Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr. Spellar.)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue of critical importance to my constituency, both now and for its future prosperity. When I first rose in this House to give my maiden speech, a mere four and a half years ago, I drew the House's attention to two critical strengths of my constituency of Burnley.

The first is our proud manufacturing tradition, which I am pleased to say is still doing well, and the second is the town's natural beauty, nestling as it does between the Pennines and the imposing Pendle hill. Indeed, putting those features together I am convinced that William Blake had Burnley in mind when he wrote of "dark satanic mills" in a "green and pleasant land".

I also said back in 2005 that towns such as Burnley needed a Labour Government to succeed, and events since then have shown that that is true. In the last four years, all our secondary schools have been rebuilt under the Building Schools for the Future programme. Our brand new, £80 million college, university and enterprise campus has just opened. The hospital is being rebuilt-although not without controversy-with a new specialist maternity unit for the whole of east Lancashire set to open next year. That enables me cheekily to say in advance of Sunday's crucial football derby that even Blackburn Rovers fans will soon be born in Burnley. Finally, the cash to regenerate our housing keeps coming, with the Government announcing another £1.4 million for Burnley just as the House rose for the summer.

However, there is something missing. We need another piece of the jigsaw to slot into place before our future is secured, and it is this: although we are less than 30 miles north of the booming and fashionable metropolis of Manchester, there is no fast train link and so it is nigh on impossible to commute there during rush hour.

The buses, although good, take an hour and a half each way, as demonstrated by their own published timetable, and it can be even slower by car. That is simply a nonsense: where else in the country is there a town of 90,000 people, 30 miles from an urban centre of 2.5 million people-the population of the whole of Greater Manchester-with no fast train between the two?

How can my constituents get the good jobs and high wages on offer in the big city? It is no wonder we are a low-wage town. How can we attract existing Manchester workers to live in Burnley and bring us the benefit of their incomes? It is no wonder our house prices are among the lowest in the country. How can we build our tourism industry in this green and pleasant land of ours? How can we get the necessary regeneration of our old mill buildings if there is no connection to the buzz of the big city? It breaks my heart when world-class urban designers come with a view to investing in our derelict Weavers triangle mill district but say, "Get back to us when the direct train line to Manchester is sorted out."

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend Chris Mole, for the attention that he has given to this issue. My message to him is, "Let's work together to get this sorted out." Too often, transport links are built to serve existing demand rather than being used as a regeneration tool in themselves.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are really serious about reducing the gross value-added gap between London and the regions, and about being globally competitive and reducing carbon emissions, we need serious investment in transport links? That goes beyond the frankly measly 100 metres of track needed to complete the Todmorden curve in my constituency, because we also need to modernise the mainline trans-Pennine corridors to ensure that they meet the future needs of everyone in the region and provide a real alternative to the car.

I agree with my hon. Friend. Notwithstanding the fact that the track that would benefit my constituents lies in her constituency, her constituents would benefit from it, too. She has got right to the heart of this issue, because we must not view transport links as simply a tool to reduce congestion; they are also a regeneration tool in themselves. My constituency provides a good example of that, as does hers: the reason why the industrial revolution took off in my constituency in the first place is that the Leeds-Liverpool canal was already there. The transport links come first, and the regeneration and economic activity come next.

This is a regeneration project that involves transport, and it needs to be a Government priority. So here is the proposition: reinstate some small pieces of track, as my hon. Friend said, east of Burnley, known as the Todmorden curve, to enable trains to run from directly from our Burnley Manchester Road station, in the heart of the Weavers' triangle, which is a derelict mill district, straight into Manchester Victoria. Even if the train stopped a few times-I would be willing to concede to a stop in my hon. Friend's constituency-it could still deliver my constituents to the heart of Manchester in well under an hour, or half the time it takes by bus.

I have to admit to the House that working on this issue in the last few years has turned me into a bit of a railway nerd. I now consider Network Rail's route utilisation studies to be light bedtime reading. I am sure that the Minister, too, will know that last year's Lancashire and Cumbria RUS recommended that

"stakeholders work together to further develop the business case and sources of funding" for the Todmorden curve option. So we have done exactly that. The project forms part of the Pennine Lancashire multi-area agreement and is being progressed through the Pennine Lancashire rail project board, which consists of Lancashire, Blackburn and Burnley councils, with representatives from the Minister's Department, as well as Northern Trains and Network Rail being in attendance.

In 2008, I paid a visit to the Minister's predecessor-the then Railways Minister and now Secretary of State, Lord Adonis. He understood the issue well and advised that it would help if Lancashire county council, as the transport authority, made clear its support in our two-tier system. I am happy to report to the House that that support is now crystal clear. Indeed, I have a letter from the executive director for the environment at Lancashire county council, dated 17 July this year, that states that they

"fully support the principle of the scheme".

The RDA's support is also beyond doubt. The former chair of the Northwest Regional Development Agency, Bryan Gray, wrote to tell me that those of the Agency

"have committed in principle to provide substantial capital investment in the Todmorden Curve".

The chief executive only this week wrote to tell me that

"the RDA is fully committed to this project which will generate significant economic benefits" and to indicate its commitment the NWDA is, as a first step, funding Network Rail to the tune of £120,000 to undertake its detailed business case through the so-called GRIP-guide to railway investment projects-process to determine the likely benefit-to-cost ratio of the scheme as a whole. This is where I need the Minister's help.

Network Rail told me its business case would be completed by late summer. I am wearing my woolly tights; it is not warm outside; it is way past last summer, but we are still waiting for its work. Its initial estimate, published in 2008 and based on out-of-date data, found a benefit-to-cost ratio of between 1 and 1.4. By contrast, a report produced by the respected transport consultancy firm Buchanan in 2008 and commissioned by a consortium of local partners, although the report was independent, found that the project had a high benefit-to-cost ratio of at least 2.65. It is our strong view that, if the regeneration impacts are taken into account, alongside more recent passenger projection figures, the benefit-to-cost ratio will come out much higher than Network Rail's initial figures.

So here are my first six questions to the Minister. First, do he and his Department support this project? It would be useful to have the answer to that on the record. Secondly, what will he personally do to help to make it happen? Will he today give me a guarantee that he will keep a watching brief on the issue and provide me, as the local MP, with regular reports on progress, for example? Thirdly, will he ensure that the potential economic benefits of the project, which are in line with the new so-called DaSTS-delivering a sustainable transport system-principles, are fully taken into account in any cost-benefit analysis?

Fourthly, if a consortium came forward to fund the operating costs, would the Department for Transport join it? Fifthly, will the Minister signal to Network Rail that it should move faster to progress the project, particularly if it emerges as part of the wider solution to reduce congestion on routes into Manchester? I know that my hon. Friend Chris McCafferty also has an interest in that. Sixthly, what discussions has my hon. Friend the Minister had with the franchise operator, Northern Rail, about a possible amendment to the franchise in order to begin running services on the proposed new route?

My next set of questions relates to timing. I regret that other political parties do not share our commitment to the regional development agencies, and it is the Northwest Regional Development Agency that, as I have said, is committed to providing substantial capital investment. I should not want something to happen to our RDA which meant that this crucial project could not happen, so, seventhly, if we presume that the funding is available, how soon can this crucial link be built? If Network Rail gets its skates on, the detailed design work of GRIP 5 could, I presume, start around the turn of the year. If that then takes a year to complete, I presume that we could move on to GRIP 6, the construction work, in early 2011.

Eighthly, therefore, does my hon. Friend agree that, presuming the availability, there is a theoretical possibility of construction starting in 2011? Ninthly, and specifically, can he set out clearly for the benefit of all the road map and timetable for who needs to do what to achieve that goal?

I have been working on this issue for five years. I have spoken on numerous occasions to all the agencies and partners involved, and I wanted to put my points to the Minister because I have become frustrated by everybody saying, "Yes, I understand my bit, but this won't happen until so-and-so does it." So-and-so is normally one of the other councils or agencies. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could set out clearly who, including people from his Department, needs to do what, and when, to make the project happen.

In conclusion, my constituency has been well served by a Labour Government. In my short time as an MP, I have seen multiple Departments-most notably the Department of Health, various education Departments and the Department for Communities and Local Government, but the Home Office and others, too-all come to the table to do their part to secure our future. Now it is the turn of the Department for Transport. My final question-to make it a round 10-is, therefore, will the Minister come to Burnley to see for himself our town's huge potential and its determination to succeed, so that he can understand how crucial this project is?

I promised in my maiden speech to do my best for the people of Burnley, and that is what I have done. I hope that the Minister will now join me in that promise. Let us together put in place to secure this project for the town's future prosperity a process that nobody can undo.

I congratulate my hon. Friend Kitty Ussher on securing this debate. She has explained with great clarity the importance to the people and the economy of east Lancashire of a direct rail link between Burnley and Manchester, and I welcome the opportunity to outline the role that the Department for Transport can play in helping the scheme to come to fruition.

As my hon. Friend will know, the local authorities in the area that is known as Pennine Lancashire have been very active in promoting the development of rail services in their area, and the Government have signed up to a multi-area agreement that has committed the Department to working with them to take forward schemes that are considered a priority. Most active among those authorities have been Burnley borough council, Blackburn and Darwen council and Lancashire county council, and departmental officials have met them on a number of occasions, along with Network Rail and Northern Rail.

The partners are absolutely clear about what has to be done to bring the schemes to fruition, and they have commissioned Network Rail to undertake detailed studies through what is known as the GRIP process. My hon. Friend said that she has become a nerd and worked out that an RUS is a route utilisation strategy, and I note that GRIP is the guide to railway investment projects process, which will demonstrate engineering feasibility and capital cost.

The promoters are aware that they would need to fund the capital costs of any infrastructure required, such as a new curve, from their capital budgets. That could include their local transport plan-integrated transport funds derived from the regional funding allocation devolved to regions and local authorities from central Government for capital projects.

In making the case for such funding, the promoters are well aware that any transport scheme can make progress only if there is a business case. The business case can take account of the wider benefits to the local economy from the investment and will certainly take account of congestion and accident savings on the parallel road network. However, building the Todmorden curve, if that is the right answer, will not deliver more travel opportunities to Manchester unless a direct train service is provided between Burnley and Manchester-and that might prove to be the greater challenge.

Train services in the north of England require large amounts of subsidy; last year, the Northern Rail franchise received more than £380 million in subsidy. It is therefore likely that any new service between Burnley and Manchester will require ongoing financial support, although we anticipate that train operators would seek to minimise that. The Department's original stance was that promoters of new services, such as the Pennine Lancashire local authorities, would have to fund the ongoing subsidy costs in perpetuity. Not surprisingly, they considered that that would be difficult to commit to; in any case, they questioned why, if the new service proved successful, they should continue to fund it-rather than the Government as part of their funding to the national network through franchise agreements.

Earlier this year, we addressed the local authorities' concerns and agreed that, subject to funding being made available from 2014 onwards, the Department would consider funding new and enhanced services as part of the national network. That would happen after the promoters had funded them for a minimum of three years and demonstrated during that period that the new service met its forecasts for usage and demonstrated value for money for the subsidy required.

So the promoters of the Burnley to Manchester line know exactly where they stand in relation to this project. They need to identify the capital costs of, for example, the Todmorden curve, and they will have to identify ongoing subsidy for at least three years. Furthermore, in doing that they will have to demonstrate continually that the scheme is the best way to meet local transport needs and give value for money.

My hon. Friend asked me six initial questions and four further ones. First, she asked whether the Department supported the project. We would support any rail scheme that demonstrated value for money and could be funded, and I am pleased to hear that that is likely to be the case in respect of this scheme. She also asked what I would do personally to make it happen. Department officials have been working with Burnley borough council and others for some months and have been able to provide advice whenever necessary. However, it is for the local authorities working with Network Rail and Northern Rail to make real progress on the scheme. But I will keep a watching brief on the matter and I commit to keeping my hon. Friend informed of progress.

My hon. Friend asked whether I would ensure that the potential economic projects, in line with the DaSTS, are fully taken into account. I assure her that the wider economic benefits arising from such a project can be taken into account in the assessment of the scheme. She asked whether, if a consortium came forward to fund the operating costs, the Department for Transport would join it. I have made the Department's position clear: such a consortium would have to fund the service for a minimum of three years. After that, assuming that the scheme continued to demonstrate value for money and funds were available in the 2014 to 2019 budget, the Department would take on responsibility for the service as part of the national network.

My hon. Friend also asked whether I would signal to Network Rail that it should support the project. If the project is deliverable in engineering, planning and operational terms and Network Rail is funded by the promoters to deliver it, I see no reason why Network Rail should not support it.

The sixth question was about the discussions that I had had with Northern Rail about a possible amendment to the franchise to begin running services. Northern Rail is already part of the team looking at this scheme and it would be premature to start discussions with the company before we are clear about what the scheme involves in respect of additional services and rolling stock. However, as I have said, the company is very much involved and aware.

I entirely understood my hon. Friend's point about regional development agencies. What we are discussing is an excellent example. As a former board member of a regional development agency, I recognise that plugging gaps, priming pumps and drawing partners together to make such projects happen, for the economic benefit of areas where transport can make a difference, is exactly the sort of role that they have.

My hon. Friend's next question was about how soon we can get on with this. It will be for Network Rail and Northern Rail to determine when the link can be built and when a service could be introduced. She asked whether it was theoretically possible to start in 2011. I cannot speak on behalf of Network Rail as to when it could complete the necessary GRIP stages and begin work on site, but I am optimistic that it will have completed the current stage by the end of the year.

I am extremely grateful for the constructive approach that my hon. Friend is taking. As a Minister, he has a large amount of personal experience of how these things work in other parts of the country. Does he think that it is a realistic aim for the local partners to try to achieve starting work on the ground in 2011?

I can only be as positive as I can about the scheme and its prospects. Indeed, my hon. Friend's ninth question was about what needed to be done in order for this to be achieved as quickly as possible. The road map needs to be developed by Burnley borough council, which is the main promoter, with Network Rail and Northern Rail. The Department is more than happy to provide any guidance to the promoters, as we have been doing up until now.

My hon. Friend's final question was to ask if I will come to Burnley and see for myself the town's huge potential. I entirely understand her case for Burnley and the role that good sustainable transport links can play in its economic development. I am sorry that during my recent visit to the railways in the north of England, I was not able to visit Burnley. I will look closely at my diary to see whether a visit is possible.

May I extend to the Minister an invitation to Todmorden, in my constituency, at the same time so that he can see the measly 100 metres of railway track that needs to be completed in order for my hon. Friend's constituents to be able to go to work in Manchester quickly and easily every day?

I am sure that if I were to visit Burnley to see the delights of that town and the potential for investment in this infrastructure, it would be entirely sensible for me to try to look at the Todmorden curve at the same time.

I am positive about the prospects for improved rail connections from Burnley to Manchester, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley for campaigning so effectively to promote this scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.