Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Stringer Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Ghani
We are dealing with the responses to the consultation and I will update the House as soon as I can. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured—I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on sight loss and I am very close to this issue. I want to make sure that buses are accessible to people with all sorts of disabilities.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Bus Services Act 2017 provides the tools that local authorities need, such as enhanced partnerships and franchising, to improve local bus services. We are working with interested local authorities to determine which of the powers provided are best able to support bus networks in their areas. We are also ensuring that pioneering technology, such as the forthcoming bus open data digital service, can overhaul bus services across England and give passengers the information they need to travel with confidence.
Graham Stringer
When Nicholas Ridley deregulated bus services nearly a third of a century ago, he promised that bus services would increase and be used by more passengers. Actually, bus deregulation has been a catastrophe and a disaster for the travelling public. Is not the answer to this question absolutely obvious—that the Government should encourage and allow all local authorities in England to re-regulate their services?
Ms Ghani
Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is painting an unrealistic picture. Up and down the country, there are varying numbers of bus passengers. In Bristol, bus passenger numbers are up by 50% and in south Gloucestershire they are up by 36%. We need to put a package of items together to encourage people to use buses. There is the ability to have either franchising or enhanced partnerships that allow local authorities to have a stronger and better relationship with bus companies.
Transport Infrastructure: Essex
Graham Stringer Excerpts(5 years, 5 months 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
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I remind Members that, although this is not a well-attended debate, interventions should be short, brief and to the point.
Priti Patel
I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks. He is right on a number of points. First, Essex County Council and my colleague Councillor Kevin Bentley, the deputy leader and cabinet member for infrastructure, have been ensuring that we lean in—I think that is the right term—with the advocacy that has been brought to this place and the Government. My right hon. Friend’s point about roads and housing is timely, because I am just about to speak about key schemes and the whole issue of where the pressure points are.
A number of important projects and schemes need to be backed by the Government and progressed to ease the pressure on infrastructure. The costs of investing in the schemes will be paid back. We can work out the return on investment and the number of jobs that will be created through the investment and the subsequent tax receipts. Dynamic modelling facilitates and enables that.
I want to focus on two particular schemes for important strategic roads in the east of England that traverse the Witham constituency. I think we could all write books on both roads—history books, I dare say. There is a long history of delays and congestion, but their futures are linked. They are also connected to the potential future housing and development growth plans around mid-Essex and the Witham constituency. The delays caused by congestion are worse than inconvenient; they have a devastating impact on local communities and the economy. An additional half-hour delay every day for some of our great logistics businesses can mean a loss of tens of thousands of pounds a year. We hear that all the time as Members of Parliament, but it is no good just sitting and agreeing with my constituents and businesses; we need to put our foot on the gas and do something.
In debates on Brexit, the future relationship, supply chains and border checks, we need to ensure that we also look at how our inadequate infrastructure is hindering basic supply chains in our county and in the country as a whole. The delays caused by traffic and congestion on key strategic roads could be far more damaging to our economy, particularly in Essex, because of the infrastructure. The case for investment in the A12 and the A120 is compelling and has been recognised, but there are some major barriers, and that is what I want to focus on.
Back in the 2014 autumn statement, the Government announced their commitment to invest in and support the widening of the A12 between junction 19 at the Boreham interchange and junction 25 at Marks Tey. It was part of a major announcement that we all welcomed on a number of strategic road upgrades for the east of England. The work was described as an investment to
“begin phase 1 of a major upgrade to the A12, with the addition of a third lane between Chelmsford and Colchester”.
That decision was long-awaited and welcomed by everyone: commuters, businesses and our local authorities. It also opened up the prospect of further widening north of Marks Tey in later phases. It was rightly a phased scheme.
I think all Members here travel on the A12—I travel on that stretch every week. We all see the problems, the congestion and the need to expand capacity. Highways England has stated that
“the road is almost past its capacity. Motorists regularly experience major delays at peak times. Up to 90,000 vehicles travel between junction 19 and 25 every day. Forecasts reveal that the traffic on the A12 will exceed capacity by 2038. Congestion will increase if nothing is done to address this problem.”
Three fatal collisions and 12 serious accidents were identified in a five-year period. Concerns were raised about the eight junctions on this stretch, with problems including
“below standard slip roads and capacity problems which can result in tailbacks.”
The condition of the road is also poor, so a comprehensive widening scheme offers a chance to improve the surface of the road. The widening scheme also comes with the prospect of altering junctions to better suit local needs and alleviate pressures on local roads. For example, a new junction by Kelvedon to better connect to roads into Tiptree has the prospect of alleviating congestion and traffic through Kelvedon and Feering. That part of Essex had been neglected and ignored for too long, so we need to crack on with developing the widening scheme. It was prioritised to get it started in the first road investment strategy, or RIS1.
A range of stakeholder engagement activities took place. I give credit to Highways England for how it worked with us at the time. There were many events where it looked at options through route alignment. Engagement took place with parish—I sat with parish councils—district, borough and county councils, as well as the business community and local residents. It all seemed to be going well. There was consensus on the approach being taken by Highways England. With Braintree District Council and Colchester Borough Council in the process of updating their local plans, there was supposed to be integrated working and engagement to ensure that the widening scheme and local plans complemented each other—that speaks to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made about housing—and did not compromise one another. Throughout stakeholder meetings the issue was raised and it was thought that the work between Highways England and the councils would ensure a smooth process and collaboration and joint working would naturally maximise the benefits of the widening scheme. That all made sense.
After that work, Highways England went out to public consultation in early 2017, presenting four options to the public. Option 1 was to widen across the current route alignment. Option 2 was to widen the western side on the current route with a new alignment from just before junction 22 to junction 25. Option 3 was a realignment between junctions 22 and 23. Option 4 was a realignment between junctions 23 and 25. The consultation process was a massive exercise with more than 18,000 people attending public exhibitions and more than 900 responses received. It was backed by our local councils, which raised no objections to the consultation or the options put forward at the time.
The outcome was due a year later in early 2018, when Highways England was scheduled to announce its preferred route alignment. That would have enabled further consultation to take place, a development consent order to commence and diggers to go into the ground in 2020. In fact, the position and timetable were made clear to me in an email from Highways England on 29 September 2017. The email gave an update on the consultation, stating that
“key issues were raised relating to other major developments in the area, environmental impacts, non-motorised user service provision and safety related issues. The independent analysis of the responses received, as well as a Report on Public Consultation will be published when a preferred route is announced.”
The email went on to reference the importance of giving careful consideration to
“emerging and proposed major developments”.
Highways England said that it had
“decided to extend our options selection assessment and expect to announce the preferred route this coming winter.”
It then went on to confirm the timescale, stating:
“Following the preferred route announcement, we will undertake detailed engagement with all affected landowners and hold a further consultation, giving local communities and other stakeholders a second chance to have their say. This consultation is likely to be held in spring 2018 and will include detailed plans of a preferred route...Despite extending our options assessment, the first phase of construction is still anticipated to start in 2020.”
In October 2017, the Minister wrote to advise me that owing to a review of RIS1 and some resequencing of schemes, there could be a three to six-month delay to the scheme. I questioned that and the Minister confirmed that
“the recently announced optimisation of the Road Investment Strategy relates to the start of works and does not impact on the decision about the route. I want to reassure you that the Government and Highways England’s strong commitment to this scheme remains. While the start of construction will get delayed by 3-6 months as part of Highways England’s plans to reduce disruption for road users and businesses, Highway England will work with you and other local partners to ensure that any impacts are minimised.”
At the end of 2017, therefore, the position with the A12 widening scheme was that an announcement and further consultation on the preferred route were to start shortly, with construction likely to start in 2020, probably later in the year owing to some resequencing work. There was no indication from the Government or Highways England of the bombshell that was about to knock the scheme off course.
Two years after the consultation was completed, we are no further forward with this key scheme, so we have to ask where is the delay and where has it gone wrong? We know that Colchester Borough Council made a last-minute change to its housing and development plans: plans that had been in the making for years were abruptly changed. They redrew on the map the garden settlement community proposals in a way that completely blew apart the options in the A12 consultation, adding costs to the scheme and pushing the scheme back into RIS2. It has profound consequences for strategic investment across the region. It pushes back opportunities to widen the A12 north of Marks Tey, and it has an impact on the A120 dualling scheme, which I will come on to shortly. It also means that the A12 widening scheme could take place at the same time as the construction of the lower Thames crossing, putting pressure on construction costs and supply chains. That means adding congestion to the county.
I do not want to go over the past, in particular the local development plans, but constituents living in the vicinity of the A12 and the proposed realignments from the 2017 consultation are in limbo, creating too much uncertainty. According to my postbag, people cannot decide whether to sell their homes or move. Huge inconvenience has been caused by the local plan triggering a chain of events. We need to look at the whole issue. We cannot progress the road until we have the housing scheme in place. In fact, the Minister for Housing was in touch with me in September last year. He also referred to the delays and said the issue
“highlights the need for greater certainty of the funding and feasibility of these two schemes”,
in relation to housing.
A written parliamentary answer from the Department in January this year stated:
“The Department for Transport and Highways England have been considering how best to take forward the A12 scheme, in the light of concerns raised by the Planning Inspector in June 2018 regarding the proposed Garden Community at Marks Tey and its interaction with the A12 scheme.”
The situation is now becoming absurd. The roads will not progress until the housing and development plans have progressed, but those plans will not progress until the roads have progressed. What has happened? We need answers now. What about the principle of alignment and integrated working? The matter must be addressed sooner rather than later.
I have specific questions for the Minister. At what point will the Government step in to take control of the A12 scheme and work with local authorities to provide the leadership that they need to drive the matter forward? When will the Government, the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the Treasury make a decision on progressing the scheme if the local plan is subject to delay? How much longer will we have to wait? Will the Minister ensure that, as a matter of urgency, Highways England brings forward a proposed route alignment that is future-proofed so that housing proposals can evolve around it? We cannot continue to wait.
What assessment have the Government made of the economic impact of the delays, which bring additional costs, and of the impact on other strategic road schemes such as the A120 dualling scheme? What work is being done to support my constituents who live so close to the A12 that they are stuck? They are unable to sell their properties or even determine their futures. They are victims of the failure to get the scheme going.
Does the Minister recognise that the delays to the A12 widening scheme between junctions 19 and 25 are causing delays to widen the A12 north of junction 25, which local people in the county need to see? I want to be part of the solution and we all need to come together, so will the Minister agree to set up a working group that is led by me and brings together Highways England, his Department, MHCLG, the Treasury, our colleagues at Essex County Council, the business community and other stakeholders to get on top of the widening scheme, as well as the A120 proposal? We cannot run the risk of this issue moving into RIS3. The delays are phenomenal and have an enormous impact, which brings me on to the A120, a road of strategic importance not only to the county, but to our country.
The A120 is a strategic economic corridor that cannot be underestimated. The Minister and all Members in the debate today know the history of the single carriageway. The stretch between Braintree and Marks Tey is 12 miles long and is regarded as one of the most dangerous in the country. There is a litany of safety issues. It has been a death trap. Last week I met two parish councils, Bradwell and Stisted, that have highlighted the road safety concerns constantly. We have campaigners, including Save Lives Not Time, whose campaign has been phenomenal, working with the local community to actually do something to reduce speed along the A120.
The road needs to be dualled and it needs to meet the increased capacity. It has been 10 years since the previous Labour Government abandoned proposals to dual the A120. Endless studies have been undertaken, and I pay tribute to my colleagues at Essex County Council who have been instrumental in driving proposals and leading them forward with me and other MPs.
A report from Atkins in 2008 stated:
“The A120...currently constrained by the capacity of the single carriageway section...between Braintree and the A12...is congested and suffers traffic delays.”
Traffic delays result in pollution. They are caused by accidents and have an incredible impact. Evidence from 2005 demonstrated that an estimated 25,000 vehicles used that stretch of road every single day. In 2010, around 14% of traffic—one in seven vehicles—is accounted for by HGVs, compared with an average of 6% across Essex. Had the scheme been progressed 10 years ago, we would have a road that is fit for purpose. We would have integrated roads connecting with the A12. We would have a better and more resilient local road network. The evidence is compelling: the road must be dualled. To be fair, we have all made the case for years and years.
Essex County Council has worked very closely with Highways England. Work was led on developing a scheme and holding a consultation by the county council. It worked with Highways England throughout to ensure that there was a strong and robust case. Options went out for consultation at the same time as the A12 consultation, with a view to securing agreement from the Government to put the A120 dualling scheme into RIS2 and sequence construction on both schemes to maximise the benefits, while reducing the impact that comes from major highway improvements.
The Minister knows about the favoured route, option D from the consultation, which was brought forward by Essex County Council. It has a benefit to cost ratio of 4.5, which is important because it scores far higher than any major projects the Government have invested in. It will help to unlock 20,000 jobs and support housing growth by perhaps as many as 32,000 new dwellings, if needed. The improvements in journey time and reliability are valued at about £48 million, with £350 million of benefit to freight traffic. The overall costed journey time savings could total £1.2 billion. Safety will be improved. Congestion through villages will be reduced, with Silver End set to experience 59% less traffic, Cressing 44% less and Bradwell 43% less. According to the proposals, construction will take around three years and will support about 500 construction jobs.
In total, the scheme can add £2.2 billion in gross value added to the local economy at a cost of £550 million. Few schemes are as attractive as this one. The Minister knows it is one of the best prepared business cases for RIS2 because of the evidence contained in it. The feasibility work was supported by Government funding, for which I thank the Government and the Minister, after lobbying by myself and others to put the project forward. That case has been made consistently.
The Government have committed to dualling the scheme; we now need the backing, Minister. We need to ensure that there are no contradictions between the Department, Highways England or local authorities. I would welcome an update from the Minister on the timetable for submissions for RIS2 and on the decision making. It is pivotal to securing the road, and strengthening our infrastructure across the county. The A12 and the A120 need to be sequential.
I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the delays to the A12 widening scheme will not hamper or hinder in any way the proposals for the A120 dualling scheme to be included in RIS2. With the road currently operating beyond belief in terms of capacity, people need certainty. We are looking for a fresh impetus so that we can recalibrate both schemes and take a stronger, fresh approach to secure the Government’s national mission to build more new homes. There is a willingness in our county to be resilient and to ensure that we do everything that we can.
I have a few other points to make, and then I will give colleagues time to speak. There are other roads across Essex. The lower Thames crossing will provide a vital link connecting Essex and Kent. I would welcome a progress report from the Minister on that scheme, and on whether there will be connectivity. We are all about connectivity and joined-up, integrated working. We must ensure that the schemes are delivered on time and progress on time, and that Essex County Council is supported in the right way in the work that it needs to do to achieve that integrated approach across the county, so that all road schemes are progressed in the right way. My colleagues will speak about other roads. I think it is fair to say that road investment is pivotal, not just for Essex County Council but for the Government in terms of delivering for the county of Essex.
I will turn to a different modality: rail. I thank the Department for Transport and the Rail Minister for the amount of time that he has spent with me recently. As the Government have recognised, the Great Eastern main line and the West Anglia main line are poor relations to other parts of the rail network. I am chair of the Great Eastern main line taskforce, which was established back in 2013. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer supported the establishment of the taskforce to look at the strategic rail needs of the region. We have been an instrumental voice in putting business cases to the Government. The first business case that went to the Government in 2013 secured some important outcomes, off the back of a very robust rail prospectus that colleagues and I worked towards.
We released a package of investments that were linked to a new franchise, including new rolling stock and timetable changes. The package amounted to £4.5 billion in gross value added to the region’s economy, meaning thousands of new jobs. We are now interested in moving the scheme forward, and are working with the Government on the new process by submitting a revised and updated rail prospectus. We intend to restate the economic benefits, which can of course be multiplied. A multiplier effect in rail can be complemented by a multiplier effect in road investment; I argue that the two must almost be coterminous.
We will clearly restate what investment in the Great Eastern main line should look like, and that it should be focused on as a national economic priority. I know that it is not in the Minister’s portfolio, but I would welcome an update on a number of project schemes for which we are seeking commitments and support, including the introduction of a passing loop in the vicinity of Witham, the redoubling of Haughley junction, improvements to the Trowse swing bridge, resignalling south of Chelmsford, and Liverpool Street station improvements.
Combined, those key investments will increase capacity on the network and, importantly for all rail users, reduce delays. There are some long-awaited new developments, including Beaulieu Park railway station—or, as some call it, Chelmsford parkway—which will support new housing growth. A three-track or four-track option with additional platforms would serve to future-proof the line and to increase capacity.
We also need investment in infrastructure to implement digital railway technology for the Great Eastern main line, and to bring in the new 15-minute Delay Repay system, along with new technology to help commuters claim compensation for poor and delayed services, which have resulted in a lack of investment in the past. I know that we are getting close to an announcement on Delay Repay 15. The Minister might be limited in what he can say, because of commercial terms, but any signal that he can give regarding the direction of travel would be greatly welcome, including any improvements on the Witham to Braintree branch line.
I will draw to a close, as I have spoken for a considerable time and there are other speakers. From my perspective as a Member of Parliament for an Essex constituency, the chair of the Great Eastern main line taskforce, someone who has led the Essex Business, Transport and Infrastructure Forum, and someone who has worked—I think it is fair to say—quite diligently with my colleagues at Essex County Council, our deputy leader, Councillor Kevin Bentley, and all Members across Essex, there is a severe need for investment. The business cases have been made consistently to the Department and to various Ministers, including the Minister who is present today.
We are not shy as a county. I am proud of our diligence and our ability to understand economics, business and a return on investment. Essex is a net contributor to Her Majesty’s Treasury, and has been for a number of years—from the days when entrepreneurs sought to move to Essex. Our rail line has been under-invested in. The Minister knows the case for the A12 and the A120. I urge him to clarify the position on the development of both schemes. We cannot have further delay, or contradictions between what the Department says and what Highways England says.
We need an integrated way of working that involves Essex County Council, Highways England, the Department, and myself and other colleagues, so that we are all facing in the right direction and can deliver the economic benefits of jobs and housing, which we all want. It is important that the Government send a strong message to the county of Essex, investors, commuters, businesses, constituents and our local authorities, to say that we will work with them and support them to ensure that, as we say constantly, where Essex leads others will follow.
Rail Infrastructure Investment
Graham Stringer Excerpts(5 years, 7 months 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
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend has been an outstanding advocate for the north and its need for rail investment. The Minister is a newish Rail Minister, but I know that he previously served in the Department for Transport. We had discussions in the past, when he was the Minister responsible for buses, and I always found him genuinely prepared to listen. I hope that he brings the same approach to his new role.
In January 2018 IPPR North assessed the Government’s analysis of regional spending and stated that it excluded spending in the pipeline for after 2020-21, meaning that the analysis omitted some £42.5 billion of planned investment, 40% of which—£19.8 billion—is earmarked for London. The Government have therefore presented, even if accurate, a rather skewed picture of how planned transport spending will be distributed across the country in the coming years.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is doing an excellent job of presenting our Committee’s report and explaining how the Government tried to fiddle the figures to obscure the fact that London is getting about 80% of the funding. Does she agree that this will not be rectified and made fair until the methodology for deciding on investment schemes is changed? It massively over-weights time saved, which always pushes investment towards densely populated cities such as London, rather than Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds or the other regional cities.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I will come to in due course. He is a long-standing, experienced and expert member of the Transport Committee, and I am delighted that he is here this afternoon.
The DFT also argues that it is difficult to break down regional spending accurately, saying that where expenditure on the railway takes place is not always an accurate reflection of where the benefits are felt. The Department also emphasises the difficulty of analysing investment annually, or even five-yearly, given that railway assets typically have a lifespan of 25 to 40 years, pointing out that there was inevitably
“a cyclical nature to replacing them that does not lend itself to an even split of funding across all regions within every 5 year control period.”
Of course, there is merit in those arguments, but I simply ask the Minister, when was there a time when investment in the north exceeded investment in the south?
While the Government’s commitment to rebalancing the economy is welcome, it is clear from past experience that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said, current methods for making investment decisions make it much easier for highly populated, economically successful places to prove the case for schemes in their area, because the model has a bias towards schemes that exhibit strong levels of potential demand and/or high potential to relieve existing transport congestion. Witnesses to the inquiry told us that this approach inevitably drew more investment to London and unless the system could be altered to take greater account of wider economic benefits, the process would be inexorable.
Maria Machancoses, the director of Midlands Connect, told us that
“figures on the disparity of investment, no matter which formula you look at—whether by the DFT or the Treasury—they all say that outside London it is just not working.”
Her view was that this should be the starting point from which to “move forward.” However, in their response to our report, the Government did not accept the suggestion that their scheme appraisal methods did not provide a fair share of investment in rail across the UK’s regions. This completely fails to acknowledge the overwhelming feeling across the country that investment in rail is unfairly concentrated in a few small areas.
While there are undeniable complexities in accurately breaking down regional spending and identifying where the benefits of investment are felt, the Government must recognise the concerns that have been raised about the regional disparities of investment in our rail network and take action to address them. It is hard to believe that the Department will do so if it does not accept that there is a problem in the first place.
The DFT has published a rebalancing toolkit, to be used as part of the strategic assessment of future investment programmes. This was welcomed in principle by our witnesses. However, when we asked the then Rail Minister, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), for examples of the toolkit’s influence on DFT’s transport investment decisions, he could not provide a single specific example. He told us that it was “relatively early days” for the approach. Our witnesses said that the Government needed to prove that what the rebalancing toolkit is meant to achieve will actually take place. I ask the Minister, over a year after the toolkit was introduced, how has it influenced the DFT’s investment decisions?
In our report, we also called on the Government to be more specific about the economic rebalancing effects they intend to achieve. We call on them to tell the regions in need of regeneration how they can prove their cases and secure investment. We argued that people in the north-east and south-west, regions that have experienced relative under-investment in recent periods, must have a clear sense of what the Government are trying to achieve in order to be able to judge their success.
We also recommended that use of the rebalancing toolkit be mandatory and that the Department worked with Her Majesty’s Treasury to explore how economic rebalancing can be made an intrinsic part of appraising transport schemes. That would put rebalancing at the heart of investment decisions, rather than it merely being an add-on. In response, the Government have told us that it would be impractical to make use of the toolkit mandatory. Why has the Department developed a toolkit that is impractical to use?
Let me turn to rail electrification. Under successive Governments since 2009, the Department has made a compelling case for widespread electrification, moving from diesel to electric traction, particularly on heavily used parts of the network, which would reduce journey times and facilitate lighter, more efficient trains, reducing long-term costs, improving environmental sustainability and enhancing capacity. The Government’s decision to cancel electrification schemes in south Wales, the midlands and the Lake district were a huge disappointment for people who had been promised improvements to their network. Following the cancellation of these schemes, there are also serious questions about the Government’s support for future electrification of the network.
It is clear that the plans for electrification were over-ambitious and suffered from inadequate planning and budgeting. The schemes were hampered by an unclear definition of responsibilities between the DFT, Network Rail and the Office of Rail and Road, and disappointment at their cancellation was compounded by poor communication by the Department for Transport.
Although the decision to cancel the midland main line and the lakes line schemes was taken in March 2017, it was not announced until July, on the day the House rose for its summer recess, limiting opportunities for scrutiny of the decision. The Government also presented the decision not to electrify these lines as a positive story about passenger benefits being delivered in other ways. The announcement, unsurprisingly, was met with scepticism by those who saw it as a pragmatic, cost-based response to overruns. The National Audit Office agreed with those sceptics, and concluded:
“The Department decided to cancel projects in 2017 because Network Rail’s 2014-2019 investment portfolio was no longer affordable.”
Passengers on the midland main line and Great Western main line should eventually see some improvements in capacity and journey time from other enhancements in control period 5, but the way that enhancement to these lines has been handled is far from ideal and has done nothing to create confidence in the Government’s approach to rail improvements.
Lilian Greenwood
It is wonderful to see so many members of the Select Committee here. My hon. Friend raises an important point about what will happen if market-led proposals do not provide the opportunities that the Department hopes. I will touch on that in a moment.
In November, the Government said that they had received 30 responses to their call for ideas for market-led proposals to enhance the railway, but that they could not make an announcement about individual schemes because the proposals had been submitted in confidence. How have those market-led proposals progressed since November, and do the Government expect any of them to be delivered, including the one referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner)?
There was significant support for moving enhancements planning away from the control period process, and we support the intention behind the rail network enhancements pipeline, which should ensure that the planning mistakes made over the past five years are not repeated. However, we also found a substantial risk that the rush to deliver poorly planned and scoped schemes in the current period could be replaced by a different problem—a slowdown or interregnum in new enhancement projects.
That is why we called on the Government to provide a clear set of strategic priorities for rail infrastructure investment in each region, and to outline the specific projects likely to be available for third-party investment. The Government refused to set priorities for each region, so I ask the Minister today to set out the Government’s priorities for rail enhancements over the next five years.
We were also concerned that the process outlined by the Government did not provide the reassurance and certainty on future investment that the rail industry is looking for. We said that more transparency about the enhancements pipeline and decision-making processes in the Department was needed. That is particularly true if the potential for a substantial increase in third-party investment is to be realised. The Government accepted that recommendation and said that they are
“committed to transparent policy making and intend to make clear public statements”
as investment decisions are taken at each stage of the pipeline. So far, however, we have seen no such statements.
The Railway Industry Association has said:
“The visibility of enhancements remains a major concern for rail suppliers. There is now a lack of an obvious enhancements pipeline, with no construction-ready schemes in the Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline…published in 2018.”
Last week, I asked the Department how many rail enhancement schemes were being considered as part of the rail network enhancements pipeline, and what stage each proposal was at. Again, the Minister told me that the Government
“are committed to transparent policy making”,
but failed to answer any points of my question. That means that, almost a year after it was set up, the Department has yet to reveal a single proposal being considered as part of the pipeline. We are none the wiser about what, if any, future enhancements the Department is considering, let alone planning.
In response to my question, the Minister also said:
“Network Rail…will continue to provide public updates on the progress of enhancements in the portfolio”,
but it is not clear at what stage of the pipeline proposals will enter the portfolio. Can the Minister confirm at what stage enhancements will be included in Network Rail’s enhancements delivery plan? It seems to me that it is only those that have reached the delivery section of the pipeline that will be exposed in that way, and we will not know what is in the development and design parts. Will there be any transparency of proposals before the decision to deliver them?
Although the Government have accepted a number of our recommendations, as I have outlined, their response to our report was disappointing in several regards. It seemed to show an unwillingness to engage with some of our key conclusions and recommendations.
The Association for Consultancy and Engineering agreed with our assessment of the Government’s response, telling us that the Government had
“failed to meaningfully engage with the expertise provided by industry, and the practical recommendations outlined in the report”.
It told us:
“As evidence givers, it was disheartening for ACE to see the DfT and the ORR”—
that is, the Office of Rail and Road—
“pay such little attention to the solutions proposed by the committee, including dismissing some of them outright.”
I have asked the Minister to respond today on some of the points where we felt that the Government’s response to our report was less than satisfactory. I hope that he will take the opportunity to expand on the Government’s response, for the benefit of both this House and those in the rail industry who were as frustrated as we were by the Government’s response.
To conclude, although our report welcomed much about the Government’s—
Graham Stringer
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way as she draws to her conclusion. She has already mentioned the fact that it took four months from the decision to cancel the electrification to a written statement to the House on the last day before the summer recess. The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin), assured the Committee that there would be no change in the investment plans when the Office for National Statistics had changed the designation of Network Rail’s public status so that it became part of the public expenditure. However, that has driven many of the cuts in the future investment programme.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have not only failed to respond positively to our recommendations but failed to play a straight bat, in not presenting information to the Committee that would have enabled us to carry through properly our job of scrutinising the Department?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I do not know whether the previous Secretary of State was really unaware of the implications of that change, but certainly our experience as a Committee is that we have not always had the candour that we would have wanted from the Department. That is disappointing when we are simply trying to do the job of scrutiny that this Committee was appointed to undertake on behalf of Parliament.
As I have said, we welcome much about the Government’s approach to investment in the rail network. There is no argument about the importance of investment or about the fact that the Government are investing significant sums, but the issue is how they have gone about investing and how they ensure that that investment provides good value for money and strategic thought about the long term.
We agree with the increased focus on renewals and we agree that decisions about railway enhancements should be taken out of the five-yearly control period process. However, there are still outstanding questions that were not addressed in the Government’s response to our report. How will the Government meet their commitment to rebalancing the economy when it comes to investment in rail? How do they plan to decarbonise the railway network if they have completely ruled out electrification? What future enhancements to the railway network will emerge from the new rail network enhancements pipeline? I look forward to the Minister’s update on all those points.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I am a new member of the Select Committee on Transport, and did not serve on that Committee while this inquiry was under way; nevertheless, it raises a number of points that I want to speak about. I am also pleased to have been able to join the Transport Committee, particularly under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). I have found her to be supportive, enthusiastic and knowledgeable, and she has made me feel welcome in that Committee in the few weeks that I have been a member, as have the Committee’s other members.
Many people in this country are dependent on rail services, and when there are problems, our constituents really tell us about them. Rail travel is essential for those who are unable to drive or do not own a car for whatever reason, and for people such as me who are dependent on rail for their commute to work and for whom there is no alternative, especially when car commuting would take much longer or be too costly. Since the advent of mobile technology, the train journey means more productive working time for those required to travel long distances, or even for me on my half-hour rail commute, than driving does. One can also use the journey as an opportunity to catch up on sleep—another option that is not available when one is driving. Then, there are tourists: UK and overseas residents letting the train take the strain. For all those people and many more, good train services really matter.
It is not just about the quality of services; it is about price. The real cost of rail travel continues to rise year on year. The real cost of driving has flatlined or even fallen, but UK commuters are paying about 17% of their average wage for their season ticket—by far the highest in Europe—and the cost of rail travel continues to rise.
Rail services that are reliable, convenient, fast over long distances, affordable, comfortable and safe benefit not only passengers but the places they link up, providing more business investment, more residents—particularly in areas of declining population—and, in many places, more tourist spend.
More people travelling by rail reduces the number of cars on the roads. That then reduces congestion and associated air pollution. Walking or cycling to a station improves a person’s health, and they may be more likely to spend money during that short journey than if they were driving their own private car. Rail improvement, and investment in rail, benefits people and places.
As a London MP, I concur with colleagues’ anger at the disparity between transport infrastructure investment in London and in the other regions of the country. Why does that disparity exist? I accept that the way that the calculations are done exacerbates the inequality, but frankly that is a tool of a lack of policy. The disparity is a reaction to what always happens in mature economies when there is no effective regional economic policy: the inevitable growth of population and jobs in the largest city.
The main justification for investment in Crossrail, and the longer trains and platform extensions in other rail services in and around London, is that it is a reaction to population growth in and around London. Any economist will say that unless a country has an effective, long-term regional policy, there will be an increasing suck of investment and people towards the capital.
Against that, in some outlying areas in further regions—particularly, as a colleague said yesterday in Prime Minister’s questions, in the north-east—there are some ex-colliery towns where houses are lying empty. An effective regional policy would address that imbalance, which disadvantages both types of area.
The lack of regional policy, and continuous sucking into London of people and investment without any rebalancing, means that in the capital housing is overcrowded and prices are exorbitant—way beyond our children’s ability to rent, let alone buy their own homes. Of course, there is also overcrowding in our transport system.
Graham Stringer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as a London-based MP, for her support for a sane, sensible and fair regional policy. Does she agree that not only is the unfairness a factor, but that repeated investment in London to solve transport problems is counterproductive? Investment in transport has an economic effect: it creates more jobs, more people and more pressure on housing. Investing in that way is therefore effectively investing in future congestion.
Ruth Cadbury
I absolutely agree. That is the other side of the coin, and it can be addressed only by a proper, serious regional policy. Since 2010, the Government have moved far away from the regional policies that we had, completely decimating the regional economic development boards, and so forth.
The only nod to a regional policy that we have had in recent years is the northern powerhouse. I have heard again and again what a token gesture the northern powerhouse has been. Even the original promises have gradually been whittled away. We have nothing more than tokenism on regional policy in this country at the moment. As the Transport Committee Chair said in the report, regional transport authorities say that
“systems of scheme appraisal currently work against regions”.
In a sense, the state is exacerbating the natural pressure that always occurs without any sort of state intervention.
Market-led proposals are inadequate to deliver new projects—we see that failure around Heathrow airport. The roads around Heathrow airport, and I do not just mean in west London, but across the Thames valley, Buckinghamshire, from Surrey almost to Hertfordshire, and in the whole sub-region surrounding Heathrow airport, have some of the worst traffic in the world. The roads are dangerously overcrowded, with levels of pollution that are illegal, because we increasingly recognise air pollution as a serious health hazard. It is an economic brake on not only businesses that service Heathrow airport but the wider west London and Thames valley region. Unnecessary congestion helps no one.
In 2001, the planning inspector for the Heathrow terminal 5 inquiry said that additional rail capacity was needed. Subsequently, in the run-up to the investigation into whether there was a justification for runway 3 at Heathrow, the national policy statement said that expansion would require 50% of passengers to use public transport by 2030, rising to 55% by 2040, and 25% fewer staff car trips to work by 2030, rising to 50% fewer by 2040.
The airport policy statement said that the Government expected Heathrow to meet its public pledge to have “no greater” airport-related road traffic. Of course, since then Heathrow airport has said that it wants to double its amount of cargo traffic, yet it has not provided any explanation. If that is not additional pressure on already dangerously overcrowded motorways down to local roads I do not know what is.
Heathrow airport has made it clear that it will not fund additional rail infrastructure, except for possibly a platform or something. Network Rail says:
“Existing connectivity to Heathrow Airport from the south is currently poor, with most people choosing to drive or get a taxi.”
When we were dealing with the implications of a fifth terminal when I was on Hounslow Council we looked, with a range of economic organisations around Heathrow and local authorities, at a scheme to bring in rail from the south and south-west called Airtrack. Meanwhile, colleagues to the west of Heathrow, particularly in Reading, Slough and so on, were looking at a new western rail extension, with the support of the Department for Transport.
Certainly the link from the west was going well, and was a stage ahead of the southern rail access, but last year or the year before everything ground to a halt as the Department for Transport announced that it wanted to let the private sector lead. As the Transport Committee has said, that has just not delivered. We have had a six-month or a year’s hiatus on the rail infrastructure that is needed in and around Heathrow, yet nothing is happening because the private sector—quite understandably—expects the Government to direct those new roads.
Now, the Government are not going to pay for it, and Heathrow is not going to pay for it. Who is, apart from the businesses and people who depend on a smooth-running road system—and the passengers, of course, who will miss their planes because they are stuck in traffic jams? Before the Minister says, “Oh, stop worrying—we are getting Crossrail and HS2 and so on,” let me remind him that Crossrail and the improvements on the Piccadilly line are to deal with existing transport pressures and the existing population increase in west London and the Thames valley. In terms of runway 3, the modal shift of Heathrow passengers on to existing and imminent transport methods will actually be very small. The Minister will know that if he has looked at the documents that were considered by the Transport Committee in its inquiry on the airports national policy statement. We are in a complete mess with rail investment in and around Heathrow, notwithstanding the fact that expansion at Heathrow —as, again, the Department for Transport’s own reports say—actually damages other regions’ connectivity with international destinations and their businesses and customers.
I want to move on briefly to my concern about the Department for Transport’s interference in transport in London. As anybody knows, and as most other major competitive cities do, a very large conurbation needs to be able to link up public transport, walking and cycling under a single management. I think the Government recognise that. Several Mayors, including the Mayor of the Greater Manchester region and others, have said that there should be greater devolution and control over rail policy, and so has every Mayor of London. But in London, and London alone, the Transport Secretary has openly said that he would block devolution of rail policy purely because he did not want a Labour Mayor to have control over it. He implied that if there were another Conservative Mayor after the first Conservative Mayor of London, he might have considered handing over rail responsibilities, but he was not prepared to do so. That blocking of devolution was so shocking that even the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said that the Transport Secretary was not fit to hold office. We have real concerns that where there are opportunities to use imaginative forms of additional investment in rail in London, that option is currently blocked to London and Londoners, and to London’s economy and that of the wider area.
I have touched on regional policy and the particular situation in London and at Heathrow. In my view, transport policy, of which rail is a part, should be a servant, not a driver, of other policies. I may be going beyond the remit of the report today, but it strikes me that we cannot discuss regional imbalance in rail infrastructure, or whether the decision making is at a local or national level, or whether the cost falls on the private sector investor or the passenger, without addressing the overarching issue of Government investment in the transport infrastructure, and rail in particular.
Is the funding from Government for such an important driver of the national economy and the environment enough, or even comparable with other equivalent economies? I suspect it is not, and I definitely think it is not enough. Are passengers paying too much of the cost of running rail? I believe they are. An efficient, affordable, reliable rail service drives economic growth and regeneration, cuts carbon and pollution emissions and enhances the international image of a country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Stringer Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Jones
I am aware of the new rolling stock that is coming in to the west midlands; indeed, it is coming in across many parts of our network. We have a fantastic story on rolling stock coming in over the next two years. I will look at what my hon. Friend says and get back to him with an answer.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
Richard George was appointed by the Secretary of State to review the operational performance challenges on the railway in the north of England, following the introduction of the May 2018 timetable. That includes the performance of services operating through the Castlefield corridor, which includes Oxford Road. The Department continues to work with Transport for the North, Richard George and the industry to find solutions to improve performance.
Graham Stringer
A review simply is not good enough. More than three quarters of trains at Oxford Road do not comply with the timetable. We have had delays, cancellations, reviews. We need an immediate implementation of the Northern Hub investment programme —extra platforms at Salford, and extensions of platforms at Oxford Road, moving to new platforms 15 and 16. Will the Minister do that, and reject the ridiculous idea that this problem can be solved by digitising the signalling system, when there is such mixed rolling stock on these rails?
Andrew Jones
The problem, which is clearly there because the Castlefield corridor is a bottleneck on our network, will be solved using a variety of solutions, some of which will be technical. Funding has been set aside in CP6 and we are working on what that will be spent on.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Stringer Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
My right hon. Friend makes an important point and I pay tribute to him for ensuring the investment programme that is currently taking place. The reality is that, in that decade, there were no new trains in the north and no investment: the Labour party let a standstill franchise on the northern rail network. It is this Government who are renewing every single train in the north of England and it is long overdue.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State goes back to the timetable changes, but currently one in four Northern trains are delayed or cancelled and nearly one in three TransPennine trains are delayed or cancelled. Is not it time that he took control and took these franchises back, so that we can have a proper rail service in the north of England?
Chris Grayling
That is precisely why I say that I am not satisfied with the current performance issues. That is why we have appointed Richard George to understand why the service is not performing adequately. It is of course hampered by the fact that some of the performance issues recently have been caused by the elderly Pacer trains, which are being phased out, starting in the coming weeks. However, we need to do everything we can and we will continue to do everything we can, in partnership with Transport for the North, to identify the ways of getting performance up. It is not simply a question of changing ownership of the franchise or control of the franchise. There is not a magic team down the corridor waiting to step in and make this work better. We have got to make it work better.
Road Safety
Graham Stringer Excerpts(5 years, 10 months 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
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered road safety.
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mrs Moon. I am grateful to have secured this important debate. Road safety is an issue that affects every constituency, and I am delighted to see colleagues here from both sides of the House. No doubt they will want to draw my hon. Friend the Minister’s attention to particular roads or even particular accidents, but I will endeavour to keep my remarks as encompassing as possible and to explore how we can best measure and improve road safety as a general rule. I hope that we can have a dispassionate debate about an emotive subject, while always recognising how traumatic failures of road safety can have life-changing implications.
In Great Britain last year, 1,793 people were killed in road crashes—that is 1,793 too many. In addition, the Government estimate that road traffic collisions cost the UK economy more than £16.3 billion a year. In Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire alone, all accidents involving speed cost the economy an average of £32.5 million annually. Those costs could be reduced if we made our roads safer.
Last month, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety released a new report, entitled “Developing safe system road safety indicators for the UK”. That timely and interesting report from PACTS will form the basis of my remarks. It was done in association with Ageas, which is one of our largest motor insurers; it employs more than 400 people in my constituency. They are all too aware of the devastation that poor road safety can cause to those injured or bereaved. I am grateful to them for sending me briefing materials and also grateful for input from the Association of British Insurers, the Road Safety Foundation, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, the Institute of Alcohol Studies, Living Streets and Highways England.
The economy has grown every year since 2010, and the population and the volume of road traffic have grown with it. Despite that, the number of road deaths has not grown over the same period, and we can be thankful for that. However, we could be doing better and getting the number of deaths and serious injuries down. More worryingly, the number of pedestrian fatalities accounts for more than one quarter; it is up 5% on the previous year and up 11% on the 2010 to 2014 average.
We have some of the safest roads in the world, but we need to ensure that the general downward trend in road deaths over the past 45 years continues. That was achieved through improved safety measures, technological advances and public awareness campaigns, modifying behaviours and militating against elements of previously fatal scenarios. And we are far from exhausting the potential for technological advances, particularly in the field of autonomous cars and smart roads. It is at this time of great technological change that a more comprehensive approach to road safety is needed—something against which both current and new forms of transport can be tested, and something that is responsive to new technology. The Government are of course aware of that, and it is strongly to their credit that the UK is leading the way in embracing the advances that driverless technology promises to bring.
The Government issued a British road safety statement in 2015. That was followed by the road safety management review commissioned last year and published in June of this year. It is clear that the Government favour a partnership approach, fully respecting devolution and local authority competences. That is all very welcome, and it is welcome that the report by PACTS and Ageas has come forward. In this spirit of encouragement, I ask the Minister to respond to the points raised by the report. In particular, I ask how the Department is progressing towards a safe system approach.
Traditionally, road safety measures have always been far too reactive. Areas with a history of more serious collisions have received far more focus and, often, locations where there is the greatest danger of collisions and a history of near misses do not get the attention that they need. Also, campaigns have focused on getting drivers and vulnerable road users to stop certain behaviours, instead of such behaviours being proactively designed out.
Systemic measures are needed; that is what a safe system is all about. It is an evidence-based approach focused on preventing death and serious injury, rather than preventing all crashes in the face of human error. Because people do make mistakes and collisions do and will take place, a systemic approach recognises that minimising the physical impact of collisions is a shared responsibility for those who design, build, manage and use roads and vehicles. To put it bluntly, if we crash into someone or something, the vehicle and not the people should take the impact and any damage. That means that, as well as expecting road users to comply with the laws on seatbelts, speed limits, not using phones and so on, we should expect, first, vehicle makers to design safer cars, vans, lorries and buses and, secondly, highways agencies to design and maintain legible and forgiving road infrastructure. Thirdly, medical and emergency services should be prepared, trained and equipped to provide an efficient and effective post-crash response.
A key aspect of a safe system approach is the ability to monitor, target and track progress through specific performance indicators. As Dr Suzy Charman of the Road Safety Foundation has said,
“You cannot manage what you do not measure. There is a need for road safety performance indicators in order to drive effort and investment in the right direction.”
I would be interested to hear from the Minister what consideration has been given to devising any indicators beyond those EuroRAP—European Road Assessment Programme—indicators that are already in use for the strategic road network. I would be especially keen to hear his early responses to the eight indicators proposed in the PACTS report. I will briefly run through the indicators set out in the report.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Before he gets on to the eight indicators, would he agree with me that it is already known where the most dangerous roads are? They are often roads over moors, in rural areas, where overtaking takes the car on to the other side of the road, and there are often head-on collisions, which lead to fatalities. Improving those roads should be the focus of the Government’s investment policy. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Jack Brereton
I agree to an extent, in that those are some of the key roads where investment should be prioritised. There are also far too many accidents occurring in urban areas—hits particularly involving pedestrians, which are obviously much more prevalent in towns and cities, where an accident can be much more serious.
I will go through the eight specific indicators. The first is compliance with speed limits on national roads. Speeding currently accounts for about one fifth of road fatalities. The second indicator is compliance with speed limits on local roads. Data collection for both those speed indicators would be through existing speed monitoring equipment and self-reporting in, for example, the Royal Automobile Club survey, which already identifies this.
Obviously, speed is not everything when it comes to reducing dangers, so the third point is abstinence from alcohol and drug consumption. That is a key indicator. Nearly 15% of road crash fatalities involve a driver exceeding the legal alcohol limit. I am told by the Institute of Alcohol Studies that deaths caused by drink-driving are now at their highest rate since 2012. Meanwhile, it is estimated that some 200 road deaths a year—more than 10% of road deaths—are drug-driving related.
The fourth indicator is the percentage of car occupants using a seatbelt, child seats or child restraints. For many people, wearing a seatbelt is now second nature, but, despite it being illegal not to wear a seatbelt, not enough people are wearing seatbelts. Not wearing a seatbelt accounts for between 20% and 30% of road fatalities among car occupants. That is more than 150 deaths a year.
The fifth indicator relates to one of the more recent legislative changes; it is the percentage of drivers not using an in-car or hands-free phone. It can be difficult to establish when mobile phone use has contributed to a crash, but it is reported that dozens of fatal crashes involve the use of a mobile phone.
The sixth indicator is the percentage of new passenger cars with the highest European New Car Assessment Programme safety rating, which is obviously important for the quality and design of vehicles. An academic study cited in the PACTS report has estimated that the risk of fatal injuries is dramatically reduced in five-star-rated vehicles by as much as 68% compared with two-star-rated vehicles. The seventh indicator is the percentage of roads with the highest relevant International Road Assessment Programme ratings, broken down by road type. The final proposed indicator is the percentage of emergency medical vehicles arriving at an accident within 18 minutes of notification.
Those are the eight indicators set out in the report by PACTS and Ageas. Some data will be more challenging than others to collect. The report identifies a number of sources and methods for that collection. It also lists alternative indicators that were considered but rejected because of the difficulties in accurate data collection, such as cyclists not wearing the correct type of helmet, which would be quite difficult to calculate.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Stringer Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
I agree with both those points. Traffic lights play an important part in the management of traffic flows, but if they are synchronised in the wrong way or used in the wrong way, they can make things worse, rather than better. I absolutely join my right hon. Friend in sending to councils the message that they should keep traffic-light usage under constant review.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The chaos on Northern rail is apparent, but even had there not been the timetabling problems, the Northern rail and trans-Pennine franchises were let on a no-growth basis. Does the Secretary of State now realise that it was a mistake to let rail franchises on a no-growth basis and that it led to road congestion?
Mr Speaker
That was an extraordinarily interesting question, but we were supposed to be talking about road congestion.
Mr Speaker
Oh, did you? I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. I heard a reference to rail electrification.
Chris Grayling
It is simply not true that the Northern franchise was let on a no-growth basis, although it was under the Labour party when it was in power. One reason why we have had the timetable problems, apart from the delay to the electrification—the investment that we are putting into the railway line from Manchester to Blackpool—is that we were in May introducing hundreds of new services, additional services and longer trains throughout the Northern rail region. That is hardly a zero-growth franchise.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Chris Grayling
What I will do is give a lesson to Labour Mayors about the reforms that we put in place in the last Parliament, which gave them franchising powers. The hon. Gentleman might like to ask the Mayor of Greater Manchester why his promise on bus franchising is years away from happening—the last estimate I heard was that it might just about be completed by 2023, which is way after his first term of office, and way after he made that commitment.
National Policy Statement: Airports
Graham Stringer Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
I would never criticise any Member for representing the views of his or her constituents. After all, whatever position we may hold in the House, in government or in opposition, we are all ultimately constituency MPs, and it is absolutely right for us to champion the issues that affect our constituents.
I also want to thank people outside the House. It is unusual for me to find myself campaigning on the same side of the argument as Len McCluskey of Unite the Union, but the trade union movement has been a strong supporter of this, as have business groups in all corners of the United Kingdom.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I will join the Secretary of State in the Lobby tonight because I think that the third runway is a piece of infrastructure of national importance that will benefit the whole nation. However, what it must not do is increase the disparity of wealth and income between the regions of this country and London and the south-east. Can the Secretary of State tell us what extra funds he will invest in the regional airports to ensure that they can make their contribution? It cannot be right, at a time when this investment will lead to a great deal of public expenditure in the south-east, that Manchester airport is expected to pay for the station for HS2.
Chris Grayling
I absolutely take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point. Of course Manchester airport is a great success story, and a great international success story. I have been working with the airport management to help it expand its expertise internationally and will continue to do that.
What I would say to reassure the hon. Gentleman is that, as he will be aware, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority has indicated that the region of the country that will secure the highest proportion of Government spending on transport in the next few years is the north-west. That is right and proper—a sign of our continuing commitment to deliver improvements in the north of this country that are long, long overdue.
Confidence in the Secretary of State for Transport
Graham Stringer Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree with me that franchisees that walk away from a franchise should be banned from bidding for a significant period?
Alan Brown
Yes, I do. The Secretary of State says that there was a parent company guarantee of £165 million for VTEC, which is a lot of money, but if the parent company is picking up other money in franchises, including the direct award of the west coast main line, it is not actually losing that money. It should be penalised properly, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it should not be able to bid for other franchises. Its ability to bid for the east coast main line partnership has still not been ruled out.
The Secretary of State also justifies the predicament of the parent company by saying that it “got its sums wrong.” I remind him again that it is his Department that got its sums wrong when it carried out its due diligence and assessment. The Government are lucky that one of the other franchise bidders is not seeking redress from them, because they clearly got it wrong, and got the whole process wrong.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Stringer Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
That sounds like a very agreeable adventure to me. I must obviously add it to my bucket list.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
In November 2016, the Government confirmed the majority of the HS2 phase 2b route and launched a consultation on seven route refinements. The Government made a decision on the phase 2b route in July 2017. To deposit the phase 2b hybrid Bill in 2019, HS2 Ltd is developing designs for the working draft environmental statement. The Government have provided funding for growth strategies to HS2 places, enabling the plans to be HS2-ready.
Graham Stringer
Can the Minister assure the House that the hybrid Bill for HS2 phase 2b will take precedence over Crossrail 2?
Ms Ghani
Consideration of the hybrid Bill will take place when it is due to take place in Parliament. It is interesting to note that we have had a lot of support from Members across the House; it would be nice for that support to be reflected when the Bill comes to the House, with all Members voting to support it rather than abstaining.