First, I thank the House for allowing this important debate to take place. There is no greater or better region than the north-west, and the time is right to put the case for why we want more investment and better transport for the people whom we represent. It is good to see my colleagues turning out for that purpose.

I shall start by talking about free bus travel for pensioners, which started with local authority free travel, and has been extended to a nationwide local bus scheme. That important scheme has been a huge success, and has transformed pensioners’ lives. It allows them to get out and visit, to have healthier lifestyles and to spend the money that it saves them. It is good for the economy, and it is good for us. It has also been good for a local bus manufacturer, Optare, which is reaping the benefits of providing new buses because of the new way in which people are travelling. Public transport is being reinvigorated as people are getting back on to it. We ought to congratulate the Government on that, and I do. I also remind them that when I started the campaign, back in 1997, with a petition in Chorley saying, “We want free local bus travel,” the Government listened. It took them a long time, but they listened and delivered.

Following the success of the free bus travel scheme, I ask the Government to extend it to regional train travel, so that pensioners can also enjoy that. The village where I live, Adlington, has a railway station and trains that connect straight to Preston, Blackpool and Manchester, and people could benefit from free regional train travel.

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to his next campaign, may I drag him back to his first? Although it is great that a lot of pensioners now have the opportunity to travel free around their areas, does he recognise that there are vast tracts in the north-west, particularly in my constituency, where there are no bus services in many villages? If we are to ensure that all pensioners can access what he has talked about, rural bus services in the north-west need to be enhanced.

I totally agree, and I back the hon. Gentleman’s plans to spend more money on local buses, because that is important. I represent an urban-rural area that could benefit from the extra buses that would connect those pensioners and people who wish to use public transport, so we are at one. We both congratulate the Government on what they have done, and we both want that to be expanded, so it is quite right that I should back the hon. Gentleman on what he has said.

Like me, the hon. Gentleman has railway stations in his constituency that would benefit from an extension of the scheme to allow people to use trains. It is good for older people to have such a choice. Believe it or not, Mr. Gale, some of our rural villages do not have bus transport, but they have a railway station. However, some pensioners cannot use that transport because they do not have the same free travel. The Government could take that idea on, and it would be welcomed by people across the country. Free regional train travel for pensioners would be a great initiative.

Given how successful the bus travel scheme has been in transforming pensioners’ lives, will the Minister consider extending free bus travel to young people? I do not know why we do not do that. It is a huge success in London. The Minister has seen the benefits that are brought by young people being able to travel in that way. In London, pensioners can use the underground, buses, overground trains and the docklands light railway. They have reaped all those benefits, and we want that to be replicated in other parts of the country. The same has been done for young people in London, and we want that to be extended to our young people as well. Why is there a postcode lottery for transport? If people are in London, they get the benefits, but if they live in the north-west, they do not. The Government should show us that they are listening.

Young people and families would benefit from the change because it would be free for them to travel to school. That would get young people interested in using public transport, and if they are brought up using it, that will ensure that they continue to use it in future. We talk about car congestion, but people have a real alternative to car travel, and they know how to use public transport. I can see the benefits: people at school and students would really like the benefits of that free travel and we ought to give it to them. I hope that all this will be taken on board.

Our north-west has been built on the three cities of Liverpool, Manchester and Preston, and we want our region to have an economy that is second to none. It houses the UK’s second city, or, at least, if that is stretching things, England’s second city.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He is a great champion for transport in the north-west, and for his constituency. On the north-west as a whole, the three cities and the economy, does he agree that one of the key transport projects around at the moment, which is due to go to public inquiry shortly, is the new Mersey gateway bridge? The project is expected to create about 4,000 to 5,000 new jobs and to ease a lot of congestion. It will benefit not only the nearby Merseyside and Cheshire regions, and my constituency, but the north-west as a whole. Does my hon. Friend agree that the scheme is very important for the north-west as a whole?

I totally agree. When I have travelled to watch Widnes lose against Warrington at rugby, I have seen the benefit that a new bridge could bring to that area. We have waited too long for that scheme, for which my hon. Friend has rightly been a champion. We want to see that Ministers are listening, and we need that bridge sooner rather than later. The economic benefits that it would bring cannot be overestimated.

We are talking about an economy of £111 billion, which is the 12th-largest in Europe. The north-west has a population of nearly 7 million people and 230,000 successful businesses. North-west England truly operates on an international scale. It has two major airports, as well as Blackpool, so how on earth can we not now be planning a high-speed link into the north-west to serve the three cities? We are, without doubt, the powerhouse and the generator of the economy. People want to talk about the midlands, and there is nothing wrong with the midlands, but the high-speed link should not be diverting off there first—it should be coming straight to the north-west. We should be building from either end—from the north and the south—and meeting in the middle. That would eventually link in Birmingham as well. This is about linking the region, and we cannot afford to underestimate the value of that high-speed link coming into the north-west. We should not put England’s second city down.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making a good and important case about the high-speed rail link. Does he agree that it makes even more sense if we ensure that there are adequate rail links from Manchester into cities such as Liverpool and Preston, as well as to places such as Leeds across the Pennines? That would give us the proper integration of the northern economy with the transport infrastructure that we do not have at the moment.

I totally agree; my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We know that Manchester is the second city and that the north-west region is the powerhouse, but we cannot forget about the other side of the Pennines, as much as Lancastrians might wish to, because this is also about the north, and we need those east-west links. This is about having better access, whether by motorway or train. The high-speed link can bring the benefits of linking through to the south, as can a hub around Manchester that diverts across to Leeds. This is about linking the three cities of Liverpool, Preston and Manchester, and ensuring that we have other important links, but not forgetting the north as a whole.

Whatever way we look at this issue, the north-south divide still exists, as my hon. Friend knows, and we have to stand up for the north and make sure that it gets the investment that it rightfully deserves. I know that the Minister will take that on board, because, as a missionary who went from the north to the south, he recognises that we in the north have to stand up for ourselves, because no one is going to do it for us.

The high-speed link is important to our future, but we need to back it up by widening the M6, which is absolutely critical. It has four lanes around Preston, but then it suddenly goes down to three, and then goes up to four again at Warrington. There is a gap in the middle that should never have been allowed, because we need to keep the traffic flowing and the economy moving. Being in queued traffic is a great cost to business.

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that widening sections of motorways around the country has just led to more cars on those motorways?

No, I totally disagree because what we have got is a bottleneck. That situation is silly, is it not? If there were three lanes all the way, there would be an argument against widening, but when two four-lane sections have been widened and there is a three-lane bit in the middle, that does environmental damage. There is also a cost to business. We ought to stand by the people trying to get to work in the north-west. It is nonsense to go from four to three lanes, and then back to four. That transport problem should be looked at.

I recognise that we do not want to encourage cars, but I want to give people the choice. We want a good public transport infrastructure in the north-west. We want to have the high-speed links and to give people a real choice about how they travel. Of course, people want to be anti-car, but I recognise that people need cars. However, I also recognise the needs of business. I do not like trucks moving goods along the motorway and want to see more goods moved by freight, but I recognise that we must ease the problems where they occur.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman: something clearly needs to be done about the M6. A lot of business traffic travels on there. No matter what time in the morning it is—for example, some of us travel back in the early hours, perhaps 1 am or 2 am—we see heavy vehicles using that motorway. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one thing that has helped on the M6 is the toll road? At £4.50 a time, it is expensive, but it has made sure—

It is £4.70 now.

It is £4.70 now, is it? It is probably £4.90 by now—the cost has gone up while I am talking. That is an example of inflation.

Does the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) agree that the toll road has, at least, taken some of the traffic off the old M6 and allowed people to pay a premium and get through the bottlenecks?

I cannot disagree with that. The toll road has eased the traffic problems around Birmingham. At one time people could not move. They could not guarantee how long a journey would be. When coming from the north, a journey could be anything from four to seven hours, depending on how bad the traffic around Birmingham was. Of course, we have seen the benefits of the toll road. We must remember that this country’s economy and business matter, and we have got to support business wherever we can.

We have mentioned the M6, the importance of the high-speed link and what the benefits are, but I now want to talk about a more parochial matter. We talked about ensuring that we have free regional travel for pensioners by providing free rail travel. To back that up, I would like to see more railway stations. We have the silly situation whereby a big chunk of money was given to the local authority to build a new railway station at Buckshaw Village near Euxton. Unfortunately, the money was not enough—it was part of a 106 agreement—and there is now a differential between the cost of building the station and the original estimate. We have a shortfall of between £2 million and £3 million in the funding to build the railway station. Yet, the money sits in the bank, and the railway station is not there.

The problem faced by me and the local authority is that we could not get the train operators to stop at a new railway station. We eventually met the train operators and got both operators to agree to use the station. That was a great success and we thought that we had ticked all the boxes only to find that Network Rail’s price was way above the 106 agreement money. The railway line closed for six weeks because of the flying arches at Chorley, during which time they could have built the railway station, but instead of building the station when the lines were closed, nothing happened and we are back in the situation in which we have to chase money.

I think that BAE Systems has a responsibility because it has made a huge amount of money out of the redevelopment of that brownfield site. It is probably the biggest redevelopment in Europe—we are talking about almost 1,000 acres for housing and businesses. Of course, as part of that, we expect an integrated transport system to be provided, and for the village to be sustainable, and rightly so. However, we have not had the railway station that we should have had. It should have been built and opened by now, and I look to the Minister to see what help he can give. We know that the local authority has bid for some money under the community investment fund programme. I am fully supportive of that, and I will do anything I can to ensure that it goes ahead, but there might be another way in which we can get the money. Will the Minister use his good offices in relation to that?

Network Rail has suggested that it will put money in as long as somebody underwrites it until we can get the rest of the 106 money. BAE Systems rightly wants to develop another couple of hundred acres and that will provide the shortfall money. However, we need somebody to underwrite the money in the meantime so that we can get this railway station up and running. The station will not only benefit the people who live in the new village, but will provide a park-and-ride facility for surrounding communities. Will the Minister consider that matter because it is important that we can move ahead with it?

The Northwest Regional Development Agency has also offered to help. In fact, it phoned me yesterday and said that it is fully behind my plans and that it backs the station, too. I want to thank Steve Broomhead from the RDA. That organisation might sometimes be unpopular with people, but it has been very helpful and, during this economic crisis, it has been supporting jobs in the north-west.

I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman says about trying to find new opportunities whereby rail travel can benefit more of our community. However, before we consider building new stations, do we not also need to look at the state of current stations? That is particularly the case for those stations in the north-west that are at the pinch-point and are major category A stations, such as Crewe, which has lost out in the latest funding review by the Office of Rail Regulation. The funding that Network Rail wants will not be in place to ensure that Crewe station, which should be the gateway to the north-west, is in the state and category that it should be.

I do not disagree with that. We should always ensure that we are modernising and keeping our train stations up to the standards that people expect. If we want people to use public transport, we have to provide quality transport and railway stations. Of course, that does not take anything away from a railway station that has been provided by 106 money. We cannot build about 4,000 to 5,000 houses, put a load of businesses on a development and not provide the transport infrastructure. That is why we need the Buckshaw Village station.

I shall now turn to a village lower down the main line. A station called Coppull used to exist, but was unfortunately closed. Coppull is a mining village with a population of 6,000. It has been campaigning heavily for a new railway station that would connect the village to Wigan down the line and up to Preston the other way. Coppull station is crucial, and I say to the Minister that it is one of the top priorities for Lancashire county council. Rumours have been put out in the local media in relation to that, and I am pleased to see the Lancashire Evening Post is scribbling hard as we speak. An article in the Lancashire Evening Post stated that that station could not reopen because of the high-speed link. I do not see why that is the case because if the logic is that local stations cannot exist with a high-speed link and Coppull cannot be reopened, we would have to close all the other stations. Will the Minister clarify that matter and consider what support he can give to that railway station?

I shall now mention a very parochial matter: the train service at Adlington, which is in my constituency and is the village in which I live. We are talking about getting people back on to trains, which makes sense. The problem on the Blackpool to Manchester line is that when the train gets to Adlington there are very few seats, and by the time it gets to Bolton it is full. The logical decision is to put more trains on and have extra carriages. That seems logical—we know how to deal with the problem where there is great capacity and a great need for trains. What does Network Rail do? It stops trains calling at Adlington. That is the way that Network Rail has decided to get around the problem. That is absolutely silly. It has taken away the number of trains that stop there to try to create some extra carriage capacity lower down the line. That is ridiculous.

Who did Network Rail talk to? Did it talk to the people who get on the train at Adlington? Did it talk to the residents of Adlington? No. It talked to Greater Manchester passenger transport, which is not in Lancashire. Adlington is in Lancashire. Network Rail has not even talked to the right county and it then says to us, “We have consulted.” That is absolutely diabolical and ridiculous, and it tells us that Network Rail and the transport authorities need to get their act together and reconsider the matter. Instead of taking trains off, there should be better trains and more carriages. Will the Minister please consider reinstating the trains we have lost that go to Manchester and Preston? Adlington is a community village, and all we are doing is putting people back on to the roads. If the trains are not going to stop at the times when people need to go to work, what use are they?

I say to the Minister that that matter is an absolute disgrace and I hope that he will get Network Rail by the scuff of the neck, shake it strongly and get it to change its mind. I look forward to witnessing that sooner rather than later. What has happened means that people can no longer get to the airport without changing trains twice or get into Manchester without changing trains. It is a ridiculous position and I look forward to the Minister reconsidering the matter.

As I have said, the issue is about the three cities. We ought to be looking at the network that connects Preston, Manchester and Liverpool. Those three great cities create a triangle, and we ought to make sure that there is a rail network between them. Of course, lying in the middle is Chorley, which is central to those three cities. I would have thought that it makes sense to rejoin those cities by rail, making sure that we have quick rail links or even a light tram system. Of course, Chorley would benefit from that, and it would rightly be the hub that served the three cities.

We should have a fast, light train system to connect the cities and help businesses to work better, and we should ensure that we have the right road infrastructure between those cities which, of course, benefit from two major airports—there is none better than Manchester, and Liverpool grows in stature each year. We must not forget the airport at Blackpool as well.

We have the bones of a great transport system in Manchester, but we need the Minister to look favourably on what I have been saying and to look into the problems. We are going forward, and we want people to use public transport. Let us give pensioners in the north-west free regional train travel, and students free bus travel in their area. Let us reopen and reinvest in railway stations, widen the road system and look to the benefits that I have mentioned. I am sure that the Minister has taken all that on board, and we look forward to a favourable response and an early decision on some of those questions.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on winning this debate. There are some debates in this Hall to which hardly anyone turns up, so the good representation of Members of Parliament from all over the north-west shows the interest in this one.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned several areas on which I, too, would like to comment. Perhaps we could all work together on further campaigns, because one thing that we all do is travel around our constituency. We use the networks and know about existing problems. I am sure that the Minister would agree that one of the problems as far as the railways are concerned is the cost of taking the train, which we all know about. An open return from London to Manchester now costs £247. To travel last minute from Euston to Preston costs £69.40 off-peak, £128 in economy and £195 one-way in first class. There is something wrong with a system when it is more economical to fly a route than to take the train first-class.

I hope that we will try again to get some common sense in the pricing of rail travel, as something is amiss. The system is okay for business men who are able to claim back the cost, but what about ordinary people who need to travel on the train, particularly last-minute? Not only is there a confusing plethora of train fares, but some are extremely expensive. I hope that we can have a look at that.

I want to pay tribute to my local line, Ribble Valley Rail, and Peter Moore in particular, who has lobbied me for almost all of my 17 years as MP for the area, and to the dedication of the many volunteers who ensure that the train station is kept spick and span, and who have lobbied to ensure that services exist and that old railway stations are reopened. The dedication of the volunteers means that the service along that line is much better than it would otherwise be. In addition, they propose an hourly service from Manchester Victoria to Carlisle, as they believe that there is a large demand for such a service.

The Secretary of State for Transport has been invited to Ribble Valley to meet representatives of Ribble Valley Rail and to go on a short journey on the line. I believe that he would enjoy it, because it is one of the most picturesque train journeys that one could wish to do, and that he would be seduced by the enthusiasm of the volunteers and those who support local railway lines.

Beeching did enormous damage in the 1960s, in the way he took out many railway lines, and I accept that some of them cannot be reintroduced because of building constraints. It is a great shame that people did not think long and hard about the unintended consequences of taking away so many local railway lines. Some areas are now more isolated than they otherwise would be, and pensioners—the hon. Member for Chorley is right to think about their transport needs—have lost out, as they do not have a local railway service. If a local bus service was not introduced to replace the rail service, they are even more isolated. They cannot all afford taxis.

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. The Rossendale valley in my constituency now has no train service at all, except for a heritage railway that operates only on weekends from a small station in Rawtenstall. I fully support what he says about Beeching.

Perhaps it is time for a review. I believe that that there is all-party consensus on seeing what we can do to invest money in new lines throughout the country and in looking again at some of the lines that were taken out. If they have not been built on, we could start to link up villages with larger towns, which clearly would be useful.

I hope that the Minister will look again at rural bus services, too. There have been loads of rural bus service initiatives in the past 17 years. Yes, the Government announce £500 million here and £300 million there for local authorities to invest, but the services are depleted drip by drip, and, in the end, some villages have no service at all.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Money comes in and a bus service is provided, but as soon as the money runs out, the bus operators cut the service. Instead of building up the number of people who use it, all they do is look for a grant and get out as soon as the money is gone. I agree that we ought to ensure that bus companies sign up for longevity, not short-term gain.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Longevity is required, and predictability of service as well: it must not be the case that there is a bus in the morning, but the next one is late at night. Some people want to go to Clitheroe, for example, to do some shopping, then come out again in two hours’ time. They do not want to stay there for six hours, which makes things increasingly difficult for them. I hope that we will look at providing a network that would be a great boost to people who live in some of the smaller and more remote villages. If we want such villages to carry on and exist in the future, we must ensure that there is a transport lifeblood for them.

The hon. Member for Chorley spoke about free buses for students, which leads me to something that really irritates me. Lancashire county council has this thing about youngsters travelling to the nearest school. As many hon. Members know, Clitheroe Royal grammar school is in my constituency. The parents of youngsters who pass the 11-plus and go to that school are clobbered if it is further away than the nearest school. They have to pay up to £600 a year for their youngster to use the bus to go to Clitheroe Royal. I would have thought that we wanted to encourage youngsters to excel in their academic studies. We should not penalise parents. If they have a couple of youngsters going to Clitheroe Royal grammar school, they have to pay more than £1,000 a year out of taxed income, which is not right.

The suggestion was made to go halfway and allow parents to pay only the difference between the nearest school and Clitheroe, but the council will not even do that. It wants the parents to pay the whole amount for their youngsters to travel to school. I hope that the Minister will ensure that the parents of youngsters who go to school are not penalised, and that he will look at what the hon. Member for Chorley said about opening up the rail and transport network and allowing students as well as pensioners to enjoy the facilities.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Manchester airport in passing. I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, so I shall conclude with this point. Manchester airport, which MPs in this Chamber all use or have used, is doing a good job, and there has been investment in it during the past 17 years. However, I am concerned about the number of airlines that are reducing and, indeed, withdrawing services from Manchester as a result of the recession. They are pointing to Heathrow and Gatwick and telling our constituents that they can go to London and fly from there to wherever their onward destination happens to be.

Being good environmentalists—certainly all of us in Westminster Hall today are good environmentalists—I would have thought that we would want to ensure that our constituents, millions of whom use Manchester airport from a catchment area stretching from north Wales right across to Leeds, are able to look at Manchester as a point that they can go to, then fly direct to their destination, whether that is the USA, the far east or Australia. It is wholly wrong to expect those people to get into cars and drive all the way down to Heathrow or Gatwick. Indeed, a lot of the people who use the shuttles between Manchester and London are doing so to get on another plane to fly to their final destination. We should not just put all our eggs in one basket, seeing Heathrow or Gatwick as hubs, or seeing both of them as semi-hubs.

I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that these decisions are commercial decisions for airlines. If a route is sustainable, obviously the airlines will provide it. Indeed, Manchester has some excellent international routes, although perhaps not enough for his constituents.

I agree absolutely with the Minister that we cannot chain airlines to Manchester and say that they have to fly from there. However, we need to look at the reasons, commercial and otherwise, why they have decided to reduce the routes. Clearly, the recession is going to be part of that. However, it may be because of other reasons, such as landing costs, including the differential costs between one airport and another, or because having a base in a regional airport is very expensive for airlines to maintain some of their aircraft. Whatever the reasons, if we can have a look at them, so that we can perhaps make a difference by encouraging airlines to change their decisions and increase their capacity at regional airports, that would be good. We cannot keep pressing everything into Heathrow and Gatwick, which are already operating at congestion levels. It is quite unpleasant to travel through some of these major airports at the moment.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the decision by the Government to extend capacity at Heathrow by offering a third runway does not help when regional airports are trying to compete with London airports?

As I say, I think that Manchester could be a huge safety valve for airports such as Gatwick and Heathrow. Let us not try to drag ourselves back to the 14th century and think that people are going to stop flying, because that is not going to happen. These days, young people want to travel the world and I do not think that we, as politicians, have a right to turn to them and say that they cannot do that. I always enjoy Al Gore’s statement telling us not to fly, as he himself flies around the world.

Instead, we must look at the most environmentally friendly ways of flying and at the more efficient, leaner aircraft that are less polluting. Those aircraft include larger models, such as the A380. I was there with the Minister when we saw the Singapore Airlines A380 come to Heathrow. It is a fantastic aircraft, which allows more people to be transported on a single flight so that, proportionately, there is less damage to the environment.

Let us look at ways of ensuring that Manchester acts as that safety valve. We cannot close down Heathrow or Gatwick, which compete with Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt airports, where huge sums of money have been invested. Furthermore, I will not let anyone tell me that transit passengers are useless and do not spend money. One has only to go Dubai airport to see the huge sums of money that transit passengers are spending there, which creates the jobs in that airport for the people who live locally. Let us not be blind to that.

We have to use common sense to find ways of ensuring that capacity is built in our regional airports, so that the problems to which the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) has alluded, about the investment that may now be needed in Heathrow, do not worsen and so that such investment may not need to be made. If we can reduce the number of people who are transiting and going through Heathrow, that will at least give Heathrow more of a breathing space before we can decide exactly how it will develop in the future.

Speaking as a Welsh boy—specifically a Swansea boy—doing missionary work in the north-west, the north-west is important. The Minister knows the area well, because he comes to my constituency where we have friends in common—not common friends, but friends in common—so he knows how beautiful the north-west is. The tourism potential for the north-west is absolutely amazing.

Blackpool has been mentioned time and time again. Regarding Blackpool, the one thing that I regret is that none of us now holds our party conferences there, which is a great shame, because it clearly hits the local economy. If only the right, common-sense decision had been made regarding the casino in Blackpool—there are airport facilities there—we might have been able to make some progress and achieve even more regeneration. To ensure that jobs still come into the north-west, that it is a centre for BAE Systems and all the aerospace and technological skills that are there, and that we see further expansion in future, we must ensure that we get the transport right.

I, too, want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing this debate, because every aspect of transport is, of course, fundamental to the success of the regional economy. The debate is particularly welcome at this time in the economic cycle.

I want to start by picking up where the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) just left off, by discussing Manchester airport. I say gently to my hon. Friend the Minister, “Please, let us get beyond this idea that market forces will decide everything about a national airport strategy”. Of course the market has an important role; nobody can dragoon the private airlines to Manchester or to anywhere else. Increasingly, however, the choice for people in the north of England is not going to be to interline through Heathrow and the overcrowded London airport system; it will be to interline through Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt or Schipol airports, unless there is an adequate system through Manchester.

I do not make this charge against my hon. Friend the Minister personally, but one of the criticisms of the Department for Transport’s planning over many years has been that national air policy has always been seen as being synonymous with British Airways as an airline and with BAA in terms of airports. In the world that we live in now, that view is fundamentally misguided. We need an airports policy that looks at the needs of other parts of the country.

The economy in the north is bigger than that of many European countries. Furthermore, the airport in Manchester is, I believe, the eighth biggest in Europe and much bigger than those in many national capitals. Manchester airport is a precious asset for the development of the regional economy. So there is an issue for the Government that goes way beyond the simple decisions made by an individual airline. I hope that that point can be established, because we need to see the development not just of Manchester airport but of other airports in the north-west; I accept the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley made: the north-west has another airport in Liverpool, which has become increasingly important in recent years, and, to a lesser extent, another airport in Blackpool. Development of Manchester airport is fundamentally important to provide real travel opportunities for the people and businesses of the north-west and the greater north, and I hope that that point can be taken on board.

I want to spend a few moments talking about the railway system. First, I want to endorse very strongly the impassioned case that my hon. Friend made about the need for the high-speed rail link and his plea for that link to be seen not simply as residual as it snakes its way up from the south-east. It is really important that a high-speed rail link is a national rail link, with ownership by all parts of that system. Obviously, from the point of view of the north and particularly the north-west—the biggest concentration of the population in the north lies in the belt coming through the north-west—that view is, as they say nowadays, a “no-brainer”. We hope that, even in the mechanics of transport planning, it is also seen as a no-brainer, so that we can see positive steps forward on this issue. I know that the Secretary of State for Transport is very forward in his own thinking on this issue and it matters that we have impetus from that political level. However, we need to see something tangible coming out of this debate. Otherwise, the high-speed rail link will simply be one of those transport projects that our grandchildren’s grandchildren will read documents about and wonder where it ever went to. It is important that we see something happening here and now.

Even if that high-speed rail link is established, it is important that we recognise that our existing northern rail system is inadequate. I think that it is now an accepted fact that the most crowded part of the railway system is not around London, although Londoners would never believe that to be the case, but in the run-in to Manchester. I do not say that simply as a Member of Parliament for the centre of Manchester, because this issue does not directly affect my constituents. However, it affects the ability of people from all over the north to access Manchester as the centre of the northern economy. That matters to the north’s economic progress and development, and it is vital to have some recognition of that with the necessary investment in rolling stock and the existing infrastructure.

I shall couple that with a brief aside. Network Rail inevitably comes in for criticism, and that is right because it is difficult to say that its forward planning and stewarding of work in progress have been spectacularly good. On almost every bank holiday, the railway system falls into a state of chaos, particularly in the north-west and for people travelling from there to London. It is astonishing that Network Rail pays itself large bonuses for what it believes is success but most people believe is an indifferent performance.

Having got that off my chest, I return to the importance of the planning structures and to the need to unblock points of congestion in the northern railway system. We need our railways every bit as much as those who live in the south-east. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley was complimentary about the regional development agency and I do not want to be hostile to it, but the Minister may want to reflect—this is not a criticism of his Department—on how the RDA prioritises transport. Our RDA, unlike, for example, Yorkshire Forward, does not believe that its role is to intervene directly in transport investment. Yorkshire Forward has invested directly in rolling stock to produce a 6 per cent. increase in passenger capacity on the most congested routes. That was an important step, but Bryan Gray, chair of the Northwest Regional Development Agency, has put on record its reason for rejecting a proposal from Greater Manchester for direct investment in necessary rolling stock. He said:

“I am afraid that the Agency is unable to assist directly in purchasing rolling stock. The Agency’s Board have considered our priorities and in relation to transport infrastructure they have resolved that the Agency’s role should be restricted to influencing and shaping policy, rather than financial support.”

That is not good enough because the RDA should be part of the process of recognising what strategic investment is necessary to improve the functioning of the regional economy, and transport is part of that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will engage with his colleagues in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and elsewhere to exert a little judicious pressure in that direction.

I want to emphasise the importance of the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley. The north-west has an inadequate but not hopeless transport infrastructure and it is easy to see the capacity for a significant leap forward. The Government have made a big difference, and they have invested in big changes in, for example, road and rail infrastructure. The number of people using rail passenger and freight services has increased enormously in recent years, and that is welcome. We now need a qualitative leap forward to transform the northern transport system from being barely adequate to being fit for purpose for the travelling public and the economy of the area in which we live. That is achievable, and I hope that the Minister will hear the plea from my hon. Friend and other hon. Members in the Chamber, where there is no party political divide on the matter, but a seriousness of purpose in wanting the improvements that can be achieved.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing this debate. A bit of a theme, or even a campaign, is developing.

Over Easter, I sat in my back garden in Southport putting on suntan lotion and complaining about the heat while people in the south shivered under grey skies, belying the myth peddled by generations of BBC weathermen that the weather is grim up north. Another, economic myth is that the future of the UK lies almost entirely in the City and that the finance and banking sector is somewhere in London. The Labour Government have hitherto been spellbound by and prisoner to that myth, and presumed that wealth does not come from the north because that happened only long ago in the 19th century. We talk about economic development in the south and London, but about economic regeneration in the north.

That was crystallised in a recent think tank report when a young gentleman, presumably from the south, suggested that the future for Liverpudlians was to get out of Liverpool and to move down south if they wanted employment and prospects. That myth is looking substantially less convincing now. It promised London and the south-east an unsustainable future because housing, transport and infrastructure pressures could be met only by turning the leafy south into a concrete jungle, which people in the south are prone to complain about. However, there has been a clear legacy in transport planning. Hon. Members have talked about expansion at Heathrow rather than regional airports, but no one mentioned the £5 billion commitment to Crossrail, which looks like being the great folly of the 21st century, or the billions of pounds of infrastructure spend that has been allocated to the south and the south-east, particularly the London area.

I have complained about the Department for Transport’s colonial mindset, which is that all roads and certainly all railways should lead to London. Such an approach must be contested. It is still the case that if Tilbury wants a road, it gets it, but if Hull or Liverpool want something, they do not get it as quickly or on the same scale. Thameslink needs new carriages, and it will get them because it has been promised them with a secure allotment. That is hard luck for passengers of Northern Rail, which is the country’s biggest franchise.

Turning to funding levels, I have heard a good analysis in this Chamber by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer). They differ massively if we consider everything in the round—the Minister may not want me to say that—when compared with funding for places such as Scotland and Wales under the Barnett formula. There does not seem to be a good reason for bridges in the north-west to receive less funding and support than those in Scotland. The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) is not now in his place, but I am sure that he would say “Hear, hear” if he were.

My point is not that that is unfair—life is not fair—but that it is no longer wise. Genuine, sustainable economic development in the north can be triggered by good transport infrastructure, whether through investment in road, rail or sea. Hull and Liverpool are hugely successful ports. With the right infrastructure, manufacturing in the north-west can compete worldwide. The tourist offer has been alluded to, and that could be uprated substantially with better communication. Light industry is prospering in many areas of the north-west. However, what we need locally in the north even more than fair funding is better judgment. So much of what has been attempted there has gone under the banner of regeneration rather than genuine economic development. It is seen in terms of sending out a lifeboat rather than backing winners.

Money for projects in the north-west has not always been as well spent as I would wish. An example from some years ago is the M58, which is the emptiest motorway in the UK, or at least in England. It was built in the expectation that linking Skelmersdale to the M6 would keep many unskilled people in work, but that did not work. Part of the reason why progress was not made on the Liverpool tram scheme and why there was not wholesale agreement across all local authorities, and so with the Government, was that to some extent the project was based on pious hopes rather than sure political and economic conviction. It was thought that running a tram line through highly deprived wards would encourage economic regeneration even though it paralleled an existing train line. Had the better alternative, which was to plan the tram line down to the airport, been chosen, there would have been a very sound economic case and vocal support throughout the region for that. What was proposed might have made some political sense, but it did not make the same economic sense as some of the alternatives on the table.

[Mr. Jim Hood in the Chair]

My fundamental point is that there are real winners in the north-west, but they need to be supported in the same emphatic way as they would be were they in the south or certainly in London. Merseyrail is a good example. That is a fantastically successful rail network at the moment, run by Serco and NedRailways. It needs help to expand. We could talk about the Burscough curves and the Halton curves, but we cannot question the fact that although they are awfully good at running a railway and awfully successful in economic and social terms, they need help to remodel Central station. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson) mentioned his local station, but Central station is a disaster area in Liverpool. It is an appalling communication network to have at the heart of a very good system. We need to get Network Rail properly engaged. Justifiable criticism has been made of Network Rail so far.

Exactly the same set of considerations applies in Manchester. There are things there that are working, and are economically beneficial and wholly desirable, but they do not receive the financial and strategic support that they ought to. We need to sort out the bottleneck in Manchester. I am talking about trains going through Manchester for the benefit of the whole north-west. We need to develop the tram where it is shown to be successful. We need to develop better links with central Lancashire, which is often left out. We need to link up Preston, Manchester and Liverpool in the way suggested.

In the north-west, we do not have a wish list of things that it would be nice to do—it would be lovely if we could turn the clock back to pre-Beeching days. We have a to-do list—a list of projects that require proper funding and need to be strategically planned and supported. Above all, we need to rethink how the funding is going and we need to prioritise the north-west as we prioritise London, the south-east, Wales and Scotland. However, I have the horrid feeling that given the current state of the public finances, the party and the Government who have relied so much and for so long on their north-west MPs to maintain their grip on power have to some extent, to use a transport metaphor, missed the boat.

I did not come to the Chamber intending to speak, but the previous contribution has brought me to my feet. I am a great supporter of the high-speed rail lines that my friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) mentioned. In November 2007, I happened to be in Taiwan with my friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson), who is sitting beside me, and we travelled on the high-speed rail link from the south of the island to the north. As you know, Mr. Hood, Taiwan is a small island; it is about 200 miles from north to south. We were able to travel that distance in next to no time. As a consequence, all commercial flying within the island of Taiwan has stopped. If we had a high-speed rail line from London up to the north-west and a second one to the north-east, that would dramatically reduce the incidence of domestic flying in the UK, which would be a good thing.

The Government were dragging their feet over this whole issue until the current Secretary of State took office. He has made some encouraging noises, but I want more than that. Rather than just uttering warm words and embracing the concept because it sounds green and like something that the environmentalists would embrace, let us just do it.

That brings me to my main point. The regional funding allocations are simply inadequate. I was going to intervene on my friend the Member for Chorley and say, “Would you like to tell us all how much this list will cost?” Of course it costs a lot of money, but transport has been the Cinderella and this is the moment when we should be spending money on transport schemes—as the economy enters a recession, which we hope will not be a deep recession. When Ministers are telling us that we should be spending money to keep people in employment, doing the things that need to be done, why hesitate now?

My friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) talked about the Northwest Regional Development Agency. I have its principles and issues paper, which it released just a month or two ago, looking forward to the new regional strategy. On transport, it states that

“the quality of many local rail services and infrastructure is poor, so significant further development in the region’s light and heavy rail infrastructure would appear essential”—

not desirable but essential. The RDA should put its money where its mouth is. That is the point made by my friend the Member for Manchester, Central.

Of course that takes money. The Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) talked about the cost of walk-on fares from London to Manchester, Newcastle or wherever. It is scandalous how much people have to pay. We can fly the Atlantic more cheaply than we can walk on to a train in London and go to a destination in the north-west. However, we have to follow through the logic, which means more subsidy. We live, as I constantly remind people, in a big nasty capitalist world, where people are out to make profits. If they cannot make those profits, they withdraw the services. If we think that those services are desirable in their own right and fulfil a social function, somebody has to pay, which means subsidies. I do not balk at that. It is a good thing that people move from the road on to the railways. We should be spending more money on the railways.

In my own constituency, I have been banging on about this for as long as I can remember—we should reopen the old line from Colne to Skipton that was ripped up in 1970. The cost of reinstating that line on a single track would be about £35 million. That is de minimis when we hear about billions and trillions of pounds and about bail-outs. The Todmorden curve, which would allow people to travel from east Lancashire painlessly into Manchester, would cost about £5 million. Those are trivial sums. Through the years, I have read so many strategy reports and assessment reports—reports written by any number of organisations. I am fed up reading those reports; I want to see action on the ground. I am encouraged that the new Minister responsible for the railways, Lord Adonis, has agreed to meet me and a small delegation of people who want to see that railway reopened.

Let me finish on this point. In Lancashire, there are bids from seven organisations that want to see rail reopenings in the county. County councils and others are going through hoops unnecessarily to prioritise those schemes. What we should be doing is putting additional money into transport as a way of kick-starting the economy and rebuilding the infrastructure that needs to be replaced.

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing what has been a very important debate on transport in the north-west. The title of the debate is fairly broad and has given a number of MPs from across the north-west an opportunity to have their say and raise objections or state views on transport in the north-west, whether that is suggesting the reopening of Coppull station or talking about discussions on Ribble Valley Rail, travel to school or even high-speed rail in Taiwan.

Having looked through Hansard to find out what the hon. Member for Chorley might want to talk about, I concluded that he wanted to raise the issue of free concessionary travel, given that he had asked a number of parliamentary questions on the issue and had suggested a topical debate on the possible extension of the scheme to include schoolchildren and students and widening the scheme to encompass trains. Fortunately, I bumped into the hon. Gentleman on the Floor of the House yesterday and was tipped off about the other issues that he wanted to discuss.

The hon. Gentleman started by talking about the concessionary travel scheme, and although hon. Members on both sides of the House would support the principle of extending it—whether to young people or to other forms of public transport—the harsh reality is that we have not yet managed fully to fund the existing scheme. The expected shortfall in a number of local authorities in the north-west ranges from as little as £70,000 in Allerdale to more than £1,380,000 in Preston. Other north-west local authorities also have funding gaps and have been short-changed. The figure in Blackpool, for instance, is £1.25 million, while in South Lakeland it is £95,000. In the hon. Gentleman’s own area, Chorley, the figure is more than £400,000.

I am sorry, but that is not true. The local authority loves to put that figure about, but it is not true. What we do have a problem with is money coming back. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that local authorities in Lancashire have divvied up the money. Some received more than they should have, and some received less, and we did not know how well it would be used. The figures that he gave are not correct, and he should have a rethink about that. It would be tragic if local authorities were allowed to cry foul when they do not have a case. Chorley has done very well over the years; in fact, it has had more money than it has spent. The fact that the other authorities are divvying up and sharing out the money is easing the pain for those that have suffered.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarification. Obviously, I am going on the figures produced by the local authority. It is fair to say, however, that some local authorities are winners and some losers, and that has been replicated around the country. The Government have argued that the money available covers the scheme, but setting aside the fact that there are winners and losers, there is a shortfall of about £60 million across the country.

I have to say that that shortfall is in no small part due to the success of the scheme. We would all agree that it has been a massive success, and people have made use of their free travel. However, estimates of how many extra journeys would be created and how much that would cost have perhaps been too low. I have no doubt that if we decided to extend the scheme to include other forms of public transport or schoolchildren and students, that would be equally successful and increase patronage.

The Government’s response, however, has been to draw back from the scheme. Hon. Members may not be aware of the change to the scheme that came into force on 1 April, banning the use of free bus passes on certain services unless local authorities foot the bill. That change, which was contained in a statutory instrument, was introduced without proper scrutiny or the opportunity to divide on it. The Liberal Democrats opposed the statutory instrument, and I hope that that will result in the matter being brought back to Parliament for discussion, because the change has meant that local bus services in some areas are no longer available free of charge to pensioners and disabled people. Although the statutory instrument is no doubt intended to exclude coach services, such services often provide the local bus service for pensioners. While I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, I suggest that we ensure that the scheme is fully funded and covers all local bus services before we talk about extending it to include rail.

Of course it should be properly funded, and some would argue that it has been. As I said, however, some people have got more money than they should have done, and it should be shared out. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of this, but the scheme should never have been operated by individual districts, which have negotiated with each transport operator in their area. The scheme should have gone to the county, which should then have provided the service and negotiated on behalf of the districts. That would have made sense. It is the fact that the districts wanted to make money out of the scheme that has created the biggest problem. What I should tell the hon. Gentleman, however, is that it is not right that there is a postcode transport lottery—people in London can use underground trains and the docklands light railway, but young people and pensioners in the north cannot use similar services. There should be no differentials between the benefits to the south and the benefits to the north. As local Members, we should all be on side, ensuring that we represent our people and that they have the same rights as people in London—and that should be paid for by the Government.

I would agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments, but the reality is that it is difficult to come up with a scheme that can be fully funded when the north-west loses out to the south-east on funding.

I want briefly to move on to the issue of rail. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a high-speed line to the north-west, and he will be aware that the Liberal Democrats were the first party to pledge support for a high-speed rail link to the north and beyond. The Conservatives, as usual, have limped in with a half-hearted promise late in the day, although I am pleased that the Labour party has now shown itself to be more in favour of high-speed rail than it has been. That is in no small part due to the new Minister for rail, who is showing a real commitment to rail, and I am happy to go on record with that.

My party’s programme for high-speed rail would begin immediately and would be rolled out over 15 years. A high-speed line is vital not only to free up capacity on existing routes, but to encourage more cars off the roads and dissuade people from taking domestic flights, as well as helping to drive the north-west economy and bringing us as close to the south-east as necessary.

On top of that commitment, we would create a new future transport fund, which would more than double the Government’s planned investment for 2009-14, and provide an estimated additional £12 billion to improve rail services. We have already put together a list of potential rail improvements across the country that could be funded from the future transport fund. It is certainly not an exhaustive list, and there is plenty of opportunity for other small schemes to be included. One or two of the suggested options in the north-west include the electrification of the Wrexham-Bidston line and trans-Pennine routes, including Manchester, Liverpool via Chat Moss, and Blackpool via Preston. We also propose to reopen lines such as the Penrith to Keswick and the Galashiels to Carlisle lines. We will also look at new lines—the Todmorden curve has been mentioned, and there is also the Burscough curve—and at introducing a number of new stations, which several hon. Members have mentioned.

Such initiatives are vital if we are to expand capacity and deal with the major problem of overcrowding on our railways. Tinkering with the timetables has resulted in positive improvements for some local services, but that is tinkering at the edges, and for all the winners that it creates, it also creates losers. The hon. Gentleman talked about train services not stopping at Adlington, and although timetable alterations along the Styal line in my constituency have resulted in service improvements for some passengers, others are now unable to get on a particular service at a particular train station, while those who want to go through Manchester have to change trains instead of being able to take a through train, as they did previously.

In its policy paper, my party has set out in great detail the benefits of high-speed rail and other rail improvements, but we have also indicated how we would pay for them. There would be a £30 surcharge on domestic flights—we have been very open about that—and a lorry road user charge. We would also get more money out of the train operating companies by offering longer franchises in return for better investment. Currently there is little incentive for train operating companies to invest for the future, as they are uncertain whether they will be running services in two or three years’ time.

Finally, in a debate on transport in the north-west, and because I represent a Manchester constituency, it would be wrong not to mention the referendum in Greater Manchester on congestion charging.

I am intrigued by the £30 tax. Would those flying via Heathrow or Gatwick in transit be eligible for that tax?

The £30 tax would be for all domestic flights, with the exception of lifeline flights, so if someone took a plane from Manchester to London and then got on another flight to somewhere else, that would clearly incur the charge.

Could I just point out—

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because I do not have much time left. [Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

I do not wish to dwell on the rights and wrongs of the transport innovation bid, but the overwhelming rejection of the revenue-raising congestion charge to part-fund public transport improvements in Greater Manchester makes it increasingly unlikely that any local authority will press ahead with a different scheme, including congestion charging. It would be a brave local authority that was prepared to risk the political consequences of promoting a charging scheme, particularly at a time when people are struggling as a result of the economic downturn and businesses are facing an uncertain future.

That means that more than £1 billion could be left unspent and will probably find its way back to the Treasury. We believe that that money should be spent to improve transport now, on schemes that will either help to kick-start the local economy or promote greener and more sustainable transport. There are schemes in Greater Manchester that are ready to go now, and I am sure that there are other schemes across the country that local authorities would like to promote that could use that money, but it cannot be accessed because no one is prepared to put in a bid that includes congestion charging.

It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate, particularly following the contributions that have been made, including that from the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who ably introduced the debate and spoke with passion. I was intrigued by his innovative use of geography, as he somehow managed to put Chorley at the centre not only of Lancashire and the north-west, but of England, and probably, had we let him continue, the universe as well. There were some key points in his contribution that the Minister will need to focus on in his response, such as the possible extension of concessionary travel arrangements for pensioners.

It is true that the Government have set up a system whereby local authorities receive funding, and that has caused all sorts of inadequacies. The hon. Member for Chorley will recognise, despite his correction of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech), that the published figures in Lancashire show some big swings between local councils, and it is clear that that is happening in other parts of the country as well. The problem is about not only national underfunding, but council-to-council differentials.

By way of further clarification, we suggested that it should have gone to the county in the first place, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that countries should have operated such a scheme instead of all the local districts trying to negotiate. The other point is that some of them have spent money on subsidising bus routes, but the money was never intended to do that. It was intended to support the pensioners, but it has been used for other purposes, which is part of the reason why they have a deficit.

That is undoubtedly true in other areas. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in other parts of the country, informal, county-wide schemes are already operating, as in Lincolnshire and Surrey, as the only way to make the scheme in any way viable countrywide. The Minister will have to address how the Government intend, in the short period left to them, to rectify the funding of the scheme, because not only is it nationally underfunded, but the differentials between councils are causing major problems. I listened with great care to the case made for extending the scheme to rail and to young people and will be interested to hear whether the Minister will commit to funding that extra cost today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) talked about the cost of rail, and he will be aware that those high roll-on fares are partly a direct result of the franchise system put in place by the Government. He also mentioned Ribble Valley Rail and Beeching, so it will be interesting to hear whether the Minister would like to do what the four previous Secretaries of State to whom I have written have failed to do, which is join us in a moratorium on building on old railway lines. Being one of Parliament’s most experienced air travellers, my hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the need to keep Manchester airport going.

I was intrigued by the comments on high-speed rail, on which there is now consensus across the political spectrum. I am not quite sure that I recognise the Liberal Democrats as being the first to make that commitment or where that claim came from, but it is absolutely clear that high-speed rail has a part to play and I wish to touch on that in more detail. I was intrigued by the contribution made by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh). I think that he said that he regarded the funding for Crossrail as a folly, and I wonder whether that is his party’s policy. I look forward to some official confirmation on that.

We had an amusing tract on socialist economics from the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and on the need for greater subsidy. I wonder whether the Minister will want to talk about greater subsidy today in the light of what is likely to happen tomorrow, when the Government will admit that we are in the longest recession since the second world war and that the budget deficit will rise to around 12 per cent. of gross domestic product. All the contributions have called for extra funding from the Government, so I wonder whether the Minister will talk about that. I looked at the numbers for funding for the north-west, compared with other regions—one of the interesting points that is often made is the comparison between the north-west and London. However, the Government will know that, according to the Department for Transport’s current plans for 2010-11, the north-west will receive rather more per head than London. Do the Government intend to continue with those plans or do they intend to give rather less to the north-west?

There will be a general election next year, and the hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago, with a slight hint of hubris, that that will be the end of the Labour Government. Will a Conservative Government commit to maintaining those figures?

I am interested to know whether this Government will commit to those spending plans in the light of what we might hear tomorrow, and after that I will happily look at what plans might be available. As I have said, it is highly likely that tomorrow we will see the budget deficit skyrocket to 12 per cent. of GDP. The Department is already looking to cut substantial amounts of money from its budget proposals, as we have seen from the permanent secretary’s comments to a group of suppliers, and I am asking the Minister to say whether he intends to keep to the Department’s published plans.

We have heard several comments on the clear importance of high-speed rail to the north and to the whole country. The case for high-speed rail was made by my party over two years ago, and we are delighted that Lord Adonis has joined that case, which will produce significant economic and environmental benefits for the north. Will the Minster commit the Government to extend the high-speed rail beyond Rugby, which is where the Secretary of State currently intends to close it?

I am aware that the Minister will need time to answer all the questions raised today, but will he answer two others about the railways in the north? First, the northern franchise is due to be relet in 2012-13. The current franchise was on let on the assumption of there being no growth. Is the Minister prepared to say that that was wrong, and that growth assumptions should now be made? Will he confirm the Government’s proposals on the carriages to be used under that renegotiated high-level output specification franchise? Will they be new, or will they be cascaded carriages?

The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) said that the routes in and around Manchester are the most overcrowded. Clearly, there are a number of plans for the Manchester hub; it is one of the key schemes for ensuring the continued growth of the economy of the north. Will the Minister update us today on what conversations he has had with his colleagues in other Ministries on progressing those plans? Will he confirm that Network Rail is pushing ahead with those plans, and that we will see them on the due date in June?

It is a pleasure, Mr. Hood, to see you presiding over our debate this afternoon.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing this important debate. He expressed concerns on a range of policies and projects in the north-west, as did other Members, and he set them out clearly. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that even if I do not respond to every point raised this morning, they will all be examined. I shall speak later on the specific issues raised. However, I shall start by highlighting some of the successes seen recently in the north-west.

I am responding on behalf of my ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark). He sends his apologies for not being able to attend the debate. The Department is proud of the investment that it has made to improve transport in the north-west. Total public expenditure on transport there increased by 27 per cent. between 2002-03 and 2007-08; there was £672 million for local transport and maintenance for the period 2008-11; and there was £1.3 billion over 10 years for major projects. However, those numbers tell only part of the story.

The north-west benefits also from specifically targeted funding. A road safety grant of £41.5 million is helping local authorities to develop solutions specific to their needs; more than 20 per cent. of the recent national cycle training grant went to the north-west; and £7 million is going towards the north-west’s three new cycling demonstration towns of Blackpool, Chester and Southport. I shall return to the topic of cycling if I have time. Furthermore, more than £21 million in proposed investment from the community infrastructure fund has been progressed to a full business case for schemes in the north-west.

Having an effective transport system is about much more than money. It is also about seizing the opportunities offered and making the right decisions. We are devolving decision-making, putting local people and their leaders in the driving seat when deciding transport priorities. However, I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley said; I understand that public consultation will soon take place in respect of improving those arrangements.

Central to this is the Local Transport Act 2008, which gives the new integrated transport authorities the opportunity to implement a more streamlined transport planning and decision-making process. We are providing the right framework and tools for local authorities and bus operators to work together to boost bus use. That is why we are urging our partners to make the most of the opportunities provided by the Act to promote bus travel, reduce congestion and improve services, information and infrastructure. As an example of that, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham recently made a well received visit to the north-west to discuss the provisions of the Act with councillors and officers and to encourage its use.

Much can be achieved in transport through effective leadership and governance, as they will allow the right decisions to be made at the right level, whether local, regional or sub-regional. We have seen with the buses what local leadership can achieve. At the sub-regional level, the north-west has been at the forefront of taking advantage of the opportunities through the multi-area agreement system. There is also a strategic regional dimension to transport planning. The north-west, with other regions, recently resubmitted its priorities for major project funding through the regional funding allocation. We are now considering them, and will reply in due course.

Although I cannot comment now on the specifics of the north-west’s submission, I welcome the positive response from the area to its increasing role in making decisions. Going forward, the Department is providing funds to regions to study priorities under the strategic process set out in “Delivering a Sustainable Transport System”, which was published earlier this year.

These are challenging times. The north-west is, and always has been, a vital component in our national economy. Businesses and industries from the region are competing in global markets, but they do so against the backdrop of a global economic crisis. Keeping goods, raw materials and commuters moving is crucial to supporting the economy. We in Whitehall are making investment, and devolving decision-making to those who know best, but we are also developing a long-term vision for the nation’s transport network by exploring the possibilities of a north-south high-speed rail link, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley and many others. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Lord Adonis, the rail Minister, will be gratified by the kind words expressed by so many Members this morning, both welcoming them to the Department and appreciating what they have done since their appointment.

As announced to the House on 15 January, a new company, High Speed 2, has been formed to develop the case for high-speed services between London and Scotland. It will report by the end of the year with a proposed route from London to the west midlands, setting out any necessary options. It will also consider the potential for new lines to serve the north of England and Scotland.

We have asked High Speed 2 to provide advice on the development of a high-speed line beyond the west midlands, at the level of broad corridors, including to the north-west. The Manchester hub study is now working to a similar time scale to the high speed study, and the conclusions of each will be shared. Network Rail will not develop options for Manchester and the surrounding area that would close off the option of high-speed trains to service a central Manchester terminal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) spoke about Taiwan, and said that if there were a high-speed rail link between the north-west and London it would eliminate all air travel. We have discussed the matter before. As my hon. Friend knows, the upgrade of the north-west line has reversed the polarity of travel; instead of 60 per cent. of travellers going by air and 40 per cent. by rail, 60 per cent. now go by rail and 40 per cent. by air. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right; an improved service will enable travellers to choose the most appropriate and suitable service, which will also be the most efficient and cost-effective.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley asked about community infrastructure fund and whether, if that was unsuccessful for Chorley, he could look for an alternative funding solution. The outcome of the CIF assessment process will be known by the summer, after which time we will be clearer about whether alternative funding solutions still need to be considered. He also spoke about the Mersey gateway bridge. It has been agreed that there will a joint public inquiry into all the orders necessary to build and toll both bridges. That inquiry begins on 19 May. That subject was first raised in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg). However, I shall comment only on current proposals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley asked about extending concessionary travel to young people, and he wanted to know whether it would be extended to regional train travel, too. As he said, the current scheme is popular. Local authorities have the power to put further extensions in place if they believe that it would be good for the area. However, I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s demand for additional funding for his area, so that services similar to those provided in other parts of the country can be provided in the north-west.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said that more needs to be done for rural bus services. Provisions in the Local Transport Act 2008 strengthen the powers available to local authorities to improve bus services; they include better provision for community transport, as well as making quality contracts more feasible. It is up to local authorities to use those powers in the best way for their areas.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) that I am big fan and supporter of Manchester airport. In 2003, we published the White Paper on aviation, and in 2006 there was an update. We are committed to providing a national policy statement on aviation in due course. My hon. Friend spoke about commercial pressures, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, and he also asked about identifying appropriate regulation to support regional airports. Those matters are being examined, and will be examined further. I was also asked about rail capacity—

Order. We now come to a debate on the capital programme at Canterbury college.