft that Bill and that before it has even been published they have tabled amendments to the Deregulation Bill? It is fair to ask why those reforms have been made in a rush, as last-minute and very contentious—and questionable—new clauses to the Deregulation Bill. I see the Minister smiling. I am sure that he has the right answers, and we all want to hear that the changes are in everyone’s best interest.

The Minister has ignored everyone who works in the industry—the people in the trade, and the trade unions, which have been asking for meetings to discuss the matter: Unite, GMB and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which take the health and safety of the general public seriously. There have been no consultations with the trade unions or the trade. There is just a cabal of people from Government who want to push through legislation against ordinary working people.

I appeal to the Minister to recognise that there is a threat to passenger safety. The Government’s reforms to licences could increase the number of unlicensed drivers. That is something that no one here wants. Unlicensed drivers who can masquerade as legitimate present a huge problem for the general public. I am like anyone else: I have been in the city centre and needed a cab—it need not even be a city centre, but could be somewhere quite isolated. If someone calls for a cab they need to be confident that the driver of the vehicle that comes is a licensed driver for an organisation that they can have full confidence in.

Even if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) mentioned, someone rolled out of the pub—and there are no MPs who do that, by the way—slightly inebriated at night in the city centre, and there was a taxi there, I am sure they would not knock on the window politely and say, “Excuse me, is this for Mr Ian Lavery of 42 Chiltern close? Sorry, what is your licence number?” That just does not happen. That is why we must ensure that the safety of the public who use the services is paramount.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) raised an important point about subcontracting. There have been problems in the past, and legislation has been passed about disabled people in cabs, which has been positive, to be fair. However, there will be problems. I want to raise the issue of rogue drivers. What problems might arise? Someone—perhaps a disabled person—who did not have confidence in a particular firm might ring another, but if that firm could subcontract without permission, someone from it could turn up in an isolated place to pick up the individual or group. The problems could be immense, and that is not what we want.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

My understanding of what the Law Commission is trying to do is not that the broad thrust will be deregulatory at all. In my central London constituency, we have great concern about pedicabs and stretch limousines—two matters that the Law Commission recommends should be brought within the scope of taxi and private hire regulation. Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that it is desirable that the Law Commission should stick to that position and include pedicabs in the scope of regulation, rather than taking a deregulatory approach such as he has described?

[Ian Lavery]

I fully understand what the hon. Gentleman says, and other coalition Members have made similar remarks. It has been suggested that the Law Commission report should be looked at. There has not been any consultation about input into that, and it has not yet been published. People have not yet had the opportunity for input, as the hon. Gentleman was perhaps suggesting they should.

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

It is simply wrong to say that there has been no consultation on the Law Commission report or that no contributions have been given to the Law Commission. More than 3,000 contributions and submissions have been made to it about the likely report.

[Ian Lavery]

I fear the Minister picked up the wrong thing from what I was saying. I am complaining entirely about the fact that such contentious measures as clauses 8, 9 and 10, which should have had the full consultation period of 12 weeks, as outlined by the Cabinet Office, have been given only 10 days or so. Whether I put it over wrong or whatever, that is the point I wanted to make. There has been very little consultation about a contentious measure. It might be helpful if the Minister mentioned, when he has the opportunity, whether he believes the clauses are contentious. From what I have read, I think that the Government are saying they are non-contentious, and that would be alarming to say the least.

From the Opposition’s point of view, the clauses are deregulation gone mad. They are ideological—an attack on ordinary people and a blinkered pursuit of deregulation at all costs. They risk damaging the taxi and PHV industry, and threaten public choice and safety. Someone mentioned the red tape challenge, but I would rather talk about the challenge of bloodied red bandages. That is how I look at things—with regard to health and safety. The key test that any reform to private hire vehicle regulation should pass is whether it will improve passenger safety. If the clauses do not pass that test, they should be withdrawn.

As hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed, it would be sensible to have full and proper consultation about all and any changes. I simply ask the Minister to withdraw the three amendments, to have full and proper consultation, to listen to the trade unions—the RMT, Unite, GMB and all other unions—and to listen to the people in the trade who operate licences. He would then be in a better position to say where the law needs to be altered.

TfL (Funding and Station Staffing)

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on an excellent, powerful and factual contribution, and I shall bear in mind the fact that I have about three minutes.

London underground is not only a London issue—I am a north-east MP and I have great interest in what happens to the underground. This is the nation’s capital. It is where we held the Olympics, and where we have fantastic cultural events, arts and leisure, and international football and rugby games. We have all seen the chaos that often occurs on the underground.

I place on record my thanks to the fantastic work force who work tirelessly 365 days a year to provide the London Underground’s services. They are fantastic. Look at the tourists from across the globe; we want as many people coming to London as possible. We do not want to keep them away for fear of having a dreadful service in London. Look at the people who work on the underground and the valuable contribution that they make to the economy, and yet we think nothing of slashing jobs and stations at the cross of a pen. Millions of ordinary people use the underground as a means of getting across London to work. We have to consider all that.

In the minute or so I have left, I mention that this is not a failing organisation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, passenger journeys on London underground will rise by 13.75%, from 1,273 million to 1,448 million by 2021. London Underground is a flourishing organisation, which needs more staff, better health and safety and a whole new structure to cater for the people who will use the service. I cannot understand how the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) can suggest, even with the best brief in the world, that closing the 240 ticket offices and cutting 950 jobs will be an improvement to the service. Perhaps somebody can explain to me how it will improve it. We need to make sure that the service is top class and stop cutting the jobs, and we need to make sure that the service is there, embracing people from across the globe, and to get to grips with reality.

East Coast Main Line

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. It has been brought to my attention that today’s debate coincides with the beginning of a new documentary series on Sky about East Coast trains and the staff who work on them, so I want to assure you that the only interest I have to declare is as a regular traveller on East Coast trains and as an MP whose constituents are similarly frequent travellers; I definitely do not have an interest as a public relations executive for East Coast or BSkyB. The reason why my colleagues and I wanted this debate was not to promote that programme, but to discuss developments in a process that will have a significant impact on the staff and travellers featured in it.

It has been just over five months since we discussed the plans in a debate in this Chamber called by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald). As I did then, I pay tribute to hon. Members who have led the campaign in Parliament so successfully, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), who is in her place, and for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods). I thought and hoped that the strength of feeling and argument shown then, and in debates since, might have caused the Government at least to enter one of their now trademark pauses. There is still time for them to do so. In fact, we have not seen a pause, a rethink or any evidence that they are listening to the chorus of opposition to their plans, even among their own voters.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I am sure my hon. Friend will make a powerful speech in favour of the east coast main line. Is it not a fact that only about one in five—21%—of the general public supports the re-privatisation of the east coast main line, so why is Tory dogma prevailing?

[Mrs Hodgson]

That is a very good question, which the Minister will perhaps answer. For all of us here and our constituents, that is the question, and our only answer is that dogma and ideology are forcing re-privatisation to go ahead. The Government have pressed on regardless, and the tendering process is well under way, which is why my colleagues and I thought it was time for another debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I hope my hon. Friend will have noticed in the statement yesterday that we have fully protected the funding for bus services in order to recognise their importance to rural areas, including his. In addition to that, we are continuing to fund new bus initiatives—Better Bus Areas, the green bus fund and so on—to make sure that buses are properly funded in this country.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Earlier this week statistics were released suggesting that in London, transport spending per head of population is 520 times more than in the north-east region—£2,700 in London, compared with a measly £5 in the north-east. What is the Secretary of State going to do to ensure a fairer distribution of transport finances to the north-east region?

[Mr McLoughlin]

It is right that there has been large capital investment in London. Building Crossrail was the right thing to do. It was long overdue and it is now being built. It is currently the largest construction project anywhere in Europe. But I also think we must get the balance of transport spend right, and that is partly why HS2 is an important means of spreading those benefits. I very much bear in mind the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. As I pointed out to one of his hon. Friends, we are spending £4.9 billion on the intercity express programme for new trains for the north-west and the south-west.