Transport Committee
Oral evidence: Strategic road investment, HC 904
Wednesday 29 March 2023
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 29 March 2023.
Members present: Iain Stewart (Chair); Mike Amesbury; Mr Ben Bradshaw; Ruth Cadbury; Paul Howell; Karl McCartney; Grahame Morris; Gavin Newlands.
Questions 220–272
Witnesses
II: Mr Richard Holden MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Roads and Local Transport, Department for Transport; Kate Cohen, Director for Roads and Projects Infrastructure, Department for Transport; and Emma Ward CBE, Director General for Roads, Places and Environment, Department for Transport.
Written evidence from witnesses:
Witnesses: Mr Richard Holden MP, Kate Cohen and Emma Ward.
Q221 Chair: Welcome, Minister and colleagues, to the Transport Select Committee. For the purpose of our records, could you briefly state your name and position?
Mr Holden: I am Richard Holden, Minister for roads and local transport.
Emma Ward: I am Emma Ward, director general for roads and local transport at the DfT.
Kate Cohen: I am Kate Cohen, director for roads in DfT.
Q222 Chair: Thank you very much. We have been running this inquiry for some time and this is our third evidence session. During the course of the inquiry we have heard about overspend, delay and uncertainty on strategic road projects. Is the RIS strategy under control at the moment?
Mr Holden: Chair, thank you for having us here today. This is a really important moment, especially with RIS3 now being under consideration in the future as well. Is this a moment when I could make a slightly longer opening statement?
Chair: Yes, please.
Mr Holden: We want to highlight how important roads are for us across the country. They handle almost 90% of all our passenger travel and almost 80% of all our domestic freight, with almost 300,000 people employed across the freight sector and tens of thousands of small businesses involved as well. They are also responsible, obviously, for all our bus and coach travel, as well as private car travel.
With RIS2, we committed to strengthen engagement with multiple sectors, particularly to ensure that they were getting the most value out of our road network. That is particularly relevant to bus and coach. We also support active travel. National Highways is one of the biggest building and construction companies or overseers in the entire country. It is not just road and bus. We have built 160 cycle highways over recent years as part of the programmes we have been involved in. Active travel has also been a major key theme in the work that National Highways has done, particularly in engagement with communities around individual schemes. I was down on the M25/A3 the other day to see some of the work myself.
As a constituency MP for somewhere without any train network at all, I am acutely aware of the importance of the road and strategic road network, and the broader issues affecting road travel. I got my first job when I was 17. I had to drive and travel by car to it, so this is something that really affected me personally growing up. I am very aware how important the strategic road network is more broadly for the vast majority of people, especially outside our major cities.
With the current situation, as the Secretary of State set out in his ministerial statement, there has been a step change in our investment over the last few years. We have £600 billion going into investment over the next five years and £40 billion-worth of capital investment in transport across the next two financial years alone. We are also committed to funding renewal and maintenance of the existing infrastructure. When we are looking at the RIS pipeline, that is one of the things we need to look at alongside it. Although the individual projects are very important, a huge amount is not just renewal, but enhancements that go alongside it, which is around half of the overall capital spend of the Department. That is incredibly important, alongside the cash we give out to local highways for maintenance—around £1 billion a year for local highways, with the extra couple of hundred million at the last Budget.
When we are looking at the strategic network, we have seen a step change since 2010, with the big spending round for RIS1 delivering a huge number of projects that had been stalled for a very long period of time. That was almost double for the RIS2 period, which we are talking about today. That cash has been flowing out every year through the period. It is just over the £3 billion mark.
Some of the schemes that we have managed to deliver so far in the second RIS include upgrades to the A1, A19 and A61 in the north of England; the A46, A500 and M6 in the midlands; the A14 and A47 in the east of England; and the A2, M4 and M25 in the south. The list keeps going on and on.
Q223 Chair: Is there a definitive list of all the projects in each of the RIS periods?
Mr Holden: There is, yes.
Q224 Chair: And their current status.
Mr Holden: There is, yes.
Q225 Chair: Is that publicly available?
Mr Holden: Yes, it is publicly available. I will happily write to the Committee on that for each of the RIS schemes. Obviously, RIS3 is currently under development at the moment. There are ongoing discussions between us and the Treasury as to exactly what is going to be included, and where. That will be open to public consultation later this year and into next year, when we finally come through with that.
Q226 Mr Bradshaw: Does that include forecast costs and delivery times?
Kate Cohen: Every year there are three annual publications of progress on the RIS. One is the delivery plan produced by National Highways. One is the ministerial statement that gets presented to Parliament each year. Then there is an annual assessment by the ORR.
In those three documents, which are published annually, together with the annual report and accounts for National Highways, there is a complete list of progress against all the KPIs and all the schemes, progress against their predicted start of works and opening dates for the key milestones. There is also an assessment of progress against the wider KPIs such as safety, maintenance and renewals. Between those three suites of documents is an annual assessment on performance of all the KPIs and the progress on all the schemes, which goes to the heart of what is available. It is all on the web. I can happily send links, or you can have a quick look at my documents here.
Q227 Mr Bradshaw: It is in a centralised, publicly available place.
Kate Cohen: Yes, it is.
Chair: That is helpful.
Mr Holden: To pick up on Mr Bradshaw’s point, Chair, we have also been clear with the written ministerial statement on 9 March which projects are moving out; the Princess Way in Liverpool and the Arundel bypass are definitely being moved out of RIS2 as well. We try to keep the House updated where we can on individual schemes.
Q228 Paul Howell: I just want to make an observation on that. In the last session, it did not seem as though that information was necessarily even available, but it was certainly not clear where it was. It will be interesting to have a look, Chair, at what information is there and whether it is in a form that is actually understandable.
Ruth Cadbury: Or usable.
Paul Howell: That was the concern raised at the last session.
Kate Cohen: If you want, after this session I can leave you with the versions I have printed off.
Paul Howell: I would be delighted with that.
Q229 Chair: That would be very helpful; thank you. One final question from me, because we have a lot we want to get through in this session. In the previous panel we heard from some of the regional transport bodies, who made the point that the impact of some of the delays in the RIS projects is not just in delays to building the roads; there are wider impacts on delaying housing developments or unlocking business facilities and the like. In making decisions about the delays to RIS, to what extent have you factored in the wider economic impacts?
Mr Holden: I will probably go to Emma at some point on this, but the point is that all of these decisions have much wider economic implications. That is why we go through the benefit-cost ratio programme in the first place.
On the broader regional point, the key thing about the strategic road network is that it is not really a regional road network. It is for the country. For example, my constituency in the north-east of England would benefit hugely from any road projects that happen to be built further south on the A1 or the M1. They indirectly benefit from that, although it is not built specifically in their area. Emma might want to comment on the BCRs specifically.
Emma Ward: I think we covered this in the session that I attended last month. Part of the point of setting the five-year strategic RIS portfolios is to give that certainty. I completely accept that when something is cancelled or delayed, it has a far greater impact than just the building of the road. That is why we have the process around setting a RIS. I think we have seen great benefit in that, giving certainty on the projects that are being taken forward and giving certainty around a pipeline, although it is—I think and hope—understood that not all of those pipeline projects will move forward into construction.
It was the case in both RIS1 and RIS2 that we had pipeline projects that were not taken forward. The decision making and the consultation around that is vitally important, with the transparency that sits around that. That is why we have a process of engagement. That is why we have a process of both pipeline and delivery. It is really important that that provides certainty.
Q230 Grahame Morris: I would like to ask some questions about future road investment priorities. In the previous panel there were consistent themes coming from all the witnesses. Some key words were “suboptimal methodologies”; the need to be more long term; and the need to have some flexibility and agility in applying priorities for particular schemes. Can you give us an update on the RIS3 project pipeline? Could you tell us which projects are being prioritised, and why?
Mr Holden: We are currently in discussions. That is entirely the point, Mr Morris. The entire purpose of having the RIS programmes is that you have that pipeline. For example, the Lower Thames crossing scheme was started in RIS1 for project management, and money was spent on it. All the way through RIS2 there will be project development on that. It will go well into RIS3 and possibly RIS4 and RIS5. It is a very long-term project. The road investment schemes are there for all those multiple stages. It is not about trying to deliver a road where everybody bids at the start and then you have hares running to see who can get there at the end, and the cash just stops. It is part of a pipeline.
On the point about flexibility, that is one of the things that we try to achieve through this. As Emma said, it is a pipeline. There will be some things that get moved out of the pipeline for various reasons. Maybe, when there is further advanced work done, the BCRs do not stack up as they might have done initially, or maybe they are better, so we want to bring them forward. Emma, do you want to go further on that?
Emma Ward: I don’t think I can give you a specific answer about the list of projects that will definitively be taken forward. That is a process that is ongoing. I think we said last time that we would come back to the Committee and keep you updated on where we have got to.
Q231 Grahame Morris: Of course it is a process to go through—a process of prioritisation—and the Minister referred to the cost-benefit ratio, as did the previous panel. What are the criteria to determine which projects go forward in the pipeline and which don’t?
Emma Ward: I will bring Kate in as well. What we have set out are the strategic objectives for the RIS programme. We will consult on those. We hope to launch the National Highways initial consultation shortly. That will set out the consideration around those strategic objectives. It will set out the work that they have done on strategic corridors. It will explore what the trade-offs might be and the sort of things that we wish to prioritise in the next RIS period, whether environmental benefits or safety and resilience.
It will go through all of that. That is a public process, where STBs and others have the opportunity to comment on the route strategies and the priorities within those route strategies. As the Minister said, the strategic network delivers benefits locally but also, importantly, nationally. That will flow through to a consideration of the individual schemes, their cost-benefits and their strategic case. That will then flow through into decisions about pipeline.
Q232 Grahame Morris: I am grateful for your answer, but a comment previously made to the Committee was that many of these strategic objectives are very broad-brush. They are not very specific. Essentially, it gives the Department for Transport and the Minister the flexibility to determine which schemes go forward and which do not. Is that a reasonable criticism? That was not a statement from the previous witnesses; it is my spin on what they said.
Emma Ward: I would expect the Roads Minister to take decisions on which roads ultimately go into the RIS, yes. That is his job. Ultimately, what we are trying to do is ensure that, in the consultation and the engagement, we get the balance of priorities, informed by local priorities, in a national plan that delivers the benefits that we set out in that plan. I think that process gets to the right balance in decision making.
Mr Holden: What Emma is getting at is that there is a wide variety of factors, Mr Morris, which play into all these road decisions and the BCRs. Some of those will be environmental and some will be reducing congestion. What is the cost-benefit of the environmental impact of the scheme? Some of it will be around safety improvements. That is particularly the case with some of the smaller investments we make, tackling specific areas. A lot of the BCR on the strategic road network will have those larger economic and economic growth questions attached to them. All of that is publicly debated. We are going forward in the next few months with that for the next road investment scheme. It is to ensure that we have all the different factors in play.
Obviously, in the end, these decisions have to be taken by Ministers. Advisers advise but, in the end, Ministers have to make the decisions within a constrained budget for those schemes. All of those different factors play into it.
Q233 Grahame Morris: Thank you. You mentioned the Secretary of State’s statement on 9 March. You also gave examples of some of the schemes that were going to be taken out of RIS3. In fact, some have been put into RIS4, suggesting that they will be latent until RIS4, which will allow additional time for planning their delivery. What will be involved in the assessment? Why do you need the additional time? Is it simply a question of not having the resource and there not being enough money in the pot to take these schemes forward?
Mr Holden: There is always the question of capital expenditure. For example, on the A5036—the Princess Way development—I have been in Westminster Hall debates with colleagues from the Liverpool city region, and there are huge local debates around that scheme and whether it is the right way forward. When you are talking about local transport priorities, plus growth priorities, it is a balancing act. Perhaps Kate could comment on the cost of development of schemes and things like that.
Kate Cohen: There are two issues when you talk about prioritisation of schemes in a roads context. It is not just schemes during a RIS. Remember, we have capital expenditure on renewals and maintenance. One of the really important factors to consider is the balance between enhancements versus renewals and maintenance. I know that has come up in some of the other evidence that people have given the Committee.
In evaluating schemes, we look at a range of issues. It is not just the benefit-cost ratio but issues such as deliverability, the wider strategic case, the regional balance of schemes, as well as what else is going on in a region so as not to overheat that region, for example. It is not an easy picture if you say, “Why have you picked this scheme versus that scheme?” We look at the strategic objectives, the range of issues, the pipeline and what else is still coming through; as the Minister said, a number of our schemes that have started will continue. You then look at a long-term capital envelope. You look at the asset condition and think about things in the future.
While I appreciate that from some of your constituents’ perspectives they are very concerned about particular schemes in their region, we have to advise Ministers on the long-term holistic view for the network as a whole. It is the balance of that, with whatever are the strategic objectives of the Government in place. We consider things in the round. It is on that basis that we consult and give advice to Ministers.
Mr Holden: I would also say on that, Mr Morris, that there will be some smaller schemes, for example, that will perhaps not have been thought of for earlier RIS programmes, especially junction improvements. They might come forward quite quickly towards the end of the RIS2 period, say, and some of that development work and completion could all happen within a RIS period—RIS3 or RIS4. While we have long-term schemes such as the Lower Thames crossing, as Kate said, or some of the other massive road projects, there are also shorter-term projects on the strategic network that will be more swiftly addressed.
Q234 Grahame Morris: On priorities and consulting the regional and sub-regional partnerships, like Transport for the North in my region, we heard from the previous panel that the licence was published in 2015. Is there a case for amending it so that these transport partnerships are put on a more formal basis, and that their views are taken into account? At the moment they can be consulted, but I am not quite sure in my own mind what sort of power and authority their views have in prioritising particular schemes within their own regions.
Mr Holden: We fund them, so there is that element to them.
Emma Ward: It is a question that has been raised. The licence for National Highways was designated before STBs were set up. I think it is something we could look at.
However, I would say that National Highways does a really good job at engaging with STBs. They have a framework agreement in place with all of the sub-national transport bodies. They have a joint engagement and action plan, reviewed annually, which the STBs sign up to. It is agreed with all of them. I engage with them as well. I am not sure there is anything that National Highways are not doing that they would do, or do differently, even if the licence was changed. A framework is in place. Engagement plans are in place. That engagement takes place. Obviously, with any engagement there are sometimes disagreements and tensions, but, as I say, I do not personally see anything that National Highways would do differently even if the licence were updated.
Q235 Chair: I have a supplementary on that. We heard that there is improving engagement between the STBs and National Highways, but that there is room for improvement. They particularly feel that, yes, they are consulted and feed in, but then there is not much coming back the other way. Do you think there is scope, particularly with the pause or rephasing of some projects, to look again at making that relationship a bit more two-way?
Emma Ward: I think that both sets of organisations are maturing. STBs are relatively new. National Highways has obviously been around for some time, but its role has evolved. They are both learning to engage. The development of RIS3 is a real opportunity to cement that, to keep improving that engagement and to ensure that the feedback loop is also working.
Q236 Mike Amesbury: Minister, complex enhancement schemes are expensive to deliver. You will know yourself that you can be caught as a driver getting somewhat frustrated with complex schemes. It has knock-on effects when things go wrong. It is very frustrating.
The Minister himself said that money is incredibly tight. Indeed, our witnesses spoke about there certainly not being enough money in the pot to genuinely level up and that regions are not getting a fair deal. Have you made the political decision now to scrap major projects and focus on maintenance instead?
Mr Holden: No. I think—
Mike Amesbury: A lot have been scrapped.
Mr Holden: I think we are going to see a huge amount of investment in the RIS3 period. Obviously, with individual schemes we have had to make some difficult decisions. I do not want to beat around the bush on that. We have moved the Lower Thames crossing and delayed that by two years for its start of works. That is a big bow wave when it comes to the overall spending in this period. I have already mentioned the A27 and A5036 as projects that have also been moved to the right, as it were.
In RIS3 we are looking at some of the big schemes in the whole at the moment and kicking the tyres on them. It is quite clear that there are significant pressures there. I want to reiterate the point I made before about the fact that when you are looking at some of the improvements a lot of that will be part of renewals. For example, if I am renewing a central reservation all the way down the centre of a motorway, it is going to be an improvement because I am going to be doing one of the new ones that has a greater safety impact than one of the older ones we are replacing. We are not replacing like for like. Wherever possible, particularly in the renewals programme, we are looking to enhance environmental issues, noise reduction and safety.
Another example would be the concrete roads programme, which is also part of that. There are huge benefits for local communities in terms of noise reduction and other factors, as well as safety, when you are doing those renewals programmes. It would be unfair to say that the renewals side is purely about maintaining a status quo. There are enhancements within that as well.
Q237 Mike Amesbury: In RIS3 are we going to see an alteration in the balance there? In RIS3 major projected schemes and enhancements face the axe. The focus is then on maintenance, even with renewals, in terms of concrete roads.
Emma Ward: As the Minister said previously, we are still going through that process so I cannot conclude. As Ms Cohen said previously, there is always a balance between enhancements, maintenance and renewals. We have an ageing road asset—
Q238 Mike Amesbury: Is the balance going to shift?
Emma Ward: What we said at the last Committee is that we may well see a shift towards more renewals and maintenance.
Q239 Mike Amesbury: Into RIS3 from RIS2.
Emma Ward: Yes, but decisions have yet to be taken on the precise balance of that portfolio.
Mr Holden: A lot of that comes down to the fact that you are looking at a road network that was built in the 1960s and 1970s. As that ages you naturally have to move towards more renewals, which may, in turn, have enhancements within them. There is that element of it as well.
Kate Cohen: It is worth pointing out that a number of the enhancements that have started, both in RIS1 and RIS2, will continue into RIS3. When you think about enhancements, maybe you are thinking more about capacity enhancements than anything else. A lot of those schemes will continue into RIS3, and construction has started on them. There is a lot to think about.
Q240 Mike Amesbury: Is active travel an enhancement? Is it maintenance? Are we going to see a shift in the balance there?
Mr Holden: With reference to the strategic road network, if you were looking to renew, say, a concrete bridge from the 1960s which needed to be replaced, what you definitely would do if you were in National Highways would be to look at how you could enhance local active travel. While it might be a renewal, it would also have enhancement within it.
Emma Ward: I think National Highways have come a long way on this. All the projects that I have visited in the three years that I have been in my Department have really impressive cycling, walking and horse-riding access. It is something that they think about much more in the design of their schemes.
The Minister mentioned the M25 junction 10 at Wisley. That is a significant junction improvement, with kilometres-worth of cycling and walking access to ensure that the strategic road network is not cutting off communities and is providing active pathways around. That is absolutely part of what National Highways now does.
Q241 Ruth Cadbury: I do not think you were in for the previous panel, with representatives from probably three of the largest regional transport areas. You have just said that the long-term holistic objective of the network as a whole is what you see as important. It feels like a cycle route might be an add-on.
What they said very clearly is that they need to see the strategic road network through their regions as part of a holistic transport network; not just a road network but a transport network. They find it really frustrating because the whole way that the SRN is prioritised is around reducing journey times. It is very much seen as a major road objective, and everything else comes as secondary.
In some instances, they would like to get more vehicles off the road and more journeys being done by other modes, such as rail. These different transport modes are being dealt with in completely different silos, with this one being the most costly per kilometre. What do you have to say about the way the SRN is devised, funded, prioritised and assessed?
Mr Holden: You are basically trying to say that some people might want rail schemes and some people might want road schemes. That is an overall balance within—
Q242 Ruth Cadbury: No. For instance, let me take the situation between Coventry and Leicester. Those cities and that region would like to see more options for getting people between Coventry and Leicester, so that the roads between Coventry and Leicester are less crowded and less congested, and those who have no choice but to use road—such as freight for goods—can get there quicker.
Mr Holden: I was on the A46 between Leicester and Rugby not that long ago, looking at one of the three major improvements that we are doing to the junctions there. Some of the road junctions on the strategic road network obviously interact with local roads as well, so you are looking at huge safety improvements as well as travel time improvements.
I would also point out that twice as many people travel by bus and coach as travel by rail. That is using our strategic road network in a way—particularly in intercity coach travel—that, in terms of environmental objectives, we would want to encourage. I do not think it is one or the other, but maybe Emma would like to come in on that.
Emma Ward: Reflecting on your point, it has always been a criticism that, if you have someone in charge of roads, are they talking to the person who is in charge of rail, active travel or whatever it might be? An integrated transport network is what everybody wants as a citizen, because every journey we take is never one mode—I walk to my car, I get in my car, and I catch the train—whatever your daily routine is.
The reason that the Government fund sub-national transport bodies is so that they can articulate to us what the regional set of integrated transport priorities is from their perspective, and so that we can have a conversation in Government about the relative priority of those and how they get funded. That is their role, and it is a role that has evolved over the time that they have been set up. It is incredibly important to us in the Department to have that conversation. We then have to make difficult decisions about the balance of the investment we make.
At a very early stage in the pipeline process—when we do strategic road studies—we look at whether road is the right mode or whether rail is a viable alternative. We think about that at a pre-stage before we get into the pipeline. That is the process that happens. Then you have the pipeline that enters into the RIS process, and you have schemes that ultimately get delivered. Is that process perfect? Perhaps not, but that is the way it is set up and we value the engagement with the STBs. Of course, we do not always agree.
Q243 Ruth Cadbury: They said that they find the relationship and the communication far better now than it was, but it still feels that they are engaging with you on the strategic road network on criteria that do not take into account the multi-modal and varied traffic and transport pressures in their regions.
Emma Ward: That is the relative balance that is put on the cost-benefits and the value for money versus the strategic case. What we would always say, and what Ms Cohen was saying, is that that is taken in the round. People can disagree about where that ends up.
Kate Cohen: Can I chip in? There has been a lot of conversation about whether we put too much focus on economic benefits and the improvement in congestion rather than the impact on place and users. I think that is a bit harsh. When we look at business cases, the strategic case for any scheme is really important. If you have ever looked at those business cases, a lot of work goes into them as a result of the consultation that goes on beforehand. Whenever we are planning to do both a small and a large investment in an area, local people and strategic bodies—councils at the different levels—will have been consulted and their views taken into account.
It is really important that we do that. Roads are not roads for nothing. If we have a strategic vision for growth for a region, it will not be delivered without the appropriate infrastructure going in alongside it to enable it to happen. That is both within the Department for Transport by mode, and with wider Government objectives, such as levelling up and place making. It is very important not just to focus on the economic case, and I do not think in practice that is actually what goes on. We look enormously—
Chair: I’m sorry. We must move on.
Q244 Mr Bradshaw: A specific example given to us by Transport for the North was that the criteria you use on getting from A to B with travel times mean that unless it is a 60 mph road the funding is not going to come. However, for them—we were given other examples as well—it could be that in that case a 40 mph road would be better for both the community and levelling up in terms of the economic benefits in the surrounding area. That was a specific example that was given to us. How do you respond to it?
Kate Cohen: I do not think that is entirely true because a lot of the enhancements are based, for example, around junctions, where a speed limit is not the determinant of whether that junction is enhanced. It is due to congestion at the junction. The traffic might be going at a very low speed. That is the first thing.
I do not think it is true that a 40 mph road could not get investment. I think what they may be talking about is the balance between expenditure in their region on local roads versus the strategic road network. Then there is a choice about overall distribution of funds—how they are distributed. I am sure that they would be arguing for more funds to come into their area.
Mr Holden: I am the Minister for roads and local transport, and we try to keep those two different elements together where we can. Even if you are going to a train station, there will almost certainly be a journey alongside, whether it is walking, driving, taking the bus or cycling. You will have to get there at one end and, if you are coming to London, taking the tube or something like that.
The NAO report itself backs up what Ms Cohen has been saying; 27 of the big projects that we put forward as part of RIS2 were junction improvement schemes. That was by far the biggest element of it. There were 14 road-widening projects and nine bypasses. You can see that often the focus is very much on junctions and those which are generally pinch points for congestion, as I was saying to Ms Cadbury about the A46. There are major improvements there to delineate the junction, with flyovers rather than its being at flat surface level. That may be within a sub-region, separate from the strategic road network, but the strategic road network is motorways and major A roads.
Q245 Mr Bradshaw: You are making exactly the point they made—that that would not necessarily be the priority. If they had the money themselves, they would spend it in a different way—
Mr Holden: I am sure they would. I am sure if I gave the money to the Rail Minister he would spend it in a different way as well.
Q246 Mr Bradshaw: We are not talking about rail. It is not about rail versus roads. This is about the road network. They would choose to spend the money on the road network not necessarily delivering a quicker journey from A to B, but on a more integrated road network that was better for the local economy and delivered better on levelling up.
Mr Holden: I don’t think that is necessarily true. One of the biggest and most important things for levelling up is connecting the country. I am not saying that is not true for intra-regional connectivity, but, as I was saying at the start, some of the big road schemes that will provide real enhancements for the north of England are about connectivity to the midlands, for example, or trans-Pennine. Look at the A66. Those are inter-regional road schemes as well as intra-regional. I am sure they would like to have all the money devolved to local level for them to decide, but part of the strategic road network is that it is a national strategic road network that you have to view holistically for the whole country.
Q247 Paul Howell: I do not want to labour the previous point, but it seemed from the previous panel that their concern, and something for you to take on board, was that there was too much emphasis on speed and the need to improve travel time as opposed to other benefits. I will just leave that there. That was the point that was raised quite strongly in the previous panel.
Mr Holden: One of the things I would say on that, Mr Howell, is that what you are looking at is often congestion, if you are looking at a road junction, for example. Stationary traffic on the inside of a motorway junction has safety implications. It also has travel-time implications. You could say that, by improving the speed and traffic flow through that junction, all that is being looked at is speed. Actually, you also have the environmental benefits of removing congestion. Speed is part of it, but the side benefits could be environmental locally and, broadly, with CO2 emissions and the safety implications. That is why I was saying that for road junctions that is what you are looking at with those schemes.
Q248 Paul Howell: I agree with all that you have said. I am just saying that there may well be a communication breakdown between you and the people who are putting in evidence. We need to move to other issues, but there is definitely a difference between what you are saying and what they are saying. It is a perception.
Emma Ward: The point has been made about how we stack up the BCR. As we have already said, the BCR is one element that is taken into account, and how you quantify the benefits within a BCR. There is always a lot of academic and other debate about quite how you do that. As we said, the strategic case, deliverability and all of those factors also come into play.
Q249 Paul Howell: I want to move on. What we have seen in the discussions is that a lot of projects are being delayed and rolled over in RIS1, RIS2 and RIS3, and so on. They almost become merged. Is a five-year investment cycle right? Should you be looking back at the process? One of the criticisms, fair or unfair, is that there is not enough realism or certainty in the process to allow people to get a grip on where they want to go. Are you looking not just at what is happening but at the way it is happening and the process? Is that worth having another look at?
Mr Holden: It is probably worth saying that when we get our actual funding through we do not get it for a RIS period. We get it for a spending review period. While the RIS—road investment scheme—timeframe over a five-year period is an aim and provides the pipeline, as my colleagues have said, it is not always guaranteed to be fully financed all the way through. Emma, would you like to comment further?
Emma Ward: I might bring Ms Cohen in as well; she may have a view. We are in the second roads investment period. Achieving a long-term settlement already took us a long way forward. We have had RIS1, and we are halfway through RIS2. Could it be longer? It could be longer, but it is what it is.
Q250 Paul Howell: I don’t want to interrupt you, but, as you have just said, there was RIS1. You have RIS2, and you are thinking about RIS3. It is the early development of your process in some ways. Is the process worth a look at, or are you happy that that is the way we should be continuing to go forward?
Emma Ward: I think it has been effective in providing certainty to the supply chain and to our regional partners and other stakeholders. A longer period might provide more certainty, but, as Minister Holden said, you would still have spending reviews within that where things could change. I think it gives you a framework that provides much greater certainty and a process for understanding how you develop a pipeline and how that pipeline can progress through that process. From that perspective, I think the framework has definitely worked and continues to work effectively.
Kate Cohen: The Office of Rail and Road looked at the effectiveness of the RIS, and concluded that it was very helpful for supporting efficient investment in precisely the way that is being described for the pipeline of suppliers, the length of time it takes for projects to develop and the certainty of funding that goes with it. We have longer-term infrastructure plans, but if they are not funded in some way they are not really worth the paper they are written on.
I think five years is about right. It is also consistent with other regulated utilities, which tend to work in that kind of period. The spending reviews largely cover it, so you have a much greater degree of certainty than you would otherwise. I think the industry and people welcome it. It has been hard fought for, and I would like to keep it, as an official working within that system for efficient delivery. I have to say that the job of National Highways is to make sure that money is spent wisely and well. If we chop and change too frequently you do not get efficiency, and it is not good use of public money, which is at the heart of what we try to do.
Chair: We still have a lot of questions to get through. Can I ask colleagues and witnesses to be brief in their questions and answers?
Paul Howell: I was going to hand back to you, Chair.
Q251 Gavin Newlands: Moving to facilities on the strategic road network for HGV drivers, about 18 months ago the Government announced about £32.5 million to support facilities, and subsequently added another £20 million to that. Has any of that money been spent thus far?
Mr Holden: I think we are in the middle of that at the moment. Applications have been submitted. I don’t think you will need to wait too long, Mr Newlands, for an announcement on that.
Q252 Gavin Newlands: That was exactly what I was coming to. Trying to get a date out of a Minister, or even a timeframe, is often like nailing jelly to a wall.
Mr Holden: Here is the jelly coming back at you. You will see something before summer.
Q253 Gavin Newlands: Before summer? You heard it here. I am Scottish; I don’t know what summer is, but that is by the bye.
Mr Holden: I represent County Durham and it is not that dissimilar.
Q254 Gavin Newlands: Fair point, well made. Parking that particular element—pardon the pun—in terms of the scheme itself, has the Department undertaken an analysis of where the facilities are most needed on the strategic road network, and whether targeted funding in specific areas, whether geographical or however else you look at it, could have a bigger impact?
Mr Holden: I have certainly seen analysis of where the pinch points are on that. I do not know whether Emma or Kate know enough about the HGV side of things.
Emma Ward: I can add a bit more. Transport Focus did some initial work for us to inform the original grant. They are continuing to do further survey work to give us more data on both the quality of services and where, in future, we might target them. We have had really strong applications from across the board. We have had a lot of interest in the grants, which we are looking to assess as part of the process that Minister Holden outlined. I really expect there to be some progress on this very shortly.
Q255 Gavin Newlands: Are a number of the applications that have come in for new facilities, or are most for upgrading existing facilities?
Emma Ward: The grant is specifically targeted at upgrading the quality of existing facilities. It is not for the building of new facilities.
Mr Holden: Mr Newlands, this is something that National Highways have been in touch with us about as well. There are still some service stations, for example, owned by central Government. This is part of a broader issue they want to tackle, going forward. We want to ensure that our drivers have great welfare facilities, particularly across the strategic road network. This is something the Department is pretty committed to in terms of opening up the sector, as well, with the support we have provided for Generation Logistics over the last year, which has been pretty collaborative with industry. I was in the east midlands only a couple of weeks ago, speaking to some of our major players in that space. I think everybody sees this as a sea-change moment over the last couple of years in how we are dealing with the HGV sector, which is so important.
Q256 Gavin Newlands: I will move to electric vehicle charging on the strategic road network. I am not going to labour this point, but I make it pretty much every time it comes up. Scotland, according to the latest published figures—those published in January by the DfT—has 73% more rapid chargers per head than England.
Project Rapid was to fund 6,000 chargers on the SRN—correct me if I am wrong. In Scotland, the M8 is possibly the most important strategic road linking Glasgow and Edinburgh, but the A9 is certainly the most strategic road in Scotland. On that one road alone there is a plan to put in 1,000 chargers, while the DfT wants to put an additional 6,000 across the entire SRN in England. Are you being ambitious enough, given the scale of the uptake of EVs?
Mr Holden: There is always more we can do. We have been working on a lot of local schemes as well, with council roll-out. That is certainly something that has been happening in my area too. One of the concerns or issues around EVs when we speak to the public is that we have to make sure there are enough charging points.
If you are going up the A9, which is a very long road—I have driven it myself—having charging points that may be less frequently used might be very important, and something you want on a very long road through a less densely populated area of Scotland. I know it hits some of the big population centres further north, but you are also going through some pretty rural parts of the country. Per mile you want a balance between the two as well.
Q257 Gavin Newlands: Exactly. In parts of the highlands and in Orkney and the Western Isles, you get more chargers per head of population than in inner London.
Mr Holden: If you have one charger in a very large area of rural Scotland, you might need that as an essential. It is a bit like having other extra things that you might need to adapt to that rural community. For example, there are probably more petrol stations in my constituency, North West Durham, than there are in Cities of London and Westminster. There is around a quarter as many people, but because of the geographic spread you need that facility in a different way.
Q258 Gavin Newlands: We will call it a score draw and move on. In terms of RIS3, what are you doing to ensure that demand will be met across the SRN, particularly given the financial challenges that you are facing?
Mr Holden: In terms of electric charging points?
Gavin Newlands: Yes, specifically on the strategic road network.
Ruth Cadbury: Rapid charging.
Gavin Newlands: Yes, rapid charging.
Emma Ward: National Highways is already delivering the rapid charging roll-out on behalf of the Department. They are working very closely with the Department on it. Part of the consultation on RIS3 is to really think about what the associated infrastructure is with the changeover in the fleet to electric vehicles and what more needs to go in.
Currently, 75% of people charge their vehicle at home. That may change over time as the roll-out continues. Obviously, in order to give people confidence and to reduce range anxiety, we need rapid chargers rolled out across the country. Part of the RIS3 consultation process is to look at electric charging roll-out.
Q259 Gavin Newlands: This is the last question from me on that. The scale of the current roll-out is obviously nowhere near the number required to get to your target. In fact, by the end of it we need to be putting in 75,000 a year if you are going to do it by the end of 2030. When Edmund King gave evidence to us, he was not overly optimistic—none of the others was either—that you were going to get to your target. How confident are you that you are going to meet your 300,000 target?
Emma Ward: Roll-out of charge points has tripled in the last three years. The majority of that is through commercial providers. There is a role for Government and there is also a role for commercial providers. As vehicle uptake increases, the commercial bottom line for putting charge points in will change. At the moment, we are confident that between what the Government are doing and where industry and the commercial sector are moving, we will achieve where we need to get to.
Mr Holden: The strategic road network and charging points are one thing, but when you are looking at a journey, the strategic road network is usually in the middle of that journey. Charging at either end, when you want to stop, is part of a broader thing that you want to look at. There is obviously an element of that for the strategic road network, but it is much broader than just our most used motorways and major A roads.
Gavin Newlands: I couldn’t agree more, Minister. I sometimes think that the Government focus too much on the strategic road network in terms of chargers, so you have made my point for me. I look forward to quoting you. Thanks very much.
Q260 Grahame Morris: I want to ask one quick question on smart motorways, Minister. I am sure you are aware that the Transport Committee produced a report highlighting concerns about the efficacy and safety of smart motorways. We were delighted to note that the Government implemented most of the recommendations. What are your thoughts, Minister, on smart motorways? Will those changes and improvements in safety be included in RIS3 or RIS4?
Mr Holden: You are absolutely right, Mr Morris, that the Committee’s report was taken very seriously by the Department. We have hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of investment going in for the extra safety areas, more CCTV and better monitoring and data updates on that.
When we paused that, it was so that we could have a proper pause and wait for five years of evidence to be deployed. We are still in that timeframe at the moment. With RIS3 still going and being talked about at the moment, that consultation will be launched later this year and probably published at some point next year. At this stage, we are still very much in the place that the situation is being paused and we are waiting for the evidence to be collated.
Grahame Morris: There are a lot more questions to get through, so I will hand back to the Chair.
Q261 Paul Howell: Moving to the growth and value-for-money-type subject area, one of the things we talked about in the first session was different parts of the country. My understanding is that 80% of the committed spend for RIS3 has been allocated to the south-east, south-west and east of England. Why?
Mr Holden: Let’s look at RIS2 for the time being. In the north-east, in our neck of the woods, we have seen Scotswood to North Brunton completed; the A19 Testo’s junction completed; and the A19 Norton to Wynyard completed. A little bit further south we have the A61 Westwood roundabout and the A19 Downhill Lane. We also have under way at the moment, as you will see if you drive into Gateshead, the Birtley to Coal House A1 upgrades, which are going to be widening some of that section. A little bit further south, down in the Leeds area and then in the Leeds to Hull area, there are the M621 and A63 schemes.
Those are all schemes that are taking place in the north-east at the moment. More broadly, you make a fair point. There is nobody who would argue for more investment in the north more than me, or you, as I know. Looking at the big projects like the A66, which is something we have been waiting a long time for, that is a multi-RIS, multibillion-pound project. It is going to provide huge improvements in the north.
If you look, for example, at the spend in the south-east of England, we have £2.41 billion, compared with £1.29 billion in the north-east of England. Some of those projects are there for exactly what I said right at the start of this session. They are going to be for you and me, or our hauliers and coaches from the north-east travelling to and from London and other parts of the country. It is not necessarily where you spend the money; it is the benefits. Where you spend the money can certainly also have some of the disbenefits of roadworks and pollution. We both might drive through Mr Stewart’s constituency, and improvements to the road network around Milton Keynes could help our journeys. It is not particularly going to help in his region, even though the money is spent there.
Q262 Paul Howell: I think that point was made quite competently in the first session as well. There is a need for consideration that to get to the north you have to go through the midlands and the home counties, and so on. There is still always a question as to whether enough is at the end of the corridors, especially—my colleague from Scotland has just left—when you get connections right through the Union. It is about making sure that we get the balance right.
The other question that is worth consideration—this arises from your answer, really—is about the engagement with Transport for the North, the midlands and others. Do you think the way that is at the moment is appropriate, or is it time for there to be a more formal, almost statutory, consideration that you take input from the bigger regional bodies?
Mr Holden: I certainly think there is always more that can be done. I am glad that the relationship between National Highways and the sub-national and sub-regional transport bodies has improved. Their integration with each other is also very important. We know for historic reasons—it is one of the reasons why we are moving to metro mayor status on a smaller scale with devolution—that very localised areas can have competition with each other rather than working together.
For example, in my view, everybody would want to look at the Lower Thames crossing as part of an ongoing piece of work. Almost twice as many people cross at Dartford at the moment as use the entire west coast main line system every day. The impact of that is strategic and nationwide. Looking to make improvements there is vital for the whole country, and something that a transport body in the north-east should be supporting, possibly even more so than transport bodies in the south of England. Perhaps Emma might want to add something on that structural and formal relationship.
Q263 Paul Howell: Can I throw one more point at you, Minister, before you hand over? Is it the case, or do you think it is in balance, that when road schemes in the midlands, for example, are being considered, any impact on the north or Scotland should be almost ensured? Do you think it has enough significance? That is the point.
Mr Holden: Those things will be taken as part of the benefit-cost ratio progress. It will definitely be taken as part of that. You could even consider whether, say, a transport investment scheme in the midlands has a real benefit attributed to it. You can say it is being spent in the midlands—fair enough—but it would be quite an interesting piece of work to see where the actual benefits are accruing. Perhaps somebody could undertake an academic piece of work to see who actually benefits from these schemes.
Paul Howell: I was going to ask you that.
Mr Holden: It is a particularly interesting point, Mr Howell.
Emma Ward: On that last point, this discussion really brings home to me that perhaps we do not do enough to articulate what we take into consideration in the BCR and how that is presented back in terms of where the benefits lie and are delivered.
On the formalisation of the relationship, I point you back to my previous answer. There is a framework in place. There is a joint engagement action plan. I genuinely believe that National Highways works very hard to engage the sub-national transport bodies, and that that is done in an agreed process and framework that is clear to both parties. That runs through the entirety of the process, all the way from development of pipeline schemes and consideration of route strategies to delivery.
Paul Howell: Thank you for that. I absolutely endorse your thought about better articulating how the benefits play out for investment in different parts. I would not in any way want to move investment away from the north.
Q264 Chair: The Government commissioned Lord Hendy to produce the Union connectivity review, which covers all modes. One of the recommendations is strategic UK transport corridors. When are we likely to see a Government response to it?
Mr Holden: I have spoken to Lord Hendy recently. It is something I am very keen on seeing the Government respond to. I hope we will see it within this year.
Q265 Mr Bradshaw: Going back to the regional imbalance, one of the things we heard from the earlier panel was that population density plays a role in the criteria that are set when it comes to making these decisions. That may well be one of the reasons why 80% of the committed spend has been in the south-east, east and south-west.
That goes against all the Government’s statements about levelling up. All you are doing is investing more money in regions of the country that are already overheating, relatively speaking, and less and less in others, and widening the gap between the south and the north.
Mr Holden: In terms of spending on the strategic road network?
Q266 Mr Bradshaw: Yes. As your Conservative colleague just informed you, 80% in RIS3 is in the three southern regions. That is a massive geographical imbalance across the country, and driven, we must assume, by the criteria about population density.
Mr Holden: That includes the Lower Thames crossing.
Kate Cohen: I don’t think we have decided on what schemes are in RIS3.
Q267 Mr Bradshaw: It is 80% of the committed spend.
Mr Holden: I don’t think there is any committed spend.
Mr Bradshaw: Oh.
Kate Cohen: Are we talking about schemes that are currently in RIS2 that will continue into RIS3? We have not decided on the make-up of RIS3, so I don’t understand about the number.
To take the more general point about population, there are a number of factors that go into the benefit-cost ratio calculations. We have talked about things like safety improvements, congestion improvements and environmental improvements. These are things that you quantify. Alongside that and equally important, if not more so, is the strategic case for the road. In many cases—the A66 is a good example—it is not going through the most populated areas, but it is of vital importance to levelling up, freight more generally and the country, so I don’t think it is entirely true that the population densities influence where the schemes go in a national network.
Q268 Mr Bradshaw: In that case, what is your explanation for the massive regional imbalance in the overall spend, in favour of the southern regions?
Mr Holden: As I said to Mr Howell, I do not think there is a massive regional imbalance. For example, I can build a road such as the A585—a major new piece of dual carriageway which I was looking at recently over in Windy Harbour/Skippool, just outside Blackpool—a lot cheaper due to land values, general construction costs and other factors than I can in the south of England. I can build perhaps more road for less money in some elements of it.
I was just making the point to Mr Howell that investment, for example, on the outskirts of the south-east, on a road heading north, does not benefit the south-east of England anywhere near as much as it benefits me, my constituents or businesses in the north of England, particularly for a freight service to the continent. The benefit is derived for the businesses in the north who travel through that, and very little direct benefit would therefore be brought to people in the south.
Again, you could flip it round. If I put investment in parts of the north of England, the benefit would be for people travelling through rather than the people living there, or the businesses located there. I think it is a blunt instrument to try to suggest that a specific amount of money spent in a broad region would just derive benefit to that region, when actually the benefits would often benefit people in other regions who travel through it or use it.
Q269 Mr Bradshaw: Throughout this inquiry we have heard from various witnesses that the limited money you have to spend would be much better spent in fixing local roads and investing in better integrated transport in terms of reaching both your economic development goals and your zero carbon goals. From what you say, Minister, you don’t seem to recognise that. You don’t seem to recognise that there needs to be a substantial and dramatic shift in that direction, away from road building.
Mr Holden: If you look at the actual spend in RIS2 from the NAO report, you will see that roughly half the money is going on road maintenance in the first instance.
In terms of enhancements, as I said, 27 of the enhancements we put forward as part of the RIS2 pipeline were junction improvements that have exactly those environmental and safety impacts. Improving the road network also improves the public transport network for the vast majority of public transport used by the poorest in the country and people in lower-paid jobs who travel by coach and by bus. It might be the case that you could spend money in different places elsewhere, but it is really important in terms of the strategic network that we continue to make those improvements, particularly around safety and the environment.
Q270 Mr Bradshaw: Does demand management play any role in your strategy at all? We heard from Transport for the North that they would rather have a decide and provide approach to transport investment than a predict and provide one, which I understand is the Department’s approach.
Emma Ward: I don’t think we are in a predict and provide environment. The RIS3 consultation will take us through the vision for a strategic road network. It will set out considerations of different scenarios for electric vehicle roll-out and for automation. The traffic forecasts that the Department has put out recently show the variance that there is in the prediction of traffic growth.
All of that uncertainty means that we are not really in a predict and provide environment. We are not necessarily in a vision and validate position, but moving towards that, I think. We are setting a vision and talking to sub-national transport bodies and others about local priorities and where they sit, and then, ultimately, taking a set of decisions around that. If we built every junction improvement and every enhancement that every Member of Parliament and every sub-national transport body wanted us to, we could have spent the RIS 10 times over.
Q271 Mr Bradshaw: Given the report from the Government’s independent climate committee today on the progress, or lack of it, towards reaching the policy goals that the Government have set out, how confident are you that relying on e-vehicles is going to deliver that strategy, rather than some form of demand management in the meantime?
Mr Holden: By demand management what you mean is stopping people travelling by car.
Q272 Mr Bradshaw: No. It is about managing demand. It is about investing in alternatives and integrated transport, and making it easier for people to make different choices.
Mr Holden: I am all in favour of better choices and better provision. It is one of the reasons we are investing in the bus network at the moment and in electric buses. We are supporting the coach sector and others moving towards the net zero objectives.
When you talk about demand management, I think there are multiple different aspects to that. I don’t think it is sensible for either the economy or the environment to throttle the major road network.
Ruth Cadbury: You are doing that by creating congestion. Sorry, Chair.
Chair: Ben, have you finished?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes. Thanks, Chair.
Chair: Minister and your colleagues, thank you very much for your time this morning. It has been an interesting session and given us lots of material to work on. Thank you again.