Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that the amendments were tabled late—I think that is the allegation—and that the sponsors of the Bill could not respond. The amendments were placed before the Clerks in time—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. One second. Do not worry; relax. Let me have a little look at this. I assure the House that the amendments were not tabled late by the hon. Gentleman. There was a mistake in the Table Office, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what is being said. We do not need any more points of order on that as we have clarified the matter well. I am sure, Mr Blackman, that we will proceed in a courteous way.

[Bob Blackman]

Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker.

On new clause 2, the issue of securing consent for the disposal of land owned by TfL is well established in section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. It includes a statutory regime for the disposal of former operational land, including requirements for the Secretary of State’s consent. The sponsors of the Bill therefore consider that further consent would be unnecessary and undesirable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Let me help with the debate, which we want to get under way. Mr Corbyn, I want you to save your speech for when you seek to catch my eye, rather than use it now on an intervention.

[Bob Blackman]

I reject the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and the point behind it. On behalf of the—

[Bob Blackman]

I will not take any more interventions, as we have gone on long enough—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) wishes to intervene, quite rightly it is up to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) whether he gives way. He has made it clear that he does not want to give way again.

[John McDonnell]

Why is that, do you think?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I have no idea. It is not for the Chair to judge, thank goodness, and I do not need a crystal ball to work it out. The good thing is that the hon. Gentleman has at least made it clear that he does not want to take any more interventions and he wants to get his speech under way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I hope it is a point of order. I know you would not wish to waste the Chair’s time, Mr Corbyn, because I want to call you to speak.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is the sponsor of the Bill and responsible for conducting it through the House. Is it normal for the sponsor of a Bill to give way so that legitimate questions and concerns can be raised and answered?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thought my judgment was correct: that is not a point of order. You are after a point of clarification, but that is not up to me. It is up to the sponsor of the Bill whether he wishes to give way. He has been courteous and given way a couple of times. Perhaps if he is allowed to speak for a little longer, I can call the Opposition spokesman and then some Back Benchers. I would like to do that and hear what the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has to say.

[Bob Blackman]

On behalf of the sponsors of the Bill, I oppose new clauses 1 and 2 and amendments 21 to 29.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Galloway]

I can think of only one reason why they would be so opposed—public outrage would result. I am absolutely sure, in respect of the Earls Court development, to which I am about to turn, that had the public been properly informed about its development, public opposition to what in many respects is an act of vandalism would not have permitted the development—or at least the political cost would have been much higher.

On the subject of transparency, the promoter of the Bill is simply wrong. He said he was against a list because it would be too expensive, but then, in the same breath, he said that there was a list, and he prayed in aid the existence of a Greater London assembly. However, the assembly’s budget committee, no less, told the Committee—the House of Commons—that it had had to go to law, through freedom of information searches, to force Transport for London, which nominally it is supposed to supervise, to give it any information at all. So transparency is definitely not the middle name of Transport for London, and as long as that is the case, a suspicion will linger that grand theft auto is the game.

We have a right to say that if a public authority—in this case, Transport for London—is to get into bed with the private sector, the bed partners should be reputable and transparent and located here in Britain and paying tax in Britain. We know that in the case of Earls Court that is not true. Why do companies locate in the Channel Islands? Because they prefer the climate, or because they prefer the opaque nature of taxation matters there? Surely we all know, given what has happened over the past few years, exactly why these cowboy developers locate themselves as far from public scrutiny, media scrutiny and the rest as they possibly can.

I said that I would turn to Earls Court and I shall, but I notice that the brother of the Mayor has just left the Chamber. I had wanted him to be here when I said this. Forgive me, I have to say it: if public authorities and elected figures are going to play fast and loose, potentially, with large sums of public money, it is crucial that the public have trust in that institution or those public figures, but I do not believe that that trust exits when it comes to Transport for London or the current Mayor. I can speak ill of him now, but perhaps not in the new Parliament, should he be elected—no doubt you would be on your feet, Mr Deputy Speaker, and telling me to sit down. However, I do not believe that the conduct of public affairs by Boris Johnson over the past five years, or four years—of course he is going to continue breaking a promise in both offices—or the conduct of Transport for London—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is straying. I allowed him some leeway in this group of amendments, but it certainly does not cover the election of the Mayor of London, which is something we will pass over when this goes through. We need to stick to the new clauses and amendments.

[George Galloway]

I stand corrected, Mr Deputy Speaker.

That leads me to my last point. The Earls Court exhibition centre was a particular favourite of mine—I declare that interest: I have skated in it, I have shopped for my ideal home in it, I have listened to Bob Dylan in it several times. It was an act of vandalism to have it closed, but even worse was the loss of hundreds of TfL jobs—skilled jobs, real jobs, jobs that most Members have no idea how to do, jobs where men and women make things and fix things. Those jobs were cleansed out of central London. That was an absolute outrage.

Even worse than that is the fact that hundreds and hundreds of affordable homes were cleansed from Earls Court to be replaced by apartments so lavish and so expensive that even Members of Parliament could not afford to live in them, let alone the local people whose housing stock was devastated at a stroke. That was all done with virtually no public scrutiny or accountability, and certainly no offer was made to other public authorities for the use of this land, as was the case prior to legislation in the 1980s, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North said.

It really is an outrage—but it is, we fear, a sign of things to come. If this new clause is not passed and these amendments are not taken on board—no concession has been made from the other side—we fear that a sweetheart relationship between TfL and the Mayor, any Mayor, will exist to the detriment of the railway workers and of the bus workers whom I was proud to represent here in Parliament for many years as an MP sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. Local people, whose homes are razed as a result of these sweetheart deals, will be disadvantaged. What will be prejudiced most of all is the strategic need to keep London moving smoothly, economically and cheaply for the millions who depend on public transport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I absolutely agree with my friend, but time is—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Time is running out, but we are speaking to specific amendments and I do not want us to get into a general debate about the general election. We will be doing that soon enough—if we have not already been doing it for 12 months.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I conclude with this thought—

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the reasoned way in which he has made his points. The reality is, however, that there is already a clear procedure for the disposal of former operational land. There is no need to go into the kind of detail set out in new clause 2. For that reason, I oppose new clauses 1 and 2 and all the other amendments in the group.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I beg to move amendment 1, in page 1, leave out paragraph (2).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 5, at end insert

“save as provided for in subsection (3).”

Amendment 5, page 2, line 6, at end insert

“save as provided for in subsection (3).”

Amendment 6, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has arranged for, and published the report of, a review of the—

(a) potential risks to the assets of Transport for London arising from the exercise of the relevant powers to be conferred thereby, and

(b) likely effectiveness of measures put in place by Transport for London in mitigation.”

Amendment 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, after “TfL”, insert

“following consultation with the Greater London Assembly, and the publication of a report of such, and”.

Amendment 8, page 2, line 19, leave out “two” and insert “three”.

Amendment 9, page 2, line 25, leave out “two” and insert “three”.

Amendment 15, page 2, leave out clause 4.

Amendment 10, in clause 4, page 2, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) The consent of the Mayor under subsection (1) may only be granted after the Mayor has consulted, and published a report of such consultation:

(a) the Greater London Assembly

(b) the London boroughs

(c) the City of London

(d) passenger representative bodies, and

(e) relevant trades unions.”

Amendment 11, page 2, line 38, leave out “all or any” and insert “no more than 25%”.

Amendment 12, page 2, line 41, leave out

“including the creation of priority as between changes.”

Amendment 13, page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (5).

Amendment 30, page 3, line 13, leave out

“Except for the property identified in the Schedule to this Act”.

Amendment 14, page 3, line 15, at end insert—

“(6A) TfL shall not charge any property for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (2) unless—

(a) it has consulted the Greater London Assembly and published the results of that consultation, or

(b) the property falls within a category identified in the Schedule to this Act.”

Amendment 31, page 3, line 15, at end insert—

“(6A) Any consent of the Secretary of State given under subsection (6A) above shall be given in an order made by the Secretary of State.

(6B) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) an order under subsection (6B) above shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(6C) An order under subsection (6A) above shall in each case include—

(a) the land registry title number or numbers of any property or properties to be charged, and

(b) a specification of the proprietor or proprietors of the charge.

(6D) The proprietor or proprietors of the charge under subsection (6D)(b) may not be a joint venture partner of Transport for London or one of its subsidiaries.”

Amendment 33, in clause 7, page 5, line 25, at end insert—

“(5) TfL shall conduct a review, and publish a report, after 12 months of the operation of the s49 Transport for London Act 2008 powers, as amended by this section, of the use and impact of those powers in relation to investment by subsidiaries of TfL in derivatives in order to limit exposure to changes in interest rates, exchange rates, commodity prices or other matters specified in s49(3) of the 2008 Act.

(6) Each subsidiary of TfL shall publish a report each year of the use made of the powers under s49 of the Transport for London Act 2008, as amended by this section, in relation to investments made in derivatives, or equivalent instruments, in order to limit exposure to changes in interest rates, exchange rates, commodity prices or other matters specified in s49(3) of the 2008 Act.”

[John McDonnell]

May I say at this stage that I would like to press amendments 1 and 33 to a Division? Amendment 1 straightforwardly takes out paragraph (2) from the preamble of the Bill. Paragraph (2) refers to the powers set out in clause 4. I will then turn to amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and so on.

Amendment 1 is consequential to amendment 15. What they do is delete the powers of Transport for London, set out in the Bill, to borrow by giving securities in the way prescribed in clause 4. The amendments strike at one of the main objectives of the Bill. Even if we took out clause 4, and even clause 5, we would still retain clause 7, which I support. Clause 7 concerns the mitigation of risk through hedging powers to be provided to Transport for London.

I want to delete clause 4, to which amendments 1 and 15 relate, because I do not consider that it should be part of a private Bill. The purpose of the clause and the scale of the potential financial responsibility levied on London council tax payers and taxpayers militate against this being a private Bill; it should be a public Bill. Clause 4 should not stand in the Bill.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Miller]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier in the Minister’s speech, she referred to a letter that she claims to have sent to the members of the Committee. I have checked my file—everything was sent electronically—and no such letter arrived in my office. I would be grateful if a copy of the letter could be made available to Members now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has clarified what he believes to be the position. The Minister may or may not wish to comment.

[Amber Rudd]

The letter came from the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), and with that information the hon. Gentleman may be able to find it. I am happy to send him another copy.

The industry will need to show how it has complied with the charter on an annual basis, and any failure to follow through will ultimately result in a loss of membership and the benefits attached. In addition, operators will contribute a voluntary one-off payment of £20,000 for the right to use deep-level land. Each year, operators will need to publish evidence detailing how these commitments are being met. The Department of Energy and Climate Change will regularly monitor this evidence. Let me reassure the House that the proposals in the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to set up a statutory payment mechanism, if not satisfied.

On new clause 19(j) and amendments 62, 63 and 64, notice and publicity requirements relating to the planning and environmental permitting processes are already in place. We believe the system works well, but we recognise the concerns that have been raised by the new clause.

New clause 19(k) and amendment 60 are on the approval of substances to be left in the land. As part of the application for environmental permits, the EA will require full disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and has the power to restrict or prohibit the use of any substances where they would pose an environmental risk. Our regulations ensure that information on chemical substances and their maximum concentrations is included within the environmental permit, along with information on the total daily discharge of hydraulic fracturing fluid into the ground and the fluid taken off-site for disposal. The permit is placed on the public register.

I have already announced that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will direct the Environment Agency to publish information about chemicals it requires operators to disclose.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—National Infrastructure Commission—

‘(1) There shall be an independent National Infrastructure Commission.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the appointment, duties, functions and staffing of the National Infrastructure Commission.

(3) Regulations made under subsection (2) may make provision for any consequential matter that the Secretary of State considers is necessary to establish the National Infrastructure Commission.

(4) Regulations made under subsection (2) shall be made by statutory instrument.

(5) A statutory instrument under this section shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.

(6) In this section—

“National infrastructure” means infrastructure of strategic significance in or relating to the sectors including—

(a) transport covering ports, transport networks (including railways and roads) and aviation;

(b) energy;

(c) flood defences;

(d) hazardous waste;

(e) telecommunications;

(f) water; and

(g) such other sectors as are prescribed.”

New clause 12—Abolition of the Planning Inspectorate—

‘(1) The Planning Inspectorate is abolished.

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), all the functions of the Planning Inspectorate are transferred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

(3) The functions of the Planning Inspectorate in relation to Wales are transferred to Welsh Ministers.

New clause 16—Use classes and demolition: drinking establishments—

‘(1) The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (SI 1987/764) is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of section 3(6) add—

“(n) as a drinking establishment.”

(3) In the Schedule, leave out “Class A4. Drinking Establishments”.

(4) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (SI 1995/418) is amended as follows.

(5) In Part 3 of Schedule 2 under Class A: Permitted Development, leave out “A4 (drinking establishments)”.

(6) In Part 31 of Schedule 2 under A.1 add—

“(c) the building subject to demolition is classed as a drinking establishment”.”

The purpose of this New Clause is to aim to ensure that any proposed demolition of or change of use to public houses and other drinking establishments would be subject to planning permission. Currently such buildings can be demolished or have their use changed without such permission being granted.

New clause 20—Community right of appeal—

‘(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 78 (appeals to the Secretary of State against planning decisions and failure to take such decisions) after subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) Where a planning authority grants an application for planning permissions and—

(a) the authority has publicised the application as not according with the development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated; or

(b) the application is not supported by policies in an emerging development plan;

certain persons as specified in subsection (2B) below may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State, provided any one of the conditions in subsection (2C) below are met.

(2B) Persons who may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State against the approval of planning permissions in the circumstances specified in subsection (2A) above are—

(a) the ward councillors for the area who have lodged a formal objection to the planning application in writing to the planning authority, or where there is more than one councillor, all councillors by unanimity;

(b) any parish council or neighbourhood forum by two thirds majority voting, as defined in Section 61F, covering or adjoining the area of land to which the application relates is situated; or

(c) any overview and scrutiny committee by two thirds majority voting.

(2C) The conditions are:

(a) the application falls within the definition of “major development”;

(b) the application is accompanied by an environmental impact assessment;

(c) the planning officer has recommended refusal of planning permission.”

(3) Section 79 is amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (2), leave out “either” and after “planning authority”, insert “or the applicant (where different from the appellant)”;

(b) in subsection (6), after “determination”, insert “(except for appeals as defined in section 78 (2A) and where the appellant is as defined in section 79 (2B)).

(4) In this section—

“emerging” means a development plan that is being examined by the Secretary of State, or is due to be examined, having met the public consultation requirements necessary to proceed to this stage; and

“major development” means cases within categories defined in guidance produced by the Secretary of State.”

Government amendments 84, 45 and 46.

Amendment 53, page 27, line 9, in clause 28, at end insert

“provided that any designated property, rights or liabilities to be transferred pursuant to a scheme—

(a) have been classified as surplus;

(b) do not compromise land forming part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment;

(c) do not extinguish any public right of way;

(d) are subject to transparent reporting of all aspects of the transaction to the Land Registry; and

(e) shall be subject to a test of viability that is underpinned by guidance and an open book approach.”

Government amendment 85.

Amendment 52, page 34, line 2, leave out clauses 30 to 32.

Amendment 54, page 34, line 36, in clause 33, at end insert

“and shall relate to buildings or developments of any size”.

Amendment 67, page 34, line 36, in clause 33, at end insert—

“(e) carbon abatement offsite must only be considered exceptionally, where:

(i) it has been demonstrated that the carbon abatement can not reasonably be met on the development site, and

(ii) the homes on the development site achieve a high standard of energy efficiency.”

Amendment 71, page 35, line 5, in clause 33, at end insert

“and where the requirement cannot reasonably be met on the building site.”

Amendment 72, page 36, line 21, in clause 33, at end insert—

‘(7) No variation to the requirement of the building regulations in respect of a building’s contribution to or effect on emissions of carbon dioxide may be made solely by regard to the number of buildings on any particular building site.”

Government amendments 91 to 93, 95, 100, 102 and 104 to 106.

Amendment 74, page 128, line 2, in schedule 8, leave out from “sharing” to end of line 4 and insert

“do not change its appearance.”

Amendment 75, page 132, line 20, in schedule 8, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment 118, page 165, line 28, in schedule 8, leave out “or other vegetation”.

Amendment 119, page 165, line 30, in Schedule 8, leave out “or vegetation”.

Amendment 120, page 165, line 41, in schedule 8, leave out “or vegetation”.

Amendment 121, page 165, line 41, in schedule 8, leave out from “lopped” to second “to” in line 42.

Amendment 122, page 166, line 2, in schedule 8, leave out

“or cutting back of the vegetation”.

Amendment 123, page 166, line 11, in schedule 8, leave out from “lopped” to end of line 12.

Amendment 124, page 166, line 13, in schedule 8, leave out “or cuts back vegetation”.

Amendment 125, page 166, line 16, in schedule 8, leave out “or vegetation”.

Amendment 126, page 166, line 24, in schedule 8, leave out

“or cutting back of the vegetation”.

Government amendments 107 and 108.

[Stephen Williams]

The group touches on an incredibly wide range of issues, but I shall concentrate my remarks on the amendments and new clauses that have aroused significant interest across the House.

Government new clause 14 relates to the Greater London Authority’s powers to incur expenditure on transport elements of housing and regeneration projects. This matter was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), and I promised him that I would look urgently at the legislative options available to address this important issue. We have concluded that it is necessary to make a minor change to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and have therefore proposed the new clause.

The new clause removes a prohibition in section 31 of the Greater London Authority Act preventing the GLA from incurring expenditure on anything that may be done by its functional body, Transport for London, if it relates to housing and regeneration. We are making this change to the 1999 Act because the GLA has said that, because TfL’s powers are wide-ranging, they preclude the GLA from incurring expenditure on anything transport related. This includes expenditure on transport elements of projects to deliver housing, jobs and growth in London, which the GLA has been responsible for since 1 April 2012, when it took on the roles, land and contracts of the former London Development Agency and the Homes and Communities Agency in London. The new clause will apply in relation to expenditure incurred by the GLA before, as well as after, the coming into force of the new clause, because it was clearly the intention of Parliament that the GLA should have powers equivalent to those of the LDA and HCA following the Localism Act 2011. Making this change to the 1999 Act is therefore essential to ensure that the GLA can deliver new homes and jobs for London.

Government amendment 95 provides for new clause 14 to extend to England and Wales only, and Government amendment 102 provides for the amendment to the 1999 Act to come into force on the day the Act is passed. Government amendment 85 relates to clause 29 and will ensure that future purchasers of land owned by the HCA, GLA and mayoral development corporations can develop and use land without being affected by easements and other rights and restrictions. Clause 29 will bring the position of purchasers of land from the HCA, GLA and MDCs into line with those currently enjoyed by purchasers from local authorities and other public bodies involved in regeneration and development.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill because I believe infrastructure is the key to our economy and recovery. I managed to secure £123 million-worth of investment for a link to the M6 motorway in my constituency. That road has been discussed for 60 years. My constituents can now see that vital route being built, and are grateful to the Department for Transport for giving the road the green light, if hon. Members will excuse the pun.

The road has brought with it an upgrade to the port, a footprint for the third nuclear power station in Heysham, and countless contracts for business in the White Lund industrial estate, not to mention a projected rise in house prices in the area. My constituents know only too well the benefits of infrastructure to our local economy.

No area in the country should be left to stand still, and I welcome the Government’s ambitions for a northern powerhouse. My constituents welcome the Chancellor’s vision, because they believe that too many of our past Governments’ policies have benefited only the south of our country. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There seems to be some kind of noise. Is it the hon. Gentleman’s phone or is something else being picked up?

[David Morris]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I welcome the Bill’s sentiments, which allow for long-term funding for strategic road building projects. A much needed strategic link in my constituency is a transport tunnel under the bay towards the Furness peninsula. A transport tunnel on that scale is the obvious next step as an extension, or phase 2, of the M6 link project. It would not only link the M6 to the port and nuclear power stations in Heysham, but create a streamlined route for access across the bay to the nuclear installations and BAE Systems on the Cumbrian coast. I want a tunnel that would allow two-way traffic between Heysham and Barrow. Currently that journey takes approximately one hour and 30 minutes, but a tunnel would cut it to 20 or 30 minutes maximum, saving more than two thirds of the journey time and freeing up traffic on the road in a vast rural area.

The inspiration for such a tunnel is twofold. For many years various groups have discussed how to link those two strategic areas, and there have been suggestions of a cableway across the bay and a barrage bridge over the sands. Before the economic downturn in 2007, £800 million was reportedly on the table from the Bank of Scotland to construct a barrage, but due to Morecambe bay being designated a site of special scientific interest and a habitat for rare birds and wildlife, the idea never became a reality. It shows, however, that there is commercial interest in linking the two areas.

Early this year I was approached by National Grid, which as part of connecting new energy installations in Cumbria came up with the idea of a power cable under Morecambe bay. The idea is currently under consultation. National Grid believes that as the tunnel would go under the sands and would not disrupt wildlife, it will not come up against the same environmental constraints as the barrage project did. National Grid invited me to Willesden junction in London to see the power tunnel that is being built underneath us right now, and to show me the technology it used. I was fascinated by the visit, which showed me that the technology for a tunnel not only exists in this country, but that it is being utilised as we speak. We have some of the best tunnelling experts in the world, and if a power tunnel can be built under the sands there is no reason why a transport tunnel would not be a viable option.

In my constituency, funding is becoming a bottleneck. Since becoming Member of Parliament I have secured more than £700 million of investment from the Government, and the area is booming with business. Opening the area further to the Furness peninsula would greatly benefit the many manufacturing and energy companies on my side of the bay and the peninsula. On the Cumbrian coast we have BAE Systems, Sellafield, and the National Nuclear Laboratory. If workers at Heysham power station in my constituency could access those sites more easily, it would create greater scope for the sites to work together. A tunnel would create more employment opportunities in science and technology for young people in my constituency. Both areas have expertise in energy and engineering, and if they linked together it would create an Aberdeen effect for skilled workers in both areas.

Due to the M6 link, Heysham port is receiving an upgrade to enable it to process larger and bigger ships. A faster link to Furness would mean that more companies on the Isle of Man, Northern Ireland and Cumbria would be able to use the port, creating more jobs and economic benefits for the area. A link under the bay would also help the local University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust. Under the last Government the hospital faced many problems, and recent reports suggest that the biggest factor holding the trust back was the locations of the two sites. Lancaster and Barrow are not naturally linked, and it is a long and stressful journey to travel between the two. It is difficult to transport staff and patients between the two sites, and even more difficult to practise a joined-up approach. A tunnel would halve the journey between the two sites, allowing them to work more easily and closely together.

The tunnel would go not fully into Barrow but across the coast to Heysham where it would join the existing road network. Residents from both sides of the bay have contacted me in recent weeks to express their support for the scheme, and it seems to have captured public imagination. For such a project to go ahead we would need private entities to come forward and agree to proceed with it. As I said earlier, £800 million was on the table for a barrage about five years ago, and there is no reason why such a project should not attract the same investment again.

I am in talks with the local enterprise partnership in Lancashire, and hope that it will fund a feasibility study. I will meet representatives from it in the next few weeks to discuss the proposal further. The transport tunnel is a huge undertaking that will require a considerable amount of investment, but I have a can-do attitude and firmly believe that after securing funding for the M6 link project after 60 years of deliberation, no scheme is too big to be delivered. I look for guidance from my right hon. Friend the Minister as to how the tunnel could become reality and economically boost Morecambe and Lunesdale, and how this Bill can help my constituency become more of a part of the Chancellor’s northern powerhouse.

Local Bus Services

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

It is clear that the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) is an optimist, looking forward to a Labour Administration next year. I cannot say I share his optimism on that.

Opposition day debates inevitably result in Opposition parties choosing a subject for debate in which they can make what they hope will be points that resonate with their voters, and attack the Government. I have to say that if that was the aim today, it has been a pretty weak attempt. We all recognise the importance of bus services: they provide access to work, hospitals and leisure facilities; and it is important that we mention that they provide essential services in rural areas and are vital to the countryside economy.

Do we need more regulation in order to achieve a solution? Of course, the Labour solution is always to produce more regulation. I am not wholly opposed to regulation—I recognise that some is necessary, and as long as the system works and is affordable, that is fine by me—but the key to better bus services is surely co-operation between local authorities and the private sector: it is partnership working.

I query the reference that was made to the loss of 1,300 bus routes. I suspect that some routes have in fact been merged, and I can give a number of examples. One of my own local authorities, in co-operation with Stagecoach, has just gone through that process.

We have heard that Opposition Members want London-style powers to make improvements. Of course, one cannot plan bus services in Cleethorpes, Barton-on-Humber or Fleetwood in the same way as those in our big cities, most notably London. Big cities are very different from the provinces and rural areas, and need different solutions. Is it seriously suggested that bus services under the control of cash-strapped local authorities will produce stable or even lower fares, better services and newer vehicles? What we need is bus operators that are prepared to innovate with ticketing initiatives and fare schemes.

Partnerships do work. I was a North East Lincolnshire council cabinet member for a number of years, and my brief included transport. I was involved in a number of quality partnership arrangements and here, I congratulate the previous Labour Government. One of those initiatives was the Kickstart scheme, which I believe was initially developed by Stagecoach and taken on board by that Government. A Stagecoach document states that the Kickstart scheme was

“driven by the entrepreneurial expertise of bus operators, who carry the business risk and have an incentive to grow passenger volumes, rather than by local authority planners.”

The document acknowledges:

“Central and local government already play a key role in developing non-commercial, socially necessary bus services by working in partnership with bus operators and providing public support.”

In that way, improvements can be made. It goes on to describe Kickstart as a concept involving

“a contract between the bus operator and Government which commits to a specified level of service linked to an agreed public investment profile”

and the risk being

“carried by the bus operator, rather than perpetual subsidy”.

I am sure that we have all had experiences in our constituencies of battles to get a grant to keep a particular service running for two or three years, knowing that we will get the political brickbats when the grant runs out. Such services are usually unsustainable without some cost to the public purse. Schemes such as Kickstart, which put the onus on the operator, are therefore crucial. The Stagecoach document goes on to state:

“The Kickstart fund would cover the difference between the projected revenue and cost of the project. However, the risk would be borne by the bus operator, so that if passenger volumes and revenue do not rise in line with projections…the bus operator would…absorb the loss.”

That is key, particularly in these cash-strapped days.

There are risks attached to subsidy. Any form of subsidy could tempt the less-than-scrupulous operator to, shall we say, adjust the figures to show a less profitable or unprofitable situation. The operator could then go to the local authority, which would feel obliged to say, “Yes, we can’t do without that service because the village would be cut off”. The subsidy would duly arrive, and a year or two later—or perhaps just months later—the operator would come back and say, “I’m afraid we’re going to have to stop the service in the evenings and on Sundays because the subsidy just isn’t enough.” This would, in effect, be a form of blackmail for the local authority.

We are all familiar with phone-and-ride and dial-a-ride schemes. These are community initiatives that are usually set up by local authorities, sometimes in partnership with bus operators. They are an essential lifeline for members of the public, particularly those who are disabled or who have difficulty accessing essential facilities. Certainly—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s time is up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Interestingly, we seem to be hearing arguments in favour of quality contracts being imposed by central Government. I am not sure whether that is what the Opposition are after, but it seems rather odd to take away local authorities’ decision making. Buses are extraordinarily important, as everyone who has spoken today has said. The question is: what are we going to do? I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) express her admiration for TfL, but the idea that we could somehow magically roll out that model across the rest of the country seems a little ambitious to me.

As we know, people are usually disabled more by their environment than by their physical condition. We have seen in rural areas a disabling of young people who do not have much money; they are unable to go anywhere or do anything because they cannot afford to drive a car. That is why it is so important to promote the policy of making it affordable for young people to be able to take a bus, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) talked about so ably.

However, there are difficulties. How do we provide a bus service in an area where one large bus might have to travel several miles with only one passenger on board, and how do we make that affordable? That is the difference between subsidies for London buses and subsidies for rural buses. A subsidy for a London bus means that most of the time it will have a significant number of passengers, whereas the same subsidy for a rural bus means trying to make up for the fact that at times it will have no passengers on board. The situations are so different that they cannot possibly have the same solution. The further we get from a major town, the truer that becomes, and when we get to some parts of Somerset and Cornwall the whole situation has changed completely.

There are some answers: more bus shelters; bus shelters with areas for bicycles; feeder routes, with smaller buses feeding on to larger buses; and using local voluntary groups to try to fill the gap, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) explained. However, we definitely need to look at totally different solutions for rural areas, rather than thinking that we can impose a policy that works in urban areas. Part of that is obviously about devolving more decision making to local parish and borough councils. However, we cannot simply sit in this House, click our fingers and have a solution for rural bus services. It is more important to look for a solution there than to look for it anywhere else, because there are no alternatives and the distances are far larger. A person in a city can walk 2 miles for a job, but there is no way someone in the country can walk 10 miles for a job.

Another consideration for disabled people, particularly blind people, is the lack of audio-visual solutions on buses. For some extraordinary reason, every bus company quotes thousand and thousands of pounds for the cost of retrofitting a bus in that way. We know that we can get quite a simple system to make announcements of that sort. My noble Friend Baroness Kramer has set up an audio-visual competition—we will have the results soon—to come up with a solution to make it far cheaper to retrofit buses. That is something the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association supports. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will take note of the results of that competition and help us roll it out across the country.

Returning to quality bus contracts, they can pose a significant financial risk to local authorities, and it seems that nobody arguing for them today has mentioned that. It could also squeeze out small companies, and I think that it is vital that we encourage small companies to take part in this. My personal preference is for quality partnership schemes to allow for the best aspects of a quality contract without the risks and reduced competition for smaller companies. I commend many of these ideas to the House. I would like to see a cross-party investigation into how buses can be improved, rather than argue about whether to have a quality contract, a quality partnership, less regulation or more regulation. We need a solution, not an argument.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Pat Glass. It would be helpful to Front-Bench spokesmen if she could shave a minute off her time.

--- Later in debate ---

19:00

Division 74

Ayes: 208

---

Labour: 201
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 278

---

Conservative: 239
Liberal Democrat: 38

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I have received a report from the Tellers in the Aye Lobby from the earlier Division at 4.11 pm. They inform me that the number of those voting Aye was erroneously reported as 248 instead of 238. The Ayes were 238; the Noes were 287.

Cycling

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

By all means.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I help both parties for a moment? We are well behind time and a lot of people are also interested in bees. I know that it is important to get to the end of this, Minister, but I do want to come to a conclusion.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

On railway stations, will the Minister examine the question I raised about Edinburgh Waverley and perhaps come back to me on it later? I know it relates to Scotland but there is wider interest in it. It is an important point affecting passengers throughout the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Very briefly, Ian Austin.

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

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree, and I very much appreciate what the right hon. Lady said in her speech.

There are measures to deal with environmental damage. I mentioned floating slab track to deal with vibration, but there are also noise barriers disguised by foliage and tunnelling where necessary. All sorts of things can be done: they cost a bit extra, but they make the project much more acceptable. Getting the line right in the first instance is absolutely fundamental, and many of my good friends tell me that the line is not right, especially north of Birmingham, but also between London and Birmingham. All sorts of details need to be argued, which will take the Committee a long time. HS2 is a much bigger project than Crossrail, and the Crossrail Bill Committee took two years. We met every week, and there were lots and lots of petitions. There will be many more for HS2, so we are looking at a big job.

The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) mentioned speed, and recently there was talk about reducing the maximum speed from 250 mph to 183 mph—or 300 kph—and going at the speed of HS1. It was an arbitrary decision—“Oh well, let’s just reduce the speed”—which changes a lot of suggested journey times. I have spoken in the House about journey times, and criticised the project in that regard, as it seems that someone can just make a quick decision—“Oh well, we won’t go there. We’ll decide to change the speed.” There is a problem with high-speed trains, which cannot go round tight curves as they would fall off the track. Curves have to be gradual and of a large radius, which causes all sorts of problems. That does not apply to trains on standard rail, with a speed of up to 125 mph or 135 mph.

Raising the speed from 300 kph to 250 mph demands a tremendous increase in energy. Energy costs are much greater at higher speed, and extra emissions from power stations required to drive electric trains are disproportionately increased. Optimum railway speeds are much lower—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Quite a few more Members want to speak and I do not want to allow the hon. Gentleman’s speech to turn into a Second Reading speech. I would have thought that the motions are more important at this stage.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I shall conclude in a moment as I have basically made my points.

I would be happy to support all the amendments of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham were they ever put to a vote, but I hope that the Government will take them into account. I am also in favour of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, who is not her place, and all the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras. I hope that we see some common sense in the long run.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Mine is another voice from Lincolnshire, but I will give a slightly different emphasis to proceedings. Given that I am a member of the Transport Committee and chairman of the all-party group on rail and that I was a member of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill Committee, I think I have heard more than my fair share of arguments to be able to assess the merits of the proposals. I will not repeat all the arguments in favour—the Secretary of State did that admirably earlier—but I will touch on one or two that seem most relevant.

It is simply not possible to mix high-speed services with slower stopping services and freight. Too often, the demands of the freight industry are ignored in this debate. My own constituency is home to the port of Immingham, where 25% of freight moved by rail starts or ends its journey. All the projections I have seen show a steady increase in freight traffic, which is vital to the continuing economic development of the nation and to my corner of northern Lincolnshire in particular. HS2 will benefit not just London and the cities on the route; without transport connections of the highest quality, the UK as a competitive nation will fall behind our competitors and it is the UK as a whole that would suffer.

Economic success is dependent on good-quality transport connections and regional connectivity. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) spoke earlier of Edward Watkin, one of the founders of the Great Central railway. Watkin was also instrumental, as a director of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire railway, in the development of Grimsby docks, the port of Immingham and the resort of Cleethorpes. Indeed, he is commemorated, as are all the directors of the MSLR and the Great Central, by street names in the Grimsby and Cleethorpes area.

GDP statistics show that English regional cities are currently underperforming compared with those in many western European countries. That is why the good transport links provided by the high-speed network— namely HS2—and the released capacity that such a network offers are essential to encourage prosperity and investment. It is not just the towns along the route that will benefit; there is no way that the potential increased demand to provide better services to areas such as my part of northern Lincolnshire—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Just one second. There are a lot of private conversations, and I am struggling to hear. Like me, I am sure that other hon. Members in the House want to hear Martin Vickers.

[Martin Vickers]

The Prime Minister has made it clear that he wants the Humber estuary to become the renewables capital of the UK. That is the Government’s aim, but regular services not just to London but to other major cities are essential to achieving that.

During the past decade, passenger journeys have grown by 50% to almost l.5 billion a year, and that figure will be 2 billion journeys by 2020. As stated in the strategic case, once HS2 has been built, it is forecast to generate £59.8 billion in user benefits, as well as £13.3 billion in wider economic benefits. The HS2 project will create an instant market for construction and civil engineering jobs, and there will be a big opportunity in the manufacturing sector to design and build the rolling stock. Tata Steel’s Scunthorpe works is heavily dependent on the production of rail track. If the Scunthorpe plant is successful in obtaining orders for the project, the jobs of the 250 of my constituents who work there will be made that little bit more secure.

Job creation is vital, but we also need to train our young people if we are to meet the demands of the new industry. I suggest that the proposed HS2 college and training centre should be in northern Lincolnshire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

As a Yorkshire MP, I am worried about HS2, but not for the same reasons that Mr Speaker or some of my colleagues are worried. In fact, I am not worried about the actual policy. I am proud to support it: it shows vision and a clear sense of the infrastructure our country needs to compete in the 21st century.

I am not concerned that the policy will suck funding away from other transport projects—the £56 billion of investment in non-HS2 projects between now and 2021, or the £600 million going into the northern hub. I am not worried about HS2 Ltd itself; we have a crackerjack team in Sir David Higgins and the whole management. I am not at all convinced by the arguments against the rationale and the cost-benefit of HS2. The arguments for HS2 on capacity and speed are pretty compelling, as we have heard in this debate, and the value for money projection seems quite conservative. I am not concerned about Britain’s ability to deliver on this project. We have done Eurotunnel, the Olympics and HS1, and we will nail this project without a problem. The number of complaints about the project has been relatively small. There were only 22,000 responses to the consultation before Second Reading. We should take confidence from that support and from the international comparisons, such as the examples of Lille and Lyon in France, the linking of every city of more than 500,000 people in China and, lately, the performance of Eurotunnel, which this year smashed its freight and passenger targets.

My worry is that Yorkshire is not as excited about the project as it should be. This is a phenomenal opportunity for Britain and particularly for Yorkshire and the north. There has been a lacklustre response so far. Labour dominates many of the cities in Yorkshire, but in Parliament it shilly-shallies in its support. Wakefield council has rejected HS2. In a recent poll, a majority of Yorks SMEs seemed a bit lukewarm. There is not the interest, sizzle and enthusiasm that one sees when one goes to Manchester, as I did for the last Conservative conference. I encourage you to come to the next one, Mr Deputy Speaker. There has been little discussion of how Yorkshire can strategically maximise the opportunity of HS2.

The opportunity for the north and for Yorkshire comes not just from the faster speeds to London and Birmingham or from the greater capacity, but from the massive economic investment to integrate Yorkshire and the north more closely. We need to be enthusiastic because transport is vital to our region’s productivity. If one compares the productivity of Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds to geographical areas of a similar size, such as Chicago and the Ruhr valley, there are billions of pounds of difference in the output. Not only is there lower productivity, but the number of FTSE 100 companies north of Birmingham is only six. Skills are slow to get across the region from west to east and supply chains are not short enough. The keys to fixing those problems are complex, but better transport is vital.

We need to bring our northern cities closer together. Jim O’Neill and his City Growth Commission are absolutely right with the idea of “ManPool”, but perhaps we need to go further and bring all our northern cities closer together. Over the next 10 years, nearly half of global growth will come from just 400 cities. Yorkshire and the north must be in the race. We have a once in a century opportunity to get there. We have to look at how HS2 can be the backbone for that development. We need a second London. It will look different, but we need it if we are to compete in the world.

What do we need to do? Sir David Higgins and his team have clearly articulated their desire to maximise the benefits for the north. We need to work out what we want from the project. Doncaster did not lose out on the benefits of East Coast because of the line, but because of a lack of political will. Every LEP should be pushed hard for an HS2 growth plan and to show how it is working with partners across the region. We need small business groups to engage and promote the opportunity. We need to look at transport as a whole and be clear about what we want. We must do that as quickly as possible. We must look at how we will build on the northern hub, how we will integrate with East Coast and how we will improve trans-Pennine services. We need to look at how Yorkshire has reacted so far and shout much louder about the benefits, tearing up old rivalries—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I call Neil Carmichael.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker may I suggest that we drop the time limit to four minutes so as to get the Front-Bench speakers in? Then everybody will get in and nobody will be left hanging.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I think I can speak on behalf of all colleagues who have contributed this evening when I say that this has been an exceptionally good-natured debate. People have expressed a lot of different, heartfelt opinions and we have had a well-tempered and thoughtful debate. I am sure that people listening this evening will see Parliament at its best, with people really addressing the issues.

You are probably wondering, Mr Deputy Speaker—along with other colleagues—why somebody who represents a constituency pretty much as far as you can get from HS2 is speaking in this debate in support of the Bill. The great western railway was the first of all the high-speed railways, as well as one of the masterpieces Brunel left to us, and it serves us very well down to the south-west. I believe HS2 will have benefits as far away as Cornwall.

I was delighted that the Secretary of State came down to my constituency last summer, travelling on the great western railway line and the local branch lines. He listened to an ambitious presentation made by a partnership of people in Cornwall—the local enterprise partnership, Cornwall council and the rail industry—setting out an ambitious plan for investment in our rail services in Devon and Cornwall. I am pleased by the support that the Secretary of State and his team at the Department have given us over the last few months in developing those proposals. In that, we see a massive investment in our Victorian signalling infrastructure, which would enable a 30-minute service along the line, and a huge investment in our sleeper service, which is important to us in Cornwall.

Finally, with some of the changes needed at Old Oak Common, this Bill presents an opportunity for us in Cornwall, because First Great Western has its sleeper maintenance depot there and needs to move it to make way for other developments. We are keen for it to be relocated to the end of the line, down in Penzance, bringing with it some 60 high-quality engineering jobs. It is only fitting to bring those jobs to Cornwall, as it was Trevithick who invented the first steam engine in Cornwall. As Cornwall has a unique position in England and benefits enormously from EU funds, the idea would be a good deal for the British Government, because what is being proposed is using those funds to help First Great Western to relocate its depot, so I hope this evening that the Secretary of State can provide me with—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Just to help the hon. Lady, we are discussing High Speed 2. I know there must be a link to Cornwall, but I am beginning to lose it a little. If she could bring High Speed 2 in now and again, it might help the Chair a little.

[Sarah Newton]

Yes, this is really about Old Oak Common and moving the depot down to Cornwall, and I would like to finish by asking the Secretary of State to give me his assurance that he will seriously consider the final proposals that have been given to him this evening, put together by the LEP and Cornwall council, that will truly enable us in Cornwall to benefit not only from the massive railway investment that is being made by this Government but also from HS2, and to make sure every part of the nation benefits from this massively important infrastructure project.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Conversations are going on on both sides of the House. I want to hear the Minister, as I am sure do all Members’ constituents. Minister Goodwill.

[Mr Goodwill]

Later this year, we will launch an enhanced need-to-sell scheme to help owner-occupiers who need to sell their property but cannot because of HS2. I stress that there is no distance test to pass in this case. We will also launch a voluntary purchase scheme giving owner-occupiers in rural areas up to 120 metres from the line the choice to sell their property and receive its full unblighted market value. We will also consult on offering them a new choice of a cash alternative, and we will consult on new home owner payments for owner-occupiers in rural areas between 120 and 300 metres from the line to help share more of the expected economic benefits of HS2 with rural home owners, not just helping those who want to move, but also those who need to stay in their homes. We appreciate that for some no amount of money or help will be enough, and we do not pretend that these proposals will satisfy everyone, but we believe that they are fair and represent the best possible balance between properly helping people and providing value for money for the taxpayers.

I come now to some of the comments made in the debate. I thank Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition for their support. It was their idea after all. As a fellow Yorkshire MP, the shadow Secretary of State recognises the benefits to the north, and we also agree that the project should be delivered in a cost-effective way. Indeed, another Yorkshire MP, the shadow Chancellor, agrees with us that it is absolutely right—possibly for the first time. The shadow Secretary of State is correct in holding us to our word on the environmental mitigation included in the scheme. She asked me about the response to the HS2 phase 2 consultation. We will respond in the autumn and make further decisions following that.

The shadow Secretary of State also mentioned resilience in the south-west and we will certainly not ignore other parts of the country. I was recently in Dawlish and saw the work carried out there. I also drove on the A30 and A303 in the west country between Stonehenge and the Blackdowns, which is an important route, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile).

Who could not have been impressed by the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) for HS2 and for the advantages for God’s own county? He said that Yorkshire could aspire to have a second London, but I think we could do better than that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) is a stalwart campaigner on the behalf of her constituents and raises concerns about the cost of the project. She cannot have it both ways. One reason why costs have increased is the unprecedented environmental mitigation, including the more than nine of the 11 miles of the line in her constituency that is in either a tunnel or a cutting. She is perfectly entitled to her own opinion of the project, but she is not entitled to her own facts.

I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chair of the Transport Committee, for her support. I see the Select Committee as a critical friend and look forward to its future reports.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) drew attention to the struggle to build projects such as HS1, which spanned generations, and the need to reduce overcrowding by not only increasing capacity on the new north-south railway, but also freeing up capacity on existing lines for passengers and freight.

The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) welcomed the scrapping of the HS1-HS2 link, but not much else.

I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) that the excavated material from the tunnel in the Chilterns will not be disposed of in his patch.

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) outlined the advantages for Manchester and the north-west, as did the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), and drew attention to historical objectors to rail projects. I was reminded that the east coast main line would have gone through Stamford were it not for Lord Burghley’s interests in the coaching industry. Instead, the line went through a little-known place called Peterborough and look at the benefits it brought there. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said that the quicker we do this, the better, and I say “Hear, hear.”

The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) outlined the advantages to Birmingham and its airport, and I heard her concern about the properties of the National Trust, with which we are working to protect the setting of Hartwell house.

The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) described how HS2 will bridge the north-south divide, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw).

I understand the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O’Brien) about construction in his constituency. He suggested that double-decking could be a solution, but that would not only be just a stop-gap but result in years of weekend engineering closures and replacement buses on the west coast main line.

For their supportive comments, I thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Mr Binley), for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), for Redditch (Karen Lumley), for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), for Warrington South (David Mowat), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who stressed the importance of the project to Leeds.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) supports the scheme, but I understand his concerns about the Washwood Heath maintenance depot.

I agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that it is wrong to brand people with genuine concerns about the line’s impact as nimbys.

Tonight the House faces a great decision, one of national importance that will profoundly affect the way our economy develops for generations. The House must be satisfied with the need for HS2, and it must be satisfied that the appropriate measures are in place to deliver the scheme in a sustainable way, both economically and environmentally. HS2 will help drive this country forward. It will create new capacity and enable better use of existing transport corridors. It will join up our great cities and strengthen our economy. As a result, it will help open up opportunities currently held back by lack of investment. Along the way, it will be subject to careful, detailed scrutiny. Tonight’s vote is an important step in taking HS2 forward and I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support the Bill for phase 1.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

We have up to three hours in which we could debate the Third Reading of this Bill—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman. As we all know, Third Readings never drag on for that long, and I would be tempted to put the Question way before then, so he ought to get his points in and not detain the House for too long. I know that he is desperate to get on to the Second Reading of the next Bill.

[Mr Chope]

As always, you anticipate my remarks, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The whole process of private legislation should perhaps by revisited by the Procedure Committee, because this Bill shows that too often Bills are brought to this House and presented without being sufficiently thought through in advance. Great chunks of the Bill have been removed as a result of the scrutiny that this House has given to it. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that on Third Reading we do not talk about what is not in a Bill but only what is left in it. However, it is important to put it on record that all the provisions relating to pedicabs, for example, which were very controversial, have been completely removed. As I indicated in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), a Bill that originally had 39 clauses now has only 20, so it is much tighter.

There have also been a significant number of amendments. I commend my hon. Friend for the constructive way in which he has dealt with the points that have been raised. Obviously he and I have not agreed about everything, but where we have been able to agree we have amended the Bill accordingly.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Sheerman]

The Secretary of State has commented following my intervention. I have talked to people in the big cities, and many of them have not read the six critical evaluations of the impact of HS2, and they certainly have not looked at the impact of high-speed rail on the provincial cities in France. It is sucking the lifeblood out of them and into the metropolitan area around Paris. We have also not been told on what grounds the local people here, who have not been given a referendum—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should know better. This is his second or third intervention. Let us try to keep the debate calm and orderly, with short interventions.

[Mrs Gillan]

Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.

Aviation Strategy

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Thornton]

We will have to wait for the report to see the answer to that. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we will work through the Chair. Have you finished?

[Mike Thornton]

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

No problem. I call David Lammy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I do not want to scaremonger, but the hon. Gentleman is hoping to catch my eye later and we are running out of time. If we have more interventions, I will have to drop the time limit.

[Alok Sharma]

I note the point my hon. Friend is making, but the idea that we would have two hub airports operating—

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sorry but we have to introduce a time limit of four minutes—[Interruption.] Well, I do not think you have been helping with that, Mr MacNeil.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I will try to charge through what I have to say and if any political enemies or friends wish to intervene to give me another minute or two, they would be most welcome.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

You could try to intervene on yourself.

[Mr MacNeil]

I can always try, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I know the importance of aviation. I fly probably more than any other MP—at least four times a week and sometimes six times a week. At least, I did until flights in my constituency were vandalised by the local council, which axed 60% of inter-island flights between Stornoway and Benbecula and Barra and 100% of flights to the most vulnerable island community. That was all the more strange given that they were public service obligation routes. While the council can make arguments about rurality and peripherality in Edinburgh, London or Brussels, the arguments hold no weight it seems once it secured the money within its own corridors of power. Indeed, flights used by people going for cancer treatment have been described by the council leader as 10-minute tourist flights, which is very disappointing. The flight was not 10 minutes and the councillors he dragooned into voting to axe flights to these communities have not been to visit them since their election. The upshot of this transportation vandalism is that travel from one end of the Outer Hebrides to Edinburgh, London or Brussels is faster for most of the week than going to the other end of the Outer Hebrides.

Why do I mention this? The debate has concentrated on the south-east of England and Heathrow, about which there seems to be a love-hate relationship. London has tremendous connectivity, with 360 destinations—almost one for every day of the year—which I think is more than Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam enjoy, although the individual airports are better.