UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE
To be published as HC 473-ii

house of commons

oral evidence

taken before the

TRANSPORT Committee

TRANSPORT AND THE ECONOMY

Tuesday 2 November 2010

Councillor DAVID WOODS, Mark Jones, Simon Driver and Jodie Booth

Matt Jukes, Malcolm Bingham, Dr Ian Kelly and Carole Goodair

Peter Shipp, James Adeshiyan, Adam Fowler and Professor Peter Mackie

Evidence heard in Public Questions 75 - 165

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Transport Committee

on Tuesday 2 November 2010

Members present:

Mrs Louise Ellman (Chair)

Mr Tom Harris

Kelvin Hopkins

Kwasi Kwarteng

Paul Maynard

Iain Stewart

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Councillor David Woods, Portfolio Holder, Environmental Sustainability, Hull City Council, Mark Jones, Head of Economic Development and Regeneration, Hull City Council, Simon Driver, Chief Executive, North Lincolnshire Council, and Jodie Booth, Transport Planning Manager, North Lincolnshire Council, gave evidence.

Q75 Chair: Good morning and welcome, all of you, to this meeting of the Transport Select Committee. We normally have our meetings in London but we decided it was the right thing for us to come here to Hull today. We know what an important city Hull is, with very particular concerns about transport, and we thought it was very important that we came here to see and hear for ourselves what your issues are, so I hope that, during our questions, you’ll feel able to tell us the things that you think are most important, to help us with our national inquiry into transport and the economy.

I’d like to ask everybody, please, to make sure their mobile phones are switched off, because I’ve been told that they interfere with our recording system if they’re on, so I’d be very grateful if everyone could switch their phones off. I’d like to ask our witnesses here, please, to identify themselves. Could you just give your name and the organisation you’re representing? It’s for our records, so that our recorders are clear who’s speaking and we get that down properly.

David Woods: I am Councillor David Woods and I’m the portfolio holder for environmental sustainability with Hull City Council.

Mark Jones: Mark Jones, officer with Hull City Council.

Jodie Booth: Jodie Booth, North Lincolnshire Council, Transport Planning Manager.

Simon Driver: Simon Driver, Chief Executive of North Lincolnshire Council.

Q76 Chair: Thank you very much. How important are transport improvements to economic regeneration in your areas? Who’d like to give me a thought on that one? Anyone? If you just indicate if you want to speak. Mr Jones?

Mark Jones: I think, in terms of the Humber estuary as being the largest trading estuary in the UK, the UK being a maritime trading nation, appropriate transport infrastructure to match what is a private-sector-led investment in the port infrastructure is an absolute imperative and, over the past 20 years here in the Humber, we have seen a very significant amount of investment from port owners, port operators and maritime operators, which hasn’t been matched by a commensurate amount of investment in the public transport infrastructure. Yorkshire and Humber tends to be at the lower end of UK investment, and the Humber in particular, which is hugely dependent on an appropriate infrastructure in terms of transport to match its maritime trade opportunities, tends to have been left behind over recent years.

Q77 Chair: Thank you. Turning to North Lincolnshire, have you got similar views, Ms Booth?

Jodie Booth: Yes. I would like to say that definitely putting some money into infrastructure is absolutely important for stimulating the economy and, particularly in this economic climate, it’s absolutely important, both in rail and road freight, to put some investment in to stimulate economic growth. Particularly as well, as Mark has alluded to, the ports are a particularly important industry around here, and something that can stimulate private-sector investment and encourage that growth, and as Eddington has pointed out through his study, there is a need to focus on international gateways, ports and airports. We do have that facility within our area in the Hull and Humber ports, and there’s certainly a massive opportunity here at the moment to put that infrastructure into this area to facilitate that private-sector investment that the country drastically needs at the moment to rebalance the economy.

Simon Driver: Building on that as well, I think in particular it’s looking at job opportunities in the sub-region and opening up movement across the sub-region. It’s looking at where the investment is on both banks through the ports industry but also through the oil refining industry, the chemical industry and, potentially, renewable energy, as well as in the more traditional areas. That relies on not only transport infrastructure, both road and rail, but support for public transport to allow people in those areas of unemployment to access the jobs. The jobs that are being created will be created by significant private-sector investment, particularly on the south bank. We need to open up those job opportunities to where the large pockets of unemployment are in the sub-region.

Q78 Kwasi Kwarteng: I was just wondering: you were saying that, obviously, you needed more money to be spent on that infrastructure, but within that framework, would you prioritise certain modes of transportation. So, you have a pot of money, but obviously it’s restricted, so where would you channel that money ideally? Would you have road infrastructure or rail infrastructure? What do you think is the top priority?

Jodie Booth: I think it’s important to look at where you can actually stimulate the most economic growth and look at the actual figures in terms of where you can bring in the most private-sector investment, what will start to stimulate economic growth in terms of bringing the jobs into the area, and make the decisions on the back of that. Obviously, as well, there’s the issue around sustainability, and looking at not only the environmental issues but where you can provide sustainable economic growth and, in those areas, we should be looking at putting in investment. Whether that is road or rail, or a combination of both, we should be looking at both of those issues.

Obviously, we do have the largest port complex in the country in terms of tonnage within our area. We also take 20% of the UK’s rail freight out of the ports, so there are some real key issues for us on both road and rail. Particularly in this economic climate, when there isn’t a lot of money to go around-we understand that-we have to look at those issues and look at where we can stimulate the most economic growth for the north but also for the whole of the UK.

Q79 Kwasi Kwarteng: Could I just ask a follow-on to that? Specifically, in terms of this local region, do you have any overriding priorities? If you had to choose between rail and road, for instance, what choice would you make?

Jodie Booth: We, obviously, have a major asset in our area in terms of the ports, and we would like to see investment concentrated around the port areas, not only bringing road and rail freight in and out of the ports but, as my colleague has alluded to, looking at getting the employment from both sides of the Humber into those jobs as well, so that we can keep it within the UK and within our areas.

David Woods: I think we’ve already identified that some of the road network hasn’t had any investment for many years now to a point where it is not capable of taking the kind of added traffic-just the road traffic-that the ports will generate in the future. Obviously, on sustainability, we would like to see an increase in freight on the railway lines, but Hull in particular has a single line that runs through the middle of the city, and infrastructure building for that would not have as much impact as sorting out some of the road issues that we have, and I’m sure you’ll see those. I’m sure that it’s the same for the south bank as well.

I have to say one of the major road issues, of course, for the Humber and the Humber ports, is the question of the bridge and how that’s going to fit in in the future with the financing for the bridge and improvements to the road. So, initially, I think we need to see some movement on the road infrastructure. Certainly, in the future, high-speed rail links to Leeds and to West Yorkshire and improved railway links between both sides of the Humber and that hub around Leeds would be something that we’d want to see almost running in parallel with the road improvements.

Q80 Kwasi Kwarteng: Let me just clarify this for my own purposes: you’re saying that the road infrastructure is the most immediate priority you have.

Mark Jones: Yes, I think so. There are certain sections of roads, and I’m sure that you will have seen those, certainly in the centre of Hull, on Castle street, which cuts the city in half, and most of the investment would be going in the east of the city, which means we have this logjam in the centre; similarly, with the south bank, there is the issue of access to the ports at Immingham. So, there are these specific areas in the road network that, I think, would have the priority.

Q81 Chair: You mentioned rail as well. Which aspects of rail are most important at the moment?

David Woods: Well, I’m sure they’ll speak for the south bank. Certainly, the single rail that we have through the city is not up to capacity yet but it certainly will be in the future, and I think we need to see how that can be sorted out.

Q82 Chair: You mentioned rail service to Leeds. Is that a high priority?

David Woods: Yes, I think so, just for commuting, but also for freight as well.

Mark Jones: I think one of the things that I’d like to bring into this is looking at transport in terms of its total context. Eddington tended to look at it as a means of transit, and there are trade-offs between time, cost and quality. I think, when you link transport to ports, we should think about ports in terms of economic value-added and as a total system. It’s not just about a dock and a road at the end of the dock. I think Simon alluded to this in terms of the value-added. Our ports in terms of the wider economy aren’t just competing with the UK ports; they’re also competing with continental ports for inward investment and value-added adjacent to the ports. I think it’s quite important that the Committee looks at the economic potential that we can derive from that. In terms of rebalancing the economy, road transport and port-centric logistics certainly offer us the better opportunity for creating more value-added jobs on both banks of the Humber.

Q83 Chair: How important is the development of the port to the whole area?

Mark Jones: It’s hugely important in terms of, if you look at the gross value-added, if you discounted the ports and port-related businesses such as chemicals and steel, which rely on the ports, and there’s an interdependency, then our GVA would drop considerably, and so would our employment. More importantly, though, looking to the future, the source of our gross value added is going to come from our basic economic base, which is the ports sector. It’s the reason for the very existence of this city; it’s the reason for the existence of Scunthorpe and Immingham. They are all port-related in some way.

Q84 Kelvin Hopkins : In your opening statement, Mr Jones, you implied some disappointment that public-sector investment hadn’t matched private-sector investment. Where was the fault? Was it the local authority’s fault? Was it the regional development agency? Was it national? And which particular areas of public investment were you concerned about?

Mark Jones: I wouldn’t want to apportion blame, because I think we all have a responsibility for recognising where our greatest economic effort should be. Certainly, if you look how the port systems on the Humber developed, they were developed by the railways. They were developed in parallel, north and south bank, and then the motorways arrived, and the Humber bridge, but they never quite got to the port gates. Had this been Holland, they would have got to the ports and been renewed three times by now. I know we’re not in the predict-and-provide mode any longer, but certainly recognising that amount of investment that has gone in through the Humber. If my figures are right, in the late ’80s the Humber was handling about 30 million tonnes of goods a year; I think it’s approaching about 80 million tonnes or 85 million tonnes now, and that is, essentially, coming through the same transport infrastructure as in the late ’80s.

Q85 Kelvin Hopkins : I have a specific question about railways. One of the problems with Britain’s railways is that the gauge is too small to take containers in most areas. Are you restricted with long-distance rail freight simply because the gauge isn’t big enough?

Simon Driver: Yes, certainly that’s one of the major challenges we have on the south bank from the port of Immingham, just to increase that capacity, and it’s gauge enhancements that are needed in a relatively small-scale part of the railway to actually access the national rail network. As Mr Jones has said, there has been very limited investment in the last 30 years, and yet the port of Immingham now handles nearly 70 million tonnes through the year. A large amount of that does go through the rail network for relatively short distances to feed the power stations and the steelworks in the region and beyond, but the potential for the development has got to be through the containerisation developments, and the investment will be forthcoming, but it does need the enhancements in the rail gauge in particular.

Jodie Booth: Just to refer back to two points you’ve made. First of all, you asked how important the ports are to the region? And then the issues about the road and rail-

Q86 Chair: We want to talk about the port at the moment and the gauge, and access to the port.

Jodie Booth: Yes. Well, in line with that as well, and referring back to the public-sector investment that we’ve had, I think it’s important to say that the Humber ports are the UK’s biggest in terms of tonnage, and home to the UK’s biggest refinery cluster as well. We do have the largest remaining development site in the north of England and we have the prospect of bringing in up to 20,000 private-sector jobs. We do have the best opportunity in the north of England to rebalance the economy. However, we do have issues, both on road and rail, and particularly in relation to freight.

Now, with relation to the rail and the limitations that we have, we don’t have gauge enhancements, which would allow the larger containers to get out of the ports, and also, from the environmental side of things, allow more out for less. So, by 2014, in the way current investment is going, we will be the last remaining large, major port in the UK not to have these gauge enhancements in the Hull and Humber region.

As announced last week, the A160 and A63 road schemes will not be taken forward, at the earliest, until 2015. This could well stimulate private-sector investment, with up to 20,000 private-sector jobs on the back of it, should we get that investment in the area.

Q87 Chair: Is this direct access to the ports?

Jodie Booth: Direct access to the ports of Immingham and to the port of Hull.

Q88 Chair: Have you been promised anything on the rail gauge before?

Jodie Booth: On rail gauge, we have had much research done by Network Rail and Northern Way into looking at the gauge enhancements and what’s necessary. Now, we haven’t had the funding promised to the region as yet, but that’s something we’ve been looking into. We know that Southampton is currently getting the gauge enhancements, and Teesport is to come online in the next couple of years, and like I say, the Humber ports will be the last remaining port by 2014 not to have the gauge enhancements.

Q89 Iain Stewart: I’d just like to get a sense of the north bank and the south bank. You have two different council areas. To what extent, when it comes to planning all these transport projects and bidding for scare resources, are you rivals or partners? Do both banks have to develop together, or can it be one against the other?

Jodie Booth: I think we have been working as a city region-as a Hull and Humber ports city region-but I think what’s fair to say is that we can’t have a proper functional sub-region without action on the tolls. Obviously, we have the Humber bridge between both sides. We have had research looking into the tolls and we have the currently DFT study, and now the newly announced Treasury study as well. What we seem to have are a lot of studies going into the actual issues, but we haven’t had any firm action on what will happen with the tolls. We have real uncertainty around this particular area, which causes problems both for the public and the private sector in terms of bringing confidence in the area to work as the Hull and Humber Ports.

Mark Jones: Obviously, in terms of the road improvements, we’re talking about major capital schemes, looking at 2015. Okay, we may be disappointed, but we know where we are in terms of UK plc’s finances. The Humber bridge tolls issue is an immediate fiscal issue that is acting as a fiscal drag in terms of optimising the estuary. I’d just like to say, Chair, in terms of the rail issue on the north bank in terms of gauge enhancement, it isn’t as much of a problem and, indeed, working with Network Rail and the RDA, Yorkshire Forward, and the city council, under the Northern Way umbrella, we’ve secured improvement investment to our rail line down to the port.

Q90 Iain Stewart: I’m not diminishing the importance of the bridge and the tolls, but in terms of general economic development and the type of transport projects that will enhance that, do the north and the south have to work together to secure that, or could one develop independently of the other? Are your main communications westwards?

Simon Driver: I think that is it. There can be some development but I think the important thing is that, in looking at, if you like, the development, it’s the Hull and Humber ports, because that’s the thing that actually unites the sub-region, but we need to make complementary development and investment on both banks of the Humber. One of the problems in the past has been the infrastructure has looked east-west, and the movement, though, of labour in particular into regeneration opportunities has to be north-south because, again, coming back to an earlier point, the bridge was built to unite the two banks of the Humber. It’s failed to do that; it actually divides them at a time when, quite rightly, we need private-sector development-the opportunities are there.

The development has been announced already and planning permission has been approved for 4,500 jobs on a logistics park on the south bank, with the potential for a marine energy park. There’s some pre-consultation happening already, and 20,000 jobs may come from that. Where the labour comes from, the mobility of labour isn’t there. Quite clearly, the work that the city region has commissioned shows the two distinct travel-to-work areas-one on the north bank and one on the south bank-because of the impact of the bridge. Hull can’t act as the true regional city that it should be because of the barriers to movement, in particular for labour, but also social movement, because of the impact of the bridge. That needs to be done to allow the sub-region to develop as a natural economic area, but also to build on the key issue for the UK, which is the development of the port and also the renewable energy.

Q91 Mr Harris: Can I go back just a little bit to the gauge enhancement for direct access to the port? Has a price tag been put on that? If so, how does that compare with the cost of some of the strategic road schemes that are on the go?

Jodie Booth: For the south Humber bank improvements and gauge enhancements, it will cost approximately £5.5 million to get out to the east coast mainline in Doncaster from the port of Immingham. The A160 scheme that we have currently with Government is approximately £114 million for the road improvements.

Q92 Mr Harris: That’s useful. The original question I wanted to ask was in relation to your opening statement, when you said about the need to rebalance the economy. How is it imbalanced?

Jodie Booth: It is imbalanced between the north and the south. The rebalance of the economy between the north and the south has been alluded to in many Government documents.

Q93 Mr Harris: What would be the best way of rebalancing that in terms of transport infrastructure?

Jodie Booth: As Eddington has pointed out, transport can play a key part in actually stimulating the economy within the UK, and the key gateways that he refers to in terms of stimulating that economy is key international gateways, ports and airports. As one of the biggest-well, the biggest in terms of tonnage-ports in the area, we feel that if we can get the infrastructure in place, we can facilitate private-sector investment, which the Government, at this time, want to see us achieve.

Q94 Mr Harris: If you forgive me, though, Eddington didn’t really say that transport infrastructure would stimulate the economy; he said it could facilitate economic growth but it wouldn’t actually stimulate it on its own. So, what would be the drivers for stimulating the economy? Transport would help, but there’d have to be other factors there. What would they be?

Jodie Booth: Well, we have key bottlenecks, obviously, around the country at the moment, and one of those is at the port of Immingham and also at the port of Hull. Now, we see our area as quite fundamental in stimulating that economy, and transport infrastructure can facilitate the private-sector investment coming into this area and then stimulating the economy and putting jobs and private-sector investment into this area, which is needed.

Q95 Mr Harris: So, it’s private-sector investment that you’re looking for?

Jodie Booth: We have the potential of private-sector investment coming into the Hull and Humber ports city region, particularly around port industry, around renewables and offshore wind, and what we’re saying is that we need the transport infrastructure in place, and other infrastructure as well, which we already have private-sector investment added into that. By putting the transport infrastructure in place, it will facilitate and stimulate that interest from the private sector to create the jobs that are well needed within this area and within the UK.

Q96 Chair: Is it difficult to get private-sector investment in transport schemes?

Mark Jones: Also on the previous question, the Humber’s locational advantage is that we’re the most northerly 12-hour crossing of the North sea, which allows full and efficient optimisation of equipment in terms of vessel utilisation and keeping the costs down in the logistics chain. As soon as those just-in-time cargos or time-sensitive cargos come off, which could be high-value, either way, and they hit a bottleneck very close to the port gates, which they don’t experience in continental Europe, and the tacho is running, that then starts to deter private-sector investment. It also deters port-centric logistics, where logistics value-added operations are located close to our ports. That could be for mass customisation for UK markets or vice versa, because if coming out of there they suddenly hit a tacho block, then time is money in terms of deliveries.

Q97 Chair: But can you get private-sector investment in transport infrastructure?

Mark Jones: We can in terms of the complementary transport infrastructure around the ports, but there is an assumption that it should be matched by the public sector.

Q98 Paul Maynard: You’re going to have a significant number of transport projects you’re very keen to progress across all modes. I’m wondering: how do you prioritise between all those different projects? At what organisational level does that discussion take place or should that discussion take place? How do you balance themes such as the international gateway-the ports you mention-and the smaller projects that may benefit, say, commuters within Hull? How do you ensure that the international gateway doesn’t overshadow other, more minor projects that might deliver greater benefit for the people of Hull?

Mark Jones: We’re very conscious that it’s about full effort from all partners, whether it’s private or public-sector, in terms of really trying to squeeze as much out of existing infrastructure as we can. So, our close working with the Highways Agency ensures that we’ve approved or have an agreement of headroom, which allows investment and planning permission to take place in Hull. I think as well, in terms of close working between both banks at the city regional level and into the regional level, we have agreed that kind of balance about what is for local benefit and which is for the benefit of UK plc. So, I think there are a lot of parties, actually, concentrated on making as much difference as we can do. The issue in terms of prioritisation is always going to be the most difficult one, though, particularly on the major schemes, because the demands of the north and south bank are very, very similar.

Q99 Paul Maynard: So, how do you make those decisions? What future does the city region have, given the advent of the Local Economic Partnerships, for example?

Mark Jones: We do have a unitary leaders’ structure, where the unitary leaders actually agree priorities, together with the portfolio holders for transport. But again, I would stress that the two transport systems, the north bank and the south bank, are very similar, and actually what we’re talking about is the last mile-an exaggeration, sorry-but the last mile to the port, in reality.

Q100 Chair: You mentioned before the work you’d done with Yorkshire Forward, and you mentioned the Northern Way. Can that kind of work continue when there are only the Local Economic Partnerships?

Mark Jones: I think the close working can continue in terms of commitment.

Q101 Chair: But what about implementing? You can have close working and commitment that go on for many years without a result, can’t you? It’s implementation.

Mark Jones: I think the challenge, Chair, is going to be northern UK plc, because the Northern Way did serve a purpose to bring people together to think beyond their boundaries and think about transport as a full system.

Q102 Chair: Do you think it’s important that the Northern Way continues?

Mark Jones: Or something replaces the Northern Way. It could be a meeting of LEPs, but there has to be that level of total system understanding.

Q103 Kwasi Kwarteng: I’m very interested in the specific-I’m referring back to Eddington, sorry-problem that the area faces. From what you’re saying, it seems that the last mile or so of connectivity between the port and the rest of the transport infrastructure is what we should be focusing on, because it’s very easy for us to get into a broad-brush discussion and say, ‘We need more money and we need this, that and the other.’ If there was a specific problem that needed to be solved, would you say that that was getting the last mile, as it were, of connectivity to the actual port itself?

Mark Jones: From my position, Chair, the last mile is a slight exaggeration; it’s a little bit more. The systems, when they were designed in the ’70s, were designed to enter the lock gates, and they’ve never got there.

Simon Driver: Going back to the your question about the future, this region has been very clearly identified as in need of LEPs, city regions or whatever you call them to provide a coalition of local businesses and local government to work together at a level well above the local area. In Yorkshire and the Humber, we’re having tentative discussions about maintaining an infrastructure; in particular, recognising what transport contributes, not just to the last mile to the gate but how it fits in strategically, right across the development. Opening up opportunities for economic regeneration in one part of the region links in with other flows right cross the region, well beyond the local bit. I think it’s the one area we’ve identified that actually needs, in the localism agenda, to be actually taken at a higher spatial level.

Q104 Kelvin Hopkins : I’ve spoken to other freight operators elsewhere in Europe and in Britain, and one of the problems with Britain is, of course, we have a very substantial trade deficit: we import much more than we export. Some operators say that they lose money because they have to send back their lorries or trains or whatever-containers-empty. They’re full one way and empty the other way. If they can fill them up both ways, it becomes much more profitable and the costs go down. Is that a significant factor in Hull? Do you import much more than you export in terms of tonnage?

Mark Jones: Yes, it is a significant factor in terms of empty equipment, but I don’t think it’s anything that’s unique to Hull. It’s a UK plc issue.

Simon Driver: Just to add on that as well, I think one of the reasons why we’re looking for the development and the private-sector investment that is being proposed now is to develop complementary industries at the ports to allow that to happen, recognising that Immingham is a bulk port. A lot of goods come in to supply the sailing industry and the power energy. That’s why you need to develop manufacturing plants there to allow the outward trade to happen there as well.

Jodie Booth: If I can just refer back to the point that was made earlier about the last mile into the ports and around, there is obviously the regional aspect as well. I would agree with Mark regarding the south bank in that it isn’t just the last mile of access into the ports. Also, in terms of public sector investment in transport infrastructure, I think that’s quite right. What we’re talking about here is major schemes, which we look to Government to support. We do have our internal infrastructure on the South Humber Gateway as well that we look to provide support and improvements on as well. So, it’s a package rather than just a few individual, major schemes. In terms of the regional-

Q105 Chair: Could I just stop you there for a moment? Do you have any views about the appraisal processes for deciding which major schemes can go forward? Are they clear enough or are they satisfactory? Does anybody have any comment on that?

Mark Jones: Thank you, Chair. I’d like to say that, from our perspective, there has been an improvement in the appraisal processes. From the Humber’s point of view, what it doesn’t take account of is future potential in terms of availability of land close to areas of emerging inward investment. I think there needs to be some form of sophistication to capture that future economic potential that we don’t use, but I would stress that there has been a big improvement in the appraisal process.

David Woods: Yes, it’s really just to build on that. We’ve talked about the use of the ports, and obviously the ports themselves being a driver for the local economy around transport and transport links; I think what we’ve seen over the past few years in Hull, and to a degree on the south bank as well, is that inward investment to manufacturing into Hull also requires those transport links and that last mile that we’ve talked about. I think in 1995 the IBM report said that Hull was a potential area for growth in renewable technologies and again, we’ve seen comments from the Government about the idea of port areas being potential sites for renewables and for investment in factories and local development. Although that specifically is not transport itself, it does need transport infrastructure to get local development and investment into Hull, which will have that knock-on effect locally. It is both directions.

Q106 Paul Maynard: It’s a very quick question aimed specifically at North Lincolnshire, Mr Driver. Have you noticed any tangible, demonstrable economic benefits from the direct rail service from London to Hull in your particular region?

Simon Driver: London to Hull direct service? I mean-

Chair: We had a very good journey here on First Hull Trains; has that made a difference economically?

Paul Maynard: Specifically in North Lincolnshire.

Simon Driver: In North Lincolnshire, I think it is perhaps hard to say, because obviously the links are east-west to the east coast mainline and Doncaster. So obviously, the links are parallel.

Q107 Paul Maynard: So it has not had a tangible economic benefit to your region?

Simon Driver: I think it has to the region in terms of any sort of direct rail movement in the sub-region, but obviously access to rail is looking where people live.

Q108 Chair: How important are buses in helping people to get to work and to get to local amenities? Are you concerned about current proposals to reduce the bus service operators grant, Mr Jones?

Mark Jones: In places like Hull buses are absolutely critical, particularly in terms of the low level of car ownership and the high level of deprivation concentrated in the city. Buses are essential in terms of getting people to travel to learn and to work, and there is a concern that any future reductions could have a very negative impact, not just in terms of Hull but also the services that extend to the suburbs. Working together with the regional development agency, we’ve invested a considerable amount of money into a transport interchange to remove barriers to bus and train travel.

Q109 Mr Harris: Mr Woods, you have mentioned high-speed rail. This is a question to the entire panel: would it be fair to conclude that, since none of you mentioned high-speed rail in your written submission, you don’t think it is a priority or wouldn’t have any particular benefit for the region?

David Woods: We’ve talked about the local rail structure and its connectivity with Leeds. The proposed high-speed link, as I understand it, is a Y-shaped design that goes up to the Midlands and, of course, to the Leeds area, which is-

Mr Harris: I’m glad your hand is round the right way there.

David Woods: Yes. I think both the high-speed links down to the south of England and potentially up to the east coast to the north-east are very important. The links between the ports areas and the Leeds area would become crucial. I think the two things go hand in hand. In summary, there would have to be improvements made to local transport links in conjunction with the high speed link.

Q110 Mr Harris: But the announcement by the Government to go ahead with High Speed 2 hasn’t set the heather alight, I’m guessing. It’s not what everyone is talking about in terms of economic development, is it?

David Woods: At the moment I think high speed for us is many years away; we’re looking at sorting out the bottlenecks we have now because that would give us the opportunity to add further transport links in the future.

Q111 Mr Harris: In the longer term though, do you think that better links to London and the south, or indeed to the north-west, via high speed, is something that you would embrace?

David Woods: Yes. I suppose you have to look at the geography of where Hull and the south bank are: we’re 60 or 70 miles away from other cities. Most of the country has more connectivity with large cities and large urban areas than we have, so the ability to connect with high-speed rail would be important economically.

Q112 Kwasi Kwarteng: Just one last question: if there were one thing in the past 30 years that we should have done in terms of transport policy that would have had a direct benefit specifically to the port, what would that have been?

Simon Driver: If I can loosely use your concept of ports, and going back to what the Hull and Humber port city region is all about, clearly the one thing would be free access of labour and social movements, which would mean no tolls on the bridge. One thing we would have had would have been proper development, and we would have had people being able to move and have full mobility regarding where the jobs were.

Chair: Would that have made the bridge more beneficial?

Simon Driver: That would have made the bridge fulfil its purpose, which was to unite the sub-region not divide it.

Jodie Booth: I would reiterate those comments in terms of the question that has been asked.

Mark Jones: I think 30 years ago, before the green lobby, to have completed the planned motorway around the north of Hull and leading right to the port gates.

Chair: Councillor Woods, have you one last point?

David Woods: I do agree with comments about the bridge. In some respects the bridge has been a link and a barrier to not just jobs and travel to work but education and growth of the area. So I would probably say the bridge, but I will say Castle street as well because that is also important

Chair: Thank you very much. You’ve been very informative and very helpful, thank you.

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Matt Jukes, Port Director (Hull and Goole), Associated British Ports, Malcolm Bingham, Head of Policy, Yorkshire and the Humber Region, Freight Transport Association, Dr Ian Kelly, Chief Executive, Hull and Humber Chamber of Commerce, and Carole Goodair, Chairman, East Yorkshire Federation of Small Businesses, gave evidence.

Q113 Chair: Good morning, and welcome to the Transport Select Committee. We’re very pleased to be here and to hear evidence directly from you. Could I ask you please to give your name and the organisation that you represent? It’s for our records and to make our recordings easier to identify.

Matt Jukes: I’m the Port Director for Associated British Ports in Hull and Goole. ABP is the largest port operator in the UK and on the Humber we operate Hull and Goole on the North bank and Grimsby and Immingham on the South bank.

Dr Kelly: I’m Ian Kelly. I’m Chief Executive of Hull and Humber Chamber of Commerce.

Carole Goodair: Morning, I’m Carole Goodair. I’m here to represent the Federation of Small Businesses in the East Yorkshire area.

Malcolm Bingham: Good morning, my name’s Malcolm Bingham. I’m Head of Policy for the Freight Transport Association in the North of England.

Q114 Chair: Is there a case for more investment in transport and what’s the most important area of that investment, if so? All hands go up.

Dr Kelly: I think one of the bits of information we’ve produced based on Treasury statistics is how badly the Yorkshire region has done compared with the 12 UK regions and nations over the past two years since 2003/4. We’ve come 11th, 12th, 12th, eighth, ninth and eighth out of 12. Within the Yorkshire region, we feel that the Humber is particularly badly done to in terms of coming at the bottom of the Yorkshire and Humber region. From that perspective, over a long period of time we feel we’ve done very badly, which is why we’re keen to have three schemes come forward all in a very short time period in order to catch up.

Q115 Chair: What’s the most important investment needed at the moment?

Dr Kelly: I think we very much accept what Government have come out with. The Chancellor has talked about reviewing the bridge tolls. We can live with Castle street. We have some issues with A160 on the current timescale, but I think the bridge toll review is paramount at the moment, given the economic difficulties that we’ll have in this area and the money that is taken out.

Matt Jukes: I agree with Ian’s comments, but I would also say that the road developments on both the north and south bank are particularly key. Obviously, we have had the announcement with regard to the DFT’s policy in assessing the various road schemes stating that the A63 and Castle street will be looked at in 2015. I think if you look at the potential that the Humber ports have for creating new jobs with regard to what Mr Harris said about rebalancing the economy, I think it isn’t just about a north bank to south bank switch for me, it is about creating manufacturing jobs. We’re not moving people down to the south-east to do jobs down there; what we need to do is create jobs in this region. I think the ports have a fantastic opportunity to be able to do that. There is private sector investment that will go into the ports, that would bring massive benefits to the regions that surround them. I think in Hull there are 5,000 people that come to work on the port every day. There are between 20,000 and 25,000 people that work in the port of Hull because the port is here. We have some significant opportunities, but it’s almost as if we need a catalyst of money to be spent on infrastructure upgrades in order for us to be able to deliver these opportunities.

Q116 Chair: Any other views on the most important kind of transport investment required?

Malcolm Bingham: I think for freight operators generally, one of the biggest problem areas is unreliability of journey time by road or rail. Where we see the problem is in an enormous amount of pinch points right across the north of England, effectively, but in this region as well. These areas need that investment to ensure that freight isn’t held up, which adds cost to the industry and the goods that are sold on to the customer.

Carole Goodair: Basically, in the last decade I think we’ve done all done a very good job in Hull in attracting people to live here and to get small businesses growing. Some of these businesses have grown into bigger businesses. I agree with everybody here, we’ve found ourselves in a situation where our road infrastructure just cannot take any more. We’ve widened them and done everything possible.

Q117 Chair: Your written evidence stresses roads a great deal, so is that what you see as an important area?

Carole Goodair: Yes, but it is linked in with customers being unable to get here.

Q118 Chair: So it is congestion and delays on the roads.

Carole Goodair: Basically, yes. We need some new infrastructure over the whole town. The roads are full to capacity at the moment. We’ve widened them and done everything we can to them. We just need a completely new infrastructure; for example, someone touched on the subject of a new ring road.

Q119 Paul Maynard: I’m delighted we’ve managed to establish that abolishing the toll was the No. 1 priority, because in all the briefings it was not clear which of the many transport projects in the area was the crucial one. How do you feel it is best to arrive at a hierarchy of importance? Everybody has ideas. This is addressed to Mr Dukes in particular: I note in Eddington he emphasises the importance of international gateways. Do you believe that the interests of the international gateways are best promoted at a national level or at a regional or sub-regional level?

Matt Jukes: There are a couple of questions within that. To go back to the point that we are all in agreement regarding the tolls, I think it’s a close run thing. I think that from the port’s perspective, the road and infrastructure is very important as well, as is free movement of labour across the Humber. In terms of Eddington, the main ports on the Humber-Hull, Immingham and Grimsby-were all identified as major important gateways in various DFT reports. I think the market will pretty much dictate where the port developments need to take place. It’s a competitive environment. There is private-sector investment that will take place on these facilities. I think if you look at how you prioritise transport investment, I think what isn’t taken into account now is the potential for future development. Currently we look at the existing structure and the existing problems. I think the next stage that is needed is to look at what doors could be opened as a result of various investments. I think there is a regional case to make there; there is also a national decision to be made.

Q120 Paul Maynard: Who should make that regional case?

Matt Jukes: I think you have got a selection of those individuals sitting in front of you today. It is for us to make sure that national Government are aware of the potential that we have both in terms of investment and job creation, and to make the case. We know funds are tight and will be getting tighter, but I think the balance needs to be between private-sector investment in the ports themselves and-because of the wider benefits-the wider stakeholders, be they regional or national, making sure that those international gateways are connected to the rest of the UK.

Q121 Chair: If resources are getting tighter-and they are-you have to identify what matters most. We’re trying to get a sense of what you think matters most. I know that everything matters, but what matters more?

Dr Kelly: Could I first of all say thank you very much for coming here, for a start? I appreciate that Philip Larkin called it the end of the line, but we see it as the gateway to Europe and the world, and that is why we emphasise that we do feel that we’ve been rather badly done to over generations. Therefore we feel we ought to be allowed a little catch up time, particularly if deprived areas in the private sector are going to play a leading role going forward. On the bridge tolls issue, again we take a sophisticated approach. We would say, for example, a £1 toll is a sensible toll for cars and also a calibrated approach for lorries, because we do appreciate that we can’t have everything all at once. As Matt says, there are three clustered issues, if you like, of schemes that are top of our list. We do have a dialogue, particularly in the private sector, with our local authorities across four authority areas in the Humber, to try and give you a generally calibrated, intelligent and consensual message.

Malcolm Bingham: I want to come back to the point about who should prioritise, and whether it should be a national issue or whether it should be a sub-regional issue. We’ve talked a lot this morning about goods coming through the international gateway, but those goods have got to get to the marketplace. The marketplace will not simply be a local area around the port. You must distribute it inwardly through corridors into the hinterland to the customers. Therefore, we believe that stage of planning and approval for infrastructure investment should be a national issue rather than a local one.

Q122 Iain Stewart: Mr Bingham touched on exactly the area that I wanted to raise. One of the areas we’re looking at is the balance between smaller, local, infrastructure projects and national, supra-region, strategic ones. Specifically, if you get your wish approved for rail improvements to the ports and then that is successful in generating high volumes of traffic, what is your capacity within the rest of the network to bring those goods in and out, or are we just going to be moving the problem from here to another part of the network? If so, that is something that needs to be addressed at a national level.

Matt Jukes: That’s right. Speaking from my own perspective, we’ve been working with Network Rail to identify the high capacity upgrades that we can do to the rail line in Hull. We did benefit from some funding from Yorkshire Forward and Network Rail, and Northern Way and ABP invested in upgrading our rail facilities about four years ago. Obviously, the high cube issue will only get us to Doncaster. The rail investment that is forecast for getting us up to high cube will get us to Doncaster and then we have to wait to get it to the rest of the UK market. I think it is important that the National Networks Study joins up along with the National Ports Study to not just identify what we need to do in our ports but, exactly as you said, to make sure that an onward distribution network is in place to connect the ports further inland.

Q123 Mr Harris: I’ll be delicate in how I put this. We’ve been here an hour so far and I get the distinct impression that you, and the previous witnesses, all have priorities and great ideas and everything. However, it comes down to who speaks for the area and who prioritises. I have to tell you, a Minister with spending decisions likes nothing more than a region with no specific action plan and with a whole range of spending commitments and spending requests, because then a Minister can just pick a few, and please some people and annoy other people. Where you don’t speak with a single voice and show that you are looking for specific priorities, it is not good for a particular region. Up until now, we’ve had a consensus on, "It would be a great thing to get rid of the tolls." Now we have a split there. Now a £1 toll is what is being looked for. I make that as a point rather than a question, but I’d appreciate your comments.

For example, we heard earlier on that the gauge enhancement, which would be needed to provide direct access to the port, has something like a £5 million price tag, whereas many of the road schemes are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds. Would it even be possible for there to be a consensus to say that the gauge enhancement project should take priority, since presumably the business case for that would be significantly higher in terms of outcomes? Is there not even consensus on prioritising that particular project?

Q124 Chair: Gauge enhancement, is that the top priority?

Matt Jukes: I think gauge enhancement is important but what you have to do is look at the growth areas that the Hull and Humber ports are looking at. We’re a short-seaport operation, which means we don’t handle the biggest deep-sea container ships. We handle smaller feedering vessels that will have come in from the continent from places such as Rotterdam and Antwerp. I think if you look at where the growth opportunity areas are, they’re in areas like renewables, which we have spoken about today. We have significant areas of land available for development on both the north and the south banks. It is an area where significant levels of investment and jobs are almost waiting for us to develop so that they can take advantage. It is the rebalancing that I touched upon earlier on. So I think looking at the potential of the ports, and looking at the development, investment and business growth potential from running the ports, I would say that rail enhancement would come after the road upgrades that we need.

Q125 Chair: Ms Goodair, what’s your view on that from a perspective of small businesses?

Carole Goodair: We need road improvements.

Q126 Chair: Is this new roads, or improvements and maintenance?

Carole Goodair: As I’ve said, the roads we have have been widened. We’re really stretched, there’s nothing else. I’m not an engineer, but looking at the roads when I’m driving around, there’s nothing more that we do that they haven’t tried to do. So we need to look at a whole new system that our town badly needs.

Q127 Chair: Is this to do with local roads?

Carole Goodair: It’s mainly the city centre, which affects the ports, the rail and the buses. How do the people get around once we bring them here?

Q128 Chair: You think city centre roads have more priority?

Carole Goodair: Particularly round the Hessle which links with the Humber bridge. When you get past there, it’s not quite as bad. As you know, once you head into Hull you go nowhere. Garrison road, which leads in, has engineering works and roundabouts. I could go on.

Q129 Mr Harris: I want to add a supplementary question there. As we approach the new age of austerity, isn’t it incumbent on you to go for the low-hanging fruit? If you hold out for some of these road projects, once you’re replaced a couple of roundabouts or widened them you will have hit the £5 million mark. Wouldn’t it be more strategic for you to go for what is actually achievable; not exclusively, but for example, the gauge enhancement. Frankly, looking into the future with a crystal ball, you’re not going to get hundreds of millions of pounds for these road projects.

Carole Goodair: All I’m saying is that it seems to me as though they’ve tried to do a very good job with the space that we’ve got here in Hull, but the population and small businesses have grown drastically over the last 10 years, and we’re now having a problem in trying to accommodate everything to keep it growing. The question is: where do we best spend the money? I’m willing to debate that this morning.

Dr Kelly: Unlike my colleague Mr Shipp’s buses, we’ve had nothing for so long that we now have three schemes that have come together all at once and are all critical for us. This is why we’re pushing all three. We have a complete consensus across the public and private sector-

Q130 Chair: What are the three?

Dr Kelly: That’s the bridge tolls, Castle street and the A160. The bridge tolls have been a logistical noose that has been tightening over the past 30 years. It is a debt issue-a revenue issue-for the Treasury. It is a toll tax; it is not a capital roads programme issue, so the two should be looked at in separate senses. We’ve paid over £330 million to the Exchequer for a bridge that cost £98 million-

Q131 Mr Harris: And we’re very grateful.

Dr Kelly: Indeed, but it’s a tax from this deprived part of the world, as we’re sometimes seen, down to London, which equates to £20 million a year out of the local economy. We get that right with a pound in the bucket from cars and you get £500 million worth of benefit to the local economy over the next 20 years. That is valuable. Therefore, what we’re saying within that is that we’ll not request complete abolition, because we’re reasonable people up here; we’ll say a pound in the bucket, but let’s get on with these two capital schemes as well-Castle street and the A160.

Malcolm Bingham: Can I just go back to the gauge issue to try and explore one area? We can move high cube boxes without increasing gauge. The problem is, it’s expensive to do so because you end up having to use low-slung wagons, which effectively you can only put one large box on as opposed to two on flat-bed wagons. Therefore it becomes a more expensive option and it starts to deter that type of freight movement through an area because it’s too expensive to do it; however, it can be done. I suppose really it depends what you’re trying to deliver. A lot of the things that come out of the south bank of the Humber are actually bulk freight that doesn’t need a high cube clearance, but if you tried to develop that potential to get fast moving commercial goods through the Humber ports, you would need that development to encourage private investment and private industry to receive it.

Chair: I know that all of these things are important; we’re just trying to identify things you see as the top priorities. It is not that other things don’t matter, though.

Q132 Kelvin Hopkins : I have a particular interest in rail freight and I don’t accept the arguments about rail freight not being the future simply because we haven’t got the right railway system at the moment. In Holland, by contrast, the Betuweroute from Rotterdam to the Ruhr was built by state funding and is capable of taking full-scale lorries on trains in double-stack containers. Everything is just done because the state wanted to do it. I don’t accept either that the age of austerity is going to go on. I think in three years’ time, the Government will be looking desperately for public sector projects to build in order to revive the economy, because we are going to go into a recession. That is a personal view that won’t be shared by the others. They will be looking for big things. What about a Betuweroute from Hull to the west midlands or the midlands, linking up with motorways, where you can roll on your lorries straight on to trains, either with the trailers or the tractors as well, and then roll off with a separate service, backwards and forwards, getting them to the places they need to go? That takes the pressure off local roads as well, there would be less road damage and less coned-off lanes for road repairs because lorries cause the damage. There would be all sorts of benefits. Would the thought of a dedicated rail freight route on flat land-there is plenty of it here, it seems, so it would not be difficult to do-from Hull to these other areas, with roll-on roll-off capacity, not be attractive?

Malcolm Bingham: I sometimes find it difficult arguing against how goods come in through our southern ports as compared with the northern ports. I advocate northern ports, but that exact opportunity for freight routes running across the north of England is sadly missing and it does discourage that type of movement.

Q133 Kwasi Kwarteng: My understanding is that we’re trying to find out from you what your needs are. I could come up with a scheme, with respect, and say, "Wouldn’t this be a good idea?" Actually, I think the fact-finding is very useful. From what I’m hearing, the bridge tolls and the road network are the two most important things by a very long way in terms of the eight people we have seen. That seems to be a very interesting finding from this morning.

Q134 Paul Maynard: We’ve had lots of ideas, lots of priorities and lots of schemes. I’d just like to explore what would happen if your dreams ever came true. You all represent business. What economic development planning did you observe taking place by the local councils when the direct rail services to London were restored? Equally, you’ve done a very good job campaigning over the issue of the tolls, what planning for economic development is currently occurring for if you ever got your wish and tolls were abolished on the Humber bridge? Is there any planning going on, or are you just going to make it up as you go along once it happens?

Matt Jukes: To answer your question, I think planning goes on all the time in relation to looking at the developments we have planned.

Chair: Could I ask members of the public, please, not to keep talking to witnesses? I’m sure they’re quite capable of answering for themselves. They’re doing very well.

Matt Jukes: So you look at the various schemes for development and investment that we have across the Humber ports and that goes on all the time. I think the argument in relation to bridge tolls has always been that it has been a hindrance to labour markets moving across the Humber bridge. Does it stop it? No. Does it stifle it? Probably yes, it does. Speaking from a parochial side, in Hull we have a bigger workforce so it’s not creating quite the same level of issue as it is on the south bank. We are on with our planning now; we don’t do it in case the bridge tolls go. We can’t stop our development plans on the basis of something we might not get, so it goes on all the time.

Q135 Paul Maynard: There is no specific response to specific projects. It’s ongoing.

Matt Jukes: Yes. I think the other point that I would make in relation to that particular north bank issue regarding the roads-and Mark Jones and Councillor Woods covered this to a degree earlier on-is that we are getting close to reaching capacity restriction on the A63 in Castle street. When we do reach that, further development at the port, which is on the eastern side of the city, will be objected to by the Highways Agency. We will stifle growth in the port. We can’t move the port. There have been some people that have suggested that we move it somewhere else; it’s not quite as straightforward as that. We will be facing the issue where we do have investments to make, where we do have jobs to create, and we have a lot of schemes on the table, but we won’t be able to because the highways network will be at capacity.

Q136 Chair: I want to turn to appraisal schemes. Do you think that current ways of doing appraisals for schemes to see which are better for economic growth are adequate? Indeed, are they clear on how decisions are made? Does anybody have a view on that?

Malcolm Bingham: From our point of view, inputting into appraisals can be difficult from an industry point of view. We think we understand what it is and we try to lobby in that way to make sure that our members’ views are reflected in those appraisals. We do that by consulting democratically through our system to get our members’ views about what priorities should come first. Sometimes we find it very difficult to get that information into the right place. We feed it, but we’re not sure how much notice is taken of it.

Q137 Chair: Is that a general view of it, that you’re not clear or happy with it?

Matt Jukes: I’ve alluded to it a little bit before, but the point that I would make in terms of the appraisal process as it stands is that looking at the potential the investments can unlock is not something that is taken into account at the moment to any significant degree. The Humber is the busiest port complex in the UK. We are right next to the round three offshore development zones for the biggest offshore wind developments in the world. If we can unlock both north and south bank access issues, we have the key strategic sites in the Port of Hull and on the south bank that we can develop. We need to make sure that the logistics that work for the manufactures, both in terms of their supply and in terms of their staff. If that kind of potential regarding what we can achieve if we spend the money is actually reflected in an assessment, that’s the way you’ll get best value for money. I don’t think that happens at the moment.

Q138 Chair: Are you involved in the new Local Economic Partnerships? You’re laughing, which we can’t record, so you will have to say something about that. Why are you laughing?

Dr Kelly: I think obviously one or two people may have spotted that we had a small hiccup on the LEPs issue locally, which we are looking to resolve in a multi-tier way. We feel we’ve all been put on a football pitch with no white lines or goalposts by Eric Pickles and Vince Cable, because the two Departments have differing views themselves. So our business perspective, looking at a pan-Humber model-as there is a ports cluster, a chemical cluster and a chamber development support through the Humber model-is different from what Eric Pickles has been talking about, which was a, "Run barefoot through the grass and do what you like," sort of approach. In that sense, it’s not been helpful to us.

We will find solutions: we’re probably going to need a multi-tiered LEPs approach that reflects differing local authority requirements to get access to pathfinder housing cash. Business needs to look at this as the largest trading estuary in the UK and recognise the huge opportunities for renewables. ABP and ourselves at the chamber have been working very closely to try and work with the four local authorities; indeed, even when they’re whispering in my ear, we do still talk to the local authorities and we will find solutions. However, we in the private sector do feel we’ve not been helped by what, I think Richard Lambert called, "A bit of a shambles of a process."

Q139 Chair: Well that’s quite diplomatic. Does anybody have anything to add on LEPs and your involvement or non-involvement?

Malcolm Bingham: Only stepping back one stage. When industry looks at a new Government proposal of this sort, there’s always uncertainty about how you engage with that process. I think that’s our problem at the moment. The uncertainty of where LEPs are going, and indeed even the formatting of them, means that it seems to be pretty open to local organisations to set up, and that’s difficult for us to understand and input into at this stage.

Q140 Chair: How important are local bus services to your businesses?

Dr Kelly: They’re not specifically important usually to the Chief Executives or Managing Directors, but to the employees they are actually. Good transport infrastructure through the buses is important. We don’t have trams or guided bus systems. We do have some good bus companies and I think, in that respect, we are able to access larger rural areas to bring into our urban centres. In that regard, we are very much supportive of the bus industry being allowed to function effectively across the whole Humber sub-region, rural and urban areas alike.

Q141 Chair: We had a very good journey up here this morning on Hull First. Has that made a big contribution to the economy here?

Dr Kelly: I was part of the delegation led by Alan Johnson and Hull City Council that led the charge. Chris Garnett at the old GNER said there wasn’t demand in this part of the world for a good train service above and beyond once there and once back a day. I think we’ve proved, having put the evidence base in front of the Strategic Rail Authority at the time, that there is the demand for a quality service in this part of the world, and we have a first class service which we worked together on to get. It has made a big difference in helping businesses to come up to Hull and for us, as business leaders, to get down to London to tell you our needs.

Matt Jukes: I would just emphasise that point. I think increasingly, as we try to attract inward investment of significant levels from big international companies, the links with this region and London are very important. Most of them will have head offices in London. It’s all about not just the offer in terms of what we can develop and what we can provide but the quality of life, connectivity and everything else. So I think the direct calls are important to us.

Q142 Kwasi Kwarteng: I just wanted to pick up on something you said earlier about appraisals. You were suggesting that we weren’t looking at the potential; we were looking at page, as it were, as we see it. What specific decisions would your approach support that aren’t been taken now? That is directed to Mr Jukes.

Matt Jukes: I think, again, our written evidence made reference to the Humber Green Economy Gateway scheme that we’re looking at. There is Humber potential for all of that. There has obviously been Government involvement in relation to trying to attract the offshore wind turbine manufacturers to the UK and we’re in the ideal spot to be able to deliver that. I think when you look at that kind of potential, and when you join us, not just locally in doing a hard sell in relation to national Government but listening to the big international companies that want to come to the UK and want to come to the Humber, the decision-making process for road upgrades-I would focus specifically on seeing that as the key growth market that we have in the short to medium term-would be speeded up dramatically.

I accept the point that road upgrades are significantly more expensive than rail enhancements, but we have to recognise the strengths that we have as well as the weaknesses. Regarding the southern ports and their rail access, there are large volumes of containers coming in to the southern ports on deep-sea ships all going to single locations. The Humber isn’t a deep-sea operation in relation to containers, so you get 300 or 400 containers coming in at a time; the way logistics works is that it’s best to distribute those by road, like it or not. Of course, I suppose the other side to that and the other thing we have on the Humber is in waterway connectivity and sustainable transport, not just through rail but through coastal shipping. We can take advantage of that. To your specific point, it would be to get the engagement from the people that will invest and listen to local businesses both sides of the Humber. This is something on which we are entirely agreed. This is a massive opportunity for us. It’s not a case of either, "We’d like it on the south bank," or, "We’d like it on the north bank." What we’re saying is that there’s potential on both sides, and we’d like it on both sides please. In doing this we will unlock a massive opportunity.

Q143 Chair: Thank you very much and thank you for coming and answering our questions.

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Peter Shipp, Chairman and Chief Executive, East Yorkshire Motor Services, James Adeshiyan, General Manager, First Hull Trains, Adam Fowler, Co-ordinator, Hull Environment Forum, and Professor Peter Mackie, Research Professor, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, gave evidence.

Q144 Chair: Good afternoon gentlemen. Could I ask you please to give your name and the organisation that you represent for our records and to help identify you on our recording?

James Adeshiyan: James Adeshiyan from First Hull Trains.

Professor Mackie: Peter Mackie from the Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds.

Adam Fowler: Adam Fowler, from the City of Hull and Humber Environment Forum.

Peter Shipp: Peter Shipp, Chairman and Chief Executive of EYMS Group, which is a private, independent bus company. I think it is the largest of its type in the country.

Q145 Chair: Thank you very much. What types of transport investment should we prioritise or would you like to see prioritised here? Who would like to start?

Professor Mackie: I would like to see urban transport investment prioritised. I believe we have a significant deficit in urban transport infrastructure; that inevitably means public transport, things aiming at reliability and service quality improvements in our big cities. I believe that the cities are the engines of the future economy, and poor quality supporting infrastructure-in the transport sector among others-is a constraint on economic performance. In the north of England we have these big conurbations 40 miles apart. The connectivity between those conurbations and the opportunity to create what Professor Robson from Manchester University used to call the Hanseatic League of the North is a very important opportunity for the UK.

Chair: So urban transport and connectivity.

Q146 Kwasi Kwarteng: On that specific point you gave a very full answer, but it was a very general answer. "Connectivity" is a very general word; I am very interested in what modes you would be promoting. Regarding this Hanseatic League, will there be a rail link? Will there be a road link or bus services? What sort of specifics could you give us on that?

Professor Mackie: Obviously that is where assessment comes into the picture. If you ask me my knowledge of the relative merits of electrification and higher speeds on a trans-Pennine line versus improved capacity on the M62 and the M60, then I’d say you’re not asking the right person. I say evidence base is crucial, and you need a lot of information from a lot of sources in order to be able to be in a position to make those choices.

Q147 Kwasi Kwarteng: With respect, you can understand that, from the point of view of a Minister or of Government, saying, "We need better connectivity," isn’t particularly helpful. We all agree that we need better connectivity, but I think for the purposes of the Committee, we have to try and really get some sort of specificity and focus on what the nature of those connections will be.

Q148 Chair: Would anyone like to join in and be more specific on what’s required or perhaps have a different view? In terms of priorities, we all want everything. We’re trying to identify what you see as your priorities.

Peter Shipp: I’m pleased to note that you and one or two of your colleagues have mentioned bus services. They tend to be the forgotten things sometimes. I accept that bus services aren’t an end to everything and I agree with a lot of what my colleagues earlier this morning have said about the Humber bridge tolls and about Castle street, because Castle street is important to us as well. We don’t particularly use it, but of course what happens when Castle street gets blocked is that traffic overflows into the city centre and then causes all sorts of problems. You did mention specifically BSOG and concessionary fares. My take on all this would be that every aspect, in a sense, needs some investment, but I do question the need for some of the very expensive capital schemes, in whatever mode. Some of them are very justifiable but I question some others.

My view would be, certainly, that one of the priorities ought to be to maintain what we have and improve it. I think that’s a point Professor Mackie made in his paper, which I’ve only had a brief chance to look at this morning. It seems to me that we’re in danger of losing some of what we have, and surely our first priority should be to maintain what we have and improve it, so long as it’s good, rather than necessarily go for great schemes that cost an awful lot of money. I can bring you one particular specific action plan that I think you wanted, Mr Harris, and that was to maintain the level of concessionary fares reimbursement and BSOG, because for about £5 million a year we can maintain the level of bus services in this area. The issues are the same in the rest of the country, but they seem to be somewhat exaggerated in this area because East Riding is largely a rural authority, which, as a lot of people seem to forget, is one of the largest rural areas in the country and is very difficult to serve.

What concerns me is that buses as a whole throughout the UK carry about 64 million passengers a year, according to my latest figures from 2008; that’s three times the entire rail and underground network. Even if you exclude leisure from that figure, it’s still about 51 million passengers a year, which is still over twice the number on the entire rail and underground network. In Hull, for example, we know from figures that the council has produced that nearly half of people who come in to Hull to shop, come in by bus. What concerns me is that proposed BSOG cuts, even at 20% and not until 2012-but 2012 is only 18 months away-will lose my company £600,000 a year. At the moment the proposal for concessionary fares risks losing us £2.25 million a year, and that’s going to mean, inevitably, however hard we try, major cuts in bus services and a large increase in bus fares. My concern is that’s going to stifle investment and stifle existing employment. As Ian Kelly mentioned, the bosses don’t tend to use buses, but the employees certainly do.

Q149 Chair: Do smaller local schemes or wider strategic schemes matter most? How are you going to get connectivity, if you don’t have the wider strategic schemes?

Adam Fowler: I think that’s an important point. Just to come back to the context of rail investment, mention has been made of connectivity with London. Often, Hull and the Humber area looks westwards in the wider regional context, and certainly one of our problems has been-and I think our friends in West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire have faced this as well-congestion issues in the Leeds–Manchester corridor. I certainly think that the Humber sub-region is somewhat divorced from its natural centre, which should be looking west. London is important and Hull Trains has done a fantastic job, and not just in terms of connectivity. I think the issue here is what transport can do for the perception of an area like Hull. It hasn’t just created more direct trains, for example, between Hull and London, it has spread the word of what Hull and the sub-region has to offer. It’s important to see transport in a wider social and economic role as well. Coming back to your specific question earlier about investment in the rail infrastructure, let’s look west. There are certainly signalling issues and infrastructure issues. It is logical to look at how Hull and the East Riding area and indeed, to some extent, the south bank in the south Humber region are connected to the west.

Q150 Chair: Any specific schemes in the pipeline or perhaps being rejected or deferred that you think should be instigated?

Adam Fowler: There is one that continually gets pushed back, and that is signalling issues. Hull is a major port city, of course-as you’ve heard from ABP-and yet the last train into Hull on an evening from the West is 11 o’clock at night, because of Victorian signal boxes. Now certainly my colleagues at Hull and East Riding councils and Yorkshire Forward have been pushing for a long time to get major investments to automate the crossings between Hull and the connection with the mainline west. So from a business and even a prestige point of view, it’s absurd that you can’t leave London later than half past eight at night with First Hull Trains or even later than 10 o’clock at night from Leeds or Manchester. That’s been going on now for 20 or so years.

Q151 Chair: So you see looking at those things as very important and-

Adam Fowler: Yes, and it would be relatively small-scale investment as well with signalling and crossing improvements.

Q152 Paul Maynard: We do seem to be retreating somewhat from our consensus about tolls on the bridges being the big issue. We’ve heard several different answers now. With particular regard to perhaps Mr Adeshiyan, I’m interested in what involvement you all have in terms of trying to set an agreed transport agenda for the sub-region. Where do you all come together to discuss these issues and thrash out what you think is important? Where you have a pot of money, how do you apportion it? Is there any body that exists where these issues are discussed and conclusions are reached that can then be presented upwards to Government?

Q153 Chair: Is there any way in the new proposed arrangements that you think you will be able to come together to identify priorities? Mr Adeshiyan, do you want to comment on that?

James Adeshiyan: From a First Hull Trains perspective, I think what the individuals on the Panel have actually said is that sometimes there are no straightforward answers in terms of some of the actual challenges that Hull and the Humber face. From a First Hull Trains perspective, we’ve always seen that the through service to London would unlock some of the economic potential of this particular region. In as far as the wider strategic issues within Hull and the Humber and coming together to discuss what the actual real key drivers are for wider transport solutions, I have to say, from my perspective, that it has been pretty focused on rail and rail alone, in a sense. Some of the bigger challenges around the more urban issues, as opposed to the direct link from London to Hull, also need to be looked at, as Adam said. That’s something that I would concur with. I think where I do agree with him is that some of the more localised schemes, such as the branch line that you came up on today, for example, between Selby and Hull, are the areas which do need ongoing investment. Bearing in mind, back in 1999 we only had one direct service from London to Hull and around 3% growth at that particular time. By 2005, after the introduction of our service in 2000, that had risen to something like a 61% growth level in traffic to London. Obviously, there was a need for that particular direct link. I would say that investment on that particular line hasn’t especially followed, but then again, why would it with some of the bigger challenges in the wider community?

From my perspective, anything that can be done by Network Rail to improve some of the signalling challenges that we have would be beneficial. On that particular line we have seven signal boxes, for example. As Adam has said, those signal boxes will close at a particular time because those individuals are on 12-hour shifts, so it does restrict the ongoing growth of direct services to London for First Hull Trains. For us, that would need to be an area of any scheme that we were to look at. It would be around the infrastructure on that branch line going on to the east coast mainline, which is a more strategic issue and one that is currently being looked at.

Q154 Chair: Professor Mackie, could you give us an idea of how it’s going to be possible for people to come together to decide what their priorities are under the new regime, whether it’s local government, business or others with an interest in an area wider than their locality?

Professor Mackie: No, I have absolutely no idea of how this is going to work, and I am extremely worried that there is going to be an institutional deficit. We are seeing several things happening simultaneously: a reduction in the capacity of the Department for Transport at central level; a reduction in the significance of the RDA tier; a change in the planning system; an abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies; and the creation of the LEPs. I could go on, but let me say just one thing. I think transport is a particularly difficult area in planning terms, because you have the local interest, or the regional interest, interfaced with the national interest. You need both parties to come together and it is not at all clear how that is going to play out in this new environment. If your Committee can help to address the question of how it’s going to play out, and to put your views, I feel that will be one big win from your inquiry.

Q155 Chair: Mr Shipp, do you have any different views on how people will be able to come together to be able to indentify priorities?

Peter Shipp: Not really a different view, but I think at the moment it is a disappointment. I’m not too knowledgeable about them, but from what I hear it is a disappointment that we haven’t managed to get together to get a LEP sorted out for this area. It does seem disappointing, because to me that would seem to be a major way forward. I hope that can be solved soon. In the meantime-and I’m no spokesman for it although we’ve been a member for a long time-the Hull and Humber Chamber of Commerce is a major chamber in the country. It spans the Humber and it embraces private business and the public sector very well, I think. We are involved in it very closely and in the absence of anything else, and, as Professor Mackie says, the disappearance of some of the bodies that might do that function at the moment, I think there is a function there for the Chamber, which works very well and could work even better if given more support and more involvement from business and the public sector.

Adam Fowler: Chair, I share the concerns that there is a danger here that we will become almost parochial. The one thing we did have with organisations such as the RDAs was a big regional strategic view. I think that some of the evidence that has been presented just previous to us, about how the future of the Humber is the Humber and about some of the investment we can capture, is very important. If we get too localised and don’t see that Yorkshire and Humber view, transport will suffer. Unfortunately, if we are not careful, we are going to see that fragmentation. For some of the big issues, it should not just be the Hull and East Riding or the North Lincolnshire authorities on their own. We need to see the bigger picture from a transport perspective.

The other point I would make is that transport has to be sustainable and responsive. It’s there for freight, but it’s also there for movement of people in one way or another. To echo one of Peter’s points earlier, one thing I’m concerned about, depending on whether you are in an urban or a rural context, but particularly in the rural context, is sustaining that network with Bus Service Operators Grant, concessionary fare reimbursement, and the pressure local authorities are coming under to support fragile marginal service.

We are quite lucky in this area that we do have a local operator willing to put more back into the region than in other similar areas. We don’t get into a situation like North Yorkshire, where there are proposals for large-scale cuts. Only last week I ran a surgery with members of the public, and already I am hearing from people who are having difficulties getting into work. So in an economic context, young people living in rural areas and trying to find work in the urban context are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain that fragile sustainable network, which is generally to do with bus services.

Q156 Iain Stewart: Thank you. Two questions from me. The first is specifically to Mr Adeshiyan. First Hull Trains has clearly been a success story in increasing services and increasing passenger volumes. I’m just wondering what evidence you have to show whether you have grown the market-have you increased the total number of people travelling between those destinations, or have you been successful in replacing journeys by people who maybe would have driven all the way to London or driven to Doncaster to connect to a train from there? My second question to the panel more generally: I’m trying to get a steer on what barriers there are to developing the LEPs in this area as a cohesive voice. Is there a historical rivalry between the north and the south? I know the Humberside area was much derided from the ’70s onwards. Is it a cultural and historical barrier or is there something else that we should be looking at?

James Adeshiyan: I’ll answer the first question as best I can. I think from a First Hull Trains perspective, what we have done is not only grown the overall pot of rail travel from this particular part of the country, we’ve also continually grown it over the last 10 years. I think what comes out of that-

Q157 Chair: Mr Adeshiyan, the question is not about the undoubted success of First Hull Trains, which we all acknowledge; we’re looking at the cohesiveness, or otherwise, of the area, in terms of moving forward with new priorities. That’s simply what we want to explore at the moment.

James Adeshiyan: All I would say really is that the aim of First Hull Trains was to increase travel to London. We’ve done that successfully and I think it is important to note that it has been very good for the local community to be connected to London, and as a result of that the number of journeys taken to London has increased massively over the last 10 years.

Q158 Iain Stewart: Is that total journeys, looking at all modes of transport?

James Adeshiyan: Total journeys, basically. I think what we’ve been successful in doing, which is important as well, is moving people from cars into trains, especially on routes such as Selby and Brough, but also from Hull directly.

Q159 Chair: Professor Mackie, what can you tell us about the cohesiveness of the area?

Professor Mackie: I wanted just to comment on the second question, if I may. I’m just an academic so I’m an outsider in how these circles really work, but I do think the Northern Way has been an extremely useful space. It has enabled interested parties from different parts of the three regions to come together and begin to interface, if you like, with technical discussions about schemes, and form views about strategic questions like the high-speed line. To my mind, as an outsider, it’s been quite a revelation in terms of the success of getting people with different local interests in a room together to engage with the big questions. Going back to one of the discussions from a previous session, I will be sorry if that space is a casualty of what is going on at the moment.

Adam Fowler: If I may answer the second part of your question, there are different levels. First Hull Trains is one example of big strategic schemes, but also the work with First Trans Pennine Express to create a half-hourly service between Hull, Leeds and Manchester is another priority we all see. The Chamber of Commerce and the local authorities have worked together on it and I hope it will become an option, and possibly there will be electrification of the rail line to Hull once the infrastructure has been upgraded. I think there is general partnership working on that, and Yorkshire Forward and the Northern Ways helped with that. Having recently sat on a scrutiny commission for one of the local authorities round here, I agree that there is still some local parochialism and it stops at the boundary. We can’t have that; it has to be the bigger picture. Potentially there is parochialism on the north bank with the two local authorities, but also on the south bank as well. Often there is very little synergy beyond the big schemes, whether it be freight or passenger, and the link between the north and south bank. The recurrent theme we hear today is that the Humber is one product socially, culturally and economically. As Peter said, often it is the small-scale interventions that make sure things connect; if there is public sector investment, sustaining what we have and that responsive network. Particularly from an economic perspective, if the new jobs are to come to the rural areas, even some of the outer urban areas, we have to provide a responsive, sustainable transport network, not just think immediately of the private car but train, dial-a-ride and community transport. The bus network, particularly round here, is a major impact. I would stick my neck out here and say that certainly at a local level we need more joint working about what we are trying to achieve and to recognise the importance of the best way to get people from A to B and therefore what those needs are.

Q160 Mr Harris: at the risk of provoking gales of laughter, what do you think of the Local Enterprise Partnerships? Would your own organisations get involved in them?

Peter Shipp: I do not know enough about them to be specific, but from what I hear we would certainly wish to get involved. I see them as a major influence on transport infrastructure and projects, and transport generally. That is my business and that is what I am passionate about. I would certainly get involved, as I try to do in more or less everything else that goes on. In answering the question why we have not come up with a particular proposal for one and there are conflicting ones, I agree with Adam that to some extent perhaps there is local parochialism, but when we were asked by consultants what we would suggest personally, it actually embraced both. It might have been too big for what the Government are proposing. I am not quite sure, but that would be the south bank and would include the Scarborough area. The trouble is, in my view, in the southern part of the north bank there is a definite linkage with the south bank; clearly, ports and everything else go together. However, towards the north of the old Humberside region-I use that word carefully, as you have said-there is a definite linkage with Scarborough and that part of North Yorkshire. It might be too big, but, not knowing the details of how the Government wish these things to happen, I can see some merit in it being a rather larger one. Certainly, we would very much wish to take part in whatever happens there.

Q161 Chair: Professor Mackie, do you want to add anything?

Professor Mackie: Briefly, I think Peter Shipp has posed a key question. Even in a relatively self-contained part of the world the question arises as to what boundaries these things should have in order to deliver effective transport planning and prioritisation throughout their areas, and what powers and funding they should have in order to help determine the relative priority of transport against all other sectors of local authority expenditure. I would reiterate that the 28% cut in the CLG revenue budget is potentially very important for transport.

Mr Harris: Is it right to get the impression that at this stage, as far as the Local Enterprise Partnerships are concerned, no one is quite clear about how they will operate or how effective they will be? Have you had any role at all in early discussions about them?

Q162 Chair: I think you are saying "No". We can’t record nods of the head.

Professor Mackie: No.

Peter Shipp: I speak from my own point of view. We have a little knowledge. I am aware of others, particularly the chamber, who have a lot more knowledge than I do. I think there has been quite a lot of discussion, and it is important now that we try to get acts together and put a proper proposal to the Government, one that I hope could be accepted. I know that the first tranche has been agreed. That is very important because I see it as having a major influence on the transport side, apart from anything else.

Q163 Kwasi Kwarteng: Having asked specific questions in earlier testimonies, I want to ask a very general question. I appreciate that all of you have specific hats-academia, trains, the environment forum and so forth-but you know the area. What do people out there-the consumers who use your products-think about transport in the area? What do you hear? What is your sense of consumer or customer satisfaction in terms of transport in this area?

Peter Shipp: Generally, the impression is quite good. I am an advocate for bus services but I readily acknowledge the importance to many businesses of cars and trains. No doubt First Hull Trains has developed the market; it has taken quite a bit off coach services to London. Be that as it may, you are catering for a slightly different market. I think the overall impression is very good. People complain about the road network and the traffic particularly on Castle street; they say the traffic is terrible. I know from experience elsewhere that it is not quite as bad as some other places, but it is a major issue for Hull. Castle street in particular and the Humber bridge tolls constantly come up as a public issue as well.

Adam Fowler: It is relative. Generally, if you are looking at road issues and congestion in the Humber region, it is nothing like what I am sure many Members here face in the South and South East. It is relative, isn’t it?

Q164 Kwasi Kwarteng: What do people talk about?

Adam Fowler: I do not think it is that. It is a mixed view. Certainly, First Hull Trains and Trans Pennine have benefited; there are certain gaps in other parts of the local rail structure with Northern and the perception of rail travel there. For bus travel, in the urban area, certainly in Hull, Grimsby and Scunthorpe to some extent, we run surgeries as well. In all those areas we speak to thousands of people every year. Generally, in the more urban areas it is a pretty stable, responsive bus network. As you get out, as I did this morning-I left a surgery in the rural East Riding towards Spurn point-the perception of bus travel is much less because, as Peter mentioned, they are very rural areas.

Professor Mackie: I have to answer for Leeds because I do not know about this area. For Leeds, the issues are queuing on the motorway, unreliability, poor resilience and the wires down at Retford on the east coast main line. There is a set of issues of that kind. Reliability and resilience of the network are crucial.

Q165 Chair: Mr Adeshiyan, is there anything? Apart from First Hull Trains, which we know about.

James Adeshiyan: To be fair, I do not have much to add. The big issue that people mention is the resilience of our infrastructure.

Chair: Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming to answer our questions.