Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280
- 299)
WEDNESDAY 9 MARCH 2005
MR TONY
MCNULTY
MP AND MR
BOB LINNARD
Q280 Mrs Ellman: Do you think the
Health and Safety Executive's standards are reasonable?
Mr McNulty: As I was saying earlier,
to Miss McIntosh, the ORR will need to look at that as part of
the transfer of the safety standard and the rail safety brief
over to them from HSE. I think it may well be that, again, standardisation
across the piece, in terms of heavy rail, light rail, may not
be the way to go in the future; we do need to get safety regimes
that are fit for purpose in terms of the railway lines and what
sort of traffic is on the railway lines as well as light rail.
So the answer is, probably, maybe.
Q281 Chairman: A definite maybe?
Mr McNulty: A definite maybe.
Positively a definite maybe.
Q282 Mrs Ellman: What do you think
a reasonable time limit would be to develop a light rail scheme
and implement it?
Mr McNulty: The sort of intuitive
answer would be a lot less time than it currently takes. We are
trying to address that. I do not think, again, you can standardise
a process, but by—which is what we are seeking to do—intervening
in the work with the promoters far earlier, trying to get difficulties
and problems out of the way far earlier, so we get to a stage
where once projects are finally assessed and move to provisional
approval there is a greater robustness about them than there has
been in the past, should truncate the process, but these are tortuously
complex processes and I know they have taken too long in the past—I
readily admit that. The most interesting thing is, as ever, people
always say it is the TWA or the planning process that takes all
the time. As I say, in the last three cases, I think, that has
not been the case. With the DLR extensions the TWA has been turning
over very quickly; I think in Birmingham Brierley Hill case it
was slightly longer—
Q283 Chairman: You are not actually
homing in on the fact that they also say that the Department took
a hell of a time once it got the Inspector's report to actually
come up with a decision.
Mr McNulty: Again, without casting
aspersions on anybody else, not on my watch they have not.
Q284 Chairman: Let me put it another
way round: does the Department put out a detailed refutation of
the NAO report? If it is factually incorrect we should say so.
Mr McNulty: No, I do not think
there has been or there are plans for a detailed refutation; I
do not think it is as stark as that.
Q285 Chairman: So you can tell us,
for example, what proportion of the delays in the planning process
were directly attributable to the Department?
Mr McNulty: Not off the top of
my head I could not but I could probably let you have that information
if it was done. We did a similar exercise when I was at ODPM.
We now have in place ministerial targets that, when we get them,
as Ministers, they are turned around quicker, and with the increased
resources in terms of the TWA division, again, that is far more
robust and quicker. However, there still needs to be an integrity
to the process. It is like the planning process, quasi-judicial,
but, again, like the planning process the more pre-application
discussion there is on a range of themes in terms of their complexity,
the smoother, hopefully, the TWA will run.
Q286 Mrs Ellman: Have you made any
assessment of successful guided buses compared with light rail?
Mr McNulty: Not in terms of direct
comparison because there is not a whole lot, yet, of guided buses
in place and working in any substantive fashion. There are small
elements in Leeds and elsewhere. I think the Translink scheme
from Luton to Dunstable, which is going through the TWA process
now, so it is very, very early days on that, and the approval
of the Cambridge scheme, will be the first two fairly substantive
ones that might give us some notion or comparison between the
two. You will recognise straight away that these are inter-urban
and the conversion of heavy rail links between two towns, which
might not be the most appropriate way to take light rail forward.
The only one that remotely compares, I guess, is South Hampshire;
that is inter-urban between Horsford and Gosport, but of course
that is under the sea rather than inter-urban in the sense of
utilising a heavy rail system. So I think there will be a bit
of apples and oranges, in terms of comparison. There has not been
substantive guided bus project experience in the equivalent areas
of Liverpool, Manchester—as I say, Leeds has got some elements
of it. We suffer, in part, from the nature of our infrastructure,
both in terms of its significant underinvestment in the infrastructure—certainly
since the war—and, in simplistic terms, by the width of
our roads. People say (and maybe we will come on to it): "How
do we compare with France, Germany and others?" Well, at
least in some regards—and mostly they are urban areas—they
had the foresight to have wider roads than we do.
Q287 Chairman: Many people have said:
"You should have been conquered by Napoleon; it would have
solved a lot of problems."
Mr McNulty: I do not think I would
share that view, but that is another inquiry.
Q288 Ian Lucas: Utility companies
are not very popular with the tramway operators. They were telling
us that they feel that the utility companies get a very good deal
indeed when there are diversions of tramways. Is there anything
the Department can do to address what they feel is an unfair bargaining
position that the utility companies have?
Mr McNulty: I suppose the starting
point is to say that utility companies are very keen to have all
their utilities diverted from a tramline and they are very keen
that they should do the work themselves—which I think, from
their perspective, is a fairly natural position. With the limited
comparisons there have been with some of our European counterparts,
far less utilities are diverted in the first place and there is
far greater discussion and consensus about the cost and how you
do the things. Those are elements that we, perhaps, should look
at. I fear it will mean legislative changes to go in that direction,
but I think there does need to be, perhaps, a greater balance
between the rights and powers of utilities and those seeking to
do schemes like light rail. I think I would broadly agree with
that.
Q289 Ian Lucas: So it is on the Government's
agenda to legislate in that area to make the balance fairer?
Mr McNulty: I am not sure I said
that. There are serious enough questions abroad from promoters
and others—in some cases local authorities as well—about
utility diversions and the cost of them for the Government, at
least, to look and look in detail. One of the things we are doing
with some of the promoters when we are looking at schemes (I am
thinking of Leeds in particular), is they are reviewing their
whole approach and strategy in terms of utility diversion. It
is, in comparative terms, as far as there is evidence with our
European counterparts, an extraordinarily larger element in terms
of costs than in Europe. It is something that needs looking at.
Whether down the end of that line it means altering legislation
and the relative balance between utilities and light rail promoters
and local authorities, it is probably too early to say. However,
I do think it is something of substance that does need to be looked
at.
Q290 Ian Lucas: What is the Department
doing to look at more innovative schemes and trial schemes in
light rail and the alternatives to it?
Mr McNulty: We are working with
local authorities, in the case of the three extant projects that
were put last July. They have done an extraordinary amount of
work looking at a whole range of alternatives, including new fancy
bus transit systems—in some cases described as a tramway
up the tramlines, and all those other elements—and looking
at how robust that kind of model might be in the context of quality
contracts and a shift of the bus service operators around, and
all those sorts of elements. We are always seeking to work with
people to look at innovative schemes in terms of both light rail
techniques and other elements. There are a couple of small companies
looking at particular ultra-light rail-type schemes that we watch
with interest. I think we are looking, we have said in the guidance,
to support innovation and new technologies and have put something
like, I think, £5 million or so on the table to look at pilots
to progress innovative schemes.[2]
We welcome innovation and imagination.
Q291 Ian Lucas: There is a company
called JPM Parry Associates, apparently, who say they have co-operated
with Holdfast Level Crossings to produce a new form of tram track
based on a panel system which can be inserted quickly and does
not require the diversion of utilities. That sounds good. The
bad news is that they feel frustrated that the Government is not
doing enough to help them. Do you know anything about that?
Mr McNulty: Because, essentially,
in their case they have a proprietary system and they want the
Government to fully fund the development of their proprietary
system, which again—rather like the utilities—why
would they not? We do not think that is an appropriate way forward.
We will watch with interest how Parry and Bristol Electric Rail
Bus and some of the other small companies move in this direction,
but it is not really for us to fund private sector research and
development around proprietary systems. That may change but that,
I think, is our position at the moment. The points they have made
about not needing to divert utilities, and things like that, are
of course of interest, as are all the other elements in terms
of innovation and new systems. We watch those all the time with
interest. We are an open, caring and outward-looking Department.
Q292 Ian Lucas: Do you think the
Department should be concerned that it has taken four years to
get approval for an experimental rail vehicle to run on the Stourbridge
line on Sundays? That sounds like an awfully long time.
Mr McNulty: It does sound a long
time. I do not know the details of the particular one, but I will
certainly look at it. We are very, very keen to do two things:
firstly, to make sure that the initial decisions in terms of these
projects and these types of experimentations are taken at the
appropriate level, and are taken not quickly because there are
processes to go through but not over an inordinately long time-frame
for no apparent reason other than it has taken so long. Something
like that should not take four years, I fully accept that.
Q293 Chairman: It is important, is
it not, Minister, not simply to pay lip service to the fact you
are looking for innovative technologies? When there is something
simple, like giving permission to run on an empty line, a little
bit of urgency—I do not think we necessarily want to go
back to the original railway situation where the first train managed
to kill a minister, but I am sure we could actually do something
in between that.
Mr McNulty: I will accept that
comment in the spirit intended!
Q294 Mr Stringer: Can I follow a
question Mrs Ellman asked? You were talking about it being difficult
to assess regeneration schemes. I accept that, but as the objectives
for local transport schemes are safety, accessibility, congestion
and pollution, why is regeneration not one of the objectives of
local transport schemes?
Mr McNulty: I think it is not
one of the specific objectives because, in the broader sense of
all the Government does, regeneration is one of the key elements.
Those are particular elements in the new Local Transport Plans
(LTP) guidance that we want local authorities to focus on in the
context of local transport plans. However, I would say that in
any of the schemes that come forward from the LTP, especially
major schemes, regeneration will be a key element of the criteria
too. There are specific, transport-related elements that we need
to secure out of the LTP process—like congestion and accessibility,
as you suggest. In the broader context regeneration must be a
key element of that. I said to Mrs Ellman we are getting better
at it, and part of getting better at it is to assess far more
robustly, perhaps, and evaluate far more robustly, not just transport
and its impact on regeneration but how successful or otherwise
our regeneration projects have been. I know, across government,
we are trying to do that far more and far more robustly.
Q295 Mr Stringer: Your officials
have been assessing local transport plans, quite reasonably, against
those sorts of criteria, whereas out in the real world most local
authorities, if you ask them what their top priority would be,
it would probably be regeneration. So would it not be sensible
to have regeneration as one of the objectives?
Mr McNulty: Mr Linnard's cue to
come in, I think.
Mr Linnard: We have got the four
specific transport objectives, which you mentioned, which are
shared between central government and local government—the
LGA—but the guidance we have put out on the preparation
of the second round of local transport plans puts a lot of emphasis—much
more than in the first round—on the need for local authorities
to do their transport plans against the background of housing,
regeneration and economic development to make sure that the transport
plans fit with the wider plans for the area—and, vice versa,
that the wider plans are informed by transport. So it is very
clearly flagged in the guidance we put out on LTPs.
Q296 Mr Stringer: It is interesting
but I still have not had a really satisfactory answer as to why,
when local authorities think it is important, it is not one of
the objectives. Those are not really transport objectives, are
they; they are a consequence of transport objectives?
Mr McNulty: Well, in one sense,
regeneration is a consequence of transport.
Q297 Mr Stringer: A positive consequence.
Mr McNulty: Absolutely, but the
key point is that we have gone from not doing terribly well at
the process of capturing, monetarising and quantifying regeneration
aspects of it, to doing it far more robustly now. I think that
is important in the context of light rail projects. As Mr Linnard
said, far more eloquently than I, in the wider context of LTP
guidance for the second round, certainly on major projects, regeneration
is there and is there very, very firmly.
Q298 Mr Stringer: What is the Department's
view about running light rail or trams on the same lines as heavy
rail?
Mr McNulty: Show us a scheme and
we will look at it. It is as robust as that. We have no template,
no blueprint; if it stacks up in terms of the technicalities and
safety, and all those elements, and stacks up on all the criteria
of VFM, affordability, BCR, regeneration and all those elements,
we will look at it. The one case where that was offered, there
had not been sufficient or robust enough discussion between the
SRA in terms of the heavy rail element and what Bristol and South
Gloucestershire were trying to do, in this case, on the light
rail element for the thing to stack up in any way, shape or form,
and the scheme fell away before those elements were carried out.
But it is something worth looking at.
Q299 Chairman: Can you tell us how
much the bus service operators' grant costs each year?
Mr McNulty: I cannot, off the
top of my head, but I am sure Mr Linnard will, in a moment.
2 Note by witness: See paragraph 4.43, Full
guidance on Local Transport Plans, Second Edition, Department
for Transport, 8 December 2004. Back
|
