Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with stakeholders in the aviation industry on the use of flight paths over conflict zones.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The Department keeps in close contact with UK carriers about the whole range of threats to aviation, including the risks of flying over conflict zones. The Secretary of State recently met the secretary general of the International Civil Aviation Organisation and discussed this very issue.

[Mr Bain]

Our thoughts remain very strongly with the families and friends of those who died in the terrible disaster that affected flight MH17. Since then, conditions have become even more dangerous, particularly in relation to the middle east. What are the Government doing, through the ICAO, to ensure that information about international flights is shared between domestic countries?

[Mr Goodwill]

May I extend the Government’s condolences to the families of the 283 passengers and 15 crew, including 10 British citizens, who were killed? Indeed, at the European Council in Luxembourg, we had the opportunity to express condolences to my Dutch counterpart; a very large number of the casualties came from his country. The ICAO has set up a taskforce to look at the provision of over-flights in conflict zones, and the UK is participating actively in that work.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

May I associate myself with the Minister’s condolences to the families, not least our own UK citizens? After MH17 was shot down, I wrote to the Minister in August to ask how the Government would ensure that all airlines had equal access to recommendations based on authoritative intelligence about safety over specific conflict zones. I also asked him to reconsider his reserved powers so that passengers, pilots and airline staff in the UK could have confidence in the process. His reply was that he was looking into it. After eight weeks in which conflicts in Iraq and Syria have intensified those concerns, what changes has he made?

[Mr Goodwill]

I have already explained that work is being undertaken at an international level. Indeed, the Secretary of State has power to direct airlines not to fly over particular locations and the independent Civil Aviation Authority can issue a notice to airmen—a NOTAM—instructing pilots not to fly over those areas. Ultimately, it is up to the airline and the captain to take the decision, based on the best available information they have.

[Mr Speaker]

We are pleased to see the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) sprinting into the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

11. What recent discussions he has had with his Department's quality contract board.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

It is for the senior traffic commissioner to make arrangements for the constitution of a quality contract scheme board. No discussions have taken place between the Department and a quality contract scheme board, but I understand that the North East combined authority considered it on 21 October, and has decided to refer its draft quality contract scheme to the QCS board.

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer; as he indicates, discussions now need to take place. In Tyne and Wear this week we took a major step forward when the North East combined authority unanimously agreed to press ahead with plans for a quality contract scheme in the north-east. Will the Minister now respect the will of the people and ensure that the quality contract board has all the resources it needs to arrive at a speedy conclusion?

[Mr Goodwill]

The Government are committed to localism and to local people making decisions about their local services. Whether to adopt a London-style quality contract scheme is a matter for individual local authorities to determine. This is an independent process, with the scheme examined by the QCS board and chaired by a traffic commissioner. It would be inappropriate for the Government to comment or intervene, but if there are issues to do with resources for that board, we would be keen to consider them.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Large infrastructure transport projects such as HS2 and Crossrail are all very well, and quality bus contracts may help in areas such as Tyne and Wear, but when will the Government do something—anything—for rural areas that have no buses at all, or no buses at weekends and at night?

[Mr Goodwill]

Representing a rural area, I am well aware of the problems of pensioners with concessionary travel passes but no buses to use them on when, in some cases, evening or weekend services have been withdrawn. The Government are contributing more than 40% of the farebox through subsidies to buses in various ways, and we are committed to improving local bus services wherever we can, working in conjunction with local authorities.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

12. What research he has conducted into the effect on the number of deaths and serious injuries of increasing HGV speed limits.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking to improve passenger safety in taxis and private hire vehicles.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The Government’s principal role in relation to taxis and private hire vehicles is to ensure that the legislative framework and the guidance to licensing authorities are fit for purpose. Our best practice guidance for licensing authorities stresses the importance of adequate safety checks and enforcement to ensure that these services are safe.

[John Cryer]

But the Government are also planning to allow taxi operators to subcontract calls to other taxi operators without consent. What implications will that have for safety, especially for women?

[Mr Goodwill]

All the taxis will have been licensed, albeit by a neighbouring authority. I cannot see the difference between getting into a minicab in York to go to Scarborough, so I am being driven around Scarborough in a York minicab, and a firm in Scarborough ordering a York cab for me because it is so busy owing to the success of our resort.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I urge the Government to look one more time at the provisions in the Deregulation Bill, which is currently before the Lords. In northern towns such as Skipton, taxis have been a key part of the problem of child sexual exploitation.

[Mr Goodwill]

It is up to licensing authorities to carry out all the necessary checks. If people who are not the designated driver are driving vehicles, it is a matter for enforcement. The changes that the Government propose would make no difference to that.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

T3. The local growth deal recently announced a much needed new bridge over the River Mersey in Warrington. I thank the Minister for his support on that but ask that he continue to support the need for a second bridge over both the Mersey and the ship canal, which is a strategic priority for the local enterprise partnership. This will make a much needed difference to the town.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

Local growth deals across the country have been a great success in supporting local priorities. A second crossing in Warrington falls firmly into the category of a local priority, and the purpose of the local growth fund is to reflect those strongly.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

T10. Only a third of the infrastructure projects trumpeted by the Government will have actually started by 2015, and the A14 fiasco probably sums up the Government’s record on roads. When will the Government end the delays and re-announcements and start to deliver the infrastructure our country needs?

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

T4. Street lights provide safety for all, so will the Minister responsible for road safety confirm that turning off street lights at midnight results in added road safety risks for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians?

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. This is a matter for local authorities, and of course they are keen to reduce the carbon footprint resulting from having needless lights on. The experience around the country is mixed. In fact, some local authorities have shown that turning off lights does not detract from road safety.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

A large gauge rail freight network capable of carrying lorries and lorry trailers on trains is being developed across the continent of Europe. In Britain, such traffic can only reach as far as Barking from the channel tunnel, so Britain is being left behind on these developments. Will the Secretary of State look seriously at proposals to develop such a rail freight network in Britain?

High Speed 2 (Compensation)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on securing this debate on the compensation package for phase 1 of HS2. She has been a tireless campaigner on the impact of HS2, and I recognise her continuing determination to ensure that the Government do not lose sight of those concerns. Indeed, the presence of so many right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber underlines that point. I am aware that because of ministerial responsibilities, some colleagues are not able to speak on this, but I can assure the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) never let me forget about the concerns of their constituents too.

I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham has recently asked a number of parliamentary questions in relation to HS2 and has been in regular correspondence with my Department. I must also explain why she has not had a response to her recent letter on behalf of the HS2 Action Alliance. The issue at the heart of this correspondence is the way in which we have estimated the number of properties within particular distances of HS2, including the data used in replying to a parliamentary question in November 2013. Estimating property counts in a given area is an extremely complex and technical matter, and the Department for Transport is currently preparing a detailed response.

I am pleased to be responding to this debate on a subject that is of such great importance to my right hon. Friend and her constituents. Before I respond to the points she has raised, it is perhaps worth taking the opportunity to set out the current position on the compensation package for HS2. Measures to assist property owners and occupiers affected by new infrastructure have developed over the years through a mixture of statute, case law and established practice and are referred to as the compensation code. Although the Government remain confident that reliance on the existing compensation code is appropriate for the majority of infrastructure schemes, we believe that the exceptional nature of the HS2 project justifies a different approach and the Government have long been committed to introducing measures for those directly affected by HS2 that go beyond what is required by law.

At present, we have the exceptional hardship scheme in place for phase 1 of HS2. That has always been intended as an interim measure to assist those property owners who have an urgent need to sell their home but have not been able to do so, except at a substantially reduced price, as a direct result of the announcement of the route for the railway. We have also introduced express purchase for owner-occupied properties within the safeguarded area. There are detailed maps available on the HS2 website to allow people to determine where their properties are in relation to the safeguarded area. Express purchase was introduced from 9 April 2014.

I am pleased to be able to update Members on the properties that we have purchased under the schemes that are currently open. To the end of September 2014, we have spent £110.3 million purchasing 162 properties affected by phase 1.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

The problem in my constituency is that, under this scheme, HS2 has not given the market value for these properties, and it is driving down the price of those properties. That matter was raised with HS2 back in August, and I still have not received a response.

[Mr Goodwill]

The instruction to our valuers was that they should value properties at the previous unblighted price.

The properties have been purchased under the exceptional hardship scheme, the statutory blight arrangements, and through express purchase. Compensation for disturbance costs and reasonable moving costs are not included in the expenditure figures.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will know that my constituency is affected not only by phase 1, but by phase 2. Does he agree that, as a matter of principle, whatever compensation schemes are put in place for phase 1, and hopefully, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has said, they will be generous ones, they should apply equally to those in phase 2?

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. If we can reach a fair compensation package for phase 1, we will certainly need to bear that in mind as we look at phase 2. I suspect that those affected by phase 2 would expect no less.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

There are people in Coventry who are not covered by any compensation scheme, and yet they have invested their life savings in their properties. They cannot sell their properties now. What will the Government do about that?

[Mr Goodwill]

That is precisely why we are putting these compensation schemes in place. We also have an exceptional hardship scheme in place for phase 2. To the end of September 2014, we have purchased 32 properties at a cost of £15.1 million.

Following the property compensation consultation in 2013 for the London to west midlands HS2 route, the Government decided to use five criteria to select the most appropriate long-term discretionary property compensation packages for phase 1 of HS2. Those criteria are: fairness; value for money; community cohesion; feasibility, efficiency and comprehensibility; and the functioning of the housing market. Accordingly, the Government announced on 9 April the long-term compensation schemes that would be introduced for phase 1. They included express purchase, which I have already mentioned.

[Mrs Gillan]

The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but did I hear him cite the word “fairness”?

[Mr Goodwill]

Precisely. Fairness is at the heart of our approach—fairness to those who have to move because their properties are being demolished or are so close to the line; and fairness to those who want to stay in their communities and maintain community cohesion.

We announced a voluntary purchase offer that would be available to people up to 120 metres from the railway in rural areas. Eligible owner-occupiers between the safeguarded area and 120 metres will be able to ask the Government to buy their homes at the unblighted market value. The scheme will be opened to applicants by the end of 2014 following further consultation on supplementary cash payment schemes.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

As I said, we have people in Coventry outside the 120-metre area who have invested their life savings in a property, but cannot sell it. How will they be compensated?

[Mr Goodwill]

I will move on to the measures for those further away, but we understand that many people’s biggest asset is their home. In fact, many people see their home as part of their retirement package.

We announced a “need to sell” scheme to help property owners who have a compelling need to sell their home, but are unable to do so because of our plans to build HS2. There will be no outer boundary to that scheme, which will also be opened to applicants by the end of 2014. It will succeed the current exceptional hardship scheme for phase 1, which will then be closed. When we implement the voluntary purchase and “need to sell” schemes later this year, we will publish detailed guidance about how they will work.

We have also announced rent back, a rule that means that if a property that the Government have purchased under any of our schemes is suitable for letting, the previous owner may, if they wish, be considered for a Crown tenancy. That scheme was introduced on 9 April.

We have consulted separately over the summer on two supplementary cash payment schemes. The first would provide that, for owner-occupiers in the voluntary purchase area, an alternative cash offer of 10% of the unblighted market value of their property, with a cap of £100,000 and a minimum payment of £30,000, would apply.

[Sir William Cash]

Does the Minister accept that this is a wholly inadequate package? We sincerely trust that the Committee considering the Bill will listen carefully to the analysis that we will put forward in our petitions, because it is petitions to this House that ought to make the difference.

[Mr Goodwill]

I pay tribute to the petitions Committee, which has set about carrying out its role in a workmanlike way. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), the Chair of that Committee, is in the Chamber to hear this debate.

That cash payment scheme might help some people to decide that they do not need to move to protect the value of their investment in their home. We have also consulted on a home owner payment scheme to provide cash payments to eligible owner-occupiers between 120 metres and 300 metres from the centre line, following Royal Assent of the phase 1 hybrid Bill, to enable affected residents to share early in the future economic benefits of the railway. We have sought views on consequential changes to the voluntary purchase offer and the “need to sell” scheme.

[Mr Grieve]

What about stamp duty? It is now a very substantial tax, and anyone who sells their house, even under the voluntary purchase scheme, will have to pay stamp duty on a fresh purchase. Those people moving to a property of substantial value, which is the sort that they are likely to move into, will face a serious penalty, and one that they would not have wished on themselves, because they had no intention of moving.

[Mr Goodwill]

I understand my right hon. and learned Friend’s point. Stamp duty and moving costs will be payable for those in the closest band to the railway. We will announce the outcome of the consultation to which I referred later this year.

On the long-standing campaign of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham for a longer tunnel through the Chilterns, we have considered a range of options for tunnels.

[Frank Dobson]

I do not wish to delay the Minister in turning his attention to the tunnel, but can he explain why the terms for urban areas are different from those for rural areas?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

We take the view that the level of disruption in rural areas, particularly the effect on property prices, is absolutely different from that in urban areas, where properties can be close to the railway but there might be many houses in between, and in many cases there is already a railway established, for example near Euston station, which no doubt people were aware of when they moved there.

[Frank Dobson]

My constituents might not fancy the idea of a new station, but what they really do not want is having to live next to a construction site for a decade or more. That is what they are bothered about.

[Mr Goodwill]

Yes, and I spent time with the right hon. Gentleman in his constituency, along with the leader of his council, looking at some of the mitigation that can be put in place.

I will talk a little about the property bond. My right hon. Friend referred to the Government’s decision against a property bond as a means of providing compensation for generalised blight caused by HS2. The main aim of the property bond concept is to ensure that eligible property owners do not suffer unreasonable losses because of any reduction in the market value of their properties caused by a proposed development. The defining feature of a property bond is the idea that eligible property owners, at an early stage in a project’s development, would be given a specific and binding promise of a well-defined, individual settlement, which the property owner would be entitled to redeem in specific circumstances. Should the property transfer ownership, so too would the bond. The outcome of a property bond scheme would reflect the way the scheme influenced property buyers, vendors and professionals throughout the lifetime of the relevant infrastructure project. Without evidence of those behaviours and decisions from actual schemes, it is very hard to assess the performance of a property bond for HS2.

The Government continue to believe that the property bond concept has merit, and that it was right to put it forward as an option in the property compensation consultation in 2013. However, taking all consultation responses and further practical and analytical findings into account, we continue to be concerned that the effects of a property bond on the behaviour and decisions of property owners, professionals and especially property buyers remain unknown and hard to assess.

In conclusion—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Goodwill]

I have only 50 seconds remaining, so I will not give way.

In conclusion, I again congratulate my right hon. Friend on her unflagging energy in seeking the best outcome for those affected by HS2, and I very much recognise the importance of the compensation package to her and her constituents. I note the concerns she has raised and hope that I have shown hon. Members that we have a package in place that meets the Government’s policy objectives for compensation: fairness, value for money, community cohesion, feasibility, efficiency, comprehensibility, and the functioning of the housing market. I am confident that the compensation package, once fully in place alongside the protections already available through the compensation code, will perform well against those criteria.

Question put and agreed to.

Cycling

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bradshaw]

Yes, the hon. Lady is absolutely right. There is a good plan on the shelf in Wales, which the Department for Transport could simply use. There are far too many different plans, which need to be brought together in one single plan.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

May I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to page 8 of the plan in which it talks about sharing best practice? It says that we will

“create a single point of information about the best practice for creating and designing cycle-friendly streets.”

That is in the plan and we are determined to ensure that best practice is shared among local authorities, which have ownership of the roads.

[Mr Bradshaw]

That was not the view of the cycling organisations this morning in their initial response to the plan.

Let me finish with this message to my Front Benchers and political parties across the spectrum. There are millions of cyclists out there, and they are waiting for real and meaningful action on cycling to deliver safe cities and a healthy environment, tackle obesity, increase happiness and boost the economy. It is a no-brainer for very little money. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) will take that message back to the shadow Secretary of State, who I know is a committed cyclist, and to his shadow Treasury colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I thank the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) for securing the debate and my hon. and special Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for fundamentally undermining Labour’s pledges on spending. Given that the shadow Chancellor holds their purse strings, Labour Members are unable to make any commitments whatever on this matter.

I am pleased to see in the House such great enthusiasm for cycling, as I, too, am passionate about cycling. Indeed, I was a member of the all-party group until my promotion prevented me from continuing to be so. It was the first time I saw a Brompton bike being unfolded at an all-party group meeting that prompted me to buy one of those wonderful machines, which are made in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said he was preaching to the converted. I plead guilty; I am one of the converted and nobody needs to persuade me of the benefits of cycling both for individuals and for our country as a whole.

Today’s debate is timely. Just this morning, as promised by the Prime Minister in August last year, we published our draft 10-year strategy for cycling in England, entitled the cycling delivery plan. I point out that walking features in it, too, and that one of our targets relates to walking to school. The delivery plan reflects the views of a high-level stakeholder group on cycling, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their input.

The delivery plan is a 10-year one for England and deals with how central Government, local government, business, the third sector and the public can all work together to help grow cycling in different parts of England. I ask the hon. Member for Dudley North to read it because there is such a lot in it. His speech suggested that the glass was half empty, so let me tell him it is more than half full. I hope he will take heart from some of the important announcements and commitments we make.

I am pleased that we have moved on from the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) gave his speech on his rather revolutionary ideas. I am pleased that many of these ideas are not only mainstream, but in the plan.

We have already seen the start of a cycling revolution in London, and we want to replicate this trend elsewhere, so that the nation as a whole can reap the benefits of cycling. We all know that the benefits of cycling are many and wide reaching: it helps reduce congestion on our roads, as we have heard; it helps cut pollution in our environments; and it can help individuals to become fitter and healthier. Regular cycling can help lose weight, reduce stress and boost health. I can let the House into a little secret: when I entered the European Parliament, I quickly put on 2 stone and lost it only after I bought a new bicycle. I seem to be a testament to that particular health benefit.

Regular cycling is also good for the economy. Cycling supports businesses through producing more motivated and productive staff who miss fewer days due to sickness and absence. Increased cycling and walking will save the NHS billions in the cost of treating diabetes, heart disease and mental ill health, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge pointed out in his speech. Cycling in inner-city areas reduces congestion and often proves to be the quickest, most reliable way of travelling for short- to-medium distance trips. Indeed, that is how I travel here each day. Last but not least, increased cycling gives rise to a local, creative, innovative and sustainable industry consisting mostly of small and medium-sized enterprises.

In view of all those benefits, it is no wonder that the Government are serious about cycling, and that they have provided twice as much funding for it as the last Administration. Given that £374 million—or £622 million if we include match funding—is being committed between 2011 and 2015, investment in cycling is currently about £5 per person, up from the £2 at which it stood when we came to office.

Among the key recommendations in the APPG’s report “Get Britain Cycling” was a call for sustained investment to bring us into line with other European countries. It is clear that the Government are moving in the right direction. We recognise that we need to explore how local government can go further than that £5 per person, which is why our cycling delivery plan states:

“The Government’s aspiration is that—working with local government, and businesses, we can together explore how we can achieve a minimum funding packet equivalent to £10 per person each year by 2020-21—and sooner if possible.”

This is the first time that the Government have included that £10 figure in a document, and I have to say that, having let the genie out of the bottle, I intend to do nothing to try to put it back.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the Government on what they have done. However, in my constituency, I recently saw four cyclists travelling two abreast on a stretch of the highway that ran parallel to a dedicated cycle path. Does my hon. Friend think that when cyclists take such action without justification they should be deemed to be committing an offence?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I have seen that happen on the A64 in my own area. In many cases, it may be because the maintenance of the cycle path is not good. Indeed, in some places cyclists are encouraged to cross the main carriageway because there is a cycle path on only one side of it. I would, however, urge all road users to abide by the rules of the road, and to respect others who are using it. Speaking as one who is a motorist and has been a lorry driver, a cyclist, a horseless carriage driver, a steam engine driver—you name it, I have driven it—I think it important for us all to treat each other with respect on the road.

[Bob Stewart]

May I clarify one point? The Government intend to try to reach a spending level of £10 per person. Do they expect that to be done entirely at local level, or will they provide additional funds to help local authorities?

[Mr Goodwill]

While the Highways Agency network will be dealing with our commitment to cycle-proof new road schemes, local highway authorities, local councils, or the Mayor of London and some of the other mayors around the country deliver on other schemes. We have a good track record of giving money, whether through cycling ambition grants for our cities or through local sustainable transport schemes, nearly all of which include a cycling element. We have seen local authorities deliver that, which is great. Councillor Martyn Bolt in Kirklees, for instance, is a real champion of cycling. I think that every local authority needs a cycling champion to ensure that its priorities are the priorities of the cyclist.

[Richard Burden]

If we are fortunate enough to be elected in May, it will be important for us to be aware of the content of the existing budgets and spending commitments so that we can work out our own ideas. Do the Government consider the £10 target to be an aspiration or a commitment?

[Mr Goodwill]

The word that we use is “aspiration”, but our mention of the £10 figure has put it on record that the Government intend to work towards that aspiration. Many schemes, however—one example is the cycle to work scheme—depend on company subscriptions. We depend on local authorities’ making cycling a priority, and we are keen to ensure that such decisions are made locally. We also work with rail operating companies, which often make decisions on matters such as parking at stations. We feel that our target is genuinely achievable if we work with local government and other organisations, including businesses, and I am very proud that we have put that on record.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on the £10 aspiration, which I think is important. In Worcester, we see a great deal of investment in cycling and sustainable transport. We have a new bridge across the river, and a good riverside loop that can be used for cycling. The next stage, potentially, will be a high walk, which is being promoted by our university. It would raise the river crossing above the level that is affected by floods, for the benefit of both cyclists and disabled people. That could be a real breakthrough in terms of sustainable transport in Worcester. I do not ask the Minister to make any commitment immediately, but may I ask him to examine the proposal very carefully when it is submitted?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

That is precisely the type of scheme we are seeing delivered up and down the country. Indeed, the money we are investing in our eight cycle cities and TfL funding in London is already in excess of the £10 per head as recommended in “Get Britain Cycling”. The investment in cycling will be even more long term and successful with the local government commitment to working with central Government and others to achieve this, and the infrastructure we build now will be there for generations to come. In many cases we are looking at a cumulative effect of investment. It is not money that is out of the door today and gone tomorrow; this money will be reaping benefits for many years to come.

But funding alone will not achieve the revolution in cycling the Prime Minister has in mind or the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to double the levels of cycling by 2020. Encouraging behaviour change is an important aspect of our plans. Cycling needs to become second nature, as it is for the people in the Netherlands, Denmark and elsewhere. A revolution in cycling can be achieved only if cycling is considered a natural choice for shorter journeys by all.

The delivery plan has been developed with just that in mind, and with the appreciation that a real step-change in cycling cannot be achieved overnight or with funding alone. The delivery plan is a road map for the future, setting out the direction of travel for the next 10 years. It is a clear commitment from Government leaders to do more for cyclists as well as pedestrians, and sets out clear ambitions for the next 10 years.

Our ambition is to work with local government and businesses to explore how we can achieve a minimum funding package equivalent to £10 per person each year by 2020-21, and sooner if possible, and that is a focus of our engagement on the delivery plan over the next four weeks. We want to see the number of journeys by bike double in 10 years, and we want to see a significant increase in the number of children walking or cycling to school. Our target is to reach 55% of five to 10-year-olds usually walking to school.

The delivery plan includes specific actions to achieve these aims. It includes plans for infrastructure development and tackling safety and perceptions of safety—the latter being the biggest barrier preventing people from taking to their bikes—and, most importantly, the delivery plan calls on local government to step up to the plate and to build on our successes achieved so far.

We are aware that in parts of the world that have achieved step-changes in cycling levels a common theme is often very strong leadership at the local level. That is why central to our plans is our call on local authorities, who are responsible for implementing local transport schemes and public health, to put an increased emphasis on cycling and walking.

Specifically, the delivery plan includes a call for expressions of interest from local authorities interested in forming a partnership with Government to increase walking and cycling. In return, the Government commit to targeted support for local authorities, with incentives including priority access to funding, access to support tools and sector expertise.

It is through these partnership efforts that we hope to achieve a doubling in levels of cycling across England and help local government achieve the £10 per person aspiration in more places. Government have paved the way and are halfway there already, and it is now down to local government to make that further shift to help double cycling levels 10 years from now.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) talked about champions for cycling. Those champions should be in our local councils and our officers in local councils who can deliver those types of schemes and attract funding such as the cycling ambition grant funding, which was £94 million.

Of course, investment and local and national leadership commitment is key, but it is not enough to persuade people to get on their bikes. Tackling safety and perceptions of safety is key, because we know that there is a misconception that cycling is unsafe, particularly among those who do not cycle. While 67% of non-cyclists say it is too dangerous for them to cycle on the road, the proportion drops to less than half for those who do cycle. Cycling is not unsafe and fatalities are very rare. In fact earlier this year it was reported that the number of deaths at the seaside due to drowning or accidents was much higher, at 167, than the 109 deaths in cycling accidents on Britain’s roads in 2013. No one suggests it is too dangerous to go to the coast for the day.

Tackling safety for cyclists and potential cyclists is a must, and we want to persuade people to make use of the infrastructure we are building. This is why, through the delivery plan, we have developed a programme of work to address cycle safety issues with a view both to reducing the rate of those killed or seriously injured on the roads and to publicly addressing the perception that cycling is not safe. We have already allocated £35 million to deliver safer junctions. For instance, outside London the funding has enabled improvements in 80 locations and the delivery plan builds on that. It includes specific actions on safety and perceptions of safety. It sets out our cycle safety policy, including on heavy goods vehicle safety, driver and cyclist training and tackling perceptions on safety through cycle training and awareness campaigns. That includes supporting Bikeability, increasing awareness of cycle training for children and adults and utilising local road design to establish safe routes to and around schools.

We are also doing a tremendous amount of work on cycling infrastructure to make people feel safer on their bikes. We need good infrastructure and planning to get the levels of cycling we have committed to, and the plan includes work to address that. It includes plans on cycle- proofing and pedestrian-proofing policy. Indeed, cycle-proofing was a key part of the Prime Minister’s announcement last August, and the document details progress on this policy area. That includes work to improve training for highways professionals; sharing best practice and information about design of cycle-proofed streets and roads; and, in the long term, commitments towards further reviews of standards and guidance, including a six-month review on how the planning system supports cycling and walking provision.

Our plans build on the work we have done on cycle rail parking. Another major contributory factor for reaching our target of doubling cycling is our £30 million funding for cycle facilities at railway stations. I recently was in Woking to look at a new cycle parking facility there, which was already full, despite having been opened for only a matter of days. We have provided 13,500 spaces at stations and we need to do more, as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) said. In addition, we are also making progress with new, innovative measures for cyclists at junctions. We are working with highway authorities to trial low-level mini-signals for cyclists, to give more targeted information to cyclists and the possibility of a head start; filter signals for cyclists as an alternative way of providing a head start at traffic lights, and different roundabout designs to reduce the speed of vehicles and provide a safer route for cyclists.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Goodwill]

By all means.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I help both parties for a moment? We are well behind time and a lot of people are also interested in bees. I know that it is important to get to the end of this, Minister, but I do want to come to a conclusion.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

On railway stations, will the Minister examine the question I raised about Edinburgh Waverley and perhaps come back to me on it later? I know it relates to Scotland but there is wider interest in it. It is an important point affecting passengers throughout the UK.

[Mr Goodwill]

I noted the points the hon. Gentleman made about Edinburgh Waverley and the fact that vehicles, including cycles, have been removed.

In conclusion, I hope I have demonstrated today that cycling policy has been a real focus for this Government. Our efforts have clearly paved the way, but it is now down to our partners in local government, supported by central Government, to deliver the cycling revolution the country wants. The delivery plan brings together everything that central and local government, and delivery partners, are doing and need to do to increase cycling. It addresses many of the recommendations in “Get Britain Cycling”. It affirms the national leadership commitment in central Government and calls on local government leadership to take things to new heights.

Cycling

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I am today publishing a draft cycling delivery plan for informal consultation to seek views from interested parties on its content.

On 12 August 2013, as part of a wider announcement on cycling, the Prime Minister set out his ambition for a cycling revolution. He committed the Department to publishing a cycling delivery plan which would set out a long-term 10 year strategy on how his ambition will be realised. Since then, my officials have been working with relevant Government Departments as well as with key stakeholders to develop a draft delivery plan which incorporates a number of Government commitments and actions to increase levels of cycling. The plan has also been extended to include commitments and actions to increase walking, across England. The delivery plan is also a key strand of the Government’s moving more, living more campaign to secure a physical activity legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

The delivery plan issues a call to action to local authorities, offering the opportunity to establish partnerships with Government that will open up access to a range of incentives. The plan also includes a number of specific actions for the next 10 years focusing on infrastructure developments, cycle-proofing our roads and wider transport infrastructure, and for facilitating behaviour change across the country by promoting cycling and walking as alternative sustainable travel choices. The key features of the draft plan include:

An aspiration to work with local Government and businesses to explore how we can achieve a minimum funding packet equivalent to £10 per person each year by 2020-21 - and sooner if possible - a focus of our engagement on the delivery plan over the next four weeks;

Quantified national ambition for increasing cycling - to double cycling by 2025 and a quantified ambition for increasing walking - to increase the proportion of school children aged 5 to10 that usually walk to school to 55% by 2025;

Responding to the recommendations made by the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s Get Britain Cycling report, and addressing many of the transport-related recommendations of the All- Party Physical Activity Commission.

As well as setting out Government’s ambitions for walking and cycling, the delivery plan is also a call to action for local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to formally commit to driving up walking and cycling across the country. The plan calls for expressions of interest from local authorities who would be interested in setting a long term ambition for walking and cycling in their area, and who, as part of that ambition would like to work in partnership with Government to secure its delivery.

The consultation will last four weeks, due to the prior engagement that has taken place. Interested parties can attend one of our six regional consultation events during October and November in Manchester, Birmingham, Bedford, Exeter, York and Durham or respond with comments electronically via: [e-mail].

We expect to be in a position to publish a final delivery plan on 27 November at a summit to be hosted by a senior Cabinet Minister.

I will be placing a copy of the draft delivery plan in the Library of both Houses.

Leeds Bradford International Airport

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I must say that the greatest living Yorkshireman has to be Geoffrey Boycott, and I could not even hope to compete with him. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on securing this debate about connections to Leeds Bradford International airport, my local airport, which I have used many hundreds of times to fly to various places around Europe.

I was pleased to visit Leeds Bradford International airport, or Yeadon aerodrome, as many people still refer to it, in my official capacity on 1 May this year, when I saw some of the surface access problems. I made it clear to my officials that I wanted to visit the airport using public transport, so I embarked on the Yorkshire Tiger bus, which took me from outside Leeds station up to the airport. Although the service was very good, it was not particularly quick. Perhaps we have a general problem with railway stations and rail companies not encouraging people to take buses, but it was not immediately clear which bus stop to use or how to get to it. It occurred to me that it might have been nice to have a little aeroplane symbol next to the correct bus number on the electronic display at the bus stop.

[Greg Mulholland]

I am delighted that the Minister visited Leeds Bradford airport in my constituency, and I accepted his apology for his officials’ forgetting to tell me. I would have been delighted to join him and hope that I can do so the next time he visits. I am delighted that the Minister has already offered some support to the idea of a rail link to Leeds Bradford airport, but such a link must be connected to the modernisation and electrification of, and the improvement of rolling stock on, the important Leeds-Harrogate-York line. That is such an important line but currently cannot be used because of those issues.

[Mr Goodwill]

The gradients involved in potential rail access to the airport are sufficiently steep that I suspect one would need an electrically powered train to have the correct number of driving wheels, and I have been advised that doing that is not just a straightforward engineering challenge. I am well aware of the surface access issues at Leeds Bradford airport—indeed, my constituents on the coast at Scarborough and Whitby often tell me that it is more convenient to use Manchester airport because there is a direct trans-Pennine express service from Scarborough and through York and Leeds. They can get on the train in Scarborough and get off the train in the terminal at Manchester airport.

The debate is timely because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey indicated, the feasibility study that we commissioned into connectivity to Leeds Bradford International airport is nearly complete, and Ministers will shortly be considering its recommendations. Members’ contributions to today’s debate will be a vital input to our consideration. My hon. Friend has been campaigning hard on the need for a rail link and has wasted no time in taking his case to both the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chancellor. Today’s debate is another part of the process.

Before I come to the study itself, I want to say a few words about the role of regional airports. The Government have always made it clear that regional airports make a vital contribution to the growth of regional and local economies and are a way to provide convenience and travel choice for air passengers. That was recognised in the Government’s aviation policy framework, which was published in March last year. The UK’s airports help to encourage investment and exports by providing valuable local jobs and fuelling opportunities for economic rebalancing in their wider region or area.

The aviation policy framework also recognised regional airports’ very important role in providing domestic and international connections. The local availability of direct air services from such airports can reduce the need for air passengers and freight to travel long distances to reach larger UK airports. New or more frequent international connections attract business activity, boosting the regions’ economies and providing new opportunities and better access to new markets for existing businesses. The Civil Aviation Authority’s statistics for last year show that the UK’s regional airports handled 90 million passengers—around 39% of the UK’s total—and services from regional airports operated to more than 100 domestic and international destinations. We should therefore start referring to these airports as local international airports rather than regional airports.

Airports act as focal points for local business development and employment by diversifying into other aviation-related areas such as hosting on-site aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul companies, and aviation training facilities, as well as into non-aviation businesses. Leeds Bradford International airport is home to Multiflight, a flight training and aircraft engineering organisation that provides helicopter and fixed-wing charter flights, aircraft sales and management. It is also home to the Aviation Academy, which is affiliated to the universities of Leeds and Bradford and trains and prepares students to work in the aviation industry.

I am aware that many UK airports were affected by the economic downturn and that some have struggled to maintain their commercial viability. In that regard, I was saddened to learn of the closure of Manston airport in May and, just recently, Blackpool airport. I know that those closures have caused concern for people and businesses in, respectively, the east Kent and Fylde areas. However, airports operate in a competitive market and, although regrettable, the operators’ decisions to close them have been made on commercial grounds. I must say that the story is much better for Leeds Bradford airport: since the advent of Jet2, it has many times more passengers than it had in the old days when I used to fly to Brussels with Sabena.

Just like our economy, however, many of our airports are seeing real growth again. For example, Leeds Bradford and Belfast City airports saw passenger growth of more than 10% between 2012 and 2013, and we want that growth to continue. We warmly welcome the ambition of the UK’s regional airports. They are responding to local and regional demands by investing in their infrastructure, to enable services to more destinations, and to offer better facilities and more choice to their passengers.

As hon. Members will be aware, LBIA recently completed an £11 million passenger terminal development to increase airside space by 65%. That development is being replicated around the country with major investment at other airports, such as Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and Glasgow. Given the important role that regional airports play across the UK, by providing domestic and international connections and making vital contributions towards local growth, I want to see their development continue, and I want to see LBIA reach its full potential.

The Government recognise that good surface access to airports is a key part of their success. That is why the “Investing in Britain’s Future” document, published by the Treasury in June 2013, included a commitment from the Government to undertake a feasibility study into improving connectivity to LBIA, to consider problems and identify potential solutions, some of which we have heard about today. That study has recently been completed and my ministerial colleagues and I will consider its findings and recommendations during the next few weeks, before deciding how to proceed. So, as I indicated earlier, this debate is very timely, and I welcome the opportunity to hear from my hon. Friend and other Members.

The Government wanted to understand the issues that affected the airport, which is why we commissioned a study to identify and appraise potential improvements that would substantially improve the connectivity of LBIA to its catchment area, taking into account the aspiration of the airport to grow, and including both road and public transport options. There have been a number of studies over the years to look at various aspects of surface access to the airport. Given the significance of regional airports to the economy, we thought it was important to take a fresh look at this issue, taking the previous studies and reports into account, but also undertaking some new analysis in the context of today’s air travel market.

Therefore, WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff was appointed to conduct a study in April and is due to submit its final report shortly. It has looked at the evidence and reviewed the existing body of work on the issue, identified and shortlisted options, appraised the shortlisted options and set out its conclusions. I am pleased to say that the study has also drawn on the knowledge and expertise of local stakeholders, through the stakeholder reference group, which included representatives from the airport, local councils, Network Rail, bus operators, environmental organisations and the LBIA air transport forum. My colleague, Baroness Kramer, has provided updates to local MPs and ran a briefing session for them this morning.

I recognise that hon. Members may have concerns about the impact of potential solutions to this issue on their constituencies. All modes of transport have been considered in the study, including consideration of the case for new and improved highways, as well as bus and rail options. It may be that some of these potential impacts may be positive if congestion is reduced and connectivity improved, but I am well aware that some of the proposals for both road and rail schemes could require the construction of new infrastructure in what is now open space. That is naturally a cause for local concern and I can assure hon. Members that environmental considerations form part of the assessment process.

Whatever action the Government decide to take on the study’s recommendation, individual scheme proposals such as a new road or rail link would need to be subject to further evaluation, and would require statutory consents before they could proceed. This process would provide the opportunity for further consultation and public comment if people have concerns that they wish to bring forward.

EU Transport Council

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I attended the first Transport Council under the Italian presidency in Luxembourg on Wednesday 8 October.

The Council adopted a general approach on the ports services regulation. Following intense negotiations with other member states and the Commission, the UK secured an important competitive market exemption clause, ensuring that, where effective competition demonstrably exists, this regulation would not impose additional unnecessary burdens on ports. In the main, ports in the UK fit this criterion.

Despite concerns from some member states that the proposed regulation does not go far enough, particularly with regards to scope and financial transparency, all member states voted in favour of the proposal apart from Lithuania, who voted against, and the UK, who abstained. Looking ahead to their upcoming presidency Latvia indicated that they would look to sustain momentum on this dossier.

The Council also reached a general approach on the revised directive on the cross-border exchange of information on traffic offences. I fully supported the road safety objectives of the proposal but simultaneously expressed concerns that we had not been given enough time to analyse the detail and reserved the right to examine whether future proposals in this area contained justice and home affairs content. As a result I formally tabled a joint minute statement with Ireland setting out these concerns and abstained.

In the Council’s first discussion on the fourth railway package market pillar, I strongly endorsed proposals to liberalise the domestic rail passenger market. I emphasised that the effects of competition in the UK over the last 20 years had delivered a thriving rail industry. Some member states supported market opening in principle but the Council was clearly divided with many favouring investment over market opening as a more effective means of securing rail’s future. The Commission emphasised that investment alone was not the solution to combating rail’s declining competitiveness and loss of modal share and that the market pillar was an essential complement to the technical pillar to deliver rail’s full potential. The presidency agreed it was inconceivable to consider the fourth railway package without the market pillar and restated its ambition to reach general approach at the December Transport Council.

The Council went on to discuss the opening of the market to the civil use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS). There was unanimous support to integrate RPAS into European airspace but member states stressed the need for a gradual approach which ensured the primacy of safety and sufficient time for the development of associated technologies. I strongly pressed that any future regulatory proposals should avoid stifling innovation and provide a framework proportionate to the risk. Latvia stated that it was keen to progress political discussions on RPAS during its presidency and would host an event in Riga in March 2015.

On the single European Sky II+ progress report, the presidency reported that good progress was being made on this challenging file and invited Ministers to a policy discussion on the single European Sky in Rome on 6 and 7 November 2014, with a view to reaching general approach at the December Transport Council.

The presidency presented its paper on elections to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Council. I urged EU member states to support the ongoing consensus-seeking process among the pan-European 44 states of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) to decide this matter. The Council took note.

The Netherlands spoke movingly on aviation safety and the follow up to the crash of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, and informed Council on the preliminary findings of the investigation by Dutch Safety Board with expert support from the UK, Ukraine, the USA, Malaysia and Netherlands. The interim report concluded that the aircraft had been penetrated from the exterior by a number of high energy objects which led to a loss of structural integrity and the break-up of the aircraft. The investigation was expected to issue its final report by July 2015. A concurrent criminal investigation had been launched. The Netherlands asked member states to contribute to the ongoing ICAO taskforce which aimed to review procedures for civil flights over conflict zones with a view to better exchange of information. The Commission added that its external action service would be working with EU member states to determine a mechanism for information sharing with EU airlines. I expressed our sincere sympathy and solidarity with the Netherlands and stated that we would continue our active engagement in the ICAO taskforce.

In a wide range of any other business, the presidency summarised the outcome of the informal Transport Council held in Milan on 16 and 17 September, which had focused on the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T). The discussions on planning, governance and financing of infrastructure would feed into the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 strategy. In his last Transport Council, Vice-President Kallas reflected that he was proud of his achievements in reshaping TEN-T and urged Council to ensure transport secured an appropriate share of President Juncker’s recently announced €300 billion investment programme.

Poland presented an information paper on the situation of road hauliers in the context of the Russian import ban on certain EU products, calling upon member states and the Commission to help mitigate the effects of the Russian import ban on the road haulage sector. Three member states echoed these concerns and called for measures to be taken at an EU level. The Commission expressed sympathy with those member states but underlined the importance of the wider political context and stated that it was not planning to amend legislation at this stage.

Finally, the Commission updated the Council on the recent Galileo satellites incident, indicating that the most likely cause was a mechanical fault and a full report was due by the end of October. The launch planned for December would be postponed until the root cause was established and corrected. This was likely to be within the first half of 2015.

General Aviation Challenge Panel

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

Together with the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), I wish to inform the House of the publication of the Government’s response to the recommendations made by the general aviation (GA) challenge panel in its final report to Ministers which was published in May.

We recognise the singular role that the GA sector plays as a driver within the UK’s aviation industry. Many of our pilots and engineers are trained within the GA community, and the vast majority of the aircraft in this country operate within it. Its value has been estimated at some £1.4 billion to our economy, and it possesses the potential to support even more skilled jobs than at present and make an even greater contribution to economic growth.

The Government welcome the rigour with which the challenge panel has worked to produce its report and recommendations. The Government have considered the recommendations, have responded to these and made a number of announcements about the work being taken forward within their response.

These include;

Establishing a new cross-Department star chamber chaired by the Minister without Portfolio and including senior representation from all Government Departments with influence on GA matters;

Commissioning economic research to inform views of where Government policy could go further to support a vibrant GA sector, including a commitment to look again at planning issues relating to airfields in light of the planned economic research;

Committing to challenge and support the delivery of the European Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) general aviation road map, including consideration of amendments to the EASA basic regulation where appropriate;

Considering how to make the legislative requirements for GA users crossing the border easier to understand, and undertaking a consultation on pre-notification periods for GA flights to reduce the time scale for advance notification at designated customs ports;

Undertaking a joint review of the air navigation order with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to assess where this has disproportionate impacts on the GA sector.

Much of this work will contribute to a Government strategy for GA which we plan to publish in the spring of 2015.

General aviation can and should contribute to the UK’s economic success, while providing a safe environment for participants and the public. The Government’s aim is therefore to make the UK the best country in the world for general aviation.

I will place copies of the documents in the Libraries of both Houses.

HS2

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The Department for Transport and HS2 Ltd have announced two new funds that will provide an additional £30 million of Government support for communities and local economies situated close to the route of HS2 phase one.

HS2 is crucial to the long-term prosperity of this country. It will free up space on our railways, cut journey times between our biggest cities and drive forward our economy for years to come. However, it is only right we do all we can to help those living and working close to this vital railway. The Community and Environment Fund and the Business and Local Economy Fund are being introduced to further help those on phase one of the route between London and the West Midlands.

The £30 million that will be provided from these two funds is in addition to the comprehensive package of support we have already announced and will further help communities and businesses make the most of this once-in-a-generation scheme and crucial part of the Government’s long-term economic plan.

The Community and Environment Fund will support local projects that bring community and environmental benefits to areas affected by HS2, in a similar way that the countryside initiative did for HS1. Examples of projects that could be supported include refurbishment of local community centres or sports grounds and environmental conservation and enhancement. All projects supported by this fund will be in addition to the extensive environmental mitigation already set out within the HS2 Bill and environmental statement.

The Business and Local Economy Fund will support local economies and hence employment, for example, by supporting activities that increase footfall in areas affected by HS2 construction. This fund responds to the representations that honourable Members have made on behalf of businesses in their constituencies that are on the phase one line of route. It is in addition to the wide-ranging measures that we will put in place to enable local people and businesses to obtain employment and contracts arising out of the construction and operation of the railway.

HS2 Ltd will be working with the not-for-profit charity New Philanthropy Capital, which has extensive experience of similar grant schemes, to ensure the funds are delivered in the most effective way possible. They will also advise HS2 Ltd on eligibility and application criteria informed by engagement with local authorities and local enterprise partnerships. We expect to announce full details of the funds, following this work, in early 2015 with the funds becoming available following Royal Assent of the HS2 hybrid Bill.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I beg to move,

That the Order of 29 April 2014 (High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Carryover)) be varied as follows:

After paragraph 10 of the Order insert–

“10A. The Order of the House of 26 June 2013 relating to electronic deposit of documents shall apply in respect of a Bill presented as mentioned in paragraph 2 or 4 as in respect of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill read for the first time in the current Session.”

[Mr Speaker]

With this, we will take the following:

That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill is committed–

(1) that the Select Committee have power to consider–

(a) amendments to accommodate the requirements of landowners and occupiers in:

(i) the parishes of the Little Missenden, Great Missenden, Wendover, Stoke Mandeville, Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell, Quainton, Preston Bissett and Turweston in the County of Buckinghamshire,

(ii) the parish of Finmere in the County of Oxfordshire,

(iii) the parish of Chipping Warden and Edgcote in the County of Northamptonshire,

(iv) the parish of Little Packington in the County of Warwickshire,

(v) the parish of Berkswell in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull, and

(vi) the City of Birmingham;

(b) amendments to accommodate changes to the design of the works authorised by

the Bill in:

(i) the parishes of Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell, Fleet Marston, Steeple Claydon and Twyford in the County of Buckinghamshire,

(ii) the parish of Mixbury in the County of Oxfordshire,

(iii) the parishes of Culworth and Whitfield in the County of Northamptonshire,

(iv) the parishes of Radbourne, Southam, Stoneleigh and Curdworth in the County of Warwickshire, and

(v) the City of Birmingham;

(c) amendments to accommodate the requirements of utility undertakers in:

(i) the parishes of Denham, Wendover, Ellesborough, Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell, Quainton and Grendon Underwood and the town of Aylesbury in the County of Buckinghamshire,

(ii) the parishes of Offchurch, Burton Green, Little Packington, Coleshill, Curdworth, Wishaw and Moxhull and Middleton in the County of Warwickshire,

(iii) the parishes of Drayton Bassett, Hints with Canwell, Weeford, Swinfen and Packington, Fradley and Streethay, Longdon, Kings Bromley and Lichfield in the County of Staffordshire, and

(iv) the parish of Bickenhill in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull, and amendments for connected purposes;

(2) that any petition against amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee is empowered to make shall be referred to the Select Committee if–

(a) the petition is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the amendments was published, and

(b) the petition is one in which the petitioners pray to be heard by themselves or through counsel or agents.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

[Mr Goodwill]

We are here to debate the merits of two motions: one instructing the HS2 Select Committee to consider 55 minor amendments to the Bill and to hear petitions against them, should there be any; the other to allow the documents relating to this additional provision and any other in the future to be deposited in electronic format.

Before I deal with the merits of the motions, let me put them in context. The House will recall that in April it agreed, by a large majority, to give the hybrid Bill for phase 1 of High Speed 2 a Second Reading. The Bill provides the necessary powers to allow the construction and operation of phase 1 between London and the west midlands.

On Second Reading, the House agreed the principle of the Bill, which is that there should be a high-speed railway that will run between Euston and the west coast main line in Handsacre in Staffordshire, with a spur to Curzon Street in Birmingham. There will be intermediate stations at Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange, located near the NEC and Birmingham international airport.

Following Second Reading, the Bill, as it is a hybrid, was remitted to a specially appointed Select Committee. This Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), is tasked with considering the petitions lodged against the Bill by those directly and specially affected by it, a task which it has already started with commendable diligence and good judgment, for which I thank it. Indeed, it is continuing its work in Committee Room 5 today.

In parallel with this, and as a key part of the process, HS2 Ltd has been engaging further with those petitioners in order better to understand their concerns and determine whether these can be addressed without the need for them to appear before the Committee. This has proved successful with a number of petitioners, including Birmingham city council and Centro. As a result of some of those discussions and further developments in the design for the railway, we have identified the need to make 55 minor amendments to the Bill as originally deposited.

The motion before the House sets out their broad location but, despite their minor nature, I think it would be useful to explain them in a little more detail. They are mainly changes to access tracks required to construct or maintain the railway and refinements to National Grid’s requirements for electricity wire diversions. For example, where a farmer has suggested that it would be better to route an access track over this field rather than that field, that change is included in this additional provision. Additional land is also included around some electricity pylons where National Grid’s requirements have been refined.

These changes, in total, will not increase the overall project budget or target price for phase 1. Indeed, they are expected to cost slightly less than our original proposals. The estimate of expense for this additional provision, which will be published if this motion passes, sets out the total cost of these works at around £965,000. However, due to the prescriptive nature of this process, it does not set out the net position, which is, as I have already said, a slight saving.

The first motion being debated today instructs the Committee to consider these amendments, and to hear petitions against them. It is important to note that the motion does not agree that these changes should be made; it just agrees that the Committee be allowed to consider them.

Subject to the approval of this motion, the additional provision and a supplementary environmental statement describing the likely significant environmental effects of the amendments will be deposited in Parliament, and in local authority offices and libraries in those locations affected by the changes. Following deposit of these documents, a public consultation on the supplementary environmental statement will commence, which will close on 14 November. This consultation is 56 days long, in line with the approach taken for the main environmental statement and in excess of the minimum requirements in Standing Orders. As with the main environmental statement consultation, the responses to the consultation will be analysed by Parliament’s independent assessor and the assessor’s report will be tabled in the House ahead of Third Reading.

There will also be a petitioning period for those directly and specially affected by these changes to submit petitions against them. This petitioning period will begin on Friday 19 September and end on 17 October for all petitioners.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

The people now petitioning have already petitioned and paid their £20. Will they be able to petition without paying a further £20?

[Mr Goodwill]

Yes, they certainly will. Indeed, this is a “buy one, get one free” offer from this Government and I can reassure those who are affected and wish to petition that there will be that provision for a free opportunity.

Newspaper notices will be published in national and local newspapers over the next two weeks, alerting the public to these changes and the opportunity to feed into the process by petitioning or responding to the consultation, as appropriate.

The second motion before us confirms that the permission given by the House in July last year to deposit environmental and other information in relation to this Bill in electronic format applies to additional provisions as well. Electronic deposit of the Bill and related environmental information was an innovation welcomed by the public, as well as avoiding the need and cost of printing documents, a single set of which weighed 1.5 tonnes. I believe that it is only sensible that the same approach be taken for this additional provision and any subsequent ones that might come forward, although I hasten to add this will not be such a weighty document.

As with the Bill deposit, the motion is permissive. It allows those locations where documents are to be deposited to choose whether they would like documents in electronic form only or also in hard copy. Many local authorities affected by these amendments have already indicated their preference for electronic format. A similar motion to this has already been endorsed in the other place.

I hope that the House will agree that these are two very sensible motions to demonstrate the progress that this Government are making in transforming the country’s infrastructure and economic geography. It also demonstrates that we are doing this in the right way, listening to the concerns of those affected and, where possible, making changes to reduce impacts. I commend these motions to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry not to be able to continue to amuse the House.

I am sure that while the Chancellor was busy with all his whatnots, Ministers were busy preparing these changes to the High-Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill this weekend so that it could be considered by the Bill Committee following the vote today. In April, the House endorsed the principle of building a new high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham. The case for introducing more capacity is clear. Passenger numbers have doubled over the past 20 years; the railways are carrying the same number of passengers as they did in the 1920s on a network that is now half the size. Anyone who believes in encouraging the use of rail freight, in supporting modal shift and in tackling road congestion should want to see that growth continue. However, most of our alignments were built to serve Victorian service patterns, and many of our civil structures date back to the 19th century.

The west coast main line, the vital rail artery connecting the north-west, the west midlands and London, is approaching the limits of its capacity. As many hon. Members will know, there are also growing capacity constraints on the east coast and midland main lines. This is no theoretical challenge. Our lack of capacity means that it is increasingly difficult to run more inter-city, freight and commuter services.

Network Rail is being asked to deliver substantial investment over the next five years, but Railtrack’s legacy on the west coast main line is a powerful warning against relying on incremental upgrades. De-scoped, over-budget and over-time, the west coast modernisation project cost the taxpayer £9 billion pounds and delivered only a fraction of the capacity we need, and, just a few years after completion, that extra capacity has been exhausted. I know from speaking to the local authorities and hon. Members whose constituencies are on the route that they never wish to relive that experience. Of course we support electrification programmes and other route improvements, but after the Norton Bridge area works are completed, the options for upgrading the west coast main line further will be limited.

A new approach is needed. The last Government developed the initial proposals for HS2, but after the election, some of the project’s momentum was sadly lost. Labour rightly drew attention to the project’s rising costs, and we went so far as to change the law to ensure better value for taxpayers’ money, through an amendment that stood in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). Indeed, Baroness Kramer has described the changes, in another place, as putting in place

“a very vigorous reporting process under which the Government must report back annually and record any deviation from budget, and the consequences of that…which has put in place a very intense scrutiny process around the budget.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 November 2013; Vol. 749, c. 949.]

Since his appointment, David Higgins has taken great strides to restore confidence in the project, and we welcome the renewed focus on connectivity and integration with the existing transport network, especially for phase 2 of the project. Of course there can be no room for complacency on costs. The phase 1 route of HS2 is currently being subjected to very close scrutiny, and it is inevitable that some changes will be made, both through the petitioning process and through agreements made directly with HS2 Ltd. The Minister estimated that those additional provisions would lead to a net saving, although he did not specify its exact level. Will he give us an estimate of the cost implications of the alterations announced today, and the net saving involved? I would be happy to take an intervention from him on this point.

[Mr Goodwill]

I can tell the hon. Lady that it is a small net saving; I am sure that the shadow Chancellor will not be able to spend it on all his uncosted pet projects.

[Lilian Greenwood]

It’s a laugh a minute today. The net saving is of course welcome. Will the Minister also tell us, when he responds to the debate, when we can expect the first report on HS2’s initial expenditure, under the terms of the preparation Act?

There are two motions before us today: the carry-over motion and the instruction motion to the Select Committee. The hybrid Bill is reckoned to be the longest piece of legislation ever produced, once the environmental statement is included. When the new documents published today are included, it will have broken its own record. It is therefore right that the provisions for the electronic depositing of Bill documents should continue, although there should also continue to be a number of specified sites where residents can consult physical copies.

The instruction motion requires the Committee to consider a number of alterations to the route, which take the form of additional provisions. The additional provisions published by the Department cover a range of recommendations, from the location of balancing ponds and the preservation of public rights of way to the maintenance of golf course car parks. They mainly affect the constituencies of Government Members and I shall do my best to finish my speech in a timely fashion, because I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak.

It must be noted, however, that these provisions cover the end of phase 1 in Lichfield and Birmingham Curzon Street to Hillingdon, but no further. I am mindful of the many contributions made in the House by London colleagues, especially those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who I note is in his place today. It is vital that, when future additional provisions are brought forward, those areas should be given at least equal consideration to the local authorities affected by the proposals.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend speaks on behalf of his constituents, who will be particularly affected by the proposals for Old Oak Common.

In the area around Euston station in particular, considerable uncertainty has been caused by revisions to the designs for HS2’s London terminus. Three times now, alternative plans for Euston have been presented. Local residents deserve better.

[Mr Goodwill]

I should like to reassure the hon. Lady. I had lunch with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) the other day and saw some of the issues at first hand. Indeed, I think we got a freebie from the restaurateur; we should find out whether we need to declare it. Similar changes are being progressed in the London area, and they will be brought forward when other changes in London, such as the HS1 link removal, are ready to be brought forward, so that impacts such as those on transport can be considered in the round. I remind the House that the changes being debated today were communicated to landowners and to others who might be affected, including Members of Parliament, back in May.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the Minister for that response, particularly in relation to Euston.

It is to be hoped that we will see confirmation before the election that the additional provisions mechanism can be used to resolve some of the long-standing mitigation issues in Euston. We do not object to the principle of making changes to the Bill in this manner. After all, Parliament has already voted to remove the unsatisfactory link to HS1 that was included in the original wording of the Bill. It is likely that further refinements will be made as the Bill progresses through Parliament. However, it is important that these changes are seen not as a final draft but rather as proposals that must be subjected to full scrutiny and a proper consultation period. When there are objections—as there might be, given the changes to land requirements set out in the additional provisions—those petitioners must be heard on the same basis as those who have already started to appear before the Bill Committee. I look forward to further improvements to the scheme.

HS2 is the right project, and it can be improved further. On 1 October, we will mark the 50th anniversary of the first Shinkansen service. The date is perhaps unlikely to be celebrated in this country, except in specialist publications, but it will be a rather sobering reminder that high-speed trains were running abroad when many parts of the UK were still reliant on steam locomotives. High-speed rail is a proven technology, and it has been proven in this country. I recently saw for myself the benefits that HS1 has helped to bring to Kent, including the greatly improved journey times and the connections that allow fast services to radiate out from the core high-speed line. HS2 must similarly be fully integrated with the existing network, and that issue that will no doubt be revisited in David Higgins’s upcoming report.

HS2 should also be seen as an opportunity for utilising the skills gained through the Crossrail project, for training a new generation of highly skilled construction engineers and railway operators and for supporting the 120,000 jobs in the UK’s supply chain. To that end, we want to see a copy of the Government’s long-promised jobs and skills strategy for HS2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s opening statement on these motions, but may I issue a word of warning? When I hear a politician say, “Buy one, get one free”, the other phrase that comes to mind is, “Always beware of politicians bearing gifts.” Innocuous though this matter seems, I am not sure that the Minister can get away without answering a few questions. I have no intention of dividing the House as this is a technical matter referring changes to the Select Committee, so for those who are in any doubt may I say that I do not intend to cause too much of a fuss but I do intend to comment?

We find ourselves back in this Chamber once again with the Government asking colleagues to vote on matters relating to HS2. I recall that the previous time the Government asked MPs to vote on this project, we did so in the absence of the Major Projects Authority report, which identifies the risks of the project. That is still unavailable to MPs and to the very Select Committee to which the new changes are being referred. I reiterate that it is not fair to ask the Select Committee to evaluate the changes, or any of the other proposals being made by HS2 Ltd, in the absence of the full MPA set of reports identifying the risks we are taking with this project.

I was surprised that more detail was not available on the changes before we arrived in this place. The Minister was good enough to send me details of the one change that affects my constituency. However, 20 out of the 55 changes affect Buckinghamshire, and issuing the list I had sent to me at 1.30 pm today does not give colleagues, particularly those who are not able to make representations in the same way as I am, an opportunity to study the detailed changes.

[Mr Goodwill]

My right hon. Friend will recall that the Secretary of State wrote to her on 2 May with details of the change in her constituency, and other right hon. and hon. Members, both Government and Opposition, were contacted in the same way.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am glad to have the Minister’s reassurance; that is not exactly how I understood it from my colleagues, but I will take his word for it. Having looked at the list, I find that I have one minor change in my constituency, which accommodates a footpath change at the request of my local landowner Mr Lund. I hope it accommodates his request in full, and I repeat that I was grateful to the Minister for providing details to me. However, I am not sure that details of the changes in other parts of Buckinghamshire have been communicated to my colleagues, because when I spoke to people in their offices I was told that the details that were made available in the list that arrived in my office at 1.30 pm had not been made available to Members or their staff, so no comments on the changes could be fed into the debate. As the Minister knows, several of the changes require a permanent acquisition of land to provide services or access for HS2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The costs of the project are a matter of concern right across the board and to all Members. Hon. Members ought to bear in mind that today the Minister has brought savings to the Dispatch Box—[Interruption.] He indicates to me that they are minute savings, but we know that size is not everything—savings are important. I hope that will go some way to showing that Ministers’ eyes are open at least to looking at cost savings ideas. I hope that they will be open to looking at other savings, not just monetary ones.

[Mr Goodwill]

May I point out that there is not only a small saving but considerable improvement for my right hon. Friend’s constituent Mr Lund? Although I would not go so far as to say he is pleased to see the change, it is certainly an improvement on what was there before. May I remind the House that although we wrote in May to Members with details of the changes in their constituencies, we sent them an additional copy of the letter this morning, in case they had missed the earlier one? We have also tabled documents before the House so that any other right hon. or hon. Member who wishes to look at the detailed changes, on moving electricity pylons, rights of way and so on, can see what is before the House today. Nobody can be in any doubt about what we are discussing today.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am grateful to the Minister for that. It was good of him to send the letter that he said was sent to me on 2 May. In his original letter to me he said it was sent on 1 May and we were looking in the wrong place, although I still have no record in my office of having received the letter on 2 May. That is just a small point of no real importance; this was just poor staff work.

I would like to know when the map books are going to be available—I believe 17 are affected—showing the changes, with the list of affected owners. I understand that they are not yet available, so will the Minister confirm when they will be published? When exactly will the notices and the newspaper advertisements be placed? I am willing to give way to allow him to answer that.

[Mr Goodwill]

They will be available on Wednesday—tomorrow.

[Mrs Gillan]

If they are available on Wednesday, that raises the question of why they could not have been available in time for this debate. The Minister is obviously not going to allow us to have the detail until after this debate, and we have to put up with that.

[Mr Goodwill]

The purpose of today’s motion is to facilitate the depositing of the maps. That is why we are doing so on the first possible opportunity, should we get the consent of the House today, which is tomorrow.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification, but it would have been helpful if the map books had been available to Members before the debate.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) was also concerned that he had not yet been given details of the proposals. Let me make a small point. It is hard for Members of Parliament to allay people’s fears or make the relevant representations if we do not have the details at the earliest opportunity. I am sure that some of the proposed changes will be welcomed—I certainly hope so. Sadly, the only change that my constituents want is the adoption of a longer tunnel under the area of outstanding natural beauty. That would save the violation of our so-called protected environment and the Committee Members to whom these changes are being committed some 550 petition hearings, which have been lined up because of the lack of support for the long tunnel so far.

Like the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), I am willing to offer the Minister a freebie lunch in Chesham and Amersham if he visits to look at the environment, the countryside and the grief that would be saved if the longer tunnel, which I understand is being considered by the Department, is accepted. I know that it is currently being studied by the engineering teams at HS2, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that any future changes from HS2 Ltd, which he mentioned in his letter of 28 August, will include the tunnel extension.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

The debate this afternoon strikes me as rather strange, as we are being asked to give the existing Select Committee power to consider amendments that we have not seen, which is fairly unusual in the House of Commons. If we are asked to agree to some amendment, we have usually had the opportunity to read and digest them and possibly to consult other people about them. The environmental statements are apparently ready but will not be issued until tomorrow, leaving us to proceed in ignorance. They will contain all the details. When people are considering the impact on their homes, businesses, schools or leisure provision, it is the detail that counts.

[Mr Goodwill]

I must make it clear that the House is being asked not to approve the changes, but to allow the Committee to consider the changes and for petitions to be submitted to help them in that work.

[Frank Dobson]

I understand that, but if we had the detail, the House might decide that some amendments are so blindingly stupid that they should not be referred to the Select Committee in the first place. It remains the case that we are being asked to endorse these propositions without having seen them. Six groups of changes are, it is claimed, in response to the requirements of local people; four of them are in response to requirements of the public utilities; and five are for “minor changes of design” and—these are the magic words—“connected purposes”. What we are being asked to push through is not quite as specific as has been suggested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson]

Again, I sympathise with the right hon. Lady, because nowhere has been subjected to the absolutely stupendous incompetence of HS2 more than my constituency. HS2 proposed a link with HS1. Everyone said that that was crackers, HS2 said it was wonderful and then it had to drop it. HS2 proposed the lean-to engine shed proposal. Lots of people said that that was crackers, HS2 said it was the only thing it would be possible to do and that it would be extraordinarily expensive to have a full development of the whole station—and lo and behold, that is what is now being proposed. No apology has been issued to anyone, as far as I know, for this stupendous incompetence and ridiculousness. I understand that when an environmental statement is eventually issued, the consultation period will run concurrently with the petitioning period. That seems to me to be extremely unfair.

Let me explain the difference in scale between what is being formulated now and what is in the Bill. The works at Euston in the Bill were going to cost £2 billion, but HS2 let slip at meetings that it is now thinking in terms of £7 billion. Even a fellow Yorkshireman like the Minister would admit that that is a few bob more. It is people with that grasp of reality who are behind this scheme. In addition, and in a further source of perturbation for my constituents, HS2 now says that the new Euston, when finally completed and in operation, would not be able to cope with the increased number of passengers without the building of Crossrail 2 to help take passengers to and from Euston, at an additional cost of £20 billion. Will that be included in the new environmental statement and will it be subject to petitioning?

[Mr Goodwill]

May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that none of the provisions we are considering relates to Euston or the part of the line around there, as they refer merely to the parishes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

With the leave of the House, I shall touch on several points raised during the debate.

I can tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) that the people along the line of route who are affected by the changes are aware of them. The changes are minor. The process has been described as a tidying-up exercise, although I recall the previous Government describing the treaty of Lisbon as a tidying-up exercise, so I should not go too far down that road. Of the 55 changes overall, there are 21 changes to access tracks, most of which, including the change in her constituency, are a result of discussions with farmers about developing preferable approaches. Some 20 areas of land will be required, mostly temporarily, so that National Grid can undertake works to rewire pylons. Three areas of land will be required temporarily for works to pipelines, while a further three areas are needed due to minor amendments for the laying of roads. There will be eight other changes, including with regard to car parking provision at the national motorcycle museum in the parish of Hampton-in-Arden.

[Mrs Gillan]

Why did that change not appear to be included in the list about the additional provision that was given to me at 1.30pm?

[Mr Goodwill]

It might be that just the parishes were listed, not the actual works, but I understand that the documentation laid before House did include that—[Interruption.] Indeed, I have been passed a bit of paper that might well reassure hon. Members. I am told that the changes relating to the motorcycle museum site are no longer being brought forward as a result of negotiations, so I must apologise to the House if the information was incorrect.

Such issues will be the subject of petitions that may be laid before the Select Committee. I believe that the petitioning period is adequate, especially given the limited scope of the changes. I underline that, at all times, we will seek to comply with all our obligations under EU and domestic legislation.

Many of the changes will be welcomed by landowners and people in the relevant areas. They have arisen partly as a result of our continuing negotiations with those affected by the building of HS2, and it is important that we ensure that people’s views are taken into account.

We need to look at the overall picture, and the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) referred to changes that may take place in his constituency. We are aware not only of the permanent changes that will arise due to the line’s construction, especially to the station itself, but of how businesses in the area might be affected due to the construction. I spent an enjoyable lunchtime eating a meal with the right hon. Gentleman in one of the area’s Bangladeshi restaurants, and I understood precisely the worries of the owners about the erection of building hoardings in the area, which might make it difficult for the restaurant’s usual clientele to access the site.

[Frank Dobson]

But the point—I have clearly failed to make it—is that that area is to the west of the station, but there will now be similar problems to the east of the station.

[Mr Goodwill]

Sir David Higgins is considering how we can best capitalise on the tremendous opportunity that Euston station presents as part of the project. Those of us who remember what the area around King’s Cross station was like a number of years ago will understand how it has been transformed. Indeed, the station itself has become a destination in its own right, and people often spend time in that area. We can capitalise on the opportunity at Euston, but I understand that people will be severely affected during the transformation process, so we need to do what we can to minimise the impact on them.

[Frank Dobson]

David Higgins is apparently incapable of distinguishing between the land around the stations. The redevelopment at King’s Cross took place on useless, empty, brownfield railway land; the land on both sides of Euston station is not brownfield land to be rescued by some Australian missionary, but a place where people live, go about their business and send their children to school, and somewhere people go to old folks’ luncheon clubs. They want to continue to do that; they do not want the area levelled as part of some grandiose redevelopment scheme that everyone can think is wonderful. I speak as someone who has strongly supported redevelopment at Euston and was the first person to advocate using St Pancras station as the terminus for the channel tunnel link, so I do not need to take any lessons from anyone, but the same situation does not apply at Euston—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was making an intervention, not a second speech—although it did sound a bit like one.

[Mr Goodwill]

I would be the last person in the world to try to argue that I know better than the right hon. Gentleman about the concerns and aspirations of the people in the area around Euston station. Indeed, when he and I met, we were joined by Sarah Hayward, the leader of Camden council—I have to admit that I am a little frightened of her—who set out similar concerns in no uncertain terms. Indeed, I am pleased that we have managed to secure social housing provision to replace some of the housing that will need to be demolished.

[Mrs Spelman]

On the subject of the motion, I thank the Minister for the clarification about pieces of land in my constituency that now will not be needed for the project, but can he assure me, in the presence of the Chair of the Select Committee hearing the petitions, that the Select Committee members will be absolutely clear about the changes, the pieces of land coming in and out of the project, before they make the visits to the sites, as the Select Committee is to do in my constituency next Tuesday?

[Mr Goodwill]

I know my right hon. Friend is aware that negotiations are ongoing with landowners and others to try to mitigate the impact of the project on individuals. Indeed, we are determined to ameliorate—I was tempted to use the term “head off”—petitions that are being laid, to ensure that they will not necessarily need to appear before the Committee. I think it is a good part of this dynamic process that a petition can be raised to alert us to particular concerns, so that we can try to address those concerns. Many of the provisions before us today are made in response to petitions. I am interested to know what consideration has been made in relation to the national motorcycle museum. Until very recently indeed, we intended to provide alternative car parking, so I shall make a point of finding out what the solution to that problem is.

I know that the two remaining changes in my right hon. Friend’s constituency are, first, in the parish of Berkswell, where there will be a temporary diversion of the Kenilworth greenway, which will be realigned following discussions with stakeholders; and secondly, in the parish of Bickenhill, where there will be a requirement to oversail property to construct overhead lines, which is a minimal impact on the area.

Returning to Euston, I am determined to ensure that we do all we can to make sure that customers can still reach businesses that may be affected by the construction work.

[Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)]

Although my constituency is not affected by the provisions before the House, there is a great deal of solidarity between those who have this wretched line going through or under our constituencies. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister realises that although just one right hon. Member might be affected, we do actually share his concerns.

[Mr Goodwill]

As a regular user of the Tea Room, I am in no doubt as to the strength of feeling up and down the line of route.

[Michael Fabricant]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) might inadvertently have misled the House by saying that only one person might be concerned. In fact, many people are concerned. He may wish to put the record straight.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

No, I am sure he does not wish to put the record straight. I do not think that was a point of order, or that it could possibly be the interpretation of what the right hon. Gentleman said—[Interruption.] Indeed, I think it is a case of beard solidarity, as he is pointing out.

[Mr Goodwill]

I think we have digressed from the subject of the debate. Yes, there are concerned people, not least those who seek to replace my right hon. Friend as the Member of Parliament for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. No doubt a number will express their views during the selection process. I am pleased that we have a tunnel under that constituency.

I commend the motions to the House. I believe that the provisions will give the Committee the opportunity to listen to any additional petitions, and I am sure the House will be content to approve the motions.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That the Order of 29 April 2014 (High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Carry-over)) be varied as follows:

After paragraph 10 of the Order insert–

“10A. The Order of the House of 26 June 2013 relating to electronic deposit of documents shall apply in respect of a Bill presented as mentioned in paragraph 2 or 4 as in respect of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill read for the first time in the current Session.”

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL: INSTRUCTION (NO. 2)

Ordered,

That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill is committed–

(1) that the Select Committee have power to consider–

(a) amendments to accommodate the requirements of landowners and occupiers in:

(i) the parishes of the Little Missenden, Great Missenden, Wendover, Stoke Mandeville, Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell, Quainton, Preston Bissett and Turweston in the County of Buckinghamshire,

(ii) the parish of Finmere in the County of Oxfordshire,

(iii) the parish of Chipping Warden and Edgcote in the County of Northamptonshire,

(iv) the parish of Little Packington in the County of Warwickshire,

(v) the parish of Berkswell in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull, and

(vi) the City of Birmingham;

(b) amendments to accommodate changes to the design of the works authorised by the Bill in:

(i) the parishes of Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell, Fleet Marston, Steeple Claydon and Twyford in the County of Buckinghamshire,

(ii) the parish of Mixbury in the County of Oxfordshire,

(iii) the parishes of Culworth and Whitfield in the County of Northamptonshire,

(iv) the parishes of Radbourne, Southam, Stoneleigh and Curdworth in the County of Warwickshire, and

(v) the City of Birmingham;

(c) amendments to accommodate the requirements of utility undertakers in:

(i) the parishes of Denham, Wendover, Ellesborough, Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell, Quainton and Grendon Underwood and the town of Aylesbury in the County of Buckinghamshire,

(ii) the parishes of Offchurch, Burton Green, Little Packington, Coleshill, Curdworth, Wishaw and Moxhull and Middleton in the County of Warwickshire,

(iii) the parishes of Drayton Bassett, Hints with Canwell, Weeford, Swinfen and Packington, Fradley and Streethay, Longdon, Kings Bromley and Lichfield in the County of Staffordshire, and

(iv) the parish of Bickenhill in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull, and amendments for connected purposes;

(2) that any petition against amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee is empowered to make shall be referred to the Select Committee if–

(a) the petition is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the amendments was published, and

(b) the petition is one in which the petitioners pray to be heard by themselves or through counsel or agents.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.— (Mr Goodwill.)

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on moving Second Reading of this private Bill that will enable TfL to expand its financial freedom to use practices and mechanisms it cannot currently access. We recognise that it will allow TfL to release greater value from its financing arrangements—a principle we welcome at a time when we are continually seeking efficiencies and value for money in public spending.

The outcome of the 2013 spending review was a 25% cut in TfL’s operational funding from central Government, and we have been clear that the Government’s aim is to reduce TfL’s operational funding over time to zero. That, on top of earlier reductions in TfL’s operational grant, will require it to deliver £16 billion of savings over the period to 2021. TfL has implemented a savings and efficiency programme that will allow it to continue to invest in infrastructure while at the same time holding down fares. TfL has already identified nearly £12 billion of savings to 2020-21, but it still needs to identify further savings. I understand from TfL that the private Bill could realise in excess of £50 million in immediate benefits by improving its hedging power, enabling it to borrow money cost-effectively, and allowing it to make more of its assets.

We believe that giving TfL greater financial flexibility will give it the opportunity to run its business more efficiently, but in doing so we expect it to adopt a responsible approach in the use of its new powers. I am pleased that the controversial clause on the disposal of operational land, which was a matter of concern to their lordships, has been dropped from the Bill. I understand that the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) still have concerns, but I hope that they are reassured to know that TfL has agreed to table an amendment in Committee to clause 5 that will require TfL to seek the Secretary of State’s agreement when it wishes to form a limited company for commercial property development purposes.

Subject to what I have said and taking into account the fact that the measure will deliver real savings and efficiencies for council tax payers and fare payers in London, I hope the Bill makes progress today, enabling us to explore in Committee some of the highly pertinent points made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.