Great Western Main Line

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to start the new year by talking about something that this Parliament helped to create and establish all those years ago. We approved the legislation that enabled private railways such as Brunel’s Great Western to exist and to flourish. However, we have not had much debate recently about what has effectively been a creeping nationalisation since the pandemic. Recent rhetoric has not really recognised the success of the private railways that were created, or indeed the success of the privatisation of those railways more recently, which led to a 107% increase in passenger journeys, a 32% increase in passenger services, and a 145% increase in passenger revenue. At the moment, the situation is that the Department for Transport is really in control of the railway operators, including Great Western, and His Majesty’s Treasury takes the risk, with passenger frustration over the last few months increasing during a long period of train driver strikes.

But let me start at the beginning. All of us here share being part of the Great Western geography; we are linked by our constituencies to Paddington station, that railway cathedral graced by statues of the founding genius, Isambard Kingdom Brunel—what a name—Paddington bear, and a soldier in the trenches, symbolic of the 3,312 employees of Great Western who died in two world wars. We surely all recognise the engineering achievements of the Box tunnel, or even Kemble tunnel, the architecture of Bristol Temple Meads, and the social vision of the Great Western Railway’s village in Swindon, which led to the opening of the main line from Paddington to Bristol in 1841, and the fastest trains, such as the Flying Truro, which reached 100 miles an hour 30 years before the Flying Scotsman—

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes for a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Member touches on one of the themes of this debate: the importance of Members of Parliament working very closely with their railway operator, the Department for Transport and Network Rail to try to achieve the services that their constituents most value. I will not comment on the business of commuter traffic from Slough to Paddington—it is not my specialist area. On his second point, constituents all over Gloucestershire and Wiltshire would relish the opportunity provided by opening Great Western Railway services to Heathrow. I am sure the Minister will want to touch on that, and I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.

Of course, there have been constant improvements to the network in recent times, although there have also been some real difficulties—as The Sunday Times focused on at Theale over the weekend—and colleagues will no doubt highlight those successes or failures. Since he cannot be with us, I highlight for my neighbour, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), the improved forecourt, interchange cycle hub and 70 additional car park spaces in his constituency that he and Great Western Railway have worked successfully on together. There is also the fourth platform at Bristol Parkway, the delivery of the MetroWest network, the new Portway park-and-ride station, and the new Ashley Down station coming soon. All of those are helpful in the west country. In all this, the Department has played its part, as have successive Ministers, including this one, who is a great supporter and champion of railways, which is important.

Inevitably, I would like to highlight what has been achieved in Gloucester since 2010. Gloucester railway station is an extraordinary animal. It has the longest platform in the country, but it is on a spur off the main line between Birmingham and Bristol, and therefore there has always been a lot to do. Since 2010, we have managed a significant number of improvements, including a covered walkway between platforms 2 and 1, the new waiting rooms, and a new accessible station footbridge with the lifts and eventually the canopy. That also led to a remodelled station booking office, and we have introduced additional car parking on the south side of the station, which was a major business. It is difficult to transfer an asset from the Ministry of Justice to the city council—that took about three years, but we got there eventually.

The new hourly direct services between Gloucester and Paddington also benefit all my colleagues in Gloucester. The new pay-as-you-go smartcard has been helpful in a number of ways not originally anticipated, particularly when the station underpass has been closed to access. Work is going on as we speak to deliver further improvements, particularly on the underpass, which is a sensitive bit of infrastructure that links the hospital to the city centre and which Great Western has gallantly taken on. There will also be a big improvement in the electric vehicle charging stations, the forecourts, bus services and so on.

I want to highlight for the Minister that although the journey time to Paddington has been reduced by 15 minutes since electrification, there is an opportunity to increase the speed of the services simply by renegotiating how long the trains stop at Gloucester. That time is currently 10 minutes, to allow the driver to walk from one end of the train to the other, but even at a slow amble that journey could not possibly take more than a minute and a half.

It is also important to recognise some of GWR’s community contribution and community projects, such as the Getaway project for independent rail travel. Its biggest contribution to community, however, comes from station staff, who are coping, calming and carrying on. When strikes happen, no one shouts at a train driver, because they are not there. It is Steve, Mike, Alan, Naomi and all their colleagues who cop it at Gloucester and all the other stations along the line. They deal with the drunks, the drugs and even the MP who left his bag on the train. I salute them all.

This debate has to touch on problems as well. I will highlight four. The first is the continuing strikes by train drivers, which damage trust and confidence, and put a lot of strain on other Great Western Railway employees. The second is the extraordinary feature that train drivers do not have to work on a Sunday. I cannot think of any other transport system—I was an airline manager once—where the driver or pilot would be allowed to decide whether they rock up on a Sunday. That ruins many weekends for families.

The third problem is the business of Network Rail’s infrastructure, particularly the failures in the Thames valley. It is easy to criticise Network Rail, but there are some real problems and anything the Department can do to improve the infrastructure in the Thames valley will make a huge difference to all of us. The last problem is the taxpayer subsidy. We must let managers manage and civil servants hold them to account. That is the only way in which we will get the railway operators to innovate and to continue to improve with better rolling stock and low-carbon operations that support travellers and help families and growth.

All those things matter. There are opportunities for big projects ahead. The Filton Bank electrification promoted by the western gateway to electrify and speed up journeys between Bristol and Birmingham in particular would be a very good project for the DFT to support. Just before coming into this Chamber, I heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) that Great Western Railway has decided to open the line from Swindon to Oxford, which will have a lot of advantages for many travellers.

I see the opportunities and the improvements at Gloucester station that have happened and are happening. I will certainly continue to work closely on all those, because ultimately, railway stations and railway operations are in danger of being an orphan. They are not well managed by county councils. It is up to us here both to hold them to account and to encourage them to innovate. I hope that I and all my colleagues in Gloucestershire and elsewhere will continue to work closely with Great Western Railway to achieve the necessary improvements.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I expect to call the Opposition spokesperson at 5.31 pm, the Minister at 5.36 pm and Richard Graham to wind up at 5.46 pm, and that the debate will end at 5.48 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Members have roughly five minutes. If they stick to that, everyone should get in.

Draft Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection) Regulations 2023

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 General Committees

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The Minister is making an interesting speech. I am looking at regulation 5(2)(d), which refers to fishing vessels. Does that include every size of fishing vessel? Obviously, the other regulations refer to ships. Does that include small fishing vessels as well as the larger ones?

[Mr Holden]

My understanding is that the regulations are for all cargo ships, but I will write to the right hon. Lady on the specifics if that is not the case for all fishing vessels.

Amendments in 20 resolutions have been agreed at the IMO since 2003 to further improve the safety standards of fire protection, but they have not yet been implemented into UK law. The UK supported those amendments during the IMO discussions, and as a party to SOLAS, the UK now has an obligation to implement those further updates.

The Department held an eight-week public consultation on the draft regulations. None of the five responses received were contentious, and no changes to the regulations were made as a result. Responses were issued, as well as a post-consultation report, which was published on gov.uk. We have 440 ships on the UK flag, 324 of which are partially owned in the UK. They are expected to be already compliant with the requirements of the draft regulations. Making the regulations will enable the UK to enforce the same fire protection requirements as other states.

Draft Merchant Shipping (Additional Safety Measures for Bulk Carriers) Regulations 2022 Draft Merchant Shipping (High Speed Craft) Regulations 2022

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 General Committees

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I see that Bolton Wanderers are lying seventh in the championship, but they have a game in hand, so there is hope yet of promotion at the end of the season. I know that I am allowed to digress for one time under your chairmanship of any Committee to discuss such matters.

I can see from the expression on the faces of Conservative Members that they came into politics to talk about bulk carriers and high speed craft regulations. I can see that they are all on their mobile phones checking the current update on them or perhaps—

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

They are tracking ships.

[Mike Kane]

Are they tracking ships that sail in the night? Indeed. Enough of the nautical puns.

I genuinely welcome the Minister to her place; I have had to do that a few times now over the past few years. I thank the civil servants for their hard work in bringing Ministers up to speed so quickly, as is apparent today. It would have been nice if the Secretary of State, who directly answers for maritime matters, had been here, but the Minister is not a second preference and her presence is most welcome.

Let us get down to business. We are here to discuss the additional safety measures for bulk carriers. Of course we would never object to anything that improves safety and conditions for seafarers. We welcome the draft regulations to replace the Merchant Shipping Regulations of 1999. That will ensure that the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea 1974 is fully implemented.

As we all know, bulk carriers are vital in the world of commerce, as they carry unpackaged cargo such as coal and cement. Without those carriers and the brave work of those seafarers during covid we would not have kept our country stocked and supplied. The prime hazards associated with the shipment of solid bulk cargoes are those relating to structural damage due to improper cargo distribution, loss or reduction of stability during a voyage and chemical reactions of those cargoes. I note the updates relate to bulk carriers with empty holds and set standards to protect the watertight integrity of the ship, so ensuring that when loading there is an instrument that assesses the ships design and how its stability might be compromised during the process. That instrument was previously only required in bulk carriers over 150 metres in length. The updates bring in improved and updated standards on the maintenance and inspection of hatch covers, ensuring their integrity, and of single and double skinned carriers.

The primary aim of the bulk carrier statutory instrument is to facilitate the safe stowage and shipment of bulk cargoes by providing information on the dangers associated with said shipments. Those regulations will improve safety requirements and enable the UK to enforce them not just on UK ships wherever they set sail to, but to any non-UK ship when they are in our territorial waters.

Industry compliance is already high; all 29 UK flagged bulk carriers are already compliant with the standards outlined by the Minister. Given the size and nature of bulk carriers, it is vital they are safe, not only for seafarers but also for the environment. One only has to recall the bulk carrier that ran aground on a reef in Mauritius in July 2020, which then leaked oil, and caused an ecological disaster in the seas around the Indian Ocean islands. Four seafarers died while attempting to retrieve oil, and 1,000 tons of oil were eventually spilled into the ocean. More recently in waters off Gibraltar a bulk carrier ran aground and leaked oil into the oceans. Those accidents do happen but one must ask whether they would have been prevented had the additional safety measures been introduced sooner.

On enforcement, 10 regulations relate to enforcement and with one exception, they all apply to the owner and to the master. Will the burden on reporting failure to comply with the regulations under the merchant shipping legislation be placed upon the ports and harbours? Can the Minister confirm which agency will be responsible for carrying out any necessary enforcement? What are the penalties for failing to comply? If fines are to be imposed, what level of fines would be applicable? If the Minister cannot provide those answers now, I am happy to receive them in writing. Continuing with the theme of enforcement, can she confirm whether our international counterparts are aware of the forthcoming changes? In addition, were trade union representatives consulted while the regulations were developed?

The high speed craft regulations seek to make amendments to chapter 10 of the IMO’s International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea in relation to high speed craft. Those craft are typically rapid passenger craft but can also be cargo craft. Primarily, they operate domestically in UK waters, although some are known to operate between the UK and France. An example of a high-speed craft as defined in this SI is a Thames clipper. We can look out of our windows here on some days and see one. That category of vessel also covers hydrofoils and air-cushioned vessels such as hovercraft. I learned so much about pollution and hovercraft when we recently discussed a SI on the subject in this room.

We have many SIs to pass on account of a backlog, and I look forward to attending another one next Tuesday morning, and I am sure the Minister does as well.

The proposed regulations on high speed craft will further improve safety standards on those craft and will give powers to the UK to enforce those requirements against UK high speed craft, wherever they may be in the world, and also to use the same powers over non-UK high speed craft when in UK waters. Am I correct in assuming that theh international enforcement body is aware of the regulations, as I note there were only three responses to the consultation? Or perhaps it, too, was unable to distil the definition of the vessels affected because the formula was impenetrable to many. Indeed, in the explanatory memorandum the Law Society of Scotland asked whether the formula to determine whether a vessel is a high speed craft could be simplified. I share its concern.

I am assured that high speed craft know what they are, and are registered as such, and already compliant. Do the proposed regulations represent an international standard of which all high speed craft are aware? Is the criteria to determine high speed craft the same the world over? Are international high speed crafts aware they are in that category for enforcement purposes? If a high speed craft is found to be in breach of the regulations, I notice that the first option is a fine. There is no mention of the amount of the fine, so perhaps the Minister can apprise the Committee of that.

I welcome the opening up of the satellite service provider market that could drive down prices, but we would not want to see a reduction of standards. I raise the issue of standards because my attention was drawn to a line in the consultation that says that the risk-based assessment outlined in the legislation

“enables more flexibility for both industry and government in the application of safety standards.”

How and by whom will this be monitored ongoing? With that solely in mind, again were unions consulted? I have to say that the words “flexibility…in…safety standards” should send a shudder down all our spines.

We would never oppose anything that sought to improve safety standards on vessels, and for that reason, assuming we receive assurances from the Minister on the points I have raised, we will not oppose the measures.

As I have said in previous Committees, we have a backlog of a large number of SIs to get through. We are trying to clear that delegated legislation, and I would be interested to learn whether the Minister has any update on how and when we will clear the current backlog.

Draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) and Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) (Law of the Sea Convention) Amendment Order 2022

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 General Committees

[Robert Courts]

Yes, I can answer that question. I was alarmed at the intervention—I wondered whether my explanation thus far had not been clear. The only hovercraft that are operational in the UK at the moment are those that operate from Southsea, near my hon. Friend’s constituency, to the Isle of Wight. Those are not covered by the order because they operate only in internal waters. The order applies to external waters, and there are not currently any hovercraft operating in the UK that would be caught by it. None the less, it is important that we make the order so that future hovercraft would be covered by pollution regulations, for reasons we all understand.

The 1996 order provides powers to give effect in secondary legislation to the pollution prevention obligations in the UN convention on the law of the sea, or UNCLOS, with which we should all be familiar. Those obligations are often found in other international conventions, including the STCW convention, which sets out the standards that must be met for seafarers to obtain the internationally recognised certificates that are required if they are to work on vessels that operate internationally. The Hovercraft Act 1968 confers power on Her Majesty to make an Order in Council that applies any enactment relating to ships to hovercraft. The 1989 order serves that purpose, but it needs to be updated to include provision relating to the prevention of pollution.

The 1989 order, which is best thought of as an enabling order, contains some provision for the application of pollution prevention measures made under the Merchant Shipping Act, but it does not include the 1996 order, which is the relevant one for the purposes of pollution prevention. This order will fix that. It will ensure that the pollution prevention obligations in UNCLOS can be applied in full to hovercraft in the way that they already apply to ships. It will also bring some other measures up to date and apply them to hovercraft.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The explanatory note states:

“A full impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.”

Is this really necessary, and would he define “significant”?

[Robert Courts]

That is a very good question, and I entirely understand why the right hon. Member asks it, but the reality is that at present there are no hovercraft operating that will be impacted by the order. That is why there is no impact assessment: it is impossible to find an impact when there is no one on whom the measure impacts.

I think the real thrust of the right hon. Member’s question is, “Why are the Government doing it?”. We have introduced the order because doing so is, in any event, part of our international obligations as a country. There may come a time when operators wish to operate hovercraft in this area. Were that to happen, our legal system would be out of date; we would not have the relevant measures in place to guard against pollution, which we would all think was a mistake on our part. However, she raises a very good point.

The order will fix the gap to which I referred, and UK regulations governing hovercraft will then include provision for pollution prevention that derives from UNCLOS, of which the UK is proud to be leading member. The order also amends the 1989 order to enable the manning requirements in section 47 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which apply to ships, to apply to hovercraft. Finally, the order makes discrete amendments to the 1996 order, which needs to be updated so that regulations made under it can prescribe custodial sentences in respect of offences for breaches of the requirements of those regulations. That is the offence to which I referred at the beginning, which the draft order will keep up to date.

To answer the question from the right hon. Member for Walsall South, the Government are introducing the order now because the STCW convention has been subject to a number of recent amendments that affect seafarer training. Those are being implemented in regulations that replace the existing regulations that implement the STCW convention. The criminal sanctions will apply to ship owners, operators and masters who fail to ensure that their seafarers are qualified, are certified and discharge their obligations in accordance with the convention requirements, including the latest amendments. Again, that will apply, as required, to hovercraft.

A number of other provisions, such as those on manning, watchkeeping and the requirements to ensure that seafarers are trained in accordance with the convention, will continue to be applied to hovercraft and will be contained in the same instrument. The repeal of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act has left a gap in the powers that we otherwise would have used to do that. That would have meant that there was a disparity between the requirements as they apply to manning and training, and the requirements as they apply to pollution, which would not have carried custodial penalties. We need those penalties to be included to ensure that the criminal sanctions apply across the board. We need to have the same provision available for the contravention of the pollution requirements as we have for the contravention of safety requirements, for reasons that the Committee will understand: pollution is just as important as safety in other areas. Without those powers, we would be unable to enforce the convention adequately in UK law, for the reasons that I have given.

I hope that my speech has been helpful in telling hon. Members what the order is all about. We need to be able to apply pollution prevention requirements in the STCW convention to hovercraft, and to remake and apply the existing enforcement legislation in so far as it relates to the prevention of pollution. I hope that I have everyone’s support for the order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

8. What plans he has to expand airport capacity.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

10. When he plans to make a decision on the construction of an additional runway in south-east England.

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

I had hoped that we would be able to announce a decision on airport capacity this summer. Clearly, any announcement on airport capacity would have to be made when the House was in session. Being realistic, given recent events, I cannot now foresee that there will be an announcement until at least October. We aim to publish the further analysis on air quality soon. Separately, promoters have announced undertakings that would increase the compensation available for residents living near the airports and the connectivity between other UK airports. The Government are fully committed to delivering the important infrastructure projects that they have set out, including the delivery of runway capacity on the timetable set out by the Davies report.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I would have liked to be in the position of asking the House to make a decision, and endorsing a decision. We are not going to be in that position, and we have to be realistic. My hon. Friend may regard it as a boring day in the House of Commons, but it is certainly not a boring day in Westminster.

[Valerie Vaz]

The Secretary of State will know that I am going to make the case for Birmingham airport. Is there still time, whenever the report comes out, for Birmingham airport to make the case for the 250,000 jobs that could flow from a second runway there?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Looking at the hon. Lady’s question, I did not realise that she was going to mention Birmingham, because her question specifically talks about south-east England. To the best of my knowledge, Birmingham has not moved since I knew it as a boy, 20 miles away from where I lived. Birmingham airport is a fantastic airport, which serves an important role as far as Birmingham and the midlands are concerned, and it has just had a runway extension.

Regional Airports

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Quite a number of hon. Members are present and wish to speak. I am sure that at some stage I will have to impose a limit of approximately four to five minutes.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regional airports and UK airports capacity.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I am delighted to have secured this debate, which could not be more timely in a year when I hope that the Government will face up to some of the most significant decisions in the aviation sector for decades. That could not be more important for regional airports, such as Newcastle international airport in my constituency and countless others around the UK, which are the backbone of regional economies and, therefore, the economy as a whole. The interest in and concern about the issue is demonstrated by the number of hon. Members present.

Newcastle international airport celebrated its 80th anniversary last year. As the Minister knows because he came to visit, it is the largest airport in the north-east and the 10th largest in the UK. It also happens to be the single largest employer in my constituency and is proud of its public-private partnership model, with ownership between the seven local authorities and AMP Capital. Indeed, it served a record 4.56 million passengers in 2014 and supported 3,200 jobs directly on site and 12,200 indirectly. It contributes over £581 million in gross value added to the north-east economy, including £181 million in tourism impact and 1,750 tourism jobs.

Newcastle airport exports well over £300 million of goods every year. The vast majority are carried by Emirates on its long-haul service to Dubai and last year saw the first ever trans-Atlantic service from Newcastle by United Airlines to Newark, which is set to return this summer. Newcastle international airport makes an invaluable contribution to the north-east’s proud claim to be the only consistently net exporting region in the UK, just as other regional airports make an invaluable contribution to their local economies.

This is when we come to the purpose of today’s debate. The Government are facing critical decisions that will determine the future of the UK’s aviation sector, which in turn will have a major impact on regional economies. Those decisions are not new and include where to build the new runway to provide the capacity we need for the future and how properly to support regional airports during a time of considerable upheaval with devolution.

Time and again, the Prime Minister has kicked the can down the road rather than face up to the challenges. It is not just Heathrow or Gatwick that loses out from this chronic indecision. The future growth and sustainability of the UK’s regional airports and, by extension, the growth of our regional economies, are equally put at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

It is almost a year and a half since the Smith commission’s proposals were published and accepted by the Government, yet we are still no closer to understanding how the Government intend to protect regional airports that are set to be adversely affected by the changes. In last summer’s Budget, the Treasury belatedly published a discussion paper on options for supporting regional airports through the changes. The document outlined three options: devolving APD in England; varying APD rates in England; and providing aid to regional airports in England. Unsurprisingly, those proposals begged more questions than they answered.

For instance, which bodies in England would APD be devolved to—local authorities, combined authorities or local enterprise partnerships? If APD was left as it is, and the Government provided financial support instead, how would they ensure that adequate aid reached airports acutely affected by lower APD rates across the border in Scotland or Wales? There are stringent EU guidelines on state aid support, particularly in the aviation sector, and we have previously heard the Government promise compensation to sectors impacted by one policy or another, but they have often under-delivered. How will this be any different? Will airports such as Newcastle be left to plug the gap?

Those and many more questions remain regarding the Government’s proposals, yet, six months on from the publication of the paper, there is near total silence from Ministers. I hope that the Minister will break that silence and provide us with some much-needed detail. When will the Government publish a response to the discussion paper that they published last summer? Are all three options still on the table or have some been ruled out? Most importantly, will the Minister tell airports such as Newcastle, Bristol and others how they will be supported by the Government when APD rates are devolved to Scotland and, potentially, to Wales? At the very least, will he tell us when airports can expect to hear about the plans?

The Airport Operators Association has made clear its very strong preference for any future reduction in APD in Scotland to be

“matched, immediately, by a cut everywhere”

so that no part of the UK is “disadvantaged in any way.” It is clear that the continued uncertainty on the issue is very damaging, and it is already having an impact on regional airports when it comes to airlines planning future routes and commitments. It is not good enough to wait and see what happens in Scotland. Action and certainty are required for England’s regional airports now.

A further concern I want to raise briefly this morning is the effect of regulatory charges—including, for example, the cost of a 24-hour police presence and all the security borne by airports—on regional airports such as Newcastle International. I understand that very large airports, with airlines queuing up to use their runways, are easily able to pass on those costs on to airline operators. However, it is much less easy for regional airports to do so, and the impact of the shift in costs is therefore having a disproportionately adverse effect on them. Regional airports are understandably extremely concerned about proposals that they should bear the costs of Border Force operating on their sites. Given that the agency is responsible for national security, I would have thought that responsibility lay squarely with the Government.

The decision on airport capacity and expansion has been kicked into the long grass far too many times, even after a £20 million independent commission made the decision on the Government’s behalf, as it was asked to do. The Government must make a decision in the national interest, but it should be a decision that respects our international commitments and the concerns of local communities. The Airports Commission has set out a plan that can achieve those twin aims, but the Government do not seem to accept it.

It is time to end the dither, delay and prevarication that has prevailed for far too long under this Prime Minister and Chancellor because it is not just London and the south-east but Newcastle, the north-east and many other regions will lose out most. Heathrow is, after all, not a London airport; it is the national hub. Airports across the country are looking for answers and long-term certainty from the Government, whether it is on airport capacity or the tax regime for aviation in the UK. I really hope that the Minister will be able to provide that certainty for them today.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

The wind-ups will begin at 10.30 am, so it would be helpful if Members would stick to a four-minute time limit. We will see how it goes from there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

If Members reduce their interventions, everyone will be able to get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitford]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

We tend to talk about the business flyer coming into London, and there are certainly plenty of business flyers in my region who would welcome a flight from Prestwick into London, but we also need to start thinking the other way around, as a previous speaker said, about tourism coming in. I would like us to think about the smaller regional airports, which are often in areas of great attractiveness and beauty that are tourism hotspots. For someone sitting in the middle of Europe deciding whether to go for their holidays to southern Ireland, Northern Ireland or Scotland, it is a no-brainer. With 9% VAT and no air passenger duty in the Republic of Ireland, the difference in the cost of a fortnight’s holiday is vast. Unless people are coming to visit family, they will always go to southern Ireland instead of any of us. It is not just Northern Ireland that loses; it is other picturesque areas such as the lakes, Scotland and the mountains in Wales.

It is important that we have some kind of strategy for developing the smaller regional airports. APD is one of the biggest barriers; that is what all the smaller regional airports feed back. Instead of just saying, “It’s not fair if Scotland gets to change it,” we must campaign to cut or remove APD across the country. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report suggested that the growth in GDP would compensate. I know that there would be a time lag, but it would bring jobs into areas where there are often no other jobs.

Although we suffer from the 60-minute rule for being close to Glasgow, being on the south-west coast of Scotland, we can sell ourselves as a golf area—we have the Open this year—and a coastal area. Sailing is one of our biggest tourist industries. People can fly straight into the area that they want to visit. I am sure that there are other small airports in the UK that would like to offer the same.

While we discuss Heathrow versus Gatwick and business coming into and out of London, it is important that the Government have a strategy to support the development of tourism and the smaller regional airports. Another block to that is our 20% VAT rate on hospitality and tourism, versus 9% in southern Ireland. The areas that are strongest in tourism often do not have other industries; that applies right across the UK. There are Members from all parties who live in more rural areas where tourism is being held back by VAT and APD. They are taxes to raise funds, but they are stultifying the local economy. I call for a tourism strategy for the United Kingdom, and it should include smaller and larger regional airports.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

In order to accommodate all Members, I must reduce the time limit to three minutes. Bear in mind that for every intervention, a minute is added to the speaker’s time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Ms Vaz, to be involved in this debate; I have learned a lot.

The west of England economy is growing—it is worth about £26 billion annually— and we are a net contributor to the Treasury. Aviation has long been a part of that success story. The British and Colonial Aeroplane Company opened in Filton in 1910, which was the beginning of 100 years of continuous development, design and manufacture, with all the job opportunities and wealth that that development has created. Of course, Filton was later famously home to Concorde and it is currently home to Airbus, GKN Aerospace and Rolls-Royce, among other leading players in the global aerospace industry.

Airport capacity is central to that local growth. Our first airport opened in Whitchurch in 1930, which is now located in my constituency of Bristol South. After the war, a new site was finally opened at the current airport site, outside the city boundaries in Lulsgate. By 1988, 100,000 passengers were being served and in 2000 a new terminal and other infrastructure improvement led to more than 2 million passengers being served.

Last year, Bristol Airport handled nearly 7 million passengers, making it the ninth busiest airport in the UK and a major regional resource for Bristol, the west of England, the south-west and indeed south Wales. It has generated more than 11,000 jobs, many of which are located in my constituency of Bristol South.

Bristol airport’s performance is good; despite being the ninth largest airport in the UK, it has been the most punctual airport in the UK two years running and it is the 10th most punctual airport in the world, which we are very proud of. In 2011, planning permission was given for it to handle 10 million passengers. There is an ambition not only to bring more business travel but to open up tourism to the west of England and the whole of the south-west, which includes the fantastic city of Bristol, neighbouring Bath, which is a unique world heritage site, and traditional seaside and rural areas across the whole of the south-west, including Devon and Cornwall, and Wales.

However, as many Members have already said, two things are crucial to the continued success of Bristol airport and its contribution to the wider economy. First, a decision about Heathrow is needed as soon as possible. Secondly, the devolution of airport passenger duty to Wales, which would effectively result in a redistribution of traffic away from Bristol and into south Wales, has been raised by many hon. Members. Even limited devolution of the duty for long-haul flights would have a detrimental impact. Bristol airport wants to continue to invest in facilities and create jobs, but APD would remove the level playing field on which we currently operate. I am keen to see a western powerhouse built on our tremendous industrial past and our current and future business and leisure offer, and the continued success of Bristol airport is key to that. The Government should better acknowledge and support our regional airports, and provide them with greater certainty about the rules under which they now operate.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

The Minister has kindly indicated that he will reduce his speaking time, and if the other Front-Bench spokespersons reduce theirs, to about six minutes, we can get the final three Members in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

The hon. Lady is entirely correct. We have as much transport among all our planes in Northern Ireland as we do in the capital, and regional aviation links are crucial for exports.

When something is going wrong or when someone is suffering an injustice or is unwell, we often say, “You would not wish it on your friends, never mind your enemies.” I am quite pleased that there is a threat for the north of England. I am quite pleased that there could be a disparity between APD in Scotland and APD in the north of England, because that would focus minds and attention on the issue. I do not wish to see that disparity, but I do wish to see greater recognition in the United Kingdom of the issues that for many years have been constraining us with the foreign border in Northern Ireland. If the danger that we have faced over decades is now facing those in the north-east of England and across the United Kingdom, that can only be a good thing, because there will be recognition of the dangers, damage and constraints of this pernicious tax on aviation. I hope we find a solution.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

If the two Front-Bench spokespersons on the Opposition side take five minutes each, the Minister can have between seven and eight minutes, and I can then allow Catherine McKinnell to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on securing this important debate on regional airports and UK airports’ capacity. She has set out a strong case that regional airports are essential, not only for maintaining the UK’s air connectivity, but for jobs and economic regeneration across the country. I understand her frustration that the Government are having to take time to make important decisions, but it is vital that the process is robust, and that all environmental and economic factors are fully considered. I welcome the broad agreement that exists across the political spectrum on the importance of maintaining the UK’s position as a leading global aviation nation, which is vital to the UK economy. This is a timely debate, given the Government’s announcement last December on airport expansion in the south-east.

The Airports Commission set out a convincing case for new runway capacity in the south-east by 2030, which the Government have accepted. The Government also accepted the commission’s final shortlist of three schemes. It is important to get the decision right, so that it will benefit generations to come. That is why we will further consider the environmental impacts and continue to develop the best possible package of measures to mitigate the impacts on local people and the environment. We expect the package of further work to be concluded by summer 2016. Importantly, the timetable set out by the Airports Commission for delivering additional capacity in the south-east by 2030 will not alter.

It is important to remember that the UK continues to have excellent aviation connectivity, both on a point-to-point basis and through the London hub. After all, we have the third largest aviation network in the world after the United States and China. The Civil Aviation Authority’s statistics show that the UK’s regional airports handled around 39% of the UK’s air passenger total in 2014: around 92 million passengers. Services from UK regional airports operated to more than 100 domestic and international destinations, providing convenience and travel opportunities, and helping to reduce the need for air passengers and freight to travel long distances to reach larger airports.

It is heartening to see that many of the airports that were impacted by the economic downturn a few years ago are now, like the economy, seeing real growth again. Manchester airport, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), is now the UK’s third largest, handling more than 20 million passengers a year. It has the only regular A380 service from a UK airport outside London and its routes are expanding further—Cathay Pacific is operating direct flights to Hong Kong and, starting this June, Hainan Airlines will operate four flights a week to Beijing. Those are the first direct scheduled flights between mainland China and a UK airport outside of London, worth at least £250 million in economic benefits to the UK. Indeed, my big new shiny railway will be coming to Manchester as well as Birmingham airports.

My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) mentioned Birmingham airport, which completed its runway extension in 2014, enabling larger aircraft to fly to more long-haul destinations. That has allowed greater capacity to destinations such as Dubai, Delhi and Amritsar, and some successful charter operations to Beijing. The airport celebrated its most successful year in 2015, handling more than 10 million passengers for the first time. That is not all. Ongoing investment programmes are also under way at other airports such as Edinburgh; Belfast City, which saw 2.7 million passengers last year, an increase of 5.4%; and Belfast International airport, which saw 4.4 million passengers, an increase of 8.9%.

I welcome last month’s announcement that Ryanair is to begin operating a new base at Belfast International from March with flights to Gatwick, and five other routes will follow. In December, I was very happy to announce successful routes under the regional air connectivity fund that allow routes between Carlisle and Belfast City and Londonderry and Dublin.

Like me, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North was able to see at first hand the newly completed redevelopment at Newcastle International airport’s departure lounge when I had the honour to open it formally shortly before Christmas. It is worth mentioning two more bits of good news for the airport: United Airlines has announced it will repeat its non-stop Newcastle to New York Newark service next summer; and Newcastle has been named the UK’s top large airport in a nationwide poll of Which? magazine readers for the third year running.

Within the UK, airlines operate in a competitive commercial environment, and we consider that they are best placed to determine which routes they operate, and from which airports. We know that the commercial aviation market brings many benefits to air passengers. However, the Government also recognise that, because aviation plays an important role in connecting regions, there may be occasions when aid is necessary to protect certain existing air services that may be discontinued or to develop other services to airports where local economic conditions prove unattractive to airlines.

We are conscious of the possible risk of distortion to competition that could be created by Government intervention in the commercial airline market. That is why we have been careful in balancing the commercial imperative with the need to provide support for existing services and for new air routes from some of our smaller airports. Last November, the Chancellor announced that 11 new air routes from smaller UK airports would be supported with around £7 million of start-up aid over the next three financial years. Those routes, one of which will be operated by Links Air between Newcastle and Norwich, will begin operating this spring and will provide domestic links between England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as international connectivity to France, Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland.

The Government have been asked why we cannot acquire or reserve slots at busy UK airports such as Heathrow for domestic services from regional airports, such as those in Northern Ireland. The allocation of slots at EU airports is governed by regulations agreed at European Union level and by associated UK slot regulations. Under the regulations, the process of slot allocation at Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester and other slot co-ordinated airports in the UK is undertaken by an independent slot co-ordinator independently of the Government, the Civil Aviation Authority or other interested parties. The UK Government therefore play no part in the slot allocation process at Heathrow or other co-ordinated airports, and under EU regulations we are legally prevented from intervening in that process.

Unfortunately, time is pressing. I wanted to say a few words about air passenger duty, but no doubt there will be an opportunity in future. Indeed, it is a matter for the Chancellor, so I will come to a conclusion and allow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North a chance to get the final word.

The Government believe that maintaining the UK’s status as a leading global aviation hub is fundamental to our long-term international competitiveness. We are clear about the economic and connectivity benefits that our regional airports bring to regions, communities and businesses. We have established the right foundations to move forward, gain consensus and secure the benefits that aviation brings for the whole nation.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I thank Front Benchers for their timely speeches.

Davies Commission Report

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am sorry that my hon. Friend so easily dismisses page 34, which I would have thought gives him and the people who run Birmingham airport, which he has spoken about in the House on occasion, some encouragement. Those airports—Birmingham, Manchester, and Tees, just to ensure I get them all right and do not upset anybody—are all incredibly important for people around those areas and we want more flights from them.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) says, but Birmingham international stands ready for expansion with international flights to JFK in New York and Beijing that are cheaper than from Heathrow. Will the Secretary of State seriously take into account the fact that Birmingham has a strategic position in the UK and its connectivity to HS2?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Yes, I will certainly take that seriously. The hon. Lady will know that the recent runway expansion at Birmingham has been very important in trying to attract more business and offer more opportunities to fly to other destinations. She is absolutely right about how important HS2 will be for that airport.

Oral Answers to Questions

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

My right hon. Friend is right. As he knows, I was at Stansted last week and saw at first hand the subject of his representation and his call for greater investment in Stansted airport. I would like to discuss that with him and think about it with Network Rail.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

T10. Stafford road and Stanhope way in my constituency are in a state of chaos owing to unco-ordinated bus services using narrow residential roads. What plans does the Minister have to look at the strategic co-ordination of bus services outside London?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

We think that these decisions are best made locally. It is therefore a matter for the relevant local authorities to engage with the main bus operators to drive that forward. We have incentivised partnership working through the creation of Better Bus Areas. That is putting £70 million more into the bus network, so there is a financial incentive for local authorities and bus companies to work together. If they are not doing so, I suggest the hon. Lady contact both of them in her area.

Oral Answers to Questions

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

The Government’s approach is showing that encouraging businesses to take the issue seriously is paying dividends. Indeed, more than a third of new appointments to boards over the last 12 months have been women. There is certainly more to do, but that shows that the approach we are taking is the right one. In fact, we are doing well on this matter compared with many other countries. They have been looking at our approach in the Lord Davies review, often to see how they might be able to take on board some of the best practice that we have already developed, and our officials have been sharing that with officials in other countries.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The Minister is incorrect: this 1% rate of progress means that the girls are not yet born who will benefit from it. Will she look at the Australian model—both at what the Australian Prime Minister has said and at the federal Government target of 40% men, 40% women and 20% of either gender?

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I certainly think that many across the House would do well to look at what the Australian Prime Minister says and at her rather excellent recent speech on the issue of equality. I disagree that quotas are the right way to proceed, and I do not recognise the figure of 1% that she mentioned. The percentage of women on boards has increased to 17% from 12% since the election, and as I have said, a third of new appointments in the last year have been women.

Walsall-Rugeley Line (Electrification)

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burley]

Excellent.

Given the history of this scheme, it is astonishing that this small 15-mile section of track has not already been electrified. The scheme originally had a high-profile inclusion in the former Railtrack network management statement in 1999, including a detailed pre-feasibility study showing it was deliverable. It was again identified in Network Rail’s electrification strategy 2009, and in its west midlands route utilisation strategy in 2011, as a scheme that should be fully considered in more detail as part of the west midlands and Chilterns route utilisation strategy.

Although Centro and other local stakeholders feel that the west midlands and Chilterns route utilisation strategy process did not consider the case for electrifying the route as effectively as it could have, recent work by Network Rail demonstrates that the electrification scheme has a positive business case and a benefit-cost ratio of 1:2, even without the inclusion of the wider strategic benefits that will arise from creating an alternative electrified rail connection between the west midlands and the west coast main line, which links the region to the north-west and Scotland.

The Minister may not be aware that recent work undertaken by KPMG for Centro has also identified significant further regional economic benefits from the electrification of this route, which, again, are not included in Network Rail’s business case. KPMG’s analysis indicated that electrification would generate an additional £113 million of gross value added benefit per annum and support the creation of 1,370 additional jobs, as has been mentioned. That is why Centro and others locally are so passionate about seeing the Government confirm the Walsall to Rugeley electrification as a high priority scheme for 2014 to 2019 in the Secretary of State’s forthcoming high-level output statement on rail investment. That is also why both Centro and the West Midlands Regional Rail Forum have now identified the scheme as the No.1 electrification priority for the whole of the west midlands region.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. It may seem to be a bit geeky and for train-spotters, but this subject is very important for our constituents. I am pleased that Walsall is not being ignored, because it usually is. Will he say whether any of this is part of the High Speed 2 bid? Will we be able to have a bit of slippage in that bid in order to see this scheme come to fruition?

[Mr Burley]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I will come on to deal with HS2 and the way it connects up a little later in my speech, when I believe I will address her question. I also thank her for signing the letter to the Secretary of State, which I should also mention, from just about all the MPs along the line in support of the scheme; as has been said, this is a cross-party effort, as we all want to see this happen.

Although Centro and other regional stakeholders strongly support the electrification of the Walsall to Rugeley route, the train operator, London Midland, also believes that electrification would deliver ongoing operational cost savings, improved journey times and reduced crowding. Electrification work will make it easier to create a larger loading gauge, allowing the increasingly common W10 containers to be transported. In the longer term, electrification could allow services such as the Birmingham to Liverpool service to run via Walsall, significantly improving Walsall’s connectivity to Stafford and the north-west, and giving new commercial opportunities to serve a town that is now larger than Wolverhampton, as I learned yesterday.

The Minister will be aware that the electrification strategy as part of the network route utilisation strategy identified the following gaps as driving whether a route should be considered for electrification:

“Type A—Electrification to enable efficient operation of passenger services…Type B—Electrification to enable efficient operation of freight services…Type C— Electrification to increase the availability of diversionary routes…Type D—Electrification to enable new patterns of service to operate”.

The Minister can take comfort that the Walsall to Rugeley line electrification would cover all those gap types.

The Minister will also be aware that Network Rail has identified a number of criteria to be considered when looking at whether to develop a project for CP5. Again, we in the west midlands strongly believe that all these criteria, as set down by Network Rail, are met. Tonight, I just want to highlight three key criteria, the first of which is affordability. Railtrack commissioned Atkins in 1999 to undertake a pre-feasibility study into the electrification of the route, and, with the exception of clearance issues in the Walsall station area, the route appears to be straightforward to electrify. It must be remembered that the line was earmarked for electrification in the 1960s as part of the west coast electrification scheme, and that all the bridges and other structures were rebuilt with electrification clearances. Atkins assessed the cost of electrification as approximately £32.6 million, plus an extra £6 million to achieve W10 gauge clearance. However, it is worth noting that the recent work by Centro reduces that to just £30 million, or £1 million per mile of track—15 miles in each direction.

The second criterion I want to draw to the Minister’s attention is value for money. There should be a financially positive benefit-cost ratio of more than two. We believe that the multiple benefits that the route drives have already resulted in a positive BCR of 1:2. That will be further enhanced by the KPMG work, which will push it over two. Network Rail’s business case assessment is narrowly defined and has been superseded by the Centro-commissioned KPMG work that takes into account the wider benefits such as job creation and economic development. As has been mentioned, it would mean more than 1,300 new jobs and a gross value added of £113 million, which are not reflected in Network Rail’s more tightly defined business case, which still gives a positive BCR. We therefore urge the Minister to take that into account as part of her decision process for named schemes in CP5 as part of the HLOS next month. This is a capital scheme that will trigger economic development and job creation across the west midlands.

The third criterion for Network Rail that I want to draw to the Minister’s attention is the extent to which economic growth is driven. As I hope we are showing tonight, the service improvements arising from the scheme would drive significant economic growth in the Walsall and Cannock areas, which are badly affected by the economic downturn. The freed-up capacity elsewhere on the network would also support wider economic growth in the west midlands. There would also be the ability to redeploy diesel capacity on the busy Snow Hill network, which would help the economy of Birmingham city centre to develop further. Without the electrification the current service on the line could worsen, leading to economic growth constraint.

I believe the scheme meets all the key criteria for electrification set down by Network Rail and that is why all our local stakeholders believe that Walsall to Rugeley electrification strongly meets Network Rail’s criteria for CP5 named schemes for 2014 to 2019. As a result of all this, on 18 May I sent a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport signed by 20 key stakeholders, including the chairs of the Greater Birmingham and Solihull, Black Country and Staffordshire, and Stoke local enterprise partnerships, the leaders of all the metropolitan, county and district local authorities on the route, private sector business leaders, the chamber of commerce and six MPs with constituencies along the route, some of whom are in their places tonight, all giving their unequivocal support for Walsall to Rugeley Chase line electrification. As can be seen from the number of MPs from both sides of the House who signed the letter to the Secretary of State and who are here tonight, this scheme has the support of the region.

The scheme has the strong support of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who has already written to the Minister about this matter but cannot take part in this debate because he is a Whip, even though he is sitting in front of me on the Treasury Bench tonight. It also has the strong support of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who has publicly given his firm support, saying:

“Electrification of this line is a vital, not simply for local and regional transport, but for the national network as it provides alternative routes for electric only trains.”

It also has the support my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth), who was the former Member for Cannock and Burntwood and is now the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, He cannot speak in the debate as he is a Defence Minister, but he wanted me to inform the house that when he was the Member for Cannock and Burntwood in 1983 to 1992, he tried to get the line to be upgraded, saying then:

“It would provide an invaluable alternative for occasions when the West Coast mainline between Rugeley and Birmingham International is out of action for repairs.”

It is even supported by the Government Chief Whip, himself a user of the Chase line in his former life as a councillor on Cannock Chase district council and as a coal miner in my own constituency. It also has the cross-party support of all the MPs along the route, including the hon. Members for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), for Stafford and for Lichfield.

I know that the Minister, quite rightly, will not be persuaded simply by pleas from MPs. I am aware that such schemes require more than just special pleading; they require cold hard facts and benefit-cost ratios, and that is what I have tried to convey to the Minister tonight. As I have said, recent work by Network Rail this year has already established that this £30 million scheme has a positive business case with a BCR of 1:2 and the further research by KPMG commissioned by Centro shows that that can easily increase to more than two when the wider economic benefits are taken into account. An investment of £30 million will give the west midlands a regional gross value added benefit of £113 million and the regional employment impact will create nearly 1,400 jobs. That seems like a good return to me and one that meets the Network Rail investment criteria.

I am conscious that this bid would be in competition with other bids for electrification and must therefore be competitive. Before this debate, I listened to a recent Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) to ask for electrification of the midland main line at a capital cost of a rather whopping £530 million, with more than 50 bridges needing to be rebuilt. The Minister, who is also replying to this debate, said then that

“we will need to strike a balance”

between different types of project and that what gets funding depends on a

“fair assessment of competing priorities elsewhere on the rail network.”—[Official Report, 16 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 148-49.]

Given that this project would cost only £30 million and would need only two bridges to be slightly modified, I hope the Minister can recognise it as an easy win—a piece of low-hanging fruit that she can grasp. It is one of those different types of project that should be considered on its own merits next to the big boys.

In conclusion, if ever there were a time for this scheme to be delivered by the “greenest Government ever”, it is now. It has been in the planning stage since the early 1960s—20 years before I was born—and it has been pursued by former MPs for Cannock Chase of both political colours as well as by local councils and regional authorities. The local enterprise partnerships see it as essential to the commercial interests along the routes. They also think it essential to connecting the benefits of HS2 to the area and driving job creation and economic growth. KPMG’s analysis has demonstrated that this electrification and consequent passenger service improvements would dramatically improve accessibility to labour and goods markets, stimulating economic growth and job creation and increasing productivity for the west midlands as a whole.

The electrification of this 15-mile strategic missing link in the electrified rail network of the west midlands would create an alternative route to the north-west for passenger and freight services, relieving the existing congested Birmingham to Stafford main line, so this is not just a local rail scheme. It would offer regional and national benefits, but it is essential, if those benefits are to be realised, that these outputs form a key part of the Government’s July announcement on the high-level output specification. I therefore ask the Minister to reflect positively on the strong business case for this project. When she does, I hope she will reach the same conclusion as we have—that the electrification of the Walsall to Rugeley Chase line should be included as a named scheme for CP5 as part of the high-level output specification due to be published by her Department next month.