EU Transport Council
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(10 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I attended the second Transport Council under the Italian presidency (the presidency) in Brussels on Wednesday 3 December.
The first item under consideration was on TEN-T, where the presidency opened proceedings by outlining the link between the conclusions and both the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 package and the launch of the Juncker investment package. Former commissioner Christopherson gave an overview of his interim report which he thought could provide transport projects for support from the Juncker package which is seeking to leverage investment from the private sector. Member states expressed their support for the conclusions which were adopted. Commissioner Bulc welcomed the conclusions and asked for transport to be the subject of the spring European Council next year and to be at the heart of the Europe Council 2020 strategy.
However the Council’s proceedings were dominated by discussions on the proposed general approaches on the two legislative proposals under Single European Sky II+. The general approach on the SES Council related amendments to the EASA regulation was agreed without comment and the related Commission declaration on the applicability of the EASA regulation to Gibraltar airport was accepted.
On the SES recast, I supported the presidency’s ambition of reaching a general approach on the condition that it respected in full the EU treaties and included Gibraltar airport within scope. Spain sought the exclusion of Gibraltar airport. In an astonishing move, the presidency proposed (i) to put in square brackets the current text in article 1, paragraph 5, which notes that the application of the regulation is without prejudice to the respective legal positions of the UK and Spain with regard to the dispute over sovereignty over the territory in which the airport is situated and (ii) to add a footnote stating that,
“the question on how to reflect the Gibraltar issue in the text is awaiting the outcome of discussions between Spain and UK.”
I objected in the strongest possible terms, emphasising that Gibraltar was included in the current SES framework, that any exclusion of Gibraltar was unjustifiable under the treaties and that I could not accept any proposal that did not make clear that Gibraltar was within scope.
At my request, the Council legal service opined that the Council’s agreement on the aviation content amounted to a general approach, but the consequence of the part not agreed by all member states, that is the part concerning Gibraltar, resulted in the general approach being partial.
Overriding my protest and the opinion of the legal service, the Commission welcomed the presidency’s proposal, and the presidency concluded that a general approach had been reached. I left the Council in protest at what was a completely unacceptable situation.
The Government are clear that EU aviation legislation applies to Gibraltar as is clearly set out in the EU treaties. We will continue to defend the inclusion of Gibraltar in EU aviation legislation. We reserve our position on the lawfulness of any other outcome and on our response, including the possibility of pursuing legal proceedings.
Following the Council, the Foreign Secretary spoke to his Italian counterpart last week to express our view that the dossier could not proceed to the next stage— discussions with the European Parliament—until the question of application to Gibraltar had been resolved. I am pleased to report that the Italian Foreign Minister gave his assurance that the Italian presidency would not seek to do this.
Although I was not present for the remainder of the Council, the UK Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU continued to occupy the UK seat. I can report that the following discussions also took place.
On Standards of training, certification and watch-keeping for fishing vessel personnel (STCW-F), the Commission restated its position with regards to the reservation considering that this was the only legally sound approach. One member state intervened to support the Council decision but indicated that they would make a declaration in respect of the legal base.
The presidency’s progress report on the fourth railway package was broadly welcomed by member states but led to an echoing of comments made by member states in October. Several member states made it clear that for them the technical pillar remained the priority. The presidency and Commission were clear that the technical pillar on its own was not enough and that the package should stay together. Many member states remained sceptical about mandatory competitive tendering and called for more flexibility on direct award provisions. Latvia stated the fourth railway package would be a priority for their forthcoming presidency. The Commission took on board member state comments and looked forward to progressing work under the Latvian presidency. In addition, a general approach was reached on the repeal of regulation 1192/69 on common rules for the normalisation of the accounts of railway undertakings, a welcome simplification measure.
Under any other business, the presidency informed the Council about the EASA event on remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) that recently took place in Rome which the presidency hoped would serve as a useful basis to continue discussions under the Latvian presidency.
Commissioner Bienkowska updated the Council on Galileo and EGNOS. She made very clear she was committed to ensuring the success of the space sector, that transport was a key user underpinning the success of EGNOS and Galileo and looked to member states to continue their support.
Lithuania drew Council’s attention to their recent experience of detailed inspections of Lithuanian registered vehicles at the Russian border and the negative impact this was having on the Lithuanian haulage sector. They called on the Commission and other member states to agree a common solution to help resolve the situation. The Commission took note although recognised the limited ability for action in the wider political context.
Finally, Latvia set out the priorities for their presidency. The fourth railway package would be one of their main priorities. On road, Latvia recognised the importance of weights and dimensions and cross-border enforcement files and indicated that the review of the Commission’s road safety strategy would be the subject of a policy debate. Latvia was explicitly clear that they would only continue work on SES II+ and airport slots if there was a consensus among member states. They also did not rule out the possibility of continuing work on air passenger rights. Finally, the incoming presidency would focus on technical requirements for inland waterways and would progress negotiations on the ports services regulation subject to progress made in the European Parliament. Latvia would hold three high-level events in Riga on EU-Asia transport links, RPAS and TEN-T corridors.
Oral Answers to Questions
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
In September the Government announced that the high-speed rail college will be co-located in Birmingham and Doncaster. Work is now under way with the local authorities concerned to get the college up and running. Our goal is for students to be admitted in the academic year 2017-18, which incidentally will coincide with the start of construction.
Karen Lumley
We need more young people to take up careers in engineering. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that schools and colleges are aware of the opportunities that the HS2 academy can provide?
Mr Goodwill
HS2 is already engaging with schools and colleges. For example, in November it attended the Skills Show for the first time. We need 10,000 people in engineering just to cope with the demand for skills in the existing rail investment strategy, and we need another 25,000 to deliver HS2.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
It is all very well helping young people with the HS2 skills academy, but it will be on the backs of the people whose properties are blighted by the project. The Minister need only read Melissa Kite’s moving article in The Spectator on the plight of her elderly parents. There is still no final compensation package, after five years, and HS2 officials are trying to beat home owners down on the independent valuations of their properties. It is shaming that we have still not settled compensation matters after five years. When is the Minister going to sort out this shambles?
Mr Goodwill
The need-to-sell scheme will be operating in the new year, and we are currently consulting on it. I must point out that part of the skills agenda is investment in skills for tunnelling. We are engaging in unprecedented levels of tunnelling to limit environmental impacts. The skills college will be a hub-and-spoke arrangement, and we are looking for colleges that can teach environmental skills to engage with it so that we can deliver on our promise of no net biodiversity loss.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
We are keen for local authorities to take over civil enforcement of their parking, but I know that the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency is not as simple as in other parts of the country. I would be delighted to meet him and discuss the issue further.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Mr Goodwill
Outside London more than 40% of money going into bus services comes from the Government one way or another, but many local bus services are under pressure because of the pressure placed on local authorities. A new station at James Cook hospital means that people who use the rail line from Whitby in my constituency, or Middlesbrough in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, can access the hospital by train, which was not the case previously.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Last month, a child was hit by a car outside Flixton junior school in my constituency. Parents are worried about our children’s safety—more so—because Trafford council plans to withdraw 31 school road crossing patrols in the borough, including 23 in my constituency. Will the Minister join me in condemning the local authority’s short-sighted decision and urge it to put our children’s safety first?
Mr Goodwill
Obviously, the safety of our children outside school is paramount, which is why, for example, we have made it easier for local authorities to introduce 20 mph limits. I am pleased that we have retained the use of cameras for enforcement of parking restrictions on those zigzag lines. Spending on the type of patrol the hon. Lady mentions is a matter for local authorities. I am sure they will consider their priorities in that regard.
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
Sections of the M27 in my constituency—the busiest motorway per mile in the country—are so noisy that local residents are unable to open their windows in the stifling summers that climate change has brought us, and that affects their health and sanity. My constituency continues to wait for resurfacing, so will the Minister please investigate the provision of effective noise barriers to save my residents’ health and sanity?
EU Transport Council
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(10 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I will attend the last Transport Council under the Italian presidency (the presidency) taking place in Brussels on Wednesday 3 December.
The first item on the agenda will be a public debate on the draft Council conclusions on transport infrastructure and the Trans European Network. The UK has worked constructively with like-minded member states to help the Italian presidency develop these conclusions which seek to align transport with the EU 2020 strategy by recognising the value that investment in building and operating transport infrastructure and creating efficient networks can bring to growth and jobs. The UK will support the adoption of the conclusions as drafted.
Secondly, the Council will be asked to agree in principle a proposed Council decision authorising member states to sign the international convention on standards of training, certification and watch-keeping for fishing vessel personnel, of the International Maritime Organisation. This is a procedural decision giving member states permission to accede to the convention. It is necessary due to union competence over the mutual recognition of the qualifications of fishing vessel personnel by virtue of directive 2005/36/EC (which provides for mutual recognition across a range of professions). Some aspects of the decision as originally proposed were unacceptable to the UK, for example the use of inappropriate legal bases and a general lack of clarity over the scope of relevant competence. Through negotiation the UK has secured significant improvements to the decision and the UK is now content with the text to be agreed at Transport Council.
The presidency will aim for a general approach on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the implementation of the Single European Sky. The UK has been working hard with the Italian presidency and other member states to secure our objectives on this regulation. As a result I am pleased to say that we secured redrafting which has resolved the vast majority of concerns we had on this proposal. In terms of Gibraltar, our firm position is that it is part of the EU and must remain in the scope of EU aviation legislation such as SES. I expect further discussions to take place on this issue during the Council meeting.
Next on the agenda is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) 216/2008 in the field of aerodromes, air traffic management and air navigation facilities. This proposal is part of a package with the Single European Sky (SES II+) regulation and transfers some SES provisions into the European Aviation Safety Authority system in order to simplify and clarify the regulation framework for the safety of air traffic management. As such we were very supportive and had just a few concerns which we have been able to resolve. We are therefore ready to support this proposal.
After this will be a progress report on the proposal to amend directive 2012/34 establishing a single European railway area, as regards the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail and the governance of the railway infrastructure, and the related proposal to amend Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 concerning the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail. The Government support the presidency on their progress report, which is a very thorough summary of discussions to date. The suggestions for future options form an excellent foundation and mean that an agreement on the market pillar is now within reach of future presidencies. It is important that the remaining barriers to the single market in rail services are addressed.
There will then be a general approach on the proposal to repeal Regulation 1192/69 on common rules for the normalisation of the accounts of railway undertakings. The UK supports the repeal of this regulation which has become outdated and inconsistent with more recent EU railway legislation. It is a welcome example of legislative simplification and deregulation.
Under any other business, the Commission will provide information on EU satellite navigation programmes. The presidency will provide information on the recent European Aviation Safety Authority event on remotely piloted aircraft systems. The Lithuanian delegation will provide information on the road transport situation in the context of detailed inspections of Lithuanian vehicles recently introduced by Russian authorities. Also, the Latvian delegation will provide information on the work programme of their forthcoming presidency of the Council of the European Union.
London Transport Zones (Croydon)
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(10 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
It is a joy to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) on securing this important debate on London transport zones and Croydon. I recognise that the zoning of stations has a real impact on the cost of travel in London, and I am aware that this is a matter of some concern locally. We do, as a Government, understand how important rail travel is for this country’s economy and for all of us who use these services to get to work, to visit family and to get around. That is why this Government are investing £38 billion over the next five years to improve the national network, generating faster, more comfortable and more punctual journeys. I understand how important it is to keep travel costs for hard-working people down. That is why last year we curbed the rail industry’s powers to increase fares. It is also why we will hold down rail fares next year to retail prices index inflation for the second year in a row.
We recognise the importance of investing in transport in London. That is why we have provided Transport for London with more than £10 billion during this Parliament, which has enabled upgrades to the tube network that have already increased capacity on the Jubilee line by 33%. We will also see a 20% increase capacity on the Northern line from next month. The investment will also bring the first air-conditioned walkthrough trains to serve customers on the Metropolitan, Circle, District and Hammersmith and City lines. We have also transformed major London stations including King’s Cross, St Pancras, Stratford, Blackfriars and Paddington. The Crossrail project is on track to deliver a brand new railway across London by 2018, transforming journeys across the capital.
We are improving rail travel in Croydon. The Government’s investment in London transport has enabled the Thameslink programme of upgrades, transforming the line, which serves East Croydon station. Capacity will dramatically increase by 2018. A fleet of 115 spacious new trains will run every two to three minutes through central London at peak times.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman need not worry. As he has left me plenty of time to speak, I thought I would put the debate in the context of the unprecedented investment that the Government are putting into rail, not only in London, but across the country.
Croydon receives an excellent and frequent train service. Someone would be hard-pressed to find an area in zone 5 with better services to central London than Croydon. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that Croydon is closer to central London than other stations in zone 4. Ultimately, there will be winners and losers in any simple zoning system, as stations near the boundary of a zone will be closer or further from London stations than others. Distance is only one factor in determining the zone in which a station falls.
The hon. Gentleman’s arguments for re-zoning Croydon stations are interesting, and it is important to have these debates, but there is an established process for re-zoning stations, which works as follows. The travelcard map, which shows the zone in which each station falls, is set out as part of the travelcard agreement made between the train operating companies and TfL. The Government are not a signatory. Any changes to station zones must be proposed by a signatory to the agreement; the Government are not able to do that. The proposal must then be agreed by the remaining signatories. The Department for Transport can approve or reject the change proposals. The decision is made by the Secretary of State for Transport on the basis of the business case. If the proposal does not represent good value for money, it is unlikely to get approval. The Government cannot and should not promote or back any proposal outside that established process.
Mr Reed
I thank the Minister for his explanation. On the basis of what he has just heard and the link to the dramatic and bold £9.5 billion regeneration bid being proposed for Croydon through a regeneration and growth bid—we hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will endorse it in the autumn statement—does he personally think that the proposal should be supported?
Mr Goodwill
As I made clear, it is a matter for TfL and the train companies. In passing, I point out that eight stations in East Croydon’s zone are closer to central London. Indeed, one is only nine miles away, while East Croydon is 10.25 miles, or 10 miles and 34 chains, I think, from Victoria. There is no official rule about where distances are measured from. By convention, some measure London distances from Charing Cross, but we are not aware of any reason why that should be the overriding rule. Generally the distance from the terminus station would seem to be the most sensible choice. That is Victoria in this case, although London Bridge is slightly nearer.
If one of the train operating companies running stations in Croydon wishes to formally propose the change, a number of factors would need to be considered. First, changing the zone of a station does not come free. A season ticket for zones 1 to 5 costs £2,136. The season ticket for zones 1 to 4 costs £1,800, so the difference between them is the figure of £336 that the hon. Gentleman drew attention to. Reducing the cost of travelling from a station reduces the revenue brought in by that station, and that can add up to millions of pounds a year. Ultimately, those costs would be covered by the taxpayer. A loss at Croydon might need to be compensated by raising fares elsewhere. At a time of intense financial pressure, is it fair to ask taxpayers as a group to pay for travellers in Croydon to have cheaper fares? It might be.
Mr Reed
I am grateful to the Minister for his frequent kindness in letting me intervene. In looking at the cost of making the change, does he take into account the net economic benefit, as was the case with Stratford? The Greater London authority estimated that, although that change cost £7 million, the net economic benefit was £24 million, which is multiples more than the cost of making the change.
Mr Goodwill
I understand the sensible point that the hon. Gentleman is making, which contributes to the debate. It is possible that the economic benefits to the area would outweigh the costs, but the question cannot be answered without some serious consideration. How would re-zoning impact businesses in the area? How would it impact residents? How would it impact surrounding stations and the areas that they serve? For example, passengers who live slightly closer to a station that was in the next zone might decide to change their journey plans and travel to East Croydon to save on their season ticket. The change could put increasing pressure on the station, which is already very busy.
The train operating companies would need to investigate all those issues. The argument for re-zoning would need to be demonstrated in a robust business case. The effects of re-zoning a station are not only financial; there would also be changes to demand at the stations. If it is cheaper to travel from one station in an area than another, people will choose the cheapest journey. That is the logical response, but a change will also make stations more crowded. East Croydon is already one of the busiest stations in the UK outside central London, and re-zoning it would make that worse.
Jim Dowd
A constituent raised the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) kindly allowed me to mention earlier. The Minister said that passengers will choose the cheapest option, but that is not true in every case. It is also about the service. In the case that I highlighted, Crystal Palace is eight stations from Victoria, but Penge East is a mere five stations away. It is a much faster service from Penge East, although it is more expensive. People choose to go from Penge East; they do not necessarily go for the cheapest option.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman is right. The current zoning seems to as much be down to historical reasoning as anything else, but it is the basis on which the franchises have been let and the basis on which the train operating companies have calculated their revenue. In cases of re-zoning, compensation might need to be paid to those train operating companies to allow for the difference in income.
Is increased congestion at their station a trade-off that commuters are willing to make? Is it a trade-off that provides value for money? Finally, what consideration has been given to commuters who travel into Croydon for work? As the hon. Member for Croydon North has said, Croydon’s economy is flourishing and there are many jobs in the local area. If Croydon is re-zoned, travel costs for people living in London’s outer zones could increase significantly.
Mr Goodwill
Yes, if the stations moved into zone 4/5, but if they just moved into zone 4, there would be an increase in cost, which would be a consideration for fare revenue. The re-zoning could have an impact on train operating companies. All those things need to be carefully considered.
As we have heard several times during the debate, Croydon is not the only place where calls for re-zoning are being made. A formal proposal has been submitted requesting that the Stratford stations should be re-zoned, and my Department has received correspondence asking for stations to be moved into the London zonal fares area. Other hon. Members have made similarly passionate arguments in favour of re-zoning stations such as Kingston, Surbiton and Epsom. I am sure that there are many others for which local arguments could be made.
Clearly, a wholesale transfer of stations into lower zones would not be affordable. It is, of course, important that the station zoning is reviewed and that re-zoning can take place when there is a strong case. The established process for re-zoning a station ensures that value for money and the impacts on other transport users are considered. That is what will need to happen with the proposals to re-zone Croydon.
In summary, I hope that I have been able to clarify the process for considering proposals to re-zone London stations. As discussed, it would not be appropriate for the Government to comment at this stage on the merits or otherwise of re-zoning Croydon. We will reflect carefully on the points made in today’s debate but can make no promises. The proposal will need to go through the proper channels and the proper process, and there will need to be agreement between the train operating companies and Transport for London. We would want to satisfy ourselves that any re-zoning proposal for stations in Croydon represents value for money. The Government are committed to ensuring that value for money is maintained to allow us to keep transport costs affordable for the travelling public—a key part of our wider commitment to improving the transport network both in London and across the country.
Traffic Controls (Schools)
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing this debate. Her colleague, the shadow road safety Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), is on the Opposition Benches to listen to her remarks as well as to what I have to say, and I suspect that we will have a lot of common ground on this matter because it affects constituencies up and down the country. I am pleased to speak about an issue that is vital for the safety of our schoolchildren—indeed, the hon. Lady is probably pushing at an open door in that regard. In rural areas such as the one I represent, we have the additional problem that many parents seem to get into bigger and bigger four-wheel drive vehicles, which makes it harder for people to see when manoeuvring. Perhaps it is a fact of modern life, but a lot of people seem to set off far too late to take their children to school and have to race there.
We are all too aware of how traffic tends to be more congested during school drop-off and pick-up periods because many of us use our vehicles to take our children to and from school. Schoolchildren are therefore more likely to be at risk from traffic during those periods, and it is a particular problem directly outside schools because some children make their way home on foot or walk to the nearest bus stop. The Government are keen to increase the number of children who walk to school—we have set a target of 55%—and good schemes such as walking buses or “park and stride” encourage people who perhaps live too far away from their school to walk the entire distance to walk for some of it. That is good news not only for reducing congestion outside schools, but also for improving general health and well-being. When I drive to York station on a Monday morning to come to London, it is obvious when it is half term because the traffic is so much better.
Let me mention some of the legal measures available to local authorities and schools, and the powers that local authorities have to address the problem. Local authorities can tackle congestion and protect vulnerable schoolchildren by applying traffic control measures such as “School Keep Clear” zig-zag markings outside school areas. Those areas can be either advisory or mandatory, and it is for the local authority to determine what is appropriate in particular circumstances. If it considers that an advisory approach will be effective, the local authority should apply the appropriate zig-zag crossing on the road outside the entrance of a school to indicate to drivers that stopping or parking is not permitted in the marked area. An advisory marking is unenforceable by the local authority because it is not prohibited in an order made by the council, and traffic signs are not required to indicate the advisory marking. The police can, however, give a driver a parking fine for causing an obstruction as a result of stopping or parking on a “School Keep Clear” road advisory marking. Advisory markings are only intended to act as a deterrent, although as we have heard, some drivers take a lot of deterring.
If a mandatory approach is considered more effective, the local authority will be required to make a “School Keep Clear” zig-zag marking a parking prohibition in an order, and it must also apply appropriate road markings and traffic signs. Local authorities that have taken over responsibility for parking enforcement from the police can enforce a mandatory “School Keep Clear” marking with a penalty charge notice. Current arrangements provide flexibility for local authorities to decide whether an advisory or mandatory approach is needed, and I believe that they are best placed to tackle traffic management in their area. Most school governing bodies that I know include one or two councillors, so it will be easy for them to feed back that concern.
Parking on the pavement near schools is common practice in some areas and can cause severe problems for parents with children in pushchairs, people in wheelchairs, or the visually impaired and blind. Pavement parking could also block the footway passage for schoolchildren, forcing them on to dangerous roads.
In London, parking on the footway is prohibited, but in some areas it is permitted to maintain easy traffic flow. It would be for the London local authority to decide parking arrangements for a local area, and that may include permitting pavement parking. In England outside London, parking on the pavement is not banned. However, local authorities have the power in legislation to implement a pavement parking prohibition in particularly problematic areas, such as outside schools.
Ms Gisela Stuart
The Minister is absolutely right about the legal framework, but the reality is that our local authorities’ financial means have been cut to the bone. If I go to my local authority and say that I want one of those traffic management orders, it will say, “We simply do not have the money.” In Birmingham, there are more than 475 schools and it simply does not have the means. We need other ways and issuing tickets is the simplest thing to do.
Mr Goodwill
I will come on to other ways that may be used to dissuade people from bad behaviour, but I am currently outlining the statutory tools available to local authorities in particular areas. Issuing tickets will create revenue, which may make the system self-financing. However, I must make it clear that we do not support any measures that could be seen as re-declaring the war on motorists that the previous Government seemed to be engaged in.
Since 2011, enforcing pavement parking in English areas outside London has been made easier by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who was responsible for removing the requirement for councils to apply for individual traffic sign authorisations. Baroness Kramer wrote to English local authorities outside London this summer, reminding them of their existing powers to enforce pavement parking and encouraging them to do so.
Double parking outside schools when dropping off or picking up schoolchildren can obstruct the passage and flow of traffic, and may put schoolchildren at risk of being hit by a passing vehicle. Local authorities with parking enforcement powers can enforce double parking violations without the requirement for traffic signs, because double parking is prohibited in national legislation. Similarly, local authorities can give a penalty charge notice to drivers who block access to school grounds or nearby facilities as a result of parking their vehicle alongside a dropped footway outside the school area.
Yellow line restrictions near school areas can also be enforced by the local authority. In these circumstances, the police can only enforce if a vehicle is causing an obstruction as a result of parking on a yellow line, or if the local authority has not as yet taken over the responsibility of parking enforcement from the police. I suspect Birmingham is an authority that has taken over enforcement powers from the police, and I encourage all local authorities that have not yet done so to take on those powers. Local authorities have the power in legislation to make arrangements for the patrolling of places where children cross roads on their way to and from school. My Department works closely with intermediaries and partners who engage with children directly, such as teachers, out-of-school group leaders and parents, to communicate road safety messages. The Department provides them with free lesson plans, resources and activities that can all be found on the Department for Transport’s award-winning “THINK!” website. Moreover, the Department continues to work with local road safety officers and stakeholders, including the road safety charity Brake and in partnership with the RAC, to help them deliver road safety plans.
My Department and the Department for Communities and Local Government recently consulted on proposals to tackle over-zealous parking enforcement by local authorities. One proposal was to introduce a ban on the use of CCTV by local authorities for on-street parking enforcement. The Government received an overwhelming number of responses requesting that the use of CCTV by local authorities for traffic enforcement outside schools be exempted from the ban.
We recognise that the primary objective of any camera system for enforcement is to ensure the safe and efficient operation of public highways by deterring motorists from breaking traffic restrictions and detecting those that do. We also recognise that areas outside schools are more susceptible to traffic accidents if a robust system of enforcement is not in place. For that reason, we have listened to the views of the general public, and parents and teachers in particular, and have exempted from the ban the use of CCTV by local authorities for traffic enforcement outside schools. That could be in the form of either a fixed camera or a camera van to ensure that people who are parking illegally receive the appropriate sanctions. CCTV is necessary in these areas in particular, because it takes most drivers only 10 seconds to drop somebody off. Therefore, even if a parking warden or an officer of the council is there, it is not possible to ticket more than one car. With the use of cameras, enforcement can be done in a pretty severe way to get the message across to parents who park dangerously. It would be great to have the hon. Lady outside all the schools in Birmingham—I am sure similarly stern ladies could do the work—but the use of cameras is one way to ensure that people cannot get away with dropping people off.
Mr Goodwill
Where civil enforcement has been taken over by the council, as in the case of Birmingham, it would be up to the local authority, through its civil enforcement officers. If it was a particularly big or busy school it would be possible to install a camera outside the school to do that work, but other local authorities could use a van with a camera fitted to enable that to happen and to provide a deterrent when word gets around that people are being ticketed.
Unfortunately, no matter how strong a message is given to parents, either directly or through their children, not all parents understand the dangers of parking outside schools. If local authorities want to use cameras, we have allowed them to use them in specific locations: red routes in London, bus lanes and outside schools. I was keen to impress on my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government how important it is to make an exception for the situation outside schools. As hon. Members probably know, this has been taken forward as an amendment to clause 39 of the Deregulation Bill, which is currently going through Parliament. It will enable the power to be retained by local authorities and for there to be an exemption from the camera ban.
There is important work to be done by schools on information campaigns and sending notes home from school. I have heard of cases where vehicles and their registration numbers have been listed and circulated back to parents to try to encourage more responsible behaviour. I repeat that we absolutely understand the problem. We need to give local authorities the right powers, and retaining the use of cameras gives them those additional powers. As I have outlined, there are several ways local authorities can enforce parking restrictions outside schools, and I would encourage them to use those powers.
Mr Goodwill
There are certainly processes that local authorities would need to go through, although not in the case of vans. If there were several schools in an area where this was a problem, the use of a van fitted with camera equipment might be the best means of enforcement, and of course parents would never know when it might be parked outside their school.
Once again, I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this matter to the House. It is a matter that concerns me as a parent—even if my children are now past school age—and one that affects every constituency in the country. She has identified a real problem that parents are worried about, and I hope I have reassured her that local authorities have the powers to do something about it, and I hope they will avail themselves of those powers where this is a particular issue. The last thing we want is children being deterred from walking to school or feeling unsafe because of the mêlée of cars outsides their school. We need to get people walking to school again, whether all the way from home or from a sensible parking place.
Question put and agreed to.
A1(M) (Hertfordshire)
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertshire (Sir Oliver Heald) on securing this debate on future strategic improvements to the A1(M). The great north road is a very important trunk road for this country, and coming from the great north myself I understand its importance. Indeed, much has already been done on the A1, as many sections have been upgraded to motorway standard, and we look forward to further investment in this very important route in the future.
I know that my hon. and learned Friend has been supporting his constituents, local businesses and the local economy by pursuing improvements to the A1(M) to unlock potential growth in Hertfordshire throughout the year. I applaud his engagement with the A1(M) consortium and would hold up this cross-organisational body as a good example of a constructive approach to stimulating debate and developing consensus on the way forward for Hertfordshire.
Before I passed over responsibility for strategic roads to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), I took a particular interest in the issue of the A1(M) in Hertfordshire, meeting both my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) and the editor of the Welwyn Hatfield Times to discuss future improvements to this road. At those meetings, I made it clear that my Department would give serious consideration to this issue, together with taking early action to address pinch points.
I also know that my hon. and learned Friend expects to bring a number of MPs from across Hertfordshire to a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State who is responsible for strategic roads in order to set out the case for widening the A1(M) from the M25 to Letchworth before the autumn statement.
Before I respond to the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend, it is perhaps worth taking the opportunity to set out this Government’s position on investment in the strategic road network and the history of proposals for major improvements to the A1(M), as well as setting out how my Department will consider options for future major investments.
The strategic road network is the Government’s largest single asset, currently valued at about £100 billion and comprising approximately 4,350 miles of motorways and all-purpose trunk roads. The Government recognise the importance of transport infrastructure to support the economy, and we have already announced increased Government funding to deliver improvements targeted at supporting economic growth. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear our commitment to deliver a step change in investment in transport infrastructure in his statement on 26 June 2013, when he announced the conclusions of the Government’s spending review of that year.
The Treasury’s Command Paper “Investing in Britain’s future” said that the Government would invest more than £28 billion in enhancements to, and maintenance of, national and local roads, and confirmed that we would provide funding for the building of a number of Highways Agency major road projects to tackle the most congested parts of the network, subject to value for money and deliverability.
On current investment in the strategic road network in Hertfordshire, smart motorway systems are now in operation between junctions 23 and 27 of the M25. Smart motorways help to relieve congestion by using technology to vary speed limits, and they also allow the hard shoulder to be allowed as a running lane to create additional capacity. They deliver those benefits at a significantly lower cost than conventional motorway widening, and with less impact on the environment during construction. The project is already relieving congestion and smoothing the flow of traffic, which is improving safety and journey times. Those benefits are also supporting economic development in the region.
The pinch point programme forms part of the UK Government’s growth initiative, which was outlined in the autumn statement in November 2011. That was followed up with the allocation of further funding in the 2012 autumn statement. The Highways Agency has designed the programme to deliver smaller-scale improvements to the strategic road network that will help to stimulate growth in the local economy, relieve congestion and improve safety.
More than £2 million of funding has been allocated to improving junction 6 of the A1(M) at Welwyn. The key features of the scheme include amending the current road layout to provide a lane drop at junction 6 and extending and amending the existing layout of the junction 6 entry slip road. That will improve traffic flow on the A1(M) northbound carriageway, with the amended entry slip road layout providing additional distance for traffic joining the A1(M) to merge safely with the main line of traffic. Work on the scheme will start in December and is due to be completed in April 2015.
In addition, £5.6 million has been committed to the A1 Black Cat roundabout improvements at Chawston. Although that is in Bedfordshire, that scheme will have a positive impact on the effectiveness of the A1(M) in Hertfordshire. It will reduce congestion by widening the roundabout and the A1 approach roads, and by providing 24-hour signals at the points at which the A1 meets the roundabout. It is predicted that the proposed scheme will reduce congestion, improve journey time reliability, improve safety and reduce carbon emissions. Work began in June and is due to be completed in early 2015.
In July, the Government announced a series of growth deals with businesses and local authorities across England through the local growth fund. The Hertfordshire local enterprise partnership has secured £199.2 million from the fund to support strategic development, relieve congestion and reduce journey times across the Hertfordshire area. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire mentioned, the Hertfordshire local enterprise partnership has been successful in securing a substantial amount of funding through its local growth deal—in the region of £48 million—for the M11/A10 transport package, which includes Little Hadham bypass, upgrades to the network to improve the resilience of the A10 and improvements on the A602 around Stevenage. Further priorities for improvements to the local transport network will be for the Hertfordshire local enterprise partnership to identify for future rounds of the local growth fund.
As my hon. and learned Friend will know, the Hertfordshire growth deal reflects the importance of the A1(M) for local growth ambitions, with £3.8 million being invested in transport improvements through the A1(M) transport package, and £16 million being invested in the A1(M) growth area forum to help facilitate developments around Stevenage. The package also includes a number of sustainable transport measures to provide more realistic alternatives for local trips, including the A1 sustainable transport package, the A602 local congestion measures and Buslink 2016. The M11/A10 transport package attracted £48.4 million of local growth fund money for a package of schemes including station access improvements, upgrades to the network to improve resilience, the Little Hadham bypass, A602 improvements and A10 network resilience.
The M1/M25 transport package has £15 million of local growth fund finance for a package of transport schemes including A414 junction improvements, Hemel Hempstead station forecourt enhancements, and Watford business park pedestrian and cycle access enhancements. Hertfordshire county council’s BigHertsBigIdeas project is a package of measures designed to address congestion and regeneration needs in Watford, Hemel Hempstead and St Albans. That includes cycling provision, public transport improvements and electric vehicle charging. The county council has secured a total of £11.69 million from the Department for the project through the local sustainable transport fund.
Hertfordshire county council continues to receive high levels of maintenance and integrated transport block funding. It was also allocated an additional £3.621 million from the March 2014 weather repair fund, and £2.191 million from the June 2014 pothole funding allocation to help to deal with all the potholes that appeared during the bad weather. I suspect that some of the potholes were there before the bad weather started, but they still need to be dealt with.
As for the Government’s future investment planning processes, my hon. and learned Friend will know that the Highways Agency is currently conducting its route strategy process, and that the Government recently concluded the growth deal process with all local enterprise partnerships. Earlier in the year, John Gourd, the chair of Hertfordshire local enterprise partnership, met officials from the Department and the Highways Agency to discuss the Department’s future investment planning processes, including the route strategy process. The strategies that are being developed by the Highways Agency will establish outline operational and investment priorities for all routes on the strategic road network—including the London to Leeds (East) route strategy, which encompasses the A1(M)—for the period up to March 2021, and will give an indication of the priorities beyond that.
Last autumn local enterprise partnerships, local authorities and other interested groups were invited to contribute to discussions about the current and future performance of the strategic road network to help to identify local priorities, and the evidence report has subsequently been published. It acknowledges the issues that exist on the A1(M) in Hertfordshire and the fact that, as we heard from my hon. and learned Friend, there is planned development and growth in the surrounding area. The Highways Agency and the Department used the evidence to identify priority locations for possible future investment in the strategic road network, and have started a programme of studies at those locations. Proposals emerging from those preliminary studies will be considered by my Department in the lead-up to the autumn statement—which, confusingly, will be presented in December this year—and will help to inform the Department’s road investment strategy, which we aim to complete before the end of the year. The route strategy work is due to be completed by the end of March 2015.
I note that the A1 corridor consortium is already working with the Highways Agency and other parties to develop a strategy to address congestion and future capacity issues on the A1(M), and I encourage the consortium to continue to work with the agency as the route strategy process develops.
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on his tenacity in campaigning for investment in transport infrastructure in Hertfordshire over a number of years. I fully recognise the importance of the A1(M) to him and his constituents. I have made it clear that the Government are committed to, and have set out, plans for large-scale investments to improve our national strategic road network in the relatively short term. We are also committed to maintaining a pipeline of future longer-term investments. Indeed, we are tripling the budget that was delivered by the last Government—if “delivered” is a word that can be used to describe that paltry investment.
In considering the choices to be made in relation to future investments in the strategic road network, my Department and I, and the Highways Agency, will work closely with local stakeholders through the route strategy process, to ensure that not just future transport problems but the range of possible solutions are considered. As I have said, it is important that proposals for future investment are clearly supported by local stakeholders, and that there is a clear consensus on what is required. Ultimately, any proposals for future investment need to be able to demonstrate a strong business, and the delivery of both transport and wider economic benefits.
We are also committed to working with local partners, including local authorities and local enterprise partnerships, on considering proposals for improvements that are affordable and clearly supported by local and regional stakeholders. In that way, we can place ourselves in a strong position to make the best use of the available funds and to establish a sound base for the development of a transport system that can contribute to a low-carbon economy and to our long-term economic plan.
Question put and agreed to.
Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Consultation
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I am today publishing a consultation document to seek views on an updated safeguarding direction for the proposed Crossrail 2 rail project, replacing the previous safeguarding direction issued in 2008.
Crossrail 2 is a proposed new rail line across central London, running from Tottenham Hale in the north-east to Wimbledon in the south-west. The route passes through the City of Westminster, Lea Valley regional park authority, the London boroughs of Barnet, Camden, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Islington, Merton, Waltham Forest, and Wandsworth, and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
Safeguarding is the first stage in the planning process. It enables the Secretary of State for Transport to issue a direction to local planning authorities to protect land needed for long-term infrastructure projects. Safeguarding does not necessarily prevent other developments from taking place, but it ensures that when they do take place the design can accommodate the planned infrastructure.
The consultation will take place over 10 weeks from 20 November 2014, closing on 28 January 2015. After the consultation period a summary report will be made available on the Department for Transport website, analysing the responses received and providing the Department’s response. Subject to the results of the consultation, it is expected that the report and safeguarding direction will be issued in early 2015.
Copies of the consultation, and associated documents, will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Rail Services (Portsmouth Harbour)
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) on securing this debate. I will do my best to address the points that she raised so eloquently. I apologise for being a poor substitute for the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who has responsibility for rail. She is currently speaking in Westminster Hall, and even she cannot be in two places at the same time.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport knows, the Portsmouth-to-London line is an essential artery that connects communities across Hampshire, Surrey and south-west London. As she said in her speech, it is not only up north that we need to deliver new jobs and prosperity on the back of infrastructure. She mentioned the problems following the cuts to defence jobs in her part of the world.
The railways are a success story of recent times. Passenger numbers have doubled across the country over the past 15 years to the same levels as 1929, but on a network that is half the length. South West Trains operates about 1,700 services a day and about 222 million passenger journeys were made on South West Trains last year. London Waterloo is the UK’s busiest railway station and Clapham Junction station, which is operated by Stagecoach South Western Trains, is the busiest interchange, with somewhere in the region of 23 million interchanges each year.
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issues of journey times and capacity on the route between Portsmouth and London. She mentioned the journey to Doncaster. I will be journeying to York this evening. That journey takes 1 hour and 50 minutes, which is not much longer than the journey down to Portsmouth. Indeed, if one includes the Gosport ferry, that journey takes much longer, even though it is over a much shorter distance.
There are issues of great concern for many passengers who use train services on the route from Portsmouth to London. Many travel for work, but people also travel for leisure, as Portsmouth offers many attractions for the visitor. That is not to mention the important connections to the Isle of Wight and to my hon. Friend’s constituency by the Gosport ferry, for which South West Trains will offer through fares from January. The provision of reliable rail services on the line is therefore enormously important for economic activity and growth along the route.
Nearly 7 million passenger journeys were made to and from Portsmouth stations during 2012-13. Investment has been made and continues to be made to improve the facilities at those stations through schemes such as the national stations improvement programme. Portsmouth stations are served by a number of train operators—South West Trains, Southern and First Great Western—meaning that Portsmouth is connected to much of the south of England and Wales. However, I agree that the speed of those journeys is somewhat slower than on other routes that connect our cities, with the 74-mile journey between Portsmouth and London Waterloo taking about 90 minutes. My hon. Friend will be aware that there are legitimate reasons for that, which must be borne in mind.
The Portsmouth main line is a two-track route between Portsmouth and Guildford, connecting the south coast to London. The route is powered by a 3rd rail DC supply, with a maximum line speed considerably lower than the 125 mph seen on East Coast or Great Western main lines, for example. The line speed south of Guildford falls below 90 mph to 85 mph or less—indeed, to only 40 mph in some locations—on many parts of the route, which is caused by gradients and curves in the line profile. Coupled with the relatively high number of stations at which the train calls along the route, that makes it difficult to increase the line speed of those services.
There are few places where faster trains can overtake slower ones. In the section between Guildford and Havant, the only location where overtaking is possible is at Haslemere. That is not to say that no thought has been given to improving those vital services. Although previous investigations into improving journey times have shown a high cost for minimal benefit, service frequency has been increased where possible. That has been of greater benefit to the large populations using the train service from stations along that route.
There is no quick fix, and I will not suggest there is. The Portsmouth mainline is full to capacity and South West Trains is already operating most peak services at maximum formation. There are constraints on infrastructure and rolling stock, and as we have heard, passengers face difficulties. I am not saying, however, that improvements are not possible, and with the right conditions, journey times can be improved and extra main line capacity added. It is vital that the necessary planning for such investment takes place, and that consideration is given to the needs of the railway as a whole, giving us options for how to meet the demand that is forecast to continue growing over the next 30 years.
The long-term planning process is designed to facilitate the strategic planning of the industry, taking into account the views of the rail industry, funders, specifiers and customers. Network Rail is publishing draft route studies for stakeholder consultation. The draft route study for Wessex is due to be published for consultation later this month. It will set out ideas and proposals for investment over the course of Network Rail control period 6, which runs from 2019 to 2024, and beyond.
Local authorities, including Portsmouth city council, have already had the opportunity to feed into that draft study. It is very much a collaborative process, and I am keen to see it continue. The route studies will be published on the Network Rail website, together with further information about the long-term planning process. I strongly encourage my hon. Friends and their constituents to embrace the opportunity to help us shape the future of that railway, in the collaborative spirit to which I alluded. It is incredibly important for those who use that part of the network to have a say in its future.
Mr Mike Hancock
Will the Minister give an assurance that he will put pressure on train operators to work with the public to bring about improvements? It is one thing to have a consultation, but if nothing is delivered from that, it is a waste of time.
Mr Goodwill
Absolutely. When refranchising takes place, not only financial considerations, but other non-financial considerations such as those suggested by my hon. Friend, will be made. Towards the end of my remarks I will mention the rolling stock that is being used and the discomfort that some passengers may feel.
I understand that plans for more capacity in years to come are of little comfort to passengers who are experiencing delays and crowding today. That is why we have continued to invest in today’s railway to increase capacity where possible within existing constraints. I am pleased that the Government have pledged more than £38 billion of support for the rail industry up to 2019, improving the capacity and quality of a network that is experiencing vast growth in demand. My hon. Friend will be happy to hear that that includes significant investment on the South West Trains network.
In early September this year my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, who has just joined us in the Chamber, joined with South West Trains to announce the latest capacity enhancement to be contracted. Some 150 new vehicles are being manufactured by Siemens to be put into passenger use on South West Trains by the start of 2018.
Caroline Dinenage
We are grateful that South West Trains is putting that investment into its rolling stock, but unfortunately not a single one of those carriages will be in use on the route down to Portsmouth. Will the Minister comment on that point?
Mr Goodwill
As we see rolling stock introduced, it will cascade down, so that benefits will be felt not only by those using the new rolling stock. When Stagecoach South Western Trains introduces these new trains, existing fleets will be cascaded which will see a further four evening peak services strengthened on the Portsmouth main line to maximum formation, addressing some of the under-capacity issues. This is part of plans to provide capacity for an extra 24,000 peak-time passengers each day. This is in addition to the 108 additional carriages that are already starting to arrive and are being put into passenger service, to increase capacity each day by 23,000 in the peaks. A similar cascade is also adding capacity to a number of peak services from Portsmouth.
Over the same period, Network Rail will carry out some major enhancement and renewal works in and around the Waterloo area at a cost of several hundred million pounds. Signalling is an important part of our rail infrastructure. It is often forgotten, but it can be low-hanging fruit in efforts to gain additional capacity. The signalling system that covers much of the suburban network needs to be renewed and, as part of that project, a new turn-back facility will be created at Hounslow so that an additional four services can operate in the peak.
By 2017, Network Rail will have carried out works to bring the remaining four platforms at the former Waterloo international terminal back into full operational use—from its current theatrical use, which we have heard about—for scheduled domestic services, restoring a vital piece of the south-western route infrastructure for railway use. Having those extra platforms available is also essential in the plans that have been developed to then extend platforms 1 to 4 at Waterloo, which serve the main suburban routes, so that they can accommodate 10-car length trains. This removes the last constraint that has hampered plans to increase main suburban capacity from a maximum eight-car operation for many years.
All of this takes time and considerable effort in planning to minimise the impact on passengers as these major engineering schemes are implemented. There will undoubtedly be significant levels of disruption at times, but high quality communication about what this means to passengers and their daily journey will be key.
My hon. Friend mentioned the infamous 450 carriages and their 3 plus 2 seating configuration, which can make the journey elbow to elbow for some people. As people get bigger, that will be an even greater problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) said, some people with back pain cannot use those trains.
I have heard the passionate calls from hon. Members about the rolling stock on the Portsmouth to London line. The class 450s that were put in place by Stagecoach South Western Trains on that route following the 2006 franchise competition have increased the amount of seating capacity available. Operational constraints of the route ruled out any additional services, so this was South West Trains’ solution to the requirement to accommodate demand within those constraints.
The train operator takes the decision on where to deploy the rolling stock across the franchise network to address capacity issues as efficiently as possible. Stagecoach South Western Trains has chosen to deploy a mixture of class 444s—the white ones—and 450s on services between Portsmouth and London. The 10-car formation class 444 provides 598 seats, whereas a 12-car maximum formation class 450 provides 738 seats. The additional seats provided by the class 450s provide vital capacity for passengers closer to London.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) could not be here for this debate as he is chairing a debate in Westminster Hall, but he wanted to raise the issue of passengers who cross the Solent after their train journey. All too often, the trains depart a couple of minutes before the ferries, which means a wait of half an hour, or even an hour in the evenings. I am aware of the problems, and we support the idea of a taskforce to look at the transport issues on the island. I encourage my hon. Friend to work with the Isle of Wight council to establish that taskforce. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has written recently to the leader of the council to invite them to meet.
The solutions that we have contracted will address the capacity issues on the Windsor and main suburban routes, but we know that capacity issues remain on the main line. We are doing what we can in the short term to add more capacity where this is possible. However, we know that more is needed, as has been made clear during this evening’s debate. We expect the industry to continue to work in the same collaborative way to address and implement a significant solution for the main line in control period 6, and the planning process for that is under way.
Question put and agreed to.
Blackpool Airport
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing this debate on the future of Blackpool airport. I commend him for his engagement with those who have been striving to secure a future for the airport.
In recent years, increasing demand for commercial air travel has heightened the need to improve the capacity and efficiency of UK airports. This is absolutely essential to meet the Government’s commitment to maintain the UK’s aviation hub status. In our aviation policy framework published last year, we recognised the crucial role that regional airports play in providing airport capacity and the vital contribution they can make to the growth of their local economies. Indeed, I like to refer to them as local international airports, rather than just regional airports. The Government are therefore determined that the UK continues to benefit from the services that regional airports offer. We welcome the ambition many of them are showing through investing in their infrastructure, increasing accessibility and facilitating more services to more destinations. I have also been impressed by the efforts many airports are making to diversify into different activities, such as aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul, business aviation and other support services, and providing space for other, non-aviation businesses.
I am aware of Blackpool airport’s proud history, which goes back as far as 1909 when the UK’s first official public flying meeting took place there. In the 1930s, the pioneering Railway Air Services operated commercial schedules to the Isle of Man, Manchester and Liverpool, with connections to other UK destinations including London. As RAF Squires Gate, the aerodrome had an illustrious history. During the second world war it served as a base for operational RAF coastal command squadrons patrolling the Irish sea and eastern Atlantic, and for specialist reconnaissance and technical training schools. The Ministry of Aircraft Production set up a huge shadow aircraft factory close to the aerodrome for Vickers Armstrong to manufacture and test more than 3,500 Wellington bombers between 1940 and 1945. Airline services resumed from 1946 and the airport enjoyed relatively steady commercial air operations for many years, allowing a lot of people in the Lancashire area to experience their very first foreign holiday. However, services and passenger numbers declined steadily from the 1970s onwards, as charter operators moved to other, larger airports.
In recent years, Blackpool airport has struggled to attract and retain consistent air passenger services. However, like many other smaller airports, Blackpool airport has more strings to its bow, and also serves as an important base for a number of aviation-related support and maintenance businesses, as well as flying training schools and business and general aviation operators. In fact, Blackpool airport played a role in the 1983 general election campaign, when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was spirited to the Fylde coast via the airport for one of her final election rallies. I was therefore very sorry to learn in August that Blackpool airport’s owner, Balfour Beatty, was putting the airport up for sale and that it would close in mid-October if no buyer came forward. Unfortunately, as we know, no buyer was forthcoming, and the airport’s owner issued a statement on 7 October confirming that the closure would go ahead on 15 October. The final commercial flight departed for the Isle of Man at 5 pm that day.
I fully recognise concerns in the area about the impact that the airport’s closure could have on the local and regional economy, and the reduction in travel choice and opportunity. However, in the first instance this is essentially a commercial matter for the airport’s owner. As hon. Members will understand, airports in the UK and the airlines that use them operate in a competitive, commercial environment. The UK’s aviation sector is overwhelmingly in the private sector, and this Government support competition as an effective way to meet the interests of air passengers and other users. It is for individual airports to take decisions on commercial matters, which will of course include questions of services and future viability. Equally, airlines take similar commercial decisions in regard to the routes that they operate and from which airports. It is not open to the Government to compel airports or airlines to operate services.
I know, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde and other parliamentary colleagues from the area, from whom we have heard tonight, are involved in ongoing discussions to secure the future of the site and retain an aviation presence there, as well as working with local partners, including Blackpool council, to explore the potential for turning the airport into an enterprise zone. The airport continues to work with general aviation businesses and others based on the airport site to discuss options for them to remain there in the longer term. I warmly commend all those collaborative efforts and very much hope that a resolution can be achieved that will maintain aviation activity at the airport.
Taking a wider view, the Government remain committed to rebalancing the economy and supporting regional development. Hon. Members will know that Lancashire’s local enterprise partnership was successful earlier this year in securing over £230 million from the Government’s local growth fund to support economic growth in the area. Let me restate our determination that the UK should continue to benefit from the contribution that regional airports can offer. The Chancellor recently announced that applications will now be allowed for start-up aid for new air routes from UK regional airports. To be eligible, airports must handle fewer than 5 million passengers per annum and meet new European Union state aid guidelines. The Department for Transport is working with the Treasury to determine how the funding process will operate in practice. We hope to be in a position to announce routes that can be funded in the new year.
As hon. Members will also be aware, the independent Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, has been established to identify and recommend options to maintain this country’s status as an international hub for aviation. In preparing its interim report, the commission undertook a detailed assessment of the UK’s future aviation demand and connectivity requirements. The interim report, published last December, details a shortlist of long-term options for further study to increase airport capacity, along with recommendations for the short term to make the best use of our existing infrastructure. The commission also recognised that, in the short and medium term, the Government do not have effective levers to redistribute traffic to less congested airports, even if it were desirable to do so. All the shortlisted long-term options are now the subject of more detailed analysis and consultation by the commission. To protect the integrity of the process, the Government will not comment on any of the shortlisted options.
I was asked a number of questions. First, I was asked what the Government can do to step in and prevent the liquidator from selling off the airport’s fixtures and fittings. I can report that the Insolvency Service has confirmed that Blackpool Airport Ltd entered creditors’ voluntary liquidation proceedings on 7 October and that a liquidator was appointed on 16 October. Matters concerning the disposal of the airport’s assets are for the airport’s owner and the appointed liquidator, and we heard that it would be six to eight weeks before a sale could proceed. The liquidator has a duty to ensure that the maximum levels of realisation from sales of assets are achieved to ensure the best returns to the creditors. In the meantime, there is an important window to explore other aviation-related options.
We heard about other forms of aviation, particularly helicopters. I can comment on the North West Air Ambulance helicopter operations from Blackpool airport. The North West Air Ambulance charity has confirmed that its service will not be affected by the airport’s closure. The charity has confirmed publicly that whatever happens, it has a number of measures in place and that emergency services will not be affected. The airport continues, too, to work with other aviation support businesses and general aviation operators based at the airport site to discuss options for them to operate from the site in the longer term. I know that Bond Offshore Helicopters was mentioned in the debate.
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) is the shadow aviation Minister, and I particularly value his contribution through correspondence. He is speaking as a Back Bencher in this debate, but I understand how important this issue is for him—not only locally as the local Member of Parliament, but nationally in respect of our overall regional airport policy. When it comes to bidders, it is important to make the best use of all the land on the site and to capitalise on the opportunity. The hon. Gentleman asked me to be a messenger to the Government, but I do not think he needs me to pass on the message, as I am sure his contribution to tonight’s debate will have gone out far and wide to all interested parties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) rightly drew attention to the fact that passenger numbers, freight numbers and aircraft movements have declined and mentioned the success of Humberside in that regard. Yes, Humberside has opportunities for oil and gas, but one of the biggest problems for Blackpool by comparison with Humberside is that it is not quite so close to an airport that is as strong and competitive. My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that a KLM route from Schiphol will benefit to an extent from the distortion of air passenger duty, but I must point out that any questions about APD should properly be directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is interesting to note that what precipitated the problems at Manston was in many cases due to the fact that the KLM service was withdrawn.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde once again for securing this debate. I underline the fact that the Government are committed to improving the capacity and the efficiency of UK airports to maintain the UK’s aviation hub status. Although fully aware of the importance of regional airports in this, the Government are unable to intervene directly in Blackpool’s case, as it is ultimately the responsibility of the airport’s owner to determine whether or not it is commercially viable.
Question put and agreed to.
Morecambe Bay (Tunnel)
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
It is always a joy to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris)on securing this debate about a tunnel under Morecambe bay, and on his vision and ambition for transport as a driver of growth. This Government recognise the crucial role that effective transport plays in facilitating growth across the country, in creating a more balanced economy and in connecting communities and enabling people to access jobs, services and leisure. That is why we have been determined to secure significant levels of investment in infrastructure, and in road, rail and other public transport services. We are committed to ensuring that this investment benefits all parts of the country, from north to south.
Before setting out how much we are doing to deliver real change for transport in the north, I must make it clear that the tunnel my hon. Friend referred to forms one of the options that National Grid is currently consulting on, regarding the proposal to connect the proposed Moorside nuclear power station to the electricity transmission network, although—as he made clear in his speech—the two tunnels may not be co-located. His suggestion is for a tunnel separate from the one that National Grid is proposing. Nevertheless, I must say that any subsequent planning application by National Grid will be decided on by the appropriate planning authorities and Ministers. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to give a view on the particular details of this transport tunnel project, as I am sure my hon. Friend will understand.
I must also point out that this tunnel scheme is not a new idea. Indeed, I have a record of the debate that took place in the House on 10 May 1965, when Hector Munro—who I recall would go on to become Sir Hector Munro—asked a question of the Minister for Land and Natural resources:
“If he will make a sum of money available to Strathclyde University and to universities in England to enable them to investigate the Solway and Morecambe barrage schemes.”
The Minister in question—the hon. Member for Sunderland North, Mr Frederick Willey—replied:
“Not at this stage. The Water Resources Board is now conducting feasibility studies into the Morecambe Bay barrage project and jointly with the Scottish Office, into that for Solway Firth. We must first see how these studies progress.”
Hector Munro came back:
“Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that three Ministries have been making enthusiastic statements about these barrages for six months but that not a penny has been made available to the universities to set up study groups?”
In turn, Mr Willey came back, saying:
“I am anxious to encourage co-operation with the universities, but in this particular case we have feasibility studies in hand and we must see how they go. These are properly with the Water Resources Board and the engineering consultants.”
I have to say that that is just the sort of stuff my officials give me to read out from time to time. More importantly, the hon. Member for Farnham—a Conservative, Sir Godfrey Nicholson—asked:
“Is the Minister aware that in Morecambe Bay there are millions of shrimps? Who will watch their interests?”—[Official Report, 10 May 1965; Vol. 712, c. 15-16.]
However, it was not clear whether he had an environmental or gastronomic interest in the shrimps.
This country certainly leads the world in tunnelling. Indeed, in my own constituency there is an application for a potash mine that would incorporate two 23-mile tunnels carrying conveyor belts from the mine to Teesside. Tunnelling has come on a long way.
I now turn to transport in the north in general. I have a very clear view about the benefits that this Government’s strong commitment to transport is delivering. For example, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, after years of prevarication and delay by previous Governments we are finally delivering the £120 million-plus Heysham link road, which will link the port at Heysham with the M6 and thereby significantly enhance growth opportunities locally.
That is just one example of the way in which this Government have taken decisive action to tackle long-standing problems in the north-west. We have listened to what local businesses, organisations and communities have told us, and we have responded by investing in all modes of transport, to improve connectivity across the north-west and between the north-west and other parts of the country.
Regarding this Government’s commitment to infrastructure investment, we have already announced increased levels of Government funding to deliver improvements all around the strategic road network, which are targeted at supporting economic growth. Our commitment to deliver a step change in future investment in transport infrastructure was made clear by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement in June 2013, which announced the conclusions of the Government’s 2013 spending review.
John Woodcock
I thank the Minister for giving way; he read my mind. I would love to be able to magic up a tunnel under Morecambe bay. I would love to be able to promise my constituents a personal helipad or a teleporter in Barrow town hall to take them anywhere in the country. If I did that six months before an election, my constituents would rightly think that I was just making something up to appear more electable and would not give me much credibility. Does the Minister agree that perhaps the best thing for the Government to do is to find funds to give the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) a spade and then ask him to get digging? That may be the most realistic way of making the tunnel happen in the near future.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman produces a wish list of projects, but I must make it clear that there is no point in a wish list if there is no budget to go with it. The Government are committed to putting in £3 billion a year—some £24 billion—into roads over the next five to six years, which is more than three times the previous Government’s investment. Indeed, I seem to recall that when the Blair Government came to power in 1997 they announced a moratorium on road building, which was not good news for people struggling with congestion in the north. Coupled with the investment already mentioned, we are investing £38 billion in the classic rail network. In addition, we have ambitious plans for high-speed rail in the north, which will from day one connect the north—cities such as Carlisle and Glasgow—and will not stop at Birmingham, but will keep going.
David Morris
I thank the Minister for that point. Before becoming MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale, I secured funding for a bypass that had been discussed for 60 years. I have wish lists that actually become reality.
Mr Goodwill
My hon. Friend need not convince us of his campaigning zeal in getting the best deal for his constituents and ensuring that they and the north get their fair share of the pot. I also represent the north, so I am conscious of the criticism that all the money is being invested in London’s infrastructure and big projects such as Crossrail. It is important that the north gets its fair share in the Chancellor’s vision for High Speed 3.
The Treasury’s Command Paper “Investing in Britain’s Future” set out the fact that the Government will invest over £28 billion in enhancements and maintenance of both national and local roads in the period up to 2021, including £10.7 billion for major national road projects and £4.9 billion for local major projects. More than £12 billion has been allocated for maintenance, with nearly £6 billion for repairs to local roads and £6 billion for maintenance of strategic roads, including resurfacing 80% of the network.
On future investment planning processes, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Highways Agency is currently conducting its route strategy process. Route strategies will provide a smarter approach to investment planning across the network and see greater collaboration with stakeholders to determine the nature, need and timing of future investment that may be needed on the network. A set of strategies is being developed for the entire strategic road network, covering Lancashire, Cumbria and the north-west, London to Scotland west, and the south and north Pennines.
The route strategies are to be delivered in two stages. The first stage identified performance issues on routes, future challenges and growth opportunities, taking full account of local priorities and aspirations. Using that evidence base, the Highways Agency will establish and outline operational and investment priorities for all routes on the strategic road network. The first stage is now complete, and finalised evidence reports were published on 23 April. The second stage will use the evidence to prioritise and take forward a programme of work to identify indicative solutions to cover operational, maintenance and, if appropriate, road improvement schemes to inform future investment plans.
We are also taking action on the strategic road network in Lancashire and Cumbria now by delivering junction improvements at, for example, junction 32 of the M6 and junction 1 of the M55, on the A585 at Windy Harbour, and at junction 65 on the M65, and making safety improvements on the A590 to Barrow at Greenodd roundabout and at the A595 Mirehouse road junction near Sellafield in west Cumbria. The Highways Agency is also currently developing a scheme for a new junction on the M55 to support the Preston city deal, as well as proposals to feed into the roads investment strategy that we will announce later this year.
The schemes are tackling problems that were flagged up to us by local authorities, local enterprise partnerships and the business community—
John Woodcock
And me! On the Greenodd roundabout, it was me and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I suggest that he does so, rather than making comments from a sedentary position.
Mr Goodwill
I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to ask about that particular example.
John Woodcock
I am sorry. Just on the Greenodd tunnel, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and I pushed rather hard over a considerable number of years to get that, so the Minister might want to mention it.
Mr Goodwill
This Government are always keen to take representations from all sections of the political community. Indeed, looking at some of the investment projects, we can certainly not be accused of pork barrel politics given that much of our investment priority is for the north of England. Indeed, we have been collaborating with the leaders of the great cities in the north to ensure that projects that will support prosperity are delivered.
The Government are also investing significantly in local roads. Through our current “local majors” programme, we are making significant resources available to local authorities to take forward the transport schemes that their areas need. For example, as already highlighted, we are providing £111 million to Lancashire county council towards the £123 million Heysham link road, which will provide a much needed and long-overdue improved link to the port at Heysham, as well as providing congestion relief to the centre of Lancashire.
We are not just working on major programmes. Our pinch point programme is helping local authorities to tackle the hotspots and constraints on local roads that are holding up economic growth. Over the four rounds of the local pinch point programme, we are funding four schemes in Lancashire and Cumbria that are vital to the connectivity needs of local businesses and communities. All are due to be completed next year.
The Government recognise that the local road network is one of this country’s most valuable public assets and that we therefore need to ensure that our local roads are fit for purpose. That is why the Government are providing over £4.7 billion between 2010 to 2015 to local highway authorities in England for the roads that they are responsible for, including the £200 million we provided to councils in March 2011 to help repair damage to local roads caused by the 2010 winter, and the further £183.5 million in March 2014 following the wettest winter on record. More recently, we announced a further £168 million to councils through the pothole fund in the 2014 Budget. The 2013 spending round confirmed that just under £6 billion will be given to local highway authorities over the six-year period from April 2015 to March 2021, equating to £976 million per year and highlighting our commitment to maintaining the road network.
The Government believe that local people and organisations are best placed to understand the needs of their areas to support and boost growth. That is why we are devolving significant resources through the local growth fund to local enterprise partnerships. In the first wave of growth deals announced on 7 July, funding of up to £6 billion for local projects was awarded to the 39 LEPs, including some £3 billion of Government funding for new local transport schemes, reflecting local priorities for what is needed to support local economy growth.
The two LEPs in Lancashire and Cumbria secured significant growth deals with Government. The Lancashire LEP was awarded over £233 million, including over £70 million for vital road infrastructure around Preston to support its city deal growth aspirations, for vital rail schemes in Blackburn, a range of transport improvements in Blackpool, including an extension to the town’s iconic tram service, and a new link road in St Annes. The Cumbria LEP received over £26 million to improve station facilities at Maryport and Workington in west Cumbria as well as to address congestion in Ulverston and Kendal to support growth. Both LEPs will now be able to take forward a range of transport schemes that will support their growth aspirations.
In conclusion, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale for securing this debate. I hope that what I have said today demonstrates the Government’s real commitment to transport in Lancashire, Cumbria and the north in general.
John Woodcock
The Minister has not said anything about the prospect of a tunnel under Morecambe bay, unless I fell asleep during that bit. Does he think it is remotely realistic?
Mr Goodwill
It is certainly a scheme that would need a lot more work before the viability could be seen. One would need to see the cost-benefit ratios for any such scheme. Any scheme would have to be subject to planning and other considerations, which as a Minister it would be inappropriate for me to talk about at this time. It is absolutely clear that there is a real need for transport infrastructure in all parts of the country, particularly in the north with the development of nuclear power stations and the vital national asset that is the Sellafield plant. We all understand that it is important that it can get goods and people in and out to enable it to flourish.
It is clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale has a bold vision of how transport investment, through the provision of a tunnel under Morecambe bay, can support local growth. The Government believe that local people and organisations are best placed to understand the needs of their areas and support and boost growth. Therefore, while I support his ambition, I suggest that he engages actively with the Lancashire and Cumbria LEPs to promote this matter further.