Flooding: Transport Disruption

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if he will update the House on the transport disruption caused by the floods.

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

In the past two months, Britain has been hit by truly exceptional weather. This has been the wettest January in more than 200 years, and the severe weather is set to continue. From extra pumps and sandbags to military support and emergency funds, the Government are committed to providing all the practical support and assistance that is needed.

Overnight a severe storm, with winds recorded at more than 100 miles per hour, added further to disruption on the transport network, with the railway network particularly badly affected and some motorways closed owing to wind speeds. Network Rail and the Highways Agency have been working through the night to address the damage caused, clearing scores of trees from blocked lines, removing debris from carriageways and tracks, and repairing overhead wires. Let me take this opportunity to thank all those people for their dedication and hard work in the most trying circumstances, and express my sympathy with all those affected by bad weather.

As a result of the repair work overnight, I can provide the following updates for those parts of the transport network affected by the storm. On the rail network, the west coast main line is open, apart from the spur from Runcorn to Liverpool, which is expected to be back in service later this morning. Most of the east coast line is open. Continued work on overhead line damage north of York is placing limits on the service, and trains are expected to run at 80 miles an hour between Newcastle and the Scottish borders until midday. The Welsh routes of Fishguard and Aberystwyth are currently closed as engineers work to clear scores of downed trees.

On the roads, with a few isolated exceptions, we have kept motorways and major A roads running through this unprecedented level of severe weather. Although the hard work of engineers has mitigated the worst effects of the storm, there is no doubt that the transport network has taken a battering over the past week. In Dawlish work continues apace to mend the route between London and the south-west. During my visit on Friday I met south-west MPs and council and business leaders to assess the impact of the severe weather on the region’s transport network and economy. That followed a briefing with local south-west MPs in the House last Wednesday. The collapsed wall has been shored up with material salvaged from the damaged section, and a temporary breakwater made of shipping containers and filled with rubble has been erected off the coast. Removal of the damaged platform continues, and work is estimated to be completed by 18 March.

At Maidenhead the water table is currently 20 metres higher than it would normally be at this time of the year. That has damaged the signalling and had a serious effect on the ability of Network Rail to run trains, with roughly one fifth of services currently running between Reading and Paddington. Network Rail is working urgently to assess the time scale and to repair the signalling. The M2 in Kent is now partially reopened in both directions, with repairs ongoing to the hole in the central reservation.

While we deal with the immediate fall-out from the weather conditions, my Department has announced measures that I believe will make a real impact on the ground. Those include £61 million funding for projects to help repair damaged roads and build greater resilience into our railway network. Yesterday the Government announced funding worth £31 million to pay for rail resilience projects, which includes money to continue the vital work at Cowley bridge in Exeter to improve resilience against flooding. In addition, a further £30 million has been found for road maintenance, including pothole repairs, for local authorities in England affected by the severe weather. That is on top of the £3.5 million from the £7 million flood recovery package announced by the Government on 17 January.

Because we recognise the importance of tourism to the south-west during half-term week, we have worked with the airline Flybe to enable it to double its daily flights between Newquay and London Gatwick. It will increase the number of flights from three to six per weekday, providing more than 4,500 additional seats each week. Flybe has also agreed to keep prices at the same level as before the weather disruption, ensuring that hard-working families are not penalised by the impact of the weather on their travel plans. On Monday this week the Prime Minister also announced a Government subsidy to allow Newquay airport to waive the £5 airport development fee usually charged to those departing from the airport. Together, that package is helping to keep the south-west open for business during these difficult times.

In addition, First Great Western, the rail operator, has put in place a special ticketing arrangement so that rail passengers affected by the flood disruption do not miss out on the cheaper advance fares while revised timetables are in place. That means that passengers will receive a 25% discount on walk-up fares for journeys that cross the Dawlish gap. First Great Western has also ordered hundreds of extra buses to provide alternative transport while the track is repaired.

Although the conditions are unprecedented, particularly because of their severity and sustained nature, it is important that we ensure that our network is resilient in the long term to such threats. The Department for Transport works very closely on resilience with other Government Departments, local authorities, other transport operators and the wider sector. Resilience to extreme weather and climate change also form part of our capital maintenance programme. The Government have asked the industry to build climate resilience into its plans for railway investment for the period between 2014 and 2019. The industry has responded by introducing more specialised equipment and trains that treat rails, and that clear ice and snow or compacted leaves.

We have embarked on one of the biggest programmes of rail modernisation ever. Over the next five years, more than £38 billion will be spent to improve and maintain our railways. Network Rail is developing strategies for securing the long-term resilience of the railways and has asked the Office of the Rail Regulator for nearly £500 million to invest in resilience projects.

On the roads, the Highways Agency has assessed the potential risks that climate change poses to the ongoing operation and improvements to the strategic road network. It has taken action to mitigate and is spending a huge amount a year on maintenance and renewal. Funding for local roads maintenance has increased by £650 million in this Parliament. That figure will increase by a further £500 million to £4.9 billion between 2015 and 2020.

As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we are in for a long haul. I will continue to keep the House updated, but I should at this stage pay tribute, as every Member of the House would like to do, to all those tens of thousands of people who are at the moment doing their upmost to provide services, sometimes in very dangerous conditions. They are trying to do their very best for the travelling public, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. Our sympathy goes out to the families and friends of the three people who have tragically lost their lives in the flooding and storms. Our thoughts are with everyone who has been affected by the flooding.

I echo the Secretary of State’s tribute to the emergency and armed services, council workers, Network Rail, the Highways Agency, the Environment Agency and power company staff who have worked round the clock in very difficult conditions to keep people safe and to restore services.

The Secretary of State mentioned the severe weather in the past week that has caused huge disruption. Rail services on Southern trains, Southeastern trains, South West Trains, First Great Western and Virgin have all been seriously affected, and there is major disruption on the motorway, with the closure of the M2 and regional disruption overnight as trees were brought down by high winds.

The Secretary of State said that First Great Western has suspended its advance ticket scheme on the Dawlish route. Passengers must now pay for expensive walk-on tickets rather than take advantage of lower advance fares. Although the 25% reduction in those walk-on fares is welcome, some passengers must still pay more than £100 to travel from Paddington to Cornwall on rail replacement buses. Does he believe that is fair?

The Tunbridge Wells to Hastings line is shut as a result of landslips and will take several weeks to repair. One route to Exeter is closed with three quarters of a mile of track under water. The Windsor branch line is blocked at Datchet. In Wales, the Cambrian coast rail line has been damaged between Barmouth and Pwllheli—it was damaged in January but will not reopen until mid-May. Network Rail estimates that the cost of repairing that damage will be up to £30 million. What talks has the Secretary of State held with train companies to support passengers who have experienced substantial financial loss as a result of the travel disruption? The damage at Dawlish and Pwllheli alone will cost Network Rail £40 million to repair and Network Rail’s initial estimate of the repair and business interruption costs from flooding over the past two months is now £118 million. How much money has he asked the Treasury for to carry out those vital repairs?

In 2012, an 11-day closure of the Great Western railway line to Exeter caused by flooding was estimated by Cornwall council to have cost the regional economy £140 million. In January last year, the Prime Minister said that

“we will do everything we can to ensure that these important services are maintained, even when they are challenged by floods”.—[Official Report, 16 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 870.]

Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that £61 million was being made available by the Department for Transport to finance the repair and rebuilding of transport infrastructure, yet it transpires that £31 million of that money was what he promised to the south-west authorities and MPs last year for resilience repairs around Exeter. Network Rail has spent £5 million on small repair schemes, but the bulk of that £26 million from the Government, promised by the Prime Minister last January, has never been received. Why not? Why did that money failed to materialise in the autumn statement? Did he just forget?

Of the Prime Minister’s £61 million announcement yesterday, it transpires that the £30 million for council road repairs was actually announced on Monday by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday was a rehash of old announcements and included not one penny of new money for the urgent rail repairs that are needed across the network? Will any additional money be made available to Network Rail for repairs to damaged transport infrastructure? Will any additional money be provided to improve transport infrastructure flood resilience?

The Government need to speak with one voice and their response needs to be speedier than it has been in the recent past. The Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change has warned that flooding is the greatest risk our country faces from climate change. The Prime Minister has said that “money is no object” and the Secretary of State has said that there is no blank cheque. Who is right? Communities and commuters face long weeks, potentially months, of transport disruption. They need leadership and clarity on what help they can expect and when. When will they get it?

[Mr McLoughlin]

In my answer, I tried to be open with the House on all the problems being faced by passengers and our constituents across the country. I do not think it helps when the Opposition try to suggest that money is not available. When I was here last Thursday, I was the one speaking up for all the passengers who were being inconvenienced by strikes that the Opposition were deliberately incredibly quiet about. I need no lectures on speaking up for passengers and the people who use our public services.

As far as money and investment is concerned, the simple fact is this: as the Prime Minister has made absolutely clear, there is no limit to the amount of money that the Government are providing for immediate flood relief. We will do everything we can to help those people who are very badly affected and will be affected for months to come. That is a commitment from the whole of the Government: the Government certainly speak with one voice on this subject.

I also point out very clearly that, between 2014 and 2019 in the next round of investment in the railways cleared by this Government, we will see record sums invested in our railways. Indeed, as part of the investment programme, a tunnel that is very important for the south-west, has just been relined. A lot of the money we are talking about—the £850 million being spent on Reading station—is all about improving resilience in the long term. A lot of the money being spent by Network Rail over the next five years—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), like a parrot, keeps saying, “It’s not new money.” The simple point is that it is new money. It is the £38 billion that we are going to invest in Network Rail over the next five years. It is important, too, and represents a record level of investment—a level of investment never reached by the previous Government when there was plenty of money available. When the buckets were overflowing, they did not invest in our infrastructure; we are investing in it, rebuilding the British railways, and the roads as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

The criteria that we apply when assessing stations for the purposes of the scheme are the footfall—if that is the right word to use—of disabled people at stations, the level of use, and the number of disabled people in the area.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

Just one in five railway stations is fully accessible to disabled passengers, but from 2014 the Minister is cutting funds for the Access for All programme from £43 million a year to £25 million. His Department has said that involving disabled organisations in decisions about which stations should have priority

“would add little value to the process”.

How can people with disabilities have any trust that the Government are on their side?

[Mr Goodwill]

We are continuing the scheme that was initiated by the last Government. By 2015, 75% of journeys will be step-free, as opposed to 50% in 2006.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McLoughlin]

Whenever I hear my hon. Friend’s voice behind me in the House, it always cheers me up. The transformation of the line into Fenchurch Street is largely the result of investment by Network Rail and the Department for Transport in both infrastructure and the rolling stock. The bids for Essex Thameside are currently being evaluated, and the Department will seek to announce a preferred bidder shortly.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

Freak weather is rapidly becoming the new norm in our country, and I understand the difficulties that the Secretary of State has in giving a time scale for the Dawlish repairs, given that further bad weather is forecast for Saturday. None the less, every week the line is closed is costing the regional economy tens of millions of pounds. Will he keep the House updated and look urgently and strategically across the whole rail network, including at Wales, the north-east and Scotland, to see how we can make it more resilient against future storms?

[Mr McLoughlin]

In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, I simply say yes. That must be the first time that anyone has been able to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I have used East Coast trains on a number of occasions and have talked to the staff operating the service. The hon. Gentleman should just wait and see which companies come forward, and he may find he gets a much enhanced service over the coming years—and I very much hope he will do so.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

May I also wish you the compliments of the season, Mr Speaker, and thank all the staff of the House for keeping us safe throughout the year?

People struggling with the Government’s cost of living crisis are carefully planning their budgets for Christmas and next year. They need and deserve to know how much their season tickets will cost from 2 January. Why is East Coast the only train company to have published its fare increases for next year?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Lady might just have welcomed the fact that for the first time in 10 years we have got rid of above-inflation rail ticket price increases. I would have thought that she might welcome that, because I am very proud that for the first time in 10 years this coalition Government have held rail fare increases down in line with the retail prices index.

[Mary Creagh]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the autumn statement but it is his decision not to remove the “flex” on fares, which means some commuter tickets could still rise by 5.1% next year. In 13 days people will buy their annual season tickets, yet they have no idea how much they will cost. That is completely unacceptable. Is not the example set by East Coast another reason that it should be kept as a public sector comparator?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The simple fact is that the reduction in rail fares announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the autumn statement has been widely welcomed by various organisations including Transport 2000, and I am very proud that we have managed to do something. The hon. Lady mentions the “flex”. We have reduced the extent to which the “flex” can be exercised, which the last Government never did.

Transport Infrastructure

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me notice and advance sight of his statement. I welcome the interim report from Sir Howard Davies. This is important work, and we will scrutinise it closely. It is vital that we take decisions about our airport capacity, including in the south-east, as it is important for Britain’s jobs, growth and competitiveness. Britain’s status as a global centre of aviation should be maintained.

It is good to see that the original Heathrow proposal for a third runway to the north of the current airport, which we were sceptical about, has been taken off the table. We also welcome the fact that this work takes into account our climate change obligations. As the commission now looks at specific proposals in more detail, we urge it to take into account the need to minimise the impact of increased capacity on local people and the environment. We are glad that the Government accepted our proposal to establish the commission, and we will look carefully at the report. The commission must be allowed to get on and complete its work on the long-term future of UK aviation.

Will the Secretary of State explain the exact status of the plans for an airport in the Thames estuary? I also want to ask him about the commission’s short-term recommendations. Will he introduce legislation in the Queen’s Speech in May to set up an independent aviation noise authority? If so, which Bill will contain the proposals? Can he say more about the optimisation strategy to improve the efficiency of UK airports in the short term? Communities that are currently affected by aviation noise want to know the Secretary of State’s position on additional night flights and on compensation for communities. Will he draw up plans to ensure that EU limits on air pollutants from existing aviation are met, as recommended by the Transport Select Committee?

On the reclassification of Network Rail, given that the Government already guarantee Network Rail’s debt, will its cost of borrowing now fall as a result of today’s announcement? Will the Government’s fiscal rules be changed to take account of the changes to debt and borrowing? Will today’s change affect the deficit? Will the Government and the Office for Budget Responsibility continue to publish borrowing and debt figures excluding these changes, as they have done with the transfer of the Royal Mail pension scheme, so that the underlying changes in borrowing and debt are transparent? Will the Government be taking any additional powers to direct Network Rail’s borrowing now that it will be on the Government’s books, or will the reclassification mean that Network Rail’s borrowing and debt have to be offset by further cuts and tax rises elsewhere? Could the change mean less money being available to invest in the railways? Can the Secretary of State guarantee that passengers will not face higher fares to pay for the debt reclassification? Does he anticipate any structural changes to Network Rail that would take the debt off balance sheet in the future?

The Secretary of State’s memorandum of understanding announced the appointment of an accounting officer to satisfy Parliament’s accounting and budgeting process. When will that person be in post? What will the audit arrangements be? When can we expect decisions from the Secretary of State on whether to appoint a special director to Network Rail, and on whether he will change the framework for Network Rail executives’ pay and bonuses? How many of them are currently paid more than the Prime Minister? Will he now personally sign off on their pay and bonuses? Can we expect greater transparency in the way in which Network rail operates? Who will be accountable for Network Rail’s performance? Will he tell us who is now responsible for safety on the railways? Is it Network Rail executives, Network Rail members, the permanent secretary or the Secretary of State himself?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I thank the hon. Lady for her—I am not quite sure how many—questions. A number were on Network Rail, on which I may respond a little later. It is always amazing to hear the way in which the hon. Lady tries to rewrite history. I notice today that she has said in a press release that it is good to see that the original Heathrow proposals for a third runway

“of which we were sceptical”

have been taken off the table. I cannot help but go back to the manifesto on which the hon. Lady fought the last general election; a manifesto written, I think, by the current Leader of the Opposition. The manifesto says:

“We support a third runway at Heathrow, subject to strict conditions on environmental impact and flight numbers”.

Something about which they are now sceptical was actually a core part of their transport manifesto at the last general election. I know that there is a rewriting of history going on but when something appears in the manifesto, it is usual to try to stick to it.

On the welcome for the setting up of Sir Howard Davies’ commission, I do not remember the calls for it initially; I think that the idea was put in place by my predecessor and was announced by me when I became Secretary of State for Transport. I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomes the report because this is a big infrastructure issue that takes time to develop. It takes time to work through all the proposals and it is right that we try, if possible, to get as much consensus as we can across parties. One of the commissioners did a report for Labour on infrastructure spending that was published not so long ago. I welcome the hon. Lady’s points on that.

On the Thames estuary proposals—the Isle of Grain— Sir Howard has said this morning in interviews and in the report that he would hope to have a view on that by the middle of next year and we will then know on which route we are going.

With the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip here, I am not at this stage able to announce what may or may not be in a future Queen’s speech. I did say that I will respond by the spring to some of the points that Sir Howard has made in the report and I shall stick by that commitment.

The hon. Lady asked me a number of questions about Network Rail. There will be more time for us to debate this issue as the change comes into operation from September 2014. But as I am here today making the statement, and as I have made a statement on the Office for National Statistics recommendations, which came through only this morning, I will be happy to deal in more detail with specific points that she raised on a number of issues.

One of the things that the Government and I are keen on is that over the next four years in the CP5 phase of Network Rail’s expenditure, it will invest £38 billion in the railways, far more than it has been investing for some years. That certainly is under no threat whatsoever. We will still see record levels of investment taking place. Some of the other questions the hon. Lady asked are on issues that the hon. Lady I am considering.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the excellent work that he did in contributing to the rail fares review. He will know that we have restricted fares to the retail prices index plus 1%, which “flex” has also reduced, so no one will pay more than 3% above RPI. He will also remember that the document suggests considering ways to provide season ticket holders with more flexible arrangements.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

The Government’s fare review took 18 months and has delivered fare rises of up to 6%. That 6% is twice the rate of inflation and is cold comfort for commuters struggling as their incomes fall in real terms. Is that really the best the Minister can do for commuters struggling with the Government’s cost of living crisis?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Lady will know that the formula for regulated fares is RPI plus 1%. Unlike her Government, we have reduced flexibility to 2%. We have made that permanent, something that the Government of the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who is shouting from the opposite Bench, did not do. She may just wish to remember this, which was in the franchise arrangement from 1 January 2011:

“the amendment to the Franchise Agreement set out in this notice of amendment shall be reversed.”

They did not scrap it; they put it in place for one year only.

[Mary Creagh]

The Department for Transport announced in September that it would cap standard return fares at £500. Given that no one will benefit from that £500 fare cap, is that not just another example of the Minister’s smoke and mirrors on fares?

[Stephen Hammond]

A number of things were announced in that review. The fare cap was a voluntary initiative put in place by the rail industry. We have not assessed, and nor has anyone else, how many passengers will benefit from that. We have also announced a reduction in the fares “basket flex”, a trial of single-leg pricing for off-peak returns, a trial of flexible ticketing, including discounted fares in quieter periods, and a new code of practice on ticketing information.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), to his new role, and I look forward to working with him. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), for her work in holding no fewer than four Transport Secretaries to account, and for her tireless work to develop Labour’s transport policy. I pay tribute, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for piloting the Bill through Committee in a co-operative manner. Following in her footsteps, I am proud to support High Speed 2, and I am proud to support getting good value for public money, too.

We support plans for a new north-south rail line, but we are clear that the Government must get a grip on the costs. High Speed 2 was the brainchild of Lord Adonis, the Labour Government’s last Transport Secretary. We understand that the railway is not needed just to tackle the rail capacity crunch that we face in the next ten years: managed properly, HS2 has the power to transform the economic geography of our country. It will build our great cities and bring them closer together. It will connect people to each other, to work and to leisure. It will help to rebalance the economy, creating and using our country’s manufacturing skills.

[Charlie Elphicke]

This is an important project requiring national consensus. It needs all parties to support HS2 if it is to go ahead—no ifs, no buts. Will the Labour party support this project properly: yes or no?

[Mary Creagh]

If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would know that I just said we will support HS2. We shall be voting in favour of it this evening.

This is the first new north-south railway for more than 100 years, but Labour's brainchild has, sadly, been neglected by the Government. Instead of gestation, we have had stagnation. The project has been put at risk by delays, project mismanagement and, in July, by a huge increase to the budget.

First, on delays, Ministers looked at strategic alternatives to High Speed 2. That took until November 2011, which wasted 18 months and led to slippage in the project timetable, with Ministers now playing catch-up. Costs in this Parliament have risen from £700 million to £900 million. The National Audit Office has warned that this tighter time scale poses risks to the project:

“Faster preparation for the bill may increase the extent of petitions to Parliament which may make it less likely that royal assent is granted by the planned date of May 2015.”

Another delay is that the consultation on phase 2 of the route has only just been launched for the Y part of the network, despite the fact that it was being worked on when we were in power three years ago. Ministers have been trundling along; it is time for more urgency.

Secondly, on project mismanagement, the Government’s early cost-benefit reports were criticised in May this year by the National Audit Office for failing to make the strategic case for the new railway. I welcome that that has now been published in full. In September, the Public Accounts Committee warned that Ministers’ plans to present the hybrid Bill to Parliament before Christmas were “ambitious” and “unrealistic”. I would be interested to hear from the Secretary of State whether that is still his plan.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the hon. Lady confirm, as he has stated in the media, that the shadow Chancellor will have the final say over whether Labour supports HS2?

[Mary Creagh]

The shadow Chancellor has never said that in the media. In fact, he has told the media that it will be a collective decision, so I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has got that from.

Finally, this summer the contingency budget ballooned to £14.4 billion, now one third of the railway’s cost. Our concern is that putting in such a large contingency at such an early stage of the project could be a self-fulfilling prophecy, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). We are living in austere times. Our constituents are facing the largest cost of living crisis for a generation. Prices have risen faster than wages for 39 of the 40 months of this Government, and working people are, on average, more than £1,500 a year worse off. In these circumstances, and given the public finances, it was right for my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor to call the Government to account for their mismanagement of the project, which has led to this ballooning of costs. That is the right thing to do, because public consent for this great project depends on people like the shadow Chancellor having the courage to stand up against sloppy, incompetent and bureaucratic government. It is we, the Opposition, who are the true friends of HS2 and this Government who have put it at risk. We will continue our scrutiny of these costs and our discipline on the public finances.

[Mr Betts]

My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the problem of delay. Certainly in Sheffield, we are particularly concerned about the delay between completing phases 1 and 2. Now that the welcome appointment of Sir David Higgins has been announced, should not one of his jobs be to consider how we can build the second phase more quickly? Perhaps we could start building in the north as we start building in the south.

[Mary Creagh]

Again, that is for Sir David Higgins to work out with Ministers, but undoubtedly that could keep costs down and allow further benefits to be realised.

[Mr Godsiff]

Is there a figure above which the Opposition Front-Bench team would not support this project, if the incompetence to which she refers is played out by the Government? Is there a figure at which the Labour party would pull out?

[Mary Creagh]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend was here when this was discussed, but we tabled an amendment on Report that was agreed by the Government and which makes it clear that any contingency spend must be reported to the House annually.

We will continue to hold up the weaknesses of the management of HS2 until every one of them has been addressed. We want to see swift progress with the hybrid Bill and we shall scrutinise the latest strategic case, published this week, to satisfy ourselves that it is based on sound assumptions. The Government must drive down those contingency costs and have a clear strategy for doing so. This fiscally disciplined scrutiny is what one would expect from any credible official Opposition seeing a Government desperately mismanaging a project. We will go ahead with the project, but the Government must bring down the costs, and the benefits to the nation must be clear. We say: get a grip on the project, get control of the budget and get it back on track.

The increase in rail usage during our time in government was a record to be proud of, but we now face serious challenges. We understand that current and future capacity constraints on the existing rail network place a brake on regional and city growth. We know that demand for rail travel continues to grow, despite the tough economic times, and our support for a north-south line rests on tackling that capacity problem and supporting 21st century transport infrastructure. This week’s strategic case shows the intense pressure our major mainline stations are under, and not just in the south. In four years, there will be 200 people for every 100 train seats arriving into Birmingham New Street at 5 o’clock. Rail freight is growing at 3% a year, and HS2 would free up space for more freight trains on the east coast, west coast and midland main lines, and take those lorries off our roads.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

As I said in my speech, if we want a serious transfer of freight on to rail, we must make it possible to transport lorries on trains, but we cannot do that on the existing network because the gauge is not big enough. We need a dedicated freight network for that to happen.

[Mary Creagh]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is proposing that we build an entirely new freight network—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

indicated assent.

[Mary Creagh]

Okay, well perhaps we will park that thought for another day, because many others want to come in. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, though, that we have to shift freight from the roads and on to the more environmentally friendly railways, and we want to ensure that this line can do that. We want HS2 to give people a real choice between short-haul aeroplanes and the more environmentally friendly trains. We want to see more inter-city services for cities that currently have a poor service to London. We want HS2 to free the west coast, east coast and midland main lines for new commuter services between the midlands and the north.

These are not just transport arguments. They are social and economic arguments about the sort of country we want to be: a country in which no town or city is left behind. We want to ensure that cities such as Wakefield, which currently enjoys a twice-hourly inter-city service to London, are not downgraded. I obviously have a particular interest in Wakefield’s twice-hourly service to London, which I am happy to declare.

The public consultation on compensation arrangements is important, and the Government need to ensure that they respond fully to specific local issues such as those raised by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), and that proper compensation is given to residents who are affected or blighted, such as those in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). We will maintain pressure on the Government to work closely with the communities affected.

We will vote today in favour of this paving Bill to allow preparatory expenditure on the scheme. We believe that how we build something is as important as what we build. This is not just a transport project; it is also a social and economic project. I am glad that the cities are already looking at how they can invest in skills so that local people can benefit from the employment opportunities that HS2 will bring. We are pleased that the Government have agreed to our amendments on vocational training audits for the scheme. That will help us to realise our Labour vision of creating 35,000 high-quality apprenticeships over the lifetime of the project, representing a step change in vocational education for this country’s young people. HS2 is not just a transport project; it is also an employment project.

We are glad that the Government have accepted our amendments on annual reports to Parliament on contingency spending to ensure that the scheme is kept on budget, and on linking the railway with active travel such as cycling and walking. Having said that, I will not make any promises about cycling the new cycle path that will run alongside the track. After cycling from London to Brighton, I think I know my limits. We will also continue to scrutinise Ministers to ensure that they work closely with UK companies to use procurement to deliver the maximum jobs, growth and skills for UK companies, small and large.

High Speed 2 is a huge project which, if managed properly, will bring great social, economic and environmental benefits to this country. The project is about how we deliver capacity for more passengers and services, and connectivity to bring cities closer together, while ensuring that the trains run on time. We will serve our great cities by having HS2 come in with a budget that is under control and with benefits that are clear for all to see. The Secretary of State should do his job and I will do mine, and my job is to ensure that he does his job properly.

High Speed 2 is a project that is in the national interest. It has suffered from the fiscal and project management incompetence of this Government, and I hope that this Secretary of State will get it back on track. Britain deserves better than this. It will fall to the next Labour Government, a one-nation Government, to build HS2—on time, on budget and in the national interest.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point, but vehicle recognition technology is now moving forward. I have recently been in police vehicles where we have been able to pick up where other vehicles have not had MOTs and insurance, and I am asking the Association of Chief Police Officers lead on this, whom I met yesterday, to clamp down as hard as possible.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

Brake, the road safety charity, has said that cutting Government funding for speed cameras will lead to blood on our roads. Why is the Minister cutting the funding for them, given that they would raise revenue during the forthcoming age of austerity, and how is Wakefield council supposed to put new ones in when it has just had a £1 million cut to its road safety grant?

[Mike Penning]

Local authorities have the powers to spend the money as they wish, and if they wish to spend it on more speed cameras that is entirely within their remit. There are other ways in which lives can be saved. I have looked at what Brake says, but I disagree. Such cameras should not be a cash cow. This should not be determined by issues to do with raising tax. It should be about safety; that is the important thing.