| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
21 Apr 2009 : Column 33WH—continued
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Manchester airport in passing. I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, so I shall conclude with this point. Manchester airport, which MPs in this Chamber all use or have used, is doing a good job, and there has been investment in it during the past 17 years. However, I am concerned about the number of airlines that are reducing and, indeed, withdrawing services from Manchester as a result of the recession. They are pointing to Heathrow and Gatwick and telling our constituents that they can go to London and fly from there to wherever their onward destination happens to be.
Being good environmentalists—certainly all of us in Westminster Hall today are good environmentalists—I would have thought that we would want to ensure that our constituents, millions of whom use Manchester airport from a catchment area stretching from north Wales right across to Leeds, are able to look at Manchester as a point that they can go to, then fly direct to their destination, whether that is the USA, the far east or Australia. It is wholly wrong to expect those people to get into cars and drive all the way down to Heathrow or Gatwick. Indeed, a lot of the people who use the shuttles between Manchester and London are doing so to get on another plane to fly to their final destination. We should not just put all our eggs in one basket, seeing Heathrow or Gatwick as hubs, or seeing both of them as semi-hubs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jim Fitzpatrick): I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that these decisions are commercial decisions for airlines. If a route is sustainable, obviously the airlines will provide it. Indeed, Manchester has some excellent international routes, although perhaps not enough for his constituents.
Mr. Evans:
I agree absolutely with the Minister that we cannot chain airlines to Manchester and say that
they have to fly from there. However, we need to look at the reasons, commercial and otherwise, why they have decided to reduce the routes. Clearly, the recession is going to be part of that. However, it may be because of other reasons, such as landing costs, including the differential costs between one airport and another, or because having a base in a regional airport is very expensive for airlines to maintain some of their aircraft. Whatever the reasons, if we can have a look at them, so that we can perhaps make a difference by encouraging airlines to change their decisions and increase their capacity at regional airports, that would be good. We cannot keep pressing everything into Heathrow and Gatwick, which are already operating at congestion levels. It is quite unpleasant to travel through some of these major airports at the moment.
Mr. Leech: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the decision by the Government to extend capacity at Heathrow by offering a third runway does not help when regional airports are trying to compete with London airports?
Mr. Evans: As I say, I think that Manchester could be a huge safety valve for airports such as Gatwick and Heathrow. Let us not try to drag ourselves back to the 14th century and think that people are going to stop flying, because that is not going to happen. These days, young people want to travel the world and I do not think that we, as politicians, have a right to turn to them and say that they cannot do that. I always enjoy Al Gore’s statement telling us not to fly, as he himself flies around the world.
Instead, we must look at the most environmentally friendly ways of flying and at the more efficient, leaner aircraft that are less polluting. Those aircraft include larger models, such as the A380. I was there with the Minister when we saw the Singapore Airlines A380 come to Heathrow. It is a fantastic aircraft, which allows more people to be transported on a single flight so that, proportionately, there is less damage to the environment.
Let us look at ways of ensuring that Manchester acts as that safety valve. We cannot close down Heathrow or Gatwick, which compete with Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt airports, where huge sums of money have been invested. Furthermore, I will not let anyone tell me that transit passengers are useless and do not spend money. One has only to go Dubai airport to see the huge sums of money that transit passengers are spending there, which creates the jobs in that airport for the people who live locally. Let us not be blind to that.
We have to use common sense to find ways of ensuring that capacity is built in our regional airports, so that the problems to which the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) has alluded, about the investment that may now be needed in Heathrow, do not worsen and so that such investment may not need to be made. If we can reduce the number of people who are transiting and going through Heathrow, that will at least give Heathrow more of a breathing space before we can decide exactly how it will develop in the future.
Speaking as a Welsh boy—specifically a Swansea boy—doing missionary work in the north-west, the north-west is important. The Minister knows the area well, because he comes to my constituency where we have friends in common—not common friends, but
friends in common—so he knows how beautiful the north-west is. The tourism potential for the north-west is absolutely amazing.
Blackpool has been mentioned time and time again. Regarding Blackpool, the one thing that I regret is that none of us now holds our party conferences there, which is a great shame, because it clearly hits the local economy. If only the right, common-sense decision had been made regarding the casino in Blackpool—there are airport facilities there—we might have been able to make some progress and achieve even more regeneration. To ensure that jobs still come into the north-west, that it is a centre for BAE Systems and all the aerospace and technological skills that are there, and that we see further expansion in future, we must ensure that we get the transport right.
11.35 am
Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): I, too, want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing this debate, because every aspect of transport is, of course, fundamental to the success of the regional economy. The debate is particularly welcome at this time in the economic cycle.
I want to start by picking up where the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) just left off, by discussing Manchester airport. I say gently to my hon. Friend the Minister, “Please, let us get beyond this idea that market forces will decide everything about a national airport strategy”. Of course the market has an important role; nobody can dragoon the private airlines to Manchester or to anywhere else. Increasingly, however, the choice for people in the north of England is not going to be to interline through Heathrow and the overcrowded London airport system; it will be to interline through Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt or Schipol airports, unless there is an adequate system through Manchester.
I do not make this charge against my hon. Friend the Minister personally, but one of the criticisms of the Department for Transport’s planning over many years has been that national air policy has always been seen as being synonymous with British Airways as an airline and with BAA in terms of airports. In the world that we live in now, that view is fundamentally misguided. We need an airports policy that looks at the needs of other parts of the country.
The economy in the north is bigger than that of many European countries. Furthermore, the airport in Manchester is, I believe, the eighth biggest in Europe and much bigger than those in many national capitals. Manchester airport is a precious asset for the development of the regional economy. So there is an issue for the Government that goes way beyond the simple decisions made by an individual airline. I hope that that point can be established, because we need to see the development not just of Manchester airport but of other airports in the north-west; I accept the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley made: the north-west has another airport in Liverpool, which has become increasingly important in recent years, and, to a lesser extent, another airport in Blackpool. Development of Manchester airport is fundamentally important to provide real travel opportunities for the people and businesses of the north-west and the greater north, and I hope that that point can be taken on board.
I want to spend a few moments talking about the railway system. First, I want to endorse very strongly the impassioned case that my hon. Friend made about the need for the high-speed rail link and his plea for that link to be seen not simply as residual as it snakes its way up from the south-east. It is really important that a high-speed rail link is a national rail link, with ownership by all parts of that system. Obviously, from the point of view of the north and particularly the north-west—the biggest concentration of the population in the north lies in the belt coming through the north-west—that view is, as they say nowadays, a “no-brainer”. We hope that, even in the mechanics of transport planning, it is also seen as a no-brainer, so that we can see positive steps forward on this issue. I know that the Secretary of State for Transport is very forward in his own thinking on this issue and it matters that we have impetus from that political level. However, we need to see something tangible coming out of this debate. Otherwise, the high-speed rail link will simply be one of those transport projects that our grandchildren’s grandchildren will read documents about and wonder where it ever went to. It is important that we see something happening here and now.
Even if that high-speed rail link is established, it is important that we recognise that our existing northern rail system is inadequate. I think that it is now an accepted fact that the most crowded part of the railway system is not around London, although Londoners would never believe that to be the case, but in the run-in to Manchester. I do not say that simply as a Member of Parliament for the centre of Manchester, because this issue does not directly affect my constituents. However, it affects the ability of people from all over the north to access Manchester as the centre of the northern economy. That matters to the north’s economic progress and development, and it is vital to have some recognition of that with the necessary investment in rolling stock and the existing infrastructure.
I shall couple that with a brief aside. Network Rail inevitably comes in for criticism, and that is right because it is difficult to say that its forward planning and stewarding of work in progress have been spectacularly good. On almost every bank holiday, the railway system falls into a state of chaos, particularly in the north-west and for people travelling from there to London. It is astonishing that Network Rail pays itself large bonuses for what it believes is success but most people believe is an indifferent performance.
Having got that off my chest, I return to the importance of the planning structures and to the need to unblock points of congestion in the northern railway system. We need our railways every bit as much as those who live in the south-east. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley was complimentary about the regional development agency and I do not want to be hostile to it, but the Minister may want to reflect—this is not a criticism of his Department—on how the RDA prioritises transport. Our RDA, unlike, for example, Yorkshire Forward, does not believe that its role is to intervene directly in transport investment. Yorkshire Forward has invested directly in rolling stock to produce a 6 per cent. increase in passenger capacity on the most congested routes. That was an important step, but Bryan Gray, chair of the Northwest Regional Development Agency, has put on record its reason for rejecting a proposal from Greater Manchester for direct investment in necessary rolling stock. He said:
“I am afraid that the Agency is unable to assist directly in purchasing rolling stock. The Agency’s Board have considered our priorities and in relation to transport infrastructure they have resolved that the Agency’s role should be restricted to influencing and shaping policy, rather than financial support.”
That is not good enough because the RDA should be part of the process of recognising what strategic investment is necessary to improve the functioning of the regional economy, and transport is part of that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will engage with his colleagues in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and elsewhere to exert a little judicious pressure in that direction.
I want to emphasise the importance of the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley. The north-west has an inadequate but not hopeless transport infrastructure and it is easy to see the capacity for a significant leap forward. The Government have made a big difference, and they have invested in big changes in, for example, road and rail infrastructure. The number of people using rail passenger and freight services has increased enormously in recent years, and that is welcome. We now need a qualitative leap forward to transform the northern transport system from being barely adequate to being fit for purpose for the travelling public and the economy of the area in which we live. That is achievable, and I hope that the Minister will hear the plea from my hon. Friend and other hon. Members in the Chamber, where there is no party political divide on the matter, but a seriousness of purpose in wanting the improvements that can be achieved.
11.44 am
Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing this debate. A bit of a theme, or even a campaign, is developing.
Over Easter, I sat in my back garden in Southport putting on suntan lotion and complaining about the heat while people in the south shivered under grey skies, belying the myth peddled by generations of BBC weathermen that the weather is grim up north. Another, economic myth is that the future of the UK lies almost entirely in the City and that the finance and banking sector is somewhere in London. The Labour Government have hitherto been spellbound by and prisoner to that myth, and presumed that wealth does not come from the north because that happened only long ago in the 19th century. We talk about economic development in the south and London, but about economic regeneration in the north.
That was crystallised in a recent think tank report when a young gentleman, presumably from the south, suggested that the future for Liverpudlians was to get out of Liverpool and to move down south if they wanted employment and prospects. That myth is looking substantially less convincing now. It promised London and the south-east an unsustainable future because housing, transport and infrastructure pressures could be met only by turning the leafy south into a concrete jungle, which people in the south are prone to complain about. However, there has been a clear legacy in transport planning. Hon. Members have talked about expansion at Heathrow rather than regional airports, but no one mentioned the £5 billion commitment to Crossrail, which looks like being the great folly of the 21st century,
or the billions of pounds of infrastructure spend that has been allocated to the south and the south-east, particularly the London area.
I have complained about the Department for Transport’s colonial mindset, which is that all roads and certainly all railways should lead to London. Such an approach must be contested. It is still the case that if Tilbury wants a road, it gets it, but if Hull or Liverpool want something, they do not get it as quickly or on the same scale. Thameslink needs new carriages, and it will get them because it has been promised them with a secure allotment. That is hard luck for passengers of Northern Rail, which is the country’s biggest franchise.
Turning to funding levels, I have heard a good analysis in this Chamber by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer). They differ massively if we consider everything in the round—the Minister may not want me to say that—when compared with funding for places such as Scotland and Wales under the Barnett formula. There does not seem to be a good reason for bridges in the north-west to receive less funding and support than those in Scotland. The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) is not now in his place, but I am sure that he would say “Hear, hear” if he were.
My point is not that that is unfair—life is not fair—but that it is no longer wise. Genuine, sustainable economic development in the north can be triggered by good transport infrastructure, whether through investment in road, rail or sea. Hull and Liverpool are hugely successful ports. With the right infrastructure, manufacturing in the north-west can compete worldwide. The tourist offer has been alluded to, and that could be uprated substantially with better communication. Light industry is prospering in many areas of the north-west. However, what we need locally in the north even more than fair funding is better judgment. So much of what has been attempted there has gone under the banner of regeneration rather than genuine economic development. It is seen in terms of sending out a lifeboat rather than backing winners.
Money for projects in the north-west has not always been as well spent as I would wish. An example from some years ago is the M58, which is the emptiest motorway in the UK, or at least in England. It was built in the expectation that linking Skelmersdale to the M6 would keep many unskilled people in work, but that did not work. Part of the reason why progress was not made on the Liverpool tram scheme and why there was not wholesale agreement across all local authorities, and so with the Government, was that to some extent the project was based on pious hopes rather than sure political and economic conviction. It was thought that running a tram line through highly deprived wards would encourage economic regeneration even though it paralleled an existing train line. Had the better alternative, which was to plan the tram line down to the airport, been chosen, there would have been a very sound economic case and vocal support throughout the region for that. What was proposed might have made some political sense, but it did not make the same economic sense as some of the alternatives on the table.
My fundamental point is that there are real winners in the north-west, but they need to be supported in the same emphatic way as they would be were they in the south or certainly in London. Merseyrail is a good
example. That is a fantastically successful rail network at the moment, run by Serco and NedRailways. It needs help to expand. We could talk about the Burscough curves and the Halton curves, but we cannot question the fact that although they are awfully good at running a railway and awfully successful in economic and social terms, they need help to remodel Central station. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson) mentioned his local station, but Central station is a disaster area in Liverpool. It is an appalling communication network to have at the heart of a very good system. We need to get Network Rail properly engaged. Justifiable criticism has been made of Network Rail so far.
Exactly the same set of considerations applies in Manchester. There are things there that are working, and are economically beneficial and wholly desirable, but they do not receive the financial and strategic support that they ought to. We need to sort out the bottleneck in Manchester. I am talking about trains going through Manchester for the benefit of the whole north-west. We need to develop the tram where it is shown to be successful. We need to develop better links with central Lancashire, which is often left out. We need to link up Preston, Manchester and Liverpool in the way suggested.
In the north-west, we do not have a wish list of things that it would be nice to do—it would be lovely if we could turn the clock back to pre-Beeching days. We have a to-do list—a list of projects that require proper funding and need to be strategically planned and supported. Above all, we need to rethink how the funding is going and we need to prioritise the north-west as we prioritise London, the south-east, Wales and Scotland. However, I have the horrid feeling that given the current state of the public finances, the party and the Government who have relied so much and for so long on their north-west MPs to maintain their grip on power have to some extent, to use a transport metaphor, missed the boat.
11.52 am
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): I did not come to the Chamber intending to speak, but the previous contribution has brought me to my feet. I am a great supporter of the high-speed rail lines that my friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) mentioned. In November 2007, I happened to be in Taiwan with my friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson), who is sitting beside me, and we travelled on the high-speed rail link from the south of the island to the north. As you know, Mr. Hood, Taiwan is a small island; it is about 200 miles from north to south. We were able to travel that distance in next to no time. As a consequence, all commercial flying within the island of Taiwan has stopped. If we had a high-speed rail line from London up to the north-west and a second one to the north-east, that would dramatically reduce the incidence of domestic flying in the UK, which would be a good thing.
The Government were dragging their feet over this whole issue until the current Secretary of State took office. He has made some encouraging noises, but I want more than that. Rather than just uttering warm words and embracing the concept because it sounds green and like something that the environmentalists would embrace, let us just do it.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |