Baker, Howarth and Pugh quiz Hoon on New Trains

• [Feb 12]: Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat) : THE £840 million cut is one bit of transport policy not copied from the Lib Dems.

Let me express my disappointment that the statement was announced to the markets first. If the markets had to be told separately, they could have been told simultaneously. I resent the fact that, yet again, this House has learnt about such matters after the general public. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome any new investment in railways, particularly in rolling stock and jobs. However, the Secretary of State will understand that there is some scepticism about his announcement, given the fact that of the 1,300 new vehicles announced in July 2007, and reannounced at regular intervals since, only 423 have so far been ordered, according to a parliamentary answer that I received only this week.

Will he also accept that the fact that we have such a desperate shortage of rolling stock-there is none spare anywhere in the country-is not a good reflection on 12 years of this Government? Is that dramatic shortage not a consequence of the Treasury-driven franchise arrangements, which until recently encouraged train operating companies to reduce the number of their carriages? In effect, what we have heard today is a U-turn.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the industry is dubious about the bi-modal train-jointly a diesel and electric train-that he appears to have settled on? The industry believes that it will push up costs and add weight unnecessarily to the vehicle, and that more flexibility would be provided if a locomotive were simply added at the point in the network where the electricity supply runs out and diesel traction is required. Is it not the case that, as a consequence, the vehicle that the Secretary of State is ordering is much more expensive than need be?

When will we have longer platforms in place to accommodate the new rolling stock that the Secretary of State has announced today? Can he also give details of the timings for the electrification of the midland main line and the Great Western railway? Lastly, to repeat the question that was asked but not answered a moment ago, when will all 1,400 trains-or, as the statement says rather carefully, "up to 1,400" new carriages-be in service?

Geoff Hoon (Secretary of State, Department for Transport; Ashfield, Labour) : Normally, the hon. Gentleman urges, encourages and exhorts me to spend more on railways, but I come to the House today with a £7.5 billion announcement on railways and I fail to detect a welcome from him or any sign that he thinks that this is a good thing. However, in the light of his previous observations, I will take it as read that he does think it a good thing. Today's announcement is important for the rail network, for passengers and for the rail industry in the United Kingdom.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman made the observation about not informing the House. I followed a well established practice in the House of ensuring that sensitive decisions were communicated to the markets at their opening this morning. That is not an unusual practice when commercially sensitive issues are decided on. It is right that we should not affect the markets by, for example, coming to the House in the middle of the day when the stock market has been open for many hours. I know that the Liberal Democrats do not worry unduly about matters such as the commercial implications of these decisions. Nevertheless, they are matters to which responsible Governments have to have some regard.

I am not going to get into a debate with the hon. Gentleman about the advantages of bi-modal vehicles, although I could. One of the clear benefits is that, in order to operate electrically powered trains, not every part of the network-that includes, for example, maintenance depots-has to be electrically powered. His suggestion of fitting a diesel engine to the front has been done in the past. However, it slows things down and is rather wasteful-I would have thought that he would be concerned about the impact that such decisions have on the environment-and does not serve the purpose of a modern, 21st-century rail network.

• . . David Howarth (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat) : For those of us who are daily commuters by train, any announcement of new investment in the railways is very welcome. However, the lack of capacity in the British train manufacturing industry and the lack of rolling stock are problems right now. Will what the Secretary of State has announced bring to an end the constant delays in securing new rolling stock, which have prevented important improvements in services throughout the whole country, and especially on the absurdly overcrowded trains that I use every day between Cambridge and King's Cross?

Geoff Hoon (Secretary of State, Department for Transport; Ashfield, Labour) : That was the whole point of the announcement, which provides not only more rolling stock on the network but the means of constructing it, by providing for the United Kingdom extra train-making capability.

• John Pugh (Southport, Liberal Democrat) : In the Transport Committee strategy report, it states: "We note how little new rolling stock is going to be available to areas outside London and the south-east". Frankly, what is being done about the old, unsafe 142s that shunt between Southport and Manchester on the Northern rail franchise, which are acknowledged to be the very oldest on the entire network?

Geoff Hoon: There is a constant programme of upgrading our rolling stock. I would not accept for a moment, however, that any of that rolling stock is unsafe.

Related Links

• • Full Debate