Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on the adequacy of funding for local authorities during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay) [V]]

We have announced £3.2 billion of new funding for councils, alongside the £3.4 billion of further support with cash flow. I am in regular contact with Ministers in the relevant Department on further support.

[Dehenna Davison [V]]

I welcome the Treasury’s unprecedented package of support, including the provision of grants, which are benefiting many of the smallest businesses right across Bishop Auckland, but many small businesses in my constituency and others do not pay business rates because they are in shared spaces. What steps is the Treasury taking to make these grants more readily available?

[Steve Barclay]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is why we have allocated a further £617 million of support to local authorities for discretionary payments for cases such as the one that she highlights. Local authorities are free to focus those payments in line with local need.

[Mark Pawsey [V]]

District councils are the level of local government closest to residents, and I know that they very much appreciated the support that the Government have provided, but responding to the virus has incurred both additional expenditure and a loss of revenue—they have had less income from things such as car parking and leisure services. How can the Minister ensure that district councils are able not only to meet their short-term demands, but to ensure a long-term, sustainable future?

[Steve Barclay]

My hon. Friend is right to point to the particular pressures on lower-tier councils, which is why councils such as Rugby have benefited from more than £1 million of additional funding. Seventy per cent of district councils have received more than £1 million, which is why the profile for the second allocation of £1.6 billion was changed to recognise the points that he highlights.

[Alun Cairns [V]]

I pay tribute to the Chancellor and to the Chief Secretary for their approach. They will appreciate that the sums involved are staggering, but obviously necessary at this time. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that this is an occasion where we appreciate the strength of the Union—the financial muscle to protect economies and communities in all parts of the UK? Has the Chancellor calculated whether individual nations could have acted independently and, if so, what impact has the collapse in the recent oil price had on that assessment?

[Steve Barclay]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why £7 billion has been allocated through the Barnett consequentials, including £2.1 billion of additional funding to the Welsh Government. That, of course, sits alongside the UK-wide measures, such as the furlough scheme or the self-employed income support scheme that the Chancellor has announced.

[Karin Smyth [V]]

In Bristol, that current funding gap is £82.4 million as a result of the current crisis. Will the Treasury consider allowing local authorities to retain all surpluses against the business support grants so that they can be reinvested into local short-term interventions to get us through this crisis?

[Steve Barclay]

What we have seen through this crisis is an unprecedented level of support, including the £3.2 billion that has been announced and the further £600 million of support specifically targeted at the care home sector. That sits alongside earlier funding, including the estimated 4.3% real-terms increase that councils received this year.

[Navendu Mishra [V]]

Although the Government’s announcement of additional funding for local authorities in England is welcome, care staff, refuse collectors and social workers need to know that their work will continue to be funded once the current lockdown is over. My local council, Stockport, is facing a staggering shortfall of £25 million, with the cost of the coronavirus response standing at £41 million. Will the Minister offer those workers that assurance?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of that sector. It is why the initial £1.6 billion funding announced in March was not ring-fenced. It sits alongside the £600 million announced last week. In addition, there is money to help with cash flow, including the £850 million targeted at adult social care, which was paid in one go in April.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

What fiscal steps he is taking to improve local transport infrastructure.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay) [V]]

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) has, I know, been working hard to highlight the important pedestrian crossing issues in his constituency, and I am committed to working with him on that. He can benefit from the significant funding for cycling and walking included in the £2 billion announced recently.

[Robbie Moore]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response, and I am pleased to hear that he will work with me in delivering a pedestrian bridge. May I seek further reassurance that he will meet me and the transport team, so that we can deliver this vital piece of local infrastructure, which will connect Silsden and Steeton in my constituency?

[Steve Barclay]

I am happy to continue to liaise with my hon. Friend on this important issue. He will know that, in addition to the £2 billion for walking and cycling, we also announced at the Budget £4.2 billion for long-term local transport. His authority, West Yorkshire Combined Authority, will be able to benefit from that.

[Gareth Davies]

I thank the Treasury team for their leadership throughout this crisis. As they look at ways to stimulate our economy, will they consider issuing a UK green gilt as a specific way to fund local transport infrastructure and to affirm this Government’s commitment to climate change?

[Steve Barclay]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Although at present we have no plans to do as he suggests, he will be well aware, from the green finance strategy, that the Government remain open to the introduction of new debt instruments, and I am happy to continue to discuss the issue with him.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

If he will take steps through the Government’s Business Rates Review to tackle exploitation of business rates relief.

Income tax (charge)

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Member has very much made his point, and I suspect that our Ministers and the Secretary of State have listened to what he said, and I suspect that there will be complete clarity from the Government, as I would expect nothing else.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)]

My hon. Friend knows me well.

[Neil Parish]

And, of course, I know the Chief Secretary very well.

I am encouraged by the tireless efforts of NHS staff, and I very much pay tribute to what the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) said: we need to thank medical staff throughout the NHS for all the excellent work that they are doing to tackle coronavirus because it is unprecedented, though we can make all sorts of predictions. We need to be out there and sort it out. That is why the Government have introduced clear measures that will help.

We are going to come under greater pressure over the coming weeks and months, so I welcome the £5 billion emergency response outlined in the Budget. The funding will ensure that the NHS will receive the support that it needs. Even with that large sum of money, we will probably need to keep it under review. I welcome, too, the Government’s commitment to support local councils—the £500 million hardship fund will help local authorities to protect the most vulnerable members of our community. The Government, however, must ensure that that funding is readily available and distributed quickly. We must cut bureaucracy to ensure that individuals and businesses get the support that they need. Very often, we are laudable in this place—Governments of all colours always want to take action—but we must make sure that we take action quickly.

Many local businesses have contacted me rightly to express concern about how covid-19 will affect them. Government measures to suspend business rates and refund sick-pay payments for smaller firms are welcome, but the Government need to be ready to provide more emergency payments to support those businesses. My fear, especially for smaller and, indeed, all types of businesses, is that if they cannot pay their bills the knock-on effect on all other businesses and employees will be huge. This is unprecedented, and we need to take action.

The scientific knowledge and understanding of the virus are constantly changing. We need to ensure that the Government have the flexibility to adapt as the situation unfolds. Across Devon, we have seen an outpouring of offers of support for all those affected. I wish all charities and organisations well across the country, especially in my constituency, so that they come together and keep communities together, because we will very much need to do so through this very, very challenging time. As many Members have said in the House, it is probably the most challenging time that anyone has experienced in living memory, especially because the virus has the potential to lay the whole economy low.

In the Budget, we predicted that the economy would grow by 1.1% this year. It will be interesting to see the effect of coronavirus on that. I would say to the Opposition, who will naturally pour a little doubt on the economy, that in both the coalition and Conservative Governments we have turned the country round with the hard work of the British people. We have turned the economy round, so that we can go forward and spend this money on infrastructure in particular. At the moment, interest rates are low, and we have the ability, according to the Chancellor, to take up loans over 15 years, so we can set reasonably low interest rates for them, all being well, over that period. We need to upgrade our rail and road infrastructure, and deliver broadband across the country, and now is the time to do it. I have said in three or four elections that I am going to deliver broadband to the whole constituency, but I think my constituents are still waiting. I do not want to have to go to them in another election and say about the promise of broadband, “It’s coming—it’s still definitely coming!” Seriously, we have to make sure that we deliver that, as the issue has a huge effect on our economy and businesses as well as on our ability to deliver good business opportunities in the countryside. With the right broadband infrastructure and a very good broadband connection, many businesses can be run anywhere in the countryside.

Naturally, I am delighted that the Chancellor maintained the availability of red diesel for farmers in particular, but also for commercial ferries and fishing boats. It is absolutely vital that we maintain that at this particular moment. Agriculture has seen one of the wettest, if not the wettest, winter of all time, and there are huge challenges. That brings me neatly to the doubling of the money for flood defences to £5.2 billion over the next five years. We have to work out what we are going to do about flood protection. The Environment Agency needs to be absolutely clear about what it is and is not going to defend. We may have long periods of dry weather, but when we have rain it comes quickly and we get a lot of flooding. I look forward to putting the money to good use, but we must be clear about where we are going to spend it.

I am happy to see that £2.5 billion will be made available to fix potholes. Perhaps not at the moment, given the coronavirus, but in normal times, believe it or not, one gets as many letters about potholes as anything else. There are as many roads in Devon as in the whole of Belgium, so imagine the number of potholes. One or two constituents have lost wheels and various other parts of their cars going over them, so it becomes a major issue.

I was very keen to see the money for the A303 and the tunnel under Stonehenge. If my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) were here, he would be delighted. Edward du Cann talked about the A303 in 1958, and it has still not been dualled. We now have the opportunity to build the tunnel and the rest of the dualling from Andover right the way down to Ilminster. I would then like the last piece from Ilminster to Honiton to be done, but I will wait for that to happen. We must get the diggers actually digging the road and delivering. It is important that not only do we put these roads and rail in our Budgets but that we actually deliver them. That is what people want.

I welcome the £1.5 billion in capital spending on further education colleges. There are FE colleges in Axminster, Honiton, Cullompton and Tiverton, and they provide a very good education, including for those who left school young and perhaps did not know exactly what they wanted to do with their lives. They go to further education colleges later in life and do good things for themselves, their families and the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)]

I thank the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for his warm welcome to me in my new role. I join him in paying tribute to the number of excellent maiden speeches that we have heard today. The first was by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). It was fitting that he paid tribute to his predecessor David Gauke, who was not only respected across the House but very much liked and respected within the Treasury as an institution.

In an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy) spoke about his personal experience of working for two decades in our NHS. He must be particularly proud of everything that the NHS is now doing as we face the challenges ahead.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) gave a strong speech about the need for bold action on covid-19. I assure him that the Chancellor will be true to his word when he says that we will do everything needed in response to the situation. The hon. Gentleman’s speech shows that he will be a valuable colleague representing Liverpool, together with his Front-Bench colleagues.

In a first-class speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) said that this great House exists exactly for times like these. I could not agree with him more. He will be a fantastic addition to the House, and in particular his experience from his time in the Foreign Office will be valuable in the weeks and months ahead.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) pointed out that she is the first woman to represent her constituency, just as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were the first woman to chair a Budget. My hon. Friend invited my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to join in with the Shrovetide football next year. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has quite a lot on, but knowing my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) as I do, I am sure that there will be colleagues in the House keen to partake of any football with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales.

The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) gave an excellent speech about her commitment to her constituency and highlighted issues such as housing, railway electrification, bus routes and the climate emergency. It is clear from the range of contributions from new Members that they will all contribute considerably to the House in the weeks and months ahead.

It is no surprise to me, in closing the debate on the Budget, that many of the contributions from Members from all parties have focused less on the text from last week and more on the national challenge of our economic response to coronavirus. Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), struck a constructive tone in their opening remarks, recognising their collaboration in meeting the challenge. Many other Secretaries of State have been similarly collaborating with their counterparts. On behalf of the Government, I should say that their approach has been much appreciated.

I very much agree with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that our focus today is, as he said, primarily on the challenge, nationally and internationally, of fighting the virus. He was also right to recognise that it is no fault of the Chancellor that much has happened since last week and that since the Budget we have needed to move further. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will update the House shortly and will respond to the legitimate point that the hon. Gentleman raised in his opening remarks.

At the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that he would do

“everything we can to keep this country, and our people, healthy and financially secure.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 278.]

At that time, less than a week ago, that involved a £12 billion temporary and targeted set of measures to respond to coronavirus, supporting public services, individuals and businesses. My right hon. Friend will shortly update the House on the further measures required to provide a comprehensive, co-ordinated and coherent response to the serious and evolving situation that we face.

As my right hon. Friend has said, we will do whatever it takes to give the British people the tools to get through this challenge. I can also announce that the Government are postponing the reforms to the off-payroll working rules IR35 from April 2020 to 6 April 2021. The Government will therefore not move the original resolution tonight, but will shortly table an additional resolution confirming that we will reintroduce the off-payroll working rules provisions by amending the Bill, with a commencement date of the 6 April 2021. This is a deferral in response to the ongoing spread of covid-19 to help businesses and individuals. This is a deferral, not a cancellation, and the Government remain committed to reintroducing this policy to ensure that people who are working like employees, but through their own limited company, pay broadly the same tax as those employed directly.

Let me turn in the remaining time to a number of key measures within the Budget, which, for understandable reasons, have perhaps received less focus in the course of the debate in light of recent events. [Interruption.] In particular, infrastructure links people to jobs, delivers products to markets and underpins supply chains and, indeed, supports domestic and international trade. Better roads, better rail and better internet connections enable businesses and individuals to work more quickly, cheaply and efficiently. While more quality infrastructure boosts social well-being, it means less time stuck on motorways—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The House is too noisy. As I said with regard to Mr Dowd, the House must listen to the Minister.

[Steve Barclay]

Infrastructure is an issue that concerns all Members of the House. We are committed in this Budget to boosting productivity and to levelling up opportunity across all regions within our United Kingdom. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out half a trillion pounds of investment in our public sector, and the Government will bring those plans together in the forthcoming national infrastructure strategy. We already know a lot of the details. For example, there is the commitment to the Northern Powerhouse Rail to enable faster more frequent services between northern cities. In February, the Prime Minister announced that we will proceed with High Speed 2, and last Wednesday, the Chancellor confirmed a £27 billion investment in strategic roads and motorways, the UK’s biggest ever outlay.

At the same time, we are investing £5 billion to support the roll-out of gigabit-capable broadband, starting with rural communities that have felt excluded up to now, binding all parts of the country closer together in the virtual realm and connecting global Britain to the global marketplace.

Alongside the big ticket eye-catching projects, the Budget also focused on meeting the most pressing local needs, whether that is the £2.5 billion for potholes, the £1.2 billion to support local transport infrastructures or, indeed, the funding for bus routes, trunk roads, cycle paths, trams, and park-and-ride schemes that all have the potential to make a transformative difference at a local level. Together it represents an infrastructure transformation that brings faster speeds and greater capacity and that would breathe new life into communities across our United Kingdom.

This transformation is not only about making every town and city more productive, but about recognising their uniqueness of character. Each place in this country has its own quirks and curiosities, traditions and traits that people depend on and draw strength from. Levelling up is about respecting and retaining those brilliant characteristics and making sure that each town keeps hold of its civic soul, while helping every region and nation of the United Kingdom make of its best. The Government know that civic pride and regional identity matter, and we want to bring about a strong and vibrant connected community where people choose to live and work. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in the Budget the largest affordable homes programme in a decade, with £12 billion in additional funding to support home ownership. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has already laid out our proposals to bring Britain’s planning system into the 21st century.

Although this is the end of the Budget debate from last week, many of the speeches have looked forward to the challenges ahead posed by covid-19 and its impact on our health, our businesses and our resolve. Much has changed over the past week and people are worried and their livelihoods are at risk. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will update the House shortly on the further measures that we intend to take. I commend this Budget to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That income tax is charged for the tax year 2020-21.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions made in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Standing Order No. 51(3))

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I must inform the House that for the purposes of Standing Order 83U and on the basis of material put before him, Mr Speaker has certified that in his opinion motion No. 2 on income tax main rates relates to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and is within devolved legislative competence. If the House should decide to divide on this motion, it will be subject to double majority voting.



2. Income tax (main rates)

Resolved,

That for the tax year 2020-21 the main rates of income tax are as follows—

(a) the basic rate is 20%,

(b) the higher rate is 40%, and

(c) the additional rate is 45%.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

3. Income tax (default and savings rates)

Resolved,

That—

(1) For the tax year 2020-21 the default rates of income tax are as follows—

(a) the default basic rate is 20%,

(b) the default higher rate is 40%, and

(c) the default additional rate is 45%.

(2) For the tax year 2020-21 the savings rates of income tax are as follows—

(a) the savings basic rate is 20%,

(b) the savings higher rate is 40%, and

(c) the savings additional rate is 45%.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

4. Income tax (starting rate limit for savings)

Resolved,

That section 21 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (indexation) does not apply in relation to the starting rate limit for savings for the tax year 2020-21 (so that the starting rate limit for savings remains at £5,000 for that tax year).

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

5. Main rate of corporation tax for financial year 2020

Resolved,

That—

(1) For the financial year 2020 the main rate of corporation tax is 19%.

(2) Accordingly, omit section 7(2) of the Finance (No.2) Act 2015 (which is superseded by the provision made by paragraph (1) of this Resolution).

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

6. Corporation tax (charge and main rate for financial year 2021)

Resolved,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made—

(a) for corporation tax to be charged for the financial year 2021, and

(b) for the main rate of corporation tax for that year to be 19%.

8. Taxable benefits (appropriate percentage for a car: tax year 2020-21 onwards)

Resolved,

That—

(1) Chapter 6 of Part 3 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (taxable benefits: cars etc) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 136 (car with a CO2 emissions figure: post- September 1999 registration)—

(a) in subsection (2A)—

(i) after “figure” insert “in a case where the car is first registered before 6 April 2020”,

(ii) for “light-duty” substitute “light”, and

(iii) for “an EC certificate of conformity” substitute “the EC certificate of conformity or UK approval certificate”, and

(b) after subsection (2A) insert—

“(2B) For the purpose of determining the car’s CO2 emissions figure in a case where the car is first registered on or after 6 April 2020, ignore any values specified in the EC certificate of conformity or UK approval certificate that are not WLTP (worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedures) values.”

(3) In section 137 (car with a CO2 emissions figure: bi-fuel cars)—

(a) in subsection (2A)—

(i) after “figure” insert “in a case where the car is first registered before 6 April 2020”,

(ii) for “light-duty” substitute “light”, and

(iii) for “an EC certificate of conformity” substitute “the EC certificate of conformity or UK approval certificate”, and

(b) after subsection (2A) insert—

“(2B) For the purpose of determining the car’s CO2 emissions figure in a case where the car is first registered on or after 6 April 2020, ignore any values specified in the EC certificate of conformity or UK approval certificate that are not WLTP (worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedures) values.”

(4) In section 139 (car with a CO2 emissions figure)—

(a) for subsection (2) substitute—

“(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) and the table—

(a) if a CO2 emissions figure is not a whole number, round it down to the nearest whole number, and

(b) if an electric range figure is not a whole number, round it up to the nearest whole number.”, and

(b) after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) For the purpose of determining the electric range figure for a car first registered before 6 April 2020, ignore any WLTP (worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedures) values specified in an EC certificate of conformity, an EC type approval certificate or a UK approval certificate.

(5B) For the purpose of determining the electric range figure for a car first registered on or after 6 April 2020, ignore any values specified in an EC certificate of conformity, an EC type approval certificate or a UK approval certificate that are not WLTP (worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedures) values.”

(5) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect for the tax year 2020-21 and subsequent tax years.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

9. Taxable benefits (appropriate percentage for a car: tax year 2020-21 only)

Resolved,

That—

(1) For the tax year 2020-21, Chapter 6 of Part 3 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (taxable benefits: cars etc) has effect with the following modifications.

(2) In section 139 (car with a CO2 emissions figure: the appropriate percentage)—

(a) in the table in subsection (1), in the second column of the entry for a car with a CO2 emissions figure of 0, for “2%” substitute “0%”, and (b) in subsection (7) before paragraph (a) insert—

“(za) section 139A (recently registered cars),”.

(3) After section 139 insert—

“139A Section 139: recently registered car with CO2 emissions figure

In its application in relation to a car that is first registered on or after 6 April 2020, section 139 has effect as if—

for the table in subsection (1) there were substituted—

A47

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) has often been likened to Cinderella during his 17 distinguished years in the House, but I hope that in the autumn statement he will finally get to go to the ball, because he has campaigned on this issue throughout those 17 years. He is absolutely right to say that the matter has been dealt with on a piecemeal, patch-and-mend basis. As a result, issues have been stored up—nowhere more so than in Fenland, which I have the privilege to represent.

I am sure it will surprise the House to learn that in the whole of Fenland fewer than two miles are dualled, yet Fenland is one of the country’s leading areas for the haulage business, which is linked to the food production of the fens. Haulage is a significant player within the Fenland economy, and yet the transport infrastructure does not reflect that.

Adjacent to Fenland, Peterborough is one of our fastest growing cities. If one looks at the core strategy for Fenland, one sees that significant housing is planned for the area. At a time when some other parts of the country are resistant to delivering on the Government’s housing intentions, this is an area that can unlock the housing required, if the Government meet us halfway in delivering the necessary transport infrastructure.

On the holistic view across Government, another area where potential benefits can be leveraged from the A47—benefits often not captured in the Treasury rules currently measuring the scheme—is around the College of West Anglia, which has seen significant investment: a £5 million new teaching facility and a £7.5 million engineering faculty have recently been built. If we are to attract businesses to the area, we should take into account that they do not look only on a linear east-west or west-east route; they look on a north-south axis as well. Frustration is felt in areas such as north Cambridgeshire, although the Government have made real progress with the Cambridge city deal and new transport improvements. For example, Cambridge airport has this week launched two new services to Dublin and Amsterdam.

Such services are attractive to businesses considering north Cambridgeshire as an area, but they will be restricted if other parts of the transport network do not connect. That aspect is not always captured in the feasibility and benefits assessments under Treasury rules. For international businesses in the global race that are considering the Cambridgeshire fens as an attractive place to do business, the east-west transport nexus combines with the north-south improvements to deliver a much greater bang for the buck. As the Minister will know, the A47 scheme also connects with Wisbech rail, which I am sure he has had an opportunity to look at in recent weeks in relation to the discussions with the local enterprise partnership in terms of leveraging that.

My second point concerns the lack of alternatives to the A47. Last year, the four-mile stretch between Wisbech and Guyhirn was subject to routine road maintenance, and the highways authority diversion was 52 miles. That was the Highways Agency’s official diversion. There was a considerable cost to business and motorists and also a safety issue; it took the heavy haulage traffic off the route, which is a route of European significance, and on to minor roads where motorists are not familiar with such traffic.

So the road has strategic significance to the region. The economic benefits that we can leverage are not only from the route itself; they combine with the city deal in Cambridge and the innovation in the south of the county, and with the significant growth potential of areas such as Peterborough. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) fully supports my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland. He would be here, but he has an important constituency engagement.

I will not delay the House with the specific issues within Fenland where action is particularly required. Those points have been made to the Minister through the A47 Alliance. He will be familiar with the Broad End junction, the demand forecasts of around 34%, the significant congestion from Wisbech to Guyhirn, and some of the localised challenges.

I want to close with an issue that has not been raised and is unusual for a road scheme. I am talking about the significant benefits that an upgrade to the A47 would offer bus users. The X1 runs along the route of the A47; it is unusual because it runs for more than four hours along the whole route. I have spoken to the bus company, and one of the things that has to be factored in is the significant delays in the timetable, because of the unpredictability of the transport on that route. If someone is setting a timetable, they need to build in capacity for delays on the route.

The scheme does not benefit only the life sciences businesses to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) alluded. It does not connect only with airports such as Norwich, which the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) mentioned and which I highlighted in relation to Cambridge international airport. It also has a benefit to bus users in an area where public transport is particularly poor.

[Mr Bacon]

I am very interested to hear my hon. Friend make that point, because David Lawrence, the principal of Easton and Otley college—an agricultural training college in the west of my constituency—has told me that he has to arrange transport for his students, and pay for it from his college budget, to get people from as far west as the Norfolk-Cambridgeshire border. People not familiar with the area may not understand the distances that people have routinely to travel to engage in activity of any kind.

[Stephen Barclay]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has highlighted one final point that I want to make. He and I have sat through many Public Accounts Committee hearings in which transport schemes have been put forward that overestimated the benefits and underestimated the costs. We have a paradox here. We have a region that will deliver greater benefits than have traditionally been forecast, and the potential of the scheme has been undervalued throughout the 17 years that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Broadland has been in this place. In today’s debate we have heard about the significant economic opportunities that the scheme offers and about the wider benefits: it links to airports and there are benefits for bus users and for road safety—an issue that has touched far too many families across our region and on which action is timely.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) on securing this important debate on the strategic importance of the A47. I know the subject is of great importance to him and a number of other hon. Friends, and I am aware that he has long campaigned for improvements to the route.

The A47 is an important trunk road that connects Norfolk with the midlands, and improving it has been considered by successive Governments. I recognise the strategic importance of the corridor and therefore of finding solutions to its problems. I plan to visit that stretch of road next month, although I am no stranger to it, having returned from my visit to the Norwich North by-election not so long ago, where my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) had such a glorious victory. Indeed, I know the area well, having spent a season driving a combine harvester during my student days.

In terms of this Government’s commitment to infrastructure investment, we have already announced increased levels of Government funding to deliver improvements all around the strategic road network, targeted at supporting economic growth. Our commitment to deliver a step change in future investment in transport infrastructure was made clear by the Chancellor in his statement of 26 June last year, in which he announced the conclusions of the Government’s 2013 spending review. The Treasury’s Command Paper “Investing in Britain’s Future” set out that the Government would invest more than £28 billion in enhancements to and maintenance of both national and local roads. That includes £10.7 billion for major national road projects and £4.9 billion for local major projects. More than £12 billion has been allocated for maintenance, with nearly £6 billion for repairs to local roads and £6 billion for the maintenance of strategic roads, including resurfacing 80% of that network.

I will now comment on points that have been made during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland talked about a competition. I should like to make it clear that this is not a competition in which there can only be one winner. I hazard to suggest that there will be a degree of success in all six areas that we have identified. His campaign—he talks about hunting as a pack with his colleagues from that part of the world—has certainly highlighted the importance to the whole region of improving the A47. I pay tribute to the A47 Alliance for its work in that regard.

My hon. Friend asked about the timetable for announcements and mentioned the autumn statement. I suggest that he makes sure he gets a place for the autumn statement, to hear what the Chancellor says. As my hon. Friend said, we will complete stage 2 by the end of July, and we will be ready to make announcements by the time of the autumn statement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) brought a coalition aspect to the debate, and he mentioned the importance of the A11 junction at the Thickthorn roundabout, the B1108 traffic signals and how the potential of the Norwich research park may be unlocked. He, like all Members, stressed the importance of looking at the whole route. It is good to see that hon. Members are not only campaigning for their bit of the route but understand the holistic approach that is needed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) talked about the A12 south from Great Yarmouth. He talked about how roads can rebalance the economy and how that could unlock the potential of Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) talked about safety issues. He drew my attention to the tragic accident in East Winch and how, in many places, the road cuts villages in half, which can make it difficult for people to access village halls or schools on the other side of the road.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) described himself as a young whippersnapper, and I suggest that we all feel like young whippersnappers in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk talked about the importance of science and innovation to the economy of East Anglia and how investment could fan the white heat of technology, to use Harold Wilson’s words. He also mentioned the importance of food, biotech and engineering to the area. We are considering the Dereham to Swaffham section, which I make clear is not omitted from the study.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North talked about the NDR and the importance of Norwich airport. As the Minister with responsibility for aviation, I understand the importance of our regional international airports. I know her constituency well for that reason. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) mentioned that Norfolk is now a serious high-tech county in many sectors, and he name-checked several successful businesses in his area.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) mentioned the importance of the road haulage industry. One of the problems on the single carriageway sections of the A47 is that there is a 20 mph difference between the 40 mph national speed limit for trucks and the 60 mph national speed limit for cars, which in some cases can lead to reckless overtaking manoeuvres by car drivers due to the frustration of following slow trucks.

[Stephen Barclay]

I endorse the Minister’s point, which is that the difference in speed limits often causes accidents and road safety issues, as well as having a significant economic cost. For transparency, I draw the attention of Members to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as there was a donation to my association in 2010. Due to both road safety and economic impact concerns, there is considerable desire in my constituency, and I am sure in others, to consider increasing the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles to ease the discrepancy.

[Mr Goodwill]

The Government are considering that measure. The Scottish Government are considering a trial on the A9 north of Perth, where there are particular problems, with a view to increasing the speed limit for trucks to improve safety on the road.

I know my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) would have liked to contribute to the debate, but his ministerial duties precluded him from doing so. I am sure he would have mentioned the importance of the Acle straight and Great Yarmouth to the energy industry.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) talked about the stop-start investment in roads. I am proud that we are tripling investment in roads, and we must not forget that when the Blair Government came into power they announced a moratorium on new road building, even though they had the money to build roads. Later in that disastrous period of government, they had to cut road building because they ran out of money. When we took over, we had to make some tough decisions because of the dire financial position that we inherited. Fortunately, things are looking a lot better, which is why we are able to invest in infrastructure generally, not only in roads but in the conventional rail network and our new high-speed rail network.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the GoCo through which we will deliver many of the infrastructure projects. That is part of our long-term plan to deliver better value for money for the taxpayer. I am sure we will have opportunities to discuss that across the Dispatch Box.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

I rise to support amendment 17. I am a firm supporter of High Speed 2. The case for it is essentially one of capacity. It is entirely wrong to state, as some commentators have done recently, that the argument for capacity is something new that has been brought in only at this stage. That is simply not so. The report that the Transport Select Committee produced two years ago made it clear that the need for increased capacity formed the basis of the case for HS2.

Amendment 17 deals with linking HS2 to the rest of the transport network. It specifically mentions the need for it to link to roads and airports. It is important that it should not be seen as a development that is separate from the rest of the rail network or indeed from the rest of the transport network. I therefore welcome the amendment. It is unfortunate that, because no decision has been taken on the need for increased airport capacity in the south-east, no firm proposals on Heathrow have been finalised. That matter needs urgent attention. There is also an issue about freight. In Liverpool, for example, the expansion of the port is creating a need for more freight paths and better access for freight. That, too, needs attention. I welcome the amendment in that it draws attention to networks and connectivity.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

In speaking to amendment 17, the hon. Lady is, in essence, setting out an early case for design changes. Can she confirm that the existing contingency in the spending envelope does not include provision for any such changes?

[Mrs Ellman]

The hon. Gentleman needs to direct such questions to HS2 itself. It is extremely important that all the financial aspects are fully considered. This specific amendment is to do with networks. The question of access to the high-speed network is critical, and that involves roads as well as other rail tracks.

The case for HS2 is also based on increased economic benefit to the areas in which the railway stations are located, as well as the surrounding areas and the regions that they serve. The issue of freed capacity on the west coast main line as a result of phase 1, and on the east coast and midland main lines following phase 2, is critical. The strategic review states that there will be a £3 billion benefit from the use of freed capacity, and Network Rail has stated that more than 100 cities and towns could benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

I know from my meetings with my hon. Friend, and particularly with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and others, that High Speed 2 Ltd, the Department for Transport and Ministers have worked overtime to consider ways of minimising the problems, where feasible and cost-effective, through the use of more tunnelling, green tunnelling or slightly adjusting the line of route to try to minimise them.

[Stephen Barclay]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Burns]

No, I will not.

Unfortunately, a project of this scale and size cannot meet the problems and objections of every part of the route while still keeping to the reason for and need behind the railway. It is rotten when one cannot deal with every problem, but we need to balance what is in the national interest against what can be done to minimise the impact. I believe that the Secretary of State for Transport, his Ministers, the Department for Transport and High Speed 2 Ltd have gone a considerable way—as far as they can—towards meeting and overcoming those problems without ruining the concept of high-speed rail and without it being disastrous for the taxpayer.

For those reasons, I am as confident as one can be that High Speed 2 will become High Speed 3 and go to Scotland, and that in years to come it will go to other parts of the United Kingdom as well. That can happen in an orderly way only if this Bill is passed to enable money to be spent on the preparations—not on building the railway, because the Bill does not deal with that. For those reasons, I will support the hon. Member for Nottingham South and my right hon. and hon. Friends on amendment 17; we gave a commitment to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras that we would do so. I will certainly oppose amendment 18 and those that flow from it, however, because they are superfluous and, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, contradictory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Barclay]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the generous spirit in which he is taking interventions. To support my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), I point out to colleagues who take issue with his intervention that paragraph 15 of the National Audit Office report on HS1 concluded that

“the project is not value for money.”

Key finding 6 states that although passenger numbers grew, they were below expectations and estimates were inflated.

[Mike Thornton]

Perhaps I should limit the number of interventions I take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. However, I believe that an adequate connection should be part of the initial proposal.

[Stephen Barclay]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Timms]

No, I will not give way again.

I welcome amendment 17 and the Government’s support for it. I have raised this matter with Ministers before, but I ask the new Minister for the first time to pay particular attention to the connectivity problem between High Speed 1 and High Speed 2, which was highlighted by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am grateful for that update, which has been circulating over the last hour or so as the information has reached the public domain. I presume that Baroness Kramer will not announce that high-speed is coming to Scotland, but I am looking forward to some positive announcements tomorrow. There is an opportunity here for the Scottish Government—of whatever colour, as we are obviously talking about a long-term process—to work with the UK Government. It is recognised that it will be possible to do some work on high-speed rail in Scotland, perhaps to link Edinburgh and Glasgow but also to provide the basis for a route further south. Although we cannot immediately have a high-speed route all the way from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London, other sections of high-speed rail would certainly benefit the Scottish economy. Just as the business case for high-speed rail further south is strengthened by bringing into it business from Scotland, any high-speed rail in Scotland that would bring passengers into the GB-wide high-speed system would be beneficial for the rest of the country.

I understand why those communities that will not be served directly by the line, especially those that currently have a good rail service, will be concerned that they could lose out as a result of HS2 being constructed. The answer for those communities is to engage as actively as they can with central Government and neighbouring local authorities to try to ensure that they put the case to get the best benefits. It is also important that connectivity is examined, the point of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench.

It is important for the Government, and for Front Benchers of all colours, to use the opportunity of developing HS2 to rebuild the vision for rail in the country as a whole. HS2 is not just a question of trains running on the high-speed line and then going no further; they can serve other destinations in the way they will serve Edinburgh and Glasgow. On the continent, high-speed trains do not just run on high-speed lines; they serve other communities too. That is something we should aim for in Britain.

The case for high-speed developments beyond HS2 is powerful. I understand why a Government would not want to start putting down lines on a map to other parts of Britain, because that would set off scare stories about costs, but the points made by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) on possible development should not be lost or forgotten—the lines to Scotland and routes to the north-east of England in particular. There are clear capacity problems between Yorkshire and the north-east of England and they will need to be on the agenda at some stage.

I started my comments by referring to the amendments on Scotland. The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) are superfluous. The Scottish Government have accepted the Bill in its current form. The Scottish Parliament has passed the relevant Sewel motion endorsing the proposals in the Bill. I do not always agree with the current Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament, but on this occasion if it is good enough for them, it should be good enough for this House. I will not support the amendments, as they do not take the debate any further. We have good proposals that have achieved broad consensus across the House. I hope we can continue to proceed in that fashion.

[Stephen Barclay]

I shall speak to amendment 17 and, in particular, to the costs associated with connectivity.

On Sunday, it was my daughter’s third birthday. As the list of presents she was hoping to receive grew ever longer, I had to remind her that we did not have a magic money tree in the garden. Her response, quick as a flash, was to say, “Why don’t you plant one?” When we look at amendment 17 and consider the remarks at the beginning of the debate from the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), we need to reflect on the reality of a budget set at £42.6 billion—this seems to be used interchangeably with the spending envelope, albeit that it appears to have now grown to a £50 billion cap—that does not include the changes in design referred to in the powerful speech from the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms).

I want to draw hon. Members’ attention to the remarks that David Prout made to the Public Accounts Committee. One might have expected the contingency to have anticipated changes in design costs. Of the £50 billion cap, £21 billion is currently unspecified. More than £14 billion includes dealing with optimism bias and risk inflation—the initial 10% on that £15 billion figure—and then on top of that there is a further contingency of more than £4 billion for phase 1. Nowhere do the figures address changes to design, yet many of hon. Members’ remarks have been based on exactly that premise. I predict there will be public campaigns in Camden where people will say, “If we are going to have High Speed 2, let us connect it to High Speed 1 in a far better way.” Dare I say it, but there may be one or two well-connected opinion-formers in north London who will help that campaign. Yet David Prout said:

“The contingency would not include major changes in scope, for example, that the Select Committee might require. If the Select Committee requires an additional station”—

as some in Sheffield are hoping for—

“that is not included in the contingency. If it required 20 more miles of tunnelling”—

as the people of east Cheshire are hoping to secure—

“that is not included in the contingency. What we would expect to include in the contingency are the more minor adjustments in Select Committee to mitigate environmental impact.”

Those are the very environmental issues on which we still do not have a report.

[Damian Collins]

Does my hon. Friend agree that local government could also consider some of these issues? Kent county council is thinking of using money from the regional growth fund to upgrade the railway connection from the high-speed rail point in Ashford through Canterbury to Manston airport. Contributions could come from other pots of public money besides those found centrally by the Department for Transport.

[Stephen Barclay]

Indeed. That brings me to the distorting effect at the heart of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) and the paradox that the scheme will divert more funding to London.

[Mr Simon Burns]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Stephen Barclay]

I will, but before doing so, may I thank my right hon. Friend, who, throughout his time as Minister, was most courteous and responsive? I take his intervention with pleasure.

[Mr Burns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I hope my intervention does not spoil that record. Is he taking into account the fact that some of the changes, particularly to phase 1, will actually save money? For example, the decision to tunnel around Hanger lane in west London will be cheaper than the original overground proposal, leaving us with money for swings and roundabouts.

[Stephen Barclay]

Of course, there will be some give and take. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) highlighted the issues involved, but let us consider, for example, the Heathrow spur, on which we have had interventions. If Howard Davies decides to go with a hub airport at Heathrow—and one would think it logical for HS2 to connect to it—the cost of that is not in this budget, and neither is the cost of the connection in Camden, so the cost of tunnelling and the additional work that is likely to flow are not in these figures either. I wish, then, to draw the House’s attention to the pressure that is likely to follow from what Donald Rumsfeld would probably refer to as the “known unknowns”, which we know are going to be huge.

[Mrs Gillan]

My hon. Friend is listing all the items that are not included but which will add to the price of this project. The Government have now indicated their intention to accept the official Opposition’s amendment. I have been looking at some paperwork, and I believe that the cycling lanes in Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds will add up to another £750,000; the light rail construction, if it goes ahead, in Liverpool and Birmingham will cost about £1.6 billion; and if there is a walking programme for the seven cities, that will cost about £750,000. Those projects are all in the infrastructure pipeline, so we are looking at adding between £3 billion and £4 billion just to provide the connectivity to which the Government have agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Barclay]

My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. Inevitably, when large sums are being spent, there will be pressure to leverage it, and already the Government have signalled some tipping towards schemes linked to HS2. For example, they have referred to making cities “HS2 ready”, so it is in the very lexicon they are using.

[Mrs Spelman]

On a point of clarification about connectivity, local authorities have to take some responsibility as part of their transport plans. The Greater Birmingham and Solihull local enterprise partnership’s top priority is to make a bid to the single regeneration pot for light rail connections to Birmingham airport and the interchange station. When Lord Adonis was promoting high-speed rail, and we were not sure about it in the west midlands, the deal was basically that we would find the funds to build the station. There is a balance between local authority spend and other pots; it should not all come from a single resource.

[Stephen Barclay]

My right hon. Friend makes a fair point, but it is not the point that I am seeking to make. The £35 billion that has been allocated for control period 5, between 2014 and 2019, referred to in paragraph 18 of the Department’s case, does not cover many of the items on the wish-lists that Members are compiling today.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s analysis: there will be increased pressure on the HS2 mitigation budget for the route, which will put costs up. I put it to him that the only way in which any Government will be able to keep a cap on the cost of HS2 will be drastically to cut back on the compensation scheme for householders who are unduly affected by the project. That would be devastating for my constituents.

[Stephen Barclay]

I will come to the direct costs in a moment, but my hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has told me that land prices have gone up threefold in the past decade. Not many households have been compensated so far, but the House of Commons Library informs me that 32 homes have been compensated to date—a very modest sample—and that the average cost per home has been £500,000. I do not know what the cost will be in north London, but I suspect that London house prices are going up quite quickly.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I would not wish to compete with my hon. Friend’s clear expertise in this matter, but has he considered reducing the budget for HS2 by using Old Oak Common as a terminus, thereby avoiding any of the activity in the Camden area that appears to be causing concern financially? That would fit with many European models, in which the terminus is situated outside the city centre and connected to the high-speed and cross-borough links. Has my hon. Friend considered that possibility as part of his investigation?

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend is a fellow Lancastrian, and he is a great champion for his constituents. Surely one of the difficulties with opting for out-of-town stations is that it would take people longer to get to where they needed to be. The clue is in the name: high-speed rail. If they travelled to an out-of-town station, they would still need to get into the city centre to complete their door-to-door journey.

[Paul Maynard]

This is a good opportunity to remind Members that the point of HS2 is to allow people to get to the areas of greatest economic activity, and those are not necessarily within five minutes of Euston station. The benefit of a terminus at Old Oak Common would be an ability to transfer quickly to the City, where the bulk of the economic activity takes place. This is the clear message from all high-speed rail networks around the world.

[Stephen Barclay]

Of course there is a debate around Old Oak Common, but I must point out the lack of clarity. Clearing a similar site for the Olympics cost £1 billion. Where is the figure for clearing and regenerating the site around Old Oak Common? Transport for London is putting in requests, stating that it is possible to leverage HS2 with better connectivity using Old Oak Common, and I think it is right to do so, but where is that proposal reflected in the figures?

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a clear statement on “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday. He did not say that the project would be delivered for £42 billion; he said that it would be delivered for less. That was the promise he made. Now we are talking about a cap of £50 billion, so an extra £7 billion has appeared in the space of a few days. In today’s debate, Members are adding their own wish-lists, which will add further to the costs.

[Mr Simon Burns]

The cost of HS2 is £42.6 billion, within which there is a contingency fund of £14.4 billion. The figure of £50 billion that my hon. Friend has referred to reflects the addition on top of that of £7.1 billion for rolling stock, of which £1.7 billion is the contingency fund. It is not for the building of the railway.

[Stephen Barclay]

The size and quantum of the contingency points to a lack of detail and of financial discipline in the cost estimates. That is why so much of it is vague.

I started my remarks believing that my time was unlimited, but having been made aware by one of my colleagues that my time is more finite than I originally expected, I shall dramatically shorten my speech and finish with reference to two issues.

First, on direct costs, reading the business case put forward this week, it is difficult to get a sense of the impact of energy prices on construction. We justified the high cost of our nuclear deal last week on the basis of rising energy prices, yet we seem to be quoting the same HS1 energy costs for steel construction for this project. Land prices seem vague. Network Rail still has a 23% efficiency gap. Is it to be a subcontractor? Are we going to fix the governance of Network Rail, which is still out of the scope of shareholders, of the National Audit Office and of freedom of information requests?

Secondly, there seem to be a number of contradictions with this project. If economic growth is as good as the passenger forecasts suggest, will it not put pressure on supplier costs for construction, particularly on a project that will deliver at its peak 40% of construction market work? We need far more transparency on costs.

[Frank Dobson]

It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that about 220 households in my constituency will need to be re-housed at the expense of HS2. The authorities were rather shocked to discover that a one-bedroom flat in a block recently built in the locality is currently going for £482,000. Most of the people who need to be re-housed need a family-sized flat.

[Stephen Barclay]

The right hon. Gentleman brings great expertise to these issues. That takes me back to the reference to a blank cheque: my concern is that the House is being asked to exercise blind faith, which will have a hugely distorting effect on transport schemes elsewhere in the country—as pressure grows, for example, for Crossrail 2 to connect not at Tottenham Court Road, but at Euston. Other schemes in the system, such as the one in my area of Cambridgeshire, will be asset-stripped of what they rightly deserve.

Let me leave the House with the image that we look like someone coming down the platform with five business cases, while the train has already left the station and we are waiting for the announcement of whether we will hit our destination, which will be given next year not by the Government, but by the shadow Chancellor. I do not think that is the right way to proceed. We need to be far more careful with controlling the costs.

[Andrew Bridgen]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: 17, page 1, line 12, at end insert

‘as well as with such other parts of the transport network (including roads, footpaths, cycleways, airports and light railways) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.’.— (Mr Goodwill.)

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

I do not think there is anything wrong with this amendment at all. It was a probing amendment, and just as the Government managed to slip their name under the official Opposition’s leading name on one amendment, I hoped that the Opposition might slip their name under mine as it contains the cap they wanted. Also, if we had had some adjustments to this Bill, it would have encompassed the spend. If we are going to have a money Bill, it should not just cover the open-ended preparatory work—now my right hon. Friend is wanting to have his cake and eat it—but should cover the money that is going to be spent on the project. After all, he has been arguing for—[Interruption.] Well, we know the hybrid Bill is coming. It will be a gargantuan monster of a Bill that will take up more time in this House than any other Bill has ever done.

Amendment 15 seeks to restrict the preparatory expenditure. I am sure my Front-Bench colleagues will say that these amendments are contradictory, but they are probing amendments. I did not serve on the Bill Committee so this is the opportunity for me to get these matters discussed. I think we need to restrict the expenditure to those items that are on the face of the Bill. Currently, the word “includes” in clause 1(3) means that the Bill is the blank cheque to which I referred earlier. I think that, in the Bill’s current form, there is no restriction. I am sure the Government will not accept any restriction, but they would have been in a much better place if they had done so.

I shall move on now, as I know many other Members want to speak. There are colleagues who are not in the House today but whom I have consulted in Buckinghamshire. The Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), knows his residents at Denham are wholly opposed to this proposal, and I know that the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), is continuing to work tirelessly within Government to put to the most senior Ministers the arguments and interests of his constituency. He has asked me to point out today that there are serious mitigation issues both in Wendover and Aylesbury that are still not resolved, yet the Department’s current plans make no adequate provision either for the measures to reduce noise or for fair compensation. I am also concerned for Mr Speaker, whose constituents in Buckingham continue to express overwhelming opposition.

This money Bill writes a blank cheque for the Government, or it purports to write a blank cheque and give the Government a fig leaf to cover their embarrassment about the hundreds of millions they have already spent and the £1 billion they will spend by the time we reach the next election. I was, however, hoping that we could regularise some of the terms and conditions of the people working on this project, which is the aim of amendments 21 and 22.

Amendment 21 deals with payments made through service companies. I do not know how many people in this House pay close attention to this matter, but there has certainly been a lot of fuss about service companies, particularly in connection with the BBC and others. When I asked a fairly innocuous parliamentary question, I was surprised to find out that in the past 12 months HS2 Ltd has engaged 48 people paid through personal service companies. Apparently, eight of those people have either left the company or transferred to the payroll, and a further 12 will have left or transferred by 31 December. That means that there will still be many people who are paid through personal service companies. Apparently, the Department was carrying out an assurance process at the time to ensure that all those people were compliant with their tax and national insurance obligations, and the good news is that the response was that they were—none was not compliant. But on a Government project of this sort, being paid for from the public purse, people should be paid as civil servants and they should not be in receipt of bonuses.

Much has been made about bonuses in and around this House in connection with many other professions. MPs do not get a bonus, and neither would I be asking for one as an MP, but I was shocked to find that between 2011 and 2013 people in the Department for Transport, including people working on HS2 Ltd, have been paid bonuses of more than £3 million between them. I admit that many of those bonuses will be small, but we should still put our money where our mouth is and the practice should cease. I also understand that HS2 Ltd, which was operating bonus schemes, is no longer doing so for its employees. I am pleased about that, because I do not think we can say one thing in one area of government and practise a different set of procedures in another.

[Stephen Barclay]

When my right hon. Friend tabled that parliamentary question, did she get clarification of whether any of those on personal service contracts were ex-staff of the Department for Transport and whether they had received any pay-off from the Department?

[Mrs Gillan]

No, I did not, but that is the sort of fine detail of the finance that we will need to look at, as it should be examined. One thing I have been trying to have a look at is Mr Higgins’s new employment contract, which I understand does not start until January. I have been denied sight of that, but I wanted to see what performance bonuses, or any other inducement or performance-related measure, it contained.

Amendment 27, tabled by the—[Interruption.] Forgive me, a year is a long time, and I cannot recall the constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

It is expected that the new Thameslink rolling stock—1,200 vehicles—will start to be delivered in 2015, and delivery should be completed by 2019.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

As part of completing the Thameslink project, will my right hon. Friend ask officials to look at the cost benefit of extending the line beyond Cambridge to include areas such as Ely and Littleport on the way to King’s Lynn, because the service is planned to stop at Cambridge, yet the cost of electrification beyond there would be £60 million to £80 million out of a £5.5 billion overall cost?

[Mr Hammond]

There are no plans to look at further extension of the Thameslink programme during the current control period but, as my hon. Friend will know, the next Network Rail control period begins in 2014, and proposals for infrastructure enhancements to the network beyond 2014 will be looked at and evaluated over the next couple of years.