Infrastructure Bill [Lords]
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Williams
In recent weeks and months, the question of whether to set up a separate body has been much debated in both Houses, and many people outside Parliament, including the Armitt commission set up by the Opposition, have contributed thoughtfully to that debate. All of that has informed our discussions, but the Government take the view that it is up to Ministers, accountable to Parliament, to set out the infrastructure vision for the development of our country. It is not something we should subcontract to another body; it should be up to us. Our constituents should make representations to hon. Members to inform our deliberations, rather than feeling they have to go to a non-elected body to make those important recommendations.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
In the light of those remarks, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government were right to subcontract the issue of airport capacity to Sir Howard Davies?
Stephen Williams
My hon. Friend has put his remarks on the record. He will know that neither I nor any other Minister in the DCLG can comment on a particular plan.
Government amendments 84, 45 and 46 deal with the control of invasive and non-native species. Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall resist the temptation to speak about the European beaver and other interesting items that would have been in my speech.
I turn to the telecoms provisions that were introduced into the Bill in Committee, as we heard earlier. The House will have heard the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), give the reasons why the Government now wish to withdraw these proposals when he discussed the programme motion. Accepting Government amendments 91, 92, 93, 100 and 104 to 108 would give effect to what my right hon. Friend described at the beginning of our deliberations.
Mr Raynsford
When the Opposition urged the Minister’s colleague, who was leading on this issue, to do exactly that in Committee, the Minister who responded accused the Opposition of burying their head, ostrich-like, in the sand. Have Ministers now decided to put their heads in the sand—or do they admit they were wrong?
Stephen Williams
The right hon. Gentleman enjoyed, I am sure, the deliberations in Committee, including my right hon. Friend the Minister telling us about mobile telephone reception in Lincolnshire and having to stand on a chair in order to take a call. This is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with, and the Government have listened very carefully to what was said in Committee and to the representations made by interested bodies. We have decided at this stage to withdraw the proposals as drafted, but this issue will have to be revisited.
I turn finally in this wide-ranging group of new clauses and amendments to the part of the Bill that introduces zero-carbon homes—a part of which I am particularly proud—and the Opposition’s amendments. Amendments 67 and 71 seek to give preference in all cases to on-site carbon abatement measures. That would cause uncertainty and cost to house builders, because the house builder and the building control body would have to agree a “reasonable” on-site energy performance level on a case-by-case basis before any development could commence. The house building industry needs to know the technical requirements and the costs it will face in order to plan for the future. That is why we set specific performance standards in the building regulations —standards we have already tightened twice during this Parliament, and which, as a result of the Bill, will be further tightened in 2016 to make sure that our constituents have the pleasure of living in not only a new home but one insulated to the highest possible performance standards.
With those brief remarks—not quite as brief as you would have liked, Madam Deputy Speaker—I commend the new clauses and amendments in the Government’s name and ask the House to resist those in others’ names.
Mr Raynsford
May I start by drawing attention to my interests, as declared in the register?
I agreed with the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on one point only, which was his opening remark about the lack of time for this debate. I am afraid that I will not have time to explain in detail why he is totally wrong about the Planning Inspectorate, because I want to address two other issues. However, I have to say that over many years the Planning Inspectorate has delivered a highly professional service in assessing developments and giving impartial advice to Ministers, and it would be an absurdity to do away with such a body.
The first issue that I want to cover is the importance of a national infrastructure commission. I am disappointed by the Government’s rejection of that proposal, which was made in a cogent, well-presented and well-received report by Sir John Armitt. In case Members are not familiar with him, Sir John is widely recognised as one of our country’s leading experts in the field and was the chair of the Olympic Delivery Authority, which demonstrated remarkably well how to deliver a major infrastructure project in the most exemplary way, so we should pay attention to his recommendations. Those recommendations were not, as some opponents of them have claimed, about taking decision making away from Ministers or Parliament. On the contrary, Sir John’s report was clear that there should be a detailed and thorough appraisal, carried out by experts and then presented to Ministers, who in turn would have a responsibility to report to Parliament on their decisions in response to the infrastructure commission’s recommendations. That would be wholly democratic and ensure that proposals were properly considered by experts before being presented to Ministers, who would then come to Parliament with final decisions.
The second argument that the Minister made against the Armitt report was that the recommended procedure would be too cumbersome and bureaucratic. He conjured up the image of a recommendation being rejected by Parliament, and asked what would then happen. That is pretty rich coming from a Government who have just reduced by one third the total size of the Bill that came back from Committee. That was a fairly enormous decision to reverse a proposal that they had made a little while before, but we have not heard any suggestion that it is somehow a mistake. On the contrary, it is an example of Parliament working well in stopping Ministers doing something ill-considered. The basis of the Minister’s argument is unsound, but in any case, if Parliament is to take decisions, it must be right that it has the discretion to say no occasionally. That seems an entirely admirable principle.
I wish to conclude with a few words about zero-carbon outcomes. The Government are resiling from the commitments that were put in place under the previous Government to achieve those outcomes by 2016. There have been four backtracks. The first was the Government’s abandonment of code level 6, which was the original definition of zero carbon. The second was no longer saying that zero carbon is equivalent to code level 5 and must be delivered in all cases. They now say that the objective is code level 5, but it will be possible not to deliver it under two circumstances. The first is where allowable solutions include off-site contributions, rather than doing it on site—and even there, the Government are not adhering to the principle the Minister enunciated on Second Reading, which was that this should apply only where it is not reasonably practicable to deliver on site. The second relates to the small site exemptions, which are badly drafted and a loophole that could easily be exploited, not by small builders, but by any builders, to fail to deliver on small sites. There has been some serious backtracking by the Government, and if we are to achieve the zero-carbon objective and an effective response to climate change, we will need to revisit these issues in the next Parliament.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
I rise to support new clause 16 and I will be brief. The Government have done a lot on pubs, but I wish to address the points made by the Minister and explain why new clause 16 is, on all fronts, a better and neater solution that the very welcome concession the Government have made.
Let us bust some myths. First, new clause 16 simply puts pubs on the same footing as laundrettes, theatres and—would you believe it—casinos and nightclubs, which currently enjoy more protection under the planning law than pubs do. Most people in this House would think that was very strange and needs rectifying. So there is an easy precedent for this clause and nothing draconian about it.
Secondly, we are being presented with the straw man of boarded up pubs lining our high streets as a result of the new clause. A local pub of mine, The Foresters, was known to be a drug den. It was turned into a Tesco and nobody shed any tears. Had new clause 16 been in place then, that would have simply gone through the planning process, as most things would do. Local authorities have every incentive to approve planning for a derelict site, and so we can discard that straw man out of hand.
Let us look at what the Government have already done. An article 4 direction is well intended, but in practice it is burdensome. People cannot apply for an article 4 direction for their pub unless it has already been threatened, and many communities will want to apply for an article 4 direction before it is threatened. Each article 4 direction is expensive, costing between £2,000 and £3,000 for local authorities, which are already stretched. If communities wanted to protect every pub in the country, the cost would be about £50 million to £100 million. However, a much more fundamental question lies at the heart of this issue: what is localism? In a welcome move towards localism, this Government decided that it is about local planners making decisions, as is the case elsewhere in localism. However, the Government’s concession seems to present it as a patchy, bureaucratic position, which also favours those with sharp elbows. I am deeply concerned that it will be inequitable in practice.
I am particularly puzzled as to why the Government’s default position is against, not for, community pubs. Most of us would consider that the default position should be for the community pub and in favour of the community, not in favour of developers, who can move far faster than communities, particularly our most vulnerable ones. Indeed, if the Government had implemented new clause 16 long ago, we would have avoided the confusion involving, and potential overlap between, assets of community value and article 4 directions. I very much welcome the Government’s move, but we have a short time left in this Parliament. Indeed, we are on last orders for our parliamentary time—[Interruption.] Thank you very much; I am here all night. There is doubt as to whether we would actually be able to make this proposal in time. I thank the Government for their welcome move, but new clause 16 does it better, it does it here, and this evening we have an opportunity to do it now.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords]
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hayes
I may have revealed a prejudice in favour of Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire, which, as you know, Mr Speaker, are deeply ingrained on my heart. I will seek to counter that when my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) next visits me.
Alongside the transformational investment, we propose to turn the Highways Agency into a Government-owned company, with the Secretary of State as its sole shareholder. The company will have stable, long-term funding that is set through a road investment strategy. Our ambitious programme of investment can be delivered only through a road operator that is fast and efficient and that provides a better service to road users. As a result, it will be able to plan ahead more effectively and deliver best value for money to the taxpayer. The changes are expected to save the taxpayer at least £2.6 billion over the next 10 years. Hon. Members will be familiar with the impact assessment that makes that clear.
The impact on the supply chain of creating a Government-owned company with greater certainty over funding and a clear relationship with Government will be positive. In the past, the construction industry has reacted to new spending on a case-by-case basis, and has not invested in the equipment and skills that would create long-term jobs in road construction.
If I may depart from my script at this point—although the Secretary of State will not worry about that, I can see that civil servants might, but I am going to do it anyway—I should say that I think there is a challenge in delivering this strategy. The Government can devise a strategy on the basis of the empiricism that I mentioned earlier. Bold Governments put money behind that, which is precisely what this brave and bold Government have done, but delivery will be a challenge and we will need to work with a whole range of organisations. The Highways Agency, of course, works with a number of private sector organisations. There are big issues relating to the supply chain and the skills necessary to make this happen. Those challenges would face any Government and they need to be considered carefully. They will require a new energy in respect of the acquisition and development of necessary skills. However, the Bill gives us the opportunity to do just that: the chance to give the construction industry the certainty it needs to invest in people and skills for the long term.
We have also listened and learned on a range of other issues. The British Transport police told us that the drafting of the Road Traffic Act 1988 did not allow it to require vehicle owners to disclose the identity of drivers who committed road traffic offences on the railway. We will change that. We have listened to calls to extend the BTP’s jurisdiction beyond the railway environment to help to protect people.
The provisions on invasive non-native species will allow our environmental officers to address the few cases each year where owners do not allow access to their land to eradicate new species that threaten to spread across the country. Invasive non-native species are estimated to cost the UK economy £1.8 billion a year. They are indiscriminate: they damage gardens, private land, public land, farmland and infrastructure sites.
We have introduced a number of measures designed to help to get Britain building. The small changes we are proposing speed up the approval of nationally significant infrastructure projects, such as the Thames tideway tunnel, road schemes and other major schemes, and will send a clear message to investors and developers that the steps to deliver transformational projects are as simple, sensible and straightforward as possible.
Those who believed that the coalition Government, with all the inevitable pressures and tensions, could not be bold, have been proved, wrong have they not? Among the many examples of boldness, some stand proud. Hinkley Point C, a scheme approved under the improved nationally significant infrastructure projects process, took 17 months to receive planning consent. That compares with more than six years for Sizewell B, including a public inquiry that lasted three years. We think we can do more and that we can improve on that. It is vital that we do so, because these schemes are hugely important. Hinkley Point C will deliver more than 900 skilled jobs for 60 years.
On deemed discharge, we have all seen a piece of land that has been bought, fenced off and ready to be developed, and felt a pang of frustration due to a seemingly inexplicable delay. The measures to discharge planning conditions will ensure that planning applications can get on and be delivered. The Government have already taken action. We have delivered a clear policy in the national planning policy framework and provided fresh guidance, but we need to go further. Recently, a major house builder identified that more than one third of its entire land bank was tied up in the planning system, awaiting reserved matters approval or the discharge of conditions. As a nation, we simply cannot afford to accept unnecessary delays to much-needed development that has already been subject to local scrutiny and granted planning permission.
Mr Raynsford
The Minister talks about deemed discharges and refers to the national planning policy framework. Where a local authority has set a condition that is in conformity with the national planning policy framework, does he believe that it should be subject to deemed discharge?
Mr Hayes
That is a fair question, and one which has already been put to me by those in local government. I will look closely at that, but I am anxious—the right hon. Gentleman is a great expert, given his experience as a Minister and, beyond that, his understanding of house building—and keen to ensure that this does not create unnecessarily bureaucratic or over-regulatory delay. The point he makes is a good one and I will certainly go away and consider it during the passage of the Bill. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham—who has intervened twice and might have another go in a minute, who knows?—that this is a very good example of the Government taking action to make the system more straightforward and less bureaucratic, so that decisions can be made in a timely way and be acted on with appropriate promptness. Wise as they are on these things, I am sure the Opposition will not disagree. Likewise, when they reflect on much of the Bill, I suspect they will appreciate it is the right thing to do in the national interest—but we will hear from them in a few moments.
Public sector land is an important source of land for development, and we have already released land with the capacity for 90,000 new homes, but to make that happen we propose to allow a Government arm’s length body to transfer disused surplus land directly to the Homes and Communities Agency or the Greater London authority, rather than having first to transfer it back to the parent Department. This measure will once again reduce bureaucracy in the transfer of land, meaning that disused Government-owned land can be brought to the market more quickly to build homes and improve communities.
As you know, Mr Speaker, the Government are committed to England’s public forest estate remaining in public ownership—[Hon. Members: “They are now.”] I know Labour is in the woods, but we are committed to the past, present and future of our forests. Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), have raised their constituents’ interests several times in the House and have influenced the decision to amend the Bill to ensure the measure will not apply to them.
The move to digitise and centralise local land charges and free up the Land Registry to take a wider role will ultimately help people buying and selling their homes. The Government aim to make dealing with property quicker, cheaper and easier. The Land Registry is well placed to help achieve that aim because it is already at the centre of the conveyancing process and is the largest single source of property information. The changes in the Bill will stop the wider disparities in charging, currently ranging from approximately £3 to £76, and will lead to a more efficient service for searches as people access a single provider rather than one of 348 separate providers. We need modern systems to underpin the property market.
On zero-carbon homes, we have already tightened building regulations to make new homes more energy efficient. Today’s new homes save people about £200 on average—
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my interests as declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my non-pecuniary interests as a trustee of the Town and Country Planning Association. I was pleased to listen to the speech by the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry). He made a number of very important points. I hope he will forgive me for not following on directly from what he has said, but I will refer to him later in my speech.
This is a very diverse Bill that covers a very wide range of issues, but I want to focus on specific issues in part 4. It is not just a disparate Bill with a huge range of clauses; it will also have different impacts in different parts of the United Kingdom. We have been debating devolution quite a lot recently and a number of Members have advocated the case for MPs not being able to vote on measures that are devolved for local decision in the areas they represent. That is an issue we need to think about in relation to the provisions in the Bill. The explanatory notes give a pretty good feel on this matter:
“The provisions in Part 1 extend to England and Wales only, save that clauses 14 and 16 to 18 extend to the United Kingdom…In Part 2, clause 19(1) extends to England and Wales only and clause 19(2) extends to England, Wales and Scotland…The provisions in Part 3 extend to England and Wales only. The provisions in Part 4 relating to nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008 extend to England and Wales and (in relation to certain oil and gas cross-border pipelines) Scotland.”
And so on. However, if we look at the Bill in detail, we can see that in clause 27 the provisions relating to the Homes and Communities Agency apply to England outside London, and that there are separate provisions relating to the Greater London authority in the London area. I therefore have to put it to Members who advocate voting rights being restricted to Members who do not represent an area with a separate devolved authority taking decisions, that I would like to hear how they propose the House should consider the provisions in the Bill and which particular sections would be open to voting by Members from different parts of the country, whether they come from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, London or the rest of England, because parts of the Bill relate only to each of the areas I describe.
I intend to restrict my comments to part 4, which itself contains diverse provisions, not because the other parts are not important but because there is simply not time to do justice to them all. Clauses 23 to 25 relate to the planning regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects. There are some modest amendments to improve procedures. I personally have no objection to them, as I believe they are helpful. I merely reflect that when the Planning Act 2008, which introduced the nationally significant infrastructure planning regime, was debated in the House, the present Government were extremely critical of it. I am glad that they have now decided that this initiative, introduced by the previous Government, is worth while, and that they are supporting it and taking it forward.
Clause 26, however, raises an altogether more problematic issue to which I have already alluded. It allows the Secretary of State to pass regulations by statutory instrument that would allow specific planning conditions to be deemed to be discharged if a period of time elapsed without the planning authority having reached a decision. I accept entirely that delays in discharging conditions can prove highly problematic and burdensome for developers, and I am not arguing against sensible measures to accelerate the discharge of planning conditions. However, the clause is a blunt instrument and could well result in measures being arbitrarily prevented from mitigating the serious adverse impacts of developments on local communities. In its briefing, the Town and Country Planning Association says that the Department for Communities and Local Government technical consultation on planning
“reflects this dilemma by recognising classes of condition whose function is too important to be subject of any deemed discharged. The question must be whether any NPPF compliant condition can be regarded as so trivial as to have no impact on the wider community.”
I put that question to the Minister earlier, and I was pleased he agreed to reflect on it.
The TCPA continues:
“Paragraph 206 of the NPPF states that ‘planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects’. The tests of necessary, relevant and reasonable provide a strong framework and logically imply that there should not be a body of conditions which are in some way frivolous or unimportant.”
That is a telling point on which I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view when he has had a chance to reflect on it, because it concerns a very significant issue. Ministers used to be vocal in their support for the principle of localism—of allowing local communities the power to promote their interests and reject proposals that damage the amenity or well-being of the area or its residents. I hope, therefore, that when they have had a chance to reflect, they will assure us that no planning condition relating to the material amenity of residents or the wider community will be subject to the deemed discharge provision.
One planning issue that surprisingly is absent from the Bill is an updating and clarification of the remit and role of the new town development corporations, which were established in the 1940s and played a key role in developing the substantial number of new settlements subsequently created in our country. Now that the Government have given their approval to the creation of a new generation of garden cities and have agreed that a development corporation is the appropriate vehicle to promote the projected new settlement at Ebbsfleet, it is time for a new statement of the purposes of new town development corporations.
Simply seeking to apply the urban development corporation model, which was devised for different circumstances and with no clear statement of its social and environmental objectives, is not adequate. In the other place, the concept of a new definition of the role and purposes of a new town development corporation was considered, and I hope that if the Bill is examined in detail in Committee, an appropriate new clause can be introduced to achieve this. The TCPA has undertaken substantial work in drafting an appropriate statement of the purposes and objectives of the new town development corporations, and I hope this can provide the basis for an improvement to the Bill.
The third weakness in part 4 that I would like to highlight relates to the low and zero-carbon agenda—another area in which the last Government made important advances. The ratcheting up of the energy requirements in part L of the building regulations, the creation of the route map to zero-carbon housing through the code for sustainable homes, the establishment of the zero-carbon hub and the setting of a target for reaching zero carbon in new homes by 2016 were all significant initiatives that have had a very positive impact. Our new homes now achieve much higher standards of energy performances than they did a decade or two ago.
I have first-hand experience of that. I live in a new home built in Greenwich millennium village, which was designed to be an exemplary development. It was pioneered by the last Government and set high energy efficiency standards. My flat is now eight years old, so it is not at the cutting edge of new energy performance, but last winter I did not need to have the heating on at all, so good is its energy performance. The hon. Member for Wealden referred to the previous winter, focusing rightly on the issue of energy supply, and said it was a very cold winter. In that very cold winter, I needed just 42 hours of heating.
My argument is this: just as important as energy supply —I entirely accept the emphasis of the hon. Member for Wealden on it—is energy efficiency to ensure that we are not wasting energy unnecessarily and that people have the benefits of warm sustainable homes in which they can afford to keep warm through winter. That is the great benefit of the whole low and zero-carbon programme. It is not just about helping to achieve our carbon reduction targets, but about improving people’s quality of life so that they live in better, warmer and more economically maintained homes.
That is why I find it very disappointing to see yet further evidence in the Bill of the Government backtracking from their previous position and indeed their predecessor’s ambitions—first by resiling from the previous ambition to meet code level 6 by 2016; then by watering down the standards to be met on site, even before offsite allowable solutions are invoked; and now by exempting small sites entirely from the obligations.
The UK Green Building Council had some fairly pithy comments to make:
“We see no reason why a development of 10 units should be treated differently from one of 11. Creating a disparity between the treatment of different sites opens up the possibility of unforeseen and undesirable outcomes, and possibly exploitation, where larger sites are broken down to qualify for the exemption.”
I wholeheartedly agree. It is very much the case that we should put the emphasis on helping small builders to meet the more demanding standards of high-energy performance homes rather than on providing exemptions not to meet those standards.
Mr Raynsford
I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister in the responsible Department.
Sir Andrew Stunell
The right hon. Gentleman and I have had opportunities to disagree about things, but on this matter I wholeheartedly agree with him. Does he agree that there is no benefit—either to builders or the users of the buildings, let alone to the Government—in backtracking in any way whatever on the recommendations of the zero-carbon hub?
Mr Raynsford
I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he can exercise some influence on his coalition partners.
Amid the many mixed metaphors and rhetorical flourishes that characterised the speech of the Minister who introduced the Bill, perhaps the most telling was his characterisation of the Government’s vision of infrastructure as “looking through a kaleidoscope”. I think he meant to imply a colourful view of the world. That would certainly be in keeping with his character, and I am sorry that he is not in his place to hear these remarks. If the Minister and his colleagues thought about it for a moment, however, they would appreciate that the view through a kaleidoscope is one of fragmentation, in which clarity and order are shattered into thousands of disjointed pieces.
There could be no better metaphor for this Bill—a veritable tessellated pavement of ill-assorted measures, some of which may have beneficial consequences, many of which will not. The sum total will not add up to the comprehensive framework for infrastructure development, as advocated in the Armitt report, which is so clearly needed in Britain. This is a wasted opportunity to provide a coherent, long-term commitment to infrastructure in the UK. I wholly endorse the critique presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) from the Front Bench: this Bill fails to meet our country’s infrastructure requirements.
Stephen Williams
One of its aims is indeed to streamline decision making to make sure that national infrastructure projects are built on time.
A few Members mentioned the part of the Bill that deals with invasive non-native species. Species control orders will be used to support national eradication programmes for newly arrived species in exceptional circumstances. We expect approximately only one such order to be issued a year, and we do not intend species control orders to be used where the reintroduction of former native species is undertaken legally. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, who had a particular concern about the European beaver.
The shadow Minister asked about the operation of the habitats directive of the European Union. Our responsibilities under the habitats directive extend only to protecting those European-protected species whose natural range includes Great Britain. Many of the species listed in the habitats directive, such as the crested porcupine and the marsh frog, are clearly non-native to Great Britain and could be invasive. The directive allows for derogations from protection in certain circumstances, including for reasons of public health or environmental protection.
Several Members spoke in support of the deemed discharge proposals to speed up planning consents under the Bill. The deemed discharge of planning conditions is indeed a good example of where a small legislative change, as proposed in the Bill, provides far greater certainty for house builders, other planning applicants and communities. Feedback from the sector is that local planning authorities often take longer than the statutory eight-week period to reach decisions, preventing building work from starting on sites. This measure will help to ensure that local authorities hit the deadlines that they should already be working towards.
Zero-carbon homes is the part of the Bill for which my Department is responsible, and I am particularly proud that we have got to this moment. Concerns were, however, mentioned by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell). The intention of clause 32 is to make sure that all new homes achieve a zero-carbon standard from 2016—either through on-site measures or off site where on-site measures are not physically possible. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, there have in fact been two tightenings of part L of the building regulations in this Parliament: one when he held my post in 2011 and one in April this year. Together, those two measures have increased by 30% the energy performance of new homes built with planning permissions after those dates.
From 2016, we want another 20% advance in the energy efficiency of new homes across the mix of housing. Those energy efficiency measures should be done on site where possible, but off site where not. There could be practical reasons why those energy efficiency measures could not be introduced on site. That is why it is necessary to provide for a scheme of allowable solutions. This incorporates a wide range of measures such as the retrofitting of older housing stock—several Members mentioned that there could be a great need for that—and there could be local or national schemes where we need to act together as a nation and not necessarily tie the allowable solutions scheme to local authorities.
Mr Raynsford
The Minister said—I hope I quote him correctly—that where it is possible to achieve the zero-carbon standard on site, that should be the objective, and that only where that is not possible should it be off site. Why is he proposing to break that rule in respect of developments of fewer than 10 units?
Stephen Williams
I am coming on to the proposed exemption for small sites. One sad aspect of the housing crash—when I believe the right hon. Gentleman was the Housing Minister during the last Parliament—was that a lot of small house builders left the market, and they have not yet come back. Many of the measures that the Government are taking are designed to encourage small house builders to re-enter the market. We recognise that the progressive tightening of the building regulations regime—it will have been tightened three times in five years—is a bigger challenge for small house builders than for larger ones. That is why we think that some sort of exemption is necessary. However, we have issued a public consultation so that we can hear from the sector and all other interested parties what the size of that exemption should be. I cannot prejudge the consultation, but some of the figures that have been mentioned, such as 50 housing units, are certainly well wide of the mark.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr McLoughlin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point. The truth is that, while we have seen a huge amount of growth in the railways, more people are using buses every single day, particularly in rural areas and rural communities, which rely on bus services. My hon. Friend raises important issues and his ideas certainly merit further consideration.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
T2. As we are on the subject of Christmas largesse, could the Secretary of State explain why the Airports Commission, as part of its costing for extra capacity at Heathrow, gave the airport an extraordinary present by excluding the cost both of the rail link to HS2 and of motorway enhancement around Heathrow but included such surface access costs in its assessment of the alternative in the Thames Gateway?
Mr McLoughlin
I am not responsible for the Airports Commission report—it is an independent report—but I will certainly draw the right hon. Gentleman’s comments to the attention of Sir Howard Davies so that he can consider whether his report properly reflects all the arguments.
Aviation Strategy
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I am delighted to welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) to his post. I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate.
I agree with the Select Committee on two of the three main themes in its report. First, it is completely right to recognise the need for increased runway capacity and increased scope for aviation in the national interest—a point made forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). Secondly, I agree with the vital importance of a hub and the inadequacy of the other options, which do not provide a hub solution.
I am afraid, however, that the Committee has made a mistake in opting for Heathrow as the location of Britain’s future hub. I fear that it has not learned the lessons of history. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) gave us a certain amount of that history, and I shall now amplify it a bit more. I suspect that I am almost as old as he is, and I recall the Roskill committee. Like him, I was attracted to the concept of an estuary airport at the time, and I was disappointed when the project initiated by the Heath Government was cancelled by the incoming Labour Government in 1974 as an austerity measure. There are echoes of recent history there, too. Cublington was the wrong solution—I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the idea of an inland airport was wrong—but the crucial point is that Heathrow is in the wrong location. It might have been right in 1947, when we were looking for a new airport immediately after the war, but by the 1970s it was clear that, because of its location in an area of dense population, it was not the right location for the long term.
The subsequent history of all the inquiries into airport expansion included the Layfield inquiry into terminal 4 and the Vandermeer inquiry into terminal 5, as well as the sad history of the third runway proposal in the 2000s. Every one of those projects was bitterly opposed, which produced dishonest responses from the airport operators, in saying that that was as far as they would go. I remember BAA stating emphatically at the time of the terminal 5 inquiry that that was it, and that if approval were granted, it would not seek any further expansion. Public confidence and trust in the airport operators was totally destroyed, and people were further infuriated, when it came back seeking further expansion only a few years later. That history has undermined public confidence in the veracity of the people responsible for planning our airports.
We need to get this right. We need to have a strategy, rather than just continuing to make do and mend, and adding a bit more in an unsatisfactory and inappropriate location at Heathrow. It is inappropriate because around 700,000 people are seriously affected by the noise it creates. My constituency is a huge distance from Heathrow, yet I get more complaints about the noise from aircraft approaching Heathrow than I do about the aircraft using City airport, which is just across the river from me. My constituency is far outside the 55 dB contour—let alone the 57db one—yet there are still people there who are deeply affected by aircraft noise.
Mr Raynsford
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; I am with him on that.
It is notable that 25% of all the people in the European Union who are seriously affected by airport noise are to be found around Heathrow. The airport cannot operate 24 hours a day, and any attempts to relax the restrictions on night flights are strongly contested. That, too, has an impact on the efficacy of the airport and makes it impossible to operate as a proper international hub that can receive aircraft at all times of the day and night. Furthermore, the approach path to Heathrow over central London is potentially hazardous. The incident involving an aircraft coming down short of the runway two or three years ago was a timely reminder of the serious risks associated with having an airport in a densely populated area.
There is also the issue of air quality. I remind the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, of what her Committee’s report says on that issue. She quotes the Environment Agency, which gave evidence about Heathrow to the effect that
“concentrations of nitrogen dioxide were expected to continue to exceed the EU air quality limit for the foreseeable future.”
Because of the heavy volume of vehicle and industry, there are already serious problems with air contamination in the surrounding area, so the airport is simply adding to them.
If we are going to have extra capacity and a hub to allow expansion to, say, 150 million passengers a year, it is in my view inconceivable that this can be done at Heathrow. It should obviously be done in an appropriate location. I believe that the estuary is the right location: it has the capacity for a four-runway hub airport; it would allow 24-hour operation; and it would dramatically reduce the number of people affected.
Rehman Chishti
With regard to the issue of safety, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier, along with the capacity of an estuary airport, has he taken into consideration the fact that if the proposed estuary airport goes ahead, it will be 12 times more likely to be subject to bird strike than any other major airport in the United Kingdom? Does not safety in that respect also need to be taken into consideration as well as the fact that an airport is in London?
Mr Raynsford
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about bird strike, but it occurs at Heathrow. A number of aircraft are affected by bird strike at Heathrow—and, indeed, at other airports internationally, including Hong Kong, which is in a waterside location—so these problems have to be addressed and are addressed by airlines at the moment. It is not at all inconceivable—indeed, it is absolutely feasible—to take appropriate measures to provide safeguards against that particular hazard and some of the other hazards that might be encountered—instances of fog in the estuary, for example. Although evidence suggests that there is no greater incidence of fog in the estuary than there is at Heathrow, it is an issue that needs to be taken into account. Practical issues certainly need to be addressed, but I do not accept that this problem is a showstopper, which prevents us from considering the option.
Other hugely important issues for future planning include the way in which people get to an airport. Heathrow’s problem is that is located very close to the M4-M25 junction, which is already a heavy generator of air pollution and traffic congestion. The modal split in respect of access to Heathrow is heavily dominated by the motor car. One of the great advantages of the estuary airport, which I am afraid the Select Committee did not recognise in its report, is that it would effect a very considerable modal shift by having a far greater proportion of passengers—estimated at 60% by advocates of the Foster-Halcrow scheme on the Isle of Grain—coming by rail.
Looking at the Select Committee report, it was a little disappointing to see an access map based on drive times being used to argue the case that access to the estuary site would be more difficult and slower than at Heathrow. Surely we should be doing our best to try to discourage driving to airports and to encourage the modal shift, which will also help to reduce air-quality problems.
Mrs Ellman
Is my right hon. Friend concerned about the £30 billion cost of an estuary airport and the impact of the closure of Heathrow, with the massive numbers of jobs involved there?
Mr Raynsford
The £30 billion cost is, of course, entirely conjectural. I understand that the Select Committee took evidence from Oxera, but as its report says:
“Oxera has used the following assumptions, based on recent proposals, although Oxera has not tested the validity of these estimates.”
I have to say that the figures showed a cost for a third runway at Heathrow of £8 billion to £9 billion, whereas we now see from the latest Heathrow proposals that it is likely to cost a minimum of £18 billion. I therefore do not think that the figures in the report necessarily support my hon. Friend’s case.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Norman Baker
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for that initiative. He might know that the Greater Anglia franchise, which commenced in February 2011, transferred the leasehold of the stations concerned to the new franchisee, Abellio. The approach was also included in the now-cancelled inter-city west coast franchise, as well as the Essex Thameside franchise competition, which is now under way. The arrangements in other franchises are being considered as part of the ongoing development work, but we certainly think that this direction of travel is worth supporting.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Minister might be aware of the ceremony that was held yesterday evening to mark the completion of the construction of the station box at Woolwich on the Crossrail line, and its handover from Berkeley Homes to Crossrail. He might also be aware that agreement has not yet been reached on the detailed funding arrangements for the fit-out. Will he ensure that his Department works closely with the Greater London authority, Transport for London, Berkeley Homes and all the other relevant parties to ensure that agreement is reached quickly, so that this important station can be completed?
Norman Baker
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that remains a priority for the Department. We are working closely with the relevant parties to which he refers with a view to reaching completion as soon as possible.
West Coast Main Line
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Secretary of State emphasised in his statement that he would seek “best value for taxpayers” in the interim arrangements. He will understand that there is a degree of scepticism in the House about his ability to deliver that. Will he please tell us how he intends to achieve that best value and what comparators he will use? How can he believe that a short-term, nine-to-13-month deal followed by an interim arrangement before the tendering process begins can possibly deliver best value for the taxpayer?
Mr McLoughlin
When we conduct negotiations with Virgin, that will obviously be one of the things that we will want to discuss. The right hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to check whether we have done that.
Crossrail
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise a matter that is of great importance not only to my constituency, but to the whole of London and for the future prosperity of our economy. Although I have sought this debate because of its significance to my constituency and to London, I should also draw attention to my interests recorded in the register.
Crossrail is vital to London and the wider economy. If London is to continue to be a world-leading city, it needs continuous investment in infrastructure. The tube network alone will not be able to cope with the projected increase in passenger numbers over the coming decades, and investment in cross-city links is imperative.
Crossrail will alleviate the already congested public transport service in central London and relieve the bottlenecks that are already an issue at national rail termini, particularly at Paddington, with its connections to Heathrow, and in the east of London, at Liverpool street. Perhaps most importantly, Crossrail will draw together areas of the city that have the capacity to house the work force needed to keep London’s financial and commercial hubs expanding and at a pace that keeps London, and the British economy, competitive on a world stage. It will add no less than 10% to London’s existing rail capacity, and bring 1.5 million people within a 60-minute commuting time from the centre of our capital.
Estimates of the economic and transport benefits of Crossrail are compelling. It is projected that in 2026 alone, London as a whole can expect to reap benefits of £1.24 billion in 2008 prices. Over the next 60 years, the Mayor of London’s transport strategy estimates some £36 billion of value would be added to the economy in today’s prices. Seen in these terms, it is clear that Crossrail is an economic imperative from which our capital and our country will derive real benefits for decades to come.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I am grateful that he has begun his contribution by outlining the importance of Crossrail to the whole of the UK economy, because I was concerned when I read the debate’s title—“Crossrail and its importance to South East London”—on the Order Paper. This is not just a south-east London, east London or even London issue; as he has started to argue, this is a matter for the UK economy. London will choke without Crossrail, and I am grateful that he is going to develop his argument further.
Mr Raynsford
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that observation, which I entirely support and agree with, although I am obviously going to focus on some of the specific concerns for my constituency in south-east London. However, he is right that there are benefits in his constituency—Canary Wharf is one of the major station sites—for London as a whole and, indeed, for the whole country.
The benefit is not limited to boroughs with immediate station access to the network. My borough of Greenwich is projected to benefit in 2026 by £84 million, but other boroughs, such as Barnet—the Minister’s borough—will see projected benefits in excess of £30 million in that year. Given the importance of the scheme, it might appear surprising that it has taken so long to reach the construction phase. The concept has been around for decades, but as the Minister will be aware, the project has had to go through many hoops to get where we are today.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend share my feeling of déjà vu at being here trying to convince yet another Government of the importance of Crossrail, and in particular the extensions to outer London, which are so vital to the economic viability of the areas that we represent? When he develops his argument, will he underline the fact that the scheme has been debated at great length? A great deal of local debate has gone into providing the detail that will benefit south-east London and, more widely, London as a whole.
Mr Raynsford
I am grateful for that intervention from my hon. Friend, who knows only too well the importance of improved transport links to south-east London. He is also aware of the battles that we have had to fight over the years to secure investment in improved transport linkages, not least at the Crossrail station at Woolwich, to which I shall refer in a moment.
The concept of Crossrail has been around for a long time, but the scheme has had to go through many hoops. There was a false start under the previous Conservative Government in the 1990s, and the current scheme was subject to lengthy and detailed scrutiny during its passage through the last Parliament. Members who were in this place at that time and who followed the Crossrail Bill will know of the degree of detail entered into by those Members who served on the hybrid Bill Committee, and they will appreciate the great endeavour that the Bill demanded of those Members.
The result was clear, with strong support from the Committee for a scheme that would connect east with west and the City with Canary Wharf and Heathrow, as well as linking communities both in south and east London and out along the Thames Gateway to major employers in the centre of London. The Committee was also clear on the strong case for a station at Woolwich. The Woolwich station was incorporated in the Bill at the Committee’s instigation, not least because its work demonstrated both the favourable cost-benefit ratio for the station in transport terms and its huge regeneration potential in a deprived area of south-east London. The population in my borough of Greenwich is projected to grow by 113,000 by 2031. At the same time, the number of jobs in the borough is projected to increase by just 8,000; however, just across the river, Canary Wharf will require an extra 110,000 workers. Linking the two is vital, and with just a seven-minute journey time from Woolwich to Canary Wharf, Crossrail would meet the need admirably.
Demand for transport links is often underestimated. When the docklands light railway first came to Woolwich 18 months ago, Transport for London estimated that 2.4 million journeys would be made annually to or from Woolwich Arsenal station. Yet in the first year of the DLR’s operation to Woolwich, actual usage was 5 million—more than double the estimated number of users. That demonstrates the huge demand for improved services and the potential for Woolwich to serve as a strategic transport hub, bringing hundreds of thousands of homes within commutable distance of Canary Wharf and the City of London.
The huge benefits to business and the economy from Crossrail explain how the funding package for the project is heavily supported by business contributions. Business organisations such as London First have passionately advocated the scheme, and the business community is supporting Crossrail in two distinct ways.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
As the right hon. Gentleman is coming to funding, does he agree that, although we all appreciate that these are difficult and constrained economic times, in many ways we are beyond the point of no return? I very much agree with what he and other Opposition Members have said about the benefits that would extend beyond south-east London through to the country, and as he has rightly pointed out, the business rate supplement is already in place. Huge amounts of money have been raised, both from Canary Wharf Group and the City of London. We always talk about the £16 billion package, but in fact the central Government sum is considerably smaller, at around £5.5 billion, of which £2.5 billion has already been spent—I think of the areas in my constituency around Tottenham Court road, Hanover square and Bond street in Mayfair. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in essence, we are beyond the point of no return? Money has already been spent, but the central Government sum to be spent from this point on is very small in the general scheme of things.
Mr Raynsford
I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman on both points. First, the funding package involves a range of contributions. Although the contribution from the Government, and Transport for London and the Mayor is important, the business contribution is also critical in supporting the scheme. It would be absolutely wrong if the scheme were put in jeopardy by the withdrawal of any element from any of the parties. Secondly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that so much work has gone into the scheme already that it would be a total tragedy if its continuation were to be questioned at this stage.
Stephen Pound
This is a subject to which my right hon. Friend brings his usual expertise and passion. I agree with the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) that there is no possibility of a U-turn on the permanent way. Linked to Crossrail is High Speed 2, a matter of great importance to those of us in west London, and we need clarity on this. We need the issue to be resolved once and for all, because people in my part of the world, in Perivale, are terrified about what might or might not happen; they just do not know. I urge my right hon. Friend, in pressing the Minister, to seek clarity on the funding for Crossrail, because this is not just about Crossrail; it is also about HS2.
Mr Raynsford
I hear my hon. Friend’s concerns about HS2, but I shall not be diverted on to that issue, because the debate tonight is about Crossrail. However, I certainly want to see the clarity that he has called for in his usual trenchant way.
As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) rightly said, business is contributing to the construction of Crossrail through a supplementary business rate, as well as through direct contributions from the City of London, Canary Wharf and, in the case of Woolwich, from Berkeley Homes, which reached an agreement in 2008 under which it would take responsibility for building the station box. It has already undertaken some £5 million of design work on the station. My understanding is that Berkeley Homes and Crossrail are still discussing the precise terms that will enable the work to be carried through successfully, but that they are near to agreement.
Against this positive background, it has been a cause of concern to hear less than wholehearted support for Crossrail being voiced in recent months by some spokespersons for the parties now in government. In a radio interview during the election campaign, the Conservative spokeswoman for London, the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), repeatedly refused to commit to Crossrail. Since the formation of the coalition Government, there has been repeated media speculation that the Government might seek substantial cuts to the Crossrail scheme or delay its implementation. I am well aware that one should not necessarily believe everything one reads in the press, but when one of the sources expressing concern about the Government’s intentions is the Conservative Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, it is hardly surprising that speculation is rife.
For that reason, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport on 20 May, and I was pleased to receive a reply this morning—no doubt prompted at least in part by the knowledge that the subject would be raised this evening in the House. I welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation in his letter of the Government’s support for Crossrail, and his recognition of the substantial benefits that will flow from the scheme for the whole of the capital and specifically for south-east London. I imagine that the Minister will want to re-emphasise some of those points this evening.
I also welcome the Secretary of State’s acknowledgement of the efforts that have been made over the past year to make the Woolwich station more affordable to the developer, and the constructive role that the London borough of Greenwich has played in this process. Nor do I in any way disagree with the Secretary of State’s wish to ensure that the scheme is delivered cost-effectively and that it delivers value for money. Rob Holden and his team at Crossrail, who I believe have performed exceptionally in bringing the scheme to its current stage, are rightly looking at options for value engineering and for cost savings through good project management and risk management.
However, I am concerned that the Secretary of State’s letter leaves room for uncertainty on a number of counts, and I would welcome clarification from the Minister—either tonight or by letter, if that is easier—on the following points. First, are the Government committed to the whole Crossrail scheme, comprising the central London line and the links through to Maidenhead in the west, Shenfield in the north-east and Abbey Wood in the south-east? There has been speculation that those links might be cut off to save money, which would be an entirely false economy as the scheme only makes sense as a whole. Indeed, a former Conservative Transport Minister, Steve Norris, put it well when he said:
“If you are going to cut Abbey Wood or Maidenhead, you might as well shelve the whole lot. It only makes sense to dig the tunnel if you do the whole scheme. It’s like planning to buy a new car without an engine”.
Does the Minister agree with her predecessor?
Secondly, there has been speculation that the Government might seek to cut costs by reducing the scope or specification of the Crossrail scheme. I hope that the Minister can go further tonight than the Secretary of State, who was able to say in his letter only that
“no decisions have been taken on any such options”.
As I am sure the Minister will understand, it would give a great deal more comfort and confidence if we were assured that no reductions in the scope or specification of the scheme were under consideration.
Thirdly, on Woolwich station, will the Minister confirm that, providing Berkeley Homes and Crossrail reach agreement on the basis for Berkeley to build the station box within the principles agreed in 2008, the Government will ensure that this station is included in the scheme?
Finally, while I understand that there may be a case for re-phasing some of the works within the overall timeframe for construction, can the Minister assure me that the Government remain committed to the 2017 completion date for the whole scheme and will not seek savings by delaying or deferring any parts of the scheme?
It is in everyone’s interest to see this hugely important project delivered as planned, on time and within budget. I hope that the Minister is able to set our minds at rest by giving the clear assurance I am seeking that the new Government are as committed as their predecessors were to Crossrail and will work tirelessly with its co-sponsor, the Mayor of London, to secure this outcome.
Mrs Villiers
I entirely agree that Crossrail will be a hugely important driver for economic prosperity, not just in the capital but throughout the United Kingdom economy.
Energetic work is continuing to find more efficiencies, and I am sure all Members will accept that the principles I have described are basic elements of good project management and simple good housekeeping.
Let me now turn to the important issues raised by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich about Woolwich station. I am well aware—as, I am sure, are all who have followed the twists and turns of Crossrail’s long history—of the pivotal role that he has played. He fought a long and successful campaign to add a station at Woolwich to the Crossrail Act 2008. As he said, such a station could deliver significant regeneration benefits to his constituents and to south-east London more widely.
Let me make absolutely clear that I recognise the importance and magnitude of those benefits, that I hope we can find a solution, and that the Department and I are working hard with Transport for London in trying to find a way forward. However, a clear agreement was reached that the costs of building and fitting out the station would be borne by the private sector. That agreement limited the taxpayer contribution to the money saved because a station at Woolwich would reduce costs, given that some of the work originally included in the overall project would no longer be necessary.
In short, the plans to include a station at Woolwich have always depended on contributions from the developers who stand to benefit most from it. That was the case when the last Government took the decision to add the station to the Crossrail Act, and it remains the case under the new Government. It is abundantly clear that the debt crisis left by Labour has placed intense pressure on the public finances, so we cannot default to a position where a shortfall in the promised private sector funding for the station simply pushes up the costs for the taxpayer.
Mr Raynsford
While I understand entirely the basis on which the agreement was reached in 2008, does the hon. Lady recognise that what has happened subsequently in the housing market has inevitably impacted on Berkeley Homes, the developer, whose contribution is critical to delivering this? While not asking for public contributions, I did specifically encourage flexibility on the part of the Government, to make it possible to reach an agreement with Berkeley Homes that is affordable for the company. The Secretary of State agreed in his letter to me that that was the Government’s objective. Will the hon. Lady tonight confirm that they will try to get an agreement on that basis?
Mrs Villiers
I want to set this out very clearly. The private sector contribution was pivotal to the station getting the go-ahead when the decision was made to add it to the Act, and it remains so. The Government cannot offer additional taxpayers’ money over and above what has been agreed within the current funding programme to replace the shortfall in the private sector contribution that Berkeley Homes promised to provide. However, we can seek flexibility in other areas, as the Secretary of State outlined in his letter.
Both the Department for Transport and Transport for London stand ready to help broker an alternative solution among interested parties to try to address the funding problems. Both the sponsoring bodies have been in extensive discussions with Berkeley over the past year, to seek a way to enable the company to honour its commitments. They have written to me only today with more constructive ideas. Naturally, one of the most significant of those interested parties is the London borough of Greenwich. In this regard, it is important to assess whether development opportunities around the station and the alternative funding that they might generate have been fully explored.
I know that Greenwich council is actively engaged in the issues that we have discussed this evening. It is now important for all of us who care about Crossrail to assess thoroughly the possible alternative funding sources that could be available between the interested parties if Berkeley Homes does not step up to the plate and deliver what it promised. Therefore, while I cannot promise additional funding from the Department and the taxpayer, we do stand ready to try to help the interested parties find a solution to enable Woolwich station to go ahead. The right hon. Gentleman can have my absolute assurance on that.
I would like to mention briefly some of the wider issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised about transport in his constituency. He warmly welcomed a number of the recent improvements, and it is worth noting that several important programmes in recent years have benefited his constituency, such as the refurbishment of the East London line as part of the London overground network, new interchanges with the tube and bus networks, and the extension of the docklands light railway, which the right hon. Gentleman described with such eloquence.
I thank all Members who have taken part in the debate, especially the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that it has provided a valuable opportunity to consider important issues around the Crossrail project in general and its impact on his constituency in south-east London in particular. After long years of waiting, the commencement of work on Crossrail was warmly welcomed, particularly within the business community, where Crossrail has always enjoyed strong support. The CBI recently made it clear to the Secretary of State that it is pleased to see progress continuing under the new Government.
I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Government, to thank the Canary Wharf Group, BAA plc, the Corporation of London and its members for the considerable financial contributions that they are making. I am sure that we would all like to express the same gratitude to the other businesses in the capital whose rate supplements are providing a hugely important element of the funding package.
This project has the potential to deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits for the capital and for the country. Those benefits will be felt well beyond the areas directly served by the new line and its stations. The challenge facing all of us who are interested in Crossrail is to ensure that costs are kept down. That means engaging in an active, energetic pursuit of best value for money procurement processes, urgently seeking ways—