Road and Rail Projects
Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his compliments. Of course, the real significance of this list is that it is a funded list, rather than one that is not funded—a list of aspiration and hope. I am not too sure about the phrase “green-lighting”; I am not too that it is in the dictionary and, if it is, it is a shame. What it means is that these are funded schemes to go ahead. One or two still need development consent orders, which is a process that has to be taken to a conclusion. Therefore, the start dates will be different across the huge list, but many are ready and have been waiting for funding for quite a long time.
On the pausing at Dawlish that I referred to in the discussion with the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, monitoring will take place. It is not that it “should” take place. The monitoring of those cliffs needs to continue. My understanding of the situation, which I have to say is from the last job I did rather than this one, is that monitoring those cliffs is essential. The work needed to remedy all this is, at least partially, about what we see in the monitoring process, so it is sensible to look now and do something when agreed.
Will we publish a paper on the criteria that have been used? There are two things here. One is that the Government have decided to do these schemes and have taken a view, from the wreckage they inherited, to prioritise things that need to be done that will contribute to a better local economy. We will get on with doing that first. In the longer term, there is an intention to have both a 10-year infrastructure strategy and a long-term railway plan. In conjunction with the revision of the Green Book that the Chancellor talked about in the spending review—to look at aspects that allow projects in parts of the country with lower rates of economic activity to benefit—I think there will be a case to publish a long-term railway plan and talk about the criteria used. For now, we will get on with what has been announced.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister is familiar with the intricacies of the Barnett formula. I know that because he has quoted it to me in the past. Will he therefore confirm that the Barnett formula, as far as rail is concerned, will indeed generate money for Wales from those projects that are England-only, such as the Oxford to Cambridge line? Will he also confirm what the First Minister of Wales has called for—for Wales to get the Barnett consequential of that expenditure?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is right: this subject has come up before. There is a real difference in the current circumstances. Rail projects are all classified as England and Wales in the way that this is done. The real difference in this list is that, for the first time, there is a significant commitment to funding rail enhancements in Wales: £300 million or so in the spending review period, and a total of over £450 million in 10 years.
The current Welsh Government, particularly Ken Skates—whom I happened to meet this morning on the subject—and the Secretary of State for Wales, agree that the schemes that have been announced for development and implementation are the right ones. There are schemes for the south Wales main line arising from the Burns report, and there are schemes for the north Wales main line to improve train frequency and connectivity. There is a scheme for Wrexham to Bidston—curiously, in these documents it is referred to as Padeswood sidings, about the most obscure title that you could imagine—which is designed to make some freight improvements to double the frequency from Wrexham to Bidston. There are also a number of other things. The significance of this announcement is that it commits money to Welsh railway schemes— schemes that the Welsh Government agree need to be taken forward as the most urgent—and I hope that the noble Lord welcomes that.
Stockton and Darlington Railway: 200th Anniversary
Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The first publicly run South Western Railway train will be at an extraordinarily early hour on 20 May. I fear I will have the doubtful privilege of traveling on it. I doubt it will have catering, because I suspect it is a suburban service from Strawberry Hill to Waterloo. The more serious answer about the Waterloo to Exeter line is that it could be more reliable, and a lot of effort is being put into making it more reliable. South Western, like most other current franchises, has a shortage of drivers, and I am working extremely hard with the department to make sure that it works better for the passengers both prior to and post the operation coming back into public ownership. We will look at catering, but the first priority is to make the train service reliable.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, in joining the good people of Stockton in celebrating the 200th anniversary, will the Minister recall that the first steam engine ran a decade earlier in Merthyr Tydfil, designed by the outstanding Cornish engineer Richard Trevithick? That was a reflection of the industrial greatness of those valleys at that time. Looking at HS2, which was mentioned a moment ago, will the Government now ensure that the Barnett consequentials come through to the Welsh Government in order for them to build a future for the railways in Wales that Wales most certainly deserves?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
There is a Celtic competition between the Penydarren tramway of, I think, 1814 and its originator, Trevithick, who came from Camborne. Personally, I side on the Cornish side of that argument. The more serious point the noble Lord raised is of course a matter of national finance and one for my Treasury colleagues and the Chancellor.
Railway Electrification
Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
More seriously, I agree with my noble friend that the point at which we celebrate 200 years of the first public passenger railway in the world is a very good moment both to contemplate the fact that the railway is already uniquely green and to look forward to full decarbonisation. The most exciting prospect has emerged since the last traction decarbonisation strategy of 2020: the significant development of battery technology, the significant introduction of bi-mode trains across Britain and very recently, by one of the most forward-looking freight companies, the introduction of a tri-mode freight locomotive, all of which enables electrification to be far more finely tuned to both cost and value for money yet produce at the end of it a fully decarbonised railway.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, shortly before the last election, the Conservative Party in its death throes gave a commitment to electrification of the line from Crewe to Holyhead. Do the present Government stand by that commitment?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
That commitment was one of many in a hurriedly put together document entitled Network North, which incidentally went as far south as Tavistock and went to Holyhead. The characteristic of that shoddy document is that virtually nothing in it was funded, nor indeed was much of it thought through. The last serious work on electrification of the north Wales main line was done by Network Rail in 2010 and that commitment—if it was a commitment—was put in that document with absolutely no reference to any business case nor current set of costs for delivering it.
Old Oak Common: Train Disruption
Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister will be well aware of the vital importance of these rail links to the south Wales economy. He will also be aware of the uncertainty that has arisen on many occasions recently regarding the dependability of services. Therefore, in view of these changes, can he look to find some mechanism whereby the maximum amount of advance information can be made available about the impact of these changes so that people travelling know what to expect?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I welcome that question. One of the issues that arose was quite clearly that a number of Members of the other House had not received information about the closures in November and at Christmas and the new year. I spoke to the managing director of Great Western Railway so that that information was shared. I can leave the noble Lord with this thought: I am not expecting further disruption as a result of the construction of Old Oak Common in this calendar year, the next one or, indeed, the one after that. I think the next line closures are quite some way away. That would be right, because we should start that construction process no earlier than it needs to be done in order to open it in time for HS2.
Cost of Living: Rail Fares
Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wigley (PC)
I offer my condolences to the family of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and pay tribute to the work that she did in Wales, not only on cultural matters but on transport matters. She will be greatly missed.
Does the Minister accept that one matter even more important to rail travellers than the cost of tickets is that the trains are running? What is the answer to the shortage of drivers, which is apparently the reason why Avanti West Coast is so often unable to maintain its timetable? What are the Government doing about it?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The shortage of drivers, and in some cases train managers and guards, is endemic and a result of insufficient attention being paid over a long period of time—including the period in which the last Government were in control—leaving the train companies without enough staff to staff the service. This Government intend to do something about the numbers of drivers, train managers and guards. We also intend to make running the railway a seven days per week issue rather than, in many cases, a railway where six days are rostered and the seventh day is dependent on people volunteering to work on rest days.
Rail Performance
Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, on the condition of the platforms along the north Wales line, if the Government can find £100 million for bat runs relative to HS2, surely they can find a fraction of that money to help disabled people along the north Wales coast.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The provision in HS2 for bats is a whole other subject, but I sympathise with the drift of the noble Lord’s argument. We should be doing as much as we can to enable access to the railway system by everyone. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who is in her place, knows that we have not been very good at it so far. I made a commitment to the House during the passage of the Bill of which we had the Third Reading today that we would do more. Level access, which I have already referred to, is an important subject. It is hard to crack but we should start, because if we do not start then we will never finish.
High-speed Rail Services: West Coast Main Line
Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, before the last election, the previous Government announced that, in lieu of a Barnett consequential to Wales arising out of HS2, they would move forward with plans to electrify the line from Crewe to Holyhead. Do the Labour Government intend to honour that pledge and, if not, will they ensure that Wales does indeed get a full Barnett consequential related to the spending on the HS2 project?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
As with a number of other projects suggested by the previous Government, the electrification from Crewe to Holyhead had never been funded and has not been developed. In relation to the Barnett formula, I had a very good meeting with the Welsh Government’s Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Transport and North Wales. He put his point of view on that subject and I responded to him.
HS2
Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, for his knowledge of the geography of the national railway network; I am aware of it myself. We will certainly have to bear that in mind with the review of the project as it now stands.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, to what extent has the Minister discussed this matter with the Government of Wales—the Labour Government of Wales in Cardiff—who are totally convinced that Wales is entitled to a Barnett consequential in line with the consequential payments to Scotland? The arguments that he has used today are nothing but an excuse to avoid payment. Will he please link up with his Labour colleagues in the Welsh Government to sort this matter out so that Wales can get the resources it needs?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport in Wales in my diary. I am sure that he will raise that matter.