HGV Road User Levy Bill (Ways and Means)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That provision may be made for charging a duty of excise, to be known as HGV road user levy, in respect of heavy goods vehicles used or kept on public roads in the United Kingdom.

With permission, I would like to move that the House supports the introduction of legislation concerning a new levy for all heavy goods vehicles weighing 12 tonnes and over using the UK road network. We intend that the new levy will apply to all categories of public road in the UK and to both UK and foreign-registered HGVs. The introduction of the charge forms the commitment in the coalition agreement stating:

“We will work towards the introduction of a new system of HGV road user charging to ensure a fairer arrangement for UK hauliers.”

HGVs play a crucial role in our economy by supplying businesses and servicing customers. There are approximately 1.5 million trips by foreign-registered HGVs into the UK each year. Of course, that contributes to the well-being of our economy, but there has been an inequality for some time, in that UK hauliers are often charged when they travel abroad, through tolls and other charging schemes, whereas foreign hauliers can use the UK road network for no charge. This is an inequality that the coalition Government wishes to address through this legislation.

I believe that this levy, introduced alongside other measures, such as reductions in the HGV vehicle excise duty, which means that more than nine out of 10 vehicles will pay no more than now, will help the competitiveness of UK business, while ensuring that we continue to enjoy the benefits of free trade with Europe. My Department undertook consultation on this subject earlier this year that indicated that stakeholders, especially those in the logistics sector, support the planned changes. Subject to the legislation being passed, we plan to introduce the levy from April 2014.

I now wish to open the motion to the Floor, and at the end of the debate the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), will respond to the points made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

9. What funding he has allocated to improve railway stations.

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

A major programme of station improvements is under way, with several key stations, such as Birmingham New Street, being significantly enhanced. We are also continuing to fund improvements through the national stations improvement programme, the Access for All programme and the station commercial project facility. In addition, enhancements are planned at stations as part of franchise commitments.

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. The new hourly service on the East Suffolk line starts on 10 December. That is welcome news, although unfortunately the stations at Beccles and Lowestoft remain in poor condition. Will the Minister encourage Network Rail to work with Greater Anglia and Suffolk county council to upgrade the two stations and ensure that the necessary line maintenance is carried out so that maximum speeds can be achieved and that the benefits of the new service can be fully realised?

[Norman Baker]

Yes is the simple answer. The train operator has a commitment to refresh all its stations before 2014. It hopes that the work will include Lowestoft, Woodbridge and the stations in between and be completed before the service enhancement. The bus-rail interchange improvement at Lowestoft station will result in an improved waiting environment for users. Network Rail is also looking to develop a commercial scheme that could provide improvements at the station.

[Paul Uppal]

May I seek an assurance from the Minister that any future tendering process for the west coast main line will consider investment in Wolverhampton station? We have recently benefited from investment in the Wolverhampton interchange; the bus station in particular has been a real boon to Wolverhampton passengers. I am anxious that that should continue for Wolverhampton train station.

[Norman Baker]

I was pleased to be able to open the new bus station in Wolverhampton, which represents a significant improvement for my hon. Friend’s area. I recognise and am sympathetic to the case that he is making. Obviously, a review of the west coast main line franchise is under way and it would be improper to speculate on that. Nevertheless, he makes a good case, which will be taken into account.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

Many colleagues on both sides of the House are looking forward to railway station improvements as a result of the west coast main line franchise. All of us in the all-party group on the west coast main line, of which I am joint chair, are disappointed that we have arrived at this position. A journey for a commuter or other rail traveller involves the experience not only on the train, but at the railway station. There is also the issue of improved parking facilities at railway stations. The Government need to ensure that those issues will be included in any future franchises—and perhaps there could be a little investment from the Government themselves.

[Norman Baker]

As I mentioned a moment ago, a major programme of station improvement is under way, and that is not affected by the franchise reviews. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about particular stations on the west coast, and I am sure that it will be taken into account. The franchise process will emerge stronger as a result of the reviews now taking place.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Hounslow cycling network, whose representatives I am meeting today, has been promoting the ease and safety of cycling. Will the Minister confirm what plans he has to improve the provision of cycling racks at railway stations?

[Norman Baker]

That is very much part of the work undertaken in the Department through the door-to-door journeys initiative, which I have begun. In addition, I recently allocated £7 million to the cycle-rail working group to improve facilities for cyclists at stations. We look to franchise deliverers to enhance cycle provision as a consequence of franchises that are let.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

6. What his plans are for electrification of the Welsh Valleys lines.

--- Later in debate ---

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

7. What recent changes he has made to the national guidelines on the issue of blue badges. [R]

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

The Department has recently updated its non-statutory guidance for local authorities to reflect reforms to the blue badge system. One of the main issues with the scheme concerned local authority administration, which was inconsistent and inefficient. The updated guidance aims to improve consistency and to remind local authorities of the eligibility criteria set out in the regulations. Local authorities remain responsible for taking decisions about an applicant’s eligibility for a blue badge.

[Annette Brooke]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Many people such as me who have difficulty walking—seven months after an accident—and even more difficulty getting in and out of a car in an ordinary car parking space, look longingly at empty disabled car parking spaces and yet cannot get a temporary blue badge. What can and will the Government and local councils do to address this situation for the future?

[Norman Baker]

I am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend and understand the case she makes. I have looked at the temporary issuing of badges for the sort of situation that she describes. One of the downsides would be tremendous pressure on the limited number of parking spaces available. In June this year I issued an advice note to local authorities indicating how they might deal with locally determined concessions to deal with such situations, and I suggest that she pursue the matter with Poole unitary authority.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I have two elderly constituents, both long-term blue badge holders, whose only changing condition is that they are getting older and less mobile. They were told that they had to reapply to the county council for a new blue badge. When they did so, they were assessed very briefly over the phone and told that they were no longer eligible. Does the Minister really think that mobility can be assessed by a brief phone call?

[Norman Baker]

To be honest, that does sound a little bit cursory, but the assessment of eligibility criteria is a matter for local authorities, not for the Government. It is important to stress that we have not changed the eligibility criteria at all except to widen them slightly. The hon. Lady needs to pursue the point with her local council.

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

8. What the cost to the public purse has been of cancelling the award of the west coast main line rail franchise to date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of health and safety standards for light rail projects; and if he will make a statement.

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

The Office of Rail Regulation has responsibility for health and safety on light rail and tramways. The Department has therefore made no formal assessment, although our recent publication, “Green Light for Light Rail”, seeks to ensure that excessive costs are driven out, while appropriate safety standards are maintained, thereby putting light rail in a stronger position from which to grow.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank the Minister for that answer and for his support for light rail. However, having looked at the success of light rail in other countries, particularly across the channel, compared with the costs here, we see that one problem is the imposition of high rail safety standards, which mean that light rail is over-engineered and over-expensive. What will he do to change that?

[Norman Baker]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that matter, which was one reason why we produced the “Green Light for Light Rail” report. We have made progress through the two summits that I have held subsequently towards more proportionate standards for light rail, which should bring the costs down while ensuring that safety is maintained.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Alan Beith. Not here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

T5. First, I congratulate Dundee youth council on its “It’s no fare” campaign, which seeks to lower bus fares for young people. Will the Minister liaise with his counterpart in Holyrood in Edinburgh to ensure that apprentices and students can get to their place of work or study for the lowest price?

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

I have a great deal of sympathy for that point of view and recognise that there is an issue with access to work for young people and students that needs to be dealt with. That is why I have been discussing the matter with the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, which is the umbrella body for bus companies, and I am very happy to liaise with colleagues in the Scottish Government and others to try to take it forward.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

T8. For completeness, I should declare that my wife works for Google, albeit in a capacity unrelated to this question. Google, Audi, Ford and Volvo are among the firms pioneering driverless cars, which could cut road accidents by up to 90% while freeing up time that could unleash massive productivity gains. Several US states are testing the technology. What action is the Department taking to explore the viability of that innovation in this country? [R]

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Will the Minister confirm that Access for All funding will not be raided to pay compensation to franchise bidders and that the project to build lifts at Chippenham station is therefore still on track?

[Norman Baker]

I can confirm that the Government are fully committed to Access for All funding. It is entirely separate, and will not be “raided”—the verb used by my hon. Friend. I confirm that a further £100 million over the new control period will take even more stations up to the standard that we expect.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

To return to the subject of the west coast main line, when the Secretary of State made a statement on Monday, I made him aware of a figure given to me by insiders in the industry that suggested a cost of at least half a billion pounds as a result of this debacle. Has any application to the Treasury for additional contingency funding been made as a result?

Rail Services (Paddington to Herefordshire)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to that wonderful peroration from my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), whom I congratulate on securing the debate. He is now free to make his points because, I am sorry to say, he is no longer with us at the Department for Transport in the capacity in which he served previously.

As my hon. Friend said, on 27 July this year the Government issued the invitation to tender for the new Great Western franchise—Great Western, of course, being the description of the area, rather than implying which company might deliver the service. It is the future franchise operating train services on the route between London Paddington and Hereford, so the debate is timely and I welcome his contribution to it. The Great Western rail network plays an important role in the economy of the many parts of England and Wales it serves. Rail connectivity provides crucial support for jobs and growth, and delivering high-quality rail services is a means of tackling road congestion and pollution by encouraging modal shift.

My hon. Friend set out with great clarity the importance of the Great Western rail network to his constituency. The Government have prioritised investment in our rail network in response to passenger concerns about overcrowding and to support jobs and growth. The programme of capacity expansion to which we are committed is bigger than any seen since the Victorian era. He will be aware that there are now more people travelling on the network than at any time since 1929, even though the network is much reduced in size. I am happy to be able to tell him that the usage figures for Hereford station in his constituency show that in 2007-08 fewer than 900,000 people used the station annually, but the figure had reached over 1 million by 2010-11, so there has been significant growth in passenger numbers. The figures for Ledbury station show that in 2007-08, there were 162,000 annual usages, up to 189,000 for 2010-11; and the numbers for Colwall station have risen from 56,000 to 61,000. All three stations on the line, particularly Hereford, have shown significant growth, but I have not mentioned Leominster.

[Bill Wiggin]

Leominster is on a slightly different line. A problem we face at the end of the line is the failure to collect fares, so although the Minister’s figures show an increase, the actual increase might be even greater, because there has been such an appalling effort made to collect the fares and therefore the statistics that go with them.

[Norman Baker]

It is obviously right that people pay their fares and we take fare evasion seriously. It is not only a loss to the railway, but unfair on the passengers who pay for their tickets properly. The Department has focused on it, not least through rolling out smartcard arrangements and gating across franchise areas.

A number of the most ambitious and important changes will take place in the Great Western franchise area, so if you will forgive me, Mr Hollobone, I will refer to the line as a whole, as it is relevant to my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Government’s announcement that the Great Western main line between London and Oxford, on the route to Hereford, will be electrified has been warmly welcomed by all; that will be taken through to Newbury, Bristol and Swansea as well, and brand-new intercity express trains are planned for those routes. The bi-mode version of the new trains will be able to use electric power where new electrification has been installed, and run under their own power on sections of line beyond, so it is entirely possible that the new franchisee will want to run intercity express programme services with new trains to destinations such as Hereford. I am sure that my hon. Friend would welcome that if it came to pass. The Reading station area is being remodelled and the station itself rebuilt to modern standards, which will reduce delays. The Crossrail tunnels are already under construction there.

Ultimately, those projects will generate major benefits for passengers and for the economy of the area served by the new franchise, but delivering such an improvement programme is bound to have a short-term impact on services, so a major challenge for the new operator will therefore be to facilitate the efficient delivery of the programmes and maximise the benefits they can offer for passengers once completed, while minimising disruption during the introduction of the improvements. Franchise bidders will be expected to present robust proposals for minimising disruption during the upgrade works, with a keen focus on the needs of passengers.

This is not just “jam tomorrow”. A success story of Britain’s railways is the large number of additional passengers now using them, although that can of course bring crowding, and overcrowding. As the Department for Transport’s statistics show, train services on this part of the network have some of the highest levels of crowding, which my hon. Friend’s constituents have no doubt mentioned to him. I am therefore pleased to say that this year, additional carriages, funded by the Government, have been introduced on to First Great Western train services. The busiest services operated by high-speed trains, including some to and from Worcester, now have an additional standard class coach. I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes the recent arrival of five fully refurbished class 180 trains, which now operate nearly all services to and from Hereford and Worcester not operated by high-speed trains, bringing a much improved level of comfort for passengers. The turbo trains displaced from those services are being used to add extra capacity to First Great Western train services closer to London.

The Government’s plans are not limited to big, attention-grabbing schemes such as those. We recognise that the wider improvements will not benefit the largest number of passengers unless accessibility at stations is improved. The Government’s access for all scheme continues to fund improvements to access for disabled people at stations. I am pleased to say that improvements to accessibility are planned at stations on the route, with lifts and a new footbridge for Hereford; improvements, including a ramp, at Malvern Link station; and work under way to establish how lifts can be introduced to Worcester Shrub Hill station. Elsewhere, lifts have been installed at Leominster station in my hon. Friend’s constituency—indeed, he has been assiduous in pressing for that.

Shortly after taking office, the Government consulted on plans to reform the way the rail franchising system operates, and this is perhaps coming to the kernel of the issues my hon. Friend wanted to raise today.

[Bill Wiggin]

Before the Minister leaves the access for all programme, I want to say that I am grateful for the lifts in Leominster. They were supposed to be monitored so that drunk people do not damage them and people do not get locked in. Unfortunately, they were not monitored as they should have been and people have been locked in. Can we make sure that the monitoring happens, and will he include Ledbury in the next round of the access for all scheme, because the demand there is equally important?

[Norman Baker]

I am sorry to hear that there has been a problem with the lifts at Leominster. We will certainly pass on those comments to the train operating company and Network Rail. I am deeply surprised to find that my hon. Friend has anything approaching anti-social behaviour in his lovely constituency; nevertheless, I will take away what he says. We have allocated a further £100 million under the access for all programme in the forthcoming control period, and I will ensure that the position at Ledbury is examined at part of that process for ongoing works.

Returning to the franchising system, the new Great Western operator is being given greater flexibility to respond to customer demand in a commercial way within a framework set by the franchise that protects key outcomes for passengers, taxpayers and the economy. I will mention in passing that both coalition parties endorsed that general approach in the run-up to the general election and subsequently in the coalition agreement. The requirements on the new operator are set out in the invitation to tender published on 27 July. Our starting point for the development of the new train service specification has been the current level of train services, rather than the lower contracted minimum in the existing First Great Western franchise agreement. My hon. Friend will know that services have been added since the last franchise was set, so it is important to recognise that we are taking the current high level rather than the low level that existed under the previous Government.

[Bill Wiggin]

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I urge him to ensure that the high level goes to the end of the line. My understanding is that the tender document insists on a number of services per day and increases the number of those to Worcester and Malvern, but it needs to reach the end of the line at Hereford and not just raise the game halfway. That is really the nub of the argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I take my hon. Friend’s point and I will come on to give more details about how the franchise system will work in respect of his constituency.

We expect the franchise to include requirements on passenger satisfaction—for example, in relation to stations—and we have set stretching objectives for managing the changes I described a moment ago to deliver an operationally sound and efficient railway that provides enough capacity for passengers. The new franchise will be for 15 years, and we believe that the increased certainty will encourage private sector investment in the railways. A longer franchise should also make it easier for the new operator to build the long-term working relationships with Network Rail and other stakeholders, such as local authorities, that are crucial to an efficient and successful railway. The initial alliancing project in South West Trains has shown good initial results.

Part of the Government’s approach is to provide greater flexibility for operators to react to their passengers’ changing needs as well as to commercial opportunities, and to support operators in delivering a more efficient operation. That is why we have adopted and developed a less prescriptive approach to franchise specification that seeks to avoid the micro-management of the past while protecting key services. In doing so, we have sought to balance the needs of passengers, the railway industry and the wider economy.

The Government believe it is right to give operators greater say in how to deploy their train fleet more efficiently, for example—this is my hon. Friend’s point—by permitting a connecting service where a through train is currently provided and by redefining the relationship between journey flows and station calls. In respect of my hon. Friend’s constituency, bidders for the franchise must continue to provide, as an absolute minimum, 16 services in each direction between London and Worcester each weekday. However, we are aware that about 60% of passengers from London to Hereford choose to change trains at Newport or Birmingham, so we considered whether it is appropriate to prescribe the detail of the exact current service pattern for the next 15 years. Accordingly, we decided that, of the 16 trains to Worcester, eight must provide easy connections to Great Malvern and five to Hereford, as a minimum. The connection must be to another of the franchisee’s services, not to a different operator. As such, operators will need to consider whether to run through-trains or to lease additional rolling stock to provide a connecting train, if that is what they wish to do. As I said, it is entirely possible that through-services will prove to be the more viable option for those operators. If there is a connection, it must not require excessive waiting time and must provide an accessible route that can be navigated easily by passengers with luggage, those travelling with children, or people with disabilities.

Operators are, of course, free to continue to provide through-journeys or a higher frequency of services, as has recently been illustrated by the west coast franchise competition. In that respect, the Government’s policy is to mandate today’s service levels more flexibly and to encourage bidders to propose investment and improvements over the longer term of the franchise. We will look closely at bidders’ proposals later this year, but in the meantime I encourage my hon. Friend to speak to the bidders to set out what he wants for his constituents.

In addition, we have mandated that, as a minimum, Worcester should receive 85 daily calls, measured as station departures—47 at Shrub Hill and 38 at Foregate Street. A minimum of 71 calls per week day will be required for Malvern Link, Great Malvern, Colwall, Ledbury and Hereford stations, but the operator can allocate them in a way that best meets demand. That is designed to guarantee a comparable level of service to today’s, without prescribing the timetable itself.

My hon. Friend is concerned that the new franchise arrangements may lead to a diminution of services in his constituency. By not micro-managing or setting in stone exactly what has to be delivered, we are giving bidders an opportunity to provide an improved level of service for his constituency. Indeed, with railway numbers increasing year on year, as they have been, it is important to give space to a successful bidder to improve services and if possible, if they choose to do so, within the franchise arrangements to increase the number of through-services. That is not an impossible outcome. We are engaged in the biggest rail building programme since Victorian times. We are looking at how to increase, not decrease, the extent to which people can travel by train. If I may say so, we should therefore see the arrangement not as a threat, but as an opportunity for franchise bidders to develop services that do more to meet the needs of passengers than would a rigorous, rigid franchise arrangement.

[Bill Wiggin]

I fully accept and welcome the Minister’s intentions. What he is trying to do is very good. Does he agree that the easiest way to demonstrate that flexibility and achieve improvement is simply to increase the number of compulsory journeys, by perhaps just one, to the very end of the line? Thus, on paper, there would be a minimum improvement, even if train operating companies failed to take advantage of all the flexibility that he has so kindly given them. That way, it is beyond debate—it would be clear that a sixth journey to Hereford is a raising of the standards and that, beyond that, everything else is a bonus. I think that that is what he is hinting at.

[Norman Baker]

I want to answer my hon. Friend’s three key points before we finish. The invitation to tender has been issued; it was dealt with by the then Minister of State, who is now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In a sense, that moment has passed: the invitation to tender cannot sensibly be withdrawn and nor should it be. That would cause all sorts of problems for the Department and, indeed, for the bidders, so it is not an option.

I recommend that my hon. Friend does what many local Members do—I, too, have done it, in absenting myself from departmental decisions on my local franchise—which is to engage with bidders by talking to them and putting the case that he wants to see for his particular lines. I have certainly found being able to put the case for what I want in my patch to be a rewarding experience, and that bidders have been quite receptive. In this new world, in which we are giving franchise bidders more flexibility to develop services, I would not underestimate the opportunity for bidders, which they welcome, in talking to local Members, understanding what they want and building that into their plans. He and other local Members have that key point of influence where they can talk to franchise bidders and influence them accordingly.

On infrastructure improvements, my hon. Friend will be aware that, as I have mentioned, we are engaged in huge works across the country to improve the railway network. There is always enthusiasm about looking at any scheme that provides value for money. As I understand it, a 15-year period potentially allows a bidder to include in its bid that particular improvement—a passing place at Ledbury—as part of the offer that it makes to the Department. Bidders are putting forward such schemes in other bids, and he could encourage his bidders to do so. Alternatively, he could engage with Network Rail in relation to both what is left in control period 5, or indeed what is in control period 6, to make sure that such an improvement is properly programmed in for future work. We are now seeing significant improvements to track capacity across the country, including redoubling between Swindon and Kemble, so the concept of providing more capacity is certainly one that Network Rail is up for at the moment. There is more of an open door for such schemes than there has been for many years.

On direct services to Malvern, I cannot do anything about the invitation to tender that has been issued. However, I can say that, personally, I think there is a good case for more direct services, and I hope that the franchise bidders will reflect that in their bids. No doubt, they will listen to my hon. Friend’s comments and my response, and I hope that that will be reflected in the sort of bids that he wants, as and when they come into the Department.

Question put and agreed to.

High Speed Rail (Phase 1 Consultation)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Written Statements

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

The Government’s decision on 10 January 2012 to take forward proposals for a national high speed rail network followed a major public consultation exercise that attracted around 55,000 responses.

The decision to proceed took account of a range of evidence including analysis by my Department and High Speed Two Ltd of issues raised in consultation as well as comments from a wide variety of interested parties through a range of engagement approaches. The Government’s independent response analysis consultants, Dialogue by Design (DbyD), carried out a detailed analysis of the consultation responses and a summary of their analysis was published alongside the Government’s January decision, with an addendum report published in July:

“High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future—Consultation Summary Report”, available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-consultation-summary.

“High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future—Addendum”, available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/high-speed-rail-addendum/.

Since publishing the addendum report in July, it has become apparent that a further very small proportion of responses were not fully analysed by DbyD. For these responses, the answers to one or more of the seven consultation questions were omitted from DbyD’s analysis. In total, approximately 0.4% of answers provided to individual consultation questions were affected.

The table below shows how many of the seven consultation answers were omitted from the analysis in each case:

Local Major Transport Schemes (Next Steps)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Written Statements

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

Earlier this year we launched a consultation paper setting out options for how we should devolve funding and prioritisation of local major transport schemes following this spending review period.

Transport is vitally important to local economies, and new infrastructure can provide the missing links that are often so crucial in getting economies moving and creating opportunities for new investment and employment.

We want to ensure that decisions on new transport infrastructure are made more efficiently, and at a more local level than previously. Local enterprise partnerships are well placed to understand how transport investment can be used to boost economic recovery and growth and that is why we want them, working with local authorities, to have a key role. Indeed more Government funding was announced yesterday for local enterprise partnerships to boost their ability to contribute to the growth and jobs agenda.

I am pleased to say that our consultation proposals were met with approval from the majority of respondents, particularly local authorities and local enterprise partnerships. A summary of the responses received was published in July. I have today published firm proposals, confirming that, in all of the key areas, the Department will proceed on the basis as set out in the consultation paper.

I fully support the key objective of removing Whitehall from the process of making decisions on which local schemes should or should not go ahead. However, we have a responsibility to ensure that the new local decision makers have arrangements in place to achieve the value for money that we know the right schemes can deliver and to take account of other important factors such as environmental impact. Most respondents accepted the need for robust local assurance frameworks and we will shortly publish detailed guidance on this, to enable local areas to submit their draft frameworks by December.

Transparency is also essential, to ensure that priorities are widely publicised and understood and can be effectively shaped by local people that have a key interest in them. Evaluation will also assume an even greater importance, to enable all parties to look critically at whether key outcomes were achieved and to learn lessons for future investment decisions.

We have asked local areas to confirm the geographical basis for their local transport bodies by 28 September. When they have done so, I will set out indicative funding levels that each area should use as a planning assumption. I can confirm that the distribution of funding between different areas will be on a simple per capita basis. The total level of funding available will of course be subject to decisions made in future spending rounds.

I look forward to working with local transport bodies over the coming months as we embark on this transition to a truly decentralised system and they begin developing their infrastructure plans for post 2015.

London Midland (Ticketing and Settlement Agreement)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Monday 17th September 2012 Written Statements

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

I would like to inform the House of the decision that has been made in relation to London Midland’s application to change schedule 17 of the ticketing and settlement agreement (TSA), which was referred to the Department for Transport for arbitration.

The TSA sets out the various arrangements between train operators relating to the carriage of passengers and the retailing of tickets. London Midland’s proposal was to change the minimum opening hours of a number of ticket offices, including the closure of nine offices altogether. These changes would not affect the level of train services in any way.

I have decided to approve London Midland’s proposal in part, but reject some elements where the case for changes has not been made. Ticket offices at Small Heath, Jewellery Quarter, Bescot Stadium, Duddeston and Adderley Park, which were proposed for closure, will remain open. However, I have agreed four of the nine proposed ticket office closures, at Wythall, Witton, Lye and Cheddington.

Several ticket offices will have their opening hours extended, while a number of other stations will have their ticket office opening hours reduced. A full list of the changes has been published on the Department’s website.

In arbitrating this decision, we were careful to ensure that the proposal was in line with the criteria set out in the TSA, whereby passengers continue to enjoy widespread and easy access to the purchase of rail products, and that the proposal represents an improvement in terms of quality of service and/or cost-effectiveness.

I have also ensured that no particular group of rail users is affected disproportionately by the changes, particularly passengers with disabilities.

The changes reflect the change in the way passengers are buying tickets, with more choosing to purchase their tickets online or at ticket vending machines, and the changes that have been approved will not generally affect stations during periods in which the ticket office is currently selling more than 12 tickets an hour.

As a condition of the changes, London Midland will also be required to provide a total of 29 additional ticket vending machines at stations that do not currently have this facility. This will be an improvement in availability at stations where the ticket office is currently only open part-time, with passengers in future able to purchase tickets whenever they wish to travel.

We have also ensured that London Midland will keep lifts in operation when stations are unstaffed. London Midland will also improve safety and security at stations, including through the provision of upgraded CCTV at 11 stations and will provide additional shelters and upgraded signage as a condition of this approval.

In addition, London Midland will invest in 30 new train boarding ramps to improve access to trains for wheelchair users. Passengers who require assistance in making their journey can now book this via the new industry website, which was launched by the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) on 24 August.

There are currently many ticket offices open for very long hours, while selling very few tickets indeed. In an era where passengers are telling us that they need fares to come down and investment in services to rise, these sorts of costs simply cannot be justified.

These changes will provide savings to taxpayers and passengers far beyond the life of the existing franchise, and will ultimately save millions of pounds. I believe that this is a necessary step in improving the efficiency of the rail network, and reducing the cost of rail travel for everyone.

Bus Subsidy System (Reform)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Written Statements

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

In March, the Government published “Green Light for Better Buses”, in which we set out our plans for improving local bus subsidy arrangements and regulations in England outside London. We undertook to consult on these proposals and I can inform the House that the consultation has been launched today and will last for eight weeks. Copies of the consultation document are available in the House Library.

Fuel Quality Directive Transposition

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Written Statements

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

Today I am publishing our response to the comments received in the consultation on our proposals to implement articles 7a to 7e of the EU fuel quality directive (directive 98/70/EC as amended by directive 2009/30/EC). The directive requires suppliers to reduce the lifecycle greenhouse gas intensity of many transport fuels.

The response sets out our decision to introduce new secondary legislation to transpose requirements of the fuel quality directive, including new annual reporting requirements for fossil fuels and biofuels.

The document also details our commitment to amend the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order 2007 (“RTFO Order 2007”) to include fuels used in non-road mobile machinery, a policy already announced to the House on July 16 when the Department published a related consultation response, Official Report, column 112WS.

An amendment made in December 2011 to the RTFO Order 2007 means that only biofuels meeting minimum sustainability criteria count towards renewable energy targets. Sustainable biofuels play an important role in our efforts to tackle climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector. However, concerns remain about the sustainability of some biofuels, especially around the issue of indirect land use change (“ILUC”) and we are pressing the European Commission and other member states to produce a robust method to address this issue. Pending that clarity we are taking a cautious approach to implementing the fuel quality directive.

The fuel quality directive introduces the requirement for many transport fuel suppliers to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the fuels they supply by 6% in 2020. We will not impose on suppliers a greenhouse gas reduction obligation at this point. Instead, we will place an ongoing legal duty on the Secretary of State to propose any further measures necessary to ensure delivery of the requirements of the fuel quality directive. We will rely on the amended RTFO Order 2007 to deliver the greenhouse gas savings necessary under the fuel quality directive for the period up to 2014. We will also put in place a requirement for fuel suppliers to report on the greenhouse gas intensity of both the biofuel and fossil fuels they supply for use in land-based transport and for the associated uses listed in the directive.

This approach allows us to transpose the fuel quality directive at the minimum cost to UK business.

I would like to thank all those who took the time to respond to the consultation.

Rail Fares

Norman Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I thank all those who have contributed to this debate, and I recognise the strong feelings that rightly exist about rail fares across the House and in all parties.

Reforming and modernising Britain’s railways is one of the Government’s top priorities. We are already delivering the most ambitious rail investment programme since the Victorian era to boost capacity and improve services. In July, we announced £9.4 billion of network upgrades across England and Wales for the period between 2014 and 2019, and a £4.5 billion contract to supply Britain with its next generation of nearly 600 intercity trains. As we heard earlier, we have committed to 861 miles of electrification—not nine miles, but one in nine miles of the entire network.

New tracks and trains are only one part of our blueprint for a better railway. We are also taking a fresh look at fares and ticketing to reflect the latest technologies and meet the changing needs of passengers. Such a review is long overdue. Many rail users find the current system archaic and impenetrable—we have recently concluded a public consultation inviting views on how we might make it more transparent, more accessible and more flexible.

One of the key drivers of change will be smart ticketing technology. In London, the Oyster smartcard has transformed public transport, providing passengers with a more efficient and convenient alternative to paper tickets, and accelerating the flow of people through busy rail and tube stations. Smart ticketing could pave the way for a new fares system offering discounts for passengers who avoid the busiest services. As well as benefiting individual rail users, it would help us make better and more efficient use of train capacity so the savings realised can be ploughed back into keeping fares affordable.

The Government’s ambition is for all public services to become digital by default. That means helping as many people as possible to switch to digital channels, while continuing to provide support for the small minority who cannot make the switch. Buying a train ticket should be no different. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) referred to the complexity of tickets and the difficulties people can have with ticket machines. Those two matters are being addressed fairly and squarely by the fares and ticketing review that the Department is undertaking.

The challenge for train companies, therefore, is to make buying a ticket online or from a machine just as easy as from a station ticket office. Purchasing a rail ticket should be a straightforward transaction, not an obstacle course. So as part of our reform programme, I want to ensure that when passengers buy tickets, they can navigate the choices available and find the best ticket for their journey, quickly and clearly. Train companies need to improve their machines so that they sell the full range of tickets and guide passengers through each step of the process. As I said, that is all part of the fares and ticketing review that is now under way.

As I mentioned, we are all concerned about rail fares and we all want an end to above-inflation fare rises, but it is important to put the Opposition’s motion in context. Under them, rail fares increased by 1% below inflation, but that was changed to 1% above inflation in 2004. Under the previous Government, therefore, we had years of above-inflation rises, and it appears from the motion that it would still be Labour’s policy, were it to come to power, to have years of above-inflation rises. We want to end these above-inflation rises, not continue them indefinitely, as the motion suggests doing. It looks a little opportunistic to talk about fares being capped, given that the record of the previous Government was one of continual year-on-year above-inflation increases.

We have heard about the issue of flex, which is the ability not only to increase fares above inflation, but—the Opposition did not mention this—to increase a lot of fares below inflation. The previous Government introduced flex in 2004, and it ran through until 2010, so it was in operation for several years. A 2010 deed of amendment introduced by the then Transport Secretary reads:

“With effect from 00.00 on 1 January 2010 Schedule 5.5 of the Franchise Agreement will be amended as set out in the Appendix to the Deed… From 00.00 on 1 January 2011”,

which is just after the general election, Members may note,

“the amendments to the Franchise Agreement set out in this Deed of Amendment shall be reversed”.

So there was a deliberate policy from the previous Government to end flex only for one year, and over a period that happened to cross the general election.

[Maria Eagle]

My noble Friend Lord Adonis made it clear that it was his policy to put an end to flex full stop and that it remained his intention to do so. The deed to which the Minister referred was a one-year way of dealing with it, but of course we were running into a general election, and there are rules about binding successors. Is he asserting that my noble Friend has been misleading the Transport Committee about his policy intentions?

[Norman Baker]

I am merely reading out the legalistic words that the previous Transport Secretary put in place stating that the policy was to be reversed on 1 January 2011. The facts speak for themselves. I have to ask, however, if the Opposition’s policy is now to end the flex, why the Welsh Assembly Government, run by the Labour party, continue to operate it. I have not heard any words from the Opposition condemning the Welsh Assembly Government. Or is it all right to have flex in Wales, where Labour is in control, but not in England, where we are determining policy for rail matters over here?

I am interested in a point that several Members made about the split of the responsibility for paying for the railways between passengers and taxpayers. The point about where that balance should lie is very important. The Opposition spokesman will know that Labour’s plan was for a 70% passenger and 30% taxpayer split. In 2010, the percentages were 64% passenger and 36% taxpayer, so one assumes that Labour wants to increase the percentage in order to reach its 70% figure. Our policy priority does not include worrying about the split per se, but is about getting efficiencies into the rail network—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) rightly made. I can assure him that we are taking great steps to improve the efficiency of the rail network, and by and large we have adopted the report from Roy McNulty, which was a helpful contribution to the debate on the rail network, in order to bring down our costs.

Roy McNulty indicated that costs were about 40% above what they should be, and we are determined to make those savings. We have identified savings of £1.2 billion in control period 4—the present control period—and up to £2.9 billion of further savings in control period 5. There are further savings to be made through genuine efficiencies—not cuts—in how the railway is run. One, for example, is the alliance project between Network Rail and South West Trains. I am not quite sure whether the Opposition support that trial, but it is delivering real savings and efficiencies, eliminating duplication, reducing the cost of the railway and providing a better service for the people who use South West Trains. That is an example of how efficiency savings can improve services. I am happy to say that it is now happening on South West Trains.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Minister has talked about the balance between taxpayers and fare payers. He will know that the National Audit Office said that higher rail fares might simply lead to higher profits for train operating companies. How will he ensure that taxpayers benefit, not the private companies?

[Norman Baker]

It is our intention, once the savings coming through from Network Rail are realised, to end the era of above-inflation rail fare increases introduced by the previous Government. There can be no doubt about our intention to do that.

Let me deal with the issue of ticket offices raised by Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for whom I have much respect when it comes to railway matters, and the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the shadow Minister. It is worth pointing out that in the last five years of the previous Government, Ministers approved cuts in opening hours at approximately 300 stations. The number since the coalition Government came to power is soon to be 34, so there were far more cuts to ticket office hours under the last Government than there have been under this Government. In fact, the shadow Secretary of State might want to know that ticketing hours have actually increased at a number of stations since this Government came to power. We do not hear much from the Opposition about that either.

I do not want to make my speech simply a matter of rebutting the Opposition’s motion. It is important to get rail fares down as soon as possible and this Government take that very seriously indeed. We are committed to reducing and abolishing above-inflation rises as soon as we can. To answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), I think both sides of the coalition are committed to buttercups, rainbows and daffodils. Both of us want to end the era of above-inflation increases as soon as we practically can, and the sooner we can make the savings that the Opposition are so reluctant to see—and which, by the way, they have no plan to deliver—we can end that above-inflation record, which I am sorry to say the Labour party introduced when it was in power.

Taxpayers and indeed passengers have been paying over the odds for the railway. The fiscal position demands that the high level of public subsidy for rail in recent years be reduced. As a Government, we have a duty, which we take seriously, to keep rail travel affordable for as many people as possible and to minimise the level of taxpayer support for rail by bringing forward sensible and workable efficiencies. Achieving that will depend on securing the efficiency savings that we have outlined in our rail Command Paper. That is why it is so important that the whole industry works together to a shared agenda to deliver for both passengers and taxpayers.

Opposition Members have referred to the coalition agreement. We stand by the words in the agreement about getting a fair deal for passengers, and we are determined to do so. The present Secretary of State has already indicated, in his first contribution in the House in that role, his concern about rail fares, and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), did likewise. Yes, there was pressure last year to ensure that we did not have RPI plus 3%. That pressure was successful and we have committed—once savings are found and the improvement in the wider economic situation permits—to reducing and then abolishing above-inflation rises in average regulated fares.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker: the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—I should know that, shouldn’t I?—referred to fares. I do not pretend that some fares are not excessive; some of them definitely discourage people from travelling by train. That is part of the reason why we are having the fares and ticketing review. She referred to trains being overcrowded, but to be fair and put the matter in context, she needs to recognise that one of the reasons why the trains from Brighton are overcrowded—I know them very well—is that Southern has introduced a large number of cheap fares, which local people are taking advantage of. There are now people standing off-peak all the way from Lewes or Brighton to London because fares have been reduced to an attractive level. In fact, we have a selection of fares. There is an issue about peak fares—that is part of the fares and ticketing review—but many off-peak fares are very cheap indeed.

I can assure the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) that split ticketing will be covered in the fares and ticketing review. As for East Coast, which is currently run from the Department for Transport, as it were, through an arm’s length body, action has been taken on that point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) was right to talk about investment for the future, which I have already mentioned. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to complexity; that will be dealt with in the fares and ticketing review. My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) talked about the inheritance in Kent. I recognise that there are particular issues in Kent that should be looked at, and I am happy for that to be part of the work of the Department for Transport. We want to see an end to above-inflation fare rises as soon as possible, and I want to assure the House that we in the Department are taking steps to achieve just that.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

Motorcycle Licences

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) for raising this subject and for his kind comments about my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning)—I was going to say that he is on his way to Northern Ireland, but he appears to have returned to the Chamber for one last transport debate, for which I am grateful. If I miss anything out, he can pass me a note and I shall happily incorporate it into my comments, as the matter has been part of his portfolio, not mine, and as he knows much more about motorcycles than I do. What I do know is that he has been very supportive of motorcycling, as has the Department since the coalition Government took office, and I do not see that changing.

With regard to bike modification and the Commission’s proposals to overhaul the existing scheme for type approval of motorcycles, we have argued strongly against extending anti-tampering measures, which we felt were based on unconvincing evidence for change. We have been successful in limiting their application to bikes that are subject to power or speed restrictions, such as learner bikes, so larger, unrestricted bikes will not be affected by the proposed anti-tampering measures. The proposals relate only to modifications that change the power and speed, so riders will continue to be able to customise their bikes.

More widely, we have opposed the delegation of powers to the Commission within the proposed regulation to set technical detail and argued against measures that impose unnecessary costs and restrictions. We have secured a number of positive objectives, such as limiting the application of costly anti-lock braking requirements on smaller bikes, while ensuring the safety benefit of their fitment to larger machines, simplifying test procedures and blocking tighter requirements for the approval of one-off specials—custom bikes. Despite our objections, it is likely that the regulation will be adopted later this year and enter into force in 2016.

I recognise the concerns my hon. Friend expressed about the changes to module 1 of the motorcycle test. Since then, we have implemented a number of changes to improve riders’ and trainers’ ability to access the test, including: addressing trainers’ concerns about manoeuvres by restructuring the order in which they are undertaken, providing more flexibility in speed measurement and making small changes to the layout of the test; making more test sites available by acquiring casual sites, such as those already owned by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and privately owned sites such as Silverstone, to try to minimise gap areas; and working with trainers to review the booking system to improve the availability of test appointments at times that suit the trainers and trainees.

My hon. Friend will also know that the motorcycle test review has been considering alternative ways of providing a motorcycle test that maintains UK riding standards and improves the accessibility and safety of the test candidates while meeting the requirements of the European legislation. The aim is to accommodate all the manoeuvres in a single-event test that can be delivered in all parts of Great Britain. We have focused on the higher-speed, low-speed and braking manoeuvres required by EU directives, including the design and content of the manoeuvres and the locations where they could be performed as part of the test.

We have made progress in identifying potential alternative manoeuvres and the kinds of locations that could be suitable. We are now holding independent trials to evaluate these options to see whether they are feasible, safe and deliverable in all areas. Subject to these trials, there will be a public consultation on any proposals for changing the motorcycle test. I appreciate that hon. Members across the Chamber sometimes want us to make progress more quickly than we are able to. I can assure my hon. Friend that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead has been very busy in trying to make as much progress as he can, and we will not let up on that as we move forward under the new Secretary of State for Transport.

Under the third driving licence directive, new driving licence rules will come into force on 19 January 2013. The directive will introduce new categories for motorcycles that will apply from 19 January 2013. The changes will not affect entitlement gained before that date. There are new categories for mopeds and for small, medium and unlimited-size motorbikes—categories AM, A1, A2 and A respectively. As my hon. Friend is aware, a rider can progress from a smaller to a larger bike by direct access, based on a minimum age for a specific category, but progression can also be through staged access, based on two years’ experience for a given category. Through that progression route it is feasible for the rider to gain entitlement at age 21. The new categories implement the EU’s third driving licence directive and UK legislation has already been made. There is no further scope to influence the EU on the directive, which has now passed into EU and domestic law, but much work has been done to publicise arrangements in advance of it coming into effect.

The directive also specifies the minimum size of bike on which the practical test can be taken. My Department has been working with the Commission to ensure that the categories make sense and provide flexibility—for example, by working on categories that align with manufacturers’ specifications on the engine size. A 5 cc tolerance around the minimum engine capacity for a motorbike has been proposed, so for category A the minimum engine size for a test vehicle can be between 595 cc and 600 cc. For electric bikes, specifying a power-to-weight ratio rather than engine displacement is also something we have been pursuing. As part of this work, the Commission has proposed a change for the conventional petrol engine bikes that can be used for the practical test, allowing entitlement to unrestricted access to any sized bike in category A. The change increases the minimum engine power from 40 kW to 50 kW—or 54 to 67 brake horsepower, for those interested in such measurements—and introduces a minimum 180 kg unladen weight, kerb weight.

In June this year the EU Commission circulated a directive that included all those changes and amended the third driving licence directive. The change to bikes that can be used for the test under category A was not welcome and we raised concerns about the impact it would have.

The Commission’s main argument for the new requirement in relation to engine power and minimum weight is that it will lead to the tests taken on motorcycles being more representative of their category. We are concerned that inadequate justification has been provided by the Commission to explain why that particular change to category A is being made and why the specific requirements have been chosen. Apart from greater development of electric bikes, there has been no significant change in bike technology to warrant any change since the third driving licence directive was originally adopted in 2006. In addition, there is little difference in handling between a bike with 40 kW and one with 50 kW, so there is no obvious road safety benefit from taking a test on a bike with 50 kW. Furthermore, I am concerned, as is my Department, about the impact it will have, particularly on training providers.

The new amendments are due to come into effect on 31 December 2013. To make this change so close to the introduction of the new rules in January 2013 is, in our view, confusing and provides very little notice. There is inadequate protection and no transitional provision to safeguard those who, quite understandably, have purchased bikes at 40 kW in anticipation of the law changing on 19 January 2013. Those points have already been raised clearly with the Commission, which has powers to make minor amendments, subject to the views of member states. Disappointingly, at the Commission’s driving licence committee on 26 June, few other member states shared our concerns. The Commission extended the lead-in time for the changes to take effect to 31 December 2013, but secured a positive vote for them from the majority of member states. I am concerned that the change does not add real value to road safety and that it will have a disproportionate impact on training providers.

The Government are committed to simplifying regulations so that they do not impede growth, and to working with the European Union to make that happen, but we do not think that this particular change makes sense. It is an example of change that does not tie in with the EU’s objective to develop measures that add value and encourage growth, and we think that it is out of step with the EU’s smart regulation agenda to ensure the quality of regulation.

The Government are, therefore, taking the step to make objections to the Council of the EU within permitted grounds of objection. We would need a qualified majority to block the amendment and we are writing to other member states to enlist their support. The Council has until October to make that decision. Obviously, we do not know what the response of other member states will be.

In the meantime, we have taken action to make sure that the motorcycle industry is aware of the changes as soon as possible. On 16 July, we published the changes on the Department for Transport website and notified the motorcycle training industry and other representatives of the motorcycle industry.

I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that we are taking steps to get the amendment to category A changed and to achieve a positive outcome. I also hope that he will welcome the general steps that the Department is taking to ensure that we give support to motorcyclists. Despite the unwelcome departure of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead to Northern Ireland—it is unwelcome for the Department, but I am sure that he is very pleased about it—we in the Department will do our best for motorcyclists.

Question put and agreed to.