Transport chief spells out way forward for rail links
WHEN IT became clear that Patrick McLoughlin was about to be appointed as the new Transport for the North chairman, the prospect was not greeted with universal acclaim.
Hull North MP Dame Diana Johnson warned in Parliament that giving the experienced Conservative politician the £60,000-a-year role had “more than a whiff of jobs for the boys” about it, especially as it was coming just weeks after the Government had taken key powers away from Transport for the North.
But she retracted her criticism just a week later after the former Transport Secretary and Tory Party chairman’s first intervention was to an issue a statement saying the Government’s controversial Integrated
Rail Plan “goes against the best interest of people in the North” after it downgraded previous proposals for HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail.
Winning over hearts and minds in his new job is unlikely to be as simple as that, but, speaking in West Yorkshire during a whistle-stop tour of the North, Lord McLoughlin makes it apparent relationshipbuilding across political divides will an early priority.
When asked if the people of the region can trust a senior Tory party figure who hails from the Midlands to truly fight the corner of the North, the ex-miner and former Derbyshire Dales MP highlights the importance of retaining the confidence of the region’s Labour mayors in his abilities.
“I can’t change where I grew up, but I’m certainly not a Londoner saying what is going to happen in the North.
“If I don’t have the confidence of the likes of Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram then I can’t do the job and I wouldn’t be the right person to do the job.
“What I’ve got to be is a bit of an honest broker in a way, because the metro mayors
We’ve got to make sure we can deliver what we can, make those improvements and then work on the longer-term issue.
want things in five, six, seven years’ time. I understand that and I want to see those things too. But when you are planning major infrastructure, it just does take a lot longer than you ever anticipate.”
Lord McLoughlin also appears keen to downplay what has become an increasingly fractious dispute between the Government and northern mayors over the Integrated Rail Plan (IRP). He says that while there was understandable disappointment because of expectations, he believes it nevertheless contains “very good and very useful” ideas.
When the plan was published in November, Transport for the North caused a stir by labelling it as “woefully inadequate”. When asked if that is a phrase he would have employed, he replies: “I think the language I would use is: ‘This is the document the Government has put forward. There are things in it we like that are going to be important and bring a transformational change to transport infrastructure, but how do we build on it?’”
Lord McLoughlin, a key supporter of HS2 as Transport Secretary under David Cameron, believes it is vital the high-speed link’s services reach Leeds in some form as the Government prepares to launch a study into how to do so.
However, he is not insistent that the HS2 line itself needs to get to Leeds – highlighting that faster services between London and Canterbury have been made possible by high-speed track that stops at Ashford before connecting on to the cathedral city.
He says making the case for the broader Northern Powerhouse Rail network to be developed will be a longer-term mission.
The IRP set out plans for a £17.2bn investment in
Northern Powerhouse Rail – involving a new high-speed line between Warrington and Marsden on the boundary of Yorkshire, as part of network improvements between Liverpool and York.
But they fell far short of the full £42.1bn Transport for the North plan which would have improved connections between northern cities, with a full new high-speed line between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford.
Lord McLoughlin says: “The question is how do you get the better connectivity and connections between the great cities of Manchester, Leeds and Bradford? That’s quite a big issue, partly because of the topography of the area.
“We’ve got to work on that and say: ‘If we don’t think the IRP is the right answer, what is the longer-term right answer?’
“We’ve got to make sure we can deliver what we can, make those improvements and then work on the longer-term issue and try and get the Government to buy into that. “