HC Deb 17 December 2002 vol 396 cc710-26 4.33 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)

With permission, I should like to make a statement on transport investment. Today, I am publishing a report on progress since April 2001 on the 10-year investment plan for transport.

The plan commits the Government to spending more than £180 billion of public and private investment over 10 years. It is an unprecedented commitment, which will provide stability and increasing spending in the long-term. Maintaining the investment year after year is essential to make up for decades of under-investment and neglect.

Over 10 years, that means public expenditure of more than £22 billion on strategic roads, £33 billion on the railways and £51 billion on local transport. The plan marks the first time that a Government have been willing to commit themselves to such a level of funding over a long period. The funding makes and will continue to make a genuine difference.

If we examine other countries' successes in transport, the common factor is sustained investment year after year, decade after decade. That is why we remain committed to updating and rolling forward the plan in 2004 to coincide with the next public expenditure review. It will take account of progress so far and the challenges that have to be met in the years to 2015 and beyond.

Such long-term commitment and planning is essential to rebuild and maintain the transport infrastructure that we need for continued growth and prosperity. The report sets out the achievements of the first 18 months since the plan came into effect. As I told the House last week, our objective is to improve Britain's rail and road network. We take a balanced approach with investment to tackle congestion, improve reliability and make journeys safer, and to do so in a way that is consistent with our wider social and environmental obligations. I shall set out some of the key points.

Last week, I announced major investment designed to tackle congestion and improve journey times. Schemes will range from major enhancements of some of our key strategic routes—for example, the M1 and M6—as well as bypasses and smaller schemes to tackle bottlenecks. We have also introduced measures to manage better existing roads, and I also announced further investment in local transport and rail.

As the report makes clear, the latest analysis shows that there was more traffic in 2000 than had been thought. That, coupled with the fact that economic growth over the next 10 years is projected to be higher than anticipated, means that the forecasts made two years ago almost certainly underestimated the congestion that we face. Without the investment in the 10-year plan, congestion would have continued to rise unchecked. The report shows that we will not only stem that growth, but deliver considerable reductions in the congestion that we would otherwise have seen.

To tackle congestion, it is necessary to tackle its causes, which is why we are spending more to deal with bottlenecks on the roads system and spending more on public transport. Measures to tackle congestion are beginning to make an impact. Bus use nationally has begun to grow after years of decline and stagnation, light rail use has grown by a third over the past two years and the number of rail passengers has increased by nearly a quarter since 1997. We clearly need to do more, but all that will be possible only because of the commitment to sustained investment year on year. I shall announce further measures next year.

The House will also wish to know that there has been a 15 per cent. reduction in deaths and serious accidents on roads. For children, there has been a 27 per cent. reduction, which is a tribute to all those who have done so much to improve road safety. On railways, public expenditure is estimated to be £33 billion compared with £29 billion 18 months ago. We are committed to sustaining that investment, as it is essential to improve both reliability and safety, but it is also essential that the industry get a grip of major projects.

The public rightly expect us to ensure that their money is well spent and that there is rigorous control of costs. Spending in the next few years will rise from £2.1 billion in 2001–02 to £4.3 billion in 2005–06, which means that, although there is £312 million less for the SRA over the coming three years than was forecast earlier this year, spending on rail is double that at the start of the plan.

That investment will deliver results only if costs in the industry are brought under control, which is why Richard Bowker, the Strategic Rail Authority chairman, is right to insist that the railway industry gets a proper grip on its costs—something that was conspicuously absent in the past. The report shows that the railways are carrying nearly a quarter more people than they were five years ago, but we will sustain that increase in use only if we can show that the service is better and, crucially, more reliable.

That needs more investment, but it also requires better management of the existing network, which is what the SRA is providing. The SRA is carrying out a review to ensure that the best use is being made of existing capacity, projects are more tightly managed and costs are driven down. As the report shows, significant public investment is going into the west coast main line, which will allow greater reliability, but only because the SRA and the industry showed their determination to exercise rigorous control of the project and its costs.

Progress is being made elsewhere, too: sustained investment year on year—over £1 billion-worth of new rolling stock has been introduced since April 2001 and a further 2,100 railway vehicles are on order; 90 per cent. of the first phase of the new channel tunnel rail link is complete, which is the first major new rail line for over 100 years; the installation of a new safety system, the train protection warning system, on about 70 per cent. of the track and about 90 per cent. of the passenger fleet; upgrading of the power supply for London commuter trains; and more maintenance, more renewals.

Investment yes, but, just as elsewhere, with investment must come reform. Every one of us knows that standards on our railways can be improved. The report shows that we are prepared to spend more, but, in return, the railway industry has to do far more to drive up standards and reliability. Our priority is to deliver a safe and reliable transport system that enables people and goods to move around the country as easily and efficiently as possible. The plan sets out the investment to achieve that over a 10-year period.

There are no quick fixes or easy solutions. Sustained investment is needed year on year and over many decades. We are committed to the long haul, and to the sustained investment and improvements in services that are essential to our continued economic and social prosperity.

Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale)

As ever, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for the fact that he is making a statement to the House at all. Yesterday, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said not once but twice that this would be a written, not an oral, statement. All hon. Members will welcome the Secretary of State's recognition that a fiasco of this magnitude required him to come to the House to face the music. Does he realise that, so bad is his predicament, some people may almost feel sorry for him? Does he accept that many will understand why he may have been reluctant to come here for his third statement of failure in as many weeks? Two weeks ago he made a statement after the courts threw out his airports consultation. Last week he made a statement on the need to reverse the Government's entire approach to road building. Today he makes a statement on the collapse of his rail policies. Is he as grateful as the nation that because of Christmas he cannot come here to make a statement next week, otherwise who knows what disasters he would have to admit to then?

Does the Secretary of State accept that he came here today not to praise the 10-year transport plan, but to bury it? Now that he has abandoned the congestion targets, scrapped the rail passenger target, done a complete U-turn on road building and admitted that many proposed rail infrastructure improvements will not happen, will he admit that the 10-year transport plan is so much of a corpse that Amanda Burton has been spotted preparing a post mortem?

The Secretary of State clearly has a sense of humour. He has produced a document entitled "Delivering Better Transport". My favourite corker line in it is: Overall, this report shows that we have made a good start". If this is the Secretary of State's interpretation of a good start, one shudders to think what a bad start would have been. Will he clarify what he said this morning on the "Today" programme, when he claimed that he was "getting a grip" on costs in the rail industry? Will he confirm that, as the Under-Secretary set out in a parliamentary answer, the SRA's budget for 2001–02 was set at £1.28 billion but had to be increased to £1.87 billion? Does he concede that in the current year it was set at £2.17 billion and has risen again to £2.37 billion? How is that '"getting a grip" on costs? Given that record, is the SRA best placed to lecture the rest of the industry on the need for cost control?

On page 41 of the document, it says: The structure of Network Rail is designed to ensure that … it is incentivised to … drive down costs. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as Network Rail's press office told the House of Commons Library today, the maintenance budget for the rail network has risen from £1.9 billion in 1999–2000 to £3.8 billion this year? Will he also confirm that that includes a rise of £1 billion in the 12 months since the Government took control of Railtrack, and that it has been accompanied by an increase, not a cut, in the number of trains delayed by track work? Who is to blame for this explosion of costs in a company that, in his phrase, is now in the public sector? How does a doubling of those massive sums represent a driving down of costs?

Does the Secretary of State accept that, because of the complete collapse of cost control at Network Rail, the SRA is now telling the train operating companies that they may have to cope with 20 per cent. less subsidy, which will mean higher fares and fewer trains? Will he answer the question that he dodged on the "Today" programme this morning? Does he stick by the target in the 10-year transport plan to increase rail passenger numbers by 50 per cent.? If he sticks by that target, how does he propose to deliver it?

Will the Secretary of State clarify his excuses for all these failures? In his document, he says that we must avoid the years of stop-go funding and shifting policies. Last year, the Government did not add one inch of tarmac to the national road network, and this year they have announced a huge increase in road building. What is that if not stop-go funding? There is no long-term policy consistency.

It is hinted in The Guardian today that the Secretary of State has said that the increase in congestion is because local authorities have not yet introduced congestion charging. Is he for or against congestion charging in London? He has dodged that question eight times on the radio, and he has three times refused to answer it in the House, so will he answer it today?

Does the Secretary of State endorse the comments of an off-the-record source in his Department, who told the BBC on Sunday that the Secretary of State blames the legacy of the Deputy Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) for the mess that he is in? Does that not come closest to the truth? Is the Secretary of State not just the fall guy, the loser at pass the parcel, the last one left in the room when the integrated transport policy disintegrated in his hands?

After five and half years of wasting time and money, after a list of broken promises and abandoned targets that has grown as long as a queue on the M6, and after yet another admission of complete and total failure today, will not the British public conclude that Labour has not got a clue about transport and is hopelessly, undeniably and uselessly incompetent?

Mr. Darling

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I can assure him that it is always a great pleasure to come to the House to debate with him. I look forward to it—indeed, at the weekend I was disappointed when at one point I thought that I might not be able to do so today. However, here we are, and as ever he has shown why it is such a pleasure for me to debate with him.

The first concession that the hon. Gentleman seemed to make was that, in his view, Mr. Jim Naughtie of Radio 4 is a better examiner of me than he is. That is evident, as he kept referring to all the things that I did or did not say to Mr. Naughtie. On the subject of the press, I noticed that the hon. Gentleman put out a press statement that makes one or two criticisms of what we are doing. It concludes by stating: It's time for a new approach. Does not that sum up his problem? He has promised us a new approach since the summer, but there are now less than seven days before Christmas and we have yet to get the Conservatives' new policies.

The other matters that he raised do perhaps merit a substantive reply. As I have said time and again, what the transport system needs—railways in particular, but roads as well—is a commitment by Governments to steady funding, year on year, decade by decade. The hon. Gentleman is critical of the current roads programme, but here I should give the previous Government some credit. Some of the roads that are being completed now were actually planned during the time of the previous Tory Government. However, it surely follows that one reason why fewer roads are being completed now is because of decisions that were taken 10 years ago, when, as a result of the economic crisis that the Tories ran into, they had a spot of bother with public spending. The point of the 10-year plan—[Interruption.] The Opposition cannot have it both ways. If they agree that some of the roads now being completed were planned under them, it follows that some of the roads not now being completed should have been authorised some years ago.

On the railways, again, we are dealing with something of a long-term problem. In complaining that we are spending too much on the railways, the hon. Gentleman expands on the Leader of the Opposition's firm promise that they are not going to match our spending on transport. So we must look forward to Tory cuts in their next manifesto. We have had to spend more on maintenance because after the Hatfield rail accident, it was manifestly obvious that the state of the railways was far worse than anybody in the industry—or, I suspect, in this House—ever realised.

That leads me to my second point. We do need to spend more on maintenance, and to spend money on making sure that we get a reliable train service, but as I said during Question Time, we must drive down costs. This is an industry that for many years did not have sufficient regard to the need for proper cost control. Many Members have rightly said, "Why are you giving more money to people who ask for more funds to renew their franchises? Why aren't you just saying no?" I understand that point, but I am saying through the SRA to the industry, "You need to get control of your costs and to drive up standards." I make no apology for the fact that we are spending more and telling the industry that it must get a proper grip on funding.

Finally, although the hon. Gentleman is entitled to make his criticisms if he can, he cannot get away from the fact that the fundamental problems—be it road congestion or train reliability and the need to maintain the track—require steady investment. For as long as the Tory policy is to spend less on the trains, they have limited credibility in this area.

Mr. Don Foster (Bath)

I, too, thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement, although hon. Members will rarely have heard one more unjustifiably complacent. Is not the 10-year transport plan in tatters? Does the Secretary of State accept that he has had as dismal a month as any experienced by rail commuters?

In the past month, we have learned that rail delays have doubled under Labour, and that cancellations are up by 50 per cent. Bus and rail fares have increased in real terms, while the cost of motoring has fallen. We have learned also that, under Labour, buses outside London are carrying fewer passengers, that the airport consultation paper was illegal and biased, that there has been improper accounting of Network Rail, and that the public-private partnership for London Underground no longer offers value for money. Moreover, we have learned that Labour's road congestion targets will not be met, that rail improvement projects are being shelved, that some rail services are being abandoned, and that passengers will be expected to pay even higher fares.

To cap it all, the Secretary of State has returned to the failed predict-and-provide approach to the road building programme. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) asked, how can the Secretary of State claim in today's report that the Government have made a "good start" to delivering the improvements envisaged in the 10-year plan? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only way to tackle rising road congestion is to provide an integrated public transport system that is safe, reliable and affordable? How can that be achieved by cutting rail services, increasing fares and reducing by £312 million the money going to the SRA? How can it be achieved by initiating—against the advice of the Government's own advisory bodies—a massive road building programme that contains not even a hint of road pricing? How can it be achieved when the Department for Transport does not even monitor all the aspects of its own plan?

Why is it only now that the Secretary of State has woken up to the massively escalating costs of rail improvements and maintenance? Even his predecessor acknowledged the problems created when there are too many contractors on the line.

The 10-year plan is unravelling, so does the Secretary of State accept that it was flawed from the start and that claims of available funding and anticipated outcomes were massively exaggerated? If this is to be yet another of the lines in the sand for transport so often promised by his predecessor, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that at least there will be no fiddled figures this time, that realistic targets will be set, and that he will work with others to find the imaginative and innovative solutions needed to produce the truly integrated transport system that this country needs and deserves?

Mr. Darling

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not send an advance copy of his statement to me, as he has clearly been preparing it for some time.

The hon. Gentleman raises a number of matters, but I have made it clear that the progress report merely details what has happened in the 18 months since the 10-year plan was put in place. It is an investment plan, and its essential element is the allocation of £180 billion of private and public money over a 10-year period. That money remains in place, and will be spent. Indeed, some £6 billion in the second half of the plan remains unallocated, and I shall allocate that in the coming period.

The money is there, and the hon. Gentleman's assertion that something has happened to change that is simply wrong. The money is there, and it is beginning to make a difference. There is no doubt that the scale of the task in relation to road congestion and the railways is far greater than many people believed when the plan was put in place, but that is something that we must face up to. People know from their day-to-day experience what the problems are, and it is no use politicians pretending that there are easy and simple solutions.

The hon. Gentleman implied that he would want to spend more on public transport, and I understand that that is the Liberal position. I tackled the hon. Gentleman last week about his party's new spending plans, but his fellow Liberals may not be aware that they contain five tests that must be met. One test is that the pledge has to be funded within current budgets, so the hon. Gentleman's party is not making any more money available. Another test that must be passed is whether any project could not be delivered better by the private sector. That goes rather further than any other major political party.

The hon. Gentleman says that his policy is to raise the cost of motoring, at the same time as complaining about it. I would love to see that being peddled around some rural constituencies as a Liberal policy.

Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

Does the word "abracadabra" come to mind?

Mr. Darling

Many words come into my mind in connection with the Liberals, but most of them are probably unparliamentary.

The key point is this. The 10-year plan set out an investment strategy, involving both public and private money, covering a far longer period than had ever been covered before. It is our job to make sure that we tackle the problems, which is why I announced the investment in roads last week. Incidentally, although the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) condemned it, three of his colleagues said that they wanted even more to be spent on the roads. We must also get to grips with the rail problems, but they are deep-seated. I have always said that we are in this for the long haul.

We need to gain control of costs, but I am confident that in time we can begin to change, and build a transport system that will underpin our continued economic success. We will not do that, however, without the continuing investment to which the Government are committed—unlike the Conservatives, who are committed to the opposite, and unlike the Liberals, who would never be able to fund all their aspirations despite the injunction now imposed on them.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

I congratulate the Secretary of State on the quality of the opposition that he has managed to arouse this afternoon. Few people, surely, could have such obtuse and unhelpful policies to offer as criticisms of his plans.

May I ask the Secretary of State a rather simpler question? As his Department knows, it is important to remember that if we manage to keep motoring costs constant we can affect congestion by 6 per cent. Given that public transport costs appear to be rising despite his best efforts, will he please accept that we must now start looking at the costs of motoring as well as railways?

Mr. Darling

I understand my hon. Friend's view, which she has expressed consistently for a long time, but we must consider not just the costs of motoring but the attractiveness, as well as the availability, of public transport. In too many parts of the country, it needs substantial improvement. I am thinking particularly of rural bus services. As for the railways, while there is no doubt that more money is going in and reliability and punctuality have improved over the past year, there is still a long way to go.

Our strategy is this. We need to invest in public transport—to spend more on supporting railways and buses—and also encourage local authorities to draw up proper plans for improving the environment of town and city centres, thus encouraging people to use public transport and leave their cars at home whenever that is possible. As I have said, however, it is also important for any transport strategy to be balanced and measured. There must be a balance between the private car and public transport, and that is the objective in our plan

Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden)

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Thameslink 2000 plan, announced with great fanfare in his predecessor's 10-year plan and delayed within 10 weeks because of environmental problems, has now—after 10 months—been deferred indefinitely owing to cost overruns? Can he also confirm that there will be fewer services on the lines taking my constituents to London? When will they see any improvement, rather than deterioration, while plans are constantly being delayed?

Mr. Darling

The environmental problems to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are planning problems. No Government and no railways can get around the fact that planning permission must be applied for.

As I have said a number of times in the House when I have been asked similar questions about Thameslink, we must bear it in mind that we are trying to build a railway rather than redeveloping parts of London. In the case of Thameslink, some people have seen an opportunity to do an awful lot of redevelopment along the way. That inflates costs, and while it may be desirable for development reasons it does not help us to build the railway.

I am anxious to get Thameslink extended. The right hon. Gentleman is right: it has been a major boon for London, opening links between north and south that existed to no real extent for a long time. Two things are necessary for the extension. We must secure the planning consent, which is being considered at the moment, and the project—like all rail projects—must be both affordable and deliverable. If those things can be achieved, Thameslink will significantly improve north-south links across London, and I for one would dearly like that to happen.

Linda Perham (Ilford, North)

May I ask my right hon. Friend about the prospects for the Crossrail project? It is extremely important that reliability and congestion for those who commute from my part of east London are improved. Will he assure me that the Government are committed to backing that project for the next 10 years?

Mr. Darling

It might help if I tell my hon. Friend and the House where we are on that. When I looked at the plans a couple of months ago, it was clear that we did not have something that was sufficiently worked up and deliverable to be able to cost it and draw up plans to put in place. I therefore asked the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London to come up with workable, affordable and deliverable plans by the end of February. That work is being done.

On the general point, there can be no doubt that, with what is happening in London now, and especially taking into account forecasts for the future, the need for an east-west rail link is important. The amount of development at Canary Wharf, the Thames gateway and other areas means that there will be significant transport pressures. Given the time it takes to deliver any major rail infrastructure project, the sooner we get on to producing such plans, the better. I must emphasise, not just today but no doubt for many weeks to come, that I make no bones about the fact that, unless we start to control costs and tell people that they cannot just think of a number and expect us to pay it, we will not see such projects. As it is, I very much hope that we can get something done because those two main crossings—Crossrail and Thameslink—are critical for the future of London for the next 50 years.

Alistair Burt (North-East Bedfordshire)

When the Government and their associated transport agencies can be so cavalier and treat so lightly their targets and commitments, why do they still require the county of Bedfordshire to build a substantial number of new houses over the next decade, thus adding to rail and road congestion?

Mr. Darling

On targets, as I said earlier, the scale of the congestion problem is far greater than people thought, but that does not mean that we do not tackle it. I am telling the House—I have been open about this for sometime—that because the scale of the problem is greater, it will take longer to achieve the targets. That does not mean, however, that we abandon the objective.

Sadly, I do not have ministerial responsibility for housing policy, but I know that there are pressures on transport links between Bedfordshire and London and other parts of the country. I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman take up the issue of housing with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

A paragraph of the helpfully produced statement refers to projects being "more tightly managed" and to costs being driven down. Having visited the RMT's quarterly conference in Perth earlier this year, I know that part of the difficulty is that there are fewer and fewer engineers who are capable of tight management. If, over the long term—this is a long-term matter—more rail engineers could be trained, that might solve part of the problem.

Mr. Darling

I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that, especially during the Railtrack period, a number of railway engineers simply left or used other aspects of their engineering skills and were not available to the railways. I suspect that the industry will pay a heavy price for that for some time to come. The former Secretary of State for Transport set up the rail academy to try to encourage the training of more engineers. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is imperative that we encourage people into this career. With the right management and the right controls, the railways have a good future and should offer a very good career for someone with engineering skills—either a young person or somebody who is currently working elsewhere. The Government will do all that we can to help the industry to attract such people, because that is its future.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham)

Will the Secretary of State look into a perversity of the punctuality target system? For example, if a train on the Waterloo to Reading service is running late, an announcement is made to passengers that the train will not to stop at up to seven intermediate stations so that it can get to Reading on time, which completely disrupts and messes up their journey. I am sure that that was not intended. Do we not need a different system so that everyone can arrive on time, rather than just the few people going to the terminus?

Mr. Darling

As part of the franchising agreement, the SRA is looking at some of the perverse incentives in the system. It has also announced that the south-west line will be the first in Britain whose management—the day-to-day operation—will be the same for both the track and the train operator. The right hon. Gentleman may recall that one of the by-products of privatisation is that the track is managed separately from the trains, and that we have ended up with the absurd situation in which a train operator could see a fire on the line but could do nothing about it without contacting the track operator. On the south-west line, the SRA is trying out a new system with one general manager. That will be much better because it will begin to tackle one of the fundamental flaws of privatisation—the belief that the track and the trains have no relationship to each other. In reality, they are intimately related, so unitary management will be much better.

Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central)

In focusing public money on congestion hotspots, will my right hon. Friend look carefully at the marginal cost of car usage versus the marginal cost of public transport usage, especially when evaluating the London congestion charging scheme? The scheme is expected to generate an operating profit of £121 million next year, which could be set against the cost of public transport systems in the capital.

Mr. Darling

It is clear that the money raised from congestion charging schemes in London or elsewhere must go back into transport improvements. In general, the Government are keen to ensure that public transport is improved, and the Croydon tram scheme is an example. A lot of money was put into the scheme and it is working well. On my hon. Friend's central point, if money is to be raised from motorists by congestion charging, it must go back into improving public transport.

Pete Wishart (North Tayside)

After the privatisation nightmare of the Conservative years, it is hard to believe that things could actually get worse on the railways, but somehow the Government have conspired to achieve just that. Will the Secretary of State explain how the reduction in subsidy and the expected higher fares will attract more people on to the railways? What does he say to the hard-pressed rail users of Scotland who have already been short-changed by the SRA and who now face a further deterioration in their service?

Mr. Darling

The hon. Gentleman is wrong: so far, the subsidy has not come down. Indeed, we have the opposite problem: many train operating companies are coming to us and asking for more and more money. On behalf of the Government and on behalf of people who pay taxes for such things, I have to say that we must be satisfied that the expenditure can be justified and that the companies need to take far tighter control of costs. In relation to the railways generally, it is worth bearing it in mind that, since 1997, they have carried about a quarter more passengers. Of course, there are problems in the system, which is why we need more investment. The hon. Gentleman represents a Scottish constituency, so he will know that, for example, the line to Inverness has been plagued by problems with landslips and so on. Many of the problems stem from successive underinvestment. That is why we are putting more money into the system, which the hon. Gentleman would be unable to do because of the policies espoused by his party.

Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

It is not the fault of the people of Sheffield that the bulk of their train services are provided by Virgin Cross Country, with its new trains and their lousy reliability, and Arriva Transpennine, which has pretty awful trains with even worse reliability. I am sure that the people of Sheffield would blame not my right hon. Friend's investment programme but the botched privatisation scheme of the previous Conservative Government. Will he urge the private companies to put things right, as they promised? They may deliver new services, yet Virgin's promised new half-hourly services regularly run up to an hour late on almost every route.

Mr. Darling

When the Virgin Cross Country service was introduced in September, it was generally welcomed because the quality of the rolling stock was a lot better; indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) commented on it. That is worth noting, but the problems arise from two sources. First, there have been problems with the reliability of the new trains. Although teething problems are inevitable to some extent—British Rail had them and, I suppose, anyone would have them—sorting them out has taken longer than might have been thought.

The second thing, which is a serious problem throughout the railway network, relates to capacity, particularly in the midlands, where Virgin Cross Country trains encounter other mainline services. That problem arises with a fragmented railway system, because, under the present rules, which are about to change, people can say, "I want to run more trains on the railways; I am entitled to do it," without any regard to the knock-on effect on other operators.

Those things are being sorted out by the SRA, but although I accept what my hon. Friend says about the need to improve reliability, which is critical if we are to get more people on to the trains, we need to look at the underlying problems, and they are being looked at. However, it is welcome that those behind the industry want to transform cross-country services, which were pretty lousy in the old BR days, into something better. The difficulty is that we have a wee bit further to go before we can reach that happy position.

Mr. George Osborne (Tatton)

After all the advance briefing and spin, the Secretary of State could not bring himself to say in the statement that the Government have abandoned the central target of cutting congestion. In its place, can he offer this prediction: will congestion be higher, lower or about the same in three years' time compared with today?

Mr. Darling

I would not have described the weekend's press as spin—not from my point of view, anyway. If that is the hon. Gentleman's idea of spin, I can understand why his party is in such difficulty at the moment. I have made no bones about the congestion target. It is hardly spin to tell "Newsnight" in an interview with Mr. Paxman that I did not think that we would hit the target. I was answering the question that was put to me. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) should have asked me that question in the House, but he did not. I do not know why.

I make no bones about the fact that, for the reasons that I have stated, I do not think that the congestion target will be reached in the expected time scale, but the amount of congestion would be spiralling out of control if we had not put such measures in place. Those measures will have a substantial impact on the growth that would otherwise have taken place, so I am being straightforward with hon. Members and the public. When Ministers realise that there is a problem in relation to such things, they should tell the House and the public generally because, frankly, what the public want to hear is not so much the recriminations about the whys and wherefores, but what we are doing to sort out the problem. Unlike the Conservative party, we have a plan, a programme and investment to sort it out.

Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test)

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today and particularly his confirmation that the transport plan involves substantial long-term investment. May I ask him whether he regularly assesses the transport plan's impact on climate change? In particular, does he consider that the review of the first 18 months of the plan that he has announced today will enhance the ability of UK transport to contribute to carbon dioxide emission reductions?

Mr. Darling

It is important that the transport plan, and everything that the Department for Transport does, has regard to our environmental obligations. That is one reason why the Department is keen to support and improve technology for cleaner cars and so on. We are keen to reduce congestion because there is no doubt that congestion leads to increased pollution. Again, one of the major objectives of the 10-year plan is to put more money into public transport because it consumes energy more efficiently. So my hon. Friend is right: the interests of the environment are clearly served by ensuring that we maintain the 10-year investment plan, which is what we intend to do.

Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth)

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what impact the proposals will have on the midland main line to Leicester and beyond, which has improved so much since privatisation? What impact will it have on the Leicester to Hinckley and Birmingham line? Does he not feel a deep sense of humiliation coming to the House this afternoon as a Labour Minister and presenting policies that reduce subsidies to railways, which his party has always gone on about as being so important? Is it not disingenuous to ignore the transport achievements that took place under Conservative Governments, such as the conception to completion of the M25 motorway system?

Mr. Darling

I would like to study the hon. Gentleman's question tomorrow, as I picked up only bits of it, and it seemed to range from the midland main line to the M25.

Mr. Tredinnick

What is wrong with that?

Mr. Darling

Nothing in principle; I just did not quite follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's question. The central point, I think, is that we need to maintain investment to improve the quality of services, and we will need to maintain investment in both road and rail. We do, however, need to control costs. If he asks me whether I have difficulties about controlling costs, my answer is no. Had the last Conservative Government had some regard to controlling costs, they might not have embarked on the privatisation of the railways in the way that they did. Without doubt, that contributed significantly to costs getting out of control in far too many cases.

Andrew Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

Does my right hon. Friend accept that part of the way in which we ought to measure the 10-year plan is by how far it reduces the need and the desire of people to travel? Part of that is making sure that people can live and work much closer together, and the other part must be enabling people to walk or cycle to work. What is happening to the money to be spent on making it more attractive for people to walk and cycle?

Mr. Darling

On the latter point, it is important that local authorities—mostly, they are responsible—pay particular attention to creating environments in which people feel safe when they want to walk or cycle to work. That is happening in a number of towns and cities, but more can be done. In relation to my hon. Friend's more substantive point, I understand the argument that we should try to locate people and their place of work closer together. During the 1970s and 1980s, many transport planners and town planners felt that that was possible. I am not sure whether I would adopt that as a major part of a transport solution. It is a fact of life that people are likely to move jobs more frequently, which means that, from time to time, they will probably have to travel further than otherwise.

I agree with my hon. Friend's first point, however, in relation to the attractiveness of public transport. I cite the west coast main line, which I know affects him and his constituents. There is no doubt that if, for example, we ask someone travelling from Manchester to London why they do not use public transport, we must be able to point to a reliable, frequent, clean, safe train service as an alternative. The west coast main line will go a long way to providing that, as will—given that we are in praise of Virgin—the new electric tilting trains, which will come into service next year. I understand that, yesterday, a train went to Manchester in just over two hours, which is a significant improvement on the current service. There will be improvements in years to come, but I do not shrink from the fact that we face a significant long haul to accomplish the changes that we all want.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal)

Order. I would hope that all hon. Members standing would be able to catch my eye. If we have short questions and answers, that might be possible.

Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)

What allowance has the Secretary of State made for potential cost overruns in his plans, as he will be aware that, yesterday, the cost of the public-private partnership contracts went up by £300 million?

Mr. Darling

The position is that we make provision for the likely costs. It would be a big mistake, however, to build into our budget provision for cost overruns, as that would be an open invitation to people at large to come and get us. That is certainly not our policy, although it may be the policy of the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle)

In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), my right hon. Friend said that the rail academy had been set up. The reality is that the project is stalled in the Strategic Rail Authority at present, and there is great concern that it will be downgraded and even abandoned. There is a massive skills shortage on the railway, and without that rail academy we will not meet the 10-year plan.

Mr. Darling

I have seen the letter that my hon. Friend wrote to me about this subject, and I am about to reply to him now. I told my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that it is planned to set up a rail academy, but it will not physically be situated in Carlisle or anywhere else. It will simply be a means by which we can enable more training to take place in different places up and down the country. It will not be like a university that is situated in one place. However, I plan to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) to set out the position fully.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)

I was interested in what my right hon. Friend said about the importance of building capacity. How many local transport plans contain proposals for reopening old lines or building new railways?

Mr. Darling

The answer is that a number of them do, but they are not always matched with the means of doing it.

Mr. Prentice

Is my right hon. Friend going to do something about it?

Mr. Darling

In some cases, there is an argument for reopening or building heavy rail, and we talked about Crossrail earlier. In other areas, heavy rail may not be the solution. For example, much of Manchester's light-rail metro runs across lines previously used by heavy rail. I would not sign up to the proposition that heavy rail is always the solution. However, when local authorities are considering that option, they need to come up with a proposal for paying for it and must ensure that the sums add up.

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North)

My right hon. Friend has rightly focused on costs and on the need to get a grip on them and force them down. It is instructive to compare the costs in BR days with those of today. Rail infrastructure costs have trebled in less than 10 years, and the cost of replacing a mile of railway line is now £1.5 million, compared with £350,000 under BR. The contracting culture and privatisation have caused the problem. Will he not accept that we must, in all practical terms, look to public ownership of the railways once more?

Mr. Darling

That would be one way of spending quite a lot of money. My hon. Friend's point about rail costs increasing is true, but it is over-simplistic to suggest that it is all due to the fact that contractors are used. We have to spend more to replace railways because an awful lot of them were built by our Victorian forefathers. They were maintained in the BR days, but are now coming up for wholesale replacement.

The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) has left the Chamber. He was briefly in the place occupied by the Scottish nationalists but has now been replaced by a Welsh nationalist. However, I told the hon. Gentleman that the structures on the highland line that were collapsing were built by the Victorians. The problem is that not enough money was spent on them over the years. Therefore, we now have to spend more per mile to replace them than we would have done if we were simply conducting routine maintenance or even renewals 30 or 40 years ago.

Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead)

Will my right hon. Friend accept that what has been said about buses—very little indeed—will not be that well received by average punters in what is laughingly called a bus shelter in Hemel Hempstead or Kings Langley? They often wait for an hour or more with absolutely no information about when, if ever, they will see a service. Much of the time, services are summarily withdrawn.

Will my right hon. Friend investigate the suggestion that we should have a strategic bus authority, which, among other things, would have as part of its brief the provision of information for bus passengers along the lines of the information that is currently available for London Transport passengers? People would then be enticed to use buses and would not have to put up with the current fiendishly awful system.

Mr. Darling

In my defence, I have not said much about buses because no one has asked me much about them. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, would no doubt have something to say if I volunteered lots of information without being asked for it.

On my hon. Friend's point about the particular problem in Hemel Hempstead, he has no doubt had a word with his local authority. Last week, in the local government settlement, I announced that significant sums were available. There is a lot more money for transport, but we look to local authorities for the provision of bus services.

On the point about a strategic bus authority, I am bound to say that my instinct is not to set up another bureaucracy. That can sometimes be a distraction from the main point, which is to ensure that we have better bus services.

Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside)

What assurances can my right hon. Friend give that improvements in passenger and freight services will assist the ongoing economic regeneration of Liverpool? May I also thank him for his decision to approve the tram line in Liverpool? That will certainly help.

Mr. Darling

On the last point, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I noticed that she thanked me before I announced that decision in the local press.

On passengers and freight, there is no doubt that the upgrading of the west coast main line, which is an essential part of the links to Liverpool, will mean that there is more capacity for both passengers and freight. My hon. Friend is the first to ask about freight. It is worth noting the 7 per cent. increase in the number of trains that carry freight, and that should be welcomed.

Mr. Andy Reed (Loughborough)

I am glad that my right hon. Friend mentioned the reduction in the number of road deaths. I am sure he would agree, however, that it is unacceptable that about 3,500 people are still killed on our roads every year. Will he ensure that part of the investment will be used to reduce the speed of motorists, especially in villages in my constituency? We also need increased investment to get a reliable bus service. People are transferring to their cars because bus services across the country are unreliable. Will he ensure that that and the investment in local transport plans lead to a greater reduction in the number of people killed on our roads every year?

Mr. Darling

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Although our roads are relatively safe compared with those in the rest of Europe, nine people will be killed on our roads today. When we discuss the safety of other modes of transport and when the measures taken by local authorities to discourage cars going at speed are criticised, it is worth bearing in mind the fact that nine families today will lose someone. No Government should sit back and tolerate that. It is why I will never apologise for measures taken either by us as a national Government or by local authorities to make our roads safer. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that.