| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
21 Apr 2009 : Column 39WH—continued
That brings me to my main point. The regional funding allocations are simply inadequate. I was going to intervene on my friend the Member for Chorley and say, “Would you like to tell us all how much this list will cost?” Of course it costs a lot of money, but transport has been the Cinderella and this is the moment when we should be spending money on transport schemes—as the economy enters a recession, which we hope will not be a deep recession. When Ministers are telling us that we should be spending money to keep people in employment, doing the things that need to be done, why hesitate now?
My friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) talked about the Northwest Regional Development Agency. I have its principles and issues paper, which it released just a month or two ago, looking forward to the new regional strategy. On transport, it states that
“the quality of many local rail services and infrastructure is poor, so significant further development in the region’s light and heavy rail infrastructure would appear essential”—
not desirable but essential. The RDA should put its money where its mouth is. That is the point made by my friend the Member for Manchester, Central.
Of course that takes money. The Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) talked about the cost of walk-on fares from London to Manchester, Newcastle or wherever. It is scandalous how much people have to pay. We can fly the Atlantic more cheaply than we can walk on to a train in London and go to a destination in the north-west. However, we have to follow through the logic, which means more subsidy. We live, as I constantly remind people, in a big nasty capitalist world, where people are out to make profits. If they cannot make those profits, they withdraw the services. If we think that those services are desirable in their own right and fulfil a social function, somebody has to pay, which means subsidies. I do not balk at that. It is a good thing that people move from the road on to the railways. We should be spending more money on the railways.
In my own constituency, I have been banging on about this for as long as I can remember—we should reopen the old line from Colne to Skipton that was ripped up in 1970. The cost of reinstating that line on a single track would be about £35 million. That is de minimis when we hear about billions and trillions of pounds and about bail-outs. The Todmorden curve, which would allow people to travel from east Lancashire painlessly into Manchester, would cost about £5 million. Those are trivial sums. Through the years, I have read so many strategy reports and assessment reports—reports written by any number of organisations. I am fed up reading those reports; I want to see action on the ground. I am encouraged that the new Minister responsible for the railways, Lord Adonis, has agreed to meet me and a small delegation of people who want to see that railway reopened.
Let me finish on this point. In Lancashire, there are bids from seven organisations that want to see rail reopenings in the county. County councils and others are going through hoops unnecessarily to prioritise those schemes. What we should be doing is putting additional money into transport as a way of kick-starting the economy and rebuilding the infrastructure that needs to be replaced.
11.58 am
Mr. John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing what has been a very important debate on transport in the north-west. The title of the debate is fairly broad and has given a number of MPs from across the north-west an opportunity to have their say and raise objections or state views on transport in the north-west, whether that is suggesting the reopening of Coppull station or talking about discussions on Ribble Valley Rail, travel to school or even high-speed rail in Taiwan.
Having looked through Hansard to find out what the hon. Member for Chorley might want to talk about, I concluded that he wanted to raise the issue of free concessionary travel, given that he had asked a number of parliamentary questions on the issue and had suggested a topical debate on the possible extension of the scheme to include schoolchildren and students and widening the scheme to encompass trains. Fortunately, I bumped into the hon. Gentleman on the Floor of the House yesterday and was tipped off about the other issues that he wanted to discuss.
The hon. Gentleman started by talking about the concessionary travel scheme, and although hon. Members on both sides of the House would support the principle of extending it—whether to young people or to other forms of public transport—the harsh reality is that we have not yet managed fully to fund the existing scheme. The expected shortfall in a number of local authorities in the north-west ranges from as little as £70,000 in Allerdale to more than £1,380,000 in Preston. Other north-west local authorities also have funding gaps and have been short-changed. The figure in Blackpool, for instance, is £1.25 million, while in South Lakeland it is £95,000. In the hon. Gentleman’s own area, Chorley, the figure is more than £400,000.
Mr. Hoyle: I am sorry, but that is not true. The local authority loves to put that figure about, but it is not true. What we do have a problem with is money coming back. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that local authorities in Lancashire have divvied up the money. Some received more than they should have, and some received less, and we did not know how well it would be used. The figures that he gave are not correct, and he should have a rethink about that. It would be tragic if local authorities were allowed to cry foul when they do not have a case. Chorley has done very well over the years; in fact, it has had more money than it has spent. The fact that the other authorities are divvying up and sharing out the money is easing the pain for those that have suffered.
Mr. Leech: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarification. Obviously, I am going on the figures produced by the local authority. It is fair to say, however, that some local authorities are winners and some losers, and that has been replicated around the country. The Government have argued that the money available covers the scheme, but setting aside the fact that there are winners and losers, there is a shortfall of about £60 million across the country.
I have to say that that shortfall is in no small part due to the success of the scheme. We would all agree that it has been a massive success, and people have made use
of their free travel. However, estimates of how many extra journeys would be created and how much that would cost have perhaps been too low. I have no doubt that if we decided to extend the scheme to include other forms of public transport or schoolchildren and students, that would be equally successful and increase patronage.
The Government’s response, however, has been to draw back from the scheme. Hon. Members may not be aware of the change to the scheme that came into force on 1 April, banning the use of free bus passes on certain services unless local authorities foot the bill. That change, which was contained in a statutory instrument, was introduced without proper scrutiny or the opportunity to divide on it. The Liberal Democrats opposed the statutory instrument, and I hope that that will result in the matter being brought back to Parliament for discussion, because the change has meant that local bus services in some areas are no longer available free of charge to pensioners and disabled people. Although the statutory instrument is no doubt intended to exclude coach services, such services often provide the local bus service for pensioners. While I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, I suggest that we ensure that the scheme is fully funded and covers all local bus services before we talk about extending it to include rail.
Mr. Hoyle: Of course it should be properly funded, and some would argue that it has been. As I said, however, some people have got more money than they should have done, and it should be shared out. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of this, but the scheme should never have been operated by individual districts, which have negotiated with each transport operator in their area. The scheme should have gone to the county, which should then have provided the service and negotiated on behalf of the districts. That would have made sense. It is the fact that the districts wanted to make money out of the scheme that has created the biggest problem. What I should tell the hon. Gentleman, however, is that it is not right that there is a postcode transport lottery—people in London can use underground trains and the docklands light railway, but young people and pensioners in the north cannot use similar services. There should be no differentials between the benefits to the south and the benefits to the north. As local Members, we should all be on side, ensuring that we represent our people and that they have the same rights as people in London—and that should be paid for by the Government.
Mr. Leech: I would agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments, but the reality is that it is difficult to come up with a scheme that can be fully funded when the north-west loses out to the south-east on funding.
I want briefly to move on to the issue of rail. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a high-speed line to the north-west, and he will be aware that the Liberal Democrats were the first party to pledge support for a high-speed rail link to the north and beyond. The Conservatives, as usual, have limped in with a half-hearted promise late in the day, although I am pleased that the Labour party has now shown itself to be more in favour of high-speed rail than it has been. That is in no small part due to the new Minister for rail, who is showing a real commitment to rail, and I am happy to go on record with that.
My party’s programme for high-speed rail would begin immediately and would be rolled out over 15 years. A high-speed line is vital not only to free up capacity on existing routes, but to encourage more cars off the
roads and dissuade people from taking domestic flights, as well as helping to drive the north-west economy and bringing us as close to the south-east as necessary.
On top of that commitment, we would create a new future transport fund, which would more than double the Government’s planned investment for 2009-14, and provide an estimated additional £12 billion to improve rail services. We have already put together a list of potential rail improvements across the country that could be funded from the future transport fund. It is certainly not an exhaustive list, and there is plenty of opportunity for other small schemes to be included. One or two of the suggested options in the north-west include the electrification of the Wrexham-Bidston line and trans-Pennine routes, including Manchester, Liverpool via Chat Moss, and Blackpool via Preston. We also propose to reopen lines such as the Penrith to Keswick and the Galashiels to Carlisle lines. We will also look at new lines—the Todmorden curve has been mentioned, and there is also the Burscough curve—and at introducing a number of new stations, which several hon. Members have mentioned.
Such initiatives are vital if we are to expand capacity and deal with the major problem of overcrowding on our railways. Tinkering with the timetables has resulted in positive improvements for some local services, but that is tinkering at the edges, and for all the winners that it creates, it also creates losers. The hon. Gentleman talked about train services not stopping at Adlington, and although timetable alterations along the Styal line in my constituency have resulted in service improvements for some passengers, others are now unable to get on a particular service at a particular train station, while those who want to go through Manchester have to change trains instead of being able to take a through train, as they did previously.
In its policy paper, my party has set out in great detail the benefits of high-speed rail and other rail improvements, but we have also indicated how we would pay for them. There would be a £30 surcharge on domestic flights—we have been very open about that—and a lorry road user charge. We would also get more money out of the train operating companies by offering longer franchises in return for better investment. Currently there is little incentive for train operating companies to invest for the future, as they are uncertain whether they will be running services in two or three years’ time.
Finally, in a debate on transport in the north-west, and because I represent a Manchester constituency, it would be wrong not to mention the referendum in Greater Manchester on congestion charging.
Mr. Evans: I am intrigued by the £30 tax. Would those flying via Heathrow or Gatwick in transit be eligible for that tax?
Mr. Leech: The £30 tax would be for all domestic flights, with the exception of lifeline flights, so if someone took a plane from Manchester to London and then got on another flight to somewhere else, that would clearly incur the charge.
Mr. Evans: Could I just point out—
Mr. Leech: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because I do not have much time left. [Interruption.]
Mr. Jim Hood (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
Mr. Leech: I do not wish to dwell on the rights and wrongs of the transport innovation bid, but the overwhelming rejection of the revenue-raising congestion charge to part-fund public transport improvements in Greater Manchester makes it increasingly unlikely that any local authority will press ahead with a different scheme, including congestion charging. It would be a brave local authority that was prepared to risk the political consequences of promoting a charging scheme, particularly at a time when people are struggling as a result of the economic downturn and businesses are facing an uncertain future.
That means that more than £1 billion could be left unspent and will probably find its way back to the Treasury. We believe that that money should be spent to improve transport now, on schemes that will either help to kick-start the local economy or promote greener and more sustainable transport. There are schemes in Greater Manchester that are ready to go now, and I am sure that there are other schemes across the country that local authorities would like to promote that could use that money, but it cannot be accessed because no one is prepared to put in a bid that includes congestion charging.
12.12 pm
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate, particularly following the contributions that have been made, including that from the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who ably introduced the debate and spoke with passion. I was intrigued by his innovative use of geography, as he somehow managed to put Chorley at the centre not only of Lancashire and the north-west, but of England, and probably, had we let him continue, the universe as well. There were some key points in his contribution that the Minister will need to focus on in his response, such as the possible extension of concessionary travel arrangements for pensioners.
It is true that the Government have set up a system whereby local authorities receive funding, and that has caused all sorts of inadequacies. The hon. Member for Chorley will recognise, despite his correction of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech), that the published figures in Lancashire show some big swings between local councils, and it is clear that that is happening in other parts of the country as well. The problem is about not only national underfunding, but council-to-council differentials.
Mr. Hoyle: By way of further clarification, we suggested that it should have gone to the county in the first place, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that countries should have operated such a scheme instead of all the local districts trying to negotiate. The other point is that some of them have spent money on subsidising bus routes, but the money was never intended to do that. It was intended to support the pensioners, but it has been used for other purposes, which is part of the reason why they have a deficit.
Stephen Hammond: That is undoubtedly true in other areas. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in other parts of the country, informal, county-wide schemes are already operating, as in Lincolnshire and Surrey, as the only way to make the scheme in any way viable countrywide. The Minister will have to address how the Government intend, in the short period left to them, to rectify the funding of the scheme, because not only is it nationally underfunded, but the differentials between councils are causing major problems. I listened with great care to the case made for extending the scheme to rail and to young people and will be interested to hear whether the Minister will commit to funding that extra cost today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) talked about the cost of rail, and he will be aware that those high roll-on fares are partly a direct result of the franchise system put in place by the Government. He also mentioned Ribble Valley Rail and Beeching, so it will be interesting to hear whether the Minister would like to do what the four previous Secretaries of State to whom I have written have failed to do, which is join us in a moratorium on building on old railway lines. Being one of Parliament’s most experienced air travellers, my hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the need to keep Manchester airport going.
I was intrigued by the comments on high-speed rail, on which there is now consensus across the political spectrum. I am not quite sure that I recognise the Liberal Democrats as being the first to make that commitment or where that claim came from, but it is absolutely clear that high-speed rail has a part to play and I wish to touch on that in more detail. I was intrigued by the contribution made by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh). I think that he said that he regarded the funding for Crossrail as a folly, and I wonder whether that is his party’s policy. I look forward to some official confirmation on that.
We had an amusing tract on socialist economics from the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and on the need for greater subsidy. I wonder whether the Minister will want to talk about greater subsidy today in the light of what is likely to happen tomorrow, when the Government will admit that we are in the longest recession since the second world war and that the budget deficit will rise to around 12 per cent. of gross domestic product. All the contributions have called for extra funding from the Government, so I wonder whether the Minister will talk about that. I looked at the numbers for funding for the north-west, compared with other regions—one of the interesting points that is often made is the comparison between the north-west and London. However, the Government will know that, according to the Department for Transport’s current plans for 2010-11, the north-west will receive rather more per head than London. Do the Government intend to continue with those plans or do they intend to give rather less to the north-west?
Tony Lloyd: There will be a general election next year, and the hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago, with a slight hint of hubris, that that will be the end of the Labour Government. Will a Conservative Government commit to maintaining those figures?
Stephen Hammond:
I am interested to know whether this Government will commit to those spending plans in the light of what we might hear tomorrow, and after that I will happily look at what plans might be available.
As I have said, it is highly likely that tomorrow we will see the budget deficit skyrocket to 12 per cent. of GDP. The Department is already looking to cut substantial amounts of money from its budget proposals, as we have seen from the permanent secretary’s comments to a group of suppliers, and I am asking the Minister to say whether he intends to keep to the Department’s published plans.
We have heard several comments on the clear importance of high-speed rail to the north and to the whole country. The case for high-speed rail was made by my party over two years ago, and we are delighted that Lord Adonis has joined that case, which will produce significant economic and environmental benefits for the north. Will the Minster commit the Government to extend the high-speed rail beyond Rugby, which is where the Secretary of State currently intends to close it?
I am aware that the Minister will need time to answer all the questions raised today, but will he answer two others about the railways in the north? First, the northern franchise is due to be relet in 2012-13. The current franchise was on let on the assumption of there being no growth. Is the Minister prepared to say that that was wrong, and that growth assumptions should now be made? Will he confirm the Government’s proposals on the carriages to be used under that renegotiated high-level output specification franchise? Will they be new, or will they be cascaded carriages?
The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) said that the routes in and around Manchester are the most overcrowded. Clearly, there are a number of plans for the Manchester hub; it is one of the key schemes for ensuring the continued growth of the economy of the north. Will the Minister update us today on what conversations he has had with his colleagues in other Ministries on progressing those plans? Will he confirm that Network Rail is pushing ahead with those plans, and that we will see them on the due date in June?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |