---

Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab): May I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on his excellent statement, but on the negotiations that he undertook with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on transport spending? May I also be the first Back-Bench Member to thank, as the Secretary of State did, the staff of the Strategic Rail Authority for their work in preparing the way forward for Britain's railways? In particular, I draw attention to the leadership of Richard Bowker, especially on community rail partnerships and the blueprint outlined.

On freight, does my right hon. Friend propose to undertake discussions with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to improve the transport planning arrangements to allow depots to provide access for more goods to go on to the rail network?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I appeal for very short questions and precise answers. I am letting the statement run beyond the original time estimated so that all hon. Members get called.

Mr. Darling: In relation to my hon. Friend's three points, I am always grateful to the Chancellor. That does not, however, get us away from the fact that our budgets are still under pressure. I want freight to be encouraged. Indeed, I am greatly encouraged by the freight companies that have made it clear that they want to go out and win new business. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about Richard Bowker.

Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con): Does the Secretary of State understand that there will be considerable concern in Worcestershire about his proposal to extend the powers of the passenger transport executives? We have such poor commuter services because Birmingham and the conurbation specify their services in preference to Worcestershire commuters. Given that he is also talking of giving the Welsh Assembly powers for services bordering Wales, many of which come to Worcestershire, we could be hit by a double whammy. In addition, I invite the Secretary of State to answer the question he did not answer—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No, I do not think that we will have an extra question.

Mr. Darling: My proposals on devolution are primarily directed at those services that operate within the areas covered by PTEs and so on. In all parts of the network, there are obviously choices to be made and decisions to be taken between services that run within a
 
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1564
 
local area and those that run further afield. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would be quiet for one minute, I might be able to answer his question.

The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about the tension between people who live well away from PTE areas who rely on services that go into those areas. That is obviously something that we need to reconcile, a point that I made earlier.

Hugh Bayley (City of York) (Lab): My right hon. Friend's decision to pin down the bureaucracy and to provide a clear strategic framework for the railways, and his ability to win extra money from the Treasury to deliver the strategy, will be widely welcomed in a railway town like York. Now that the parameters have been set, when will the SRA publish the route utilisation strategy for the east coast main line and when will the refranchising formally start?

Mr. Darling: I hope that the answer to both those questions is "shortly". It is most important that the change does not hold up developments that need to be put in place to ensure that the railways operate over the next few years. I hope that we can do those two things as soon as possible.

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): May I give credit where credit is due? Today's announcement shows that the Secretary of State is slowly but surely reinventing a much improved British Rail. Unfortunately, he has not gone far enough in bringing the train operating companies back into public ownership. However, will he at least end the private sector preference, so that if the public sector is operating successfully—as it is with south-east trains—it is not forced into the private sector?

Mr. Darling: Not for the first time I must disappoint my hon. Friend. We are not re-creating British Rail and I think that the public-private partnership works. The performance of south-east trains is improving, but so is the performance of a number of other train operators operating around London. I am afraid that we will have to disagree—but nothing new there.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): Will the new arrangements make it easier for disused railway lines to be reopened, or is the shape of the network to be entirely with Network Rail?

Mr. Darling: The Government have to decide how much they spend and the general overall strategy for the railways. Network Rail, through its industry planning process, will have to decide whether markets mean that new lines might be profitable or old lines might change. That happens with all types of transport because it is necessary to take account of where people are.

If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, he is referring to community railway lines. They have been successful in keeping lines open that might otherwise have closed. That is acknowledged in the White Paper and we want to build on it.
 
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1563
 

 
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1565
 

Business of the House

1.35 pm

The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.

Monday 19 July—Remaining stages of the Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords]. Followed by motion to approve the Draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 2004, followed by remaining stages of the Public Audit (Wales) Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 20 July—A debate on Iraq on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Bill, followed by if necessary further consideration of Lords amendments. It may also assist the House if I confirm that there will be a statement about the findings of the balance of funding review report.

Wednesday 21 July—A motion to approve three regional assembly and local government referendums orders, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.

Thursday 22 July—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by motion on the summer recess Adjournment.

The provisional business for the week following the summer recess will include:

Tuesday 7 September—Second Reading of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill [Lords].

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for September will be:

Thursday 9 September—A debate on the report from the Science and Technology Committee on the EU's new chemical strategy.

Thursday 16 September—A debate on the report from the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on postal voting.

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): I thank the Leader of the House for the business.

Although we are pleased that it is possible to have the capping of local authorities debated on the Floor of the House next Monday, as is normal practice, it is wrong that only an hour and a half is to be allowed when five councils and one fire authority are involved. May we have more time for that debate?

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why so many last-minute amendments on new matters were tabled by the Minister when the Energy Bill was discussed on Report this week, which meant that other hon. Members were unable to have their amendments discussed before the guillotine fell? When will the Leader of the House stop that sort of abuse?

Now that the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill has completed all its stages, will the right hon. Gentleman implement the Westminster boundary review for Scotland by laying the order before we rise?

Finally, I ask for a debate on the Butler report. It was made to Parliament and should be debated here, just like the Hutton report and the Penrose report. The Prime
 
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1566
 
Minister has a poor record of making speeches here, but we do need a detailed speech from him in response to the report. He needs to address the flaws in intelligence and the way in which he conducts Cabinet business.

Lord Butler says that Downing street stretched intelligence "to the outer limits". He says that the 45-minute claim should not have been in the dossier at all. Throughout the dossier, serious misgivings about the intelligence were taken out. Who took them out? How could the Prime Minister then tell the country that the intelligence was "beyond doubt"? How could he tell this    House that it was "extensive, detailed and authoritative" when we know that it was "little", "sporadic" and "patchy"?

The people of this country are entitled to believe their Prime Minister as he leads us into war. Can that ever be the case again—

---