Fracking

Debate between Norman Baker and Lilian Greenwood

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Norman Baker]

No, I did not say that. I was very careful to say that I was reporting something from The Lancet and referring to an article from The Independent. I expressly said that I do not have a view on whether what is claimed in the articles is the case, but those matters should be taken into account, and they need to be addressed in order to reassure the public. That is what I said, and I repeat it now.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has made a number of interesting points. Does his contribution, and the debate so far, simply reflect the high level of public scepticism and concern about fracking, whether we are talking about the health implications or environmental concerns, many of which are clearly genuine and legitimate? To ensure public support, the Government should introduce robust regulation and monitoring before they proceed with the measure.

[Norman Baker]

I agree with that entirely helpful contribution. On 12 August, The Daily Telegraph, which is of course a paper that we can always believe, reported:

“Support for fracking in the UK has fallen, with less than a quarter of the public now in favour of extracting shale gas to meet the country’s energy needs, according to…government polling.”

So support for fracking among the public at large appears to be lessening. At the very least, the Government has a job to convince the public that fracking is the right option. There is also nervousness among MPs, including among Conservative MPs, with seats where fracking may occur. I refer to my parliamentary neighbour, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who is dealing with the proposals for the West Sussex village of Wisborough Green. He warned:

“Rural West Sussex cannot become a carelessly industrialised landscape.”

There is genuine concern that the countryside may end up being pockmarked as a consequence of fracking.

I referred earlier to Lord Howell, the Chancellor’s father-in-law, who said that fracking should be confined to “desolate” parts of north-east England. He also said, and I think he may be right about this:

“Every time ministers open their mouths to claim that fracking must start everywhere around Britain, and not just in carefully selected and remote…areas, they lose thousands of Tory votes.”

Will the Minister confirm the policy on the geographical spread of fracking?

In this House we are all concerned about energy bills and the cost of living. The Chancellor has said that there is

“a real chance to get cheaper energy for Britain.”

The Prime Minister himself has said that fracking has “real potential” to drive down energy bills, but Lord Browne, the chairman of the UK’s leading shale gas company, Cuadrilla, has said that fracking will not reduce gas prices. Will the Minister say what evidence there is that gas prices will come down as a consequence of fracking? The companies do not appear to think that gas prices will come down.

There is then the question of what else we might do if we do not have fracking, or if we have less fracking than the Government would like. An alternative energy strategy is available that would provide security, aid efforts to reduce climate change and produce jobs: further investment in renewables. I ask the Minister to back that horse. I hope that the climate change argument speaks for itself, but with regard to the security of energy supplies, renewables are all ours. There is an indigenous supply of renewables, which is endless by nature. We have immense potential for wind, solar, hydro, wave and tidal power in this country.

The Foreign Secretary recently said:

“Renewable energy sources will be critical to reducing our vulnerability to energy supply shocks”.

Those are wise words, and I am delighted that since 2010 the coalition Government has secured the investment of £29 billion in renewable energy sources, which is more than double the amount secured by the last Labour Government. Electricity from renewables has more than doubled since 2010, and we are now seeing the price of solar cut by two thirds. The Government is doing a great number of good things for renewable energy, and I argue that the potential to do even more is not quite limitless, and not quite renewable, but there is certainly potential to do a great deal more than we have so far achieved.

Investing in green energy creates green jobs, and I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has given the go-ahead for a wind farm off the Sussex coast that will create some 100 jobs at Newhaven in my constituency. Those who rubbish renewables, particularly our UK Independence party friends, are busy destroying British jobs through their approach to such matters. We must ensure that the mood music coming from Parliament and the Government supports renewable energy and does not bring into question the Government’s future commitment.

Local Bus Market

Debate between Norman Baker and Lilian Greenwood

Thursday 10th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Norman Baker]

It is true that those no longer travelling would by definition be excluded, because they would not have been on the bus to be subject to questions. I suppose the same applies to rail services. However, if bus services were being abandoned because of poor quality, I would expect that to be highlighted by the people still on the bus, but who have not yet abandoned it, so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman’s point is necessarily true, if I may say so. It might be that bus passengers are no longer on the bus because they have decided to travel by a different mode—car or train—or because the bus is no longer there in the circumstances that suit their individual needs.

The second deal was Bus for Jobs, which helps jobseekers get back to work by offering free travel for the whole of this month of January. Those are exactly the sort of leadership examples that should be demonstrated by bus companies. I will continue to work with the companies, and cajole them if necessary, to ensure that they continue to put passengers’ long-term interests directly at the heart of their businesses. Of course it is in their commercial interest to do so, and therefore they ought to be doing that for themselves, as many of them are.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I have listened with great interest to what the Minister said about BUSFORUS and Bus for Jobs. Can he set out his assessment of how well those initiatives by the bus industry are meeting the needs of young and unemployed people, in particular given that Bus for Jobs only lasts for a single month?

[Norman Baker]

The Bus for Jobs initiative is being assessed by the bus companies, and I spoke about it to a leading member of the bus industry yesterday. I will be keeping in touch with the industry, to see what the initial response is and whether there is a case for extending the initiative. That would be a matter for the bus companies, but we want to see the response first—us from the Government point of view and them from a commercial point of view. If the initiative is successful in persuading people who have not considered the bus before to take the bus and then to stay with the bus, it might be a sensible commercial proposition for the bus companies.

However, I have made no secret of my belief that the bus companies need to do more to help young people, and that has formed a key part of my speech on major set-piece occasions when I have addressed the bus industry. The industry has responded sensibly and well to that challenge, and the companies know that I will continue to engage with them formally and informally. The subject is always on the agenda of the Bus Partnership Forum, which I hold with the industry six-monthly and in which young people also participate.

Overall, commercial services, which represent about 80% of bus mileage, are holding up quite well, which is good news that we should all welcome. I understand the challenges of being in opposition, but I encourage Opposition Members not to talk down the bus industry, which is easy to do—I have been in opposition myself. They should recognise what is going well, as well as not so well. Commercial services are holding up, and we should take some comfort from that.

Although there is good news on that front, I recognise—I am the first to do so—that in some areas of the country the garden is not quite so rosy. Recent statistics show that the supported service network—only 20% of overall bus mileage, but important for many people—is not as healthy as the commercial sector. The picture is not uniform, as it inevitably will not be in an era of localism, such as the one we are moving into, because the decisions are made locally by elected councillors. Some councils, such as East Riding, have prioritised bus services in setting their budgets, while others, such as Surrey, have reduced their spending but have done so creatively and carefully so as not to translate cuts into significant service reductions.

Other councils, I am sorry to say, have made what appear to be arbitrary and swingeing cuts that fail to consider properly the needs of their local residents—I refer to North Yorkshire and Cambridgeshire—which can lead to people in isolated communities, particularly in rural locations, having restricted access to education, training, work, health care and other important services. We have heard about how those who use the bus tend to be at either end of the age spectrum, so young people and elderly people are especially affected if such cuts are made, because they rely more on public transport to get around.

[Norman Baker]

The allocation of money to local councils and their predominant concerns are matters not for the Department for Transport, but for the Department for Communities and Local Government, which sets the allocation for local council funds. We do not control that, but allocate our own funds, which we are increasing through the green bus fund and the better bus areas and community transport. That is what our Department has been doing, but I am unable to answer the hon. Lady directly, because that is not my Department’s responsibility. I do not believe, however, that there is a direct correlation between the reductions in local funding from the DCLG and the cuts in bus funding.

Indeed, what is reflected—quite properly—is the exercise of local discretion. Some councils have decided to protect bus services and to make them a high priority, while others have not sought to do so, which is entirely up to them, because they consist of elected local people. I certainly encourage individual constituents in those areas where bus cuts have been significant to ask their local councils and councillors why they have decided to prioritise bus cuts, as opposed to anything else, while perhaps the councils next door have not done so. To be fair, I referred to non-Labour councils, North Yorkshire and Cambridgeshire, but I can also pick out Darlington, Stoke and such councils, which have reduced their budgets. Things are mixed throughout the country.

Overall, however, bus mileage remains broadly flat, with commercial services in many cases picking up the slack as bus companies continue to look for opportunities to grow their local markets.

[Lilian Greenwood]

May I take the Minister back to his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West? The Government are trying to have it both ways, taking credit for progress in the bus industry while blaming local authorities for cuts to services. He must take responsibility for inflicting front-loaded cuts, disproportionately hitting less affluent authorities and forcing councillors to make impossible decisions. The Government are using localism as a way to hide behind the effect of their own decisions.

[Norman Baker]

That is not fair, and I have already listed some of the extra money that the Department for Transport has made available to help buses. In a moment, I will go on to what we are doing. Moreover, many councils are not making cuts, which demonstrates that there is flexibility. Some have chosen not to make cuts, although there have been reductions across the patch, not only in local councils but in Departments. I do not wish to rehearse the Budget position, but there was a general recognition that reductions in Government expenditure were necessary. Indeed, the hon. Lady’s party was also committed to a large swathe of cuts had it been returned to power in 2010. In the Department for Transport, we are doing what we can to protect bus services, and I hope that local councils have the same objective—some appear to be discharging it well, others less so.

We are doing our bit to help, and we remain committed to supporting local bus markets through direct operator subsidy, through DCLG funding of local government and through our targeted investment packages. That includes £70 million on better bus areas, which was a bolt out of the blue and a windfall that the bus industry was not expecting, with more to come for those places that successfully apply for full devolution of bus subsidy. That also includes around £200 million in capital funding for major projects in Manchester, Rochdale, Bristol and elsewhere, and many of the 96 projects made possible by the £600 million local sustainable transport fund, which is a brand-new Government initiative and provides a major increase in spending on sustainable transport compared with that of the previous Administration.

Many of the 96 projects include improvements related to bus services. In addition, I recently announced a further £20 million for a new, fourth round of the green bus fund, on top of the three previous rounds worth £75 million. Many of those buses will be built in Britain, helping British manufacturing and jobs as well reducing our carbon impact from buses. Such funding, therefore, is not insubstantial and not a bad deal for the bus industry. It comes in spite of the tough financial climate and the need to reduce the structural deficit.

As I have made clear before, however, with such significant amounts of public expenditure invested in the bus market, it was only right for us to consider whether it has been delivering the best service for bus passengers and best value for the taxpayer. That is why we are engaged in a series of reforms to facilitate competition and to increase local accountability for spending on bus services. We are reforming how bus services are subsidised, providing guidance on ticketing and tendering for contracts, and making regulatory changes to encourage more on-the-road competition where the market supports it.

On bus subsidy and the reform of BSOG, I am considering the response to last year’s consultation and will have final proposals before Easter. That will include the treatment of areas where quality contract schemes are planned, which is clearly and understandably of interest to the Committee. Guidance for local authorities that wish to apply for better bus area status will be out later this month.

[Norman Baker]

That issue was raised at the Select Committee, to which I gave evidence, and it has been raised again today. Local councils want to understand the relationship between better bus areas and quality contracts; that is fully understood. I will not give a definitive answer today. The matter has been subject to consultation, as the hon. Lady knows. The responses to the consultation are being carefully considered, and I will discuss those matters with my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport, but I accept the need for clarity, and I intend to provide that so that everyone knows where they stand.

I am pleased to note that, by and large, the Committee’s key findings and recommendations complement and support the coalition Government’s policies that were set out last year in “Green Light for Better Buses”. I have a lot of time for the Chair of the Committee, but I thought she was uncharacteristically unfair when she said that there needed to be more to our policy than funding cuts. That was a gross distortion, and failed to note the direction of travel that is clearly set out in “Green Light for Better Buses” and our proposed changes to funding arrangements. That constitutes a policy that we believe will help to deliver better arrangements for our buses. Combined with our response to the Competition Commission, it sets out a clear policy. The hon. Lady may disagree with it, but it is a clear policy. In fact, the Committee’s findings suggest that she does not disagree with much of it.

We have made it clear that partnership is a highly effective way of delivering quality, affordable bus services, and I welcome the hon. Lady’s endorsement of partnerships as a good way forward. Our better bus area proposals are indicative of that. The purpose of such areas is to ensure that councils and operators work together, because that is more successful than a council wanting to drive forward policies, perhaps for good reasons, when the bus industry is not interested. Similarly, if the bus industry has good ideas, but a council is unresponsive, those ideas will not be delivered. The proposal to financially incentivise two groups of people to come together is entirely sensible, and can only work to the benefit of the public.

We will support the integration of services when that is in the public interest, and we will encourage the roll-out of smart, multi-operator ticketing. We will monitor local authorities as they develop their partnership agreements, liaising with the Office of Fair Trading when necessary—the Chair of the Committee made this point—to ensure that competition law does not become an insurmountable barrier to sensible service improvements.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Does the Minister share my concern that a false distinction is sometimes made between quality contracts and partnerships? We all want effective partnerships, and the Labour Government legislated to promote them. When I was in Copenhagen, I saw how tendering and partnerships between operators and transport authorities do not just co-exist; they are essential to policy success. It is artificial and misleading to present them as two completely different things. They can work together, and funding should follow.

[Norman Baker]

The hon. Lady is tempting me to respond to the consultation exercise, which I will do with clarity in due course. A point about quality contracts that I made to the Select Committee in response to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) was that they are there in law:

“They are there as part of the Local Transport Act 2008”—

I was a member of the Committee—

“They remain on the statute book.”

There is no intention of removing them from the statute book and I expect the law to be respected by all parties. I would take a dim view of any bus company or anyone else who sought to undermine the law of the land as it is on the statute book.

On resources for traffic commissioners, to which the Committee referred, the coalition Government has already given a commitment to review their role in the next financial year as part of a wider review of non-departmental public bodies. It is sensible to include a look at their public service vehicle work as part of that review.

I shall pick up individual points that hon. Members have raised this afternoon. The Chair of the Transport Committee referred to multi-operator ticketing and whether it would require new legislation. We have made it clear that we strongly support multi-operator ticketing. We believe it is important to deliver the sorts of outcomes that passengers want, and to avoid the situation to which the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) referred of passengers buying a ticket and then having to buy a further ticket to get home. That cannot be a sensible outcome for passengers, and cannot help public transport generally. We do not want that.

[Mr Peter Bone in the Chair]

We have made it clear to bus companies that we want multi-operator ticketing. We have also made it clear that we reserve the right to introduce legislation if that does not occur. We hope that it will occur—there is some evidence of that—not least because in Oxford where it is occurring, the bus companies have discovered that it is in their financial interest. I am confident that the bus industry has bought the idea of multi-operator ticketing, and that it will become increasingly common throughout the country. However, we reserve the right to take that forward in legislation if necessary.

We also believe that transparency is important. I welcome any figures that can be produced to help passengers and to give a wider perspective of how the industry is performing, and indeed how the Government is performing. Anyone who knows about my role in Parliament will know that I have been hugely committed to transparency in all sorts of areas throughout my time here. We must avoid placing huge extra burdens on industry for not much return, so we cannot require endless figures to be produced if they are of little value, but in principle we are certainly open to any suggestions for extra information that is genuinely valuable. If the Committee has particular issues in mind, I will be happy to consider them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) referred to door-to-door journeys. He called them end-to-end journeys. I have discussed with the rail and bus industry how to describe them, but I will not bore him with the nuances of that conversation. Suffice it to say that the general view was that we should call them door-to-door journeys, and that is what the Department is doing. It will shortly produce information on such journeys to aid the process. It will cover the bus and rail industries, and ensure that different modes of transport are joined up. In best practice they are, but sometimes they are not.

My hon. Friend was right to refer to the role of smart ticketing, which is key to delivering door-to-door journeys properly. He said that it is necessary for people to be confident that they will get the cheapest fare when they use a new ticket-purchasing method for their journey. I absolutely share that view. For the railways it is a key objective of the fare and ticketing review that people buy the ticket that is appropriate for their journey, and do not pay over the odds unnecessarily. Obtaining the best possible deal for rail and bus passengers, which also involves transparency, is to the fore of the Government’s thinking.

I always listen with interest to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton when he talks about transport, because for many years he has demonstrated a genuine commitment and great knowledge. He referred to London’s upside, but he will recognise that it also has its downside. There are pros and cons with the London arrangement, and I am familiar with both. In any assessment of what is best for one area it would be wise to consider the upside and downside in London when considering arrangements for buses.

The hon. Gentleman referred to concessionary fares. There will be no change in the arrangements during this Parliament. That is what the coalition Government has said, but what individual parties do in their manifestos will be a matter for them as we approach the next general election.

The hon. Member for Bolton West raised the interesting matter of—I suppose, though she did not frame it in this way—the purpose of bus travel. What is the objective that we, or local councils, are seeking to deliver and what are bus operators delivering by running buses? There are different reasons, it seems to me, why buses are run. One is to provide a regular means of transport at a high frequency along corridors such as Oxford road, which is effective, or can be effective, in securing modal shift from the motor car, and thereby, in theory, easing congestion, reducing carbon emissions, and providing a viable public transport alternative. As we have seen in London and elsewhere, there is no question but that when we have frequent services and people turn up without having to think about the timetable, it drives passenger numbers up, creating a virtuous circle where buses become more attractive and more buses can be run. We have that in many parts of our country—not all, but in many parts—including much of London. However, it could be argued—this is one of the downsides of London, I might say—that sometimes, and it is my view, there is an over-provision of buses, which run significantly empty on occasions, back to back all the way along the road. That is a particular problem on Oxford street, as opposed to Oxford road.

It seems to me that the second purpose of a bus is to provide a social function and a necessary connection between those who are without private transport but need a bus to get to a school, a hospital, or whatever it happens to be. The hon. Member for Bolton West suggested that the answer was route-bundling, which is a perfectly legitimate philosophical view. However, I would say that route-bundling may satisfy her need for buses that go round the houses, but what is the consequence for Oxford road, or buses along high-frequency corridors? I am not sure that we can have both—perhaps we can. If we reduce high-frequency corridors to provide buses round the houses, that may meet more social needs, but it may secure less modal shift from road. I raise that philosophically to point out that such things are not perhaps as straightforward as they are sometimes presented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

Let me muse on that matter for a moment—until I become inspired—and deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Nottingham South as part of my closing remarks. I have noted with interest her support—increased support, I might say—for quality contracts, and her proposal for bus deregulation exemption zones. The Opposition is of course entitled to produce its own policy and I look forward, with interest, to that evolving. Therefore, perhaps it would be churlish of me to point out that for 13 years, some of us were making such arguments and they were batted back and we were told that what we were proposing, which may not be terribly different from what she is now suggesting, was a load of old nonsense. It would, however, be churlish to make that point.

I do not think that it is true to say we are in a great cycle of decline. I say to the Opposition that there are issues about the bus industry that I have been happy to accept, including what some councils have done in terms of bus cuts and the real impact that has on individuals in those areas. However, I encourage her not to exaggerate the position. That “great cycle of decline”, as I mentioned yesterday, shows an increase in passenger journeys of 0.6% over the last 12 months. Even if we take out London, a decline of only 0.8% is shown. It is not a great cycle of decline, and we must not talk down the bus industry and the opportunities for users.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I want to clarify that they were not my words but those of Passenger Transport. Just this week, it expressed its concern about the impact of a number of things, including cost rises and funding cuts. It is not just me who has real concern about the future of the bus industry—that view is widely held—and I just wish the Minister would respond to it.

[Norman Baker]

I have responded to it, and I have indicated that we are not into a great cycle of decline. I indicated that commercial services are holding up very well. The bus industry is responding with ingenuity and innovation. It is taking steps to take over some of the services that have been tendered and that were run by councils. Indeed, it is beginning to grow the market in places. The initiatives in Manchester and Sheffield, where fares have been cut, shows us a way to grow the market. I do not accept that we are into a great cycle of decline; nor do I think that it is helpful for anyone, whether the Opposition, Passenger Focus or anyone else—whoever the hon. Lady happens to be referring to —to talk about these matters in such apocalyptic terms.

The hon. Lady said that buses had been cut completely in Hartlepool and that it did not have to be that way. No, it does not. She should perhaps ask Hartlepool council why things are that way there, because they are not that way in other councils.

The hon. Lady said that local authorities are best placed to provide leadership, and we entirely agree, which is why we are pursuing a policy of localism. However, I hope she will accept, as we do, that that will produce a non-uniform picture across the country, as local authorities behave in different ways as a result of the freedom that they have been given.

The hon. Lady says that Labour is committed to devolution, and I am delighted to hear that, because I did not notice much of it in the 13 years of the previous Government. However, if she is now going along with our localism proposals, that is very welcome. That sends a message that there will, I hope, be no reversal of the localism that the Government has pursued, in the unlikely event that Labour forms the next Government. That will give local authorities some comfort that the direction of travel will not be changed.

On deregistration, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton will recognise that primary legislation would be required and is difficult to achieve slots for. Alongside every other Department, we have to make a case to be given spare time to pursue the matter, so we are not looking to legislate. We are exploring voluntary options, but, as with all things, we reserve the right to introduce legislation if necessary. I very much hope that it will not be, and we are certainly getting quite a long way down the track on a whole range of issues by taking a constructive, engaging, voluntary approach with local councils and the bus industry.

Let me end on a note of agreement. I share the views of the hon. Member for Nottingham South about the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). I very much understand why he has taken his decision, and we all wish him a full recovery and a speedy return to the Front Bench.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Norman Baker and Lilian Greenwood

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

With regard to bus cuts, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) suggested to this House that

“there have not been the cuts that the Opposition are so keen to talk up.”——[Official Report, 19 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 485.]

However, in July, Passenger Focus found that

“the majority of passenger impacts were below the water line,”—

and we now know that supported bus miles fell by 9.3% last year. Will the Minister therefore finally accept that the reduction in central Government funding has resulted in substantial cuts to socially valuable bus services?

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

No. The hon. Lady quoted a particular figure for mileage, but not the figure for mileage elsewhere in the country, which has been pretty stable, or the numbers of passenger journeys undertaken in non-metropolitan areas, which have held up well. Overall, there has been a marginal increase in the number of passenger journeys, according to the last figures.

Transport Infrastructure (Essex)

Debate between Norman Baker and Lilian Greenwood

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Norman Baker]

As my hon. Friend will know, consideration is being given to the general capacity of the crossing. We face a strategic choice whether to enhance the strategic road network at the existing crossing or to add a new link into the network, with a crossing further downstream, and I noted the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock on that matter. That is why we are currently analysing the relative merits of the three potential locations for the new crossing, and the findings will inform public consultation in 2013. That is a way of saying that such issues will be wrapped up in consideration of the crossing in total, and it would be wrong to isolate one instance without looking at future plans for the crossing.

On rail and rail infrastructure, I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Witham has campaigned hard for improvements in rail services in the region and for increased investment to reflect the level of fares paid, particularly by commuters. I am grateful for the recognition that the Government has taken steps to ensure that the possible increase in rail fares of RPI plus 3% has been averted. We have worked very hard on that in the Department for Transport and in the Government generally, and therefore rail fares will increase by RPI plus 1% for the rest of this Parliament. That was the formula put in place by the last Labour Government in 2004.

The issue of flex, which the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) referred to, was, I think, a little disingenuous, because flex was abolished for one year by the last Labour Transport Secretary. The intention, as shown by the paperwork in the Department for Transport, which I quoted in a previous debate, was to reinstate flex after the election. We are following the policy of the last Government in terms of both RPI plus 1% and the ability of companies to use flex while still maintaining the overall RPI plus 1% result.

[Lilian Greenwood]

To be clear and honest with the Essex constituents of the hon. Members here today, will the Minister confirm that the implication of the Government’s reintroducing flex is that some people could face increases in their rail fares of up to 9.2% in January 2013?

[Norman Baker]

As I mentioned, we have followed the intention of the last Government. It is also true that, with flex, some people can face an increase of zero, because flex, by definition, has fares above RPI plus 1% and below RPI plus 1%. That is the purpose of flex. By the way, I say to the Opposition spokesperson that trying to use scare tactics about the future of rail services and ticket offices does not help. We are trying to get more people on to the railways and to provide a better service, not to frighten people off the railways, as she seemed to be intending to do.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Witham will agree with me that there have been some service improvements in the region—for example, the cleaning of trains and the programme of refreshing of stations that is under way. Greater Anglia is investing in improvements to ticket retailing, additional car parking and cycle storage facilities across the franchise. A closer working relationship with Network Rail is seeing improvements in how access for engineering works is approached. That is something within my portfolio and something I have been pushing very hard, because when people want a train, they want a train, not a replacement bus service. It is expected to lead to better provision of services at weekends where large-scale closures have been the norm for a number of years. Frankly, that has to end.

I recognise the valuable work done in putting together the rail prospectus to which my hon. Friend and other colleagues refer. It makes the case very powerfully for investment in rail services in the Greater Anglia region. I can confirm that due consideration will be given to those aspirations when the Department is in a position to go to the market for a new franchise proposition.

The point about access to Stansted airport by rail was well made. It has been raised by a number of stakeholders and hon. Members and is very much on the Department’s radar as well.

The issue was raised of the link between Witham and Braintree—the branch line there. We are working with local stakeholders, who are currently developing a business case for the work. Consistent with our approach in other areas, we are happy to consider including such proposals in future franchises if a positive financial case can be made.

The good news, if my hon. Friend looks at what is happening elsewhere in the country, is that the largest rail building and investment programme since Victorian times is now being undertaken in this country. That includes passing loops and redoubling of lines in some cases, such as between Swindon and Kemble. It even includes lines being reopened, such as that from Oxford across to Bedford. There is heavy investment in rail, and it has a good economic return. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue to argue in favour of investment in her area for such upgrades.

On aviation, it is pleasing to see Southend airport making great strides towards becoming a modern, 21st-century transport hub, with a new railway station and terminal, and the successful launch of commercial flights to a number of European destinations earlier this year.

Colleagues have referred to the future configuration of air capacity. Of course, that matter will be considered by the commission. We look forward to receiving its interim report at the Department for Transport. It is probably not sensible to spend very much time on aviation, speculating about the future. However, it is true, as I think one hon. Member said, that there is unused capacity at Stansted at the moment. That situation might be improved if there were an improved train service to the station, which I think was a case being made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden.

Let me pick up some other points that hon. Members raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester referred to the “Norwich in 90” campaign and asked for an assurance that that would not affect his constituency. I can say that we all share the desire to improve services north to Norwich and the intention would not be adversely to affect existing services. In an ideal world, we would look at improved rolling stock, improved line capacity and so on. That is how we would ideally look at delivering a better service. It certainly seems to me that if we are robbing Peter to pay Paul, there is not much of a gain to be had.

My hon. Friend also raised, as did the hon. Member for Nottingham South, the issue of bus services. I put it on the record that we regard bus services as very important. The bus is a primary means of getting to work for most people. There was a recent, very healthy publication called “Greener Journeys”, which I recommend to colleagues. It identified the key link between employment and bus services—how they are two sides of the same coin. The number of people on buses has marginally increased recently, the latest figures show, and the commercial sector is holding up very well. There is an issue about subsidised services from local councils, but that is a matter for local authorities to deal with.

We are seeing a mixed picture across the country. Whereas some areas are making very few or no cuts, other areas are making swingeing cuts, but the consequence of localism is that there will be a different response from different local authorities. Therefore, bus services in Essex are really a matter to pursue with Essex county council, rather than with the Department for Transport.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Norman Baker]

I will not, if the hon. Lady does not mind, because points were raised by hon. Members that I want to cover.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester also raised the issue of cycleway provision, which was right. He will know, I hope, that the current Government has produced a brand-new sum of money, £600 million—the local sustainable transport fund—which, by encouraging match funding, has now produced more than £1 billion of funding for schemes on the ground, which are now being delivered. I have that rare pleasure as a Transport Minister of both approving the funding and still being there to open the schemes when they finally arrive. Many of those schemes involve cycleway provision. We are now seeing a commitment to cycling—a commitment right across England—that we did not see before. That is very good news. The number of people cycling is going up in this country.

My hon. Friend also mentioned light rail systems. I can assure him that we are doing a great deal to promote light rail. I refer him to the Department’s document “Green Light for Light Rail” and the fact that we have granted extensions to light rail systems in Manchester, Birmingham and Nottingham, as well as authorising a tram-train project between Sheffield and Rotherham. The current Government is very supportive of light rail.

Of course, these sorts of scheme, whether they involve light rail, bus or cycle provision or, indeed, local roads, will be handled in future to a large degree by local people through the devolution proposals that the Department is bringing forward and through the creation of local transport boards, which are accountable through local authorities. Therefore, to a large degree, these sorts of discussion in the future, I hope, will be held in Essex, rather than necessarily in this House.

Rail Fares

Debate between Norman Baker and Lilian Greenwood

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

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

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

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

[Lilian Greenwood]

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

[Norman Baker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Norman Baker and Lilian Greenwood

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to say that we have recently announced the winners of the third round of the green bus fund. Because of our prudent financial management as a Department, we were able to increase it from £20 million to £31 million. We have also provided money to retrofit buses in London to deal with the air pollution problem there. That is a demonstration of the fact that we are committed to bus travel—both to help create growth and to cut carbon.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The Minister’s new funding pots are like an attempt to use sticking plasters to cover a gaping wound—the wound inflicted by his decision to cut support for buses by half a billion pounds, which has resulted in not improved but disappearing services. “The picture is bleak.” Those are not my words, but the words of the boss of Arriva. Page after page reveals the effect of the Government’s cuts: “frequency reduced”, “evening and Sunday service withdrawn”, “cancelled owing to lack of funding”. Why does the Minister not admit that his policies have been a disaster for bus users?

[Norman Baker]

I will not admit it because it is entirely untrue. In fact, those policies have been a success. Recent figures from local authorities show that the average bus mileage is relatively unchanged, which suggests that there have not been the cuts that the Opposition are so keen to talk up. The industry itself has congratulated the Government on their new bus policy, as, indeed, have local authorities. Perhaps the hon. Lady should pay more attention to what the industry and users say, which, by and large, is supportive of what the Government are doing.

Railway Stations

Debate between Norman Baker and Lilian Greenwood

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Norman Baker]

I would like to make some progress and address the points raised by my hon. Friend, but if there is time at the end of the debate, I will give way to the hon. Lady. As my hon. Friend mentioned, Stevenage has already benefited from the national stations improvement programme, and almost £100,000 has been spent on new waiting shelters, seating and station signage. A further £150,000 is due to be spent on a full refurbishment of the concourse area, with work expected to commence later this year. Although Stevenage is already deemed to be accessible, as my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, we are ploughing in money from the Access for All programme to convert two of the goods lifts to passenger lifts, at a cost of £578,000. In addition, Access for All money has already been used to fund the installation of ticket office induction loops, a low-level, split-level ticket office counter, handrails to existing staircases and compliant “Meeting Point” signage.

Therefore, to pick up my hon. Friend’s point, I would not necessarily agree that the current system does not work. What I have outlined demonstrates that it does work. However, I would agree that transferring more responsibility to train companies is likely to improve matters even further. Network Rail, of course, has responsibility for some of the major stations in our country. It has done a fantastic job at King’s Cross and at St Pancras with Eurostar. We are now seeing the belief in railways restated. For a long time, stations were regarded as something to be embarrassed about by the railway industry. That was the case back in the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s. Now, there is a new confidence about the railways. The way King’s Cross has been re-engineered demonstrates that. However, it is right that we should have that benefit translated across the network and not simply at the big stations. My hon. Friend is right to make that point.

It is planned to spend £100,000 of money from the national stations improvement programme to improve the waiting shelters at Knebworth station. My hon. Friend will know that some Access for All money was used to fund smaller-scale improvements to the staircase and signage there as well.

The national stations improvement programme is a good example of the members of the industry working together to deliver benefits for passengers. It is the case that £150 million has been made available over five years to improve passenger facilities at busy stations in England and Wales that the public have identified as not up to scratch. The choice of schemes has been managed at local level, with Network Rail and train companies working together to agree the most efficient way to deliver the upgrades. About £101 million of that money has been spent so far on improving stations, and about 100 projects have been completed so far, benefiting more than 240 stations. In addition, many schemes have attracted third-party contributions, whether from local authorities or other funding bodies. The £26 million of additional money has allowed us to provide even more improvements.

NSIP is also helping to fund an information zoning initiative at stations in England. The aim is to make it easier for passengers to find appropriate information in different parts of stations, including information about local transport facilities for onward travel. We regard the end-to-end journey concept as very important if we are to make rail travel work as well as it can.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle will know, I hope, that £450,000 of NSIP money has been spent on improving Carlisle station, including renovating the waiting room on the London-bound platform, refurbishing the existing waiting room and constructing a new seated waiting area and gateway to the historic Settle-Carlisle line. As I also hope he knows, we plan to spend a further £1.8 million of Access for All money on providing a new accessible route, with two new lifts, at Carlisle station. Works are currently scheduled to start on site in October 2013.

I should say that the Access for All programme is delivered with DFT money. Therefore, that is not in the gift of Network Rail. The coalition Government have made it a priority to try to improve disabled access at stations. That is why we have continued with that programme.

[Norman Baker]

Yes, indeed. We agree with that point, and in relation to all the transport funding that we have identified, whether for railways or elsewhere, we have tried as far as possible to drive down costs and get better value for money, but also to unlock match funding, whether from local authorities, transport operators or wherever. We have been successful at doing that. If people look at the development pool scheme and local authority schemes, for example, they will see that we have managed to proceed with a huge number of those that would not otherwise have gone ahead, because of those approaches, which have driven down costs and got extra funding from elsewhere. We entirely endorse that approach.

[Lilian Greenwood]

How can the Minister claim that this is a rail-friendly Government when fares are due to rise by RPI plus 3% for the rest of this Parliament and 675 category E stations face losing all their staff?

[Norman Baker]

I am sorry that I let the hon. Lady intervene to disrupt what was a unified approach to improving the railways. Nevertheless, let me say for the record that the RPI plus 1% arrangement, which is the one in place this year, was introduced by the previous Labour Government for about 10 years. Indeed, they reversed RPI minus 1% and made it RPI plus 1%, so Labour Members are probably not in a good position to argue about rail fares. In addition, I will say that no decisions have been taken on closing ticket offices. There is a recommendation in the McNulty report about ticket offices. No decisions have been taken on that yet. It does not help the railway to talk down the railway and make up scare stories about ticket offices in front of constituents.

With regard to the Access for All programme, we are taking steps, as I mentioned, to allow better access for disabled people. The £370 million programme is designed to provide an obstacle-free route at 153 priority stations by 2015, and more than 70 of those projects have already been completed. To get the best value for money, that funding has been targeted at the busiest stations, although about one third of the stations were selected to ensure a fair geographical spread across the country.

To ensure that local or less busy stations are not forgotten—category 3, 4 or 5 stations are very important—we also offer train operators an annual fund to deliver smaller-scale access improvements. Since 2006, the Department for Transport has offered more than £25 million towards a total investment of more than £70 million for smaller-scale, locally focused access improvements at stations. More than 1,000 stations have benefited so far from a variety of new facilities, including accessible toilets, customer information systems, new ticket hall features and better signage and lighting. In the past year alone under this Government, 74 projects delivered improvements at 136 different stations.

Transport and the Economy

Debate between Norman Baker and Lilian Greenwood

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lilian Greenwood]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lilian Greenwood]

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

[Norman Baker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Norman Baker]

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

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

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

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Norman Baker]

I shall make some progress, if I may.

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Norman Baker and Lilian Greenwood

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

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

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

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

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

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

Pedestrian Access (Railway Stations)

Debate between Norman Baker and Lilian Greenwood

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Norman Baker and Lilian Greenwood

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Norman Baker and Lilian Greenwood

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I agree that the initiatives in south Gloucestershire have been successful, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his inventiveness and ingenuity in including that question under this heading. He will understand that the project he mentions is subject to assessment under the development pool arrangements. A decision will be made later this year, but his support for the scheme is noted.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

CTC reports that the biggest deterrent to cycling is fear of busy roads. What are the Government doing to improve driver training and put more emphasis on cyclists’ needs? How can the Minister ensure that dangerous or intimidating driving is made as unacceptable as drink driving?

[Norman Baker]

Dangerous and intimidating driving is already subject to police enforcement, but we are taking steps to ensure that drivers are aware of cyclists on the road. A Trixi mirror pilot has been approved for London, and it is now in place and showing good results. The Under-Secretary with responsibility for road safety is very aware of this issue and is looking at driving training for HGV drivers in particular.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Norman Baker and Lilian Greenwood

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

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

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

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