Oral Answers to Questions Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Cabinet Office

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Jones Excerpts
Wednesday 14th March 2018

(6 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alun Cairns Portrait Alun Cairns
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As I said in my initial answer, I do not think that the continuity Bill is necessary. The Welsh Government have also said that they would prefer not to pursue it. I genuinely believe that there is enough good will between all Administrations to come to an agreement. After all, if we focus on the needs of businesses and communities, we will achieve a positive outcome. It is when politicians focus on the powers rather than on outcomes that things go wrong.

Darren Jones Portrait Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

3. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the effect on the Welsh economy of the decision not to electrify the mainline to Swansea.

Emma Hardy Portrait Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

5. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the effect on the Welsh economy of the decision not to electrify the mainline to Swansea.

Darren Jones Portrait Darren Jones
- Hansard - -

The failure to fully electrify the line to Swansea means that more people will use their cars. Following the removal of the tolls on the Severn bridge, the Department for Transport said in response to my written parliamentary question:

“No further modelling was undertaken”

on the increase in cars. Has the Minister’s Department assessed the potential further gridlock in north Bristol?

Stuart Andrew Portrait Stuart Andrew
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I simply do not accept that not electrifying the line to Swansea will not bring benefits—it will. The train journey times to London from those areas will be reduced by 15 minutes. We have to recognise that the costs have gone up significantly. The benefit-to-cost ratio was extremely low and even the Public Accounts Committee recommended looking at the issue again.