Parliamentary Written Question (Correction)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in the answer I gave to parliamentary question 31081 on 16 December, Official Report, columns 866-67W, about the numbers of persons who habitually travel to a place of work. The table, with corrected figures for 2005, is detailed below:

Mottram-Tintwistle Bypass

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) on securing this debate, and on providing an opportunity for the House to debate funding for highways and, specifically, the bypass that he so keenly wants for Tintwistle. This is an issue on which he has already made representations to me, and on which he clearly sets a high priority. His constituents can take comfort from the fact that he is actively championing their cause here in the House.

Let me preface my remarks by referring to the recent statements by both the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chancellor, and the related documents, which have been placed in the Library, on investment in strategic highways, and local major transport schemes. As the Chancellor stated in the October spending review announcement, the Government are determined to invest in Britain’s long-term economic growth, through areas such as transport, science and green energy, as these will help to ensure that the economy is broadly based and less susceptible to failures in one sector. It is for that reason that transport spending has been prioritised as one of the main areas of capital investment over the next four years. On 26 October, the Transport Secretary was able to announce his plans for investment in strategic and local roads. On the strategic road network, he was able to commit to completing the eight major road schemes currently under construction by 2015, at a total cost of £900 million, as well as a further £1.4 billion to fund new strategic schemes between now and 2015.

In addition to that, we are able to provide more than £1.5 billion for local authority major schemes over the same period. Around £600 million of that is for schemes that are already under construction or that have conditional approval, including two schemes that will provide some benefit to the area in question, namely the £120.9 million Metrolink extensions from Chorlton to East Didsbury, and from Droylsden to Ashton, and the £40.5 million Greater Manchester retaining walls maintenance scheme. On top of that, we are committed nationally to a further £900 million of investment for new local authority major schemes. Taken together, that level of investment is greater than the average Department for Transport spend on local authority major schemes over the last 10 years.

In taking our decisions, we have looked carefully at the value for money offered by schemes, their strategic value—whether for local, regional or national journeys—and the degree of development and certainty of deliverability, as well as important non-monetised impacts including, of course, environmental impact. As a result of this prioritisation exercise, we are satisfied that we have chosen the most appropriate strategic schemes to start between now and 2015, subject to the reviews announced by the Transport Secretary. Although we are committed to significant investment in local major schemes as well as schemes on the strategic road network, it is inevitable that we have had to prioritise and make some hard decisions to select those schemes that offer the best value for investment.

I shall turn now to the specific issue that my hon. Friend has raised tonight. He has made a number of points about the long-standing ambitions to develop road solutions in Tintwistle and the surrounding area. As I have mentioned, he and other local MPs have already contacted me to ask why a scheme to deal with this problem was not prioritised as part of the spending review. The reason, as the Transport Secretary explained on 26 October, is that a fundamental requirement used to decide whether a scheme would be considered for funding, when spending review decisions were being made earlier this year, was that the Department needed to have received a business case before 10 June 2010, the date on which the Transport Secretary announced the suspension of all scheme work pending the outcome of the spending review. Given that no agreed solution has yet been proposed for Tintwistle and the surrounding area, we simply do not have a scheme sufficiently worked out that could be considered for funding.

It is also clear that, despite our considerable investment, the number of the schemes prioritised under the previous system of regional funding allocations is no longer affordable, and we are having to do our best to rationalise the programme. That is why the spending review reconfirmed that the 29 schemes with full approval, many of which are already under construction, would go ahead. In addition, three schemes have conditional approval, and we have placed a further 10 schemes in the supported pool and 22 schemes in the development pool. There are a further 34 schemes in the pre-qualification pool.

I should make it plain to my hon. Friend that the problem that we inherited—apart from the appalling financial situation, with which he is doubtless familiar—was a complete over-promise by the previous Administration of what could sensibly be delivered. They left us with an enormous pipeline of schemes all over the country, which, even if the economy had been working to its best effect, could not have been delivered within the available resources. They led many Members and individuals up the garden path, because they simply could not deliver on their promises.

The Secretary of State therefore had to bring the portcullis down, if I can put it in those terms, on 10 June, and to consider, in the light of the moneys available, which schemes had got past a certain point. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend’s scheme had not got past that point on 10 June, for reasons with which he is familiar. So what happened was not a commentary on the value of his proposal; it was simply a recognition of how far the scheme had progressed through the pipeline by that point. That is why we are in this position now. I strongly regret that people across the country were led up the garden path by the previous Government and led to expect something that simply could not be delivered.

We have protected the transport budget significantly in the spending review, and the Department for Transport has done very well on capital projects because the Government recognise the value of investment in them. Even with that good settlement, however, the enormous pipeline of schemes that we inherited simply could not be delivered. I am very sorry for my hon. Friend’s constituents, who have had to wait 50 years for a solution to this problem, and I fear that I shall have to disappoint him again tonight. I understand the issues that he has raised, however, and he is quite right to do so.

I fully appreciate that there is a long and complicated history to the particular problems in Tintwistle and the surrounding area, stretching back many years, with strong views for and against any proposals. More recently, a full bypass of Mottram, Hollingsworth and Tintwistle was identified by the Highways Agency as a means of addressing the disturbance from high volumes of traffic on those sections of the A57 and A628. A local authority scheme known as the Glossop spur was also promoted by Tameside metropolitan borough council and Derbyshire county council to provide a link to Glossop from the proposed bypass. It was dependent on the Highways Agency scheme being constructed.

A public inquiry commenced in June 2007, but in September 2007 errors were found in the Highways Agency traffic model on which the evidence for the scheme was based. That was clearly very unfortunate. Pending production of revised traffic forecasts incorporating new national traffic growth forecasts, the inquiry was adjourned in December 2007.

In July of the following year, revised cost estimates were produced which showed the central scheme cost estimate rising to some £270 million, with a potential maximum cost of some £315 million. That made the scheme unaffordable under the proposed timetable. It was deferred by four years until 2016-17 in the north-west regional funding advice programme, with the Glossop spur development consequently also deferred until 2017-18.

The delays led the Highways Agency to recommend to the then Secretary of State in March 2009 that it should withdraw from the public inquiry, and that recommendation was accepted. The scheme was subsequently removed from the Highways Agency’s programme to allow regional partners to undertake further consideration of the most appropriate scope of future work to solve the transport problems in the area. I am afraid that there are currently no plans to reinstate the Highways Agency scheme in the programme, but the agency continues to monitor conditions on the A57 and A628, and will invest in its future maintenance in line with its established approach for safe roads.

I understand my hon. Friend’s frustration at the ongoing difficulties experienced on that section of the network, but it is now for the parties to consider the options in the current funding environment. Let me put that in context. The total contribution requested from the Department for Transport for new major local authority schemes that we are considering in the current spending review period—after the coming down of the June 2010 portcullis—is £1.7 billion, nearly double the available finance of £900 million for such schemes. We are trying to reduce the ratio through improved funding offers from promoters and through sifting of schemes, but it means that at present we cannot consider schemes other than those already announced for the current spending review period, or accept any new bids for schemes that were not prioritised in the last Government’s regional funding allocations process.

I want to view the future constructively. We intend to work in partnership with local communities to develop a new framework for the funding of major local transport schemes over time. We want it to involve a reduced role for central Government and give a proper voice to locally elected representatives and business interests, with local enterprise partnerships—individually or in consortiums—playing a role in strategic investment choices in functional economic areas. In that context, we intend to enable local communities to identify and invest in what they consider to be their priorities in the next spending review period. So one possible avenue is central Government funding after 2015, if the present arrangement continues; another is the creation of LEPs which will be able to influence local priorities.

However, other avenues might be explored. They could include tax increment funding, details of which will be announced in due course, and the local sustainable transport fund, for which I am responsible and details of which I announced recently. Although the LSTF is not designed to support the cost of a full major scheme, it would potentially fund a package of complementary measures to support economic growth and reduce carbon. For parts of the route, Greater Manchester might choose to look to its own resources through the transport fund that it has created for a possible solution, particularly if it can free up resources as a result of successful bids to the regional growth fund or the LSTF for other projects. There could be a knock-on effect.

I understand that earlier this year Tameside metropolitan borough council, together with the Government office for the north-west, led a study group which included the Highways Agency and Greater Manchester to steer the development of an alternative integrated package of options, mainly in the Longdendale area, known as the Longdendale integrated transport strategy. I imagine that my hon. Friend is familiar with it. I understand that Tameside has since consulted on a list of options including new and improved railway stations—I must confess that, having looked at the map, I am not sure where they would be, but perhaps my hon. Friend knows—a short bypass of Mottram together with a revised Glossop spur, and innovative new treatments for the existing trunk road including new junctions, bus lanes and reduced speeds.

[Andrew Bingham]

My hon. Friend is right about the smaller scheme, but Tameside council designed it without consulting High Peak, and many of its proposals were not in its gift because they required the consent of the Highways Agency and Derbyshire county council. In my view—I was and still am a councillor, and of course am now the local Member of Parliament—it did nothing for High Peak, nothing for Tintwistle, and nothing for Hadfield. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said about the general scheme of things and I understand the position, but the proposal that was advanced earlier in the year did not strike me as beneficial to my constituency in any way.

[Norman Baker]

I hear what my hon. Friend says and I am sorry that that is the analysis locally of the proposals put forward in the transport strategy. I was trying to find some crumbs of comfort for him in a difficult situation.

I understand that no final recommendations have been identified or proposed for that strategy, but Tameside council tells me that it intends to publish early in the new year the results of the consultation exercise which it thinks has been carried out. I understand that before the spending review, Greater Manchester authorities had also identified £100 million to fund the agreed outcome of the strategy, but that relied on a significant contribution from the regional funding allocation budget, which no longer exists. It is up to the Greater Manchester authorities whether they wish to proceed with their own funding for that.

For the future, any new scheme to deal with the traffic problems in Tintwistle and the surrounding area will have to meet the challenge laid down by the Secretary of State in his October statement to compete for finite resources against other projects in future spending rounds. Serious consideration needs to be given to how schemes can be delivered more efficiently and economically—in other words, to get the cost down and the cost-benefit ratio up—particularly where greater access is possible to alternative sources of funding, including the private sector.

I fully understand my hon. Friend’s desire to see a positive decision on the funding for a solution to the transport problems in Tintwistle and the surrounding area. However, I hope he will acknowledge that the Government have had to make some difficult decisions on the best use of the funding available for an unrealistically large number of competing projects. It will now be important to look at how schemes can be made more cost-effective, and to identify new funding sources and systems for funding. Although I will continue to consider any future proposals for dealing with the transport problems in the area, I am afraid that I can offer no particular assurances at this stage regarding the future availability of funding for such proposals.

My hon. Friend asked whether I would come and visit his constituency. I do not wish to raise false hopes, for the reasons that I have given tonight, but if he wants me to come and visit, I am happy to do so and look at the problems first hand. I cannot give him a Christmas present of a bypass, but I can give him a Christmas present of a visit, although the precedent that he mentioned when a previous Minister went up there and got sacked on the way back does not encourage such a visit.

Local Sustainable Transport Fund

Norman Baker Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I wish to inform the House of the plans to publish next month detailed guidance on the operation of the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, for which £560 million has been set aside in the four-year period to 2014-15. Coupled with the funding local authorities will receive through the Integrated Transport and Highways Maintenance Blocks, which I am announcing today, this represents almost £5 billion funding for small local transport schemes over the next four years.

The establishment of the LSTF reflects the importance the Government attach to helping build locally a strong economy and addressing at a local level the urgent challenge of climate change and the commitment made in the coalition agreement to promoting sustainable travel initiatives.

The guidance will invite local transport authorities in England (outside London) to apply for funding to support the cost of a range of sustainable travel measures. Packages might, for example, include measures that promote walking and cycling, encourage modal shift, manage effectively demands on the network, secure better traffic management, improve road safety and improve access and mobility for local communities.

The guidance will also set out the criteria against which decisions on the allocation of funding will be taken. The criteria will include meeting the core objectives of supporting economic growth and reducing carbon. Bids will also need to demonstrate value for money, deliverability and affordability of package proposals.

We have set aside the following LSTF funding over the next four financial years:

Local Transport Capital Blocks Settlement

Norman Baker Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

Following the spending review on 20 October 2010, which included the England-wide totals for future transport grants, I have today placed in the Libraries of the House details of the local transport capital settlement for individual local authorities in England.

This includes over £3 billion over the next four years for local highways maintenance. With limited resources available, it is essential that highways maintenance continues to be prioritised, reflecting the economic and social importance to local communities, the need to safeguard the largest single local public asset and the liabilities for future years that can be created from short-term cuts in maintenance.

The Department is also providing over £1.3 billion for small transport improvement schemes, reflecting the contribution these schemes make to improving road safety, stimulating local economies by reducing congestion, and delivering social justice to local communities.

Funding allocations are calculated according to needs-based formulae that are developed with local authorities. The funding is not ring-fenced, and local authorities are free to spend their allocations in accordance with their priorities. All funding will be supplied as capital grant, and not as supported borrowing. The figures provided include final allocations for 2011-12 to 2012-13, and indicative allocations for 2013-14 to 2014-15.

This announcement follows a recent consultation on local transport capital funding. A summary of responses and the Department’s proposed next steps are available on the Department’s website at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/localtransportfunding

and have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

The Department is separately setting aside £560 million over the four year period to 2014-15 for the local sustainable transport fund. I am announcing today in a separate statement to the House plans for publishing guidance on the operation of this fund.

Rail Services (Nuneaton)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this debate and on providing an opportunity for the House to debate rail issues at Nuneaton. Let me preface my remarks by referring to recent statements by the Secretary of State. I hope that my hon. Friend is pleased with the level of the Government’s investment in rail. We recognise the value of rail both in helping growth and cutting carbon emissions.

Let me turn first to the west coast main line. The £9 billion west coast route modernisation project renewed and upgraded the country’s key main rail line. It accommodates many long-distance passenger trains and numerous local and regional passenger services, and handles 40% of the nation’s rail freight business. It was a good example of the railway industry pulling together to deliver a very important project.

Modernisation has delivered a successful and robust railway that has headroom for passenger and freight growth. The west coast main line regularly achieves more than 90% reliability. Passenger growth has been very encouraging, with 4 million additional journeys following the completion of route modernisation, and I expect the growth to continue. This week, I noted that the first new 11-car train of the 106 Pendolino vehicles on order was delivered to the UK for testing and approval ahead of passenger service. Given the level of investment in both the trains and the infrastructure, it is important that the west coast main line timetable secures the best return for taxpayers on the money spent. The timetable ensures that rail contributes the maximum possible to the overall transport network of the country. It has delivered a significant modal shift from car and air. Rail has now doubled its share of the London-to-Glasgow market to around 13%, and to between 75 and 80% of the London-to-Manchester market. Rail serves those markets well.

The current timetable maximises the use of line capacity and fleet resources. However, some difficult choices had to be made when the current west coast main line timetable was designed. As my hon. Friend knows, a few established services and calling patterns were changed. No towns were left isolated. Overall, the vast majority of passengers have benefited, as is demonstrated by the growth that is now being witnessed. Headline improvements delivered with the completion of modernisation include: three trains an hour to both Manchester and Birmingham; new hourly all-day services from London to the Trent valley, Crewe to London and London to Chester; significant journey time reductions, including London to Warrington and Preston to Glasgow services, which are now 30 minutes faster, and London to Liverpool, which is 25 minutes faster; and a full weekend service with journey times and frequencies very similar to weekdays.

I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that all such improvements are very welcome. One of the difficult choices was the decision to remove the Nuneaton stop from Virgin and west coast off-peak services. Unfortunately, it is not a high-earning station in off-peak times or one where business is likely to grow significantly when compared with other opportunities on the line. Quite simply the revenue and growth opportunities are much greater elsewhere.

The removal of the fast off-peak service was forecast to lose around £200,000 in revenue from Nuneaton. That needs to be set against the £600 million that modernisation will have generated between 2003 and 2011. In the current service pattern, London peak traffic, which accounts for the vast majority of demand and revenue at the station, benefits from a standard journey time of around one hour for the 97 miles. The fastest journey achieves an average speed of over 100 mph, which is one of the fastest commuter services in Europe. To serve more diffuse evening peak travel patterns, fast Virgin services continue to call at Nuneaton throughout the evening.

Off-peak services are provided by the new 100 mph air-conditioned Desiro trains that are operated by London Midland. These services give Nuneaton new hourly direct journey opportunities to towns such as Stoke, Tamworth, Rugby and Milton Keynes. They also provide the opportunity of cross-platform connections with Virgin west coast services at Rugby, giving a total journey time of one hour and 12 minutes to Euston. The previous direct hourly train completed the journey in the longer time of one hour and 15 minutes.

The timetable proposals for the current west coast main line services were widely consulted upon and welcomed in many parts, particularly in the north-west of England. However, I suspect that my hon. Friend wishes to promote Nuneaton’s case further. Therefore I urge him to comment on the consultation draft of the Network Rail west coast main line route utilisation strategy, which is published today. Nuneaton stakeholders will also get the opportunity to present their case during the consultation phase of the west coast franchise competition. The Government plan to issue an invitation in the Official Journal of the European Union for the competition in January 2011 and in due course we will issue the inter-city west coast franchise consultation document. I also urge my hon. Friend to discuss his ideas with the accredited franchise bidders once they have been selected.

The Secretary of State recently gave his approval for Network Rail to proceed with construction of the north chord, which will improve the capacity and reliability of the west coast main line and provide freight trains from the east coast with improved access to the midlands and the north-west. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman today, if he does not already know, that that project has recently attracted €5 million of European Union funding from the trans-European network towards its £29 million cost. I expect construction to start in spring 2011 and take about 18 months to complete.

The hon. Gentleman asked a couple of questions about the west coast main line. In particular, he asked what would happen when the new high-speed line opened. I am advised that it is too early to say what the stocking patterns will be on the west coast main line, but it is obviously anticipated that the faster inter-city services will use the new high-speed line. Perhaps he will want to have discussions with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), who is the rail Minister, closer to the time, to ensure that the inter-city services are properly factored into the timetable for the west coast main line as it pertains after High Speed 2 opens.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about spare train paths on the west coast main line, in particular whether there were any spare train paths for open access operators. I am advised that the Office of Rail Regulation is investigating that matter, but the key question is whether it is best for an open access operator or for an additional franchise service to use any spare train paths. Open access operators would provide perhaps five trains a day. London Midland has also applied to improve the London to Crewe service. So we must reach a balance in the public interest between the open access arrangements and what might come in from a franchise operation. Nevertheless, his comments are noted by my colleagues.

Let me consider the Coventry to Nuneaton upgrade. Earlier this year, we received a business case submission from Coventry city council, Centro and Warwickshire county council. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the upgrade consists of doubling the frequency of the service between Coventry and Nuneaton, new stations at Bermuda—is that right? I thought that Bermuda was elsewhere.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

It was named after the country.

[Norman Baker]

As I was saying, there will be new stations at Bermuda and the Ricoh arena, and longer platforms at Bedworth. To accommodate the more frequent service, a new bay platform will be required at Coventry station, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As he knows, all those features are included in the bid.

Consideration of the bid was put on hold pending the spending review. The Department’s spending review settlement was a good outcome for transport, but it was not sufficient to fund the full pipeline of schemes prioritised under the previous system of regional funding allocations. Tough decisions are necessary to get the best value from the available public funding.

The Coventry to Nuneaton rail scheme has been included in the pre-qualification pool for funding from the local major transport schemes budget. That is because we have not yet verified the scheme’s value for money. We will conduct a preliminary sift and make decisions by January about whether that scheme and other such schemes can join the development pool. The decisions in January will be based largely on the ability to deliver significantly within the spending review period and the scope for reduced Department for Transport contributions from those most recently requested, as well as the potential for a scheme to demonstrate a compelling value-for-money case by the final 2011 deadline.

We also need to ensure that some of the more challenging aspects of the scheme are fully addressed. They relate primarily to the ability of the railway to handle the size of the crowds that are forecast for major events at the Ricoh arena and the availability of rolling stock, especially for evening events at the venue. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is a safety issue in relation to huge numbers of people turning up at a relatively small station to try to access a short train; that is a serious issue with using rolling stock for such events at the Ricoh arena. We are now reviewing the business case and we are in regular contact with officials at the three authorities to seek further clarification about certain matters to ensure that we have all the information we need for the sifting process in January 2011.

As I have said, there are a large number of extant schemes in the pipeline. I am sure that some will drop out because they will not be progressed by the promoters of the schemes, and we hope that other schemes will see a reduced cost. Generally, the more we can reduce the cost of schemes, the more likely it is that we can proceed with more of those in the pipeline.

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I am conscious that we are short of time. Some of my constituents are concerned that high-speed rail— HS 2—and the level of investment that will be required for that project could lead to a crowding-out of investment in more local rail services. Can the Minister give us an assurance that, if high-speed rail goes ahead, that will not happen?

[Norman Baker]

I hope that high-speed rail is going ahead. The Government have made it very clear in the coalition agreement that we are committed to it and the Secretary of State has been working very hard on it, taking personal responsibility for promoting it. However, my hon. Friend will also have noticed that, since the formation of the coalition Government, we have announced, for example, the progress of 2,100 new carriages; an electrification programme across the country; that Crossrail is going ahead in its entirety; that the Thameslink programme is going ahead, and new light rail extensions in Birmingham and Nottingham. The public at large can be in no doubt that the Government are committed to investment in rail: high-speed rail; conventional rail, and indeed light rail. We see that investment as a way of creating growth in the economy and cutting carbon emissions. I can therefore give him an absolute assurance that we will not see local services carved out. We are determined to ensure that rail has a future, both for local services and for high-speed services.

The Secretary of State will be happy to give my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton more detail about the Coventry-Nuneaton line in the meeting that I understand has been scheduled between them for later this month.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair]

Order. As the Member who has secured the next debate and the Minister who will respond are present, we will begin.

Oral Answers to Questions

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

4. What steps his Department is taking to promote cycling as a means of transport.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

We set out our commitment to sustainable local travel, including cycling, in our decision to establish a local sustainable transport fund.

The spending review made available £560 million over four years. It will be for local partnerships—local transport authorities working with their communities—to identify the right solutions for their areas in bidding for funding. Bids involving cycling will be well placed to capitalise on the objectives of the fund to help create growth and cut carbon.

[Caroline Lucas]

The axing of the highly cost-effective body, Cycling England, wiped out the arrangement whereby money was effectively channelled into school and workplace projects that are run by charities such as Sustrans and CTC. What is the Minister’s plan B to ensure that cycling charities and campaigning groups, such as those in my constituency, can continue to work with schools and businesses to deliver cycling’s many benefits? How will he know if that plan B is working?

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to say that Bikeability, one of the main schemes delivered by Cycling England, has been retained at a national level. Funding for it will be top-sliced from the local sustainable transport fund. We are in regular contact with organisations such as Sustrans to ensure that they are plugged in. I assure the hon. Lady that bids to the local sustainable transport fund will be regarded more favourably if they have involvement from voluntary community groups, such as the one that she has described.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The cycle to work scheme has involved some 400,000 people over the past decade. It was recently put in jeopardy by a ruling of Revenue and Customs. What representations will Ministers make to their Treasury colleagues to ensure that that important scheme is not jeopardised?

[Norman Baker]

I am aware of the value of that scheme in encouraging cycling. I have received representations from hon. Members about the scheme, but I hope that the concerns are unfounded. I assure my hon. Friend that I wrote to the relevant Treasury Minister three or four weeks ago. I will ensure that he receives a copy of the reply.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made a very good point about people’s concerns over the responsibilities of Cycling England being returned to the Department. The accepted wisdom is that cycling is good for health, reduces congestion and reduces emissions. There has been an explosion in cycling, partly because of the £140 million that was pledged by the previous Government for 2008 to 2011. However, there are anxieties about the future of cycling. Will the Minister be more specific about how the Government will monitor the amount of money that is available and the effectiveness of the spend, because the concern, as the hon. Lady said, is that the Department has taken its eye off the ball?

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department has not taken its eye off the ball. Cycling was mentioned as a priority in the coalition agreement and £560 million is a substantial amount of money for a local fund, by any degree. Bikeability is being retained. On monitoring, we will ensure that public money that is allocated to local authorities is well spent. Indeed, we are sponsoring a new indicator to measure the response that we get to money that is spent on cycling.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wish that I had got on my bike to get here this morning, rather than relying on Transport for London. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that it is vital that young people learn how to cycle. Will the Minister therefore clarify what has happened to the £5 million of Bikeability funds that he claimed previously would be administered through school sport partnerships, now that those are being abolished?

[Norman Baker]

There is £11 million for Bikeability in this financial year, which is available to local highways authorities and school sport partnerships. Bikeability funding will continue for the rest of the Parliament, as we have indicated. We are funding 275,000 Bikeability level 2 training places for children this year and a further £500,000 is available in bursaries for the training of cycling instructors. It is clear that our commitment to cycling is undimmed and that we have a plan in place to deliver on that.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with local authority leaders on the future of funding for major local authority transport schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

11. What plans he has for the future funding for the national station improvement programme and access for all grants.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

We intend to proceed with funding the £150 million national stations improvement programme to modernise approximately 150 medium-sized stations in England and Wales between 2009 and 2014. Similarly, we intend to proceed with the £370 million programme to improve access at stations in England, Scotland and Wales between 2006 and 2015.

[Nigel Adams]

The Minister will be aware that Selby railway station in my constituency does not have a passenger lift facility—its three platforms are currently connected by a wooden footbridge. What can the Minister tell my disabled or elderly constituents who are currently unable to use one of the platforms, thereby restricting their journeys somewhat, about the funding application for a passenger lift at the station?

[Norman Baker]

Selby station dates from a time when mobility was considered differently—indeed, I think it was the first station opened in Yorkshire, although presumably another was opened at the same time for trains to arrive at. I appreciate that that can present barriers to access for disabled people. Selby has already benefited from around £36,000 of small schemes funding towards automatic doors, customer information systems and non-slip flooring. Although I cannot guarantee the outcome of a future application for funding, we will give fair and full consideration to any proposal to create level access to platforms 2 and 3.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

12. What recent representations he has received on future expenditure on roads in Essex; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

13. What steps he is taking to encourage sustainable local travel.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

Our commitment to sustainable local travel is evidenced by our decision to establish a £560 million local sustainable transport fund. We will shortly set out the criteria for bidding for the fund and will publish a White Paper next month setting out the policy initiatives that we will take forward in supporting local authorities in delivering sustainable local travel.

[Mr Amess]

Like most cycle networks in the country, ours does not best meet the needs of our local centenarians. Our ageing population very much depends on buses. Given that the bus companies are asking for subsidies and that the local authority has no money, can the Government help?

[Norman Baker]

I think the local sustainable transport fund helps directly. The hon. Gentleman made a connection between elderly people and cycling. When I was in Holland, I was interested to find out that 75% of journeys by pensionable persons were taken by bike, so we have some way to go in this country. The fund, which is designed to create growth and cut carbon, is well positioned to receive bids that will enhance cycling provision in Southend and elsewhere.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The Minister is aware that there is a proposal for a national trial for a tram-train in south Yorkshire, which would help to get people out of their cars and on to public transport. When I asked the Secretary of State last week about the status of that project, I believe that he said it was on his desk pending a decision. Can the Minister now enlighten the House on whether a decision has been taken to go ahead with that nationally important pilot project?

[Norman Baker]

The details of that particular scheme are still being worked out, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that discussions on it have involved me, the Secretary of State and the Transport Minister, who has responsibility for rail. Enabling tram-train to go ahead could provide an important benefit to public transport. We want to get the details right, so no firm decision has yet been taken.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

14. What steps he is taking to encourage greater use of low-emission vehicles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

15. What recent assessment he has made of the effects of the outcomes of the comprehensive spending review in respect of the bus service operators grant on local bus services and fares.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

We estimate that the 20% reduction in bus service operators grant from 2012-13 would lead to a potential increase in average fares of around 1.5%. However, the bus industry is hopeful that, in general, this reduction could be absorbed without fares having to rise.

[Diana Johnson]

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has told people to get on the bus to look for work. What does the Minister say to my constituents in Kingswood and Bransholme, which are on the outskirts of Hull, who are looking for work, but are worried that the cuts that are being implemented will lead to a reduction in the less profitable bus services, as well as higher fares for people who are struggling already?

[Norman Baker]

We want to see more people on buses but, as I have indicated, the reduction in BSOG is less than the average reduction in the Department’s revenue budget, which recognises the importance of the bus network. When I spoke to the industry following the spending review announcement, it indicated that the cut was so minimal that it hoped that it could absorb it without fares having to rise, which is what we hope will happen.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

16. What steps his Department is taking to reduce overcrowding on trains.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State update the House on progress following the consultation on the safety at street works and road works code of practice? More than 500,000 people are working on the highways unprotected, and we need new legislation to be able to get new jobs, which could be based in areas outside the south-east.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I am happy to say that we are having discussions in the Department with relevant bodies outside, including the roadworks community, to work out how best to go forward and ensure that we get the balance right between improved safety, where that is appropriate, and not loading inappropriate costs on business.

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Mobility Scooters

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise important issues relating to the estimated 4 million adults in the country who have some form of mobility impairment. Given that figure, it is not surprising that there are some 300,000 mobility scooters in use here, and that the number is growing by up to 25,000 each year. They obviously provide an invaluable aid for those who are elderly and/or suffer from a disability, enabling them to maintain their independence and ensuring that they are less marginalised in our society than they would be otherwise. They are crucial in helping people suffering a disability and others to realise the rights to access that I think most people in our society accept should be a reality for all our citizens. After all, 15 years have gone by since the passing of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

This evening I want to explore some aspects of safety in the use of such mobility aids, specifically, but not wholly, in regard to the transporting of these vehicles and their users. I also intend to look at the treatment of mobility scooter users and at whether they are being afforded the protection under the law to which they are entitled.

The local authority that serves my constituency, Kirklees council, licenses 249 taxis, 55 of which are able to carry wheelchairs. There are a further 1,520 private hire vehicles, of which 120 are designated for wheelchair access. Unlike nearby Calderdale authority, Kirklees makes a distinction between wheelchairs and mobility scooters, but it seems evident that the two classes are becoming blurred and that scooters are on occasions being transported as if wheelchairs. It seems—largely, I accept, on anecdotal evidence—that sometimes this is happening without the user being relocated to a standard seat within the motor vehicle for the journey or the appliance being anchored adequately, if at all. The situation is no doubt complicated by those scooters that fit within the dimensions of the reference “wheelchair” as used in previous deliberations on this topic by the Department for Transport, but, for whatever reason, this appears to be a growing practice, at the discretion, obviously, of the driver and his employers. Indeed, the National Taxi Association accepted that there was a great deal of confusion about this matter in its evidence to the consultants MVA, which compiled research for the Department.

The NTA also accepted that it has no existing policy about scooters being transported and left it to the discretion of the driver, based, it said, on health and safety considerations. It appears to share the view of many in the trade that it is waiting for a lead from the Government. Perhaps the Minister will want to use this opportunity tonight to provide such a lead. [Interruption.] He shakes his head, and I am encouraged.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I nodded.

[Mike Wood]

I am sorry, it is late in the evening: the Minister nodded, of course.

In the meantime, perhaps tonight the Minister can supply us with the up-to-date figures for the number of wheelchair and scooter users injured while being transported. Whatever the figures are, perhaps he can tell us whether his Department is content for this high potential for accident to remain the case, and if not, what it intends to do to cure, or at least ameliorate, the problem.

I accept that the Minister has been in post for only a matter of months, but he will be aware that research commissioned by his Department in 2006 suggested there was the potential for 180 serious accidents a year involving vehicles transporting such users and their appliances and 16 fatalities. I should add that many scooter users, such as my constituent, Mr Lawrence Conlon, also feel that the loading into and out of any taxis is fraught with danger. In a letter to me, Mr Conlon said:

“I would invite the Minister or any of his officials to take a test and allow themselves to mount and dismount one of these vehicles in a wheelchair, either being pushed or guided on and then dismounted backwards on runners on many occasions not much wider than the wheels of the chair.”

That danger was also raised in the MVA research, which recommended that the Department institute trials so as to be in a better position to judge the danger itself. Can the Minister tell us if such trials have been undertaken in the four years since this report, and have the Government looked into the lack of uniformity in respect of anchoring points on the various appliances?

I realise—and I expect the Minister will tell me this—that the Department’s default position is that mobility scooters are not safe to be transported on public transport at all, not least taxis. But the situation in the country has moved beyond that point and we need the Government to act to help regulatory and licensing authorities make sense of the situation on the ground. At the very least, we have to be assured that all journeys involving such passengers are health and safety compliant and that the drivers are trained and aware of the safety needs of this group of passengers, not only while installed in the cab, but also at the point of their being loaded into or dismounted from the vehicle. Is it appropriate, as Mr Conlon suggests, to compare the process with the same procedures when they are carried out by ambulance service staff? If so, is the Department happy with the apparent disparity in safety levels between the two?

So far I have examined the potential problems relating to access to a vehicle and safety while someone is being carried. I wish now to discuss the issue of scooter users who have little access to a taxi; such access is apparently only at the whim of a licensing department and the local taxi owners. Lawrence Conlon, like his father before him, has given a lifetime of service to my local community. Now in his 80s, he uses a motorised wheelchair to maintain mobility, but rarely can a taxi be supplied to provide transport for him. The size of his wheelchair means that it cannot be loaded into a taxi unless that vehicle has a hydraulic facility, and not just ramps or runners. No such vehicle is licensed by my local authority, which tells me that it cannot require local taxi owners to provide such a facility in even one of their hundreds of cabs.

The Minister will recall that he confirmed to me in his letter of 7 October that section 160 of the Equality Act 2010 required taxis to be wheelchair accessible, but there remains no date for the enactment of this provision. May I press him to proceed with that enactment as speedily as possible and ensure that when the provision is enacted it takes on board the need to include scooters and motorised wheelchairs, as used by my constituent and, I suspect, many others, who are currently being discriminated against?

Finally, I wish to discuss a slightly different point relating to scooters. I have before me an Office of Fair Trading press release from a fortnight ago, in which the OFT announced its intention to launch a market study into mobility aids, including wheelchairs and scooters. It says that the sector was worth £500 million to UK companies in 2008. Apparently, however, the level of complaints from customers is growing at 20% a year and now tops 5,000 per annum.

I wish to outline to the Minister just such a complaint, as raised with me by my constituent, Mrs Crossland, a scooter user who earlier this year received an unsolicited visit from a firm called New Life Mobility Ltd of Kirkgate house, Shipley, West Yorkshire. It agreed with Mrs Crossland to replace two small scooters with a more highly powered one, and in total she has parted with £1,650, in addition to the two perfectly serviceable scooters that were taken in part exchange. Six months later she still has no scooter that she feels safe using. West Yorkshire trading standards department, which I have always found very effective, has been involved but is now at the point of advising her to go to law to recoup her cash. As she has spent her life savings on this venture, she is of course not in any position to do that. I know that trading standards officers have met two directors of that company, a Wayne Patrick Allen and a Jimmy Rodgers, but apparently none of the actions it was agreed that they would take to make good the problems they have caused Mrs Crossland have taken place. May I therefore ask the Minister whether he and his colleagues in government will introduce more robust provisions that afford protection for the likes of my constituent from those who seek to take advantage of their age and infirmity to rob them of both their life savings and their mobility? An OFT investigation might help provide industry solutions to the problems that mobility aids users face, but, again, I feel that we need a strong lead from Government.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) on securing a debate on a matter that is clearly important and that is increasingly of interest to many people. He raises some germane and perfectly fair points that I will do my best to try to answer.

All the evidence suggests that the use of mobility vehicles is growing and that trend is likely to continue as our population ages. The Department for Transport continues to seek to improve access and safety for all people, including those who are disabled and elderly, to help enhance their quality of life. As part of that, we have been considering the issue of mobility scooters and their use.

There are three main areas of concern that the hon. Gentleman raised and I shall try to take each of them in turn. First, let me put on the record that there are concerns about the safe use of mobility scooters. There are occasional reports of people being injured by them when they are used on pavements and of users being hit by other vehicles when they are used on the road. My Department is considering all those issues with a view to balancing the mobility needs of disabled people with their own safety and that of others.

The hon. Gentleman asked specifically how many accidents had been caused. There are no national statistics on this matter, so I am unable to give him a figure, but I can tell him that from 2013 the police will be able to record whether a mobility vehicle has been involved in an accident. However, as the vehicles are used in public places other than roads and pavements it is unlikely that the database will provide a comprehensive picture. Other routes for data collection are being explored, but I hope that it is helpful that we are at least taking the matter forward. I recognise that there is an issue to be dealt with.

Let me turn to the question of the lack of provision to carry scooters in taxis and private hire vehicles, which overlaps with the point about health and safety. First, the legislation governing the accessibility of public transport does not cover the carriage of mobility scooters on public transport vehicles. Part 12 of the Equality Act 2010, which incorporates part 5 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, sets out the provisions for accessible public transport. I should point out that since mobility scooters are primarily designed for outdoor use by people who can walk only short distances, and therefore as an alternative to public transport, they are quite intentionally not covered by the provisions.

Regulations that have already been made under the provisions of the original DDA require space to be provided on buses, coaches and trains for a “reference wheelchair” but are silent on the carriage of mobility scooters, as they are in the case of taxis. Scooters continue to come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes and evidence suggests that some modern mobility scooters are in fact getting taller and heavier. As a result, many models are frankly unsuitable for carriage on many forms of public transport, including in taxis.

As for other transport vehicles, research has also shown that increasing numbers of the most popular mobility scooters on the market will now fit into the so-called “reference wheelchair” space. That has resulted in confusion as to whether they can be used on public transport since operators have adopted different policies for dealing with them. I want to ensure that we end that confusion. It has been done for wheelchairs, so we can do it for scooters.

I recognise the challenges that that presents since not only are there a large number of scooter models on the market, but the type of public transport vehicle also varies. Nevertheless, my Department is considering how we might adopt a more consistent approach on the general carriage of scooters on public transport.

On the specific point about taxis, one of the main concerns about the carriage of scooters in taxis is whether they can be safely secured, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his introductory comments. I cannot give him an answer tonight to his question about anchorage points, but I shall write to him after this debate and give him the information he seeks. On the MVA research, I can also tell him that no trials have taken place since that report was completed.

The issue about whether scooters can be safely secured is due to the design of scooters, which do not always have appropriate anchorage points. There is a danger that the scooter may tip up and cause injury. Guidance published by the former Disability Rights Commission advised users of mobility scooters that they should transfer into the standard vehicle seat and that, if possible, scooters should be carried in the boot of a vehicle, but, if they are carried inside the main body of the vehicle, they must be safely secured. We take the view that a driver would be entitled to refuse to carry a scooter that cannot be secured as it would constitute a serious safety hazard. It is for the driver or operator to decide whether to transport an unoccupied mobility scooter as an item of luggage.

The hon. Gentleman will be interested in a feasibility study commissioned by the Department for Transport in 2006, which considered whether scooters can be safely carried on public transport and made recommendations as to the types of scooters that could be carried, including their dimensions and weights. It suggested that smaller and lighter mobility scooters could be safely carried on public transport in the right circumstances. The study also identified a number of safety concerns, focusing particularly on the conditions for mobility devices on public transport vehicles. They included the securement and stability of the devices, laden weight and the lack of manoeuvrability.

The ability to access public transport vehicles was also highlighted as a safety issue. There was insufficient evidence to take a view on the safe use of mobility scooters in taxis, so this was left to the discretion of the operator. Some transport operators have already put in place arrangements to accommodate scooters and their experience may yield lessons for other operators. We hope so. I have asked my officials to discuss the carriage of scooters on public transport with interested parties, including transport operators, manufacturers, health authorities and users, and to come up with possible options as soon as possible in the new year.

I want my Department to explore whether some form of kitemark system could help users and operators alike to understand which scooters could be safely carried on public transport. I do not intend to impose any new regulations or burdens on operators, but the work will seek to identify, working alongside manufacturers and operators, which scooters currently on the market could fit into a reference wheelchair space. Some operators already publish acceptance criteria and I want my Department to explore whether a similar approach could be taken nationally. If that can be achieved it would be a good result for users who would then be rather more certain about whether scooters are likely to be accepted on public transport. That should, in turn, help to inform purchasing decisions. It would also help public transport operators, which currently have to deal with a bewildering array of models, some of which are suitable for carriage but many of which are not.

The hon. Gentleman asked about protection for scooter owners, particularly Mrs Crossland. When purchasing a scooter, it is important to get the model that will suit the purchaser and their circumstances best. We are aware that the Department of Health and the charitable organisation Motability have funded a database to enable people to choose a mobility scooter or wheelchair that meets their needs. As medical devices, mobility scooters will have to comply with regulations that give some protection to users regarding the technical safety of the vehicle and instructions for use. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which is an agency of the Department of Health, has responsibility for ensuring that this is the case.

Consumer protection legislation applies to mobility scooters as to any other products on the market. Those regulations are enforced by the Office of Fair Trading and local authority trading standards services through criminal prosecutions and civil enforcement orders. The hon. Gentleman might know that the OFT will be launching a market study into the mobility aids market. We have expressed an interest in this study, which will include wheelchairs and mobility scooters.

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on the actions of individual companies that have affected his constituent, but he has put his remarks on the record and I very much hope that the company concerned will respond sensibly to him and his constituent in the light of his comments. I hope the debate will help to bring about a satisfactory resolution to Mrs Crossland’s situation.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of taxis and wheelchair accessibility. Before long, I hope, we will announce our plans regarding the taxi sections of the Equality Act 2010 that have not yet commenced relating to wheelchair accessible vehicles. We have already taken preliminary action on driver training and we are also looking at the quota of taxis. We are giving local authorities incentives to increase the quota of wheelchair accessible taxis in their area, so we are already taking action to increase the number of such vehicles in local authority areas.

We recognise the important role scooters play in the lives of disabled people, giving them the freedom that enables them to continue to participate in everyday life, which we very much welcome. The increase in the number and use of mobility scooters, and the public interest in them, presents us with an opportune time to look again at the feasibility of the carriage of mobility devices on public transport. The hon. Gentleman is right to chivvy us along on that matter, and I am grateful that he has done so.

I have not been in office very long, nor have the Government, but in the past the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—DPTAC—has commented that it was concerned about the lack of co-ordinated information. DPTAC sought an interim measure and some formal guidance from the Department for Transport. We are doing what we can to take the matter forward, because I am concerned that the present arrangements have led to a plethora of different solutions that sometimes cause more problems than they solve. I am determined to try to sort that out.

Correct information is crucial, and we shall explore how best to make it available both to people who want to take scooters on public transport and to transport operators. In particular, we want to make sure that when someone buys a scooter they have clear information about whether the scooter is accessible for public transport. People are entitled to that information at the point of purchase.

Finally, it will be important to ensure that in our considerations we balance the needs of disabled people and their ability to maintain independence with the operating constraints of the transport industry.

Question put and agreed to.

Concessionary Travel

Norman Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) on securing this debate on a very important issue. This debate has probably set a record in the House of Commons for the number of interventions in 15 minutes. I counted 10 interventions—so 11 speeches, as it were, in 15 minutes perhaps sets an example to other Members in other debates.

Let me say right away that the coalition Government are committed to protecting the concessionary bus travel scheme. We made that clear in the coalition agreement, the Chancellor reconfirmed that commitment in the recent spending review, and the Prime Minister has given his own support for the continuation of the scheme.

The scheme is of huge benefit to millions of people, allowing free off-peak travel anywhere in England and providing older and disabled people with greater freedom and independence. The concession enables older and disabled people to access facilities both within and outside their local area, and it helps them to keep in touch with family and friends. It also provides new leisure opportunities, so that when eligible people are visiting other parts of England on holiday, they can travel free on local buses at off-peak times, and it encourages those people to visit popular tourist destinations—such as Brighton and Hove—which brings benefits to the wider community.

About £1 billion is spent on concessionary travel every year. The Government currently provide funding for the scheme through two channels. The majority of the funding comes through the formula grant system, and since 2008, when the England-wide concession was first introduced, the rest of the funding has come through a special grant from the Department for Transport.

In line with the reduction in separate funding streams to local authorities, from April 2011 all funding for the scheme will be provided through formula grant, giving local authorities the freedom and flexibility they want in their use of funding. Overall, the Department for Transport is reducing the number of funding streams for local authorities from 26 to just four, which is in line with the Government’s general trend towards localism.

The Government are aware of how precious this benefit is to older and disabled people, which is why we are focusing our efforts on assisting local authorities to find efficiencies through reforms to the administrative and reimbursement arrangements for the scheme, rather than cutting back on the entitlement.

Only one change has been made to eligibility for the scheme—to increase the age of eligibility in line with the changes that are taking place to the state pension age. In fact, that change was introduced by the previous Government, and I understand that it was done on the basis that people are living longer, staying healthier for longer and tending to stay in work until later in life. That change will clearly assist with the financial sustainability of the scheme.

From April 2011, responsibility for administering the scheme will move from lower-tier local authorities such as district councils to upper-tier local authorities such as county councils. This reform will assist in overcoming a number of problems that have been identified by local authorities, stakeholder groups and operators. The change will enable efficiencies to be realised, through economies of scale and by reducing the number of negotiations with bus operators. It will also make accurate funding by formula easier, because there will be less variation in the size and characteristics of authorities. Furthermore, it will harmonise concessionary travel and wider transport authority responsibilities.

If individual councils have had a rough deal, such as the one in Harrogate, and other councils have benefited rather more in the same county area, such problems should therefore be eliminated by this scheme. I accept that it will not solve all problems, but that is one problem that can be eliminated by this move from districts to counties.

The Department for Communities and Local Government recently consulted on how the transfer of responsibility for concessionary travel will be taken into account in authorities’ funding allocations from 2011-12. That consultation was an opportunity for local authorities to influence decisions on the final distribution method. By the way, I should say that many of the points that have been raised by Members today are actually points for the Department for Communities and Local Government, in a sense, rather than for the Department for Transport. Clearly, I will do my best to answer those points, but the funding allocation is through the DCLG rather than the DFT.

A number of authorities, especially district councils—including my own district council in Lewes—have expressed concerns about the potential implications for their future financial position as a result of the administrative changes. That is the nub of the case that is being put today. Discussions have been taking place at official level between the DFT and the DCLG to try to ensure that the distribution method taken forward after the consultation does not result in unintended consequences for authorities.

It is important to remember that the figures presented in the DCLG consultation were only illustrative and that the actual effect on authorities is likely to differ, following final decisions on matters such as the amount of funding to be transferred from lower-tier to upper-tier authorities for concessionary travel and the level of floor damping to be applied to particular types of authority. In other words, the change will be phased in, which I think was one of the concerns expressed today. My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch talked about “top-up” funds. The DCLG’s preferred method is through damping and the provision of floors, to ensure that there is not a sudden cliff-edge. I am sorry to use all these terrible metaphors; they are official DCLG metaphors.

The overall amount of funding available for local government was set out in the spending review. DCLG will publish details shortly about the outcome of its formula grant consultation and how the overall funding pot will be distributed among authorities. The formula grant is allocated on the basis that the level provided overall is sufficient to enable authorities to deliver effective local services while ensuring that they do not set excessive council tax increases. In a sense, local authorities will be more able to decide how they allocate their funds than they have hitherto been.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) asked about the effect on unitary authorities. I am afraid that I cannot give any specifics on that matter until the DCLG makes its announcement on the spending review, but I can say in general that all the comments made today are being noted by officials and will be passed back to the DCLG as part of ongoing discussions between our Departments. I also mentioned that the impact will be mitigated by the use of floors to prevent sudden changes in local government finance for individual authorities.

In her introductory comments, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch asked whether the date for the publication of local authority schemes could be moved from 1 December. I am afraid that that is not possible. Travel concession authorities are required by the Transport Act 2000 to publish schemes four months before they come into force. It is not possible to amend the date without primary legislation, which she will understand could not be enacted before 1 December.

I am aware that concerns that have been expressed about the potential impact of the administrative changes on local discretionary concessions; I believe that the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) mentioned it. It is not the intention that the change in responsibility should have any impact on the additional entitlements offered by local authorities. The order laid before Parliament earlier this year to enact the change does not prevent upper-tier authorities from maintaining or introducing district or local level discretions where needs differ within different parts of a county boundary, for example. Nor does it prevent district councils from providing funding to county councils to administer discretionary concessions on their behalf.

Furthermore, district councils will remain able to consider discretionary travel schemes using the well-being powers in the Local Government Act 2000, so in theory, they could introduce concessionary rail travel within their areas if they wanted, irrespective of any move from district to county. However, local authorities should take legal advice when creating, amending or withdrawing discretionary concessions and should also ensure that they comply with their own disability equality schemes.

We are assisting local authorities to make efficiencies through reforms to the arrangements for reimbursing bus operators, on which we recently published draft guidance. We held a consultation on the new concessionary travel reimbursement guidance and will be issuing the final guidance to local authorities shortly, with a view to introducing changes to the reimbursement regime for schemes beginning in April 2011. I stress that it is for local authorities to decide whether they wish to take advantage of that guidance, but it will nevertheless be issued by the Department for Transport in order to enable local authorities to engage more effectively with bus operators.

The consultation sought views from stakeholders on the revised reimbursement guidance, which adopts a more directive approach to reimbursement calculations, requiring fewer data inputs and assumptions but leaving scope for local flexibility where appropriate. Analysis of historic reimbursement by travel concession authorities indicates that councils could make up to £130 million in savings under the revised reimbursement arrangements. The proposed new guidance is based on extensive new research carried out by the Institute for Transport Studies at the university of Leeds and will help to simplify the current system and enable more accurate reimbursement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch mentioned the bus service operator grant. As she will know, all sorts of wild suggestions were made in the national press that BSOG was being abolished. I made it perfectly plain to the House in June or July that the Department values BSOG as a sensible contribution to ensuring good public transport. I therefore hope that it was not surprising that BSOG was retained with a cut of just 20%, which is below the average cut for revenue budgets in the spending review. That is a recognition from the Treasury and the Department for Transport of the value of its contribution to bus services. I spoke to the chief executive of the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, which represents the five main bus companies, after the Chancellor’s spending review. The chief executive was hopeful that in general terms, the cut in BSOG could be absorbed without any increase in bus fares. That was a good outcome.

The concessionary fares scheme remains based on the same solid principle as ever: bus companies should be no better and no worse off as a consequence of the scheme. That is relevant when we consider the new guidance on reimbursement arrangements. Concern was expressed that the changes might affect the level of service provided. As I said, bus companies should be no better and no worse off as a consequence of their dealings with local authorities. Therefore, in principle, irrespective of anything else, there is no reason why service levels should be affected. The concessionary fares scheme, if it delivers its outcome, should not lead to a reduction in bus services.

I point out that the vast majority of bus services are commercial rather than subsidised, so the secondary and understandable concern expressed by my hon. Friend and others that local authority budgets will be stretched, as undoubtedly they will, would in any case relate at maximum level only to subsidised services, not commercial services, which are independent of local authority funding. That said, local authorities, particularly rural ones, provide subsidies for some bus services in their area, and they will want to consider how best to use their funding. I hope that when it comes to difficult decisions, local authorities will consider—as central Government have done in recent months—where they can make savings without affecting front-line services. Affecting front-line services through cuts is the easy option. Rather than resorting to unfortunate cuts, local government can make a number of savings—for example, by combining back-room functions—without affecting the public. I hope that local authorities will approach their budgets in that way.

I hope that I have been helpful in responding to hon. Members’ comments. I recognise that the issue is important—the turn-out has reinforced that—and I take it seriously. The Government’s overall intentions are, first, to protect the concessionary fares scheme, and secondly, for good environmental and social reasons, to get more people on buses. We do not want to pursue policies that have the opposite objective or consequence. We will take back the comments that hon. Members from all parties have made this afternoon and feed them through to the Department for Communities and Local Government, which will ultimately decide the allocation for local authorities.

Exeter to Plymouth Railway

Norman Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on securing the debate. She set out with great clarity the importance of the Exeter-Plymouth railway line to her constituency and the south-west in general. I welcome the opportunity to reassure her that the issues she raised about the route’s long-term resilience are being taken seriously by the rail industry and the Government.

The Exeter-Plymouth railway line is of great importance to the economy of south Devon, Torbay, Plymouth and whole of Cornwall. It makes a significant contribution to tourism in the area. I am sure that there are many people whose first glimpse of the Devon seaside came from the window of an express train as it hugged the coast on the line between Exeter and Newton Abbot.

The line is also important for people getting to work and college, and also for the businesses that rely on it to maintain efficient contacts with the rest of the country. However, as my hon. Friend notes, its proximity to the coast is the line’s Achilles heel, and it has been subject to temporary closures from time to time. Network Rail is responsible for the operation, maintenance and renewal of the rail network and it takes very seriously the long-term resilience of the network in the face of climate change.

It falls to Network Rail to continue to monitor the likelihood of risks to the safety and operational integrity of the railway in the Dawlish area and to propose further appropriate measures of protection from flooding and coastal erosion. Network Rail is fully aware of the importance of the section of coastal main line between Teignmouth and Dawlish Warren. I understand that around £9 million has been invested in recent years to maintain the integrity of the sea wall and the stability of the cliff face. Network Rail does not believe that the railway sea defences in the Dawlish area are likely to fail in the foreseeable future, thanks to the works carried out and ongoing maintenance and monitoring.

Network Rail advises that it spends around £500,000 each year, as my hon. Friend notes, on maintaining the sea walls and estuaries. A dedicated contractor work force is based at Dawlish. The sea walls are subject to an enhanced structural maintenance inspection regime, with an additional post-storm element, to ensure railway safety and performance, and to target resources at where the risk is greatest. Weather forecasts and tidal predictions are monitored, and when the combination of events reaches a pre-determined level, additional inspections are undertaken.

The implications of climate change will stretch into the long term, however. On 16 September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs responded to a report published by the adaptation sub-committee, which was set up as a result of the Climate Change Act 2008. She said:

“Although we need to bring down greenhouse gas emissions internationally and to drive down our own emissions at home, we need to mitigate and adapt to the potential consequences of climate change. This is one of the key priorities contained in the coalition agreement.”

This is a challenge that Government must rise to, but they cannot do it alone. Transport infrastructure providers need to recognise both the economic and social necessity of taking steps to protect the areas for which they are responsible.

Network Rail has been taking action for some time. It is working with the Met Office by using its data to help to stress test thousands of miles of rail tracks, embankments and bridges to determine whether they can stand up to the patterns of extreme weather predicted over the coming decades. The process is not cheap. The investigation itself will cost around £750,000, but when Network Rail points to such early action leading to savings of around £1 billion over 30 years, the work starts to look incredibly good value for money.

This new piece of work builds on an earlier technical study undertaken by Network Rail and the Rail Safety and Standards Board in 2008. The railway lines adjoining the Teign and Exe estuaries and the south Devon coast were used as case studies, and the conclusions suggested, not surprisingly, that the frequency of disruptions along the main line was likely to increase over the next 70 years as sea levels rise.

Network Rail has therefore identified that there is a problem—not just in south Devon but on other parts of the network—that needs to be addressed. The Department for Transport is funding a major research project with Network Rail to understand the impact of climate change on the railway. The project has already identified wave over-topping and flooding at defended coastal and estuarine railways at Dawlish as a priority. The next phase of the project will provide the quantified evidence needed to decide where and when investment may be needed to maintain the resilience of the railway to increasingly extreme weather.

No conclusion has yet been reached on what mitigation measures might be required to minimise the risk to the rail network from rising sea levels at locations along the coast and river estuaries. Nevertheless, along with the key objective of protecting the railway, its users and properties adjacent to it, it must be a priority to maintain access by rail to the areas of south Devon and Torbay.

My hon. Friend asked whether keeping the line running was a priority, and I hope I have answered that question—it is. Do we see it as the main line to Cornwall—this point was also referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton)—in the indefinite future? Yes, we do. I will turn briefly to the question of whether we intend to resurrect the debate about an alternative route. A number of suggestions have been made about building alternative routes away from the coast or reopening former railway lines such as the Exeter-Okehampton-Tavistock-Plymouth line. As I have pointed out, any solution cannot ignore the needs of south Devon and Torbay, so reopening that line alone would not meet one of our key objectives. That is not to say, however, that if the line were to open, it would not be welcome. It would be welcome but, in our view, it would not be a substitute in any shape or form for the main line along the coast.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot also mentioned CP5 and the considerations for 2025, which she identified as a key date. I undertake to pass on her comments to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), so that she has them in mind as she discusses the contents of CP5 with Network Rail.

I am encouraged that Network Rail is engaging with other organisations to tackle the issue and taking it very seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot referred to the Environment Agency, which has a key role to play. To meet her suggestion that we direct Network Rail and the Environment Agency to find a solution, I will be happy to write to them following the debate to stress the importance of maintaining the line to the economy of south Devon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the likely effects on local transport schemes of the implementation of the proposed reduction in funding for local government resource grants.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

The majority of transport resource funding will now be paid through formula grant. It is for local authorities to decide how that funding is spent according to their priorities. As the Secretary of State mentioned a few moments ago, I am also establishing a local sustainable transport fund to help local authorities support economic growth and reduce carbon emissions.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Minister for that answer. The Government’s growth strategy is based on wildly over-optimistic predictions for private sector job creation. How does the Minister think a 28% cut in local government transport funding, the end to ring-fencing across local government funding in general and putting on ice the bus rapid transit scheme will help a city like Bristol, which is plagued by congestion and a lack of transport infrastructure?

[Norman Baker]

I hardly know where to start with that question. The fact is that 300,000 jobs have been created in the private sector in the last three months. It does not help the economy if Members talk it down as the hon. Lady does. It is also not true that the bus rapid transit system in Bristol has been put on ice. The section from Ashton Vale to Temple Meads in Bristol city centre is in the development pool and the south Bristol link phases 1 and 2 are in the pre-qualification pool. I hope very much that Bristol city council will work on those schemes in conjunction with my Department.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

Given this week’s disappointing news for south Devon of the Kingskerswell bypass being put into the pool rather than being approved after a 50-year campaign for it, might the local authority be able to reduce the cost of it by taking advantage of tax increment financing and regional growth funding? Will local councils be able to use them to help meet the costs of such important road schemes?

[Norman Baker]

I know that my hon. Friend is very keen on this scheme, and that he and other local Members have campaigned strongly in favour of it. We are certainly open to innovative ideas to find alternative funding, whether through the regional growth fund or the incremental system to which he referred, and I look forward to examining those options with his local county council.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

In recent years a combination of local schemes and national action has resulted in a very significant reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads. Has any assessment been made of the implications of the cut in local funding for the lives of people on our roads?

[Norman Baker]

The hon. Lady has considerable knowledge of transport issues as a result of her role on the Transport Committee, and I think she understands that what the Government are doing is freeing up local councils to spend their own money rather than determining the number of grant streams centrally. There have been 26 grant streams for transport funding for local authorities, but that will be reduced to four. That will enable local authorities to prioritise matters in their own areas, as they should do as democratically elected bodies.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

The A160 scheme has enjoyed the support of local government in north Lincolnshire, but it has now been delayed until 2015. Will the Minister meet me and a cross-party delegation of local MPs to discuss this important scheme in more detail?

[Norman Baker]

It is my practice always to accede to requests for meetings from Members of Parliament, so I will ask my office to fix that up.

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

4. What his policy is on the future of the bus service operators grant; and if he will make a statement.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

13. What assessment he has made of the likely effects on socially excluded groups of the proposed reduction in bus service operators grant.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

From 2012-13, the rate at which bus service operators grant is paid will be reduced by 20%. Our assessment is that this level of reduction will, overall, have a low impact on socially excluded groups. I spoke to the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, which represents the bus industry, following the Chancellor’s announcement on 20 October. It was hopeful that, in general, this reduction could be absorbed without fares having to rise.

[Mr Hepburn]

That is absolute nonsense. The pensioners and the poor people of this country did not create the banking crisis, so why are the Government making them pay with cuts such as this, which will inevitably mean rises in fares and reductions in services?

[Norman Baker]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that he heard the answer I gave, which was that I have spoken to the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, which represents the bus industry, and it was hopeful that the reduction in the bus service operators grant was marginal and could be absorbed without fares having to rise. I also draw to his attention the fact that the Government have protected the concessionary fares arrangements.

[Alex Cunningham]

My constituent, David Gordon, has told me that he values his bus service, which has improved considerably in recent years, very highly, but he is worried about its future. Many others depend on the buses to get to work or to search for work across Teesside and beyond. Can the Minister reassure Mr Gordon that bus services really will be protected and that those seeking work and other excluded groups will be able to follow the advice of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and get on a bus in their area to look for work?

[Norman Baker]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Tees Valley bus network’s improvement scheme is going ahead. The Government have confirmed that only recently, so I hope he will welcome that particular suggestion. It is our intention to get more people on to buses, and we are working with local authorities and the bus industry to achieve that—for example, by the roll-out of smart ticketing. So, yes, his constituents will be able to get on a bus; in fact, there will be even more buses than previously.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

How does the Minister propose that the local sustainable transport fund will fill the boots of resource grants, with the funding reduced now, especially in counties such as Leicestershire?

[Norman Baker]

The local sustainable transport fund is a fund of £560 million during the rest of this Parliament. By anybody’s standards, that is an enormous sum to spend on prioritising local transport, cycling, walking, bus services—if that is what local authorities want to do—bus lanes and other such traffic management matters. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that commitment by the Government; it is an enormous sum for those particular objectives.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I thank the Department for responding so quickly to my named day questions, although I do not consider “I will answer this question shortly” to be much of a reply. On the bus service operators grant, the Minister has said:

“The benefits of that grant are clear: it ensures that the bus network remains as broad as possible, while keeping fares lower and bringing more people on to public transport, with the obvious benefits of reducing congestion…in our towns and cities.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 842.]

Given his swingeing 20% cut to the grant, why will he not now accept that fares are likely to go up, passenger numbers will decrease and congestion will worsen?

[Norman Baker]

First, the stories in the press throughout recent months have been suggesting that the bus service operators grant will be abolished, but they have clearly been completely off tack. Indeed, the cut to the grant has been less than the average for the Department, in recognition of the importance of bus services to local people. I come back to the point made by the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, which, after all, represents the bus industry and so, with due respect, perhaps knows more about buses than the hon. Gentleman might do. It has said that, in general, the reduction can be absorbed without fares having to rise; that is the view of the industry.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

6. What plans he has for the future of the Swindon to Kemble rail line; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

8. What recent representations he has received on road safety at Elkesley, Nottinghamshire.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

The Highways Agency has recently received a number of representations on safety on the A1 at Elkesley in Nottinghamshire. These have been made by the local authority, Elkesley parish council and members of the public. In particular, these concerns were raised by local residents and parish councillors to the Highways Agency at Elkesley memorial hall in September.

[John Mann]

They have been raised for the last 30 years. There was an agreement going ahead before the election, from the previous Government, for the Elkesley bridge, which is a place where many people have died tragically at the most dangerous crossover on the A1. There was a major collision just this summer. Is this vital scheme, recognised as a priority by the Department for Transport, going to go ahead in this Parliament—yes or no?

[Norman Baker]

It is a little bit unfortunate to blame us for not having taken it forward in six months when the hon. Gentleman’s party had 13 years to take the road forward. I do not underestimate the importance of safety. The statistics that I have been given, in fact, suggest that there have been no fatal, one serious and nine slight personal injuries between January 2007 and December 2009. If there is further information, I shall certainly consider that.

As part of the programme to reduce the budget deficit, we are clearly looking at how we spend our money on minor schemes. The initial prioritisation process for all the minor schemes in the country will be undertaken over the next few weeks by the Highways Agency and an announcement will be made on whether the public inquiry for this improvement scheme will proceed.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

9. What recent representations he has received on his Department’s proposed funding for highway infrastructure; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

14. What recent assessment he has made of the likely effects of the outcome of the spending review on projects to improve the accessibility of the transport network to disabled people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

As part of fulfilling the Government’s commitment to promoting equality, my Department has undertaken a robust analysis of its spending proposals and an assessment of the likely effects on the accessibility of the transport network. This work included considering the equalities impacts of proposals on projects that would improve the accessibility of the transport network to disabled people.

[Luciana Berger]

What assurances can the Minister offer that the reductions in the transport expenditure budget outlined in the comprehensive spending review the other week will not impact on accessibility for disabled passengers?

[Norman Baker]

First, the Government have prioritised transport expenditure in recognition of the fact that it is very important in helping to grow the economy and in cutting carbon emissions.

Secondly, within that process, there are continuing programmes such as the access for all programme at railway stations, and we are considering how we deal with EU legislation and with other disability issues, which are a key part of my portfolio. I can assure the hon. Lady that the issue will not be lost. Indeed, she may want to know that next week I am meeting a number of groups, such as the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Scope, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and so on to ensure that I am fully appraised of their views on the issue.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

T2. Bus services are a vital part of Newcastle’s economic infrastructure, and, despite the huge cuts to bus subsidies and to local government grants, the Minister is “hopeful” that bus fares will not rise and that bus services will not be cut. Unfortunately, the people of Newcastle cannot get to work on the Minister’s hopes. If fares do rise or if services are cut, what will the Minister do?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s question contains a number of hypothetical assumptions that are not borne out by reality. It is not my hope, but the hope and the view expressed to me by the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, which represents the main five bus operators, so I do not think that the terrible scenario she paints will come to fruition. People might also want to use the Tyne and Wear metro, in which the Government are investing £500 million over the next 11 years.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Although we are expecting rail fares to rise only by 10% over four years in real terms, will Ministers look into changing the basis for the cap calculation from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index—because, after all, what is fair for pensioners ought to be fair enough for profit-making rail companies?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

East Dunbartonshire cycle co-operative does excellent work and has enthused hundreds of people into taking up cycling through a local cycle festival, maps, cycle clubs and even a Guinness world record attempt at the number of cycle bells that can be rung simultaneously. This shows what can be done with a group of committed volunteers and a bit of grant funding, but how can we ensure that cycling promotion is not just left to volunteer champions but is done more systematically wherever people live in the country?

[Norman Baker]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. She will know that we value cycling; it was set out in the coalition agreement that it is a priority for us in the Transport Department. It has a major role to play in tackling the reduction of carbon emissions in the short term through behavioural change. We have guaranteed that Bikeability will carry on and, as I said earlier, there is a pot of money—£560 million—in the local sustainable transport fund, much of which I am sure will be directed towards activities related to cycling.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

T4. The Chancellor announced with a fanfare in the comprehensive spending review the modernisation and electrification of a number of lines up and down the country. Can the Secretary of State tell us when the electrification work on the Preston to Blackpool line will commence and when it will be completed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I welcome the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) in connection with the delay to the A160 upgrade on the access road into Immingham docks. The Under-Secretary will be aware that the delay puts increasing pressure on the town of Immingham, and that the A18/A180 link road was given the amber light on Tuesday. Will he agree to meet me and the local authority to discuss how we can bring the work forward?

[Norman Baker]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s legitimate point about that connection, and I am happy to meet him—perhaps it might be helpful if that happened at the same time as the other meeting that I agreed to earlier.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

In a letter to me, the Under-Secretary confirmed the good news about the Switch island to Thornton relief road, but he used the phrase “increased local contributions”. Can the Secretary of State tell me now what he expects those contributions to be?