Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

I can tell my hon. Friend that we are working urgently to provide further support to bus operators so that they can run service provision as people return to work and at the same time observe social distancing.

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

What support the Government are providing to local authorities to promote active travel among people returning to work as the covid-19 lockdown is eased.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean) [V]]

On 9 May, the Government announced a £2 billion package of support for active travel. This includes £250 million of funding this financial year to support people to take up cycling and to enable local authorities to make their roads and pavements safer.

[Ruth Cadbury [V]]

I welcome the £250 million funding so that cycling and walking improvements can be rapidly installed ahead of the expected tidal wave of traffic as people go back to work, but when will the Government finally publish their long-awaited revised design guidance on cycle-friendly infrastructure and the evidence that they commissioned back in 2018 on the amount of funding needed to meet their targets to double cycling and increase walking by 2025?

[Rachel Maclean]

I recognise that the hon. Lady is a really keen cyclist. We want to boost cycling across the country. The schemes that she refers to are being worked at, and we can provide further details of those in due course.

Hammersmith Bridge

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. One of the ironies is that, while many people are affected by the closure, it is those who need to travel into London from the south, including residents of Barnes and Richmond and those from wider afield—the residents of Brentford and Isleworth, Hammersmith, Fulham and Battersea—who are caused additional congestion because of the build-up of traffic going over Putney, Wandsworth and Chiswick bridges.

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

May I wish you a belated happy birthday, Ms McDonagh? My hon. Friend mentioned the impact on a much wider area than merely Hammersmith borough and Richmond borough. Parts of Hounslow, particularly Chiswick and Brentford, have suffered major congestion since the closure of Hammersmith bridge to vehicle traffic. The economic impact that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) described affects a big area. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to consider the bridge as major infrastructure? I hope they will work with all the local authorities affected, and the MPs, to come to a positive solution.

[Andy Slaughter]

It is no laughing matter for those severely inconvenienced by longer journey times and the changes to their life that have to be made. We take infrastructure such as this for granted; when it breaks down, it causes major problems way beyond the local area or even region.

There are two matters on which there is clear consensus now. The first is whether the bridge should reopen at least to its previous capacity. I totally understand that cycling and other groups suggest that this could be an opportunity to permanently close the bridge to motor traffic. Analysis by TfL shows that cost-benefit ratio of reopening is 5.8:1, which is very high. Essentially, to relieve the congestion on other river crossings and to make that part of London function again —as much as it ever does in terms of traffic movement—it is a bit of a no-brainer. It is regrettable since we want to promote cycling and walking, and I hope we can hang on to the huge increase in those forms of travel over the bridge. We particularly need bus traffic to be restored, because the bridge is a major bus route, with 24,000 people a day crossing it by bus, as well as more than 20,000 private vehicles.

The second point is the issue of how to go about the works. There is consensus on the need for a temporary bridge for cycling and walking—the previous Minister made that clear in a letter to the hon. Member for Richmond Park. There were moves to have a temporary motor bridge, but for many reasons that I will not go into—cost, feasibility, disruption and destruction of private property—that would not be possible. We need a temporary foot and cycling bridge; although it will cost a substantial amount of money, it will come out of the TFL money already allocated and will allow the major works to go on unimpeded and more safely on the main bridge. I think that is decided. I believe a brief was sent by TfL to the Ministry in preparation for this debate and for the meeting with Baroness Vere, which sets out clearly what the methodology will be.

The separate closure of the bridge last year was a matter of safety, when hairline microfractures were discovered in the cast-iron casing around the pedestals that hold the suspension chains. Sadly, that having happened, a major structural survey at the time showed that the corrosion to the suspension mechanisms, the bearings, the decking and so forth means that substantial parts of the bridge will have to be replaced. It will end up like the broom that has had its head replaced three times and its handle four times, but I am sure it will look magnificent when it is finished and reopened.

I will finish speaking soon to allow the Minister to reply. We have allocated, if not spent, the £25 million that has come from TfL. It is not in a position to add to that. I will not go through the argument about the subsidy that has been withdrawn or the restrictions on using its capital on assets it does not own. TfL has stepped up to the plate; its expertise and, frankly, its money, has been very useful to get us this far and to ensure that time is not wasted and works delayed.

Equally, Hammersmith and Fulham council has reacted responsibly, as has the London Borough of Richmond. I pay tribute to Stephen Cowan and Gareth Roberts, the leaders of those two boroughs, who have worked co-operatively together in the interests of their populations and residents. As a borough, Hammersmith, notwithstanding other restrictions on its budget over the last few years, is not in a position to come up with money. Those are not controversial statements to make.

We have to look to Government when major strategic assets fail. That is the case in most of the rest of the country. The large local majors scheme, which is available and which TfL’s bid addresses, is in funds and is available for this type of work in other parts of the country. The proposition is that, if the Department for Transport accepts that the bridge is part of the strategic road network, it has to reopen to at least its previous capacity to cover single-decker electric buses, as well as similar weights of general vehicle traffic as previously. That will cost a substantial amount of money—at least £120 million on current estimates, and the final estimates will come in a few weeks’ time. Crucially, very soon within the next couple of months, work will stop. Even if there is still some money in the kitty, one cannot go on engaging contractors if the money is not there to pay them to do the stabilisation and major works over the next couple of years. That is what we are looking to the Department to fund.

I hope I get some encouraging noises from the Minister, even if she has not brought the cheque with her. Locally, there is a lot of co-operation between politicians of all stripes, because we see the absolute necessity of this work; as I said, it is a bit of a no-brainer. We must get the bridge reopened as quickly as possible and restore it at least to its former weight-bearing ability. I look to the Minister at least to give us some encouragement, and I hope that we can progress discussions quickly over the next few weeks so we can get on with the project.

Airport Expansion

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct that the way in which we are able to reach our target of net zero is with technology and research, investing in that technology and research, and really backing industry leaders and the talented people we have within the aviation sector to develop these technologies that will help not only the UK but other countries to reach their emission reductions. Absolutely one of the things that I am most excited about is the potential of the first electric flight this year.

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

Last week, the New Economics Foundation released its report, “Baggage claim”, in which it found, using DFT aviation forecasts, that if runway 3 at Heathrow goes ahead, there will be 17 million fewer passengers departing from non-London airports and 27,000 jobs locating to London as a result of that expansion? Does the Minister agree that not expanding Heathrow is an opportunity to rebalance the north-south divide and to continue economic and transport support for non-London regions?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The hon. Lady will know that we are committed to delivering economic development and levelling up the whole of the UK. That is why we are already investing in our rail and our roads, particularly in the north, which is why the Secretary of State is unable to be here today to answer this urgent question. We are committed to airport expansion, as we believe that it is a core part of our plan. I will make sure that we are hopefully able to continue to deliver on that.

Transport

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Commons Chamber

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

We know full well the challenges of and the solutions to climate change, and we all know just how worried our constituents are about this crisis. Only this morning, at Smallberry Green Primary School in Isleworth, I got asked about climate change not just by a year 5 student, but by a year 2 student.

Transport is the largest sector for emissions, and it is the sector cutting emissions the least. Within transport, the sector with the fastest growing emissions is aviation. During the time that emissions from the economy as a whole have fallen by 40%, aviation emissions have more than doubled. Passenger numbers are set to increase by 70%, and that growth is not business travel. Over half of the British population do not fly at all in any given year, but the highest 15% of the UK population by income are taking over 70% of all our flights. The growth is in outbound leisure travel, with UK-based tourists in the top income bands taking their holiday money away from the UK three or more times a year, including from places such as those represented by the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas). That is money that many of those in our beautiful places would be delighted to see spent here.

The aviation industry mentions magical solutions that will allow it to continue with a business-as-usual approach in a carbon-constrained world, but electric planes—particularly for short haul and long haul—will not be online until 2050 at the absolute earliest. There is no current industry development for these longer flights. For example, long-haul planes make up 70% of UK air travel, yet there is no current development for electric planes going on in those areas.

Yesterday, the chief executive of Heathrow airport was on the radio talking about sustainable fuels for aviation, but we know that a rise in biofuels will only lead to more deforestation. This means more habitats destroyed, more communities displaced and more carbon emissions. Carbon offsetting by planting trees only removes, years from now, the carbon emitted today. It is not an alternative to cutting emissions in the first place.

Obviously, the chief executive of Heathrow Airport Ltd dearly wants a third runway, but even Department for Transport figures—from work done in the run-up to the vote in this place in 2018—show that the additional passengers using runway 3 will almost all be UK-based passengers taking leisure flights overseas. Expansion will draw long-haul flights away from regional airports, thus impacting on their direct international connections. Furthermore, expanding Heathrow will mean an extra 6 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions per year.

I am glad that the Labour Front-Bench team led by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) concluded in June 2018 that Heathrow expansion is incompatible with our climate change obligations and that Labour would not authorise Heathrow expansion or any other plans that jeopardise those climate targets. The solution we should be promoting—the only carbon-saving solution for aviation that will make a difference before 2050, when electric planes come online—is to address the growth in demand. We need to stop runway 3 at Heathrow, address the pricing disparity between rail and flying, and implement a frequent flyer levy to replace air passenger duty.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I will never forget my recent visit to the site of that roundabout with my hon. Friend, and I look forward to it being taken forward as part of road investment strategy 2, which is to be announced shortly.

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

The Conservative manifesto made strong statements about improving cycling and walking on our road network, but it committed only £350 million. That is not new money; it is money that the Conservatives promised given that other cycling infrastructure funds have now come to an end. What will the Secretary of State do seriously to improve safety and to encourage more people to cycle and walk?

[Grant Shapps]

Like the hon. Lady, I support the ambition for more cycling. That £350 million is in addition to the existing funding, and I think she will be pleased to back our manifesto commitment to make cycling proficiency, or Bikeability, available to every child in England.

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.