Rail Infrastructure Investment

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[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)]

6. What steps he is taking to reduce delays at Manchester Oxford Road station.

[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

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[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

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[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

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Graham Stringer]

I did mention road congestion, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, did you? I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. I heard a reference to rail electrification.

[Graham Stringer]

I was pointing out that particular franchises led to road congestion.

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, causality, no less.

[Graham Stringer]

Precisely.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

T3. In a deregulated bus system, local authorities have no control over routes and fares, and the amount of money for tendered services is being cut by 45%. How can the Prime Minister justify her statement that local authorities should be improving bus services? Will the Secretary of State give the Prime Minister a lesson in how the bus service system works?

[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

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[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

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[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

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[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)]

20. What steps he has taken to implement phase 2b of High Speed 2.

[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.

Rail Announcement

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am aware of the situation, and the important thing to say is that we are a long way away from detailed timetabling. I share my hon. Friend’s view about terminating at Macclesfield, and I have told HS2 Ltd to do some work on that. We have to get the timetabling and the flow of services right, and I do not want anywhere to be disadvantaged by the transition.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

As a former chair of Manchester airport, I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words about how it has been run. One reason for the airport’s success is that it has been careful in choosing its private sector partners over the years. Will the Secretary of State therefore explain why he is allowing private companies that have not honoured their contractual obligations in franchises to compete for important lines?

[Chris Grayling]

There are two points to make when talking about potential long-term private partners. First, the arrangements at Manchester airport have worked well. It is still majority-owned by local authorities, but it actually operates as an independent business with private shareholders. It is a good example of a public-private partnership, which may well be the way forward for HS2 Ltd. That does not mean that the organisations that are running franchises are those that might end up as private partners in the future, because we are looking at a different type of model for the future. Secondly, as for future bidding, as I have said before, I will fulfil my legal obligations, but I will also be as careful as possible to protect the interests of the railways and of passengers.

Rail Franchising

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am going to make some progress now, I am afraid, because the shadow Secretary of State asked a variety of questions about the east coast main line and I want to respond.

The reality is that sometimes the private companies get it wrong. The situation on the east coast franchise is a clear example. Virgin and Stagecoach overbid, and they are paying, and will pay, the price. I repeat—they will pay the price.

I have listened with interest to some of the ill-informed comments about the situation on the east coast line in the past few weeks. I have heard some absurd claims from people who do not understand what they are talking about. So let me explain to the House what the position is. I am not agreeing to early termination of a contract in 2020; no one has asked me to. This railway is paying a huge premium to the taxpayer and continues to do so, but the issue is that this franchise is not delivering the profits the operator expected and is at risk of not making it as far as 2020.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Grayling]

No—forgive me, but I am going to explain this in detail.

Passenger numbers are rising on this railway; customer satisfaction is up; and the line is generating a healthy and growing operating surplus that is providing a much greater return to the taxpayer than when it was in the public sector. It is also worth saying that it is running more services and employing more staff. The money that the franchise pays to the Government is today 20% higher than it was under public ownership. But Virgin and Stagecoach got their numbers wrong. They have been losing money steadily, and have now lost the best part of £200 million in the past three years. Despite that, I am holding them to their full financial obligations, taking every last penny of the £165 million guarantee that we insisted on when they took on the franchise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

If I heard the Secretary of State correctly, he was confirming the article in The Sunday Times saying that the full contract, as it was let, was not legally enforceable. If that is the case, will he confirm it, and will he explain to the House why he agreed a contract that was not legally enforceable? If it is not true, why will he not demand the full £2 billion?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman has not understood the finances of the rail industry. The money that the taxpayer receives from the operating profit—the taxpayer receives the lion’s share—will continue to flow into the public coffers whatever happens. The contract that was let between Virgin-Stagecoach and the Government will be fully enforced—I repeat, it will be fully enforced—and I make the absolute commitment to the House that that will happen.

I will now make further progress. We have heard this afternoon, more explicitly than we have previously heard it, that the Opposition’s policy is to return to the days of British Rail. There is somehow the idea that this will bring nirvana, but it actually only takes a moment’s thought to realise how flawed their thinking is, assuming they have done any the first place.

Our network suffers from three main problems. First, the infrastructure, which is already run in the public sector—Labour Members forget that—is often old and unreliable. About two thirds of the problems on our rail network result from issues with the publicly run infrastructure. This is not about who runs it and who owns it, but about investment in the infrastructure. That is why I am pleased to have just announced a further £20 billion renewal programme for infrastructure—concentrating on replacing older points, signals and the rest, and upgrading systems—so that we have a more reliable railway. That is the first problem, and the first solution.

The second issue is that the system is heavily congested. It would not matter who was running the railway, because routes into places such as London Waterloo or Manchester Piccadilly would still be full. What those stations and routes need is longer trains, and that is why the private sector, supported by the Government, is now investing in longer trains all around the country—in Manchester, all around London, in the west country and in the west midlands. That is the next priority. Probably the biggest renewal of rolling stock in modern times is taking place at the moment, and it is certainly by far the biggest in Europe. That is what is necessary. Someone on an eight-coach train that is full in the morning needs a 10-coach train, and that is what we are delivering. It is also why we are expanding capacity routes such as Thameslink, which will make a huge difference through central London, and why we have opened the Ordsall Chord in Manchester, which will provide linkage across the city and create extra capacity on trans-Pennine routes.

Thirdly, the system is organisationally too fragmented—too many people debating with each other, rather than solving problems for passengers—which is why our strategy is to bring back together the day-to-day operation of the track and the trains. Those are the three challenges facing the network today, and they are why passengers are often frustrated. We are working to address those problems with solutions and investment. That is the right strategy for the rail network, and shifting around the organisation, renationalisation and the rest of it will not solve those problems. Let us concentrate on the things that will make the difference for passengers, not on moving the deckchairs, as Labour Members seem to want to do.