Proving that Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary, is pro-car, anti-rail...Sardine time!

The new Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond, is still a worrying figure. I never know what he is going to do next. Last week he announced that the last government's train carriage procurement programme would undergo an “urgent reappraisal.” This programme was put in place by Labour in March 2007 to build for Britain's railway network 1,300 brand-spanking, shiny new carriages by March 2014. By March this year 526 had been delivered with around a 100 more on order. The carriages were introduced to ease the capacity problems that have the potential to make everyone feel like a sardine in the near future, as it was estimated that by March 2014 there would be a 17 per cent (64,900) increase in peak commuter traffic into London, and a 27 per cent rise (17,400) in the numbers of people travelling into other cities.

With the economic crisis in full swing, it was unlikely that these sorts of projects would be immune from cuts. Lets face it, while capacity is a severe problem between 8 and 9 am, when there is on weekdays half the day's inward London commuter traffic, capacity is not a problem at other times. Therefore, the rational for vast expenditure on just one hour of traffic is not as great as safety equipment, new lines or maintenance. After all, people can just travel earlier if they don't like it. That is, at least, what some people think.

The backdrop for the “urgent reappraisal” of the project was the National Audit Office's (NAO) report on the government's plans to address the potential capacity problems. Now the report, which has been framed by almost every news outlets as being a 'hammer-blow' to the project and a shocking indictment of profligate Labour spending, was quite measured in looking at the programme from a viewpoint in a changed economic environment. If people had bothered to read it (well I've read the summary) they would have realised this.

It stated a number of things that perhaps we should have really expected with an economic downturn. Firstly the growth in commuter passengers is unlikely to materialise as predicted. We're not, however, talking a 20% drop, not even 10%, but only a meagre 5%, and even that is a bit pie-in-the-sky as the report suggests that “There are some signs that the recession has indeed reduced the use of rail but the extent of the impact is not yet clear.” Secondly, the report stated that the cost of building the new carriages has gone up since 2007, which means that the Department for Transport would either have to incur more cost to fund the same number of carriages, or keep spending at the same level and purchase fewer carriages. This was, quite naturally, a good chance for the Daily Mail to attack Labour by accusing it of wasteful spending.

But in reality the report was a mixed one for the former government. It criticises the model that they used for predicting passenger rises, stating that the sample of information used was not large enough. The predictions also did not take into account the relationship between economic growth and passenger numbers, and made assumptions that simplified the realities of the real world so that result could be obtained. Thus these factors may have distorted the predictions. But let us not get totally disheartened. Overall the report stated that the forecasting was 'robust' and was based on a 'good knowledge of the railway network.' Indeed, it also states that the real world assumptions were inevitable given that it is incredibly difficult to predict some passenger behaviour, for example when a passenger changes off their 'preferred' train because they don't want to be on a crowded one. Further, it also stated that the models used for economic growth were 'in line with treasury guidance,' and on this count the DfT cannot be blamed as they wouldn't really go elsewhere for this information now would they? Therefore, there may be some room for justifiable criticism of the forecasts, but in reality I will give the Labour DfT 6/10, as some things were done right.

Indeed, Philip Hammond saying that the former government was profligate with money actually contradicts the report. It states that the Department, 'is assessing each scheme again for value for money before approving them.' While on a cursory reading this may seem that these assessments were introduced by the current government, the NAO was actually compiling information for the report between July and October 2009. It was, therefore, the previous government that was assessing each project's value for money, and for Hammond to make this claim when the initial rational for the procurement project was sound and the change in economic environment was unknown in 2007, is verging on ridiculous. Let us not forget, it was they who actually commissioned the report, and there is nothing to say that they wouldn't have decided to put the new carriages on hold as well. Hammond is therefore just using the report to bash the previous government. While that is something I am never afraid of doing, I won't do it unfairly.

In truth, I think it is sensible in the short-term for the government to reassess the building of new carriages, especially as the cost is now higher than it was before. What has really got me worried, what has really made me stir, is Hammond. I suspect this will be used by him as the basis to rule out, for the term of this government, any new carriage procurement or capacity-increasing measures. It will mean that as the passenger traffic continues to grow (and remember they can't prove yet that there has been any drop in numbers) the government will simply allow passenger trains to become more crowded. I can't prove for sure that this is Hammond's long-term thinking, but it wouldn't surprise me given the evidence that I will now present proving his pro-road, anti-rail perspective.

Now I have banged on about Hammond's suspected pro-road attitude before in the blog, citing comments he has made that I think allude to it. Yet I (and the rest of the media apparently) have found nothing concrete, nothing solid, that confirms all the fears of those in the railway industry or in the press that he holds these views. Hammond, as the head of the Department of Transport, isn't exactly going to state that he prefers one form of travel over another is he (and congratulations to Norman Baker, Minister of State for Transport for dodging the question on the Daily Politics Show earlier). To come out explicitly favouring one sort of transport when he hasn't been long in the job would be lunacy.

So I did a bit of digging on a wonderful site called 'They Work For You', looking for any comments that Hammond has made on his possible love of cars as opposed to railways. I did not expect to find the evidence that follows. This evidence conclusively proves what I have come to suspect in the last few months. In a debate in Parliament on regional policy in January 2003 Hammond made this comment:-

“Although everyone would like railways and airports in their regions that will help to generate economic development, such transport investments depend on volume and critical mass to deliver effective services. I am afraid to say—because it flies in the face of much Government thinking—that only roads, as a form of transport infrastructure, are likely to deliver the short-term immediate benefits to the regions where economic development needs kick-starting.”

How about this this one from a debate in November of 2003 on the Quality of Life, when he said:-

“If those people go by train, they will have plenty of time to ponder on the longer journey times and decreased reliability of a railway that is soaking up ever-larger volumes of taxpayer's money. And they will perhaps have a chance to consider the Government's extraordinary feat in turning a poorly performing element of our infrastructure—our national railway—into a worse performing one, which now seems to need to double as a bottomless pit for public finance, if we are to avoid its imploding completely. If they go by car, they will be able to contemplate the £45 billion in taxes that Government impose on motorists, while considering that Britain's spends the lowest proportion of motoring taxes on transport of any country in the western world.”

His last comment is from the Finance Bill, debated in June 2008, in which he uses a 'road' example and breezes over rail investment as being good for business:-

“One can envisage such situations with railway or new road infrastructure, if we are trying to encourage private companies, as the Government have done with the M6 toll motorway for investment in road infrastructure. Similar considerations would apply—very long payback periods for very durable pieces of investment.”

I will let you read what you will into these comments individually. However, joining the dots between them, which are all clearly on the pro-car side of the fence, and his more recent statements that I have detailed in a previous blog entry, (To be found HERE) the evidence suggests that we have a Secretary of State for transport that is very anti-railways and very pro-roads. Therefore, having Hammond as Transport Secretary may potentially mean that rail investment as a whole will suffer, while the car reigns supreme. I feel I need to be dipped in Oil, it's Sardine time!

There are now multiple ways to connect with Turnip Rail:

Turniprail's Facebook page to be found HERE
Or via Twitter HERE

I'm even planning a web-site...

The Worrying Transport Secretary, Mr Hammond...

So this has been a tough week for me...I'm starting to worry about the new transport secretary. I wrote a few weeks back about how traditionally Conservative governments haven't ordinarily been the best for the railways in terms of investment, attitude and simply being logical about policy. It is quickly starting to seem that Philip Hammond, the new Secretary of State, simply isn't the best for the Department of Transport (DfT). This isn't a matter of cuts, we know that they'll happen. Indeed, under the new regime, nearly £700 million has already been cut from the DfT's budget, including £100 million from the profligate Network Rail, £108 million from Transport for London, £309 from grants to local transport authorities for investment and the £50 million 'Better Rail Stations' scheme has been scrapped. This said, certain things such as Crossrail, the new High Speed line and, much to my astonishment, the electrification scheme, have all been guaranteed and the government's commitment is secure.

No, my concern is that Hammond is a man who is unsuitable for the Department for Transport. This is especially pertinent as there are so many other individuals that, in my opinion, would have been better in that post. Lets look at Hammond's résumé. Now being Secretary of State for Transport you'd expect to find some background knowledge of transport matters apart from the fact he pootles around in his car. Yea, I couldn't find anything, not one jot, apart from his intimate knowledge of his Jaguar XJ. Hammond was elected as MP for Runymead and Weybridge in 1997, and before then had a business career in property, manufacturing, consultancy and oil and gas. He also had a position of the board of the property developers, the Castlemead Group, and has had various consulting jobs, most notably for the Malawian Government and the World Bank. As such he apparently still holds onto many business interests, having a small fortune of a 9 million pounds according to the New Statesman.

So let me get this straight, this man has not had a career anywhere near transport, that's of course beyond flying to Malawi and driving. OK, well surely in opposition he was shadow Transport Secretary and has learnt about Transport issues? No, wait, that was Theresa Villers. Hammond was Shadow Secretary to the Treasury. Therefore my conclusion is that Hammond doesn't know about transport beyond his own experiences of it. Instead, he knows about money. I appreciate that money is a big issue at the moment, and we need someone that is savvy about such things, but on the flip side we also need someone who knows about transport, not just from their subjective perspective. But hey, the last holder of the post, Lord Adonis, wasn't that aware of transport issues before he started, beyond being very interested in them and, I suspect, being a railway enthusiast. But he learnt on the job, listened to experts, read all the documents. Therefore, while I genuinely feel that government posts should always be given to people who actually know about the department they are working in (George Osborne...really?), if we have to have have Secretary of States with no background pertinent to the job of the department, then they should take time to understand everything they can about it.

In this vein I'd expect Hammond at this stage to be making measured and constructive comments...right?...sorry, wrong again. Hammond has already deferred to his own subjective opinion when opening his mouth. Firstly, as I pointed out recently, Hammond believes that under Labour there was a 'War on motorists,' something he announced on his first full day in the job. Where? Do you hear the guns? Or perhaps the distressed motorist yearning for the battle to be over. Lets get this straight, the 'war' never existed. Its in his head. But then again, he is a motorist! What's more he has already talked, in an interview with the Evening Standard about his attitude towards cyclists, a number in which I count myself.

Now, just to put this on record, I believe that a lot of cyclists are idiots, who are reckless to the point of insanity. But I was knocked off my bike about a month ago, even though I had right of way, good lights and was being cautious. The moral is that even we cyclists who obey the rules of the road are just as much at mercy from bad driving, as drivers are from reckless cyclists. Therefore imagine my consternation when Hammond in an Evening Standard interview stated that, “Cyclists need to be more aware of the risks around them. It frightens me to death when I see them pull out around other cyclists, completely unaware there is a car behind. Maybe they need wing mirrors.” So it is completely the fault of the cyclist is it Mr Hammond? That's what he seems to be saying. While many cyclists clearly do need to be more aware of what is happening around them, I think that so do many more drivers. This isn't a one way street, everyone on the road needs to address why hundreds of people get killed and injured on them every week. Hammond, is clearly is deferring to his subjective view for his opinion.

But can it get worse....? You bet. Apparently the man cares about the environment. In the Evening Standard interview, he clearly had no views about the environmental aspect of public transport, barely mentioning them. His only viewpoint was that when he brought his new Jaguar XJ it was the 'greenest in its class.' This again highlights that Hammond is a car-lover and even though he denied being a 'petrol head' it strikes me that all the evidence points to the fact he is. He did, however, state as a convenient caveat that he doesn't like Top Gear. There is no logic in this statement. I didn't like Michael Portilo's recent BBC series, Great British Railway Journeys, where trekked round the country rail. So, by that logic, I must hate railways. Wrong...I love railways, I can't get enough of them.

It strikes me that Hammond is quite clearly a fan of the roads who hasn't the experience to deal with public transport. But, being a man who knows about business and money, he will know about sweating assets and earning revenue. These things, of course, will need to be done, but I suspect, however, he will have a detrimental, motorist-centric, view of transport policy. I really do hope that he does become more friendly towards every other form of transport, other than the car, but I don't hold out much hope. In short, we need better than this...Hammond isn't good enough.

If you want to read the Evening Standard interview with Philip Hammond, it can be found HERE