| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
21 Apr 2009 : Column 26WH—continued
We are talking about an economy of £111 billion, which is the 12th-largest in Europe. The north-west has a population of nearly 7 million people and 230,000 successful businesses. North-west England truly operates on an international scale. It has two major airports, as well as Blackpool, so how on earth can we not now be planning a high-speed link into the north-west to serve the three cities? We are, without doubt, the powerhouse and the generator of the economy. People want to talk about the midlands, and there is nothing wrong with the midlands, but the high-speed link should not be diverting
off there first—it should be coming straight to the north-west. We should be building from either end—from the north and the south—and meeting in the middle. That would eventually link in Birmingham as well. This is about linking the region, and we cannot afford to underestimate the value of that high-speed link coming into the north-west. We should not put England’s second city down.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making a good and important case about the high-speed rail link. Does he agree that it makes even more sense if we ensure that there are adequate rail links from Manchester into cities such as Liverpool and Preston, as well as to places such as Leeds across the Pennines? That would give us the proper integration of the northern economy with the transport infrastructure that we do not have at the moment.
Mr. Hoyle: I totally agree; my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We know that Manchester is the second city and that the north-west region is the powerhouse, but we cannot forget about the other side of the Pennines, as much as Lancastrians might wish to, because this is also about the north, and we need those east-west links. This is about having better access, whether by motorway or train. The high-speed link can bring the benefits of linking through to the south, as can a hub around Manchester that diverts across to Leeds. This is about linking the three cities of Liverpool, Preston and Manchester, and ensuring that we have other important links, but not forgetting the north as a whole.
Whatever way we look at this issue, the north-south divide still exists, as my hon. Friend knows, and we have to stand up for the north and make sure that it gets the investment that it rightfully deserves. I know that the Minister will take that on board, because, as a missionary who went from the north to the south, he recognises that we in the north have to stand up for ourselves, because no one is going to do it for us.
The high-speed link is important to our future, but we need to back it up by widening the M6, which is absolutely critical. It has four lanes around Preston, but then it suddenly goes down to three, and then goes up to four again at Warrington. There is a gap in the middle that should never have been allowed, because we need to keep the traffic flowing and the economy moving. Being in queued traffic is a great cost to business.
Mr. John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that widening sections of motorways around the country has just led to more cars on those motorways?
Mr. Hoyle: No, I totally disagree because what we have got is a bottleneck. That situation is silly, is it not? If there were three lanes all the way, there would be an argument against widening, but when two four-lane sections have been widened and there is a three-lane bit in the middle, that does environmental damage. There is also a cost to business. We ought to stand by the people trying to get to work in the north-west. It is nonsense to go from four to three lanes, and then back to four. That transport problem should be looked at.
I recognise that we do not want to encourage cars, but I want to give people the choice. We want a good public transport infrastructure in the north-west. We want to have the high-speed links and to give people a real choice about how they travel. Of course, people want to be anti-car, but I recognise that people need cars. However, I also recognise the needs of business. I do not like trucks moving goods along the motorway and want to see more goods moved by freight, but I recognise that we must ease the problems where they occur.
Mr. Evans: I agree with the hon. Gentleman: something clearly needs to be done about the M6. A lot of business traffic travels on there. No matter what time in the morning it is—for example, some of us travel back in the early hours, perhaps 1 am or 2 am—we see heavy vehicles using that motorway. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one thing that has helped on the M6 is the toll road? At £4.50 a time, it is expensive, but it has made sure—
Mr. Evans: It is £4.70 now, is it? It is probably £4.90 by now—the cost has gone up while I am talking. That is an example of inflation.
Does the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) agree that the toll road has, at least, taken some of the traffic off the old M6 and allowed people to pay a premium and get through the bottlenecks?
Mr. Hoyle: I cannot disagree with that. The toll road has eased the traffic problems around Birmingham. At one time people could not move. They could not guarantee how long a journey would be. When coming from the north, a journey could be anything from four to seven hours, depending on how bad the traffic around Birmingham was. Of course, we have seen the benefits of the toll road. We must remember that this country’s economy and business matter, and we have got to support business wherever we can.
We have mentioned the M6, the importance of the high-speed link and what the benefits are, but I now want to talk about a more parochial matter. We talked about ensuring that we have free regional travel for pensioners by providing free rail travel. To back that up, I would like to see more railway stations. We have the silly situation whereby a big chunk of money was given to the local authority to build a new railway station at Buckshaw Village near Euxton. Unfortunately, the money was not enough—it was part of a 106 agreement—and there is now a differential between the cost of building the station and the original estimate. We have a shortfall of between £2 million and £3 million in the funding to build the railway station. Yet, the money sits in the bank, and the railway station is not there.
The problem faced by me and the local authority is that we could not get the train operators to stop at a new railway station. We eventually met the train operators and got both operators to agree to use the station. That was a great success and we thought that we had ticked all the boxes only to find that Network Rail’s price was way above the 106 agreement money. The railway line closed for six weeks because of the flying arches at Chorley, during which time they could have built the
railway station, but instead of building the station when the lines were closed, nothing happened and we are back in the situation in which we have to chase money.
I think that BAE Systems has a responsibility because it has made a huge amount of money out of the redevelopment of that brownfield site. It is probably the biggest redevelopment in Europe—we are talking about almost 1,000 acres for housing and businesses. Of course, as part of that, we expect an integrated transport system to be provided, and for the village to be sustainable, and rightly so. However, we have not had the railway station that we should have had. It should have been built and opened by now, and I look to the Minister to see what help he can give. We know that the local authority has bid for some money under the community investment fund programme. I am fully supportive of that, and I will do anything I can to ensure that it goes ahead, but there might be another way in which we can get the money. Will the Minister use his good offices in relation to that?
Network Rail has suggested that it will put money in as long as somebody underwrites it until we can get the rest of the 106 money. BAE Systems rightly wants to develop another couple of hundred acres and that will provide the shortfall money. However, we need somebody to underwrite the money in the meantime so that we can get this railway station up and running. The station will not only benefit the people who live in the new village, but will provide a park-and-ride facility for surrounding communities. Will the Minister consider that matter because it is important that we can move ahead with it?
The Northwest Regional Development Agency has also offered to help. In fact, it phoned me yesterday and said that it is fully behind my plans and that it backs the station, too. I want to thank Steve Broomhead from the RDA. That organisation might sometimes be unpopular with people, but it has been very helpful and, during this economic crisis, it has been supporting jobs in the north-west.
Mr. Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con): I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman says about trying to find new opportunities whereby rail travel can benefit more of our community. However, before we consider building new stations, do we not also need to look at the state of current stations? That is particularly the case for those stations in the north-west that are at the pinch-point and are major category A stations, such as Crewe, which has lost out in the latest funding review by the Office of Rail Regulation. The funding that Network Rail wants will not be in place to ensure that Crewe station, which should be the gateway to the north-west, is in the state and category that it should be.
Mr. Hoyle: I do not disagree with that. We should always ensure that we are modernising and keeping our train stations up to the standards that people expect. If we want people to use public transport, we have to provide quality transport and railway stations. Of course, that does not take anything away from a railway station that has been provided by 106 money. We cannot build about 4,000 to 5,000 houses, put a load of businesses on a development and not provide the transport infrastructure. That is why we need the Buckshaw Village station.
I shall now turn to a village lower down the main line. A station called Coppull used to exist, but was unfortunately closed. Coppull is a mining village with a population of 6,000. It has been campaigning heavily for a new railway station that would connect the village to Wigan down the line and up to Preston the other way. Coppull station is crucial, and I say to the Minister that it is one of the top priorities for Lancashire county council. Rumours have been put out in the local media in relation to that, and I am pleased to see the Lancashire Evening Post is scribbling hard as we speak. An article in the Lancashire Evening Poststated that that station could not reopen because of the high-speed link. I do not see why that is the case because if the logic is that local stations cannot exist with a high-speed link and Coppull cannot be reopened, we would have to close all the other stations. Will the Minister clarify that matter and consider what support he can give to that railway station?
I shall now mention a very parochial matter: the train service at Adlington, which is in my constituency and is the village in which I live. We are talking about getting people back on to trains, which makes sense. The problem on the Blackpool to Manchester line is that when the train gets to Adlington there are very few seats, and by the time it gets to Bolton it is full. The logical decision is to put more trains on and have extra carriages. That seems logical—we know how to deal with the problem where there is great capacity and a great need for trains. What does Network Rail do? It stops trains calling at Adlington. That is the way that Network Rail has decided to get around the problem. That is absolutely silly. It has taken away the number of trains that stop there to try to create some extra carriage capacity lower down the line. That is ridiculous.
Who did Network Rail talk to? Did it talk to the people who get on the train at Adlington? Did it talk to the residents of Adlington? No. It talked to Greater Manchester passenger transport, which is not in Lancashire. Adlington is in Lancashire. Network Rail has not even talked to the right county and it then says to us, “We have consulted.” That is absolutely diabolical and ridiculous, and it tells us that Network Rail and the transport authorities need to get their act together and reconsider the matter. Instead of taking trains off, there should be better trains and more carriages. Will the Minister please consider reinstating the trains we have lost that go to Manchester and Preston? Adlington is a community village, and all we are doing is putting people back on to the roads. If the trains are not going to stop at the times when people need to go to work, what use are they?
I say to the Minister that that matter is an absolute disgrace and I hope that he will get Network Rail by the scuff of the neck, shake it strongly and get it to change its mind. I look forward to witnessing that sooner rather than later. What has happened means that people can no longer get to the airport without changing trains twice or get into Manchester without changing trains. It is a ridiculous position and I look forward to the Minister reconsidering the matter.
As I have said, the issue is about the three cities. We ought to be looking at the network that connects Preston, Manchester and Liverpool. Those three great cities create a triangle, and we ought to make sure that there is a rail network between them. Of course, lying in the middle is Chorley, which is central to those three cities. I
would have thought that it makes sense to rejoin those cities by rail, making sure that we have quick rail links or even a light tram system. Of course, Chorley would benefit from that, and it would rightly be the hub that served the three cities.
We should have a fast, light train system to connect the cities and help businesses to work better, and we should ensure that we have the right road infrastructure between those cities which, of course, benefit from two major airports—there is none better than Manchester, and Liverpool grows in stature each year. We must not forget the airport at Blackpool as well.
We have the bones of a great transport system in Manchester, but we need the Minister to look favourably on what I have been saying and to look into the problems. We are going forward, and we want people to use public transport. Let us give pensioners in the north-west free regional train travel, and students free bus travel in their area. Let us reopen and reinvest in railway stations, widen the road system and look to the benefits that I have mentioned. I am sure that the Minister has taken all that on board, and we look forward to a favourable response and an early decision on some of those questions.
11.20 am
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on winning this debate. There are some debates in this Hall to which hardly anyone turns up, so the good representation of Members of Parliament from all over the north-west shows the interest in this one.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned several areas on which I, too, would like to comment. Perhaps we could all work together on further campaigns, because one thing that we all do is travel around our constituency. We use the networks and know about existing problems. I am sure that the Minister would agree that one of the problems as far as the railways are concerned is the cost of taking the train, which we all know about. An open return from London to Manchester now costs £247. To travel last minute from Euston to Preston costs £69.40 off-peak, £128 in economy and £195 one-way in first class. There is something wrong with a system when it is more economical to fly a route than to take the train first-class.
I hope that we will try again to get some common sense in the pricing of rail travel, as something is amiss. The system is okay for business men who are able to claim back the cost, but what about ordinary people who need to travel on the train, particularly last-minute? Not only is there a confusing plethora of train fares, but some are extremely expensive. I hope that we can have a look at that.
I want to pay tribute to my local line, Ribble Valley Rail, and Peter Moore in particular, who has lobbied me for almost all of my 17 years as MP for the area, and to the dedication of the many volunteers who ensure that the train station is kept spick and span, and who have lobbied to ensure that services exist and that old railway stations are reopened. The dedication of the volunteers means that the service along that line is much better than it would otherwise be. In addition,
they propose an hourly service from Manchester Victoria to Carlisle, as they believe that there is a large demand for such a service.
The Secretary of State for Transport has been invited to Ribble Valley to meet representatives of Ribble Valley Rail and to go on a short journey on the line. I believe that he would enjoy it, because it is one of the most picturesque train journeys that one could wish to do, and that he would be seduced by the enthusiasm of the volunteers and those who support local railway lines.
Beeching did enormous damage in the 1960s, in the way he took out many railway lines, and I accept that some of them cannot be reintroduced because of building constraints. It is a great shame that people did not think long and hard about the unintended consequences of taking away so many local railway lines. Some areas are now more isolated than they otherwise would be, and pensioners—the hon. Member for Chorley is right to think about their transport needs—have lost out, as they do not have a local railway service. If a local bus service was not introduced to replace the rail service, they are even more isolated. They cannot all afford taxis.
Janet Anderson (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab): I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. The Rossendale valley in my constituency now has no train service at all, except for a heritage railway that operates only on weekends from a small station in Rawtenstall. I fully support what he says about Beeching.
Mr. Evans: Perhaps it is time for a review. I believe that that there is all-party consensus on seeing what we can do to invest money in new lines throughout the country and in looking again at some of the lines that were taken out. If they have not been built on, we could start to link up villages with larger towns, which clearly would be useful.
I hope that the Minister will look again at rural bus services, too. There have been loads of rural bus service initiatives in the past 17 years. Yes, the Government announce £500 million here and £300 million there for local authorities to invest, but the services are depleted drip by drip, and, in the end, some villages have no service at all.
Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Money comes in and a bus service is provided, but as soon as the money runs out, the bus operators cut the service. Instead of building up the number of people who use it, all they do is look for a grant and get out as soon as the money is gone. I agree that we ought to ensure that bus companies sign up for longevity, not short-term gain.
Mr. Evans:
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Longevity is required, and predictability of service as well: it must not be the case that there is a bus in the morning, but the next one is late at night. Some people want to go to Clitheroe, for example, to do some shopping, then come out again in two hours’ time. They do not want to stay there for six hours, which makes things increasingly difficult for them. I hope that we will look at providing a network that would be a great boost to people who live in some of the smaller and more remote
villages. If we want such villages to carry on and exist in the future, we must ensure that there is a transport lifeblood for them.
The hon. Member for Chorley spoke about free buses for students, which leads me to something that really irritates me. Lancashire county council has this thing about youngsters travelling to the nearest school. As many hon. Members know, Clitheroe Royal grammar school is in my constituency. The parents of youngsters who pass the 11-plus and go to that school are clobbered if it is further away than the nearest school. They have to pay up to £600 a year for their youngster to use the bus to go to Clitheroe Royal. I would have thought that we wanted to encourage youngsters to excel in their academic studies. We should not penalise parents. If they have a couple of youngsters going to Clitheroe Royal grammar school, they have to pay more than £1,000 a year out of taxed income, which is not right.
The suggestion was made to go halfway and allow parents to pay only the difference between the nearest school and Clitheroe, but the council will not even do that. It wants the parents to pay the whole amount for their youngsters to travel to school. I hope that the Minister will ensure that the parents of youngsters who go to school are not penalised, and that he will look at what the hon. Member for Chorley said about opening up the rail and transport network and allowing students as well as pensioners to enjoy the facilities.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |