---

Transport (North-West)

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.