| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Peter Bottomley : My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and I have adjoining constituencies and it falls to me to express my party's thanks to the Conservative Front Benchers, my hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller), for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) and for East Worthing and Shoreham. I add my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), who has paid close attention to everything that was said.
Perhaps it is too late to suggest to Ministers that the title of the Bill should be changed to "Early Years Well-Being". When considering the well-being of children up to the age of five—or up to the age of eight if one takes
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1037
account of part 3—it is important to reduce the avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap that they may face and to improve their well-being, which is a mixture of wealth and welfare. The development stages, which part 1 covers, are vital.
Although the measure is primarily about the duties of local authorities, everybody in local authorities will want to involve parents. Trying to develop the confidence and competence of parents is the key to developing the confidence and competence of children in the early stages and building on that through the primary school years, secondary school years and adult life.
Earlier, I referred briefly to the Plowden report, which was published in 1967. The research papers are worth rereading and I commend them to people in local authorities as well as to those who advise Ministers. The Court report on child health services again showed that parents' actions matter. There is no point in relying on what local authorities or health services can provide if we do not engage parents in what they can do. The reports may be 30 to 40 years old but, if the work was redone now, the same conclusions would be reached. What was learned in Home Start and what Sure Start is introducing are lessons that are not especially new. Every generation needs to relearn them.
The bipartisan approach to the issues that local authority responsibilities cover matters. We have the problem—or challenge—of trying to ensure that that gets across to parents in all parts of the country in every generation. If 600,000 to 700,000 children are born each year and at least half are first children in a family, many new parents need to know what is available, what their child's experience will be and what the normal hiccups, obstacles and problems are. All those who dedicate themselves to children, whether in the voluntary sector or in other ways in their professional lives, matter a lot.
My final word of caution is to enthusiastic Ministers in this third way, new Labour Government. Life did not start in 1997, and nor did the co-operation between health and education. It has been said in a slightly jokey way that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) was booked into a hotel room at a party conference with his wife, Lady Young, they were the Ministers for the under-fives in health and education, and that the two Departments have had better dealings with each other ever since.
We need to monitor the outcomes that people have worked for. When my wife, who is now in another place, was Minister for Health, she was as concerned about these matters as Ministers are now. I suspect that Ministers will be coming to the House in five or 10 years' time to report on the measurable outcomes. The issue of whether reducing inequality—which is not how I would have put it—or raising people up from levels at which they should not be allowed to stay is the more important will become clear.
An example of inequalities for the elderly in our constituencies is that they have to wait nearly two years for a hearing aid, but if they go privately they can get one almost straight away, for a vast sum of money. We
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1038
could reduce that inequality by saying that people should not buy hearing aids privately. Alternatively, we could reduce the level of unfairness by saying that everyone should get their hearing test and their hearing aid within 18 weeks. I commend that to the Ministers as well.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Courts Act 2003 (Consequential Amendment) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 12588/05, draft regulation to replace Regulation 2320/02 on civil aviation security; welcomes the Commission's initiative in producing a clearer, shorter text which will give more legal certainty; and endorses the Government's intention to work with the Presidency, the European Parliament and other Member States to resolve outstanding areas of difficulty.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
ESTIMATES
That, in the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall apply as if the words '18th March' in line 18 were replaced by the words '20th March'.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1039
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (NO. 2) BILL
That, at the sitting on Monday 20th March, any Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time shall be proceeded with as if its Second Reading stood as an Order of the Day, and Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1040
Blackpool to Fleetwood Tramway
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
5.2 pm
Mr. Gordon Marsden (Blackpool, South) (Lab): The Blackpool to Fleetwood tramway, which spans 10.4 miles from Starr Gate to Fleetwood and carries 6.5 million passengers a year, is genuinely unique. Opened in 1885, it remains the oldest continuously operating UK tramway. Along with the tower, the winter gardens and the Big One, it is the thing that defines Blackpool for millions of people in Britain. The tramway has also been a star of the silver screen, from the films of George Formby with his little stick of Blackpool rock to the shocking demise of Alan Bradley, who was crushed under the wheels of a tram in "Coronation Street", and, most recently, the BBC hit drama series, "Blackpool".
The tramway also annually frames and garlands the greatest light-show in the UK, the illuminations, and the best way to see the illuminations is still by tram. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), as a north-west MP and a history enthusiast, will appreciate all this. He will also understand the pivotal role that the Blackpool to Fleetwood tramway has played, not only in our broader social history but in the identity, life and success of Blackpool as a seaside resort, not least because hundreds, if not thousands, of his own constituents will have travelled on Blackpool trams.
However, just as Britain cannot live in the past, neither can Blackpool. At 120 years old, the tramway is showing its age. It is in urgent need of modernisation and renewal. It serves not only Blackpool but Cleveleys and Fleetwood, which is why Blackpool council and Lancashire county council have come together on a bid that is enthusiastically backed by all the Fylde coast MPs. I want to emphasise at the outset that the bid is not a heritage project, as some people have suggested.
It is not something that could be hived off for lottery funding elsewhere, even if the necessary sums were available. Nor is it a tourism project. Some 60,000 people use the tramway every day in Blackpool as a vital element of work and daily travel in the town. It is vital in particular because a larger than average number of elderly people live in Blackpool, and Blackpool still has the lowest car density in the north-west. Having used the tramway to travel from my home and office base in South Shore up to North Shore, I know that it is still a very important practical link—and the journey is of course very evocative, whether one is seeing winter gales or summer sunshine over the Irish sea. Ultimately, the tramway meets a core transport need for the residents of Blackpool and the Fylde coast.
The Blackpool scheme should not be regarded as a blue-sky scheme. It must not be seen as part of the network of assorted light rail proposals that have been submitted to the Department for Transport in recent years, however worthy they may be. For my constituents, this bid is an essential bread-and-butter—or perhaps, as we are talking about Blackpool, I should say fish-and-chips—component of public transport.
The revised project cost of £88 million, of which the Government would contribute £72 million, covers the delivery of fully accessible platforms at stops, new
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1041
rolling stock which would include articulated trams and low-floor trailers for older trams, a major programme of track renewal, the complete renewal of the electrification from Thornton Gate to Fleetwood, and the revision, substantial extension and modernisation of the tram and bus depot.
If any evidence is needed of the urgent need for this project, I can draw the Minister's attention to the following facts—and they are facts. Less than a quarter of the existing track is in good condition. More than 55 per cent. of it requires attention now and in the near future. A full tramway service from Starr Gate to Fleetwood has not run in any winter since 2001, and the winter of 2004–05 saw Manchester square closed to tram travel south to Starr Gate. Indeed, on that occasion a £1 million emergency maintenance scheme funded by the Department for Transport was needed to retain access to the depot. The worst part of the track is between Central Pier and South Pier, but the electrical infrastructure north of Cleveleys is powered from a 60-year-old electrical substation, and there is an urgent need for track renewal if the whole system is to remain open beyond 2006–07.
The tramway is key not just for Blackpool and Fylde in the present, but for Blackpool and Fylde in the future. An updated tramway is crucial to Blackpool's continued regeneration efforts, and to the success of the town's master plan. Not only would the proposed scheme provide a mass transport system for Fylde coast regeneration by linking Blackpool with Cleveleys and Fleetwood; it would provide the option in future years for further developments to the coast south of Fylde, with considerable potential for links to Blackpool, North and Blackpool airport.
The tram will deliver the economic and social benefits of resort regeneration by providing a high-quality public transport link between the central area and the main tourism destinations, including some of the large hotels. Transport is a major element in the application to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for a regional casino in Blackpool, and we know that potential developers regard the tram as a key asset in that context.
There is considerable—indeed, substantial—local support for the bid. I have mentioned already the support from Members of Parliament. There has also been concerted co-operation and collaboration between Lancashire county council and Blackpool, and full integration with all the planning and local highways authorities. Popular local support for all aspects of regeneration and specifically for the renewal of the tram system has been sustained and widespread. After his recent attendance at the Labour party spring conference, the Minister will know of the intense enthusiasm for the project, not just from the local papers but from delegates and others.
Perhaps most significantly, the bid has attracted unqualified and unhesitating support from the Northwest Development Agency and from the North West regional assembly. The tram bid was recommended as a priority in the top quartile for regional funding allocation. The Minister will know that, on 22 February, Steven Broomhead, the chief
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1042
executive of the Northwest Development Agency, wrote to him in support of the project. He said:
"The Tramway scheme scored well in each area and was well placed in the top quartile of these schemes examined. It has been recommended by the Region as a priority for funding . . . because this scheme is partially a deferred maintenance scheme it carries less risk . . . I would be grateful if you could place on record the Agency's full support for the Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramway project".
That underlines just how strong and unanimous the support for the scheme is across the region.
It is also important to comment briefly on the basis for the resubmitted scheme that Lancashire county council and Blackpool have put forward, because that indicates how they have responded positively to the demands that the Department placed on them after the initial submission of the scheme resulted in a request for revision. The revised scheme emphasises that it is a tramway, not a light rail system and that it updates an existing system, rather than building an entirely new tram network. The scheme scores well on deliverability and value for money. Blackpool already has a right of way and other assets that will provide cost savings. The scheme has been nearly five years in development and so the costs and the patronage figures that are quoted in the submission are far more robust and involve far less risk than might otherwise be the case. The relatively modest cost—£88 million at 2005 prices—works out at a cost per kilometre of £4.9 million, which is a fraction of the cost of most other light rail projects. The tram routes in Blackpool are free of utilities equipment, so there will be no need for expensive relocation work. The project is phased across a range of financial periods. Government contributions are requested to be £8.1 million in 2006–07, £26 million in 2007–08 and £37 million in 2008–09.
Importantly, the scheme will ensure that there are modern articulated trams that are compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The positive benefit-cost ratio that the Department has asked for is in line with its requirements. However, no direct account is taken in the submission of the positive synergy between a tramway upgrade and the development of key sites in the regeneration area. I would argue, therefore, that the economic benefits of the scheme as outlined have been substantially underestimated. In my view, that strengthens the case for it.
The devil is always in the detail of such projects, as we know, but I would argue that Lancashire county council and Blackpool between them have produced sufficient detail to satisfy the most demanding transport anorak. Let me cite some of what has been achieved. The revised bid, which was submitted in July 2005, reduced the capital cost by a third. It reduced the Government's contribution to £72 million over three years from 2006–07. It also produced a benefit-cost ratio of 1.59:1, to which I have already referred. Blackpool has cut costs by reducing the number of stops from 61 to 40, reducing the number of points and crossings from 147 to 54 and reducing the number of vehicles from 19 new and 20 refurbished ones to 16 new and 12 refurbished ones. All that was done in line with Department for Transport guidance and advice, and the consideration went right down to the type of coaches that would be commissioned if the bid went ahead.
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1043
The Minister must forgive me if he detects a slight note of frustration, as well as enthusiasm for the bid, in my voice, given the time over which the bid has been going on. We in Blackpool believe that we have done virtually everything that the Department has asked of us. The cost-benefit information shows that the bid is as robust and conservative as the driest economist might wish. However, even at this stage, if there are aspects of the bid that are not clear to departmental officials, the council and others in Blackpool stand ready to provide even more information.
We have tried to respond to what officials have asked for and produced a proposal that meets the Government's tight priorities. Other light rail schemes have been criticised because of runaway costs and over-optimistic forecasts. Our tram appraisal, as now submitted, is tight, informed and on the button.
I suggest to the Minister that the time for a decision is very close. I hope that with the examples that I have cited, I have underlined that I do not believe that the possible closure of elements of the track due to health and safety concerns is a question of exaggeration or bluff. I thus ask him to reflect on and respond to several specific questions.
Will the Minister tell me why there has been confusion among officials about the new submission? There is evidence that they did not realise that it was a new bid, rather than a resubmission. Will he tell me why issues around supporting information on capital costs were not raised until recently by Department for Transport officials as part of the KPMG assessment?
Does the Minister realise that because Blackpool's bid involves the upgrade of an existing system, the project would be much cheaper than a typical light rail scheme and be a low-risk project? The bid has much evidence on which to base costs and patronage figures. I understand that it will involve no costs or Transport and Works Act requirements for moving utilities or existing cables. Is the Department fully aware of the endorsement of the tram project by both the Northwest Development Agency and the North West regional assembly, and that they have placed it in the top quarter of priority of all the projects that need funding in the north-west regional transport plan, which is now with the Minister and his officials?
I know that in a tight fiscal climate, any Minister will always want to be satisfied about the detail. However, we in Blackpool ask that the bid is judged on fair and transparent criteria that apply to it, rather than to other bids for light rail schemes. We ask that the goalposts are not continually moved throughout the process.
For us in Blackpool and on the Fylde coast, the tramway—and its survival and renewal—is not tourism frippery or an end-of-the-pier show. The bid is a core funding proposal for something that is essential to the future functioning of public transport in Blackpool and on the Fylde coast, and that is the basis on which I ask the Minister to approve the scheme urgently. Although he will want to exercise throughout the process all the analytical powers that I know that he will bring to bear, I hope that he will not ignore the honourable place that history would afford him—along with George Formby and "Coronation Street"—as the man who gave new life to a treasured, iconic and very practical public transport
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1044
system and made it fit for purpose in a 21st century, regenerated Blackpool, rather than dooming it to curio status and possible closure.
5.20 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |