High Speed 2

Joan Walley Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on securing the debate. She has been a doughty opponent of High Speed 2 throughout this Parliament, and while we have found ourselves on opposite sides of that argument, the tone of these debates has been constructive. I hope to continue in that spirit today.

HS2 has been improved through this House’s scrutiny, and I am sure that process will continue after the election. I speak in this debate in support of HS2. The project was first announced under the last Labour Government, and, if anything, the case for HS2 has grown stronger since then. Record passenger growth has continued. Data from the Office of Rail Regulation have recently shown that there were 430 million journeys between October and December last year, an increase of almost 7% compared with the same quarter in 2013. That growth has continued through periods of disruption and even through a recession.

As a consequence, the railways are reaching the limits of their capacity, and nowhere is that more keenly felt than on the west coast main line, the busiest and perhaps the most complex mixed-use line in Europe. Network Rail has warned that its capacity will be exhausted by 2024, and as demand continues to grow, that day of reckoning could come even sooner.

We cannot forget the money that has already been invested in the line, whether for electrification, the ingenuity of tilting trains or the ill-fated and hugely disruptive £9 billion modernisation programme of recent years. Just a few years on, we have already exhausted all the additional capacity that that investment brought us and we are still no nearer to achieving speeds above 125 mph than we were 50 years ago, when British Rail started to plan the advanced passenger train. Once the Norton Bridge area works are completed, the scope for further infrastructure improvements is limited.

The consequences are simple: we cannot continue to force every grade of traffic to compete for scarce paths without impairing passenger services. We have only to look at the 2008 timetable changes, which enabled more fast trains to London at the expense of commuter services in the west midlands, to see that. I have visited places south of Stoke where services were withdrawn during the modernisation programme, and residents have been told that the stations cannot be reopened because paths have been reassigned. Although those capacity constraints are most acute on the west coast main line, they are also felt on other trunk routes, including the midland main line and the east coast main line.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will not give way because I have very limited time; I am sorry.

It is sometimes said that we should just upgrade what we have, and of course we need to invest in the existing network, but the delayed and over-budget Great Western works are showing just how difficult such upgrading can be in practice. Opponents of HS2 are rightly concerned about costs and it is vital that taxpayers get the best value for their investment, so it should be a great concern to us all that the estimated cost of electrifying the Great Western main line has more than trebled, from £540 million in 2011 to more than £1.7 billion today, and the price is still rising. As Lord Adonis has said, it is like performing open heart surgery on a Victorian railway. Let there be no mistake: tracks may have been relayed and signals may have been upgraded since the Victorian railways were put down, but almost all our alignments are inherited from an age of slower traction, and almost 200 years later they have given us compromises.

It may be asked, “What is the alternative to HS2?” The truth is that the alternative, if it can be called that, is to prioritise the needs of one passenger against another. It is to make fast trains compete with commuter and freight services, and to spend even greater sums to extract diminishing returns from our eccentric and increasingly sclerotic network. To my mind, that is no alternative at all. It would lead to a meaner, less socially accessible and more London-centric railway. We urgently need new capacity and HS2 is the right project to provide it.

A number of concerns have been raised, both outside and inside this House. Much has been said about the project’s costs and it is certainly true that there was a loss of focus on costs after the election. That is why Labour successfully amended the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013 to enforce a much tougher scrutiny regime around the project’s budget. I will add that after the investment in High Speed 1, in Crossrail, in Thameslink and in Reading station, HS2 is a welcome commitment to building world-class infrastructure in the midlands and the north, and not just in London and the south-east.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on securing this debate on HS2, a scheme that affects a number of constituencies on its line of route, not least Kenilworth and Southam. I note that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) is in the Chamber.

I am tempted to go as far as to endorse everything that the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) said. Certainly, a project of this type, which is going to be constructed over a number of years, needs wide political support across the spectrum. Therefore it is good news that we have such a lot of agreement on it.

Of course, there has been considerable interest in HS2 throughout the country. When the scheme was last debated in Parliament, on Second Reading in April 2014, the support for it was clear: 452 votes in favour to 41 against. It is patently obvious that, with the west coast main line reaching capacity, something needed to be done. It is no good saying to those using this service that they must grin and bear it while we do nothing, watching our infrastructure grind to a halt and stifling economic growth.

Comments have been made about the report published yesterday by the Lords’ Economic Affairs Committee. Although I have enormous respect for our colleagues in the other place, I most heartily disagree with their report. The case for HS2 is crystal clear. It will have a transformational effect, supporting growth in the north by improving connectivity, freeing up space on our crowded rail network, promoting regeneration, boosting local skills, generating tens of thousands of jobs and helping secure the UK’s future prosperity.

[Joan Walley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Grieve]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

And we have given her comprehensive replies to those questions. The report that she refers to is, of course, an historical report that is out of date. We are working on much more up-to-date information.

There is strong support from the Transport Committee, which backs the strategic business case and is confident that HS2 is the only practical way significantly to increase rail capacity. Indeed, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) is a member of that Committee. One of its conclusions in a previous report states:

“Having reviewed the revised business case for HS2 and the KPMG report on regional economic benefits we remain convinced that the project is justified. Capacity constraints on the West Coast Main Line cannot be ignored and nor should demand be controlled by pricing people off the railway. Alternatives to building a new line will themselves be costly and disruptive and their benefits could be relatively short-lived if demand continues…as forecast. Only a new line can bring the step change in capacity which is required.”

The Committee agrees with the Government and the Opposition.

Demand for long distance rail travel has doubled in the past 15 years and without HS2 key rail routes connecting London, the midlands and the north will soon be overwhelmed, stifling growth in towns and cities across the country. There is also latent demand for more rail freight, for which no paths are currently available on the west coast main line. It is crucial that we press ahead with delivering HS2 on time and budget. We remain on track to start construction in 2017.

The Bill is now before the hybrid Bill Committee, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), which has already heard petitions relating to about half the route of phase 1. In the nine months it has sat, it has heard almost twice as many petitions as the Committee on Crossrail heard in its 21 months of sitting. Clearly, there are many petitions yet to hear, but I am sure the whole House would want to thank my hon. Friend and his Committee for the seriousness and diligence with which they have gone about their important role of ensuring that the project strikes the right balance between being sensitive to the needs of affected communities and the environment, and the long-term needs of the country as a whole.

Of course, the scheme has undergone particular scrutiny in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. I take this opportunity to thank her for so assiduously ensuring that her constituents’ voices are heard. I note how much she has achieved, including helping to move the line of the route further south through the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty in 2011, to avoid an aquifer, and extending the tunnel in her constituency. The scheme now boasts over 13 km of tunnel under the Chilterns. Indeed, of the overall kilometerage in the Chiltern area—there is 20.8 km of line there—46% is in bored tunnel, 12% in green tunnel and 28% in cutting. Therefore 86% of the route in the AONB is below ground level or in a tunnel. I think my right hon. Friend has made a tremendous contribution to achieving that for her constituents. This demonstrates both the Government’s commitment to protect areas of outstanding natural beauty and the hard work of my right hon. Friend. This is an example of how passionate she has been in working hard for her constituents.

I will deal with some questions raised. I will not be able to respond to them all, so I will write to the hon. and right hon. Members I cannot reach. Hon. Members mentioned the independence of the residents’ commissioner and the residents’ charter. The commissioner will report findings directly to Sir David Higgins and will not be part of the standard staff structure. The direct link and the publication of the commissioner’s quarterly report will ensure that concerns and issues can be aired and addressed in a timely manner. The residents’ charter and residents’ commissioner’s report will be transparent. That transparency provides the best guarantee of independence.

The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) raised a valid question about the phase 2 spur. We are currently reviewing and assessing those decisions. No decisions have been taken yet on either Crewe or the spur.

[Joan Walley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Goodwill]

I only have two minutes to go, so I really must come to a close.

I shall briefly talk about the economic impact and the fact that we are not taking money away from other infrastructure investment. We are investing £73 billion in transport from 2015-16 to 2020-21 and £57 billion in other projects.

In terms of the economic case, I draw the House’s attention to a report in The Times today, which states that HSBC—I do not think it is our favourite bank at the moment—is going to relocate 1,000 workers to Birmingham:

“The bank already has three sites there employing 2,500 people, and some of those will move to the new building that it has its eyes on, not yet erected, on a site near Centenary Square in the city centre.”

The article mentions the

“ever improving transport links”

in Birmingham,

“including the planned HS2 fast trains bolstering a road-rail network crowned by Spaghetti Junction on the M6”,

which it states has added to its appeal. So this is already having an effect on encouraging employers to come to the area.

In conclusion, HS2 is about helping Britain to thrive and prosper. Although tough decisions have to be taken, they will be responsible decisions in the interest of making a better, stronger Britain. We understand that a scheme of this magnitude cannot be built without having some effects on the environment or communities, but as I have set out here today, we are going to great lengths to ensure that the impacts are mitigated wherever practical, particularly in areas with ancient woodland. I repeat our pledge that there will be no net environmental loss. We will make sure that this is done in the most sustainable way for any major infrastructure ever built.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Joan Walley Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tom Greatrex]

I am not giving way. It is to be regretted on both sides of the House. [Interruption.] The Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary is chuntering away, as she is wont to do, so let me remind her that we are short of time and that the Minister refused to give way during her contribution. I will repay that lack of courtesy to the Minister. That is how she seems to want to deal with the issues this afternoon.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Tom Greatrex]

Yes, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Joan Walley]

I am so grateful. Not just the House, but the public outside will have noticed that the Minister did not give way on the safeguards that the Opposition sought to place in this Bill. If we accept the Government’s case that our previous amendments had to be refined, is there not a precedent whereby the Government could accept the Opposition amendments and take forward the safeguards when we vote at the end of the debate?

[Tom Greatrex]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right that that course is open to the Government. I shall come on to say more about amendment (c) and respond to what the Minister said about it. She accepted that nothing would happen before 31 July, so what is the problem with accepting amendment (c) to make sure that it is clear and built into the Bill before it becomes an Act?

The Minister said that amendment (a) is not a get-out clause, but I am afraid that her explanation did not convince me. Proposed new subsection (3)(b) says that a well consent could still be issued if the Secretary of State is

“otherwise satisfied that it is appropriate”—

not the other way round. That suggests some ambiguity in the Government’s amendment, and we need to ensure that it is removed.

The Minister touched on a number of different areas in respect of amendment (b). When it comes to groundwater protection zones, it is our contention, as I said during the debate a couple of weeks ago, that the range of protections developed cannot be cherry-picked. It is a comprehensive set of conditions that were developed in dialogue with a number of different sources, including specialist engineers, geological survey experts and others, in order to get the points right. It is not just a wish list drawn up at the last minute. Many people concerned about groundwater protection think the Minister is saying, “Well, we’ll leave that to secondary legislation, and we will not use the definition because it already exists in law.” Groundwater protection zones are defined—we know what they are—but the Minister seems to be content to rely on the much more ambiguous term “protected areas” while having no sense of what those areas are. It is vital for groundwater, and sources of drinking water, to be properly protected, and there is concern about that on both sides of the House.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Joan Walley Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is right. That is exactly what we have done. We have now put in place an outright ban and will effectively remove those words.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Can the Minister clarify the situation in respect of ancient woodland? Will she also clarify the situation in respect of decisions by local planning authorities and whether, despite what she has just said, it will be possible for the Secretary of State to overturn those decisions?

[Amber Rudd]

That is something that I will have to look into. For the moment, I will make progress and hope to come back to the hon. Lady on that point this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

No amendment is required to prove that there is no amendment. That makes me think that the hon. Lady has been reading Heidegger—“the nothing noths”. There is no manuscript amendment, and consideration of this matter should not be clouded by thoughts of a manuscript amendment. I have been given no indication that there will be a manuscript amendment. It would be extraordinary, to put it mildly, for a manuscript amendment to be proposed or put forward for consideration by me or by professional advisers when the debate has already started. Things need to be dealt with in an orderly manner.

[Joan Walley]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Amber Rudd]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will take the point of order from the hon. Lady and then the Minister can either respond to that or continue her speech.

[Joan Walley]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think that the House would like some clarification as to whether what we are going to be voting on will be an overall ban. Members on both sides of the House have tabled many amendments seeking to bring that about. When, in an hour’s time, we vote on these amendments, we will not know whether we can be confident that the Government are really doing as they say. I would be grateful if the Minister, if not instantly, then in the next 45 minutes, could tell us what she is actually proposing.

[Mr Speaker]

Of course Members must listen to what the Minister has to say, but, for the avoidance of doubt, Members will be voting on that which is on the amendment paper. I do not mean this in any sense discourteously, but it is not for the Chair to seek to interpret amendments or new clauses, and I would not presume to do so. Each right hon. or hon. Member must make his or her own assessment of the merits or demerits, and implications, of new clauses and amendments and vote accordingly. We are voting only on what is on the amendment paper, not on that which is not on it. I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Greatrex]

The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) will be well aware that the Minister to whom he refers is a prodigious correspondent. We get plenty of letters from him, but this was about a very specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) that was raised in the Committee and was relevant to his amendment. I do not see any members of the Committee here and I have checked my own in-box. If we have not received this letter, how can we take the Minister at her word and the Government at their word?

What we have seen so far this afternoon has been an absolute shambles. The Government have not got a clue what they are doing, leaving us in a difficult position. This Bill, and particularly this part of it, has attracted a huge amount of attention, and many Members of all parties wish to speak about it. It is not particularly party political, and many Members have concerns and have tabled amendments, yet it is not clear what exactly the Minister and the Government are saying. I feel sorry for the Under-Secretary who has spoken this afternoon, as she has been put in this position by her ministerial colleagues. They are good at giving quotes to The Sun about this issue, but they seem to shy away from taking part in any of our discussions.

[Joan Walley]

The Minister said that she had commented on every single amendment put forward from all sides of the House, but does my hon. Friend agree that we still do not know how even to raise in Parliament the points the amendments make, let alone vote on them because we are not going to have the opportunity to speak to the amendments that we have tabled?

[Tom Greatrex]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. We are here to scrutinise this Bill, and we have reached this stage after our debate in Committee with a whole stream of amendments on a range of relevant issues. We asked for two days and we have secured only one, and we are left with a very short time to try to deal with the issues. It is very difficult indeed for the House collectively to make a judgment on them. That is an indication of a dereliction of duty on the part of the Government in bringing this Bill before us this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Greatrex]

My hon. Friend has made an important point in a very cogent fashion.

Let me now deal with some of the new clauses and amendments. I am very conscious of the amount of time that we have left, and I shall try to be exceptionally brief so that others can speak.

There are two facts that are fundamental to any debate about unconventional gas extraction in the United Kingdom. First, hydraulic fracturing cannot be permitted to go ahead without robust regulation, comprehensive monitoring and local consent. Secondly, it cannot take place at the expense of our binding commitments on climate change.

As Members will know, 80% of our heating demand, and many industrial processes, are reliant on gas. This debate is not just about sources of electricity generation, although that is how it is sometimes portrayed. As the independent Committee on Climate Change has made clear, we shall need gas for some time to come. The issue is how much gas we use, and whether that can displace imports of gas in a way that does not breach our climate commitments. That has consistently been our position, and I have been making the case on behalf of the Opposition for nearly three years.

In March 2012, I set out a range of regulatory principles that would need to be addressed before fracking could commence, at a time when it was suspended. Since then we have pushed the Government on those specific points. For instance, as members of the Bill Committee will know, we did so during the Committee stage. Given the number of new clauses and amendments that reflect concerns and include specific suggestions, such as those in new clause 19, those concerns are widespread, they are not party political, and they are deeply held. It has always been, and continues to be, our position that the stewardship of these issues requires a Government’s approach to be careful, cautious and coherent. Such issues demand a responsible approach on the part of Government and regulators, not only for the sake of regulatory coherence, but to meet the higher public acceptability test and the legitimate environmental concerns that many people feel.

[Joan Walley]

Has my hon. Friend had a chance to read the report that was published today by the Environmental Audit Committee? It examines the whole issue of the regulatory regime and how it can be made compatible with the carbon budget. Will my hon. Friend say a little more about how we could press the pause button, and ensure that the safeguards that he wants could be introduced?

[Tom Greatrex]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I did indeed have a chance to read her Committee’s report of this morning, and she explained how that was a rapidly produced but important piece of work which touched on the many issues I have raised concerns about. In the summary of the report, her Committee highlighted a number of issues in terms of methane emissions and monitoring and nationally important areas and water protection zones which are addressed in new clause 19, and I think her Committee has done the House a service in bringing those points forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Greatrex]

I am responding to an intervention. I have said I will not have time to give way again, as I know other Members want to contribute to this debate.

As I said, those points are important. In terms of carbon budgets and meeting the carbon commitments, I would just refer to the evidence the Environmental Audit Committee got from the Committee on Climate Change about the way in which that can be done if it is done appropriately. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) will know that we have a commitment to a 2030 decarbonisation target in terms of electricity supply as well as maintaining carbon budgets. This is about how the gas we may produce fits within those budgets. I think that is something we can do, provided that we have the right regulatory framework and the right processes in place.

I do, however, have to say in respect of amendment 68 that I have a concern particularly in relation to the removal of the maximising economic recovery clause. That will have a serious impact in the North sea, which I know is of concern to many Members.

[Joan Walley]

rose—

[Tom Greatrex]

To be fair, I did say I was not going to give way again. I am conscious of time.

The Government said they were sympathetic to our new clause 1. We think it is very important to ensure that there is clarity and coherence in how permitting happens and in the responsibility of the Environment Agency in this regard. The Minister touched on new clause 2 and we had some exchanges on it. It is clear from the concessions that the Government made in Committee that there will be no change to underground access rights in Scotland without the approval of, and the decision being made by, Scottish Ministers. I welcome that change, but I reiterate to the Minister that it is very important that the licences in Scotland under the 14th licensing round are not granted at a time when we are effectively devolving the licensing process for onshore as well. I think she should reflect on that.

The Minister went through the subsections of our new clause 19 in detail. That new clause incorporates many amendments tabled by other Members from all parts of the House. She seemed to suggest that she would accept that amendment but that she still disagreed with parts of it. I am afraid that is not good enough because the entirety of that amendment needs to be agreed this afternoon, as it makes it absolutely clear that there will be no shale gas exploration or extraction until those conditions are in place. It is not a pick list from which she can decide which ones she likes and which she does not. It is intended to ensure that it is absolutely clear in legislation that those protections are in place. If this is, indeed, the Government’s case now, it proves that all the contributions from the Minister and others saying that they thought the regulatory process was coherent, correct and comprehensive during the course of the Committee and in discussions leading up to it have been demonstrated this afternoon to be entirely false. That underlines the importance of our taking a responsible attitude to these issues and making sure that they are properly covered. As I have said, that has been reflected by many others who have tabled amendments to this Bill, including Members of the Minister’s party.

A number of other amendments have been tabled by other Members, and I must say that I am disappointed in the response of the Energy Minister, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), to the DEFRA report. It is so redacted that it seems that it was written by someone called “Redacted”. It does not meet the concerns of the Chair of the relevant Committee, and the Minister’s total contribution to this debate so far has been to suggest from a sedentary position that what I say is not so. However, I have the report in front of me—“Shale gas rural economy impacts” by “Redacted”. That is how ridiculously redacted this report has become and it highlights why we have so little confidence in the Government, because they seek not to publish it and not to enable Members of this House to look at the cumulative impacts.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has tabled a number of amendments on that issue, mandatory EIAs and other matters, all of which we agree with. We also agree with the amendments on water companies, and those providing a statutory footing for community benefit, tabled by the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and others. The Minister should properly consider those amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Yeo]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I am glad to have the opportunity to say how welcome he is as a resident in my constituency, where he has recently purchased a house. I assure him that any evidence of subsidence in his property will receive my close personal attention.

That brings me to the subject of earth tremors. When they were experienced in Lancashire, Cuadrilla acted very responsibly by immediately halting its activities while it investigated them. The investigation showed not only that the tremors were so light they could not be felt on the surface, but that they were at a level routinely experienced across the UK every week. The vast majority of such tremors are caused, as my hon. Friend said, by old coal mine works.

On the positive side, in addition to the improvements in energy security there will be a significant improvement in our balance of payments—not that many people seem to worry about the trade balance any more. If, as we hope, UK reserves turn out to be substantial, there will be significant employment opportunities as well. Equally importantly, there is now a real chance for the UK to lead Europe on the issue. If we press ahead now, others will follow but we will have an enormous first mover advantage. It could be UK regulations that set the standard right across the EU and UK businesses that dominate the supply chain.

I urge the Government to ignore today the siren voices calling for delay; to look objectively at the facts, which have been analysed by many learned institutions as well as by my Committee and other bodies; and to recognise the huge potential benefits of fracking, without exaggerating their impact, as I am afraid some of our less well informed supporters have done. Let us oppose amendments that would obstruct the development of a potentially valuable natural resource.

[Joan Walley]

I am conscious of the fact that we have about 20 minutes left for the debate, and that there are about 60 amendments on the amendment paper. It will be impossible for the House to do justice to the concerns of people across the UK about how the Government are going all-out on fracking.

I will respond to the points that the esteemed Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), made. His Committee did produce reports on fracking, but the concerns that the Environmental Audit Committee received related to the haste with which the Government are taking fracking forward and the fact that we have started out with a regulatory regime that has not been thought through from every different perspective. We have the Health and Safety Executive, local planning inspectors, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Environment Agency, and we have petroleum exploration and development licences, which the Department for Energy and Climate Change issues, but we do not have an overarching, integrated way of dealing with applications. From the evidence that my Committee received, we felt that the matter should be looked at from every single perspective. We need an overall strategic assessment, not individual case-by-case assessment of each application. Until that is sorted out, it is difficult to see how the system will be right for the country’s energy security and supply.

[John Mann]

An application was made last year in Lound, in Bassetlaw, a former munitions site. The county council, as planning authority, the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive were all unclear about who should have responsibility for knowing the state of play with potential contamination, and the application simply bounced around between them.

[Joan Walley]

That is exactly the point—no one knows who has overall responsibility. The Environment Agency appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee to give evidence, but it was unable to take overall responsibility. Somebody has to, otherwise we will be dealing with liabilities long into the future.

I know that our time is brief, but I wish to raise the issue of whether there could be a moratorium. People out in the country see that we currently have exploration for shale gas going on, but not full-scale industrialised extraction. When that is in place, 10 or 15 years down the line, the issues will not have been properly thought through. Why do we not sort all of that out now? Why do we not have a regulatory regime that is fit for purpose both for exploration and for the larger-scale extraction that will happen later?

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is right that we should be discussing that—actually, now is not when we should be discussing it, because it is an outrage that we have 20 minutes or so left for speeches on a matter that could have been discussed at much greater length before. We all know that half the time in Parliament we are not debating Bills and there are no votes, so more time could have been made available to discuss fracking at a much earlier stage, and the Government could and should have made more time available now.

[Joan Walley]

I agree with my hon. Friend about having more time. People in this country will not forgive us for not having the time necessary to scrutinise this Bill in detail. We could well end up with a fossil fuel industry in 15 years’ time, precisely when we should be phasing out fossil fuels. That is what we have signed up to in international agreements, but we could well end up with an industry that has not been properly regulated because of these failures on overall strategic assessments.

[Mark Menzies]

I endorse the comments the hon. Lady is making. I am now on to dealing with my fourth and fifth shale gas applications in my constituency. On Second Reading I made it clear to the Government that I wanted to see an overarching body that looked at end-to-end regulation—from start to finish—just as she is envisaging. The Government are still not out of time—they can still relinquish on that.

[Joan Walley]

As we heard from the Minister just now, there may well be time for further amendments, because clearly we have not got the amendments that we need to be looking at right now. When those further amendments are introduced, it is imperative that the Government examine that long-term issue, making sure, for example, that whatever a local planning authority is going to rule on it is not going to be overturned by the Secretary of State. That is the real danger we face. On something as controversial as this issue and this Bill, the current approach makes no sense. There has been consultation and people have been saying that they do not want these proposals coming forward in this way. It is a toxic recipe for the Government to be—

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has referred to the potential for further amendments to be introduced. I know we have had an iterative process here this afternoon, to put it mildly, but even I did not think there would be scope for the Government to introduce further amendments in this House. Will you rule on this issue and clarify whether the Minister is making a statement correctly or incorrectly?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let me help by saying that it would be possible for the Lords to look at that and do something about the Bill at that stage.

[Joan Walley]

I am interested in that point of order because it sets out for us the situation we are in: we are going to be voting today in this House on something that is not before us, in the hope that the concerns that we do not have time to raise can then be addressed by amendments in the other place. That is just not the right way to make good legislation.

I am conscious that so many Members wish to speak, so let me just say that there should be a moratorium, that the Government have overlooked the needs of people all over the country and that without that public support this policy and this haste—going all out for fracking—is just a failed policy.

[Dr Huppert]

I will try to be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), and I pay tribute to her for her work on this issue and her call for the moratorium, with which I agree. We have the problem of using too many fossil fuels; despite knowing the harm that climate change is causing and is going to continue to cause, we still see a thirst to have more and more of them. The solution has to look different. Perhaps in the future it will be nuclear fusion—who knows? We are 25 years away from that, as we have been for about 50 years. We have to reach a situation where we have renewables and other low-carbon energy sources, and energy efficiency, so that we use less energy, be it for heating, transport or anything else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Variable speed limits are part of the smart motorway schemes that we are doing immense work on. Indeed, I was speaking about them at lunchtime today. They reflect a greater understanding of and ability to alter the way in which people interface with roads through the provision of dynamic information, and allow us to make much better use of infrastructure once the investment has been made. The way in which people drive, what they drive and the way in which they interface with the information that is provided for them on the road will change considerably over our lifetimes and beyond. It is important that we do not allow any rigidity in public policy to inhibit the developments that will spring from such technological changes.

My right hon. Friend is right that variable speed limits are an important part of that future. He has been a great champion of them. Indeed, what greater champion of roads and motoring has there been than my right hon. Friend, who has shared many long evenings discussing just these kind of matters with me? I look forward to many more.

Through the route strategies, Highways England, the body that we are creating, will work closely with local authorities, LEPs and other bodies, including rail bodies, to develop the building blocks of future plans. It will ensure that local roads, local transport, our cities and other modes of transport are considered throughout the strategy development process. That is the point. It is a point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) made in Committee. It was taken on board by the Government. People call me the people’s Minister, but I would rather be called the listening Minister, because I listen and respond to good argument, and I try to develop politics and policy accordingly.

[Joan Walley]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

On that basis, I am happy to listen to the hon. Lady.

[Joan Walley]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because he is clearly a well travelled Minister, just like the well travelled road. While he is in listening mode, I remind him that when he gave evidence before the Environmental Audit Committee on air quality, he said specifically that the remit of the new body he was creating would include environmental concerns. If he has read our report and listened to what we have said, he will know that we are calling for

“a legal duty to protect air quality”

and the introduction of

“a specific clause to that effect in the Infrastructure Bill”.

Will he tell us how he has listened and brought that to fruition?

[Mr Hayes]

Let me say two things, the first of which is how much I enjoy giving evidence before the hon. Lady’s Committee. I have enjoyed many exchanges with her on policy matters over a considerable period. Secondly, I will ensure that environmental considerations are built into all the strategic thinking and the development of all these plans. Air quality should be regarded as a salient that is taken into account in the building blocks, as I have described them, that we put together between local roads and the national strategy.

Furthermore, the hon. Lady will be delighted to know—indeed, I hope that she will be in the audience—that I will be making a speech in the next few weeks on precisely these issues: the environmental aspects of the strategy and how we need to develop a new paradigm in respect of the environmental impact of infrastructure development. I can tell that the excitement is building in the House as a result of that. I can see that she is excited enough to intervene again.

[Joan Walley]

Does what the Minister has just said amount to a legal duty? He has referred to the way in which some of the responsibilities for roads lie with local authorities and some with the new agency. Without a legal duty, it is impossible to see how there can be certainty—rather than uncertainty—that everything possible will be done to reduce air quality problems.

[Mr Hayes]

Even my audacity does not allow me to make up legal duties on the hoof. I shall take away what the hon. Lady proposes and look at the legal ramifications. I am clear that air quality and the environment are an absolute salient in these matters. As I said, I will ensure that those considerations are built into the development of the strategies, but far be it from me to say what I cannot subsequently justify. I do not want to make up a legal duty as I go along, and I know that she would not expect me to do so.

Notwithstanding what I have said about the importance of route strategies, I understand that there are those who would like additional reassurance that they will happen. That is why I tabled new clause 17, which will insert a reference to route strategies in the Bill. The Secretary of State will require a strategic highways company to prepare and publish one or more strategies on the management and development of the highways to which it has been appointed, which will be known as route strategies. The strategies must be published, as must the Secretary of State’s directions to the company, so we have provided that the process will be transparent and comprehensible. The new clause, along with the provisions in the statutory directions and guidance, which we have updated, provides reassurance, while giving Highways England the flexibility to adapt the route strategy process to meet the needs of cities, the country as a whole and the Government of the day. It is clear that, as a result of new clause 17, amendment 43 is not needed, so I ask that it not be pressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley]

Everyone is aware that the Environmental Audit Committee has now drawn up three reports on air quality. We came up with a series of recommendations, clearly showing that there is no one single solution to the problem of improving air quality and that we need a raft of measures. Cycling and walking are certainly part of that, and I am very pleased with the progress that has been made. It is imperative for the Minister to do exactly what he said he would do, and give further serious consideration to the amendments tabled, following the Environmental Audit Committee discussions, about how placing a legal duty on the new Highways Agency is critical if we are to deal with the public health issues.

I see the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who chairs the Health Select Committee, in her place. The whole House is aware that we have something in the order of 29,000 premature deaths a year. We know that air pollution is an invisible killer. It is vital that when the new agency comes to do its work, it does not just look at the environmental appraisal, but ensure that it has real teeth. We need real ways to plan roads and provide green walls to help reduce pollution, and to look at layout and public transport integration. The whole integrated approach to public transport needs to be taken on board. Without the legal commitment, which I hope will come forward in the other place, we cannot begin to tackle the problem of our being in breach of EU regulations. We must deal urgently with that.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) for saying that he would support amendment 70. At this stage, it is incumbent on us to see what progress can be made by the Government in the other place.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the cycling and walking strategy. It is not just a cycling and walking strategy; it is a cycling and walking investment strategy. As the Minister knows, good cycling infrastructure does not happen without that vital investment. I am particularly pleased to see the words “certainty” and “stability” in new clause 13. That is what it is all about, and it is how Holland achieved its objectives. It makes it appropriate for the Minister to be the Member for South Holland and the Deepings. Holland achieved its goals by having £24 a head of stable, long-term investment. If we can get that level of investment—£10 to £20 a head has been called for in the all-party cycling group—we can do the same. I pay tribute to all my colleagues in the all-party cycling group for the work they did, and I commend the cycling report. I warmly welcome the opportunity of discussing the issue with the Minister responsible for cycling, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), who is in his place.

I think that we can expect an increase in the number of cycling journeys from 2% in 2011 to 10% within a decade, which will have enormous benefits for health. I hope there will be investment in not just infrastructure but training, and that cycle to work schemes will, in some form, be extended to young people. I warmly thank the Secretary of State for tabling the new clause, and look forward to seeing the health and well-being of the nation improve as a result.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Joan Walley Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

Even if I believed that, such an ugly turn of phrase would fit ill on my lips, and I could not possibly bring myself to issue it. To that end, I will stick with my own choice of words.

The hon. Gentleman knows, because he is a great expert on these matters—far more expert than I am, I have to acknowledge—today’s new homes save £200 on average on their energy bills compared with homes built before the coalition came to power. He knows that new homes are more energy efficient. I want that energy efficiency to grow, however, so new homes will have net zero-carbon emissions from energy used to heat and light them, and there will be a higher efficiency requirement that may be augmented by on-site renewable energy measures such as solar panels.

Where that is not possible, however, to abate all carbon emissions on-site, the Government will allow developers to offset remaining emissions through off- site carbon abatement measures known as “allowable solutions”—precisely what the hon. Gentleman was referring to—which is a cost effective and practical way of dealing with carbon. I know it does not appeal to the purists, but it is deliverable. Either we want to hit these targets and get to our destination, or we do not.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I know very well about the Minister’s literary expertise, but why is he giving small-scale developments exemptions from the highest standards?

[Mr Hayes]

We are doing it on the grounds of practicality. The hon. Lady and I, during a recent session of the Committee she chairs, exchanged thoughts on the issue of emissions. She will know that there is always a balance to be struck. She refers in her intervention to the preferred threshold of 10 units, but as I say there is always a balance between inhibiting or even preventing development at all and achieving our desired outcomes on carbon. I am happy to hear representations on all these matters, as I want this Bill to be as good as it can be. We are trying to strike that balance, which is the frank answer to the hon. Lady—and I am known in this place for giving straightforward and frank answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

The longer this debate goes on, the more interesting it gets. The contributions so far demonstrate to me that the Infrastructure Bill should be the means whereby we balance economic development with environmental and social responsibilities. We should be working out how to align the required long-term planning for the infrastructure needs of this country with what is coming out of the sustainable development goals, which this country, as well as others elsewhere, will have to adopt. The more contributions we have had, the more we realise that there are live issues, and that this has not been thought through. However much of a “kaleidoscope” this Bill might be, it does not provide the means of reconciling and balancing these different issues. It will be interesting to see to what extent the Secretary of State for Transport, who is not in his place, takes on board the genuine concerns that have been raised, and I would like to mention some of them briefly.

I did not agree with what the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) said about regulation, and I will come to that later, but I did agree with his comments on gas storage. This is an issue that I and other Members of Parliament representing north Staffordshire and the potteries have raised, including with the previous Minister at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon). We have repeatedly raised issues about gas storage, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am sure there would be support for seeing how we can get this addressed. It certainly has long been on the agenda of the British Ceramic Confederation, of which Laura Cohen is chief executive, and it could easily be addressed, if there is a political will to do so, through this Bill. The extractive industries are also an issue.

Other matters relate to the work of the Environmental Audit Committee. Only today we launched a report on air quality and, in terms of investment in new roads, we clearly need to be looking at design and engineering, and we must take sustainable transport into account. We heard about the importance of cycling and walking and making sure, through the planning regime and the national planning policy framework, that new developments go where they need to be. This Bill does not allow the planning considerations to sit side by side with the long-term economic investment decisions that need to be taken. For that reason, I am pleased to be voting for the Labour reasoned amendment.

On road investment, I genuinely hope that throughout the Committee stage the Secretary of State for Transport will be looking at what will happen with the new successor body to the Highways Agency. It is critical that it takes on board regulation and environmental considerations, especially in the light of representations from the Woodland Trust, which is very concerned about ancient woodlands. I am sure that is a concern in constituencies all around the country, and we have not got assurances that these areas can be properly protected. We would be a little more confident if the Government could tell us when they are going to bring forward legislation for the public forest estate. In the absence of that, it is difficult to see how we are going to apply these higher standards to such areas of exceptional beauty.

I made an intervention on the Minister about zero-carbon homes, and I am sure many of my hon. Friends will refer to that later. Why have the Government decided that the right balance is to have higher standards for a development of over 11 properties and lower standards for developments of 10 or under? That is completely wrong and there is no logic to it. I say to the Minister that the Government have got this wrong and there is an opportunity to see whether amendments could be brought forward to deal with that.

I want to focus on clauses 38 to 43, which will, if passed, change trespass law to allow companies to frack under homes without notifying the landowner. This move comes at a time when there are a number of very significant unanswered questions about the impact of fracking which have not been addressed by the Government. Broadly, these relate to climate change and the current—inadequate—regulatory framework.

We know that we do not need new fossil fuels; far from it, because in order to avoid a rise of more than 2° C from climate change, only one fifth of existing global fossil fuel reserves, not including UK shale gas, can be burned. Talks are going on in Lima but Government Whips are apparently preventing our energy Minister from going out there to take part in those important discussions.

Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, recently told a World Bank seminar that the “vast majority” of fossil fuel reserves should be considered “unburnable”. Those remarks were made in the context of the benefits of integrated reporting and highlighting the costs and benefits of tomorrow to inform the investments and credit decisions of today. That information has been shared with the Environmental Audit Committee by the Governor of the Bank of England.

BP has stated:

“We agree that burning all known reserves would probably cause global temperatures to rise by more than 2°C—and that addressing this issue will require the efforts of governments, industry and individuals.”

Shell, Barack Obama and the International Energy Agency have made similar statements. It is therefore unclear why the Government are giving huge incentives to, and deregulating, a new fossil fuel industry that will either add to the stock of unburnable carbon or threaten climate change targets. The former chief scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Professor David Mackay, wrote last year that without a global climate deal,

“new fossil fuel exploitation is likely to lead to an increase in cumulative GHG”—

greenhouse gas—

“emissions and the risk of climate change.”

So why are the Government doing this?

We often hear claims that shale gas is low carbon because it will replace coal. Indeed, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that the only way in which shale gas could reduce emissions is by replacing coal. However, the best industry estimates state that shale gas will not be online until the 2020s. Meanwhile, the Committee on Climate Change has told us that coal must be offline by the 2020s. So by the time a shale gas industry is up and running in constituencies all around the country, there should be no coal to replace it. However, the International Energy Agency has warned that instead, shale gas

“could muscle out low-carbon fuels such as renewables”.

The time scale just does not add up.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that shale gas needs to replace coal, but that condition will not be met. It also states that methane leakage from shale gas wells must be “low”. However, there is a growing body of evidence to show that those emissions are not low. In fact, new reports have shown that methane leakage occurs during parts of the process that were not previously thought to be problematic. The IPCC recently revised upwards the global warming potential of methane, which, over a 20-year time frame, is 108 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. We therefore risk significantly increasing emissions at exactly the time when they should be rapidly reduced. So, given that fracking will add to unburnable carbon and that it will not meet the two key recommendations from the IPCC on coal and methane, the claims that shale gas can reduce emissions do not stand up to scrutiny.

Clauses 38 to 43 represent a lurch towards the further deregulation of fracking. We heard a lot about regulation from the hon. Member for Wealden. If passed, the clauses would give unprecedented rights of use to fracking companies. This would include activities that had not been assessed for their environmental safety, such as the keeping of substances or infrastructure within the land, with no limits on what could be kept or for how long. It is also worth noting, especially as we come up to the general election, that this change in the law is highly unpopular, with 99% of consultation respondents—and 74% of people more generally—opposing the change. Why have the Government decided to proceed when the outcome of the consultation was so stark? I do not believe that they should be doing so, given the response to the consultation.

It is also extremely worrying that the Government are pressing ahead with further deregulation when the evidence points to the need for a stronger, not weaker, regulatory framework. In last week’s autumn statement, the Government announced a new fund to reassure the public on fracking regulations. I believe that the public would be more reassured if the Government took steps to fill the gaps in the regulatory framework. Let us be clear: the evidence exists to show that fracking regulation is not fit for purpose. The often-quoted Public Health England report states that fracking could be safe if the regulatory framework were stringent. However, in the last two years, little progress has been made towards meeting the Royal Society’s recommendations on regulation.

It is not yet known whether fracking can be done safely. As highlighted by the United Nations environment programme, fracking could result in unavoidable environmental and health impacts if extracted properly, and more so if done inadequately. Other countries, such as Bulgaria and France, have introduced moratoriums. We should also take a precautionary approach in the UK. I am proud to be a lifelong member of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, which advocated in a recent report that we should adopt such a precautionary approach, and that a

“comprehensive research programme should be commissioned for the UK”.

The report goes on to state that the Government’s plans should go ahead only

“if/when there is a satisfactory evidence base that suggests operations could safely commence without causing unacceptable adverse environmental, economic, public health or wider social impacts”

and that a

“full, independent environmental impact assessment should be a prerequisite to any initial exploratory operations commencing.”

It also advocates, as I did in our debate on the Water Bill before it became law, that

“Full land remediation must be a non-negotiable condition of any such approvals.”

To conclude, the risks from fracking are high and there are a number of significant questions that the Government need to answer before storming ahead with fracking in the UK. The risks are too high for them to proceed without addressing the big ifs. One thing is certain: if we had this level of political support behind energy efficiency, it would do much more to bring down fuel bills, create jobs right across the UK and reduce dependence on imported gas. However, the Government have overseen a collapse in energy efficiency installations. Instead of smoothing the path for an untested and risky new fossil fuel industry, they should be making energy efficiency an infrastructure priority in the Bill. I would like the Bill not to receive a Second Reading until those concerns had been addressed, but I hope that there will be an opportunity for a real debate on the issues in Committee.

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Select Committee

Joan Walley Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Before the right hon. Lady moves on from this point, will she comment on the intervention by the Minister on the powers of the Select Committee? He said that it will be possible for the Select Committee to take the action it needs to take. Is it not important for there to be an instruction from Parliament on what its remit should be?

[Mrs Gillan]

That is another valid point. The hon. Lady and I would agree that we want to ensure that the Committee is not irrationally constrained or affected in any way if it looks as though it is moving towards decisions that HS2 Ltd and the Department do not like. We need to ensure that the Committee is independent and that it is not constrained. While I am responding to her intervention, may I say that I was very grateful for the detailed and thoughtful work that was carried out by the Environmental Audit Committee? It was very helpful and was much appreciated by my constituents and a large number of people beyond my constituency.

It strikes me with horror to hear that the advice of HS2 will be available to the Committee. I have this thought about the fox getting into the chicken house. However, I know that it is essential that HS2 advises the Committee. It will need to reveal more about its plans. That leads me to my next point.

Will the reports of the Major Projects Authority be available to the Committee? Ministers have seen the MPA reports into risk, which have categorised the project as amber-red. Those documents have been withheld from general release, despite the decision of the Information Commissioner that it was in the public interest for them to be released. My understanding is that the Information Commissioner will look for a review of the Government’s decision to block the publication of the reports.

It would be unacceptable to me if the Committee that scrutinised the project did not have access to the reports, which must contain facts that the Government do not want to be in the public domain, when deciding on the project. I ask the Minister once again: if he could not make the reports available to this House before the vote yesterday and if he cannot make them available to the wider public, can he make them available to the Committee on a confidential basis so that we know that the representatives of this House who are scrutinising the Bill will not be hoodwinked and will not have information withheld from them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

The contrast between yesterday and today is huge. Yesterday the Chamber was packed, there was a five-minute limit on speeches and we had no real opportunity to say what we had come here to say, whereas today we are considering the detailed instructions that we shall give to the new Select Committee. Yesterday I, at least, talked about the failure to organise a strategic environmental assessment of the Bill, whereas today we are considering the detailed aspects, and carrying out the equivalent of an environmental impact assessment. What Parliament does today will be very important, and I hope the Government will respond to the debate in a much more relaxed way.

My amendment gives me an opportunity to flag up issues relating to how HS2 Ltd will ensure that some of the worst environmental effects are mitigated. I see that the Minister is nodding. It is essential that we have robust procedures that Ministers and HS2 Ltd will follow, but given that—as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson)—it seems impossible for anyone entirely to understand the strange creature that is a hybrid Bill, we should establish how it will work and what the role of the Select Committee will be.

The purpose of my amendment is to establish how we will deal with the environmental consequences of the Bill. It is not intended to be a wrecking amendment. My aim is to challenge the Government—and, for that matter, Opposition Front Benchers—regarding measures to mitigate the effects and to provide compensation. I should make it clear that mitigation and compensation are two very separate things. The Government must also be accountable to themselves, if not to the House, given that they set themselves up as the “greenest Government ever”. Again, the Minister nods, but to what extent is that put into practice?

The right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), who is a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, has done tremendous work on natural capital, both in the Committee and in the natural environment White Paper. She has spoken of a huge ambition for the Government: the achievement not just of no net loss of biodiversity, but, where appropriate, biodiversity gain. The Bill needs to reflect that.

[Mrs Spelman]

In fact, the HS2 project will be the first and largest of the major infrastructure projects to which the relatively new concept of biodiversity offsetting will need to be applied. DEFRA has consulted on biodiversity offsetting, but we should not miss the opportunity to do something really good and significant in regenerating degraded parts of the environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right, and she did a great deal to advance exactly that thinking when she was Secretary of State at DEFRA. This project involves the biggest infrastructure investment that our generation is likely to see, and I do not think it is too much to expect that the environmental aspects be given equal importance to the transport infrastructure and investment ambitions.

It is not only the work that came out of DEFRA that is important; so is the work the Government did on the national planning policy framework. That set out clearly not just that there should be no net loss in biodiversity, but that there should be—although I accept with some qualification—where possible, a net gain. My amendment seeks to explore how that objective, which I think we share on both sides of the House—that was certainly the case with the Climate Change Act—can be put into practice as we go forward on the HS2 journey we are now all embarked upon. That issue has not been given sufficient attention so far, and perhaps the Minister can set out today how the concerns reflected in my amendment can and will be addressed. To do that, he must also address the detailed recommendations in the 13th report of the Environmental Audit Committee.

I want to go on a bit of a detour, if I may, because I think this issue is important. I was a Member of the last Parliament, when we had the Wright reforms, which looked at ways in which Parliament as well as Government could be more accountable. We are always looking at the role of Parliament and how people outside see us, and that is about not just what happens at Prime Minister’s Question Time, but the sort of detailed discussions we are having now. The Wright reforms set out that Select Committees should have a greater input into policy making and that Parliament itself should have a greater role, and that was in part about Select Committees having greater input into legislation. I very much support the Liaison Committee proposal that, where Select Committees have, on the all-party basis that we operate under, looked authoritatively at a matter in detail, and having taken expert evidence, they should be able to play a procedural part in the legislation in question going forward. I greatly regret the fact that the Government have not so far accepted the Liaison Committee’s recommendations.

All Select Committees have to report on how well we are scrutinising legislation. The Environmental Audit Committee produced a report entitled “HS2 and the environment” at great speed. We took a huge amount of evidence, including from Ministers, non-governmental organisations and HS2, and we came up with what we believe is an authoritative set of recommendations. For example, if what the Government and HS2 are doing does not match up with the work of the Select Committee to be appointed today by Parliament, the danger is that we will not cover to the necessary extent the environmental concerns we set out in our report. That is why our report made those recommendations, and I am happy that members of our Committee have added their names to the amendment.

Paragraph 86 of our report states the Government should

“not overly constrain the ‘principles’ of the Bill approved at Second Reading”,

and that, through the motion, we should do what can be done to

“avoid, reduce or remedy environmental damage”

through the environmental impact assessment process, or look at

“potential modifications to the route and its infrastructure and consequential environmental protections that might result”.

The real issue is that today we are appointing the new Select Committee and establishing its remit, but we have not yet had the Government’s response to the Environmental Audit Committee report. I understand that the Government will say, “Well, actually we have already taken account of such concerns.” If they are going to quote Standing Order 27A which requires an environmental statement, and Standing Order 224A, which requires an independent assessor to produce a report on the consultation on the environmental statement, that will not address the question of how the new Select Committee should consider the environmental issues. What instructions will there be? How narrow or wide will the Committee’s brief be?

I believe that the Standing Orders I have just referred to came about as a result of the Crossrail Bill, although I am sure other Members will have far more information on that issue than I do. As far as I can see, the Government’s advice relates just to Second Reading, so in effect, the role that arises from the instructions in these two Standing Orders applies only up to Second Reading, and not to what subsequently takes place, which includes the new Select Committee.

[Mrs Spelman]

To support the hon. Lady’s point, the significance of a hybrid Bill is that it incorporates the planning process into the legislative process, which strengthens the democratic element of the way we go about this. Therefore, it is completely in keeping with the logic of the recommendations of the Environmental Audit Committee that we should be giving the communities that stand to lose biodiversity a greater say in how we offset that biodiversity loss. They would have an opportunity to do that if the Select Committee proposed in the motion were able to adopt the recommendations of the Environmental Audit Committee.

[Joan Walley]

Once again the right hon. Lady is absolutely right and I value the work she does on the Environmental Audit Committee. When the Government have the report of the Select Committee that has been appointed today, they will bring forward environmental proposals on Third Reading. There is ample time for the Government to take account of how we can have something in place that makes up for the lack of strategic environmental assessment—we have not had that—and which could still look at the detail of the environmental impact assessments that we need. In the evidence that we received from many NGOs—from the wildlife trusts, the WWF and a host of other organisations—they all said how much they wanted to work in collaboration to find ways of having the mitigation that is needed, and also to look at implementing offsetting in ways that could be truly transformational. There are all kinds of implications for the detail of the engineering works on the route as well. If there is no way for all that to be brought together and taken on board, I think Parliament will be accused of having total disregard for the environmental aspects that should have been included and still need to be.

Finally, I want to refer to the Supreme Court. It made it clear that it is for Parliament, not the Government, to decide the parliamentary procedure for the hybrid Bill, and therefore for Parliament to decide what is reasonable and practicable when it comes to environmental protection, mitigation and compensation measures. It is entirely appropriate that the Select Committee should have the instruction to ensure that it is able properly to consider environmental issues and not leave what is “reasonable and practicable” to HS2 to decide, which in my book would be likely to mean a much lower level of environmental protection being applied than is required.

The cost of such environmental protections is a necessary cost if such a scheme is to go ahead. We heard about the huge ambition of HS2. That ambition needs to be equalled by environmental ambition. We should be doing everything to avoid impacts first, before we mitigate or compensate for them.

[Frank Dobson]

People sometimes think that the environmental factors apply just to rural areas, but the environmental impact in my constituency will be dramatic; I am thinking of the effect on air pollution, noise, general filth of one sort or another, and disruption. I very much agree with the line my hon. Friend was taking in her last few words, because, for example, not only will people have to live next to the main site of the Euston development, but no fewer than 14 subsidiary depots are proposed, all of which will be damaging the environment.

[Joan Walley]

I am most grateful for that intervention, as my right hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. The environmental aspects are not just about nature, biodiversity, natural capital or ecosystems; they are also about noise and air quality. This week we are already seeing the huge concerns that exist about air quality; in yesterday’s debate we heard the extent to which many Members are worried about the long-standing impact on it. How that is mitigated needs to be factored into the specifications of the work that is done, and the Select Committee appointed by this House will have an important role to play in that.

[Mrs Gillan]

I commend the hon. Lady’s amendment, the work she has done and the way in which she is putting her argument forward. May I just make the point that this issue is important for individuals, too? A constituent of mine has an impaired lung function and if he is close to any construction works it will threaten his life. That is not taken into consideration. Air quality, among other things, is vital in this day and age, particularly where individuals have that sort of health problem.

[Joan Walley]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about that. We are increasingly understanding that environmental issues are cross-cutting and that public health concerns are at the core. All of those need, somehow or another, to be costed and factored into the decision making. It is incumbent on the Government to say how such issues will be taken forward at a later stage, given that no precise instruction is being given to the Select Committee on that.

Let me say a brief word about Crossrail, because we have heard a lot about how it had the best way of going about this and so on. We cannot compare the geographical scale of HS2 and Crossrail, as HS2 dwarfs it. We have just heard about the biodiversity and environmental impacts of HS2, particularly on ancient woodlands. My Committee received a lot of evidence about that, but it has not really been included in the debate. This is being taken forward as a hybrid Bill, with HS2 phase 1 and HS2 phase 2, and there has not been the opportunity to examine the overarching aspect, and what happens in phase 2 will be very much determined by what happens in phase 1.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that our Committee took a lot of evidence and information on surveys, particularly those of ancient woodlands, that one would perhaps expect to have already been done in the early stages if this were any other project? The emphasis should therefore be on how the hybrid Bill ensures that the things we would expect to have been done are done as part of the project, rather than in any new effort that we would expect to be undertaken outside any other project?

[Joan Walley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because he is not only a dedicated member of our Select Committee, but an incredibly knowledgeable one. The fact that we had so much evidence about the failure to map areas and the huge gaps in information shows how unfit for purpose the environmental assessment has been so far.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Lady is aware that in some cases we did not have access to land because the landowners would not give us that access. If they then petition, they can, presumably, bring forward the information as to the effect on the particular environmental habitat they are concerned about.

[Joan Walley]

I am grateful to the Minister for that, and I absolutely agree with what he says. Indeed, we heard evidence from the Country Land and Business Association that there has not been the proper access to be able to survey, and without a survey and audit we cannot go on to monitor, mitigate and do all these other things. The issue at the heart of this is that that has not been done, yet we are being told—or I imagine we will be told—that we do not need my amendment because we already have Standing Orders 27 and 224A. They, however, go up only as far as Second Reading and do not continue through the work of the Select Committee. We have a huge gap in knowledge and people all over the country want to have cast-iron assurances that all the land that needs to be surveyed has been surveyed. That has not been done yet, and if we do not give a sufficiently flexible remit to the Select Committee, how is it going to deal with what has not already been done?

Although people will have opportunities to petition on this aspect, and that petitioning will now be coming forward at great haste, my amendment seeks to address the issue of who is going to take responsibility for the consequences of those petitions. So far we have had a summary of issues that people have raised and a commitment to consult on those, but we have not had a proper procedure of impact assessment to address how we deal with those issues that are raised. I would like the Minister to say how that will be addressed.

[Frank Dobson]

My hon. Friend rightly referred to the fact that Crossrail is usually cited as an example of how things should be done, and I agree with that view. Crossrail runs across my constituency and its Tottenham Court Road station is in it. The original proposal was that the nearest depot to facilitate the building of Crossrail should take over the Phoenix garden behind St Giles’s church for about a decade, but I was able to persuade Crossrail that it would be better to knock down a couple of buildings in Oxford street instead. That is in marked contrast to the approach of HS2 Ltd, which proposes to take over and occupy for a decade every open space and play area within about 100 yards of Euston station.

[Joan Walley]

That is a point well made, and unless the current arrangements are changed HS2 Ltd will be able to give judgment on its own plans. It will be given carte blanche to do exactly what it wants if there are no means of scrutinising its proposals. I would hate to see all the areas of land that people value and want to see as part of their communities coerced into becoming depots or some such thing. Yesterday, on Second Reading, hon. Members raised transport issues and asked why the tunnelling spoil could not be transported away other than by road. All these aspects need to be looked at from the environmental perspective, not just on the basis of the bottom line of what the cost and engineering will mean. That is the equivalent of giving HS2 Ltd carte blanche to set out its own policy.

For all those reasons, I shall be interested to hear the response to the concerns that we have expressed in the amendment about these environmental issues. Constituents and the country at large expect this Parliament to provide the highest level of scrutiny of this massive, £50 billion investment programme, and we need to be seen to be doing that. For that to happen, we require the instructions to the Select Committee to be unambiguous about its environmental responsibilities and those matters for which it has a responsibility to report back to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

We would need a very good lawyer to get that passed.

I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) came from Bavaria. I think a socialist in Bavaria is a very rare breed indeed. She talked about passing a provision for the HS1 link. As I said, it is ultimately for the Committee to decide whether a petition should be heard, and it may choose to hear petitions suggesting that a future link should not be precluded. Its work is on the railway proposal before it, and it cannot get bogged down in considering the merits of links that may or may not happen, but it could certainly consider ruling out any future provision should it choose to do so.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, made a number of points about the environment, and I share her ambition to ensure that the environmental impact of the project is minimised. Of course, she is aware that we published a 48,000-page environmental impact report. I recognise the Environmental Audit Committee’s intention, and we are seeking to have no net loss of biodiversity. It is a hugely ambitious scheme, equal to that on any comparable project worldwide. We are building 140 miles of railway, and in biodiversity terms, it will be as though it were not there. In many cases, of course, there will be biodiversity gains. As I think I mentioned to the Committee, in some places where there is arable farming and monoculture we will put in something better than the current oilseed rape or wheat crops, which have little biodiversity and offer little in the way of habitat.

[Joan Walley]

Does the Minister agree that what the Government and HS2 Ltd intend to do is one thing, but the instructions to the Select Committee on the Bill are a slightly different thing? I would be grateful if he addressed how the Select Committee can be given the flexibility in its remit that it needs.

[Mr Goodwill]

The Committee will certainly be able to examine how measures in the Bill and the project will affect individual petitioners, and non-governmental organisations and other groups will also be able to petition. The overall scheme itself will not be under consideration, however, because it was decided last night.

I reassure the hon. Lady that I am not being dragged kicking and screaming into giving environmental reassurances, and I am keen for us to leave something for future generations. I am very aware of the problems of trying to restore ancient woodland. Unfortunately, 36 hectares of ancient woodland will have to be removed, and we are doing what we can to try to replace that. We cannot replace ancient woodland straight away, but we can do whatever possible to ensure that it regenerates and, in the fullness of time, replace that environment. Indeed, there may be other opportunities. For example, as research goes on to produce ash trees that will be resistant to the big problem of ash dieback that is starting to develop in this country, there will be a good opportunity, as we carry out tree planting, to ensure that there is a new generation of ash trees to replace those lost because of that terrible disease.

[Joan Walley]

A point was raised about having time on Third Reading to discuss feedback on environmental issues from the Select Committee. Is the Minister able to offer some kind of commitment on that?

[Mr Goodwill]

Certainly, regarding the hon. Lady’s amendment I can reassure her that that base is already covered. The introduction of Standing Order 224A, which she referred to, means that the amendment is unnecessary as it essentially copies part of the instruction given to the Crossrail Bill Committee at a point when there was no Standing Order 224A. The instruction to that Committee was to ensure that any environmental information in petitions that related to the principle of the Bill and therefore could not be heard by the Committee was reported to the House on Third Reading when the principle of the Bill was reconsidered. I hope that that allays her fears.

Standing Order 224A means that the amendment is not required because it introduces a process of consultation for any supplementary environmental information provided at the Select Committee stage. All consultation responses are summarised by an independent assessor in the same way as they have been for the environmental statement consultation. If a petition includes environmental information that does not touch on the principle of the Bill, it is wholly within the scope of the Committee to consider that. If the Committee considers that some reasonable and practical mitigation could be introduced to address the issue, it will amend the Bill to do so. That is a key part of its role and its conclusions will be included in its special report.

[Joan Walley]

What expertise and capacity will be available to the members appointed to the Select Committee to assist them in that?

[Mr Goodwill]

Obviously, within the limitations of the resources made available by the House to the Committee, it can enlist whatever expert advice it wants, just as the hon. Lady’s Committee will have advisors who give it expert and scientific advice and so on. That is a matter for the Committee, but I hope it will enlist the best advice to assist it in its work. Indeed, many of the environmental NGOs that produce petitions might themselves be providing what they consider to be expert advice, and it will be up to the Committee to consider how much weight to give it.

We must also comply with directives such as the habitats directive. As a Member for five years of the European Parliament’s environment committee, I was involved in many such directives. Even if some aspects of the project do not come within the scope of the petitions, we must comply with environmental protections that we have agreed at European level.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Joan Walley Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

As a former Staffordshire county councillor—indeed, I was a member of Staffordshire county council for seven years—I do not need any reminding of where Stoke-on-Trent is, although it is true that Stoke-on-Trent is now a unitary authority and not controlled by that fantastic, first-class Conservative county council of Staffordshire.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter of Stoke-on-Trent and other issues, but is not the real concern about the Bill that there has not been a proper, rigorous and strategic environmental assessment? In other words, whether or not the Y route beyond Lichfield goes via Stoke-on-Trent or elsewhere, there has not been an opportunity to properly assess HS2 phases 1 and 2 in the round.

[Mr McLoughlin]

One of the questions is “Where is the biggest capacity problem?” and, whether I like it or not, the biggest capacity problem is on the southern part of the route—the route coming into London—but I well understand the concerns of hon. Members representing Stoke-on-Trent and other areas regarding the importance of getting the route right as far as they are concerned. That is why we are in the process of consultation and I am happy to meet and hear representations from those areas, although I am mindful of the huge number of consultations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I share the concern that some Members have expressed about the lack of time. For those who would like more time for detailed discussion of the environmental aspects, hopefully there will be an opportunity tomorrow when we consider the instructions and the report produced by the Environmental Audit Committee. However, if tonight we are to commit to spending £50 billion, Parliament should ensure that it will be spent in the right way, both for the next phase of transport policy and for the future generations who will live with, pay for and count the opportunity costs of what we vote for today and tomorrow.

I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s commitment to transport policy, or the determination of the shadow Transport and Treasury teams to go for all-out investment and growth, but my head tells me spending £50 billion without a strategic environmental assessment will not necessarily ensure integrated transport policies for all parts of the UK, its cities and localities. Indeed, it might actually undermine many of the gains from increased rail travel that we have built up.

Putting on my constituency hat for a moment to speak for Stoke-on-Trent North, I know that there are many grandees in some of the big Labour authorities that want the Bill in its current form, but the route bypasses Stoke altogether, despite it being the seventh largest urban conurbation in the UK. We already have perfectly excellent train services—two an hour—that go straight to London Euston in one hour and 24 minutes. What will happen to those services when phase 2 of HS2 is running? The likelihood is that business passengers from Manchester will not be spending their money on the west coast Pendolino services; they will opt for an HS2 that is not easily accessible to us, leaving us without the business case for our existing services, which will have a huge knock-on effect.

Like Newcastle borough council, I feel that if HS2 is to go ahead there is a great deal of merit in Stoke-on-Trent city council’s case for a hub station for the city, subject to all kinds of detailed assurances, for example on the capacity of HS2 through the Harecastle tunnel and its compatibility with the classic system of local services, especially the slower services between London and the midlands. I look forward to detailed discussions with the Secretary of State later this week.

As for the Bill’s other shortcomings, I think that it is important to note that, despite the Government’s business case and the aim of making HS2 support their objective of reducing carbon emissions by shifting passengers from air and road travel to rail, that was not integral to the Bill’s planning stages. The greatest concern to me, as covered in the course of the unsuccessful legal challenge to HS2, and as touched on in the Environmental Audit Committee’s debate, is the way the Government went about the environmental appraisal for sustainability for phase 1. As we know, in February 2011, the Government consulted on the whole strategy for HS2, phases 1 and 2. The Supreme Court said that, had the strategic environmental appraisal directive applied, then what was done would not have met the requirements. Why is that important? It is important because anyone commenting in 2011 had complete information only on phase 1, not phase 2. Then move the clock forward to Sir David Higgins’s report, “HS2 Plus”. Because he recommended earlier completion of phase 2 to Crewe, without any due process for strategic appraisal, there are all kinds of questions unanswered about what that means for the timing and the route from north of Lichfield to Manchester.

Effectively, the Supreme Court has ruled that the strategic environmental assessment directive does not apply because Parliament is now, through the hybrid Bill process, the decision-making body. The Government might claim that their version of strategic environmental assessment addresses those issues at the strategic level, but in reality Parliament, the decision-making authority, has had no role. Parliament is in a very confused situation, which is made worse by having to vote tonight on Second Reading without knowledge of what instructions will be voted on tomorrow to guide its Select Committee in its work.

I expect that the Bill will be given a Second Reading tonight, but that does not justify the iniquity of taking forward infrastructure investment of this magnitude without a strategic environmental assessment. I very much hope that the amendment in my name to be debated tomorrow will be taken on board, but that deals only with detailed—

High-speed Rail

Joan Walley Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

Of course I am always prepared to listen; that is partly what we have been doing in consulting on the existing scheme. People often come forward with proposals that increase the cost and then complain that the cost has been increased, so it is quite important that we get the balance right on these projects.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

In view of the Secretary of State’s commitment on Government funding to look at the prospects for opening up the line to Crewe that much earlier, what are the implications for the alternative proposal made by Stoke-on-Trent?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Sir David has made a recommendation to me and I am asking for work to be done on it. It is right that I then consider that alongside the representations that have been made by other cities in the north as part of the final consultation process. I am still engaged in that process, and I will do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joan Walley Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am not sure what that has to do with the internet upgrade. Obviously, when a new franchise contract, or short-term contract, is leased, various matters are taken into account, including the age and replacement of rolling stock. If the Labour party is not committed to that, I wonder what Labour Members would say to Bombardier, which today won a rolling stock contract that will be very important to Derby and Derbyshire. Would they say that they were opposed to it?

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

3. What support is available to people with disabilities at railway stations with no disabled access.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The Equality Act 2010 requires station operators to address the needs of disabled travellers. So far, 153 station access projects have been authorised, of which 38 are on site and the remainder have already been completed.

[Joan Walley]

The policy of East Midlands Trains, which runs trains through Kidsgrove station in my constituency, is that

“if you want to travel to and from stations which are inaccessible, you can do so at no extra cost.”

But would it not make far more sense for the Government to approve the plans for disabled access at Kidsgrove in April? This is a real cost-of-living issue. It would be much cheaper for the Government to do that, and much better for disabled people.

[Mr Goodwill]

The Government have announced the provision of a further £100 million to extend the scheme to 2019. In order to qualify, stations must meet three important criteria. We expect to announce 53 projects in April that have been approved under the scheme.

Kidsgrove Railway Station

Joan Walley Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate disabled access to Kidsgrove railway station. It is no disrespect to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I say that I had rather hoped that Mr Speaker would be in the Chair, because he visited Kidsgrove recently and attended the Kidsgrove youth parliament. I am sure he would have remembered that our young people gave great weight and priority to public transport. Today’s debate is dedicated to them and to those who have set out just how unacceptable it is that, despite the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the subsequent Equality Act 2010, services at Kidsgrove railway station are still not compliant with that disability legislation. The debate is intended to put that right.

I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, and I hope he is as committed to integrated transport as his predecessor was. I wish him well in his new role. I hope that by the time he responds I will have convinced him that when he decides which railway stations across the country are to benefit from the welcome £100 million next phase of the Access for All fund, Kidsgrove railway station should be on the list of successful bids.

I will give a little of the background to the debate. When Kidsgrove moved—it did not actually move, but it moved in terms of boundary changes—back into the parliamentary constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North at the last general election, I looked at the issues that needed my support. I quickly identified the importance of making Kidsgrove railway station accessible to all my constituents. I brought together the county council, the borough council, Kidsgrove town council, the train operating companies and Network Rail to see what we could do. At that meeting, I was really disappointed to find that no one appeared previously to have thought about how to include Kidsgrove station in the bids for Access for All funding that were launched back in 2006.

Many stations had got their bids in and received brand-new disabled facilities. I was particularly impressed by the wonderful architectural design at Denmark Hill station, which had new ramps and had been refurbished. I believe that Long Eaton, in my own region, received £1.6 million to install two new lifts, providing step-free access to both platforms. Sadly, Kidsgrove station did not feature. No bid was made, and as I was told in replies to my letters to the previous Minister, and in meetings that I had with him, the money allocated for station improvements for those with disabilities was all spent.

I then set about arranging further follow-up meetings, with the intention of being ready as soon as the next tranche of funding was announced. It was duly announced that bids were being invited for the 2015 to 2019 period and should be received by 15 November 2013, with a ministerial announcement expected in April 2014. I therefore believe that the debate is timely so that we can leave no stone unturned in securing investment.

I say to the Minister that sometimes it is when one does things for the first time that one really remembers them. If this is his first Adjournment debate in his new role, I hope that he will remember our request.

Why is funding needed in Kidsgrove? It is a town where, in 1777, probably the largest civil engineering project ever carried out in Britain up to that time was completed—the construction of the Harecastle tunnel for the Trent and Mersey canal, which was the combined vision and achievement of James Brindley and Josiah Wedgwood. Subsequently, the railways linked up with the development of the area’s industries. In such a town, one can imagine the frustration that today our otherwise well-kept and much-loved railway station lacks access to three out of four platforms.

I called into the station as recently as last Friday, and I was struck by the staff and volunteers who are working so hard to make the station one of which we can all be proud. Volunteers tend the gardens and the public spaces with great care. They keep it spotlessly clean, freshly painted and well lit—Councillor Elsie Bates is doing a wonderful job. The station has a functioning train information display, ticket machines and notice boards—all the things we would expect. It has a spacious well-laid out car park with bike racks and integrated transport, and there is scope to extend that and adjacent land into a public transport hub—something much championed by local councillors and Jon Honeysett MBE, whom I thank for his work on integrated transport. The station also has efficient and friendly staff, and I saw all those things when I visited last Friday.

The station was rewarded when it deservedly won the best small station award at the community rail awards in 2011. Outside its entrance there are two disabled car parking spaces, clearly marked in yellow paint. If someone is disabled, however, or simply young or old, or if they experience difficulty going up and down the flights of stairs that link the four platforms, perhaps with buggies or heavy luggage, they simply would not be able to get access to three out of the four platforms. That is why it is so important that the Minister responds to this debate.

Services from platforms 2, 3 and 4, to Manchester, Derby, London—including for getting to Parliament—and Crewe, cannot be accessed. To get to Manchester, for example, someone must catch a train to Stoke, change, and board another train to Manchester that goes through Kidsgrove. That leads to the absurd situation whereby anyone who is disabled ends up half an hour later exactly where they started.

It is not only about direct travel to those destinations, but about onward travel, including to the north Wales coast—a particularly popular holiday destination for people from the Potteries—the south coast, Scotland, regional airports, and even to towns and cities with clubs in the premier league and the first division, which are increasingly popular destinations for local football supporters. A further point concerns direct and connecting services to Crewe and south Cheshire, and I thank Jenny Baker of Friends of Sandbach Station, who has gone to great lengths to add her support to our campaign.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for initiating this debate. Her constituency neighbours mine, and news of her effective campaign has reached the Friends of Sandbach Station, who confirmed to me how much it highlights that this is not an isolated problem. I support—of course—her campaign for Kidsgrove station, but may I say that Sandbach station is in a similar situation? It has flat access to one platform, and footbridge access only to three. Therefore, if someone is disabled, they can travel only to Crewe. We have one advantage over Kidsgrove, however, because we have nine disabled parking spaces, not two. Will the Minister also consider Access for All funding for Sandbach?

[Joan Walley]

The hon. Lady’s intervention is helpful because she makes the point to the Minister that the campaign is supported by Members on both sides of the House. The criteria state that it is important that the investment, when it comes, should not be concentrated in London and the south-east. I hope it comes first to Kidsgrove, and secondly to Sandbach and other connecting stations along the line.

On the criteria, let us look at the disability and age demographics. Staffordshire county council’s profile of adult disability in the county from February 2012 shows that there are a total of 4,540 claimants on incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Newcastle has the highest number of service users in residential care and supported accommodation in Staffordshire. That and the proportion of the 16-and-over population claiming disability living allowance—6,720 is well above the national average—gives a good indication of the demographic profile, which is an added reason to prioritise Kidsgrove station in the forthcoming bidding round.

No bid will be signed off without meeting the station footfall criteria. I have mentioned the history of the railways. Jobs in the heavy industries that gave us the local railway have declined, but they have been superseded by jobs in other areas. That has resulted in Kidsgrove becoming a key commuter station to Manchester and Stoke-on-Trent and, as we have just heard, Crewe, Sandbach and elsewhere. Accordingly, footfall at Kidsgrove railway station has gone through the roof, from just 32,192 in 2005-06 to 158,478 in 2011-12. Furthermore, passenger numbers are expected to grow at 21% per year in the coming years. Moreover, there is every indication that that trend will continue. Staffordshire county council has agreed in principle to allow the former Kidsgrove goods yard, which it owns, to be used for extra car parking at the station, increasing the number of places from 55 to 200—a 400% increase in spaces for a car park that tends to operate at capacity.

Closer integration of rail and bus services is proposed. Currently, the nearest bus stops are at least 250 yards from the station, and their location is not obvious to rail users. Re-routing the four local bus services to within sight of the station forecourt will greatly benefit the station. I am hopeful that that will happen. Getting the direct service to Manchester airport reinstated would drastically increase footfall at Kidsgrove and could be the subject of another debate in the House. All in all, I believe that the demographics of Kidsgrove match the criteria.

On local support, which has to be shown if the bid is to go ahead, I can tell the House that the proposal is fully supported by Staffordshire county council, Newcastle borough council, Kidsgrove town council, the local enterprise partnership, East Midlands Trains and London Midland Trains. East Midlands Trains confirmed to my office this morning that Kidsgrove station is its top priority in the next tranche of funding. Virgin, which does not go from the station, has indicated that ramped access would have indirect benefits for its services.

In addition, Clough Hall technology school, which has a specialist autism unit, has sent a letter of support to me. I hope the Minister makes a note of this. It states:

“As the only Church of England secondary school in Staffordshire, our conversion, together with the new build, will increase the number of pupils attending the school, especially those travelling in from other areas. We value inclusivity and would welcome a DDA-compliant footbridge which would give access to all platforms, so that pupils with physical disability can travel by train to our school.”

I have had many letters of support, including from Kidsgrove town council, Crewe town council and Kidsgrove Townswomen’s Guild.

On top of that, a significant number of local people support the bid. I thank the mayor of Kidsgrove, Kyle Robinson, and his fellow councillors for helping with the petition, which I am sure will get even more signatures as awareness of the campaign grows. I also refer the Minister to the recent Environmental Audit Committee report, which I helped to produce, on transport and access to public services, and in particular our conclusion that services be joined up and that disabled people should not be excluded.

I have one final point to bring to the Minister’s attention. When I set out on this campaign, I was led to believe that it was down to the train operating company to make the bid for departmental funding. Many meetings and phone calls later, I seem to have gone around in a circle, because I am now told that the remit rests with Network Rail. The local delivery group and county council also have a role, and the Minister has the final say when the submissions have been made. The whole system is at the very least opaque. It leaves me feeling that those stations that sit within a defined passenger transport executive area stand the best chance of a successful bid.

Kidsgrove must not be penalised because the station is a junction on the edge of the Staffordshire-Cheshire local authority borders, under the jurisdiction of no passenger transport executive and a long way down the line from the headquarters of its train operating company, East Midland Trains. It is also unclear from the guidance issued how complete the business case, costings and designs have to be at the time of the actual submission, and who actually has responsibility for submitting the bid. I do not mind whether it is submitted by East Midland Trains, Staffordshire county council, as the highway authority, or Network Rail. They have all indicated support for the bid. What I do mind is that no one understands the process so the bid is not made on time.

The local delivery groups have an enormous say in how the bids are made. I would like to hear what communication the Minister has had with those groups and what more can be done to make sure that when the decision is announced—I understand it will be in April next year—Kidsgrove railway station is on the list.

I notice that part of the criteria is a local commitment to offering matching funds in round 5. Our local authorities are under a great deal of pressure and I do not quite know where that matching funding would come from, but I am happy to sit down with the Minister to discover whether matching funds can come from other Departments to help to make our case. We urgently need Kidsgrove railway station to be compliant with disability legislation.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) on securing the debate on disabled access at Kidsgrove station. I am delighted to be covering this role tonight in the House and, like my predecessor, I am committed to ensuring accessibility. In recent years, expectations about accessibility have rightly changed, both among disabled passengers and the railway industry, and that is even more the case after the success of our transport networks in providing accessible journeys during last year’s Olympics and Paralympics.

Unfortunately, as the hon. Lady recognised when she gave the history of Kidsgrove station, many of our railway stations date from Victorian times, including Kidsgrove, which first opened in 1848. These 19th century stations were not built with the needs of 21st century passengers in mind, and that has left us with a huge task in ensuring that the expectations of disabled passengers are met by opening up the rail network to them.

Clearly, accessible stations make a huge difference to people’s journey experience, not only for people with reduced mobility, but also for those carrying heavy luggage or pushing unwieldy pushchairs. I am grateful that the hon. Lady acknowledged that we remain committed to making further improvements in this area and have continued to support, and indeed expand, the Access for All programme, launched in 2006 by the previous Government. The programme was worth £370 million in 2004-05 prices, and will deliver accessible routes at more than 150 stations.

To demonstrate value for money to the Treasury and the Office of Rail Regulation, I am happy to confirm that the funding has been targeted at the busiest stations. By using a weighting mechanism that allowed us to look at stations’ footfall figures overlaid with census data on disability, we have tried to ensure that as many disabled people as possible can benefit from funding. Approximately a third of the stations were chosen to ensure a fair geographical spread across the country. We took into account the views of train operators and the proximity to facilities such as hospitals, schools for disabled children and military rehabilitation centres—factors that the hon. Lady raised in her speech.

One hundred and five projects are now complete and we expect the rest of the programme to be substantially complete by April next year, a full year ahead of the initial plans. If we look at the scale of the work and what it has done for the ability to open up accessibility for disabled people, there are some significant engineering projects: Clapham Junction, the busiest station in Europe, is now completely accessible for the first time in its 150 year history. We should not be complacent, however.

The hon. Lady is right to say that last year’s high-level output statement included a further £100 million to extend the Access for All programme to 2019. I hear what she says about the process being opaque. I will touch on this in more depth in a moment, but I think it is relatively well known that it is for local delivery groups—Network Rail and the train operating companies—to liaise with local authorities in making nominations. We have asked the rail industry to nominate stations for inclusion in the new £100 million programme. I recognise the efforts made by the hon. Lady, and both Network Rail and East Midlands Trains are undoubtedly aware of the desire of the local population for Kidsgrove station to be a top priority. I note her comment that East Midlands Trains has confirmed to her today that it regards Kidsgrove as its top priority. I am sure that will help in the nomination process.

The industry has a number of local delivery groups across the country that were set up to administer the national stations improvement programme in control period 4, which is just about to end. We have asked them to expand their role and nominate stations for the Access for All programme, which has been extended with an extra £100 million. Each group contains representatives from train operating companies and Network Rail. While we continue to believe that the busiest stations remain the priority, we also believe that there should be a fair distribution of investment across the country.

I listened to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) concerning Sandbach station. I recognise that there is a problem, with flat access to only one platform. If the only place one can travel to is Crewe, wonderful though it may be, that is rather a limiting experience.

We want the industry to take into account other factors, such as improving inter-urban journeys. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North mentioned the availability of third party match funding, which can be used to weight business cases for individual station projects. I am happy to extend to her the meeting she requested, and she is welcome to come to the Department to discuss match funding possibilities for Kidsgrove, which will help us to speed up delivery. I would expect local authorities to take that into account in their submissions to local delivery groups, and I would also expect the views of local authorities to be taken into account by those local delivery groups when they make their nominations.

[Joan Walley]

Will the Minister tell us how the process will work? Who will submit the bid: local delivery groups, operating companies or local authorities?

[Stephen Hammond]

The local delivery group is a combination of Network Rail and the operators within the region, and it is for the local delivery group to make that submission and that nomination. The industry has been asked to complete the nomination process for extended Access for All by 15 November. The Department is receiving nominations as we speak, and the process will be open, as I say, until 15 November. Once we have received them, officials at the Department will analyse all the nominations before a final decision is taken on which stations will receive funding. I hope to be able to announce the successful bidding round, starting at the beginning of the next control period, by April next year.

After the hon. Lady’s comments tonight, I am certainly aware of the access issues at Kidsgrove station—and, indeed, at Sandbach—but I also know that there are many other stations across the network that have seen passenger numbers rising. The impressive increase in footfall at Kidsgrove, seen in the figures verified by the Office of Rail Regulation, will undoubtedly form part of the case made by the local delivery group when it makes its nomination.

I will certainly welcome a nomination from Kidsgrove. I want to put on record the fact that the Department will welcome nominations from as many stations as possible. As the hon. Lady will understand, although I would welcome her nomination, I cannot guarantee that any particular station will necessarily be funded or included in the programme once it has been nominated. What I can guarantee is that it will be considered carefully, along with the nominations of all the other inaccessible stations across the country.

Access for All is clearly an important part of the funding, but it is also important to remember that improved access could be achieved by using relatively small amounts of funding, combined with some innovative thinking by the industry. That would be particularly important if Kidsgrove’s application were to prove unsuccessful, when the hon. Lady might like to consider some of the alternatives I am about to mention. There is an annual small schemes fund of around £7 million a year. It is allocated between the train operating companies and is based on the number of stations they manage and how busy those stations are. Since 2006, more than £100 million of investment, including contributions from the train operators and local authorities, has seen projects delivered at almost 1,100 of the country’s 2,500 stations. A variety of projects have been supported under the small schemes, including better provision of accessible toilets, customer information services, blue badge parking spaces and features such as induction loops at ticket offices.

[Joan Walley]

Will the Minister acknowledge that using small scheme funding for Kidsgrove will not really work? It is at a junction and two lines come through it, and which was constructed in such a way that it has overhead cables, it greatly puts up the potential costs, probably beyond what would be admissible under the small schemes funds. It will have to come out of Access for All funding.

[Stephen Hammond]

I hear what the hon. Lady says. I looked at the diagram of Kidsgrove station so I am aware of her point. None the less, I think that there might be some possibilities under the small schemes, and I would not wish to rule them out. I hope I am outlining some other possibilities to her.

The hon. Lady will also be aware that in 2011 we released £37.5 million of Access for All mid-tier funding to help projects needing a slightly greater amount of support—up to £1 million. A total of 42 such projects have so far been successful. A number of stations considered the issue the hon. Lady mentioned about students at the local college. The lifts at Alton station, for example, which benefited Treloar college for the physically disabled, came into being through this mid-tier funding.

Access for All funding has clearly been a huge success, but I do not want to give the impression that it is all that we are doing because Access for All is over and above the work being done through major investments being delivered by train operators. They are required to invest an average of £250,000 a year under their minor works programmes on improving stations. Most of that is exclusively spent on access improvements. Each operator is also required to have a disabled people’s protection policy in place as part of their licence to operate services.

It is important to understand that Access for All is key. I will look forward to and welcome the nomination, but much else is going on. We are working with the industry to ensure that we have much wider access for—

West Coast Main Line

Joan Walley Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I have announced a pause on three franchises, and there are others that have not yet been concluded in the final bidding process. We will obviously learn lessons from the Brown inquiry and the Laidlaw inquiry, but I hope that this will not have a long-term impact that will delay any of the other franchises that are going to be negotiated.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Is not the most shocking part of this the fact that had Richard Branson not made the legal challenge, we would not even have known about this fiasco? Given the importance of the train services through Stoke-on-Trent, the lifeblood of our local economy rests on the future of the west coast main line. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will give Parliament the true costs of the fiasco, because it is likely to be far more than the £40 million he talks about? We need to ensure that those funds are safeguarded for transport.

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Lady should just wait and see, because some of the things the reviews might lead to could provide a greater return for the taxpayer in the longer term. I am not for one moment dismissing the fact that this has been very expensive and unacceptable—it is and it has been—but the most important thing is that we learn the lessons in the longer term.