Bus Services (Milton Keynes)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) on securing this Adjournment debate and on the effective way in which he presented his case. I understand that he is a keen marathon runner, so he will be quite used to making his journeys through urban areas at high speed on foot. However, for the rest of us who only run for office, public transport is often required for such journeys, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the subjects he has raised tonight.

Buses play a hugely important role in our transport system. More journeys are made each year on buses than on all other public transport modes put together. Where a bus network works well, the bus can provide more than mere convenience. It is no exaggeration to say that a good-quality bus service can be a lifeline, particularly for those who do not have access to a car.

The best bus networks exist where local government and operators work productively together. However, for this to happen, central Government need to provide an appropriate legislative framework that enables innovation and creativity from bus companies, and provides local authorities with the flexibility to use their local knowledge to manage their bus networks in a fair and logical way. Local government needs to work closely with operators and the travelling public to ensure that we have a local transport network that works for everyone, and transport operators need to listen to the views of their passengers to ensure that their decisions reflect those views and the views of locally elected representatives.

Cities and large towns evolve and grow, and it is inevitable that local transport provision changes to reflect this. This is especially true for ambitious cities such as Milton Keynes, as evidenced by the extensive redevelopment of the Milton Keynes Coachway station, to be completed later this year. I suspect that that project will bring huge benefits to the city, and I very much hope it will inspire other cities to consider similar projects.

However, in respect of the specific issues my hon. Friend raised, I acknowledge that when changes are made to timetables, they should be implemented in a way that minimises disruption for passengers. While there is currently no requirement for bus operators formally to consult local residents, we know that the best operators work closely with passenger groups and local authorities to ensure that they are listening to the voice of the passenger when these decisions are made.

I am aware of the particular public meeting to which my hon. Friend referred. I have in front of me an extract from his local paper, which points out that hundreds of people vented their anger at that meeting, which was held at Christ the Cornerstone church on the Friday in question. I note the concern expressed there, as reported in the press: that there was no public consultation before the changes were imposed, that several services were axed, and that route changes left some estates bypassed altogether. The fact that hundreds turned up to that meeting demonstrates the importance of the bus network to Milton Keynes, and the wish for people to be properly consulted about bus changes in their areas.

Of course, there are times when decisions are made that inconvenience local residents. Even when a rerouted bus service results in more people having access to local transport, that is of cold comfort to those who find that the bus that used to stop outside their front door now does not pass through their neighbourhood. I certainly agree that if we end up with expensive signs and new bus stops that become redundant, that is not a good use of public or private money. However, I am keenly aware of the importance of stability for passengers. A passenger who catches a bus today wants to know that the route will still be running next week. With stability in the network, passengers are able to build up a habit of using the bus, and are even able to look further afield for employment opportunities, confident that the bus they rely on to commute will not vanish overnight. This predictability is of course in the interests of the bus companies themselves as they seek to grow their business.

The Competition Commission is undertaking a large-scale inquiry into the bus industry. Competition is, I know, a concern of some residents in areas such as Milton Keynes, where bus services are largely provided by a single bus operator. I do not believe that it would be right or sensible tonight to pre-empt the commission’s report by introducing wholesale regulatory changes before it has published its findings. My hon. Friend referred to the Local Transport Act 2008 and mentioned the possibility of a review. In a sense, a review is taking place through the commission’s inquiry, which is looking at the regulation of the bus industry. That, in turn, will advise Government on whether further changes are necessary or not. We await the results of that with interest.

However, clearly some areas can be considered while the inquiry is ongoing, and my hon. Friend has raised some of them today. The Department for Transport has just completed its own consultation to explore some ways in which changes to the regulatory framework may help. For example, we sought views on whether it would be appropriate to extend the notice that an operator is required to provide before altering an existing service—my hon. Friend covered that point in his contribution. Currently, a bus company in England is required to notify the traffic commissioner 56 days in advance of any change. That is not the case in Scotland, where a bus company is required to have provided an additional 14 days’ notice to the local authority before submitting such an application to the traffic commissioner. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am actively considering whether it would be appropriate to adopt a similar arrangement across England as well, and I hope to make an announcement shortly.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, local authorities already have a wide range of powers at their disposal, including the power to tender additional bus routes where they deem them to be necessary. That already happens in Milton Keynes, as it does right across the country, and I am sure that Milton Keynes council is examining the situation closely. I am informed that 17% of the bus mileage in his area is subsidised in this way; that figure is broadly in line with the national average outside London.

All local authorities in England have the powers to introduce different degrees of local regulation, through the use of a voluntary partnership agreement, the introduction of a quality partnership scheme or London-style franchising through the use of a quality contracts scheme. There is no reason why partnership agreements cannot include requirements for the operator to notify passengers before making changes to services or fares. So, in a sense, the tools to achieve what my hon. Friend wants are available if Milton Keynes council and others want to use them. In my view, local transport should, in the main, be managed at the local level, where local knowledge can be used to greatest effect. I can give him my assurance that the coalition Government are committed to this decentralisation.

I am aware that earlier this year the south-east regional transport board recommended the withdrawal of funding for the central Milton Keynes public transport improvement scheme, and that that came as a blow for Milton Keynes council, which had set a stretching target to increase bus patronage from 9.3 million in 2007-08 to 11 million in 2010-11. I am sure that the local authority is investigating whether it is possible to seek other routes for funding this proposal, either in its original form or some variant thereof. I understand that the council is looking at directing some of the revenue it receives from parking towards improvements in bus services, as well as seeking improvements in punctuality through its new punctuality improvement partnership, and I welcome that initiative.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Budget statement confirmed the coalition Government’s commitment to a number of major transport schemes, and I will take the opportunity to repeat that commitment today. It is not, however, only major urban transport investment that yields big results. In comparison with major projects such as the upgrade to Birmingham New Street station or the extension to the Manchester Metrolink, proposals to improve local bus services may seem, and indeed are, very small. But it is important that we do not lose sight of the significant impact, both positive and negative, that small changes can have.

Although every area of government is going to have to work in a more efficient way, a local bus network is vital to a local economy, as it provides access to employment, goods and services for a huge number of people and more than 5 billion passenger journeys a day are made on local buses alone, so we need to ensure that the investment in services continues. Altogether, local and central Government provide about £2.5 billion in support to the bus industry, and it is important that we not only continue to provide financial support for services, but ensure that this money is allocated in a way that provides the maximum benefit across the board. Bus service operators grant, for example, directly provides operators with more than £400 million in support for bus services. The benefits of that grant are clear: it ensures that the bus network remains as broad as possible, while keeping fares lower and bringing more people on to public transport, with the obvious benefits of reducing congestion, lowering carbon emissions and improving air quality in our towns and cities. However, no matter how clear the benefits of such investment are, it is important that the Government get as much value as possible from every pound invested in services and it may be that we can increase the benefits of this grant even further. My hon. Friend may be interested to learn that I am considering whether it would be sensible to reform the way this grant is allocated, to ensure that it provides the maximum possible benefit for passengers. In general, I am determined that we should have a bus system that delivers good value for the taxpayer and good value for the fare payer.

Let me pick up on one or two points that my hon. Friend raised. First, I am pleased that the Milton Keynes older persons forum has been so active in this matter and I want to pass on my thanks to its members for their efforts in this regard. I am pleased that the new bus users group has been established and I hope that what I have said tonight, coupled with the steps being taken locally in Milton Keynes, will mean that we end up with an improved bus service and more satisfaction than was clearly shown at the public meeting attended by my hon. Friend and others. I know that my hon. Friend has been active in this case with Arriva and I hope that he will continue to be so in the interests of his constituents. I am sure that he will, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) will do likewise.

In conclusion, I hope that this goes some way to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South and his colleagues that I am considering a number of different options for improvements to the way central Government can assist local authorities in managing their bus networks. I intend to make further statements to the House once I have come to a conclusion on the best way to achieve our shared aims.

Question put and agreed to.

New Roads (Hertfordshire)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Westminster Hall

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for, and congratulate her on, securing this debate on an issue that is clearly important to her, her constituents, and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and many other Members up and down the country. I know that she has tabled an early-day motion on the subject. I assure her from the beginning that I am sympathetic to her concerns. I know that the issue has resonance with other Members; the last time I checked, her early-day motion had secured the support of 15 Members from both sides of the House, and perhaps that figure has now increased. As she knows, the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering secured recently was his second such debate in recent months, and I was pleased to be able to respond to it.

It is right to acknowledge at the outset that many developers routinely build roads in new developments to a high standard and in good time, and in many cases they are ready for adoption by the local highways authority. Where developers take the right approach, home owners should have little cause for concern. However, I am only too aware that that is not always the case. Some developers drag their feet in bringing the roads up to an adoptable standard, and as a result, even many years after a development has been completed, some home owners find that the roads remain unfinished and unsuitable for adoption by the highways authority. That is not acceptable.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans spoke eloquently about the problems that can arise in such cases. The obvious point is that poor road quality is a daily frustration for residents, but I am aware that in more extreme cases, there are concerns about damage to vehicles, the ability to enforce speed limits, and the removal of abandoned vehicles. Such problems can and do occur on unadopted roads. The issue of access for emergency vehicles has also rightly been raised with us.

I am aware that the concerns are not confined to my hon. Friend’s constituency. As she mentioned, it was estimated that there were around 40,000 unadopted roads across the country in 1972. Since then, some roads will have been adopted, while new roads will have been built but not yet adopted. As a result, there have been calls for the Government to conduct a national survey of private roads to bring the estimate up to date—something to which she referred.

While I am sympathetic to the problem, I am not convinced about the value of such a survey. First, any survey of private streets would reveal a large number of streets that are never likely to be suitable for adoption, and in which my hon. Friend is not interested—farm tracks, service roads, back alleys and suchlike. Secondly, any survey would reveal some private residential streets where the residents bought their properties in the full knowledge that they would retain responsibility for ongoing maintenance, and probably—or perhaps—benefited from that being reflected in the purchase price. In many of those cases, residents are quite happy to live on a private street.

In a specimen survey of 600 private streets, 63 were suitable for adoption, but only in 17 cases did the majority of the frontagers want the street adopted; that leaves 46. I accept that that is a small survey, but it might give some flavour of the position out there in the country. To deliver useful conclusions, any national survey would need to identify not only the number of private streets, but the number of streets that could be made suitable for adoption, and that residents actually wanted adopted. As I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate, such a survey would be large-scale, costing a significant amount of taxpayers’ money, and I am not persuaded that it would offer value for money, particularly at this time. I am not sure how such a survey would help us move forward. We are fully aware of the problem and sympathise.

[Mrs Main]

I completely accept that a survey would not be a value-for-money thing and is not likely to happen. That is why I believe that talking to the local authorities might be useful. They will be aware of which roads people would like adopted but are frustrated that they cannot have adopted, and in which cases roads are not adopted, but nobody wants them adopted and everyone is fine with that. That is why I felt that talking to the local authorities could be the way forward.

[Norman Baker]

I agree with that, and we are talking to local authorities. I will come to that in a moment. The issue is not quantifying to the nth degree exactly how many unadopted roads there are, but ensuring that we have a full picture in the Department of the problems that arise, so that we can identify solutions to move forward. That is what I am trying to do in my role.

There must be two elements to any sensible strategy. The first element is to ensure that the best possible use is made of the powers already available to local authorities. They are not perfect, but the powers are there. I spoke in some detail to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering about the existing tools, including planning conditions, adoption agreements and the advance payments code. I accept that there are limitations in respect of some of those matters. The second element is to consider whether the existing tools can be made more effective through changes in legislation.

On best use of the existing tools, as I indicated in a previous debate on the subject, planning circular 11/95 sets out the uses for planning conditions, and the courts have further clarified their use, setting out clear criteria. Rather than occupying the time of the House by repeating what I said previously, I refer my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans to that previous debate for further background information on that point.

The circular also states that conditions may be imposed to ensure that the development proceeds in line with locally defined needs. For example, a condition may be imposed to ensure that necessary infrastructure is in place before full occupancy of the site. I understand that this type of condition has been used to secure highway infrastructure where a development would have an adverse impact on the highway network. That is particularly important where sites are to be delivered in phases, as it allows a compromise between the needs of the developer to build and sell the site in phases, and the needs of the highways authority to ensure a safe and suitable standard of road.

The planning condition route allows the local authority and the developer to discuss and agree the needs of the site, and to take them into account for the benefit of future occupiers of the development. The Planning Inspectorate can provide model conditions to give guidance to local authorities where particularly problematic issues have been identified. My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans might like to know that at the request of the Department for Transport, and indeed the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Planning Inspectorate is developing a model condition to assist with the problems raised in places such as Kettering and St Albans.

My hon. Friend referred in passing—indirectly, at least—to problems potentially arising between two-tier authorities. I am familiar with that situation in my constituency, where we have a district and a county council. This is not necessarily a legislative problem, but in some cases local authorities—district and county—do not work together as well as they might. It is important that that is pursued from a local angle. Clearly, any changes to local government functions are a matter not for the Department for Transport but for my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Coming back to the model condition, it could offer increased consistency and certainty for authorities, some of which have voiced uncertainty about how planning conditions can be used robustly to specify highway standards, in line with the national policy set out in planning circular 11/95. I accept that no model condition would offer a one-size-fits-all solution; it would need to be adapted by individual authorities to suit the circumstances of particular developments. A carefully designed model planning condition that can be adapted for use in particular local circumstances could offer a useful way forward. Local councils in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering have certainly indicated that they would find that helpful.

I said in response to the previous debate on the subject that I would be prepared to explore potential legislative options, and I am happy to reaffirm that commitment. There are two particular aspects of primary legislation that have been identified by highways authorities as being in need of review. The first is the so-called advance payments code, to which my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans referred, which forms part of the Highways Act 1980. The original purpose of the code was to allow highways authorities to secure a payment or security from developers to cover the cost of making up the road to an adoptable standard, in the event that a developer failed to do so. The payment or security would be available when a development reached a certain stage, at which point the frontagers could require the carrying out of street works and the subsequent adoption of the road. In effect, the deposit or security covers the liability of the owners of the new homes for the cost of making up the street that would otherwise fall to them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering was concerned that funds under section 38 cannot be accessed by the highways authority unless the developer goes bust. We understand from the local authorities with which we have discussed the matter that they have difficulty accessing funds deposited by developers, and we will examine that issue with authority representatives as part of our review of section 38 and other elements of legislation. I hope that is helpful to my hon. Friend.

Currently, under the Highways Act 1980, there is a six-week window in which the highways authority can request a deposit or security. I am aware that the usefulness of the code is weakened because, in many cases, there is no longer any reliable mechanism to make the highways authority aware of the start of works on a particular development, particularly in a two-tier arrangement. As a result, the authority will not necessarily become aware of the need to request a deposit or security until after the six-week window has passed. I think that there is a good case for extending that window, but I am advised that unfortunately that would require primary legislation to amend the Highways Act 1980. That has become the issue, rather than the assessment of the applicability or suitability of the existing condition.

Before I move on to my conclusion, I will refer to the second aspect of legislation that is in need of review, which is section 38 of the Highways Act 1980.

[Mrs Main]

Before the Minister moves on, may I quickly intervene?

[Norman Baker]

Very briefly, as I have only two minutes left.

[Mrs Main]

Is it possible for guidance to be issued, if there is no wish to amend the primary legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

We will look at how far we can get down the track. We want to get as far down it as possible, including through changes to legislation, if we can make them. Certainly we will do what we can short of introducing legislation, if that approach is necessary.

Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 is a well-used mechanism that can be very effective where a developer is prepared to commit to making up new roads to an adoptable standard. I am aware, however, that the existing arrangements place no obligation on developers to enter into such an agreement, even if the authority is clear that that would be squarely in the public interest. In the debate on 10 June, I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering that I was exploring that matter with the Department for Communities and Local Government to see whether we could have

“options for legislation, including empowering local authorities to require developers to enter into section 38 agreements.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 578.]

We have had initial discussions with representatives of the Department for Communities and Local Government on the subject. They were not unsympathetic, but the issue, both in that case and with regard to advance payments under the Highways Act 1980, is simply finding a window for legislation. Both my hon. Friends will be aware that the coalition Government’s commitment is to give priority in legislation to the elements that were included in the coalition agreement, so that we can be seen to be delivering properly on what we promised the public. It is a question of how much traffic one can get on the bridge at any time. That does not mean that action will not happen, but it means that the issue will have to take its place in the queue. We will do our best in our Department to try to find a way to progress the matter, either through primary legislation or through some other means that helps move matters forward in a productive way.

The Department for Transport had a constructive meeting earlier this year with council representatives from the Kettering constituency, which was helpful in establishing the nature of the concerns and providing an initial view of some potential solutions. I am now keen to move forward by inviting—

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Order.

Tolls (Severn Bridges)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Westminster Hall

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

I wish first to congratulate the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on securing the debate. I thank her very much for her kind welcome to me in my new post. Our commitment to the issue is not in doubt, and I hope that the fact that it is taking place during another event outside the House demonstrates to her constituents her dedication to the issue—assuming, of course, that they will support England.

Before I start to discuss the tolls on the Severn crossings, I wish to make the point that, since 1945, it has been the policy of successive Governments that crossings on estuaries should be paid for by the user rather than by the taxpayer. Successive Governments have taken the view that tolls on all such crossings are justified because the user benefits from the exceptional savings in time and money that those expensive facilities make possible. It is important to make such a point at this stage. It is one that should not be forgotten, not least of all with the present financial difficulties that the Government and country face.

In specific relation to the Severn crossings, it might be helpful if I give a brief outline of their history, some of which is relevant to the issues that have been raised. The first Severn bridge was opened by the Queen in September 1966, providing a direct link from the M4 motorway into Wales, with a toll in place for use of the bridge to pay for the cost of construction. The original bridge continually operated at significantly above its designed traffic capacity, so the then Government said in 1986 that a second bridge would be constructed. In July 1988 they announced that the private sector would be given an opportunity to participate in the scheme and in April 1990 they announced the selection of the bid led by John Laing Ltd with GTM-Entrepose to design, build and finance the second crossing. That consortium was also to take over the maintenance and operation of the existing Severn bridge.

In October of that year, the concession agreement was formally signed between the Government and Severn River Crossing plc, and in February 1992 the Severn Bridges Bill received Royal Assent. The concession agreement was enshrined in an Act of Parliament and commenced in April 1992. Severn River Crossing plc then took over both the operation and maintenance of the present bridge and the construction of the new bridge. The finance arranged by the company covers the cost of construction for the new bridge and pays for the outstanding debt on the present bridge.

Construction of the new bridge started in September 1992 and the new crossing was opened on 5 June 1996 by the Prince of Wales, almost 30 years after the opening of the first bridge. The concession period is limited to a maximum of 30 years. The actual end date will be achieved when the concessionaire has collected a fix sum of money from tolls, which is £995,830,000 at 1989 prices; that is £1.8 billion at today’s prices. As part of the concession agreement, Severn River Crossing plc is authorised to collect tolls to meet its financial obligations. It is worth stressing that that is the company’s only source of income.

Let me make it clear why tolls are collected at the crossings. Tolls are in place to repay the construction and financing costs of the second Severn crossing, the remaining debt from the first existing crossing from 1992 and to maintain and operate both crossings. I have seen no evidence to suggest that the tolls impact on the economic viability of Wales, although I note the concerns of hon. Members about the impact of the tolls in their constituencies. Clearly, there is a cost to the crossing, which is borne by business and those who pay the tolls, but that has to be weighed against the benefits that the crossings provide in terms of more direct access into Wales, allowing users quicker access to markets than would otherwise be the case. However, I am happy to receive and to look at evidence from the Welsh Assembly, hon. Members or others. That is an open invitation to supply such information to me.

[Nia Griffith]

Does the Minister agree that in a situation where tolls are not the norm on other roads, it makes a firm such as Owens feel at a distinct disadvantage when it is competing with firms whose distances from the main markets and from the channel ports may be similar, but who do not have to make their route via a tollbridge, and that there is therefore a feeling of economic inequality in that instance?

[Norman Baker]

I do understand that. I mentioned earlier that it is standard practice for estuary crossings to have tolls, no matter where they are. They limit the journey time and deal with—or compensate for—the geography of the area. While I understand that there is a cost involved that would not be there if a crossing were not necessary, the alternative to a toll crossing would be a much longer diversionary route. That is a matter of geography; I am not downplaying the concerns that hon. Members and others have about the impact. As I said, I welcome any further information that they want to give me on that matter, and I will personally look at it.

[Jessica Morden]

Would the Minister commit to doing an economic impact study on south Wales with the Welsh Assembly Government?

[Norman Baker]

I do not want to commit to that here, but I will happily receive information that is supplied to me, and I will bear in mind that request as and when it comes in.

The Severn Bridges Act 1992 seeks to apply a clear structure to the tolls to give the concessionaire confidence that it will be able to meet its liabilities and manage the risks that it accepted through the concession agreement. The toll levels were set for three categories of vehicles at the time of tender and are embodied in the Act. The Act sets out the tolling arrangements and the basis for yearly increases in the toll rates. Toll rates are fixed in real terms. The new rates are introduced on 1 January each year and are increased in line with the retail price index using a formula, and rounded to the nearest 10p.

I want to stress an important point: the Secretary of State does not have the authority to set the annual tolls below the level of RPI increase without the concessionaire's agreement. The concessionaire would not be able to agree to anything that would affect their net revenue without compensation and agreement from their shareholders and lenders, which would result, if such an agreement were forthcoming, in a cost to the taxpayer.

Tolls are charged in a westbound direction only from England into Wales. The current toll prices are: £5.50 for cars, £10.90 for vans and £16.40 for vehicles over 3.5 tonnes. I do understand hon. Members’ concerns that those are higher than apply in other crossings.

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

The Minister made reference to the fact that it is an estuarial crossing, but it is unique in the United Kingdom because it goes into a part of our country that now has a devolved Government. When I served as Secretary of State, some of my conversations with the then First Minister were about how we deal with a situation where tolls are charged to come into Wales but not to go out. The impact on the Welsh economy is very severe, particularly in times such as this. The Minister ought to think a little more about the importance of having a dialogue with his counterpart in Cardiff, because of the importance of this to the Welsh economy in these difficult times.

[Norman Baker]

I am very happy to have dialogue with my counterpart or anyone else in the Welsh Assembly if they wish to do so. The issue has just been raised for the first time with the new Government—this is the first Adjournment debate on it. I am perfectly open to suggestions of dialogue with people from Wales or elsewhere on issues for which my Department is responsible.

I want to talk about VAT, which was raised by the hon. Member for Newport East. When VAT was first applied to the crossings in 2003, following a European Court ruling, there was no increase in the toll to the motorist. Following the Chancellor's statement yesterday, the Highways Agency will discuss adjustments within the concession to accommodate the new 20% VAT rate with Severn River Crossing plc. We do not expect the VAT increase to be passed on through an increase in the tolls, but the concessionaire expects to receive a certain amount of money, and the way in which that can be accommodated without increasing tolls is a matter for negotiation.

I know that the hon. Member for Newport East has an interest in local discount schemes, to which she referred in her opening remarks. Any discounts or exemptions are a matter for the concessionaire to decide, provided that they comply with existing legislation. Where that is not the case, such schemes cannot be introduced without changes to primary legislation and the concession agreement. They would have a financial impact on the concession and the period required for repayment, which would impact all road users. Discounts of around 20% for regular and frequent users are offered by way of a season TAG, whereas blue badge holders and the emergency services are exempt.

I now turn to the matter of card payments, which I know the hon. Lady pursued before the election and, with some justification, can claim to have had some success on in her campaign. In March this year, an amendment was made to the Severn Bridges Regulations 1996 to allow card payments at the tollbooths. She will recognise that there are associated costs with the introduction of card payments, mainly bank transaction charges, which are estimated to be between £7 million and £10 million to the end of the concession, or approximately £1 million per year depending on usage. Implementation is expected to cost around £1.2 million, and the way in which the additional costs will be funded has yet to be agreed. Discussions with the concessionaire to resolve the financial issues regarding the introduction of credit card payments are ongoing, but work to amend the tolling software to allow for the processing of credit and debit cards has started.

One of the drivers—no pun intended—that the hon. Lady will be aware of is the Ryder cup, one of the highest profile sporting events in the world. It is due to be held in Newport between 27 September and 3 October this year, with about 50,000 visitors a day, the majority of whom will come from overseas and will not be flush with money in their pockets to pay the tolls. We want to make progress on the matter, and I hope to have it resolved before the Ryder cup begins. My officials assure me that that will be the case, and I will look into the matter to ensure that that is so.

An hon. Member also raised the issue of motorists being sent back after driving some way and finding that they could not pay by card. I understand that signs are in place close to the bridge, before the last junction, advising motorists of the current arrangements, which is that they can pay only in cash. However, if they arrive at the tolls, I have been assured that they do not necessarily have to make a U-turn; they can be issued with an invoice with an added administration fee of £5. The problem with turning motorists back has been recognised, and that is being dealt with in the way I described as an interim measure. If that was new information to Members present, I hope that that was helpful.

Regarding maintenance, the concessionaire is required to maintain both Severn crossings in accordance with the concession agreement. A rigorous schedule of inspections is carried out and regular review meetings are held between the concessionaire and the Highways Agency.

A programme of cable inspections on the first Severn bridge began in April 2006 after corrosion was found in the suspension cables of bridges of a similar age and construction in other parts of the world. Unfortunately, significant levels of corrosion were found and a programme of works to tackle the corrosion followed. A full dehumidification system has been installed to address the corrosion. The system, which pumps dry air into the cables to reduce humidity, has been operational since December 2008. Reports show that humidity levels within the main cable are below the target level of 40% relative humidity. In addition, an acoustic monitoring system has been installed to track the rate and location of any further deterioration. A second round of inspections is currently under way to gain a detailed understanding of the level of corrosion and to verify the success of the dehumidification process so far. That work is due for completion later this year.

The corrosion of the main cables is a defect that existed before the letting of the concession and unfortunately—from my point of view—is not covered by the concession agreement. Costs associated with this work will therefore be met by the Government. The programme of mitigation and inspection work carried out so far has cost the Government £15 million, with the second round of inspections costing us a further £4 million.

Reports in the local media—and a letter from a Member of the National Assembly for Wales—suggest that the concessionaire will hand back the crossings in a state of disrepair. The suggestion was made earlier that, once the concession ends, the taxpayer will have to foot the bill. Let me make it clear, the concessionaire is bound by the legal terms of the concession, which it signed, to maintain the crossings to an acceptable standard. When the concession ends, the concessionaire is required to carry out any necessary maintenance and repair works on the crossings prior to handover. That is a legally binding commitment and is what I expect them to do.

[Jessica Morden]

Does the Minister have an indication of the year in which the concession will end?

[Norman Baker]

I am coming to that. The concession agreement sets out the requirements for transfer of the crossings to the Secretary of State at the end of the concession period. The concession is currently predicted to end in the first half of 2017, when the sum defined in the 1992 Act will have been collected through tolling. The bridges will then be returned to the Secretary of State. However, in order to ensure that tolls do not rise further, there are additional costs that have to be absorbed, both through the VAT increase and the work to ensure that credit cards can be accepted. I am giving the best estimate—it might slip slightly in the light of those two matters, but that is not certain at this stage.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Will the Minister indicate whether the UK Government are considering offering joint ownership of the bridges after handover to the Welsh Government?

[Norman Baker]

That matter has not been considered in my short time in office. The hon. Gentleman has raised an issue that I am sure is important to people in Wales and I will ensure that he receives a reply.

[Jonathan Evans]

The Minister shared with us a figure of £995 million. As I understand it, when we last heard from the Department, the assessment of how much mileage has been made towards that figure was about £682 million. Is the Minister able to update us on the current take, or if not, will he share it later?

[Norman Baker]

I do not have that precise figure at my fingertips, but if comes to me in the next couple of minutes I will tell Members. If it is not possible to do so before half-past 4, I undertake that all Members present will get a written response.

When the Secretary of State takes over the bridges at the end of the concession, the Government are authorised to continue tolling for a further five years following the handover of the crossings, to enable them to cover their own costs incurred, such as the £19 million that I mentioned in respect of the maintenance of the cables. No decisions have been made regarding the operation of the crossings once the concession ends, and therefore we are open to suggestions as to what might be the appropriate position at that stage.

In answer to the question about turnover at July 1989 prices, the present figure is about £648 million, against the final total of £995 million.

In conclusion, I thank not only the hon. Member for Newport East but Members of all parties who contributed to the debate. I and the Department recognise that this is an important issue for Welsh Members in particular. We are bound by the 1992 Act and the agreements entered into at that stage. Within that relatively tight constraint, I am willing to do what I can to address issues that Members have raised and I hope the House has found that helpful.

Oral Answers to Questions

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

4. What plans he has for the future of the national concessionary bus fare scheme.

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

The Government’s commitment to protect free bus travel for older people is set out in the coalition agreement. The right to free bus travel for both older and disabled people is enshrined in primary legislation.

[Clive Efford]

Will the hon. Gentleman be the Government’s conscience on the freedom pass, because when one looks at all the people who have tried to undermine it in the past, one realises that they have all been Conservatives. They have described the pass as a stealth tax, or said that it goes to the wrong people. Would it be a resigning issue for him if the scheme were to be watered down in any way, and will he keep a weather eye out for those nasty colleagues of his who always try to undermine the freedom pass?

[Norman Baker]

It is something of a record to ask a Minister whether he might consider resigning when he is answering his first departmental question. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the coalition—both parties—are committed to free bus travel for older people, as I set out. Indeed, that is enshrined in primary legislation, so I think that his fears are groundless.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Labour Government reduced the grant for the bus concessionary scheme in London by some £25 million quite late on in the process. Will the Minister confirm that the coalition will not do anything similar to the council tax payers of London?

[Norman Baker]

We have no plans to revisit the settlement for this year.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister and his colleagues to their appointments, and we wish them well in their responsibilities. It is hard not to notice that the Department is led by two former shadow Chief Secretaries to the Treasury, at least one of whom would rather like to be Chief Secretary to the Treasury, so the Opposition will be keeping a very careful eye on them to ensure that they are genuine advocates for modern transport infrastructure, and not holding office simply to wield the Chancellor’s axe.

Will the Minister give the House a clear guarantee on two points on the concessionary travel scheme? Can he reassure the 11 million people who were given free bus travel under Labour that this Government will not introduce any new restrictions on when and how their passes can be used, and can he guarantee that there will be no means-testing for new recipients of free bus travel during the lifetime of this Parliament?

[Norman Baker]

The Opposition spokesman perhaps did not hear my original answer, which was that the Government are committed to protecting free bus travel for older people. That is set out very clearly in the coalition agreement and will be our policy.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

5. What recent representations he has received on the system of reimbursement to local authorities for their expenditure on the national concessionary bus fare scheme; and if he will make a statement.

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

Department for Transport Ministers have recently received general representations about concessionary travel, including from local authority and bus operator representatives. Some of those representations have included funding issues.

[Mr Sanders]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his position. He will be aware that many councils have found it difficult to meet the full costs of the scheme. I successfully lobbied for extra money for my authority, but it is still out of pocket. While lobbying, I uncovered a report that suggested that significant savings could be made if the scheme were administered nationally, with the Government rather than lots of local authorities negotiating with the bus companies. Will he look at that idea to see whether savings can be made?

[Norman Baker]

The previous Government consulted on that very option, and only 23% of respondents were in favour of it, compared with a majority in favour of administration at county council level—the scheme that has now been adopted. The concern is that if the scheme were administered centrally, it might have an impact on the discretionary concessions offered by district councils. We could end up with a national system and local negotiations, thereby increasing administration costs.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that the decision to have a concessionary scheme in England had consequential effects on funding in Scotland through the Barnett formula. The scheme is already underfunded by the Scottish Government, so may I have an assurance that there will be no further cuts in funding in Scotland through the effect on the Barnett formula?

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to say that I am not an expert on the Barnett formula, and I advise the hon. Gentleman to await the outcome of the spending review.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

10. What guidance his Department issues to local authorities on the provision of subsidised bus services.

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

In 2005, the Department published a document on its website detailing best practice in the process of tendering for subsidised bus services, along with examples of specimen conditions for contracts, as part of its wider guidance to local authorities. The guidance remains available, and there are currently no plans to update it. The Department’s website also provides guidance on the de minimis rules for tendering.

[Chi Onwurah]

It was Baroness Thatcher who said that if a man finds himself on a bus at the age of 26, he is a failure. I assure the Minister that that is not the case in Newcastle, where the buses are an essential part of our economy. They are how we get to work. Will he assure us that, under the coalition Government, local authorities will have the powers to ensure that we have excellent bus services?

[Norman Baker]

We recognise that bus travel is the predominant form of public transport, and we want to encourage that. We also want to get better value for the taxpayer and the fare payer from the bus services that are provided. We also recognise the good work that many local authorities do in dealing with bus services, and I particularly want to pay tribute to the Tyne and Wear integrated transport authority, which is designing a comprehensive bus network to improve standards of accessibility for local residents.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his new role; I am sure that he will do an excellent job. We heard earlier that he had been unsuccessful in persuading his colleagues to change their views on carriages and rail fares. Has he had any more luck in changing their views on quality bus contracts? He will be aware that local authorities outside London want the same powers as those in London to choose to enter into quality bus contracts with bus operators. Local authorities around the country, led by all parties, are in favour of that, and so was the Minister before the election. Is he still in favour of it, and, if so, has he persuaded his colleagues to change their minds?

[Norman Baker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome. He was always considerate and helpful to me when I was in opposition, and I shall try to be equally helpful to him, now that the position has changed.

The legislation on quality contracts is as it is; it was set out and passed under the previous Government, and it remains in place. The Competition Commission is undertaking an investigation into the bus market, and it would be premature for me to make any further comments until it is completed.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

11. What assessment he has made of the merits of the 3a and 3b extensions to the Manchester Metrolink; and if he will make a statement.

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

Phases 3a and 3b of the Manchester Metrolink were approved for funding by the previous Government. Construction of phase 3a is under way. Phase 3b has been re-examined following the announcement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 May of a review of spending approval granted since 1 January this year.

[Andrew Gwynne]

With regard to the phase 3b contract for the Ashton-under-Lyne extension, it is important to note that substantial amounts of public funding have already been spent on the route, and significant advance works to provide dedicated strengthened central reserves and bridges have now been completed. Studies show that the East Manchester line will be commercially viable only if it goes all the way through to Ashton. Will the Minister confirm that all those issues will be factored into the review and that they will be carefully considered before a decision is made?

[Norman Baker]

The hon. Gentleman makes a number of pertinent points, and I understand the thrust of his argument and the strength of his case. I cannot give him a specific assurance at this precise moment, but I suggest that he will be interested to hear the statement that is shortly to be made from the Treasury Bench.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

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

I do acknowledge the importance of the Tyne and Wear metro, just as I acknowledge the difficult financial position the Government are in. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman wait for the Treasury statement later this morning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that Arriva buses recently introduced a completely new network and timetable in Milton Keynes? At a public meeting last Friday many of my constituents, especially pensioners, told me that they had been greatly inconvenienced by the changes, and that they had not been properly consulted. Will the Minister do all that he can to ensure that operators consult their passengers properly before introducing such radical changes?

[Norman Baker]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We ought to ensure that bus companies work with the grain of local people’s interests. We are considering the period within which bus companies must give notification of new timetables.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister reassure us that in considering any spending review relating to funds for the Tyne and Wear metro, he will take account of the need to preserve an existing structure which—unlike many other capital projects—is more than 30 years old, desperately requires reinvigoration, and is vital to the community in Newcastle and throughout the north-east?

[Norman Baker]

As I said a moment ago to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), we understand the importance of the Tyne and Wear metro to the area. I suggest that the hon. Lady wait for the statement that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will make later this morning.

[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?

Transport Infrastructure (Nottingham)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on securing this debate on transport infrastructure for Nottingham and the surrounding area, and on the comprehensive and persuasive way she put her case this afternoon. I am aware that she made her maiden speech in the House a few weeks ago and mentioned both the A453 and the Nottingham tram. I am now pleased to be responding to her first Adjournment debate on a subject that is clearly of great importance to her, to other hon. Members and to her constituents.

No one doubts that an effective and efficient low-carbon transport infrastructure can help to support economic development and help to tackle climate change. Unfortunately, securing these outcomes in our current economic climate is challenging to say the least, but I am confident that we can meet these challenges and still deliver transport infrastructure that works for economy and the environment. I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the coalition Government’s statement, to which she referred in her opening remarks, in which we have made clear our commitment to a modern low-carbon transport infrastructure as an essential element of a dynamic and entrepreneurial economy. She may also have noticed that light rail is specifically mentioned in the agreement. But we have also identified the pre-eminence of the deficit reduction programme at this time. The decisions that we take and the speed with which we are able to implement transport improvements will need to be determined in the light of the comprehensive spending review.

The hon. Lady asked about the criteria for assessing major projects, and I shall come to that point in a moment. She asked when and who will make decisions. Initially, the Treasury’s comprehensive spending review will tell us how much money the Department has in crude terms, and we shall then use the criteria to take the decisions. I am conscious of the uncertainty not just in Nottingham but across the country. We want to get a move on and give people clarity as soon as we possibly can.

The Department for Transport is playing a full part in the spending review that will report in the autumn. We have already announced a range of measures aimed at delivering reductions in spending. On 24 May, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave details of savings of £6.2 billion in Government spending in 2010-11. The Department for Transport is contributing to those savings, which has meant taking difficult decisions on funding and deferring decisions on schemes, including the A453, until after the outcome of the spending review.

Last Thursday, the Department for Communities and Local Government published further details about local government savings, including £309 million that the Department for Transport had identified in respect of local transport. In making those reductions, however, we have maximised flexibility for local authorities to reshape their budgets according to local priorities and to identify where efficiencies can be found. Given current financial constraints, it is essential to ensure that any new infrastructure is affordable and offers value for money.

On the criteria for assessing major projects, the hon. Lady may be interested to learn that my Department is committed to reforming the way decisions are made about which transport schemes to prioritise across the country. We are looking at the formula used to assess transport schemes so that the benefits of low-carbon proposals are fully recognised. We hope that work will be complete to coincide with the outcome of the comprehensive spending review so that we can take sensible decisions at that time.

Before I respond to the hon. Lady’s specific points, I acknowledge Nottingham city council’s high reputation as a transport authority. It has successfully managed major innovative projects, including the building of the tram. It is a beacon council for accessibility and has taken great strides in managing congestion in the area, as the hon. Lady pointed out. By August 2009, vehicle journey times during the morning peak had been reduced by almost 7% on baseline figures.

The Greater Nottingham transport partnership provides a good example of bringing together the private and public sectors to promote understanding of and support for the integrated vision contained in the joint local transport plan. From that partnership has come the “Big Wheel” marketing campaign, which has worked successfully to influence the use of sustainable transport options.

Nottingham City Transport picked up the winning new customers award at the 2009 UK bus awards, and in May this year the biggest, and first area-wide, statutory bus quality partnership was launched. Nottingham has seen year-on-year increases in bus and tram use. There are now 47 million bus passengers per year in Nottingham and 10 million tram passengers. With that base from which to work, I am confident that Nottingham City Transport is in a strong position to respond to the difficult financial climate we are now facing.

I understand the concerns expressed on both sides of the House about the decision to defer spending for the A453 scheme until the next comprehensive spending review period. I do not want to introduce a note of discord, but I point out gently to the hon. Lady that the previous Government had 13 years to do something about the road, but did not. She might bear that in mind as we consider how to go forward.

Following consideration of the scheme orders for the A453 at the public inquiry in 2009, the inspector’s report was submitted to the Secretary of State for consideration. However, no decision on the inspector’s report and the scheme orders can be made until there is clarity about the availability of funding for the scheme following the forthcoming spending review. As the scheme is subject to statutory procedures, I hope the hon. Lady will understand that I cannot, for reasons of propriety, discuss the merits of the A453 project in the Chamber this evening. I can assure her, however, that the scheme will be given due consideration alongside other proposals. Her comments and those of other Members are noted.

On the proposed tram extensions, the Government announced last week that we would consider schemes funded through the regional funding allocation process as part of our commitment to review the way funding decisions are made on which transport projects to prioritise. However, as the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said—I nearly called him the hon. Member for Shipley—the Nottingham project is slightly different. The extensions to the Nottingham express transit tram scheme are proposed to be funded almost entirely through the private finance initiative. The Government, through the Treasury, plan to make an announcement shortly on how we are dealing with PFI schemes, and it may be that more clarity can be given on the tram scheme at that point.

I would just say that the feeling I have picked up from speaking to Members on both sides of the House is that whether people were for or against the tram, there is acceptance—the route has been planned, it has been accepted, it has been established, and the issue now is really one of cost and finance rather than anything else.

[Chris Leslie]

It is entirely correct that it feels very much as though we have come so far—on the planning process, the commitment of all the legal fees and the consultancy fees, getting through the planning inquiries and so on—that it would be such a shame to decide not to progress at the eleventh hour, particularly when, as I said before, this scheme may not be so burdensome in its public borrowing aspects as perhaps others would.

[Norman Baker]

I do understand that point, and I am sure it is frustrating for Members all across the House, looking at various schemes in their own patches, to see this delay. I stress that it is a delay, rather than a cancellation—simply a deferral of schemes. We do want to get decisions as soon as we possibly can on all these schemes, but as to whether the PFI is good value for money, that is above my pay grade. It is a matter for Treasury Ministers to decide, although obviously the comments that the hon. Gentleman and others have made will be picked up and relayed to my colleagues in the Treasury.

I should record that the tram has been successful, carrying 38 million passengers—well above the projected figures. That is also a matter to take into account in looking at the future. So I can assure the hon. Member for Nottingham South that the Department understands the potential for trams, in the right conditions, to deliver a high-quality public transport alternative to the car. I believe that, as she rightly says, we have underplayed the potential of trams, and light rail in general, in this country. I am conscious that proposals have failed in the past, usually on the basis of high cost. She may like to know that I have asked officials to look at the reasons for the high cost of tram schemes, and to see whether there are any ways to reduce those costs to make trams a more affordable option in the future, particularly given the likely pressures on budgets following the spending review. That work is being carried out in the Department, coterminous with the work carried out in the Treasury, so that when the smoke has cleared, light rail will be in a position to benefit, potentially, from the new arrangements post-review.

As I mentioned earlier, the Department is taking forward work to deliver the coalition agreement commitment to ensure that low-carbon benefits of schemes are fully recognised in the transport appraisal decision-making process.

The hon. Lady mentioned the workplace parking levy, and of course it has been seen that the tram extensions proposed are closely linked to the plans for a workplace parking levy to be implemented in Nottingham, although of course there is no requirement for them to be so and it is open to the city council, if the tram did not go ahead, to introduce that levy if it wished to do so. Workplace parking levies are one of a range of measures available to local authorities for improving local transport and tackling congestion. Nottingham city’s plan to implement a levy is very much in accord with the coalition’s localism agenda, and I want to make it quite clear from the Dispatch Box tonight that whatever individuals in the House think about that levy, our view is that it is entirely a matter for the local authority to decide whether that goes ahead or not; it is not a matter for the Government to intervene in.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the Nottingham rail hub and improvements to Nottingham station. I know that work is in hand to develop plans and prepare for improvements in Nottingham railway station and the surrounding areas under the Nottingham hub scheme. That includes work to complete the necessary agreements to enable the scheme to proceed. I should deliver the usual health warning about the current financial climate, which the hon. Lady is well aware of, and the fact that we cannot offer assurances at this particular time about taking forward a scheme, although, as she referred to the contribution from the regional development agency, I would just say that obviously if the scheme could be reduced in cost in some way, that makes it more likely to proceed. I hope she might take that message back to colleagues and others in Nottingham. We in the Department do believe, however, that it is a good scheme, which has the potential to deliver wider benefits, including the regeneration and employment benefits that the hon. Lady mentioned, in addition to improving transport links in Nottingham.

It is clear that we face a challenging period. Tough decisions to tackle the UK’s budget deficit have been necessary, and they are ongoing. I appreciate, however, that it is not easy for people to see schemes with considerable local support, that have been in development for many years, being put on hold and given an uncertain future. The Government have identified that the most urgent priority is tackling the deficit, and the Department for Transport must play its role in that process. The Department will be in a position to identify major investment that can be supported only after the Government’s spending review has been concluded. In a period in which we face tight financial restraint, it is essential that we take a step back and consider which schemes should be prioritised. That is the only way we can put ourselves in a strong position to make the best use of available funds and to establish a strong base for the future development of the transport system.

I would not want the hon. Lady to go away from the debate with a negative impression, however. We face challenges, but we have a strong approach to address them, and the Department wants to work to deliver outcomes that meet national and local needs, and to improve the country’s transport infrastructure. We are keen to use whatever tools we can to achieve that.

I thank the hon. Lady for the invitation to visit Nottingham, which I shall be happy to accept, because a tram ride with her is an irresistible suggestion. I look forward to seeing some of the excellent schemes that Nottingham city has been delivering.

Question put and agreed to.

New Roads (Adoption)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I begin by congratulating my coalition colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), on securing his second Adjournment debate on this issue and on providing the House with a further opportunity for debate. I also thank him for the very positive way in which he has progressed this matter. I know that he raised it with my predecessors, as he mentioned, and that he has had the opportunity, along with representatives of the local district and county councils, to discuss his concerns in more depth with Department for Transport officials, to which he also referred in his contribution. I think he is right to pursue this matter, as are the other Members who intervened on him. Indeed, I might add, from a local perspective, that I am aware of a similar issue in my constituency at a street called August Fields in Newhaven. I thus have some sympathy with the points that my hon. Friend raises. We at the Department for Transport expect all property developers to build roads to a high standard, so that they are ready for adoption by the local highways authorities as a matter of normal practice. However, I recognise that that is not always the case, as my hon. Friend highlighted.

It may help if I begin by outlining the powers that are currently available to local councils to ensure that new streets are built to a decent standard, and the two mechanisms by which those streets, once finished, can be adopted by the highways authority. I will then go on to discuss the concerns raised about the effectiveness or otherwise of these mechanisms.

The uses of planning conditions are set out in planning circular 11/95, to which my hon. Friend also referred. It states that the local planning authorities may impose conditions regulating the development or use of land under the control of the applicant, even if it is outside the site that is the subject of the application. Conditions should normally be consistent with national planning policies as expressed in Government circulars and planning framework documents. They should also normally accord with the provisions of development plans and other policies of local planning authorities. However, it is still necessary to consider whether a condition is justified in the particular circumstances of the proposed development.

In general, conditions that duplicate the effect of other legislation should not be imposed. It is for the local planning authority in the first instance to judge, on the facts of the case, whether a particular development proposal should be approved, subject to planning conditions. Reasons must be given for the imposition of every condition. Reasons such as “to comply with the policies of the council”, “to secure the proper planning of the area” or “to maintain control over the development” are vague, and can suggest that the condition in question has no proper justification. Successful challenges in the past might have been due in part to lax phrasing of conditions.

On a number of occasions, the courts have laid down the general criteria for the validity of planning conditions. In brief, these explain that conditions should be necessary; relevant to planning; relevant to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise; and reasonable in all other respects. Of those six, I feel that my hon. Friend will be most interested in the fourth—enforcement. A condition should not be imposed if it cannot be enforced. There are two provisions that authorities may use to enforce conditions: an enforcement notice under section 172 of the Act, or a breach of condition notice under section 187A.

Given the above, it would be possible for local planning authorities to devise and agree with the developer through the pre-application negotiations, a suitable condition to ensure that those roads that will service the new development are brought up to the adoptable standard. I understand that, in some cases, this period of time may stretch over a number of years, especially in phased developments. People have, of course, moved into their houses in the meantime, and we may find occurring some of the problems to which my hon. Friend referred—lighting not working at that point, rubbish not being collected, and so on.

[Andrew Percy]

All that is fine and good, but part of the problem is that when some of these developments are constructed, the builder can go bankrupt or disappear, leading to an utter lack of understanding of who is then responsible—and local authorities find themselves constantly in the middle. As I say, it is when builders go bust that the real problems develop.

[Norman Baker]

I entirely understand that point and the frustration felt by some Members, but I urge my hon. Friend to be patient: there may be some better news in a few moments.

I understand that in some cases the period involved may stretch over a number of years, but circular 11/95 states that conditions may be imposed to ensure that development proceeds in a certain sequence when some circumstance of the case—for example, the manner of provision of infrastructure—makes that necessary.

The authority can require a developer who is building a new property on a private street to enter into the advance payment code agreement mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering. That means that the developer must deposit the money required to make up the street to the required standard. The amount is paid by the developer and put into a segregated account. After the building has been completed, the money, including any interest, is used to make up the street, any difference being the responsibility of the frontagers. I accept that that is not a perfect solution.

Alternatively, the developer can enter into a legally binding agreement with the authority to build the street to the required standard. In return, the authority will agree to adopt the road once it is finished. That is known as a section 38 agreement under the Highways Act 1980. Once the street has been finished, the authority will inspect it to ensure that it has been built to the standard that has been agreed to. If that is the case—or when the developer has made good any deficiencies—the authority will adopt the road. That guarantees to anyone who purchases property on a development that the road will be finished to an acceptable standard, and that they will not be liable for any future charges.

Those mechanisms give highways authorities the necessary tools both to manage the development and adoption of new roads and to reassure property owners that the road in question will be maintained by the highways authority. They also protect council tax payers. Authorities have no liability to pay for the uplift of poorly built roads from the public purse, as it would not be fair for council tax payers to subsidise new developments in that way. Highways authorities are among the statutory bodies that should be consulted about planning applications by the planning authority; in areas where there are two tiers of local government, the same council is obviously not involved. That provides an opportunity to ask for planning conditions to be made, or to allow the highways authority itself to enter into an agreement with the developer under section 38 of the Highways Act for the adoption of the highway at a future date.

It is currently for highways authorities to decide how to use those powers, as they are best able to judge local needs. Not every street will need to be adopted, as some property owners will want to reside in a private street. The highways authority should consider both their needs and any issues created by the type of development on a case-by-case basis.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering referred to the number of unadopted roads. Of course it is important for the Government to be aware of the scale and nature of public policy questions in this area. I, for one, accept that the views that have been expressed by Members this evening could be expressed by other Members, because the problems affect constituencies throughout the country. As my hon. Friend suggested, there are about 40,000 unadopted roads in the UK, according to a 1972 survey. I am afraid that there are no more up-to-date figures. However, knowing the number of unadopted roads would not really provide the context, because the vast majority—farm tracks, private estates, service roads and so on—are not really relevant to the issues in question, and it is not necessarily sensible to spend scarce public money on gathering information unnecessarily.

The people who know their areas best are members of local authorities and, of course, Members of Parliament. We greatly appreciate the work that local authorities and Members have done to bring particular problems to our attention and to gather other views and suggestions from around the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering has done so ably. The Department has acted on that information. Since the last debate, my officials have met representatives of Northamptonshire and Kettering local authorities to discuss further the points raised today, as such fast-growing areas are the most likely to have to manage issues of this kind.

The Planning Inspectorate provides model conditions to support local authorities in relation to issues that have been identified as problematic. It is in the process of developing a model condition—this was one of the requests made by my hon. Friend—to assist with the problems raised by Kettering. Local authorities will, of course, need to consider carefully the wording of any such condition to ensure that it suits the particular case, and to provide a clear and robust reason for its use in that instance. However, I hope that my hon. Friend considers that to be a move in the right direction.

We are working closely with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government in considering ways of helping local authorities who are struggling with this problem, and both Departments are in correspondence with Kettering. We are open to practical proposals from authorities such as Northamptonshire and Kettering on how the existing mechanisms can be made to work better. I would welcome any comments from any other Members, or from any other authorities anywhere in the country that wish to contribute to the process.

In exploring solutions to this issue, I am happy to say that I have today asked my officials to consider, with their Department for Communities and Local Government colleagues, options for legislation, including empowering local authorities to require developers to enter into section 38 agreements. In the meantime, we will continue to engage with local authorities and to support them in developing solutions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering talked about the fact that some people who purchase properties are unaware of the status of the road. I am advised that householders have some redress against solicitors who have not undertaken full and proper searches. Such action can be enforced through the Law Society. I am also advised that the estate agents’ code of practice, although voluntary, is usually followed and that they should be expected to provide information to property purchasers in that situation.

I recognise that this is an important issue. I want streets, when they are developed, to be adopted by the relevant highways authority if that is what is right for the street in question, as it usually will be. Good developers will build streets to a standard that authorities can adopt, thereby transferring the responsibility for maintenance away from property owners. I would like that practice to become commonplace, but I also understand that a small number of developers will not build to that standard without local authority intervention. I am, therefore, as I have said, open to practical suggestions as long as they would place the cost on the appropriate people and could be implemented quickly so that authorities can better manage the situation.

I congratulate my hon. Friend again on raising this relevant issue. There is considerable force behind his arguments and I hope that the steps I have taken in the short time I have been in office will help to bring about a solution that will render some of these problems redundant.

Question put and agreed to.

Transport (South Devon)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Westminster Hall

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

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) on securing a debate on the important topic of transport in the south Devon area. I am aware that he has campaigned tirelessly for transport improvements in Torbay and the surrounding area since his election to Parliament in 1997. If I may make a partisan point, it is good to see him back in the House.

I also very much welcome the hon. Members for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) to their places in this House. I note that all three Members spoke with one voice today, which I suppose is a demonstration of coalition politics in action.

As the coalition agreement makes clear, we believe that a modern transport infrastructure is important for a dynamic and entrepreneurial economy. We are determined to make the transport sector greener and more sustainable, with tougher emissions standards and support for new transport technologies. The coalition agreement also makes clear that tackling climate change is one of the biggest challenges that we face and that a wide range of levers will need to be used to cut carbon emissions. Transport policy will clearly have a major role to play, given that carbon emissions from transport are still rising.

With that in mind, the Department for Transport is committed to reforming how decisions are made on which transport schemes to prioritise around the country, not least so that the benefits of low-carbon proposals are fully recognised. Of course, particularly given the current fiscal constraints, we need to ensure that any new transport infrastructure is affordable and offers value for money. Those two issues—the reform of how decisions are made and the review of all planned Government expenditure—mean that today I will not be able to be as helpful to my hon. Friend as I would like to be.

I turn specifically to the issues affecting south Devon. As my hon. Friend will know, the area is currently served by two main roads running south-west from Exeter: the A38, for which the Highways Agency is mainly responsible, and the A380, which is the responsibility of Devon county council. The area is also served by the railway line that he referred to, which runs between Exeter, Newton Abbot and Paignton, and between Newton Abbot and Plymouth. Both the lines to Paignton and Plymouth have daily services running to London, Bristol, the midlands and the north, as well as local services to Exeter and beyond, which also stop at a number of other smaller stations.

My hon. Friend asked me about the status of Torquay and Paignton rail stations. The Department for Transport does not classify stations as “mainline” or otherwise. However, Network Rail classes both Torquay and Paignton as category C stations—that is, they are important feeder stations—and further definition is included in the station champions’ “Better Rail Stations” report.

I know that my hon. Friend has been very active in campaigning for more through trains between Torbay and London Paddington, and I am delighted to confirm that, from December 2010, one additional through service each way will be provided on that route. The current service provides for a 7.30 am train to arrive at Exeter at 10.12 am. The new service will provide an earlier fast train service to Exeter and Torbay, with arrival at Exeter at 9.30 am and at Paignton at 10.6 am. The aim of this new early train service is to strengthen business links between the west country and London. It will also help to boost tourism, which I know is an issue that my hon. Friend takes very seriously indeed.

[Anne Marie Morris]

Although speed is clearly crucial for my constituents, through whose area this railway passes as it runs down the coast, we absolutely need this railway for tourism. There has been a lot of concern in the constituency that the money to support the line, which I know is one of the most expensive lines in the country to maintain, will not be forthcoming. I would be grateful if the Minister considered the issue of tourism, and therefore the impact on the local economy, when he makes decisions about money being invested in that particular railway line.

[Norman Baker]

I should say that decisions on rail investment are not for me to make in my particular portfolio. However, I can say that the Government are entirely seized of the importance of tourism to the south-west and that that factor will be taken into account in making any decisions about transport infrastructure and any other issues relating to Government investment.

The new train service that I referred to will allow business passengers to travel from London and do a full day’s business in Torbay, as well as cater for people on holiday who prefer not to change trains, which was the point that the hon. Member for Newton Abbot made.

Rolling stock was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay. As far as that is concerned, the Department for Transport has recently signed a deed of amendment with First Great Western. That ensures that there will be ongoing funding for 30 vehicles that would otherwise cease to be funded by First Great Western itself. I hope that he will accept that that is good news for the rolling stock for the area.

The Government want to see rail prosper and we certainly value the rail links to the south-west. We do not have individual strategies for each part of the country, but the strategy for the network as a whole is set out in the Department for Transport’s high level output specification document. It is focused on improvements in safety and performance, and, crucially, on providing more capacity.

We made it clear in the coalition agreement that we will grant longer rail franchises, giving train operators more incentive to invest in better services, rolling stock, stations and perhaps even enhancements to the network. We want a better deal for passengers, with fair pricing for rail travel and the rail regulator as a powerful passenger champion. We also want to see Network Rail being made more accountable to its customers, both the train companies and—frankly—ultimately the public at large.

Given the upcoming spending review, we are unable to commit today to any further immediate improvements to rail services elsewhere in the south Devon area. However, we will monitor the current usage of rail services and re-evaluate them in the light of the emerging financial situation.

My hon. Friend is also concerned about the road network. I acknowledge the importance that he and others attach to the A380 Kingskerswell bypass scheme, also known as the south Devon link road, and his strong view that it is key to supporting the regeneration of Torbay and the surrounding area. I also note the scheme’s long history; it goes back to 1951, which is, I think, before either of us was born.

The scheme’s promoters—Devon and Torbay county councils, with the support of the other councils to which hon. Members have referred—have made the case for the bypass to the Department. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, progress is well advanced. The view expressed is that the A380 is an important link to south Devon and that the congestion between Penn Inn and Kerswell Gardens affects the business and commercial needs of Torbay throughout the year, as well as the tourist trade in summer.

I understand that the promoters have developed the scheme in recent years on the strength of the priority given to it by the previous Government within their regional funding allocation process. However, any new Government will naturally have their own views on which major schemes should be supported by Government funding, and I am afraid that we will need to consider the scheme in the light of the tough spending review to come. After the public inquiry in July 2009, as my hon. Friend knows, an inspector’s report on the scheme orders was submitted to the Secretary of State for a decision. Given the current uncertainty about funding, we must consider such decisions carefully and will be making a statement on the subject shortly.

It should also be acknowledged that considerable opposition exists alongside the local and regional support for the scheme, as my hon. Friend acknowledged. I am sure that he is aware that several well-organised campaign groups have expressed opposition, including the Campaign for Better Transport, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Kingskerswell Alliance, which is made up of residents of Newton Abbot and Kingskerswell. Those groups believe that Devon and Torbay should be considering more sustainable alternatives that have less impact on the environment.

[Mr Sanders]

Can my hon. Friend mention one road-building scheme that has had no objections at all?

[Norman Baker]

I am not aware of any, but it is only fair in a debate of this nature to reflect the comments both for and against the scheme received by the Department, as I hope I am doing. There are strong views on the scheme, and it is important to listen to both sides of the argument, as I am sure my hon. Friend, as a fair man, would acknowledge.

In addition to those issues, we must also consider the wider funding position and what it means for the affordability of a £130 million road scheme. As we are all aware, the current fiscal situation means that we must consider carefully future funding decisions on all transport schemes across England and Wales.

My hon. Friend asked what mechanism is being used to assess which projects should receive funding. As I mentioned, the Government have committed in the coalition agreement to review how decisions are made on which transport projects will be prioritised. We are at the start of that process. Until that is complete and the spending review is concluded, we will not be making any funding approval decisions. I made that point clear in a recent letter to Nick Bye, mayor of Torbay, who wrote to me about the Kingskerswell bypass.

The hon. Member for Totnes asked how many projects are being reviewed and what their total value is. The Government are reviewing all funding approvals made by the previous Government from 1 January 2010, and we hope to conclude that review soon. Additionally, all schemes granted conditional approval or programme entry by the previous Government will be reviewed as part of the spending review. There are 42 such schemes, and the total requested Department for Transport contribution is about £1.5 billion. However, those schemes will not necessarily be given priority over schemes that have not received any previous funding approval. Pending further discussions with our Treasury colleagues, we are not in a position to say how much the Department will want to cut from the total. That is what the spending review is for. However, no one should assume that schemes prioritised under the previous Government’s regional funding allocation process will be funded to the previous published levels.

Finally, in response to my hon. Friend’s question about prioritising schemes that are more advanced, as is this particular road scheme, I am afraid that, for the reasons that I have given, the Department can offer no guarantees. However, I can confirm that priority will be given to projects that align with the Government’s priorities and are affordable.

I understand fully my hon. Friend’s desire for a positive decision on the funding for the Kingskerswell bypass, not least because of how much time has passed since 1951. However, the sad fact is that many other local authorities around the country are in a similar position, wondering what the future holds for their planned transport schemes. I hope that he will acknowledge that the Government need to consider all funding commitments carefully.

As with all other major local transport schemes, the Department can offer no particular assurances at this point regarding future funding, but I give my hon. Friend my personal assurance that, as part of our wider spending review, I will consider carefully the case for the funding of the Kingskerswell bypass and take into account the comments made today by him and hon. Members from nearby constituencies.

Tibet: Politics and Government

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2010 Ministerial Corrections

[Norman Baker]

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he raised the issue of Tibet (a) privately and (b) publicly during his recent visit to China; and if he will make a statement.

[Mr. Ivan Lewis]

During my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's visit to China he raised the issue of Tibet with Premier Wen and Foreign Minister Yang. He expressed our continued concern at the situation in Tibet, including the heavy security presence, and restrictions on freedom of expression and religion. He welcomed the resumption of the talks between the Chinese authorities and representatives of the Dalai Lama but emphasised that the talks must be substantive to be successful.

Following his visit, the UK and China held a human rights dialogue. This was a further opportunity for us to raise our concerns about Tibet. In advance of the dialogue we have handed over a list of 42 cases, of concern, a number of which relate to Tibet, affecting 56 individuals.

[Official Report, 23 March 2010, Vol. 508, c. 218W.]

Letter of correction from Ivan Lewis, former Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, received 15 April 2010:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 23 March 2010. The Foreign Secretary did not raise the issue of Tibet from Premier Wen, so the amended answer should read: