Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Wednesday 14th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers]

My hon. Friend the former Minister identifies some of the downsides, although, as I mentioned earlier, there is no perfect solution. My next sentence was going to be that creating a big, monolithic public body will not solve all the problems unless there is a mix of public and private working together. The private sector has more than doubled passenger numbers in the past two decades, has increased services by more than a third since 1997, and has increased jobs by 27% since 2011. The private sector must have a role.

I recognise that the private sector has not got it all right. There are significant concerns today around particular services linked to industrial action and rest-day working agreements. I was a keen advocate for TransPennine Express to lose its franchise and for the service to be taken under the wing of the OLR until a new private operator could be found. But colleagues across the House must look to pragmatic solutions to fix the railways, with the private and public sector working together. We need to create a market in which the private sector can deliver for customers. We need to let customer-facing operators act in the interests of the customer, not constantly seek permission from the centre. That is not an ideological argument, but one based on reality: command and control from the centre is not helping the sector to bounce back after the pandemic. If we get the balance right, a public-private partnership will enable operators to deliver for customers.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for rail, I hear from all manner of stakeholders in the rail sector, including operators, trade associations, those involved in the supply chains, community action groups, industry journalists and, of course, passengers. It is clear that the vast majority agree that legislation is required to make the public body a legal entity and give it the powers necessary to be truly effective. In November 2019, the all-party group published a report, “Rail Reform: A Guiding Mind”, which called for a similar body. The report was presented to the then Rail Minister. I recognise that the next parliamentary Session will be tight, but a Bill to establish GBR would be relatively thin and ought not to be controversial. I urge the Minister to lobby within his Department to ensure that a Bill appears in the King’s Speech.

Having said that, and without wanting to give the Minister the impression that anything other than a Bill is the preferable way of underpinning the long-term success of the railways, some important reforms can be done in the meantime without legislation. The national rail contracts are one of the last vestiges of the pandemic. They were right in a crisis, but now they need to evolve to provide operators with more flexibility to use their commercial nous and attract customers back. That would restore some financial sustainability and allow the Government to spend more on other priorities.

The independent economic expert body Oxera estimates that the Treasury is missing out on as much as £1.6 billion over two years because of restrictive contracts for operators. That reduces operators’ ability to drive the recovery of passenger numbers. Money is also being lost through the lack of ticket checks on board. Many commuters will be aware of journeys on which their tickets are checked once in a blue moon. That means they could travel for free, knowing that if they did happen to be caught, the savings they would have built up would vastly outweigh any fines they might have to pay. However, at present there is no incentive for rail operators to ensure the collection of fares.

Beyond reforms to the current National Rail contracts, we must look ahead to the end state, as envisioned by Keith Williams, and the passenger service contract, which must be flexible enough to reflect the varying rail market. The public instinctively understand that when they book a flight earlier, the ticket should be cheaper than if they were buying it closer to when they travel. That approach needs to apply to longer-distance rail journeys.

For shorter commuter journeys, we need to introduce more turn-up-and-go services with tap-in, tap-out technology and some degree of flexibility for operators to entice customers on quieter days. I was delighted that in the George Bradshaw address, the Secretary of State signalled that this anti-one-size-fits-all approach is being adopted for future contracts. As a key principle, the future passenger service contracts should be developed to reflect the geography and markets that they serve. They should incentivise operators to use all their creativity and capability to deliver the best possible outcomes for taxpayers by growing revenues and reducing costs.

The Government also need to drive forward fares reform, which the public rightly and understandably care greatly about. Why has it been 18 months since the Government announced the tender for the consolidated online retail solution to deliver radical and long-awaited fares reform? Can we get on and start the tender process? As the Minister knows, it does not need legislation. The prior information notice for CORS was published in December 2021.

The Government have announced one measure relating to fares: a single-leg pricing trial extension on LNER. That is something that should be rolled out more widely to private sector operators. The use of single-leg pricing removes the anomaly of some single tickets being almost as expensive as a return ticket. It means passengers can more easily choose when to travel in the knowledge that the fare offers value for money. For example, if someone commutes in at peak-time in the morning, but then attends an event after work and comes back off-peak, why should they pay for a peak-time return? This is a good step forward that ought to be utilised more widely.

Moving on to freight, I had the pleasure of hosting a cross-party parliamentary reception on this issue in March. Freight makes sense for the environment and the economy. The longest freight trains can ease road congestion by removing up to 129 heavy goods vehicles from the road. If the Government set an ambitious target to treble rail freight by 2050, the sector would deliver nearly £5.2 billion in economic benefits as a minimum. The freight sector would flourish by setting a supportive policy environment and also by opening the east-west freight corridor, which, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, would be beneficial to industry and the development of the Humber freeport, and would take a significant number of HGVs off the M62.

I want to highlight the Luxembourg rail protocol, which is making progress internationally and is expected to come into force towards the end of the year. However, the UK is yet to ratify it. There has been extensive engagement with the DFT and the Great British Railways transition team, with the DFT including it as part of a consultation last year. Will the Minister confirm today the Government’s position on the protocol? Is he still supportive in principle, and when will the Department issue a response to the consultation? Is there a particular legislative vehicle envisaged to see it implemented? Those involved in the protocol from the UK perspective would appreciate clarification.

The rail model is broken, and both legislative and non-legislative reform is crucial. Misdiagnosing the problem will not make it any better; it will make it worse. Over-centralisation is not in the interests of passengers, the economy or the environment. All parties have identified the need for a public body, but it is important to get the design right and ensure that the private sector is allowed to do what it does best with the package of reform I have outlined today. Along with much-needed changes to ticketing and fares, the Government can deliver rapid and much-needed improvements for passengers, trade customers and the taxpayer.

I know the Minister would be disappointed if I did not raise a couple of local issues, which I have spoken to him about on many occasions. One such issue is the return of the direct train service from Cleethorpes to London King’s Cross. Perhaps he could update us on that. Another issue, which I have not raised with him previously, but perhaps he could look into for me, is that for the past 30 years there has been a Saturday-only train from Sheffield via Gainsborough and Brigg to Cleethorpes, with three trains each way. A few weeks ago, Northern announced that it would make that a daily service, which on the face of it is welcome, but it appears to be more for the convenience of the operator than the passengers, because the one train to Cleethorpes arrives at 11.14 am and the return train is at 1.20 pm. An hour and a half in Cleethorpes is simply not good enough; people need at least a week there to enjoy all the facilities. More seriously, one train arriving mid-morning with a return train at, say, 6 pm would be sensible, but allowing people 90 minutes in Cleethorpes or Grimsby is not ideal if they want to do some shopping.

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

I will move to the wind-ups at 5.9 pm.

A14: Kettering

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

I will call Mr Philip Hollobone to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered junction 10A on the A14 at Kettering.

I thank you, Ms Fovargue, for chairing this debate, and Mr Speaker for granting permission for it. I welcome my good friend the roads Minister to his place and thank him for his successful visit to Kettering bus station in December to launch the Department for Transport’s £2 bus fare scheme, which is already seeing a 7% increase in local bus travel across the country.

Junction 10A on the A14 at Kettering does not yet exist. At the moment, it is just a blob on a DFT map, but it is a junction that local residents very much need if Kettering, Barton Seagrave, Burton Latimer and Cranford are not to grind to a halt because of all the traffic generated by the new house building taking place locally.

Junction 10A is critical infrastructure. It is likely to cost £40 million, with financial contributions split between the Department for Transport and the developer, and is required to deliver phase 2 of the Hanwood Park development, which in Government planning terms is designated as a garden community development of an eventual 5,500 dwellings and employment land covering 328 hectares to the east of Kettering. Local land values will not allow the development of the junction to be funded without Government intervention, so public funding is required.

In line with planning conditions, junction 10A must be in place by the time 2,700 dwellings are occupied. Just over 1,000 dwellings are already occupied, and the developer’s current housing trajectory shows that the 2,700 occupied dwellings trigger for junction 10A will be reached in 2026. There is therefore a significant risk that the development will grind to a halt in three years’ time without the new junction. Thousands of future local jobs could be at risk, and there will be a further 2,800 new local homes, including 560 affordable homes, that simply cannot be built.

My ask of His Majesty’s Government and of the roads Minister today is for a firm commitment to include junction 10A in the DFT’s road investment strategy 3, which is the programme for major road programmes in the period from 2025 to 2030. Junction 10A is already in the pipeline for potential inclusion in RIS3, but what we need now is a definite commitment to include it.

If 2026 is to remain the target date for the delivery of junction 10A, it requires detailed planning approval to be achieved in 2023 and it requires the requisite procurement to commence concurrently. That can happen with confidence only if there is a definite Government commitment to junction 10A and a tangible Government commitment to RIS3 funding. What we are talking about is the need for joined-up Government. If His Majesty’s Government are to get anywhere near their objective of seeing 300,000 new dwellings built each year in England, they need to ensure that the requisite roads infrastructure is in place. Funding junction 10A and enabling Hanwood Park to continue being developed beyond 2026 will be a key test of a dovetailed Government housing and roads strategy.

I know that the Department for Transport already recognises the importance of the junction, because funding for the new junction 10A was originally included in RIS1 for the period 2015 to 2020. The slow housing development roll-out amid the national economic conditions at the time meant that the programme was not activated, but housing development on site is now proceeding apace and the funding is now required.

The Hanwood Park development is the fourth largest sustainable urban extension in the country. It is one of the nation’s flagship housing extensions and sits within the strategic Oxford-to-Cambridge planning arc. For local people, the Hanwood Park development is the equivalent of bolting on to the town of Kettering itself another town the size of Desborough. We have to ensure that the homes built on the development form a vital, liveable community and do not simply become one big, soulless housing estate. To make that happen, we must ensure not only that the infrastructure is in place to serve those new dwellings, but that there is no adverse impact on the quality of life of existing residents of other parts of Kettering, Barton Seagrave, Burton Latimer and Cranford.

Fortunately, the local planning design code is set at a high standard, and there is set to be good internal and town centre connectivity with access to trunk roads, including the A6, A43 and most importantly the A14. Hanwood Park forms a key component of housing to be delivered in North Northamptonshire and Kettering, in the adopted North Northamptonshire joint core strategy for 2011 to 2031, and in the site-specific part 2 local plan, which was adopted in December 2021.

Housing growth is being planned in parallel to the delivery of employment land and other uses. Including estimated construction jobs, the development could provide more than 8,000 new jobs, with 4,300 jobs directly within the development itself. Outline planning permission for Hanwood Park was originally granted in the last days of the last Labour Government in April 2010—13 years ago—for 5,500 houses, 20% of which were to be affordable. It included a range of employment uses; a mixed-use district centre, including shops, local services and a health clinic; three local centres; a secondary school; four primary schools; a hotel and leisure development; and extensive formal and informal open spaces.

Work is well under way to deliver development in the first phase of Hanwood Park, with 1,921 new homes having received consent and a further 193 currently going through the planning process, together with internal roads, green spaces, a sustainable urban drainage system and utilities infrastructure. Hayfield Cross Church of England primary school, the first school on the site, is already fully operational. A free school bid has been successful for the delivery of the secondary school, and an ongoing public consultation is currently being conducted by Orbis Education Trust regarding whether the school should be boys-only or mixed entry.

Despite the challenges of the covid pandemic and the associated economic downturn, high quality housing delivery continues across the scheme, with David Wilson Homes, Barratt, Bellway, Orbit, Persimmon, Avant and Taylor Wimpey all progressing. Grace Homes, a local small and medium-sized house builder, is looking to commence this year, subject to planning approval. A new outline planning application has been submitted for the remaining 3,386 dwellings, as well as the remaining schools, formal and informal open spaces, district and local centres, a hotel and employment. The application is currently pending and has reached an advanced stage.

There has been clear Government support for the Hanwood Park development to date, including Homes England granting £60 million of loan funding to the developer and delivery partners. That funding partnership with Homes England has resulted in the development now having a primary school, surface water attenuation, adopted foul sewers, three principal access roads, and junction improvements on town roads in Kettering itself. Funding has also been secured by North Northamptonshire Council from the new garden communities initiative and the Homes England large sites capacity fund, to help support the project and others across North Northamptonshire.

The developer of Hanwood Park has signed a memorandum of understanding with National Highways, setting out the project control framework approach for junction 10A. To maintain the programme, the developer is carrying out, at its own risk, a range of technical and environmental surveys, including a utilities survey, a wintering bird survey and topographical and archaeological investigations, in anticipation of submitting a detailed application for junction 10A.

Confirmation of Department for Transport funding for junction 10A is now imperative to ensuring continued housing delivery at Hanwood Park beyond 2026, including badly needed affordable housing, along with significant employment opportunities and local economic growth, and to giving the market the confidence it needs that housing delivery will not be stifled beyond that date. In addition to continued housing delivery, the new junction 10A will unlock employment land, which is key for local sustainable economic growth. Junction 10A is essential to the delivery of some 10 hectares of employment land at Hanwood Park in the south-eastern quadrant of the development adjacent to the A14. Without the new junction 10A, the market delivery of these employment areas would be extremely challenging and might not even be possible.

For local people, the tragedy is that we could have had as many as 2,700 new homes already built by 2026 without the necessary road infrastructure to take us beyond that level. That presents the real risk of gridlock in the town of Kettering, with initial houses already provided but with the Government not coming up with their share of the funding for the new junction 10A. My plea to the roads Minister today, on behalf of local people in Kettering, is that he recognise the fundamental importance of the new junction to people in the local area and that the Government make the commitment to fund it that we badly need.

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Committal

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Committal (to a Select Committee)
Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

My manuscript amendments seek to extend the discussion on the Golborne spur and to allow petitions relating to this link to be heard by the Committee, as I do not believe the full facts have been taken into account by the premature and ill-informed decision to remove the link and to explore alternatives that deliver similar, although I would say inferior, benefits within the £96 billion envelope of the Government’s integrated rail plan.

HS2 phase 2b, Crewe to Manchester, including the Golborne link, will cost £17 billion at 2019 prices. The proposed removal of the Golborne link is expected to reduce costs by approximately £3 billion. The Government committed to publish a supplement to the January 2022 strategic outline business case for HS2 phase 2b to set out the implications of removing the Golborne link ahead of the Second Reading, but that has only just been published. How can a reasonable decision be made without full and costed alternatives that allow time for full consideration of the implications for all, especially those in my borough of Wigan? It does state that it will deliver benefits sooner to Manchester and the north-west, but it is pretty difficult to see the benefits that will be delivered to Wigan, and to Lancashire and Cumbria.

The January 2014 update to the business case for HS2 included a

“without link to the West Coast Mainline”

sensitivity test, which showed a benefit-cost ratio of 0.7, which equates to gaining £7 billion of benefits from spending £10 billion. The benefit-cost ratio with the Golborne rink is 1.2. It is difficult to understand how the Golborne link can be considered a “white elephant” and its removal a

“worthwhile saving of taxpayers’ money”

on that basis. The environmental statement included an alternatives report, which considered a wide range of alternatives for the western leg of HS2 phase 2b, before arriving at a shortlist and then a clear preference for the Golborne link as part of HS2 phase 2b.

One alternative that was considered, and is clearly now back on the table, is the upgrade of the west coast main line north of Crewe. Parts of the west coast main line between Crewe and Wigan are heavily congested, notably the section between Winsford and Weaver in Cheshire, including the Weaver junction. That section is twin track for the majority of its length and is used by long-distance services between Scotland, Liverpool and London, inter-regional services between Liverpool and Birmingham, and freight services. It is already constraining service improvement. This alternative option would include partial four-tracking of the Weaver junction, the provision of an alternative freight route via Sandbach and substantial grade separation between Crewe and Preston. Upgrading the west coast main line was found to deliver faster journey times compared with the existing situation. However, they do not match the journey time benefits provided by the Golborne link, which would deliver substantially faster journey times between cities in the north and the midlands, as is set out on page 20 of the alternatives report.

Both the upgrade of the west coast main line and the Golborne link were found to create extra capacity on the national conventional rail network for other services. However, only the Golborne link would create extra capacity for potential high-speed services north of Birmingham, and would therefore better meet the Government’s strategic objectives for HS2. So without the Golborne link there is a fundamental concern that provision for additional high-speed services north of Birmingham would be to the detriment of local and regional services, and freight services, which would need to be removed or reduced, or at the very least would remain constrained against their potential for growth, including in response to any carbon reduction challenges. This alternative option would also result in years of significant disruption to passengers and freight on the west coast main line compared with building a new railway. The Government have suggested that a solution could be delivered more quickly than the Golborne link, but we have not got any evidence for that. Given that they have made similar claims in removing the eastern leg of HS2 and in downgrading Northern Powerhouse Rail, in preference to upgrading existing lines, there is not enough capacity in the industry to do all of this work, and there is also the time constraint in working around live railways to consider. Even if there was, it is not possible to close different routes at the same time to facilitate the work without causing widespread disruption. Instead, it is highly likely to take much longer than building a new railway.

This alternative option would also be more expensive than the Golborne link, as the works needed between Crewe and Wigan would be of a similar scale to those needed between Wigan and Preston to accommodate the high-speed trains. That is likely to cost in the region of £5 billion to 10 billion—and that is the estimate from Network Rail. On that basis, the cost of upgrading the west coast main line between Crewe and Wigan will exceed the £3 billion needed for the Golborne link by around £7 million.

It is pertinent for the Wigan borough that the loss of the Golborne link will be to the detriment of the service provision at the proposed new rail station at Golborne, which is on the west coast main line south of the proposed junction with HS2. Significant capacity enhancements to the west coast main line between Warrington and Wigan, particularly around the junction with the Chat Moss line, would be needed if that station was to be served by the stopping trains without disrupting the high-speed through services. In the absence of the Golborne link, they will all pass through that location.

The report also considered a connection to the west coast main line north of Preston, near Brock. It would be 46 km in length as an extension to the Golborne link north of Lowton. It would pass close to a number of communities, including Hindley and Ince-in-Makerfield, as well as numerous other communities in Lancashire, and would require an elevated crossing of the River Ribble and a new parkway station west of Preston. That would clearly mean additional noise and visual and landscape impacts that would all need to be mitigated. A further 63 demolitions would be needed, it would impact the setting of up to three scheduled monuments and up to six grade II listed buildings, and it would impact on two ancient woodlands.

Preston City Council did not support the need for a new parkway station on the outskirts of Preston, instead favouring investment in the regeneration of the existing city centre station. Although such a connection would deliver journey-time improvements between London and Glasgow, it was considered that the benefits gained from the journey-time savings and new markets did not outweigh the substantial costs and additional sustainability impacts. It was therefore determined that this alternative option did not deliver sufficient economic or journey-time benefits to offset the higher costs, sustainability impacts and lower regional connectivity.

Option 3 was a new connection to the south of Preston, on the basis that it would have the potential to deliver more benefits and reduce journey times by two to three minutes more than the Golborne link. As with the connection north of Preston, this would be an extension to the Golborne link north of Lowton. The alternatives report explored the recommendation in detail and determined that various connections to the west coast main line south of Preston performed less favourably in terms of construction complexity, sustainability and journey time when compared with the options connecting to the north of Preston. That was despite a shorter length of track.

There is a clear contradiction between the Union connectivity review and the alternatives report. A connection to the west coast main line south of Preston may deliver greater benefits than the Golborne link, but the feasibility of such a connection has been examined by HS2 across a number of locations and been deemed unsuitable for progression in favour of other options. It should be noted that any connection to the west coast main line south of Preston would in effect extend the Golborne link and cost significantly more than the link’s £3 billion cost. It is also highly likely to cost more than the works that would otherwise be needed to accommodate high-speed trains on the west coast main line between Wigan and Preston, which Network Rail has advised would cost in the region of £5 billion to £10 billion.

There is another option. If Government chose to extend HS2 northwards, which currently seems unlikely, the council would want to retain the Golborne link connection to Wigan to avoid the borough being bypassed by HS2. This would need a junction with the extended route north of Lowton and the retention of that part of the Golborne link from that point to the west coast main line at Bamfurlong, which is a short length of around 3 km. The remainder of the Golborne link would be part of a longer link regardless. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady is making a serious speech. There are people sitting in this Chamber who are not whispering to one another but speaking as if they are in a normal evening conversation. If you are in the Chamber and someone else is speaking, it is polite to speak quietly to one another. I am not suggesting that there should be no conversations going on, but I should not be able to hear those conversations from the Chair.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

This is an important factor for Wigan, for my borough and for the people who live in my borough. It is important that we get HS2 right so that we get the economic benefits for all the north-west. In any such connection, the council would seek to progress the items that have been identified for petitioning on the Golborne link, to mitigate the adverse impacts of the proposals on local communities, including the proposal for a green tunnel at Lowton.

The Golborne link would free up capacity on the west coast main line for residual passenger services and rail freight and maximise the time that services can travel at high speed between London, Birmingham and Scotland, minimising end-to-end journey times. The significance of that is set out in the January 2022 update to the HS2 Phase 2b business case, which is explicit about the role of the Golborne link in unlocking capacity and services to Scotland. As the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) mentioned, this is important for Scotland, not just for Wigan.

The Golborne link also gives rise to the opportunity to connect to the Manchester spur and bring significantly improved journey times to Manchester airport and Manchester Piccadilly, avoiding the congested Castlefield corridor in central Manchester—from Wigan, the north-west and Scotland. Our services to Manchester Oxford Road are always under threat in Wigan. We have very poor transport links, and we will not even get a tram until 2040, so it is important that HS2 provides actual benefits for my borough.

At £3 billion, the Golborne spur is clearly cost-effective compared with the option of upgrading the west coast main line, and it could be delivered more quickly, with minimal disruption to passengers and freight on the existing rail network.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Is it the case that the Government are maintaining safeguarding on this route so that, if they change their minds in the future, this will still be able to go ahead?

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Indeed, safeguarding has been maintained, but there is no opportunity in the Select Committee to put forward the proposals to include the Golborne link. There is no opportunity to put a petition. Basically, debate has been stifled by this amendment, which is why I am objecting to it.

There are no alternatives that are cheaper than the Golborne link. In fact, it becomes more likely that phase 2b without the Golborne link will cost more than it delivers. There are no alternatives that can be delivered with less disruption to passengers and freight on the west coast main line than the Golborne link. There are no alternatives that can be delivered quicker than the Golborne link other than small-scale isolated improvements. Wigan Council has identified a number of measures that could easily be incorporated in the Golborne link that would substantially reduce the adverse impacts on local communities. Greenhouse gas emissions will be increased by removing the Golborne link.

The Government have insisted that any alternative should deliver the same benefits and outputs. There is no alternative to match the benefits at similar cost. As concluded in all the independent analyses that have taken place, the solution to all of this is the Golborne link. It is simply wrong to stifle debate by removing any possibility for the Select Committee to re-examine it and for people to petition for this. It is stifling debate. The land is still safeguarded and people are still blighted by it and yet we cannot even talk about it. That is why we need to re-examine it and local people, local councils and Transport for Greater Manchester all need to be able to have their say.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)]

I start by addressing the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). I do not recognise his comment that I said the amendment would be fatal to the Bill; it would not be, because the Bill has passed Second Reading. I hope that he will recognise that the last two HS2 hybrid Bills for phase 1 and phase 2a took around four years to pass through this place. If we were to keep the Golborne link in while the Government thought about and studied alternatives, and waited to make any progress until we had done that, we would probably be delaying the Bill by a further two years. I am not prepared to delay the delivery of benefits to people in Greater Manchester and across the north of England by a further two years. I think we need to get on with delivering the benefits of high-speed rail now.

The Union connectivity review set out that the Golborne link would not resolve all the rail capacity constraints between Crewe and Preston. We have therefore decided to look again at alternatives that would deliver similar benefits. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) made an eloquent case for some of the merits of the Golborne link, which has of course been a part of the Government’s proposals up until now, but I hope that she will take into account and recognise the many speeches made on Second Reading by Members who do not support the Golborne link and support motion 6 to have the Golborne link deferred while we consider alternatives, including her fellow Wigan MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy). Members from her own side of the House who have not spoken today, including the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), and of course the leader of Warrington Council, have welcomed the Government’s decision to bring this motion forward.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I recognise that there is debate about this, but I have to say that the whole of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority supports it, plus Transport for Greater Manchester. Despite Warrington Council being held up—I appreciate there are different views—the whole of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority does support the Golborne link.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I think we would all agree that we have to get high-speed rail right. Without the Golborne link, this is still a £13 billion to £19 billion scheme; including the Golborne link, it a £15 billion to £22 billion scheme. We have to get it right: we have to ensure that we are delivering the maximum reductions in journey times to Scotland, that we have the least environmental damage possible and that we are building this infrastructure —the infrastructure that the House has just supported on Second Reading—in the right way. That is why I believe we are right to bring forward the motion to remove consideration of the Golborne link from the Bill while we look at alternatives.

I would like to tidy up some misunderstanding, as this has been mentioned by a couple of hon. Members, about the decision to remove the Golborne link on Monday 6 June—a day when there was also a confidence vote in this House. I think anybody who is aware of parliamentary procedure—I know all the Opposition Members here are very well aware of parliamentary procedure—will know that for me to table a written ministerial statement on the Monday, I had to inform the House I was doing so the week before. I notified the House authorities and also tabled the title of my written ministerial statement, which was well before any confidence vote was anticipated.

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said that his only other explanation for what this could possibly be about was cuts. With the £96 billion of rail investment in the midlands and the north in the integrated rail plan, this is the biggest ever Government investment in our railways, and it cannot be described—seriously, it cannot—as a cut. I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) to reduce journey times to Scotland.

I think we all have an interest in getting this infrastructure right, and I therefore ask the hon. Member for Makerfield not to push her amendments to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Instruction

Ordered,

That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill is committed to deal with the Bill as follows—

(1) The Committee shall—

(a) make an appropriate assessment, in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (“the 2017 Regulations”), of the implications for a site within paragraph (2) of the provisions made in relation to the site by the Bill in view of the site’s conservation objectives, and

(b) make a recommendation to the House in relation to whether those provisions adversely affect the integrity of the site.

(2) The following sites are within this paragraph—

(a) the Rochdale Canal special area of conservation, and

(b) a site to which paragraph (3) applies that the Committee determines, in accordance with the 2017 Regulations, is likely to be significantly affected by a provision of the Bill.

(3) This paragraph applies to a European site (within the meaning of the 2017 Regulations) in relation to which—

(a) an amendment has been proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision, or

(b) the Committee has been provided with additional information by the promoters after the date of this instruction.

(4) For the purposes of making an assessment under paragraph (1) or a determination under paragraph (2)(b), the Committee may require the promoters to provide the Committee with such information as the Committee may reasonably require.

(5) For the purposes of making an assessment under paragraph (1), the Committee—

(a) must consult the relevant nature conservation body and have regard to any representations made by the body within such reasonable time as the Committee specifies;

(b) is not required to consult the general public.

(6) In paragraph (5)(a), the “relevant nature conservation body” means—

(a) in relation to a site in England, Natural England, and

(b) in relation to a site in Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now come to motion 6. Do I understand that the hon. Lady does not wish to move amendment (a) or (b)?

[Yvonne Fovargue]

indicated assent.

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Instruction (No. 2)

Ordered,

That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill is committed to deal with the Bill as follows:

(1) The Committee shall, before concluding its proceedings, amend the Bill by—

(a) leaving out provision relating to the railway between Hoo Green in Cheshire and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Bamfurlong, south of Wigan, except for a spur from Hoo Green to the Parish of High Legh in Cheshire, and

(b) making such amendments to the Bill as it thinks fit in consequence of the amendments made by virtue of sub-paragraph (a).

(2) The Committee shall not hear any petition to the extent that it relates to whether or not there should be a railway between Hoo Green in Cheshire and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Bamfurlong, south of Wigan.

(3) The Committee shall treat the principle of the Bill, as determined by the House on the Bill’s Second Reading, as comprising the matters mentioned in paragraph 4; and those matters shall accordingly not be at issue during proceedings of the Committee.

(4) The matters referred to in paragraph (3) are—

(a) the provision of a high speed railway between a junction with Phase 2a of High Speed 2 south of Crewe in Cheshire and Manchester Piccadilly Station,

(b) in relation to the railway set out on the plans deposited in January 2022 in connection with the Bill in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons, its broad route alignment, and

(c) the fact that there are to be no new stations (other than Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport) on, or spurs (other than the spur from Hoo Green to the Parish of High Legh) from, the railway mentioned in sub-paragraph (b).

(5) The Committee shall have power to consider any amendments proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision.

(6) Paragraph (5) applies only so far as the amendments proposed by the member in charge of the Bill fall within the principle of the Bill as provided for by paragraphs (3) and (4) above.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Carry-Over

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill:

Suspension at end of current Session

(1) Further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which this Session of Parliament ends (“the current Session”) until the next Session of Parliament (“Session 2023–24”).

(2) If a Bill is presented in Session 2023–24 in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in the current Session—

(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the current Session or in the previous Session of Parliament (“Session 2021–22”), shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session 2023–24;

(c) any resolution relating to the Habitats Regulations that is passed by the House in the current Session in relation to the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in Session 2023–24;

(d) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—

(i) paragraph (3), if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,

(ii) paragraph (4), if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,

(iii) paragraph (5), if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended,

(iv) paragraph (6), if the Bill was waiting for third reading when proceedings on it were suspended, or

(v) paragraph (7), if the Bill has been read the third reading time and sent to the House of Lords.

(3) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the current Session;

(b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the current Session shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in Session 2023–24;

(c) all petitions submitted in the current Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the current Session ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in Session 2023–24 in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2023–24;

(d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the current Session shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2023–24;

(e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in Session 2023–24, shall stand referred to the Committee;

(f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in Session 2023–24 shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition;

(g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply;

(h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body;

(i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it;

(j) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time;

(k) three shall be the quorum of the Committee.

(4) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.

(5) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.

(6) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.

(7) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.

Suspension at end of this Parliament

(8) If proceedings on the Bill are resumed in accordance with paragraph 2 but are not completed before the end of Session 2023–24, further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which that Session ends until the first Session of the next Parliament (“Session 2024–25”).

(9) If a Bill is presented in Session 2024–25 in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in Session 2023–24—

(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in Session 2023–24 or in the current session or in Session 2021–22, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session 2024–25;

(c) any resolution relating to the Habitats Regulations that is passed by the House in Session 2023–24 or in the current session in relation to the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in Session 2024–25;

(d) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—

(i) paragraph (10), if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,

(ii) paragraph (11), if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,

(iii) paragraph (12), if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended,

(iv) paragraph (13), if the Bill was waiting for third when proceedings on it were suspended, or

(v) paragraph (14), if the Bill has been read the third time and sent to the House of Lords.

(10) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in Session 2023–24;

(b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the current Session or in Session 2023–24 shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in Session 2024–25;

(c) all petitions submitted in the current Session or in Session 2023–24 which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the Session 2023–24 ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in Session 2024–25 in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2024–25;

(d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in Session 2023–24 or in the current session shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2024–25;

(e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in Session 2024–25, shall stand referred to the Committee;

(f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in Session 2024–25 shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition;

(g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply;

(h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body;

(i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it;

(j) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time;

(k) three shall be the quorum of the Committee.

(11) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.

(12) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.

(13) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.

(14) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.

Other

(15) In paragraphs (1) and (8) above, references to further proceedings do not include proceedings under Standing Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).

(16) In paragraphs (3) and (10) above, references to the submission of a petition are to its submission electronically, by post or in person.

(17) In paragraphs (2) and (9) above, references to the Habitats Regulations are to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the parliamentary Standards Act 2009

Ordered,

That the Order of the House of 19 March 2013 (Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009) be amended, in paragraph (1)(a), by inserting, in the appropriate place, “the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill”.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

I am going to make some progress, then I will take more interventions.

This hybrid Bill is the first one to deal with infrastructure in both England and Scotland. The Bill includes a new depot on the west coast main line in Dumfries and Galloway to ensure that HS2 trains can travel to and be maintained in Scotland. The environment will benefit greatly too. Rail is already the greenest form of public transport in this country, and the most sustainable, carbon-efficient way of moving people and goods quickly over long distances. HS2 will bring further significant reductions in emissions, with new trains and modern tracks helping us to move towards a net zero transport system. This Bill is going even further than previous transport hybrid Bills.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

We welcome the reduction in the greenhouse gas emissions, but phase 2b of HS2 without the Golborne spur will actually increase the greenhouse gas emissions. With the Golborne spur, they would be decreased by 750,000 tonnes. Does the Minister not agree, therefore, that the Golborne link should be further considered?

[Wendy Morton]

We are looking at alternatives, because it is quite possible that we could come forward with something better. I know this is something that the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, is looking at very carefully.

The huge economic benefits that HS2 will bring to Scotland are not in question. HS2 services between London and Glasgow are set to be available once the HS2 trains start running on to the conventional rail network. We are also committed to exploring alternatives that deliver similar benefits to the Golborne link within the £96 billion envelope of the integrated rail plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)]

First, I declare my interest: the Golborne spur affects the Grundy family farm, as it affects thousands of other families and businesses in Lowton and Golborne in my Leigh constituency. It has been fascinating to hear so many people talk about Golborne today. I do not think Golborne has ever been mentioned in Parliament so much since Colonel Blood, who came from Golborne, stole the crown jewels from the Tower of London. The people of Golborne are getting all their mentions in Parliament all at once today.

I strongly welcome the decision to scrap the Golborne spur of HS2. My local community and I have campaigned on the issue for 10 years. The news has been almost universally welcomed not just in Lowton and Golborne in my constituency but by the communities affected all along the line. Indeed, so popular was the decision to scrap the spur that when the HS2 Minister and I attended a charity event in neighbouring Culcheth in Warrington shortly after the announcement, not just Conservative councillors but Labour ones were keen to have their photograph taken with him.

The Golborne spur would have had a devastating impact on my constituency. It would have harmed the King’s Avenue estate, Pocket Nook Lane, Newton Road, the Oaklands and Meadows estate, the Braithwaite Road and Garton Drive estates, Slag Lane and the Scott Road estate. It would have demolished the Enterprise Way industrial estate, costing hundreds of local jobs that are always vital in a former mining community such as mine but especially important in the current economic climate. It would have also destroyed both Byron wood and Lowton civic field—much-loved green spaces and recreation areas.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I have sympathy with all whose homes and land are impacted, but is the hon. Gentleman not prepared to look at the mitigation measures—such as the green tunnel at Lowton—that TfGM has suggested to mitigate the effects on the constituents in Leigh?

Aviation, Travel and Tourism Industries

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) [V]]

The pandemic has put unprecedented strain on the travel industry and stress on consumers, and the recent decision to remove Portugal from the green list immediately without first placing it on a watchlist has only exacerbated the problems for both. Confidence has been damaged and the lack of transparency by not allowing the data to be scrutinised has compounded the confusion and hindered the ability to plan ahead for businesses and consumers.

To focus on business support for airports like Manchester, the airport and ground operations support scheme is insufficient at £8 million per airport—that does not even cover the rates bill—and support by means of loans will only defer the problem as the start date for any meaningful return to international travel gets pushed ever further back, with no clarity on how and when it will restart. Vaccination was meant to be the key. More than 50% of people are now vaccinated, but we do not hear of covid passports any longer. There will be another travel taskforce between the USA and the UK—a little less talk and a little more action would be appreciated by airports, airlines, businesses and leisure travellers. The covid test scheme is, frankly, an expensive mess. The Government website on providers has no information on whether they are accredited, no guidance on what to do if things go wrong and no advice on the capacity of any provider. Is it acceptable for the Government to expect travellers to do their own research into such a new market, which is prone to scams and fraudulent behaviour? Effective consumer protections must be in place for travellers in the event of any problems with testing, and clear advice for potential travellers is also key.

It is really unhelpful that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office travel warnings do not always echo the amber and red warnings given by the Department for Transport. Indeed, the Secretary of State himself gave incorrect advice regarding refunds for travellers with bookings to an amber country. Travel insurance does not give all the answers; it is confusing and not well understood. How is the Minister working with the regulators and insurance industry to ensure that this is better understood and better regulated? The Government need to clearly state their priorities. If overcaution and virtual isolation is the aim, the industry needs financial support so that it is protected; if that is not the case, the Government need to let the industry trade more freely. Businesses and travellers deserve clarity and transparency.

Rail Timetabling

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

What we are delivering is this: starting next spring, the £3 billion upgrade to the transpennine railway will make a huge difference to journeys; the TransPennine franchise is bringing in brand new intercity express trains in the coming months; and of course, Humberside will also benefit from the huge investment taking place in new trains on the east coast main line.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

My constituents have been suffering outdated Pacer trains, overcrowding and cancellations for years, and the recent timetabling chaos and the removal of the transpennine service just exacerbated that. A promise of a better service by 2020 is just not good enough. My constituents need to get to work now, and no compensation will make up for the written warnings and even the job loss that one person has told me about. Will the Secretary of State at least consider insisting that TransPennine reinstates the stop at Wigan until he can sort out the Northern chaos?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady and I are meeting later, so I will happily talk through that with her.

Large Logistics Parks (Transport Infrastructure)

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Alberto Costa]

Yes, that is another issue that should be taken into account.

The Government must now take the whole matter into account, and I ask them to consider developing a national policy on the location of these large logistics parks.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

In my area, there is a proposed development on green-belt land near a one-way motorway junction. The Greater Manchester spatial strategy includes plans for the motorway junction to become two-way in 40 years, but the development may take place within the next two years if that very important land is taken out of the green belt. There are also developments with no consultation in St Helens, in the neighbouring borough, which will increase the traffic again on that junction. Does the hon. Gentleman agree we need some national infrastructure in place to develop the proposals for logistics sites on these important pieces of land?

[Alberto Costa]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s points. I want to give others the opportunity to speak in this important debate, but my point is that it is now time for the Government to set out their proposals for a national policy on the location of these large logistics parks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend has many virtues, and two that stand proud are the determination and rigour with which he defends his constituents’ interests—a well-known aspect of his work in this House—and, secondly, his insight. That insight will have allowed him to determine, from my opening remarks in which I quoted Schumacher, where I intuitively stand on these matters. I will say more about that later in my speech, but my hon. Friend draws to our attention the important subject of scale. It would be easy for central and local government to assume that there should be no limits on scale, but I am not sure that that is the right approach. I look at these matters in a holistic way.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Does the Minister also take into account the effects on air quality of these large logistic parks and the vehicle movements? For example, in Greater Manchester we have already failed to meet our air quality objectives on a number of occasions. The new logistics parks will increase the standing traffic and will therefore have an effect on the local community’s air quality.

[Mr Hayes]

Barely a day goes by when I do not think about air quality. I was in an inter-ministerial meeting yesterday afternoon to discuss exactly that. It is important that we recognise that the effect on the environment of large developments can be significant and must always be taken into account when we consider them.

Overall responsibility for planning in England rests with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, so we are straying on to his territory to some degree, which I am reluctant to do. As the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire will both know, it is the Department for Communities and Local Government that issues national planning practice guidance on how the Government expects planning to help to deliver sustainable development, but the planning system has at its heart ensuring that the right development takes place in the right places. Not all places are suitable for particular kinds of development; that is the essence of what my hon. Friend has argued today.

The planning system has benefits to the community as well as to the wider economy. Local plans, prepared by local planning authorities in consultation with the community, are at the heart of that system. They must be prepared with a mind to contributing to sustainable development that is consistent with the principles and objectives set out in the national planning policy framework. A local plan should include the strategic policies to deliver homes and jobs, the provision of retail and commercial development, and the provision of infrastructure, including infrastructure for transport.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire is concerned that local planning authorities will work in isolation and not address wider regional issues. I reassure him that the national planning policy framework expects local authorities to work with neighbouring authorities and transport providers to develop strategies for the provision of the viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development. Indeed, I will go further than that: further to his arguments today, I will discuss with my DCLG colleagues whether the framework is as effective as it might be in respect of transport. It may be that we can do more. I do not want to say anything definitive today—you would not expect me to do so, Mr Bone—but given my hon. Friend’s remarks today and with respect for the case that he has made, we may be able to do more.

It is very important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) said, that we consider this in the round with the transport infrastructure that supports the development, so I want to explore the matter further. I shall come back to the A5 in a minute, but I want to make it clear that, as a general principle, transport infrastructure and these developments must be hand in glove.

The second core point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire was that all developments that generate significant amounts of movement must be supported by a transport statement or assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure changes. Such plans should also consider whether improvements within the transport network can be undertaken to limit the significant impacts of the development in a cost-effective way. Crucially, they should plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area. They are designed to take into account longer term trends and changes of the kind that my hon. Friend has set out.

Critically, the presumption built into the national planning policy framework is in favour not only of development but of sustainable development. How we define sustainability in respect of transport infrastructure is crucial, and I want to study that in greater detail, as I said a moment ago. Should my hon. Friend have further concerns about that or feel that additional clarity would be desirable, I will happily ask my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to meet him and discuss the matter. It is right that Ministers should always make ourselves available to Members, because by doing so we make ourselves available to the people we serve.

On development more generally, I recently waxed lyrical—at least I thought I was lyrical—on the subject of beauty. I add to what I said that all we build should be as good as it can be in its relationship with the local environment and in its aesthetic. That may sound odd in respect of what is essentially an industrial development of the kind that my hon. Friend spoke of, but actually we once took the view that everything we build should take into account its aesthetic relationship with everything around it. The idea that we should take a crude, crass reductionist view of industrial development and the landscaping that surrounds it is not acceptable to me. Given my responsibility for the built environment, which crosses all Department’s areas of responsibility, I will certainly take a look at that subject too in relation to what my hon. Friend said.

Let me say a few things about the work I have been doing on heavy goods vehicles. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) raised what is known as fly-parking—the parking of heavy vehicles in inappropriate places. I have looked closely at that and have recently held two round-table summits on HGVs with large numbers of people from the sector to explore what more can be done, because I am determined that more can be done. It is absolutely right that we work with local authorities to take further steps to make that kind of parking, which I know causes such concern to my hon. Friend, her constituents and many others, a thing of the past; I intend to say more about that soon.

I want to develop a national plan, as was recommended in this debate, for good and sufficient overnight lorry parking, to ensure that we provide lorry drivers with the facilities they need and that inconsiderately or illegally parked lorries do not blight local communities—and I want to do it quickly. On the back of our discussions and the overtures made to me by hon. Members, my ambition is to identify how all the significant gaps in overnight lorry parking provision in England can be filled and for private provision to be made available as soon as possible, certainly over the next three to five years.

Quality standards have also been raised with me, as hon. Members will know. I am not satisfied that they are as should be for overnight parking facilities; there are some very good facilities, but by no means could all facilities be so described. I want to set national standards to ensure that our HGV drivers can park safely, securely and in reasonable comfort, with the baseline facilities that anyone would expect from a parking area.

I am looking closely at the provision of lorry parking spaces nationally. There are significant gaps in capacity, particularly in the east of England and the midlands. I have commissioned a fresh survey, which will be taken this winter, to update the figures on that. The standards that I have described, the further work on illegal parking and the work I want to do in a number of places will make a sea change to the provision.

Airport Capacity

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I do not think that any of us could think that the Brighton main line was the priority, for a whole variety of different reasons. We have to deal with the short-term issues and challenges, but we also need to think about how we can best deliver the necessary improvements for the medium and longer term. There is no doubt we need a modernisation programme, but we also need a programme that causes the minimum possible disruption to passengers.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Connectivity to Heathrow is essential for areas in Greater Manchester and beyond. However, does the Secretary of State agree that in tandem with expanding Heathrow, new point-to-point routes with emerging economies are essential from other international gateway airports, such as Manchester, and what is he doing to encourage that?

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)]

As my hon. Friend is aware, Network Rail is currently undertaking an electrification study, looking at all routes, including Hastings to Ashford, to identify potential candidates for electrification, which could be carried out in the next rail control period from 2019 to 2024. Any scheme would have to demonstrate a business case before being considered, but would then be given full consideration.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Three years on from the axing of Cycling England and its £60 million annual budget, this Tory-led Government promised £148 million for cycling. That has turned out to be an average of £38 million per year until 2016, with local authorities expected to find the rest. In comparison, £28 billion is planned to be spent on roads. Does the Minister really believe that this is the right proportion and that this Government really are the most pro-cycling ever?

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

We are the most pro-cycling Government ever. If the hon. Lady does not believe that, she should look at some of the comments from the cycling groups, who have warmly welcomed the huge investment—the record investment—that has taken place under this Government. That is a real step change in cycling, and I would have thought that she welcomed it rather than criticise it.

Plug-in Vehicles

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I welcome this crucial debate, because, as we have heard from everyone who has spoken, it is vital that we reduce carbon emissions for the sake of all our futures, and that we accept that plug-in cars have a central role in achieving that goal. The Transport Committee clearly recognises that, and its excellent recent report is an important step forward.

The Government have claimed to be the “greenest ever” on some occasions, but sometimes the facts tell a different story. In 2011, they set out their vision for reducing carbon emissions from cars and vans using technologies other than internal combustion engines. In their Carbon Plan, they said that by 2050 almost every car and van would be an ultra-low emission vehicle. The way forward, we were rightly told, was to encourage demand for plug-in vehicles by providing financial incentives for consumers to buy these cars, and by providing funding for an infrastructure for vehicle charging that was publicly available.

So far, so good, but then there were the initiatives and the Select Committee has examined these. Purchasers can apply for a car grant of 25% of the cost of a plug-in car, up to a ceiling of £5,000, while funding has been provided for the installation of electric charge points in eight pilot areas. However, we have to consider the effect of these initiatives, and whether we are actually on course for that brave new world.

What we see is rather less than a comprehensive plan. Instead, there is a series of piecemeal and—as we have heard from Government Members—cautious actions that are unlikely to create the kind of demand for plug-in vehicles that is necessary if we are to take a major step forward. We are moving forward, but at a snail’s pace.

As the Committee’s report recognises, consumer demand for these vehicles has increased, but it remains relatively low; it is about 1%. Yet by 2015 we are told that the Government expect that we will

“see tens of thousands of plug-in vehicles on the roads in the UK”,

and hundreds of thousands by 2030. Judging by the numbers that we are seeing at the moment, I am not sure that we are actually on track.

The truth is that the grant for the vehicles has not had the effect that it should have had. As we have heard—I think from everybody who has spoken—part of the problem is that plug-in cars are more expensive than petrol or diesel models, and there is evidence to suggest that the grants are being used by affluent families to buy a second car, but those families are still using their petrol or diesel cars on a daily basis.

We need to bring down the cost of electric cars, because I think that we have won the argument that they are cheaper to run and offer the potential for huge savings across their lifetime. However, as we have heard, winning that argument is of little use if the average motorist simply cannot afford the up-front cost of these vehicles. We have heard from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) that there are some solutions to this problem, perhaps by looking at the network of hire vehicles.

When Labour were last in power, we provided £2.3 billion of assistance for the automobile industry during the recession, which was aimed at promoting research and development in new low-carbon vehicles. It also included helping companies such as Jaguar Land Rover to access the European Investment Bank’s clean transport facility. We made a commitment to make electric vehicles more easily available to consumers, with work by the then Transport Secretary, Lord Adonis, on trial electric vehicles. In addition, £250 million was invested in making electric hybrid vehicles more affordable for consumers, and the Government should be continuing that work.

I will now discuss the infrastructure, because it is absolutely vital that there is a recharging infrastructure that offers the assurance that potential buyers of plug-in cars understandably want that they will be able to recharge their car wherever they are. I understand that people with plug-in cars mostly recharge at home, but without the insurance that it is possible for people to recharge wherever they are, more people will not take up the offer of electric vehicles. People have to be confident that the structure is in place to allow them to make long journeys or take significant diversions without worrying whether they can get back home again.

The coalition agreement committed the Government to developing a national recharging network of publicly available charge points, but there is little evidence that the public actually believe that that network will be created. As the Committee’s report says, the Government appear to have spent £11 million on providing infrastructure that currently benefits only a handful of vehicle owners, while the National Chargepoint Registry does not even show the location of the majority of charge points installed with public funds, which does not instil public confidence. I accept that there has not been full evaluation of the pilot charging schemes in the eight selected areas. However, as a car owner in Wigan, when I see that Manchester has no charge points at all, that does not encourage me to buy a plug-in car to make that journey.

The simple fact is that there just are not enough charging points. It is a real worry that greater progress is not being made, and there are real doubts about whether the Government are treating this issue with the urgency that is required to ensure that even their own claims will be achieved.

As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Government have done too little to inform the public of what is happening. Dr Berkeley from Coventry university told the Select Committee that

“the Government could do more to stimulate demand, particularly in terms of public awareness and public education”.

Indeed, one of the recommendations of the Committee’s report, which the Government need to consider more seriously, is that the Government must publicise the support and infrastructure that is available. There is no reason why the demand for plug-in vehicles should not take off, but it will do so only if the Government get firmly behind the project.

I accept that this is a bit of a “chicken and egg” problem, up to a point. People will not buy the plug-in cars if they are not sure that the infrastructure is there, and there is a reluctance to provide the infrastructure unless the demand is proven to exist. However, the Government can break that impasse. As the Committee’s report says, the Government should not sit back and hope that increased demand simply manifests itself. The Department for Transport should set milestones to make sure that its plug-in vehicle policy is effective, and it should take the lead in providing data on the location of charge points so that the public can actually see where they can charge their vehicles and can plan their journeys adequately.

In a wider sense, the Government also need to consider whether they are doing enough to help the automobile industry to make the changes. It is really pleasing that Nissan is building its electric car, the Leaf, in Sunderland, but it is disappointing that it has downgraded its estimates of production. We need to encourage Nissan and other companies in every way we can. Is the automobile industry putting sufficient investment into improving the efficiency of conventional petrol and diesel vehicles? Can we encourage it further to invest in British industry? I would like to hear the Minister’s views on those subjects because, as the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said, it is important that Britain’s car industry takes the lead in this sector, so that it becomes revitalised.

We recognised in government that a step change was needed to move away from our dependence on oil, so we embraced and incentivised ultra-low carbon alternatives such as electric vehicles. Of the 20% of our total emissions that originate from our roads, 15% to 16% of them are from cars. If we can make it affordable for more people to use electric vehicles, that has the potential to make a significant impact on emissions. For the most part, the Government are looking in the right direction, but they seem to be in danger of stalling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to provide my hon. Friend with details about that. We are in regular contact with manufacturers in the country to encourage them to pursue that matter further. In respect of that particular manufacturer, I will exercise my brain cells to find out whether anything comes to me during this part of the debate, to enable him to have a fuller answer.

It was suggested that these are merely second cars for rich people, but that is not so. Some 73% of the so-called second cars have taken up the grant for business use, so business is embracing low-carbon cars. That is the predominant purchasing market at present.

We are in the process of updating the “Making the connection” infrastructure strategy and looking to restate the rationale for policy in this area, and this debate helps, as does the Committee’s thoughtful report. As this strategy develops, I will be limited in what I can say about what it will contain. However, we are aiming to publish it in early summer and hope to be able to provide an in-depth analysis of our programmes to date and use this, and robust evidence from other key stakeholders, to set out a pathway to the mass adoption of ULEVs in the UK.

We are currently talking—we always do; it will not be a surprise—to automotive manufacturers, infrastructure providers and energy providers, because there is an issue about the grid. We are also talking to our colleagues at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, trade associations representing the motorcycle sector, other Departments, and so on. That is not an exhaustive list, but I hope it gives hon. Members confidence that we are engaging cross-departmentally and across industry, with all relevant parties, to ensure that we are getting the best possible future for ULEVs.

I think we are getting the policy right. The start of Nissan Leaf production in Sunderland is proof of this. Of course, it is not just that. The BMW 8 engine is to be produced in the UK; the batteries are now being produced, helped by the significant investment in research and development, which the Government has brought forward.

We have the potential to achieve—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire—and we must be ambitious for Britain in this area. We must ensure that we become the focal point for the development of ULEVs. We are on the way to doing that, certainly as far as the European dimension is concerned, by getting in early, with clear direction from Government. Industry has said to the Government that it welcomes the clear, direct steer from us, giving long-term certainty about the direction of travel. To be fair to the Opposition, all three parties have embraced this agenda, giving certainty to industry beyond particular Parliaments. It is important that that stays as it is. We want more auto manufacturers.

Another point about the number of vehicles sold is that there is a limited number of vehicles on the market at the moment. That will change rapidly, with a new range of vehicles coming along shortly, giving far more choice to the consumer and the business user as to which vehicle they purchase for their particular needs. That, as much as anything else, will lead to an upturn in sales.

I will now try to answer questions asked by hon. Members. The national charge point registry was mentioned by the Committee Chair in her opening contribution. It is a requirement under both plugged-in places and the new national grant scheme that all publicly accessible charge points funded by the Government must be registered with the national charge point registry. Good progress has been made in adding data to the NCR. There are currently 3,085 points on the register.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Would it be a good idea to inform the people who run the websites of the availability and where the charge points are? When I researched—I presume my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside went to the same website—no charge points were listed in Manchester, apart from one that was a private charge point owned by the Citroën garage.

[Norman Baker]

I am surprised to hear the hon. Lady say that. We will certainly look into that, because we want to ensure that as much information is available as possible. We will take that point on board and see whether it is correct. If it is, we will draw it to the attention of those who can help correct it. The information needs to be available to the public at large.

I have mentioned Nissan’s production. The Chair of the Select Committee mentioned local authorities. I hope that she has seen the announcement by the Secretary of State, which was issued subsequent to her Committee’s report being finalised, but which does mention help for local authorities, including an £11 million fund to help install on-street charging for residents who have, or have ordered, a plug-in vehicle but do not have off-street parking. Authorities can apply for 75% of the costs of installing a charge point. That is a pretty generous contribution. It should not be too high, because if it were 100%, people would ask for charge points without any intention of using them. There has to be a buy-in on both sides and 75% is about right for the contribution made.

It was suggested that £11 million would not go far enough. Let us see what the response from local authorities is. If we are overwhelmed by local authorities that respond positively, we will reconsider within the spending envelope for the budget covering this area. However, I think that that is a pretty reasonable start. It goes along with the £13.5 million for home owners—a 75% grant for them, as well—to have a domestic charge point installed, and the £9 million to fund the installation of charge points at railway stations. That is a useful initiative, because it enables people to get to the station in the morning—it encourages them to use the train, by the way, which is also lower carbon—and charge the car during the day. It need not be a rapid charge, either. They can then have confidence that, when they come back in the evening, the car is ready to drive home, fully charged. That is a good initiative and I look forward to train companies taking us up on that generous offer.

We are allocating £3 million to support the installation of charge points on the Government and wider public estate to ensure that we are doing what we can, as a Government, to lead the way on this matter and to send a clear signal that this is right for us and right for the public at large, and all those who would be interested in running vehicles in future. I hope that addresses the point on the public sector raised by the Chair of the Select Committee.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the TEN-T rapid charge bid, which we have supported. She also referred to the impact on the grid, and our view is that, if demand for electricity is properly managed with the use of smart meters and dynamic tariffs, the grid can support a relatively high number of plug-in vehicles without the need to build extra power stations. In fact, electric vehicles may also provide a way to capture and store electricity produced at night from renewable sources such as wind power, so they could actually help the electricity mix. Clearly, those are matters in which DECC is interested, and it is considering them in conjunction with the Department for Transport. As she would expect, Departments are working together on that.

On taxation policy, the hon. Lady was kind enough to refer to the recent change introduced by the Chancellor in his Budget, which is a welcome step and gives long-term confidence. In fact, it is a clear example of the Government responding to business: businesses said what they want, and the Government listened and delivered what they asked for. That will give confidence to manufacturers and purchasers of such vehicles in the years ahead.

The hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South asked about quiet vehicles. There is an issue with whether visually impaired people are more at risk if they cannot hear particular vehicles. I am advised that, above 20 mph or so, the tyre noise is sufficient for them to identify that a vehicle is moving, but there is an issue with low-speed vehicles. The European Union is debating whether there should be a mandatory requirement for a noise to be added. I am not sure whether my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would appreciate an Aston Martin noise being added to a small vehicle, but there is a decision to be taken on whether adding a noise should be mandatory or simply voluntary. Those discussions are ongoing. There are also ongoing international discussions on whether that should be addressed internationally. Clearly, an international solution would generally be a good thing.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire correctly identified that, if these electric vehicles are rolled out, they could lower the cost of motoring, as well as making motoring cleaner environmentally. He also asked one question that he said I had to answer, which was on when it will be economically rational to buy an electric vehicle. I am afraid that I do not have a date in mind, and it would be rather foolish of me to give him a date. What I can say is that it depends on a whole range of factors, including the oil price, the take-up of fleet buyers and everything else, but I am quite clear that I share his view. At some point in the not too distant future it will become more sensible economically, apart from anything else, to purchase an electric vehicle rather than a traditional petrol-driven vehicle. I hope those days are not too far away.

I welcome the interesting suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South that cars might be available for hire, which would take away some of the uncertainty that people have, and it may fit in with people’s lifestyles to be able to do that for short journeys in particular circumstances. We are, I think, already working on something similar with car clubs so that they can partner local authorities and train operators in funding such possibilities.

Concern was raised about the possibility of electric vehicles running out and leaving people stranded, which I accept is a genuine concern for consumers. It is worth pointing out that such vehicles have a range of 100 miles, or less if the air conditioning is on, for example. In the UK, 99% of journeys are 100 miles or less, so the chance of someone thrashing their car and running out somewhere is, helpfully, quite remote. As battery technology improves, that will become even less of a risk.

Finally, I hope the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) will forgive me for saying this, but her contributions since being appointed Opposition spokesman have tended to be formed of two things: how the previous Government got everything right, and how all the things we are doing are wrong. Having spent 13 years in opposition, and perhaps having more experience of making such speeches, I would say that sometimes giving the Government credit for what it is doing means that the Government listens more when it is told that it is getting something wrong.

I think I have answered most of the hon. Lady’s points. Lots more cars are coming onto the market. She says that the grant has not had the effect it should have had. Yes, it has, and it will have more effect when we have more cars and more choice for consumers, as we will very shortly. I agree that we need to invest in British industry, which is what we are doing. The Government is on track and has a good record on electric vehicles, which in due course will be good for the economy and the environment.