---

Thameslink

I heard that he was open-minded, but also that he was uncertain about the conclusion, which is why I thought it might be prudent to push the matter again today. The Thameslink programme is clearly a major investment, with major public benefit not just for rail passengers but for the economy of the areas that the route serves. It has had a long gestation. Rail schemes that were formulated decades ago seem to have taken an enormous amount of time to proceed. My hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) mentioned the fact that Thameslink used to be called Thameslink 2000, and that it is now 2010 but we still do not have it. It is important for all Members of Parliament to accept that we cannot stop-start rail projects of such magnitude. They need long-term planning and commitment, and stop-starting costs money in cancellation fees. It is also, frankly, an incoherent way to run public policy on railways. For those reasons, and because there has already been delay, and given the difficult financial situation to which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) referred, which doubtless will continue under the next Government of whatever colour, it is important not to take short-term decisions that damage the country in the medium and long terms and are financially incompetent. It is clear to me that there should be no reduction in the Thameslink programme as planned. That is the position that my party formally adopts, and will adopt for the general election. It would be helpful today, for future planning, if the Conservative spokesman and the Minister were to give similar assurances. There is no point in my repeating the specific questions put by the hon. Member for Bedford and the hon. Member for Luton, North, but they were germane to the nuts and bolts of the scheme and I hope that the Minister will respond in detail. If he cannot, I hope that perhaps, as a courtesy, he will write to all the Members who have attended the debate, with specific answers to those important questions. The question of the sliding doors was raised, and I confirm that it is a serious issue. It is important at the present design stage that that matter should be properly addressed. Either the doors should be changed or a mechanism should be introduced to prevent the sort of problem that occurred with the sliding doors of the 319s—which, by the way, are regarded in the trade as dustbin trains. That is the current terminology. I see that we are to get some of them cascaded down to the Brighton to Eastbourne route by the Government. Perhaps the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (David Lepper), who is no longer in his place, may take an interest in that matter. The hon. Member for Orpington spoke about the funding of future transport schemes. It is important to make it plain at this point that, notwithstanding the economic difficulties that the country faces, there is a sensible economic case—perhaps even more so because of the economic circumstances—for investing in jobs, and particularly those that bring an environmental benefit, in the light of the challenge of climate change. That is why my party will make the creation of green jobs a priority at the general election. Railway investment fits firmly into that scenario. For that reason, I should be interested in the Minister's confirmation of plans for the introduction of new rolling stock. We have been promised 1,300 new carriages on many occasions. A bit like Billy Bunter's postal order, they never quite turn up; we are hoping that one day they will. Perhaps the Minister can give an answer about that and deal with the inconsistency in the timing, between 2012 and 2013, that has been mentioned in relation to Thameslink.