Asked by: Laura Smith (Labour - Crewe and Nantwich)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the effect of the rising cost of energy on the rail industry.
Answered by Andrew Jones
We have not made an assessment of the effect of the rising cost of energy in the rail industry.
For information, fuel costs made up 3% of franchised train operator expenditure in 2017/18, the same proportion as in 2016/17. For additional information on income and expenditure in the rail industry please view the UK Rail Industry Financials, published by the Office of Rail and Road at the link below:
Asked by: Laura Smith (Labour - Crewe and Nantwich)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps his Department is taking to ensure the implementation of the (a) recommendations and (b) learning points set out in the Rail Accident Report: Collision at London Waterloo,15 August 2017, published the Rail Accident Investigation Branch in November 2018.
Answered by Andrew Jones
Responsibility for rail network safety rests with Network Rail and the Office of Road and Rail (ORR) - not the Department - but we will support our delivery partners by ensuring they continue to be adequately funded to deliver a safe and reliable rail network. I am advised that the ORR is working closely with Network Rail to ensure they are addressing the recommendations in the report.
Asked by: Laura Smith (Labour - Crewe and Nantwich)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps his Department is taking to safeguard taxi drivers from taxi fare evaders.
Answered by Nusrat Ghani
The Department’s Best Practice Guidance suggests that signs or notices that set out the expectations of passengers when travelling in a taxi or private hire vehicle (PHV) are displayed. This could include that passengers ensure they are aware of the fare on the meter and notify the driver if it is approaching the limit of their financial means. When a fare has been agreed before setting off passengers should ensure they have the means to pay before travelling.
Legislation allows taxi drivers to recover unpaid fares and costs to be recovered should a passenger refuse to pay.
Asked by: Laura Smith (Labour - Crewe and Nantwich)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will take steps to ensure that provisions for disability inclusive rail services are included in future rail franchise agreements to enable disabled people to travel for (a) work and (b) pleasure.
Answered by Nusrat Ghani
Our vision is for disabled people to have the same access to transport as everyone else, being able to travel confidently, easily and without extra cost. The Inclusive Transport Strategy, launched in July 2018, is the next step in our ambition to deliver accessible transport.
In future rail franchise competition processes we will require bidders to provide enhanced services for those with accessibility needs including enhanced disability and equality awareness training for staff.
Asked by: Laura Smith (Labour - Crewe and Nantwich)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many claims have been made against local authorities for pothole damage; and what the cost to the public purse was of successful claims in each of the last three years.
Answered by Jesse Norman - Shadow Leader of the House of Commons
The Department for Transport does not hold information on the number of claims made against local authorities for pothole damages, or the cost of successful claims to the public purse. The matter of insurance and dealing with any compensation claims due to possible defects, including potholes, on the local highway network, is a matter for the relevant local highway authority. Local highway authorities have a delegated statutory responsibility for managing and maintaining their roads as set out in the Highways Act 1980 (as amended).
Asked by: Laura Smith (Labour - Crewe and Nantwich)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what estimate he has made of the average time taken to reinstate drivers who have had their licence revoked on mental health grounds but since been declared fit by health professionals.
Answered by Jesse Norman - Shadow Leader of the House of Commons
The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) deals with around 750,000 medical cases each year. The time taken to deal with an application following the revocation of a driving licence depends largely on whether further information is needed from medical professionals.
The average time for the DVLA to make a licensing decision on all medical applications is 32 working days. The DVLA deals with 92.9% of all medical cases within 90 days. It is not possible to break down this information by specific medical conditions.
Asked by: Laura Smith (Labour - Crewe and Nantwich)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether his Department collects information from alternative dispute resolutions in respect of complaints about compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of flights.
Answered by Jesse Norman - Shadow Leader of the House of Commons
Compensation claims are handled directly by the individual airlines, rather than by the Department. The relevant EU Regulation 261/2004 establishes that it is the operating air carrier that is liable, and as a result the Department for Transport does not collect this specific information.
The CAA monitors airline compliance with EC Regulation 261/2004 regularly, and where necessary the CAA has taken enforcement action against airlines.
The link below illustrates the CAA’s role in relation to Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Asked by: Laura Smith (Labour - Crewe and Nantwich)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, with reference to the separation of the fleet maintenance and engineering functions relating to the West Coast Trains Limited franchise, whether (a) assets were fully scrutinised and valued in relation to that separation of functions and (b) the pension funds of employees affected by that separation of functions received protections under the terms of the Railways Act 1993.
Answered by Lord Johnson of Marylebone
The West Coast Main Line (WCML) Franchise was let by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising (OPRAF), a non-Departmental government body following a competition to Virgin Rail Group[1] (VRG). VRG, through a competitive process, procured both rolling stock and the separation of the fleet maintenance and engineering functions. West Coast Train Care, an Alstom company, took over responsibility for the Depots and Maintenance of all trains and the existing staff in the Depot. This was all included in VRG’s franchise bid for the WCML in 1997 thus the costs of this separation rested with the operator, while the taxpayer benefitted as a whole from the returns of the new 15 year franchise awarded.
At the time of the WCML franchise award in 1997, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising (OPRAF) procurement rules and procedures were followed. OPRAF, will have scrutinised bidder responses under the parameters set out in the ITT, including the separation of the fleet maintenance and engineering functions.
The Franchisee (Virgin Rail Group) was responsible for compliance with the Railways Act 1993 in transferring employees from the operator to the maintainer.
[1] In its original entity – i.e. excluding Stagecoach
Asked by: Laura Smith (Labour - Crewe and Nantwich)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when his Department agreed to the separation of the fleet maintenance and engineering functions relating to the West Coast Trains Limited franchise; whether his Department undertook at competitive tender relating to that separation of functions; and whether funds accrued to the public purse as a result of that separation of functions. .
Answered by Lord Johnson of Marylebone
The West Coast Main Line (WCML) Franchise was let by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising (OPRAF), a non-Departmental government body following a competition to Virgin Rail Group[1] (VRG). VRG, through a competitive process, procured both rolling stock and the separation of the fleet maintenance and engineering functions. West Coast Train Care, an Alstom company, took over responsibility for the Depots and Maintenance of all trains and the existing staff in the Depot. This was all included in VRG’s franchise bid for the WCML in 1997 thus the costs of this separation rested with the operator, while the taxpayer benefitted as a whole from the returns of the new 15 year franchise awarded.
At the time of the WCML franchise award in 1997, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising (OPRAF) procurement rules and procedures were followed. OPRAF, will have scrutinised bidder responses under the parameters set out in the ITT, including the separation of the fleet maintenance and engineering functions.
The Franchisee (Virgin Rail Group) was responsible for compliance with the Railways Act 1993 in transferring employees from the operator to the maintainer.
[1] In its original entity – i.e. excluding Stagecoach
Asked by: Laura Smith (Labour - Crewe and Nantwich)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 28 June 2018 to Question 155260 on rail strikes, whether South Western Railway has made an application in the last 12 months to reimburse the company for revenues lost as a result of official industrial action.
Answered by Lord Johnson of Marylebone
South Western Railway has made an application with regards to industrial action.