Despite substantial additional investment in the railway network,
there are still real funding gaps between London and regions in
need of economic regeneration, which will worsen if not addressed
more directly, says the Transport Committee.
In today’s report, Rail infrastructure investment,
MPs say current transport scheme appraisal methods will always
favour London as they are weighted heavily towards the
reduction of congestion and journey time savings.
This actively disadvantages less economically buoyant
regions and works against the Government’s intention to
“rebalance the economy.”
Although the publication of the Government’s Rebalancing Toolkit
in December 2017 acknowledges the need for change, it is only
supplementary guidance. The Committee is not convinced it will
make a material difference unless made mandatory, kept under
regular review and put at the heart of Department for Transport’s
investment decisions, rather than an afterthought.
The Chair of the Committee, MP, said:
“The Secretary of State’s cancellation of three rail
electrification schemes in the Midlands, south Wales and Lake
District only to be followed four days later by the announcement
in principle to fund Crossrail 2 in London unsurprisingly
re-ignited the debate about disparities in rail infrastructure
investment between London and other regions.
“The Treasury’s own data shows that spending per head in
London in 2016/17 was more than ten times that of the East
Midlands. Regional economies will never be able to catch up with
London while such inequalities exist. While we
accept that annual snapshots of comparative regional investment
can be problematic, and that investment in one area can lead to
benefits in another, some regions have faced decades of
under-investment in their parts of the rail
network. They deserve to have a clear sense of what
the Government is doing to help them attract transport investment
and grow economically. The Northern Powerhouse and Midlands
Engine will struggle to live up to their names without tangible
change.”
Today’s Report finds the electrification schemes which were
cancelled in 2017 fell victim to the well-documented problems
earlier in Control Period 5 (CP5, 2014-19); there simply was no
more money available.
However, the Secretary of State’s decision focused entirely on
the passenger benefits of the Department’s new bi-mode approach,
themselves uncertain, and seemed to ignore the environmental
costs. The Committee urges the Government to do more to
support the development, testing and ultimate deployment of new
technologies on the network.
Meanwhile, the Committee recommends the cancelled electrification
schemes be recategorised as pending and placed in the Rail
Network Enhancements Pipeline (RNEP) for further development and
design work with a particular focus on reducing the costs.
MP, Chair of the
Committee, added:
“Our inquiry considered the electrification debate and the
timing of the cancellation announcement – a process which has
been complicated by the less than candid approach of the
Secretary of State.
“We are disappointed he did not engage more openly with our
scrutiny of his decision. The Government should have been more
honest with Parliament and the public about the real reason for
the decision. An announcement made by Written Statement on the
last day before summer recess offered limited opportunity for
debate and scrutiny.”
The Committee welcomes changes the Department has made to funding
and processes for CP6 (2019-24) which should avert the problems
encountered in CP5. If the Department and Network Rail are to
restore their damaged reputations and instil greater confidence
in the railway industry to invest in its workforce, skills and
innovation, the Committee also recommends:
- A
mechanism to smooth out the renewals spending profile;
- Full
transparency of projects in the Rail Network Enhancements
Pipeline;
-
Greater clarity about projects available for third party
investment; and
-
Streamlining of processes for market-led proposals.
