5 Mar 2007 : Column 1
House of Lords
Monday, 5 March 2007.
The House met at half-past two: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.
Death of a Member
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of Lady Jeger on 26 February. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to her family and friends.
Airports: Stansted
2.36 pm
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What steps they will take to ensure that BAA’s latest plans for the expansion of Stansted Airport are consistent with government policies on environmental protection and carbon emissions.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, BAA is taking forward expansion plans for Stansted Airport in accordance with the Government’s White Paper on the future of transport. In the 2006 progress report on the White Paper, the Government made it clear that major decisions on airport capacity need to take into account not only their local environmental effects but also the wider context of aviation’s climate impact. All planning applications will be subject to the planning inquiry process.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. He will be aware that his predecessor and other Ministers have consistently denied that the Government are pursuing a predict-and-provide approach to airport expansion or to any other form of transport infrastructure. Does he agree, however, that BAA’s rationale for the expansion of Stansted Airport is based entirely on that rather discredited planning model, as the language of its public documents reveals? Is he aware that if Stansted Airport is expanded, carbon emissions there will rise from the present 5 million tonnes per annum to 12 million tonnes per annum? In view of everything we now know about the urgency of addressing climate change, not to mention the devastating impact of the expansion on local communities, will he explain why the Government are still supporting BAA’s ambitions in this arena?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we support airport development in the right circumstances, which means making better use of existing airport capacity as a priority ahead of building the targeted additional infrastructure supported in the White Paper and ensuring that where new capacity is required, its provision is in line with our environmental obligations.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, does the Minister agree with Sir Nicholas Stern’s report that aviation is responsible for only 1.6 per cent of global emissions? Do the Government agree with Sir Ron Eddington’s report that there is a strong economic case for additional capacity at UK airports while tackling the environmental case?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we recognise the need to address climate change, as the Stern report makes clear. We have to balance the important economic driver that airport development is with our environmental obligations. We fairly set that out in the response to the 2004 White Paper in the follow-up report that was published last December.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, the Minister is really saying that we are going to go on emitting and hope that someone else is going to stop emitting to allow us to expand airports. Will the Government commit
5 Mar 2007 : Column 3
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Ministers take great care in deciding their choice of transportation for visits. From personal experience, we think very carefully about these matters. It is obviously important that we set a good example in terms of using the most sustainable forms of transportation available. The fact is that Ministers are required to make long journeys and the most efficient and effective use of a Minister’s time is surely of great importance. One would expect that that is how they would behave.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will my noble friend admit that the Government, or, indeed, any Government around the world—or opposition political parties for that matter—have no serious policy to stop the growth of air travel because it is too popular? Would it not be better to seek global agreement on setting up a major fund to seek to try in some way to find technological changes to prevent aircraft emitting these emissions?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is precisely what the Government are investing in. We have international commitment, and we are committed to working through the International Civil Aviation Organization to achieve that very point. Clearly, we need to ensure that we reduce emissions and that any expansion in civil aviation is reflected in an increased commitment to protecting the environment long term because we know of the impacts of emissions over the longer term.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, have the Government taken into account the great increase in stacking, which would undoubtedly take place, with a very bad effect over Cambridge, for instance, which, last time the whole matter came up, objected fiercely to an increase?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course there will be impacts from any increase in journeys and visits through Stansted Airport. We clearly have to take very careful account of those. The planning inquiry process does exactly that.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, the Conservative Party has a policy on Stansted Airport; it is “no second runway”. My leader and the shadow Secretary of State for Transport for the Conservative Party announced a policy for no second runway at Stansted; I make that quite clear to this House.
Last week it was announced that there would be a new runway on the M11, costing something like £50 million. Yet we desperately need infrastructure for other things in Essex. Would the Minister support investing in that roundabout rather than in other infrastructure in Essex?
5 Mar 2007 : Column 4
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am rarely completely puzzled by questions from the Opposition, but did I hear the noble Lord correctly? I thought he asked whether we would invest in a new runway on the M11. I do not know if that was the question, but it seems a bit wide of the mark if it was.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the 1,000 year-old Hatfield Forest is already being damaged—I cannot say destroyed—by current emissions from the M11 and Stansted Airport? If the M11 is widened to four lanes each way, if there is a new runway and if the number of aircraft take-offs and landings increase, it will be totally destroyed. Will the Government support that?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not know Hatfield as well as I did when I was younger and lived in Essex, but I doubt very much whether, even on current projections, Hatfield Forest will be completely destroyed. The noble Lord makes a very important point: that we have to consider very carefully the impact on the environment of aircraft emissions or, for that matter, emissions from motor vehicles. Clearly, those things are very important. They feature in considering these things and of course we look very closely at such issues at all times.
Roads: Non-UK Drivers
2.44 pm
Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What progress they have made in respect of vehicles and drivers from outside the United Kingdom paying to use United Kingdom roads and being brought to justice for offences committed in the United Kingdom.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Department for Transport is undertaking a feasibility study to explore ways of delivering better targeted enforcement on foreign heavy goods vehicles. One option is a time-based charge for the use of UK roads. Current arrangements already provide for foreign offenders to be dealt with in the UK courts. However, the department will shortly be consulting on new provisions that will in effect introduce on-the-spot fines to help to simplify the process.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I still find it puzzling that we still allow foreign lorries to use our roads without charge. The advent of a lorry pricing scheme, which has been implemented in Germany, would overcome that problem. I ask the Minister particularly to ask that this consultation is carried out speedily, not like some consultations in the past, which have been dragged out over five years.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise that any regulations introduced are a result of the Act that came into law last November.
5 Mar 2007 : Column 5
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, will my noble friend expand a little on the German system to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred? When we have discussed this in previous years in your Lordships’ House, Ministers have said that the German system was not working properly and was not approved. Does he agree that it is working and is proving to be highly effective, and is a good example of a system that could be introduced into the UK very quickly?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it could not be introduced into the UK very quickly. Let me bring to the attention of the House the fact that the German system is a road pricing system, although just for heavy goods vehicles. We are looking at a vignette, which is a charge for a licence for a limited time—a day, a week, or a month—on British roads. We think that that will prove to be more cost-effective.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, the Minister replied to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, about trying to deal with this problem more speedily. Will the Minister comment on the problems that it is causing our road haulage industry—problems of which I am sure he is aware? A lot of firms are going bankrupt purely because foreign lorries can, say at Calais, put 1,000 litres into their tanks at 20p less a litre than they would pay here. They can then come to this country and undercut our firms. Surely something should be done about this very rapidly.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there is a limit to what we can do. First, we cannot avoid the fact that foreign lorries can have such extensive fuel capacity that they can fill up and spend the whole of their time in the United Kingdom using fuel that has been purchased abroad. There is no obvious solution to that. The second problem posed by foreign lorries is that we must be able to enforce the law with regard to them. That is why we introduced in the 2006 legislation the potential for on-the-spot fines. However, I think the noble Lord will recognise this limitation: we are bound by European legislation and can force foreign lorries to meet only the costs that they incur in relation to the maintenance of the roads. We are not allowed to introduce whatever charging system we wish for foreign vehicles.
Railways: Passenger Capacity
2.48 pm
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I should tell the Minister that Hatfield is in Herts, not in Essex, in case he should get lost.
5 Mar 2007 : Column 6
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is close to the border, however. The Government recognise that, as a result of passenger growth, the passenger-carrying capacity of the network, especially in peak periods, remains an issue in many areas. The Government will continue to take steps to increase the capacity of the railways through the franchising process, through the high-level output specification, and through the longer-term strategy framework for the network, to be published in summer 2007.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may encourage him to go further. Now that a record 3.2 million people a day use the modernised railways, would it not better ensure their comfort and safety if the number of passengers using certain mainline trains was limited? Is he aware, for example, there is regular overcrowding on sections of the Virgin cross-country route, which is dangerous rather than merely uncomfortable, with people forced to sit in the vestibules between the two carriages?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, obviously, it is of concern where discomfort is afforded to passengers. From time to time, like other noble Lords no doubt, I have had to suffer some discomfort when there has been considerable crowding on the rail network. But I invite the noble Lord to think of his proposition in these terms: the practicality of enforcing such a limit; the stage at which you embark on enforcement; and the kind of impact that enforcement might have in terms of trains being able to leave on time. I understand entirely the motive behind the noble Lord’s Question, but we need to focus on practicalities. Given that, it is clearly very uncomfortable sometimes on some of those crowded commuter trains into London.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, one way in which you can cater for people is to plan properly for the future. The high-level output statement to be published in the summer, to which the Minister referred, provides for a 30 per cent growth in the next 10 years, whereas we have had 42 per cent growth in the past 10 years and the curve is rising steeply. The cross-country franchise, to which the noble Lord opposite referred, provides for a 30 per cent growth over 10 years, which is not enough. Will the Government take effective action to plan for the future?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we can fairly argue that we have done that. The noble Lord is right that since 1997 there has been a 40 per cent increase in passenger numbers that has been driven by a strong economy, improving services, new trains and increased government investment. We should celebrate that. He is also right that we need to plan ahead, which is why we will publish the statement in the summer. No doubt the targets in that will be based on realistic assumptions.
5 Mar 2007 : Column 7
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, we should hear from the Conservatives.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the comment made by Dr Mike Mitchell, director-general of the Rail Group at the Department for Transport, that rail commuters with only a 30-minute journey cannot expect to have a seat?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am reluctant to agree with that observation because the objective must be journeys which are as comfortable as possible. Of course, there has been a longstanding commitment to achieve that objective, which goes back to the noble Lord’s party being in government. The commitment was simply that no one should have to stand for more than 20 minutes, which is right and fair.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, have we not reached an absurd position when the rail regulator asks people to question whether their journey is necessary? Those of us who were around during the last war saw notices on hoardings asking exactly that; “Is your journey really necessary?”. We seem now to have reached two absurd positions where, first, the rail regulator says, “Please do not travel on the railways” and, secondly, the Government want to charge motorists a hell of a lot more for travelling, particularly at peak periods when they need to go to a job. What is the answer to that? Perhaps jobs should be moved nearer to people rather than moved away.
My Lords, that might be one solution. People are always entitled to shift where they work. The fact is that we have to try to provide the best quality rail network that we can, given the amount of money that we can afford as a nation to spend on transportation. I do not entirely agree with the rail regulator’s observation, but people need to think about when and how they travel.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Japan is about to push ahead with a 500 kph magnetic levitation train between Tokyo and Osaka, which is roughly the same distance as London to Edinburgh? We should look more positively at that idea here as it would save billions, make a massive saving on carbon emissions and solve all the worries about Stansted and the expansion of Heathrow which we were discussing a moment ago.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Japan is to be congratulated on its forward thinking and investment. Those issues and investment of that sort are kept in mind at all times.
5 Mar 2007 : Column 8
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, will the Government insist that additional standard-class vehicles are purchased for the Pendolino trains as well as for the Voyager and its two derivatives, Meridian and Pioneer, in order to make certain that there is sufficient capacity for passengers?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was not aware that there was a particular capacity issue on those trains and I will inquire into whether there are such problems. Obviously, we should keep that under review.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, if we limit the number of people who can travel by bus, either sitting or standing, and we do not allow people to stand on aeroplanes, can the Minister explain why we cannot limit the number of passengers travelling by train to those who buy their tickets at least the day before their journey?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, they are different forms of transportation with different requirements in terms of health and safety and occupancy rates. I understand the point being made by my noble friend, but what lies at the heart of the issue is practicality in terms of enforcement and people’s comfort.
My Lords, while as my noble friend says the railways are victims of their own success, and that is great, will he ensure that at least those trains now sitting in sidings doing nothing, particularly those which used to be run by First Great Western, are brought back into service? That would at least mitigate the effect of overcrowding in the short term.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend makes a useful point. We know that First Great Western has had problems in recent weeks and that its performance with regard to overcrowding has not been good enough. The company itself has admitted as much. For that reason, I understand that First Great Western has now brought back into service some trains that had been taken out, and has put greater pressure on its suppliers to ensure that necessary repairs are brought forward. Further, I understand that the company has brought into service trains from other areas that it serves. Some positive action has been taken to try to improve matters on the franchises it operates.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I understand that Mr Gordon Brown is looking for something vaguely socialist to do in his first 100 days. Would the Minister suggest to him that, certainly on commuter trains, first class should be abolished so that insult is not added to injury when standard-class passengers are squashed into the corridor, looking into empty compartments?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |