Road Safety
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
Today I am launching a new strategic framework for road safety. This outlines the Government’s plans to reduce deaths and injuries on Britain’s roads as well as the measures and steps that others can take. It is available for download from the Department for Transport website; www.dft.gov.uk/roadsafety.
The strategic framework aims to provide clarity to local authorities, road safety professionals and other stakeholders on their roles and responsibilities in improving road safety and the increased freedom that is being given to local authorities in assessing and acting on their own priorities.
In line with the coalition’s commitment to localism, we want decisions to be made locally, wherever possible, and this document sets out how we are moving away from overarching national road safety targets and towards a more sophisticated method of monitoring progress through a road safety outcomes framework which will help local authorities assess and prioritise their action and show the impact of central Government measures.
Additionally, at the local level, there will be an increase in the road safety information that is available to the public to help them hold their local authorities and service providers to account.
Of course, there is still an important role for national Government in delivering safer roads. Our central focus will be on supporting road users who have weak driving skills or who display a lapse of judgment to improve their driving, while focusing enforcement resources against those who deliberately decide to undertake antisocial and dangerous driving behaviour.
Where road users make low-level mistakes or display poor skills we intend to divert them in to a greater range of educational courses to help develop safer skills and attitudes. We will extend this approach to careless driving through the introduction of a new fixed penalty notice as well as new remedial educational courses. We need to rebalance road safety enforcement away from a narrow focus on camera-enforced speed policing, to address the wider range of behaviours that create risk on the roads. Where road users commit serious, deliberate and repeated offences we aim to increase the effectiveness of enforcement for this minority—for example, through improving the efficiency of action on drink and drug-driving. Through this approach we aim to improve the targeting and effectiveness of enforcement to tackle a wide range of unsafe behaviours that cover all careless and dangerous driving offences.
Our long-term vision is to ensure that Britain remains a world leader on road safety and to continue the downward trend in casualties. We believe that the measures set out in this strategic framework will help us to achieve this vision.
Full impact assessments, including the potential impacts on enforcement and the judicial system, will be prepared in the usual way when legislation is brought forward.
Copies of this document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
6. What plans he has for the reform of rail franchising; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
The Government published “Reforming Rail Franchising: response to consultation and policy statement” on 19 January this year. In it we set out, among other things, our commitment to longer franchises, less prescriptive service requirements, and the transfer of stations to train operators. The Department is now considering, within the framework, the detailed invitation to tender for the intercity west coast franchise.
Penny Mordaunt
Since the Adjournment debate on South West Trains, I have received thousands of letters and e-mails from long-suffering passengers around the country who are having to put up with suburban trains on mainline routes. Is it not time that we had minimum standards of comfort set out in rail franchise agreements, and should not companies that ignore such concerns not have their franchises renewed?
Mr Hammond
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s campaign on that point, but the simple fact is that on many of our suburban railways, particularly those going into London, we have limited capacity. Trains are already at maximum length, and the number of train paths is already at the maximum capacity of the railway. Taking out seats to make them larger, which I think is my hon. Friend’s point, would simply mean more commuters standing, and those commuters who join the train closer to London are vehemently against that, so the Government have no plans at the moment to specify the size or configuration of seats in commuter trains.
Claire Perry
Will the Secretary of State expand for us on the benefits that he expects passengers to get from changed patterns of franchising? In particular, will they benefit passengers in Wiltshire, especially those who would like to travel on the proposed trans-Wilts railway, which would improve considerably our north-south travel patterns in the county?
Mr Hammond
As my hon. Friend will have anticipated, I specifically had passengers in Wiltshire in mind when we designed our franchising proposals. The key thing is to drive down the cost of our railways. We have to make them more efficient, and we have to close the productivity gap between them and competitive railways in Europe to relieve the pressure on both the taxpayer and the fare payer. The changed franchise specifications will give train operators incentives to drive down costs—something that, frankly, they have not been incentivised to do under the current system.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State made a point about less prescriptive service requirements, but will he give a guarantee that stations such as Runcorn mainline station and Widnes station in my constituency, which have seen a significant increase in passengers in the past five years, will not, as a result of his reform of franchising, have a reduction in the number of stopping trains?
Mr Hammond
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and our intention is to maintain services while creating sufficient flexibility at the margin to allow franchisees to operate their businesses in a way that makes them more efficient. That is a complex balancing act. Nobody wants train services to be reduced as a consequence, but if we are absolutely prescriptive about the timetable, down to officials detailing the precise time of every train stop at every station, the scope for improving the efficiency of our railways will be severely limited. It is a balancing act, and we are determined to get it right.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Is not the point, certainly on intercity franchises, that the concentration is on improving journey times for long distances, which has an adverse effect on small commutes, for example from Chester-le-Street in my constituency to central Newcastle, which is only a 10-minute commute, but is a well-used service? As a result of the way in which franchises are structured, fewer trains are stopping to carry commuters on that vital route.
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is right. We need to get the balance right between long-distance intercity services, where stops disadvantage long-distance travellers, and short-range commuter services. In many cases, it is not appropriate for long-distance intercity trains to have a service pattern that is organised around the local commuter travelling pattern. We need local commuter trains to deliver that.
These are complex issues. Our view is that train operators are best placed to deliver services to their users in a system that incentivises them to deliver the services that passengers want. That system has not existed hitherto under the revenue-sharing arrangements in which the Government collect most of the additional revenue taken at the fare box by the train operator. Putting those incentives back in place will deliver better services and greater efficiency.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Will the new rail franchising arrangements enable the Secretary of State to take steps to ensure that fares do not rise at the huge rates that we have seen recently, but begin to level off? Will he also make sure that it is simpler and easier for people to understand what they ought to pay for a particular trip?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman makes two good points. First, the fare system is incredibly complex and, secondly, passengers face high fare levels—we fully appreciate that. The only way in which we can tackle high fare levels is to make the railway more efficient. We are determined to do so, and we will receive and publish shortly the report by Sir Roy McNulty on value for money on the railways, which will make proposals to achieve that objective.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I am glad that the issue of fares has come up, because on 9 March the Secretary of State attended a presentation on the findings of the rail value-for-money review, which he will publish later this month. I have a leaked copy, which includes a recommendation that in future rail franchises should have
“more freedom to set fares”.
Does he stand by what he told the House on 27 January, when he said that the objective of the review was
“to reduce the burden on both the taxpayer and the fare payer”?—[Official Report, 27 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 426.]
Mr Hammond
Yes, absolutely—that is the key objective of the McNulty review. The hon. Lady will know, if she wants to look at this objectively, that we have severe crunch-points on our rail system, where the current pattern of fares is driving perverse behaviour. The 18.59 train north from Euston on a Friday evening is virtually empty, but the 19.01 train is packed, with people standing, and the police preventing others from joining the train for safety reasons, and that is because of the way in which the fare structure works. We must be able to use the pattern of fares to address crowding, and to avoid the perverse incentives that have been created.
Maria Eagle
Can the Secretary of State explain some quotes in the document that suggest that he will allow franchisees to do what they want with fares? For example, the document states that he needs
“to consider in letting future franchises: more freedom to set fares”
and should
“encourage TOCs to take a more commercial approach to fare setting”.
There are other such quotes in the document, which seems to suggest that he will allow train operating companies to charge whatever they want.
Mr Hammond
The hon. Lady is confusing herself. The document from which she has quoted is, I think, Sir Roy McNulty’s presentation to the seminar to which she referred. It is not a Government document.
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend explain why passengers in the Greater Anglia franchise area face the possibility of having three different train operators within 18 months, which is likely to cause confusion to them and to staff? The only beneficiaries would appear to be the companies that supply the paint to change the carriages.
Mr Hammond
The decision was taken to let a short management contract for the East Anglia franchise because it is our intention to let a longer-term contract and we wanted the opportunity to incorporate the findings of the McNulty review into the franchise specification before doing so.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
7. What improvements his Department is seeking to achieve in respect of the passenger experience at UK airports.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
We are part-way through a programme of 30 public roadshows along the line of the proposed London to west midlands route, and we have held regional seminars across the country. The programme was suspended for the duration of the election purdah period, but will resume next week. The consultation process finishes on 29 July, and I expect to announce the Government’s response later this year.
Chris White
Today I will be heading back to my constituency for the final afternoon of campaigning, and many colleagues will be heading back to theirs. I will be travelling on the excellent Chiltern line service from Marylebone. However, many constituents are concerned that high-speed rail will lead to a loss of conventional rail services, as has been the experience in other countries with high-speed rail networks. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that the Department for Transport is taking those concerns seriously and what impact will there be on such highly popular local networks?
Mr Hammond
As I look around the Chamber, it seems to me that one or two Members may have travelled back for the final afternoon of canvassing and campaigning already.
My hon. Friend could not be more wrong. One of the huge benefits of building a new, dedicated high-speed line will be the released capacity on the existing conventional lines—the east coast main line, the west coast main line and the midlands main line. Those lines will be capable of being reconfigured to deliver better longer-distance and short-distance commuting services and more freight paths for freight trains, taking more freight off the road and getting it on to rail. That is one of the big wins of a dedicated high-speed line.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that there needs to be a full high-speed interconnection between High Speed 1 and High Speed 2 from the start? What are his plans for those interconnections?
Mr Hammond
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the published plans include a link from Old Oak Common via a tunnel round to the north of St Pancras station, connecting directly to the High Speed 1 line. It will be possible to run trains from the midlands and the north of England, directly through that tunnel, to the High Speed 1 network and onwards to the channel tunnel.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
10. What steps he is taking to assist local authorities to repair potholes.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
12. What discussions he has had with the Mayor of London on the operation of the transport network in London during the London 2012 Olympics.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I have lead accountability within Government for transport preparations for the London 2012 Olympics. I am a member of the Cabinet sub-committee on the Olympics, which meets regularly and is also attended by the Mayor of London and representatives of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and the Olympic Delivery Authority.
My officials and I have regular discussions with the Mayor and his officials in the Greater London authority and Transport for London on transport during the Olympics. Transport for London works closely with the ODA, which has statutory responsibility for transport planning for the games.
Mary Macleod
As the Secretary of State mentioned, a number of organisations are involved in the planning and delivery of a successful transport network for the games—LOCOG, the ODA, the Mayor of London and Transport for London. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what efforts have been made to co-ordinate planning across those groups to ensure that we can manage the huge numbers of athletes and spectators? Does he feel that appropriate measures have been put in place to keep London moving during that critical time?
Mr Hammond
As I have already described, there is a mechanism for bringing all those groups together through the Cabinet Olympic sub-committee, which is very effective. During the games, the Transport for London control room in central London will be the main control room for managing the transport networks.
The required measures are being put in place, but my hon. Friend is right to say that it will be challenging to manage down background demand for travel in London to allow sufficient capacity for the games family—the athletes, spectators and sponsors—to travel around. That is a big challenge, which we will face in the next 12 months—I am under no illusions about the size of it.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
T2. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
Since the previous departmental questions, I have published a scoping document about our planned development of a sustainable aviation policy. I have allocated £200 million for pothole repairs to individual local authorities, and announced the allocation of 20 additional rail carriages for commuter routes serving the Leeds area. We have also announced the go-ahead for the long-awaited Swindon to Kemble track redoubling, and the Ordsall chord in Manchester, linking Victoria and Piccadilly stations.
Greg Hands
Will the Secretary of State join me in condemning as obscene and irresponsible the proposed six days of tube strikes by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers next month over only two individual employees? Will he also condemn Labour’s candidate for London Mayor, who has signally failed to condemn the action, and, indeed, his deputy, who even appears at RMT protest meetings?
Mr Hammond
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that the series of strikes is highly irresponsible. As I said last night, no one in the Government is spoiling for a fight with the unions, but the unions appear to be spoiling for a fight with London. I say to the RMT and other unions that that sort of irresponsible strike action, when an alternative, proper remedy—an ongoing employment tribunal—is available, only strengthens the hand of those, including the Mayor, who call for tougher industrial relations laws.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State will know, today marks the closing of the consultation on his plans to axe more than half the UK’s coastguard stations, leaving just three offering 24-hour cover. Yet, in a letter to me this week, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency stated that the consultation,
“will be reopened in the Summer”.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the consultation closes today, as the letter says, “for the first time”? Given that it is increasingly clear that the policy is a shambles, why does he not just abandon the ill-thought-through proposals, which will leave our coastline a more dangerous place?
Mr Hammond
What a wonderful piece of opportunism. I can confirm that the consultation closes today. Of course, the previous Administration originally made the proposals to modernise the coastguard. We have listened carefully to the representations, and some very sensible representations have been made about how the reconfiguration might be managed to protect more of the local location of services. Once the consultation is closed, we will publish a summary of the findings and make our response to it.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
T4. Will the Minister meet me as soon as possible to discuss the reinstatement of the Maidstone East to City of London service?
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
T3. Does the Secretary of State realise that his earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) will have raised deep concerns in parts of the north-west, not least in Warrington, which is hugely dependent on its transport links to boost and develop its economy? Is he prepared to give an assurance to the House that any new franchise arrangements will not reduce the number of intercity trains stopping at Warrington Bank Quay? Yes or no?
Mr Philip Hammond
I do not want to say, “Calm down”, but I would like to say that I am sorry if I have set a hare running. I was trying to say to the hon. Member for Halton that we are very much aware of the risk that making franchises less prescriptive could lead to reductions in train services, and we are not prepared to accept that, so I can assure the hon. Lady that under the new west coast franchise, the same number of station stops at Warrington Bank Quay will occur as under the present timetable.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I warmly welcome the creation of the sustainable local transport fund. I hope that the Minister is aware of the exciting trans-Wilts rail proposal, of which we heard earlier, developed by the community rail partnership, which has demonstrated the strong support of local businesses and MPs. Can he confirm that he would welcome a bid from Wiltshire council to that fund, and that it would be given serious consideration?
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State commit, as the previous Labour Government did, to legislate for a high-speed rail line all the way to the north, and in so doing convince the sceptics that the Government have a credible economic policy that would benefit all the regions?
Mr Philip Hammond
As I have said many times at the Dispatch Box, the Government’s programme is for a Y-shaped network that will take the high-speed railway all the way to Manchester and Leeds. I am aware of the scepticism among some Members and others outside the House about our commitment to that programme. I have discussed this matter with Members of all parties interested in securing this programme, and I have given a commitment to find a way of getting into the first hybrid Bill a commitment to the Y-shaped network sufficient to reassure those Members. However, it simply is not practical from a parliamentary point of view to have a single hybrid Bill dealing with the whole line, so it will have to be done as two hybrid Bills. We will ensure that the first Bill contains a commitment sufficient to satisfy the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that a meaningful consultation will take place with rail user groups before any of the existing rail franchises are renewed? I am thinking in particular of Southeastern, which has just had its current franchise extended by two years, despite an appalling performance record on the north Kent coastal line and repeated customer complaints.
Department for Transport (Decision Making)
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I am announcing today reforms to the way decisions are made on which transport projects to prioritise. My Department’s business plan states we will
“reform the way transport projects are assessed and funding prioritisation decisions are made so that the benefits of low-carbon proposals are fully recognised”.
It specifies that in order to achieve this we will:
(a) review and revise DfT guidance on appraising transport projects, and
(b) review and revise DfT processes for assessing schemes and supporting ministerial decisions.
The rest of this statement explains how we have met these commitments.
DfT guidance on appraising transport projects
The evidence supporting decisions needs to be robust. Updates and changes that I am making to my Department’s guidance on appraising transport projects will recognise the benefits of low-carbon proposals more accurately.
Spending review decisions were informed by a value-for-money measure, used across Government. This measure incorporated the latest monetary values of carbon, published by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which are higher than previous values. It also treated indirect tax revenues (such as fuel duty) in a way consistent with the Department for Transport’s “in-draft” benefit-cost ratio (BCR) formula. These changes tend to improve the BCRs of schemes that reduce carbon emissions and weaken the BCRs of schemes that result in higher carbon emissions.
Stakeholder groups have made representations that the Department should consider amending the value of time to reflect regional variations in earnings. We have considered these representations and have decided not to make any change at this stage, but we will keep the issue under review.
Over the coming days, my officials will update the appraisal guidance to incorporate the higher carbon values and new BCR formula that were used in the spending review. In addition, the Department will also release further changes to the appraisal guidance that reflect Government’s priorities and recent updates to values and methodologies. A full list of these changes can be found on the Department’s website (www.dft. gov.uk/webtag).
DfT processes for assessing schemes and supporting ministerial decisions
Today, my Department is publishing “The Transport Business Case” which sets out the Department’s approach to producing business cases that support ministerial decisions. This approach ensures decisions are made by taking account of all the relevant information set out in five cases, consistent with the Treasury Green Book, specifically, to show whether schemes:
are supported by a robust case for change that fits with wider public policy objectives—the “strategic case”;
demonstrate value-for-money—the “economic case”;
are commercially viable—the “commercial case”;
are financially affordable—the “financial case”; and
are achievable—the “management case”.
This means that there will no longer be a separate process called NATA.
Option development and presentation
My Department will revise the formats used to present information to support decision-making so that all the five cases receive appropriate consideration from an early stage in a clear and transparent way. Forthcoming changes to the guidance will set out to scheme promoters how to develop a range of innovative solutions to transport problems in the early stages of option development and a clear process for option selection that aligns with the subsequent appraisal process. Today, I am also publishing the “Early Assessment and Sifting Tool”, which will aid scheme promoters in comparing and refining options in those early stages.
UK Aviation: Sustainable Framework
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
My Department’s business plan confirmed the coalition Government’s decision not to support new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. It also committed the Government to create a sustainable framework for aviation in the UK. This framework will replace the previous Administration’s “The Future of Air Transport” White Paper which, while recognising aviation’s economic benefits, failed to take sufficient account of climate change and the impact of aviation on local communities. Today I am publishing a scoping document which aims to define the debate as we develop a new long-term policy for UK aviation.
The Government are committed to returning the UK to sustainable economic growth. Aviation has an important role to play in delivering that growth. It makes a significant contribution to the UK economy and provides the international connectivity this country needs to thrive in the highly competitive global economy. This Government want to see aviation prosper. Aviation should be able to grow, but it must also play its part in delivering our environmental goals and protecting the quality of life of local communities.
The Government have made clear their commitment to meeting the challenge of climate change. Today, aviation contributes around 6% of UK CO2 emissions but this share will increase as demand for air transport increases and other sectors of the economy reduce their emissions. The scoping document explores the most effective ways of addressing aviation’s environmental impacts, both global and local, and seeks answers to questions on both issues.
The publication of this scoping document represents the start of a dialogue to give a wide range of stakeholders an opportunity to contribute to the development of the policy framework. I expect the views expressed to be varied, and sometimes difficult to reconcile, but I want to move the aviation debate on from the polarisation which has characterised it in recent years, towards a consensus which balances the benefits that aviation brings with its impacts, both global and local.
We will publish a draft policy framework for public consultation in March 2012, and formally adopt the framework by March 2013.
EU Transport Council
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I will attend the first Transport Council of the Hungarian presidency, which will take place in Brussels on 31 March.
There will be a progress report and policy debate on the draft regulation amending Regulation 1406/2002, which established the European Maritime Safety Agency. The proposed amendment gives the agency several new, largely technical, tasks. In principle, the UK would be able to support the proposals, subject to the Commission delivering the additional funding required through a programme of reprioritisation of the current EU budget. It is also important for the UK to ensure that the extension of the agency’s marine pollution response capabilities, to cover offshore oil and gas installations, is at the request of an affected state only, and that any involvement in the analysis of the safety of these installations explicitly excludes activities or requirements related to the exploration or exploitation of mineral resources by means of a well.
There will be two agenda items on global navigation satellite systems (GNSS).
There will be a progress report and the Council will be asked to reach a general approach on a decision on rules for access to the public regulated service (PRS) of the Galileo system. I believe the text to be tabled for general approach addresses the UK’s earlier concerns covering costs, the framework for the manufacture of PRS receivers and associated material, and security standards.
There will be a policy debate and the Council will be asked to agree conclusions following the Commission’s recent mid-term review of the European programmes. The Government are deeply disappointed and concerned that the full Galileo programme cannot now be delivered within the budget or timescale agreed in 2007. A robust assessment of all options is needed in light of this. The Government consider that the programme should respect the 2007 budget by reducing its level of ambition. The draft Council conclusions do not prejudice the forthcoming negotiations on the next multi-annual financial framework for the EU and urge the Commission to continue its cost analysis in order to identify options for cost reduction. They go on to underline the Council’s wish that the cost analysis should result in cost savings. Accordingly, I expect to be able to agree to the conclusions.
The Council will be asked to adopt two decisions in the area of aviation external relations.
The first is a decision on the signature and provisional application of a memorandum of co-operation between the Community and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). I intend to abstain on this proposal as I consider that it is necessary to put down a marker that the UK is concerned about the principle of member state sovereignty in international organisations, and cautious about any proposals which could have the effect of enhancing the role of the EU at the expense of member states.
The second is a decision authorising the Commission to negotiate with Switzerland on an amendment to the existing air transport agreement. This will further remove barriers to market access on the basis of full application by Switzerland of the EU regulatory framework. The UK is supportive of the proposed negotiating mandate.
The Council may be asked to adopt a position on a decision concerning the accession of the EU to the protocol of 2002 to the Athens convention, relating to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea, 1974. A number of issues still need to be resolved. I will report to the House on this matter if it is considered at the Council.
I will be raising two issues under any other business. The first is the importance of ensuring that the forthcoming review of European air quality legislation takes full account of transport issues. The second is the need to make swift progress in delivering an enhanced regulatory regime for air cargo security.
If, as expected, the Commission’s new White Paper on transport policy is published before the Council, the Commission will give a presentation on it under AOB. A debate on the White Paper will follow at a later Council, when member states have given full consideration to it. Also under AOB, the Commission will report on the follow-up to the volcanic ash crisis of 2010, looking at the wider scope of crisis management and EU methodology.
Departmental Expenditure Limit (2010-11)
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
Subject to parliamentary approval, the Department for Transport departmental expenditure limit (DEL) for 2010-11 will be amended as set out in the following table:
Change | NEW DEL | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Voted | Non-voted | Voted | Non-voted | Total | |
Resource | -216,000 | 0 | 5,725,476 | 445,810 | 6,171,286 |
Of which | |||||
Administration budget | 0 | 0 | 263,948 | 2,154 | 266,102 |
Capital | +216,000 | 0 | 6,666,423 | 728,127 | 7,394,550 |
Depreciation1 | 0 | 0 | -802,365 | -34,224 | -836,589 |
Total | 0 | 11,589,534 | 1,139,713 | 12,729,247 | |
1Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL, since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting. |
The switch between resource and capital expenditure limits is to cover the cost of funding various rail schemes directly following a review of the Network Rail regulated asset base.
Greater London Authority Transport Grant (2011-12)
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
Following consultation with the Mayor of London, I have today determined the Greater London Authority Transport Grant for 2011-12 at £2,804 million.
This grant is provided by the Government to Transport for London to deliver transport services and investment in the capital, including London Underground.
In line with my 20 October 2010 letter to the Mayor “Spending Review 2010: TfL funding agreement”, £861 million of this grant is designated an investment grant to support delivery of the schemes and milestones, notably upgrade of the tube, set out in annex B of my 20 October letter, and the remaining £1,943 million is a general grant for the purposes of TfL.
Drink and Drug-driving
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I have today placed in the Library of the House the Government’s response to a report by Sir Peter North on drink and drug-driving which was published in June 2010. This response also covers a report by the Transport Select Committee which was published in December 2010. The Government’s response is available on the Department’s website: www.dft.gov.uk.
The Government are committed to improving road safety. It is a priority to deter driving when unfit through drugs or alcohol, and to ensure that those who persist in this dangerous behaviour are detected and punished effectively. We must protect law-abiding road users with measures that are effective and proportionate, concentrating on those who are a danger to themselves and other road users, while avoiding unnecessary social and economic impacts.
We are convinced that our first priority must be to give the police the means to identify drug-drivers and compel them to give evidential samples for testing. It is just as dangerous for people to drive impaired by alcohol or drugs, and it is quite wrong that it is easier at present to get away with one than the other. There needs to be a clear message that drug-drivers are as likely to be caught and punished as drink-drivers and that drug-driving is as socially unacceptable as drink-driving.
We have taken the first steps to address this with a specification for drug testing equipment for the police. We aim to have this available for use later this year. We will—as Sir Peter suggested—examine the case for a new specific offence which would remove the need for the police to prove impairment on a case-by-case basis where a specified drug has been detected. The introduction of fixed thresholds for blood-alcohol as the test for drink-driving has delivered benefits to road safety that are clear for all to see.
Our strategy is to focus resources and any legislative changes on measures which will have the most impact in reducing dangerous behaviours. There are therefore two main priorities—
to continue the successful abatement of drink-driving and achieve similar success against drug-driving by giving the police effective tools to identify and proceed against drink and drug-drivers;
to streamline the enforcement process for drink and drug-driving to remove pressure on police and other enforcement resources.
A staggering proportion of drink-drivers are well over the current limit—40% of those caught by the police are 2.5 times the limit. The proportion of drivers over the limit who are killed is the same. Their behaviour is entrenched and displays a flagrant disregard for the law and the safety of other road users. We have concluded that improving enforcement is likely to have most impact on these dangerous people, and will therefore be the most effective use of scarce resources, rather than lowering the prescribed alcohol limit for driving.
We will implement the following measures, bringing forward legislation where necessary at the earliest opportunity—
revoke the right to opt for a blood test when the evidential breath test result is less than 40% over the limit (the “statutory option”) as this causes delay which results in some offenders avoiding prosecution;
streamline the procedure for testing drink-drivers in hospital;
close a loophole used by high risk offenders to delay their medical examinations;
require drink-drivers who are substantially in excess of the limit to take remedial training and a linked driving assessment—as well as a medical examination—before recovering their licence;
re-launch the drink-drive rehabilitation scheme under which drink-drivers can get the period of their driving disqualification reduced if they complete an approved training course;
approve portable evidential breath testing equipment for the police—and provide for preliminary testing not to be required where evidential testing can be undertaken away from the police station;
approve preliminary drug-testing equipment, initially for use in police stations—and at the roadside as soon as possible;
delegate to custody nurses the assessment police doctors are now required to make of suspected drug-drivers.
Full impact assessments, including among other things the potential impacts on enforcement and the judicial system, will be prepared in the usual way when legislation is brought forward.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
1. What recent representations he has received on the sustainability criteria in the renewable energy directive related to transport fuels; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I have received recent representations on the renewable energy directive biofuels sustainability criteria from a number of non-governmental organisations, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. We share some of their concerns regarding the sustainability of some biofuels. For that reason, we propose to take a cautious approach, as set out in the consultation we have launched today on proposals to implement the transport elements of the directive and the associated fuel quality directive.
Richard Graham
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer. This morning I spoke with the owner of the 160-year-old haulage company, Joseph Rice, in my constituency of Gloucester, which is going into receivership. He believes that others might follow before long. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government should do what they can to help the sector, whether through incentives on biofuel or by reviewing things such as vehicle excise duty and road charges?
Mr Hammond
As my hon. Friend will know, matters relating to vehicle excise duty are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. We believe that the future of the road freight sector depends on being able to decarbonise it, and at the moment the only viable option for decarbonisation is biofuel. Therefore, we believe that it is important that we prioritise available sustainable feedstocks for biofuels for use in sectors where no alternative viable options are available.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has said that there will be a consultation, because there was concern that we would rush towards implementation of the directive without people being able to discuss the related issues—but I am slightly concerned that he says that there are no sustainable alternatives to biofuels. As part of the consultation, will he seek advice on other suggestions being made by people working in this field so that we can move away from using biofuels and the subsequent impact on food crops and deforestation?
Mr Hammond
Our concerns are twofold: our approach is, of course, technology-neutral, but if alternative and sustainable solutions are suggested, we will be happy to look at them, and our focus must be on ensuring that the European Union, in its enthusiasm for biofuels, does not lose sight of the negative carbon impacts that some approaches to biofuel can have. We want to look at the whole lifecycle carbon effects of biofuel use, particularly the indirect land use effects.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I am glad that the Secretary of State has mentioned indirect land use impacts, and I welcome the statement made this morning by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), which explicitly highlighted the risks of indirect land use change as a result of imported biofuels. I ask for a joined-up approach to biofuels across Government. What discussion has the Secretary of State or his Department had with other Departments, particularly the Department for Communities and Local Government?
Mr Hammond
We have very regular discussions with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Energy and Climate Change and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
2. What recent representations he has received on his proposals for reform of the blue badge scheme.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
3. What recent progress he has made on implementation of the high-speed rail link between London and Birmingham; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
The Government believe that a national high-speed rail network would promote economic growth and the diversification of the UK economy. On 28 February I launched a major public consultation on the case for such a network and on the proposed route for an initial line. The consultation will run until 29 July, and following that consultation a decision will be taken by the end of this year.
Lorely Burt
I am grateful for that answer. We understand from the consultation that some businesses which will benefit from High Speed 2 might be asked to contribute towards the cost. That might be reasonable, but as the national exhibition centre and Birmingham airport will be asked to help with the cost of the proposed interchange station, will the Government be reasonable in giving assurances about west coast main line improvements and regional aviation policy, in order to enable them to achieve the visitor and passenger numbers that they will need?
Mr Hammond
Both Birmingham airport and the national exhibition centre are extremely supportive of the High Speed 2 proposals. The consultation is predicated on the entire line being built with public money, but it also says that we think there will be opportunities for private sector development-led funding of some of the station infrastructure, and that is what we will discuss with private sector partners such as the NEC and Birmingham airport.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I urge the Secretary of State to keep his nerve on this matter? I welcome the consultation, and our cities need high-speed links—certainly in Yorkshire and in the northern regions. May I urge him in addition to ignore some of the deniers—they are also climate change deniers—who have had letters published in the newspapers this morning?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment. Those who oppose the building of the line have clearly identified themselves and their direct interests in this matter. It is now for those who will stand to benefit the most, particularly in our great northern cities, to voice their support during the consultation period.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend seen the letter today in The Daily Telegraph, signed by, among many, Lord Lawson of Blaby, who many of us felt during his time in the House was an outstanding Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Mr Speaker
We are extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for that pithy reply.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
8. What criteria he proposes to use to determine his Department’s spending on local authority major transport schemes.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
We will announce in due course the criteria for allocating the remaining funds to projects in the development pool. It is likely to be done on the basis of an appraisal of value for money, the proportion of non-Department for Transport funding, deliverability, strategic importance, and a consideration of the balance between modes and regions. It remains my objective to develop a system of capital funding allocation to sub-national areas so that in future spending review periods, priorities can be determined locally.
Robert Halfon
Harlow council and Essex county council are highly supportive of a new M11 junction near Harlow, and local housing development could help to pay for it. Will the Secretary of State look at plans for the new junction, given that the cost to the taxpayer could be minimal?
Mr Hammond
That is a matter for consideration in future local authority major scheme application rounds. As I have indicated, I hope that those will be carried out on a much more devolved basis—but I can say to my hon. Friend that any scheme that levers in private money to reduce the cost to the taxpayer, and thus improve the cost-benefit ratio that the taxpayer sees, is likely to have an advantage in any future competition.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
In that context, will the Secretary of State consider the proposals for a Surrey Canal Road station in my constituency, on which I made representations to the Government last year? My local authority has put money into the design stage and the local developer, Renewal, is putting up a lot of money to ensure that the station can at least be started. I hope that the Government will support that vital piece of infrastructure.
Mr Hammond
I am happy to look at the matter, to discuss it again with the Mayor of London and to consider the points that the right hon. Lady has raised.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
9. What recent representations he has received on the removal of bus service operators grant from free bus services.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
11. What recent progress he has made on plans to electrify the midland main line.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
The Government’s policy is to support the progressive electrification of the railway. The Department for Transport will continue to consider the business case for the scheme that my hon. Friend mentions as part of the work to inform decisions in the next railway control period, beginning in 2014.
Andrew Bridgen
Does the Secretary of State agree that there would be huge benefits to the east midlands from the electrification of the line? Given the massive economic and housing growth predicted for the east midlands over the next few years, an early timetable for electrification of the line would be very helpful to business and planners.
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is right to note that there is a strong case, on the face of it, for the electrification of the midland main line. He will know that there are works currently under way on the line to improve line speeds, and I had the opportunity to view them from the cab of an East Midlands Trains service on Monday. When they are completed at the end of 2013, they will result in the journey time from London to Sheffield being reduced to less than two hours.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State accept that in the last assessment, the business case for the electrification of the midland main line was just as strong as that for the Great Western line? As he is not prepared at this stage to commit to the electrification of the line in one go, will he re-examine the possibility of introducing the new bi-modal trains on the line? On that basis there could be incremental electrification without the up-front costs coming all at once.
Mr Hammond
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s question, and I am aware of the proposal that East Midlands Trains is examining to introduce bi-modal running on the line. The difference between the midland main line and the Great Western main line is that the midland main line’s future function will be affected by the decision on High Speed 2. It is right that we consider the matter as one for the next control period, in the full light of the decision on HS2 that will be taken later this year.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
12. What recent representations he has received on the electrification of rail lines between Cardiff and Swansea and west of Swansea.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I have received representations calling for electrification of the Great Western main line to be extended as far west as Swansea. We have looked carefully at the arguments but I regret to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is not, at present, a viable business case for electrification of the main line between Cardiff and Swansea. I have given the House an undertaking that I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will keep the matter under review.
Jonathan Edwards
I regret to inform the Secretary of State that last week’s announcement went down like a lead balloon in the communities in west Wales that I represent. Later in the week, the Business Secretary made a speech saying that investment in high-speed rail and electrification was an example of how the UK Government were going to rebalance the economy. Is the message therefore that as far as the UK Government are concerned, the Welsh economy stops at Cardiff?
Mr Hammond
No, I will tell the hon. Gentleman what the message is. It is that my announcement last week will result in the journey time to Swansea being cut by 20 minutes, to two hours and 39 minutes, delivering to people in Swansea all the time-saving benefits that would be delivered were electrification to progress as far as Swansea. I am sorry to have to tell him this, but if he looks at the facts of the case, the costs to the taxpayer and the benefits to the people of Swansea, he will discover that at the present time our decision is the right one. As I have said, we will keep it under review.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am sorry to return to this subject, but will my right hon. Friend tell the House what feasibility studies have been undertaken on how long the Severn rail tunnel will be closed when the electrification project is under way? Would alternative diversion routes, such as the Kemble to Swindon rail scheme, be useful additions when the scheme is constructed?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is extremely diligent in pursuing the Swindon to Kemble rail scheme. Our proposals will require electrification through the Severn tunnel. I have not yet received a detailed proposal from Network Rail on how engineering work will be carried out, but we will be mindful of the potential for disruption.
Mrs Siân C. James (Swansea East) (Lab)
I shall not express my disappointment with the decision again, but I would like to know this: are you going to publish the information on how you reached the financial decision? People in Swansea ought to be told what that decision was based on.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not publishing anything, but the Secretary of State might be.
Mr Philip Hammond
If the hon. Lady would like to see the business case analysis for electrification from Cardiff to Swansea, I am happy to make it available to her. I can tell her that it will not reinforce her case.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
13. What assessment he has made of the potential for satellite navigation systems to increase the proportion of journeys undertaken by haulage companies using major routes.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
Since the previous Transport questions, I have launched a consultation on our proposals for high-speed rail, given the go-ahead for the £4.5 billion inter-city express programme, announced further electrification of the Great Western main line as far as Cardiff, announced £100 million-plus of additional funding to local authorities for pothole repairs and confirmed funding for a further nine local major transport schemes.
Miss McIntosh
The Secretary of State will be aware that the European Aviation Safety Agency is currently consulting on flight time hours. I have been contacted by pilots living in my area who are keen that we export our high safety standards to the rest of Europe, and conclude that they will catch us up on fatigue and airline safety.
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have received, as I am sure other Members have, a great deal of correspondence on this issue. We are working with the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that the European approach remains proportionate and appropriate. I assure her that we will not agree to anything that lessens safety levels in this country.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
At our previous exchange, I asked the Secretary of State about rising fuel prices, and he said:
“I am pleased to say that it is not my business to do anything about this”.—[Official Report, 27 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 435.]
Up and down the country, motorists will think that it is precisely the business of the Transport Secretary—the clue is in the job title. We are calling on the Government to reverse the VAT hike and consider deferring the next duty rise. What has he done?
Mr Hammond
Perhaps in due course the hon. Gentleman will learn that the occasional piece of humour does not go amiss in the Chamber. It is not the responsibility of the Transport Secretary to manage world oil markets, and it is not the responsibility of the Transport Secretary to deal with VAT or fuel duty. The latter are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who will no doubt allude to them in his Budget speech on 23 March.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
T3. I recognise the benefits that high-speed rail will bring to Birmingham and the northern cities it services, but will my right hon. Friend outline what benefits might be brought to the wider environs, such as the black country—a part of which I represent—and any towns along the route where it does not stop?
Mr Hammond
The benefits for my hon. Friend’s constituents of high-speed rail will be twofold. First, there are the benefits that will accrue to the west midlands region in general from the high-speed railway from London to Birmingham, and the benefits to the UK economy of enhanced productivity and competitiveness as a whole. Secondly, moving passengers on to the high-speed railway and creating large amounts of additional capacity will allow our existing railway to be used more innovatively, with new passenger and freight services for the future.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
T2. As the Minister will be aware, passengers travelling from Northern Ireland to London will be hit by two increases—the air passenger duty increase and the passenger landing charges being proposed at Heathrow and Gatwick. What discussions will the Minister have with the Northern Ireland Executive and other colleagues in government to ensure that there is still good access between London and Northern Ireland for business commuters?
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
T4. The Secretary of State has today offered my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) sight of the business case for the decision in Swansea, but we were previously promised that the full facts and everything about the case would be placed in the Library. That has not happened yet. In view of the importance of what is a major European route, including its importance to the economy of west Wales, will the Secretary of State promise to put all the details in the Library without delay?
Mr Hammond
Yes, I am happy to do so, although I should tell the right hon. Gentleman that, despite what was said at the time, the previous Government did not conduct a business case analysis of the proposal for electrification from Cardiff to Swansea.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I warmly welcome the Government’s clear commitment to take high-speed rail to Leeds, but will the Secretary of State give proper consideration in the consultation to the high-speed north proposal by Harrogate engineer Colin Elliff? The route would not go through the Chilterns, hence avoiding some of the environmental concerns there.
Mr Hammond
There will be a consultation on the line of route between Birmingham and Manchester, and between Birmingham and Leeds respectively, once line options have been developed by HS2. That consultation will take place early next year, and I look forward to my hon. Friend’s participation in it.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
T6. Does the Minister intend his direction of travel to lead towards the inevitable break-up and privatisation of Network Rail, in order to appease the probably insatiable appetite of the rail operating companies?
Mr Hammond
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said earlier, Sir Roy McNulty is conducting a review of value for money in the rail industry. One of his preliminary findings is that we need better alignment of interests between train operators and the infrastructure operator. Network Rail has responded to those recommendations, unprompted, by announcing that it will give greater autonomy to its regional route managing directors. I think that is a step in the right direction.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
On 23 March, the people of Dover will vote in a referendum on whether they want a people’s port big society change in Dover. If the people vote for the big society, will the Secretary of State help to implement it?
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
A few minutes ago the Secretary of State was asked a perfectly reasonable question about whether he was speaking up for motorists on the VAT increase. He was not asked whether he would implement it; he was asked for his view. Has he said anything to the Chancellor? Why does he not open his mouth about the massive rise in petrol prices? Come on, let’s hear what his view is!
Mr Hammond
How can I resist a suggestion from the hon. Gentleman to open one’s mouth? I can tell him this: I speak regularly to the Chancellor on a range of matters, and the content of those discussions will remain private.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
London has rightly invested in the necessary infrastructure to ensure that the Olympics are a success, so will the Secretary of State work with the Rugby Football Union, Network Rail and local authorities to ensure that the rugby world cup in 2015 is not overlooked, and that we can have a station that is fit for the home of rugby and can meet the demands?
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
At great expense, a station has been built on High Speed 1 that says “Stratford International” on the outside, even though no international trains stop there. When will this rather embarrassing state of affairs be resolved?
Mr Hammond
Operational matters on High Speed 1 are a matter for the concessionaire and for the companies operating the services. I can tell the House that Deutsche Bahn intends to start running services from Frankfurt to London in 2012, and I hope that other operators will start to run similar services. That will be good news for passengers in general, and probably good news for the right hon. Gentleman’s campaign. The more operators there are on the route, the more chance there is of getting additional services.
Airport Economic Regulation
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
In the Queen’s speech the Government announced their intention to reform the framework for the economic regulation of airports. Today I am announcing that legislation to implement these reforms will be introduced early in the next session.
Reforming the framework for airport economic regulation will help improve the quality of service that passengers receive at designated airports and contribute positively to economic growth.
As I set out in my statement to the House on 21 July 2010, Official Report, columns 20-22WS, we plan to replace the existing statutory framework for regulation at designated airports with a more flexible licence-based system. This will give the CAA the powers it needs to become a more responsive regulator, for example to deal with events such as the severe weather this winter. The reforms will also strip out unnecessary regulation and support passenger-focused investment in existing airport infrastructure.
I am keen to ensure that there is a smooth transition to the new regime and we will work with the CAA and industry to achieve this. In particular, the Government will not be making changes to the basis on which the current price caps at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are set.