Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
2. What steps he is taking to make Britain’s railway system more financially viable.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
Sir Roy McNulty’s review of value for money on the railway has produced a scoping study that identifies that the UK’s railway is, prima facie, up to 40% more expensive than railways elsewhere in Europe. We must adjust to a world in which our aspirations for a successful railway have to be met from within a much tighter public spending envelope. I have therefore asked Sir Roy to accelerate his work looking at the drivers of cost across the industry, and to produce recommendations for creating a sustainable railway with growing passenger usage and declining subsidy.
Chris Skidmore
According to the parliamentary report “Transport in the South West”, the south-west has been hit with an increase in the price of unregulated fares. The report states that some rail fares between Swindon and London—a distance of only 77 miles—are the highest for a comparable distance anywhere in Europe. Will my right hon. Friend consider the impact of unregulated fares, especially in Bristol and my constituency of Kingswood, in future rail policy decisions?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. About 60% of rail journeys are undertaken using regulated fares, which are governed by the formula imposed by the Department for Transport, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has today initiated a consultation on future franchising strategy, and we can certainly take my hon. Friend’s representation as a response to that consultation.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
The inefficiencies identified by Sir Roy McNulty must be addressed as a matter of urgency, but does the Secretary of State agree that passengers, and indeed freight, must not be priced off the railway, and that essential investment, such as electrification, must go ahead?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s support for the review and the work that Sir Roy McNulty is doing, and I am glad that she recognises the urgency of ensuring that our railway is affordable and sustainable, so that it can attract the investment that it needs. I agree with her that we need a sustainable railway with growing passenger numbers and growing freight usage.
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend agree that we want a sector that not only is financially sound, but delivers a better quality of service for passengers?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is, once again, absolutely right. The objective must be to have a railway that is responsive to the needs of its customers, generating viability by responding to those needs—in fact, a railway that does what businesses throughout the economy do if they are to be successful and sustainable.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
I agree with the Secretary of State that a central issue for the financial viability of the railways is the Government’s future policy on fare increases. The coalition agreement commits the Government to fair increases in rail ticket costs. Will the Secretary of State confirm recent reports that he has proposed to the Treasury changing the formula on capped fares and season tickets for next year from the retail prices index plus 1% to as much as RPI plus 5%? Does he not understand how unfair and unreasonable a fares hike of up to 10% will be to millions of hard-pressed commuters across the country if he cannot give an assurance to the House that every penny in increased fare revenues will be reinvested in the new rolling stock and capital projects that our railway system so badly needs?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman got to the nub of the issue in his last sentence. The coalition agreement commits us to a policy of fair fares, and we are committed to ensuring that fares are fair for rail users. No decisions have been made as yet about future fare increases, but he correctly identifies that, as a result of the spending review precipitated by the fiscal crisis that we have inherited, there may have to be a trade-off between fares and continuing vital investment in our railway. I have said that it would be wrong to rule out, ahead of the spending review, any change to the fare policy.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
6. What assessment he has made of the implications for his Department’s policy of Sir Andrew Foster’s report on the intercity express programme.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
My statement to the House of 6 July announced that a decision on the future of the intercity express programme would be made as part of the spending review announcement in October, and that the Government would use the intervening time to pause for reflection and a fresh, detailed analysis, including a review of the alternatives in line with Sir Andrew’s recommendations.
Mike Crockart
I thank my right hon. Friend for his response, but given that the country and indeed his Department continue to suffer from significant budgetary pressures, would it not be better to cancel the IEP programme and extend the life of our InterCity 125 trains, which have performed very well over the years, so that we can continue to invest in matters such as upgrading track infrastructure and high-speed rail, which would deliver significant economic benefits?
Mr Hammond
The previous Government commissioned a report from Sir Andrew Foster, which has now been delivered. It was a detailed piece of work containing a lot of recommendations, and one of Sir Andrew’s suggestions was that we should review the possibility of an upgrade and life extension of the existing 125 fleet. That is one option that we will consider during the pause that I mentioned.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
If the intercity express programme survives the comprehensive spending review, Hitachi intends to build the trains in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency, creating hundreds of jobs there and thousands in the manufacturing supply chain. It would be one of the biggest investments in the north-east since Nissan. Would the Minister be prepared to meet me and a delegation of north-east businessmen and trade unionists so that we can get the point across about how important the scheme is to the north-east of England?
Mr Hammond
I am always happy to meet Members, and I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, but I can tell him that I met the president of Hitachi recently on his visit from Tokyo, and that I have met the Japanese ambassador, and they forcefully made the same points as him. We will of course take them into account.
I should perhaps say that Hitachi is also interested in other rail projects in the UK, and we have heard very encouraging signs that the company intends to establish a serious presence in the UK as part of our future rail infrastructure development.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that as a direct result of our investment, more people are using our railways than at any time since the 1940s. That is good for the environment and for tackling congestion and all its consequences. Continuing with our programme of additional rolling stock will not only lead to more jobs but be good for British manufacturing and growth. It is also a good way to continue to encourage more people to leave their cars and use our rail network. Will he aggressively lobby the Treasury for more investment in rolling stock, rather than listen to some of his hon. Friends who want cuts in additional rolling stock?
Mr Hammond
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is conflating the debate on the high-level output specification rolling stock programme with that on the intercity express programme, but once again he shows a failure to recognise the reality of the situation that we have inherited from the previous Government. We have to deal with the fiscal crisis facing this country and prioritise investment in matters that will support economic growth and the decarbonisation of the economy. We will do that job effectively, and he will hear the result once the spending review is announced in October.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
7. What representations he has received on upgrading the A64 between York and Scarborough; and if he will make a statement.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
12. What plans he has for the future of the franchise for the east coast main line rail service.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
The Government intend to let a new franchise to return the operation of east coast main line rail services to the private sector. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State launched a franchising review this morning, seeking views on the most appropriate options to secure longer-term investment. In the meantime, services will continue to be provided by the East Coast Main Line Company Ltd, which the Department owns in its entirety.
Hugh Bayley
The headquarters of the east coast rail service has been based in York since the 19th century because logistically it is the right place to be. Will the Secretary of State examine the case for reducing uncertainty for the key business partners of the east coast train operating company by confirming that the new franchisee, when appointed, will be required to keep the headquarters of the business in York?
Mr Hammond
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention on behalf of his constituents and I understand the concerns that the uncertainty will cause. However, it would be wrong, in view of the franchising consultation that my right hon. Friend the Minister has announced today, for me to start making prescriptive statements about what a future franchisee under an as yet undetermined franchising regime will be required to do.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
13. What progress has been made on the Government’s review of rail franchising; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
There is a large and well-integrated Sikh community in the UK. Special arrangements to take account of their headwear have existed at least since the introduction of compulsory motorcycle helmets. On 29 April, the European Union altered the rules on the searching of religious headwear at airports, and this has provoked a furious reaction from members of the Sikh community. On 25 June, I instructed UK airports that they should temporarily revert to the previous arrangements, despite the EU rules. The Sikh community has recognised this positive step and we are now working with them and with the EU to identify a suitable way forward.
Gareth Johnson
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is aware of the EU’s initiative that means that turbans can be searched and, indeed, unravelled by airport security officers. Does he agree that we need an approach that protects the security of travellers, but that also fully recognises the importance of turbans to the followers of the Sikh religion?
Mr Hammond
I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend. The ultimate solution probably lies in the introduction of scanners as a primary means of security screening at our airports. At the moment, that cannot be done under EU rules. Part of my discussion with the EU is seeking to persuade it that we can resolve the particular problems of religious headwear by addressing the wider issue of adopting scanners as a primary screening method.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
16. When he expects to announce his Department’s decision on the planned widening by the Highways Agency of the A14 around Kettering.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
Since I last answered departmental questions, we have announced a new framework for the economic regulation of airports; our south-east airports taskforce has commenced work; we have announced the sale of High Speed 1; and we have launched a £15 million fund to incentivise the purchase of low-carbon buses. I have also prepared and submitted a spending review bid to the Treasury.
Dr Poulter
I thank the Minister of State for her earlier answer in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) in respect of recognising the importance of the East Suffolk line to the future prosperity of central and eastern Suffolk. Part of improving the infrastructure is a vital stretch of track called the Beccles loop, which would enable a future franchisee to run a full London to Lowestoft service. May we count on the Secretary of State’s support in pursuing the funding for that vital stretch of track?
Mr Hammond
Any future proposals for rail enhancements will be considered in the usual way in setting the output requirements for control period 5, which will define Network Rail’s investment programme from 2014 onwards.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
More than 1 million Londoners are entitled to Labour’s freedom pass and more than 11 million older and disabled people in England are entitled to Labour’s concessionary bus pass. Pass holders have been made anxious by reports in the media of the submission made to the Treasury by the Secretary of State in relation to the comprehensive spending review. The CSR is three months away, so can he reassure those anxious older and disabled citizens that he has not submitted, in his job application/CSR bid, any change in the eligibility requirements for those who receive the bus pass?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman refers to two separate things. The arrangements in London are of course the responsibility of the Conservative Mayor of London, and I cannot answer for the decisions that he will make on the operation of the scheme in London. With regard to the national scheme, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have both made clear their commitment to the scheme in its current form. It is enshrined in primary legislation and we have no plans to change it.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
T2. The Chancellor promised that the vulnerable would be protected from budget cuts, but I know that Ministers will be well aware that there has been much speculation about the future viability of the bus service operators grant, which is clearly essential to many marginal rural services, the sustainability of which would be called into question if that were to be in any way cut. What reassurance can Ministers give me and my constituents that those rural services, which are essential—
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
T7. Has the ministerial team seen the comments by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) in which he called for the privatisation of motorways and a widespread increase in road tolling? Will Ministers rule out such proposals for the duration of this Parliament?
Mr Philip Hammond
The coalition Government have indeed ruled out the tolling of the existing road network for the duration of this Parliament.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
T3. What are the Government going to do to make it safer for motorcyclists by improving the tests for motorcyclists? In particular, the last Government so reduced the number of test sites that we had the slightly ludicrous situation of motorcyclists who had not passed the test having to travel considerable distances on their motorbikes to take the test. So can we see some improvement in the test regime for motorcyclists?
Mr Speaker
Order. This is Topical Questions, so one question—short and sharp.
Mr Hammond
I think I can gather the balance of the question, Mr Speaker. We well understand that the national strategic and economic benefits of the high- speed rail network have to be balanced against local environmental disbenefits. Of course, the project will be designed with maximum sensitivity in mind, and I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that I will be visiting the line of the proposed route in the summer recess.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Last week, I spoke to residents in Heswall in my constituency who are most concerned to get the train to Liverpool rather than their cars. The Wrexham to Bidston electrification project is vital for that. Will the Minister explain briefly what work her officials in the Department are doing to work with Network Rail, Merseytravel and others to take this vital project forward?
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State respond to a letter that I received from a constituent of mine, Mr Rod East? He is 61 and has a concessionary bus pass. Plymouth city council will have to renew it in 2011 under the system it is operating. Will he please confirm his earlier statement that no changes to the concessionary bus pass will apply to Plymouth city council?
Mr Hammond
I can only repeat what I said earlier: we have no plans to change the national concessionary scheme. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have both made very clear their commitment to the national scheme.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
T6. I welcome the Government’s commitment to high speed rail, particularly to encourage people to use rail instead of domestic air travel. Given the rising cost of rail compared with flying, what will the Secretary of State do to get the price mechanism right in order to get this shift from air to rail?
Mr Philip Hammond
The High Speed 2 project will introduce a massive increase in capacity. These will be huge trains, with 1,100 seats each, and they will run at a very high frequency. Simple demand-and-supply economics should help to keep travel affordable. At the same time, after 2012, aviation will come within the European emissions trading scheme, and the carbon costs of aviation will start to be reflected in the cost of flying.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Will the Minister rule out reclassifying Network Rail as a public company, which would be a Railtrack mark 2, and commit to a not-for-dividend organisation?
Airports (Economic Regulation)
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
In the Queen’s Speech the Government announced their intention to reform the framework for the economic regulation of airports. Today I am announcing the direction of our proposals.
The Government have previously announced that they do not support the construction of a third runway at Heathrow airport nor additional runways at either Stansted or Gatwick airports. Instead, it is the Government’s intention to make these airports better and not bigger, delivering better outcomes for passengers without additional runways.
To deliver operational improvements at these airports, I have recently announced the creation of the South East Airports Taskforce and that group has already begun its work.
I plan to introduce a new set of duties for the Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) economic regulation of airports which will put the interests of passengers unambiguously at the heart of the regime. Under these proposals the CAA’s primary duty will be to promote the interests of existing and future passengers.
Where regulation is necessary it must be proportionate. Airports vary in size and market power and therefore should not be subject to identical regulation. To allow economic regulation to be used in a targeted way, I plan to introduce a new licensing regime to be applied only to airports with substantial market power and where such regulation adds real value. We presently expect this regime will apply initially to Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports.
Airports subject to economic regulation by the CAA need to operate efficiently and effectively and I am clear that significant investment will be required if passengers’ expectations are to be met. The proposals I am outlining today are to reform the framework for airport economic regulation to drive passenger-focused investment in better facilities such as baggage handling equipment or terminal improvements. These proposals will allow economic regulation to be used in a more targeted way to deliver passengers’ priorities and will remove unnecessary bureaucracy and political involvement from the regulatory process.
In order to ensure the financial resilience of UK airports, I will also introduce a supplementary financing duty and minimum credit worthiness requirements as well as ring-fencing conditions where there is a net benefit in introducing such measures, and require the preparation of plans for continuity of service should an airport operator get into financial difficulties.
All too often, regulation can crowd out commercial incentives to make improvements, so I intend to provide the CAA with the option, where appropriate, to respond to anti-competitive behaviour using competition law powers rather than by applying its regulatory tools. I propose to bring airport economic regulation into line with other regulated sectors of the economy by granting the CAA concurrent powers with the Office of Fair Trading. This will enable the CAA to investigate and remedy anti-competitive behaviour in the provision of airport services at airports, and where appropriate to make referrals to the Competition Commission for investigation. Supporting competition in this way may, in time, allow the regulator to gradually loosen its regulatory grip.
Effective enforcement is critical to the efficiency of any regulatory system. To bring airport economic regulation into line with other regulated sectors of the economy I plan to introduce civil sanctions, including financial penalties, for the CAA to enforce licence conditions, creating a more efficient and responsive enforcement regime.
An efficient and credible appeals mechanism is necessary to ensure a regulator is accountable. Under the current regime, persons with sufficient interest may apply for judicial review of the CAA’s decisions. The industry is unanimous in its view that judicial review alone is an unsuitable process for providing accountability. The option to apply for judicial review must remain, but I propose to introduce a system for merit-based appeals, to a body with relevant expertise, against certain decisions taken by the regulator. This new system will apply to appeals against decisions on which airports should be regulated and to appeals arising out of contested licence modifications, including new price controls.
After careful consideration, I have decided not to give a new remit to Passenger Focus to represent air passengers as had previously been proposed. While it is important to have strong passenger representation, this is not the time to be make additional structural changes which would add to the regulatory burden on industry. I will therefore be exploring options for strengthening existing passenger representation arrangements.
I am also publishing today analysis of responses to further consultations on certain detailed provisions relating to financial resilience of operators and to concurrency powers. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.
Rolling Stock
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I am today announcing that a decision on the future of the intercity express programme (IEP) will be made at the same time as the spending review announcement in October. IEP would provide new trains for the east coast and Great Western main lines, and is separate from the high speed 2 proposal. IEP is a complex programme which has interdependencies with several other major rail projects, and as expenditure on rail projects will necessarily be reassessed in the context of the spending review, it would be irresponsible to make a decision on IEP in isolation at this time.
Agility Trains was appointed preferred bidder to build and maintain the new IEP fleet in February 2009. In February of this year, the previous Government invited Sir Andrew Foster, former head of the Audit Commission, to provide an independent assessment of the value for money of the intercity express programme and the credibility and the value for money of any alternatives which meet the programme’s objectives. Sir Andrew presented his report to me at the end of June, and I am publishing it today.
Sir Andrew suggests that the inter-city express proposition is “positive and attractive” in a number of ways. He suggests that the PFI-style funding arrangement is novel and well aligned in terms of financial incentives. The faster acceleration and longer carriages would have a positive impact on network and passenger capacity, and the specification has also taken network sustainability and environmental imperatives seriously.
Sir Andrew does express some doubts over the technical feasibility of the new bi-mode trains, but I see this as a lesser issue. While this is a clearly challenging project, I have been impressed by Agility’s willingness to take on the commercial risk for the reliability and performance of the trains. In addition, Hitachi—Agility’s major shareholder—has already demonstrated its commitment to delivering high quality products to the UK rail market through its development and deployment of the new Javelin trains for high speed 1.
While Sir Andrew’s report acknowledges that the programme has exceeded the Department’s value for money thresholds, the value for money has declined over time, and Sir Andrew suggests that he is not convinced that all of the viable alternatives to the programme have been assessed alongside it on an equal footing. Therefore the Government will use the period until the spending review announcement in October to give further consideration to the alternatives to IEP.
Sir Andrew also expressed some concern over the widespread scepticism of the programme within the rail industry. He suggests that the need for commercial confidentiality in the much delayed procurement process—that was run by the previous administration—has resulted in insufficient communication between the Department and the key stakeholders. Despite involving the rail industry in the procurement process, a sense of disengagement developed, which could have been avoided.
This Government fully recognise these concerns and we are already acting on them. In future, we will involve the rail industry more fully in decision making. We have already invited the industry to contribute to Sir Roy McNulty’s review of costs in the rail sector. In addition, we have announced that we will consult widely on franchising policy, allowing the industry to suggest ways to improve the efficiency and value for money of rail franchises, for both taxpayers and farepayers. We will also work with the rail industry to consider how best, in future, to procure and implement major investments in rolling stock, as well as how best to implement the changes that follow from the spending review.
Finally, it remains for me to thank Sir Andrew Foster, Agility Trains and those from the across the rail industry who contributed to the review.
Copies of Sir Andrew Foster’s report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on the Departments website (www.dft.gov.uk).
EU Transport Council
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I attended the second Transport Council of the Spanish presidency in Luxembourg on 24 June.
The Council adopted a decision to sign a protocol amending the 2007 Air Transport Agreement with the United States. I noted the UK’s support for the decision and that we would look forward to further co-operation and reform in the future under the mechanisms set down in the agreement, particularly with regard to the liberalisation of investment opportunities in airline operators. The protocol itself was signed by the presidency on behalf of the EU, by Ministers on behalf of the member states, and by the US ambassador to Luxembourg and the US Assistant Transportation Secretary for Aviation on behalf of the US.
The Commission updated Ministers on the work requested by the extraordinary Transport Council on 4 May on the topic of the volcanic ash cloud. The Commission reported that there was ongoing technical work in refining the limit values that would provide a definition of a safe environment for flying and on adopting new mechanisms and approaches for co-ordinating action at the EU level. Guidance had been produced on how passenger rights legislation should be applied and work was ongoing with respect to a European mobility plan. In respect of state aid, the Commission noted that the treaty opens the possibility for member states to compensate airlines, but to date no member state had in fact made a formal request for state aid clearance, nor had any draft proposals been presented to the Commission. I noted that more technical work was needed to refine limit values and that there was a need to maintain pressure in order to establish safe tolerance levels. I further noted that there was an opportunity to pool efforts for conducting research flights. Although we acknowledged the losses suffered by business as a result of this event, I indicated that in current circumstances, with constrained budgets, the UK would not wish to raise expectations that financial assistance would be forthcoming. While passenger protection during the closure of airspace was vital, I asked the Commission to review Regulation 261/2004, on passenger rights, in light of the European Court of Justice decision of November 2009 which has resulted in some perverse and disproportionate consequences with respect to the financial impact on airlines of having to compensate passengers for delayed flights.
Council conclusions were adopted unanimously on the Commission’s Urban Mobility Action Plan, which sets out a framework of initiatives to promote integrated policies and optimise urban mobility. The conclusions support the development of sustainable urban mobility policies, while maintaining the principle of subsidiarity.
The presidency noted that the European Council had recently agreed its Europe 2020 strategy for growth, and invited views on how transport could contribute to the strategy. The Commission stated that, although it did not feature prominently in the Europe 2020 package, transport was important for growth, and the strategy provided a suitable basis for the Commission to take forward its work on transport. A White Paper would be forthcoming before the end of the year which would include views on intelligent transport systems, multi-modality, and alternative sources of funding. I noted that the UK’s overarching national objectives for transport were to support economic growth and contribute to the 2020 carbon reduction targets. Additionally, I stressed the importance of having competitive transport services, and the need to avoid excessive regulatory burdens on business.
Following the Detroit terrorist incident at the end of 2009, the Commission presented its communication on the use of security scanners at EU airports. I stated that EU restrictions which currently prevented the effective and efficient use of security scanners needed to be removed and urged the Commission to bring forward the necessary legislative proposals to facilitate this, in order to allow scanners to be used as a primary method of screening at UK airports.
The Commission informed the Council of the adoption of the Galileo Action Plan in June and that the focus would now be on co-ordination of efforts, with regulatory proposals only being bought forward if necessary.
During a further discussion on the Galileo programme, I informed Ministers that, following the success of a joint bid with France to host the Galileo Security Monitoring Centre, the UK would be withdrawing its bid to host the Galileo Supervisory Authority and would instead support the bid of the Czech Republic to host this entity in Prague. I also informed Ministers that the UK would not support any additional funding requests for the Galileo programme, within the current financial perspective.
The Commission announced that it intended to withdraw the proposal to exclude self-employed drivers from the scope of the 2002 Road Transport Working Time Directive following the recent rejection of the proposals by the European Parliament. With support from the other delegations, I urged the Commission to continue with efforts to seek a compromise solution with the Parliament.
EU Transport Council
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I will attend the second Transport Council of the Spanish presidency which will take place in Luxembourg on 24 June.
A wide-ranging EU-US air transport agreement came into effect in April 2008. Its provisions included removal of all commercial restrictions on flights between the EU and the US; and improved co-operation in safety, security, competition, consumer protection and the environment. Negotiations for “Stage 2” of the agreement began in May 2008. The negotiations have led to a solid outcome, which includes recognition of the importance of greater access for airlines to global capital markets and a widening of the reach of the agreement in environmental matters. I propose to agree to the signature of the Stage 2 agreement at the Council. A signing ceremony is planned for later in the day.
The Commission will present to the Council its report on the EU response to the consequences of the recent volcanic ash cloud on air transport. The Commission’s report was produced at the request of an extraordinary session of the Transport Council on 4 May. The Commission is expected to provide an overview of the technical work that has been taking place at national, European and global level to increase the understanding of safe flying in areas affected by ash and to examine how the rules and guidance might be improved. My intention would be to encourage further co-operation in this area in order to ensure that airlines and passengers are subjected to the minimum of disruption internationally should there be another eruption. The issue of financial assistance for companies affected by the ash disruption may arise. While recognising the significant financial impact of lost revenue and/or passenger assistance, I do not intend to raise any expectations and would propose to emphasise that budgetary constraints make any support from UK taxpayers unlikely.
The Council will be asked to adopt conclusions following the Commission Communication on Urban Mobility, which set out an action plan. We support the principles of the action plan, and the opportunity to spread best practice across the Community. The conclusions take a common-sense approach by making use wherever possible, of existing institutions, programmes and instruments. I welcome the recognition that intelligent transport systems offer strategic options for improving urban mobility as this is an area that the UK has focused on. I also welcome the focus in the conclusions on research of all kinds on clean and energy-efficient vehicles. It is important that the action plan does not lead to further legislation, and that cities and city regions retain the freedom to pursue and implement locally relevant solutions.
There will be a policy debate on the role of transport in the “Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth”. No conclusions are expected and no decisions will be taken. I will take the opportunity to highlight how EU transport policy can and should promote jobs and growth.
Notable among the AOB items is a report from the Commission on security scanners. This report concludes that security scanners at airports could help to reinforce passenger security and, where deployed, should be covered by common EU-wide standards covering performance, fundamental rights and health provisions. Scanners are currently deployed at several UK airports.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I have not discussed the expansion of Heathrow with business representatives since my appointment, as we have made it clear that we will not support a third runway at Heathrow. This Government’s focus is on making Heathrow better not bigger.
Mr Hanson
I welcome the Secretary of State to his position. I do not always agree with the CBI, but it has joined the Trades Union Congress and unions across London to say that the expansion of Heathrow is good for business and for London. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore be careful that, in taking his stance—I recognise that it is one of integrity—he does not end up exporting jobs and business from London to Munich, Frankfurt and Paris?
Mr Hammond
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, both parties in the coalition campaigned before the general election on a clear commitment to scrap the third runway at Heathrow. However, we are not anti-aviation and, earlier this week, I set up a working group to consider aviation in the south-east and to work with all the stakeholders, including representatives of business, the airlines and people who work at the airport to ascertain how we can make aviation in the south-east work better within the constraints of existing runway capacity.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
The people of Ealing Central and Acton were delighted by the decision to scrap the third runway. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the third runway had gone ahead, it would have imposed intolerable extra blight on those who live in west London?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When considering airport expansion, we must look at not only the economic benefits but the local environmental burdens and the impact on this Government’s and the previous Government’s commitments to CO2 reduction.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. I also welcome his comments about undertaking a review of aviation policy in the south-east because that suggests that the economic case has not been forgotten. Does he agree that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said, when there is spare capacity in Paris, Schiphol and Frankfurt, and Dubai has built six runways, we run the risk of being disadvantaged not only by the rest of Europe, but by being bypassed by planes flying straight to the Americas from Asia through Dubai?
Mr Hammond
Heathrow is Britain’s premier hub airport and we intend to ensure that it remains a major hub airport. We want to work with business and other stakeholders to ensure that Heathrow becomes better, not bigger, and that we protect its status.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
2. If he will take steps to reduce congestion at the Dartford crossing.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
6. What assessment has been made of the effects on front-line transport services of the announced expenditure reductions for his Department in 2010-11.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I can reassure my hon. Friend that this Government take protecting front-line services very seriously. However, we also take very seriously the need to deal with the unsustainable structural deficit we inherited. The Department for Transport is focusing on making its contribution to deficit reduction while supporting economic recovery and protecting priority areas.
Andrew George
Notwithstanding that answer, is the Secretary of State aware that the suspension of major schemes has meant that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency may not provide the Isles of Scilly ferry service with the necessary authority to continue? As the service has been 10 years in preparation, is 99% ready to go and is a lifeline for the Isles of Scilly, will he reconsider this issue?
Mr Hammond
Perhaps I can clarify what I have done. This scheme has conditional approval, and we have said that schemes with conditional approval or programme entry will have to await the outcome of the spending review before we can confirm them. My understanding is that Cornwall county council is still awaiting listed building consent, without which the scheme could not proceed anyway, but we are aware of the vital nature of the link to the Isles of Scilly and we will review the scheme as soon as the spending review has been completed.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment.
Two days ago in the other place, Lord Attlee stated that rail electrification could not be afforded. Does that mean that the Government reject the notion that investment in transport is essential to support economic recovery?
Mr Hammond
The Government are committed to rail electrification because of its carbon impact. However, as the hon. Lady will be aware, we have inherited a massive black hole in the public finances—[Interruption.] Labour Members can laugh, but the previous Government announced a halving of the public capital investment programme without giving any indication of where that cut would come. After the spending review, we will have to look at all these programmes in the light of their affordability and the urgent need to reduce the fiscal deficit.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend meet me and a delegation from Reading borough council to discuss the continued funding of proposed transport changes that his announcement last week suggested might be suspended?
Mr Hammond
The only announcement that I made last week that affects the Reading scheme was about a local authority scheme for highway improvements around Reading station. That scheme will be reviewed following the outcome of the spending review, and my hon. Friend will learn the outcome in due course.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
May I genuinely welcome and congratulate the Secretary of State and the ministerial team on their new jobs? Good transport can be a driver of economic growth and I ask the Secretary of State to be a champion for transport, rather than treat his position as an application for his next job.
The Secretary of State will be aware that the rail network is carrying more passengers and more freight than at any time since the 1940s, and projections predict further growth. That is why we promised an additional 1,300 carriages by 2014 and we were well ahead of schedule in providing those. In fact, at the last Transport questions, both Liberal Democrats and Conservatives asked us to provide more carriages even more quickly. Now that they are in government together, can the Secretary of State tell us how many more carriages than 1,300 they will provide and how much sooner than 2014?
Mr Hammond
I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations.
The Department’s principal task is to support economic growth and the Government’s 2020 carbon reduction targets, and we have to demonstrate that we can deliver them in tandem. Approximately half the HLOS––high-level output specification––rolling stock has already been contracted and will proceed, but no further contracts will be signed during this financial year owing to the disastrous public finances. When the spending review is completed, we will review where we are with the programme and make a further announcement in due course.
Sadiq Khan
One would have thought that if the Secretary of State was serious about moving people from road to rail, he would encourage more carriages, so that people would be encouraged in turn to use the rail system. He will be aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) is a passionate advocate of reform of rail fares; in fact, in his last question at a Prime Minister’s questions, he challenged the then Prime Minister to change the rail fares formula to 1% below inflation. I am sure that he remains a passionate advocate and is not simply window dressing, so now that they are hon. Friends, will the Secretary of State confirm how soon he will announce a change in the rail fare regime and how much below inflation it will be?
Mr Hammond
It is amazing that the right hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the last Government, appears to come to the Dispatch Box with no recognition of the deficit we are facing and the financial challenges that the Government have to deal with in order to clear up the mess that he and his hon. Friends left behind. We are committed to fair rail fares, but we have to do everything within the context of the fiscal inheritance that we have received.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I urge my right hon. Friend, when considering how best to expand rail, to consider branch lines off high-speed rail links to service some of the commuter towns disfranchised under the Beeching review.
Mr Hammond
Although we want to continue to increase passenger usage of the railways, we have to operate within a tightly constrained public spending environment. Our first priority must be to maintain and improve the trunk railway network that we have already. I will consider any proposals for reopening branch lines, but I have grave doubts about whether it is likely to be affordable in the foreseeable future.
Mr Speaker
Order. I gently point out that we need to make better progress, so short questions and short answers would be appreciated.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
8. What priorities he has set for departmental expenditure on the road network.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He worked long and hard to win his seat and he thoroughly deserves the success that he has now enjoyed.
The first priority of this Government must be tackling the country’s unsustainable level of debt. Once the spending review is complete and the Department has settled its budget, we will review all existing schemes, whether road or otherwise, on the basis of the economic benefits that they deliver.
Robert Halfon
Is the Secretary of State aware that Harlow has just one entrance to a motorway, whereas similar towns, such as Welwyn Garden City, have two or three and Basildon has four? Is he aware that traffic in Harlow is gridlocked and that residents in my constituency are crying out for an extra junction on the M11? With the road review under way, and when finances allow, will he give strong consideration to providing the road infrastructure that Harlow so desperately needs?
Mr Speaker
Order. I do apologise, but the questions are still too long. We are getting mini-essays. I want short questions.
Mr Hammond
I can tell my hon. Friend that we will be happy to consider proposals from local authorities and the Highways Agency for improvements, but he will understand that they will be affordable only once the deficit has been eliminated.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
A few moments ago, the Secretary of State said that one of the key priorities was supporting economic growth. How does suspending the decision on the Mersey Gateway project help economic growth in Merseyside and Cheshire, particularly given the support from the Conservative councils in Cheshire? And he should not give us that nonsense about a black hole in the finances.
Mr Hammond
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the black hole in the finances is nonsense, he needs to go back and do a little more homework. It is the most serious problem facing our country today and the most urgent challenge for this Government. However, let us be clear about the Mersey Gateway project. All we have done is suspend the progress of the scheme until after the current spending review is completed. We believe that it would be wrong to encourage or allow local authorities to incur significant additional expenditure on a large number of projects when some of them clearly may not be able to proceed on the original timetable.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Is my right hon. Friend going to treat the A1 as a national strategic road, rather than a regional road, and develop plans for full dualling of it when resources allow?
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
The Government’s first priority is reducing the budget deficit left us by the previous Administration, and I am determined that the Department for Transport should play its full part in that process. Against that backdrop, my Department is focused on building a modern and sustainable transport system that will contribute both to future economic growth and to the achievement of the Government’s climate change targets.
Fiona Mactaggart
When does the Secretary of State expect to receive Lord Mawhinney’s report on Heathrow high-speed rail access? When he receives it, will he consult Slough, whose prosperity depends completely on its proximity to Heathrow?
Mr Hammond
I have asked Lord Mawhinney to let us have his preliminary conclusions by the end of July, and I will be happy to consult the hon. Lady’s local authority once I have received that report from him.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
T3. As Ministers work out how best to transfer travel from plane to train, where that is possible, will they prioritise talks with European colleagues to make sure that the European rail network works and with colleagues in this country to make sure that high-speed rail will allow people to go through the capital without having to change trains?
Mr Hammond
I thank my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point. Now that we have made it clear that there will be no third runway at Heathrow airport, modal shift from air to rail becomes crucially important, including for journeys through to Europe. I have asked HS2 Ltd to look at the options and the costs of providing a direct link from the proposed HS2 to the existing high-speed rail network to the Channel tunnel.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
T2. I cannot stress enough the importance of the Tyne and Wear metro to the people of the north-east—in respect of the economy, the environment and the general quality of life. The previous Government pledged £350 million to upgrade the scheme, so will the Minister acknowledge the importance of the Tyne and Wear metro and tell us whether he is going to honour that pledge?
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
May I urge the Secretary of State to accept the recommendations of the North review and, as a matter of urgency, present proposals for a reduction in the drink-drive limit from 80 to 50 mg?
Mr Philip Hammond
Sir Peter North has delivered a comprehensive report, containing 51 recommendations, on issues relating to driving under the influence of drink or drugs. The Government will consult other Departments on the implications of the recommendations, and we will announce our position in due course.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
In April, when Jarvis was placed in administration, Network Rail cancelled millions of pounds of track renewal contracts on the east coast main line. We have recently been reminded of the Potters Bar rail accident. That track renewal work must go ahead. Will the Minister arrange for me to meet Iain Coucher—along with Members representing other constituencies where many workers have been made redundant as a result of the cuts—so that we can discuss with him the timetable for reinstating the track renewal contracts with other companies?
Mr Hammond
The Office of Rail Regulation is responsible for ensuring that the railway is managed safely, and that works that are required for its safety go ahead. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that shortly before Question Time, Network Rail announced that Iain Coucher would be stepping down from his role. For that reason it would not be practical for me to arrange a meeting with him, but I should be happy to try to facilitate a meeting with another appropriate representative of Network Rail.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will protect runway alternation at Heathrow?
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
May I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to his new position? Does he agree with me in principle that those people whose homes have been blighted by Labour’s preferred route for high-speed rail should be fully compensated, rather than at the 85% of value as proposed by Labour?
Mr Philip Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. One of the first decisions I took in my new post was to extend the consultation on the exceptional hardship scheme. That consultation closes today and we will publish our conclusions in due course.
North Review (Drink and Drug Driving)
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
A review of drink and drug driving regulation was commissioned by the then Secretary of State on 3 December 2009, to be undertaken by Sir Peter North. Sir Peter’s final report has been published today. This report covers a wide range of issues and makes 51 detailed recommendations, which we need to consider carefully with other Government Departments. In doing so, it is important that we fully investigate the economic and public service resource impact of any suggested changes to the law, taking account of the current financial and economic situation.
Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
South East Airports Task Force
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
The Government believe that aviation makes a vital contribution to the economy of this country and to the lives of our citizens. The aviation sector contributes some £11 billion to GDP and directly employs some 200,000 people. Its true economic value is much greater than this when we consider the importance of air travel to the global economy and to UK competitiveness. But we cannot simply allow growth to continue at the levels it has in the past. Doing so risks unacceptable consequences in terms of noise and local air quality, quite apart from the global impacts in terms of CO2 emissions.
We need to start a new chapter in aviation policy—one that promotes a competitive aviation industry, supporting UK economic growth, while recognising the need for restraint. We have already begun that by making clear our opposition to adding yet more runways at Heathrow, Stansted or Gatwick. Instead, we must explore different ways in which to improve the efficiency of these key components of our national transport infrastructure.
Improving the passenger experience is at the heart of this Government’s vision for UK aviation. We announced in the Queen’s Speech our intention to reform the economic regulation of airports to deliver better outcomes for passengers. But I believe that there are also other things that Government and the industry can do together, and so today I am announcing the establishment of a South East Airports Task Force with key players from across the industry to explore the scope for other measures to help make the most of existing airport infrastructure and improve conditions for all users. The group will be chaired by the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) and its initial focus will be on action at our three biggest airports—Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.
I am confident that, by working closely with the aviation sector, alongside our regulatory reforms, this will help deliver improvements for all.
Rail Value For Money Study
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I welcome the publication of the scoping study report from Sir Roy McNulty’s review of value for money on the railway. While I recognise that this report represents a very early stage in the work of Sir Roy and his team, I believe that the report represents an important step in identifying the factors that drive up the cost of the UK railway.
Given the scale of the fiscal deficit the UK is facing, it is vital that public spending be subject to scrutiny to ensure that it represents value for money. We must adjust to a world in which our aspirations for a successful railway have to be met from within a much tighter public spending envelope. As the scoping study highlights, there is evidence that the cost of the UK railway is relatively high, both in historic terms, and by comparison with other European railways.
The next stage will be to look at options for ensuring public investment in the railways is delivered as efficiently and effectively as possible. I have therefore asked Sir Roy to accelerate key elements of his work so that his preliminary findings can inform the decisions on public spending that will have to be taken in the autumn.
I would call upon all stakeholders in the rail industry to offer Sir Roy and his team their fullest co-operation. By driving efficiencies on the railway, we can ensure that passengers and freight users get the railway they need at a price which Government and taxpayers can afford.
Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on the Department’s website (www.dft.gov.uk).
Transport (Local Authority Major Schemes)
Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
The Government have made clear their most urgent priority is to tackle the UK’s record budget deficit, in order to restore confidence in the economy and support the recovery. The Department for Transport will play a full part in the spending review which will be reporting in the autumn. Only once the Government’s spending review has been concluded will the Department for Transport be in a position to identify those major investments that can be supported.
The Government have also made a commitment—as set out in the Coalition Agreement—to reform the way decisions are made on which transport projects are prioritised.
Given the uncertainties which both of these factors create, and in view of the likely budgetary constraints, and the consequent likelihood that not all schemes will be able to proceed on their planned timetable, it would be inappropriate for the Department to continue to invest time and resources on development of schemes at the same rate as before. Local authorities will also wish to consider carefully whether investing further time and resources in developing such schemes ahead of the spending review is justified. They should not assume that schemes prioritised under the previous Government’s regional funding allocations (RFA) process will be funded to the previous published levels.
I am therefore today taking steps to help avoid unnecessary expenditure, while the Government consider their transport priorities:
The previous Major Schemes Guidance for Local Authorities and associated approval processes are being suspended until further notice.
All schemes that were granted conditional approval or programme entry by the previous Government will be reviewed as part of the spending review. Until then, the Government can give no assurances on funding support for any of these schemes.
Ministers will postpone decisions on scheme orders for schemes requiring DfT funding, but consideration will be given if there are alternative funding sources. Similarly, public inquiries on schemes requiring DfT funding will generally be postponed and no further inquiries will be scheduled, but inquiries will be allowed to proceed if there are alternative funding sources.
The previous Major Schemes Guidance for Local Authorities is today being replaced with new interim Guidance to Local Authorities, which has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available on the Department for Transport website (www.dft.gov.uk) today. Officials will also be writing to affected local authorities.
The Government will aim to provide a firm indication on the way forward later this year once the spending review is complete.