1-20 of 30 results for subject:Devolution
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.332 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.007 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Devolution
- We searched for
- subject_t:Devolution OR subject_ses:90891
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
Lords motion to take note of the fifth report of the European Affairs Committee on Report from the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Scrutiny of EU legislative proposals within the scope of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (HL 177 2021-22). Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to take note of the fifth report of the European Affairs Committee on Report from the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Scrutiny of EU legislative proposals within the scope of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (HL 177 2021-22). Agreed to on question.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will take to appoint a nominated person or persons to have responsibility for communicating with the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in every UK overseas embassy, if those governments so wish.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will take to appoint a nominated person or persons to have responsibility for communicating with the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in every UK overseas embassy, if those governments so wish.
While international relations are a matter reserved to the UK Government (UKG) and Westminster Parliament, the UKG recognises the legitimate interest the devolved Governments have on international activity, especially where this has impact on matters of devolved competence, or in their responsibility to implement aspects of international agreements.
Each of the devolved governments has a presence at various locations overseas and often their staff are co-located within UK embassies. FCDO staff in our overseas network already work closely together with officials from each of the devolved governments. The FCDO also has regular engagement with officials from the devolved governments in the UK, including through a recently instituted Director-level forum which held its first meeting in March 2022, with another anticipated in summer 2022. That forum is underpinned by frequent official level engagement across all levels. The FCDO is eager to maintain and develop this engagement further, and identify where closer collaboration and cooperation will continue to bring benefits to every part of the UK, drawing on our extensive diplomatic network overseas.
Lords motion to take note of the Report from the European Union Committee, Treaty scrutiny: working practices (11th Report, HL Paper 97). Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to take note of the Report from the European Union Committee, Treaty scrutiny: working practices (11th Report, HL Paper 97). Agreed to on question.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 16 January (HL4450), what were the uncertainties in Transport for London’s business case concerning the operational risks in splitting a franchise and the claimed benefits; how those differed from the risks in the Department...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 16 January (HL4450), what were the uncertainties in Transport for London’s business case concerning the operational risks in splitting a franchise and the claimed benefits; how those differed from the risks in the Department...
The Department for Transport carefully considers business cases from scheme promoters on a regular basis. In terms of Transport for London’s business case, there were a number of uncertainties concerning the operational risks in splitting a franchise. These uncertainties included:
- The impact of devolution on overall operational performance across the whole of the South Eastern network;
- The increased pressure on stabling capacity further to devolution and the lack of detail on the necessary resultant investment; and
- Inefficiencies such as those arising as a result of splitting staff and management systems across two organisations following devolution.
Many of the benefits claimed by Transport for London (TfL) in their business case were not resourced, and could be implemented through the upcoming franchise without incurring the significant costs of splitting services or the risks outlined above.
The Department’s business case for the South Eastern franchise takes into account a wide range of risks and opportunities for the franchise and the Department does not comment on these at this stage in the franchise competition process.
Each franchise is different and has unique operational circumstances and it would not, therefore, be appropriate to compare the risks associated with splitting the South Eastern franchise against risks on other lines where there is more than one franchise operator.
The Department has fully considered the Business Case TfL presented which included detail on the benefits provided to passengers on London Overground.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they rejected the application by Transport for London to manage inner suburban rail services south of the Thames; and what evidence they have to support that decision.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they rejected the application by Transport for London to manage inner suburban rail services south of the Thames; and what evidence they have to support that decision.
The Mayor of London presented a business case for the devolution of suburban London services on the South Eastern franchise. This was scrutinised by Departmental officials, analysing the costs and benefits of the proposal including the impact on the South Eastern franchise and the forthcoming competition.
Our analysis highlighted a number of uncertainties in the business case particularly around the operational risks associated with splitting the franchise, and around the benefits that were being claimed.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by the Secretary of State for Transport on 6 December (HC Deb, cols 124–130), whether they will publish their analysis of Transport for London’s business case for rail devolution.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by the Secretary of State for Transport on 6 December (HC Deb, cols 124–130), whether they will publish their analysis of Transport for London’s business case for rail devolution.
My Lords, departments do not routinely publish internal policy advice and related analysis. However, our analysis highlighted a number of uncertainties in the business case, particularly around the operational risks associated with splitting the franchise and around the benefits being claimed. We have concluded that partnership is the best way to deliver benefits for all passengers, and that is what we have offered TfL and Kent County Council.
My Lords, departments do not routinely publish internal policy advice and related analysis. However, our analysis highlighted a number of uncertainties in the business case, particularly around the operational risks associated with splitting the franchise and around the benefits being claimed. We have concluded that partnership is the best way to deliver benefits for all passengers, and that is what we have offered TfL and Kent County Council.
My Lords, departments do not routinely publish internal policy advice and related analysis. However, our analysis highlighted a number of uncertainties in the business case, particularly around the operational risks associated with splitting the franchise and around the benefits being claimed. We have concluded that partnership is the best way to deliver benefits for all passengers, and that is what we have offered TfL and Kent County Council.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by the Secretary of State for Transport on 6 December (HC Deb, cols 124–130), whether they will publish their analysis of Transport for London’s business case for rail devolution.
As the noble Lord rightly points out, that was a prospectus published by the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right honourable Patrick McLoughlin, and the then mayor. The new Secretary of State subsequently—and rightly, I believe—asked for details of the business case from TfL. That was presented in October. It was analysed by DfT officials—we worked also with other industry experts—and it was felt that it was in the best interest of all passengers, both those on the suburban services as well as those outside, to go forward on the model that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has now put forward.
As the noble Lord rightly points out, that was a prospectus published by the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right honourable Patrick McLoughlin, and the then mayor. The new Secretary of State subsequently—and rightly, I believe—asked for details of the business case from TfL. That was presented in October. It was analysed by DfT officials—we worked also with other industry experts—and it was felt that it was in the best interest of all passengers, both those on the suburban services as well as those outside, to go forward on the model that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has now put forward.
My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord was the Minister back in January, when he and his previous boss, Patrick McLoughlin, agreed to and signed off on the joint vision of the Department for Transport and Transport for London on rail devolution. This is supported by London boroughs,
by local authorities in the Home Counties and, I suggest, by the travelling public. What made him change his mind in the intervening months and since the election of a new Mayor of London?
My noble friend paints a picture of a particular challenge that has arisen around issues of congestion in London. Nevertheless, TfL plays an important role in the management of transport services in London and continues to do so across several modes.
My noble friend paints a picture of a particular challenge that has arisen around issues of congestion in London. Nevertheless, TfL plays an important role in the management of transport services in London and continues to do so across several modes.
My Lords, given the appalling effect which the policies of Transport for London have had on road congestion and pollution in the capital, is there not a case for replacing it with a more cost-effective and accountable body rather than extending its remit into other areas where it can do more damage?
While in the press and elsewhere there has been a lot of speculation, politics is politics. However, the substantive point here is what is in the best interests of all commuters using that service. The challenge thrown down to the Mayor of London was to justify through a business case that this was the optimum solution. It is our view that in what is being proposed now we must ensure that not only TfL but also Kent County Council has a seat at the table in agreeing the details and governance of the future franchise on that network.
While in the press and elsewhere there has been a lot of speculation, politics is politics. However, the substantive point here is what is in the best interests of all commuters using that service. The challenge thrown down to the Mayor of London was to justify through a business case that this was the optimum solution. It is our view that in what is being proposed now we must ensure that not only TfL but also Kent County Council has a seat at the table in agreeing the details and governance of the future franchise on that network.
Has the Minister any answer to dispel the view that the Government’s policy on this is influenced much more by the political party of the Mayor of London than by a desire to have better transport for Londoners?
This session of Lords Questions seems to be a revelation of ages. Nevertheless, it is in the interests of us all to look towards cycling. Indeed, it was lately suggested that I should also take it up. An efficient, working and effective transport system across all modes is to the benefit of all Londoners, irrespective of age.
This session of Lords Questions seems to be a revelation of ages. Nevertheless, it is in the interests of us all to look towards cycling. Indeed, it was lately suggested that I should also take it up. An efficient, working and effective transport system across all modes is to the benefit of all Londoners, irrespective of age.
My Lords, I declare my age as being pretty old. Is the Minister as concerned as I am by the Mayor of London’s statement that we should all get around on bicycles? How will we cope with all the disabled people? Where would they go with their electric buggies? At the moment we are all permanently held up, even if we are driving, by all the bike lanes under construction. The crisis at Lancaster Gate adds 20 minutes to my journey every day. It is unreasonable to expect everyone in London to be capable of riding a bike.
On the second part of the noble Baroness’s question, we saw recently other parts of the wider network benefit from Oyster. The rollout of Oyster to Gatwick is a good example of that. On the earlier part of the question, the business case also surrounded long-term investment in the infrastructure required. Certainly there, the business case fell quite short. On the issue of London Overground, yes it is run well but let us not forget that the Government still provide £27 million of funding to that particular service.
On the second part of the noble Baroness’s question, we saw recently other parts of the wider network benefit from Oyster. The rollout of Oyster to Gatwick is a good example of that. On the earlier part of the question, the business case also surrounded long-term investment in the infrastructure required. Certainly there, the business case fell quite short. On the issue of London Overground, yes it is run well but let us not forget that the Government still provide £27 million of funding to that particular service.
My Lords, in making the decision referred to in the Question, what account was taken of TfL’s record of delivery? I notice that the ORR’s latest figures show a 95.3% customer satisfaction with London Overground. What timescale does the Minister now predict for the rollout of Oyster and contactless to non-London parts of the south-east? People have waited, for example, in Epsom—the Secretary of State’s own constituency—for years expecting this important development.
I believe that the noble Lord is referring to a separate franchise—that of Southern. I have already spoken on that matter, where we are moving forward in practical terms in trying to address some of the issues. As noble Lords know all too well, the point remains that the structural issues on the Southern network cannot be addressed as long as we see this level of unprecedented and, in my view, unnecessary strikes currently taking place.
I believe that the noble Lord is referring to a separate franchise—that of Southern. I have already spoken on that matter, where we are moving forward in practical terms in trying to address some of the issues. As noble Lords know all too well, the point remains that the structural issues on the Southern network cannot be addressed as long as we see this level of unprecedented and, in my view, unnecessary strikes currently taking place.
Is not the reality that the Secretary of State for Transport is more anxious to prolong the dispute than to find a solution?
What my noble friend said will strike a chord with the travelling public. I have said much the same at this Dispatch Box on what we are seeing in terms of strike action. Let us be absolutely clear: my right honourable friend the Secretary of State not only met with one of the unions specifically but also wrote to the unions asking them to come to the arbitration service. The level of meetings that took place was based on that initiative my right honourable friend took. I agree with my noble friend that it is
about time that the unions got back to the table and resolved the dispute so that we can challenge the wider infrastructure issues on the network.
What my noble friend said will strike a chord with the travelling public. I have said much the same at this Dispatch Box on what we are seeing in terms of strike action. Let us be absolutely clear: my right honourable friend the Secretary of State not only met with one of the unions specifically but also wrote to the unions asking them to come to the arbitration service. The level of meetings that took place was based on that initiative my right honourable friend took. I agree with my noble friend that it is
about time that the unions got back to the table and resolved the dispute so that we can challenge the wider infrastructure issues on the network.
My Lords, does my noble friend not think it extraordinary that, at a time when the travelling public are disrupted by strike action and when union leaders talk about trying to bring down the Government by making people’s journeys at Christmas impossible, all the Opposition can talk about is the administrative arrangements for London transport?
Lords debate on Queen's speech (fifth day) on economic affairs, energy, environment, local government and transport. Motion on royal address agreed to nemine dissentiente.
Lords debate on Queen's speech (fifth day) on economic affairs, energy, environment, local government and transport. Motion on royal address agreed to nemine dissentiente.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the legal requirements for MOT testing are a devolved matter in Scotland; what assessment they have made of the requirement for new vehicles to be subject to MOT testing after the first three years of use; and which other EU countries follow the present...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the legal requirements for MOT testing are a devolved matter in Scotland; what assessment they have made of the requirement for new vehicles to be subject to MOT testing after the first three years of use; and which other EU countries follow the present...
The legal requirements for MOT are not a devolved matter in Scotland. Following the commitment made by the Chancellor in the July 2015 budget statement, the Department for Transport is currently developing a public consultation and impact assessment which will consider options for extending the frequency of the first test for some vehicles. The consultation will take into account the potential benefits to consumers, the government’s safety priorities, as well as the impact a change may have on MOT garage businesses. I anticipate that the consultation will be published in the summer. The other EU countries currently requiring a vehicle to have an initial roadworthiness inspection at 3 years, as per the current GB practice are; Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Bulgaria.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many regional devolution settlements that are (1) agreed already, and (2) currently being negotiated, include the devolution of transport powers; and what impact those settlements will have on local bus services.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many regional devolution settlements that are (1) agreed already, and (2) currently being negotiated, include the devolution of transport powers; and what impact those settlements will have on local bus services.
(1) The Government has agreed devolution settlements with 10 English areas. Each of the settlements contained provisions for the devolution of transport powers and responsibilities, from bus franchising to the establishment and management of key route networks, based on the ambitions and needs of each individual area.
(2) The Government is in active discussions with many other areas, however, proposals are developed and led by local areas and the decision to release information regarding the content of these discussions is a matter for the local area to decide, not the Government. As individual negotiations conclude and devolution deals are agreed, local areas may decide to publish the final deal documents on the GOV.UK website.
The Bus Services Bill will enable the implementation of the commitments made in devolution settlements to provide authorities with a greater say over the bus services in their area. It will be up to authorities to determine whether and how they implement changes to the way in which local bus services are provided.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in devolving transport powers to local authorities, it is their intention also to grant authorities the power to implement part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 so that they become responsible for tackling rising congestion and poor air quality or urban roads, and...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in devolving transport powers to local authorities, it is their intention also to grant authorities the power to implement part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 so that they become responsible for tackling rising congestion and poor air quality or urban roads, and...
The Government will continue to work with local authorities to consider whether there are powers that would be appropriate to devolve as part of their devolution deals.
My Lords, the Government are taking steps to meet rail demand across the country through the rail investment strategy and the franchising programme. The Government also support further devolution of responsibilities for rail services to local authorities. The Government are working in partnership with Rail North Ltd on the next Northern and TransPennine Express franchises, and have agreed a collaborative approach with West Midlands Rail on the development of the next West Midlands franchise.
My Lords, the Government are taking steps to meet rail demand across the country through the rail investment strategy and the franchising programme. The Government also support further devolution of responsibilities for rail services to local authorities. The Government are working in partnership with Rail North Ltd on the next Northern and TransPennine Express franchises, and have agreed a collaborative approach with West Midlands Rail on the development of the next West Midlands franchise.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will take steps to reduce overcrowding on regional passenger trains by allowing councils to have more control over the allocation of rolling stock.
My Lords, the Government are taking steps to meet the demand of the franchising programme to which the noble Lord alluded. We have required bidders for the northern franchise, for example, through the invitation to tender, to put in a specific requirement for 120 additional self-powered vehicles
for the franchise. That kind of approach will continue. We also support further devolution, and should further services be fully devolved—as has happened, for example, in London and Merseyside—we would expect to reach agreement with the relevant local authorities for appropriate funding settlements in those areas.
My Lords, the Government are taking steps to meet the demand of the franchising programme to which the noble Lord alluded. We have required bidders for the northern franchise, for example, through the invitation to tender, to put in a specific requirement for 120 additional self-powered vehicles
for the franchise. That kind of approach will continue. We also support further devolution, and should further services be fully devolved—as has happened, for example, in London and Merseyside—we would expect to reach agreement with the relevant local authorities for appropriate funding settlements in those areas.
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I also congratulate the Government on issuing today a passenger rolling stock perspective—which, unfortunately, does not answer the question that I am about to ask. However, given that passenger numbers will double in 15 years; given that there is already severe overcrowding in the regions on trains; given that delay in electrification means cascading the diesels will be a bit delayed, and given the Secretary of State’s commitment to phasing out the much-loved Pacers, what are the Government doing to meet the demand of the regions for these trains? Did the Minister say that he is leaving it to the northern powerhouse—or to a Midland engine room; and I believe that there will be a Cornwall digital growth area tomorrow—to order them? In either case, who will pay?