Blue Badge Improvement Service

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Written Statements

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

I am today providing an update on implementation of the blue badge reform programme that I announced in February 2011.

One of the key reforms to the blue badge scheme is the blue badge improvement service. This service has been developed in close consultation with disabled people and local authorities. It is a major initiative aimed at tackling rising levels of badge fraud and abuse, helping to ensure that disabled people receive improved customer service and ensuring that the scheme remains sustainable in the long term for those who rely on it most.

The blue badge improvement service became operational on 1 January 2012. I am pleased to say that every local authority in England has signed up to use the service and I would like to thank them all for their support in helping to deliver important and necessary changes that are vital for the future sustainable operation of the blue badge scheme. The service should also help them to realise efficiency savings of up to £20 million per year.

In an innovative move by the Department for Transport, the capital costs of the service are being met through private sector investment from Northgate Information Solutions who will deliver the secure web-based service, and Payne Security who will print, supply and distribute the newly designed badge.

The service establishes a common store of key information on badges and badge holders that will enable verification checks to be made quickly and easily.

To counter fraud, the design of the blue badge was changed in regulations that came into force on 1 December 2011. The old-style cardboard badges have been replaced by new ones made from a fused and bonded hard plastic material and which contain a number of overt and covert security features.

For the first time, people can now apply for a blue badge using a national system that is available on Directgov. This should result in a quicker turnaround time for people re-applying for badges whose circumstances are not going to change. Those who use the online application form will only be asked to complete those sections that are relevant to the eligibility under which they are applying. They can also sign up for text and email reminders at re-application time, track the progress of their application and there will be an eligibility checker for those who want to find out if they are eligible for a badge. From 1 April 2012, badge holders will be able to report lost and stolen badges and update changes to their details online.

There is a new national helpline for general enquiries about blue badges that will signpost callers to the relevant local authority. However, local authorities will still be in charge of administering the blue badge scheme, making decisions about whether applicants are eligible and issuing badges.

Pedestrian Access (Railway Stations)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I am pleased to respond to this debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing it and on putting forcefully the views of his constituents and others in Sheffield.

I fully recognise that there are local concerns regarding the access across the railway at Sheffield and I appreciate the points that the hon. Gentleman made about this long-running and sensitive issue. Let me assure him that I am fully aware of the issues and concerns that surround the proposed gating at Sheffield station. I have had representations not just from him but from other MPs in Sheffield, including the Deputy Prime Minister, who has made his views very plain on this matter as well. I want to be helpful and find a constructive way in which to resolve this matter, and I shall ask the hon. Gentleman for his help in that.

Let me deal with why we are where we are and answer some of the questions that have been raised. A key factor is the cost to the railway. There is another factor, which is access, but the loss of revenue is important. The hon. Gentleman refers to the letter that I sent to him. The costs of ticketless travel relating to Sheffield station is estimated at between 3% and 18%. The sum of £2.3 million a year was given to me by officials and was based on the minimum figure. If it were 18%, the amount would be £13.8 million a year. The hon. Gentleman will agree, as will all Members, that we simply cannot allow money to continue to haemorrhage from Sheffield in this way and that a solution needs to be found that captures the lost revenue as a matter of urgency. This is money that should be going to the railway to help improve services and, at the moment, it is being lost. It is also unfair that many people are paying for their tickets while others are able to travel apparently free of charge. That is not fair on the people who buy the tickets.

Normally with ticketless travel of this magnitude, train operating companies consider ticket-gating options. The magnitude of this issue at Sheffield was such, as the hon. Gentleman rightly and fairly said, that the previous Labour Government put an obligation on East Midlands Trains, when it won the franchise in 2009, to install gates at Sheffield. It should be clear, therefore, that this was an obligation on East Midlands Trains and was not something that it wanted to pursue itself.

[Paul Blomfield]

There was an obligation to install barriers or, if that proved unviable, to investigate other revenue protection measures. Will the Minister confirm that?

[Norman Baker]

Yes. My understanding was that the company was required to provide barriers, but I am looking to officials to see whether that is in fact the nuance of it. If there is any further information, I will give it to the hon. Gentleman before I finish my speech.

On ticket barriers—I want to talk about other aspects of the matter too, so the hon. Gentleman should not misinterpret what I say in the next few paragraphs—ticket gates are an efficient and proven method of significantly reducing ticketless travel and increasing rail revenue. That increased revenue has the effect of reducing the costs of the railways, as he will appreciate, for both taxpayers and rail passengers. As he will be aware, the cost of running the railways has increased by 60% in real terms since 1996-97. Sir Roy McNulty’s independent study estimates that UK rail costs are about 30% higher per passenger mile than those of our European competitors, so there is a big issue with general efficiency. Sir Roy McNulty’s study also goes on to state that the evidence suggests that

“the widespread introduction of gating at stations could reduce revenue lost through ticket evasion or the deliberate purchase of “wrong” tickets…The DfT data regarding rates of ticketless travel suggest it is about 12% in London compared with about 7% elsewhere.”

In addition, gated barriers at stations can bring a number of benefits to station users, rail passengers and the industry. Gates at stations are staffed when in use and therefore provide benefits to passengers in terms of safety and security through staff visibility. They also make it more difficult for non-ticket holders to access the railway, which potentially contributes to more enjoyable travel for fare-paying passengers.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was policy to require gating everywhere. I think it is a matter of horses for courses and each railway line and each station is different. It would not be sensible, for example, to install gating on very lightly used rural stations. That would be nonsensical in terms of the cost-benefit ratio. The Department and the train companies will estimate the likely consequence of not having a proper method to ensure ticketless travel is tackled—and I shall come to that in a moment—set against the cost of gating. He may be interested to know, for example, that I have recently required the installation of gating at Gatwick airport, a hole in the Southern network that has caused ticketless travel and been a magnet for those who wish to access the railway without paying.

[Angela Smith]

The point is, however, that as far as Sheffield is concerned, many of those found to be travelling without tickets boarded the trains at some of the rural stations to which the Minister has just referred. Clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) pointed out, the problem is that we have a scarcity of East Midlands Trains staff on the trains to ensure that people have paid for their tickets at stations further down the lines that serve Sheffield.

[Norman Baker]

Let me try to deal with the point about staff on trains. It is partly about franchise requirements—and, by the way, I am advised by officials that the barrier obligation is ongoing for East Midlands Trains, although alternatives would be considered if gating was not installed by a particular date, which I must say is an interesting franchise condition.

Members will appreciate that there is a significant cost to having staff on trains. Train companies employ revenue protection officers on a regular basis, but it is not possible—particularly on busy trains—to have any guarantee that the conductor, particularly when the train is busy and when there are frequent stops on the service, will be able to get through the train and check all the tickets. Indeed, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said in his introduction that he is often unable to buy a ticket to travel on the train.

[Chris Williamson]

In view of his comments about the cost of train managers, will the Minister confirm that the plan to introduce more gates is part of a long-term Government plan to de-staff or run down the number of staff working on the railways? Is that behind his plans?

[Norman Baker]

I would not infer that at all. As I said a moment ago, if there are gates, staff are needed in case someone gets stuck in them. If the gates are unstaffed, they have to be left open. Gates are in fact a guarantee of staff on the station.

[Angela Smith]

The Minister mentions a problem with staff getting around to check all tickets on busy trains, but that underlines the fact that on the Penistone line, in particular, which runs into Sheffield station—it is a busy commuter route from Huddersfield and serves my constituents—we have a lack of capacity. So perhaps one answer is to have not just more staff on trains, but more trains.

[Norman Baker]

I entirely sympathise, but the hon. Lady makes a wider point, and I hope she notices that, notwithstanding our difficult economic situation and inheritance, we now have the biggest investment in railways since Victorian times, a commitment to improve rolling stock on several lines, an electrification programme that has extended way beyond what was originally anticipated and a tram-train pilot in Sheffield. There is a great deal of investment in transport, and any fair-minded person would look at the Government’s investment portfolio and conclude that, since May 2010, transport and, in particular, railways have done rather well.

The Chancellor’s growth statement included several roads that the hon. Lady may notice, but what was not picked up was that £1.4 billion extra is being allocated for rail, as against £1 billion for roads. So we are seeing massive investment in the railways, and that includes—[Interruption]—I wish she would not chunter in the background; I am trying to answer her questions—investment in rolling stock. There is a commitment to new rolling stock for the east coast main line and for the First Great Western line; new rolling stock is being introduced to the Thameslink programme; and we are continuing with our intention to bring in 2,700 new carriages.

I fully accept that we have a problem on the railways, in that more people than at any time since 1929 now travel by rail—if that is a problem—on a network that is between a half and two-thirds of the size it was in 1929. I call it a success in some ways, but it is called a problem in terms of its consequences. The public’s perception of their journey is also much more favourable than was the case even 10 or 15 years ago, and people now regard trains as safe, more punctual and more pleasant to use. That is a problem of success, so the inevitable consequence is that we have to follow people’s increased use of trains, which has largely been recession-resistant, and ensure that there are sufficient orders to pick up extra passengers.

One answer is to invest in high-speed rail, and, if the Secretary of State concludes when she makes her statement in due course that she wishes to pursue the Y-shape proposal, her decision will significantly benefit the Sheffield area, as well as everywhere else in the country. So I assure the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) that we are doing our best to ensure that there is real investment in carriages and infrastructure. That is quite a long answer to her point, but I hope it assures her that we take rail extremely seriously. Indeed, I would not be doing my job of lobbying within the Government if that were not the case, but I am happy to say that it is.

Let me return to the subject in hand. The welcome increase in the number of passengers using rail services in south Yorkshire—this point follows on from the one I have just made—has also brought problems that the Department is managing in conjunction with local stakeholders. For example, additional rail vehicles have been introduced to provide more capacity. Unmanned local stations are cheap to operate and improve access to rail services, but that does not make it any easier for on-train staff to collect and issue more tickets on board busy trains. Sheffield, as I have mentioned, has a particularly high level of ticketless travel.

[Paul Blomfield]

In my experience and, certainly, that of others, the problem is not just with busy trains, because companies could make more effort to collect revenue from trains on which it is perfectly easy for collectors to navigate the carriages. On busy trains, which are limited to certain peak times, it would also be possible to deploy ticket collectors on platforms at the station. Has there been a proper economic assessment of that idea, as a revenue-side way of dealing with the problem, in comparison with the capital side? My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) made the point that it could be a win-win for us, because it would not only tackle fare evasion, but create more jobs.

[Norman Baker]

I am not going to stand here this evening and say that everything possible has been done by East Midlands Trains, or Midland Mainline before it—or, for that matter, any other train company—to minimise the amount of ticketless travel on its trains. Some companies do better than others. It may well be the case—I just do not know—that there is more scope for staff on trains to—

[Paul Blomfield]

You should know if you’re driving the policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

With respect, I should not know what happens on every single train across the country, because we are now moving into an era in which we avoid micro-management of the trains. We are setting the high-level objectives; we are not seeking to micro-manage every train, let alone every passenger on the network. However, as a general principle, it is right that train companies should try to minimise ticketless travel by whatever means they can; indeed, it is in their interests to do so. As to whether a cost-benefit analysis has been carried out to see whether such measures are more effective, to be honest, I am not sure that one has been, although I will check that and write to the hon. Gentleman.

What I would say, however, is that the problem is a bit like when the police stop drivers speeding: when the police are there, they are effective, both at the time and for about a week afterwards, but then the average speed of the motor vehicles on those roads rises again. A gating solution is a permanent solution; a solution involving people, unless they are permanently there, is not a permanent solution and is less effective than gating. However, I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the point that he has raised.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

But the Minister has said that gates have to be staffed. In fact, my experience of East Midlands Trains—not in Sheffield, but in Nottingham—is that gates are regularly unstaffed, so they are doing nothing to prevent fare evasion.

[Norman Baker]

If a train company operates gates without regularly staffing them, that will lead to a loss of income, and it is responsible for dealing with that. However, travelling the network extensively as I do, I do not often come across gates that have been left open.

East Midlands Trains, along with Midland Mainline before it, has undertaken manual staffed barriers of ticket inspectors on selective days to ensure that all passengers passing through Sheffield station are in possession of a valid ticket—perhaps those were the instances to which the hon. Member for Sheffield Central referred in his introductory remarks. The increased revenue collected at the station on those days, both by the inspectors and through increased sales at the ticket office, indicates that between 3% and 18% of travel at Sheffield is ticketless—that is where the figure comes from. That means that at least £2.3 million is lost to the railway each year through ticketless travel in the area. I want to deal with that, but I also want to deal with the point that the hon. Gentleman raised—quite understandably—about the views of people in Sheffield and those who perhaps do not want to travel by train, but do want to use the bridge.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the station bridge in Sheffield to which he referred is not a right of way. It may be an established route in a non-legal sense, but it is not an official right of way. In fact, he will know that the bridge is locked shut every night after the last train, presumably to prevent it from becoming a right of way. However, I know that for many people—including students, residents and visitors—it has become the most convenient thoroughfare for crossing the railway. I also accept the point about access to the tram stop. As I am keen to promote light rail and low-carbon forms of transport, that is a point that I take seriously. However, although the bridge is not a right of way, I understand that Sheffield council has promoted it as part of the “gold route” access strategy for its redevelopment of the Park Hill area on the east side of the city.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to try to ensure that, through the installation of gates—if that is what occurs—the railway does not cut a community in two, and that the community is provided with a satisfactory and easy way of gaining access across the railway. We therefore looked at a number of options, including: the refurbishment of the existing public bridge to the south of the station; the refurbishment and extension of the station goods bridge; dividing the current station bridge to provide separate lanes for railway passengers and public access across the station, which is a solution that I was particularly keen on; building a new bridge at the north end of the station platforms; and building a new bridge crossing over the railway tunnels at the north end of the station. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, in 2009 the Department for Transport commissioned Network Rail to undertake a feasibility study to look into those options. The report has previously been released to Sheffield city council and the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive. As he requested on 17 November, I have also sent him a copy of the report.

The report recommended that the options of extending the station goods bridge and of trying to split the existing station bridge be discarded, as they were both impracticable and excessively complicated. The report recommended further investigation of the remaining options. We have explored those options at some length, and both my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), the then Transport Secretary, and I have visited Sheffield station separately to look at them for ourselves.

In answer to the point about Lord Adonis, I must say that he was a very competent Transport Secretary—and I never hesitate to say that.

[Paul Blomfield]

He listened.

[Norman Baker]

The hon. Gentleman says that Lord Adonis listened; well, we have listened. He went to Sheffield and I have gone to Sheffield. As far as the commitment to no barriers is concerned, there are no barriers there yet, and we are 19 months or thereabouts into this Government. We could have dealt with the matter on day one, but we did not because of the sensitivity of the issue and because we wanted to reach a satisfactory conclusion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman gets some reassurance from that.

Based on the Department’s discussions with Sheffield council over the last two years, a possible alternative to the station bridge has been identified in the form of the building of a new public bridge over the north end of the station platforms. I understand that, as part of its long-term city regeneration plans, Sheffield city council already envisages replacing the existing bridge to the south of the station and building a new bridge over the railway tunnels to the north of the station. The construction of a bridge to the north might address the requirements of both the railway and local stakeholders.

In addition, we are looking at a number of ways in which continued access across the railway for local users could be maintained by using the existing station bridge, while also capturing lost revenue. I stress that we have not yet reached a conclusion: we are looking at these matters in the round in order to find the best options for a solution. For example, East Midlands Trains has offered to provide “timed passes” to local residents and others, which would allow them to pass through any gates and continue to use the station bridge to cross the railway. Officials have been investigating the feasibility of gating at platform level and I have to say that there are serious objections to that as well, particularly in terms of practicality, as some accesses are very narrow and would not be wide enough for the gates, causing congestion. Staff would be required on every single platform, which is hugely expensive—probably more than the ticketless travel costs. Although this may appear to be an attractive option, I am afraid that it does not work. All these potential solutions are in addition to the existing alternative routes that bridge the railway in the proximity of Sheffield station. We have to deal, however, with the problem of ticketless travel.

I said that I wanted to be constructive—and I do—because this is a serious issue for people in Sheffield and a serious issue for the railway. I am keen to resolve the issue constructively and in a way that I hope addresses the interests of all involved. I want to make the hon. Member for Sheffield Central and other hon. Members an offer tonight. [Interruption.] I am not going to ask anyone to put their hands into their pockets; there is no need to worry. The Secretary of State and I are happy to have a round table meeting with all Sheffield MPs, representatives from the council and perhaps a representative from the campaign group. They can come down here—and I will look at the diary and see whether we can go up there—to look at the options openly and frankly in order to make progress. We have nothing to hide; we are happy to share the information to try to reach a satisfactory conclusion. The Secretary of State is keen to achieve that as well. We will both be involved.

The two objectives that we provisionally set are as follows. The first is that we must end, or significantly deal with, ticketless travel on the railway. The second is that we seek to meet the legitimate aspirations of people in Sheffield to be able to cross the railway without restriction. We want to achieve both those objectives. Provided people are signed up to achieving them, we should be able to make some progress. I hope that hon. Members will find that response helpful.

[Paul Blomfield]

I welcome the Minister’s offer, with those caveats. We share the desire to tackle ticketless travel and I welcome the Minister’s aspirations to address the concerns expressed by local residents and local organisations. The sort of meeting he describes, involving the local campaign group as he mentioned, would be a positive step forward. I thank him for that.

[Norman Baker]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s response. We will try to make progress. As the last Government recognised and as we now recognise, this is not an easy issue, but we are determined to make progress, and I believe that with good will on all sides we can do so. I will write to him and his colleagues in Sheffield shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

Bus and Community Transport

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce today a £60 million package of bus measures to improve buses and community transport coupled with the £30 million investment to improve the environmental performance of the bus fleet that was announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement, this is a £90 million boost for our buses.

A new £50 million better bus area fund will provide grants of up to £5 million to a minimum of 10 local authorities working in partnership with local bus operators for them to spend in 2012-13. The aim of the fund is to increase bus patronage in busy urban areas, and the Department’s aims of creating growth and cutting carbon.

Authorities wishing to bid for bus funding will be asked to submit bids in February to allow the Department to make awards by the end of March. Detailed bidding guidance will be placed on the departmental website shortly.

To support further the establishment and development of community transport, I am also making available £10 million to be distributed to 76 local authorities in England, outside London, by formula; this is a repeat of the Supporting Community Transport Fund announced in March 2011. Letters will be sent to eligible local authorities in the new year, with details of the timing of payments. This comes on top of the £10 million distributed back in March 2011.

As well as these two new funds, last week the Chancellor announced £25 million of funding for environmental improvement to buses. £20 million of this will be available to bus operators to help them buy low-carbon emission buses through a further round of the green bus fund, for which detail bidding guidance will be published shortly. The remaining £5 million will allow older buses in London to be retrofitted with pollution-reducing equipment to help deliver air quality improvements in the capital. Together with additional funding from Transport for London, the total amount being committed is £10 million. Not only should this deliver a step change in the environmental performance of buses in the capital, but it will help promote jobs across the UK in the companies that supply clean vehicle technology.

Railway Stations (Access for All)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Written Statements

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

Improving access to Great Britain’s railway stations is a key priority for this Government. I am therefore pleased to announce today a further £37.5 million of “mid-tier” Access for All funding for projects requiring up to £l million of Government support. This forms part of the wider £370 million Access for All programme launched in 2006 which will deliver an accessible, step-free route at 148 key stations. Rail passengers will benefit from better access through the provision of new lifts, ramps, raised “easier access humps” on platforms as well as new accessible toilets.

Major improvements will take place at stations across the country including at London Paddington, St Austell, Stratford, Stratford-upon-Avon and Ystrad Mynach. Network Rail will also receive funding to add tactile edge paving at 27 stations and £5 million to provide “easy access humps” to reduce the stepping distance between the platform and the train. The full list of successful stations will be made available on the Department for Transport’s website.

All work at the stations will be completed by March 2014.

We are also taking the opportunity to increase the funding allocated to train operating companies. This funding will increase from £5 million a year to £7 million a year for the next three years, beginning in April 2012. It is based on the number of stations that they manage and is used to deliver smaller scale or more locally focused access improvements at stations.

Finally, I have agreed to release £57 million from the existing budget earlier than planned to allow the accelerated delivery of obstacle-free routes at 27 stations.

Roads Classification

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce that, following consultation, the Department will be devolving responsibility for roads classification and aspects of the primary route network from April 2012.

This marks the first major revision of these systems since the first Wilson Government, and represents a major decentralisation of power. It will greatly improve the ability of local authorities to make changes on their roads, and greatly reduce the amount of central Government resource needed to run the system.

Under the new system:

Local authorities will have control over roads classification decisions in their area, determining which roads should be “A” roads, “B” roads, etc.

Local authorities will be able to set the roads used by the primary route network (“A” roads with green signs), while central Government retain oversight of the whole system.

Central Government will continue to look after the strategic road network.

For roads classification and the primary route network, the Department for Transport will reduce its role to handling appeal cases and any disputes which might arise between local authorities, leaving local authorities to manage their roads in the manner they judge most effective.

As part of the consultation, we also took the opportunity to examine whether there might be better ways to link the management of the system with sat-nav technology. The Department will be taking this work forward, and will make a further statement in the new year.

Transport Disruption (Winter 2010)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2011 Westminster Hall

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

A huge range of questions were asked in the debate, and I will do my best to get through them. I thank the Select Committee on Transport for initiating the study and for producing a helpful and balanced report—indeed, its Chair, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), made a helpful and balanced contribution today. The Committee is doing its job and the Government have found its comments useful in focusing our attention on the important issues.

As the hon. Lady and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), said, last winter was extraordinarily cold. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the temperature reached its lowest for 17 years; it was indeed exceptional. I am grateful that he did not seek to blame the Government for the weather—he almost did, but not quite. [Interruption.] If he wants to, that is fine. We were collectively—not just the Government, but local authorities and transport providers—better prepared in 2010 than in 2009, which also saw serious weather. I think that we are better prepared in 2011 than we were in 2010.

The availability of salt stocks has been mentioned. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said his leader sent him down a salt mine; my leader has not sent me down one yet, but perhaps that will come if I do not perform well this afternoon. I am happy to say that salt stocks are healthy: in October there were 2,755,000 tonnes of salt stocks, which compares favourably with—indeed, it is considerably more than—what we had last year. There were no problems with salt stocks either this year or last year. Had we had a Siberian winter, no doubt we might have had a problem, but even with an exceptional winter the salt stocks were perfectly adequate. We now have more stocks than last year, and having undertaken a survey of all local authorities, and all councils bar two have responded, we are confident about the figures we quote. In addition, we have published guidance on salt spread rates, which is available on the UK Roads Liaison Group website and through the Highways Agency. We are well prepared this year.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside asked whether all the Quarmby recommendations had been implemented in full. She will know that some of them were not for the Department for Transport, so I cannot definitively say whether all the local authorities have implemented all the measures identified for them. However, all the recommendations that relate to the Department for Transport have either been completely implemented, or have made significant progress toward implementation. If the hon. Lady wants to pursue a particular point, I shall be happy subsequently to provide her with information in recommendation-by-recommendation form; that is perfectly possible.

The hon. Lady asked whether we would have an independent review this winter. I hope that that will not be necessary. We are better prepared—I shall explain why I think so in a moment—and so are transport providers. If something were to go awry we would want to examine what happened—as would the Committee, I am sure—but I hope that will not happen.

The hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) highlighted the importance of preparations by the Met Office and the capacity to identify future weather patterns—at least beyond a few days. I believe that last winter the Met Office forecasts broadly reflected what occurred, which was useful, but it remains the case that severity can vary over relatively small distances, so an element of operational judgment on how reliable the information is will always be required by transport providers and, indeed—to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling)—by those who make their own judgments about whether to venture out. Weather in this country can change markedly within five or 10 miles, so it is difficult to get even local radio forecasts very accurate. Incidentally, I am not responsible for BBC local radio cuts, and nor are the Government: it is a matter for the BBC what it does. I simply hope that the BBC can protect local radio, which is a valuable service and information source for the country.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South both rightly asked about a potential £10 million investment in supercomputing capability for weather forecasting. We are considering that suggestion sympathetically. There is a need to understand the benefits of more detailed forecasting and its role alongside other measures designed to increase the resilience of transport infrastructure to disruption from extreme winter weather. We are working with economic and scientific colleagues across Government to review the evidence about winter weather patterns and to test whether current levels of investment in winter resilience are being optimised. The Met Office raised the idea of supercomputing capability. Perhaps the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, as Committee Chair, knows that the previous Transport Secretary commissioned a review by the chief economist and chief scientist at the Department for Transport to establish whether there was a case for greater investment in measures to improve winter resilience. That review is also formally assessing the business case, and, if it is viable, the potential funding options for such an investment. The present Secretary of State has the report on her desk and will publish it shortly.

The response of aviation was rightly raised. It is undoubtedly true that there were significant problems at Heathrow last year, to which hon. Members rightly drew attention. The Committee referred to the criticism that major airports were under-investing in winter resilience equipment, and thought that that was borne out. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside also mentioned the David Begg report in her opening remarks and the useful work that he has done. As she knows, we broadly agree with the thrust of the Committee’s observation on the level of airports’ investment in winter resilience. However, Heathrow and Gatwick have taken on board the need to do rather better than last year. They have put in place revised arrangements and made new investment to reduce the risk of disruption as a result of future severe winter events.

I can confirm that both airports have made significant investment in additional snow and ice clearance capacity and that Heathrow has committed more than £30 million to date, including on tripling its snow and ice clearance vehicle fleet and quadrupling staff numbers available for snow clearance. Gatwick has invested £8 million in further snow and ice clearance equipment, including the acquisition of snow clearance vehicles from Switzerland and the subsequent acquisition of 30 additional vehicles. Both airports have revised their operational command and control procedures to improve their response to severe weather.

At Heathrow airport, operators and others who use the airport have agreed capacity contingency plans that are enforceable through the airport’s local rules. Those plans will be initiated during periods of temporarily reduced capacity to deliver an effective schedule for passengers. Heathrow has tripled the number of vehicles available for snow clearance compared with December 2010—there are now 185 vehicles at the airport. It has increased the number of staff available for snow clearance from 117 to 468 per shift and it has a new reservist role, so that 950 non-operational staff can be deployed. It has agreed with industry on a new process for managing the necessary flight cancellations during disruption, which was mentioned, so that passengers have more timely and accurate information about whether their flight is operating. I entirely agree that it is important to do that given what happened last year at the airport. In answer to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, yes, I am confident that Heathrow and Gatwick are much better prepared this year than they were last year. There was, indeed, an ambiguity about whether Heathrow was closed. That was not helpful and I am hopeful—confident, even—that that will not occur this year.

The issue of emergency timetables was also mentioned in relation to Heathrow. As the hon. Lady rightly said, the former Secretary of State for Transport raised that possibility, and it is worth considering the matter. In principle, the Committee said that it can see the benefits to passengers of imposing an emergency timetable at busy airports. The Civil Aviation Authority will continue its work on improving airports’ resilience, including by monitoring the progress made by airports to improve their performance through the implementation of agreed capacity reduction plans in relation to an emergency timetable where appropriate. The operators and others at Heathrow airport unanimously agreed to capacity contingency plans being enforceable through the airport local rules. They will be introducing such plans if necessary as a result of the requirements that the winter imposes on them.

The Chair of the Select Committee referred to future plans for the CAA. Let me just find the relevant note on that. The hon. Lady was concerned about the draft Civil Aviation Bill and the plans for passenger representation. As I have already mentioned, the Civil Aviation Authority will continue to monitor the progress made by airports to improve their performance. There will be enforcement through the CAA through licensed conditions to facilitate greater airport resilience and a better passenger experience during any disruption. The CAA is taking an active interest in that matter, as I think the hon. Lady recognises.

There has also been an attempt to ensure better surface access to airports during disruption, which the hon. Lady mentioned. I can assure her that the Department for Transport will be monitoring future events, including access to airports, to ensure that there is co-ordination between modes of transport. That was recommendation 14 of the Committee’s report. We are engaging and have engaged with transport operators already to ensure that contingency plans are in place to deal with any events this year. However, although we and the operators can make the best plans possible, we are dependent on the weather. We cannot prepare for every single eventuality; we can simply do our best under the circumstances and ensure that we respond as best we can.

The information provided to passengers was raised by a couple of hon. Members. It is certainly true that the information on airlines and trains provided to passengers was not at its best. Some train companies are better than others, but we are concerned that accurate information needs to be provided on a timely basis, including on whether or not to travel. That needs to be clear. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness asked what discussions I have had on either winter preparedness or passenger information during disruption. I have had extensive discussions with the train companies and with Network Rail. I have met them regularly on a monthly basis. During those meetings, we have considered passenger information during disruption and winter preparedness to try to ensure that, first, the trains are able to run—I will come on to the infrastructure points in a moment—and, secondly, that when something does occur, passengers are properly informed about what is happening and what action they should take.

That includes, as I mentioned in a debate yesterday or the day before, ensuring that when a train is stranded, appropriate steps are taken to ensure that passengers can get to a station as soon as possible, rather than potentially being stranded for a long time on a train. However, it is not appropriate to micro-manage train companies and for Department for Transport officials to count how many blankets are on trains. We have a responsibility to indicate to train companies that they should be prepared, but it is for them to take that forward on their own basis and to ensure they are properly prepared. Ultimately, the buck stops with them. We do not own the train companies, but we have a right to say to them that they should be prepared, and we have done that. However, it is up to them to ensure that they take that forward in their own way and they will be held accountable for any shortcomings that occur as a consequence.

Two or three hon. Members raised the matter of pavements. I entirely agree about the lack of attention that some local authorities have sometimes given to pavements. It is wrong simply to assume that people in vehicles are the only ones who matter. Many people have to get from A to B on foot and they deserve proper consideration, too. On a purely practical basis, there is no point keeping a bus route clear if the whole pavement around the bus stop is a sheet of ice, which I saw in my town of Lewes last winter. There needs to be some joined-up thinking. There also needs to be some thinking from local authorities to identify important passenger routes, such as doctors’ surgeries, to ensure that essential journeys carried out by foot can take place. I hope that the hon. Member for Bolton West will appreciate that, again, it is not for us to tell local authorities which roads and pavements should be clear, but as I have made plain to the Local Government Association and others, it is incumbent on them to think about the needs of those who are on foot, as well as those who are in vehicles.

I hope that we have made it easier for individuals who want to help to take action themselves by removing the suggestion that they will be subject to legal action if they clear their path or help in any other way. It was unhelpful that that suggestion got around and we have knocked it on the head. We have made it clear that we welcome people taking sensible steps to keep pavements clear both for themselves and for other people. We are also grateful to the farming community for the steps it has taken to ensure that it can help with vehicles that, for example, are stranded in country lanes and that would otherwise be there for some time. The idea that people should help each other is not new, but it does not do any harm to reiterate it today.

I have dealt with emergency timetables, the CAA and the surface access. On the Highways Agency and crisis response, I am happy to say that the agency has developed and implemented a revised crisis management policy to co-ordinate its services better during a severe winter incident. That policy ensures that an appropriate level of Highways Agency command is in place to take over all strategic management. Its aim is improved co-ordination, thereby mitigating the impact of severe weather in the first instance and, if necessary, helping to speed up the recovery of the network. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside said, the Highways Agency did a pretty good job last year, but obviously there is still room for improvement and we are keen to see that.

[John Woodcock]

Does that include extra capacity on the emergency telephone line, if needed? If the Minister is not sure of the answer, will he write to me?

[Norman Baker]

I will mull that over and provide an answer before the end of the debate.

The hon. Gentleman asked about snow wardens. The Local Government Group has set up a website for local authorities to share best practice, including what to do about snow wardens and encouraging that process. I understand that many authorities already have snow warden schemes in place.

The hon. Member for Bolton West suggested that we might do more to lean on local authorities. We try to resist the temptation to suggest that Whitehall knows best—that we can always run what happens in Kettering better than people in Kettering can. We do not want to do that. I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that a local authority has a general duty under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure, as far as is reasonably practical, that safe passage along a highway is not threatened by snow or ice. If she or anyone else thinks that local authorities are failing in that duty, they can of course pursue them appropriately, but that is the general duty that I hope gives some reassurance and cover.

I was asked about variable message signs on highways to improve the information that can be displayed. I take the point that sometimes messages are first seen from a long way away and may not be current when they are reached. I also take the point—I referred to it earlier—that localised weather conditions can be such that the message actually gives inaccurate information. However, the Highways Agency is widening the use of variable message signs to improve the messages that can be displayed during severe weather. They will now be able to be used to provide severe weather-related incident information and warnings of forecasts of severe weather, as well as messages saying that weather will be particularly bad in any particular area. The agency is trying to provide that information in a more localised and more up-to-date fashion, bearing in mind the constraints that I mentioned.

As was mentioned, the Highways Agency is developing a comprehensive publicity campaign for this winter, which is aimed at encouraging road users to take more responsibility for their actions during severe weather through focused messages. Road users are being encouraged to plan their journeys ahead of severe weather, to check weather forecasts before setting out, and to prepare their car and carry an emergency kit with them. Variable messages will be used to make that point to drivers. The campaign is called “Make time for winter”. I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside that that partnership marketing campaign takes on board the comments made by her Committee and responds directly to them. The campaign was launched on 24 October, in unison with the Cabinet Office’s “Get Ready for Winter” and Scotland’s “Ready Scotland” campaigns. I hope that they will be useful in making drivers consider their actions carefully throughout the winter period.

It is difficult to be specific about whether drivers should go out. Ultimately, people have to make their own judgments based on common sense. It is common for the Government to tell individuals not to fly to a particular country because of the political situation unless they have to. We have to rely on individuals to make those judgments for themselves. All we can do is put a flag up and say, “Hang on a minute, look at the facts in this particular case.” That is what we will try to do.

The information about Highways Agency telephone lines has now come to me. I am told that the agency has a wide range of channels for members of the public to contact it and is not aware of any particular problems with the telephone line systems. However, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness raised the matter, I will look into it and write to him with any further information.

The Highways Agency carried out a complete review of its performance last winter, taking into account the recommendations of both the Transport Committee and the Quarmby audit. It has worked with a number of key stakeholders to develop measures to improve preparedness for severe weather this winter. I have referred to some of those measures, but it is also carrying out a series of winter snow desk exercises and stakeholder briefing sessions to test its preparedness for the coming winter, and issuing guidance to service providers to confirm elements of the winter service that need to be exercised in advance of winter. It has taken other steps, including better liaison with the Met Office.

I mentioned that I regularly raise passenger information during disruption with train companies. It may be useful for hon. Members to know that the Office of Rail Regulation has been consulting on making good passenger information a licence condition for train operating companies. I understand that it is likely to announce its conclusions shortly, after consultation, and I will be interested to hear what it says—it is, of course, independent of Government.

It may be useful to comment on the train companies’ preparation in terms of both trains and the network, so that we can be more confident than perhaps some people have been in the resilience of the rail network for the coming winter. I think that it is fair to say that both the train companies and Network Rail have taken significant steps to improve their preparedness compared with last year—and, indeed, last year was better than the year before. Network Rail now has key route strategies for each route, which set out arrangements for keeping route lines and critical junctions open and which facilities can be expected to be provided.

On the routes that are electrified with third-rail current—a point raised by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness—which are by and large south of London, Network Rail has introduced conductor rail heating in critical locations, which will keep it clear of snow and ice. The pilot projects so far have been successful and we are considering further roll-out. Network Rail has also introduced a new and improved snow and ice clearance train, including a snow plough and equipment to keep the conductor rail free of ice and snow. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the commitment to meet certain deadlines by 1 December had been met. I am assured that the answer is yes, it has been met.

Extra point heaters have been installed in some locations to ensure that points remain operational—as hon. Members will know, points are particularly vulnerable to freezing, which can then cause a major problem in either direction for quite some distance—and maintenance has been carried out on existing point heaters to ensure that they remain reliable. The train companies have already undertaken maintenance work on their train fleets to improve reliability during winter operation, including action to minimise problems with frozen sliding doors and frozen couplings. Some fleets on the third-rail network have been equipped to spray de-icing fluid to keep the conductor rail clear of ice and snow. They have also ensured that supplies of salt and de-icing products are available at stations and depots, to keep platforms and other areas clear of snow and ice for the benefit of passenger safety.

The train companies are also being encouraged by us to liaise with local highway authorities to ensure that roads leading to stations and depots are kept clear of snow and ice—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside talked about co-ordination across modes—and staffing arrangements have been reviewed to ensure that staff are available to operate the service. A number of train companies have made arrangements to accommodate staff who are unable to get home.

Several train companies have produced contingency timetables that will be introduced in the event of severe winter weather. They have been validated by Network Rail to ensure that they are capable of being operated robustly. Improvements in timetabling software mean that they can be uploaded to industry journey-planning systems overnight. Steps have been taken—sometimes high-tech, sometimes low—to improve trains and keep them resilient, including, according to my crude understanding, stuffing a sock into the horn to ensure that it does not fail, because if the horn fails, the train cannot go out. Every possibility, therefore, is being covered by the train companies to ensure that trains run.

My experience last year was that the train companies tried hard to ensure that trains ran—for example, Virgin ran trains to get people home, although they had to run slowly. One of the points I make to officials and others in the rail industry is that it would not be right to penalise companies through their performance measures if they were doing the right thing and getting passengers home rather than meeting some abstract performance measure. Southern also performed well by running diesel stock down the Brighton main line, which enabled passengers to get home under diesel traction when the third rail was not available; other companies took similarly helpful measures. The information from one or two companies was clearly inadequate, which caused a great deal of unhappiness among passengers, but I am confident that those companies will be much better prepared to deal with passenger disruption this year.

I hope that I have covered most of the points made today. If I have missed any out, I will pick up on them and write to Members accordingly.

Bus Services

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2011 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Mr Bayley, for calling me to speak. As always, I will do my best to respond to the various points that have been made.

Let me begin by congratulating and thanking the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chairman of the Transport Committee, both for her Committee’s report into this very important subject and the measured way in which she presented the report’s findings. Buses are the predominant form of public transport and they are used disproportionately highly by those on lower incomes, so it is quite right that the Committee should look at them seriously, as it has, and come forward with its thoughts and recommendations.

As we set out in our response to the Committee’s report, “Bus Services after the Spending Review”, the Government place a great deal of value on local bus services. We recognise the important role they play in people’s lives and in the wider economy. We have put significant funds into ensuring that services can continue to operate across the country, whether that is by retaining the bus service operators’ grant in full for this financial year, or by reiterating and maintaining our commitment to the concessionary travel entitlement for older and disabled people. In addition, the local sustainable transport fund was established, providing more funds for sustainable transport over a four-year period than the previous Government provided. In tranche 1, £155 million was handed out and 35 of the 39 successful bids included bus-related elements.

However, we recognise that more needs to be done, which is why I announced at the UK bus awards on Tuesday a further £25 million of capital funding for buses. The previous two tranches of the green bus fund have been a success story, paying for more than 500 new low-carbon buses. The Government are now committing another £20 million for the third tranche of the green bus fund, to ensure that carbon emissions from buses continue to fall. I am sure that the industry will confirm, as it has to me, that when people are presented with new clean buses they find them more attractive, which means there are more people who want to use them. I announced earlier this week that, with the Mayor of London, we are committing £10 million to reducing emissions from London’s buses and improving air quality in the capital. We continue to support bus manufacturers and operators, to promote jobs across the UK in companies that can supply clean vehicle technology. I was pleased to be able recently to open the new Optare factory, which is a vote of confidence by British bus manufacturers in the future of bus use in this country.

The issue of community transport was raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee and by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), and I shall deal in particular with the point about where it fits in the system. As the hon. Lady will have heard this morning, community transport has a viable role in a number of ways. It helps to provide door-to-door transport for people who would otherwise not have any transport at all, and it helps with moving groups around in a way that commercial services would not be able to deal with—for example, children or young adults who want to go from A to B when there is no bus running, or old people who want to get to the cinema for a day out. It also provides bus services where there is no case for a commercial service, and probably no case for a supported service either. The community transport sector is very important and I want it to prosper and grow, which is one of the reasons why in March I announced £10 million to kick-start growth in the sector. The evidence is that local councils have welcomed the funding and are using it, by and large, productively. I accept that there is more to be done, and I hope to be able to say something even more positive in the next few days.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys has put an interesting case, promoting his view of life with section 19 and the concessionary fare arrangements, and the report’s recommendations show that the Committee shares that view. There are three issues about section 19 and about why it would not be right at this point to extend the concessionary fare arrangements. One issue is simply cost. We have protected in its entirety the entitlement element of the concessionary fare arrangements. We have not gone back at all from the previous Government’s legislation. To extend the arrangements further would incur extra cost, at a time of financial difficulties for local government and the Government nationally.

Secondly, I know that my hon. Friend wants to approach the matter from the other end, but there is a point of principle about whether a concessionary fares system should be provided for services that are essentially available only to members of a group, and I am not sure that it should.

The third issue is that there is a consequence for existing bus services, particularly supported ones in rural areas, which are probably among those nearest the mark on viability, even when supported by local councils. If we were to see a significant number of people changing to community transport because of the incentive provided, existing bus services could be fatally undermined and the situation made worse. I am hesitant, therefore, to extend the arrangements as my hon. Friend has suggested, but he has made some fair points to forward his case.

The Committee has asked that we monitor the impacts of any changes made by local authorities or operators. We will do that, in conjunction with our partners in industry and with local government. The Campaign for Better Transport has recently collated figures on reductions in budgets and services, which has been useful. We recognise the importance of monitoring trends over time, and that is why we publish annual bus statistics and run a national travel survey, which will continue. But this has to be done properly. Robust data take time to collate, corroborate, clean up and publish. We continue to receive information, which we use as it comes in, but we want an accurate picture once a year.

The Department for Transport recently published the 2010-11 annual bus statistics, which show that compared with the previous year the number of bus passenger journeys in England rose slightly, bus vehicle mileage increased by a similar amount, and bus fares remained the same in real terms. That is a slightly different picture from the one presented to us this afternoon. Figures for 2011-12 will be available next year, but in the meantime there is no doubt that in some areas of the country a combination of the difficult macro-economic climate, local authority bus cuts, and operator decisions is making life more difficult for people who need to travel by bus. I do not want to shy away from that, but the national picture is more mixed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) mentioned, in many places local councils are taking positive steps to ensure that better services are provided more cost-effectively and more efficiently, and I would like to give some examples of that.

The first comes from Dorset, which I have mentioned in previous debates. Dorset is one of England’s most rural counties, so commercial services are limited to the main towns, and for non-commercial services contract prices have been rising. A further problem the council faced was that there were more than 700 different contracts for passenger transport services with, including taxi firms, about 300 operators. The contracts covered the full range of council services, from adult social care to school transport. By combining budgets and staff in a single integrated transport unit, and by working in partnership with local operators, the county council has managed to make significant savings while introducing new, longer-term contracts that offer stability for operators, and secure patronage and revenue information for the council. There were some teething problems, and people who pay attention to such matters will have seen mention of them in the local transport press, but the council has saved large amounts of money and managed significantly to minimise cuts. There are lessons to be learned from Dorset. The council has made annual savings of up to £1 million on contracts for school and tendered bus services, and it has opened up the local bus market to new operators, which has the potential to kick-start competition for commercial services.

The second example comes from Bedford. Despite financial constraints, Bedford borough council has been able to improve bus service provision in rural areas. This has included new and restored routes, increased frequencies and free travel for under-16s at weekends and during school holidays. This was made possible simply by negotiating closely with local bus operators and consulting extensively with local communities, the sort of measures that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South advocated in his contribution. In both these examples, new approaches to procuring bus service contracts have resulted in new entrants into local bus markets, which the Competition Commission identified in its provisional findings as vital to making the markets more competitive and providing a better deal for passengers and local taxpayers.

A third example comes from the Isle of Wight. In September, Isle of Wight council and the local bus operator, Southern Vectis, developed an innovative community transport scheme. Local groups provide volunteer drivers to operate rural routes that feed into the main bus network on the island. The drivers are fully trained by the operator, which also provides the vehicles and fulfils the regulatory and maintenance requirements. This partnership has brought community transport and the resources of a private sector bus company together for the first time. It is a very interesting model. I am greatly encouraged that councils, operators and residents can come together when budgets are tight to develop a rural bus network that suits their local needs. It is exactly the sort of scheme that the community transport fund I announced in March is designed to encourage.

[Paul Maynard]

Will the Minister confirm that it is interesting to note that the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers was fully behind the scheme in the Isle of Wight?

[Norman Baker]

It is important to note that. That is a very relevant point and it leads me on, perhaps, to the points made by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright). I am sorry that, unlike the Chairman of the Committee, who presented matters fairly and equitably, albeit in a challenging way, he sought to present matters as something of a party political rant. He was keen to say that this was the Government’s fault, but the Government have not cut bus services in Hartlepool—his local council has. Councils up and down the country have not been cutting bus services, and if all the services in Hartlepool have disappeared he needs to take the matter up with his local operator and council.

The picture varies enormously across the country. I am not pretending that it is easy for local councils; it is perfectly true that there are challenges as a consequence of the local government settlement. Cuts have been made across the country in local bus services, particularly in supported ones. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said, I think, that the Campaign for Better Transport had found that three quarters of local authorities were cutting back on buses. That is unwelcome, but the fact remains that a quarter are not cutting back at all. Perhaps we should look at them for lessons on how they have managed to maintain their bus services rather than cutting everything in sight, which appears to have happened in Hartlepool.

[Julie Hilling]

Perhaps one of the things that should be considered is the level of cuts made to those local authorities. We know that the same cuts have not been made everywhere, and that some local authorities, particularly those in the north-west, north-east and other areas, have had far greater cuts than some authorities in the south, which have had much less stringent budgetary cuts.

[Norman Baker]

The hon. Lady will appreciate that I am not responsible for how the Department for Communities and Local Government has distributed its money, and I cannot comment on that in detail. What I would say, having looked at bus patterns across the country, is that it is not the case that southern counties have maintained their bus services while northern ones have not. The picture is much more mixed. The east riding of Yorkshire, for example, has done well on maintaining bus services. A north-south split is not reflected in the way she suggests.

[John Woodcock]

What the Minister has said is potentially important and will be listened to by councils throughout the country. Is he actually saying that if any council cuts bus services, it is the council’s fault and not a result of the drastic reductions in local funding imposed on councils by the Government?

[Norman Baker]

What I am saying—I hope that I have said it fairly—is that it is a challenging position for local authorities. They have received reductions in funding, which has meant difficult decisions for them, and I can understand why some of them have looked to their bus services. However, within the framework in which they operate, some have managed to protect their services, and, as in the case of Bedford, even enhance them. Others have made limited cuts. Others have taken an axe to services. Those who live in Hartlepool and elsewhere need to ask their councils why they have taken an axe to services when other councils have not.

[Mr Wright]

If the Minister will let me continue with my rant, that Pontius Pilate approach to decision making will not wash if he wants to be a champion of local bus services. Will he comment on the second part of my remarks, which concerned future financial arrangements and possible cuts to bus services as a result of the announcements in the autumn statement?

[Norman Baker]

I will. I always try to respond to all points made by hon. Members, as those who have heard me respond to debates will know. I will deal with those points, but first I will deal with the points that the hon. Gentleman made during his speech. He said—I think that I am quoting him accurately—that we need a complete change in how buses are regulated. I point out that at the moment, the regulation of buses is a consequence not just of deregulation in 1996 but of 13 years of his Government between 1997 and 2010. The record will show that when the Local Transport Bill was before the Commons and I was on the Committee considering it, I wanted to go much further in the direction that he is now advocating than did the party of which he is a member in 2008.

[Mr Wright]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Norman Baker]

I will, but I need to make progress.

[Mr Wright]

The Minister has had 18 months in office. He has just set out his approach. When will he enact it?

[Norman Baker]

I will not give way again, as I am trying to answer the hon. Gentleman’s points, and he is anticipating me all the time. The fact is that we now have a regulatory framework that his Government put in place in the Local Transport Act, and the record will show that it would have gone more in the direction that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness wanted if his Government had accepted the amendments that I tabled at the time.

Our position has been set out clearly. The Government await the results of the Competition Commission’s inquiry. It would be premature to make judgments about the landscape of the bus market until it has reported. We will read the Competition Commission report carefully, consider the arrangements for the bus service operators grant at the same time and in parallel and make it clear where we are going as soon as we have had a chance to digest the final report. That is the responsible course of action, given where the Competition Commission is at present.

[Julie Hilling]

Will the Minister give way?

[Norman Baker]

Yes, but for the last time, as I need to make some progress.

[Julie Hilling]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being generous with his time. My question is simple: have we any idea when the commission is likely to report?

[Norman Baker]

Yes. We will have clarity from the commission, and clarity from the Government on BSOG, in the early part of next year. We will then be able to answer questions in more detail based on what the commission has said.

I think that it is unfair to paint the autumn statement in the negative way the hon. Member for Hartlepool did. He said that things would get worse. I do not want to have a debate about the finances, as this is not the place to do it, but I will give one statistic. The day after the general election, our interest rates were higher than Italy’s. They are now lower than Germany’s, which suggests that the Government are handling the economic position rather better than he gives us credit for.

In addition to the money for green buses announced this week and for retrofitting existing buses, the Chancellor gave transport authorities another £50 million this week in his statement. I hardly think that this has been a bad week for transport, or for local authorities as far as transport is concerned. It seems to be a good week in terms of what has been handed out.

I mentioned that the Competition Commission’s report would be published shortly. The Department has submitted its formal written response to the provisional remedies, which is available to view on the Competition Commission’s website. In the response, I broadly welcomed the provisional remedies. I believe that they have potential to improve multi-operator bus ticketing in particular, and I welcome the commission’s focus on that issue in its recent inquiry into the bus market. There is no question but that better integrated ticketing can help by enabling passengers to make more seamless journeys. Smart ticketing can also play an important role. That is why I have committed to delivering, with operators and public sector bodies, the infrastructure to enable most public transport journeys to be undertaken using smart ticketing by December 2014, to answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys.

I mentioned the Local Transport Act 2008. There has been some concern that the provisional remedies have been ambiguous in terms of the tools in the Act that can enable authorities to increase the quality of services, so let me be clear. Statutory quality partnership schemes, quality contract schemes and voluntary and qualifying agreements remain useful tools for local transport authorities to deliver their public transport policies. That is the present position. The Government have taken no action to undermine quality partnerships or quality contracts. We will consider where we are after the Competition Commission has reported. In the meantime, it is perfectly open to local authorities to use the terms of the 2008 Act. It is available on the statute book for them to use if they decide that that is what they want to do.

The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) discussed the general price of bus fares. She is absolutely right to express concerns about that. Over the past 30 years, the trend has been that the average cost of travelling by bus has increased more than the average cost of travelling by train or car. We recognise that buses are used disproportionately by poorer people. I want to ensure that we consider that issue in our response to the Competition Commission’s inquiry into the bus market. It is not for us in Government to start telling people how much they should charge for buses in Kettering or anywhere else, but we must ensure that the system and the market work properly, which is what we are trying to achieve as part of our consideration of the Competition Commission responses.

I was interested in the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South about the deal reached between the council and Arriva to provide a 50p rate before 9.30. It is an exceedingly interesting idea that a bus company and a council can come together to create a new, innovative arrangement that meets the needs of local people and, presumably, the bus company as well. We need more arrangements such as that, and I hope that we will see what we can do to encourage such innovation across the country.

[Iain Stewart]

I would like to place it on record that a key body instrumental in brokering that deal was the Milton Keynes Pensioners Association. It required good work on all sides, but the association had an instrumental role in helping that deal be struck.

[Norman Baker]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for rightly putting that point on record.

Several Members raised the importance of consultation. I welcome the Transport Committee’s emphasis on it, and it is right that Members have mentioned it here. It is also right that councils and operators considering changing services consult properly. It is clear from the evidence that the Committee and I have seen that there are some good examples and some pretty ropey ones. The message that I want to give to bus companies and local councils is that they must consult properly and take into account the consequences of any changes that they propose. Actually, if they consult properly, they often get some good and constructive responses and end up with a solution that is better than the one proposed, not just for customers but for the company.

The Chair of the Transport Committee asked when I expect we will know what the Association of Transport Coordinating Officers is doing with its assessment. I mentioned the annual statistics, but the ATCO assessment is happening now, and we expect the results early in the new year. There is no reason why the Department should not share that with the Committee as and when it comes to us, so I will ask my officials to ensure that we are in touch with the Chairman then.

The toolkit has been mentioned by a number of Members. Passenger Focus is gathering evidence from local authorities and bus operators to find examples of good practice. It is receiving good support from the authorities it has contacted and we expect to see a first draft in January, so we and Passenger Focus are making good, swift progress, which is rightly important to Members present.

The only other points that I want to pick up on are two of the issues to which the Chairman of the Committee referred—namely the bus service operator grant and the concessionary fares reimbursement formula. Contrary to the information that has just been provided by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, it is a fact that the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, to which I spoke immediately after the spending review, told me that, in general terms, it felt that the BSOG reduction, given the notice that we had given and the limited amount of reduction, was one that it could in general absorb without fares rising or services being cut. That is what the industry told me. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the exact quote if he wants. That is what it said.

[John Woodcock]

I am aware of the quote, but does the Minister accept that, while it is one thing to look at that in isolation, the situation is entirely different if we combine it with the two other substantial cuts faced by the industry, and that it is simply unrealistic to expect things to remain the same?

[Norman Baker]

There is an issue as to the extent to which other elements of what is happening in the wider market, including the price of fuel, what is happening in the world market, the eurozone or any other factors outside our control, affect the operation of bus services. The hon. Gentleman has referred specifically to the BSOG reduction and the industry has given me a specific response. That is what it said and we should stick with it.

On the concessionary fare reimbursement formula, we have not changed, in any shape or form, the legislation that we inherited from the previous Government. It requires councils and transport authorities to deal with operators in a way that reimburses them so that they are no worse off and no better off from handling concessionary fares. That is a legal requirement and it has not changed. All we have done is issue guidance to indicate to local authorities how they should perhaps discharge that function. They are under no obligation to follow that guidance if they do not wish to do so. The remedy for bus companies that are unhappy with that is to go to an independent appeal. Not very many of them have done so and not many appeals have been won. If bus companies are receiving less money from local authorities and are not seeking to appeal, or do not win appeals, that suggests that they were overpaid previously, contrary to the terms of the legislation. That is a simple analysis of the situation. If, on the other hand, they win their appeal, it shows that local authorities have not been sufficiently reimbursing them on a no better, no worse-off basis. The legislation has not changed at all. I think that, to some extent, the argument is something of a diversion.

I am very conscious of the importance of buses in our country. I do not underestimate the difficulties of local councils in particular, and I am concerned about the level of supported services in some parts of the country, as opposed to the commercial services, which I think are, by and large, all right. We need to see the picture across the country. One effect of localism is that some councils are handling this very well while others are handling it very badly. It is not for us to say that a local council must follow a particular procedure, but I think it is the right of people in those areas to ask why there are no buses in their council area while they are running very well indeed across the border. That is a legitimate function for local people to practise.

We have supplied a lot of help to the bus industry in the way I have described—through the green bus fund, the local sustainable transport fund and the money that the Chancellor has given this week—and I hope to make further helpful announcements in the not too distant future.

National Policy Statements

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of and approves the National Policy Statement for Ports, which was laid before this House on 24 October.

It falls to me to introduce the motion because the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), the Minister with responsibility for shipping, is this evening hosting a reception on the occasion of the 27th assembly of the International Maritime Organisation.

The national policy statement sets out national policy which must be considered in determining whether development consent should be granted to port infrastructure projects that are examined by the Infrastructure Planning Commission or, with effect from next April, when it is intended that the Infrastructure Planning Commission will be abolished, the major infrastructure planning unit in the Planning Inspectorate. It is also intended that the national policy statement will stand as a material consideration for port developments below the capacity thresholds that are set out in section 24 of the Planning Act 2008, which fall to be considered by the Marine Management Organisation. The national policy statement applies to ports in England and Wales, but not in Scotland or Northern Ireland, where ports policy is devolved.

Members will know that the previous Administration consulted on a proposal for the national policy statement on ports between November 2009 and February 2010. Alongside and beyond this consultation, Parliament also undertook scrutiny of the draft national policy statement. Scrutiny in this House was undertaken by the Select Committee on Transport, which held three oral hearings, took written evidence and in March 2010 published a report of its findings with 22 recommendations and conclusions, to which the Government have responded. I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the previous Transport Committee, including the then and present Chairman, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), for the important work that they undertook, the thoroughness with which they approached it, and their readiness to do that within a relatively short period.

This debate is taking place because the Government have agreed with the House to anticipate, as we did earlier this year for the suite of energy national policy statements, the relevant requirements of the Localism Act 2011, which will not come into effect until next year. I will speak briefly about the Government’s planning reform agenda; the purpose of national policy statements; and the background to the Government’s ports policy and the need for new infrastructure, which is central to the national policy statement.

On the planning reform agenda, the Government are committed to making the planning system as a whole work better. “Better” means faster, fairer and easier to understand for all involved, including applicants and objectors, while of course giving due regard to environmental considerations. It most emphatically does not mean denying people a right to be heard. My ministerial colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government are satisfied that the system of engagement and consultation set up by the Planning Act 2008 fully secures that right, so we have not sought to modify that. Engagement with local people and their representatives from an early stage is crucial if applications are to come to the Infrastructure Planning Commission or Planning Inspectorate with the project as well defined as it can be, and with proposals for avoiding, mitigating and/or compensating for adverse impacts.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that after a year-long planning inquiry, a proposal for a massive container port at Dibden bay on the edge of the New Forest was turned down? I understand that there would not be provision for any such inquiry in the future. Can he assure me and my constituents that a streamlined planning process for such a proposal would be no more likely to be carried than it was under the previous, rather more detailed opportunities for challenging it?

[Norman Baker]

I do not believe that the change in arrangements makes that more likely, but obviously every application is considered on its merits and according to the circumstances that apply at the time.

The Government have set demanding targets for the consideration of what could be complex cases, but applicants and their consultees must contribute by thinking well ahead and ensuring that applications are fit for purpose. The Department recommends that ports should start in this spirit by consulting on port master plans. These are neither statutory documents, nor part of the formal Planning Act regime, but nevertheless they could help enormously to promote local understanding of what a port is trying to achieve and how best to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts. Master plans are not confined to large ports. Newhaven in my constituency is an excellent example of a port engaging thoroughly with its community in that way.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

Paragraph 4.4.1 of the national policy statement states:

“Ports in England and Wales operate on commercial lines, without public subsidy and with investment from their own operating profits or from the private sector investors.”

Will the Minister assure me that the Government will uphold that policy rigorously and fairly, particularly given the desire of the port of Liverpool to use a publicly funded cruise terminal to compete with the privately funded cruise terminals in Southampton, which breaches the principle of fair competition?

[Norman Baker]

I am sure that it is Government policy to uphold all policies fairly, and I imagine that that is what my hon. Friend the shipping Minister and others will seek to do.

Where we have made a change is in the intention to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission so that, from next April, major project applications will revert to the Secretary of State for decision following consideration by the major infrastructure planning unit, which is to be set up within the Planning Inspectorate. That reinstates an important element of democratic oversight in the process, although I should make it clear that the Secretary of State intends to consider applications on the facts, on the advice of the major infrastructure planning unit, and in accordance with the national policy statement.

Another aspect of the Planning Act that we have retained is the principle that applications should not succeed if their adverse impacts outweigh their benefits. I do not believe that many applications will fail that test if they are thoroughly prepared in accordance with the national policy statement, but none the less this represents a robust safety net in case we fail to foresee any significant adverse impacts. The Infrastructure Planning Commission, and the major infrastructure planning unit that will succeed it, will not be a completely one-stop shop, but it nevertheless reduces the separate applications potentially required. Marine licensing, as set up under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, streamlines previous licence and consent requirements, and associated development can now be fully integrated with the main application.

The purpose of national policy statements more generally is to provide a framework for preparing, considering and deciding planning applications. Therefore, this national policy statement does not purport to be a complete statement of Government policy as it relates to each and every aspect of ports. In essence, it is a planning document.

The UK is of course a trading nation, and well over 90% of our international trade by weight arrives or leaves by sea—the lion’s share of a total traffic of around 500 million tonnes a year. Ports are under-appreciated. They ply much of their trade behind high security fences, and even large ships can be surprisingly inconspicuous to those living in the port’s hinterland. We need port capacity to carry that trade and provide for coastal traffic, which can help to take lorries off our roads and reduce the incidence of pollution and congestion.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I very much welcome the national policy statement and those statements that will have a positive impact on ports, such as Falmouth, set out in today’s national infrastructure plan. One helpful recommendation relates to the habitats directive and helping to balance the economic and social impacts of a port against potential impacts on habitats. It proposes setting up an industry body that would work with Ministers to review some of the over-zealous interpretations of the habitats directive and its impact on licensing port activities. Will the Minister shed some light on when that body will be set up and which industry bodies will be represented on it?

[Norman Baker]

I am afraid I cannot answer that question in detail, but I will ask my hon. Friend the shipping Minister to respond to it. We are determined to strike a balance between the sensible needs of a working port and respecting the natural environment as far as possible, and it would be quite wrong if one of those were able to triumph unduly over the other. We can strike a sensible balance in our arrangements, and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) is right to raise the matter, so I will ensure that the shipping Minister writes to her with the answer that she has asked for.

[Mr Denham]

The Minister could unlock £150 million of totally private investment in Southampton’s container port next September if only he and his colleague’s officials cut through the red tape holding up that investment and the dredging of the River Test, which is necessary for large container ships. I am sure that he will not have been briefed on the issue, but I urge him to take it away and see what can be done to resolve it.

[Norman Baker]

I will happily take that issue away. It is important that we unlock private investment, that we help our ports and, at this particular time, as the Chancellor said today, bring forward investment where possible, so I will look at the problems that exist in the area and see whether they can be overcome. It may be that they cannot, but it is perfectly proper to raise the issue in the Chamber.

Ports are diverse. They cater for liquid-bulks, dry-bulks and break-bulks, ro-ro, including trade vehicles, and of course containers, and they play host to many kinds of warehousing, distribution and process activities. Their markets can be lively and volatile, and they need to be nimble in the short term to react to changing market conditions and patterns of demand, yet they must also plan for the long term. Port infrastructure is long-lived, lasting 20, perhaps 30, years and more, so it is important that such decisions are taken carefully, with full regard to all their significant consequences.

In the short term, the ports industry is well placed to respond to economic recovery. The first phase of Hutchison’s Felixstowe South project is already open, and that will help to secure the nation’s ability to accommodate the largest container vessels; we have seen the announcement by Dubai Ports World that it plans to complete the first phase of the London Gateway container terminal by the end of 2013; ABP Southampton, to which the right hon. Gentleman perhaps alluded, is pressing ahead with its own expansion plans; and other ports, including Bristol, Teesport and Mersey, already have consent for development.

We cannot afford to be complacent, however. Investors in ports need to be able to plan development for every type of traffic, and to do so in a planning context that is stable and well understood. Equally, ports’ neighbours need to know how their essential interests will be protected through the planning system.

The national policy statement brings together established policy for ports and established policy for mitigating their adverse impact. The fundamental policy that we set out in the ports national policy statement is market-led, building on the success of the industry since it was freed from the constraints of state ownership and the national dock labour scheme. Port operators are best placed to decide the type of facilities they need, so this is a non-location directive national policy statement, and I make no apology for that.

At the same time, development must be in sympathy with the environment, including the marine environment —to pick up the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth made. The national policy statement sets out in some detail how that translates into requirements for planning applications and their accompanying environmental statements. Unless there is provision for sufficient capacity, disruption at major ports has the potential to translate very quickly into serious disruption to people’s everyday lives.

The national policy statement expresses confidence that the ports industry, with each owner/operator taking its own commercial view, will deliver the resilience that the country needs against disruption, and the national policy statement is very clear that the planning system should give weight to delivering that important resilience.

Finally, in completing the national policy statement, we have been fully conscious of the fact that ports are nodes in a network, and that connecting infrastructure is essential to their success.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister said that authority over, and responsibility for, ports is devolved to Northern Ireland, the area that I represent, so from a ports point of view, what is the relationship between Westminster and Northern Ireland? In other words, do we have continuity of strategy and parity so that the relationship between the mainland and Northern Ireland is real and we all benefit?

[Norman Baker]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are, indeed, well established and close links between the Department for Transport and the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We certainly draw attention to and discuss with the devolved Administrations any issue that appears to have importance outside the English coastline, as it were, so I hope that that reassurance satisfies him.

Several consultees, as well as the Transport Committee, argued that the national policy statement on ports should be designated alongside the launch of our consultation on the proposal for a national networks national policy statement. I have some sympathy with those arguments, but so much of transport policy is interconnected that one could make a case for linking many other documents in this way, and the practicalities do not always work out. In the Government’s response to the Transport Committee’s recommendations, we explained why we are confident that both national policy statements will work as free-standing but mutually consistent statements.

Our reforms to the major infrastructure planning process will ensure that there is a concise framework for development that can be readily understood by all those involved in the planning system. Ministers will be responsible for decisions to consent or to refuse major infrastructure development, thus closing the circle of democratic accountability. I look forward to listening to contributions and responding to issues raised during the debate. I commend the national policy statement on ports to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

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

2. What plans she has for funding of local railway stations up to 2015.

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

In addition to planned improvements to local railway stations as part of franchise commitments, the Government are funding improvements through the national stations improvement programme, Access for All programme and the station commercial project facility. We intend to continue doing so.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank the Minister for that answer. He will know that our local railway network in Greater Manchester is incredibly well used, but I am often struck by the poor condition of our stations, particularly the limited accessibility, as lack of step-free access at stations such as Mosley Street, Broadbottom and Newton for Hyde often forces people to travel further down the line than they would like simply to change platforms and come back on the other side. Good quality public transport should of course be available to all, so I ask the Minister to make that a priority for his Department in future.

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to confirm, as I mentioned a moment ago, that we are continuing with the Access for All programme. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that Stalybridge station in his constituency is part of that programme and that construction work is expected to start on site in June 2013 as part of a £1.8 million project.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

As you know, Mr Speaker, last night I presented a petition signed by 1,200 residents of Bradford-on-Avon hoping to keep their station’s ticket office, where footfall was over 400,000 last year. In the light of the McNulty report, will the Minister review category E stations for possible upgrade to category D, so that they would at least retain their ticket offices for part-time hours?

[Norman Baker]

As my hon. Friend will know, the Minister of State is involved in a fares and ticketing review. We are determined to ensure that people are able to buy tickets and access the railway network in a fair way, which might include ticket offices, better arrangements for automatic sales and access through the internet. The point he has made is a valid one and I will pass it on to the Minister of State.

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

Does the Minister recognise the importance of passenger experience in travelling and that that includes having staff at railway stations to provide safety and reassurance as well as a good service?

[Norman Baker]

Yes, we do. We are very interested in safety at stations for the reasons the hon. Lady rightly mentions. She will be aware of the secure stations programme. Around 90% of the railway network has been designated as having secure stations, which is well over 1,000 stations. We take that very seriously and want to ensure not only that stations are accessible physically, but that people have no fear of using the railway network so that we maximise the number of people who are able to travel by train.

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

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many category E station ticket offices will be closed as a result of the Government’s plans for the future of the rail industry?

[Norman Baker]

As I mentioned a moment ago, we are looking at ticketing and fares generally as part of the review we are undertaking, but no decision has been made on the closure of any category E stations. That matter will be considered in the round to ensure that we retain proper access to the railway network. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady keeps asking, “How many?” I have just indicated that no decisions have been taken, so the answer so far is none.

[Maria Eagle]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman the answer: 675 stations will lose their ticket offices as a result of his plans, while another 302 will see their opening hours cut. With passengers facing up to a 13% hike in the cost of their tickets in January, does he understand that his plans to replace staff with machines will make it even harder to get the best deal and are totally out of touch with the public?

[Norman Baker]

It is unfortunate that the hon. Lady asks her supplementary question without listening to my answer to her first. Indeed, she seems to be reinventing her party’s railways policies. The chief executive of the Association of Train Operating Companies accused the hon. Lady’s leader of suffering from “amnesia” and of displaying—these are his words—“rank hypocrisy” when it came to Labour’s railways policy, so she ought to examine her own policy and her own history before she starts attacking the Government.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A word cannot be made orderly simply by putting it into someone else’s mouth, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it—straight away.

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to do so, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

We are most obliged to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The provision of bus services in rural areas, as in urban areas, is predominantly a matter for commercial operators and for local authorities. However, I recently provided £10 million of extra funding to local councils to help to develop community transport in their areas.

[Angela Smith]

Does the Minister accept that the equivalent of Beeching is going on in rural bus services, made in Whitehall and about which the national Government are doing nothing other than passing the buck to local authorities?

[Norman Baker]

No, I do not accept that. Almost four out of five bus services are provided commercially as opposed to being subsidised by local councils. So far there have been no cuts at all to support from central Government for those services. The BSOG—bus service operators grant—cut will come in next April. The performance of local authorities up and down the country is very varied. If she looks at East Riding, which is not very far from her, she will find that the Beeching cuts to which she refers are certainly not occurring there or in many other councils. Many councils are protecting bus services; some are not.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The local sustainable transport fund has been a great success, but more improvements are needed in sustainable transport, including rural public transport. Will the Government consider further support in this area, which is critical for people and their ability to get around and for jobs and growth?

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to say that the local sustainable transport fund has been a success, providing £560 million, which is more money in the four-year period than the previous Government provided. Every single qualifying council that could have bid for money has done so. Tranche 1 is out of the door—£155 million already—and tranche 2 bids are due in shortly, as are the larger bids. As part of the growth review, the Government are looking to see what we can do to boost transport further.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Last week, the UK Youth Parliament voted transport costs its No. 1 issue, while the Association of Colleges has warned that falling student numbers are being

“exacerbated by the number of local authorities who have cut back or axed their student travel subsidies.”

Will he now wake up to the devastating impact his 28% cut to local transport funding is having on young people, particularly in rural areas?

[Norman Baker]

I am conscious of the concerns of young people because I invited some to give a presentation at the most recent bus forum that I hosted, which was attended by the major operators and local authorities. I have subsequently written to the bus companies and involved the local authorities to try to get some action to help people of that age with their particular needs for public transport access. This issue is very much on the Government’s radar.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

11. What steps her Department is taking to improve the punctuality of trains.

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

The Office of Rail Regulation and I have made it clear to Network Rail and train operating companies that current trends in performance are causing concern and that we expect industry-wide action to get performance back on target as soon as possible. The industry has agreed a plan to achieve just that.

[Andrew Stephenson]

The recent letter from the Office of Rail Regulation to Network Rail raises serious concerns over the delay per incident rate on the rail network, which is going up. What discussions has the Minister had with the ORR, Network Rail and the train operating companies to address that specific problem?

[Norman Baker]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is a worrying trend that the delay per incident rate is increasing. I have discussed the matter with Network Rail and the train companies. It is difficult to get to the bottom of it and it appears that there is no one simple explanation. A number of steps need to be taken by Network Rail and the train companies to deal with this issue. To answer his question directly, I am meeting both parties in about an hour.

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that on 6 September, Southern, a railway company that provides services to my constituency, suffered as a result of cable theft? There were no fewer than 13,837 minute delays and 232 cancellations as a consequence. What is he doing to contact Ministry of Justice and Home Office Ministers to get this business sorted out once and for all?

[Norman Baker]

The right hon. Lady is right to raise that issue, which is a serious problem for the railway network, as well as for the energy network and the telecoms industry. We are taking it seriously. A cross-departmental group of Ministers, on which I sit for the Department for Transport, has met twice to consider what we can do within existing powers and what further steps might be necessary in regulations or legislation to deal with this serious problem, which is having a big impact on the economy and on passengers.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

May I welcome the Government investment in Reading station, which will make a massive difference to punctuality across the whole network? Will the Minister express his support for a western link into Heathrow, which would offer major economic benefits for the south-west, Wales and Reading, and improved punctuality?

[Norman Baker]

I recognise the strong case for better access on the rail network to our major airports, including of course Heathrow, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has been particularly concerned about that. We want to improve access to Heathrow, and of course we have to ensure that any plans tie in with anything that might be done with high-speed rail.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

To follow on from the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), scrap metal theft is having a significant impact on train punctuality. Will the Minister agree to support tougher measures against the scrap metal industry to alleviate the problem?

[Norman Baker]

That is not ruled out. Obviously we do not want to go to the statute book as the first option, but there is a serious problem, and if Ministers are convinced that that option is a way to deal with metal theft, we will consider it seriously. We also have to ensure that we do not simply close down one avenue and see the stolen metal diverted somewhere else.

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

12. What steps she is taking to repair roads.

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

The Department is providing £3 billion over the four years from 2011-12 onwards to local highway authorities in England for roads for which they are responsible. On top of that, we provided an additional £200 million in March for English authorities to repair damage caused by the winter. The Highways Agency is responsible for operating, maintaining and improving the strategic road network in England, and in this financial year its budget for maintenance is £840 million, excluding costs associated with private finance initiative projects.

[Mr Raab]

According to a survey published by Autocar, the last Government left Surrey with the most potholes in the country, while the Federation of Small Businesses reports that poor roads cost a quarter of small businesses at least £2,500 each year. Will the Government confirm their continuing support for repairing Surrey roads through the local sustainable transport fund?

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to confirm that the Government are committed to doing what we can to help local authorities with road maintenance. We have a highways maintenance efficiency programme to identify best practice, which we are funding centrally. In addition, I am happy to say that in March we allocated an extra £4.1 million to Surrey county council to deal with its specific problems.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

If we have severe frost and snow again this year, will the Government again make extra money available to local authorities to deal with the problems that that would cause on our roads in the coming six months or so?

[Norman Baker]

We deal with circumstances as they arise, but we are putting in place measures to ensure that local authorities make the best use of the money that they have. Salt stocks are high, and as I mentioned a moment ago we are investing in steps to ensure that the highways maintenance efficiency programme gets the best value for money from what local councils spend.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

13. What assessment she has made of the effect on road safety of the decision to permit longer heavy goods vehicles.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We believe that there is a good future for trams and light rail in this country, and I hope that my hon. Friend has seen the recent publication “Green Light for Light Rail”. We are happy to work with the Mayor and elected bodies up and down the country to try to progress light rail, because it has a good future and is very useful for passengers.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Michael Connarty. He is not here. Margaret Beckett.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on local newspapers of relaxing the guidelines on the statutory publishing of traffic regulation orders?

[Norman Baker]

Obviously, we recognise that there is a potential impact on local newspapers, but we also realise that this is perhaps an archaic way of forcing local authorities to advertise traffic regulation orders, and that it involves a significant cost, to the extent that sometimes the cost of advertising is in excess of the cost of the work carried out.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

In her review of the interval between MOT inspections, will the Secretary of State consider the mileage covered by vehicles? For the average car, which covers about 10,000 miles a year, there is a strong case for extending the interval, but many trade vehicles and company cars cover in excess of 30,000 miles, which means that they have reached 100,000 miles come the three-year first MOT test.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The post bus carries hundreds of passengers between Foxholes and the villages to Malton, but from April the Royal Mail will discontinue it. How can we access the community transport fund, which we have just heard about, to ensure that this vital rural bus link continues?

[Norman Baker]

I have every sympathy for my hon. Friend when such situations arise. As I have said, £10 million has been given to local authorities. Her local council is in a position to take that forward and decide how best to allocate the money, so it is best that she speak to her council. However, she makes a valid point, and I am monitoring the impact of bus services in rural areas.

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Renewable Energy Directive

Norman Baker Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Written Statements

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

Today I am publishing our response to the comments received in the consultation on our proposals for implementing the transport aspects of the renewable energy directive (RED), confirming action we will take to implement this directive in the UK.

The RED requires the UK to source 10% of energy used in transport from renewable sources by 2020 and is closely related to the fuel quality directive (FQD) which requires fuel suppliers to land-based transport and similar applications to deliver a 6% reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from their fuels by 2020.

Our policy on biofuels is relevant to both directives. There remain a number of uncertainties regarding the sustainability of biofuels and their best use. However, I do believe that genuinely sustainable biofuels have an important role to play in our efforts to tackle climate change and in security of energy supply. This is particularly so in areas where there is no viable alternative fuel on the horizon such as for HGVs and aviation.

It is crucial that we do all we can to ensure that biofuels both deliver real greenhouse gas emission reductions and do not cause unacceptable environmental and social side effects in the process. There is much work being undertaken, nationally and internationally, to understand better the indirect effects related to biofuels and to investigate how the negative indirect effects can be reduced.

As the directives currently stand, they do not take into account these indirect effects. While the extent of these impacts remains uncertain, there is robust evidence that widespread use of some biofuels can lead to significant indirect greenhouse gas emissions through the process known as indirect land use change (ILUC). The UK takes the issue of ILUC seriously. Earlier this year we published research on the scale of ILUC impacts and we are continuing to lead work on how to tackle these as well as encouraging the European Commission to address this issue on a Europe-wide scale with a robust solution. I have written to the European Commission twice, expressing the Government’s concerns regarding ILUC and pressing for robust and proportionate action to be taken to address the impacts of ILUC.

There are concerns regarding the best use and deployment of biofuels. These concerns also extend to the issue of best use of biomass across all sectors. Since our consultations on the RED and FQD opened, the Committee on Climate Change has published advice on renewable energy. The Government are now considering this advice and awaiting the Committee’s further advice on the best use of bioenergy across all sectors. Further evidence will also be drawn from the results of the Department’s research into the best use of biofuels across transport modes and the Department’s call for evidence on the future of aviation policy: “Developing a sustainable framework for UK aviation: Scoping document”.¹ In addition, the Government are working in a cross-departmental way to develop a bioenergy strategy which will look at the use of sustainable bioenergy across transport, heat and power as well as the impacts on other sectors.

The results of these reports and studies will establish a robust evidence base. When we have this evidence we will set biofuel targets beyond those set out to 2014 under the current Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO).

On the other hand, in response to those who have called for biofuel targets to be scrapped entirely, we continue to be of the view that there is a place for sustainable biofuels in our wider policy on carbon reduction. The UK must, in law, comply with the RED. Biofuels will be a key component in the achievement of these targets before that work has been completed.

We will prioritise implementation of the RED over that of the related FQD in order to ensure that financial reward is no longer given to those biofuels that do not meet the RED sustainability criteria. Most of what will be delivered through the FQD will be delivered by the closely related RED, which we expect to be implemented through an amended renewable transport fuel obligation in December 2011, subject to the parliamentary process.

Our consultations on proposals to implement the RED and FQD revealed a number of concerns regarding expansion of the RTFO to include fuels use in non-road mobile machinery (NRMM). Industry has requested additional time to prepare for this and we are considering how best to achieve this change. As such, we do not propose to bring into force any expansion of the RTFO to include NRMM fuels before April 2013.

In addition there remains uncertainty regarding key implementing measures for the FQD, which are currently being discussed at the European level.

However, we do intend to introduce new regulations to transpose the FQD requirement to reduce emissions by 6% by 2020, alongside new annual reporting requirements for fossil fuels and biofuels. We will be working towards putting the necessary legislation in place as soon as possible during the course of 2012.

The response published today sets out our decision to transpose fully all the sustainability criteria set out in the RED to ensure that the UK only rewards the supply of sustainable biofuel. Until we have a more robust evidence base, we cannot confidently set biofuel targets beyond those established under the current RTFO.

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

¹ http://www2.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/2011-09/ consultationdocument.pdf