Draft Specified Agreement on Driving Disqualifications Regulations 2017

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2017 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Specified Agreement on Driving Disqualifications Regulations 2017.

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. This draft statutory instrument is being made to reintroduce an agreement to allow for the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. I am sure that colleagues recall the previous arrangement under the 1998 European convention on driving disqualifications, which ceased to apply in the UK on 1 December 2014 when the UK exercised its right to opt out of various EU police and criminal justice matters under the Lisbon treaty.

I am sure that we all know that the UK has one of the best road safety records in the world, and this co-operation among the Administrations in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will improve it further. This measure is particularly important for the people of Northern Ireland, which shares a 310-mile border with the Republic that about 15,000 people cross daily at 300 crossing points. Last year, traffic accidents caused 68 people needlessly to lose their lives in Northern Ireland. If a British or Northern Irish driver receives an instant disqualification from driving while travelling in the Republic—for drink-driving or causing a serious injury to another road user, for example—that disqualification can follow the individual back home. The same is true for Irish drivers disqualified here in Britain or in Northern Ireland.

The treaty that our Governments have negotiated is almost identical to the now defunct European convention on driving disqualifications, but there is one important difference. There was a loophole in that convention’s wording that allowed some drivers to escape a ban following them home by falsely claiming normal residence in the country where the offence occurred. We have amended the wording to close that loophole, thus ensuring that those unscrupulous individuals who seek to escape punishment can no longer do so.

The mutual recognition process is straightforward. When a British or Northern Irish court determines that a driver is to be disqualified and that driver is normally resident in Ireland—the driver can hold any driving licence; it can be an Irish or EU licence or another licence—the driver will be able to appeal the decision. If the appeal is either heard and rejected or not filed, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will write to the Road Safety Authority in Ireland and inform it that a driver resident in Ireland has been disqualified. The case will then be referred to the Irish courts, and the judges there will decide whether to uphold the ban. The same will be true of British and Northern Irish drivers disqualified in Ireland.

These measures should not be considered a double punishment; drivers will have a right of appeal against the initial ban and against the ban applying in the country of normal residence, but a driver who commits an offence serious enough to merit instant disqualification needs to be taken off the road for the appropriate duration in both the UK and Ireland. If an Irish court imposes additional punishments, such as forcing a driver to resit their driving test or take an extended driving test, we in Great Britain and Northern Ireland will similarly impose such additional punishments and requirements.

I point out to colleagues that any driving disqualification arising from totting up of penalty points is not covered by these measures, because penalty points are not assessed in the same way in Ireland. Although Northern Ireland and Ireland are engaged in bilateral discussions through the North South Ministerial Council about mutual recognition of penalty points, that is still work in progress.

This agreement between the UK and Ireland about mutual recognition of disqualifications will not be affected by our decision to leave the EU. As the Prime Minister herself stated only earlier this year following a meeting with the Taoiseach, the ability to move freely across the border is an essential part of daily life for the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland. That is why the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister have both been clear that there will be no return to the borders of the past. Maintaining the common travel area and excellent economic links will be important for both countries in the talks ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

There were a couple of questions there, to which I should like to reply. It has taken a little while to make the arrangements, but the Irish constitution forbids the making of agreements of this nature by memorandum of understanding or a similar more formal instrument. Treaties are therefore required, and it takes time for them to be agreed, signed, ratified and deposited. That, simply, has been the case in this instance; it is not a question of a failure of priority.

I thank the Opposition for their support for the measure. It will make our roads safer, which is something we are all working towards. I do not think that the introduction of targets is critical in doing that. I do not need a target to tell me that road safety is important. We do not need a target to work on producing a road safety statement, which we published in December 2015, or to increase the penalties for mobile phone use while driving, or to seek to tackle the 50 least safe roads on our network with funding from the autumn statement. We are doing an enormous amount on road safety. Targets could be fine in other parts of the world; I have no problem with that. However, they are not needed here, where we are on top of the agenda and doing good work.

I hope that I have answered the questions satisfactorily. I am pleased that the measures have cross-party support, and look forward to their being implemented soon.

Question put and agreed to.

Regional Flags: Driving Licences and Number Plates

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on securing this debate about the use of regional or national flags on driving licences and number plates? I welcome this opportunity, because this is clearly an area of much interest to colleagues from all over our country.

We all know that, on 23 June last year, we voted as a nation to leave the EU. My hon. Friend is correct that many opportunities will arise from that decision. For example, one of the many implications may well be that we will be able to alter the design and components of our driving licences and number plates. I will take each issue separately, and I will start by commenting upon driving licences, which is actually quite a complex area.

The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has been issuing driving licences since 1973. It holds the records of around 47 million drivers and issues around 11 million licences each year. While I appreciate that my hon. Friend and other colleagues see the outcome of the referendum as an opportunity to include regional flags on our driving licences, I have to highlight that that could have practical implications that I ought to share with the House. There would be an administrative burden on the DVLA, and associated costs that would, in due course, be passed on to motorists .

I will explain a bit about the photocard driving licence itself. As we are all aware, there are different designs for a provisional licence and a full driving licence. At first glance, the driving licence looks a little like a credit card. It is credit card-sized and is plastic, and it contains a photograph and some details about the driver, including their name, address and the vehicles that they are entitled to drive. However, it is much more sophisticated than that. For example, it is made entirely from polycarbonate and is built up of multiple layers. It has been rigorously tested to the highest standards to ensure that it complies with international security standards, and to ensure that it is fit for purpose and will retain its integrity for the 10 years of its lifespan.

In terms of the licence’s production, the DVLA is supplied with base cards, which arrive at the DVLA containing only the title—“DRIVING LICENCE”—the Euro flag, the Union flag and the background print; everything else is printed on-site. The driver’s photograph is actually not so much printed, as one might expect, but laser etched on to the polycarbonate material. The driving licence has many other security features, and is therefore one of the most secure and recognisable public documents that we have.

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government introduced a new driving licence design in 2015 that incorporated the Union flag. When that change was made, the DVLA explored the possibility of giving drivers the option of having the Union flag on their licence or not, so some of the thinking on the prospect of consumer choice has been started. That work showed that the cost to the DVLA would be between about £14 million to £20 million, and it would potentially take two years to implement. The Government decided, therefore, to include the Union flag on all driving licences, without offering a choice, to underpin the sense of national identity and pride that we all share, notwithstanding that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) may take a slightly different view of that. Overall I think there is pride in our national flag and our identity as British citizens.

At the same time the DVLA looked at whether it would be desirable to offer drivers the option to have other symbols on their driving licence, such as the cross of St George, the saltire, the red dragon of Wales or indeed, potentially, the cross of St Piran. While it may seem a simple undertaking to give motorists a choice of what to display on their licence, the cost of doing so was even greater than the cost of providing an optional Union flag, which I mentioned earlier. If the optional element is removed—for example if all licences in Scotland were issued showing the saltire—that obviously would have a cost implication, by reducing it. Then, of course, there would be further complications; how would the distribution of the design be decided? Would it be a question of where the driver lived? Of course Scots live right across the United Kingdom, and people from other parts of the country live in Scotland. That presents some quite complicated operational implications for the DVLA.

There are also some potential road safety and security risks. Among the most obvious would be the credibility of our driving licence in the eyes of foreign enforcement agencies. When so many people from the UK drive in places around the world, the recognisability of our licence is a valuable asset.

[Drew Hendry]

Does the Minister agree that currently, with the EU symbol on the driving licence, that problem is greatly lessened, and that by choosing hard Brexit, without taking into account cabotage and customs or keeping access to the EU, the Government will create problems for drivers?

[Andrew Jones]

I fear that that is potentially temptation to rerun the referendum debate. We have been there, and we need to come together and implement the decision of the British people. Obviously, there are practical implications, some of which are risks, and some opportunities. The key thing, of course, is to make sure that we have the best possible deal for the country, and far more opportunity than risk.

My point about the interoperability and recognisability of driving licences is reasonable, because they are perhaps the most common form of identity document that people use. They are not designed to be an identity document but they are used for that purpose in many cases, and it is important that a driving licence should be a robust and secure document that retains its identity. A further implication is that its integrity should not be compromised by more fake licences being in circulation. A lack of familiarity with the licence could of course make it easier for fakes to go undetected.

We estimated what might happen if each county or region were allowed a design. I recognise that few parts of the country have the sense of identity that Cornwall has—

[Sir Greg Knight]

And Yorkshire.

[Andrew Jones]

I am coming on to Yorkshire. We have heard from two proud and passionate Cornishmen in the debate, speaking up for their county, as ever; but other parts of the country also have strong identities. I am a proud Yorkshireman and I think nowhere beyond Yorkshire and Cornwall can match that sense of identity. However, I am treading into dangerous territory, and that is partly the point. We would be treading on regional and county identities that are very complicated. I notice that even within the ceremonial county of Cornwall the Isles of Scilly have their own flag, and their population is just over 2,000, with just 600 vehicles registered on the islands. They may want their own flag displayed on their licences, and I am sure that that would apply to many parts of the country. There are strong affiliations and loyalties across our marvellous, united nation.

Building various designs into the card manufacturing process would obviously have an impact on printing and despatch costs for the DVLA and would also have implications for turnaround time. All those points need to be considered as we take the debate forward.

We have regional identities on our number plates. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the registration number is a unique means of identifying a vehicle for taxation, law enforcement and road safety purposes. It has a proper and significant practical implication. It is important that the police are able to quickly identify a vehicle and that witnesses are able to recall registration marks. To that end, the law requires that number plates are clearly and easily readable.

The rules regarding what can be displayed on number plates, including any optional regional flags, are specified in UK law. Those rules simply ensure safety on our roads. They support the police and other enforcement agencies in identifying vehicles to prevent and detect crime, particularly through the use of automatic number plate recognition cameras. With that in mind, the law has to be specific about what information can be shown on a number plate, to minimise and prevent the use of unlawful products.

Currently in the UK only number plates supplied by official registered suppliers can be displayed on a vehicle. Registered number plate suppliers are fully aware of what is allowed to be displayed and must ensure that the number plates they supply meet legal standards and that adequate sales records are maintained. In addition to display of the registration number, the law provides for the voluntary use of specific national identifiers or the display of the EU flag, if people wish it.

The display of the EU flag with the inclusion of a GB identifier is called a europlate. It enables motorists to travel across the EU without the need to display the conventional oval GB—either a sticker or a little banner—to identify the member state in which the vehicle is registered. Currently UK motorists travelling within the EU can display either the europlate or the traditional oval sticker. Vehicles registered in the UK and travelling outside the EU have no choice but to use the oval sticker.

[Sir Greg Knight]

As we move closer to leaving the European Union, will the Minister look again at this? It seems to me that as long as a number plate is clear and can be read and understood, if someone wants to personalise their number plate modestly, we should not stand in the way of them so doing.

[Andrew Jones]

I recognise that we are moving into a place where the old rules will cease to apply, and we can determine more as we wish, but I will come to my right hon. Friend’s point.

The law changed in 2009 to allow the voluntary display of either the European flag or UK national flags, so we have choice in the area of number plates. Motorists can choose between the Union flag, the cross of St George, the saltire or the red dragon of Wales on their number plates. The display of a national flag or the EU flag is a matter of personal choice; nobody is compelled to decide one way or the other.

We have strong regional and national identities within our United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall highlighted the recognition of Cornwall, but that applies to many other parts of our country. It is fantastic that we have such a diverse and unique cultural mix in our different nations and parts of our nations, in which people take great pride. I am certainly a proud Yorkshireman, particularly when it comes to cricketing matters.

Any proposals to allow a wide range of flags or regional identifiers to be displayed on number plates have to take into account the wishes of wide groups in other parts of our countries. Choosing the regional identifier would be complicated. We would also have to ensure that it worked from a law enforcement perspective. So there are practical implications, road safety implications and law enforcement implications, and it is a brave person who treads too far into the area of regional identity.

I entirely recognise the strong desire to reflect the pride that we feel in our different parts of the United Kingdom. We are at the start of a process. I am not saying either yes or no; we are simply at too early a stage in this process to decide. However, I recognise that there are opportunities. I regard this debate as the start of our national conversation about what we would like to have on our driving licences and on our number plates. I also recognise that technology presents opportunities to personalise and to print, but I have also tried to explain that there are some significant practical implications from a DVLA perspective and from a law enforcement agency perspective. There are cost implications as well.

I recognise the proud and passionate pleas from our Cornish colleagues, and I have great sympathy with them. I also recognise that we will receive messages from all parts of our country and I hope that everybody will contribute as we decide what our licences and number plates look like, as we leave the EU and have the freedom to make our own decisions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

3. If he will make an assessment of the adequacy of road safety at the Switch Island junction in Sefton; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

Highways England acknowledged concerns about the safety performance of the Switch Island junction following the opening of the new Broom’s Cross Road and has since implemented interim measures to improve safety. Highways England has also identified options for a further safety improvement scheme and is discussing them with the hon. Gentleman’s local council. Those options include changes to lane markings and traffic signs and the introduction of gantries to make the road layout clearer.

[Bill Esterson]

I had two letters from the Minister of State last week, one describing work on the M25 and the other about Switch Island, which he describes. We all know that the Government have a Surrey-first approach to spending money, but my constituents want to know about Switch Island. It has a very serious safety problem. There are accidents nearly every week, and there was one just two days ago. Will he change the priority of this scheme? I was told it would happen next year, but it needs to happen much sooner than that. Safety must come first.

[Andrew Jones]

I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would be delighted to hear about our range of plans right across the country. The funding for the Switch Island project has been identified, and the various options are being worked through. Highways England has to work out what is feasible, plan the design side of it and implement the plan. The implementation is planned for the early part of 2018, but of course the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about road safety are part of the consideration.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

The Department for Communities and Local Government has responsibility for off-street parking. I have had discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), and we have further meetings planned. Officials from my Department also have regular contact with their DCLG and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency counterparts to discuss issues relating to parking.

[Nick Smith]

Motorists must be able to challenge unfair parking fines. When my constituents were punished by Excel Parking’s poor signage in Ebbw Vale town centre, many were forced to come to me to have any hope of a refund. Have the Government assessed how effective the appeals service POPLA—Parking on Private Land Appeals—has been in protecting motorists? Does the service live up to its name?

[Andrew Jones]

That is actually a DCLG matter. We are discussing the independent appeals process, and the DVLA’s role in that in supplying driver information, but also up for consideration is the vigour with which the codes of practice of the two accredited trade associations are enforced. While we recognise that there are many good parking companies, there are some whose standards of customer service do not meet expectations. We had a very good debate on this in Westminster Hall last week, and I look forward to standing up for consumers to make sure they get a better deal.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

The British Parking Association represents many of the operators of private car parks, and the Minister has just referred to its code of practice for the industry. What discussions has he had with the association about improving the performance of parking operators?

[Andrew Jones]

I have met the British Parking Association and will be having further meetings. This is all about making sure that its independent appeals process and codes of practice work on behalf of consumers. That is our objective and that is what we will be taking forward in discussions with the DCLG.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

A constituent of mine, Lisa Smith, was given a ticket for parking on the line. Another constituent of mine, Catherine Cheeseman, saw a £60 fine very quickly escalate to a £180 fine, with threats of court action, and a disabled constituent of mine whose blue badge was out of date by a week was given a fine. When are the Government going to bring forward legislation to deal with rogue private parking companies and those who rip off British motorists?

[Andrew Jones]

That was a point the hon. Gentleman made in the debate we had last week. I cannot tell him when the DCLG will be responding to the consultation that it has been running, but I can tell him that my Department will be working with the DVLA and the DCLG to do all we can to ensure that the consumer gets a better deal by tackling some of the bigger rogue parking companies.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Last week in Westminster Hall the Minister told me that the provision of DVLA data to private car parking companies is not subsidised, yet a House of Commons Library report and a 2015 report by the Select Committee on Transport stated that it charges £2.50 for each inquiry. It costs the DVLA £2.84 to process each request. The difference in the cost of the service last year was a shortfall of around £700,000. Will the Minister publish current figures on the cost of DVLA data to back up his claim, or is the taxpayer indeed funding the disgraceful practices of private companies such as Smart Parking in many constituencies, including my own?

[Andrew Jones]

The charge is £2.50 for the data. It is basically set on a cost-recovery basis. It is not possible to predict entirely accurately how many claims there will be during the financial year; some years there could be a small deficit, some years a small surplus. As I undertook to do in the debate last week, I will put all the data in a letter in the House of Commons Library.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

We have heard about the Westminster Hall debate last week and we have heard complaints from Members across the country about the practices of cowboy parking operators. Extraordinarily, in that debate the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) revealed hitherto undiscovered socialist tendencies by demanding that the Government act and introduce regulation. These cowboy operators need DVLA data to fleece their victims. How many operators have been struck off for poor practice? After years of dithering on this, when are the Government going to step in to protect innocent motorists?

[Andrew Jones]

There were a few points there. I shall relay to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) his socialist tendencies, which will be a surprise to him. The answer on suspensions is 18, and I cannot answer for the DCLG on when it will respond to the consultation.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of investment in maintenance across the rail network.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)]

8. If he will reintroduce national road safety targets.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

The Government are not setting national targets and are not considering reinstating them. We do not believe that targets will provide further persuasion on the importance of road safety; it is already at the heart of departmental thinking.

[Kate Hollern]

Is the Minister aware that between September 2015 and September 2016 there was a 2% increase in deaths on roads, and a 6% increase in casualties? The rate of casualties in my constituency of Blackburn is 49% higher than the national average and, shockingly, child casualties are 102% higher than the national average rate. Between 2010 and 2015, the number of dedicated road traffic police officers in England and Wales, outside the Met, has fallen by over a quarter from 5,338 to 3,901. Does the Minister see a direct link between reduced capacity to enforce road laws and the annual increases in road deaths and serious casualties?

[Andrew Jones]

I have obviously considered this matter. I look at road safety data on a quarterly basis and an annual basis. On enforcement, how the police use their resource is a matter for individual police authorities and police and crime commissioners, but as Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has made clear, there is no simple link between officer numbers and crime levels. The key is the output achieved, rather than simply measuring how many. It is important to point out that in 2015 we had the second lowest road safety data for those killed or seriously injured in British road history. That is positive and we are working to make our roads even safer.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

20. Cyclists in Stroud—and for that matter in Sefton—are crying out for more road safety measures to ensure they can go around roundabouts and across junctions in safety. Will the Minister take that into account in national transport planning?

[Andrew Jones]

Most certainly. I am acutely aware of the impact of cycling infrastructure on road safety. It is clearly part of our consideration. We hoped to launch our cycling and walking investment strategy last week, but for very obvious reasons there was a change to the timetable of Government announcements.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Following on from that question, what plans does the Minister have to address the issue of cyclists ignoring not only traffic lights but pedestrian crossings? This has now become a major problem in central London.

[Andrew Jones]

That comes down to activity undertaken to enforce the rules and to educating cyclists about the importance of following road safety directions. I am aware of cyclists who go through red lights. It is unsafe. It is part of our THINK! education campaign to help cyclists to know what is good behaviour on our roads.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Two people died in November on the A52 in Bramcote, a suburban part of my constituency. There was another accident just a few weeks ago. In both of those cases, and after many complaints from residents for many years, there is clearly a real problem with people racing at very high speeds. Would the Minister be so good as to meet my constituent Tony Smith, who organised a petition, presented in this place only last month, of 1,600 people calling on Highways England to introduce speed regulation measures? We would be very grateful for that meeting in order to advance the campaign.

[Andrew Jones]

I meet local road safety campaigners on a regular basis, in particular families who have lost loved ones in incidents on our roads. They are difficult meetings, but I would of course be very happy to meet my right hon. Friend and her constituent.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

National road safety targets were introduced by the Thatcher Government in 1980 at a time when deaths and serious injuries on our roads were at horrendous levels. The numbers fell consistently until 2011, when the coalition Government abolished targets almost at the same time as they abolished the grant for speed cameras. Surprisingly, the numbers have started to increase. I accept that we are nowhere near the levels of 1980, but if it is your loved one or your child, that is matterless. The last time the Minister was asked about this he said that he was open to any useful ideas on how to turn the trend, so is it not time to accept that road safety targets decrease the numbers of deaths and injuries on our roads? They worked, and at the moment nothing the Government seem to be doing is reversing that trend.

[Andrew Jones]

I simply do not accept that policymaking is as simple as setting targets. If we look at all the action the Government are undertaking—the changes to the statutory option on drink driving, drug driving legislation, the THINK! campaign, the increase in penalties in relation to mobile phone use and so on—we see that our efforts to take road safety further are significant. If policymaking was as simple as setting targets, Gordon Brown would have left us a very well-run Government and nobody pretends he did that.

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

9. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of noise monitoring around Heathrow Airport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. Whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of establishing a road collision investigation unit.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

No assessment has been made of the merits of establishing a road collision investigation unit, as there are well-established collision investigation units in the police service, and effective ways of reporting conclusions and outcomes. The Department does, however, directly fund a programme of detailed investigation under the road accident in-depth study, in conjunction with police forces, coroners and several hospitals.

[Mr Sheerman]

The Minister knows of the interest that I take in this matter, as chair of the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety and the international council for road safety research. There is no doubt that we need an investigation unit to deal with sea, air and rail transport. All the transport safety interests across the board are in favour of the establishment of such a unit. We do not think that it would be costly, and it would be effective. Will the Minister think again?

[Andrew Jones]

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s long-established campaigning interest in road safety, and I would just refer back to the earlier answer: we have well-established collision investigation units within the police service, so I see no point in duplication.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Collisions have a range of causes, but one of them is undoubtedly the poor condition of our local roads. The Minister will be aware of the ALARM—annual local authority road maintenance—survey published this week showing that one in six local roads will not be fit for purpose in five years’ time, and that the number of potholes filled per authority fell by 19% last year. I anticipate that he will tell me how just much money is being poured into those potholes, but does he accept that short-term fixes are no substitute for proper resurfacing, which for most roads currently happens just once every 55 years?

[Andrew Jones]

The condition of the local roads is the responsibility of the local highways authorities, and we are very keen to support them in their work. I fully recognise that there is a backlog and have seen various projections of how much that might cost to fill, which is why we have allocated a record amount of money to support local highways authorities. The sum stands at over £6 billion during this Parliament, including £250 million specifically to help fix potholes.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

11. What steps his Department is taking to reduce congestion in Oxfordshire.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

The Government have an ambitious strategy for tackling congestion right across the country. In Oxfordshire this includes investing £35 million for public transport improvements on the A40 and a £9.5 million budget for Didcot station car park expansion, as well as investing some £19.4 million in the next financial year to reduce congestion at key locations across the county.

[Robert Courts]

Congestion on the A40 between Witney and Oxford causes daily misery for commuters and restricts the economic growth of this vital dynamic area. It is essential that a complete solution to this problem is found. The £35 million for the public transport solution is welcome, but what steps will the Government take to provide funding for a complete solution to the congestion on that busy road?

[Andrew Jones]

As ever, my hon. Friend speaks up vigorously on behalf of his constituency. We recognise the importance of that local road to the economic growth of the area, which is why we are supporting the A40 science transit scheme, with £35 million of local growth funding for enhancements to the A40 corridor. I encourage local partners to continue to work together to explore further options to address the issues along that stretch of road. I would of course be happy to discuss any of the options with my hon. Friend.

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

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

15. What recent assessment he has made of trends in bus passenger satisfaction.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

The independent transport user watchdog, Transport Focus, produces an annual bus passenger satisfaction survey, and the autumn 2016 report was published last week. Overall bus passenger survey results scored 87%, up from 86% in the previous year.

[Liz McInnes]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but the Manchester Evening News recently ran its own survey of Greater Manchester residents, and in response to being asked which part of the transport network people most wanted to see improved, more than one in five identified poor bus services. Their complaints covered a whole range of issues including pricing, difficulty in making long journeys, the lack of night buses and general unreliability. What reassurance can the Minister give to Greater Manchester bus users that their complaints are being heard?

[Andrew Jones]

I would draw their attention to the Government’s commitment to financing the bus service operators grant during the course of this Parliament, and to the Bus Services Bill, which received its Third Reading on Monday.

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

16. What recent discussions he has had with Ministers of the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers on ship-to-ship transfers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that Highways England fulfils its statutory duty to remove litter.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

Litter collection is an important part of Highways England’s duties. The Department recently asked Highways England to identify the worst spots on the network, and they were targeted for cleaning in early March. Highways England is responsible for cleaning litter only on motorways and the strategic road network—about 2.5% of the total road network—but it removes 200,000 sacks of litter from the roadside every year.

[Helen Whately]

Over 2,000 people responded to my recent rural residents survey in Faversham and Mid Kent, and one of the most common concerns was litter, especially on the A2 and the M2. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that Highways England fulfils its statutory duty to keep Kent’s roads clean?

[Andrew Jones]

This issue is raised constantly by Ministers with Highways England. It has a duty to adhere to the code of practice on litter and refuse, which is part of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and we monitor that very carefully. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that 200 bags of litter were collected in March at the Marling Cross lorry park on the A2.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

18. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union on the UK’s membership of the (a) European Aviation Safety Agency, (b) Single European Sky air traffic movement research project and (c) European common aviation area.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

As my right hon. Friend is not here, I am very happy to put dates in his diary for him, and I am sure that such a meeting will be achievable.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State may well be trapped in the congestion around Newark on the A1 on his way back home to Lincolnshire. As you will have seen, Mr Speaker, according to the Office for National Statistics my constituents are the happiest of any in the country, but they are kept awake at night by the spate of terrible accidents on the A1 between Grantham and Retford. In the Minister of State’s absence, will the Secretary of State commission a full review of safety along the A1, particularly at Newark and through this dangerous stretch between Grantham and Retford?

[Mr Speaker]

I can tell the House that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) wrote to me to explain that he would be absent today, and I detected in his letter a very considerable sense of regret that he would be outside this country rather than in this Chamber. Personally, I have found it difficult, but we have done our best to manage without him today, and we look forward to the right hon. Gentleman’s return at a subsequent session.

[Andrew Jones]

My right hon. Friend is actually in China, rather than delayed around Newark. I am happy to look into the issues raised by my hon. Friend.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Anyone who has ever driven between the great cities of Sheffield and Manchester will have undoubtedly been caught in congestion in the Longdendale area of my constituency. The first public inquiry into a solution took place in 1967, and in the seven years I have been the MP for the area I have raised the matter repeatedly, so I am pleased that the consultation on a bypass route is now open as part of the trans-Pennine upgrade programme. Will the Minister join my constituents in getting involved and getting the route sorted?

[Andrew Jones]

I have met the hon. Gentleman and been to see the particular problems in his area, and I agree that they are acute. I urge everybody to participate in the consultation. Let us try to get the problem finally solved.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

With billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money at stake, after last night’s announcement on HS2, confidence in the transparency and decision-making processes in HS2 Ltd and CH2M have been called seriously into question. First, will the Secretary of State tell us whether CH2M jumped, or was it pushed? For a company to give up a £170 million contract is enormous news. Secondly, will he give the House an undertaking that no further contracts will be issued to other bidders—such as Bechtel or Mace—further down the line before there has been a full inquiry into the decision-making processes in HS2 Ltd and CH2M?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

The CH2M issue is a bigger problem for my constituents. It is welcome that instead of the proposed viaducts in my area there is now going to be a tunnel, but other changes and mitigation are still required. My constituents want to know whether the CH2M issue delays any potential changes or decisions that will affect their lives.

[Andrew Jones]

No, it does not.

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

On Saturday, I am going to speak at the Newcastle Cycling Campaign annual general meeting. What can I tell the people there about what the Government are doing to bring the benefits of cycling to everyone, when studies show that the average cyclist is male, white, middle class, under-40 and in Lycra?

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that cycling needs to broaden its range. Part of the plan we will announce shortly will be to help local authorities to set up their own local cycling and walking investment plans, which will include broadening the range of potential cyclists.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Last Friday, the A34 between Stafford and Stoke was at gridlock for several hours because of the closure of the M6, disrupting not only my constituents’ journeys but the entire north-south commerce. What plans do the Government have to ensure that, when HS2 comes through Staffordshire and cuts across all the main arterial routes, we do not have repeats of this kind of congestion?

[Andrew Jones]

The planning for the construction phase of HS2 is obviously a critical part of delivering this project. As a part of that, there is local engagement between HS2, Highways England and the local highways authorities. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the potential risk, but all the conversations and the collaborations are taking place to make sure that that does not happen.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Last November, the rail Minister sat in a meeting with 15 colleagues, including three Cabinet Ministers, and promised additional carriages for the Southeastern network. This cannot be kicked into the long grass or delayed until the new franchise. It needs to happen now. When, and how many?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State aware that he cannot easily brush off what has happened with that fiasco at HS2 and the resignation? Will he take into account the fact that now is the time—very opportune—to get rid of that stupid idea of having two HS2 lines running through the county of Derbyshire? The one called the Newton spur will lose us 1,000 jobs in the area and knock down 32 houses. It is called the “dawdle through Derbyshire”. Get rid of it.

[Andrew Jones]

I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s questions, but this is not a dawdle through Derbyshire. What we are looking at here is a consultation on how we get the routes through South Yorkshire. It is fair to say that there is no consensus on this matter, and I have met him and colleagues from South Yorkshire. We will be responding to that consultation later this year. The point is how we maximise the opportunities for South Yorkshire and the east midlands from HS2. These opportunities will be significant. He should get behind the project and work with us to mitigate the impact, but recognise also the positive economic impact that HS2 will have on our country.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister, but we are running late. I want to hear two more questions.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Well, the people of Broxtowe are looking forward to HS2 coming to Toton Sidings, where we will have the east midlands hub, which will bring considerable benefit. May I thank the Minister for his visit to Trowell, for his interest and for the conversations with the Secretary of State, because in Trowell there is opposition, not necessarily to the route—although there is some concern—but to a 60 foot viaduct that will deliver HS2? Will the Minister be so good as to confirm that he will do everything that he can to ensure that all options are considered to deliver HS2 through the east midlands and through the village of Trowell?

[Andrew Jones]

I much enjoyed my visit to Toton and Trowell to see the economic impact that HS2 will have there, to talk to businesses and to look at the implications for local communities. I will of course be very happy to take every action we can to ensure that this works for everybody, including the mitigation that my right hon. Friend suggests. We want to minimise the impact and maximise the benefits from this exciting project.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Back in a 2015 debate, the Under-Secretary said that he recognised that the 40-year rolling stock was coming to the end of its life and that he was looking towards having a new fleet. This was in relation to our Tyne and Wear metro. As we are now two years on, can he say when he is going to invest in our metro?

Motoring Agencies Business Plans

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I am pleased to announce the publication of the 2017-18 business plans for the Department for Transport’s motoring agencies—the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA).

The business plans set out:

the services each agency will deliver and any significant changes they plan to make;

the resources they require; and,

the key performance indicators, by which their performance will be assessed.

These plans allow service users and members of the public to assess how the agencies are performing in operating their key services, managing reforms and the agency finances.

The business plans will be available electronically on gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Attachments can be viewed online at:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-03-30/HCWS580/

[HCWS580]

Bus Services Bill: EVEL

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I am pleased to announce the publication of analysis of English Votes for English Laws in relation to Government amendments made at Report stage to the Bus Services Bill.

The English Votes for English Laws process applies to public Bills in the House of Commons. To support the process, the Government have agreed that they will provide information to assist the Speaker in considering whether to certify that Bill or any of its provisions for the purposes of English Votes for English Laws. Bill provisions that relate exclusively to England or to England and Wales, and which have a subject matter within the legislative competence of one or more of the devolved legislatures, can be certified.

This analysis reflects the position should all the Government amendments be accepted.

The memorandum can be found on the Bill documents page of the Parliament website at: http://services.parliament. uk/bills/2016-17/busservices/documents.html and I have deposited a copy in the Libraries of the House.

It is also available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements.

[HCWS555]

Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Andrew Jones Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

It will be useful for me to cover all the amendments in one, hopefully fairly detailed, set of replies.

New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to develop and publish a national bus strategy—which we discussed at some length in Committee, where I am glad the discussions were considered, reasonable and helpful—and to consider a reduced fare concessionary scheme for young people aged 16 to 19 as part of the strategy. New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report setting out the possible steps to support local transport authorities to provide concessionary bus travel to apprentices aged 16 to 18.

While the Government fully appreciate the importance of public transport for young people, particularly those living in more isolated areas, we also recognise that the cost of transport can be an issue for some young people, including those who are participating in apprenticeships. One reason for the introduction of the 16-to-19 bursary fund was to help with transport costs. Funding is allocated to schools and colleges and is used to support disadvantaged young people who need the most help with education and training costs, and the 2015 evaluation showed that nearly 400,000 young people were being supported. However, the statutory responsibility for transport to education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds rests with local authorities, enabling them to make decisions that best match local needs and circumstances. Many authorities and operators already offer discounts for passengers in that age group.

Both issues relate to funding. In Committee, I made it clear that the Bill is not about funding; it is about providing authorities with new tools to help them improve local services in a way that best suits their areas. As part of the 2015 spending review, my Department is protecting the bus service operators grant at current funding levels until 2020-21, already providing significant certainty of funding for bus services without the strategy proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). The funding is provided directly to local authorities and to bus operators and is not broken down into categories of service or by route. Attempting to do so would be a burdensome exercise that could risk embroiling central Government in the fine detail of local bus service provision.

At the heart of the question about a national strategy is the fact that the Bill relates to local bus services. It is not about a top-down, national plan. Buses are local by definition and play a key role in local transport planning. That is why we are seeking to support local councils with more powers. A national plan is not the answer. More powers for local authorities are part of the answer, and they are what the Bill provides.

[Graham Stringer]

One of our few disagreements in Committee was about what should be determined locally and what should be determined nationally. When the Government are spending billions a year on bus services, does the Minister not think that they should take an interest in there being more bus passengers and more bus miles and in what the fares should be? That could be stated as part of a strategy. In that respect, what is the fundamental difference between buses and trains?

[Andrew Jones]

I am happy to agree entirely that buses are a critical part of any local transport mix. I am a great champion of bus travel, which has been made clear in all my work as a Minister and in Committee. However, this is about a local issue, not a national solution. I made a joke in Committee that one of the great truths of business is, “I’m from head office, and I’m here to help.” I often was that person from head office, and I was not always quite so welcome.

This should be about local transport needs, not about a national top-down strategy. Are the Government neutral? Of course we are not, which is why we introduced the Bus Services Bill and protected the bus service operators grant, but ultimately this is about local authorities working in partnership with local bus operators to deliver the right services for their area.

[Graham Stringer]

The Minister is being typically generous in giving way. If it is about local decisions, why will he not devolve the bus service operators grant to local authorities or elected mayors?

[Andrew Jones]

Some of the grant is already devolved to bus operators, but the key reason not to devolve it further is that it goes direct to bus operators, which very frequently operate routes that cross council boundaries. Council boundaries and bus routes are not the same thing. Transport to work has nothing to do with a local authority’s geography, so it would potentially be a bureaucratic nightmare to change the system.

Having said that, we are considering how to reform the BSOG operation. The grant pays a flat 34.57p a litre in subsidy, which is why it used to be called the fuel duty rebate. We are considering how to incentivise better practice, rather than just rewarding bus operators for using fuel, which is not good practice.

[Lilian Greenwood]

It feels as if the Minister is trying to devolve all responsibility for the state of our bus services. It was announced in the 2015 local government settlement that core central Government funding to local authorities would fall by 24% in real terms, which is partly why local authority support for buses is falling. Does he not take any responsibility for the impact that is having on bus services and on people’s ability to use the buses?

[Andrew Jones]

Of course I recognise that the pressures on local government finance are quite acute. In fact, I was in charge of my local council’s financial affairs throughout the financial crash in 2008-09, so I am fully aware of that. At the same time, it does not change the requirement to recognise that buses are a local service and should be determined locally.

[Andy Burnham]

Has my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) not just exposed a major contradiction at the heart of the Government’s position? The Minister says that he wants local delivery but, when it comes to cross-border issues, he says that Whitehall knows best. Surely the Government’s position on bus services should be for maximum devolution, including of the budget.

[Andrew Jones]

I am not saying that Whitehall knows best; I am saying that the grant is best delivered to bus operators that are running cross-border services, and then to take it from there. It is not a question of Whitehall knows best. We are not determining the routes that operators should be operating. We are keen to see more support for buses and more routes available, but the way to achieve long-term sustainable bus growth is to have more passengers on the buses.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) mentioned the Paulley case, which took five years to go through our legal system and reached the High Court. Specifically, we will be inviting the Equality and Human Rights Commission to attend the meetings of our working group, on which progress has been made. We seek to have a small working group that will look at the practical implications of the Paulley case. Among the members invited so far is the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, because we want the voice of disabled groups. We also want the voice of the bus operators, so we have invited the Confederation of Passenger Transport and the Association of Local Bus Company Managers. We also want the voice of passengers, so Transport Focus has been invited. I hope we will see the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has been invited to attend but not as a formal member. I hope to get things under way with our first meeting next month.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I apologise to the Minister, but may I take him back to the cross-border issue? Even in areas that do not have a landscape drawn out for elected mayors, local authorities have for the past three decades worked in partnership with one another where bus routes go across their local authority boundaries. I do not understand his point about devolving the grant to the bus company and not to groups of local authorities in travel-to-work areas.

[Andrew Jones]

The devolution of the funding goes straight to local bus companies. We are looking at how we can reform BSOG and I will take the hon. Gentleman’s points as a contributory suggestion. I do not want to change the system unless we are clear that it will keep more routes operational. We would have no guarantee, unless we ring-fenced the funding, that if we granted the devolution of BSOG to a local authority it would be used to support buses. It could go towards other forms of local transport. I want to keep it focused on buses. That is why it is with operators. However, I will take his point on board as we think about how to take this matter forward.

To answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke a little more fully, the working group needs to be very action-oriented. The High Court encountered practical challenges in dealing with the issue of disabled access. We need to get the balance right. The space that is used for wheelchairs may also be used for parents with disabled children, the owners of assistance dogs and people who use walking frames. I want to protect everyone’s needs.

Disabled transport plans such as DPPPs are important in providing confidence and consistency for disabled people when using transport. I have much sympathy with the reason underlying my right hon. Friend’s suggestion. We will take forward a recommendation in the guidance supporting the Bill that authorities ensure that information is made available to passengers. That might be in a form that is provided by the authority or by individual operators. Again, we have been working on this issue with DPTAC, which has developed a template. I am keen to publish that with the guidance and encourage bus companies to use it. I therefore expect us to make progress in this area, which I hope will assist my right hon. Friend.

[Mrs Miller]

I welcome the Minister’s clarification with regard to the guidance being made available to passengers, but I gently remind him that when it comes to rail passengers, not only is there a regulator breathing down the neck of providers, but there are fines for non-compliance. How can he give this real teeth?

[Andrew Jones]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but I am not sure that there is a straightforward read-across from rail to buses. There are 30 or so rail companies in this country and 1,000-plus bus companies. We need to have something that is proportionate. For the very largest groups, what she suggests might be appropriate. For the smallest companies, which might be operating a single route, what we are suggesting would clearly be more appropriate to provide information to disabled passengers, which is ultimately our joint objective.

New clause 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), would require local authorities that do not provide a concessionary scheme for 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education to produce a report, setting out the impact on that group of young people and on local traffic of not providing such a scheme. As I have said, the legal responsibility for transport to education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds rests with local authorities, which are free to put in place appropriate arrangements. Those arrangements do not have to be free, but we expect local authorities to make reasonable decisions based on the needs of their population, the local transport infrastructure and the available resources.

Local authorities already have a duty under the Education Act 1996 to publish a transport policy statement each year, specifying the travel arrangements they will make to support young people to access further education and training. New clause 3 would simply replicate that duty.

In short, I do not believe that new clauses 1, 2 and 3 would add anything of value to the delivery of a bus service on a local basis or directly benefit passengers. I therefore hope that hon. Members will not press them.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, we have had a constructive exchange; the points made about disabled access are welcome and will be pursued. As in Committee, much of the discussion has hinged on issues of localism. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) described well what we and many others see as the failures of the systems over the past 30 years. We discussed at length in Committee the value of a national framework, and I did not hear a huge amount of opposition to that in the contributions from Government Members, with many seeming to suggest that they, too, could see the benefits. The Minister heroically stuck to the script and clearly does not wish to go down that route just at the moment, but as we consider in future the way we fund bus services, be it the concessionary fares schemes or the bus service operators grant, there will clearly be a debate to be had.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

There is a wide range of amendments in this group, many of which we support, but some we do not.

I genuinely hope that the Minister will consider new clause 4 on bus safety, despite his comments in Committee. More disappointment has been expressed to me on that aspect of our Committee discussions than on any other, partly because the comments of the Minister in the other place had been encouraging, but also because I cannot believe that there is any disagreement on the value of improving bus safety, and this is widely seen as an effective and cost-effective way of achieving that goal.

I think the Minister suggested in Committee that he might be minded to insert some guidance to encourage bus operators to sign up, but the evidence on voluntarism is clear: to my knowledge, no bus operator outside the London franchises is signed up to any independent, confidential incident reporting system. We have an opportunity now to end that situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) said, such a system is not expensive. It works in the railway industry, and I have not heard a strong case made against it. It seems to work well and I urge the Minister to grasp the opportunity.

Amendments 14, 16 to 23 and 15 appear to us to be unnecessary and to go against the spirit and devolutionary nature of the Bill. The assessment process laid out in the Bill and the extensive guidance—168 pages—available for it are extremely thorough and tough, and do not need to be added to. Amendment 24 undermines the assessment made by the Government of the issues relating to compensation and sufficient time to enable operators to plan. Provisions already in the Bill fully satisfy all value-for-money considerations. We are pleased that the Minister confirmed on Second Reading and in Committee that the aim of the process is not to put barriers in the way of authorities proceeding to franchising. We fear that the amendment threatens the very heart of the Bill. Amendment 25 also seems to be unnecessary, as additional appropriate independence, rigour and structure for the audit process will be ensured by the Government, to which I think the Minister is about to speak. Amendments 26 and 27 also seem at odds with the devolutionary nature of the Bill, because it should be for elected authorities to make the decisions, based on their local judgments.

We strongly support amendments 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead. The arguments were well made in Committee, and perhaps even more strongly today. In any transfers workers should be properly protected, and we have the opportunity to ensure that. I fear that the Government will choose not to take the opportunity, but I urge them to do so.

[Andrew Jones]

The respective roles of central Government and local government were a running theme in Committee, and I think we are back to it this afternoon. I will begin with the amendments that deal with the franchising schemes.

The decision to move to a franchising system is a big one for any authority or combined authority to take, and it is therefore not to be undertaken lightly. It must have at its heart improvement for bus passengers, but it must be very much a local decision. That principle has underlain the Bill right from the beginning. We want to ensure that authorities contemplating franchising do so with their eyes wide open to the opportunities, the risks and the costs, and we expect them to have consulted widely on their proposals.

The Bill sets out clearly the processes that authorities must follow before they can implement franchising. Those include developing an assessment of the proposed franchising scheme—in effect, a business case. As part of that assessment, the authority must consider the value for money and affordability of the proposal and must compare making the proposed scheme with other courses of action, such as a partnership—very much as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) suggested.

Several of the amendments in the group would change how those arrangements are operated. Amendment 24, tabled by my hon. Friend, would require an authority to include in its assessment consideration of whether the proposed scheme will be more efficient, effective and economic than any other option, taking into account any compensation payable to operators. Given the extensive requirements I just set out, I do not see a need to make those similar additional matters a separate part of the assessment. Also, it is not necessary or appropriate to refer to compensation in this part of the Bill, or indeed any other. Any move to a franchising scheme will not come as a surprise to bus operators; the clear processes and consultation arrangements we have set out will give them sufficient warning and sufficient opportunity to express their views on the proposed scheme, as statutory consultees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

The Minister says that competition will continue, but does he accept the evidence that the Transport Committee took from the Competition Commission, which was that the commission was unable to find much evidence of any on-road competition?

[Andrew Jones]

My point is that competition will move, but it will not disappear from the market. Competition now takes place on the road; it will move from the roadside to the tender. I do not accept that competition disappears from the marketplace. I came to this place from a robust private sector background, where competition was the daily bread-and-butter activity, and I am sure that it can have a positive impact on customer service, innovation, price and so on.

[Robert Jenrick]

The Minister kindly met my constituent John Marshall, who in addition to running a medium-sized bus company chairs the east midlands passenger transport organisation that represents other small and medium-sized bus companies in the region. He tells me that for him and his members, the question of compensation remains unanswered by the Bill. For the sake of clarity for bus operators, will the Minister say whether the Government intend that in the event that franchises are lost, no compensation will be or should be paid to any bus company in the UK?

[Andrew Jones]

We do not think that it will be a requirement to pay compensation, but an authority that goes down the route of developing a franchising model will of course be free to offer payments as it sees fit. It is not Government policy that such compensation will be mandatory.

Amendments 16 to 23, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk would require a franchising authority to be satisfied of, rather than to consider, certain matters when making its assessment of a proposed franchising scheme. That is a significant distinction. The assessment as set out in the Bill does not require the authority to pass certain tests or to prove that franchising would achieve certain outcomes. Instead, it reflects the standard approach for public sector investment decisions of requiring a view to be taken on the overall merits of the scheme.

That is a deliberate move away from the quality contract scheme process, under which no local transport authority has established a franchising system. A requirement for a franchising authority to satisfy itself that franchising will deliver certain outcomes risks raising an impossible hurdle. It would be difficult for authorities to satisfy themselves with certainty, as their analysis, by its very nature, will be based on assumptions and projections about the future. The amendments therefore risk making the Bill unworkable in practice. We agreed to deliver as part of our devolution commitments franchising powers that would be more usable than the existing quality contract schemes, and that is what the Bill does. I hope that, on the basis of the explanations I have given, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk will not press amendments 16 to 24.

In addition to requiring a franchising authority to prepare an assessment, the Bill requires the authority to obtain a report from a qualified auditor. In relation to the consideration of affordability and value for money, the report must set out whether the authority has used information and conducted an analysis of sufficient quality. The authority must publish the auditor’s report as part of its consultation process. Amendments 2 and 3 make it absolutely clear that the auditor appointed for this purpose must be independent. It has always been our intention that the auditor should be independent, but we wanted to make that absolutely clear and put it beyond any doubt. Amendment 3 imposes duties on the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the matters that a franchising authority is to take into account when selecting an auditor and on the criteria to be taken into account by an auditor in reaching a view on the relevant aspects of the authority’s assessment. An authority or auditor must have regard to such guidance.

I am happy to say that I am in total agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk on amendment 2. He may be surprised to hear that I also agree with the principle behind amendment 25, but the nuances of how independence from the authority can be demonstrated are better addressed through guidance rather than on the face of the Bill. That is the thinking behind amendment 3. For example, amendment 25 would require an auditor to have five years of independence from the authority, which could be difficult to deliver. For the combined authority of Manchester, for example, it would have to be demonstrated that none of the bigger accountancy firms had dealt with any of the constituent authorities on any issue over the past five years, which could be quite a challenge. However, the principle of independence has absolutely been in the Government’s thinking since the beginning. I support that principle, which is behind my hon. Friend’s amendment, and that is why I hope that he will feel able to withdraw amendment 25.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on amendment 25, but will it be possible to include the spirit of the amendment in the guidance that the Secretary of State will issue? If he can give an undertaking that that could happen, I would be prepared to withdraw amendment 25.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We will deal with independence in the guidance, and independence from the decision-making body will be a basic criterion for the auditor.

[Andy Burnham]

I am reassured by what the Minister said this afternoon in rejecting amendment 14 and other related amendments. I ask him to go a little further and commit to the House that the spirit of his remarks today will be carried into the guidance and regulations that will follow the Bill—the consultation on them closed sometime last week. Will he also work closely with Transport for Greater Manchester and other metropolitan transport authorities to ensure that the wording of the regulations and the guidance is consistent with what he has said today and what is in the Bill?

[Andrew Jones]

I can provide the right hon. Gentleman with that assurance. We are not seeking to stand in the way; we want to create a suite of powers for local authorities to make decisions about what is right for their area. In some cases, it will be a franchising model, but that will be at the margins and not what will happen in most parts of the country. However, some parts, such as Greater Manchester, have indicated much interest in that model. It is not one of our objectives to block local authorities from choosing what is right for their area. We want a thriving bus industry, with local authorities working with bus operators to deliver a better network with a better deal for passengers and more passengers on buses. That is our objective with this Bill.

Amendments 4 and 5 make clear the precise requirements that a person has to satisfy to be appointed as an auditor. We are proposing the changes in response to effective representations we have received from a number of Members and following meetings that the Secretary of State and I have had to discuss the practicality of existing provisions with potential auditors. I hope that the amendments will be broadly supported by Members across the House.

The aim of amendments 14 and 15, once again tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk, is to prevent a franchising scheme from proceeding if the passenger benefits it is expected to deliver could be achieved by making a partnership scheme. I sympathise with much of my hon. Friend’s intentions. Indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for North West Norfolk and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) have done a significant job in speaking up on behalf of bus passengers for a considerable time. I do not want to see franchising pursued for any reason other than passenger benefit, and certainly not for ideological reasons. Passenger benefit is a theme that runs throughout the Bill. We want to see passenger experiences improve.

As I have made clear, however, the Bill already requires a local transport authority to compare making a franchising scheme with one or more other options. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk will be reassured to know that that should be a proper consideration of the options available. Indeed, the draft guidance, on which we recently consulted, states:

“Identifying realistic options should not be a desk exercise… and authorities should engage with bus operators in the area”

to see whether there is “a realistic partnership proposition”. It also states that an

“authority should not dismiss realistic”

alternatives without detailed assessment. The decision-making arrangements for franchising in the Bill are appropriate. Following a consultation on its assessment of the options, which should include bus operators and passenger representatives, an authority that decides to implement franchising must have satisfied itself that franchising is the right option for its area. Importantly, it should have a clear rationale for that decision with passengers at its heart. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk will feel able to withdraw amendments 14 and 15.

The final set of amendments relating to franchising decisions are also from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk. Amendments 26 and 27 aim to prevent an authority that has developed a franchising proposal, but not progressed it, from making another franchising scheme for a period of five years. Those amendments go against the spirit of devolution. Banning the introduction of a franchising scheme for an arbitrary time period would severely restrict the capacity of an elected mayor, or other franchising authority, to take local situations into account and to act accordingly. It could also undermine the democratic process by preventing a new mayor elected within the five-year period from developing a franchising scheme, even if he or she had had franchising in their manifesto. In practice, if an attempt to franchise were to fail, it is highly unlikely that an authority would seek to make another scheme without devoting a reasonable and significant period of time to learning lessons from the experience. Given that, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendments.

I will now move on to consider how much freedom a mayor or local transport authority should have in implementing franchising and partnership schemes. Amendments 6 to 13 and new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Gateshead, seek to limit that freedom in various ways. As I said in Committee, I do not believe that mandating the basis upon which contracts are procured by local transport authorities, or the contents of those contracts, is appropriate, but that is exactly what amendments 6 and 9 propose in relation to the terms and conditions of employees. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the power to achieve the outcome that the amendments seek will already rest with the franchising authority that will be letting the contracts. Employees and their representative groups will have plenty of opportunities to raise such points during the consultation process for the respective schemes. Indeed, it may be appropriate to put the proposals to the mayoral candidates of each of our parties.

I am a little surprised that the amendments have been tabled, because we discussed the practical concerns about them in Committee. For example, it is not clear which terms and conditions would apply where people with different arrangements had previously transferred under TUPE, and the cost of the proposals could also prove sufficient to prevent some authorities from pursuing a franchising scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns]

Does the Minister accept that injuries can also occur to passengers? As a regular bus user, I have witnessed such injuries on a number of occasions. This is not only about pedestrians and other road users. Bus passengers, often without the vehicle being involved in any sort of collision, can be injured when, for instance, the bus brakes abruptly. Surely the travelling public on buses—the customers of the bus operators—have a right to some Government protection.

[Andrew Jones]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. There is no doubt that passengers can be injured on a bus. I am also a regular bus user—not that that is particularly relevant—and all of us who travel on buses will have seen such injuries. He makes a reasonable point, but it does not necessarily mean that we need to mandate a reporting system in primary legislation.

Transport for London is the main example of confidential reporting by a bus operator, and it has featured in our debates in Committee. I understand that TfL pays the CIRAS subscription. When the London Underground and rail contract came up for renewal, the CIRAS contract was extended to cover buses at no extra cost to TfL. That prospect is different from mandating that every bus operator subscribes to such a system.

As I mentioned in response to an intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), there are 30 rail companies and 1,000-plus bus companies in this country. We also need to consider the evidence. I have not been made aware of any robust evidence to suggest that arrangements introduced in London have had a significant impact on safety. If a franchising authority wishes to stipulate a system such as CIRAS as part of its conditions of contract, it is of course free to do so—that is what TfL has done here in London. Authorities that negotiate partnerships could also include bus safety measures as part of such an arrangement, so I will explore through guidance how we could encourage operators and local transport authorities to consider the benefits of an independent confidential reporting system, but we will probably limit that only to a franchising or partnership scheme to start with.

I hope that, in the light of my comments, the hon. Member for Gateshead will feel able not to press amendments 6 to 13 and new clause 4.

I have been speaking for far too long, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you and Members on both sides of the House will be pleased to hear that I am coming to the end of my remarks.

Amendment 28, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk, addresses decision making in enhanced partnership schemes. It would prevent requirements on how tickets are purchased or fares paid, on how fares or ticketing arrangements are publicised and on the price of multi-operator tickets from being specified in such a scheme unless all parties agree. Ticketing is a key element of the Bill’s partnership proposals, and one of the key principles of the enhanced partnership regime is that it does not require consensus by all operators.

Instead, affected operators may object to the enhanced partnership proposals at key points in the process, and the authority cannot proceed with its proposals if more than a sufficient number of operators object. Details of what amounts to that sufficient number will be set out in the draft regulations, on which we have recently finished consulting.

Leaving aside the objection mechanism, there are further safeguards to ensure that individual operators are treated fairly when ticketing requirements are included in an enhanced partnership scheme. A key safeguard is the ability for any proposals relating to ticketing, or any other element of an enhanced partnership scheme, to be subject to scrutiny by the Competition and Markets Authority, which will be a statutory consultee on the proposals. Our draft guidance on enhanced partnerships also makes it clear that all documents should include a section on competition, and it provides clear advice on how individual operators can raise concerns with the CMA at any point during the development or implementation of a scheme.

Perhaps most importantly, I can reassure my hon. Friend that an authority making a scheme has to be satisfied that any restrictions on competition introduced by an enhanced partnership, such as setting the price of a multi-operator ticket, are balanced by the benefit to passengers. The effect on small and medium-sized bus operators should also be taken into account as part of that process, and we have built protection for small and medium-sized operators into the Bill by requiring them to be considered, whichever regulatory model is chosen locally.

I make it clear that the provisions are about fairness, and not about protecting the commercial interests of operators. Bus operators may well prefer their passengers to buy a ticket for use only on their buses, rather than one that can be used on any bus service. That is of course in a bus operator’s commercial interest, but it might not necessarily be in the interest of a bus passenger.

If my hon. Friend’s amendment were to be accepted, only one operator would need to put its commercial interests first to block an improvement to ticketing for passengers that might grow the entire market in its area. Overall, the safeguards I have outlined are enough to ensure that proposals relating to ticketing are fair and reasonable to bus operators while delivering improvements that benefit passengers. I hope he finds my explanation reassuring and will therefore not press his amendment.

I believe the Bill already has decision making right and is in the right place to get the best outcome for passengers. In doing so, it will deliver on our devolution commitments, and I trust the House will agree.

[Ian Mearns]

I would like to think that the Minister will provide within the guidance to the Bill, once it is enacted, a reference to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System as best practice in the industry. Notwithstanding that, I do not seek to press the new clause or amendments 6 to 13. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.



Clause 4

Franchising schemes

Amendments made: 2, page 16, line 38, after “an” insert “independent”.

This amendment and amendment 4 make plain the status of the persons who may audit an assessment under section 123B produced by a franchising authority or authorities.

Amendment 3, page 17, line 2, at end insert—

“( ) The Secretary of State must issue guidance as to the matters to be taken into account by a franchising authority when selecting a person to act as an auditor.

( ) Franchising authorities must have regard to any such guidance.

( ) The Secretary of State must issue guidance concerning the matters to be taken into account by an auditor when forming an opinion as to whether the information relied on, and the analysis of that information, by an authority is of sufficient quality for the purposes of subsection (2).

( ) Auditors must have regard to any such guidance.”

This amendment imposes duties on the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the matters to be taken into account by a franchising authority when selecting a person to act as an auditor and to issue guidance on whether the information relied on, and the analysis of that information, by an authority is of sufficient quality. It also imposes duties on franchising authorities and auditors to have regard to any such guidance.

Amendment 4, page 17, leave out line 3 and insert

“For the purposes of this section an auditor is independent, in relation to an assessment of a proposed franchising scheme, if the person would not”.

See explanatory statement for amendment 2.

Amendment 5, page 17, line 8, leave out from “person” to end of line 9 and insert

“eligible for appointment as a local auditor by virtue of Chapter 2 of”.—(Andrew Jones.)

This amendment alters the definition of “auditor” so that it means an individual or firm eligible for appointment as a local auditor by virtue of Chapter 2 of Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006 as modified by the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

Clause 22

Bus companies: limitation of powers of authorities in England

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I support amendment 1, and we had a long discussion on this issue in Committee. I spoke then and on Second Reading about the success of Nottingham’s municipal operator, and so, much as I love Nottingham City Transport, I will restrain myself and not repeat myself.

I continue to question the Government’s motivation for their determination to ban local transport authorities from establishing new municipal bus companies, as Ministers have simply not made the case for such a ban. The Transport Committee, chaired so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), describes it as a “disproportionate response”. Clearly, this measure is anti-localism and it prevents councils from acting in the best interests of their residents. In Committee, the Minister said that there should be a split between the commissioning and the provision of bus services. I do not disagree on that, but this ban goes far beyond that. As was noted in Committee, local authorities with municipal operators have proved themselves very capable of managing just such a split when tendering for supported services.

In Committee, the Minister also suggested that the existence of municipal bus operators

“could easily deter investment from the private sector”.

When I asked him what evidence he was drawing on in making such an assertion, he admitted

“of course we do not have any evidence for it. I am just looking at what the risks may be.”––[Official Report, Bus Services Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 67.]

The Minister’s risk aversion is simply unnecessary and can be shown to be such. Nottingham has an excellent municipal operator, but it does not deter private sector investment; as the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) mentioned, we have excellent private sector operators in Nottinghamshire, such as trentbarton. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will rethink their commitment to what I can only describe as an ideological obsession, and take this opportunity to end their unreasonable position and accept amendment 1.

[Andrew Jones]

This amendment, tabled by the hon. Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), proposes to remove clause 22. We debated this at length in Committee and I wish to reiterate that the several existing municipal bus companies, including Nottingham City Transport and Blackpool Transport, which serves the area of the rail Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard)—deliver a high standard of service, and I will expect that to continue. Their ability to provide that is not affected in any way by this clause. The franchising and enhanced partnership tools in the Bill will provide authorities with more influence over bus services than they have now, and striking that right balance between local authority influence and the role that the private sector bus operator can play is important. Our view is that passengers will see the most benefit where the commissioning and provision of bus services is kept separate. As such, we do not think that authorities should be able to set up new bus companies.

We have seen encouraging innovations from the private sector—although not exclusively within that sector—such as the introduction of smartcards, the installation of wi-fi and increased accessibility in our bus network. Those improvements have all been delivered through private sector investment and they show overall that the industry is always innovating and delivering a good deal for its passengers.

[Ian Mearns]

The Minister will be aware that over the past six and a half years local authorities up and down the country have seen significant and ongoing reductions in their revenue support grant. Ministers from the Department for Communities and Local Government have always been encouraging local authorities to be entrepreneurial and enterprising, and to go out there and earn money to backfill where the RSG once existed. By this measure, the Minister is precluding local authorities from doing just that.

[Andrew Jones]

I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is also fair to say that no local authority has either set up a municipal bus company or approached me with a view to doing so. Therefore, this is in some ways a slightly notional or theoretical debate—[Interruption.] Making sure we get clarity is the entire point here.

This Bill seeks a balance between local authority influence—we are providing local authorities with a variety of tools to address local issues—and the role that private sector bus operators can play, in order to ensure that both are incentivised to deliver the very best services for passengers. This Bill is about local authorities and commercial bus operators working together to improve local bus services. It is about co-operation, all designed to improve the benefits for bus passengers. I hope that this has made the Government’s position clear and that the hon. Member for Cambridge will not press this amendment to a vote.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Minister has finally let the cat out of the bag. If there has not been a queue of local authorities coming to him with requests to form companies, he does not really need to legislate to ban them from doing so. This is pure ideology. There has been a great deal of agreement on the Bill—we have found a lot of common ground—but on this issue, I assure the wider world that there is clear red water between the Opposition and Government Benches. We will press the amendment to a Division, and its effect will be achieved by a future Labour Government.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I can now inform the House of my decision about certification. For the purposes of Standing Order No. 83L(2), I have certified the following provisions of the Bus Services Bill [Lords] as relating exclusively to England and within devolved legislative competence: clauses 1, 3 to 7, 9 to 14, 16 and 18 to 22 of, and schedule 2 to, the Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee, and including amendments made on Report. Copies of my certificate are available in the Vote Office.

Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Does the Minister intend to move a consent motion?

[Andrew Jones]

I beg to move.

[Mr Speaker]

A simple nod of the head would suffice, but the Minister said it with eloquence and charm to which he is no stranger.

The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M).

[Mr Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have engaged so constructively with the passage of the Bill, and demonstrated their shared commitment to improving bus services and increasing bus passenger numbers.

Buses are already England’s most used form of public transport, accounting for more than 4.5 billion passenger journeys a year. They are vital to the economy, connect our rural and urban communities to employment, schools, hospitals and leisure, and are used by people of all ages. That is why the Bill has bus passengers at its heart. It allows local authorities and operators to adopt measures to improve services and grow passenger numbers. This is, therefore, an enabling Bill that is fundamentally about improving bus services for passengers, and that recognises the need for local solutions to local transport problems.

By working together, local authorities and operators can tackle key transport issues, such as pollution and congestion. They can support local businesses and help to drive the local economy. The Bill introduces a range of tools that will achieve those aims. It builds upon the success of partnership working. Local authorities and operators can agree the standard of services in a particular area. This could include multi-operator tickets, better connections between transport modes and improved vehicle standards, all of which will drive an increase in bus usage and increase performance. I emphasise that this part of the Bill has been widely welcomed by local authorities, operators and hon. Members, although it is, of course, not the only opportunity that the Bill brings.

The Bill will bring the opportunity to refresh powers for local authorities to franchise, delivering on our devolution agenda. It is only right that many of our larger cities have the opportunity to make franchising a success, just as TfL has done in London. Of course, franchising is not for everyone, and authorities must have a compelling case to implement such a scheme. I am of the firm belief that the Bill, as amended by this House, will deliver a better standard of bus services. It reinstates automatic franchising powers to mayoral combined authorities, which will preserve a degree of commercial certainty and help to maintain the significant private sector investment that we have already witnessed in the bus market. In addition, the requirement of an independent auditor as part of the assessment for franchising schemes will ensure that a scheme is implemented only with proper scrutiny.

A necessity to buy separate tickets or to pay with cash when travelling by bus can be frustrating and costly. Authorities will, therefore, have improved advanced ticketing powers to create multi-operator ticketing schemes that cover not only buses but other modes of transport such as tram or light rail. They can also make use of emerging technologies such as contactless and Bluetooth ticketing. The Bill will make it easier for passengers to access information on timetables, fares and routes. App developers will be encouraged to develop innovative products that will make this information available to passengers. I firmly believe that these improvements will deliver significant benefits to passengers, and will therefore attract more people on to public transport.

The Bill will also deliver accessibility improvements. Indeed, the audio-visual provision introduced in the other place has attracted more public attention than any other part of the Bill. It has certainly dominated my inbox more than any other matter by a factor of many. The provision will ensure that bus services in England, Wales and Scotland are accessible to those with a hearing or sight loss disability and, at the same time, will provide valuable information to all passengers. I know from personal experience the importance of next-stop announcements in London and elsewhere. All passengers will benefit from this significant improvement.

I want to see the bus market thrive and encourage more people on to public transport. As I said at the beginning of this speech, the Bill will have significant benefits for the environment, congestion and the local economy. Ultimately, we seek to reverse a decline in bus usage and put passengers at the heart of bus services. I thank all hon. Members who have engaged and contributed to the Bill, especially those on the Bill Committee, as well as the Committee Clerks and parliamentary counsel for all their work. I particularly thank my team within the Department. A significant amount of hard work has got us to this point. We have a good Bill that has been welcomed widely and reflects the importance of buses in local communities. We want the bus industry to thrive, and that is what has driven the Bill. I commend it to the House.

Tyne Marine Office

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on securing this debate about the closure of the Tyne marine office. The second thing I should do is to offer a bit of an apology, because I am not the maritime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who has responsibility for maritime, is away on important Government business in China. It may well be that I cannot answer all the hon. Lady’s questions in my speech, but I undertake to go through the entire Hansard report of this debate and take the questions back to the Department to ensure that she receives the answers that she seeks. I wanted to clarify that before we went any further.

Before I talk specifically about the recent closure of the Tyne marine office, it might help the House if I set out some background to the decision. The House will recognise our people’s strong connection to the sea and our impressive maritime heritage. The British have always looked beyond our shores and built strong trade links with the rest of the world. Ships and the related maritime industries have historically been crucial to our economic wellbeing, and that remains as true now as it has ever been. We are an island nation, and the UK relies on shipping for 95% of its trade by volume. Maritime industry directly contributes at least £11 billion to the UK economy each year. Those maritime industries are expected to grow significantly in the next decade, and the public needs the assurance that commercial ships visiting our ports, whether or not they are actually registered in the United Kingdom, are operating safely.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise to the initiator of the debate, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) that, although I rushed to get to the Chamber—I actually ran very fast—I was a wee bit late, for which I also apologise to the House. Does the Minister agree that the closure will undoubtedly compromise the ability of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency survey and inspection unit to carry out its duties and that, although it is difficult to quantify, the impact on local seafarers living and working in the area will certainly be adverse, to say the least?

[Andrew Jones]

I am not sure I can agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I will come on to discuss that very point later.

Operational safety matters for the sake of the seafarers on ships, and for protecting our cherished and highly prized marine environment. That is why we need a robust, strong and effective ship survey and inspection regime. Within my Department, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is responsible for providing the broad safety regime. In that effort, the agency and its staff are guided by its mission statement:

“Safer lives, safer ships, cleaner seas”.

The ship survey and inspection regime we have established must be capable of ensuring the safety of the shipping industry, while at the same time being supportive of the industry it serves and commercially attuned to what the industry needs. That view is shared by the industry itself, and it was highlighted in the “Maritime Growth Study” report published in September 2015. Lord Mountevans’s report set out a number of recommendations to support the growth of the whole maritime sector. The Government and the industry have been working tirelessly, in unison, since the report’s launch to put into effect its excellent recommendations.

For the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, we have implemented some of the recommendations by separating the UK ship register into a bespoke, commercially focused directorate. We have appointed Doug Barrow, formerly the chief executive of Maritime London, as the new director of the UK ship register. He has been supporting the MCA on a part-time basis since January, and will take up his appointment full-time on 10 April. Mr Barrow brings with him an expert and forensic understanding of the commercial needs of the shipping industry. The MCA’s leadership has also been bolstered by the appointment of its first non-executive chairman. Michael Parker, who will fill that role, brings with him over 40 years of experience and knowledge. He, too, will support the MCA’s greater commercial awareness and responsiveness, which is critical to what I will come on to talk about shortly.

Another transformational change for the agency, which is linked to balancing its role as a regulator with the need for greater commercial responsiveness—this recommendation was at the heart of the “Maritime Growth Study”—is the modernisation of our ship survey and inspection arrangements. Ship survey and inspection is at the heart of the Government’s responsibilities as both a flag state, running a shipping register, and as a port state, with many ships visiting UK ports and harbours daily. Both roles are about balancing safety and the protection of the environment with facilitating legitimate commercial activity and trade.

The safety of shipping, ports and the marine environment is dependent on effective and proportionate regulation, robust technical standards and the comprehensive oversight and inspection of national and international merchant shipping fleets. Effective survey and inspection is key to compliance, and it must be robust if it is to support the level of growth in the maritime sector envisaged by the “Maritime Growth Study”. Overseeing shipping and protecting the marine environment carries a degree of risk that needs to be properly managed. A failure in regulatory governance by those operating ships could—very sadly, as we all know, it sometimes does—result in serious accidents, with damaging consequences for those involved and for our environment.

The MCA carries out its ship survey and inspection regime for the UK through a frontline cadre of some 130 marine surveyors located around the UK. The marine surveyors are experienced seafarers, many of whom are master mariners, chief engineers or qualified naval architects. The frontline marine surveyors are supported by experienced and equally qualified colleagues working in policy, technical and in-house advisory positions, providing oversight and advice, and monitoring technical and professional standards.

Notwithstanding its strong global reputation for competence and its positive influence on worldwide safety standards, the MCA has struggled in recent years to meet its remit and its ability to discharge its statutory obligations for maritime safety. In part, that has been because it has proved difficult to attract qualified marine surveyors in what is a highly competitive marketplace. The marine surveyor cadre has been operating with some 30% vacancies, and has for the past few years found it very difficult to attract and retain high-quality staff.

Recognising the need for change, the agency carried out a comprehensive review of the way in which it delivers its ship survey and inspection obligations. By listening to the needs of customers and the industry, and by considering the Government’s estate strategy and optimising the potential benefits of technology, the MCA has identified a number of areas where improvements can be made. With the support of the trades unions, new terms and conditions have been agreed for the agency’s frontline marine surveyor workforce. The modernised terms are designed to improve availability, deployability and responsiveness to industry and wider demand, while at the same time retaining and attracting new talent to the workforce.

A key element to the new terms and conditions is the concept of remote working, which is made increasingly possible by modern technology. The hon. Lady asked about new IT systems, and I can tell her that they are already in place. Marine surveyors will no longer be required to work from one of the relatively few marine offices around the UK. They can instead work remotely anywhere, serving a much greater proportion of our customers in and around the UK’s ports.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Will the Minister share with the House the cost of the new IT programme?

[Andrew Jones]

I cannot do so, because I do not have that information with me, but I will find out and write to the hon. Lady.

The key is to build on remote working, which is made possible by modern technology, to provide a more customer-oriented service. With frontline marine surveyors based closer to their customers, the MCA can simply respond quickly to customer needs. That ability is a further direct response to an industry that increasingly needs support at all times of the day. The changes address particular industry concern and call for change. That is the background: a more customer focused and responsive sector driven by technology, and the needs of a sector that we wish to see grow.

That brings me to the specific issue of the closure of the Tyne marine office. As part of the overall package of change, the MCA consulted last year with the public and industry on the new proposed estate footprint. Following the consultation, the agency concluded that there should be nine marine offices across the UK. The proposal to close the Tyne marine office was confirmed. The Tyne marine office has played a key role in maritime safety, alongside others, in the north-east for many years. That point was made by the hon. Lady. It is without question. Its close relationship with local industry and with South Tyneside College has seen over 1,000 seafarers, both new and experienced, visit the marine office every year to sit their seafarer examinations.

Recognising that local need, I can inform the House that the same number of marine surveyors will continue to be located in the Tyne area to meet demand. The Tyne marine office has closed, but the MCA has opened a bespoke examination facility in the area to respond to the needs of the customers and industry. The new examination centre, which has MCA branding, is situated within South Tyneside College. As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, it opened on 13 March 2017. The MCA’s commercial large yacht unit, known as Ensign, will operate from the same examination centre. It might not be a venue for that many super yachts, but it is a venue for expertise within the MCA. That is why the unit was there in the first place. Remote working marine surveyors based in the Tyne area will be able to use the facility as a remote office when required.

The hon. Lady raised concerns about there no longer being a counter service on the Tyne. There is no longer a counter service, but I would highlight that the MCA still has in place service provisions to provide documents, such as discharge books and seamen’s cards, in line with other Government services. Applications for these documents can be made online or via the post. It is worth noting that over the past two years, there have been approximately two visits per week to the Tyne counter. That is in contrast to the 1,200 exams and over 100 port state control inspections per year. The provision of a counter service fails to take into account the direction of technology, the lack of demand and the need to consider providing services in a way required by customers.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. He is being very kind. I am aware of the figure of two people a week going to get papers and documentation, but does the Minister have figures for how many people came into the office for help, advice or discussions about future careers? That service mattered to my constituents and they would want it to be brought back.

[Andrew Jones]

I can pick up that point, along with some of the other points raised. The need to have a presence in the area is understood, with the link to, and the base at, South Tyneside College, which will deliver 1,200 oral exams and over 100 port state control inspections a year. It is important to emphasise that the MCA and its excellent marine surveyors have not in any way abandoned the north-east of England. They are still very much there. They are talking about the same number of people providing the same services. They will be supporting their local customers. What we are trying to do is deliver that service in a way that is more responsive to customer need. That is the feedback from industry. We need to make our service more attuned to its needs, so we no longer continue to see maritime decline. They are just working differently and from a different base at the South Tyneside College.

This was the first step in a national restructure intended to secure a robust survey and inspection regime that aims to deliver a more efficient service. It is a service that can meet the needs of customers and industry. It is a modernised service that will help to attract new ships to fly the flag and join the UK ship register. I can assure the House that our modernised ship survey and inspection arrangements will mean that we retain our place as one of the most respected maritime nations in the world.

Question put and agreed to.

Heathrow Airport Expansion: Elmbridge

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this important debate. I must immediately apologise, because I am covering for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport. He would have responded to this debate, because it is in his policy area, but he is opening a factory in the west midlands. This is a bit of an away fixture for me, but I will be able to answer some of the questions raised by my hon. Friend, and I can guarantee that I will take them all back to the Department and make sure that he gets the fullest answers that we can provide. All his questions were entirely appropriate for a Member standing up for his constituents.

My hon. Friend asked whether this could be the start of a fruitful dialogue. I can confirm that indeed it can. This debate is certainly timely, because on 2 February my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary laid before Parliament a draft airports NPS—national policy statement—under the Planning Act 2008 and published an accompanying consultation. The draft NPS sets out the framework against which an application for a development consent order will be judged in respect of a north-west runway at Heathrow airport. Right now we are in that important period of public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. Before I address the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend, I want to remind the House of the process in which the debate sits.

On 25 October 2016, the Transport Secretary set out in his statement the Government’s preference for a new north-west runway at Heathrow airport. Some of the key points he made do bear repeating. The need for additional capacity is clear and paramount, and that has driven the entire process. A north-west runway at Heathrow airport would provide economic and employment benefits, delivering tens of thousands of additional local jobs by 2030, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said, in the area of Elmbridge. It would also provide new global connections and better connections for domestic customers, new capacity for freight imports and exports, and reduce fares for passengers.

The benefits of the scheme would be felt by businesses and passengers throughout the UK. Therefore, while we are dealing with an issue that is acutely local for my hon. Friend and of great importance for the south-east of the United Kingdom, it has relevance for the entire United Kingdom. For example, my constituency is at least 220 miles from my hon. Friend’s, but its chamber of commerce came out in support of the application, recognising its impact for the UK as a whole. There is a further point: in our post-Brexit world, a new north-west runway sends out a clear message that Britain is open for business.

The publication of the draft NPS was a significant milestone. It sets out the case for additional capacity as well as the reasons why a north-west runway at Heathrow has been selected as the Government’s preferred scheme. It specifies the requirements that the promoter will need to meet in order to gain development consent. Those include important requirements on air quality, noise, carbon and community compensation.

Last month, we also published an appraisal of sustainability for the draft NPS, which assesses the potential economic, social and environmental impacts of the proposed policy in the draft NPS. It incorporated a habitats regulations assessment, equalities assessment, and health impact assessment, and it includes analysis of the reasonable alternatives to the preferred scheme: the Heathrow extended northern runway and the Gatwick second runway.

In the light of the issues we have been discussing, it is important to note that, in parallel to the draft NPS consultation, we are also consulting on UK airspace policy, which impacts on the entire country. The airspace proposal aims to strike a balance between unlocking the economic and social benefits of modernising airspace and addressing the local impacts of aviation, which is a hard balance to achieve. People around an airport are split because the economic opportunity benefits are significant in employment provided, but there can also be an impact on quality of life. In particular, in the consultation there is the creation of an independent commission on civil aviation noise, which is required to help to build trust in how noise is taken into account when airspace decisions are made. The policy principles set out in the airspace policy consultation will inform decisions taken later in the planning process for a north-west runway at Heathrow, including how local communities can have their say on airspace matters and how their impacts are taken into account.

The Planning Act 2008 places a requirement on the Transport Secretary to consult appropriately on a draft NPS and publicise it. There has been a significant number of events. My hon. Friend’s point about a consultation in Elmbridge was well made and has been noted. There have been 20 local and 12 national information events, which have provided an opportunity for residents and people who are affected to contribute their opinions. We have had 1.5 million leaflets delivered to households and businesses in the areas, and there has also been advertising on radio, digital and social media channels and print media.

Scrutiny is taking place outside the House, and scrutiny is taking place within the House, too. At the same time as the consultation period, a period of parliamentary scrutiny has commenced, which will end at the start of summer recess 2017. Members will be aware that the Select Committee on Transport has been nominated to provide formal scrutiny of the draft NPS. To assist Members of both Houses, there will be a draft NPS parliamentary information event on 3 May. Following consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, we expect to lay a final airports NPS before Parliament for debate and a vote in the House by winter 2017-18. If the House approves the airports NPS, the Transport Secretary will decide whether to designate it. If the NPS is designated, the airport promoter can then submit its application for a development consent order. That is the process we will go through.

I will address some of the points raised by my hon. Friend. I have got and will take back the message about Elmbridge. At least one event was arranged in each local authority area that either borders the airport or falls within an indicative 54dB noise contour as assessed by the Airports Commission. Those were the criteria used for selecting where events took place, but I have received his message and will take that further for him.

Noise is a big factor, and my hon. Friend raised that powerfully on a couple of occasions. We recognise that aircraft noise is a significant concern for communities close to airports or under flightpaths. That is why the draft NPS requires an applicant for development consent to demonstrate that measures will be in place to take effective action to address the noise impacts of the scheme. Such measures have to be finalised through the planning process, or the exercise of statutory powers, and are subject to public consultation. The draft NPS does not exclude such measures as a 6.5 hour ban on scheduled night flights, but the whole point about noise was well made and I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives detailed answers to his specific questions.

Night flights are when noise is at its most acute. The Government understand that point and recognise that they are perhaps the least acceptable form of aircraft noise. We have recently consulted on the restrictions for a new night flights regime, which will begin in October. Our proposals seek to ensure that the benefits of night flights are appropriately balanced with the impacts that they have on local communities. The phrase my hon. Friend used was “equitable dispersal”. I have noted that and will take that back and follow through on that.

One of the proposals we are making is to maintain the current movement limits at Heathrow and then reduce the amount of noise the airport will be allowed to make. We are currently analysing the consultation responses and will announce a decision later this year. Again, the draft NPS sets out the Government’s expectation for a 6.5 hour ban on scheduled night flights at an expanded Heathrow.

Access points have to be a consideration. That was raised by both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry). It is clearly a major concern. As part of the proposals for Heathrow, we are looking at how to improve public transport access to the airport. The proposed Southern rail access scheme has the potential to greatly improve access to Heathrow airport from Surrey and Hampshire and from the South West Trains network. That could include, for example, direct trains to Heathrow from Weybridge or Woking. Although that scheme is still at an early stage of development, we are looking at options to maximise the benefits for both airport and non-airport users. It is clearly appropriate that access to Heathrow airport is a key part of all of the decision making because of the impact on quality of life from traffic and the impact on air quality.

It is fair to note that the Government are putting significant emphasis on improving the emissions from our vehicle fleet. Air quality is shooting up the political agenda, which is a very positive thing. In this Parliament we are committing £600 million to encourage the use of, for example, electric vehicles. That is a positive agenda, which is at its most acute where we see interventions that will increase traffic.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton again on securing the debate. It is the start of dialogue. The consultation to which I have referred closes on 25 May. There is a drop-in event on 3 May, which is taking place in the House of Commons terrace pavilion between 1.30 pm and 4 pm. The Transport Secretary is attending and will address the consultation at 1.30 pm. I am sure it will attract a lot of interest, but I hope to see my hon. Friend at that event.

Question put and agreed to.

DVLA and Private Car Parking Companies

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We want fairness in the process. We must understand that the DVLA has the information in the first place as a legal requirement so that the police may know to whom cars belong. That is why, by law, we are obliged to register our cars. We are not obliged to register them for the benefit of a subsequent private contract, which is a subsequent activity beyond the initial purpose of the DVLA. It was to be there for public interest, not for private contracts. Because of the way in which parking has developed, the DVLA has got involved in this private parking aspect. It earns fees from that, although apparently it is loss-making, which if true seems extraordinarily silly.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If it is not true, that is very reassuring; I am glad. However, the fact that that is not true is worrying in another direction, because the DVLA ought not to be affected in its judgment by its revenue streams. If we have an accredited parking authority that gets revenue from the car park, and the car park pays money to the DVLA to get information, there is a chain of money going through, which seems to be overriding the chain of justice and the right of the state, the duty of the state and the obligation of the state to protect the individual.

The DVLA has the solution in its hands, as do the Government. The situation requires not changes of legislation but changes by the DVLA in how it gives out information. I will carry on banging on about this until we know that companies have been suspended, that companies have been audited, that companies are not getting the information any longer and that the DVLA is taking proper charge to protect our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on securing the debate on the disclosure of DVLA data to private parking companies. I welcome the opportunity to discuss a matter that is clearly of concern to him and to his constituents; there is a slight bias towards the south-west, but this is clearly of concern across the UK.

Although the policy on disclosure of DVLA data is of long standing, it is true that management of parking companies and the release of vehicle keeper data frequently generate significant concern. Of course, that is entirely understandable. No one likes to receive a parking ticket, and motorists become annoyed when they are the subject of enforcement action. Many examples have been shared of inappropriate and heavy-handed enforcement action. Motorists often disagree with the principle that DVLA vehicle keeper data can be provided to private companies for such purposes. I should point out that the private parking sector is not regulated by the Government. The Department for Communities and Local Government consulted on this issue in 2015 and is currently considering the approach to any future Government intervention. I am afraid I cannot give the House a detailed time as to when that will be finished.

As it stands, the private parking industry is an unregulated sector in which common law on breach of contract or trespass applies in the relationship between the motorist and the landowner. Drivers who choose to park their vehicles on private land do so in line with the terms and conditions, which should be clearly displayed on signage at the entrance to and around the car park. Those conditions may relate to the need to pay a fee to use the car park and to display a valid ticket, to observe the maximum permitted time for parking or possibly other conditions, such as a stipulation that parking is not permitted at all.

Parking control is necessary to ensure that landowners are able to exercise their legal rights and gain the benefit they are entitled to from the use of their land for that purpose. The use of wheel clamping used to be widespread in the sector as a means of parking enforcement, but was banned in England and Wales by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, meaning that that method of enforcement is now effectively outlawed. I am sure that colleagues will agree that, without any form of control, errant drivers could park as they like, breaching reasonable terms and conditions without fear of recourse arising from their misuse of the land. That would obviously have a detrimental effect on the availability of parking spaces for more compliant motorists.

[Kevin Foster]

To be clear, no one is arguing that there should be no ability to control. Does the Minister agree that the issue is about the heavy-handed enforcement, and the fact that the fines are far above those that local authorities find are perfectly adequate for management and enforcement in their own car parks?

[Andrew Jones]

I do indeed recognise that. I was just trying to clarify the legal position. My hon. Friend made his case extremely well and has now clarified it again.

The law allows for the release of DVLA vehicle keeper information to those who can demonstrate that they have reasonable cause for requiring it. That provision has been in law for several decades. To receive data, a requester must show that their need relates to the use of a vehicle following incidents in which there may be liability on the part of the keeper or driver. Where a parking infringement may have taken place, it is considered reasonable to provide the vehicle keeper’s contact details, so that the matter can be taken up with the person responsible. Despite the unpopular nature of that process, it is a well-established principle in case law that such enforcement is lawful, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in late 2015.

Despite this being an unregulated industry, and while the law provides for the release of information, the DVLA has strict conditions in place in relation to the disclosure and use of data. The DVLA will only disclose vehicle keeper data to parking companies that are members of an accredited trade association; I will come on to that in more detail in a moment. Such trade associations have codes of practice that are based upon fair treatment of the motorist and require their members to operate to high professional standards of conduct, while allowing reasonable action to be taken to follow up alleged parking contraventions. The codes of practice contain requirements on clear and prominent signage, appeals processes and information that should be provided to motorists on parking tickets. They also contain requirements on the use of automatic number plate recognition cameras, which are expected to be in good working order.

There should be no hidden charges or ambiguity for the motorist as to what is and is not permitted on the land. The codes of practice require that contact with the motorist is not threatening and that parking charge notices are issued promptly, so that the driver can recall the circumstances surrounding the event. A reasonable amount of time must also be given to the motorist to allow payment to be made before any escalation of the matter occurs.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

These codes of practice are marvellous, but the problem that has been established in this debate is that they are not followed, and the DVLA is complicit in that.

[Andrew Jones]

I am coming to that. I recognise entirely what we have heard this morning.

A further requirement in England and Wales, where additional liability for parking charges exists for vehicle keepers, is that access to an independent appeals body is provided. That independent appeals service must be free to the motorist. The outcome of the appeal is binding on the parking company but not on the motorist, who can continue to dispute the charge. Companies that do not comply with the codes of practice can face expulsion from the trade association, resulting in the right to have DVLA vehicle keeper data removed.

[Drew Hendry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Jones]

I am running out of time, so I will not.

I want to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay about whether there is enough enforcement action. Bad practices are tackled. The DVLA can and does suspend the disclosure of data to companies that have not been compliant. However, there is clear concern from Members that we need to go significantly further. I have been working to ensure that we get the balance right.

Let me reassure the House on how we control the data. We have had lots of debates in this House about the right to privacy of our personal data. The trade associations have a code of practice, which includes access to DVLA data being tightly controlled. Companies with an electronic facility to request DVLA data have to sign up to a detailed contract that lays out the requirements on the use and security of data. The DVLA undertakes remote checks on parking companies.

In addition, the Government Internal Audit Agency carries out detailed audit visits on the DVLA’s behalf and undertakes more in-depth checking of individual cases to provide further assurance that requests have been submitted for genuine reasons and there is reliable evidence to back up the request. Non-compliance can result in sanctions, including the removal of the right to data.

The DVLA’s controls around the disclosure of data to parking companies were subject to a detailed data protection audit by the Information Commissioner’s Office last year. I can confirm that the Information Commissioner awarded the DVLA the highest rating for the controls it has in place surrounding the disclosure of data.

There have been a few questions about costs. I can confirm that this is priced on a cost recovery model, so it is neither subsidised nor run at a profit. The DVLA charges a fee for providing vehicle keeper details. In the cost recovery model, the fee is £2.50, which is designed to ensure that the cost burden is met by the companies involved and not the taxpayer. There are significant volumes of requests; we are looking at potentially 4 million in the course of this financial year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay highlighted. However, the Government are not seeing either a profit or a loss.

Many Members have mentioned constituents’ complaints regarding bad practice and motorists who feel they have been unfairly treated by parking operators. There are several routes for redress should an operator fall short of the standards expected. The first is the company’s initial appeal process, which it is required to offer under its code of practice. There is also the independent appeals service, which is free to motorists. I have already mentioned the need for an operator to demonstrate compliance with the code of practice in order to retain its membership of an accredited trade association. If there are breaches of the code of practice, the trade association is there to investigate and ensure that action is taken. Without membership, there is no access to DVLA data.

Consumer protection laws also apply here. Those laws are designed to protect consumers from unfair practices. Trading standards officers are there to investigate complaints and can take action against a particular company. Consumer protection legislation applies to individual cases and the actions of the company in individual circumstances. Breaches can result in prosecution.

I hope that colleagues will recognise that the DVLA has gone through significant controls to ensure that the data are handled correctly and that there are controls and audits. There was a question about responsibility. The DVLA is the responsibility of the DFT. The parking companies and on-street and off-street parking sit with the DCLG. We have to work on this issue together because, without car ownership data, accessed through the DVLA, this industry would stop.

Colleagues have raised issues with me in writing previously and today, and there is clearly a significant issue to resolve. The Government are most concerned about the matter, which is why the DCLG launched its consultation. I will ensure that DCLG colleagues are aware of concerns and the content of this debate. I will also arrange a meeting with the trade associations, to highlight the concerns we have in this House about their members’ practices and to review exactly what enforcement action they take. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) that this is a little bit David and Goliath. Our job is to stand up for the Davids, not the Goliaths. That is completely fair.

I have been asked whether there should be a single standard-setting body for the industry. Competition between industry bodies is generally quite good. Competition can improve services, so I do not think we necessarily need to have just one body. I was also asked whether the relationship between the trade associations and the DVLA is appropriate. It is legal, and it is controlled and audited. The information provision is managed. The concern lies in the code of practice and its enforcement. That is where the next actions will be, and I will take those actions forward from today’s debate.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. It has been interesting to hear so many examples from across the length and breadth of these isles. This issue is not localised to Torbay.

Competition is good where it is about services, but we would not suggest having competing magistrates courts. Once upon a time, we did that for the civil courts, and it did not produce a good outcome. The concern of many is that the industry is able not only to mark its own homework but to choose the marker. We need to look closely at that. There are more than 4 million of these transactions. Given the debate we have had today about the cost and the comments made in a House of Commons Library document, based on a Transport Committee report in 2014, I suggest that the Minister places a letter in the Library. It would be helpful if he clarified that point.

[Andrew Jones]

I am happy to make that commitment.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the Minister for that positive reply and the courtesy he has shown. This issue will continue, and further action is needed. We cannot stand aside and ignore the key role the state plays in handing over details that it compels its citizens to provide to the DVLA and in allowing some of these practices to continue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the relationship between the DVLA and private car parking companies.

Car Insurance: Young People

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for opening this debate on the important subject of the cost of car insurance for young people. I also thank all hon. Members for the very good debate we have had this afternoon.

I reassure hon. Members that we take the cost of car insurance for young people—indeed, for all motorists—very seriously. Ultimately, the issue is about road safety and recognising that many people lose their lives or are seriously injured on our roads each year and that behind each statistic there is a shattered life and a shattered family. This is not just about numbers, but about people.

I congratulate the original petitioner, Rhys Michael Parker, who described his own experience of finding motor insurance costly to obtain as a novice driver. I recognise that, like Mr Parker, many young people use their cars to access work, education, caring responsibilities or even just the fun of social activities.

I remember receiving my driving licence—that moment might be 33 years ago to the week for my hon. Friend, but it is almost 36 years ago to the week for me; I took a moment to work that out. Getting a driving licence is a fantastic moment of opportunity in someone’s life and that is why we are committed to bearing down on the cost of car insurance for young drivers. In order to do so, the Government have identified the root causes of high insurance premiums and they are addressing them, as I will discuss.

The first root cause is the alarming rate at which fraudulent, minor and exaggerated whiplash claims have increased in the UK. The scale of the problem is highlighted by the fact that 90% of recent personal injury claims relating to road traffic collisions were labelled as whiplash or soft tissue injuries to the neck and back. The magnitude of costs that insurers inherit from whiplash claims are then often passed on to their consumers through higher insurance premiums. To tackle the issue, we recently introduced the Prisons and Courts Bill to Parliament; it is having its Second Reading today and includes measures to cut fraudulent, minor and exaggerated whiplash claims. That will generate estimated savings to insurers of around £1 billion per year. In this debate, colleagues have said that savings are not always passed on. We expect insurers to fully pass those savings on to motorists through lower premiums. The point was well made by colleagues. I am pleased to inform the House that three leading insurers have already committed to do that.

I would now like to address another of the root causes: the high levels of risk associated with younger drivers. Colleagues have highlighted the well-known fact that younger drivers are over-represented in road collisions. Car drivers aged 17 to 24 are four times more likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with drivers aged 25 or over. That is a terrible statistic and we should not in any way be complacent about it. Higher levels of risk associated with younger drivers have resulted in higher insurance premiums. While we do have some of the safest roads in the world in the UK, we are determined to make them safer; addressing the cost of car insurance is one additional factor spurring everybody on.

I have been asked about a Green Paper, but frankly it has been overtaken by events. We have no intention of publishing a Green Paper because we published the British road safety statement in December 2015. It included proposals aimed at younger drivers—indeed, all drivers—for making our roads safer, such as improving the safety of young and novice drivers both before and after they take their test. It includes our intention to commission a £2 million research programme to test the effectiveness of a range of technological solutions and educational and behavioural measures, including telematics, to improve the safety of young and novice drivers. Those interventions will be designed with careful consideration of behavioural change.

It might be helpful if I explain a bit more about how telematics policies work and play an important role in helping young drivers to access lower insurance premiums. Telematics is a key part of the future and I strongly support the expansion of telematics products in the marketplace. Telematics devices allow information on driving styles and behaviours—such as speed, braking, acceleration and where and when the vehicle is being driven—to be monitored and considered alongside the traditional risk factors that insurance companies consider, such as the driver’s age, to set premiums that are more tailored to the risk of the driver than traditional motor insurance policies.

We are seeing an increasing take-up of telematics. The technology is increasingly being chosen by young drivers as a way of ensuring that their premiums are lower. In March 2016, the British Insurance Brokers’ Association reported that there were 455,000 live telematics policies in the UK—up 40% in just two years. However, that needs to be put into the context of how many policies there are in the marketplace to show how much progress we need to make to encourage their wider use. We are not in any way complacent, but I recognise that young people benefit from telematics.

A number of organisations have lobbied me about the insurance premium tax rate exemption for young drivers with telematics policies. It is important to stress that IPT is a tax on the insurer, and there is no guarantee that it will be passed on to the customer. I also have to say that taxation is a matter for Treasury colleagues.

We are focusing our efforts on a number of other measures to ensure that younger people are fit and safe to drive. We encourage learners to do more on-road, pre-test practice and to practise in a wider range of conditions. As has been mentioned, we have recently consulted on allowing learner drivers on to motorways—with an approved driving instructor, of course—and we are analysing the results. That is very important given that people can go along at a low speed and then suddenly encounter what can be very difficult driving conditions. It can be pretty scary, although it is worth noting that the strategic road network in this country is the safest it has ever been.

We are ensuring that driving tests assess the skills needed for safe, independent driving and are raising standards across the driver and rider training industries. Importantly, we are looking at changing driving tests, which evolve continually. We have been trialling more free-flow driving and using fewer set pieces. Notwithstanding the parking issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) mentioned, we are looking to remove some set pieces so that people have more understanding and experience of free-flow driving and are more road-savvy. That will include taking instructions from a sat-nav during the test. We are trying to make the test more reactive to current technology and the benefits that it can bring.

We are also looking to identify innovative applications, such as augmented and virtual reality, to improve drivers’ hazard perception—that is, the skills required to correctly assess a situation. That could mean using technology from the games industry to complement the existing on-road practice and the testing regime. We are always looking at finding ways to get people better prepared for the marvellous freedom ticket that is their licence.

[Richard Burden]

I agree that looking at ways in which the test can evolve and exposing the person taking the test to the greater range of experiences that they face when driving are important. However, could I take the Minister back to graduated licensing? A focus of the call for a Green Paper was that the pros and cons of graduated licensing need to be weighed up and a decision made. If the Minister has turned his face against the idea of a Green Paper, does that mean that the Government have completely rejected the possibility of looking at graduated driving licences, or are they still prepared to look at it, but want to do it differently?

[Andrew Jones]

We have been considering the idea of graduated driving licences but I am not inclined to support them, because we want to strike the right balance in respect of freedom for young drivers. As we have discussed, many people need their vehicles, particularly in rural areas; rather than imposing post-test restrictions on novice drivers, our efforts are all about improving driver training and testing so that people are better able to benefit from a driving licence.

I am not looking to introduce a graduated driving licence system in the UK. We have heard from colleagues how that might impact on people who live in darkness for part of the year as they perhaps seek to get to shift work early. All those factors have impacted on and led to our decision not to go down the route of a graduated driving licence.

[Mrs Ellman]

I note what the Minister said about the need for better training. Does that extend to training after people have passed their driving test?

[Andrew Jones]

Yes. I am very keen to encourage people to do more learning. We continually learn as drivers and get better continually at assessing risk. I highlight the Pass Plus scheme, which colleagues have mentioned. Pass Plus has six modules, which broaden the range of driving skills that people need. It covers driving in town, in all weathers, on rural roads, driving at night, driving on dual carriageways and driving on motorways. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency issues people with a certificate to say that they have been through the course. That can often be used to access lower insurance premiums, so yes, I entirely agree with the principle.

A number of factors demonstrate that we are committed to improving the safety of all road users and especially those who are at greater risk, such as young drivers. I very much like the road safety training highlighted by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr). I am aware of other schemes around the country. He offered me a visit—well, he lives in a very nice part of the world and I like the idea of visiting, so if he lets me know, that might be a possibility. To make a cheeky comment, I like finding ways to show that our two fine countries are stronger together. I am very keen to take ideas from all parts of the world, not just all parts of the UK, if they can make our roads safer. I am aware of comparable schemes—including in London, again with links into motorsport—that are all aimed at younger drivers, and I recognise the importance of those.

We are seeking to improve the safety of all road users and especially younger drivers, who are more vulnerable and at risk of being in a collision. Nine out of 10 road collisions have an element of human error, so if we can cut the amount of human error, it will have a huge impact on road safety. I therefore agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) about the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, which is an important Bill that we have to get right for the future. The benefits of connected and autonomous vehicles will be profound, but the set of changes is also profound. The Bill is in Committee now.

We are seeking to lower the risk by making progress in ensuring that people are better able to drive and, through that, they will pay less for their insurance premium. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle asked about the discount rate, which has to be considered in the pricing of insurance. I am aware that the recent change in the discount rate and the likely impact on the insurance industry were discussed in some depth in the evidence session last month. I am therefore keen to set out the Government’s reasons for the change and a number of actions being taken as a priority.

The Ministry of Justice leads on this issue, but let me explain: the discount rate is used to convert a compensation award made to an injured person for future losses into a present value lump sum payment, which reflects the return that the person could expect to earn if investing the lump sum today. Last month, the Lord Chancellor notified the market of a change in the discount rate from 2.5% to minus 0.75%. She made it clear that the decision was made in accordance with national law, given her legal duty to consider only the impact on injured parties. The decision was made following a Ministry of Justice public consultation in 2012, the report of an expert panel in 2015 and the responses of statutory consultees, Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Government Actuary. The review process has been lengthy and extremely thorough, reflecting the complexity of the subject matter and the importance that is placed on the decision.

We recognise that the change is likely to have an impact on the insurance industry, resulting in a knock-on effect on some consumers but I must stress that, under law, the Lord Chancellor cannot consider the impact on defendants such as the insurance industry, only the impact on the injured party. I also stress that any effect of the change in the discount rate on the cost of insurance premiums, including car insurance premiums for young drivers, is a matter for insurers to consider.

[Huw Merriman]

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point. Does he agree that more could perhaps be done to incentivise the payment of compensation awards annually rather than as lump sums, so that the risk of return would effectively remain with the insurer, which would then pay out? My understanding is that the legal profession is keener on lump sums; I believe it is said that lump sums mean greater fees for lawyers. As a former lawyer, I cannot believe that any lawyer would be guilty of thinking of themselves in such an instance, but perhaps we could do more to encourage a move away from lump sum payments of compensation.

[Andrew Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Notwithstanding the element of fees in the legal profession, I would expect the insurance and legal professions to sit down and work that out for themselves. What is insurance for? The point of it is that it is collective pooled risk in case something bad happens in our lives. How that is met is for the insurance companies to work out. We have a competitive and innovative sector, which I am sure will be listening to this debate, including to my hon. Friend’s suggestion.

As a Government, we remain determined to address any knock-on effect on consumers caused by the change, which is why we will launch a consultation before Easter to review the framework under which the new rate was set, to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer chaired a roundtable late last month with representatives from the insurance industry to launch discussion on the consultation.

Colleagues have mentioned the importance of driving licences in rural areas due to the difficulty of accessing public transport mechanisms. I recognise that as someone whose constituency, although not rural, certainly has some rural parts. We must ensure that other forms of transport are viable alternatives to motorcars for young people, particularly in rural areas. It is not easy. We understand the importance of affordable, accessible transport and recognise the extra pressures placed on local authorities throughout the country to provide those services, particularly as the lower the population density, the harder it can be for local authorities to do so.

That is why, during the spending review period, my Department will provide more than £1.5 billion to local authorities through the integrated transport block, which will provide capital investment in small transport improvement projects. It will also provide significant road maintenance budgets, which relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). If her constituency is like mine, she will receive more correspondence on potholes than on any other transport issue.

The integrated transport block investment scheme reflects the Government’s belief that local authorities are best placed to decide where investment should go in response to the needs of local communities. It is a local decision to solve a local problem. There are numerous examples of Government-funded road transport schemes throughout the country, such as voluntary car schemes. We have mentioned the Wheels 2 Work scheme and how it could help, although it has its limitations, and we have a £25 million community minibus fund, to name a few initiatives. Such initiatives are helping young people to access work, education and so on. The Government recognise the need for investment in alternative modes of transport, alongside a commitment to road safety and to bearing down on car insurance premiums for young drivers.

To return to some of the questions asked, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay mentioned the driving test and how it is evolving. I do not think the question is about making it harder. He might be interested to know that, according to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, the first-time pass rate for the 2015-16 financial year was 47.5%. It is not that high. People are not looking at the driving test and thinking, “Easy; piece of cake.” More people fail first time than pass. It is a question of making the driving test more realistic and improving training before they get to it and after, as we discussed previously.

[Steve Double]

I take the point that the Minister is making. I was saying not necessarily that I think that the test is too easy, but that people are coached to pass the test rather than taught to drive well. He is making a point about the test being more comprehensive; that is where we need to go.

[Andrew Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to clarify that he was not asking for the test to be made easier; that is absolutely correct.

Colleagues from Northern Ireland, who are no longer in their place, made contributions. This is an entirely devolved matter in Northern Ireland, and my responsibilities do not extend there.

We heard from colleagues about the insurance market and how benefits can be passed on. It is important that we see all the signs of a good, thriving, competitive market, including people shopping around and competition on price and service. We do see that, but we also see inertia. From April this year, changes to the Financial Conduct Authority rules will require insurers to disclose last year’s premium to the policyholder at the point of renewal, which should incentivise shopping around. The randomised controlled trials certainly showed that that prompted up to 18% more people to switch provider or negotiate a lower premium. It would be wise of me to consider following that example, rather than trying to renew on the very last day, as I did this year, only to find an enormous hike in my premium, unlike the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk.

The issue of targets has been raised; it is raised frequently. I have no desire to reintroduce targets. They can help in other countries, as they have helped in our past, but the Government’s clear determination to make progress on road safety is evident in the road safety statement that we published, the initiative in the autumn statement to channel funding into the 50 least safe stretches of road in our country and the changes that we made to the penalties for mobile phone use, which came into effect this month. By the way, that is most important; we know that 60% of people killed or seriously injured in an incident involving a mobile phone are younger drivers. This is about cultural change, and we are seeking it with the penalty change.

I will not consider reintroducing targets. If targets were the right answer to policy, then policy making would become remarkably simple, which I do not think it is. Frankly—to make a political point, which has not been done in this debate—if targets were the answer to everything, Gordon Brown would have left us a very well-governed country, which I do not think he did. Policy is a little more complicated than targets.

At the heart of this debate is the potential cap on insurance premiums. It is a long-standing principle that insurers set their premiums according to their assessment of the risks involved, notwithstanding my hon. Friends’ point about gender.

[Mrs Main]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned that. Is there any opportunity for us to consider the gender directive? If we are truly interpreting risk, suddenly hiking premiums for young women seems unfair.

[Andrew Jones]

Not right now, but who knows where the future will take us? We have some idea, but the detail will still need to be filled in. Opportunities will certainly arise and that may well be one of them.

I want us to get to the point where individuals are assessed according to their risk and where the Government do all we can to de-risk driving and incentivise safe driving. Motor insurers use a wide range of criteria to assess the potential risk associated with a quotation, including the age and driving experience of the applicant, the type of vehicle and where it is kept. The level of premiums is a commercial matter for individual insurers, because they use their own funds to underwrite the policies they issue. It is critical that the insurance industry takes such decisions for itself; the Government should not seek to control that market. However, I confirm to all who signed the petition, and to Mr Parker, its originator, that I am extremely sympathetic to their point. I hope that the explanations of our actions that I have given demonstrate our commitment to making progress.

[Calum Kerr]

I realise that the Minister is probably reaching the end of his speech, but there is one thing that I would like to ask him. I do not doubt the sincerity of his desire to improve the situation. Does he see a role for the Government—I appreciate that it would not be his Department—in introducing more formal qualifications to the school curriculum that could help to improve skills and create the outcome that we all desire?

[Andrew Jones]

It is important to capture people young and to instil road savviness among younger people. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Blair Donaldson) mentioned doing his cycling proficiency test at primary school. That scheme is now called Bikeability—we have Bikeability Plus, too—and it is thriving. We have protected its budget throughout this Parliament because it plays a critical role. The education of younger people in this area is important in making progress.

We have had a very positive debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay for introducing it, and to all hon. Members for their contributions to our stimulating discussion. I recognise that the cost of car insurance is important to young people. We are tackling fraudulent whiplash claims and making our roads safer for all drivers, including younger drivers. The motor market, including the motor insurance market, is among the most competitive markets in the UK. I trust that the insurers themselves have strong incentives to innovate and to deliver products targeted at younger drivers at a price that they can afford.

We are not at all complacent about this. We will continue to look at what we can do to address the cost of car insurance for younger drivers head on. It is right to tackle the issue by reducing risk. The Government are doing what we can to help our younger people to get about and get on.