Tag: Lord Berkeley

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-01-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of how their work on the governance part of the European Fourth railway package will facilitate UK train operating companies being able to tender for and be awarded rail franchises in a fair and transparent manner.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The government continues to work on the market pillar of the EU Fourth Railway Package, consisting of the proposal to amend Directive 2012/34/EU, the “Governance proposal” and the proposal to amend Regulation EC/1370/2007, the “Public Service Obligations proposal”.

The government was able to support a General Approach on the pillar at the Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council on 8^th October 2015. The General Approach text of the Governance proposal includes additional, proportionate provisions to ensure fair and non‑discriminatory treatment of all train operating companies, including safeguards for operators of franchises. Rules on the competitive tendering of franchises are set out in the Public Service Obligations proposal.

The government continues to work with the Netherlands Presidency of the Council of the EU in their ongoing negotiations of the Package with the European Parliament.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-03-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they are proposing to discontinue the use of the Westbury East Loop Junction and Hawkeridge Junction line for passenger services, and whether such a change will prevent that line from being used for diversion routes for passenger services in future.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The proposal is to withdraw one regular passenger train service in one direction only Monday to Friday over this short curve on the grounds of low usage and for the service instead to serve the nearby important station of Westbury. The service was designated as experimental in 2011.

The withdrawal of the experimental status for the passenger service in question does not affect the line itself, which will continue to remain open for diverted passenger trains and freight.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-04-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the HS2 project intends to use secondary aggregates, and if so, in which types of concrete required for Phase 1 of that project.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

As part of our overall sustainability policy for HS2, we plan to use both secondary and re-cycled aggregates in structures which are designed with concrete. Their use, along with the types of concrete to be used, will be dependent on the specific design characteristics of individual HS2 structures and will be subject to the detailed design process in due course. The design process will also take into account other important sustainable factors such as material availability and logistics.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-06-06.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many train paths an hour will be freed up on the West Coast Main Line when HS2 Phase 1 is operational according to Network Rail’s West Coast Main Line Capacity Plus study, and when that study will be published.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

HS2 Phase 1 will add significant additional capacity to the London to West Midlands rail corridor, and this provides an opportunity for the industry to evaluate how best to make use of the released capacity on the southern section of the West Coast Main Line. Network Rail continues to develop the evidence base to support the Capacity Plus study. Train operating companies and freight operating companies, passenger transport executives and local authorities and High Speed 2 Ltd are supporting Network Rail in its ongoing work. Network Rail will use this work to inform the Initial Industry Advice for Control Period 6 which is expected to be published by the end of 2016.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in respect of the proposed Garden Bridge, whether the Department for Transport met each of the criteria set by the Treasury before funding was committed; if not, what action was taken to override the Treasury criteria; and what changes to procedures are in place to avoid any non-compliance with Treasury criteria.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Government funding for the Garden Bridge project was initially announced by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in his 2013 Autumn Statement. In a subsequent letter to the then Secretary of State for Transport, the Chancellor said that this funding had been committed on the basis that:

• the Mayor of London would match it from Transport for London’s resources;
• a satisfactory business case would be produced, demonstrating that the project provided value for money;
• Transport for London would fund the Bridge’s ongoing maintenance; and
• the Mayor would cover cost overruns or shortfalls in funding.

The first criterion was met in full in advance of funding being transferred to Transport for London.

In respect of the second criterion, a business case for the project was produced by Transport for London and assessed by the Department before any funding was transferred. The Department’s analysis suggested that the project had a wide range of possible benefit to cost ratios, and that whilst there were risk factors associated with such a unique project, it had a reasonable chance of delivering value for money. The funding was therefore made available with a number of conditions attached to it, including a cap of £8.25 million on the amount that could be spent before the start of construction. That particular condition was revised, with part of the funding now able to be used to underwrite the cancellation costs that would arise were the project to be cancelled. This followed a Ministerial direction by the previous Secretary of State for Transport in May 2016.

In respect of the third criterion, funding of the ongoing maintenance costs will be a matter for the Garden Bridge Trust, but should the Trust be unable to cover these costs, the previous Mayor issued a Mayoral direction in June 2015 which approved the provision of guarantees by the Greater London Authority in relation to the Garden Bridge, subject to suitable terms and arrangements being agreed.

In terms of the fourth criterion, the Government has made clear that there will be no more public funding for the project beyond what has already been committed.

I receive regular progress reports from the chairman of the Garden Bridge Trust, and Department for Transport officials are in regular contact with their opposite numbers in Transport for London and the Garden Bridge Trust to discuss these and other matters. I do not consider any changes are necessary to these procedures.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2015-11-02.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 28 October (HL2659) stating that there was no intention to seek a derogation from the technical specifications for interoperability in respect of dimensions of the GC structure gauge for new high-speed lines for station platforms, whether HS2 have withdrawn their letter to the European Commission dated 21 July that seeks such a derogation.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The Department for Transport with HS2 Ltd are discussing with the Commission compliance requirements with the technical specification for infrastructure dealing with platform heights. These discussions are ongoing. The intention is, irrespective of the outcome of discussions on platform height, to meet the GC gauge requirements.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what (1) proportion, and (2) volume, of excavated spoil from each of the Thames Tideway Tunnel construction sites will be transported from them by river.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

The Development Consent Order for the Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) requires 100% of the specified materials to be transported by river for construction sites on the Thames foreshore, unless an approved derogation is in place. Derogations could include periods when it is not possible to use river transport due to factors such as river closures, incidents, weather and supply chain failures, and for material not suitable for river transport such as contaminated material that needs specialist disposal or material that is too wet for safe transit without specialist vessels.

The commitment to transportation by river from the construction sites was secured through the River Transport Strategy, which was included in Thames Water’s application for Development Consent for the Tunnel, although it only applies to specific material listed in the Strategy (including excavated material from the main tunnel at main tunnel drive sites and material excavated from the shafts at foreshore sites).

Bazalgette Tunnel Limited (operating as Tideway), the company appointed to design, finance, build and operate the TTT, has estimated the proportion and volume of excavated spoil that will be transported by river from each of the TTT construction foreshore sites (see Table 1 below). The percentages shown for each site demonstrate the anticipated effect of derogations on the amounts of excavated spoil they will be able to transport by river.

However, Tideway and appointed mains works contractors have made commitments to maximise their use of river transport and are therefore working on opportunities to increase the extent of river transport further in liaison with the Local Authorities, Greater London Authority, Port of London Authority and Transport for London.

Table 1 – Excavated specified material percentage and volume by river transport

SITE	% of all excavated specified material transported by river	Volume to be transported by river (m3)
Putney Bridge Foreshore	90%	14,000
Carnwath Road Riverside	90%	353,400
Cremorne Wharf Depot	90%	9,000
Chelsea Embankment	90%	44,400
Kirtling Street	81%	693,600 *
Heathwall Pumping Station	82%	16,300**
Albert Embankment	90%	56,300
Victoria Embankment	90%	27,900
Blackfriars Bridge	90%	72,100
Chambers Wharf	90%	416,100
King Edward Memorial Park	90%	57,500

*excludes shaft and excavated material from ‘other’ minor structures, due to restricted river frontage

**excludes ‘excavated material from ‘other’ minor structures’, due to site constraints

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-03-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the total overall cost of the planned M4 relief road south of Newport, and what funding they will provide, if any, for that project.

Viscount Younger of Leckie

The Department for Transport (DfT) is in regular contact with the devolved governments in both Scotland and Wales to discuss strategic matters and to co-operate on cross border roads. In this case, the M4 relief road south of Newport is entirely a matter for the Welsh Assembly and DfT have made no assessment of the scheme.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-04-18.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why water customers are being required to pay for the financing and legal fees of the shareholders of the consortium, Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd., which was awarded the licence for the Thames Tideway Tunnel.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

A water and sewerage company’s management and investors are responsible for determining the company’s capital and financing structure. This is an important feature of the water industry as it encourages investment by enabling a company to put in place a structure that works for it. However, accountability for a water or sewerage company’s capital and financing structure rests with investors and not customers.

Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd (trading as Tideway) is an infrastructure provider, appointed and licenced under the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/ 1582). Any costs incurred by Tidewayand its shareholders for its financing and other corporate arrangements are prevented under their project licence from being met by customers and are instead borne by the shareholders. This includes costs incurred both before and after licence award in August 2015.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-06-06.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether the additional cost of £70 to £80 per annum, at 2011 prices and based on a 50 per cent probability of cost overruns, to all Thames Water customers of the Thames Tideway Tunnel, as quoted on page 83 of the prospectus of Thames Water Utilities Cayman Finance Ltd, represents good value for money for the consumer.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

The impact of the Thames Tideway Tunnel on Thames Water customer bills is expected to be £20-£25 per year (at 2015 prices) by the mid-2020s. This is about a third of the initial estimate of £70-£80 per year in 2011, assessed at an early development stage of the project, and represents good value for money for customers. It follows the successful competition by Thames Water Utilities Ltd, completed in August 2015, to procure an Infrastructure Provider to finance and deliver the Thames Tideway Tunnel. The Thames Water Utilities Cayman Finance Ltd prospectus quoted by the Noble Lord is dated 26 June 2015 and so was prior to this procurement.