HL Deb 20 July 2000 vol 615 cc1167-82
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the 10-year plan for transport that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:

"Transport is a subject that has been close to my heart for all my working life. But for decades it has been in decline, dogged by stop-go funding and a short-term approach. On Tuesday the Chancellor set out how we can now begin to invest properly in our public services. He was able to do that because we have dealt with debt and sorted out the public finances. This meant we had to stick to the depressed Tory spending figures we inherited. We continued the previous government's fuel duty escalator both to limit greenhouse gas emissions and restore the public finances. That was not easy. It was not popular. But it was the right thing to do. Now we can build and invest for the future.

"Decades of under-investment and the lack of strategic planning had left us with a transport system in crisis. That is already changing. In three years, we have made real improvements: we have begun to tackle the road maintenance backlog; the overall decline in bus passengers has been halted and in many areas passenger numbers are rising; and rail passengers have increased by 17 per cent and rail freight by 22 per cent since the general election.

"Transport is now a growth industry, and many of the problems it faces are of expansion, not decline. We have laid the foundations for the long term. We needed to integrate the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport; we have done that. We needed a new strategy; we have done that. We needed radical new legislation; we have done that. We needed new forms of finance; we have done that. And today I am announcing the new resources to bring about a step-change in transport.

"These are new ideas, new powers, new resources— a new approach for a new century. It is on these foundations that we are building today's 10-year programme. It is based on long-term investment by government and business to modernise the country's transport system. It is vital for our economic success, and for the quality of our lives. It is excellent news for manufacturers and the construction sector which will be able to plan for the long term.

"On Tuesday the Chancellor announced that in the next three years public spending on transport will rise from £5 billion to more than £9 billion. Capital investment will double in real terms. This was widely welcomed. The Automobile Association said it was, a welcome change from decades of penny-pinching and under-investment". It also said: There's no doubt that this represents the most serious attempt to tackle our transport crisis in years". The rail users' committee said the announcement was, good news for rail passengers and for the country". The CBI also welcomed it. The CBI chair, Digby Jones, said on the "Today" programme this morning that what is needed is a 10-year programme providing substantial public and private investment, up to £180 billion. My department's modelling, analysis and consultation come to a similar conclusion. Our analysis is published in a document available in the Library.

"There is now a broad consensus about what is needed to reduce congestion, provide a bigger, better and safer railway and real choice in public transport. With public investment keeping pace with economic growth after 2004, total spending over the 10 years— public and private—will be £180 billion; £132 billion of that—almost three-quarters—will come from the public purse.

"This is not all new money. But even if we maintained this year's spending as the norm, that means more than £50 billion of extra public expenditure. So capital investment by government and business together will be 75 per cent more in real terms than over the past decade. The plan addresses the issues in a realistic and businesslike way. No frills, no promises of a rosy, traffic-free future. Just our best judgments, based on detailed analysis of what the new resources will deliver.

"We are securing long-term investment through long-term partnership contracts: new rail franchises lasting up to 20 years, 30-year contracts for roads and 30-year contracts for the London Underground. But let me make it absolutely clear; if we put in public money, we expect rail and bus companies, and local authorities, to deliver the goods: more investment and better services for the travelling public, on budget and on time.

"The policy we inherited on the railways planned for decline and reduced public support. Our programme includes £60 billion for a bigger, better, safer railway—the biggest investment in railways for generations. We will deliver better quality for the travelling public, lower regulated fares, 50 per cent more passengers and 80 per cent more rail freight; a new Strategic Rail Authority with a new rail modernisation fund of £7 billion to help deliver those goals.

"So we will deliver a railway system which is better for passengers, better for freight, better for the economy, better for the environment; a good deal all round. Our programme includes £59 billion for modernising local transport in every region throughout the country; increasing bus use by 10 per cent, with guided buses, priority routes, park-and-ride and a modern fleet—building on the £400 million of private investment that has already taken place.

"Light rail can transform our cities. Manchester and other cities have already shown what a difference it can make. So we are going to provide the resources for up to 25 new projects in our major cities. We will create greater social justice with: more accessible buses, trains and taxis for disabled people; cut-price fares for pensioners and disabled people. And for the first time we are recognising the problems of people who live in poorly-served, deprived urban areas, cut off from jobs and services. They can look to help from a new urban bus challenge fund to provide new links to their communities. Our successful rural transport fund, which has already secured 2,000 extra services, will rise from £60 million to £95 million a year with a rural transport partnership established in every county. Both urban and rural communities will benefit from an extension to fuel duty rebate for community transport.

"Small-scale, local improvements can make a big difference to people's lives, such as schemes to make walking and cycling safer and easier and 20 mph zones, especially where children are most at risk. We will increase funding for these schemes.

"In London, our great capital city, we inherited a creaking transport system, congested roads and overcrowded trains. We have already made major investments in the capital, with the Jubilee Line and the Docklands Light Railway extensions and other projects. But our programme goes much further.

"The Mayor of London asked for £3 billion over the next three years. London will receive £3.2 billion. Over the next 10 years our programme provides £25 billion to support the London Transport strategy, with better buses, less crowded trains and less congestion on the roads. This will be enough to produce a step change in bus services, town centre improvements and safer walking and cycling.

"The public/private partnership will secure investment in the existing Underground, and we have made provision for new links; an orbital London railway and longer-term projects such as a new east-west rail link and East Thames crossings. We are determined to use refranchising to get better, more reliable rail services for commuters.

"These major improvements in public transport throughout the country will help to reduce congestion and pollution. Sensible land-use planning and new technology can make a difference, but we also need to make better use of our road network. We have already set up studies into our busiest transport corridors to find solutions that involve all types of transport. The first conclusions will emerge over the next few months and we are providing the resources to implement the results.

"The programme includes £21 billion for the strategic road network. This is enough to widen 360 miles of the most congested roads, such as the A1 and the M6; to invest in 'electronic motorways' to manage traffic better and to keep drivers informed. There will be 100 new bypasses to take traffic out of hard-pressed villages and towns; schemes to tackle congestion and safety hotspots; and low noise surfaces on 60 per cent of the trunk road network, including all concrete roads.

"We have already dealt with the backlog of trunk road repairs. We will enable local authorities to get rid of the backlog on our local roads with a £30 billion maintenance programme.

"Without the measures in the plan, congestion is forecast to grow by 28 per cent on inter-urban trunk roads and by 15 per cent in larger urban areas. With the plan, we will not only eliminate this forecast growth, we will actually reduce congestion to below current levels by 2010. Our proposals will produce savings in greenhouse gas emissions, helping to achieve our Kyoto targets and more. We will improve air quality, with new resources to encourage cleaner fuels and vehicles.

"Safety is fundamental to our plan. The terrible accidents at Ladbroke Grove and Southall, and over 3,000 deaths on our roads every year, are vivid reminders that we can never afford to be complacent. We will ensure the installation of train protection systems, as recommended by Sir David Davies. I have repeatedly stressed that we will not pre-empt Lord Cullen's Inquiry, but I also give a categorical assurance that the Plan will deliver any further measures arising from Lord Cullen's Inquiry. Safety will always come first in my priorities.

"Our roads are already among the safest in Europe. Over the next decade we are determined to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents by 40 per cent, and by 50 per cent for children. We are providing the resources to enable government, the Highways Agency and local authorities to play their part in achieving these targets.

"It has often been the role of Labour governments to modernise this country's infrastructure. That is what we are doing again with our 10-year plan: long-term investment and public/private partnerships to increase choice and cut congestion. The Opposition have no plans to cut congestion, only to cut public spending. The public will ask them to declare where they would make their cuts in our programme.

"This is a Labour Government working with business to deliver the long-term investment needed to rebuild our infrastructure, cut congestion, improve public transport and give people choice. Modernising the transport system will take time. New roads and railways are not built overnight, but with sustained government investment and the backing of business, we will make year-on-year improvements to get the job done.

"This plan will get Britain moving and give the people of this country a transport system they can rely on. The British people have waited decades for a long-term approach like this. It is what the people of Britain deserve and I commend it to the House."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

3.44 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, perhaps I may thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister in another place. We have waited three years for this Statement. During that time, expenditure on transport has in fact gone down rather than up. Having said that, there is much in the Statement and in the plan that we can welcome.

I should like to endorse the part of the Statement that deals with safety, both on the railways and on the roads, in particular the target for the reduction in child casualties. As the Statement said, we have a very good record on road safety in this country, built up largely by measures taken over the years by successive governments. However, there is no room for complacency and we must always strive for improvements.

Turning to specific items in the Statement, can the Minister confirm that the figure of £180 billion of total spending pales into insignificance when compared with the £423 billion in transport taxes that the Government will collect from road users over the same period? That represents £18,000 per household, and that is before allowing for any revenues to be raised by congestion and parking taxes. Can the Minister say what are the estimated revenues from those two new taxes over the 10-year period?

When the Statement said that the Government continued the last government's fuel duty escalator, is that not a little misleading? In fact, they raised it. Then, having decided that they wanted to climb off the escalator, they then proceeded to raise petrol taxes by an inflation rate three times higher than that used for old age pensions.

We welcome the £60 billion to be invested in the railways, of which the vast proportion will come from the private sector. What a benefit privatisation has been, despite being vilified at the time by the then Opposition. Can the Minister clarify one particular point? How will the £7 billion rail modernisation fund work? How will it be allocated and to whom? Furthermore, of the £60 billion that was mentioned, how much of that has already been announced, for example, as regards the East and West Coast main lines?

I note that the Government have set a target of 50 per cent more passengers and 80 per cent more railfreight, but once we heard a promise that railfreight would be trebled. What has happened to that?

I note that the part of the Statement dealing with London takes credit for the Jubilee Line extension and the Docklands Light Railway. Perhaps I may gently remind the Minister that both projects were started off by the previous government. Can the Minister say what the Government have started up from new in London during the three years that they have been in power?

I welcome in particular the Government's complete U-turn on road building. Having virtually scrapped the programme three years ago, I am pleased that they are now planning to build 100 new bypasses and widen 360 miles of trunk roads and motorways. Can I ask the Minister whether that includes the M25? I can remember remarks made by the then Opposition which were completely opposed to any widening of the M25. Can we see a list of what is to be included in the bypass and motorway widening programme?

I note the plans for 25 new light rail systems in our major cities. However, in October 1998, the Deputy Prime Minister said that light rail systems are an extremely expensive way of dealing with congestion. That represents another U-turn. How many of these schemes can we expect to see completed, or even started, in the 10-year period, given the long length of time it takes to complete feasibility studies and planning inquiries? Can the Minister say whether those feasibility studies will attract funding from the Government as a preliminary part of this process?

We shall need time to study in detail the documents, of which there are several to add to the long list of glossy documents that have been produced by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions over the past three years. However, as I have said, welcome measures have been proposed. We have waited three years for this. Now we want to see the Government deliver on their promises for a better transport system.

3.49 p.m.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

My Lords, I thank the Minister for making the Statement. I regard it not as a set of measures but as a way of encapsulating a whole programme of activity in transport. We on these Benches very much welcome that change in government thinking. Considering that we are talking about a 10-year programme, I hope that it will mean not just more funding, but a consistency of funding to an extent that has not been achieved over many years. In the past, every time there was a problem in the economy, any kind of capital programme was cut, and road or rail transport programmes were the easiest to cut. I hope that we shall see the programme announced in the Statement carried out and the general approach of setting targets for a reduction in congestion and of working in a practical, consistent and cost-effective way to achieve those targets carried forward by this Government—and, it is to be hoped, by any successor government.

The question arises as to whether a reduction in congestion can be achieved. I believe that it can. This 10-year programme is merely the start in terms of what needs to be done. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that among many of our European neighbours, this kind of programme was started not this year, not five or 10 years ago, but nearly 20 years ago. We must make real efforts to achieve what has been laid down.

There are couple of important items in the Statement which we support. Obviously, increased capital investment is a key part of the programme. The lengthening of rail franchises is also extremely important: it enables the franchisees to invest in their services, whereas the original ridiculous and highly criticised seven-year franchises did not succeed in achieving that, as forecast. I also welcome the £60 billion for a bigger, better, safer railway. We do not know all the details, but I welcome also the £59 billion set aside for road investment—particularly if it is to be used in relation to smaller projects and where it will enable better use to be made of the existing road network.

I shall not query the "new old money". That cannot be done without knowing much more detail than is available in the transport paper. I understand the general figures to be £60 billion for rail, £59 billion for local transport, and £21 billion for the strategic road network. Is the £25 billion for London in addition to those figures? Or is it London's share of that general programme?

Like the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, I welcome the emphasis on safety, particularly when it is to be carried forward to the road and rail system. I welcome in particular the promise regarding the installation of train protection systems, as recommended by Sir David Davies.

There are many minor pieces of good news in the Statement. The low-noise road surfaces on the trunk road network, for example, will bring environmental benefits to people living near trunk roads. One should not forget that many trunk roads go through built-up areas.

The programme for new bypasses is presently not known to us, but a couple of major items were left over or abandoned when the Government came into office. In particular, there is the highly controversial Salisbury bypass, and the less controversial but extremely expensive tunnel bypass at Hindhead. Are those included in the programme announced in the Statement? Perhaps I may remind the Minister that "Swampy" is said to be "re-grouping", as someone said to me recently. I hope that the Minister has borne that in mind!

Finally, I hope that as the programme is carried forward, the twin themes of integration and sustainability will continue throughout as a major part of everything that is done.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, over his weary three-year wait. The more world-weary among us feel that we have wasted 21 years waiting for an integrated planning strategy. However, I am grateful for the noble Lord's gracious words in favour of some aspects of the plan.

The noble Lord asked about the estimated revenue from taxes and road user charging. That would be limited to charging at local level, whether in terms of road user charging or workplace parking schemes. We have factored into the 10-year plan a net income of £2.7 billion from that source. We have included no revenue at all from any anticipated charging for the trunk road or motorway network. That matter would, anyway, require primary legislation. We have made no provision and given no consideration to that, beyond the inclusion of some illustrative scenarios. Her Majesty's Treasury will make the decision on taxes; the Chancellor will do so year by year.

On the question of the fuel duty escalator, yes, we did raise it by 1 per cent. That was about half the increase introduced by Chancellor Kenneth Clarke after the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, had first introduced it. It went from 3 per cent, to 5 per cent, to 6 per cent. I am pleased to remind your Lordships that the fuel duty escalator was abolished in the last Budget—the first for 11 years in which there was no increase in fuel duty above the rate of inflation.

On the question of privatisation and the private sector, I do not think anyone would dispute that the way in which privatisation took place left us with a very fragmented system. We have spent the past three years trying to bring some coherence to that. We are happy that £60 billion will be invested for working alongside private business to rebuild our railways. I am delighted to point to increases in rail passengers and in rail freight, which will grow markedly over the next 10 years—by 50 per cent in the case of rail passengers and by 80 per cent in relation to rail freight.

Noble Lords may recall that the idea of trebling rail freight was not government policy. It was raised in a statement by the chief executive of the EWS company. It was his ambition to treble rail freight over the next 10 years. He has now left the company, and his successor has set a more modest target, in line with our own predictions.

We have announced nothing in the plan in relation to moneys to be spent that will have been invested before March next year. If we take as an example the Channel Tunnel rail link, there is a second phase to be completed and the moneys that will be made available through the plan will help to assure its completion. That will be the case also for the West Coast Main Line. Again, it is not a specific plan. Our plan puts the resources in place in an attempt to encourage the right deals to come forward. Whether or not the right deals are in place is a matter for the Strategic Rail Authority. Sir Alastair Morton will have £7 billion at his disposal to invest alongside the private sector, Railtrack, and the train operating companies.

Three hundred and sixty miles of motorway may be widened with the available resources. Which parts of the system are chosen for this purpose depends very much on the outcome of the multi-modal studies, some of which will report in a month or two. Others we are accelerating. Noble Lords, some of whom have had experience as transport Ministers, will be aware that on average the period between the beginning of consideration of a medium-sized road scheme and its completion is 10 years. That process will be speeded up. Noble Lords will see from the documentation we have produced that the new planning guidelines suggest that the process may take three to five years less than the present time by dealing with some parts of the process in parallel without in any sense usurping people's right to protest. We certainly shall not seek to subvert the work that we have under way in the multi-modal studies.

We believe that most of the major projects in prospect will be completed inside 10 years. Obviously, there are unallocated billions in our plan to cope with major projects as they arise. I am particularly pleased that we have in prospect large projects for London such as CrossRail which will add 15 per cent capacity to the Underground and commuter train services in central London. That could be completed by 2010.

As far as concerns London, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that we inherited the contract to build the Lewisham extension which provided for a toll each way on top of the normal fare. Ministers have agreed that an extra £20 million should be invested in new trains for that line and that no toll should be imposed. I believe that that is important.

I agree very much with the analysis of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. One important aspect of the 10-year plan is the consistency of funding which it offers to speed up the planning and procurement processes. We believe that it will allow all parties to work together, particularly big companies that may have to make decisions about staffing levels. I have no doubt that there will be resource constraints in some areas of the transport industry. This policy will allow people to plan better.

I have no doubt that we can lock in £56 billion of private investment alongside the £132 billion of public moneys that are in prospect over the 10 years. We look forward to London receiving its £25 billion share. We have tried not to double-count in any area. The major rail schemes that have been considered for London fall mainly within the £60 billion that Sir Alastair Morton and others in the rail industry will look to invest.

As regards bypasses, I give the assurance that in areas like Salisbury and Hereford we shall not do anything to undermine the planning procedures. There are in total 100 bypasses which can be looked at in various ways. There are 30 on the trunk road network and 70 at local level. Of those 100, half are in rural areas and half in urban areas. All of them will be subject to our new approach to appraisal which gives due weight to environmental, economic and safety factors. Contrary to what has been implied, I do not anticipate that there will be any strong reaction to what we have suggested. We have discussed this matter in advance very fully with environmental groups which understand the methodology that we have employed. I am grateful for the general support we have received from all sections of the transport industry today.

4.6 p.m.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the £3.2 billion which is to be made available for transport within London is conditional on the mayor abandoning the policies on which he was elected some two months ago? Can the noble Lord explain to the House how he is able to give such a glowing assessment of the prospects for London when the mayor is quoted as saying that the Government's proposals betray the capital's transport plans and have stitched up his administration?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

My Lords, contrary to the suggestion that is perhaps implicit in the noble Lord's latter point, we have done no deals here. We have simply looked at what we believe London needs over the next three years. The mayor is on record as saying on 3rd July when he took over Transport for London that his ambition was to achieve an increase in funding of between 50 and 100 per cent. Had he achieved 100 per cent he would have received £3 billion. As it is, he has more than 100 per cent. I read with interest today that the mayor now says that he would really have liked £4 billion.

Baroness Cohen of Pimlico

My Lords, has my noble friend seen the statement by the CBI which welcomes the transport plan as a monumental victory for the business community? If so, does he agree that it is almost without precedent for the CBI to say that it has achieved all that it wants and accepts that the private sector will invest £60 billion alongside the Government's contribution?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

My Lords, I am grateful for the CBI's endorsement of our intentions. The uncanny relationship between the CBI's £180 billion prediction of British business needs and ours was a happy coincidence since we were working from the bottom up across all these modes. It is perhaps even more uncanny that the CBI had asked for £130 billion of public money for capital investment and revenue and the figure came out at £132 billion. As a former member of the CBI, I formally deny any close collusion.

Lord Palmer

My Lords, I welcome the Statement, although some of the figures quoted are astronomic. I am very distressed that there are no plans in the Statement to put money into research and development of alternative fuels, especially as farming is going through the worst crisis in living memory. Yet the Government are committed to limiting greenhouse gas emissions. That is a great sadness.

I welcome the idea of 20-year rail franchises. I hope and pray that the Government have no plans not to renew the franchise on the East Coast line. Will the Minister place at the very top of his list of priorities the dual ling of the A1 between Newcastle and the Border at Berwick-upon-Tweed, which is currently the most dangerous road in Britain?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

My Lords, I believe that a closer inspection of what we intend will show that there is a considerable investment of about £100 million to encourage the development of alternative fuels and more efficient vehicles. The analysis in the research documents that accompany our plan shows that because of advances in technology it is anticipated that there will be a 20 per cent decrease in the cost of running cars over the next 10 years.

As to franchising, that matter is probably best left to the Strategic Rail Authority. However, I agree with the noble Lord's analysis of the dangers of the A1. We are all aware of the fatalities that have occurred on the road between Newcastle and Scotland. In the past decade there have been 60 deaths, including some terrible head-on collisions, on that road. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who visited the region recently, has said that the Government will take a fresh look. We have advanced the multi-modal study on the A1. It is hoped that with the speeded-up procedures described earlier, action can be taken on that road. I agree it is very much overdue.

Lord Crickhowell

My Lords, the Minister has taken great credit for the Jubilee line and given a confident forecast about CrossRail. Is the noble Lord aware that Mr Livingstone's office has expressed very strong views saying that the mayor will now have to pick up the very substantial costs of the large overrun on the Jubilee line and, as a consequence, it will not be possible to start CrossRail in the foreseeable future?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

My Lords, I take no credit for the great delay in the building of the Jubilee Line. I certainly want to take no credit for the contracts put in place under the previous administration that led us to pay in the end £3.5 billion. However, the tail end of the budgeting for the Jubilee Line runs into little more than £100 million. If that is taken in context with the £3.2 billion about which we are talking over the next three years, I do not think that noble Lords should share the dismay—if that has been expressed—of the mayor.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I pursue that expression of dismay, although I welcome the total package. Anyone ambitious for London can see the scope for spending more. Can the Minister confirm that the package for London has been backloaded to years two and three requiring, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, the completion of the Jubilee Line to be paid for out of year one, a matter of which I understand the mayor was unaware until yesterday, leaving only something of the order of 100 million for new investment in what the Minister rightly describes as London's creaking transport system? Work on items such as the river crossings will therefore be delayed.

Will the noble Lord take back to his ministerial colleagues and the Treasury a request to reconsider the phasing? I do not refer to the total amount of money. For instance, could an extra £50 million out of year two and £50 million out of year three be brought forward to year one in order that London can get on with investment in its creaking transport system?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

My Lords, when the noble Baroness implies an underfunded year, we talk of a year which was in fact the backloaded year of the last CSR settlement. Yes, indeed the package progresses steeply across years two and three to £3.2 billion which, only a few weeks ago, was beyond the highest aspiration of the mayor. If it is now inadequate, that comes as no surprise to me.

Lord Morris of Manchester

My Lords, knowing the Minister as I do, it came as no surprise to me to hear his emphasis today on new help for disabled people. Am I right in assuming that all this extra spending will be available on the strictly non-negotiable condition that it must take fully into account the rightful claims of disabled people and that full access for them will be central to the development of all new projects?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

My Lords, I mentioned that our roads were among the safest in Europe. We can also take credit for doing more for access and transportation of disabled people in this country than any other country in Europe. My noble friend will know that we have put provision in the Transport Bill now going through your Lordships' House for the £50 million-worth of concessionary fares for disabled people. Noble Lords may be assured that as regards every investment we shall try to make it clear that those engaged in it must take account of the needs of the disabled.

Viscount Waverley

My Lords, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, to what extent will central government monitor London mayoral projects and performance?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

My Lords, all public spending will be kept under continual review.

Lord Ezra

My Lords, I welcome the general package which is long overdue and highly desirable. I concentrate my questions to the Minister on the London Underground to which he referred. As he will be aware, it has been a controversial issue for some time. First, what progress is being made in putting in place the public/private partnership? How late is that progress compared with the original intentions? Secondly, due to the delay in implementing the scheme can we be assured that in the meantime the funding of the London Underground will be adequate and that for those who regularly use the London Underground particular attention will be paid to its faulty signalling system?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

My Lords, I assure the House that there have been strong expressions of interest by various consortia in running the London Underground system under our public/private partnership plans. I assure noble Lords that those plans are on time and on course for a conclusion early next year. I also assure noble Lords that, just as we have put very adequate funding over the past two years into London Underground, we shall continue to ensure that its needs are met until the PPP is in place.

Lord Lea of Crondall

My Lords, many in this House are delighted by the scope and nature of the Statement. I refer to two aspects. First, it will have a major impact on our manufacturing industry. Many billions of pounds will be available for the rail and road manufacturing industry, a major fillip needed by the industry.

Secondly, there will be a great sigh of relief that for the first time for many years we have long-term planning on transport. We must stick to a 10-year cycle not only because of the time it takes to plan a project—the Minister referred to this—but also for confidence at every level of industry and local government that the economic, parliamentary and town and country planning cycles can be aligned. The package will not work if there is no confidence in those cycles. The Statement contains a new commitment to ensure those long-term cycles. We need consensus in the House which goes beyond general elections that the plan will be adhered to, giving confidence to industry, local government and everyone concerned with transport.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

My Lords, I am delighted to have that reaction from the noble Lord, Lord Lea, with his background with the Trades Union Congress. I am delighted, too, that the TUC has lined up today with the Confederation of British Industry to welcome this plan. It will indeed be a great boost for our manufacturing industry if it takes advantage of the opportunities there. I am told that some 3,000 people are working on the West Coast Main Line project alone. From advanced telematic skills needed for smarter road networks to the building of viaducts and laying of tracks, there are tens of thousands of new jobs in prospect. We have to ensure that business and industry are able to give us the skills required to take advantage of that opportunity. I am sure that we can put the finance in place but we have to consider where any resource constraints might come from inside the planning cycles referred to.

There is no doubt that a 10-year plan gives the horizon necessary for the projects in this area with which noble Lords will be familiar, some of which may take five, 10 or more years to complete. I am pleased that the transportation sector will receive such a major boost from this plan.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, when the Minister's right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Statement it was perhaps fortunate for the Government that the latest minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England had not then been published. I hope that it is no more than coincidence that those minutes are reported today.

Those minutes reveal that the public may well have to pay twice for these announcements. My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara mentioned the direct cost through taxation. However, perhaps I may paraphrase the minutes. They say that, looking forward, given the likely increases in public spending over the next few years, private sector spending will be required to slow further if the inflation target is to be met. At the very least that implies probably higher interest rates. It implies also a lower or smaller private sector. I accept that there is a balance in these things. I wonder if the noble Lord the Minister could tell me whether—in the event that the slings and arrows of outrageous economic fortune were to become adverse—in the discussions between his two noble friends, his right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been able to achieve what would be a first within any government in my time in public life which would be that transport expenditure should not be the first and automatic target for reduction if things start to unwind. Can the Minister help us on that point?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that the Chancellor has the economic implications of transport very much in mind with all the spending that he has approved, and that it is also a very high priority with my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Access to jobs, the transportation improvements in regeneration areas, the fact that we can ease the congestion in the strategic network for our road haulage industry are all things that are very important to the Chancellor. I believe that they will help to sustain the very strong and steady economic growth that he has helped to create.

Lord Shutt of Greetland

My Lords, I am generally very supportive of what I see in this document and the statements about a quantum leap, particularly in the resources that will he available for public transport.

Without detracting from the many people in this place who are concerned about the needs of London and its environs, perhaps I may make the following point. Particularly in the PTE areas, the metropolitan areas and those places around them, it seems to me that there is a significant opportunity for investment to help the transport needs in rail, with new stations, new lines and so forth. Would the Minister agree with that and say whether there will be resources available for these metropolitan areas which have deep problems? Quite frankly, for many people, they are just as important as this city of London.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that we will have £59 billion in local transport plans, £31 billion of that being for local roads. For instance, there are 25 light-rail systems allowed for in the resources. The great majority of those would fall outside London. There will be very considerable investment in rail and in new stations, as I have seen in Newcastle and Leeds already. That programme will be underpinned and driven forward by us.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, will the noble Lord indicate that the trade unions involved in transport will be fully consulted, not simply at the beginning of the scheme but throughout its implementation?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

My Lords, we talk much of public/private partnerships, but the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, may be assured that partnership is at the very centre of our approach. It is a time-consuming process, but it is proving to be very productive. We maintain very good relationships with the trade unions, the CBI and other business interests.

Lord Hardy of Wath

My Lords, I should like to join in the warm commendation of the Government on their policy. Following on the question asked a moment ago, I welcome the actual and the anticipated increase in rail traffic. But if it is to reach the proportions for which we aim and which are desirable, does my noble friend accept that it is necessary to see very considerable attention given to improved car parking at many stations, especially those which serve the commuter traffic to London?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

I agree that that is a very important matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, will be pleased to know that there are 100 park-and-ride schemes proposed in the plan.