Young Drivers: Government Support

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on securing this excellent debate. I agree with everything she said.

This is a critically important subject because the price of insurance for some young drivers has now reached £3,000. The high costs mean that the parents pay, not the children, and so the wrong people are being penalised. In 2022, it was found that parents spent £780 on average on teaching their children to drive in the preceding 12 months. I am not going to argue with the algorithms that the insurance industry uses to calculate the price of insurance. We should just assume that they are right and that companies are underwriting an extremely expensive risk. We should therefore be somewhat sympathetic to the challenges they face, particularly as 24% of fatal collisions involve people aged between 17 and 24.

Seventy-five per cent. of the young drivers who are killed are male and a male car driver aged between 17 and 24 is four times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than a car driver aged 25 or over. That is because it is not until someone is 25—this is particularly true for men—that the frontal cortex of the brain is fully developed. That is the part of the brain that deals with hazard perception and the consequences, and we have developed that over aeons. That is why young soldiers go to war: they are not as frightened of the consequences as older soldiers. That is one of the problems that we have with hazard perception, and it is just one of those things.

We therefore need solutions that will keep our young people alive and on the road. That is why last week I held a roundtable on insuring young drivers with industry representatives, helped by Aviva, the ABI, superbly represented by Robert Rams—I do not believe he is there anymore for some reason and that is a great shame—and other agencies such as the RAC and, most importantly, IAM RoadSmart.

We discussed all the possible options. One of the most important steps forward is an industry-supported training solution so that, once someone has passed their driving text, if they go on to further training, they will get cheaper insurance because the insurance industry recognises that they are likely to be a more responsible and careful driver. The argument that came back was, “Well, that’s a self-selecting group of people.” Yes, it is, and those are the guys we want out on the road—the ones who want to be extra careful and extra well-trained. That is something we should really pay attention to.

In Australia, learner drivers are 20% less likely to be killed or seriously injured. That is because Australia does several things differently. First, people can apply for a provisional driving licence at 16 and a half, but they have to drive for 120 hours before they take their test—so they start earlier, but test later. The average in the UK is only 40 hours. Australia has seen that 20% reduction because of that rule. One of the other really simple things Australia does is not allow more than one passenger. Young people can cope with one voice gassing in the back of the car, but if there are loads of them—I think we all remember packing people into the car and popping down to the pub, or whatever, from our younger days—all that noise is bad for the decision-making process that young men’s brains go through when they perceive a hazard.

Having one passenger makes another difference to the insurance industry: on a rather dark note, it means that if there is an accident, fewer people are involved, and therefore the cost of the life-changing injuries mentioned by the hon. Member for Upper Bann is reduced. We can all do something about that right now. As our children grow up and ask if they can take people with them in cars, the advice should be, “Not until you’re a bit older—not until you’ve got more experience on the road. Please don’t fill your car with passengers. Just take one.” That is something we could do today that would not cost anything and would save lives.

Between 2012 and 2021, there was a 260% increase in the number of casualties related to driving under the influence of drugs. Some 32% of young drivers responding to an IAM RoadSmart survey said that they thought illegal drug driving was more common than driving under the influence of alcohol. So we are also dealing with changes in young people’s perception, the risks they are taking, and the risks they are tackling in their everyday lives. The solution is training courses. Training courses can teach them about driving under the influence and other topics relevant to them.

Safer roads are not just about young drivers—we need increased training for all ages. One effective measure we could take today is changing the rules on speed awareness courses. I do not know if any Members present have transgressed sufficiently to do a speed awareness course—I confess that I have, and they are brilliant. They remind us of our responsibilities and the value of education. Why are we not doing that for people who speed every year? Why restrict it to every three years? If it works, which it does, we should do more of it. It may not be as beneficial, but it is a really good way of improving the standard of all of us on the roads, which in turn makes it harder for young drivers to have accidents.

The Australians also introduced a graduate driver’s licence. People do not just pass their test and go straight on to the road; they have a graduated procedure. I am not sure that is as valuable. One of the things they insist on is a curfew so that young drivers do not drive between 11 o’clock at night and 6 o’clock in the morning. However, most young drivers in the countryside need to drive at that time of day because that is when there is absolutely no public transport, so I am not sure how well that would work; but again, they are much more likely to have an accident at night. In 2019, 37% of young driver fatalities and serious injuries occurred between 9 pm and 6 am, so they are more risk at night.

The one thing that would be easy for the Government to do is lift insurance tax for drivers that display the green P, so that if someone displays the green P on their car, they do not have to pay it. That would not cost the Government a great deal because they would make huge savings from the amount the NHS currently spends on patching people up, and the figures for people killed or seriously injured on the roads would be much lower.

Just lifting that tax burden on those young drivers, as long as they display their green P, would deliver a huge improvement in the cost of insurance and would save the Government a lot of money. Furthermore, it would make the rest of us who are driving more aware of the people most likely to cause an accident—perhaps in front us—in a car. That measure would turn the green P from a badge of shame to a badge of honour, and it would help with the cost to the parents of young drivers.

Data is vital to this issue, and I urge the Government to stop using catch-all data, such as “17 to 25-year-olds.” We need to collect data on 17-year-olds, 18-year-olds, 19-year-olds and so on. If insurance companies want to avoid claims, and young people want to be able to afford to drive, we need to do everything we can to make the model work better. Although we are all happy with what is going on, we are not happy with the net result—young people being prevented from driving legally and safely because their insurance is not just double the price of the car; it can be four times the price of the car. I hope that the debate will prompt the Government to act, and lead to solutions for all of us, but training certainly helps.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mrs Latham. I want to thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for bringing this important debate to the House. Hon. Members may have noticed that I am not the roads Minister, but I am here because the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), has to appear in the Adjournment debate. I was only asked to do this a couple of hours ago, so I am a last-minute stand-in for an area that is not in my brief. I ask hon. Members to forgive me if I do not answer every question here, but I will make sure that the questions are answered afterwards.

The debate focuses on an important issue. The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and I must be the same age, as I too passed my driving test aged 17, 40 years ago. I was very keen to drive as quickly as possible, for all the freedom it gave me growing up in Cambridgeshire. I have two teenage children who I am currently encouraging to learn to drive, so I am aware of all the things that various hon. Members mentioned as regards the difficulties of young people driving.

Obviously, as a parent, I am incredibly concerned about safety and very aware of the costs of insurance. I and the Government are big supporters of helping young people to be able to drive and to do so in as safe a way as possible. It really should not need saying that every single death on the road is an absolute tragedy, and even more so for somebody who is at the start of their life. We need to do everything we can to prevent that.

The Government will continuously strive to improve road safety, but overall we have a good record in the UK. I used to do quite a lot of work on road safety in the 1980s; there were around 5,000 or 6,000 deaths a year back then. Now, it is around 1,500 deaths a year. Each one is a tragedy, but that is a dramatic fall. We now have the third safest roads in Europe, with only Norway and Sweden having safer roads, but clearly we still need to do more because every death is a tragedy.

As various colleagues have mentioned, young drivers are a particular risk. Young drivers between the ages of 17 and 24 account for 6% of driving licence holders but were involved in 28% of fatal and serious collisions in 2022. However, like the headline figures, the number of car fatalities involving 17 to 24-year-olds on Britain’s roads is also falling. We have seen a drop in the number of 17 to 24-year-olds killed—from 448 in 1990, to 158 in 2010, to 101 in 2022. That is a 77% total decrease since 1990: a very significant drop.

I will try to address all the issues raised here as far as I can, but many are not for my Department, but for others. Indeed, many are also devolved issues and not for the UK Government but rather for the devolved Administrations. I will, however, endeavour to cover all the points raised.

Pretty much everyone who spoke raised the issue of car insurance. I pay car insurance and have noticed the dramatic increase. I was really quite shocked and, indeed, annoyed by it, so I am well aware of the dramatic rises. Various hon. Members have rehearsed the different arguments for it, but it is really quite shocking. As the Minister responsible for the decarbonisation of transport, I speak a lot to car companies, particularly about electric vehicles. The insurance there is also very high, so I have summoned a roundtable of insurers to talk about that in the coming weeks.

I have also heard from car manufacturers about insurance. Some hon. Members mentioned that insurance is £3,000, but we can multiply that by 10 for some cars, and I know that that is affecting car sales. In other words, the insurance is so high that people are not buying cars. The issue, therefore, not only affects young drivers, where it is clearly significant, but is across the piece.

Insurance operates in a free market that is not run by the Government. We have a strong regulatory regime in place and it needs to work to ensure markets work fairly and in the interests of consumers. The Government do not prescribe the terms, conditions or prices that insurance companies set when offering motor insurance—it is not a state-controlled market—and we do not intervene in the decisions of insurance companies when determining whether to provide cover. Indeed, direct Government interventions in a market of that nature could damage competition overall. It is therefore for insurance companies to decide the level of risk in issuing any policy to a given applicant.

As hon. Members know, insurers use a range of criteria to assess the potential risk a driver poses, including their age, the type of vehicle being insured, the postal area where they live, and their driving experience and record. They set their own premiums, and it is a commercial decision for them based on their underwriting experience. The Government do not intervene or seek to control that market, and nor should they. That said, my officials regularly engage with representatives of the motor insurance industry on a number of matters, including the rise in premiums—we have addressed that with the insurance industry.

The Financial Conduct Authority is the independent regulator responsible for regulating and supervising the financial services industry, including insurers. I have spent a lot of my career working with the Financial Conduct Authority, and I can say that it has a wide range of strong powers to intervene in markets that are not working well, and it has a statutory duty to ensure that markets work well in the interests of consumers. It has a broad range of supervision, enforcement and competition powers, including the power to undertake market studies where it thinks markets are not working well and to see whether they can work better.

If there are particular interventions that should be made, the FCA can refer markets to the Competition and Markets Authority, and that is the proper way of doing things. It is not my role as a Government Minister to try to instruct an independent regulator on how to appear, but I am sure that it is listening, and I know many people in various aspects of the industry are writing to the FCA to urge it to look at the insurance market. It is an independent regulator, and it is not my job as a Minister to tell it how to use its powers to meet those objectives.

The FCA has recently taken several measures to improve the fair value of insurance products for consumers, including reforms across the motor and home insurance markets. As hon. Members have said, on 1 January 2022 the FCA introduced new rules that require firms to offer a renewal price that is no greater than the equivalent new business price that the firm would offer a new customer. That is to stop the loyalty penalty, where loyal customers end up paying more than new customers, which was deeply frustrating and has now been banned. The FCA estimates that those new rules will improve competition and save consumers £3.7 billion over 10 years. Under FCA rules, firms are required to ensure that their products offer fair value—that is, the price the consumer pays for a product or service must be reasonable compared to the overall benefits they can expect to receive. The FCA has been clear that it will monitor firms to ensure that they provide products that are fair value and that, when necessary, it will take action.

It is important to highlight, as some hon. Members have, that young drivers are generally less experienced and, sadly, more likely to be involved in collisions. They subsequently carry a higher risk with insurers when they seek motor insurance and, as a result, often pay higher premiums. To counter that, some insurers have introduced the use of telematics or in-car black boxes to allow better risk-based pricing of insurance, especially for new drivers. As hon. Members have said, many new drivers are safe drivers but are being punished with higher premiums because of those new drivers who are not quite so safe. If an individual has a real-time data feed, it allows the insurer to assess their driving behaviour, and that has not been possible in the past. The use of this new technology can help reduce insurance premiums if drivers show good driving behaviour with a black box installed in their cars.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

That is a lovely idea that the insurance industry has put out there. However, if it is for someone’s children, it makes absolutely no difference because until the insurers have gathered the data on the driver, they do not reduce the premium. It is an after-the-horse-has-bolted solution and does not really fit the problem.

[Anthony Browne]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Clearly, it takes time for the insurer to gather the data and to give the benefit, but this can be useful in reducing premiums for certain young drivers.

Different insurers obviously take different views of their relevant factors in determining the price for insurance, and the motor insurance market is very competitive. As we all know, if we look online we will get many hundreds of different quotes. The message from the Government is that consumers should shop around to find the best products. Certainly, when I have renewed insurance and shopped around, I have found dramatically different quotes. It is quite surprising for a competitive market to see how different the quotes are—it is really worth doing. The British Insurance Brokers’ Association runs a not-for-profit “find a broker” service if someone wants a broker rather than going directly online. It specialises in finding cover for those who have difficulties obtaining the cover they need at a reasonable cost.

Several hon. Members mentioned broader support for young drivers. As I said at the beginning, the Government are supportive of young drivers. For new and novice drivers, the Department’s broad aim is to improve road safety through new technology and research, and, particularly for young drivers, through developing better learning opportunities and targeted educational messaging, while reinforcing vital behaviour change road safety messages through our THINK! campaign.

The THINK! campaign aims to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads in England and Wales by changing attitudes and behaviours among those at most risk. It has an annual media spend of over £3 million, with recent campaigns on drink-driving, speeding and mobile-phone use. The primary audience for the campaigns is male drivers aged 17 to 24, who are at a higher risk and are four times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than drivers over the age of 25.

Several Members—including the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who is no longer in her place, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sefton Central—mentioned driving test waiting times. Indeed, the hon. Member for Upper Bann also mentioned that. I should say that Northern Ireland driving testing is a devolved issue, so that is up to the Northern Ireland Government—and now that there is one in Northern Ireland, I suggest that the hon. Lady raises that matter with the Northern Irish Government.

For England, Wales and Scotland, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency priority has been to reduce car practical-test waiting times while upholding road safety standards. The DVSA has deployed all eligible managers and administrative staff back on to the frontline for driving tests until the end of March. That will create around 150,000 new test slots. The measures put in place to reduce waiting times for customers, together with the ongoing recruitment of driving examiners, are creating, on average, more than 48,000 extra car test slots each month. As of 12 February 2024, there were 523,353 car practical driving tests booked—that is a very precise number—and 128,360 available within the 24-week booking window.

Several Members, including the hon. Member for Upper Bann, mentioned graduated driving licences. Indeed, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) sang their praises as well. Again, I should say that driving licensing is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, as has been recognised, so, again, Members with particular issues or concerns about that in Northern Ireland should speak to the Northern Ireland Government.

In Great Britain, the Department for Transport keeps driving licensing requirements under review, but there are not any plans, at the moment, to introduce any further restrictions on younger drivers. We acknowledge that, in terms of population and the number of miles driven, 17 to 24-year-olds remain one of the highest fatality risk groups, especially males.

We do have a form of restricting novice drivers though the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995. On acquiring their first full licence, a new driver is on probation for two years. During that time, they are subject to a limit of six penalty points received for any driving offences, which includes any that they received during their learning stage. If six or more points are received, a driver’s licence is revoked and they must apply again for a provisional licence, re-entering the learning stage and going back to square one.

In the road safety statement 2019, action 8 was to

“Commission research to explore the potential of a Graduated Learner Scheme”.

That research was delayed due to the pandemic, but we look forward to receiving the findings of that in due course. Action 9 was to

“Commission research to explore the social and economic consequences of introducing Graduated Driving Licence”,

which is different from the graduated learner schemes. That research was not taken forward, but we are aware of the TRL report for the RAC Foundation and the Rees Jeffreys Road Fund, “Supporting New Drivers in Great Britain”, which was published in October 2022. In that report, eight areas of concern were considered, including potential impacts on access to employment and education, and on those in rural areas.

My Department has commissioned the £2 million Driver2020 research project to examine interventions designed to help learner and newly qualified drivers improve their skills and safety. The project includes looking at the effectiveness of telematics, the use of a logbook, extra hazard perception, classroom-based education, and mentoring agreements. We look forward to receiving the findings from that project, which will feed into considerations of further measures that we could take to improve road safety for young drivers.

Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann for securing this debate on such an important matter. I hope that hon. Members are all reassured that Government are committed to supporting all road users and to improving the safety of our roads. That includes young drivers, who, as I mentioned, are involved in far too many crashes.

Rural Transport

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

How nice it is to see you come back to the Chair, Mr Speaker, when your instincts must have suggested that you go elsewhere. I want to raise with the House a bizarre issue. For some reason, the Order Paper seems to have been misprinted. For example, it has given me an “s” on the end of my name. Also bizarrely, the presentation of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill seems to have disappeared. I cannot understand what happened to the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), and why he would not want to be here—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just to help, that might be the case, but it is not a matter for the Adjournment, as you well know, so get on with your Adjournment debate instead.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I was clearly far too nice to you, Mr Speaker.

Let us start with the fact that 21.3% of the English population live in a predominately rural area. That is 12 million people who can contribute even more towards economic growth. Yet without greater thought about investment in infrastructure and innovation for transport in rural regions, that untapped potential is not being maximised. The Government have done much to support transport links with the north and in the devolved nations, despite the vibrant though poorly connected local economies in areas such as North Herefordshire. To maximise our growth and ensure that we meet our climate ambitions, as a nation we cannot afford to leave anyone behind.

Rural residents are distinctive because they are absolutely reliant on roads. Some 96% of journeys are made on local highways in the UK, and local roads make up 98% of the highway network in England. Road improvements can, unsurprisingly, have a significant impact on rural areas. In Herefordshire, the town of Leominster would benefit immensely from a northern link road—a brilliant £12 million investment that I raised some time ago. Of course, nobody should ever forget the tragedy and vandalism of the famous and now much-missed Hereford bypass. It would have made a phenomenal improvement to the city’s air quality and congestion. Everybody should remember that the opportunity for funding our bypass was idiotically thrown away by Herefordshire’s previous Green and independent council—a phenomenal failure for which they must never be forgiven.

Today, in trying to rectify that, we are limited by the cyclical nature of Government funding cycles. I live in hope that a funding window for the future Hereford bypass will open before 2030. The long cycles benefit civil servants, but leave vital short-term developments at the mercy of local authorities, which may themselves face funding constraints. Local projects are of course dependent on local planning rules; however, central Government can do much more to facilitate those projects by providing capital for roads to local authorities at shorter notice periods. I was delighted to learn that Herefordshire Council will receive an additional £1.8 million to help to repair the county’s roads. I praise the Government for redirecting funds from HS2 in that way. The importance of such funding cannot be overestimated in rural regions where car dependence is so high.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is right about rural roads and transport. At my advice centre, just this Saturday past, one issue that local people brought to my attention was the contact between villages and local towns, and the rural transport reduction there has been. As the hon. Gentleman and I know, it is so important for people who live out in the rural community to have connectivity with villages and towns such as Newtownards in my constituency. Does he agree that there needs to be more rural transport on the roads to help people get to big towns and have a normal life?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I believe the hon. Gentleman was named as one of the busiest parliamentarians, so I am very pleased that my Adjournment debate has not missed his attention. Of course, I agree with him.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this Adjournment debate on such an important topic. Like his Herefordshire constituency, my East Devon constituency has running through it an A-road that is potted with dangerous potholes. I was pleased to hear that we might soon receive additional money for dealing with those potholes, but does he agree that levelling up is not just for villages in rural areas such as ours but also a concept that needs to be applied to the road surface?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I noticed that the hon. Gentleman kept looking at notes. That is how it is in the countryside: we have to keep looking for the potholes all around us. I absolutely agree.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It strikes me, as my hon. Friend describes the situation in Herefordshire, that he could be talking about Wales. I know that some three quarters of the population there lives within 90 minutes of Cardiff, but the reality of life for many across Wales is that it is a rural country. Does he agree that the policies being pursued by the Labour Government in Wales—the curtailing of road development, the constant attacks on drivers, and now the 20 mph speed limit imposed across pretty much most parts of the country—are hindering economic growth and hurting rural economies and communities that depend on road transport?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the roads in Wales are worse—in fact, I will talk about that in a moment—but I do agree about the 20 mph speed limit. The people of north Wales are lucky to have Members such as him looking out for their interests when their efforts to get to work, see their families and go shopping are completely sabotaged by the lunacy of the Welsh Government, who seem to think that people should be going even slower than they already are. There is an image of a wonderful scene in “Pretty Woman” where Julia Roberts is leaning into the car, and the caption says: “No, I’m not looking for a good time. I’m just following the 20 mph speed limit.” I think that says it all about the madness of the Welsh Government. Members will remember that image later.

Safer roads mean less congestion and therefore fewer emissions. That is really important. Drivers can save up to an estimated £440 on their vehicle repair bills when roads are properly maintained. I hope to see continuous Government support for road maintenance in rural communities. I am not usually keen to ask Ministers to spend a single penny of taxpayers’ money, but as a road tax payer I believe that car drivers have every right to expect that their hard-earned money will be used to maintain the infrastructure for which it was levied. The misspending of that funding means that hypothecation is justified for road tax.

The Treasury takes money from car drivers to fund overpaid train drivers and an inefficient Network Rail that could have been privatised years ago. More money is wasted on bus lanes, cycle paths and not-very-smart motorways, yet the wretched potholes escape unrepaired. In Herefordshire, we have more roads per capita than any other county. Our rural roads are so neglected that the need to fill potholes has been superseded by the need to resurface the entire road as the damage is beyond patching. Drivers can tell when driving over the border into Wales, because the noise they hear while bouncing and lurching disappears as the Barnett-funded highways allow them to glide along the Heads of the Valleys road. Of course, we do not want Wales’s 20 mph speed limits or NHS waiting lists, but its roads are a source of great envy. There is room for much more innovation in rural communities.

[Robin Millar]

I rise briefly to make the point that my hon. Friend describes the roads in south Wales.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

The Heads of the Valleys road is indeed south Wales.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing such an important debate on such an important issue. He is talking about the roads as vital capillaries that keep people connected. I am sure he will be well aware of the report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee last year on rural mental health. One of the key findings was that connectivity is pivotal to people’s health and wellbeing in rural communities, and part of that is our rural bus network. Often, that is run by volunteers, such as the Fellrunner and Border Rambler services in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that our rural bus network must be supported to keep people connected and well in our rural communities?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I will come to buses in a moment. I am not convinced that the very fat buses that we have nowadays that hardly fit down rural lanes and are usually empty are necessarily the best way to transport people around our rural communities. However, my hon. Friend’s point about mental health is fundamental to the wellbeing of our constituents, so more innovation, better delivery and better transport will be at the heart of that issue.

[Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)]

Just to expand on the importance of the bus solution, I have villagers in Trimdon, Fishburn and Sedgefield who want to get to employment. It is not just about mental health; it is about employment and the whole gamut for people living in those places. The roads need to be flat so that the buses can run on them, and we must find solutions, whether it is little buses, thin buses, big buses or whatever. They need to be in place and use the funding that is available from the Government.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I will get on to the subject of buses, but my hon. Friend is right and his constituents are truly blessed to have such a diligent Member of Parliament.

Let me come on to the Government’s “Future of Transport: rural strategy”, which I hope will contain some of the answers for my hon. Friends. In this instance, it highlights the opportunity for rural residents to move to electric and self-driving vehicles. The latter might be one of the solutions for people. I am always astonished whenever I see a picture of a self-driving vehicle—why do they have wing mirrors? It is extraordinary. A constituent once asked what happens if a self-driving vehicle is stolen, and I said that it would probably come back by itself.

The transition requires reliable charging point infrastructure. To match demand, 300,000 charging points will be required by 2030. Currently, rural areas have only one sixth of the public charging points for electric vehicles that are available. In Herefordshire, there are only 12 public charging points, despite the fact that rural areas constitute 90% of England. The limited range of electric vehicles is also problematic for rural residents who may need to travel longer distances. That is not to mention the need for four-wheel drive, which is essential when the roads are covered in snow and are not cleared, as they are in London.

The real solution for rural communities for the future is hydrogen. We have plenty of water, and we need and use heavy machinery. There will never be an electric digger that is even half as good as the hydrogen-powered JCB backhoe. Brilliantly, JCB has developed its direct-burn hydrogen fleet, which substitutes hydrogen for diesel and means that already heavy plant does not need giant batteries. With machines such as the JCB Loadall telehandler, we can continue to fight climate change from the farmyard—something we do best.

But help is needed so that farmers can move to hydrogen-powered JCB-manufactured machinery. At the moment, hydrogen is not a recognised road fuel. We need to license it for road use, and that means that regulation 94 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 needs to be amended so that that barrier to hydrogen is removed. I hope the Minister will tell us that he will make that happen immediately, in conjunction of course with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

We also need to recognise that farm machinery is getting larger as we have more people to feed. Some common sense is required by the Department for Transport, which should allow the police to fight rural crime rather than escorting combine harvesters over 3.5 metres wide. And that is if the police have been given five days’ notice, which is especially difficult during harvest time when rain is beckoning. We need uniform rules so that combines can cross police force borders without needing to go through these applications again and again. The current system of dispensation orders is a good first step, but we really should catch up with the times and deliver a better way to cut corn.

Meanwhile, heavy goods vehicles pose a challenge for the winding roads in rural regions. Although the use of drones is a possible solution in some cities, that is unlikely to be true in the countryside. Such problems mean that it is important that the Government provide some sort of oversight and policing so that green activists do not try to disrupt or destroy national infrastructure in the way they did in Hereford.

To increase productivity, we should ensure that people get to work around the country more quickly. Increasing speed limits on motorways would help to do that but, as Lord McLoughlin told me many years ago, there is no evidence available about the safety implications. That means that we need to test and trial increased speed limits along with safer cars and better brakes. An excellent place to test these things would be the M50, which is the perfect motorway on which to try to increase the speed limit. It is short and safe, and is a truly excellent motorway, where we could easily monitor the safety of a higher speed limit.

Road maintenance is also vital from a safety perspective, particularly for cyclists and motorcyclists. That is often forgotten by those who advocate cycling, but it is especially important that this safety angle is not forgotten as people consider the potential uptake of electric bikes and micromobility solutions such as e-scooters in rural areas, although I would not recommend that particular form of transport, because a small-wheeled scooter is ill-equipped to cope with the muddy and mucky roads.

Rural roads pose significant dangers for all motorists. There are overhanging trees, and there is green plant growth on the road signs. Worst of all is the gravel that is washed into the road by rainstorms, which is an absolute nightmare for motorcycles, and the hazards can of course be fatal. Rural roads were the site of over half the cyclist deaths that occurred between 2016 and 2021, and between 2018 and 2022 rural roads were the site of an average of 66% of motorcyclist deaths. Cycling is also not a solution for the 25.5% of the rural population who are over 65.

The Government could also look at the advice from IAM RoadSmart, which is campaigning for VAT-free status for air vests. Motorcycling airbag vests and jackets can prevent certain types of injury in the event of a collision. Although there is a stated maximum intervention time of 200 milliseconds to achieve British standard EN 1621-4:2013, there is currently no requirement to comply with that standard. Helite, a manufacturer, confirms that air vests provide injury mitigation, saying that they maintain

“the cervical vertebrae and the head”

and the

“Rigidification of the trunk to stabilise the vital organs: thorax, lungs, pancreas, abdomen, stomach, liver.”

They also offer

“Complete protection of the spinal column”

and

“Kidney and hip protection. The trunk is maintained to…resist hyper-flexing.”

Separate research by IAM RoadSmart discovered that nearly two thirds of motorcyclists believe that the cost of safety wear has prevented them from purchasing items that would enhance their safety while on a motorcycle.

Turning to public transport, rural residents are heavily dependent on their cars because public transport is not widely available to them. Limited travel options may restrict residents’ ability to find a job. Businesses also rely on transport infrastructure for access to rural talent pools and customers. When I spoke to the Minister—then the employment Minister—and branch managers at Leominster Jobcentre Plus last March, the need for improved transport links to the largest employers in Herefordshire was a particularly useful point that was raised.

I must commend the Government for the progress they are making with the pilot schemes for demand-responsive transport, which has seen 17 local authorities being granted £20 million to pilot schemes in rural and suburban regions for on-demand buses. An interim report found that the use of the schemes in the areas analysed was increasing, and that in respect of those that began before October 2022, the average number of monthly passengers had been between 282 and 1,725. It is important for public transport to be affordable as well as convenient, and the Government’s capping of bus fares was generous, but traditional buses are themselves facing decline. Between 2022 and 2023 nearly 20% of bus routes were reduced, and, according to the County Councils Network, bus services are now at a “historic low” in rural regions.

[Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I should be delighted. I could do with a breather.

[Sarah Dyke]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. In my constituency, I have been campaigning to keep vital rural bus routes in service for those who cannot or do not wish to drive. Somerset Council is awaiting the outcome of its bid for the Department for Transport’s zero emission bus regional areas scheme, which, if successful, would bring crucial and environmentally friendly transport to our communities. Does the hon. Member agree that these funds must be released as a matter of urgency to improve the lives of our constituents, so that they can have access to services, jobs and education?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

The Government are being very generous—the hon. Lady may have forgotten to mention that—but the important point is that buses are not the success story that I wish they were. I am very lucky in that Bromyard has Dave Morris’s fantastic DRM transport business, but I think we need to think carefully about how we can make public transport affordable, reliable and efficient. Simply throwing money at the challenges has failed so far to deliver a sustainable long-term solution, although “buses on demand” is certainly a good idea. I therefore hope that the national bus strategy will help bus companies to compete with trains and continue to deliver better public transport.

And now for trains: oh, dear!

[Paul Howell]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I will, before I steam on to trains.

[Paul Howell]

I just wanted to make a final point about the bus agenda, and the importance of those buses. When people are evaluating a bus service, if the service is poor and becomes worse and worse, they will abandon it. Durham has seen the biggest drop in bus use in the country. We need not only a good road but a good service, whether it is demand-responsive or not. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to take a long-term view and ensure that there is a service offer that encourages people to use buses until we get the best service out of our bus routes?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend: he is quite right. People do “wise up” to inefficient public services—and there is no better example than the train service.

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for arriving having missed his opening remarks. Does he agree that community bus services, which are demand-responsive and help to supply services to remote rural communities that are not served by regular buses, may well be the solution that he seeks, as they provide access for people who cannot travel on their own account?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend—a friend, neighbour, and brilliant Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee. Not only is he right, but that is particularly true in Herefordshire and Shropshire, where the most vulnerable people, the children and the elderly, need public services more than anyone. They are the ones who are missing out. So bus by demand is definitely where the future lies because, turning to the railways, the train service has a lemming-like determination to kill itself off. The number of trains in service is reducing and that is particularly problematic for rural residents who rely on train lines to access their workplaces.

Many of my constituents have highlighted issues concerning the train line between London and Ledbury. It is difficult to leave Ledbury at a time when normal people would hope to travel to work. Returning to Ledbury is also a random experience as the last train leaves at about teatime from London, and then it is fingers-crossed that the driver does not give up in Worcester.

So while the Government are aiming to increase rail freight by 75%, for residents to utilise such a boost to service frequency the road network needs to be in place to facilitate access to the stations. That is important because the midlands offers a unique opportunity to enhance connectivity through the heart of the country. Midlands Connect has called for the midlands rail hub to improve connectivity in the region. This hub would mean that the largest urban centres in the midlands would no longer be more than an hour’s reach through public transport to an extra 1.6 million people.

[Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)]

On that point, in Northumberland we have the Northumberland line which is going to connect Ashington through Blyth and Seaton Valley into Newcastle, and that will go two ways: it will take people into Newcastle and it will also bring people into the area so that they can use the beach and the park. It is a fantastic way to use those train services and that has been delivered by this Conservative Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I am delighted, and all I can say is that the people of Blyth Valley are lucky to have such a marvellous MP, such a marvellous rail service and such a positive step forward, and, as potentially I suppose that is funded by the HS2 decision, a marvellous Prime Minister as well. So all good, but let us hope that they are not getting the same train service that my poor constituents get between Paddington and Hereford, which is woeful.

I have campaigned for many years on the issue of accessibility to the train stations in my constituency and was pleased when improvements for people with disabilities were made to the station in Leominster, but accessibility continues to be problematic at Ledbury. The station has a B3 accessibility rating and an eastbound platform that is not accessible to those with limited mobility. The station is also difficult to navigate for those carrying luggage and those with prams. All of these issues contribute to an unpleasant travelling experience, which discourages rural residents from making use of public transport.

As I said, the railway seems determined to put off the travellers who most need trains to get about. I hoped that common sense had finally trickled through when my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) told me at Prime Minister’s questions that Ledbury was in line for disabled access, but, alas, that dream was shattered shortly afterwards by a junior Minister in the Department for Transport.

In October I brought this problem to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport, who informed me that Ledbury station has been nominated for the Access for All scheme. While that is welcome news, we have been there before. I am concerned that I had to raise this issue at all given that disabled users of public transport should be protected by the Equality Act 2010. Unfortunately, it appears there are many stations like Ledbury in the UK; I was appalled to learn that step-free access is in fact not available in three quarters of the UK’s train stations. A 2019 study found that the only disability measure in approximately 190 stations was a hearing induction loop.

Accessibility is also relevant to the building of new rural homes. In November the Government announced that £2.5 million will be made available to support affordable housing developments in rural areas, yet without efficient transport connections the successful uptake of these new properties is also likely to be limited. I therefore ask the Government to do all they can to insist that local authorities ensure that public transport is accessible for all rural residents.

In conclusion, I want to praise the Government for doing something I would not normally approve of. The Air Balloon pub has been completely destroyed. There is nothing left of it. Normally that would be a tragedy, but not when the A417 is being improved. It is so long overdue and so welcome that the loss of the pub is a small sacrifice to pay, and I must thank and encourage the Government for that vital progress.

The advantages of better rural transport are not limited to rural communities. By unlocking the productivity and connectivity of rural residents, we can enhance our efforts towards prolonged sustainable growth as a country. For far too long there has been an unfair divide between our rural and urban communities. It is time we closed that gap, and the way to do that is by delivering rural transport, just as we would expect to see in urban areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the copious answer I made on those points on 19 December.

The reality of the situation is that, in addition to the Herefordshire funding, there is a further £4.7 billion for local authorities in the north and midlands through the new local integrated transport settlement, which will allow authorities to deliver a range of new transport schemes to help reduce congestion and upgrade junctions, as well as to invest in active travel and zero-emission buses.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire specifically raised the Hereford bypass, which did not proceed under a previous local authority. I am happy to meet him and the present local authority, because clearly there are opportunities through the local integrated transport settlement, and other forms of funding, for local authorities to bring forward proposals in relation to potential bypasses. It is for the county council to make that case, and I look forward to hearing from it.

As the House has debated in detail tonight, buses have a key role to play in improving connectivity and supporting rural areas to develop and grow the economy. That is why the Government have invested so heavily in buses over the past few years. Following the introduction of the national bus strategy, the Government are providing over £1 billion of support to help local authorities to deliver their bus service improvement plans, and this support will remain in place until at least April 2025. It is up to local authorities to determine how this bus funding should be spent, including by assessing the needs of local communities.

In addition, Herefordshire, like many rural areas of the north and midlands, will benefit from hundreds of millions of pounds that the Government have allocated from the HS2 moneys, through Network North, to help level up bus services. That includes £1.9 million of bus service improvement plan funding, and it will receive further money through Network North funding.

As part of our regular funding, we also support buses through the bus service operators grant, which is worth over £259 million a year to bus and community transport operators. My hon. Friend spoke about particular bus services, and the demand-responsive services mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) are a good example. I totally agree, and I strongly believe that it is up to local authorities to drive forward successful operators.

I am aware of the Border Rambler and Fellrunner bus services mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). And my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) rightly made the case that it is up to his local authority to ensure that bus services, particularly in the southern part of his constituency, are made available to his constituents.

I deprecate those individual providers that have not taken up the £2 bus fare, which is a key change we have made. With great respect, the introduction of the £2 bus fare has been transformational in my Northumberland community and across the country. I am delighted that, following the launch of Network North, the £2 bus fare will continue to run for a considerable time.

We know that rural bus fares can be expensive, for obvious reasons. Before the introduction of the £2 cap, many users of rural bus services found themselves having to pay more than £5 a trip. I am particularly pleased that we have extended the cap, which clearly supports local communities and local economies by making travel to employment, health and leisure services in our beautiful rural regions more affordable and more accessible. On a local level, it has been utterly transformational in places such as Haltwhistle in Northumberland.

I share the disappointment that some bus operators, including some in Herefordshire, have not signed up to the £2 bus fare, and I would urge them to do so. Over £600 million has been made available for the scheme to reduce the cost of bus travel. Although participation is voluntary, the Department for Transport has encouraged as many operators as possible across the whole region to continue to participate.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a similar point in respect of his rural community, which I know very well, having been to Newtownards and around his parts and having lived in Northern Ireland, just outside Moy, for the best part of a year. I accept his point, which he makes as eloquently as ever—it would not be a proper Adjournment debate without his outstanding contribution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) rightly made the point that the Welsh Government have got themselves into a bizarre situation. The petition against the 20 mph limit, which is clearly an attack on drivers, is probably the most successful petition in the history of this country on any particular issue. I fear that the Welsh Government will rue the day that they went down that particular route on something so extremely unpopular.

On speed limits, my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire raised the issue of the M50 and whether there is the potential to introduce a change of speed limit. I accept that he makes the point for an increase. The point I would make to him is that it is a matter for him, and more particularly his local authority, to sit down and discuss that with National Highways, which governs the strategic network, and then set speed limits on individual roads. They have the local knowledge and are best placed to do so, but it is for the local authority to drive that forward with National Highways in the first instance.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s excellent speech, but the motorway does not seem to be a local authority issue because it will travel through a great number of local authority areas. Is there anything the Government can do to assist that discussion, because he knows very well that most public servants, of all sorts, are risk averse?

[Guy Opperman]

I do not think it is for me to comment on the nature of public servants and their willingness to embrace risk or otherwise, whether on a motorway or off a motorway, at speed or not at speed. What I would say is this: all major roads are part of the strategic road network run by National Highways. However, local authorities—there are not many that cover the M50; I think it is just Herefordshire and Worcestershire—

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

And Gloucestershire.

[Guy Opperman]

And Gloucestershire. Local authorities can come together and sit down with National Highways and potentially drive forward change if that is what they wish to do, but it starts, fundamentally, with the local authorities.

My hon. Friend rightly raised, and has been an ardent campaigner for, rail station accessibility. I know, because I have discussed it with him, that he has made a considerable effort over many years to make Ledbury station much more accessible. That point has been heard very loudly and very clearly. He met my boss, the Secretary of State for Transport, and made that point to him in October. He will be aware—I am not the Minister in charge of disabled access to trains, but I will go away and try to get detail on this point—that the Access for All budget is presently being considered. The bids are in and considerations are being made. Ledbury is one. He is right to make the point that, slowly but surely across the country, we are upgrading and improving railway stations. We are going as fast as we possibly can. We would like to go faster and we would like to include Ledbury. I promise him that it is on the list to be addressed and I totally accept his point.

Airport Parking Charges

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered airport parking charges.

Drivers are being forced, tricked or directed to pay extortionate amounts to drop off or collect passengers at airports. To make matters worse, two thirds of the UK’s busiest airports have put their prices up. Of course, airports are entitled to charge when the land is privately owned, but the taxpayer has already paid for the road up to the airport. Yet the signposts do not send the driver to a safe and free place for drop-off or collection. No-stopping zones on the roads leading up to the airport mean that the principles of choice and safety are not obvious. That means that drivers are being deliberately exploited.

Airports must be required to offer drivers a free and safe place to drop off and collect passengers, and, where they do, that must be clearly signposted on the approach to an airport. Although it may seem that there are craftily many different options for parking at airports, given the pressure of traffic, it is chaotic and stressful for drivers to locate the correct one.

The increasing number of train strikes mean that many passengers depend on a friend or relative to drop them off at an airport. As a result, those drivers suffer, rather than the actual holidaymaker. In that sense, the drop-off charge is a small tax on generosity. Failure to signpost free options effectively means that drivers are at risk of breaking the law either for stopping on a nearby roundabout or for dropping someone off on a red route leading up to the airport; such routes are rightly enforced for reasons of security. Indeed, drivers caught stopping on those red routes are fined £100.

In 2019, the Parking (Code of Practice) Act received Royal Assent, promising greater regulation to prevent motorists from being treated unfairly by private parking companies. Airports were considered as part of the code of practice. However, this June, the private parking code of practice was temporarily withdrawn,

“pending review of the levels of private parking charges and additional fees.”

It would be welcome if the code of practice brought greater clarity and consistency to airport parking charges to better regulate the industry for both airports and motorists, which I believe the Government have a duty to do.

Ironically, the Civil Aviation Authority, in its review of market conditions for surface access to airports, claimed that environmental factors played a part in airport parking decisions. The Airport Operators Association, which represents over 50 UK airports, claims that high airport parking charges are there to force consumers to travel to and from airports sustainably. Nice try, but everyone knows that aeroplane journeys emit far more carbon dioxide per passenger than cars over set distances. Who are airports trying to fool by claiming to be going green by charging higher parking fees to deter a few short car journeys while air travel accounts for 2.5% of global CO₂ emissions?

It is right that the Government encourage people to use public transport, which does not incur a drop-off fee. However, with the looming threat of militant unions striking, would you really rely on public transport to get to the airport on time, Mr Stringer?

Last week, I met Nicholas Lyes, head of roads policy at the RAC, who informed me that in theory, some airports provide free drop-off options. However, Heathrow and Gatwick airports, which used to provide free drop-off points, now charge £5 to enter the drop-off zone by the terminal. Imagine if people knew they had a choice—which they do not. On top of that, at Gatwick, people are then charged £1 for every minute over and above the allocated 10 minutes at the drop-off site. To enter through the barrier—again, with no choice to escape—find a parking space, park, unload baggage, say goodbye, and exit through the barrier all within the allotted 10 minutes seems optimistic for anyone, let alone those who are elderly or families with young children. Most expensive of all is London Stansted, which charges £7 for just 15 minutes’ parking and £25 for more than 15 minutes in drop-off zones. In the case of Exeter airport, there is no free option at all. Do the Government really expect someone to throw their loved one out of the car miles away from the terminal in order to avoid being fined?

With flight delays becoming increasingly common, those collecting family and friends who must find a place to wait could end up paying through the nose through no fault of their own. The UK Civil Aviation Authority has recorded that in 2022 the average flight delay has increased to 25 minutes per flight, up from 15 minutes in 2019. At Bristol airport, those giving a lift to friends and family are required to pay £5 for just 10 minutes to drop off or collect them. That fee increases to £7 for between 10 and 20 minutes, and £20 for between 20 and 40 minutes. That seems excessive for someone who is merely trying to collect someone whose flight has been delayed for half an hour, yet drivers collecting passengers from delayed flights are left with no viable alternative.

Recent airport staffing shortages have also led to lengthy delays of several hours at passport control in airports such as Heathrow and Stansted. With delays at airports becoming increasingly commonplace, those collecting passengers are left unsure of how long they will be required to wait—what initially seemed like a 10-minute wait might quickly become an hour. Where are those people supposed to wait that does not charge extortionate prices?

Additionally, not all taxi drivers are exempt from the charges. In the event of a long delay, a taxi driver on a pre-booked job might see his profit completely slashed because of the waiting times, meaning that through no fault of his own, he would have done better to have stayed at home. Bristol airport is one of the very worst offenders, using vans with cameras to follow drivers and try to levy fines for stopping, irrespective of how confusing that airport’s signage is.

Airports are exploiting their own regulations just as rogue parking firms used to. Drivers are forced to find the nearest free drop-off zone, which of course is impossible, as those zones are hidden. Where airports provide free options they tend to be far away from the terminal, and a shuttle bus to the terminal is not always provided. As a result, passengers with mobility issues or heavy bags are bound to struggle. Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that, allegedly, the free option for drop-off at London Heathrow is located far away from the terminal, in the long-stay car park? I suggest that if someone were driving into an airport and looking for a place to park for a short amount of time, the long-stay car park would be the last place they would look. Passengers are then expected to take a shuttle bus to the terminal, only adding to their stress and to the extra time needed to catch a flight. I know that many airports are struggling for money, but do the Government think it is right that they attempt to hoodwink airport visitors to make up for it?

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and for his very powerful words on the subject. In Woking, we have both Gatwick and Heathrow within a reasonable distance, and I have had a lot of correspondence from constituents about the removal of free drop-off parking. I am also a great supporter of aviation. During covid times, I helped my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) with his excellent efforts to support the aviation industry—both airlines and airports. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) said, airports have had a difficult financial time, but will he look to the Minister and, indeed, to airports to ensure that when we reach a new normal—as things might not go back to where they were before covid—that airports reinstate free drop-off parking, so that this ridiculous removal of any sort of free parking does not continue?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who quite naturally has delightful constituents who generously want to take their friends and family to and from the airport. Of course, that may not be an option for people who live further away. He is right to speak up for those people and insist that normality, which we all now enjoy, is returned to on parking as quickly as possible. When I finish this last blast, I know the Minister will do all he can about the theft from these poor, innocent and good people, who are just trying to do the right thing. That is why I believe it is essential that airports provide free and safe drop-off and pick-up points for motorists, as well as clear and helpful signs.

The Department for Transport must make it clear on approach roads where these free and safe options can be found. The Government need to ensure that the road tax payer has the right to remain on public roads, which we have paid for, rather than be herded onto private land where we are exploited. No amount of hand-wringing is acceptable, otherwise airports will continue to close. The greenwash, fudging and theft are wrong, and I know the Minister will do all he can to correct that as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

I will go into detail on the second point, but to come back to the point about electric vehicles, that is something that airports are developing. They are slightly hampered by the lack of HGVs, but it is something that they are working on in conjunction with other matters.

Let me address the point that drop-off zones were supposed to be temporary during covid. Airports have been implementing drop-off zones and charges since before the pandemic, as part of their work on delivering sustainable and affordable travel options. Charging for the use of drop-off zones may encourage airport users to make more journeys to airports by public transport, which will assist with the wider sustainability ambitions of the Government. However, I recognise that at airports such as Bristol, rail options are few and far between. As demand for air travel returns, with people understandably keen to resume their lives, airports have further indicated that drop-off charges will help to avoid a car-led recovery.

I know that information and signage is important to my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire. Given the choice for drivers, it is even more important that airports are transparent in their parking offer. The Government expect and encourage airports to be clear on the available choices for parking on their websites, along with information on how to access them. I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments on this matter. This information must ensure that there is a clear and visible signage point at the airport to ensure that drivers are well informed and aware of the arrangements and requirements, as well as the other parking options. I have raised this matter with my colleague, the aviation Minister, Baroness Vere, to see whether we can underline the importance of this matter in our communication with airports, and she has confirmed she will do just that on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. I want to say a huge thank you. What upsets us is that we have paid for a public road and then we are fined for parking, and there has been no opportunity to choose. Choice is the key. I do not mind if we have to pay for environmental things, or if we are being distracted or even being sent places we do not want to go. However, we really do need a choice, because, as taxpayers, we have already paid for the road. I thank the Minister very strongly indeed.

[Huw Merriman]

That is very kind of my hon. Friend. As a constituency MP who has long been frustrated when people are not treated as they should be, I know that information is key, so I completely agree with him.

Government guidance on the use of signage on public roads can be found in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, which prescribe the design and conditions of use for traffic signs, including road markings. Parking trade associations such as the British Parking Association provide guidance in their codes of practice to their members on the use of signage, with due regard to the existing regulations. All of that goes alongside the assurance I have given my hon. Friend.

Earlier, I mentioned that airports are responsible for setting their surface access strategies. I encourage airports to set out their intentions in respect of drop-off charges and parking, and to use specific airport transport forums to develop and oversee the implementation of plans for future surface transport provision. That will help not only to prevent confusion and the risk of drivers inadvertently entering drop-off zones, but to reduce the chances of accidents due to drivers taking evasive action to stop themselves entering such zones. All of this will, I hope, assist in making each stage of the journey to an airport as easy as possible. If drivers feel that signage at airports does not make them aware of the arrangements and requirements for drop-off charges, they can submit an appeal to the Parking on Private Land Appeals Service. We will continue to keep this provision under review as part of the Government’s work on a single code of practice for parking companies.

On the provision of alternatives, I welcome the consideration my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire has given to alternatives to drop-off zones, including the use of other car parks, both short and long stay, although I hear his point about how far away long stay actually is. While I accept that additional transfers are required, I would make the point that, at the very least, long-stay car parks provide an alternative to paying. Airports including Gatwick, Manchester and Bristol offer free drop-off zones at designated car parks a short walk from the terminal or with the option of a shuttle bus service. I encourage airports to ensure that such options are readily available to drivers so that they can plan their journeys in advance.

I note the concerns raised by my hon. Friend that motorists may incur additional parking costs through no fault of their own when delays or disruption caused by late flights or industrial action result in a longer than expected stay. I note his example of the charges at Bristol airport, where the drop-off zone charges are £5 for up to 10 minutes, £7 for between 10 and 20 minutes and £10 for between 20 and 40 minutes. I note that Bristol’s short-stay car park is often cheaper for the same amount of time—having done some earlier research, he will be glad to hear—costing £5 for up to 20 minutes or £7 for between 20 and 40 minutes.

Airports already highlight the potential disruption to passengers and how that might affect their journeys. Again, I would be happy to raise with the aviation Minister what more airports can do to ensure that drivers and passengers are well informed and offered flexibility of provision if there is disruption. I acknowledge that at some airports, such as Bristol, there are no rail links and alternatives to cars are more limited; Civil Aviation Authority figures for 2019 highlight that 68.3% of passengers arrive by car.

On the regulation of airport parking, if an airport contracts a private parking operator to manage parking on the land, the parking operator must be a member of a trade association and follow its respective codes of practice and appeals procedures. The two trade associations are the British Parking Association and the International Parking Community. Their codes set out the requirements that parking operators must follow, including on signage, if they wish to access the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency data to issue parking charges to the owner of a vehicle. Both associations offer, on behalf of their members, an independent appeals service to motorists who receive a parking charge and wish to dispute it. On my hon. Friend’s point about the proposed parking regulations being withdrawn, that has indeed been the case due to judicial review, but I look forward to the regulations coming back, to see how they can be further improved upon.

I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire on securing this debate. It has been an opportunity for both him and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking to draw attention to expectations for car parks at airports—that they should be managed appropriately and that consumers should be treated fairly. I assure my hon. Friends that the Government are keen to improve the regulation of the parking industry. We continue to consult on changes to parking charge levels and additional fees with the industry, with the aim of reissuing the parking code of practice as soon as possible.

The charges associated with car parking at airports are solely a matter for the airport operator to manage. Airport users entering into parking arrangements are covered by consumer law. We will all ensure that such arrangements treat the airport user fairly and respectfully, and we will see what more can be done on the points that have been raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I must declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and, more importantly, the fact that I am an electric car driver. I am delighted with the performance of the Hyundai Kona, although it is due for a battery recall, which I hope will happen very soon. I have driven it for a while, and it is fast—very fast—and a joy to drive. It is no wonder that at the end of November 2021 there were more than 365,000 fully electric cars on UK roads. More than 20,000 electric vehicles were registered in that month last year, and it is expected that over 6 million families will have purchased an electric vehicle by 2030. In addition, National Grid is preparing for the need to power 36 million cars by 2040.

There are some giant challenges facing this area. For example, the amount of electricity needed to travel will increase massively as the number of electric cars grows by some 30% as we swap our energy source from petrol to electricity. We are nowhere near ready for such a step change in demand for electricity yet.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, the rise in electric car ownership has been dramatic, but what has not risen is the number of charging points. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we are going to have take-up of electric cars, the number of charging points will have to match that? Does he also agree that they need to be not only in shopping centres but in town centres?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

They also need to have sufficient speed of charge. For me, the 50 kW ones are the meaningful ones. I will come on to this later in my speech. When we look online, it is difficult to identify the ones that will get us home, as opposed to the ones that are in people’s drives for their overnight charging.

Coupled with a decrease in VAT on fuel tax as we embrace the opportunities that electric vehicles present, we need to build parking and charging spaces and opportunities into our new housing stock, for no less a reason than that the national car pool could, with smart chargers, be a part of a national battery network. Over a quarter of the UK’s net greenhouse gas emissions come from the transport sector. It is therefore clear that getting the public into electric cars is a key part of the Government’s ambition to reach net zero emissions by 2050. However, we all want the public to be persuaded to abandon their fossil fuel-powered cars, rather than be forced to do so. To help to achieve this, we need to ensure that owning an electric vehicle is as convenient as owning a traditionally powered vehicle.

The main way of fulfilling this ambition must be a focus on range anxiety, and part of the solution to this serious concern is the ability to recharge electric cars easily and quickly. This is what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was talking about. The Government should therefore regard the prevalence and proper function of EV chargers to be just as important as petrol stations are for fossil fuel vehicles.

The Government have already invested heavily in developing a network of fast chargers across the UK: £950 million has been committed to ensure that a motorist is never more than 30 miles away from a rapid charging site. Largely due to this support, more than 500 new fast charging points are being installed in the UK every month. However, those fast charging points suffer from a multitude of issues that prevent consumers from buying into the technology, not least being that “fast chargers” can range from 7.5 kW to 22 kW. These are not fast, and that is one of the massive key failings in the Government support.

Other issues include reliability, ease of use, and the impossibility of tracking down chargers when the need arises. Just the other day, I found to my horror that every fast charger at Membury services on the M4 westbound was broken or would not fit my vehicle. One looked like it had been hit by a car. The next looked like it worked until I downloaded the app, plugged it in and took a photograph of the code, only to be told that it was out of order. The last one was unwilling to accept a payment card, and the instruction screen was so scratched that it was almost impossible to read. Next to them was an immaculate Tesla charging area, with eight unoccupied chargers, which had no screens and so were unavailable to us mere mortals.

The inability to find a fast charger is especially distressing for the electric vehicle owner—it is worse late at night in the freezing cold, although in my case, thankfully, it was not raining—because running out of charge in an electric vehicle is not an option. First, there is no comparable technology to the jerry can, which can be used with fossil-fuelled vehicles. To make matters worse, most electric cars should not be towed, as they lack a true neutral gear, which means that once the vehicle has run out of charge, it is stranded and has to be retrieved by a low-loader lorry. Happily, I was lucky enough to find an operational charging point in Swindon, although it was not listed on any website I could find. I just happened to see it.

It is incidents like that one that rightly damage the public’s perception of the utility of electric vehicles and prevent their further adoption. It is clear that my experience is not unique. Channel 4’s “Dispatches” programme found that last year over 10% of car charging bays in the UK were out of order on a given day. Many charging points consist of only two bays, so a single broken bay plus one other customer in the next-door bay adds to the risk and misery of trying to find a working charging point. The charging process already takes a little longer than refuelling fossil-fuelled cars, and having someone in the queue ahead makes matters doubly worse.

Infrastructure concerns are especially worrying in rural areas like my North Herefordshire constituency, which is home to just four fast charging locations. I am not even sure where they are, but I really would like to know.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

I was delighted to give my hon. Friend a lift in an electric vehicle to his home last night. I am less anxious about charging because we have a home charger and we use the Tesla superchargers, but does my hon. Friend agree that the electric vehicle charging infrastructure should be regarded as part of our national security infrastructure? Should it not be included in the consideration of ways not only to reduce our carbon emissions, but to ensure that our nation’s transport is secure, even in a crisis?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

My hon. Friend is not only extremely generous to have given me a lift in his very smart Tesla, but absolutely right in everything he says. This message to the public that we can move away from fossil fuels and enjoy electric vehicles—they are great—comes to nothing if the security of the sites is not adequate.

Despite the vast subsidies—almost £1 billion—given to install EV charging points, sufficiently high standards have still not been set for their maintenance, which I think is what my hon. Friend was talking about. The Government would not accept a scenario where 10% of petrol stations were not in working order. During the fuel protests in 2001, the Government provided police escorts to fuel tankers to ensure security of supply, and just last September, the Army was called in to deliver fuel to petrol stations running low on petrol and diesel. So the public know that the Government take the refuelling of traditionally powered cars very seriously. As it stands, the same confidence cannot be had in their backing for electric vehicle charging. That lack of confidence is holding back the widespread adoption of EV technology. Range anxiety is not only real but justified.

The Government’s own figures show that 75% of motorists are reluctant to purchase an electric vehicle as they are concerned about being able to charge it, and 67% of people stated that they thought it was not possible to charge an electric vehicle conveniently and quickly on long journeys. The problem is only exacerbated by the poor quality of information available to those wishing to charge their cars.

[Jim Shannon]

To back up what the hon. Gentleman is saying, in my constituency of Strangford, which has about 70,000 people, we have only two charging points.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

To encourage people to adopt electric vehicles, we will need considerably more. However, equally important is the ability to find those two charging points, and at the moment not a single map—electronic or physical—can display every fast-charging station and whether it is in working order, the size of the charger available and a route to get to it. We should be able to do that. Zap-Map claims to have recorded 95% of public charging points in the UK, but there is accurate information on the condition of only 70% of them. Zap-Map also requires members of the public to report when a fast-charging station is broken, so the information is far too often outdated or incorrect. It is also hard to remove red herring chargers—the little ones below 50 kW —and EV owners do not necessarily have time to use a slow charger. It is so bad that when I visited Manchester for the party conference, there were parking bays allocated for electric vehicles, but they had no chargers, so they were completely useless, yet they shone out of the map invitingly. It is not right to expect electric vehicle owners to roll the dice. Charge point operators must be made to provide a better service in return for the large public subsidies that they receive.

We look to the Government to set strong standards for the maintenance of charge points. That must be paired with penalties for companies that fail to meet them. Now, I am not calling for the return of the death penalty, but I could be persuaded to support its reintroduction for the failure to maintain an EV charging site. In addition, I call for more and better information to be made available to EV owners about where they can charge their cars, as well as all fast-charging locations to be made available on all common map applications and car sat-navs. Clear details on what types of chargers, how many bays are available and their operating condition must be readily available. That information should be shown on forecourt display signs in the same way that petrol and diesel prices are advertised.

Providers who do not follow those common-sense regulations are holding back EV technology across the country and hindering progress towards our net zero emissions target. There is no better example of that than the £350 subsidy for home chargers. It is possible to buy one on eBay for £269, yet that will not be eligible for the subsidy, so the contractors simply add £350 on to their bills. Even when EV charge points do work, they are still somewhat inconvenient to use. Each charging point is operated by a particular company, and each company requires its own subscription and/or app to use it. Despite many previous discussions on this matter, it is hard to know whether the chargers with blue “I’m free” lights showing are actually available to someone who wants to pay with their credit card. EV drivers in the Netherlands can charge their cars on any operator’s network using a unified payment system. I see no reason why we have not already regulated for a similar system in Britain. There is no problem with charge point operators offering preferential rates to their subscribers, but they must also offer a simple contactless or mobile payment option to other motorists.

It is clear that if we are to continue to offer such large subsidies to charge point operators, we must ensure that they are doing more for consumers. In return for public money, these companies owe the Government—and therefore the public—better maintenance, better ease of use and better information. The same is true for local authorities who are exploiting this situation to some extent, too. For example, Hammersmith and Fulham Council provides lots of chargers. When the charger works, the light is green and while charging it is blue. Finally, it turns red, signalling to any passing traffic warden that a fat fine is available. That is hardly encouraging, and as a result the bays are mostly empty.

The Government should now use legislation to ensure that 50 kW charge points should be easy to find on all common map applications and car sat-navs. There is a proper need to identify fast chargers so people are able to get home, rather than the 7.5 kW chargers or the little ones, which may take many hours to charge a car. The quality and availability of that information needs to be clear so that we can find it from the car. Sitting in a warm office is really not an acceptable alternative, but that is how the Government’s report reads. Information listing types of adaptors, how many bays there are and if they are working should be easily available, both online and on petrol price-style display boards.

We also need to enforce standards to ensure that EV charging points are consistently and properly maintained and we must take the power to impose penalties on companies that do not deliver. Taxpayer-funded charging points mean standards, and standards need to be delivered and enforced. Only then will we see consumer confidence grow, more EVs bought and our net zero goals met on time.

Motorcycling: Government Support

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for motorcycling.

In the UK, 1.4 million people use motorcycles, scooters and mopeds. Those 1.4 million people travel approximately 4.4 billion miles a year. There has been a 131% increase in the number of motorcyclists registered in the last 20 years, although they still comprise only a small percentage of overall traffic. However, motorcycles clearly play an active part in UK transport and I want to put on record my thanks to Barbara Alam and Craig Carey-Clinch, who support the all-party parliamentary group on motorcycling, and to the National Motorcyclists Council, or NMC, for their support in my initiating the debate. The NMC has representatives drawn from a wide range of stakeholder groups, including the Auto-Cycle Union, the British Motorcyclists Federation, IAM RoadSmart and the Motorcycle Action Group—I am a member of both—the National Motorcycle Dealers Association, and the Trail Riders Fellowship. What an august body it is. I thank all those organisations for their part in helping motorcyclists. They have identified and addressed the many issues and challenges that motorcyclists face in this country, and their work is very much appreciated.

The Department for Transport has estimated that over half of motorcycle use is for commuting, education or other practical purposes. The Government can and should do more to promote this efficient, low-polluting and very practical mode of transport. The DFT’s national travel survey has estimated that from 2002 to 2016 more than half of motorcycle trips were for commuting or business, a significantly higher proportion than the 19% of such trips for other modes combined. Yes, motorcycling is a vulnerable mode of transport, but so is bicycling or using e-scooters, both of which are promoted by the Government as modes of transport. It is vital that safety is improved, but that will not be achieved unless motorcycling is accepted and supported as part of UK transport networks.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Whenever I see motorcycling being debated, I have to be there, because my brother raced motorbikes. Unfortunately, some 19 years ago he had a very severe accident and ended up with brain injuries. The hon. Gentleman has outlined exactly the importance of motorcycling, but does he agree that motorcycle theft is a major issue in the UK? Secure rails to secure motorcycles to are few and far between, but if we can provide them for bicycles we should do so for motorcycles as well, and such locations should be made easier to access. If motorbike thefts are high, the means of securing them must be in place.

[Bill Wiggin]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. First of all, I am sorry to hear about his brother. Falling off a motorcycle is extremely frightening—I have done that. Unfortunately, I have also had my motorcycle stolen, so I absolutely agree about the need for proper security. Of course, everybody benefits if things are not stolen, because our insurance stays lower. So yes, I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will discuss the casualty element in just a moment.

The Vision Zero approach to safety, namely that road deaths and injuries are unacceptable and preventable, should be applied proportionately to motorcycling, which would bring it alongside walking and cycle safety in transport safety policy matters. It is my hope that the debate will start a conversation about how we can begin to incorporate motorcycling more widely into the UK’s transportation mainstream and promote its uptake as a safe mode of transport.

Sadly, every 22 minutes, someone is killed or seriously injured on UK roads. The number of road deaths in the UK plateaued from 2012 to 2019 at around 1,850 deaths a year—the equivalent of five a day, on average. According to Brake, the road safety charity, motorcyclists accounted for 20% of road deaths in 2019, while cyclists and pedestrians accounted for 10% and 24% respectively. Cycling, which had similar casualty rates to motorcycling, has experienced active public support through policy in recent years, which has led to a reduction in casualties. If the Government supported motorcycling as a recognised form of alternative transport alongside walking and cycling, those death figures would decrease. In 2017, the Government spent £300 million in dedicated funding for cycling and walking. They have announced £2 billion in additional funding for walking and cycling over the next five years. That is a sixfold increase. If even a fraction of that was spent on motorcycling, the benefits would far outweigh any negatives.

Spending on national and local roads has increased year on year since 2013-14. Locally, that funding is largely spent and implemented by local authorities. One of the biggest issues for both motorcycle riders and bicyclists is poor surface quality, with potholes and low-grip manhole covers being the most threatening. Government strategy must ensure that road environment design never compromises motorcyclists’ safety and entitlement to ride. I have experienced that myself, particularly after there has been flooding. If the pebbles are all washed into the middle of the road, it is virtually impossible to ride safely. If I ride on the bit that has been swept, I am too close to the edge; if I ride too far across, I am too close to the oncoming traffic; if I ride in the middle, over the pebbles, it is very frightening and skiddy. We must therefore do all we can to make sure that the road is safe.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that wire barriers in the middle of roads are extremely dangerous for motorcyclists and that, although there is now a policy that no new wire barriers will be put in place, the existing ones need to be replaced?

[Bill Wiggin]

They garotte the bicyclists. Motorcycling is not particularly dangerous. When a motorcyclist falls off, they bounce along the road—it is what they hit that kills them. That is why the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is the impact against an oncoming vehicle or anything they meet in the roadway that does the damage. A wire is lethal. The new concrete barriers we are seeing on UK motorways are very welcome, and we need to see that across Government as things progress. It is that lack of thought that is the essence of the debate.

Analysis conducted by the Motorcycle Action Group in 2020 concluded that poor road surface was a contributory factor in four motorcyclist fatalities and 70 serious injuries every year. In 2020-21, the Government spent £5.46 billion on local roads and £6.26 billion on national roads, while the Department for Transport allocated more than £1.5 billion for local highway maintenance. Between 2020 and 2022, Herefordshire Council—my local authority—will receive more than £33 million for road maintenance. That is welcome. However, how is it being spent?

In response to a written question I submitted recently about potholes, the Secretary of State for Transport stated that,

“there is no specific requirement for Councils such as Herefordshire to demonstrate how they spend their share of funding, including the Pothole Action Fund.”

I believe that the Government should begin to require that. It would not only demonstrate to taxpayers that their money is being spent wisely, but give the Government a clear indication of where they should request that local authorities target their investment.

In another written question to the Department for Transport, I asked how the pothole action fund was spent. I was told:

“The Department endorses ‘Well-managed highway infrastructure: A Code of Practice’ by the UK Roads Liaison Group.”

In its 256 pages, how many times was motorcycling mentioned? Once. Therein lies the issue. The Government’s guidebook on how to fund road and infrastructure construction and repair ignores motorcycling. I recognise and appreciate the recent announcement for additional funding to tackle the pothole issue. Herefordshire Council has squandered its road funds and our local road network remains woefully inadequate. The Department for Transport must therefore issue guidance to councils on how they prioritise repairs in locations where motorcyclists’ safety is most likely to be compromised. That can happen only when motorcycling is recognised properly as an alternative transport mode.

Another issue with the current model of alternative transport is how rural settings are largely forgotten. It must be remembered that in isolated and rural areas, bus services are infrequent, to put it mildly. Motorcyclists in the most rural areas travel some 5,200 miles a year, on average, compared with 4,000 in other areas. Walking and cycling are most often not an option for people in very rural areas. They are left with little option but to use private powered transport, such as motorcycles or mopeds. This is the case in my constituency, North Herefordshire, one of the most rural in the country.

The future of transport rural strategy will need fully to encompass this mode of transport as part of the aim to secure improvements in rural transport accessibility and resilience. If the local authority is given express instructions to fund motorcycle-specific repairs to roads, overall accidents and death figures can be significantly reduced. In 2018, there were 39,996 road traffic accidents in rural areas across the UK—109 a day. In my county of Herefordshire, 440 road accidents were reported that year. Of those, only 42 included a pedestrian, 41 a pedal cycle and 40 a motorcycle; 302 of the 440 involved a car. Those figures clearly indicate that motorcycling should be treated in a similar way to walking and cycling and that funding should be made available to promote the uptake and safety of motorcyclists on our infrastructure networks. That will be possible only with a clear Government strategy for motorcycling and I hope that the Department will outline that in its response today. Walking, cycling and public transport have key roles to play in transforming travel and transport. However, they fail to offer the flexibility and practically that a notable proportion of vehicle users need and rightly demand from their transport choices.

Motorcycling offers a desirable, low-congesting and low-polluting alternative that is already well developed and regulated, but has never been properly considered as a transport mode in its own right. Now is the time for motorcycling to experience proper policy support. It is a free, exciting and wonderful mode of transport. It has its drawbacks, many thanks to other road users and the road conditions. I believe that should the Government include and promote motorcycle uptake, roads in the UK would become a safer place. That cannot happen until there is a fundamental change of thinking. Motorcycling is here to stay. Instead of motorcycling being cast aside as a fringe element of road use, the Government should do much more to support and promote its uptake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) on securing the debate. We have heard a lot of enthusiasm from the bikers in this room; it is clearly something that they feel strongly about. I confess that I have never had the opportunity to ride a motorbike.

[Bill Wiggin]

We can put that right.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I have been invited to Motorcycle Live in December in Birmingham to have the opportunity to ride some of the new electric bikes, so I may decide to do that. Former Member Hazel Blears, who I think is 4 feet 10 inches—I am not tall, but she is considerably shorter than me—was a keen biker, which shows that it can be done. Perhaps I should take up the challenge.

I will flag up a number of issues. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire talked about road repairs and presented a rather rosy picture of the amount of funding. It is important for motorcyclists that we keep roads in a good condition, but the money has been cut. The Government promised £1.5 billion to repair damage on roads across the country in the financial year 2020-21, but that was cut to £1.125 billion in the following financial year. Pothole funding was due to be cut by an average 23%, and overall total spending on roads maintenance would drop by an average 22%.

We can compare that with the massive Government road-building programme. It is important that we should not just be looking at building new roads, but at making sure the roads we have are kept in good condition. The insurance industry has raised that point with me. The vast majority of the claims it pays out are caused not by driver error but by the condition of the roads.

As it stands, it will take 11 years and £11 billion to clear the backlog of potholes. On National Pothole Day in January this year, the Chancellor tweeted,

“enjoy #NationalPotholeDay before they’re all gone...”

He was boasting about how much money is going into addressing the problem, but we could be marking National Pothole Day for quite some time to come at the current rate. Perhaps we will get some good news about road repair funding tomorrow.

I agree with the hon. Member for North Herefordshire that safety is incredibly important. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) spoke about electric motorbikes, which I will come to a bit later. He also spoke about the smell of petrol and his colleague, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), mentioned the noise. Those things are part of the thrill, as motorcycle organisations have said to me. I totally get that, but when a cyclist is in that little space in front of the cars at the traffic lights, sometimes people on motorbikes do not act as responsibly as they could and are not aware that bike users are more vulnerable than them. For the cyclist, they have a bigger vehicle pushing in front of them, and the smell is not great. The sooner we can move to cleaner vehicles the better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Wiggin]

I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. We have seen enthusiasm from MPs representing wonderful parts of Northern Ireland, including the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) made the most important point of all, which was about safety. Many years ago, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to allow motorcycles into bus lanes. The evidence that followed proved that if we put motorcycles in bus lanes, pedestrians are more careful and the number of people killed and seriously injured drops. It does not seem intuitive, but that is how people behave. It is quite extraordinary, but it really works. If Members take away just one thing from today’s debate, it should be safety, safety, safety. Motorcyclists are environmentally friendly, independent and doing the right things. Their bikes are getting better and they are well behaved, but the one figure that is out of kilter is the number of people killed and seriously injured.

I congratulate the Minister on this outing, which must be one of her earlier ones—there will be many more. Anything that she can do in her new role to keep people safe and alive has to be worth it. To that end, I welcome the intention of the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) to take a leap of faith by riding a motorcycle in the coming months. It is the right thing to do. I thank everybody for their contributions, and I thank you, Mr Robertson.

HGV Driver Shortages

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent removal of the need for young people, who have been hit so hard by the pandemic, to spend their money on a trailer test. That is really welcome in rural communities, and with that extra freedom comes extra responsibility. When can those young people expect that policy to be implemented—is it today?

[Grant Shapps]

I am pleased to tell the House that the statutory instrument is going down, which means that the change will be made very soon indeed. I will write to Members to provide further detail on that. My hon. Friend is right to point out that extra responsibility comes with some of the freedoms, and the industry-led accreditation scheme, which we have already started to discuss with the industry, insurers and those who hire out trailers, is important. We can also improve the quality of driving among the 16 million people who already have permission to drive those trailers without any tests.