Transport (CSR)

Steve Baker Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Ellman]

It is important to keep a balance in spending. I certainly support continued and, indeed, increased investment in public transport. However, there may be particular road schemes that are very significant to particular areas or that are important to strategies to support economic development in certain parts of the country. Therefore, I would not rule out any particular type of investment, but I am certainly a supporter of investment in public transport.

The Secretary of State announced that 66 major local authority road schemes, which are due to cost £1.7 billion, are competing for more than £900 million-worth of funding. Will the Minister tell us what kind of result she expects to come from that great reduction in funding? Will priority be given to strategic schemes? If so, how will that be assessed and monitored?

Rail is a great success story. During the last decade, rail patronage has increased in a very dramatic way. More and more people want to use rail. Unfortunately, rail’s popularity has not been matched by the provision of sufficient or adequate rolling stock to meet that increased need. Therefore, while we have more and more people using rail, we also have more and more overcrowding and I think that we have seen the development of a rather complacent attitude to the health and safety issues related to that overcrowding.

This week, discussion has focused on the concerns raised about the proposed increase in train fares. The coalition agreement spoke about the need for

“fair pricing for rail travel.”

It now seems that that “fair pricing” means that regulated fares will be increased in the future not on the basis of the retail prices index plus 1% but on the basis of RPI plus 3% from 2012 onwards. The Government tell us that that is in order to fund much needed investment in rail.

The Association of Train Operating Companies presented such increases as average increases. However, average figures are meaningless to the individual wishing to embark on a rail journey. Already, increases of 13.8% and 9.3% have been reported as planned increases when the new policy comes into force. A lot more should be done also to provide much greater clarity about rail fares, with much greater openness about how cheaper fares can be obtained without the complexities and difficulties of interpreting the rules of different train companies on what constitutes peak-hour travel, so that travel can be made easier for more people.

There is a consequence to increasing rail fares beyond the difficulties it causes individuals, for example in getting to work. The Campaign for Better Transport estimates that fares could be 31% higher by 2015 than they are today. One result of what may well be pricing people off the rail network is that more people may go back to their cars, at a time when we are trying to encourage people to leave their cars and make use of public transport. Indeed, the Government estimate that there will be 4% fewer trips by rail than there would otherwise have been as a direct consequence of the planned fare increases.

Our concern is partly about the economic impact on individuals, including the specific difficulties that individuals may experience in getting to work, but we also have growing environmental concerns. The Climate Change Act 2008 has targets to reduce UK greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. In 2009, the transport sector accounted for a quarter of domestic carbon dioxide emissions, with 90% of those emissions coming from road transport and 55% from domestic cars alone.

Why, at a time when we are so concerned about environmental issues and when we now have the Climate Change Act, would we deliberately want to price people off rail and encourage them to get back into their cars? Furthermore, are we really so certain that the Government’s claim that those increased fares will lead to better investment and improved facilities on the rail network will actually become a reality? The rail structure is very complex and there are big questions to be asked about whether all of us—the traveller and the taxpayer—are getting good value for money from the investment put into rail.

Sir Roy McNulty’s report on the rail system and value for money issues will be very important, as will the decisions about rail franchises for the future. If we are to get value for money for the essential funding that goes into rail, it is extremely important that we look carefully at what emerges from Sir Roy McNulty’s study. Although I know at this stage that some preliminary conclusions have been drawn, there is no full report yet. I would be pleased to hear from the Minister her understanding of what Sir Roy McNulty might say and what she thinks might be the policy implications of his report.

I welcome this morning’s announcement about rail investment, particularly the commitment to electrification of the line between Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Blackpool, and the electrification of the Great Western line. However, I want to be quite sure that that electrification will go together with increased provision of rolling stock and carriages on those lines, and indeed on other overcrowded lines. I would also like to know what kind of monitoring will take place of the promises that we heard this morning—promises about other schemes, as well as the two I have mentioned—to ensure that the investment goes ahead as planned and that we have more capacity, more efficient and environmentally friendly rail travel and better value for money at the same time.

I also welcome the Government’s statement on their commitment to High Speed 2 and the funding for it. However, it is very important that the benefits of HS2 are maximised and that there is no neglect of investment in the classic network.

Rail freight is also very important. Freight moved by rail accounts for about 9% of all goods moved in the UK and I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving investment in rail freight links, specifically those between Southampton and Felixstowe. When the Transport Committee visited Hull recently, to take evidence as part of our inquiry into transport and the economy, we were told about the importance of relatively minor improvements that could enhance access to the Humber port. I hope that those improvements can go ahead and indeed I hope that similar improvements can be made in the Merseyside area. When we talk about rail investment, that debate is often dominated by discussions about passenger rail. We should always remember the importance of freight on rail, too, and the importance of investing in it.

It is also important to look at investment in buses. Indeed, more people travel on buses than on any other mode of public transport. In 2009-10—the last year for which we have figures—5.2 billion passenger journeys were taken on local bus services in Great Britain. That compares with 1.3 billion passenger journeys on rail.

I am extremely concerned about the implications of the comprehensive spending review for funding local bus services. The bus service operator grant will be cut by 20%, local authority revenue for bus services will be cut and we do not yet know how effectively the Local Transport Act 2008 will work to ensure good value for money. We are awaiting the results of the Competition Commission inquiry into the setting of bus fares.

The Government say that they believe that the cuts in the bus service operator grant and other local authority funding, which could have an impact on support for local buses, will have a low impact on services. I am mystified by that and would like to know how the Government arrived at their figures. It seems to me that a 20% reduction in the bus service operator grant, a 28% reduction in local transport revenue funding and the removal of ring-fencing puts a big question mark over how many services that are essential to local people but not necessarily profitable for individual bus operators will be able to continue. I would be grateful for a response.

It is welcome that this Government are honouring their commitment to maintain the national concessionary fares scheme introduced by the previous Government, but the administration of the scheme has changed, and there are now queries about whether the funding for that scheme will go directly to the transport services. Again, I would be grateful for a response on that from the Minister.

Road safety is an important issue that is perhaps not discussed enough—it has not been discussed sufficiently in relation to the comprehensive spending review—but one of the successes of the past decade or so is the reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. In 2009, some 2,222 people were killed on our roads and more than 24,000 were seriously injured. Behind every one of those numbers lies a tragedy, and often a broken family, yet the figures represent an improvement on previous years: 38% fewer people were killed on our roads than in the late 1990s. More progress must be made. I am concerned that the reduction in local funding, combined with the abolition of ring-fenced grants for road safety, will halt the progress made and the decline of deaths and injuries on our roads.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Will she join me in recognising the value of free advanced driver training from organisations such as the Institute of Advanced Motorists, which is available at very little cost to drivers, in raising driving standards and improving safety?

[Mrs Ellman]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I recognise the value of the training that he mentions, but the reason why we have made such progress in reducing the number of deaths and injuries on our roads, although those numbers are still far too high, is that combined efforts have been made not only to improve training but to improve road design, increase publicity through campaigns, reduce speeds and improve enforcement. It has been a combination of efforts by individuals and organisations, led by strong Government focus and guidance. I am concerned that those things might now recede into the background. That must not happen. I welcome an assurance from the Minister that transport safety, including road safety, will be high on her agenda.

Hidden within the comprehensive spending review are decisions to cut funding in important security areas such as aviation security and major changes, also involving funding reductions, to TRANSEC, which is responsible for security in transport. It is not clear what those changes will mean. When the Select Committee on Transport questioned the Secretary of State for Transport about it yesterday, he said that some of the responsibility for funding aviation security would be transferred from Government to the aviation industry. He also said that he could not say a great deal more about changes to TRANSEC. My concern is that we lack information and clarity about what is happening. It is important for us all to know what is being planned. Is the policy change an effort to increase the effectiveness of security, or is it driven by a wish to reduce costs? Transport security could be put at risk at a time of heightened concern. We need to know more about what is happening.

I also draw attention to concerns about the future of passenger representation. Passenger Focus has done an excellent job of drawing attention to the needs of passengers and travellers. It started with excellent work on the rail industry and has recently been given new responsibilities relating to bus travel, yet the Government’s quango hit list stated that Passenger Focus was due for significant reform and changes to its core tasks; I think that those were the words used. How are those core tasks to be defined? Do the Government want to change Passenger Focus’s funding and remit because it has been too successful in representing passenger needs? However committed any Government might be to public transport or indeed anything, it is essential to have an independent body that can speak out for the public about those services. I would be concerned if passenger representation were downgraded.

Finally, questions must be asked about the proposed cut of more than 30% to the administration of the Department for Transport and its agencies. First, what does it mean? Is it about being more efficient, or does it mean that the Department and its agencies will not be able to deliver what they are required to deliver with such significantly reduced funding? What does it mean for the Department’s agencies? We have already heard about cuts to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, including the removal of emergency vessels, which it appears is being done without prior consultation. It is unclear what it is all about, and it is concerning. Such drastic reductions in the administration of the Department and its agencies must ring alarm bells. Is it about being efficient—will services be delivered—or is it about more hidden cuts, particularly to those agencies where what is happening is not always immediately apparent?

In conclusion, I welcome the Government’s stated commitment to investment in our infrastructure and recognise, looking at what has happened to other Departments, that the cuts could have been much worse. However, great concerns remain about the impact on transport of the comprehensive spending review’s cuts. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the points that I have made and assure her that the Select Committee will be pursuing the issues in the months ahead. I hope that she will be pleased to receive an invitation from us before too long. We will be pleased to continue this discussion in another room.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Gray, to serve under your chairmanship in this debate on transport and the impact of the comprehensive spending review. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on the excellent way in which she opened the debate.

I want to talk about the proposals made by the Highways Agency to add an additional lane to the M60 between junctions 12 and 15 near Worsley. The decision announced in the spending review to go ahead with that scheme is wrong because it is not a safe option, it will damage the quality of life of my constituents and it does not represent value for money. By going ahead with the scheme in the current restrained financial climate, the Government are opting for what was described by Highways Agency officials at a residents’ meeting as a “cheap and cheerful option,” rather than making a proper assessment of the causes of the congestion that the additional lane scheme purports to solve.

There are several reasons why the scheme will not improve that stretch of the M60 for motorists. It will also create many issues that will affect my constituents’ quality of life. First, the additional lane will not be effective in relieving the congestion on the M60 at peak times. The current congestion is caused not simply by a lack of capacity but by the number and poor design of the junctions in the affected area. On that short stretch of motorway, the M60 interfaces with the M602, the M62 and the A580 East Lancashire road. Traffic on the motorway has to slow down significantly as other traffic weaves across lanes to enter or exit at the junctions. The distance between junctions 12 and 13 is less than half a mile, and on that short stretch, motorists heading into Manchester city centre and or to the busy Trafford centre nearby must cut across each other to get to the right part of the motorway.

Secondly, I believe that the plan itself will put motorists at serious risk. That stretch of the M60 is already dangerous—I will give some statistics later—given the number of closely spaced junctions and the prevalence of heavy goods traffic heading to Manchester city centre and the nearby Trafford Park industrial estate. In fact, the number of large lorries is already set to increase because Peel Holdings, a local firm, has been given the go-ahead to build a large traffic venture called Port Salford at Barton in my constituency. The Highways Agency’s proposals will make that stretch of motorway more dangerous still, because the additional lanes scheme will create four much narrower lanes with no hard shoulder. My constituents are very worried about that. As one wrote to me:

“There is very little margin for error when driving alongside a huge transcontinental lorry. What will it be like with narrower lanes?”

Thirdly, the Highways Agency has failed dismally to take into account the views of local residents on the proposals. The M60 passes extremely close to the homes of my constituents in Worsley, Roe Green and Barton, and even minor motorway works or changes in patterns of traffic can have a major impact on their lives. That stretch of road was not originally a motorway, or even an outer ring road. It started as the Stretford bypass, but residents now have a three-lane motorway, with the threat that it will become a four-lane motorway. Something that starts as a bypass should not end up as a four-lane motorway without much consideration being given to how it will affect local people’s lives.

[Steve Baker]

In my constituency, Wycombe, the M40 had similar beginnings, so I recognise the hon. Lady’s point. Noise is a dreadful problem for my constituents who live along the motorway. Is noise also a problem in the case she describes?

[Barbara Keeley]

I will come on to that point later, but it is difficult to see how any motorway, with increasingly heavy traffic thundering by at various times of the day, can be anything but noisy, so I sympathise with that problem.

The initial consultation run by the Highways Agency was dreadful. Having heard nothing at all about the scheme as the local MP, I received a leaflet on a Wednesday informing me that the consultation was due to start on Thursday and would run only until Saturday morning. Most of that short consultation time was during the working day, and across just two days, so most local people could not attend. Hardly any of the residents affected heard about the consultation or were able to attend at such short notice, and there are around 800 households right next to the motorway. Indeed, the few people who were able to attend were shocked to discover, having talked with the engineers present, that the project would entail significant work to move service cables and take the traffic physically closer to their homes and gardens.

We managed, at my insistence, to get the Highways Agency to attend a packed meeting of hundreds of residents. Indeed, we had to turn people away because it was not judged safe to let many more into the hall. The meeting turned into a series of angry exchanges, and the quality of information given by the Highways Agency was very poor. Residents were left feeling confused and with no information. That situation occurred under the previous Government, and I was as critical of the Transport Ministers then as I am now about the scheme, so it is in no way a partisan point. Since then, the Highways Agency has promised regular newsletters, but only one has emerged. It was initially delivered to entirely the wrong residential area, reaching none of the people who will be affected by the changes.

For my constituents, the environmental impact of the widening is a big worry. They are worried not only that traffic will be brought close to their homes but about what will happen to existing measures to deal with noise. There is an acoustic fence and a narrow barrier of trees at different points along the motorway, but that is all that stands between my constituents and all the traffic on the motorway. Indeed, the acoustic fence was installed only after much campaigning by my predecessor, Terry Lewis MP. Any changes to that fence or to the tree barrier would leave local residents much more exposed to noise and to visual and atmospheric pollution, which they do not want.

One resident has already experienced a distressing accident in which a heavy goods vehicle ploughed through the acoustic fence, down the bank and into her garden, killing the driver. She must now face the fact that it is planned to bring that traffic even closer to her home and garden. Another resident was concerned about the impact that the additional lane of traffic would have on the safety of his young children playing in the garden or on the street. Indeed, I understand that a sloping grassy bank with mature shrubs at the end of one small street will be replaced by a vertical brick wall.