Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the safety implications of tyres on motor vehicles being more than 10 years old.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

16. If he will ban the use of tyres more than 10 years old on public service vehicles.

[The Minister for Transport Legislation and Maritime (Mr John Hayes)]

The Department for Transport consulted the European tyre manufacturing industry association and its clear advice was that beyond the age of a tyre, its use and maintenance are significant factors in the ageing process.

[Mr Hayes]

We are acting on exactly that matter. The Department has introduced measures to manage the use of tyres aged 10 years or more on the steering axles of buses and coaches. Written copies of our guidance have been delivered to every single bus and coach operator in Great Britain. The guidance reflects best practice and supplements separate advice on the use of older tyres.

[Maria Eagle]

My Tyres (Buses and Coaches) Bill, which was published this week, is down on the Order Paper for a Second Reading tomorrow. Can the Minister confirm that he and his party will not seek to oppose the legislation?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Lady has particular knowledge of this matter. I know that one of her constituents died in an accident relating to a tyre. The hon. Lady came to see the previous Secretary of State, and I know that she has seen the roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) about the matter. She is right to take it seriously.

Although I am not going to comment on the question that the hon. Lady asked me—you would not expect me to, Mr Speaker—I will say this to her, and I hope that she will respect how seriously I take the matter. We have issued the new guidance, but I think there is a need for more research, and I am prepared today to commit my Department to engaging in further research with the experts in the industry and others to establish exactly the effect of tyres’ age on safety and security. The safe and secure passage of people is our first priority, and we will do all that is necessary to secure it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

It is clearly important that we take our decision in the interests of the nation and that we foster ties around the world and within Europe. We are not leaving Europe; we are leaving the European Union. We want to retain good, strong economic ties with our neighbours in Europe. It is important that we take the right decision for the whole of our nation, and that is what we will do.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

6. What his policy is on tolls for roads and bridges.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

Successive Governments have taken the view that tolling is justified on certain infrastructure, such as significant river crossings.

[Maria Eagle]

I thank the Minister for the reply. Before the general election, the former Chancellor promised motorists in Cheshire West, Warrington and Chester discounts on the tolls that are to be introduced in 2017 on the new Mersey Gateway bridge and the old Silver Jubilee bridge. I have no objection to the Government’s paying for discounts for motorists, but my constituents in Liverpool and in Knowsley live closer to those bridges and rely on them just as much as people who live in Chester and Warrington. So will the Minister have a word with the new Chancellor and ask him to provide some money to pay for those discounts to be extended to my constituents?

[Mr Hayes]

I imagined that the hon. Lady would ask that question, because she has tabled a number of written questions in a similar vein. She rightly says that a local discount scheme will operate on the Mersey Gateway bridge. The Government have said that they were looking to extend those discounts, as she also said. Let me be clear: officials are currently working through the character and effect of that extension, and no decision has been made upon it. Of course, I will give full consideration to the arguments she has made on behalf of her constituents and others.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

The reason for the change in the timetable is the unfortunate episode with the west coast main line—[Interruption.] I said “unfortunate”. Following the Brown inquiry, we redrew the franchising programmes and took his advice that the west coast main line and east coast main line franchises should not be done at the same time. That is why we are pressing ahead with putting the east coast main line franchise back into the private sector in February 2015.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

The Minister knows that his decision to reorder the franchising timetable just to enable him dogmatically to flog off a service that is working well has required him to renegotiate extensions to other inter-city contracts. Can he confirm, therefore, as a result of his negotiating skills, how much money he is requiring Virgin Trains to pay to the Government next year?

[Mr Burns]

I do not think the hon. Lady fully appreciates the role of DOR, which is not to run a franchise ad infinitum but to do so as an emergency measure. We have made it plain, following the Brown inquiry and recommendations, that it is best for the private sector to run the railways, as was always intended under the legislation, and that is why we are pressing ahead.

[Maria Eagle]

I am disappointed that the Minister does not know what he has negotiated, but I can tell him that Virgin Trains is paying £94 million, which, according to the independent rail regulator, is a staggering £64 million less than it paid last year. As his own Department’s figures reveal that he could have ended above-inflation fare rises next year for a similar sum, is it not a disgrace that passengers face fare rises of up to 9%, adding to the cost of living crisis, as a direct result of his decision to pursue this costly and unnecessary privatisation?

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Lady forgets to mention that to take into account the economic situation and economic mess that we inherited from her Government, we have provided help to fare payers by reducing the average formula from RPI plus 3% to RPI plus 1%. She selectively chooses the figure of a 9% increase—an extreme increase—but that will arise in a very small number of instances, because the formula calculates an average increase. She also forgets to mention those fares that have gone down rather than up.

Cycling

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

This has been a excellent debate with positive contributes from 33 colleagues on both sides of the House. The clear message is that Parliament wants to see greater support for cycling, not just from the Government but from all parties. That is the call to which I want to respond on behalf of the Opposition this evening.

First, let me pay tribute to the all-party group on cycling. The “Get Britain Cycling” report is excellent, well-argued and persuasive and has had a considerable influence as we have reconsidered our approach to cycling as party of Labour’s policy review. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing and opening the debate on behalf of the all-party group, but I also particularly want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin). He also made an excellent contribution to the debate, of course. Less visible, but absolutely vital, is the energy with which he has sought to persuade my colleagues and I that we must make a much greater commitment to cycling and that we must go significantly further than the important progress that we started to make in government.

Finally, let me mention my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). He not only made a customarily informed and passionate contribution today, but has been a powerful advocate for both cycling and improving safety on our roads for many years—advocacy that, coming from a respected Transport Minister, delivered real policies that saved lives. I am very sorry to have lost his expertise as a Member of our Front-Bench team. However, I know that he will continue to make a considerable contribution on this and many other issues in the future, albeit from the Back Benches.

I am clear that supporting cycling is a hugely cost-effective way of improving our personal and national quality of life. When nearly a quarter of all car journeys are for less than a mile, making cycling a more attractive option has great potential to cut congestion and boost the economy. With families facing a cost of living crisis, making more journeys by bike is a good way to reduce the impact of rising fuel costs on the household budget, and as a cost and time-effective way of staying fit, to which many Members have attested this evening, cycling has real health benefits. Of course, it also benefits the environment, helping us to cut emissions and reduce transport’s contribution to climate change, which remains significant.

The message is being heard, with 20% more people cycling than a decade ago, yet if one goes to the Netherlands—as I also have as part of our policy review—it is apparent how much further we still have to go. In Holland, a third of all trips to and from rail stations are by bike compared with 2% here. I have seen for myself the fantastic facilities for cyclists at stations in Holland, where there are not just bike spaces but undercover staffed storage with people on hand to repair and maintain bikes while owners are at work. It is a matter of investment—10 times more is spent per head of population on cycling in Holland than in the UK—but it is also about attitude and commitment. I am sorry to say that we have not seen the commitment from the Government that we need to see to increase cycling and to make it safer to cycle.

Immediately on taking office, Transport Ministers abolished Cycling England and, more importantly, its £60 million annual budget and the cycling city and towns programme that we established. Since then, policy after policy has set back the progress that we were making. Targets to cut deaths and serious injuries on our roads were abolished, even though they brought focus to efforts to improve safety. The THINK! road safety campaigns have been degraded, road traffic police numbers have fallen and support for speed cameras has been axed, which has made enforcement much more difficult. Longer HGVs have been given the green light, despite the Department for Transport’s analysis of consequential increased road casualties.

This summer we heard the long-awaited promise that axed funding for cycling would be restored, but headlines about the figure of £148 million turned out to be spin. The reality is an average of just £38 million a year until 2016, with the rest to be found by local authorities, which is a third less than the previous Government’s investment. With only one tenth of the population benefiting, that is simply too little, too late, after three wasted years.

It is clear that we need a step change in the Government’s commitment to cycling. There should be a long-term commitment that is supported by all parties and that will last across Parliaments. I shall briefly set out clear proposals for what should form the basis of that new commitment and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to each of them so that we can begin to forge the cross-party consensus that cycling needs and deserves.

First, we must end the stop-start approach to supporting cycling, which means that we need long-term funding of the infrastructure needed for dedicated separate safe cycling routes. Ministers recently set out annual budgets for rail and road investment up to 2020-21, but they failed to do so for cycling infrastructure, which means that while there is a £28 billion commitment for roads, we have only a one-off £114 million from central Government for cycling, and that is spread across three years. It is time for a serious rethink of priorities within the roads budget with a proportion reallocated to deliver a long-term funding settlement for cycling infrastructure.

The priority for investment to support cycling must be dedicated, separated infrastructure to create safe routes. The focus has too often been on painting a thin section at the side of the road a different colour. Genuinely separated cycle routes are vital not only to improve safety but, as we have heard from many hon. Members, to build confidence and to encourage those who are not used to cycling to make the switch to two wheels. It is also important that a commitment to new infrastructure does not become an excuse not to improve the safety of cyclists on roads where there is no separation. The priority should be redesigning dangerous junctions where almost two thirds of cyclist deaths and serious injuries due to collisions take place. We need a much greater use of traffic light phasing to give cyclists a head start.

Secondly, we need to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, so I propose a cycle safety assessment before new transport schemes are given the green light. In the same way in which Departments have to carry out regulatory impact assessments and equality impact assessments, there should be an obligation to cycle-proof new policies and projects. We need new enforceable design standards and measures to ensure compliance.

Thirdly, we need national targets to cut deaths and serious injuries to be restored, but they should sit alongside a new target to increase levels of cycling. The number of cyclist deaths is tragically at a five-year high. Of course, targets alone are not the only answer, but they help to focus minds and efforts, so Ministers are wrong to reject them. However, it is vital to ensure that targets do not perversely lead to local authorities and others seeing the way to cut deaths and injuries as discouraging cycling. In fact, cycling becomes safer when more cyclists are on the road, so we should learn from the success that has been achieved in European countries that have set clear goals to increase levels of cycling alongside the policies necessary to achieve that.

Fourthly, we should learn from Wales and extend to England its active travel legislation, which sets out clear duties on local authorities to support cycling. Local authorities are central to devising, prioritising and delivering measures to support cycling, so it is important that additional support from central Government is matched by clear obligations. To assist councils, we should provide them with a best-practice toolkit to boost cycling numbers that is based on what we learned from the cycling city and towns programme and evidence from abroad. Councils should be supported to deliver 20 mph zones, which should increasingly become an effective default in most residential areas.

Fifthly, we must ensure that children and young people have every opportunity to cycle and to do so safely. The Government should not have ended long-term funding certainty for the Bikeability scheme, nor axed the requirement for school travel plans. Those decisions can and should be reversed. Sixthly, we need to make it easier for cycling to become part of the journey to work, even when the commute is too far to do by bike alone. Employers can play an important role in providing access to showers, changing facilities and lockers. However, our public transport providers need to step up and do much more too. Instead of the Government’s approach, which has been to propose a weakening of franchise obligations, we should toughen up the requirement to provide station facilities and on-train space for bikes in rail contracts.

Seventhly, we need to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done in cases where collisions lead to the death of cyclists and serious injuries. I welcome the recent commitment from Ministers to initiate a review of sentencing guidelines. It is vital that this is a comprehensive review of the justice system and how it protects vulnerable road users, and it should be concluded without delay in this Parliament. We are certainly willing to work with Government to implement sensible changes that may be proposed.

Finally, we need tough new rules and requirements on heavy goods vehicles that are involved in about a fifth of all cycling fatalities, despite the fact that HGVs make up just 6% of road traffic—there is clearly an issue there. We should look at the case for taking HGVs out of our cities at the busiest times, as has happened elsewhere in Europe, including in Paris and Dublin. As a minimum, we should require safety measures on all HGVs, including sensors, audible truck-turning alarms, extra mirrors and safety bars, as well as better training and awareness. I have previously suggested to Ministers that the £23 million that is expected to be raised annually from the new HGV road-charging scheme could be used to support the road haulage industry to achieve that. I hope that that idea will be taken seriously and considered by Ministers, along with all those clear proposals. Taken together, I believe that that would be a significant improvement in the Government’s current approach, and it is something that all parties could support across the House.

Cycling has the potential to be a huge British success story, but it needs a new approach and a shared commitment across Government, councils, schools, employers and public transport providers. Most of all, it needs Ministers to cut the spin and instead give cycling infrastructure greater priority within the existing transport investment plans that they have set out. It is time to end the stop-start approach that is getting in the way of progress and agree a cross-party, long-term commitment to cycling.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I simply say to the hon. Lady: look at what has happened since privatisation—and, indeed, all the current franchises in operation were let by the last Government.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

At the previous Transport questions the Minister of State said on East Coast that

“the involvement of the private sector means that we can increase, over and above the taxpayers’ money, the money that can be invested”.—[Official Report, 25 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 995.]

Yet he has now admitted to me in a letter that the investment

“comes from an increase in the value of Network Rail’s regulatory asset base”,

and he says

“it is through private sector operation that we can best realise the benefits of the planned investment.”

Why does the Secretary of State not now just admit to the House that his Minister was wrong?

[Mr McLoughlin]

No, what my right hon. Friend said was absolutely correct. We are seeing huge investment in the railways and, as I said just a few moments ago, all the franchises currently in operation were let, and endorsed, by the last Government.

[Maria Eagle]

The fact is that the Secretary of State’s policy does not bring in any additional investment and is costing taxpayers, with millions of pounds paid to train companies to extend contracts so we can focus on East Coast. He claimed West Coast is paying more money back to the taxpayer than East Coast: it is not. He said Lord Adonis backs his plans: he does not. He says they are vital to bring in investment: they are not. Is it not the case that, one by one, his arguments for this costly and unnecessary privatisation have fallen away?

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Britain’s railways face a major capacity challenge in the years to come. That was why, when we were in government, Labour proposed Britain’s first new north-south rail line for more than 100 years. We remain convinced that the project is essential, as is completing the wider rebuilding of our rail network that began under the last Government to reverse the damage caused by decades of under-investment before 1997. Doing nothing is not an option because the existing network is fast reaching the limits of its capacity.

Attempting to upgrade the existing main lines could deliver some, but nowhere near all, of the additional capacity that will be needed in the decades to come, and yet the cost would still be great, as would the disruption to passengers and freight. It would mean that we had learned nothing from the experience of carrying out a major upgrade of the west coast main line while attempting to keep it in use. After a decade of inconvenience and disruption, and almost £10 billion spent, the job was finally completed, but it delivered nowhere near the benefits that will come from a new north-south rail line. By building a new line that extends from London to Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds, we can relieve the pressure not just on the west coast, but on all three existing north-south main lines.

It is vital that we are clear about why the scheme is necessary. Those of us from all parts of the House who support the new line need to be better at communicating why the investment is essential. The new north-south rail line is necessary to deliver a major increase in capacity on our rail network. That is why we cannot afford to delay the delivery of this project any longer.

[Dan Byles]

The hon. Lady has just said that the project is supported by Members from all parts of the House. She knows that I do not support it. What would she say to Labour councillors in my constituency who consistently call this a Conservative project and imply that it is not a Labour one?

[Maria Eagle]

I would not agree with that, except in the narrow sense that the project is being taken forward by a Conservative-led Government at present. The Secretary of State and I understand that, on both sides of the House, not everybody is in favour of the project. The genuine concerns that people have need to be heard and we will listen to them in detail.

There will be significant benefits in addition to the new capacity that the line will offer. It will enable the introduction of much faster high-speed trains than can be deployed on the existing network. Journey times between our towns and cities will be cut, significantly in many cases. By building the line, we can help to rebalance the economy between London and the south-east and the rest of the country.

It is worth understanding the extent of the reduction in journey times that will be achieved. The journey from London to Manchester that currently takes two hours and eight minutes will be cut by an hour to just one hour and eight minutes. Sheffield will be just one hour and nine minutes from London, compared with the current two hours and five minutes. Leeds to London will take just one hour and 22 minutes, which is a reduction from the current journey time of two hours and 12 minutes.

Crucially, the journey times to destinations beyond the new line will be reduced. I am not sure that that is always understood. It will take just three hours and 38 minutes to get from London to Edinburgh, instead of the current four hours and 23 minutes. I look forward to being able to get home to Liverpool in a little over an hour and a half. It is not yet widely understood that high-speed trains will run off the new line on to existing track, serving communities across the country. It will be possible to get on a train in at least 28 of our towns and cities, including nine of the UK’s 10 biggest conurbations, and begin a journey that will use the new line. We need to communicate better the extent to which the whole country will benefit from this investment.

The development of stations along the new line will provide major opportunities for regeneration and jobs, in addition to those created through the construction of the line itself. With fast inter-city services moved to the new rail line, capacity will be freed up on the existing main lines for new commuter services, further improving connectivity between our towns and cities further north, and generating opportunities to shift freight from road to rail. The line will deliver a credible alternative to short-haul flights and, therefore, the opportunity to reduce the emissions that contribute to climate change and free up capacity at airports in the south-east that could better be used to open new routes to emerging markets.

We remain convinced that a new north-south rail line is needed. It is the right priority for investment and it is right that we make the decision to proceed.

[Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)]

The hon. Lady talks about the communities that will be served by the proposed high-speed rail line, but what about ticket prices? Will it not just serve the type of people who work in professional services, such as lawyers and accountants, who will be able to travel at high speed on company expenses rather than out of their own pockets?

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate concern, which was probably not helped by the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), referring to HS2 as “a rich man’s toy”. Consideration of pricing arrangements will help to alleviate some of those concerns.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I will give way once I have answered the hon. Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly).

The Opposition believe strongly that the north-south rail line will be a properly integrated part of our entire rail network. It should not be seen as separate from it. That also goes for pricing and ensuring that people can afford to use it.

[Mr Mahmood]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this project will have a huge economic benefit to places such as Birmingham and the west midlands? In my constituency, we have a company from the United Arab Emirates that was originally going to settle in London. It provides 20 jobs in Birmingham, a figure that will go up to 80 by the end of the year. The company is asking for better transport links, so that employees can commute as fast as possible. That will provide better jobs and training for our people in the midlands.

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and I agree with him.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

Is not the truth of the matter that High Speed 2 will release capacity on the west coast main line? Has the debate not recognised the importance of freight, which is growing at more than 10% per year on rail? Does that not come into the discussions we are having today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

My goodness, I find myself in total agreement with the hon. Gentleman.

Despite the importance of this project, there has been a real lack of drive from Ministers—I am not necessarily talking about the Secretary of State—in taking the decisions and delivering the action needed to make it a reality. The former Labour Transport Secretary Lord Adonis set up HS2 Ltd as long ago as 2009. By August of the same year, he had already confirmed plans for a new north-south rail line because he was a high-speed Secretary of State. Nothing has moved anywhere near as fast at the Department for Transport since he left, except the revolving door that has meant I am facing my third Transport Secretary since the election. I hope very much that the Government reshuffle that is rumoured to be on the cards does not deliver yet another change. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me on that.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I hear what the hon. Lady says, but she should look at the average length of service of Labour Secretaries of State for Transport—they were also fairly rapid through those doors.

[Maria Eagle]

It is starting to worry me, when I contemplate my political future, that the average length across the parties of Secretaries of State for Transport appears to be somewhat on the short side. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, while his Government are still in office, and I can increase the average length of time served.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I will make a little progress and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.

The fact is that it is only now, four years on from Lord Adonis’s initial action, that the Government are introducing the legislation required to enable money to be spent in advance of construction. The legislation needed to actually begin construction is still nowhere in sight. The Secretary of State’s own departmental plan continues optimistically to claim that Royal Assent on the hybrid Bill will be secured in May 2015, yet in The Times at the weekend he could not be any more confident than to say, “I hope it will.” I know he does not want to admit it, but is it not the truth that there is absolutely no prospect of securing Parliament’s approval for phase 1 before the next election?

Despite its inclusion in the Queen’s Speech, Ministers cannot even guarantee a Second Reading for the hybrid Bill in this Session, leaving just one year to secure its passage through both Houses. It took two years and one month to take the hybrid Bill for High Speed 1 through Parliament, and Crossrail took three years and five months. Neither of those schemes was on the scale, or came with as much controversy, as this new rail line. The Government’s inaction in the past three years requires them to rush the Bill at the end of this Parliament. The National Audit Office has warned that this compressed time scale poses even greater risks to the project:

“Faster preparation for the bill may increase the extent of petitions to Parliament which may make it less likely that royal assent is granted by the planned date of May 2015. It may also divert the Department and HS2 Limited from focusing on the deliverability of the design.”

With construction due to begin in January 2017, less than two years into the next Parliament, Ministers know full well that they are now cutting it very fine indeed.

The fact that Royal Assent will no longer be achieved for phase 1 in this Parliament raises the question of why the new line was split into two Bills in the first place. We all know that that decision was taken to ensure that at all costs Conservative MPs did not have to go into the next election with pressure from their constituents to vote against it. The Government have failed to achieve that goal, and have completely unnecessarily opted for two hybrid Bills, when taking the proposals forward as one scheme would have provided greater certainty and ensured that there was no doubt about the Government’s commitment to the whole north-south line, as Ministers claim.

[Mr MacNeil]

Harvard Business Review says that there are about 40 mega-regions in the world that straddle national borders. They contain about 18% of the world’s population, 66% of its economic activity and 86% of the world’s patents. In these islands, we have two such mega-regions: south central England and the central belt of Scotland. Professor Richard Florida of the university of Toronto says that linking these regions helps global aggregate prosperity. When would the hon. Lady like to see high-speed links between these two UK mega-regions?

[Maria Eagle]

We cannot get any further north than Leeds and Manchester until we have got to Leeds and Manchester. That is a constraint, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

[Andrew Bridgen]

The hon. Lady talks with great enthusiasm about HS2. Will she reassure the House that Her Majesty’s Opposition’s support for HS2 will continue up to and beyond the next general election? The support of the Government in this case is, I believe, rather like the support given by the rope to the hanged man.

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is speaking in hope rather than expectation. I know his own personal concern about the scheme and I understand his point, but I can be clear with the House that Labour supports getting on with building this north-south line.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I am also grateful to her and the Secretary of State for being so understanding about the problems the scheme will cause to my constituents and my constituency. Does she agree that, in spending in excess of £50 billion minimum on such a scheme, one would expect it to connect effectively to HS1 and Heathrow? Is it not right to say that going ahead with this project and looking at the phase 1 route at this stage before Sir Howard Davies’s review into airport capacity is putting the cart before the horse?

[Maria Eagle]

It is fair to say that there are concerns about connectivity and what is happening at the southern end, but it is also fair to say that the Government of the day must decide. It is reasonable for the Opposition to raise issues, but, with projects over multiple Parliaments, we must accept, as an Opposition, that we are not quite as well resourced as the Government of the day to come up with well-thought-through alternatives. The Government of the day have to make the decisions, but it is fair enough for opponents and supporters of the scheme to raise issues, recognising that, if the project is ever to be delivered, the Government of the day must decide on the way forward.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I will do, and then I would like to make a little progress.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I did not quite catch my hon. Friend’s answer to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who asked about taking the line north of Leeds and Manchester. Will she confirm that we would wish to see the high-speed services and line taken north of Leeds and Manchester in due course? It is not just a question of speed, however; it is also a question of capacity, because, as she pointed out, the construction of high-speed lines further south will free up capacity on existing lines, but that will lead to capacity problems if all the high-speed trains end up going on the existing lines further north.

[Maria Eagle]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and the one I made in response to the earlier intervention was simply that we had to get to Leeds and Manchester before we could go further. Work is going on—led by the Department, I think—looking at the prospects for further phases, if one wishes to put it that way, after we have got to Leeds and Manchester.

The delays over the past three years are no surprise, given that the Department has been promising to publish a transport strategy ever since the election, but has yet again delayed it until later this year. The failure to deliver progress on this new railway line could not be a better example of what happens when one decides on a transport strategy towards the end of a Parliament, rather than at the beginning. It means major transport decisions—for example, how we connect the new rail line into Britain’s hub airport at Heathrow—are not being taken forward in an integrated way. That is entirely a consequence of ducking the big questions on aviation for the whole Parliament and of the Government’s decision, which we believe to be wrong, to tell the Airports Commission not to report until after the next election.

It is not just the rapidly slipping timetable that raises alarm bells and worries those of us who support this project. The National Audit Office wrote:

“We identified three areas of risk to the Department’s effective governance of the High Speed 2 programme:… Underdeveloped governance and programme management… Insufficient resources in the Department’s High Speed 2 team”

and

“Inadequate stakeholder management”.

The criticism that Ministers failed sufficiently to resource the team in the Department will be familiar to anyone who has followed the fiasco over the collapse of the Government’s rail franchising programme. The NAO has warned that there is

“a high risk that it may have insufficient skilled staff in the areas of procurement, corporate finance, rail technical and programme management.”

Yet again, the reckless way in which the Department was reorganised after the election and the scale of cuts to key staff have put a major project at risk.

The Government have finally, belatedly, appointed a new director general for HS2 as well as a new senior management team, which is welcome news, but is it not extraordinary that, just as with the west coast main line fiasco, it took so long for a senior responsible owner to be identified for the project? No wonder the Major Projects Authority has rated the delivery of the new rail line as amber/red. That should have been a clear warning to Ministers to take its concerns seriously, not simply dismiss them as irrelevant.

To be fair to the Secretary of State, there was one bit of good news in the otherwise highly critical report from the MPA. It found that

“the Department has strengthened its working relationship with HM Treasury.”

That is very sensible indeed, particularly in the light of the NAO’s concerns about the budget for the project. It has called the Department’s use of a precise estimate of £16.3 billion for the cost of phase 1 of the scheme as “unwise”, as I think we have discovered today. It said that an honest figure would be between £15.4 billion and £17.3 billion, so I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has today given updated figures. I am sure that he will continue to do so, as he has undertaken to do.

The NAO was also unable to verify the Department’s claim that the £1.5 billion savings recommended by Infrastructure UK could be delivered. Work apparently only began on identifying those savings in September. The House needs to be told whether the savings have now been locked in. The NAO also raises doubts about the Department’s claim that phase 1 will result in reduced operating costs on the existing network of £3 billion over 60 years. This is on the assumption that fewer long-distance services are likely to run on the west coast main line, but because the Department has not set out any revised service patterns it is difficult to see how such a precise and neat rounded figure has been generated.

The Government should also be clear that the £42.6 billion cost of completing the north-south line as far as Leeds and Manchester does not include the £7.5 billion cost of the trains to run on the line. The Secretary of State has made that clear today. These factors are an essential part of the project, and they ought to be included in the estimates in future.

Worryingly, the National Audit Office also claims:

“The Department has not included VAT in its cost estimates or affordability assessments”,

and warns that

“HS2 Limited will be liable for VAT at 20 per cent on almost all of its spending.”

Ministers need to confirm that the Chancellor and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have agreed that the VAT will be reclaimable. If that will not be the case, that should also be accurately reflected in the budget.

The NAO also warns that, even with the additional £3 billion capital spending from 2015-16 that has been confirmed today, there is a risk that the project

“may restrict the ability to fund other capital projects across government”.

It goes on to warn:

“We estimate that there could be a gap in affordability of £3.3 billion spread over the four years from 2017-18 to 2020-21, which are the peak spending years for phase one.”

The Secretary of State will, I think, have negotiated something in that respect, but he must make it clear, when he can, that the settlement he has reached with the Chancellor—the details of which we might get tomorrow—has closed that funding gap in full. It would be unacceptable if the Department’s failure to plan the spending needed for this scheme were to result in any cuts or delays to the vital upgrading on the rest of the network. That includes the rolling programme of electrification and new inter-city trains, both of which have already been delayed or scaled back under this Government.

Finally, on the budget for the scheme, there is already a creeping increase in spending from the allocation set for this Parliament in the 2010 spending review. The Minister of State, Department for Transport has admitted to me in a parliamentary answer that the budget for the current spending period has been revised upwards from £773 million to around £900 million. That is worrying in the context of the legislation we are debating today, which will effectively give Ministers a blank cheque from Parliament to spend on the scheme. I am sure that the Secretary of State will keep Parliament fully apprised of where the money is going.

In addition to the delays and the criticisms of the budget, serious concerns have also been expressed about HS2 Ltd. It was initially set up to advise Ministers on the route for the new north-south line, but the Government have expanded its role to include building support for the scheme and then delivering it, despite the fact that HS2 Ltd has faced criticism for the way in which it has engaged with communities along the route, with local authorities and with MPs. The fact is that it has not proved to be an effective advocate for the scheme.

The NAO has issued a warning on this, too, saying:

“The programme has a complicated governance structure. This is because the Department aims to preserve some independence for its development body, HS2 Limited, while also maintaining effective governance.”

By divorcing the scheme from delivery of the investment in the existing rail network, there is a risk that we will not focus on the need to create a fully integrated single rail network. It makes no sense that Network Rail is, in effect, having to mirror some of the work of HS2 Ltd, including appointing staff of its own to work on the scheme and having to lobby HS2 Ltd to ensure that decisions are taken in a way that does not have a negative impact on the wider network.

It is increasingly clear that a better option would be to transfer responsibility for the planning and delivery of the new north-south rail line to Network Rail. That would reduce duplication and cost while better enabling the integration of investment in the existing network and the new line. The hopelessly inadequate plans for connecting the new north-south line with HS1 are a good example. The focus of the debate on this issue has been on whether there would be any demand for services from the continent to go further north than London. We should surely not turn our backs on the opportunity to end unnecessary and environmentally damaging short-haul flights, but the real case for getting the connection right involves the opportunity to run the excellent Javelin trains that served us so well during the Olympics further up the country, instead of simply between the coast and the capital.

[Mr MacNeil]

According to the latest Government figures, Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population but provides 9.9% of the taxes. In effect, Scots will be paying for 9.9% of the new high-speed rail development, so it is disappointing that neither the Secretary of State nor the hon. Lady can give the House a date, an ambition, a target or a hope of when it might reach Scotland.

[Maria Eagle]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s premise that there will be no benefit to Scotland before the high-speed rail line gets there at some time in the future. It is clear that it will benefit from the project.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that, if we are going to spend this large amount of money on HS2, we should get the maximum benefit from it? At the moment, it is planned to connect HS2 with HS1 only by a rather tortuous single-rail route, but there is a better, double-rail solution available. Would it not make more sense to fully integrate HS1 with HS2?

[Maria Eagle]

I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman’s point. It makes no sense to me at all that passengers from the south-east should have to change trains in north London to reach towns and cities in the midlands, the north and up to Scotland. We do not see this connection as an optional extra that can be delivered in a patch-and-mend way; it needs to be re-thought.

[Frank Dobson]

Is my hon. Friend aware that HS2 is saying that it wants to use the north London line for the link because

“it is assessed to have less construction risk than a tunnel”?

Is she aware that the man from Bechtel who masterminded the successful channel tunnel link and the refurbishment of St Pancras decided to do a double-bore tunnel from Barking to St Pancras because is was “less risky” to have such a tunnel than to use the north London line. Who would my hon. Friend trust on that?

[Maria Eagle]

I would undoubtedly trust my right hon. Friend—there is absolutely no doubt about that. The points made by both the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and my right hon. Friend illustrate the concern and controversy that remain about this issue. I believe that a solution should be devised that can minimise the impact on communities in Camden while ensuring that we do not miss a perfect opportunity to redevelop Euston in the right way for the long term. I believe that the Government should keep looking at that.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am really grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because our speeches are being restricted to only six minutes in the main debate, so it will be hard to say everything that has built up over four years in those six minutes. From what she is saying, am I right to understand that her party might look at a different route for HS2, as the very point she is making about connectivity to HS1 and to Heathrow leans towards another route that was originally in the set of proposals—one that was not chosen by this Government?

[Maria Eagle]

I do not think it fair to assume that if I had the Secretary of State’s role after the next general election, I would tear everything up. I have made it clear that when there are projects that run across Parliaments, it is important to co-operate and to understand that decisions have to be made. We will, however, have to see where we are by the time we get to the next election. I would certainly want to take every opportunity to make sure that the nation gets the best possible outcome from the money spent. As I say, we shall have to see where we are at that time. I am not interested in delaying going forward with what I believe to be a tremendously important scheme.

The Government must also be clear, following the successful judicial review, about how they intend to change the compensation scheme for households affected by the building of the line. The judge found that the consultation process was unfair, that not enough information had been provided and that the criteria for compensation options were not adequately explained. This failure has caused unnecessary added stress to those affected by the scheme, during what is obviously a very difficult time for them and their families.

It is simply not possible to take forward a project of national importance on this scale without causing a significant impact on some communities and on some people’s lives, but the obligation on all of us is to do what we can to mitigate that impact and to act fairly in terms of compensating people for the loss of property and value that they suffer. Ministers must now act quickly to bring forward a new, fair scheme and ensure that it is communicated clearly and transparently.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Do the Opposition therefore support the concept of a property bond that would try to improve on the blight that is experienced by so many people?

[Maria Eagle]

I am willing to support anything that can properly, fairly and reasonably compensate people in a way that still meets the obligation to be reasonable with taxpayers’ money. I would thus be happy to look at the details of the scheme, as I think the Secretary of State has said he is, too. I think we have a particular obligation to treat those affected as fairly as we possibly can and within as speedy a time scale as possible.

[Mr Betts]

I would like to mention a point raised with the Secretary of State a while ago. Asking people to make a sacrifice for the good of the country—that is effectively what we are asking the people whose homes are to be demolished to do— and saying to them, “This is the value of your property now and you can have 10% extra for the loss of your home” is really not adequate compensation. We should be able to do a bit better than that for people who are being forced to move home through no fault of their own and no choice of their own.

[Maria Eagle]

That is an important point. Such action could, indeed, lead to other benefits, if it meant that matters were settled earlier than they would otherwise have been. I believe that some European countries do as my hon. Friend suggests, and end up building their lines rather more quickly than we seem to manage to.

Ministers must now engage in a debate about the eventual cost of using the new north-south line, because that goes to the heart of the question of what kind of railway we believe in. There have been fears about the issue ever since the former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), started talking about rich men’s toys.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I think it important to put on record the fact that the phrase “a rich man’s toy” was presented to my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), who is now Secretary of State for Defence. He did not demur, but it is not a phrase that he generated. I happen to have been a member of the Transport Committee at the time. I think it important for us to clear this matter up before the hon. Lady starts accusing my right hon. Friend of making that comment.

[Maria Eagle]

I think every Member of Parliament realises, given the present state of journalism in this country, that if a phrase is presented to one and one does not demur, it is quite legitimate to say that that is what one agrees with. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.

I hope that Ministers will agree with Labour’s vision of a new railway line that is fully integrated with the existing network, and whose fares are fully regulated. That is the line for which we will all be paying, and its use must therefore be affordable for many people, not just for a few at the richer end of society.

It is disappointing that Ministers have so far shown little interest in ensuring that this significant investment delivers real opportunities, especially for our young people. Labour has made it clear that every £1 billion of investment in the scheme should deliver 1,000 apprenticeships, and I hope that the Government will make the same commitment to apprenticeships and to our young people. Ministers must learn the lessons of the Thameslink procurement. Those trains are now to be built in Germany. It is perfectly possible, within EU rules, to ensure that public investment delivers jobs and apprenticeships where they are desperately needed, here in Britain. Every other EU country manages to do the equivalent through its own train procurement. The new line must deliver British jobs and growth, not only after its completion but during its construction, and that must include the manufacturing of the trains.

It was a Labour Government who first set out the ambition for a new high-speed north-south railway line to address the capacity issue on our rail network while also cutting journey times between our towns and cities, and the case for making this scheme a reality remains strong. Indeed, it is all the more necessary at a time when the Government’s economic failure has meant a failure to deliver the growth that the country so desperately needs. The progress made over the last three years, since Ministers inherited the project, has been disappointing, but it retains cross-party support. We will support the Bill today, but we urge the Government to get on with the hybrid Bill as soon as possible. We want to see the enthusiasm and commitment from Ministers that are necessary to make a major project on this scale become a reality.

[Mr Speaker]

I must now announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. On the motion relating to the town and country planning regulations, the Ayes were 281 and the Noes were 185, so the Question was agreed to.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s cry, that was, of course, the intended policy of the previous Labour Secretary of State and the previous Labour Minister for Transport. We anticipate that the line will return to a franchise operation by February 2015.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Will the Minister explain why he has chosen to prioritise a completely unnecessary and costly competition for the east coast main line rail franchise, which will also require him to waste taxpayers’ money on expensive extensions to other contracts, some for as long as four years?

[Mr Burns]

I am afraid that the premise of the shadow Secretary of State’s question is factually incorrect and misguided. The reason we are moving the east coast main line back to a franchise is exactly the same—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady should stop chuntering.

[Mr Burns]

I am answering the question. The reason why we are moving the line back to a franchise is exactly the same as why the shadow Secretary of State’s right honourable friend Lord Adonis was going to do it when he said:

“I do not believe that it would be in the public interest for us to have a nationalised train operating company indefinitely”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2009; Vol. 712, c. 232.]

Nor do we, and that is why we are ending it.

[Maria Eagle]

It does not sound like the Minister actually knows what is happening on the east coast main line: 3 million more seats, best ever punctuality, lowest taxpayer subsidy, £40 million of extra profit invested and £800 million returned to the taxpayer. He should stop talking it down. Will he confirm that all of the planned east coast upgrade—all the investment that his hon. and right hon. Friends claim is necessary—will be paid for by the taxpayer? None of this investment is dependent on privatisation. The fact is that private train companies now receive more from the taxpayer each year than they pay back in, so why is he doing this?

[Mr Burns]

I sometimes wonder which world the shadow Secretary of State lives in. If she would just do us all a favour and listen for one minute, I will offer her an explanation. First, the premium that the east coast main line pays to the Treasury is less than that paid by the west coast main line. Secondly, if the hon. Lady looks at reliability over the latest four-week period, she will see that the east coast main line is the worst of the 19 operators. Thirdly, we have found that the operator did a reasonable job in difficult circumstances when it had to take over the direct operation, but that it has now reached a plateau. Fourthly, yes, there will be taxpayers’ money involved in investing in the east coast main line, but, more importantly, the involvement of the private sector means that we can increase, over and above the taxpayers’ money, the money that can be invested in enhancing and improving the service for passengers.

Rail Franchising

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. He inherited a Department in crisis and a rail franchising system in chaos. I acknowledge that he has had to work hard to try to put things back on track. He has rightly reversed many of the decisions of his two predecessors, not least by restoring some of the key posts in the Department that had recklessly been axed by them. We welcome the speed with which the right hon. Gentleman has worked with Richard Brown and his departmental officials to put together the plans he has set out today. However, it is also true that his revised franchising timetable has exposed the full impact of the failure of his predecessors, all of whom either remain in the Cabinet or have been promoted to it.

The Great Western contract will be awarded in July 2016—three years and three months later than planned. The west coast contract will not be awarded until April 2017—four years and four months late. Some competitions are to be delayed by as much as 50 months—not five months, but 50—yet instead of focusing on the chaos in franchising caused by his Government’s incompetence, the Secretary of State has decided to embark on an unnecessary and costly privatisation of the east coast inter-city services—a privatisation due to take place weeks before the date of the next general election.

The right hon. Gentleman hinted that investment was dependent on that happening, but will he acknowledge that the planned investment in the east coast main line, to be delivered by Network Rail, and the new generation of inter-city trains will happen regardless of this privatisation? Is it not the case that Directly Operated Railways has reinvested all of its £40 million profit in the east coast service on top of the £640 million paid to Government, with every pound of profit going back in for the benefit of passengers? That profit will, under the Secretary of State’s new plans, be shared with shareholders in future. Instead of talking down the current operator of the east coast, will he join me in praising the team there for the work they have done, and think again about his plans?

Will the Secretary of State update the House on the latest cost of the franchising fiasco, not least since his Department appears to be facing legal action from several more train operating companies? Will he correct the claim in his Department’s press notice today that this is the first time that a full franchise timetable has been published? I have with me the previous full timetable that was inherited from the previous Government and republished by his Government. Does he accept that what has changed is simply the fact that all the competitions have now been delayed?

The Secretary of State has also changed the proposed order of the competitions, leading in some cases to very long extensions to existing contracts. What is his thinking behind that decision? Will he clarify the role of the new franchising advisory board that Richard Brown recommended in his review and is now to chair? The first version of the written ministerial statement this morning stated that it would be a cross-industry body and that it would support bidders, but the corrected version appears to have dropped those claims. What, then, is it to do exactly?

What has happened to the Government’s previous enthusiasm for devolution? Will the right hon. Gentleman update the House on discussions with transport authorities covering the Northern and TransPennine franchises and services in the midlands? Does he still anticipate devolving responsibility at the revised start date for these franchises? Have the Government given further consideration to the calls from the Mayor of London and Transport for London for devolution of the remaining former Network SouthEast services?

For the sake of passengers, taxpayers and those working across the rail industry, the whole House wants to see us get beyond the problems of the past year. I wish the Secretary of State well in doing that, but I urge him to focus his efforts on getting back on track the bits of the system that need fixing, rather than those that do not.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I thank the hon. Lady for her response to my statement. It was not quite as warm as that of the CBI, Passenger Focus or the British Chambers of Commerce, which were much fuller in their acknowledgement of our putting the future for the rail industry so clearly.

The hon. Lady has obviously forgotten what the last Labour Secretary of State, the noble Lord Adonis, said on 9 February 2010:

“The Government believe that the ability of private sector operators to attract more passengers, grow the market, improve the service and receive revenue benefits of such actions is a key element in the current franchise model and one of the reasons for the significant growth delivered in recent years.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 February 2010; Vol. 717, c. WA122.]

It is certainly true that we are talking about a huge growth in rail traffic and rail transportation, with people relying on the railways. I could go on to quote—but I know you prefer shorter answers, Mr Speaker—the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who occupied my position before the last general election, as he praised the role of franchising.

I believe that the east coast line should be the first under the new system. I pay tribute to the work done by Directly Operated Railways, which has operated it, but when the hon. Lady talks about figures, she should look at the track access charges paid in control period 3 by National Express when it ran the east coast line. It paid £210 million in track access charges, whereas DOR now has to pay its track access charges of £92 million. [Interruption.] I can tell the shadow Leader of the House that that was paid in the year to which I referred.

That explains why we have set out a very clear set of proposals about where we are going, notifying the industry about the future, which I think is a bright one, and setting out the huge investment that we—and, indeed, Network Rail—are putting into the rail industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McLoughlin]

The date of the new contract for East Midlands will be mid-way through 2017, and a direct-operated tender deal will come to fruition in 2015. I hope my hon. Friend accepts that the fact that electrification of that line is included in next set of Network Rail works shows our commitment to it. I know how important—

[Maria Eagle]

In the next Parliament.

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Lady says that, but the process starts in 2014, which is in this Parliament. I can assure her that 2014 will be in this Parliament, not the next Parliament, in which case we will be electrifying that line.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I had better be careful how I answer my right hon. Friend. I will study the document she has given to me and ask for it to be studied by officials in my Department. We will do all we can to minimise damage in her area.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

The Opposition firmly support HS2, but we want it delivered. It is therefore worrying that the Government’s mid-term review referred not to enacting, but to “carrying forward legislation”, even though the Secretary of State’s departmental plan continues to claim Royal Assent will be secured by May 2015. Will he confirm that, with all the dither and delay, botched consultations and judicial reviews, the hybrid Bill is still on track to secure Royal Assent in this Parliament?

[Mr McLoughlin]

This Government will have achieved far more in five years to build high-speed rail in this country than the previous Government did in 13. All I would say is that we are still on target to meet our aims by the end of this year. As to its progress once it is before Parliament, I really cannot say any more at this stage.

[Maria Eagle]

The Secretary of State has introduced some confusion, because we are meant to have two Bills. One is paving legislation, which we have not seen and we do not know what it does, and the second is the hybrid Bill that he said would be completed in this Parliament. He should be clear what Bills he will introduce and when. Which Bill will he introduce: a measure simply to give the impression of action or the hybrid Bill that we need if this vital scheme is ever to be built?

High Speed Rail

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for providing a copy of his statement in advance.

As the Secretary of State was generous enough to say in his foreword to the Government’s Command Paper, which was published today, HS2 is a project that was started by the last Government. Having successfully built HS1, Britain’s first new railway line for more than 100 years, we were determined that the rest of the country, not just the south-east, should benefit from vital investment to increase capacity and reduce journey times on our railway.

I assure the Secretary of State and the House that we are 100% behind this project. We want to see the line built, and we will continue to offer cross-party support, which will include helping to ensure that the necessary legislation reaches the statute book. I know that the Secretary of State faces considerable challenges in securing the support of colleagues on his side of the House. I have spent much of today defending the project in interviews opposite Conservative Members. I hope and assume that the right hon. Gentleman’s lengthy experience as Chief Whip will come in handy when it comes to quelling the rebellions.

The reason why we need to build this new high-speed railway line is clear: capacity. Our existing three main routes between north and south are congested, and in the case of the west coast line, nearly full. If we do not act now, we will face even worse overcrowding. Doing nothing is not an option. Continuing to patch and mend our existing lines is no longer good enough, and will not bring us the major reductions in journey times that HS2 will deliver.

Given the importance of the scheme, I wonder whether the Secretary of State appreciates the level of frustration at the slow progress made so far in the current Parliament. The consultation on the first phase has been botched, not by him, but in his Department. Submissions have been lost, and the Government now face defeat in the courts, which has the potential to take us back to square one on the consultation. The draft route for the second phase was finally set out only today, two and a half years after the election. No legislation has been published. Today’s Command Paper suggests that Royal Assent to the Secretary of State’s first hybrid Bill will not be achieved until some point in 2015, not by the time of the next election as was previously intended. This scheme is too important to be subject either to further delays or to incompetence in the Department for Transport. I hope that the Secretary of State will now do all that he can both to speed up progress and to avoid any further errors.

On the judicial review, will the Secretary of State update the House on when he expects to receive a judgment, and on the impact that a ruling against his Department would have on the plans that he has set out today?

Let me now turn to the specific details of the route announced by the Secretary of State. First, will the right hon. Gentleman think again about his decision to commit himself only to introducing legislation covering the first phase of the line from London to Birmingham in the current Parliament? Of course it is true that a single Bill would need to await completion of the consultation on the second phase of the route, but by introducing the Bill later in this Parliament and carrying it over to the next—as we did with the legislation for the building of Crossrail—we would secure Parliament’s approval for the whole route earlier than we would under the Government’s plans. That would open up the possibility of beginning construction in the north as well as the south, which is something that the Transport Committee has urged the Government to consider.

Secondly, will the Secretary of State look again at the issue of connectivity between HS1 and HS2, which many, including his own party’s Mayor of London and also Transport for London, believe to be totally inadequate? The proposal to make use of an existing part of the North London line looks like a back-of-an-envelope fix that is not focused on the long-term potential for international rail travel. Surely we need to build a dedicated, purpose-built link between HS1 and HS2. I urge him to look at this again.

Thirdly, will the Secretary of State listen carefully to the concerns that he will have heard today about the decision not to connect HS2 with our major city centres in some instances? I appreciate the difficulty, not least in terms of engineering and cost, of taking a new rail line into an existing major rail station and enabling through services, yet the consequences of not doing so are potentially economically to disadvantage city centres and encourage out-of-town development; and passengers losing much of the journey time savings achieved by using the new line as they transfer to get to their city centre destination. I know that there are differing views on this from city to city, and there is no single right answer, but the Secretary of State’s proposals today make it clear that the recommendations are just “initial” recommendations and I hope that that indicates a willingness to continue a dialogue on these issues, not least with the cities themselves.

Finally, will the Secretary of State accept that today’s decision to kick into the long grass how HS2 will connect to Heathrow is a major error? As he knows, our preference, as a result of our policy review, is to take the line direct via Heathrow. That was the Conservative party’s position before the last election and I am sorry that it no longer supports it. However, the Government’s compromise of a spur was at least a recognition of the need to provide a direct link to Heathrow from HS2. Abandoning that today sets back the potential for HS2 to deliver transfer traffic to our hub airport via high-speed rail rather than short-haul flights, an approach that has the potential to free up valuable slots that could be used for new long-haul flights to serve emerging markets.

The Secretary of State says that that decision has been taken because the Davies commission on aviation will not report back before 2015. Surely the answer is not to delay decisions on HS2 but to speed them up on aviation. Will the Government finally accept that 2015 is far too late to have an answer to our longer-term aviation capacity needs? Will he agree to our call for the commission to produce its final report way in advance of 2015, enabling cross-party talks on a way forward that can be put to people at the next election? That would deliver the certainty needed not just for aviation, but on the route for HS2.

I hope that the Secretary of State will consider those four issues in the spirit in which they are raised. We seek to improve the Government’s proposals, because it is vital that we get this right if all the benefits we all seek are to be realised.

[Mr McLoughlin]

May I start by thanking the hon. Lady for the support that she gives, in principle, to the project? I fully accept that HS1 was finished by the previous Government, but if we needed to get into a debating argument, I could say that it was started by the previous Conservative Government, who had the foresight to say how important it would be. Anyone who uses St Pancras station will have seen what a vast difference has been made to that station since HS1. It used to be a station that nobody wanted to go to, but now it is a destination in itself. I wanted to make that particular point first.

The hon. Lady raised a number of points. She said that I will have certain strong voices against me on this side of the House, but I dare say—I know this from some of the letters I have received from Labour Members—there will be some vocal opponents on her side of the House too. We will see how the debate goes, but that is the case. She also asked me to speculate on what might happen in the judicial review. I may have been in the Whips Office for 17 years, but I am not prepared to start speculating from the Dispatch Box on what the courts may or may not say. We will wait to hear what is said, because a judicial review has taken place. I believe that the Government have acted properly in the way this has gone forward, but we will wait to see what happens on that.

The hon. Lady talked about how some cities are disappointed not to have stations directly in the city centre. As I said in my statement, this is the start of the process and not the end of it, but I say to her that HS2 is not just about serving cities; it is about serving the regions, and so this goes a lot wider than just the cities. Some cities will have a station in them, because of the way in which things have been constructed and the way in which we can engineer into them. In certain other areas the engineering is much more difficult and a lot more expensive, but as I have said, we will of course listen. I have engaged with the city leaders—I know that some of them will be disappointed that I have not been able to say to those cities exactly where the route has gone until today—and so that process is there.

The hon. Lady talks about having a greater link between HS1 and HS2, and I am certainly prepared—I have received representations from the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who is sitting directly behind her—to look at how that can be done. However, it is true to say that, even as presently announced, HS2 will be able to serve areas of the continent direct if there is a demand and need for that.

The hon. Lady made the point about Heathrow. The Government have set up a commission to try to get a consensus. We have a welcome consensus on HS2—cross-party consensus on big infrastructure projects is a tremendous advantage because of the time that such projects naturally take. However, it is right to see what the Davies commission says.

The hon. Lady’s final point was to ask whether we could hold the project off and bring the measures together in one Bill. That would lead to a tremendous delay. There would not just be a delay while we consulted, but a delay while the environmental assessment was conducted and consulted on. Far from making the process quicker, it would be delayed; I estimate that it would mean we probably could not have a Bill ready until 2018. I want a Bill to begin its progress in this Parliament. Of course, how the Bill progresses is up to Parliament.