Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

As I said, the Department is undertaking a review of fares. That is not to look at a way of making fares more expensive, but to ensure that people understand how fares are delivered.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

2. What discussions he has had with Network Rail on improving the flood resilience of the south-west rail network.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

I had a number of conversations with Network Rail throughout December about improving the flood resilience of the south-west rail network. I also visited works on the west coast main line on new year’s eve, where I was able to discuss the issue in person with David Higgins, Network Rail’s chief executive.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Between the end of November and the end of December, Devon and Cornwall were effectively cut off from the rest of the country by rail for two periods lasting more than a week each. That is not acceptable for rail travellers or our economy. Will he impress on Network Rail the absolutely urgency of tackling the problem at Cowley bridge in Exeter, which is the cause of most of the problems?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The situation that people in the south-west faced over that period was unacceptable. It was the result of weather that we do not see often. I have talked to many Members who have made representations to me on that, and I have asked Network Rail to give a briefing to Members from those areas. That will take place in early February, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will attend.

Cycling Safety

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Havard. Let me say at the outset that, given the time the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) has taken for his speech, I do not intend to take interventions.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman very much on securing the debate, which is one of a number we have had recently on cycle safety. This is a very important issue, not least given the worrying news that this year, for the first time in many years, there has been an increase not only in deaths and serious injuries on the road, but in cycle deaths and injuries. The hon. Gentleman made a brilliant speech about a whole range of measures that could be introduced to help take those figures back in the right direction, and I was absolutely with him until he came to cycle helmets. I was even with him, to start with, when he talked about encouragement and exhortation, but I am afraid that as soon as he used the term “compulsion”, he lost me, and I will outline briefly the reasons for that.

I urge those hon. Members who press for compulsory cycle helmets, and the organisations that have lobbied them, to study the evidence. The hon. Gentleman said he wanted a policy that was based on evidence, and we should study not only the evidence, but the myriad debates we have had in the House since I came here in 1997. We should also talk to the organisations that represent cyclists. I speak as a lifelong cyclist, a former chairman of the all-party group on cycling, a former Health Minister and someone who cares deeply about the safety of cyclists and young cyclists in particular.

The reason why the House has repeatedly rejected the idea of compulsory cycle helmets is that, overall, it would create a public health disaster, and I will explain why. Wherever cycle helmets have been made compulsory —whether in Canada, New Zealand or Australia—that has had such a detrimental impact on cycling rates that the overall impact on children’s health and the health of society as a whole has been deeply negative. The hon. Gentleman used an important statistic, which is essential to the whole subject of cycle safety, when he said that the benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by 20 to one.

In Western Australia, which has had a lot of experience of this issue because it has had a law on it for more than 20 years, cycling decreased by more than 30%, and it decreased faster among young people. That has been the experience in every country that has made cycle helmets compulsory. By all means encourage, by all means exhort and by all means have campaigns, but please do not, based on the best intentions, pursue a policy that is deeply counter-productive and that will cause more premature death, more obesity and more ill health among young people.

This is completely different from the seat belt issue. The last time the British Medical Journal was asked for its opinion on this issue, its board of education and science concluded:

“Cyclists are advised to wear helmets but legislation to make them compulsory is likely to reduce the number of people choosing to cycle and would not be in the interests of health”.

The BMJ added that research suggested that

“non-cyclists tended to be most in favour of helmets. In fact, a much greater number of lives would be saved if pedestrians and car occupants were encouraged to wear helmets.”

An analysis of the experience in Western Australia, which was the first place in the world to impose uniform mandatory cycle helmet legislation, showed that the legislation increased hospital admissions per cyclist on the road, reduced the popularity of cycling, damaged public health and increased all road casualties.

I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to go back to the evidence and the debates that we have had in this House, and to pursue with all his energy and time the many measures that will help to protect children and improve child health and cycling safety. He himself cited the excellent campaign by The Times and its eight-point wish list. I gently suggest that The Times took great care in assessing the most important things that needed to happen to save the lives of cyclists and young cyclists. Compulsory cycle helmets were not among them, and there is a reason for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Havard, on the first of two occasions. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) on securing the debate, which comes after some high-profile cycling incidents, and today’s report in The Times.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Bradley Wiggins being knocked off his bike on 7 November in Wrightington in my constituency. For obvious reasons the case received significant national media coverage and highlighted the dangers for cyclists on the roads. Prior to the incident Bradley Wiggins had often spoken about the need to improve road safety for cyclists. Our roads grow ever busier, and there is an absolute need for all road users, whether cyclists or motorists, to take individual responsibility for being as safe as possible on the roads. That responsibility means not behaving in a way that endangers other road users, but for cyclists it also means taking the appropriate precautions to keep their bikes and themselves safe, including always wearing a helmet. For motorists it would include not speeding, and being cautious when passing cyclists.

Today The Times not only showed the serious dangers that cyclists face, but referred to the fact that this year, which is unparalleled in terms of the success and popularity of cycling, the number of cyclists killed on British roads is sadly on course to reach a five-year high. According to analysis by Transport for London, which was quoted in the article, 56% of cyclists’ deaths are caused by motorists’ “unlawful and anti-social” manner, yet only 6% of collisions are caused by cyclists behaving in the same way. Some people argue that we need to consider how properly to integrate cycling into the modern transport network. I would not, however, encourage anybody to follow the example of West Lancashire borough council, which has invested section 106 money building a cycle path to junction 4 on the M58. We certainly do not need to encourage cyclists towards the motorway network.

It is important to discuss whether making cycling helmets compulsory can improve cyclists’ safety. It does improve it, but the reality is that there are times when a helmet does not offer enough protection from dangerous driving. In such cases, we need to consider how motorists who cause fatal collisions are dealt with through the judicial process. At present, a view is that the inconsistencies in the charging and sentencing of motorists involved in collisions with cyclists is very worrying.

Everybody knows of Bradley Wiggins, but people will not know of Christine Favager, who was another cyclist involved in a collision in my constituency. Tragically, this time it was a fatal accident. Sixty-nine year old Christine was cycling along a rural road, Asmall lane, in Scarisbrick. The accident happened at about 7.40 pm on a July evening in 2011—not on a dark, wintery night. The 19-year-old driver was travelling between 59 and 63 mph as he raced into a bend. He was travelling too fast and too close to another car as he entered that bend, and witnesses saw the car swerve right across two lanes. In over-correcting, the driver was forced across the road to avoid hitting the car in front, which meant that Christine was hit head on. She had been cycling in the opposite direction. Initially, the driver was reported as being arrested under suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving. He subsequently pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving. A 20-month custodial sentence in a young offenders’ institute and a three-year driving ban were handed down to him. Christine’s family lost a very dear member.

That case highlights one of the complaints from cycling groups, which is that often the lesser charge of death by careless driving is pursued, as opposed to the charge of death by dangerous driving.

[Mr Bradshaw]

My hon. Friend gives an example of someone receiving a custodial sentence. I am sure she is aware that in a great many cases, drivers who kill cyclists and pedestrians do not even get that.

Cycling

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I hope to take considerably less time than the limit, given the impressive number of Members who have turned up today. The last time so many Members turned up was for a debate against the BBC’s local radio cuts. It properly did a U-turn, so let us hope that this debate has as much effect on Government policy.

I do not want to repeat things that have already been said, and most of my remarks will, I hope, be directed in a friendly way to the Minister. As a number of hon. Members have already said, and as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) made clear, we do not need to reinvent the wheel. There is a general consensus about what works and what needs to be done, and he was absolutely right to say that the single most effective thing that we could do to make cycling safer is to get more bikes on the road—critical mass and safety in numbers.

Speaking as a cyclist of more than 20 years in London and a non-car owner for more than 15, the situation in London has been transformed. I feel much safer cycling in London now than I ever have, because there are more bikes on the road. I do not always feel that safe in other parts of the country, including in my own constituency, where there are fewer bikes on the road and where I am given less space by a vehicle. Getting more people on bikes is the best way of making cycling safer.

Having said that, my constituency, Exeter, was one of the fortunate cities that was a cycling demonstration town under the Labour Government. We had a total transformation in cycling over a short time—a 47% increase in cycling between 2005 and 2011. I went back to my primary school when I worked for the BBC to do a documentary about cycling and I discovered that the bike sheds had been dismantled. When I was a child, we all went to school by bike. Now, nobody did; that was about 15 years ago.

One of the most heartening things that has happened in Exeter is that although nationally the rate of cycling to school is around 3% for secondary schools and 1% for primary schools, in Exeter, now, after such a short time, it is 20% for secondary schools and 10% for primary schools. We know what works, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel.

I stress the need for co-ordination. I was extremely pleased to hear the hon. Member for Cambridge call gently for the restoration of Cycling England. One of the things that will dog the Minister, which also dogged me as a Minister and fellow Labour Ministers throughout our years as a Government who were committed to the agenda and to trying to get something done, is that there are many disparate voices that speak for cycling in this country, and it is vital, if we want to get anything done, that they are brought together in one effective body. That is what Cycling England did, and it was a tragedy that the Government decided to abolish it. I hope that the Minister listens carefully to the sage advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and reinstates Cycling England. He will find having that single body incredibly helpful.

Another important thing, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), is co-ordination in Government. He is absolutely right. Unless we can get all the different Departments that are interested in cycling working together on the matter, and unless we get real leadership at the top from the Prime Minister and, crucially, from the Secretary of State for Transport, the Minister will not get the progress that we need.

Labour made some incredible progress in the 13 years that we were in government. We had big increases in cycling, the cycling demonstration towns, big increases in investment in cycling and improvements to cycling safety. If I am to be perfectly frank, we went up a lot of gears only when Andrew Adonis was Transport Secretary. The reason for that was because he was totally committed to cycling. He banged heads and got me, as the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and the then Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), together. It was about getting those Ministers together, at Secretary of State level, to agree to policies, to push them through and to ensure that we confronted—I am afraid that if the Minister has not already discovered this, he will do so—a cultural problem in parts of the Department and in local government, which are still, in many cases, dominated by the road lobby. The Minister will find it essential to have the full support of his Secretary of State in driving the agenda forward. It would reassure me and everyone else present today if he could assure us when he replies that he has that full support and political clout at the top of his Department.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman now. I have the full support of the Secretary of State, who is signed up to the agenda. I do not believe that there is a cultural problem in the Department.

[Mr Bradshaw]

That is encouraging.

It is also important that the Ministers in his Department speak with one voice. I have noticed a slight discordance in respect of some of the things that the Minister has said and of some of things that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning)—I am not sure whether he is still the Road Safety Minister—has said, including two completely different responses to letters about liability.

I was extremely pleased to hear what the hon. Member for Cambridge said about liability. It is important. If we look at all the other northern European countries that have a much better record on cycling and cycling safety than we do, we will see that they all have a liability rule. It will make a real difference in this country, making motorists much more careful and wary around cyclists. The Minister’s letter on the issue was quite positive, and it gave me hope that the Government might do something about it. However, I am afraid that the letter from his hon. Friend in the same Department, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, pretty much ruled it out. It is important that the Government speak with one voice on the matter, that one Minister takes leadership on cycling issues and that the matter is led, as I said, right from the top.

The Times’s manifesto is fantastic. I would say that it is a modest manifesto. I hope that my own Front Bench will endorse it; I do not see any reason why the manifesto should not be endorsed in all its detail.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on The Times’s manifesto. Does he agree that we must not forget rural areas in cycling? The roads are narrower, and there are people in my constituency who commute by cycling. I would like to see more about that in the manifesto.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Absolutely, although contrary to most people’s prejudices, I have one of the most urban seats in the country. It is surrounded by beautiful countryside, where many of my constituents go cycling. They feel safer in the city of Exeter than they do on country lanes, largely because of the absolutely intolerable speeds that people drive at on many country lanes. I feel much safer cycling in my constituency, in urban areas and in London than I do in the country, specifically because of the speeding problems; I know that horse riders face similar danger and nervousness.

If the Government go down the route of raising the speed limit on our motorways to 80 mph, I hope that as a quid pro quo, they will introduce 20 mph speed limits in our urban areas. That would be a huge step forward to improve cycling safety. We all know the statistics about how likely it is that someone will survive or die if they are hit at 30 mph or 20 mph. It would make a big difference.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

In Brighton and Hove, we have very successful routes on the seafront with shared pedestrian access. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should be encouraging Brighton and Hove council to mark that space in bright colours? The safety of cyclists is about not only roads, but where we have shared access on pavements.

[Mr Bradshaw]

We have already addressed some of the challenges faced when cyclists and pedestrians are put together. My preference is to separate them if at all possible. Sometimes it is not possible. Where it is not possible, there should be clear demarcation, because we do not want the matter to become an argument between cyclists and pedestrians. They are both vulnerable road users and are much more vulnerable than people who are surrounded by metal. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I wish the Minister well. I hope that he takes on board the points I have raised—this is about political leadership and working together—as he will then succeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Some 30 years ago, I fell in love on a tandem. I have to share the tragedy with hon. Members that last week I turned 50. On my last day of being 49, my husband turned up on the front half of my tandem like a knight in shining lycra and whisked me off for 28 miles on Dartmoor and a 3,000-foot climb. Frankly, I could not care less about being 50—it was a wonderful evening.

It would be a shame if we did not add the joy of cycling to this debate. Cycling makes us feel glad to be alive, improves our mood and quality of life. That is important, because we need to get more people cycling. There is safety in numbers, but we do not want to frighten people away from cycling—we need to send that crucial message. I cycle to work most days in Westminster. When I first started cycling in London 30 years ago, I felt a bit of an oddity, but now whole pelotons sweep past me. Maybe that is because I am getting slower, but it certainly feels a lot safer when there are more cyclists around.

I welcome the campaign from The Times, but I would like it to be broadened to include rural cycling. I represent a rural constituency. Some 36 people were killed on rural A roads, and 26 on urban roads. It is between five and 10 times more dangerous to cycle per mile on a rural A road than it is in the city. I would particularly like to remember the 11 people from my constituency who were killed or seriously injured cycling between 2005 and 2010. In pressing for change, may I also urge the Minister to consider a change to the language and stop calling them accidents? I suggest that driving and overtaking at 60 mph on a rural lane and hitting a cyclist is not an accident—that is a crash. It minimises, and makes it worse for the victims’ families if we call them accidents. Let us abandon the language of denial and neglect.

I am grateful to my many constituents who have written to me today to give me their ideas, one of which was on speed limits. I know that other hon. Members have referred to this, but the Netherlands is rolling out changing to 60 kph on rural networks. That is the equivalent of 40 mph, as the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said. Will the Minister consider that change? It is disappointing to hear that perhaps that is not something the Department will press forward with. On behalf of all hon. Members, I press him to reconsider. I would also like to reconsider, as many hon. Members have, the issue of a safe passing distance of at least one metre. That should made very clear, be part of the driving test and in The Highway Code.

Cycle training is improving. This weekend, I will visit a Steiner school with a wonderful organisation called Always Be Cycling. Not only does it give excellent training to both children and adults, but it teaches people how to repair their bikes. Most people own a bike, but not everybody uses it. Part of the reason for that may be that they lack the confidence to repair it. I urge the Minister to continue to give more support to such excellent cycling training schemes. I would like to see safer manhole covers—non-slip manhole covers would be an excellent development—and more training for lorry drivers. Finally, I want the Minister to focus on how we separate vehicles from cyclists in rural areas.

I pay tribute to the parents at the Steiner school in my constituency who got together and formed the sustainable transport action group, and actively considered how many children were cycling to school—a miserable 2.8%. By working closely in co-operation with local landowners, the parents have increased that figure to 9.1% in just two years by introducing a safe off-road route. This demonstrates that we really do see effective change.

In contrast, in another part of my constituency, at Littlehempston, with regard to which the Minister has already been helpful, it is a scandal that at the home of the transition movement—Transition Town Totnes—we have possibly the only bridge in the country that keeps communities apart. The final link in National Cycling Network 2, the route running all the way from Kent to Cornwall, could be joined up if there were a safe route through Totnes to Littlehempston. At the moment, if I were a parent in Littlehempston I would not want my children to cycle to school. The road between Totnes and Paignton is hideously dangerous. I have cycled it myself many times.

If only the bridge were open and there was co-operation with landowners and, crucially, the co-operation of a sustainable steam railway—the South Devon Railway—which had the bridge built. The real scandal is that £87,000 of public money went towards the £173,000 cost of building that bridge.

We have all heard the bogus arguments about cycling, including the dangers of vandalism and all that stuff—the resistance that is sometimes seen from communities and landowners who do not understand the real benefits that cycling can bring their communities.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I should like to highlight another example, which is the failure so far to complete the cycle route from Exeter to Dawlish, a wonderful route along the Exe estuary, because of the failure of the landowner—the Earl of Devon—to agree to a new bridge over the railway. That bridge would be publicly funded, but he just does not like the look of it.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that.

Let us sweep away some of these bogus arguments and have real involvement and drive. I should like Devon county council, for example, not to be put off from issuing compulsory purchase orders where there are short gaps, so that the local community can really benefit. In this Olympic year, I should like to think that a child living in Littlehempston might be able to start their future Olympic cycling career by cycling from Littlehempston to Totnes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

This has been an interesting and important debate, and I commend the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), and The Times, for running such a strong campaign and highlighting the dangers that are faced by cyclists every day on our streets, as exemplified by the horrific accident of The Times reporter. Let me emphasise the comments that have been made about her recovery.

Many of the issues raised cut across Departments, and it is important to send a message, perhaps through the Minister, about the need for those Departments to work together—I will return to that point. One issue that Members have raised repeatedly during the debate concerns sentencing policy and the fact that someone who goes out in their car or lorry and uses it irresponsibly as a lethal weapon may not be treated in the same way as someone who goes out with a club in their back pocket and damages another individual. We need to look at the way that courts view drivers who have behaved irresponsibly.

I would describe myself as a lapsed cyclist. My bike hangs, rather forlornly, in the cycle shed close to my London flat, awaiting reuse. Why am I a lapsed cyclist? Well, I have had a couple of near misses on London roads—a number of other Members have already commented on their experiences. My experience involved a classic problem for a cyclist. I was at a junction and a car wanted to turn left. Although I was in my bright yellow fluorescent top, it was completely oblivious of me and winged in front of me. I was lucky; I suffered no major injuries but only came off my bike. The motorist, however, carried on, completely oblivious to the fact that they had left a cyclist slammed into the railings.

My constituency in Plymouth is extraordinarily hilly—the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) has touched on that—and it is not good for cyclists’ knees. Oddly, however, that is not the reason why people do not cycle in Plymouth as much as they could.

[Mr Bradshaw]

One issue that has not yet been raised in the debate concerns the importance of cyclists such as my hon. Friend claiming their road space. The problem seems to be that people, especially women cyclists, do not have the confidence to claim the road space that they deserve, even though doing so would make them much safer. People should get out into the road and give themselves plenty of space away from parked vehicles. If they do that, vehicles that are turning left will be more likely to see them.

[Alison Seabeck]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, drawing on his cycling experience. Some roads have junction spaces in front of the cars where cyclists can go, which makes the experience much safer.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), as everybody else has, on securing the debate. Let me make it absolutely clear at the start that I am delighted by the turnout and by the cross-party nature of the vast majority of contributions. As far as I am concerned, the more interest in cycling there is, the better, because, frankly, that helps me and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), in our work in the Department to make sure that the issue goes even further up the agenda than it has done so far. There is a good story to tell, to which I will come very shortly.

The structure of the reply I want to give—I say this for the information of colleagues here—is to refer briefly to what the Government have done generally, to deal with the specific points raised by The Times campaign and then to pick up other points that hon. Members have made. My normal habit is to take a large number of interventions. However, if hon. Members will forgive me, on this occasion I will not—at least not at the beginning of my contribution—because I want to get through the points made and respond to them properly.

I will respond to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) first. He asked if we would do a U-turn. I encourage him not to go down that particular road because we are doing a lot of what he wants, much of which is also in the pipeline. If we were to do a U-turn, that would not be welcome to him.

[Mr Bradshaw]

rose—

[Norman Baker]

I just said that I will not take interventions, so I will stick with that. However, I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman later if time allows.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I was actually supporting the hon. Member for Cambridge, who said that he thought it was a mistake to abolish Cycling England because it was an important body that campaigned coherently. That is what is missing now.

[Norman Baker]

I wrote down what the right hon. Gentleman said, but let us not argue about the nuance of that. Suffice it to say that we are doing a lot of good work, to which I will now refer.

First, the coalition agreement explicitly refers to the promotion of cycling. That document was put together quickly and it is short, but cycling is very clearly mentioned. As a coalition Government, we recognise that it is good for the economy, good for the environment and good for personal health to get more people cycling. That is the direction of travel we have been trying to pursue since the Government were formed. The local sustainable transport fund has been mentioned by some hon. Members this afternoon.

M5 Motorway Accident

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I very much hope that we will be able to have an ongoing dialogue with local MPs about the effectiveness of any measures that end up being proposed. Frankly, I would expect that about any key proposals that affect any Member’s local public transport.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady says that the road death figures are still heading in the right direction, but my reading of the latest figures was that, even before this terrible crash, we were looking at the first annual increase in road deaths that this country has seen for 20 years. As she will know, that is deeply worrying to road safety campaigners and others. Will she at the very least have another look at her predecessor’s plan to encourage faster speeds on the motorways by increasing the speed limit?

[Justine Greening]

To go back over the figures on road safety, of course it is concerning that the most recent quarter’s figures that have been released showed such a rise, but we should still not lose sight of the fact that the trend is in the right direction. We should also be conscious of the fact that levels of road safety can, of course, be affected by the weather, so it is not quite as straightforward as simply saying from looking at those figures that there is an underlying reduction in road safety compared with previous quarters.

One key point to recognise in relation to those numbers and the right hon. Gentleman’s point about speed is that people can drive unsafely at any speed and in any weather conditions. It is important that we do not jump to a conclusion when the police still have to examine the causes of the accident, and that we ensure that we have a measured discussion about action that could be taken in future months to improve road safety. We as a House need to have that discussion in a responsible and balanced way.

Rail Investment

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Network Rail is making significant investments on the east coast main line, which explains to some extent the less than exceptional service performance on the line in the past few months as that work has been carried out. It will bring benefits in due course in terms of greater line speed and reliability. The 650 additional carriages will be distributed across the network. Some of them have already been contracted with individual franchisees and some of them will be the subject of further negotiations, which we will now commence, but there will be benefits for all parts of the country.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

There will be bitter disappointment not just in Wales but in the south-west of England about the Secretary of State’s decision to shelve the previous Labour Government’s plans for the electrification of the great western line. Will he agree to publish in full the criteria that have informed his decision?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes. In accordance with our transparency agenda, we have made it clear—I made it clear in my previous announcement on roads—that we will in due course publish the business case analysis that informs decisions about projects that go ahead and projects that do not.