Department for Transport
David Chadwick Excerpts(5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I praise and thank the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for her wide-ranging opening speech to this important debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving time for it.
There is much to welcome in the spending review announcements for transport, particularly the capital investment in many parts of the country, but it is going to be important to hold the course and be consistent in the support for such schemes. For example, proposals for a West Yorkshire tram have been in and out so many times that people living in that region have understandably lost count. Hopefully, this time it really will happen.
Beneath the positive headlines about capital spending, and hidden a little in the footnotes, is a 5% cut to operational expenditure during the spending review period. Looking at the detail, there are some somewhat optimistic assumptions that form the basis of how that will be borne. For example, in section 1.7 of the DFT memorandum for the main estimate 2025-2026, it is clear that the assumption as to how some of those savings will be made is through ongoing recovery of passenger revenues since the pandemic, as well as planned cost efficiencies from rail reform. It states,
“Should revenue growth be lower or implementation of rail reform be slower than anticipated then that could result in spending pressures.”
Although Great British Railways certainly has the potential to improve things, I think all concerned would accept that on its own, it will not solve all our problems.
Given that our transport system is not going anywhere —we are not going to see closures of railways or large cuts—I think it is time that we collectively stop viewing it as a burden and spend intelligently to make the most of the assets and the costs that come with them. By spending a little bit more or approaching things a little radically, we can make far more of those sunk costs that go into our transport system and will continue regardless.
It is important to recognise the suggestions at the moment that funding for the existing network may well be constrained by the expensive disaster that the implementation of HS2 has become. We do need high-speed rail in this country, but the costs are simply unbelievable. However, I suggest to the Government that it would be as wrong to punish the conventional network for HS2’s failings as it would be to deprive local roads of investment because of an over-budget motorway project.
Here are a few friendly suggestions to the Minister and his colleagues for how that 5% operating expense gap could be plugged by growing revenue. When it comes to taking the railway to the next level, there are some things that cost very little, if anything, that could be done. I personally find on-train ticket checks to be inconsistent. Where guards are present, they really should be present on the train, ensuring that we maximise revenue gathering from ticket sales. Full electrification of our busiest and fastest inter-city and freight routes would lead to higher train reliability, better acceleration and therefore more capacity, making the most of what we already have. It is not just me who thinks that a rolling programme of electrification would reduce costs; chief executive of Network Rail Andrew Haines recently said in front of the Transport Committee that it is “incontrovertible” that it would do so.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the electrification of railway lines boosts capacity and enables them to ship more freight across our great nation?
<Railway Services: South-West>
David Chadwick Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martin Wrigley
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
When I met Network Rail in the autumn, it said that the design team for the fifth and final phase of the work would be reassigned if the funding was not forthcoming soon. That would put the project back, and significant extra funds would be required to get it back up to speed.
A few months ago, I asked the then Transport Secretary about the funding for the critical final phase of the Dawlish rail resilience programme, which is the largest piece of work. It deals with the landslips that caused the line to be closed long beyond the short time it took to repair the sea wall breach. She looked shocked to learn that the funding was not already there. Although she did not promise the funds, she indicated that the project would be a high priority.
The line has been closed on a number of occasions over the past years. The previous large cliff collapse was in the winter of 2000-01, according to the “West of Exeter Route Resilience Study”. I ask the Minister to reassure Network Rail and my constituents that that vital project will not be quietly forgotten, but will be completed to protect the economic wellbeing of the south-west and my constituents’ access to rail services.
However, there are other threats too. The Great Western main line not only runs from Paddington to Exeter, Plymouth, Penzance and the far west of Cornwall, but covers Swindon, Bristol, Cheltenham and Gloucester, to name but a few, not forgetting Cardiff, Swansea and south Wales.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. He is well aware that the south-west and Wales are connected by the Severn tunnel, which is often closed—it is likely that the closures are in his region. Does he agree that that is impacting economic growth in south Wales, and is all the more reason for Wales to receive the consequentials from HS2 funding to invest in our own railways in Wales, including the Heart of Wales line in my constituency?
Martin Wrigley
I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable point. He is absolutely right that Wales has been seen off, in terms of funding.
Old Oak Common Station
David Chadwick Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for securing this important debate.
Wales is a proud industrial nation, which was built on the back of the railways, with the world’s first train operating at Penydarren ironworks in Merthyr Tydfil. It did not carry passengers—it carried coal—but it was a train none the less. However, Wales’s proud contribution to rail in this country has been diminished in recent years by both Government neglect and diminished services from rail providers.
As the development of HS2 continues, the work at Old Oak Common station in London may seem like an isolated project in the heart of England, with little consequence elsewhere. However, the implications for Wales are substantial and far-reaching. Construction work at Old Oak Common is set to impact services along the south Wales main line until 2030—five whole years during which Welsh travellers will face slower and more disruptive journeys into London. In addition to longer journey times, the disruption is expected to reduce the number of available seats, diminishing the already poor capacity and connectivity, with fewer direct trains to London reducing resilience to recover from any delays.
The disruption in services for residents across south Wales, including those in my constituency who use Great Western Railway services at Neath and Newport, comes without any significant long-term benefit to them. HS2 does not involve a single mile of track in Wales, yet the previous Conservative Government decided to class the project as an “England and Wales” project, a designation that Labour has taken an active political choice to keep, despite their own Ministers in Wales admitting it is deeply unjust. This means that Northern Ireland and Scotland both received consequential funding to spend on transport, while Wales received not a penny more—particularly none of the estimated £4 billion that it should have received as a result of the project.
Even ignoring HS2, Wales is already underfunded, as the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) has mentioned, when it comes to investment in rail, receiving just 1% of rail investment in the UK despite having 11% of the country’s rail network. That is having tangible real-life impacts. In my own constituency, the already limited service along the Heart of Wales line is being cut further.
Altogether, it seems that, despite Labour promising a change in how Wales is treated from when the Conservatives were in power, they have continued with a business-as-normal approach. It is completely inappropriate that my constituents, and people across Wales, are now expected to deal with a further reduction in services for several years, for a project in London that will provide no benefit to them, while they continue to be robbed of investment in their own local services. This Labour Government must listen to the Welsh people and ensure that this disruption is minimised and that Wales receives its fair share when it comes to rail funding.