Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Norman Baker Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

If the hon. Gentleman will let me comment on that aspect in my own words, I hope that will reassure him.

The existing legislative framework provides a robust framework of protection for those sensitive areas. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 require a developer to undertake a habitats regulation assessment whenever a proposed project is likely to have a significant impact on a special conservation area or a special protection area. These protections derive from European law and set a very high bar. The regulations are supported by the national planning policy framework, which recognises areas that should be given a high level of protection, even if the development is outside the site boundary. These include special areas of conservation, special protection areas, sites of special scientific interest and Ramsar sites.

Planning guidance published last July set out the specific approach to planning for unconventional hydrocarbons in national parks, the broads, areas of outstanding natural beauty and world heritage sites. The guidance makes it clear that planning authorities should refuse planning applications for major development in these areas unless it can be demonstrated both that exceptional circumstances exist and that it is in the public interest.

[Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD)]

Does the Minister accept that 18% of the UK’s sites of special scientific interest, 13% of the special areas of conservation and 14% of the special protection areas are covered by the 14th licensing round?

[Amber Rudd]

Let me add to my earlier comments that we have agreed an outright ban on fracking in national parks, sites of special scientific interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty. I hope that will reassure the right hon. Gentleman about the liability potential for any of the areas that I know he is particularly keen to protect.

Oral Answers to Questions

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to tackle potholes on UK roads.

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

The Department for Transport is providing more than £18 billion for highway maintenance for both the strategic and local road network between 2011 and 2021. That funding will help address the issue of potholes, which we know can cause problems for all highway users, including cyclists.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Last year Oxfordshire county council repaired 5,662 potholes, and so far this year it has repaired 4,719, at a cost of about £5 million. However, the way we repair potholes has not changed much over the years, so may I ask my hon. Friend what research is being done to improve the way we repair roads for the 21st century?

[Norman Baker]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and I am happy to tell him that the Department has provided £6 million to the highways maintenance efficiency programme, which is looking at best practice, optimum techniques to keep costs down, and the materials that will be used. Two pothole reviews published in 2012 and 2013 take those matters forward, but getting best value is absolutely important.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

The Secretary of State took his life into his hands in my constituency over the summer by getting on his bike, and saw at first hand the risks of the pothole crisis across north Yorkshire. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the issue of potholes, because for rural areas it is the No. 1 transport issue?

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to meet any hon. Member to discuss such matters. I am also grateful for the confirmation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has joined the rest of the ministerial team on a bike: we are very committed to cycling in the Department.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Cyclists and drivers in Wirral are infuriated by the quality of our roads and the number of potholes we have. The council has suffered ferocious cuts from the Government, so can the Minister tell me what conversations he has had with leaders of local authorities about how they can ensure that our roads are of a decent standard, given the Chancellor’s austerity for local government?

[Norman Baker]

With respect, the hon. Lady might be misinformed about the funding, because the Government will spend more in this five-year period than the previous Government did on highway maintenance, with a greater allocation of money from the Department for Transport than happened under Labour. There will be a significant increase in the period from 2015-16 through the next Parliament. Coupled with the highway maintenance efficiency programme I mentioned a moment ago, that gives local authorities both the money and the tools to do the job properly. I suggest that she directs her remarks to her local authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

7. What his future plans are for transport infrastructure in north-west England; and if he will make a statement.

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

Since 2010 we have invested significantly in the north west, including the electrification of key rail links, the development of managed motorways and support for many local major schemes. Our rail investment strategy and this summer’s spending review include a commitment to HS2, the northern hub, additional managed motorways and a record £12 billion boost to local transport. I hope to be able to announce shortly the final approval of the Pennine Reach bus improvement scheme in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

[Graham Jones]

Is the Minister aware of the real concern that delays to the Thameslink train contract will mean that the electric trains due to be switched for use in the north-west will not be available by the time electrification is completed in the region? Does he agree that it will be ridiculous to have electrified lines and no electric trains in the area?

[Norman Baker]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to rolling stock, because I can confirm that the improvements we are introducing and the steps we are taking will provide capacity for up to 700 more trains per day in the north of England. Of course, our plans are properly aligned, so that electrification will occur at the same time as the new rolling stock.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Very few of my constituents travel regularly to London, but many do travel daily by road to Manchester. What plans does the Minister therefore have to speed up their daily commute by car?

[Norman Baker]

As I mentioned a moment ago, the Government is investing heavily across all modes in the north-west of England, which is one of the areas to benefit most from the Government’s investment in the forward period. That includes investment in the road network, but if the hon. Gentleman is concerned about a specific road, I will be very happy to discuss it with him.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

For maximum economic benefit, the high-speed link needs to go to Manchester airport, yet it is left out of the otherwise excellent KPMG report, which brings a serious dimension to this debate. When will it be included?

[Norman Baker]

We fully appreciate the importance of Manchester airport, which meets a very important regional need. The issue of HS2 and Manchester airport is under consideration, so the hon. Gentleman should not be unduly pessimistic about that.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of High Speed 2 on economic growth in a) Chesterfield, b) Derbyshire and c) the east midlands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Three years on from the axing of Cycling England and its £60 million annual budget, this Tory-led Government promised £148 million for cycling. That has turned out to be an average of £38 million per year until 2016, with local authorities expected to find the rest. In comparison, £28 billion is planned to be spent on roads. Does the Minister really believe that this is the right proportion and that this Government really are the most pro-cycling ever?

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

We are the most pro-cycling Government ever. If the hon. Lady does not believe that, she should look at some of the comments from the cycling groups, who have warmly welcomed the huge investment—the record investment—that has taken place under this Government. That is a real step change in cycling, and I would have thought that she welcomed it rather than criticise it.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

T4. Will the Minister confirm that northern commuters on the trans-Pennine routes are still in line to benefit from the promised 40 extra carriages, and will he continue to look into increasing capacity on those northern commuter routes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

One in three blind or partially sighted people are spending about £30 a month on taxis because buses cannot accommodate them through the use of audiovisual equipment. What are the Government doing to change that?

[Norman Baker]

We give strong support to the bus industry through financial support directly to the operators, through the bus service operators grant, and through local authorities. Our reforms to the bus system through, for example, the BSOG reforms and the extra money provided for green buses are giving a welcome boost to the bus industry. That means that passenger numbers are roughly where they were at the end of the previous Government’s time in office.

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

T9. I recently met my constituent John Letch, owner of Car Contacts Ltd, which sells second-hand cars, many of which it imports from Northern Ireland. Mr Letch tells me that in recent months the company has experienced severe delays in the re-registering of cars by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, delaying their onward sale and putting the company under financial strain. Will the Minister meet me and Mr Letch, and other traders, to discuss this matter urgently?

Able Marine Energy Park

Norman Baker Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Written Statements

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

I refer to the application made by Able Humber Ports Ltd on 16 December 2011 under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 regarding a proposed development known as the Able Marine Energy Park comprising a quay of solid construction on the south bank of the River Humber at Killingholme, together with an ecological compensation scheme on the opposite bank at Cherry Cobb Sands. I have been appointed by the Secretary of State to decide this application.

The original deadline for the decision on this application under section 107 of the Planning Act 2008 was 24 May 2013. On 21 May 2013 I made a statement to the House as required by that section announcing that I was setting a later deadline of 24 July 2013 for the decision. On 25 July 2013 I decided to set a new deadline for the decision of 28 August 2013 to allow time for further consideration of the application and informed the applicant and other interested parties accordingly.

Since my last statement, I can inform Parliament that the Crown Estate advised the Department on 22 August 2013 that an agreement for a lease of the land required for the project had been reached with the applicant and that the Crown Estate was consequently giving consent in accordance with section 135 of the Planning Act 2008 for the above order to include compulsory acquisition and other provisions in relation to that land.

On 28 August 2013 the Department for Transport issued a letter to the applicant and other interested parties informing them that I am minded to give development consent for the project as recommended by the panel which examined the application. However, before reaching a final decision I have asked the applicant to provide further information about the likely effectiveness of the ecological compensation scheme and to provide assurance that the project will not jeopardise any future operations on the Killingholme branch railway.

In order to allow time for the applicant to respond to the Department’s letter, for interested parties to consider and comment on the applicant’s response, and for the Department to assess all those responses, I am setting a new deadline for the decision on this application under section 107(3) of the Planning Act 2008 of 18 December 2013.

Cycling

Norman Baker Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the fact that the debate has taken place. It follows the very successful debate in Westminster Hall, which was also engendered by the all-party group on cycling. I pay particular tribute to my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), and the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), for their leadership of that group, and, indeed, to all members of that group for a very good report. I welcome the fact that this has been a well-attended debate, and that the contributions from Members from all parts of the House have, almost without exception, been positive and constructive. I am particularly pleased to hear the news of individual MPs taking up cycling. That is now on the record in Hansard, and doubtless their constituents will hold them to that commitment.

The Government wants more people to cycle more often, more safely. We are determined to drive that forward. We have a good record to date, but I want to make it clear that we want to go even further. I believe that we have the most pro-cycling Government that the country has ever had, and we are determined to go even further.

Cycling is good for the environment, good for individual health, and good for the economy. It is good for the environment, because it cuts carbon emissions, noise and air pollution. It is good for individual health, and I am delighted both that the former Health Minister, the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), has attended the debate, and by the contribution that the Department of Health has made towards to cycling efforts in government, including the financial contribution that it has made to some of our projects. NHS reforms provide an opportunity at local level for the public health function to be discharged in conjunction with the transport function in a way that simply was not possible before.

Cycling is also good for the economy. Last week, I was in Cambridge, where 47% of adults cycle at least once a week. I congratulate the three councils there: Conservative Cambridgeshire county council, South Cambridgeshire district council, and my Lib Dem colleagues on Cambridge city council, who are working together to promote cycling. The lesson there is that whereas the population of Cambridge has risen from 105,000 to 125,000 in a decade, car travel is flat because the councils have incentivised cycling. If the three councils together had not done that, there would be gridlock in Cambridge as a consequence. So the lesson is that those who want to help the local economy will help the local cyclist. Those who advocate anti-cycling policies damage the local economy.

It is worth pointing out that a 20% increase in cycling levels from 2010 to 2015 could save the economy £207 million in reduced traffic congestion and £71 million in reduced pollution levels. Members on both sides of the House who have drawn attention to the economic value of cycling are absolutely right to do so.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

My hon. Friend knows that there will be a huge boost to tourism in Yorkshire from the Tour de France next year. I did not get the chance during the debate to mention that in Otley, which is part of the route, and the birthplace of Lizzie Armitstead who won the first medal in the London 2012 Olympics, we also have a lot of work going on at grass-roots level. My constituent Joseph Cullen is working very hard to get ordinary people cycling. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is as important to get ordinary people cycling as it is to train Olympians of the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I entirely agree. As one Member said earlier, cycling must be for everyone. It is the Government’s intention to make sure that that message goes out loud and clear.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Will the Minister give way?

[Norman Baker]

I will, briefly.

[Mr Bradshaw]

The Minister said a moment ago that this is the most pro-cycling Government ever. What is his response to the disgraceful comments of the Communities Secretary that cycling was an obsession of the elite and that he wanted to make a free-for-all for motorists to park on double yellow lines?

[Norman Baker]

I think the Communities Secretary is capable of answering for himself.

I want to mention the funding arrangements which this Government has put in place. If people believed some of the earlier comments, including from the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), they would think that this Government had not been funding cycling. That is quite untrue. In fact, we are funding cycling more than the Labour Government did. Between 2005 and 2010 the previous Administration spent £140 million—£200 million with match funding—on cycling. Under this Administration, £278 million—£375 million with match funding—will be spent in our five-year period. That is almost double what the Labour Government spent in the previous five years. When Opposition Members complain that there is not enough funding, a little more humility would not go amiss.

I entirely agree with the comments made by hon. Members that it is important not to neglect rural areas. That is why the Government has committed £600 million to the local sustainable transport fund, which equates to £1 billion with match funding. That local sustainable transport fund has funded 96 projects, 94 of which have cycling elements. A further £100 million capital and £78 million revenue funding has been allocated for the LSTF in 2015-16. We have seen £44 million committed throughout this Parliament to support cycle training for schoolchildren. I might say to the shadow Secretary of State that the first thing we did on cycling as a coalition Government was to commit to Bikeability funding throughout the whole Parliament to give the certainty which she says she wants.

In addition to all that, £159 million has been announced since the beginning of 2012—£94 million to increase cycling in eight cities and four national parks, £20 million to deliver safer junctions outside London, £15 million to enable cycle parking at rail stations, £15 million to provide more safe cycling links between communities and £15 million for junction safety in London. In times of plenty, the allocation to cycling measures was £200 million. In times of hardship, we have had £370 million from this coalition Government.

[Hugh Bayley]

I am concerned that much of the money spent on cycling measures under the previous Government and the present one is spent badly because the planners and engineers who design road systems do not understand cycling well enough. Will the Minister meet the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Royal Town Planning Institute and others to try to create a professional qualification for cycling planners, and then to insist that local authorities use such people in designing their systems?

[Norman Baker]

The local sustainable transport fund schemes—there are 94—were all subject to expert analysis, including by those from local authorities and others who know about cycling, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it would be helpful for him and me to meet particular people, I would be happy to do so. He should phone my office and we will sort it out.

I also want to mention a key recommendation that, to my surprise, was not touched on much in the all-party group’s report: cycle-proofing—although the shadow Secretary of State referred to it in her comments. The “Action for roads” Command Paper, published in July this year, made it plain that we want to cycle-proof our road network and minimise situations where major roads are a barrier to walkers and communities. All new roads and improvement schemes on the strategic road network will be designed with cyclists, as well as motorists, in mind. There is almost £5 million for 14 schemes identified in the strategic road network where the Government will fund significant improvements to remove barriers to cycling, with a further £15 million for such improvements in 2015-16. Officials are currently planning a conference on cycle-proofing roads later this year, which will involve council chiefs, directors of highways and planning, representatives from local economic partnerships and national parks and so on to ensure that we have the expertise and can work out how best to cycle-proof our roads, streets and communities.

[Steve Brine]

I know that the Minister did not want to move on without responding to my challenge in respect of junction 9 of the M3 and the Highways Agency, so I just want to give him a chance to do so.

[Norman Baker]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting that point into the debate twice. I do not have a specific answer, but I will write to him subsequently. Indeed, if there are any other specific comments that Members have made that I cannot respond to, I will try to do so in writing subsequently.

We are looking at the feasibility of a new national cycleway broadly to follow the HS2 corridor, which would link people, communities and local stations to the countryside and tourist attractions and benefit those living along the corridor. We are looking for these opportunities to improve cycling.

I also want to touch on the safety of cycling, which of course is very important. The Transport Secretary and others have made it clear that any death on the roads involving a cyclist is one too many. We are determined to take what action we can to minimise the number of cycling deaths. That is why I have made it possible for local authorities to install Trixi mirrors at junctions without having to apply to the Department for Transport and why my colleague the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) has been so assiduous in trying to deal with the problems of HGVs and to ensure that some of the points mentioned by Opposition Members are properly dealt with through mirrors, cameras and so on. To pick up on a point the shadow Secretary of State made, I am happy to say that no incidents involving cyclists and semi-trailers have been reported since the trial began.

[Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

My hon. Friend may be aware that I have had discussions with some of the HGV trailer manufacturers and know that they would be very willing to see additional safety measures and happy to work with the Department to achieve that. Will he join me in welcoming that initiative and see how that can be progressed very quickly indeed?

[Norman Baker]

I certainly welcome that, and I welcome the constructive response we have seen already from the Freight Transport Association, for example. That comment is very welcome and I am sure that my colleague, the hon. Member for Wimbledon, is aware of that and can take it on board and move forward appropriately.

As I said, any one death on the road is one too many. Figures for London show that between 2008 and 2012, 53% of all pedal cycle fatalities were a consequence of direct conflict with HGVs, so there is a serious issue that we are very much aware of, as I think is the Mayor. We are taking steps to deal with it through a number of changes. It is also important to note that cycling in London has increased by 173% since 2000, and figures for cycling deaths and injuries have to be borne in mind in relation to the big increase in cycling that has taken place.

[Jane Ellison]

On the point about HGV safety, tomorrow morning I am visiting the regeneration site at Battersea power station, where the developers, owners and constructors are running a specific day of cycle awareness training with HGV drivers and cyclists. Does the Minister welcome such moves where developers take responsibility for HGVs moving in and out of their sites? Perhaps that is a way forward.

[Norman Baker]

That is exactly the right response, and I hope that it will become common practice across industry and across the country.

I want to respond to some of the comments made by Members. In the previous cycling debate, the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) called for the Prime Minister to lead and take action. The hon. Gentleman was very nice to me today but lamented the fact that I was, he implied, dealing with this without support. That is not the case. There is support from all my colleagues in the Department for Transport and from different Departments across Government, and the Prime Minister himself made a statement in August. That clearly indicates the importance that the Government as a whole attaches to the matter. If any colleagues across Government were not taking it seriously, I am sure that the Prime Minister’s appearance in August will ensure that they take it more seriously than they did previously.

There have been a number of suggestions that we should have a cycling champion. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) talked about that. I am very sorry that he is no longer on the Front Bench, by the way. He has been a very good Minister in his time, and a shadow Minister as well—not just the Member for Poplar but a popular Minister. He asked whether I am the national champion for cycling. I hope that I am a national champion for cycling, but so are my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, my other colleagues in the Department for Transport, and the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. We want to make sure that this is owned across Government by all Departments. The danger of having one person identified in the role is that others do not feel the need to participate in the same way. I am not particularly keen to use the word “tsar”, by the way. The history of tsars at the end of imperial Russia is not a happy one, and we can probably do without it.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for drawing attention to the health benefits of cycling. We used the World Health Organisation economic assessment tool in assessing the cycle city and national park bids and the grants we subsequently gave. She mentioned 20-mph speed limits. I hope that she will welcome, as others have, the fact that this Government have made it easier for local councils to introduce 20-mph limits, which I campaigned on for a decade before they finally became reality under this Government. She asked about enforcement, which several other Members properly raised. The hon. Member for Wimbledon and I had a meeting with Suzette Davenport, who is a lead member on this for the Association of Chief Police Officers. She has agreed to rewrite the guidance for ACPO on the enforcement of 20-mph limits, and I hope that that will appear before long.

I have to say that there were a couple of churlish comments. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) complained about the Government’s approach. I should point out that she has had £10 million in two local sustainable transport tranches, £5.7 million through a cycle city ambition grant, and £1.24 million for cycle safety funding. That is £17 million for Newcastle and she was the most ungrateful Member here today. The second most ungrateful Member was the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who said that the Government were doing nothing and forgot to mention that the scheme at Brighton station that she identified—the cycle rail fund—and the cycle lanes on Old Shoreham road and Lewes road are paid for from the Government’s funding.

I am delighted that this has been such a good debate and that so many people have turned up to contribute. I confirm that the Government takes this matter very seriously, and we will make further progress. In the spirit of coalition unity, let me say that I have something in common with Norman Tebbit—we both want people to get on their bikes.

Local Transport Bodies (Funding Allocations)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Written Statements

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

Further to my statement to the House of 23 January 2013 I am today confirming to local transport bodies (LTBs) the funding allocations for local major transport projects from 2015. These are set out below and reflect decisions taken by Ministers in DFT and the Treasury.

The funding that the Government is allocating today is only one element of over £12 billion being made available to local enterprise partnership (LEP) areas between 2015-16 and 2020-21 through the single local growth fund, details of which were announced in a statement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 June 2013.

Later this month, local transport bodies are expected to publish details of their prioritised schemes to be taken forward from 2015.

We would expect that those LEP areas that make a good case for further transport investment through their strategic economic plans will receive additional funding from the competitive elements of the local growth fund. Decisions on that will be made following growth deal negotiations with the Government.

In order to maximise the competitive funding available to LEPs for transport and other projects and programmes within the local growth fund, most LTBs receive confirmed allocations for four years at a level one third below the indicative numbers provided in January 2013. This is within the range of scenarios that the Department asked LTBs to consider at that stage.

Those LTBs/LEPs where the principle of 10-year funding has been agreed through city deals receive confirmed allocations for six years at the annual level indicated in January 2013. They also receive an indicative funding allocation for a further four years beyond the confirmed funding levels. This recognises that these LTBs are expected to be further ahead than others in strengthening their local decision-making arrangements and the previous consideration of transport needs alongside other priorities in city deal discussions.

In addition to the funding allocations announced today, the funding for existing DFT-approved local authority major schemes will also flow nominally through the local growth fund and we will need to ensure that any delay to these projects does not impact on the total funding available to LEPs on a competitive basis. We will confirm the detailed mechanisms for how this will work at a later date but the key principle is that this element of the funding is dependent on the schemes going ahead as planned.

Bus Subsidy

Norman Baker Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce today our plans to reform the bus subsidy system. We intend to implement a package of measures designed to improve services by making the subsidy provided to bus companies—bus service operators grant (BSOG)—more targeted and accountable.

In 2012 there were 4.7 billion bus passenger boardings made in England and over 60% of all public transport trips were made on local buses. Given the crucial role the bus network plays in supporting social inclusion, linking people to places of commerce and providing employers with access to labour markets, buses deserve to be recognised as the backbone of our public transport system and key to a healthy, growing economy.

However, despite pockets of strong growth, overall bus patronage has been in long-term decline. Added to this, the way in which subsidy is used to support the bus market has become increasingly poorly targeted. This economic context, however, makes it imperative to push for improved bus services that are more locally accountable and provide better value for passenger and taxpayer. This is why we intend to reform bus subsidy by making the following changes:

creation of a new local government fund—better bus areas;

devolution to Transport for London/the Greater London Authority of the BSOG paid to London bus operators who operate services under contract to TfL;

tightening the existing rules defining which bus services can claim BSOG, so that the available funding is put to the best possible use;

paying BSOG to local authorities, rather than operators, where funding relates to services they support.

The first three of these changes will take effect from 1 October this year. However, I have decided to allow more time for local authorities and operators to prepare for the paying of BSOG for supported services to authorities outside London. Therefore this change will not come into force until 1 January 2014.

We consulted widely on these proposals in late 2012, and our consultation response which we are publishing today—copies of which are being placed in the Library of the House—sets out the Government’s commitment to each of the above measures.

Devolving funding for supported services to local authorities will give communities more control over how money is spent. At the same time, I am keen this change should not cause temporary instability to local services. The majority of both bus operators and local authorities have asked for an extended period of ring fencing, and I believe that the case is a strong one. The funds which we devolve will, therefore, be ring fenced until the end of 2016-17. In turn, we expect local authorities to take due account of the tendered BSOG foregone by bus companies operating non-commercial services in managing existing contractual arrangements with them for these services and when agreeing new contracts.

A further key reform is the introduction of better bus areas. I was delighted to designate Sheffield as the first BBA in February. Other local authorities had until today to bid to become BBAs with announcements on further designations to be made this autumn. BBAs offer an opportunity to explore how bus subsidy can be better used by local authorities, working with local operators, to attract more people onto buses and ensure better value for the taxpayer.

Management of bus services in London is the responsibility of Transport for London and most of the substantial funding from central Government to support transport in London is currently paid to TfL in a single grant. In line with this, from October a sum broadly equivalent to the BSOG for London services will be paid directly to TfL and the Greater London Authority.

Finally, BSOG was designed to support local bus services, but over time a wider range of services than was intended laid claim to some of the subsidy. So, we have tightened the rules so that certain services are no longer eligible for BSOG. In particular, the removal of eligibility from rail replacement buses will also serve as a message to the rail industry that we expect them to use trains rather than buses wherever possible.

The Government recognises that this package of reforms represents significant change for the industry. Local authority and bus industry views have therefore been vital to the development of our proposals and I am grateful for the input we have received. The reforms announced today mark an opportunity to reshape the support we provide for the bus industry for the better, using a long-standing subsidy in a targeted manner in order to improve services, encourage partnership working and deliver better value for money. I look forward to the improvements that these reforms will bring.

Disabled Access (Train Stations)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Westminster Hall

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

That is the most eccentric introduction that I have had for quite some time, Mr Hollobone.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on his contribution. I warmly welcomed the way in which he presented his case and endorse his analysis entirely. Let me say for the record that there is a good turnout for this debate. To be honest, it is a pity that it is not a one-and-a-half-hour debate, but I congratulate him none the less on taking a record number of interventions in a half-hour Adjournment debate.

In recent years, expectations about accessibility have changed, both among disabled passengers and the railway industry, and that is a good thing. The success of our transport networks in providing accessible journeys during last year’s Olympics and Paralympics shows what can be achieved. Unfortunately, however, many of our mainline railway stations date from Victorian times, and those 19th century stations were not built with the needs of 21st century passengers in mind, which has left us with the huge task of opening up the rail network to disabled passengers, which is obviously what we want to do.

Clearly, accessible stations make a huge difference to people’s journey experience—not only people with reduced mobility, but those carrying heavy luggage or pushing unwieldy pushchairs. From a personal point of view, I had no idea how inaccessible the tube network was until I became a dad and had to start lumping prams up and down stairs.

The Government therefore remains committed to making further improvements in this area and has continued to support—indeed, to expand—the Access for All programme, which the previous Government launched in 2006. The main programme, which is worth £370 million in 2004-05 prices, will deliver accessible routes at more than 150 stations. To secure value for money, stations were selected based on their annual footfall—several hon. Members referred to footfall during the debate—weighted against the incidence of disability in the area on the basis of census data. Around a third of the stations selected were chosen to ensure a fair geographical spread across the country. We also took into account the views of train operators and proximity to facilities such as hospitals, schools for disabled children and military rehabilitation centres. I noted the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border made, so I will ask officials to consider whether the criteria should also take account of the nature of remote rural areas.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for giving way and, indeed, for the inclusion of Chippenham railway station within the Access for All programme. However, it was more than four years ago when railway staff first told me that we were going to get lifts and disabled access at that station, but the scheme is still to receive planning permission from Wiltshire council. Does the Minister agree that a misguided sense of priorities is preventing us from having access for the 21st century on a Victorian railway? I am sure that the last thing that Brunel would have wanted was for such considerations to inhibit decent access to his railway at Chippenham.

[Norman Baker]

On Chippenham station, I am advised that Network Rail had to go through the lengthy planning process to which my hon. Friend correctly referred, which of course also involves building consent. In addition, it has to co-ordinate its plans with other projects in and around the station. However, I am told that that has now happened and that a detailed design for the project is complete. Work is due to start in November this year and to be completed by July 2014. However, I have asked Network Rail to review its time lines to determine whether it can accelerate construction, given the delay that has already occurred.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Given the comments that have been made in the debate and the expectations on train operating companies to build in such facilities described by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), will the Minister consider giving some guidance on, or commenting about, the extent to which we could build these requirements into the franchising contract documentation and place obligations on the train operating companies to deliver those very facilities?

[Norman Baker]

I want to come on to the various mechanisms through which improvements can be made, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that, in theory, franchise requirements can be designed to achieve them. However, other methods are perhaps more effective. If I may make some progress, I hope that I will be able to give him some comfort.

Some 104 of the projects under the Access for All programme have already been completed, which is good news, and we expect the majority of the rest of the projects to be completed by March next year, which will be a full year ahead of schedule. The work has included significant engineering work at stations such as Clapham Junction, which is the station with the most daily train services in Europe and is now fully accessible for the first time in its 150-year history.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) for securing this debate. I just want to thank the Government for the Access for All programme on behalf of my constituents who use Worcester Shrub Hill station, another magnificent Isambard Kingdom Brunel station that will be getting new lifts under the Access for All programme this year.

[Norman Baker]

I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend’s constituents will doubtless be aware of his involvement in pushing for that particular improvement.

To build on the success of the Access for All programme, last year’s high-level output statement included £100 million to extend the programme until 2019, despite the difficult economic circumstances. We have asked the rail industry to nominate stations for inclusion in the extended programme, using the criteria to which I referred, and hopefully taking on board the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border made about remote rural stations. We also want the industry to take account of factors such as improving inter-urban journeys and the availability of third-party match funding, which can be used to weight business cases for individual station projects. The views of local authorities are also important when considering these matters, so they will be taken into account.

We want to tie in access improvements with other projects to help to deliver efficiency savings by combining costs, including project management costs. For example, last November I opened a joint national stations improvement programme and Access for All project—two different funding streams—at Horsham station, which was worth more than £4 million of Government and local authority funding. This excellent project shows exactly what can be achieved when different stakeholders co-ordinate their plans to deliver a better experience for passengers. I would welcome more examples of such co-ordination in the future.

I would expect a number of stations that were close to being included in the current Access for All programme to be nominated again this time around. They include Penrith, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, where Network Rail has already been looking at options for providing step-free access. I know that the station is one of the few on the west coast main line without a proper accessible route, and that it is an important interchange with National Express coaches and bus services to other parts of the Lake district. All those factors will make Penrith a strong candidate for inclusion in the Access for All programme, although I obviously cannot guarantee that it will be included. Although Network Rail is busy considering the matter, I would expect Virgin, the train company involved, to be frankly a little more sympathetic than appears to have been the case to date. I expect the industry to complete the nomination process by the end of this year, which would enable us to be in a position to announce the successful stations by April 2014, the beginning of the next rail control period.

It is important to remember that improved access can often be achieved using relatively small amounts of funding, combined with innovative thinking by the industry, so the Access for All programme includes an annual small schemes fund of around £7 million a year. That money is allocated between the train operating companies, based on the number of stations they manage and how busy those stations are. Since 2006, more than £100 million of investment, including contributions from the train operators themselves and from local authorities, has seen projects delivered at more than 1,100 stations, which is almost half the total number of stations in this country.

A variety of projects have been supported, including: better provision of accessible toilets; customer information systems, which have now been installed at more than 80% of our national stations; blue badge parking spaces; and features such as induction loops at ticket offices to help those with hearing impairments. The work has removed barriers to travel for many disabled people, and these are real examples of projects that are delivered at a relatively low cost, but have high value.

In 2011, we released £37.5 million of Access for All mid-tier funding to help projects needing up to £1 million of Government support. A total of 42 projects were successful, ranging from the provision of step-free access—via lifts—at stations such as Alton, which serves Treloar college for physically disabled students, to a Changing Places disabled toilet at Paddington and easier access platform humps to reduce the stepping distance between the platform and train at several stations throughout the country. The first phase of those projects is now finishing, and the remainder of the projects are due to be completed by the end of this financial year.

I do not want to give the impression that that is all we are doing to improve access at stations, however. Access for All is over and above work delivered as part of other major investment programmes or work undertaken directly by train operators, which are each required to invest an average of £250,000 a year on improving stations under their minor works programmes as part of the franchise requirements. I understand that that money is now almost exclusively spent on access improvements. We heard mention of High Speed 2, and I want to make it clear that all new stations on the HS2 route or anywhere else—we are busy opening new stations under the new stations fund and the local sustainable transport fund—will be fully accessible.

We are determined to ensure that all rail vehicles are fully accessible, because there is no point in having accessible stations if people cannot get on the train. The latest figures show that more than 7,600 rail vehicles have been built or refurbished to modern access standards, which is 45% of all rail vehicles, including half of all trains—that is the difference between carriages and trains. More than 500 older rail vehicles have been fully refurbished to modern access standards, and contracts have been placed for work on hundreds more. Meanwhile, my officials, with assistance from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, continue to provide compliance guidance to the rail industry ahead of the 2020 deadline for all rail vehicles to be accessible. It is a firm commitment of the Government that all rail vehicles will be accessible by 2020, and we are determined to make sure that that is kept to. By the way, there are similar commitments on buses, which are equally important, if not more so, for people in rural areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border will no doubt accept.

In summary, I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the Government is committed—note to Hansard: the Government “is” committed, not “are” committed—to improving access at stations for disabled passengers through specific projects such as Access for All, as well as under improvements delivered as part of our wider commitment to improving the rail network.

I am grateful to hon. Members who contributed to the debate. The evidence of the turnout of Members demonstrates the importance that parliamentarians attach to this issue, and that is matched by the importance that we in the Department for Transport attach to it.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on securing the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Transport

Norman Baker Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Bridget Phillipson]

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South of 11 December 2012.

[Official Report, 24 June 2013, Vol. 565, c. 122W.]

Letter of correction from Norman Baker:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) on 24 June 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Norman Baker]

The Department for Transport does not have a record of receiving a letter from the hon. Member dated 11 December 2012, but we will be pleased to respond speedily if she could provide a copy.

The correct answer should have been:

[Norman Baker]

The response was sent on 20 June 2013.

Oral Answers to Questions

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

Q2. What his policy is on quality contracts for bus services.

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

The regulatory framework around quality contract schemes is the one we inherited from the previous Administration and there are no plans to change it. The decision to pursue a quality contract scheme remains for the local transport authority to take, if it can satisfy itself that the scheme is in the public interest.

[Mr Brown]

The Minister will know that up until now most provincial passenger transport authorities have preferred the partnership route and, to my knowledge, at least two—Tyne and Wear and West Yorkshire—are exploring whether to go the quality contract route instead, not least because of all the financial pressures that are now upon them. What advice does he have for the two authorities?

[Norman Baker]

My advice is to consider what is best in the public interest for their constituents, to examine the options available in legislation, to pursue partnership working with bus operators and to try to secure the best possible outcome for the bus passenger.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

15. Some 45 per cent. of those travelling on the excellent bus services in North Yorkshire take advantage of concessionary fares. Will the Minister look kindly on allowing bus companies similar commercial freedom to that enjoyed by the railway companies that provide concessionary passes?

[Norman Baker]

The arrangements for train and for bus are slightly different in the sense that the railway arrangements for the discount card were set in place at privatisation and are funded by the train operating companies, whereas the bus arrangements are of course funded from the public purse. If the hon. Lady has particular concerns about the operation of the travel concessionary scheme in her area, I will be very happy to meet her and talk about them.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

When the Minister sat on the Bill Committee for the Local Transport Act 2008, he was not satisfied with what the Government were then proposing because he knew, as do other hon. Members, that the current deregulated system allows bus companies to game the public purse to the detriment of the travelling public. Can he not persuade his hard-hearted Tory colleagues to help authorities that want to re-regulate the system to the benefit of the travelling public?

[Norman Baker]

As far as the landscape is concerned, following the recommendations of the Competition Commission, we have of course taken steps to improve it. The options available under the Local Transport Act—the hon. Gentleman and I sat on the Public Bill Committee—are still available. I encourage local authorities to explore the best possible options. What we are seeing across the country in places such as Brighton, for example, is a good arrangement between local authorities and bus companies, which is driving up passenger numbers.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The Minister will well remember the grilling that he and I got before the inaugural meeting of the Youth Select Committee about a year ago on the whole anomaly of young people often qualifying for full adult fares at the age of 16 and of a postcode lottery in certain parts of the country. A year on, with the Youth Select Committee moving on to a new study next week, will the Minister update us on what progress has been made on getting fairer fares for young people?

[Norman Baker]

I do remember that particular Select Committee engagement, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend is no longer in his post to carry on the work he was doing. Since then, we have talked to the bus companies at the Department for Transport and they have produced this new website, which is useful for identifying offers and the availability of transport for young people. In addition, I have had discussions with the Minister for Schools about the situation for young people, and we are considering what further action, if any, we can take.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Lancashire county council is considering quality bus contracts. Will the Minister and his Department be as supportive as possible towards those authorities that wish to move towards quality bus contracts, providing support where necessary?

[Norman Baker]

We are always happy to engage with local authorities and to give them advice in so far as they request it. Obviously, when local authorities request factual information from the Department, we will be happy to supply it.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

The quality of bus travel between Newcastle, Hexham and Carlisle has suffered terribly due to the mismanagement of Arriva. Specifically, many of my constituents encounter great problems with the service being perpetually late or even buses running out of fuel. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that the next time he meets Arriva, he will urge it to improve the quality of this service?

[Norman Baker]

I am always keen to improve the quality of bus services for passengers. The satisfaction level of bus travel as measured by the independent Passenger Focus is 84%, and in Tyne and Wear, for example, it is 87%. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about particular issues in his local area, I would be happy to pursue them with him and the relevant bus company.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

In theory, quality contracts and quality partnerships should make integrated ticketing—and, therefore, smartcard ticketing—easier to manage. We are still not seeing enough smartcard use outside London—specifically in Merseyside, where the project is long overdue. Will the Minister say specifically what he and his Department have done to empower integrated transport authorities to get smartcards available for passengers?

[Norman Baker]

As a matter of fact, we have provided significant sums of money to ITAs to take forward smart ticketing. We are also taking forward multi-operator ticketing guidance, in accordance with the Competition Commission’s recommendations, and I have made it plain to bus companies that we want to see progress on that matter. Only this week, I held a two-hour meeting with key operators in the bus and train world to talk about smart ticketing and to make sure we are making progress, which indeed we are, in both modes of transport.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

3. What steps he is taking to reduce incidents of dangerous driving.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the potential role of the local growth fund in improving transport; and if he will make a statement.

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

The single local growth fund will incorporate devolved major transport scheme funding along with other funding streams from across Government. The contribution the fund can make to improving transport will ultimately be determined by local decision takers. The Chief Secretary will make a statement on the matter in 31 minutes.

[Rosie Cooper]

I will try to get in before him. The Burscough curves, the Ormskirk bypass and a railway station for Skelmersdale are much-needed transport projects in West Lancashire that would benefit from local growth fund money. Following the Chancellor’s statement yesterday that local enterprise partnerships are to bid for single growth fund moneys, it is unclear to me who is responsible for making decisions on local transport priorities. Is it LEPs or the local transport authorities? Whose door do I knock on to get that much-needed money?

[Norman Baker]

We have set up local transport bodies and I have recently been engaging with them on their assurance frameworks, so in the immediate future I would suggest that the hon. Lady contacts her local transport body. The LEP responsibility kicks in from 2015.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that the local growth fund should be used to boost cross-country connectivity and not just to join together the big cities, particularly in areas such as Lancashire?

[Norman Baker]

I certainly agree that it is important to consider all aspects of the geography when considering bids. It is not simply a matter of building huge new roads from A to B. Often, the local pinch point investments referred to by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary a moment ago can be very effective indeed, so we should be prepared to be open-minded about the schemes that are appropriate for funding.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

9. What steps he is taking to support the get Britain cycling campaign.

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

I welcome the work that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) have undertaken through the all-party cycling group inquiry. We are looking at the recommendations carefully and will respond in the near future. The coalition Government takes cycling very seriously and is committed to leading the country into getting more people cycling, more safely and more often.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that comment. We look forward eagerly to the response and hope that it will be very positive. One suggestion that came up repeatedly was that safety for both cyclists and pedestrians would be driven by 20 mph speed zones as the standard on most residential side streets, but one problem is that the police do not seem to be enforcing them properly. Will the Minister have words with the police to get them to enforce the law?

[Norman Baker]

I entirely agree that 20 mph zones and limits can be useful in particular locations. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already taken up the matter of police enforcement with the Association of Chief Police Officers. Of course, operational matters are for the police to decide, but in my view if a local democratically elected body decides that a 20 mph limit should apply, the police should enforce it.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The Minister says that he takes cycling seriously, so when will the Government implement the relevant part of the Traffic Management Act 2004 to enable local authorities to enforce measures against law-breaking motorists who drive in cycle lanes and sit in advanced stop boxes for cyclists?

[Norman Baker]

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responded to that exact question on part 6 of the Traffic Management Act a moment ago. We have had representations about that; I am considering the matter seriously; we are in discussions with other Government Departments; and I hope to make a statement shortly.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

With roads congested, high petrol prices and obesity increasing, investing in cycling generates huge benefits and savings elsewhere. What confidence can the Minister give us that yesterday’s 9% cut in the Department for Transport’s budget will not see the paltry amount of money that Britain spends on cycling reduced still further?

[Norman Baker]

I do not accept that we spend a paltry amount of money. The local sustainable transport fund is £600 million—more than £1 billion with match funding—94 out of the 96 schemes have cycling elements; we have spent £107 million more on a range of cycling schemes in recent months; and there will be a further announcement on cycling spending shortly. I can assure the hon. Gentleman absolutely that spending on cycling will continue.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What his plans are for future investment in London’s transport network.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

T10. Stafford road and Stanhope way in my constituency are in a state of chaos owing to unco-ordinated bus services using narrow residential roads. What plans does the Minister have to look at the strategic co-ordination of bus services outside London?

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

We think that these decisions are best made locally. It is therefore a matter for the relevant local authorities to engage with the main bus operators to drive that forward. We have incentivised partnership working through the creation of Better Bus Areas. That is putting £70 million more into the bus network, so there is a financial incentive for local authorities and bus companies to work together. If they are not doing so, I suggest the hon. Lady contact both of them in her area.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Further to that answer from my hon. Friend, what steps are the Government putting in place to protect vital rural bus services, particularly in sparsely populated areas?

[Norman Baker]

I hope my hon. Friend will have noticed in the statement yesterday that we have fully protected the funding for bus services in order to recognise their importance to rural areas, including his. In addition to that, we are continuing to fund new bus initiatives—Better Bus Areas, the green bus fund and so on—to make sure that buses are properly funded in this country.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Earlier this week statistics were released suggesting that in London, transport spending per head of population is 520 times more than in the north-east region—£2,700 in London, compared with a measly £5 in the north-east. What is the Secretary of State going to do to ensure a fairer distribution of transport finances to the north-east region?

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

Norman Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Written Statements

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

The Government’s review of non-departmental public bodies in 2010 recommended that the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) should be abolished as part of wider goals to improve efficiency, effectiveness, economy and accountability.

Having considered the matter carefully and taken account of the consultation responses received, I am today announcing that I have decided not to proceed with abolition, but to retain DPTAC as the Department’s expert advisory panel on accessibility issues relating to disabled people.

A public consultation was held between 11 June and 14 September 2012, on whether DPTAC should be abolished and, if so, on possible alternative arrangements. Following the consultation, I have concluded that abolition would not lead to any discernible improvement in economy and accountability.

However, I have also concluded that there is scope for restructuring DPTAC to ensure it is a more efficient and effective body. I am satisfied that the savings identified from such reforms would exceed earlier expectations. My officials will now work together with those from Cabinet Office on the restructuring of DPTAC. As DPTAC has the characteristics of a non-departmental body, it will continue to be subject to review every three years.

This announcement will end a considerable period of uncertainty for the existing members of DPTAC, and I hope will be welcomed by the majority of respondents to the consultation who were in favour of its retention.