Airports Commission: Final Report

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) for initiating this debate. She cheered up so many Conservative Members with her feistiness on election night, and we can see why she was elected. However, I have to say, as a member of the Transport Committee, that I am an avowed supporter of a third runway at Heathrow.

We have one of the biggest airports in the world, with a proven track record of success, at the edge of one of the greatest cities—possibly the greatest city—in the world, so it is frustrating that we have spent all this time prevaricating and being sucked down by, in effect, glorified nimbyism. I say to Members from west London: “It is not about you; it is about the future of the United Kingdom.” I find the stance taken by some people in recent years quite frustrating; it really is starting to wear a bit thin. This is not about electoral or mayoral campaigns; it is about the economic future of the UK.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My constituency is not affected by the airport, either as it is or as it is likely to be, but I gently say to him that this is about evidence. If he reads the report, he will have to recognise that most of its conclusions are undermined by its own evidence. This is one of the most flawed public policy documents ever created. We should base the policy on evidence, not emotion, as he says.

[Mark Menzies]

Actually, I have read the report and the one thing very clear from it is that Davies has given a very strong indication of a preference. It is very frustrating that those who are viscerally opposed to Heathrow refuse, time and again, to provide clear alternative options. Today we have even heard Members say, “Let’s have more reviews and more discussions. Let’s kick it into the long grass.” We have even heard threats that the runway will never be built because of legal challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to respond to the launch by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) of an airport expansion project into Kent and East Sussex. It will not surprise him to hear that that is not the answer I would favour, and neither would it be favoured by many of my friends, colleagues and neighbours in west Kent and Sussex. That is not the answer for the simple reason that it is the wrong answer for people in the London area and the south- east; it is wrong for the country and for our economy. It will not answer the question of economic development or of replacing Schiphol or Charles de Gaulle airports, and it will not answer the challenge that was put so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), who spoke about the need for hub airports. It is wrong, wrong, wrong, and just because someone does not like Heathrow does not mean that the answer is Gatwick.

Three years and £20 million has been spent on this report, and it should not be reversed by a few words in this House. It has taken many years of effort, and it is now the right time for us to settle down and get on with things. When we consider the economic development of the United Kingdom and the challenges that globalisation presents us with, there are those who say, “Why can’t we use Skype or videoconferencing?” The simple answer is that we are humans. We interact, meet and talk, and that is how we do business and communicate.

It is essential that we travel, and part of that demands that we can get to places where we need to be. Although I like the idea of Birmingham, and I would love to see more investment in Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh, in reality, sadly we are all lured to this den of Mammon, this city of London, because it is here where so much of our business is done. I wish it were not so, because in my community of Tonbridge, Edenbridge and West Malling, there is so much opportunity for people to enjoy a proper life that is not ruined by the traffic and the smog that we in London all know.

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for his constituents and for the UK. The other den of Mammon in the world is New York, but that does not have a hub airport. No hub airport anywhere in the world is restricted to three runways, and therefore there is an internal contradiction in the report. New York has three airports—we could also run the New York solution in London.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, but even he will recognise that if we were looking at the United States—I wish people a very happy thanksgiving—we would consider the 50 states and ask, “Where is that den of Mammon?” I think we would all say, “It’s Chicago.” I am afraid that Chicago O’Hare has the appeal that productivity comes from a hub airport.

There is enormous pressure on time, so I will say only that having had Gatwick as a neighbour for a number of years, I have seen what a bad neighbour it is. It has changed flight routes, narrowed flight paths over communities in my area, disrupted lives and ruined sleep—including that of my most immediate constituent: my wife—and it has made the lives of many people in the villages of Penshurst, Chiddingstone and Hever an absolute misery. I urge hon. Members to think hard before rejecting the amount of work that has gone into this report, and before rejecting this opportunity for economic growth for the United Kingdom, so that we can take back our rightful place as the absolute centre of the international community.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman’s thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who used to be my Parliamentary Private Secretary, for his superb question, which rightly exposes the huge road investment that the Government are taking forward.

The study that the hon. Gentleman refers to is being done by Colin Matthews. I await his report, and it is in addition to the scheme that has already been announced.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

The Chancellor’s Budget last week confirmed the road investment strategy. How many extra miles of motorway and trunk road will it mean?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am reliably informed by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) that it entails 1,300 more miles.

Network Rail

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

It is wrong to say that I have reneged on those commitments. What I have said is that the Great Western railway line was always a priority for electrification, but that I want to see electrification on the other lines as well. A fair amount of the work that is required, such as bridge building and replacement, has already been done on the midland main line, and I hope very much that the line will be electrified, but at present it is right for us to ensure that we secure the best value for money on the railways.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that electrification is difficult. I know that he has spent a great deal of time in the past year ensuring that Network Rail bears down on its costs. I warmly welcome his statement, particularly what he said about governance measures. May I urge him, however, to take all necessary measures to ensure that Network Rail stays within its spending and funding allowances? That, and only that, will enable passengers to see the benefit of the Government’s long-term commitment to rail investment.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The level of our investment in the railways is unprecedented in comparison with that of recent Governments, but it is also important for us to secure best value for our investment. That is one of the tasks with which I have charged Sir Peter Hendy, and I look forward to receiving his report later this year.

High Speed 2

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer]

The Transport Committee is in favour of HS2 and has not been quoted. The experience from French cities is that it depends on how much effort a city makes. I expect that the creativity of Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield will produce an experience much like that of Lille, where there has been real economic benefit.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I want to support the hon. Gentleman’s point. The history of Japan presents a salient experience. Far from producing a gravitational pull to the centre, what it has done is create a gravitational pull to where the high-speed rail has been built, on parkway stations.

[Graham Stringer]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I will finish with two quick points. Hon. Members have said that we should focus on east-west links in the north of the country, but actually it is much more likely—this is already happening—that we will get those links if we have a strong north-south link.

Finally, people have quoted the cost-benefit analysis, but the House of Lords Committee did not look at its own evidence well. Professor Dieter Helm, professor of energy policy at Oxford, said:

“A moment’s reflection indicates how weak such techniques are when it comes to deciding how much infrastructure to provide. For infrastructure typically comes in systems, not discrete bits. Choosing what sort and level of infrastructure to supply is not a marginal decision. It is often about one system or another. Marginal analysis—as the core of cost-benefit analysis—has little obvious to offer.”

High Speed 2 has a great deal to offer to both the north and the south of the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

Road maintenance is just short of £1 billion a year. This Government are not neglecting road maintenance and we are certainly not neglecting roads—[Interruption.] I know the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am smooth, but I am never airbrushed. This Government’s commitment to roads is unprecedented and I recommend to the Opposition that they recognise that such infrastructure investment is something on which there should be consensus. Unless there is consensus, we will not build the confidence that is necessary to get the investment that is in the national interest.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I share my right hon. Friend’s enthusiasm and confidence about the future under the strategy, although perhaps I do not express it so eloquently. One of the most exciting elements of the strategy is the introduction of smart motorways. Will he say a little about how the Government’s plans for that are going?

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend will know that the way in which people drive, the vehicles they use and the interface between the driver and the road will change. That is already happening with smart motorways. We have been innovative in the work we have done on that and there is more to be done, but what is certain is that the Government need to consider all the technological changes that will inform the alteration in how people use roads in the way that he implies. The smart motorways programme is important, but it is also important that we articulate that message more clearly. I know that the Secretary of State will be saying more about this over the coming weeks and months, and I will be too, because I think it is important that people understand the opportunity that lies ahead of us.

Rail Network (Disruption)

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

No.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I join my right hon. Friend in congratulating Network Rail staff on the extraordinary maintenance programme and welcome his swift action in calling Network Rail to account. Will he assure the House that when Network Rail reports to him it will, first, ensure that the systemic failure at King’s Cross is not repeated and does not become endemic across the industry; and, secondly, that, as more services become operational, punctuality is improved?

Road Investment Strategy

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I want to see all parts of the United Kingdom well served. A huge amount of investment is already planned on the roads leading to Plymouth and that is very important.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I welcome the announcement of the first ever roads investment strategy, which I know is the culmination of several years of careful preparation by my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that it is the five-year funding deal that is likely to be transformational and to open up efficiency opportunities in both procurement and the supply chain, which will ensure that these schemes can be delivered?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Yes, and may I say to my hon. Friend how grateful I am to him as although he did not specifically deal with this issue, we did discuss it in general when he was in the Department? He is absolutely right in what he says; we have seen that as far as the railways are concerned—the long-term planning for the rail investment strategy is very important. Likewise, the construction industry will be welcoming this statement as far as its long-term planning is concerned, because it also means that the industry should be able to take on apprentices and plan and train right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

As Secretary of State for Transport I have seen franchises being told to convert first class carriages to standard class carriages so that more people can travel. I think I am the first Secretary of State to do that. It was not done by any previous Labour Secretary of State, so I am very pleased about that. On Pacers, I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. We must look for better services for those people who are currently served by Pacers, possibly by improving and redesigning the Pacers, which some of the companies are looking at. It is certainly something that I am interested in.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the record that he set out to our hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). If he looks at the restarted franchise, which sees more passengers being put right at the heart of the process, more towns likely to come on to the network, and more seats available, does he agree that far from being yesterday’s industry, this is likely to be the industry of tomorrow and these trains are likely to accelerate?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I start by thanking my hon. Friend for all the work he did in improving and getting franchises back on the road after the difficulty that we inherited when we first entered the Department two years ago. He made a great contribution to that. I completely agree with him. As I said, all the meetings I have with various local authority leaders now are about increasing capacity and providing more and better services. The train operating companies and the rolling stock leasing companies all have roles to play in doing that.

British Transport Police Authority (Triennial Review)

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

My noble Friend, the Minister for Transport, Baroness Kramer, has made the following ministerial statement:

I am today publishing the part 1 report of the triennial review of the British Transport police authority (BTPA).

The BTPA is the non-departmental public body (NDPB) responsible for ensuring an efficient and effective British Transport police (BTP) force for rail operators, their staff and passengers.

The review has been progressed in two parts. Part 1—the core triennial review—has considered the continuing need for the BTPA’s functions and the case for it to remain a NDPB. It has also looked at the control and governance arrangements in place to ensure that the BTPA is complying with recognised principles of good corporate governance.

Part 2 of the review considers a wider range of issues raised by the industry about the effectiveness of the BTPA in the discharge of its functions and the industry’s ability to influence outcomes.

I am pleased to announce the conclusion of the part 1 review and the publication of the report.

The report concludes that the functions of the BTPA are still necessary, that it remains the right body for delivering them and that the BTPA should remain a NDPB.

The report also concludes that the overall level of compliance with good practice on corporate governance is good, with just a few omissions and weaknesses which should be capable of being quickly addressed. The Department for Transport will be taking these recommended measures forward in discussion with the BTPA over the coming months.

I would like to thank Peter Murphy for carrying out a thorough analysis of the BTPA and its governance arrangements, and the BTPA for their assistance as well as all the other stakeholders who were involved during the course of the review including those who were part of the challenge group which was set up to oversee the review.

The review was conducted in accordance with Cabinet Office guidance (Guidance on reviews of non-departmental public bodies, June 2011).

The report is available on gov.uk and I have made available copies in the Libraries of both Houses.

Local Sustainable Transport Fund

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

My noble Friend the Minister for Transport, Baroness Kramer, has made the following ministerial statement:

I am today announcing the successful bids for the local sustainable transport fund 2015-16 revenue funding competition. Almost all eligible local authorities submitted a bid for funding, and 44 were successful. The successful schemes will deliver a range of sustainable transport interventions across England, including enhanced cycling and walking infrastructure, improved bus journeys and better transport interchanges. All bids needed to demonstrate how the proposed programme would deliver economic growth, benefit the environment, influence greater uptake of cycling and walking, improve health and create a more joined-up door-to-door journey for people.

The successful projects will share over £64 million in revenue funding. Each project has provided its own matched contribution; the overall total of this matched funding is over £375 million. This includes over £100 million sourced directly from the local growth fund. This means that for every £1 the Department for Transport will invest through the local sustainable transport fund in 2015-16, local authorities will contribute £5.80 over the six years to 2020-21.

Examples of some successful projects include:

Birmingham will be continuing their ambition to become a premier cycling city through an extension of their cycling ambition programme;

Devon’s successful Access 2 Education programme will be extended to continue their work encouraging students across the country to travel more sustainably to school and training;

Jobseekers in Tamworth will be supported to access employment through cycling training and improved transport interchanges; and

East Lancashire will benefit from a range of cycling improvements, including an enhanced strategic cycle network that will provide links between housing, employment and town centres.

The announcement contains a number of projects that will significantly support the Government’s “Moving More, Living More” campaign, which seeks to create a more active nation as part of the physical activity legacy to the Olympic and Paralympic games.

The full list of successful schemes has been published on the Department for Transport’s website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/local-sustainable-transport-fund.