Tabled by
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to provide
funding to ensure the timely completion of the works to protect
the rail line at Dawlish from flooding, including Phase 5 of the
South West Rail Resilience programme.
(Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend , and with his permission, I
beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order
Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport () (Con)
My Lords, I can confirm that Network Rail has delivered two
phases of the south-west resilience programme, providing
protection to the railway at Dawlish from coastal flooding. The
third and fourth phases addressing cliff protection measures are
in delivery, with a combined budget of £85 million. Network Rail
is being funding to deliver a detailed proposal for the fifth and
final phase, which addresses cliff protection for a mile-long
stretch of the railway.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, we listen with some amazement—
Noble Lords
Order!
(Lab)
My Lords, I am glad to see that Members are so keen to speak. I
thank the Minister for her reply, but it does not really answer
the Question—or it does so only partly—and it does not reflect
the importance of this line to the already existing problems of
transport links to west Devon and Cornwall. Can she reassure us
that the vital fourth and fifth phases—she mentioned the fourth,
but not the fifth—will indeed be fully funded by Network Rail and
the department? Can she give us an estimated date of completion
to restore full resilience to this vital link to the far
south-west?
(Con)
As I mentioned in my opening Answer, Network Rail is working on
the fifth phase of the works in some detail; we need to establish
detailed proposals for this mile-long stretch of the railway.
Local consultations have happened, and there was some reluctance
around some of the proposals put forward. Therefore, Network Rail
is looking at the scope and costs of the fifth phase.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for being a bit too quick, which is more
than you can say for any of the trains travelling to the
south-west. In the south-west, we look and listen in envy to talk
of chopping off bits of time on the cross-Pennine railway and
others. That is not a luxury we have; we have only one railway
beyond Exeter linking the whole south-west peninsula. If Dawlish
goes down, we have no connectivity at all. While I very much
welcome all the money and the moves the Government have made with
the resilience surrounding Dawlish itself, until such time as we
have a second railway bypassing or connecting Plymouth—either
west of Dartmoor or in line with some of the other options—we can
never be sure that we can keep the south-west connected 365 days
a year.
(Con)
I welcome my noble friend’s interest in this Question; I know
that he raised this issue in the other place many times. I assure
him that delays on the line as it currently stands are
significantly down, from 53.6 minutes per 1,000 services in
2018-19 to just 36.1 minutes per 1,000 services in 2022-23, so it
is important to note that the resilience of the line is
improving. The department has looked at alternatives—additional
routes through to the south-west that might provide additional
resilience. However, we are focused on improving the resilience
of the line as it currently stands. In proposals for restoring
elements of railway that previously existed, the case was not set
out sufficiently.
(LD)
My Lords, this example is one of many similar schemes. A few
weeks ago I asked a Question about news reports that Network
Rail’s future funding was so limited that we could expect that
basic infrastructure may not be repaired. The Minister dismissed
my inquiry, saying that you should
“never believe everything that you read in the
newspaper”.—[Official Report, 26/4/23; col. 1214.]
Now we have sight of Network Rail’s own business case for the
next five years. It warns that funding constraints mean that the
condition of the rail infrastructure will deteriorate and there
will be a decrease in reliability. Does the Minister think that I
should not believe everything I read in an official Network Rail
document?
(Con)
I say, absolutely, that one should not believe everything one
reads in the newspaper. It is the case that Network Rail has to
work within its funding envelope for CP7, which goes from 2024 to
2029. We are investing a record £44.1 billion in our rail
infrastructure—a 4% increase on CP6—so the Government are
providing significant funding. As with many elements of the
railways, it is important that Network Rail and others look at
what funding they have and obtain efficiencies to ensure that the
reliability of the railway is maintained.
(Lab)
My Lords, I looked at a recent exchange between my noble friend
and the Minister on this
subject. Essentially, he asked whether funding for phase 5 will
be withheld and she gave the heroic non-answer that she has just
repeated. Can we be absolutely clear where we are on funding?
Will funding be available for phase 5? If not, does the Minister
accept that building phases 1 and 4 and not phase 5 is a complete
waste of money?
(Con)
I do not accept the latter point. We have invested £165 million
to date, and of course some of that was to ensure the resilience
of the seawall itself. Other elements of that funding went into
cliff protection measures. This final section of cliff protection
measures is highly complicated and there has been some local
reluctance around the plans that Network Rail originally put
forward. That is why it has had to go back to the drawing board.
At this stage we do not know the scope of the works or the costs,
and therefore it is impossible to speak further about the
funding.
(LD)
My Lords, the Minister refers to keeping within the funding
envelope. Is there any connection between the Government’s
determination to cut taxes before the next election and the
refusal to provide additional long-term funding for long-term
investment? As a Government concerned with the national interest,
should they not be more concerned with long-term investment than
the short-term political advantage that a tax cut might provide
before the next election?
(Con)
The Government are always cognisant that we must provide value
for money to the taxpayer. As I outlined in a previous answer,
the amount of funding going into our railways is going up. We are
very cognisant of the impact of that increased funding and the
sorts of deliverables that we want to see out of it. I assure the
noble Lord that the rail network enhancements pipeline, or RNEP,
will include some of those enhancements and will be published
soon.
(CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that if we do not proceed with
the fifth part of this protection, we should look again at the
west Devon line going via Tavistock, because we could be left
with absolutely nothing again?
(Con)
I do not accept that those two issues are necessarily linked. It
is very important that we have resilience on the existing line,
which has been in place for many years. That is why we are very
focused on improving its resilience and have invested heavily in
it. As I said previously, we looked at some proposals. For
example, in round 3 of the Restoring Your Railway project, Devon
County Council produced a strategic outline business case for
reopening the line from Bere Alston to Tavistock. There was also
a proposal to open the line from Tavistock to Okehampton. Neither
of those was really viable enough to take forward.
(Con)
My Lords, what are the effects of the difficulties in the rail
links on tourism to the particularly beautiful part of our
country to which this Question referred?
(Con)
As I noted earlier, the delays on this line have actually
reduced; it is quite a reliable line, and the train operating
company is very effective. I encourage all tourists to get on the
railways and visit the south-west.
(LD)
My Lords, talking about delays, of the many reasons my Avanti
West Coast train has been delayed—it was 40 minutes this
morning—points failures and signal failures are high on the list.
Does this not indicate that the network is falling apart?
(Con)
I do not accept that the network is falling apart. In whichever
country one is in the world, there are occasional technical
issues that cause trains to be delayed. The Government are
investing £44.1 billion in the next control period. That will
ensure that our railways are fit for the future.
