Active Travel

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you very much, Mr Bailey. I did not see myself as a Front Bencher; I am very much a Back Bencher.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

You are a Back Bencher who speaks first.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Thank you. I welcome this debate. I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on cycling, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who introduced the debate, as well as the Backbench Business Committee, which allowed it.

I will try to make points that others might not make, which is difficult as I am speaking at the beginning of the debate. The reasons for active travel are many and have already been mentioned: better air quality, the reduction of CO₂ emissions, less congestion and better health. I would add another: productivity. Many of us know schools that do the extra mile in the morning, and children who do that mile run or walk are better learners during the day.

It is no coincidence that a large number of City companies pushed the former Mayor of London, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), to go ahead with the east-west cycle route in London. They pushed for that because they knew that it would make their staff more productive at work, as more people cycling often reduces sickness and absence from work, and increases alertness during the working day. Since I have been more active over the last 10 years, I have certainly felt that I have higher energy levels.

When commentating on the Tour de France a few years ago, Chris Boardman made a YouTube video in which hundreds of people cycled behind him in Utrecht. He said that they were ordinary people going about their day-to-day life, and that he did not see “cyclists”, but normal people going about their life, dressed for their destination and not the journey. The Netherlands did not come by its high levels of cycling and walking by accident; it was a conscious change of policy in the 1970s as a result of parents worrying about their children’s safety. It took decades of serious financial support and leadership from the Government; that is what we need.

Issues in the justice system need to be taken on board. People will feel safe walking and cycling only when drivers are aware of more vulnerable road users and reduce risks such as close passing. We need training for professional drivers, sentencing for those who commit serious crimes, and, most importantly, investment from all Departments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Ellis]

I am afraid I have less than two minutes left, so I will have to continue.

I will just address the issue of safety, which I think the hon. Lady mentioned. We will achieve our ambitions only if people feel safe when cycling and walking, and that is something the Department has prioritised in recent months. I recognise that concerns about safety are a disincentive to a number of people. Following a major cycling and walking safety review, we published a Government response setting out 50 separate actions, including reviewing guidance in the highway code and encouraging local councils to invest around 15% of their local transport infrastructure funding on cycling and walking infrastructure.

However, it is not just about the scale of investment, although that is massive; it also has to be the right investment in the right places. This is why my Department is supporting the preparation of local cycling and walking infrastructure plans. We are currently providing a £2 million package of technical and strategic support to 46 local authorities, including Portsmouth, Oxfordshire and dozens of others. The support package will assist with the development of their plans, often made in partnership with the local enterprise partnership. Local cycling and walking infrastructure plans do not come with dedicated funding for implementation, but local bodies are able to channel investment for cycling and walking from a range of areas.

I welcome the contributions from hon. Members during our all too brief debate. I welcome the ideas proposed. As I stated at the outset, the Government are committed to increasing cycling and walking and to making our roads safer for vulnerable users such as cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians. As we start to develop the next phase of the cycling and walking investment strategy, I welcome all ideas for how we can achieve our collective ambition. In my view, there is a cross-party, non-political, collective ambition to make cycling and walking the natural choice for short journeys, or as part of longer journeys, across the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We will always look carefully at new technologies, but any new technologies introduced on and around our roads need to be safe. We need to be confident that they will continue to be safe for not only those who use them, but those around them.

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

I refer to the Secretary of State’s response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) on runway three. I will try again. Given that the Government have now followed the Opposition in committing to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, surely the Secretary of State must see that Parliament might now vote a different way on a project that emits 6 million tonnes of carbon emissions per annum and provides zero net benefit to the UK economy?

[Chris Grayling]

I am afraid I simply do not accept that the latter point is true. This Parliament voted, by a majority of nearly 300, to give the go-ahead to a project that I personally believe is of key strategic importance to the United Kingdom over the coming decades. I think that says it all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

My hon. Friend has made multiple representations on behalf of her constituency. The Access for All funding is about £300 million, and the decision will be made public in due course, around April.

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

In response to the question from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), the Secretary of State committed the Government, on Heathrow expansion, to support regional links. Will he confirm where he expects that support to come from—the Government, local authorities or, in Scotland’s case, the Scottish Government?

[Chris Grayling]

There are two points to make. We have various tools at our disposal, including the public service obligation system, to protect routes and sometimes to support them. However, as Heathrow expands and as demand for air travel grows, I do not expect most of those routes to need Government support. This is a question of making sure that the capacity is available for routes that will be commercial.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I cannot really do more than expand on my previous comment, which is that we are reviewing the highway code in this area and are working closely on issues of close passing. They are discussed in some detail in our recent cycling and walking safety review.

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

12. What level of direct and indirect public funding will be required to support new regional connections with Heathrow airport.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)]

The airports national policy statement expects post-expansion Heathrow to deliver 14 domestic routes and to work with airlines to protect existing and develop new domestic connections. We expect these routes to be commercially viable with support from Heathrow.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but during the airports national policy statement, the Government said that the aviation Green Paper would address the level of public subsidy required to support certain regional connections into Heathrow, but the Green Paper, now published, says that when there is such a requirement for a public services obligation route,

“funding contributions should increasingly be provided locally.”

Will he therefore confirm that many local councils that were hoping to reap economic benefits from additional regional routes may in fact end up having to subsidise loss-making routes?

[Chris Grayling]

As the House will know, it is often custom and practice to share the cost of a public service obligation with a local authority. It is right and prudent for the Government to seek to share the load when we can.

Rail Infrastructure Investment

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and if that were the only consideration I can see how it could lead to inappropriate decisions, but that is not entirely the case. For example, the transpennine rail upgrade, which will be the biggest enhancement on our network over the next five years, would simply not be happening if we accepted his point. But I understand where he is coming from: we have to balance not only economic return and national efficiency, but the possible role in rebalancing our national geography. The lack of investment in some parts could easily be seen as a factor in economic performance.

Our decisions follow a rigorous and fair appraisal process that ensures spending goes to the projects and programmes where it is needed, delivering value for money for taxpayers and passengers. Sometimes that means that spending appears higher in some areas than in others. We cited various figures, but the numbers quoted are frequently from the IPPR. I have some reservations about the IPPR reporting, because it simply adds up future spending regardless of how far it extends. For example, its analysis includes 16 years of planned expenditure on HS2, where the most costly sections—because of land prices—are in London, but only five years of planned spending on maintenance for the other parts of our network. It includes locally funded spending by TfL, but not local, equivalently funded spending in other cities, which will result in a poor sample.

We look at data in a number of different ways. Investment in Birmingham, for example, could benefit users in Penzance, Edinburgh—anywhere across our network—and, of course, the west midlands. We look at two measures: where the investment is made and where the benefits will be felt. The numbers quoted so far on where spending is taking place largely have not taken into account where benefits are felt. However, spending figures going forward, as shown by the national infrastructure and construction pipeline, show that the Government expect to spend £248 per person in the north, compared with £236 in the south. There is an element of the phasing of schemes driving the individual spend in an area.

The rebalancing toolkit has been considered, which we have developed to support authors of strategic cases to assess how a programme or project fits with the objective of spreading growth around the country. I was asked whether it is being used. It is being used in the development of the transpennine rail upgrades and the Northern Powerhouse Rail business cases. The rebalancing toolkit is designed to help with the basic planning. It includes a checklist of questions to consider and potential evidence that can be used to help describe the rebalancing case for a project or programme in its strategic case. It is an ingredient. Does it need to be used in every single case? Given the amount of money we spend and the amount of time it takes us to plan our projects, I do not think it should be mandatory everywhere, but certainly it is an ingredient in making the right decisions. The toolkit’s objective is to make decision making more consistent by improving the focus, quality and transparency of the rebalancing evidence in the business case.

Let me answer some questions asked by colleagues. The transpennine rail upgrade offers the fantastic prospect of the north being the centrepiece of the next spending period. It is a £2.9 billion first phase of a scheme. Electrification will be a part of the proposals. It is phased to deliver the best benefits to passengers over the period. Freight will most certainly be considered; that is why we are also taking forward options for the development of the Skipton to Colne reconnection. It should be viewed as a phased activity.

The advice we have received from Network Rail is that if we spend any more money on that network during this period, with the amount of interventions required to deliver the schemes we will bring the northern rail network to a halt for just about every weekend over the next five years. We have taken the view that it would be an unacceptable price to pay, which would have a huge detrimental economic impact. We have listened to the industry experts and that is the advice they are giving us, so we are delivering this major project in phases. The criteria are about delivering the best benefits to passengers early, but our ambitions are not reduced at all.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Is it about merely measuring the benefit for the passengers? Are any other wider impacts assessed and measured, such as the impact on the environment and local areas, particularly where there are regeneration and economic development aspirations?

[Andrew Jones]

The wider considerations are taken into account. This is part of a broader plan. As the business case is created, it looks at economic benefits and environmental benefits. It is a wider case.

The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth asked about devolution. It is being considered as part of the Williams review, but the principle of devolution is a sound one. The suggestion that the Secretary of State is not supportive of Crossrail and the London Mayor is not correct. For example, TfL has run into some financial difficulties over the Crossrail cost overruns. We are helping it with a £2.1 billion credit facility, which it will pay back—it is a loan, not a grant. That is an important indication of how we are supportive of Crossrail and the London Mayor.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

If it is possible to deliver greater value, we will of course look at those opportunities. Part of the Williams review is about rail fares. I will make sure that my hon. Friend’s comments are fed over to Mr Williams for his consideration.

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

8. What steps he plans to take to reduce a potential increase in highway vehicle trips resulting from a third runway at Heathrow airport.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)]

As the hon. Lady will be aware, the airports national policy statement requires 50% of passengers to use public transport by 2030, rising to 55% by 2040. It also requires 25% fewer staff car trips to work by 2030, and 50% fewer by 2040. In addition, I expect Heathrow to meet its public pledge of no greater airport-related road traffic.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The terminal 5 inspector recommended that that expansion should be dependent on additional rail access, and we have seen the consequences locally of that not having happened. The Department for Transport’s own figures say that a third runway will put an additional 54,000 vehicles a day on our local road system. Will the Secretary of State make any further expansion at Heathrow conditional on western and southern rail access?

[Chris Grayling]

I want to go further than that. Western rail access is currently in development and we are in the early stages of preparation for southern rail access. We are also making provision at Old Oak Common for a Chiltern connection into that station that will provide a link into Heathrow. High Speed 2, of course, will arrive at Old Oak Common and deliver an opportunity to connect into Heathrow from a different route. Finally, it is my hope that the Mayor of London will, notwithstanding the financial challenges at Transport for London, deliver the Piccadilly line upgrade, which is so important.

South Western Railway Franchise

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Vince Cable]

That was not on my list of complaints, but I am sure we can add it.

The central concerns that people have are the following. First, there has been a marked deterioration in punctuality and reliability. The consumer group Transport Focus measures satisfaction with punctuality and reliability and it has sunk to 65%, which represents a 12% deterioration in the past year.

The second problem is the ability of the rail company to deal with major disruption. When there is somebody on the line or a points problem, we have been used to recovery within a reasonably short space of time. Now, the whole network is disabled for prolonged periods, due to the apparent inability of either Network Rail or South Western to deal with the problem.

The third problem is a strategy that I would call the concentration of misery. Whenever there is a serious disruption, the rail company has the choice of whether to spread it widely or concentrate it on one or two neglected branch lines. What is happening in practice is that some of the branch lines, including the so-called Shepperton line that runs through Fulwell and Hampton in my constituency, are particularly badly affected. The justification given to me by the company is that that affects fewer people, but the effect is that an already poor service becomes impossible. People are not able to get to work or to school and large numbers of cancellations take place. I had a message yesterday from a constituent who boarded a train and it was then announced that it would not stop at any of the announced stops, but would go straight to Waterloo. That kind of experience is commonplace.

There is then the issue of industrial action. I am reluctant to ascribe blame and I am sure that the rail unions have their share of responsibility, but for almost a quarter of a century we had virtually no industrial action in this part of London. It is now frequent and we have had eight major strikes since the change of franchise. Clearly there is a complete breakdown of communication between the employees and the employers.

Then there is the issue of the new timetable that we were promised. It is probably a source of relief that the company has not tried to put it into practice. We are still offered the old timetable, which the company finds extremely difficult to operate.

Last but not least, there is the promise of a 3% fare increase. That has led to probably the most serious and general complaint about the service: that it simply is not value for money. The surveys recently carried out by Transport Focus suggest that only 36% of passengers judge the service to be value for money, and I am sure that is deteriorating by the day.

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

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour, for securing this important debate on a subject that also affects the thousands of people who use the six stations on South Western Railway’s Hounslow loop line—not only my constituents but the thousands who work at GSK, Sky and so on. I agree with him about the disruption to people’s working, daily and family lives, and I share the concern of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about what the promise to remove the guarantee of a second person on the train means for people who are disabled. The situation needs looking at urgently.

[Sir Vince Cable]

I thank the hon. Lady for that additional information, which is germane and extremely useful.

There have been a couple of serious and authoritative reports by the Office of Rail and Road. Sir Michael Holden was invited to carry out a study, and he has actually run railways, so we think he can be trusted for technical judgment. The analysis that is now available suggests that the following are the main sources of disruption. The first is that the franchise itself was not properly conducted. The company overbid or, to put it another way, underbid for subsidy and is now financially stretched. It appears to be struggling to maintain payments to its financiers, and the consequence is that passenger welfare is being sacrificed and the promised investment is not materialising. There are serious questions for the Department and the Minister about to how the franchise was allowed to take place and result in a serious deterioration of standards. The Government have plenty of experience of refranchising, and why they were allowed to disrupt what was a perfectly serviceable arrangement with the previous franchisee is unclear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

I accept that a large part of the problem with disabled access is to do with the physical infrastructure, but until that is dealt with, disabled access is dependent on the second staff member in the train being able to put out the ramp for wheelchair users. If the franchisee goes back on guaranteeing that second person on the train, disabled people will not be assured that they can get on and off the trains.

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Lady is clearly correct; there is a key role for staff on board trains and at stations in helping people on and off the trains, and that is entirely understood. I should perhaps point out that no staff are being removed from South Western Railway’s trains. There will be more guards on trains in future, not fewer. South Western Railway has been very clear from the outset that no one will lose their job and that every service will continue to have a guard rostered. That is the offer that South Western Railway has made, and it should be seen as excellent news for customers and for South Western Railway itself, but the point about the role of staff in helping people with mobility issues is entirely understood and well made.

The declining performance that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton highlighted predates what we are discussing—it has declined over a considerable number of years. I have gone back and reviewed performance and investment, and the point I would like to make is that we have a plan and we are investing at a record level. All of this will add to the future drumbeat of improved services, and passengers will notice the difference.

The right hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned the Williams review and asked whether it would include the Department for Transport. Yes, it will. It is looking at the structure of the industry. This industry has been one of remarkable growth since the privatisation, with 1 billion extra passenger journeys a year. The system has served us well, delivering more people on to our networks, but the question is whether the structure is right to take it on into the future. If we are asking that question very broadly, the review has to and does include the Department that has a key role to play.

The introduction of the new timetable in May was clearly very problematic, and the industry has apologised for it, as it certainly should have done. Passengers were vastly inconvenienced by it; it was a failure of performance. Lessons have been learned from it, and there has been a review. The head of the Office of Rail and Road, Professor Glaister, has published a report and we will hear more on his recommendations for the future very shortly. The key thing is that lessons are being learned. We are investing in new rolling stock and having a proper hard look at how we can deliver the railway that people need. Colleagues from across the House have been very clear in their expectations of the rail industry and of the Department, and we are making sure that those expectations will be fulfilled.

Question put and agreed to.

Road Safety

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I want to pick up on one thing he said about cyclists not wearing the correct kind of helmet. Is he aware that there is no requirement on cyclists to wear helmets in this country? In fact, in most countries where cycling is an awful lot more prevalent than it is in this country, most people do not wear helmets, because they do not need to.

[Jack Brereton]

I think that is an issue. I encourage more people to wear a helmet, because the more they do so, the lower the risk. I recognise that on the continent there is more of a cycling culture, and that we do not see as much of that in this country, outside of London. It is challenging in many communities to encourage people to use cycling as an alternative. I always say to my constituents that wearing a helmet is a way of ensuring that they have the best possible protection and safety on our roads.

As I was saying, it would be interesting to know whether the Department for Transport intends to explore such potential key performance indicators for non-motorised road use and for road crossers, such as those on foot—that also relates to cyclists. I recognise the danger that too many indicators might dilute that focus. A further danger is that indicators can become targets that skew priorities. I think that the PACTS report is helpful for recognising the importance of having effective comparative data that can be trusted to assess road safety.

It is essential for indicators to go beyond the fatal and seriously injured figure—the KSI figure, as it is known. As the former co-chair of the Staffordshire Safer Roads Partnerships, prior to my election to this House, I am quite impressed by the thinking and working that has gone into this report. It is aligned with the progress that is being made at a local and national level, following the Government’s determination to reduce the number of fatalities on our roads.

Of course, actions to improve road safety must be data-led—we must take proportionate action that has a meaningful impact—but the data needs to be broader and take a more systemic view. If we consider the Stoke-on-Trent figures for 2016 as an example, the KSI figure showed an increase of 74%, but within the context of a 5% reduction of overall reported casualties over the same period. There are clearly issues with using the KSI figure alone on a local network level, as significant short-term percentage changes can be caused by a small number of particularly deadly collisions.

As the Government’s road safety statement notes, 98% of the road network in England is local roads, and local action needs to be encouraged and respected. I would be interested in hearing how the Department is getting on with initiatives to spread good practice from one authority to another, particularly on more controversial schemes, such as shared space roads, which the RNIB has raised concerns about.

Another area of controversy is the use of speed cameras. In an age of high levels of accountability, the public increasingly demand transparency. Sometimes speed cameras are seen, unfortunately, as nothing more than a cash cow, to help to meet tightened public finances. We need to ensure that there is public confidence in road safety measures, that we communicate with motorists effectively and that actions on speed—such as putting in cameras or vans—remain reasonable and build on justified, tangible improvements in road safety. Better indicators and data collection may well help to justify such actions.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, in this important debate.

We have had so many statements from the Government and debates in this House about one or more of the issues of congestion, air pollution, obesity, diabetes, poor physical and mental health, and the decline in our high streets’ economies. I have two solutions to all those, which do not cost a lot to the public purse or to our constituents: cycling and walking. I shall focus mainly on the first: more people cycling more often to work, school, the shops, to visit friends and family and all those other journeys that we take as part of day-to-day life.

Unfortunately, too few people in this country cycle regularly. The single greatest reason why British people, most of whom own bikes, do not cycle as part of their daily or weekly activities is fear for their safety. If the road culture and infrastructure were safer, more people would cycle. So we need to normalise cycling, as many of our competitor countries have done, as a safe and convenient activity for people of all ages and abilities, with all the health, environmental, economic and quality of life benefits that that would yield. We can do that only if the Government focus on the safety of those who are on bikes and on foot.

I want to express my concern at the Government’s announcement of a new review specifically of cycling offences in 2017 in response to one admittedly awful case involving a pedestrian killed in a collision with Charlie Alliston, who was illegally riding a fixed-wheel bike, which illegally lacked a front brake, on the road. I believe a much wider overhaul of our laws is needed, as promised by Ministers more than four years ago.

I shall focus on the key issues that reflect the five main headings of the “safe systems” approach adopted in the Government’s road safety statement. On safer roads and junctions, we were promised new standards for cycle-friendly planning so that they consistently applied in all new roads and traffic schemes, new developments and planned highway maintenance works. It cannot be right that new housing estates are built in this country with not only no segregated cycle paths, but sometimes no footways, either. The Government should show leadership in all new developments, housing schemes, rail infrastructure and major roads, as well as leading on retrofitting our existing urban and rural infrastructure.

We need work in every town and city so that we can all be served with a safe network of segregated cycle routes on main roads, safe quietways on minor roads, and safe accessible places to lock or store cycles, and that needs a shift of some—not a lot, proportionately—of transport capital funding. The earmarked UK Government spending for cycling and walking in 2019-20 will decline to just 37p per person: just a fraction of the £10 per head called for by my group, the all-party parliamentary group on cycling, in our 2013 “Get Britain Cycling” report and by the Transport Committee’s own 2014 report on cycle safety.

We ask that the Government adopt continental-style rules to give greater safety and priority to pedestrians and cyclists at junctions, as promoted by British Cycling’s “Turning the Corner” campaign. This is based on the principle that drivers turning at a junction give way to pedestrians and cyclists travelling straight ahead across their path. We hope that that will be incorporated into The Highway Code.

We need to build a nation of safer drivers. It goes without saying that all road users should respect the rules of the road and the safety of others, which means a combination of education and enforcement, as other speakers have said today. We need better driver awareness of cycle safety, including new and consistent advice in The Highway Code, to be reinforced through public awareness campaigns. We need to strengthen roads policing and the capacity to enforce. We need to review traffic laws and penalties to clarify, for instance, the distinction between careless and dangerous offences. We need to make use of driving bans, reducing the ability of convicted drivers to evade such bans, and we need tougher penalties overall.

We must invest in cycle training for children and adults to give them more confidence in cycling on the roads. Provision is currently a postcode lottery. Such training also leads to safe driving behaviour for those who have experienced it. After all, HGV drivers regularly include cycle training as part of their driving training. I had hoped to mention more of the recommendations today, but time is short. We look forward to working with the Minister on the recommendations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

This is a very important issue, and one that my Department and the Civil Aviation Authority are reviewing carefully. Notwithstanding the work needed in the shorter term to address noise from City airport, I believe that the outcome of our airspace modernisation programme, using new technology to manage airspace, will enable us to manage the impacts on communities much better and make a real difference.

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

Yesterday, the World Health Organisation issued new, tighter guidelines on noise. Given that about 1.5 million people in London and the south-east already live within the 45 dB Lden noise contour, where the WHO now says there are adverse health impacts, will the Government reassess their approach to Heathrow expansion?

[Chris Grayling]

It is important to recognise that the change in technology—the arrival of a new generation of lower noise, lower emission and lower fuel-consuming aircraft—will transform the environment around Heathrow and all our airports. One just has to listen to a Boeing 747 landing at Heathrow compared with, for example, one of the new Airbus or Boeing aeroplanes to realise the huge difference. As the older aeroplanes are phased out, I expect noise at all airports will be reduced, and that is a good thing.

Cycling: Gilligan Report

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

As I was saying, what a wasted opportunity there. That same lack of ambition was seen in the development of Oxford Parkway station, where there was no real creation of integrated cycle routes, despite the fact that the station is within easy cycling distance of tens of thousands of people in Oxford and Kidlington. To cross the roundabout one has to get off one’s bike and walk—that is not good enough. Councils are great at rhetoric, yet when the schemes are finally implemented, we rarely see the warm words we often hear come to fruition. So my question to the Minister is: how do we hold councils to account?

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

I welcome the fact that my fellow officer in the all-party group on cycling has brought about this debate. Does the hon. Lady agree that rather than having insufficient funds available from government for local authorities that actively want to use them, there should be some stronger incentive that forces local authorities to draw down funding and spend it on safe and segregated cycle provision to new and existing developments and transport networks?

[Layla Moran]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for her intervention, because she touches on the crux of the issue. Everyone says that they want to make this happen, but when it comes to implementation, they need a stronger arm to make sure it does. In Abingdon, there is no masterplan for integrating cycle routes between different developments, despite the fact that new housing could and should provide a new route between Abingdon and Radley, where the railway station would make a fantastic cycling parkway station. We need to make sure that when plans for the redevelopment of Oxford station come forward, proper cycling facilities are front and centre of them. Julia Bird points out that the lack of investment and facilities means that she often does not take her bike with her into the city centre because it would get stolen, so she keeps

“a basic one for fear it'll get pinched.”

Connectivity is the key. As the report points out,

“Provision at dispersed employment sites is worse”

than in Oxford city.

It also states:

“Provision for out-city commuters is key but barely exists.”

It is crucial that the communities and towns surrounding Oxford are not forgotten.

Another potential wasted opportunity is the upcoming Oxford flood alleviation scheme, which I am not told will not include a cycle path that would connect Oxford to Abingdon, despite repeated assurances at the beginning of the scheme that that would be put in place. May I beg the Minister to have a word with his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? It would be so much cheaper to do this now than to do it retrospectively. As my fantastic colleague Councillor Emily Smith points out, it is vital that there is more joined-up working, not just between Government and the councils, but between the district, county and city councils, and that existing funding for cycle routes that are under threat is not lost. I would be grateful for any support the Minister can give to impress on all the councils to actively work together.

Moving from the local to the national, I would like to see the Gilligan report be a catalyst for action across the country. The importance of mainstreaming cycle-planning, integrated networks, consistent design standards and the wider aim of traffic reduction cannot be overstated. When the Department has reviewed its guidance on cycling infrastructure design, it needs to be applied consistently. It is clear that in Oxfordshire we have the political will, but support from the Government is crucial to reallocating road space from motor traffic to cycling.

So, how do we achieve all that? As Andrew Gilligan himself says, the plans will need money, alongside a change in the national view of cycling as unimportant and unworthy of serious spending. The £150 million suggested in the report sounds like a lot, but it is necessary, and it does not begin to compare to the amounts being invested in new road facilities—for example, as part of the controversial Oxford to Cambridge expressway. Critically, the money must not be a series of taps turned on and off; instead, we need a long-term strategic commitment to improving cycling infrastructure, not just in Oxford but across the country. Investing in road and rail without cycle infrastructure would be the wrong approach.

Given that officials are already starting to prepare for the Treasury’s next cross-departmental spending review, I am keen to do anything that I can to support the Minister in his bid to secure a better national funding settlement for cycling and walking. For example, I would like to see realised the 2013 “Get Britain Cycling” report’s ambition of there being spending of £10 per person annually, rising to £20 per person later. I of course welcome the Government’s cycling and walking investment strategy, but it could and should be much more ambitious. Rather than small investments that double the number of cyclists nationwide from 2% to 4%, we need to get the proportion to a fifth at the very least.

Of the £340 million that has so far been allocated specifically for walking and cycling, does the Minister know how much has been spent, where and how? I am told that he does not. If he does not, how do we know that any of the various schemes are going to work? The report was clear that it is better not to spend money at all than to spend it badly. Will the Minister also say how much of that money is left, so that all the rest of it can be spent in Oxford?

The report concludes that congestion in Oxford is close to unmanageable and brings pollution and health problems. In the longer term the investment will pay for itself; will the Minister confirm that his Treasury colleagues will take that into account in the spending review? Cycling not only benefits people’s physical health but reduces air pollution. Investment in cycling benefits policy aims in not only the Department for Transport but in the Department of Health and Social Care, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—win, win, win, win.

In conclusion, we have a huge opportunity in Oxfordshire. With a cross-departmental, long-term approach from the Government, better working between councils and local organisations, and the funding boost recommended by the Gilligan report, we can be ambitious for the future of cycling in Oxford. I hope that the Minister and his Department will help Oxfordshire to realise its ambitions to be a world leader and the country’s greatest cycling city.