Transport and the Economy

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

No, I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. As I said, we have not opposed £6 billion of difficult cuts to the transport budget, whether that is capital or revenue funding, but we would have maintained a further £3 billion and we would have spent it in different ways, as I will set out.

We would have protected £500 million for road schemes vital to economic growth, providing a much-needed boost to our construction industry. We would have made sure the £435 million needed for essential road maintenance went ahead, saving the taxpayer money in the long term, according to the National Audit Office. Labour would not have cut £759 million from the rail budget; we would have put passengers first and tackled affordability. We would not have allowed the private train operating companies to boost their profits with eye-watering fare rises of up to 11% this January, 5% more than the RPI plus 1% that the Government told passengers they could expect, which means that some people are spending more on their fare to work than they do on their mortgage or rent. That is not helping to make work pay; it is just adding to the cost-of-living crisis that households are already facing.

Labour would put working people first by taking on the vested interests. We would not have given back to train companies the right to fiddle the fare cap, so that when we said that fare rises would be limited to inflation plus 1%, the public would know that that was the maximum rise they would face at the ticket office. We would also have been able to bring forward the much-needed electrification of the midland main line that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and my neighbour, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is no longer in her place, pointed out, is so important to improving connectivity between London, Northamptonshire and four of the largest cities in the country: Derby, Leicester, Sheffield and, of course, my own city of Nottingham. We would have started the electrification of the great western main line, but we would have gone right through to Swansea, rather than stop at Cardiff.

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

The hon. Lady is busy telling us about all these spending commitments, but she is also saying that she would make £6 billion of cuts, so will she identify where those cuts would be made?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will not go through all the cuts right at this moment, but I have already said that we would not have cut £759 million from the rail budget—[Interruption.] Well, the Minister has put forward £528 million-worth of savings from the rail industry in his departmental plans, and we would not have opposed that. We would happily find the same efficiencies that he says he would find, such as the £245 million from Crossrail. We certainly agree that where there are efficiencies to be found, they should be found. I could go through his entire departmental budget, but that would detract somewhat from the debate. I am happy to do that another time.

Under Labour, there would not have been a £680 million cut in local transport funding, which is leading to a Beeching-style cull of our bus network. The Campaign for Better Transport estimates that one in five supported bus services have been scrapped. Whole communities have been left isolated, without access to public transport, and fares are rising on those services that remain. Under Labour, three quarters of local authorities would not be reviewing school transport provision, with many families being asked to pay more just to get their children to school. That increasing problem was rightly highlighted by the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) in her wide-ranging speech about the challenges facing her rural constituency. As my knowledge of Staffordshire Moorlands was previously limited to Alton Towers, I now know a lot more about it.

Time and again the Government have chosen policies that have a disproportionate impact on the very people who need their help, particularly in these austere times. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) made that point clearly and passionately. He focused in particular on the impact of bus cuts on villages in his constituency and the real problem that that is creating not only for people seeking work, but for those trying to stay in their jobs. The unemployed, 64% of whom do not have access to a car, need buses to get to interviews and jobs. How can they get back into work if there is no bus or the fare is unaffordable? What about young people, 72% of whom rely on buses to get to college? How can they stay in education or training to get the qualifications they need for the future if there is no bus or the fare is unaffordable?

Labour would be prepared to maintain investment in our much-needed bus services, but it would not be a blank cheque; we want something for something. We would reverse the cut to the bus service operators grant, but in return we would expect the bus companies to work with us to deliver a concessionary fares scheme for 16 to 18-year-olds in education or training. Many people would like to get on their bicycles because it is not only a good way to protect the environment, but a cheap way to get about. We would not only protect the road safety budget, but reallocate funding to improve cycling infrastructure and give people the confidence they need to use their bicycle.

Even for those people who do have access to a car, the situation is little better under this Government. The Chancellor’s decision to increase VAT to 20%, just when global oil prices had taken the cost of filling the tank to record levels, is a real drain on household budgets, especially in rural areas. That is why a temporary cut in VAT back down to 17.5% is a vital part of Labour’s plan for jobs and growth. It would cut the price of a tank of petrol by around £1.35 and put money into people’s pockets.

The Government claim that one of their primary objectives is to rebalance the economy, including by reducing the north-south divide. I am not sure whether Derby considers itself to be in the north—Derbyshire always feels reassuringly like the north to me—but I do not think that the Government’s claims to be rebalancing the economy away from reliance on financial services and towards manufacturing ring true with voters in Derby. The decision to award the Thameslink contract to Siemens, which will build the trains in Germany, is a real kick in the teeth for Bombardier, the only company that designs, manufactures and assembles trains in the UK. That decision put the whole future of UK train manufacturing at risk, along with thousands of highly skilled engineering jobs not only in Derby but across the midlands.

I welcome the Government’s admission that they got that wrong and their decision to amend the tendering process for Crossrail, but why, instead of spending months saying that they could do nothing about the process for Thameslink, did they not act to protect 1,400 jobs at Bombardier? Having delayed the project by a year, Ministers had the time and opportunity to restart the procurement process and ensure that wider socio-economic factors could be taken into consideration. They have proved that today.

In response to the Transport Committee’s call on the Government to explain how their policies will achieve economic growth and tackle regional disparities, the Department cites the example of HS2. There is cross-party consensus that high-speed rail is the right way to deliver greater capacity and reduce journey times between our major cities. By linking to the existing east and west coast main lines, high-speed services will serve cities including not only Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds, but Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Liverpool, York and Durham. Once again, however, the Government have missed a trick: why are they legislating only for the first phase of the new high-speed line, from London to Birmingham, when they could have given a real boost to cities in the north by taking the whole Y route forward as one project, opening up the possibility of beginning construction in the north and the south and accelerating the benefits north of Birmingham? I hope that the Minister will respond to the pleas from his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech), who asked for faster progress on HS2 to help Manchester and other northern cities.

Labour has offered to work on the same cross-party basis to tackle the urgent need for extra capacity at Britain’s airports. The Government’s failure to set out any strategy for aviation, or even a plan to do so by the end of this Parliament, is putting jobs and growth at risk across the country. Regional airports have an important role to play. The hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) mentioned Durham Tees Valley airport, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has led a local campaign on behalf of the airport, so Members on both sides of the House will look forward to the Minister’s response to that call for Government support.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am pleased to respond to this debate, and I welcome the generally constructive comments from Members on both sides of the House. I shall try to answer as many points as I can in the 15 or so minutes allotted to me.

The coalition Government’s vision is for a transport system that boosts growth and cuts carbon. By investing in transport that links people with the workplace and goods with the marketplace, we are building a more efficient and effective transport network that is an engine for economic recovery and for creating jobs; and by investing in projects that promote green growth and help people to make more sustainable travel decisions we can help to build a more balanced, low-carbon economy that is essential for our future productivity. I stress, however, that there is not an either/or choice between building a stable and strong economy and safeguarding the environment: cutting carbon and generating growth are two sides of the same coin. Both are essential objectives that transport must deliver, and that is precisely what we are delivering.

On the question of investment, we are pleased that the Transport Committee welcomed the additional funding for transport which was announced in the autumn statement and in the growth review—and which was significantly higher than many people expected. The announcement was not only a clear demonstration of the coalition's commitment to growth, but a demonstration of our belief that improving transport infrastructure can be among the most effective ways to drive our economy forward.

The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) spoke on behalf of the Opposition in a contribution that I found astonishing and lacking in some reality. She referred to allegedly wrong choices, but by wrong choices I wonder whether she is referring to the A453 improvement in Nottingham, the ring-road improvements in Nottingham, the station improvements in Nottingham, the tram extension in Nottingham, or the other projects that we have been taking forward throughout the country—in the north and the south—on behalf of the Government.

The hon. Lady started by saying that she would make £6 billion of spending cuts, but in fact all we had were indications of further expenditure to which the Opposition are committed: expenditure on a midland main line, on electrification to Swansea, on buses, on cycling and on road safety. It seems as if the Opposition have learned nothing. It was another charter for a great wodge of expenditure, and completely out of touch with the economic situation in which we as a nation find ourselves. It was cloud cuckoo land economics.

[Lilian Greenwood]

As I made clear in my contribution, we have identified £6 billion of cuts as set out in the Minister’s budget, with which we agree. I was talking about the areas where we would not cut but change the direction of expenditure in order to protect passengers and to stimulate economic growth and jobs. That is exactly what I set out, and I would be more than happy to discuss with him exactly where the cuts would be made.

[Norman Baker]

I am delighted to hear that, because my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has written to the hon. Lady’s boss, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the shadow Transport Secretary, asking for details of the £6 billion of cuts, and so far no answer has been forthcoming.

Our growth review package will deliver £1 billion of new investment by Network Rail, more than £1 billion to the strategic road network and £500 million for local schemes and, in particular, for schemes that can make the earliest possible contribution to economic recovery.

We recognise that spending is one thing but that spending wisely is something else, so we are determined to ensure that every pound of public money invested in our transport system is made to count. That is why, although our rail investment programme is the largest and most ambitious since the Victorian era, we are committed to reforming the rail industry in order to reduce costs significantly and to improve efficiency. Members have today welcomed the electrification of the north trans-Pennine rail route between Manchester, York and Leeds, which is part of the northern hub project, as well as other major investment processes.

The Chair of the Transport Committee referred in her opening remarks to her view that an explicit transport strategy was missing, but with respect I do not accept that point. She made it to the Secretary of State for Transport on 19 October 2011, when my right hon. Friend gave evidence, and I refer the hon. Lady to her own question, Q16, from that session. The Transport Secretary said:

“To all intents and purposes, …what you will end up with…the aviation framework…the rail reform… the work being undertaken by Alan Cook to look at the Highways Agency”

is what will produce, certainly for the medium term, a strategy. When the Committee looks at the rail reform and aviation papers, which will both be out shortly, the Chair will see that. If she is making the point that we need to look over the longer term, say over 40 or 50 years, she is making a fair point, which the Government will take on board.

[Mrs Ellman]

The fact is that currently there is neither a rail strategy paper nor an aviation paper. They are both awaited.

[Norman Baker]

I agree, and we inherited that position from the previous Government, but I have already said that the rail reform and aviation papers are both due very shortly, and I hope that the Committee will do its usual good job of examining the documents and making comments to the Government following its analysis.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) was concerned about the transport business case, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who is no longer in his place, made the point that we have refreshed the transport business case, and we also have the departmental plan for transport, which sets out our priorities in the short term. The transport business case does include wider aspects of economic development, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South was concerned about, so the Government have now put in place a wide -ranging formula to ensure that those essential points are captured in our assessment of individual transport projects.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) referred to declining rural bus services, a point that he had made before, but 78% of bus services are commercially run by commercial operators and are therefore not under the Government’s control, as he will appreciate. They have been affected only by the BSOG reduction, of which we gave 18 months’ notice, unlike what happened in Wales and Scotland, where bus companies were given almost no notice.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Norman Baker]

I shall make some progress, if I may.

The performance of local councils across the country varies enormously in respect of buses. If the hon. Gentleman has had significant cuts in Durham, he must consider other areas, such as East Riding and so on, where there have been far fewer cuts. Local councils have responded in rather different ways to the difficult economic situation they find themselves in, and it is not fair simply to blame the Government for that. He needs to look at his local council and at the decisions it has made in its area.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will notice that, in trying to deal with the matter, we have given money to community transport, including in Durham. I have also announced a new fund, the better bus area fund, which his local authority has indeed applied for; and the local sustainable transport fund, which is worth £560 million and includes more money for the area than the previous Government invested over the same period, has provided funding for the Wheels to Work schemes, which I mention because he made a very fair point about the importance of ensuring that there is joined-up thinking between the Departments for Transport and for Work and Pensions. I have corresponded with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the matter, and the discussions are ongoing because we recognise the important link between transport and work. The hon. Gentleman made a very fair point.

On regional growth, I was disappointed that the Committee Chair quoted the IPPR’s report without question because it is incomplete and partial, as she may remember I said when I dealt with it at Transport questions a couple of sessions ago. Its figures are unreliable. Of all the transport investment announced in the Chancellor’s autumn statement and in the 14 December announcement about local major schemes, 62% by value is in the north and the midlands and 35% is in the north alone. Similarly, of the strategic highway investments announced in the 2010 spending review, 63% by value is in the north and midlands and 40% is in the north alone. The spend in the autumn statement for the local authority majors totals over £3 billion of regional spending, of which 35% is in the north-east, north-west, and Yorkshire and the Humber, 27% is in the west and east midlands, and only 24% is in London and the south-east. I therefore do not recognise or accept the figures in the IPPR report.

[Angela Smith]

The Passenger Transport Executive Group has made it clear that there appears to be no basis for the figures given by the DFT to the Select Committee, which are reflected in its report. Will the Minister undertake to give a full written explanation of the basis of the figures that the DFT is using?

[Norman Baker]

The figures in the IPPR report need to be questioned rather than the Department’s figures. In her speech, the hon. Lady accused the Government of a lack of transparency, but that is completely wrong. There is now more transparency and consistency in decision making than there was under previous Governments. For example, we have published the internal assessments of all 41 approved local authority majors development pool schemes. We published details of the Highways Agency’s schemes at the 2010 spending review. That is a commitment the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), made and took through at the time. Every six months, we publish value for money data on all decisions.

[Angela Smith]

indicated dissent.

[Norman Baker]

There is no point in the hon. Lady shaking her head—these are the facts. We have also published a whole lot of transparency data sets that were previously kept secret. We have a very good record on transparency, which is very important for decision making centrally and locally.

My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) asked about pot holes. The amount of money being made available to deal with pot holes in the four-year period of the spending review is more than was made available by the previous Government. In addition, we have undertaken expenditure to get best practice identified across local authority works so that local authorities get better value for money and can therefore mend more pot holes or, indeed, prevent them from occurring in the first place. I recognise the importance of that matter for many of her constituents and no doubt people elsewhere in the country.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the value of 20 mph limits, particularly outside schools. She will know, I hope, that I have made it possible for local authorities to introduce 20 mph limits, where they feel it appropriate to do so, much more easily and with much less bureaucracy than was hitherto the case. That has been well received by local government. She raised a fair point about school transport provision. I have been in ongoing discussions about that with my opposite number at the Department for Education, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton); indeed, I am discussing it with him again tomorrow.

My hon. Friend asked about sat-nav. Next week I am holding a sat-nav summit to bring all the various players together. [Interruption.] Labour Members clearly do not think this is a serious issue, but I can tell my hon. Friend that Government Members do think so. We do not like HGVs going down inappropriate roads and getting stuck. If Labour Members do not mind that, that is up to them, but we are dealing with the issue in government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) referred to the significant road and rail investments in the north-west. He put matters into context fairly, and I am grateful for that. He also, rightly, highlighted his support for HS2, which is essential not only for Manchester and Leeds but for points further north. The benefits of HS2 begin as soon as Birmingham is connected, when the first leg is in place, because trains will be able to run through to the north-east and journey times will be reduced accordingly. We want HS2 to be in place as soon as humanly possible, and if we can do anything to bring the timetable forward, we will. I note his strong support for the northern hub. I can only echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who said that it was a really strong contender for control period 5. If that gets me into the Manchester Evening News, that is all to the good. I will try to get into the Leicester Mercury as well by saying that the midland main line is a strong candidate for CP5.

I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) here today. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who is no longer in his place, intervened on him to refer to the Cardiff to Swansea line. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve by electrification, but I point out to him that it is not necessary to change trains at Cardiff to get to Swansea. When electrification to Cardiff takes place, it will be perfectly possible, and indeed desirable, to run trains through in bi-mode operation without the necessity to change, and the speed gains that come from electrification will make it a much quicker and more pleasant journey to Swansea on new rolling stock. He ought to be pleased by that arrangement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) has done a lot of hard work on behalf of his local airport, and we all recognise that. He asked in particular about the arrangements for public service obligations. I can tell him that it is open to regional stakeholders to apply to the Secretary of State to impose a PSO on an air route should they feel that a case can be made and it satisfies EU regulation 1008/2008. As he knows, the airport pushed for a PSO in 2009. There is an issue with the poor service at the railway station, and I will be happy to speak to him separately about that matter if that would be helpful.

My final point relates to comments about the Department’s alleged underspend, which was raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee and a couple of other Members. It is an important point. The level of underspend became apparent only towards the end of the year and could not have been predicted earlier. The money was used to increase expenditure in certain areas where results were deliverable in 2010-11 and represented good value for money. It would not have been right to scrabble around for something to spend on at the end of the year that was not good value for money; that would not have been a responsible use of taxpayers’ money. I also point out to the hon. Lady that a very large sum of that related to budget cover for depreciation and therefore was not, in any case, spendable cash in the traditional sense. The underspend arose largely because of the rail subsidy being lower than expected following the successful negotiations that we carried out with the train operators, which produced better than expected passenger numbers and a better deal for the taxpayer than hitherto might have been expected.

We have had a very good debate. The Government have demonstrated that we are committed to transport and the economy, committed to creating growth and jobs, and committed to cutting carbon emissions. We are getting on with it and doing a pretty good job.

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

Oral Answers to Questions

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

8. What recent assessment she has made of the effect of changes in funding for local bus services on staying-on rates in education for 16 and 17-year-olds.

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

I have made no specific assessment. It is for local decision makers to assess the impact of their decisions, consulting with their communities. Local authorities are required to include arrangements for transport provision and charges for 16 to 19-year-olds in full-time education in local transport policies. The Department for Education is also providing a £180 million bursary fund to support 16 to 19-year-olds who are experiencing real financial barriers to participating in education.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Abby Hilton, a young constituent of mine, came to me last week and told of me her concern that her younger sister cannot follow in her footsteps to Winstanley college due to the rise in bus fares and the loss of education maintenance allowance. What assessment has been done of the cumulative impact of those two policies?

[Norman Baker]

I have been in regular contact with my colleagues at the Department for Education and the Confederation of Passenger Transport for some months now. Local members of the Youth Parliament in East Sussex have been to make a presentation to the Bus Partnership Forum, which I chair, and I have indicated to the CPT the need to work with the Department to address the issue.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that forward-thinking principals of further education colleges are using their bursaries to think of innovative community transport-based solutions, to ensure that young people who find that their bus service has disappeared can still get to college safely, securely and cheaply and continue their education?

[Norman Baker]

I agree with my hon. Friend. There is certainly a role for community transport, which is why we have provided an extra £20 million over the past few months for investment in it. We have also encouraged the bus companies themselves to recognise that there is a potential future market in the age group in question.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Earlier this month, Barnardo’s revealed research showing the hardship experienced by young people trying to stay on in education. Its chief executive, Anne Marie Carrie, said that it was

“an absolute disgrace that some students are now being forced to skip meals in order to afford the bus to college.”

Bus companies tell us that, as a result of the Minister’s cuts to the bus service operators grant, they cannot afford to offer a concessionary fare scheme for those students. Will he now review the decision to cut BSOG, to provide affordable transport for those young people?

[Norman Baker]

It is fair to say that the previous Government’s research showed that only one in 10 young people receiving EMA said that it was the deciding factor—

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

That is rubbish.

[Norman Baker]

I do not know that it is rubbish; it is Labour’s research that I am referring to.

On the issue of moving forward on concessionary fares, I do not know whether the Labour party is pledging a new spending commitment, but its own research shows that £740 million would be required for the concession that it is advocating—a few days after the shadow Secretary of State announced that she would have a more responsible attitude to finance. [Interruption.]

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

Liberal Democrat councillors on Cambridgeshire county council have proposed a fully funded scheme that would provide free public transport for 16 to 19-year-olds who are seeking education, employment or training. Would the Minister support such a scheme and encourage Cambridgeshire and other councils to look carefully at such ideas?

[Norman Baker]

I certainly would support such a scheme and I welcome that initiative. The reality is that some councils provide support for young people to get to education better than other councils provide it. The matter is largely one for local authorities. Good practice is out there and should be replicated wherever possible.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

9. What steps she plans to take to limit the bonuses and overall remuneration of executive directors of privately owned but publicly subsidised railway companies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

10. Which transport schemes will be funded by both her Department and the regional growth fund.

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

One transport project secured funding from both the Department and the regional growth fund—the low emission transport and sustainable manufacturing north-east bid from Gateshead college, which was successful in round 2 of the regional growth fund. The project was awarded £6.3 million as part of a £45.6 million package that includes £3 million from the Government’s “Plugged-in Places” programme. Both funding streams support the development of high-quality transport technology for low-emission vehicles.

[Ian Lucas]

The Labour Welsh Government are funding the building of a relief road to Wrexham industrial estate to facilitate growth and to help create jobs. Unfortunately, the Government on the Cheshire side of the border are blocking good access. The project, which is extremely important, could help to facilitate growth, should the Government believe in that. Can the regional growth fund help?

[Norman Baker]

The regional growth fund has been very well received and is producing jobs in areas of high unemployment and from where the public sector is withdrawing to some extent. The fund is important and it has been successful. My Department is investing heavily in infrastructure, but I will look into the specific matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), will reply to the hon. Gentleman.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that local government, too, has a responsibility to promote transport projects, particularly those that will help to promote economic growth?

[Norman Baker]

I entirely agree. We inherited a substantial pipeline of schemes from the previous Government. I am happy to say that as a consequence of this Government’s decision to invest in transport infrastructure and recognise the value of that to employment, we have given substantial sums of money to local government to progress a large number of major local schemes.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

11. How much of the local sustainable transport fund and the funding for the growth strategy for cycling and walking will be spent on cycle safety in the next financial year.

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

During 2012-13, £11 million will be spent on Bikeability and £8 million will be spent through the growth strategy on off-road infrastructure for cyclists. Funding to local authorities for cycling through successful local sustainable transport fund projects is at least £15 million in the forthcoming year. Approximately 40% of the measures funded relate to infrastructure or training, both of which will help cycle safety.

[Tim Farron]

With the recent deaths of several cyclists in south Lakeland, especially along the A590 and A591, which are managed by the Highways Agency, what can the Government do to improve safety for cyclists in rural areas and especially on those roads?

[Norman Baker]

I am obviously conscious that any death involving a cyclist on the roads is one too many. It is fair to put these matters in context, however. The number of cyclists killed on the roads has declined by 40%, or thereabouts, over the past 15 years. My hon. Friend is right, though, to raise the particular issue of the A590 and the A591, which is a county road. I have asked the Highways Agency and Cumbria county council to work together on this matter and to let me know what steps they intend to take to improve cycle safety there.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

12. What assessment she has made of the likely effect of proposed changes to the drink-drive rehabilitation scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

T3. The Department will soon receive a bid to the sustainable local transport fund from Wiltshire council to support services on the Wiltshire TransWilts community rail partnership. Will the Minister give the bid full consideration? Far from being the rural branch service that one might expect from current service levels, the line connects all the major economic centres of Wiltshire with Swindon, and indeed three mainline railways.

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

I am aware that my hon. Friend is a champion of the line, and we are certainly interested in proposals that integrate rail with other services. I cannot, of course, anticipate the assessment of the bid, but I look forward to receiving the bid, and I recognise and note his support for the scheme.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

T6. I recently met the roads Minister, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), along with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), to discuss the much needed improvements on the A63 and Castle street in Hull. I wonder whether he can give the House, and me in particular, an assurance that pre-construction funding will be announced soon.

Cycling

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I hope to take considerably less time than the limit, given the impressive number of Members who have turned up today. The last time so many Members turned up was for a debate against the BBC’s local radio cuts. It properly did a U-turn, so let us hope that this debate has as much effect on Government policy.

I do not want to repeat things that have already been said, and most of my remarks will, I hope, be directed in a friendly way to the Minister. As a number of hon. Members have already said, and as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) made clear, we do not need to reinvent the wheel. There is a general consensus about what works and what needs to be done, and he was absolutely right to say that the single most effective thing that we could do to make cycling safer is to get more bikes on the road—critical mass and safety in numbers.

Speaking as a cyclist of more than 20 years in London and a non-car owner for more than 15, the situation in London has been transformed. I feel much safer cycling in London now than I ever have, because there are more bikes on the road. I do not always feel that safe in other parts of the country, including in my own constituency, where there are fewer bikes on the road and where I am given less space by a vehicle. Getting more people on bikes is the best way of making cycling safer.

Having said that, my constituency, Exeter, was one of the fortunate cities that was a cycling demonstration town under the Labour Government. We had a total transformation in cycling over a short time—a 47% increase in cycling between 2005 and 2011. I went back to my primary school when I worked for the BBC to do a documentary about cycling and I discovered that the bike sheds had been dismantled. When I was a child, we all went to school by bike. Now, nobody did; that was about 15 years ago.

One of the most heartening things that has happened in Exeter is that although nationally the rate of cycling to school is around 3% for secondary schools and 1% for primary schools, in Exeter, now, after such a short time, it is 20% for secondary schools and 10% for primary schools. We know what works, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel.

I stress the need for co-ordination. I was extremely pleased to hear the hon. Member for Cambridge call gently for the restoration of Cycling England. One of the things that will dog the Minister, which also dogged me as a Minister and fellow Labour Ministers throughout our years as a Government who were committed to the agenda and to trying to get something done, is that there are many disparate voices that speak for cycling in this country, and it is vital, if we want to get anything done, that they are brought together in one effective body. That is what Cycling England did, and it was a tragedy that the Government decided to abolish it. I hope that the Minister listens carefully to the sage advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and reinstates Cycling England. He will find having that single body incredibly helpful.

Another important thing, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), is co-ordination in Government. He is absolutely right. Unless we can get all the different Departments that are interested in cycling working together on the matter, and unless we get real leadership at the top from the Prime Minister and, crucially, from the Secretary of State for Transport, the Minister will not get the progress that we need.

Labour made some incredible progress in the 13 years that we were in government. We had big increases in cycling, the cycling demonstration towns, big increases in investment in cycling and improvements to cycling safety. If I am to be perfectly frank, we went up a lot of gears only when Andrew Adonis was Transport Secretary. The reason for that was because he was totally committed to cycling. He banged heads and got me, as the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and the then Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), together. It was about getting those Ministers together, at Secretary of State level, to agree to policies, to push them through and to ensure that we confronted—I am afraid that if the Minister has not already discovered this, he will do so—a cultural problem in parts of the Department and in local government, which are still, in many cases, dominated by the road lobby. The Minister will find it essential to have the full support of his Secretary of State in driving the agenda forward. It would reassure me and everyone else present today if he could assure us when he replies that he has that full support and political clout at the top of his Department.

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

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman now. I have the full support of the Secretary of State, who is signed up to the agenda. I do not believe that there is a cultural problem in the Department.

[Mr Bradshaw]

That is encouraging.

It is also important that the Ministers in his Department speak with one voice. I have noticed a slight discordance in respect of some of the things that the Minister has said and of some of things that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning)—I am not sure whether he is still the Road Safety Minister—has said, including two completely different responses to letters about liability.

I was extremely pleased to hear what the hon. Member for Cambridge said about liability. It is important. If we look at all the other northern European countries that have a much better record on cycling and cycling safety than we do, we will see that they all have a liability rule. It will make a real difference in this country, making motorists much more careful and wary around cyclists. The Minister’s letter on the issue was quite positive, and it gave me hope that the Government might do something about it. However, I am afraid that the letter from his hon. Friend in the same Department, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, pretty much ruled it out. It is important that the Government speak with one voice on the matter, that one Minister takes leadership on cycling issues and that the matter is led, as I said, right from the top.

The Times’s manifesto is fantastic. I would say that it is a modest manifesto. I hope that my own Front Bench will endorse it; I do not see any reason why the manifesto should not be endorsed in all its detail.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), as everybody else has, on securing the debate. Let me make it absolutely clear at the start that I am delighted by the turnout and by the cross-party nature of the vast majority of contributions. As far as I am concerned, the more interest in cycling there is, the better, because, frankly, that helps me and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), in our work in the Department to make sure that the issue goes even further up the agenda than it has done so far. There is a good story to tell, to which I will come very shortly.

The structure of the reply I want to give—I say this for the information of colleagues here—is to refer briefly to what the Government have done generally, to deal with the specific points raised by The Times campaign and then to pick up other points that hon. Members have made. My normal habit is to take a large number of interventions. However, if hon. Members will forgive me, on this occasion I will not—at least not at the beginning of my contribution—because I want to get through the points made and respond to them properly.

I will respond to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) first. He asked if we would do a U-turn. I encourage him not to go down that particular road because we are doing a lot of what he wants, much of which is also in the pipeline. If we were to do a U-turn, that would not be welcome to him.

[Mr Bradshaw]

rose—

[Norman Baker]

I just said that I will not take interventions, so I will stick with that. However, I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman later if time allows.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I was actually supporting the hon. Member for Cambridge, who said that he thought it was a mistake to abolish Cycling England because it was an important body that campaigned coherently. That is what is missing now.

[Norman Baker]

I wrote down what the right hon. Gentleman said, but let us not argue about the nuance of that. Suffice it to say that we are doing a lot of good work, to which I will now refer.

First, the coalition agreement explicitly refers to the promotion of cycling. That document was put together quickly and it is short, but cycling is very clearly mentioned. As a coalition Government, we recognise that it is good for the economy, good for the environment and good for personal health to get more people cycling. That is the direction of travel we have been trying to pursue since the Government were formed. The local sustainable transport fund has been mentioned by some hon. Members this afternoon.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Norman Baker]

I will in a moment because my hon. Friend has not spoken so far and I promised I would let him in. That is an exception to the rule.

Without arguing about the detail of the local sustainable transport fund, I want to put it on the record that I was advised that the £560 million, which is a very substantial sum, is greater than the aggregate of the schemes under the last four years of the previous Government. I do not want to make a partisan point, but I say that in response to the suggestion that we have cut funding. We have not; we have increased it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge suggested that we should do even more in the local sustainable transport fund for cycling. As he recognises, 38 out of the 39 projects so far awarded money have involved cycling. We cannot go much further than we have gone already in ensuring that cycling is reflected. The bidding for tranche two closes tomorrow. I can tell him that there are a large number of cycling elements in that and, no doubt, a large number of projects will be funded as part of tranche two of that important fund.

Last week—as the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) mentioned—I was able to find a further £15 million directly for issues that Members have argued for today. I am very happy to say that. There is £8 million for Sustrans and specific routes, nearly all of which will probably be off-road. That will secure the separation Members rightly identify as being useful for safety purposes and for getting more people to have confidence in cycling. Some £7 million will go to the Cycle Rail Working Group, which is an extremely useful body that will help provide better infrastructure at our railway stations to improve the encouragement of end-to-end journeys and deal with the deficiencies that people have rightly identified at some of our major stations. Match funding for that will add a further £13 million to make £28 million for that package, which was announced just last week. So there is no shortage of funds coming from the Government in terms of the commitment to cycling.

We are also in discussions with Network Rail, which has allocated a further £7 million to cycle improvements at stations. There will be a transformational arrangement at our railway stations as a consequence of the Cycle Rail Working Group and Network Rail.

The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who is no longer in his place, said that Amsterdam was the place to emulate. Of course, Amsterdam and the Dutch experience is fantastic. I have been to Leiden to see how they do it over there. Frankly, I am very envious of what they have been able to achieve in Holland so far. He did himself a disservice by not referring to the Leeds cycle hub, which is a major achievement that put cycling bang in front of the station there. That is an example of the integrated cycle approach everyone wants to see—not simply somewhere to put a bike, but somewhere to put a bike safely under cover. People also want somewhere to hire a bike and to get a bike repaired when they go off to work. They can then pick the bike up when they come back in the evening. That is the sort of integration we are keen to develop. I hope that more of those hubs will be introduced with the money that Network Rail has allocated—the £7 million.

Let me make it clear that the bikeability funding has been guaranteed for this Parliament. That was a request made by cycling groups when we took office. They said that the most important thing was bikeability, so we said as an Administration that we will guarantee that right through the Parliament—£11 million this year and £11 million next year through to the next election. I hope that that underlines our commitment to bikeability.

I was asked about bikeability for adults. There is a range of training available to suit all requirements, from the complete beginner who wants to boost their confidence to those who want to develop more advanced skills. Some local authorities are providing free or subsidised adult cycle training. I am considering further what we might do, if anything, to deal with the need to ensure that adults who want to have training can access it.

I should also say that, on a personal level, I was asked on day one if I wanted a ministerial car and I said no. However, I do have a ministerial Brompton, which is parked downstairs somewhere in the House of Commons. It is important that those of us who want to cycle do so and indicate that it is not a minor activity for a few people. Cycling is central to how we want to get around individually and as a society. That is a key message I want to get across.

I have also formed a cycle stakeholder forum, which was established last year. The cycle groups represented and I agreed that the forum should not be a talking shop. It is about getting things done. There are a series of sub-groups, including a safety sub-group that is meeting on 6 March to take forward a range of proposals. We are very interested in listening to those involved, and that forum provides very useful advice. We want as Ministers to ensure that we understand what the cycling groups and others regard as important.

On safety issues, Members rightly said that more people are cycling. When more people cycle, motorists adjust. Motorists are far more tolerant of cyclists when they are in large numbers and are more common than they are of individual cyclists. The right hon. Member for Exeter and others said that if we get more people cycling, it makes it safer. That is another reason to encourage the development of cycling in our country. We should also encourage councils—as we do—to take forward their plans to improve cycle infrastructure in their areas. We want more people cycling.

It is also worth pointing out—as others have, including the shadow Secretary of State—that it is not a question of the campaign being about an unsafe activity. Cycling is not an unsafe activity. She rightly referred to the fact that the incidence of collisions has decreased. That is a result of a great effort, and we are all pleased with that. If we consider the long-term trend over the past 20 years, cycling is getting safer, with the rate of those killed or seriously injured decreasing by 50% from more than 1,500 per billion miles cycled to between 800 and 900. I very much welcome that downward trend. We obviously want that to continue as a result of the efforts we put in. I know that that is a priority for the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead as well; he has made that very plain.

On the number of deaths, any death is too many and is a tragedy for the families involved. However, we can take some comfort from the fact that the average between 1984-88 was 186 deaths a year. That figure is now down to 111, which is about a 40% decrease. It is 111 too many, but it is going in the right direction in terms of the long-term trend. The casualty rate per billion miles is down 43%. However, we must do more. We must make every effort to ensure that that rate continues to decrease, and we intend to try to do that.

I welcome The Times campaign and the eight points it identifies. It is really helpful and positive, and I am delighted that it has been taken up not just by hon. Members of all parties, but other newspapers, too. I hope the campaign will continue, because it is putting cycling centre stage, and that has not been the case for some time. The first point states:

“Lorries entering the city centre should be required by law to fit sensors, audible turning alarms, extra mirrors and safety bars to stop cyclists being thrown under the wheels.”

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead is leading discussions at European level on improving standards for heavy goods vehicles to help reduce accidents caused by poor visibility, and to look at those precise issues. We want to ensure that any steps agreed achieve the outcome we want—that is the very careful caveat we put on that. For example, if we have sensors on the side of lorries that then detect bus stops, litter bins and everything else, it is possible that drivers will ignore them, and that could make the situation worse. We have to be careful, therefore, that what we do achieves the result we all want, which is to reduce cycle injuries and to ensure that lorry drivers are more aware of cyclists. That is a technical caveat, but we are leading discussions at European level to consider what can be done to achieve the best outcome.

The second point states:

“The 500 most dangerous road junctions must be identified, redesigned or fitted with priority traffic lights for cyclists and Trixi mirrors”.

I am happy to say that in the past two weeks I gave authority to all local authorities in England to install Trixi mirrors as and where they deem it appropriate. Previously, that was a London pilot only and local authorities had to come to me with lots of paperwork to ask for permission, which was nonsense. Local authorities are able to make their judgments about their own junctions and where they should apply the mirrors. I encourage local councils to do so. It is not our job in central Government to determine which junctions around the country should be fitted with Trixi mirrors, but it is our job to give a lead to local authorities. We have done that and I strongly encourage local authorities, on the record, to look at their junctions to see what might to done to take that further.

Road safety is a criterion under the local sustainable transport fund. Bids can come in, and have come in, to improve road safety for cyclists at junctions and elsewhere. We will look sympathetically at any such bids in the next round. We have also published guidance on cycling infrastructure through the “Cycle Infrastructure Design” and the “Design Manual for Roads and Bridges” documents to try to give clear guidance to local authorities about how best to incorporate the needs of cyclists into the roads they are designing.

[Jack Lopresti]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. My own local authority, South Gloucestershire council, is working very hard to promote cycling, both in my constituency and across the wider Bristol area as part of the West of England partnership, thanks to the funding that has been recently secured through the first phase of bidding for the Government’s local sustainable transport fund. The council has submitted a larger funding bid as part of the next bidding round. I urge the Minister to look favourably on that bid and support local efforts to promote more sustainable means of travel across the sub-region.

[Norman Baker]

I hear that that bid has come in. I had better not comment on it until I have evaluated it, but my hon. Friend has placed his point on the record, which is no doubt what he wanted to do.

The third point in The Times campaign asks for:

“A national audit of cycling to find out how many people cycle in Britain and how cyclists are killed or injured should be held to underpin effective cycle safety.”

The Department for Transport already maintains a range of data sources on cycling levels and road casualty statistics, and we consider them very seriously. This year we have also commissioned a new question in the Sport England Active People survey to give us more detailed information on cycling at local level. That will be public information and we will be happy to share it with hon. Members.

The fourth point makes the suggestion that

“the Highways Agency should earmark 2 per cent of its budget for next-generation cycle routes”.

I am hesitant about a specific figure, because it seems a little arbitrary. I agree, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead agrees, that we have to reflect on what the Highways Agency does and where it might do more on the roads for which it is responsible. For example, it has traditionally been the Highways Agency’s approach to put cycle lanes next to improved roads as opportunity costs have been made available, but that has sometimes meant that cycle routes stop in the middle of nowhere. Looking at those sorts of routes first seems to be a sensible first step. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead has indicated that he is undertaking a stocktake of Highways Agency routes to consider what we might do further in that regard.

The fifth point was:

“The training of cyclists and drivers must improve and cycle safety should become a core part of the driving test.”

Apart from the bikeability matters to which I referred, there are six questions in the driving test on vulnerable road users. We are considering how to increase motorists’ awareness of cycling issues. We welcome initiatives such as Exchanging Places, which was mentioned earlier. I welcome the commitments made by the freight industry, including the Freight Transport Association, regarding cycle safety to encourage all drivers of large vehicles to become more cycle aware. I mentioned that I had established a cycle safety sub-committee of the stakeholder forum. It meets next month and deliberately includes motoring organisations. The AA, the Road Haulage Association, and the Freight Transport Association will all, I hope, be present at that meeting so that they, not just the cycling groups themselves, are aware of the cycling issues. The driving test has been made more realistic and less predictable. We are considering how to improve training for drivers after they pass their test to help them develop their driving skills and knowledge with regard to cyclists.

The sixth issue in The Times campaign was the 20 mph speed limit, which hon. Members have suggested should become the default speed limit. I hope hon. Members know that I have already taken action on that front—last year, in fact—to make it much easier for local authorities to introduce 20 mph zones and a 20 mph limit by reducing the bureaucracy, removing the requirement to submit a whole load of paperwork and allowing them, for example, to have roundels painted on the road in place of repeater signs, therefore reducing the cost of such 20 mph limits. We have done that already. Some local authorities, such as Portsmouth, have done a great deal of work on 20 mph limits and I congratulate them on that. I encourage other local councils to follow suit.

Point 7 states:

“Businesses should be invited to sponsor cycleways and cycling super-highways, mirroring the Barclays-backed bicycle hire scheme in London.”

What can I say, except that I agree? We will send the message out from the Department for Transport to encourage that action.

The eighth point states:

“Every city…should appoint a cycling commissioner to push home reforms.”

I happen to think that that is a good idea, especially for large urban areas. Ultimately, it is a matter for local authorities to take forward, not for us to dictate to them. I would certainly endorse and welcome any such action by local authorities.

I hope that hon. Members will see that we are doing, and have done, quite a lot already. Of course, more needs to be done and I welcome the excellent campaign from The Times and the signatures—I was told there were 25,000, but now it is up to 30,000—which it has managed to accrue.

The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) asked what the requirements were to look after cyclists on roadworks sites. I am advised that the code of practice contains advice on signing, lighting and guarding road and street works, including provision for cyclists, and that utility companies must comply with it. This is in the process of being revised, with a note on the need to take account of cyclists in particular.

An issue was raised about Ministers working together across Departments. I assure hon. Members that that does happen. For example, I have met one Health Minister to talk about the benefits of cycling for health purposes, and how we can work together on that. I have also met a Minister at the Department for Education about encouraging children to get to school by bike. That sort of co-operation does, I am happy to say, already exist. I have no doubt that we could do more, but we are working to try to ensure that that works across Government as far as possible.

May I just say that starting a speech with

“Thirty years ago, I fell in love on a tandem”

is probably the best opening line I have heard for quite some time? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on her 50th birthday. The issue of safer manhole covers is serious for cyclists and motorcyclists. We are looking at that, not least because they are subject to metal theft—it is on the agenda. I have referred to the separation of routes for cycles and vehicles. The money we are giving to Sustrans will, I hope, go some way towards dealing with that. On guidance to councillors with regard to road design, that is covered in the guidance notes, “Cycle Infrastructure Design”, which cover local roads and providing appropriate measures for cyclists. Much of that guidance on traffic management measures also includes guidance on cyclists. I hope that they cover that issue, but we are happy to look at it again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech), who has long been a champion of road safety in the House, advised me to speak to the Leader of the House, who is interested in cycling, to advance my hon. Friend’s 10-minute rule Bill. I will pass on the message. That is probably as far as I can go in promising—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House is here and has heard that remark.

I have tried my best to get through as many points as possible. If I have missed any point, it is not for lack of trying. I will write a letter to any hon. Member who has raised a specific point and place a copy in the Library.

Transport

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Ministerial Corrections

[Andrew Rosindell]

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many (a) letters and (b) emails her Department has received on cycling in the last 12 months.

[Official Report, 12 December 2011, Vol. 537, c. 488W.]

Letter of correction from Norman Baker:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on 12 December 2011.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Norman Baker]

The Department has received 136 letters and 135 emails regarding cycling in the last 12 months.

The correct answer should have been:

[Norman Baker]

In the last 12 months from 13 December 2010 to 12 December 2011 the Department’s correspondence unit received 537 letters and emails relating to cycling. It is not possible to separate these.

The Department also receives large volumes of correspondence on sustainable travel more generally.

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency: Manpower

[Paul Blomfield]

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average length of service is of staff employed by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency at each local office and regional enforcement centre.

[Official Report, 17 January 2012, Vol. 538, c. 637-8W.]

Letter of correction from Mike Penning:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on 17 January 2012.

The full answer given was as follows:

Sustainable Transport

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing a £15 million growth package for cycling and walking measures across the country that will support economic growth and help to cut carbon, while promoting a healthier lifestyle.

The projects funded by this package support the key objectives of the £560 million local sustainable transport fund—building a strong economy and tackling carbon. This additional £15 million funding will be geared to supporting jobs, enhancing access to employment and supporting the end-to-end journey, helping to bring about changing patterns of travel behaviour and encouraging greater use of more sustainable transport modes.

The projects will be delivered to meet local demand and needs, and will be implemented through Sustrans and the Cycle Rail Working Group.

Sustrans will receive £8 million to create routes along the lines of their successful “Peoples’ Millions” Connect2 programme, further building on the Department’s investment in Links to Schools, which have seen the construction of safe, traffic free and traffic calmed routes for cyclists and pedestrians between schools and the national cycle network.

The Cycle Rail Working Group will receive £7 million to invest in improving integration between cycle and rail at stations across the country, including through improved cycle facilities at stations. This additional sum will complement other projects already being delivered by Network Rail, which are themselves delivering a £7 million programme of cycle facilities at stations and safe access routes to stations.

Further details of the projects to be taken forward will be announced by press notice, and deposited in the Libraries of both Houses, in March.

Network Rail

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[John Woodcock]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right to say that we need to look across the board at all options for improving efficiency. Avoiding inefficient procurement decisions, without returning to the days of the railway system that existed before the botched changes were made, which was not in itself operating efficiently, is the challenge and would be the challenge for any Government seeking to produce real, lasting and effective reform.

The deficit of accountability and transparency has rightly dominated speeches today. They have been powerful and well directed, but before I say more about where we share concerns in that respect, it is important to stress how far we have come since the days of Hatfield. Network Rail’s unusual structure was forged in response to the failure of its predecessor, Railtrack. The Labour Government were right to take action to bring the management of our rail infrastructure back under control, but the simple fact that we are in a relatively better place today does not mean that we can or should ignore the problems and shortcomings that beset the organisation a decade on.

The unusual nature of Network Rail has created a deficit of accountability. It does not have shareholders and does not respond directly to elected politicians, as has been demonstrated today. Most importantly, it is not properly responsive to the passengers who use the railway system. That can leave it unable properly to serve businesses, passengers and communities alike, and allow inefficient practices to continue. It has given rise to the alarming allegations that hon. Members have aired today and on which I hope the Minister will comment in his winding-up speech. [Interruption.] He still has 20 minutes.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) has to speak again.

[John Woodcock]

I will be brief. We want a railway that provides value for money for and is accountable to the taxpayer and the travelling public, a railway where passengers and freight customers can rely on the timetables and a railway that can plan strategically for the long term. That is why we are listening, as part of our policy review, to a wide range of ideas for improving the accountability of Network Rail, such as the Co-operative party’s proposals for mutualisation of the company. I therefore hope that the Minister will tell us where his plans to review the ownership and accountability structures of Network Rail to make it better able to serve the public have got to and whether they will include improvements to transparency.

Finally, I come to the issue of bonuses. Network Rail’s accountability has been brought into focus today by the news that Network Rail’s senior management will next week seek to award themselves a new bonus and incentive scheme. We understand that that will include an annual bonus of 60% of salary and, in addition, a five-year reward scheme worth up to 500% of salary. The public will be staggered by such proposals. Network Rail is currently in breach of its licence. It must recognise that times have changed and that bonuses on top of salaries need to be for exceptional performance and not the rule.

There is a responsibility for Ministers here, too. Network Rail’s articles of association make it plain that the Secretary of State has a clear remit over pay and bonuses. She has a right to attend the remuneration committee and the board meeting that decides these schemes, or to appoint a special member to represent her. Despite the coalition’s pledge to make Network Rail more accountable, the Secretary of State has failed to take up that right. She still has the opportunity to do so. The Minister will be keen to know that Downing street seems to take a relaxed view on this matter judging by the lobby briefing this afternoon. The Prime Minister’s official spokesman agreed that there was a vote, but said that the decision rested with the Secretary of State. In his winding up, will the Minister say if his boss or he will attend the board meeting on 10 February to make it clear that such a package is unacceptable? Warm words about accountability are not enough—

--- Later in debate ---

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

I shall have to give a high-speed reply to get through the various points that have been raised by Members this afternoon. It has been a very good debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for introducing it.

The coalition Government are delivering the biggest and most ambitious rail upgrade programme since the Victorian era. I would go so far as to say, without hyperbole, that this is the most pro-rail Government that we have had for decades. Despite pressure on budgets, we have made a strategic choice to increase capital investment in those parts of the infrastructure that best deliver sustained and sustainable economic growth, including rail. That is why £18 billion was allocated in the 2010 spending review to deliver an ambitious programme of investment in rail infrastructure and rolling stock.

Our problem now is success: there are more people on the railway now than at any time since 1929, with a network about half the size. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) is absolutely right; this is all about capacity, which is why we must get on with High Speed 2. We will try to deliver it as soon as we possibly can, and if we can, we will bring it forward, but we will not over-promise on what we can do on that or on anything else.

Many projects are going ahead, including Thameslink and Crossrail. I will not bother listing them all. Suffice it to say that we have a progressive programme of electrification that involves not simply one or two schemes. We want progressively to electrify the entire network and have already announced schemes that were not envisaged by the previous Government.

As Sir Roy McNulty found in his independent analysis of the value for money of the industry, our railway is the most expensive to run in Europe. It is up to 40% more expensive than some on the continent. Taxpayers and fare payers have shared the burden of inefficiency through some of the highest fares in Europe and some of the highest public subsidies, but this high-cost status quo is no longer an option. It is bad for passengers and bad for taxpayers, and we intend to deal with it.

Alongside our commitment to modernise and improve the network comes an equally crucial commitment to drive down costs and improve the efficiency of the railway, which was the third choice to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South referred in his contribution. In large part, that involves addressing the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans and others have raised about Network Rail’s accountability and performance.

Sir Roy concluded that efficiency savings of up to £1 billion a year could be achieved by 2018, without radically restructuring the industry, cutting services or compromising quality or safety. However, that will require all parts of the industry to focus attention on driving out waste and driving up efficiency. If they do that, we can have the long-term growth future for the railway that I for one want to see. We also want to end the era of above-inflation fare rises and the RPI plus 1% formula that was introduced and happened year on year under the previous Government.

Hon. Members have asked about the Command Paper. It will be published shortly—I think that “shortly” is an official word in civil service speak—and will build on the findings made by Sir Roy and set out a blueprint for rail reform. Developing the role of Network Rail will be at the heart of the Command Paper. Although Network Rail is not perfect, it is not Railtrack, and Sir David Higgins is not Iain Coucher, so I hope that hon. Members can take some comfort from that.

The railway needs an infrastructure operator that is responsive, accountable and able to deliver the best possible results for operators, fare payers and the wider population who fund it through the public purse. Equally, Network Rail must be better incentivised. Reform of Network Rail’s structures and governance is therefore a key part of the Government’s rail agenda. Let me give this absolute assurance to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell): we are determined that no changes should be made that would jeopardise the impressive improvements in safety and punctuality made by Network Rail and the rail industry in recent years.

We know about the tragedy of Grayrigg in February 2007. I am not being complacent when I say that that was the last tragic event in which a passenger died. It is worth pointing out that there were four deaths at level crossings in 2010-11. That is four too many, but it is the fewest such deaths that we have had for a decade. Efficiency does not mean compromising safety.

[John McDonnell]

On Grayrigg, the ORR said:

“the company’s failure to provide and implement suitable and sufficient standards, procedures, guidance, training, tools and resources for the inspection and maintenance of fixed stretcher bar points”

was a key issue that caused that death. The same depot responsible for that stretch of line has just had a 15% cut in its budget.

[Norman Baker]

The fact that efficiency savings or reductions in numbers take place does not necessarily mean that safety is affected. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman’s point has been well made, and I will take it back with me. Network Rail today is a significantly improved body from what it was in February 2007. None the less, we share the Office of Rail Regulation’s concerns about certain aspects of the company’s recent performance, such as punctuality over the past 12 months, some weaknesses in safety culture and poor implementation of integrated train planning under certain conditions.

The Government look to the Office of Rail Regulation to hold Network Rail to account and to continue to drive improved value for money from the company. As part of that process, the ORR has set Network Rail a requirement to make efficiency savings of 21% in its 2009 baseline by 2014. It will continue to produce annual reports benchmarking Network Rail’s efficiency against its international peers.

The Office of Rail Regulation’s latest annual report states that Network Rail has made progress against its efficiency targets, but that it has more work to do to justify all of its claimed savings. When Network Rail delivers on its current commitments, the ORR expects it to have closed around two-thirds of this efficiency gap by 2014 and the rest by 2019.

A key part of the McNulty review is to see much closer working and alignment of incentives between Network Rail and the train operators. A number of Members raised that, and it is something that the Government are focused on and it will feature in the Command Paper.

We welcome Network Rail’s regional devolution initiative to focus its business down to the route level and to work closely with train operators. David Higgins is taking forward work on structural reform to form closer alliances with the train operators. Moves towards asset management concessions and improved supplier engagement are vital.

We recognise concerns that Network Rail’s governance has not, so far, provided adequate mechanisms for holding the company’s board to account. That has been particularly apparent in respect of bonuses. The Secretary of State for Transport has been rightly firm on that matter, as indeed has No.10, despite what we have heard this afternoon. We expect bonuses to be dealt with in a responsible and a sensible manner by Network Rail, as we do by others. However, the Government’s powers, which we inherited from the previous Administration, to deal with those bonuses are extremely limited. Let me remind the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) that in 2009-10, under the previous Government, Iain Coucher received a bonus of £348,184, and the top seven directors together clocked up £1,347,000.

[John Woodcock]

The Minister will be aware that the previous chief executive waived his bonus in the 2008-09 period when he was asked to do so by the then Secretary of State, Lord Adonis. When the former Secretary of State for Transport, the now Secretary of State for Defence, raised the issue of those bonuses to Iain Coucher, he was completely ignored.

[Norman Baker]

The fact of the matter is that we have not inherited powers to deal with those bonuses. This is the Network Rail structure that we inherited, and we are now trying to sort it out.

Let me deal with Network Rail’s performance, which comes within my portfolio. It is not as good as it should have been, and passengers are rightly unhappy when their train is delayed or cancelled, especially when that happens regularly. To be fair to Network Rail, we must put that performance in context. In 1997-98, the annual public performance measure was 89.3%. After the accident at Hatfield in 2000, it fell to 74.2%. Since then, it has risen progressively, and punctuality today stands at 91.7%. I am not saying that that is good enough, but it is not the catastrophic case that is sometimes presented. It is certainly not true that, as the Labour party spokesman said, performance has been declining at an alarming rate. It has not; it has been improving. It has not met the targets, but it has been on an upward trend.

The current high level output specification for the railways specifies a further improvement to 92.6% during the period to 2014, and that is what the Department is focused on, as is the ORR. There is still a lot to do. I am concerned that performance over the last year has been iffy for various reasons, including the previous two exceptionally severe winters and an increase in the number of external events, such as cable theft. What is happening about cable theft is not the full range of the Government’s response, and it is inaccurate to present it in that way. We are simply using existing legislation to do what we can. Further measures will emerge as and when we can take them. In addition to cable theft, other issues have affected Network Rail’s performance that I am told were within its control.

Remedial plans have been put in place to enable improvements by the end of the current year, and plans are being developed for the remaining two years of the current rail control period. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans that a great deal of work has gone into much better winter resilience, including third-rail heating to prevent the sort of problems that occurred in previous winters, to which she rightly referred. I hope that she will be reassured by the fact that I meet Network Rail and the train companies monthly to examine performance with a specific analysis to ensure that they are keeping up to scratch with their plans.

As has been said, the ORR has published enforcement orders requiring Network Rail to take further steps to improve performance, particularly for long-distance passenger services and freight services. Hon. Members will know of the letter written by the ORR to Network Rail—it is fair to say that the train companies also have responsibility to do their best to ensure that punctuality and performance are maintained—and I simultaneously wrote to the train companies about their responsibilities to ensure that they are doing what they can to maintain performance at their end.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans referred to the National Audit Office. Network Rail is officially a private sector company. That classification is determined not by the Government, but by the independent Office for National Statistics, and that is what it has decided. I am not aware of any precedent for the National Audit Office having jurisdiction over private sector companies.

Under the terms of the Railways Act 1993, as subsequently amended, Network Rail is subject to scrutiny and regulation by the ORR, which has access to information that it needs from Network Rail, properly to assess the company’s performance and efficiency. The ORR is part of the public sector, so it is subject to National Audit Office scrutiny. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have recently undertaken audits of the Office of Rail Regulation, taken evidence from Network Rail and others and produced reports on the regulator’s effectiveness.

We note and endorse the conclusions that the ORR must take steps to ensure that it has the capability that it needs properly to hold Network Rail to account and to drive it to close the efficiency gap with leading European comparators. I have sought assurances from the ORR that it will take such steps. Hon. Members have referred to the consultation that is taking place on the ORR’s powers. Any plans to expand the ORR’s role take account of its performance to date and its future capability, as well as comments that are received as part of the consultation process.

As a private sector company, Network Rail is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, nor could it be without primary legislation. However, Network Rail has promised that it is in the process of developing a voluntary information rights code, which will mirror many of the provisions in the Freedom of Information Act. We welcome that initiative and believe that, if properly implemented, it will provide an alternative to legislation. We expect the company to introduce the code alongside a broader package of Government reforms later this year.

My colleagues and I in the Department for Transport, including the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers)—I am grateful for the comments about her accident, and I am happy to say that she is recovering well—will keep the matter under close scrutiny.

Hon. Members raised a number of specific points, but I must give my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans time to respond properly. If there are any points that I have not dealt with, I will write to the relevant hon. Members.

Civil Aviation Bill

Norman Baker Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the kind comments from Members on both sides of the House in respect of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport—she is indeed my friend. If she is watching, she ought not to bother but get some rest.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) on an excellent maiden speech, which the House enjoyed. She will be a powerful addition to the House in the years ahead.

I welcome the many constructive comments in the debate, and I am particularly grateful to the Transport Committee for expediting the process of pre-legislative scrutiny when this earlier slot became available for the Bill. The Committee found that both airlines and airports welcome the Bill.

The Bill process has been going on a very long time, as Opposition Members will know only too well. I accept that it would have been ideal to have slightly more time for scrutiny but, on the other hand, in the aviation industry if a slot becomes available, we must take it. It would not have served customers, passengers or the industry well to have let that slip while a number of months went by, because there is a great deal of Government business to fit in.

My right hon. Friend and I welcome the Transport Committee’s response and look forward to the comments of members of the Public Bill Committee. We will listen carefully to members on both sides of that Committee.

Many hon. Members have made the case for the continuing importance of our aviation sector. We have a vital, dynamic aviation industry. The continuing success of that industry is essential to our economic growth. Our reforms have been designed to allow competition to flourish and for our industry to innovate and thrive.

I shall do my best to respond to the many points made in the debate. A number of hon. Members spoke up for their local and regional airports, including Luton airport and Teesside—or is it Durham and Tees Valley?—airport. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) asked for a meeting about his particular situation. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be very pleased to see him and other hon. Members on a cross-party basis to discuss that situation when she is back in the saddle.

As the Secretary of State made clear in her opening remarks, most airports in this country are competitive and look after their passengers. Our reforms are designed to protect the interests of passengers, particularly at the small number of airports such as Heathrow that have substantial market power. For all other airports, the main change introduced by the Bill is that the CAA will be able to bring its expertise to the investigation and remedy of anti-competitive behaviour by having concurrent powers with the Office of Fair Trading.

The Bill replaces an inflexible, one-size-fits-all approach based on five-year price controls with a flexible regime under which regulation can be tailored to individual airports’ circumstances so that the CAA can reduce the scope of economic regulation while retaining essential protection for passengers.

At the heart of the new proposals is a single, clear, primary duty to further the interests of end users—passengers and freight owners, now and in the future. The passenger is centre stage. This will enable the CAA to undertake enforcement action in real time when this becomes necessary. The Chair of the Transport Committee, and the Committee’s report, asks whether we might have greater clarity in the Bill’s definition of users of air transport services and suggested the phrase

“passengers and shippers of cargo, both present and future.”

I draw to her attention clause 69, which defines air transport service as

“a service for the carriage by air of passengers or cargo to or from an airport in the United Kingdom”.

Users of air transport services are persons present and future who are or will be passengers carried by such services, and persons with a right in property carried by such services. This will not cover shippers of cargo, unless they have a right in property in that cargo, because we think it is more important to protect the interests of the owners of cargo, rather than the shippers—again, putting the customer at centre stage. I hope that the Chair of the Select Committee will recognise that the clarification she seeks is in that clause.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I have the Belfast International airport in my constituency. Under this Bill, can the Minister assure me that Northern Ireland will soon have a proper aviation strategy, as that is essential for my constituency?

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to advise the hon. Gentleman that the Department for Transport is producing a comprehensive aviation strategy, which according to the Department’s business plan will be published in March. He will be able to look at that and see whether it deals with the Northern Ireland situation in which he is clearly interested.

The shadow Secretary of State referred to the issue of future passengers, as against present passengers. I recognise that that is an issue, and clause 1(5) empowers the CAA to determine how to fulfil its primary duty to promote the interests of users when conflicts arise. This is in line with affording requisite discretion to the regulator and taking politics out of regulation. In other words, it would not be helpful for the case the hon. Lady makes to be more specific about the CAA’s powers than the Bill currently is.

One or two hon. Members asked why the airline consultation supplementary duty has been dropped. Stakeholders, including airlines should be consulted by the CAA when it carries out its economic regulatory functions. There is an obligation to consult bodies representing airlines on licence conditions, licence modifications and penalties. Any airline is free to make representations, and we do not believe that the CAA would ignore any relevant representation. Furthermore, whenever a conflict arises between passengers’ interest and those of airlines, the CAA will be bound to act in passengers’ interests, given the primary duty in the Bill. A further secondary duty would not affect that position, which is why we came to that conclusion.

The shadow Secretary of State also asked about resilience. The implication of her comments was that since the former Secretary of State for Transport—with her, it appears—was out at Heathrow, nothing has happened, but nothing could be further from the truth. There have been extensive discussions between the Department and the owners and operators at Heathrow about winter resilience. This winter, I am happy to say that the major airports in London are much better prepared than they were last year. But when the CAA proposes full airport licences, it will of course be required to consult on the content of licences and any subsequent changes to them. It will have to take into account any representations during those consultations when setting conditions, and we will require it to include welfare plans if those are in current and future passengers’ interests. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady the satisfaction she was seeking on that point.

Several hon. Members referred, rightly, to the welcome proposals in the Bill on ATOL, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). He wanted an assurance that consumers would know when a holiday was ATOL-protected, and I can assure him that that is a key objective of the Government in the changes we are proposing. We are also interested, of course, in the Transport Committee’s deliberations on this important issue.

The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) asked whether the Ryanair holiday model would be covered by the ATOL reforms. The intention is to ensure as far as possible that any holiday booked with a flight is covered by the changes. The hon. Members for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) also raised issues relating to ATOL reform. I confirm that we consulted over the summer on proposals to improve clarity for consumers about the ATOL scheme’s coverage. I agree fully that the current situation can be unclear and misleading for consumers, which is why action is needed as soon as possible.

We propose to expand the ATOL scheme to include flight-plus holidays that work like packages but lie outside the narrow legal definition. We also propose that an ATOL certificate should be issued whenever consumers purchase an ATOL-protected flight or holiday, as a further means of providing clarity. We aim to announce a decision shortly on the reforms, which can be implemented by new regulations under existing powers. We are taking steps forward on that. The holiday industry has made strong representations that it is no longer clear whether holidays are ATOL-protected. As I said, we think we can deal with that problem by allowing for the addition of more flight-based holidays.

In her introductory comments, the Chair of the Select Committee referred to impact assessments. The Transport Committee stated that

“licence conditions, and their associated costs to airports, may not be proportionate to the benefits delivered”,

and that was the thrust of her point. Ultimately, where costs are associated with licence conditions, users of air transport services will pay those costs. Where the costs of a proposed licence condition are seen to outweigh the benefits to passengers, it will not be in passengers’ interests to impose the condition, so the CAA’s primary duty would not be met if it did so.

The Bill requires the CAA to consult on proposed licence conditions and states that a licence may not include conditions that differ significantly from those on which it has already consulted. It must set out the reasons for conditions included in the licence, how it has taken into account any representations made, and the reasons for any differences from the conditions initially proposed. I think that that makes the case for the approach that we are taking. The fact that putting the passenger centre stage is the CAA’s primary duty will we hope give the hon. Lady the reassurance that she rightly seeks. I will come to security issues in a moment.

The shadow Secretary of State referred to vexatious appeals. I do not think that they are likely to occur. The Government’s proposed regime has features to deter frivolous or vexatious appeals. In particular, in most cases the appeal will not suspend the licence condition’s coming into effect, although the appeal body will have the power to impose interim relief under circumstances. There is therefore limited incentive to appeal for the purpose of delaying the decision.

The shadow Secretary of State also referred to the consumer panel. We believe that it is a useful innovation in the Bill. As she might know, the successor body to the Air Transport Users Council is being consulted on. It was announced on 18 January this year. The CAA will set up the CAA consumer panel as soon as possible and will immediately seek a suitable chair.

Environmental issues were raised by several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, who was concerned, as were some Opposition Members, about the absence from the Bill of an environmental duty. The matter has been considered carefully. One reason why the Bill does not include such a duty at the moment, although the Government fully accept the need to take the environment into account in aviation, as everywhere else, is that it is thought that economic regulation is not the appropriate vehicle for doing so, not least because it enables the CAA to address only airports with substantial market power and only where regulatory intervention is warranted. That currently includes only three airports, but environmental externalities are present at a wider range of airports and need to be factored in. That is why the Government decided to proceed by placing on the CAA an information and publication duty that is considered to be more concrete and of more practical benefit to the public than the previously proposed environmental objective. The CAA is under an obligation to publish such information and can also issue advice and guidance to airport operators.

[Dr Huppert]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. He is correct that information is helpful and that all airports have a role to play, but will he consider more carefully whether it would be a good idea to put that environmental duty in the Bill so that as many steps as possible can be taken to protect the environment?

[Norman Baker]

My hon. Friend makes a point that others have made. If he or others want to pursue it in Committee, they will need to demonstrate that there is information that needs to be provided or actions that need to be taken that would not be provided or taken under the regime in the Bill. If he can demonstrate that, I am sure that Ministers will have an open mind.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) made an interesting point about the CAA’s new consumer panel, suggesting that it could help the CAA to decide how to use those powers and what information to collect. That sounds like a good idea, and we will encourage the CAA to consider it. I am grateful to him for his suggestion.

Members on both sides of the House mentioned the National Audit Office. The NAO’s role is to scrutinise public spending on behalf of Parliament, but the income that the CAA derives from the industry is not public spending, as Parliament recognised when it removed the NAO’s role in 1984. The issue of the CAA’s auditors was considered by Sir Joseph Pilling, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, as part of his 2008 strategic review of the authority. He concluded that there was no need for the NAO to be involved directly with the CAA.

Many other points were raised in the debate, but I am conscious that I have taken much longer than the shadow Minister. I therefore do not have time to deal with the issue of the smalls raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris)—he went on at some length about that—but I can assure Members that all comments will be taken onboard. If I have not answered any questions, I will ensure that a letter is sent from the Department.

I think that this is a useful Bill. I am grateful for the support of Members from across the House, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Civil Aviation Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Civil Aviation Bill:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 15 March 2012.

3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(James Duddridge.)

Question agreed to.

Civil Aviation Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Civil Aviation Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided, and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(James Duddridge.)

Question agreed to.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL (CARRY-OVER)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),

That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Civil Aviation Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(James Duddridge.)

Question agreed to.

Street Works (Lane Rental)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Written Statements

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

I am today publishing the outcome of the Government’s consultation on proposals to allow trials of lane rental schemes to be undertaken by a small number of “pioneer” local authorities. Lane rental would involve the local authority applying a daily charge where street works obstruct traffic at the busiest times, providing a clear financial incentive for works to be carried out in less disruptive ways.

The Government are now inviting applications from authorities wishing to operate “pioneer” schemes. The guidance I am publishing today makes clear that the Government are prepared to approve up to three such schemes, in areas where the local authority has already sought to achieve the desired effect through other means, including through a road works permit scheme. Lane rental charges would need to be targeted on those streets where works cause the greatest disruption, and would need to provide a genuine opportunity for works promoters to avoid charges by carrying out their works at less disruptive times. Evidence from the performance of the “pioneer” schemes will inform future decisions on whether lane rental should play a wider role. Any revenues raised from lane rental will have to be used for purposes that will help to reduce the disruption caused by works—for example, research and development into disruption-saving techniques and technologies.

The guidance and other documents are now being published on the Department for Transport’s website, and I will be laying the necessary regulations before Parliament shortly.

Plug-In Car Grant Review

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce the launch of a plug-in van grant alongside the continuation of the existing plug-in car grant to help stimulate the market for ultra-low emission vehicles. The plug-in van grant, available to both private and business buyers across the UK, will provide a point of purchase discount of 20%, up to a maximum value of £8,000, for the purchase of eligible new ultra-low emission vans¹.

The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) and I have reviewed the existing plug-in car grant, which provides a discount of 25%, up to £5,000 off the price of eligible ultra-low emission cars. We examined the need for and value of the grant, as well as its scope. We have concluded that there remains a strong case for the grant. We have therefore decided to continue with the plug-in car grant at the current level, with provision out to 2015.

In addition, we are persuaded that there is a strong case for supporting ultra-low emission technology in vans—which often have fixed duty cycles and return to base regularly where they can easily recharge. An up-front purchase grant, when combined with the lower running costs and tax benefits, can make switching to an ultra-low emission van an attractive choice for businesses. The plug-in van grant, alongside the existing plug-in car grant, is designed to help private individuals and businesses adopt new, cleaner technology. Businesses, especially those with fleets, will be a key driver in increasing the market share of ultra-low emission vehicles.

The shift towards clean technology is an opportunity to reinvigorate further the UK automotive industry, where many van manufacturers are based, alongside helping to increase our energy security. The plug-in van grant will help to improve local air quality in our cities, reduce carbon emissions and meet Government targets. The technology fits well with a large portion of the van market that relies on short urban trips to and from base.

Only vans which meet strict performance criteria for range, tail-pipe emissions and safety will be eligible for the plug-in van grant. We are today opening the application process and inviting van manufacturers to apply for their vehicles to become part of the scheme. To be considered in the first tranche, applications will need to be received by 31 January. I look forward to confirming very shortly thereafter the first vans to join the scheme.

¹ Subject to state aid approval from the European Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

7. What plans she has to encourage the use of 20 mph speed limits.

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

I recognise the value that 20 mph speed limits can bring in some locations, particularly outside schools, but it is for local authorities to decide whether and where to implement them. Last October, I took steps to make it easier for every English local authority to introduce 20 mph zones and limits more efficiently and with less bureaucracy.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Bishopbriggs in my constituency is trying to become Scotland’s first 20 mph town and, as research shows that the risk of children being involved in an accident is reduced by two thirds in 20 mph zones, that is understandable. I congratulate the Minister on the changes he has made. Of course, that improvement does not apply in Scotland, so may I ask what discussions he has had with his Scottish counterparts about the success of the scheme? It would be excellent if the Scottish National party Government followed suit, to the benefit of towns such as Bishopbriggs and others.

[Norman Baker]

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, this is a devolved matter so I have had no such discussions with Scottish colleagues. There are 2,000 20 mph schemes in England and evidence from the British Medical Journal shows a significant reduction in casualties and collisions of about 40%, a reduction in the number of children being killed or seriously injured of 50% and a reduction in casualties among cyclists of 17% where there are 20 mph limits in London. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to pass that information back to the Scottish Government.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Many residents in my constituency, like me, support the increased use of 20 mph speed limits, but we are finding that the time over which designation takes place is still inordinately long. I know that the Government have made welcome proposals, but are there any specific observations that my hon. Friend would like to make to assist my local authority in making speedier decisions?

[Norman Baker]

As I said in response to the initial question, we have made changes as part of the road signs review, “Signing the Way”, to make the introduction of such limits and zones more efficient and less bureaucratic. It is now possible to use roundels on the road rather than repeater signs, which saves money and is quicker to introduce. We are also looking at the requirements on local authorities to advertise road changes in traffic management terms.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

8. What assessment she has made of whether stockpiles of salt for winter resilience have increased since 2009.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

9. What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on metal theft from railways and motorways.

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

I am in close discussions with ministerial colleagues from the Home Office and other Departments about the severe impact of metal theft on transport and more generally. We are actively discussing measures to tackle this, including amendments to legislation. We are also working with the police to establish a dedicated metal theft taskforce.

[Karen Lumley]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Network Rail estimates that by the end of 2011, railway passengers will have suffered half a million minutes-worth of delay as a result of metal thefts. Those delays are discouraging people from using railways and Redditch is looking to improve business links. What assurances can the Minister give to businesses in Redditch that this House will legislate to protect the UK economy from this crime?

[Norman Baker]

The Home Office is the lead Department for legislation, but all Government Departments are fully seized of the need to deal with this issue as a matter of urgency. Discussions are taking place about options. This issue affects not only railways but the highway network and the coastguard service, for example. Most despicably, the theft of cable in the Vale of Glamorgan recently forced the cancellation of 80 operations.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

As passengers up and down the country could tell the hon. Gentleman, performance on Britain’s rail network is getting worse and metal theft is a major factor. On the basis of the Department’s own figures, metal theft is set to cause up to 7,000 hours of delay this year. When are the Government going to act?

[Norman Baker]

The Government have already acted with the measures announced by the Chancellor in his recent statement to appoint the special taskforce to which I referred. As I have mentioned, there are also ministerial discussions taking place across Departments. I assure the hon. Lady that discussions are taking place. Particular proposals are being considered and evaluated and there will be an announcement quite shortly, I hope.

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is right to recognise the importance of this issue, but passengers want to see action, not just discussion and a taskforce. With passengers facing rail fare rises of up to 11% and given that the Department calculates that this issue is costing Network Rail more than £16 million every year and a further loss of £10 million in economic cost to passengers and the economy, when will the Government listen to Network Rail, agree to legislate to tackle the illegal market in scrap, and ban cashless transactions?

[Norman Baker]

Under the 13 years of the hon. Lady’s Government nothing much was done to amend the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 and we are now taking action on that front. The issue of cashless payment was referred to by my ministerial colleague the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), at Home Office questions on 12 December. He said that he was looking at dealing with a situation where cashless payments ought to be removed. As I mentioned a moment ago, discussions are very active—very live—and I hope there will be an announcement in the near future.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

As chairman of the all-party group on heritage rail, may I say that this matter affects heritage railways up and down the country? They often rely on volunteers and charitable donations and I add my voice to those urging quick action on the problem.

[Norman Baker]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the impact on heritage rail. With the Bluebell railway partly in my constituency, I am very well aware of the impact on individual bodies such as that, which are sometimes less able to respond financially than the public sector. I am afraid that all sections of society are being affected by selfish metal theft and it is important that we take action to deal with it.

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

11. What proportion of central Government spending on transport is spent in the north-east.

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

According to the latest figures published by the Treasury, of the £10,380 million spent on transport in the UK directly by central Government in 2010, £293 million was spent in the north-east, which was broadly comparable with expenditure in the preceding years under the Labour Government. An additional £363 million was spent by local authorities, with some of the funding coming from central Government.

[Chi Onwurah]

The Minister referred earlier to the transport spending announced in the autumn statement, but the Institute for Public Policy Research found that of that only 0.04% was spent in the north-east. The Government will be spending £2,731 per head in London compared with a mere £5 in the north-east, and we know that high-speed rail will not even get as far as Leeds until 2033, so will the Minister look at decentralising transport spending so that the north-east does not continue to be left behind?

[Norman Baker]

First, we are looking at decentralising transport spending. Secondly, the proportion of expenditure in the north-east is not particularly out of line with the population there. Thirdly, the IPPR report to which the hon. Lady refers is not complete; it did not, for example, include the December announcements on local major projects and did not take into account the further £1 billion from the regional growth fund. It is not a complete analysis.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

One way of improving the north-east’s share of transport expenditure would be to bring forward schemes to dual dangerous single carriageway sections of the A1 that have already been prepared by the Highways Agency. Will my hon. Friend discuss with his ministerial colleagues the urgency of bringing forward some of those schemes as soon as we can?

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to say that the discussion has already taken place to some degree. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), is looking at those schemes as we speak.

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

12. What plans she has for future use of variable speed limits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Chippenham station lacks disabled access, in large part due to restrictions on modifying buildings and structures considered to be historically important—I wonder what Brunel would think of that. Does the Minister agree that such heritage concerns ought to be applied proportionately so as not to frustrate either access to the railway or, indeed, impose an unreasonable financial burden on achieving it?

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

I agree with that proposition. One of the problems is that the Victorian infrastructure, which is marvellous in many ways, was not built with the needs of present-day communities in mind. The full Access for All programme is continuing, and I think that it should be possible in most cases to improve access while respecting the integrity of such buildings.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

T7. All parties support the proposed new Mersey Gateway crossing, but there is concern that local people will have to pay a toll to cross the bridges. I believe that they should continue to pay nothing. My big concern is that the deal that the Government have offered Halton borough council means that they will take 70% of any excess revenue from procurement savings and 85% of any excess toll revenue, which will leave the council little room for manoeuvre to discount local tolls. Will the Secretary of State please look at this again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T10. In Bristol, the city council is being forced to make savings of £2 million, directly affecting its subsidy to First Bus. Routes are being cancelled, operating times are being cut and fares, which are already far too high, are still rising. What efforts are Ministers making to ensure that local bus routes remain operational and affordable?

[Norman Baker]

I had thought that the hon. Lady might have written to congratulate the Government on the major investment programme in Bristol which we announced at the end of last year, with a number of schemes going ahead. She might have written to congratulate the Government also on the new “better bus area” programme, which includes an extra £50 million for buses, £20 million for more green buses and more money for community transport. So there is a lot of money going into buses, and we are doing a great deal to protect bus passengers and to improve bus services.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

I know that the Minister is aware of the importance to economic growth of the Hastings to Bexhill link road, which he is now considering. Is he also aware of the enormous lengths that its promoters have gone to in order to mitigate environmental concerns, including the proposed building of dedicated tunnels for dormice that might have to cross the road?