Oral evidence: Strategic river crossings, HC 714Monday 9 February 2015
Oral evidence, 9 February 2015.
Witnesses
Mr John Hayes MP, Minister of State, Department for Transport, Graham Dalton, Chief Executive, Highways Agency, Penny Mordaunt MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, and James Hooson, Project Director for the Lower Thames Crossing, Department for Transport, gave evidence.
Chair
Good afternoon, and welcome to the Transport Select Committee. The two Ministers have come here for the first time today. Could we have the positions of everyone? We know the Ministers, but for our records could we have the names of the teams as well?
James Hooson
I am the Department’s lead for the lower Thames crossing.
Penny Mordaunt
I am a Minister in DCLG but also Minister for the Thames Gateway.
Mr Hayes
I am Minister of State at the Department for Transport.
Graham Dalton
I am chief executive of the Highways Agency.
Chair
Thank you. Mr Hayes, I think you wanted to make a statement.
Mr Hayes
I just want to say thank you, Madam Chairman, for inviting us to give evidence on this important subject. It is important given that it is timely, as the Department, the Mayor and the local authorities are embarking on this consideration of new crossings. I know from the previous evidence you have taken that the Committee is interested in the effectiveness of the approach we are adopting in respect of new crossings and the management of existing ones—in particular, how well central and local government are working together. I see that in your terms of reference, and given your distinguished history in local government, Madam Chairman, I am not surprised that it is in your terms of reference. It is quite right that it should be. I share that passion and interest. We have many positives to bring to you, and we thought it would be helpful to have Graham here as the person who is in a sense dealing with some of the delivery issues associated with that, and James, too, who is leading for the Department on these matters. I do not want to take up too much of your time beyond that, except to say that we are pleased to be here and will try to answer your questions to the best of our ability.
Chair
Thank you. Minister, you referred to delivery issues, so let us start with that. It has taken five years for the three options for a new crossing on the lower Thames to be reduced to two options, and the Government have said they will not make a final decision until December 2015. Why has this taken so long?
Mr Hayes
If I may say so, Madam Chairman, you are understating how long it has taken, because these matters were first considered in 1994. I have the report here—the review of the future of the lower Thames crossing capacity, which I have studied in considerable detail. It sets out the brief “for the Department for Transport’s review of options for the future of the lower Thames crossing capacity in the context of the Department’s comprehensive spending review”. The 1994 report led to the further report commissioned under the previous Government in 2009, with which you will also be familiar. The “Dartford River Crossing Study into Capacity Requirement”, which in a sense is the successor to the 1994 document, says that the study is designed “to relieve congestion at the existing crossing; improve the resilience of the crossing and approaches to the crossing, including safety and the reduction of incidents; explore the potential of the options to contribute to wider economic benefits for the Thames Gateway growth area; and avoid significant environmentally sensitive areas and committed development”. As you suggest, this goes back a long way. In response to that, given that these matters have been considered since 1994 under the previous Government and this one, it is important that we get this right. We have narrowed the options, as you know. We have been engaged in extensive consultation under this Government, and we can talk about that at some length. My judgment is that doing the diligence now probably will save time later, in that we need to build consensus. I think that was the phrase used by one of your previous witnesses on this very subject during this very inquiry. Consensus is necessary, and it is essential in building that consensus to be as thorough, detailed and consultative as we can in developing and delivering our thinking. Yes, it has taken a long time, indeed since 1994, but it seems to me absolutely right that we do this job well and thoroughly.
Chair
Are you saying, Minister, that it is inevitable that this sort of time is taken to look at all the issues and to try to reach consensus, and that it could not be made shorter or dealt with more efficiently by a different procedure, perhaps with more devolution to local areas?
Mr Hayes
From now on in, having done a substantial amount of work—I think I have illustrated that in what I have said already—we can look at how things can be moved ahead with greater alacrity. I understand the frustration. Of all the parts of our strategic road network—no doubt Graham will elaborate—the one where capacity is most pressing is probably the existing Dartford crossing. Given that as an imperative, and given that we have done this homework, we can move with reasonable alacrity from now on, but we can do so only on the basis of building consensus and taking people with us. It is important that whatever we do we get right, and that seems to me to depend on building that consensual approach.
Mr Sanders
If you could be in charge of all things planning and transport, what one thing would you change in order to speed up important transport infrastructure projects?
Mr Hayes
I often dream—I hesitate to say fantasise—about being in charge of all things, not just in the field of transport.
Mr Sanders
Can we just leave it with transport for now?
Mr Hayes
I will limit myself for the purposes of this answer. The critical thing is probably making sure that we see this development in the context of our overall thinking about the significance of a strategic transport plan. As you will know, for the first time we have developed a road investment strategy which looks long term; we are planning a strategy that runs through to 2021 with money to match. Up until relatively recently—Jim and others will comment on it, given their rich history in this field—part of the problem has been the absence of strategic thinking. If there is one thing I want to do, it is to take that model of more strategic thinking about transport planning and extend it across a whole range of modes of transport, to talk about how we blend our thinking on all kinds of means and modes of transport and build our strategy in that way.
Mr Sanders
But would that actually speed anything up, other than help prioritise?
Mr Hayes
I think it would. Perhaps I have made my point insufficiently persuasively. The trouble with a piecemeal approach to transport is that in the end it slows things down. If you have a very clear long-term view—a roadmap, if you like, of the destination you want to get to—I suspect it is much easier to navigate your way forward. When you are dealing with annualised funding and reactive policies, I suspect that leads to greater delays. I think that long-term planning and a more strategic approach is likely to lead to the greater alacrity I described earlier. I am not sure that has always been in place in the past. We are beginning to get that right, but what we have established needs to be the model for the way we plan public policy in this area.
Chair
Would you say that the local enterprise partnerships are effective in helping projects like these to move forward quickly?
Mr Hayes
Certainly, in terms of understanding their wider economic impacts. It is very important that we understand the work we are going to do in terms of river crossings, and all our strategic thinking in terms of transport, in the context of the wider economic impact that the policy has. Engaging local enterprise partnerships, as well as local authorities, seems to me to be very important in contextualising any decisions we make on this in that way. I have already had discussions with them in Parliament. I am planning to meet the local authorities in respect of the Thames crossing—the one we are talking about here—very shortly. That engagement is already taking place with Graham’s team. We have had stakeholder meetings; we have had significant local consultation. You are right, Chair, that local enterprise partnerships have a part to play, and we certainly need a good level of engagement with them.
Jim Fitzpatrick
On the LEPs and regional planning authorities, and the Centre for London and Lord Adonis’s commission recommending that there should be a separate delivery agency set up for east London and the lower Thames crossings, is there a need for a separate organisation? Is the way you are processing these potential developments going to deliver in due course, or is there another way to try to speed up the process?
Penny Mordaunt
I will leave the vehicle to my colleague. I do not think there is. Clearly, the Department for Transport is the lead Department on this. One thing I have been trying to do as Minister for the Thames Gateway area is to give that area a bit more of a voice and a profile, and create momentum behind a whole raft of projects that need to happen in the area. Some of the tensions you have probably identified from previous witnesses you have seen are that the area is part of a huge LEP in the south-east; it also has London, which has a very powerful voice, and sometimes it feels that its issues do not necessarily get the profile required. Having said that, the Thames Gateway partnership is becoming more effective. LEPs are very much the vehicle for economic regeneration, and they are evolving. There is a range in their capacity, skills and quality across the country. We are always looking for more improvements and for them to learn from one another in terms of being strategic and plugging in, but whether it is the planning process or the projects going on within the area, there is very clear stakeholder engagement and it is very well joined up, and that applies in Whitehall as well. I do not think you need to tweak that. What you need to do is enable there to be a focus and momentum on the issues in that area, about which we have met in the past. That is how DCLG can contribute. Clearly, we have a role in the planning process, which I think works well. There is good evidence. Going back to points made previously, a strategic river crossing has not been through the NSIP process, but for the projects that have, it is much quicker than its predecessors. I echo the points John makes about the front-loading of that process, making sure that people are engaged, even before there is a necessary preferred option on the table, to hold formal consultations. That appears to speed up the process and you get a better quality result at the end of it.
Mr Hayes
I note Lord Adonis’s proposal, or suggestion, in that respect, but I do not think one should underestimate the role of Highways England in this regard. This is going to be part of the strategic road network. It is already. Not to leave that responsibility with Highways England would seem to me to emasculate that body. This is going to be linked closely to the M25, and there are considerations of the continuing salience of the M25. I put it no more strongly than this, because Lord Adonis often has interesting ideas and he certainly adds to the conversation, but it would certainly be odd to rob Highways England, as it will become—the Highways Agency as it is now—of responsibility for dealing with a crossing that is so central to the rest of their considerations for traffic around London. I think there is a good point about how you co‑ordinate liaison between the different partners in this process, and probably what he was getting at is the need to think carefully about how you blend the work, which the Chair mentioned, of the LEP and the local authorities—in this case, the consideration in Thurrock, and south of the river too—and in the county councils and local highways authorities, and ensure there is good joined-up thinking across those agencies. There is a strong point there, and that may have lain behind Lord Adonis’s proposal.
Jim Fitzpatrick
Given that there may ultimately be some local authority opposition—a minority; one or even two of all the local authorities, county councils and the Mayor of London, as you mentioned—and the significance of the east London and lower Thames crossings for the national strategic network, as well as for sub-regional or regional regeneration, how do you overcome that local objection in the regional, or even national, interest, other than by Government deciding they are going to drive this through, if you do not have a vehicle to do it; or do you think the vehicle exists but you can overcome local objections ultimately and deliver these crossings?
Mr Hayes
In an earlier evidence session, Jim, you said that this had been considered for 30 years in prospect, as you described it, and you pointed out that the debate about Crossrail had been running since 1888. You know that sometimes Government are not as good as they might be at, as you put it, driving through major infrastructure projects. I suspect that at the heart of it there lie two simple things, as is true of so much of life: a combination of absolute clarity of purpose and strength of will. When that is coupled, in terms of local liaison, with a certain degree of charm, you probably get the job done. Sadly, sometimes strength of will, clarity of purpose and charm have been too lacking.
Martin Vickers
On partnership working and the inevitable delays that causes, you mentioned projects that have been on the go for many years before they reach a satisfactory conclusion. Partnership working complicates matters. Would it not be better to have much more all-powerful local authorities?
Mr Hayes
In these major infrastructure projects, Government have a key role to play. Let me be blunt: the Committee knows well that in democratic politics there is always a problem with Government taking decisions, and that is for two reasons: first, because the payback for those decisions is not within a five-year span, and people are acutely aware of the electoral effects of the decisions they take; secondly, they are reluctant to bind the hands of their successors. That is a perfectly noble aspect of our politics. We do not tend to forward-commit funding and we do not tend to want to bind the hands of our successors. For those two reasons, and perhaps a third, that people do not want to get these things wrong, Governments, perhaps understandably, have not always been as clear or decisive on infrastructure as they might be. What we are trying to build in creating consensus around infrastructure is a circumstance where there is sufficient confidence on the part of the political class to take these big steps knowing that they have built a degree of shared vision which will build confidence that affects investment decisions and so on. You can only move forward when you have a consensual approach to infrastructure. That is what I have tried to do as Minister and what I think the Government need to try to do too. When you do that you can perhaps, to some degree, cut across some of the reservations and hesitations I have just outlined.
Chair
Mr Dalton, from a Highways Agency point of view, what obstacles are there? What could change to make movement quicker?
Graham Dalton
It is about clarity and sense of purpose. It is quite rightly a Government and departmental role to determine whether some infrastructure is needed, and in the case of transport, by mode. Going back to Mr Fitzpatrick’s question about delivering it, if we take the lower Thames or Thames crossings we have Transport for London and the Highways Agency. We co‑operate. There are different needs and purposes, but both of those are capable delivery vehicles. We both know how to build large complicated projects once we have the brief.
Chair
But are there any particular obstacles you have identified?
Graham Dalton
The delivery bodies are there, which is one of the questions. I am not sure that it goes into different local authority structures. In particular, estuarial crossings by their very nature go from one area to another, and from one administration to another. Transport links tend to cross boundaries, so we are used to dealing with that. The thing that really helps is going to another stage around national infrastructure planning, and building a level of cross-party support, so that we get certainty and follow-through and so that we know that, if a scheme is going to go through, we can take it to the next stage, and—
Chair
Mr Dalton, would you stop a moment, please? I want you to answer the point I am putting. General support is a very good thing. We all know that. What I am trying to work out is whether there are any obstacles that you have identified—things that could be changed to make progress quicker in terms of structures and organisations.
Graham Dalton
If we have support, an infrastructure plan that is set down and confidence that it will run, we can run at it, and that will take quite a bit of time out of the pre‑construction process.
Chair
It is just to do with that.
Graham Dalton
Yes.
Chair
How are we going to deal with short-termism, Minister? A number of representations have been made during this inquiry that decisions taken are short term, and capacity is not sufficient over, say, a 15-year period. How is that issue to be addressed in terms of river crossings?
Mr Hayes
The road investment strategy we published just a few weeks ago is indicative of the determination to deal with just that—short-termism. This is a long-term plan, with funding to match, based on a series of empirical studies to ensure that what we spend has best effect. It has been built on a series of engagements with local communities, with local authorities and all kinds of stakeholders, and it is, I hope, a model for how Government should approach infrastructure. It seems to me that the crossings, being a critical part of that strategic road network, have to form part of that long-term thinking. We have travelled a long way in building a new paradigm in respect of a strategic approach to road investment, and that has been built with a degree of consensus. During the passage of the Infrastructure Bill, which was the means by which we tried to put statutory methods in place to support that strategy, I worked very hard to build with Her Majesty’s Opposition consensus about the need to do these things. I think we have had some success in that regard. I would not put it more strongly than that.
Chair
What part does tolling policy play?
Mr Hayes
Sorry? It isn’t your imperfect diction, but my imperfect hearing. I want to emphasise that.
Chair
Tolling systems—in terms of traffic management and dealing with additional capacity.
Mr Hayes
At the moment, the Government have no plans to introduce further tolling.
Penny Mordaunt
The only thing I would add to the previous point is that we should not underestimate the role of LEPs in providing that continuity. They have the local perspective, but they add a degree of continuity that is not there with just local authorities.
Chair
Are you satisfied that you have access to sufficient technology to deal with traffic management and unanticipated traffic flows in terms of tolling systems?
Mr Hayes
We have invested very significantly in technology. You will know that the way the network is currently managed relies very heavily on technology, which Graham will describe. I have had the privilege of being able to see some of the control centres by which the network is observed and managed. You will be familiar with our smart motorway schemes, which I think set the tone for the future. The work we are doing in examining how drivers interface with roads and what information is provided to make best use of the network has been groundbreaking. We intend to build on that as the technology grows. Before Graham fills in some of the detail, the important thing in public policy terms is not to make decisions which are so rigid that we cannot take advantage of changing technology. The truth is that the way people drive, what they drive and the way they interface with the road network will change dramatically for the remainder of my lifetime and in my children’s. Insufficient flexibility about public policy could inhibit the benefits that stem from those changes, so it is important that we are as flexible as possible to take advantage of further technological change.
Chair
Before Mr Dalton answers, there is one other issue I want to put to you. Some witnesses in this inquiry have said there is not any firm evidence that new river crossings improve economic regeneration. We have heard some anecdotal evidence that it does. Is there a clear body of evidence to show that?
Mr Hayes
The evidence we have gathered suggests that it does, but, if there is a need to provide more information to the Committee as part of this inquiry, I will be happy to do so. Indeed, why don’t I go further than that? I take the role of Select Committees extremely seriously. I will ask my Department to put together pieces of data which show the very connection you ask for. It seems to me that if I am right, and we need to contextualise these schemes against the wider economic background, we need to provide the data to support that, and I am happy to do so following this meeting of the Committee.
Chair
That would be very helpful, Minister. Mr Dalton, was there anything specific you wanted to say?
Graham Dalton
Traffic technology is a fundamental part of managing any intensively used part of the network, and crossings in particular, whether it is charging, and managing and monitoring it, fire and emergency protection, or whatever it may be. Increasingly, with changing vehicles, it is about getting information to road users in the vehicle, which is the next generation of technology that is quite exciting and that will help us get more capacity out of the network.
Chair
Thank you all very much. Oral evidence: Strategic river crossings, HC 714 16