Road Safety on the A1

Debate between Ruth Cadbury and Lilian Greenwood

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I add my congratulations on your election. It is a pleasure to respond to the important points raised by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) during this evening’s debate. I congratulate her on securing the debate, and thank her for the opportunity to discuss the safety of road users on the A1. As a fellow east midlands MP, I have driven on many occasions on the section of the A1 she refers to, and I have some understanding and appreciation of the issues she raises.

Safety on our roads is of the utmost importance, which is why the Government have announced that they intend to publish a new road safety strategy, the first in over a decade. That work is already under way, and I look forward to sharing further details with the House in due course and engaging with Members from across the House as we develop that strategy. This is the second debate that the hon. Member has secured on this subject: she is undoubtedly a strong advocate for her constituents and for road users, campaigning extensively for improvements to this vital section of national infrastructure and to protect the safety of everyone who uses it.

Our strategic road network is the backbone of the country’s economy, with 4,500 miles of motorways and major A roads. It connects people, builds communities, creates opportunities and is a catalyst for the UK economy. Although it makes up only 2.4% of England’s overall road network, it is the most heavily used and carries one third of all traffic and two thirds of all freight.

Investment in our strategic road network is through the road investment strategy process, which has led to £17.6 billion being invested between 2015 and 2020 and more than £23 billion being invested between 2020 and 2025. The road investment strategy focuses on creating a road network that is safe, accessible and reliable for all road users, and that addresses its impact on all those who use it. We are committed to putting transport at the heart of mission-driven Government by transforming infrastructure to work for the whole country to unlock growth, promote social mobility, tackle regional inequality and support the transition to a net zero economy.

As the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford set out, at 410 miles, the A1 is the longest trunk road in the UK. It connects the two capitals of London and Edinburgh and all the communities along its length. It is one of the most recognisable routes on the network and plays a vital role in supporting our nation’s economy. With that integral role for businesses and motorists comes the challenge of balancing the strategic role of the road with local journeys and the impact of the road on local communities such as those that she represents.

The 72-mile section of the A1 between Peterborough and Blyth carries 20,000 to 25,000 vehicles every single day, as the hon. Member said, and nearly a quarter of those are heavy goods vehicles, which is well above the average for a similar-sized road. Much has already been done to improve performance, including modernising junctions and improving road alignment, but I recognise that the route still has its challenges. The number of collisions, particularly fatal collisions, is higher than the national average for an equivalent road, as she said, which demands examination and action.

That is why National Highways continues to invest significant sums into that section of the A1 to improve its safety performance. That investment has seen a number of immediate safety focused improvements at key sections and junctions, such as enhanced lighting and improved road markings and signage at specific locations along the route.

I was pleased to hear that the hon. Member recently met representatives from National Highways to discuss the key issues on this route. I am aware they will be arranging a visit soon to discuss the issues in more detail. I will ensure that my officials are informed of the specific outcomes of that meeting, and I look forward to receiving that feedback.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I congratulate the Minister on her appointment; it is a great pleasure to see her at the Dispatch Box. She talked about bringing in the road safety strategy—I am not sure whether that is the same as the long-awaited strategic framework for road safety that I was asking about previously.

National Highways had a commitment to think about active travel—people walking and cycling—for new junctions, particularly across junctions but also along some stretches. Given the way that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) described the A1, I can see that nobody would want to cycle along it, but I ask the Minister to consider incorporating active travel into the thinking for the new road safety strategy on major highways.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is an absolutely marvellous advocate for the benefits of active travel and the things we need to do to make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists. I recognise her point completely. I recently had to make a hasty dash, while out walking, across a major trunk road, and the point she makes is really important. We do need to look at how we ensure that pedestrians, cyclists and, indeed, horse riders are able to cross our major trunk road network safely.

I will also seek further information on the potential for signage relating to short slip roads, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford asked. Improving the safety of all road users will always be one of my highest priorities. As I have said, this Government are committed to reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. They ruin the lives of too many people and their wider families, but as road users, we all have a vital role to play.

I would like to take this opportunity at the Dispatch Box to remind everyone who is watching or listening of the fatal four. Tragically, most deaths and serious injuries on our roads are not the result of accidents. The causes are well known: speeding, using a mobile phone behind the wheel, not wearing a seatbelt, and driving under the influence of drink or drugs. Everyone taking to our roads should remember this before getting behind the wheel.

England’s motorways and major A roads are some of the safest in the world, but the longer-term ambition of National Highways remains that no one should be harmed while travelling or working on its network. Road safety is a shared responsibility, and it is important that we all recognise the part we can play as it cannot be achieved in isolation. National Highways is continuing its work with key partners, organisations and road users to help us collectively reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on our strategic roads.

I want to thank the hon. Lady once again not only for securing this debate and for the important points she raises, which I look forward to discussing further, but for her extensive work to bring together regional partners to push for improvements. I want to reassure her that I take this matter seriously and intend to continue this conversation to see what we can achieve to provide a positive outcome for road users in the short and long term.

Question put and agreed to.

Airports National Policy Statement

Debate between Ruth Cadbury and Lilian Greenwood

Thursday 7th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Lilian Greenwood]

I think Heathrow is the dominant voice, but in part that is because it is our only hub airport. Many of the arguments that the Government have put forward are predicated on the importance of that hub status, although I will address some of the other points, which I am sure my hon. Friend will want to hear.

Right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the Department for Transport’s latest summary, which rehearses some of these arguments with some very nice graphics, so I need not say more about it than that. Our inquiry sought to get into the detail of the scheme and how valid concerns about the Government’s approach might be addressed in a final NPS before Parliament was asked to approve it. I confess that when we sought this debate, we did not anticipate that the Government would have already laid their final version of the airports NPS, which happened two days ago. I commend them for their speedy actions. I welcome the Secretary of State’s remarks in the Chamber on Tuesday in which he thanked the Committee for the scrutiny we completed. I also recognised the shadow Secretary of State’s acknowledgement that we “left no stone unturned” in our report.

Conducting detailed scrutiny is absolutely critical, and I am immensely proud of the detailed work that our Committee completed within the time available. The Heathrow plans have been more than 20 years in the making. The implications of Parliament’s decision will last even longer. It is important that we get this right.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and her colleagues on the Transport Committee for their work. Given the depth and rigour that her Committee went into on the detailed elements of the case, does she agree that the Secretary of State has come up with a remarkably brief response in a very short time and could not possibly have had the time to answer all the detailed questions that her Committee’s report quite rightly put?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Secretary of State responded within approximately two months to our report. We are looking at the detail of the final report and what has made its way into the final NPS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

The right hon. Lady is right. There is absolutely no reason why the Government and Heathrow airport cannot draw a straight line east and west of the third runway site for at least six to 13 miles. Irrespective of the NATS wider flight path revisions, by the time the planes are overhead in my constituency, they are locked into a final approach and there can be no variation. Therefore, if we know where the runway is, we know where the final approach is. Neither the Government nor the airport have had the courtesy to produce a map to show to people in Heston, Osterley, Brentford, Chiswick and Hammersmith. I really think that they should.

Up to 2 million people will experience more noise, and 300,000 more people will experience significantly more noise than they do at the moment. They are looking at planes, but generally not hearing them very loudly at the moment. Those people will start experiencing noise at the level currently experienced in parts of Isleworth, West Hounslow, Kew, Putney and so on.

The expansion will also mean around 50% more traffic movements on an already severely congested network, with the associated air pollution and the economic cost of the delays of that congestion. When we talk about traffic movements, we are not just talking about passengers. Any transport modelling must factor in all the other movements in and out of the airport, including those who work there, flight crew, flight servicing and, of course, cargo. Much of flight servicing and cargo cannot go on any route other than by road. Many of us just laugh at Heathrow’s claim that it can increase capacity with a third runway without increasing road travel.

I understand that the Minister told the House this morning—I am sorry I could not be there; I was on constituency business—that he does not recognise the £10 billion figure that was suggested by Transport for London as the cost of essential transport infrastructure. I gather that he then said words to the effect of, “It’ll be all right because the Elizabeth line, or Crossrail, and west and southern rail access will deal with the pressure of expansion.” As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith rightly said, those routes will deal only with current airport demand and population growth in the region.

Transport for London is very clear that the Elizabeth line, or Crossrail, will provide little modal shift from roads. The other two schemes have been ideas and plans since terminal 5 was constructed, and are still no further forward, particularly because the Government have not committed to putting any public funding into them. All three schemes are needed right now to deal with Heathrow’s appallingly low levels of public transport access. When it comes to a cap on the increase in airport-related traffic, the Government cannot get away with referring just to passengers.

The Transport Committee requested a minimum average period of seven hours of respite a night. The national policy statement does not change the initial Government proposal of a 6.5-hour ban. Even this week, the Government are saying that the NPS

“does not preclude consideration of different options.”

We are very worried about that. That sounds to me like going back on the night flight commitment.

I want to address the point about jobs, which trade unions and Labour colleagues often raise with me. There will of course be more jobs created at Heathrow—Heathrow Airport Limited said yesterday that there would be 14,000. I am not denying that there is some unemployment in our region, particularly of young people, but of all areas of the UK, our sub-region around Heathrow airport probably has among the lowest levels of unemployment.

The Transport Committee said that a lot of the new jobs creation promised by runway three will be displaced jobs. If anybody wants to know what the job situation is at Heathrow at the moment, just go on to Heathrow airport’s jobs recruitment site. It is looking for hundreds of people—low skilled, middle skilled and highly skilled—for all sorts of jobs. There is a recruitment crisis in west London and the Thames Valley, which is being exacerbated by Brexit. The jobs problem that we have at the moment, particularly at Heathrow, is one of too many low-skilled, zero-hours, poorly paid jobs with poor conditions. I congratulate Heathrow Airport Ltd on signing a commitment to the London living wage, but it cannot control all the various employers in and around Heathrow. There are regions of the UK that need those jobs far more than London. West London and the Thames Valley have many other growth sectors.

Those of us near Heathrow are used to the record of broken and watered down promises on Heathrow. I have been at this game for 16 years now. This week, the final NPS ignored the detail of many of the Transport Committee’s recommendations and has watered down previous commitments on the night flight ban, the cap on total flight numbers, and the cap on the charges to airlines if costs escalate. Runway three and continuing traffic congestion will mean that children and older people will carry on dying of respiratory failure as air pollution continues to escalate—some of that from aeroplanes; a lot of that from traffic.

What of the impact on UK plc? Much of the case for a third runway at Heathrow implies that the future of aviation is in the hub model, linking short-haul routes to long-haul through the hub and spoke model. However, the Transport Committee had very mixed evidence on the hub issue, with many reputable witnesses pointing out that point-to-point travel is growing, and will grow, faster than hub travel, particularly with the relatively recent emergence of the long-haul Dreamliner plane, selling far better than the enormous A380s. Moreover, the Transport Committee identified what the Department for Transport did not: that Gatwick is growing its long-haul destinations, and aims to have 50 long-haul destinations soon, so Gatwick could become a secondary London hub.

We have heard already that all bar four domestic routes will struggle without Government protection. That will add to the cost to the public purse of Heathrow expansion. The Secretary of State as good as admitted that when he released the NPS. He said that Birmingham airport will face “greater competitive pressures” as a result of runway three. Furthermore, the Transport Committee found that long-haul international routes from Scotland and northern airports are more likely to survive commercially if there is no additional runway in the south-east.

Despite promises to MPs, the Transport Committee report showed that all the growth in passenger numbers are outbound leisure travellers—that is, yet more Brits taking their holiday pound away from Britain’s beautiful places, which would really benefit from more tourists. The Committee said that if the UK is to comply with its commitment to cut carbon dioxide emissions, then if runway three goes ahead, growth will have to be curbed at all other UK airports. Furthermore, other sectors of the economy face serious reductions and restraints to keep UK carbon emissions within the limits.

Why should whole swathes of London and the south-east pay the price of yet more noise, increased congestion, worse pollution, and a greater safety risk? Why should other sectors of the economy have to further curb their carbon emissions when, according to the Transport Committee report, a third runway at Heathrow shows poor value for money for the UK and no additional international connectivity? It will mean that non-UK regions risk losing their connections to London without subsidy. They will lose direct international connections and their tourist pounds.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I just wanted to clarify one point. My hon. Friend said that the Transport Committee had said that there would be less international direct connectivity. That is not the case. We said that there was not a huge increase with the expansion of the north-west runway than there would be under other expansion options. It is worth pointing out that direct international connectivity for non-London airports will increase under an expansion scenario, but it will not increase as much as it would have if there was no expansion.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I apologise to the Committee Chair if I got that wrong; I will double check the facts. I would certainly agree that the growth of direct international connectivity is not dependent on another runway at Heathrow. In fact, I believe that there will be only one additional destination from Heathrow with a third runway. Much of the increased demand will be, as I have said, outbound leisure tourists adding to existing routes that are already heavily used. That is where most of the demand will be and not, as Heathrow keeps saying, to newly emerging destinations. It can say that as much as it likes, but unless the demand is truly there to sustain the new routes, they are not going to happen.

Why risk sucking capital funding that is needed for essential regional transport infrastructure and upgrading into yet another expensive project in London that actually does little for the economy? By pushing for runway three, the Government are just writing a blank cheque on behalf of the UK taxpayer or the passenger, while further undermining an already poor environment for large parts of London and the south-east.