Cycling Delivery Plan

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I am today publishing the Government response to the informal consultation on the draft cycling delivery plan which sought views from interested parties on its content.

On 16 October 2014, I launched an informal consultation on a draft cycling delivery plan which set out how the Prime Minister’s ambition to “kick-start a cycling revolution” would be achieved over the next 10 years as well as our plans to increase walking.

The consultation, which was extended to a six-week period in total due to the high level of interest, sought general views on the content of the draft Delivery Plan via email, webchats and seven dedicated regional engagement events. Over 1,000 informal comments to the consultation were received from cycling and walking campaign groups, local government, transport and planning bodies and professionals, business, members of the public and others.

We received a wide range of comments, in particular, around the lack of a firm long-term funding commitment which was considered central to implementing aspirations and actions in the draft delivery plan. A further five common themes also arose during the consultation, including calls to give walking greater prominence, defining “cycle-proofing”, securing the future funding of the bikeability cycle training scheme, creating national standards for the design of cycling and walking infrastructure and providing greater clarity on the proposed call to action to local authorities to work in partnership with Government to increase local-level cycling and walking.

The Government response sets out our position on each of these matters and most notably makes clear our commitment to cycling and walking in the long term by placing a duty in the recently passed Infrastructure Act 2015 requiring Government to produce a cycling and walking investment strategy. The new duty requires us to put in place a strategy for England, which, among other things, must set out the financial resources which Government will make available towards meeting our cycling and walking objectives. This move has been warmly welcomed by our stakeholders.

Government are now considering how best to develop a long-term infrastructure programme for cycling and walking, drawing upon expert advice from cycling and walking stakeholders including the Active Travel Consortium.

It is also important to note that through the duties confirmed in the Infrastructure Act 2015, Government will be held to account by Parliament.

I will be placing a copy of this statement and the Government response to the consultation on the draft cycling delivery plan in the Libraries of both Houses.

Attachments are available at http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements

[HCWS507]

High Speed 2

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Grieve]

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, they are similar to the Norfolk broads in terms of recreational amenity.

I was told at the start of the project that it would never be possible or economically viable to tunnel under the River Colne because that would cost in the region of £1 billion more than a viaduct—I remember that figure being given. By last month, we were told that, because the viaduct will cost so much, the true differential is a mere £185 million. In the great scheme of the £50 billion- plus we are talking about for this project, that seems to be something that the Government really ought to consider, given the damage to the environment not just for the local community and residents but for all the other people who come to make use of this recreational area. That same point could be made about the tunnel under the area of outstanding natural beauty, but I will focus on the Colne valley because of its importance not just to the local community but to the residents.

I am very grateful that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the Heathrow spur would effectively not go ahead. That removes a great deal of potential blight from my constituency and it is quite clear that it was not needed. However, parts of the bits of the junctions and other infrastructure still remain in the Bill, which worries me about the potential for blight. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that the necessary steps will be taken to ensure that such potential for blight is removed from the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I give my right hon. and learned Friend that reassurance now.

[Mr Grieve]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. That will be well received in my constituency.

Finally, we have heard a lot about compensation. The package has changed and been improved, but I still find something very odd about a situation in which we have a need-to-sell basis for getting a full market value for compensation for those people living outside the immediate areas close to the track, yet if they do not go through the paraphernalia of need to sell—I suspect that some cases will be done, I am afraid, by requests that may have a sleight of hand—they will not be adequately compensated. That cannot be right. I know the origin of the compensation system in this country, but it is antiquated and it is time that we moved away from it. We are actually forcing people to move, because otherwise they will not get the compensation that they need.

With those points in mind, I look forward to the Minister’s response. However, I come back to my original point. The Government really will have to counter the growing volume of evidence that the project has serious flaws in its concept.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on securing this debate on HS2, a scheme that affects a number of constituencies on its line of route, not least Kenilworth and Southam. I note that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) is in the Chamber.

I am tempted to go as far as to endorse everything that the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) said. Certainly, a project of this type, which is going to be constructed over a number of years, needs wide political support across the spectrum. Therefore it is good news that we have such a lot of agreement on it.

Of course, there has been considerable interest in HS2 throughout the country. When the scheme was last debated in Parliament, on Second Reading in April 2014, the support for it was clear: 452 votes in favour to 41 against. It is patently obvious that, with the west coast main line reaching capacity, something needed to be done. It is no good saying to those using this service that they must grin and bear it while we do nothing, watching our infrastructure grind to a halt and stifling economic growth.

Comments have been made about the report published yesterday by the Lords’ Economic Affairs Committee. Although I have enormous respect for our colleagues in the other place, I most heartily disagree with their report. The case for HS2 is crystal clear. It will have a transformational effect, supporting growth in the north by improving connectivity, freeing up space on our crowded rail network, promoting regeneration, boosting local skills, generating tens of thousands of jobs and helping secure the UK’s future prosperity.

[Joan Walley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Grieve]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am not going to give way. I have so many points to cover in a short time.

It is a vital part of the Government’s long-term economic plan, strongly supported by the northern and midlands cities, alongside our plans for better east-west rail links confirmed in the northern transport strategy last week.

We have been fully transparent about the project. HS2 will deliver more than £2 of benefits for every £1 invested, and the economic benefit of the project is clear. The strong support of MPs is shared by—

[Mrs Gillan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Goodwill]

Not at this time.

[Mrs Gillan]

He should give way to me.

[Mr Goodwill]

I will give way this once.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am grateful to the Minister. However, I do not know how he can say, “We have been fully transparent about the project”, when he has not published any of the Major Projects Authority’s reports and we cannot get up-to-date figures on the project.

[Mr Goodwill]

My right hon. Friend has tabled 355 parliamentary questions for the Department on HS2—

[Mrs Gillan]

Good, I am doing my job.

[Mr Goodwill]

And we have given her comprehensive replies to those questions. The report that she refers to is, of course, an historical report that is out of date. We are working on much more up-to-date information.

There is strong support from the Transport Committee, which backs the strategic business case and is confident that HS2 is the only practical way significantly to increase rail capacity. Indeed, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) is a member of that Committee. One of its conclusions in a previous report states:

“Having reviewed the revised business case for HS2 and the KPMG report on regional economic benefits we remain convinced that the project is justified. Capacity constraints on the West Coast Main Line cannot be ignored and nor should demand be controlled by pricing people off the railway. Alternatives to building a new line will themselves be costly and disruptive and their benefits could be relatively short-lived if demand continues…as forecast. Only a new line can bring the step change in capacity which is required.”

The Committee agrees with the Government and the Opposition.

Demand for long distance rail travel has doubled in the past 15 years and without HS2 key rail routes connecting London, the midlands and the north will soon be overwhelmed, stifling growth in towns and cities across the country. There is also latent demand for more rail freight, for which no paths are currently available on the west coast main line. It is crucial that we press ahead with delivering HS2 on time and budget. We remain on track to start construction in 2017.

The Bill is now before the hybrid Bill Committee, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), which has already heard petitions relating to about half the route of phase 1. In the nine months it has sat, it has heard almost twice as many petitions as the Committee on Crossrail heard in its 21 months of sitting. Clearly, there are many petitions yet to hear, but I am sure the whole House would want to thank my hon. Friend and his Committee for the seriousness and diligence with which they have gone about their important role of ensuring that the project strikes the right balance between being sensitive to the needs of affected communities and the environment, and the long-term needs of the country as a whole.

Of course, the scheme has undergone particular scrutiny in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. I take this opportunity to thank her for so assiduously ensuring that her constituents’ voices are heard. I note how much she has achieved, including helping to move the line of the route further south through the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty in 2011, to avoid an aquifer, and extending the tunnel in her constituency. The scheme now boasts over 13 km of tunnel under the Chilterns. Indeed, of the overall kilometerage in the Chiltern area—there is 20.8 km of line there—46% is in bored tunnel, 12% in green tunnel and 28% in cutting. Therefore 86% of the route in the AONB is below ground level or in a tunnel. I think my right hon. Friend has made a tremendous contribution to achieving that for her constituents. This demonstrates both the Government’s commitment to protect areas of outstanding natural beauty and the hard work of my right hon. Friend. This is an example of how passionate she has been in working hard for her constituents.

I will deal with some questions raised. I will not be able to respond to them all, so I will write to the hon. and right hon. Members I cannot reach. Hon. Members mentioned the independence of the residents’ commissioner and the residents’ charter. The commissioner will report findings directly to Sir David Higgins and will not be part of the standard staff structure. The direct link and the publication of the commissioner’s quarterly report will ensure that concerns and issues can be aired and addressed in a timely manner. The residents’ charter and residents’ commissioner’s report will be transparent. That transparency provides the best guarantee of independence.

The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) raised a valid question about the phase 2 spur. We are currently reviewing and assessing those decisions. No decisions have been taken yet on either Crewe or the spur.

[Joan Walley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Goodwill]

I only have two minutes to go, so I really must come to a close.

I shall briefly talk about the economic impact and the fact that we are not taking money away from other infrastructure investment. We are investing £73 billion in transport from 2015-16 to 2020-21 and £57 billion in other projects.

In terms of the economic case, I draw the House’s attention to a report in The Times today, which states that HSBC—I do not think it is our favourite bank at the moment—is going to relocate 1,000 workers to Birmingham:

“The bank already has three sites there employing 2,500 people, and some of those will move to the new building that it has its eyes on, not yet erected, on a site near Centenary Square in the city centre.”

The article mentions the

“ever improving transport links”

in Birmingham,

“including the planned HS2 fast trains bolstering a road-rail network crowned by Spaghetti Junction on the M6”,

which it states has added to its appeal. So this is already having an effect on encouraging employers to come to the area.

In conclusion, HS2 is about helping Britain to thrive and prosper. Although tough decisions have to be taken, they will be responsible decisions in the interest of making a better, stronger Britain. We understand that a scheme of this magnitude cannot be built without having some effects on the environment or communities, but as I have set out here today, we are going to great lengths to ensure that the impacts are mitigated wherever practical, particularly in areas with ancient woodland. I repeat our pledge that there will be no net environmental loss. We will make sure that this is done in the most sustainable way for any major infrastructure ever built.

Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Consultation Response

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I am today publishing a response document summarising the views given during the consultation on updating the safeguarding direction for the proposed Crossrail 2 rail project, and providing the Government’s response.

The Government have considered the responses to the consultation carefully, and the Secretary of State has decided to issue the safeguarding direction with changes at Wimbledon, Wandsworth Common, Angel and Soho Square. The updated direction will come into effect from today.

Crossrail 2 is a proposed new rail line across Central London, running from New Southgate and Tottenham Hale in the north-east to Wimbledon in the south-west. The route passes through the City of Westminster, the London boroughs of Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Islington, Merton, and Wandsworth, and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

Safeguarding is the first stage in the planning process. It enables the Secretary of State for Transport to issue a direction to local planning authorities to protect land needed for long-term infrastructure projects. Safeguarding does not necessarily prevent other developments from taking place, but it ensures that when they do take place the design can accommodate the planned infrastructure.

The response document will be made available on the Department for Transport website. Copies of the response document, the direction, guidance and associated maps have been made available in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS458]

Car Parking (Private Land)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing this debate. I understand how important this matter is for him and his constituents, and I recognise that the practices of some private parking companies can result in complaints from constituents. I have tried to find a stronger word than “complaints”, but I suspect I would veer into unparliamentary language were I to use the words that sometimes come to mind when I hear about cases where companies have behaved unreasonably.

My hon. Friend has seen the written ministerial statement from the Prime Minister last week explaining that policy responsibility for off-street parking is now under the auspices of the Department for Communities and Local Government. Ministers in both Departments have worked closely together on a wide range of parking reforms, and it is my pleasure this evening to represent my Communities and Local Government chums in this debate.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) for raising the important issue of hospitals, where having a pay-as-you-leave car park that has a system of number plates or tickets that can be used at a barrier on leaving reduces the stress that people feel in not knowing how long their appointment will take or how long they may have to wait. Many people worry that by overstaying, through no fault of their own, they may incur a fine. She also mentioned places where parking is initially free and people then overstay. I have had correspondence from colleagues whose constituents have taken a break at motorway service areas, as they are advised to do, only to overstay the two hours allowed because they have fallen asleep.

The Government have taken decisive action during this Parliament to end clamping so that motorists no longer live in fear of their car being held hostage until they can pay for it to be released. I am sure that colleagues have heard horror stories from their constituents about the practices of clamping companies—practices that we have stopped. No longer are people being marched to cash point machines to secure the release of their vehicle. In my constituency, we had a big issue outside Whitby station. In Whitby, every car park is free after 6 pm apart from the car park outside the station, so it is little wonder that many motorists assumed that it would be free there too. Surprise, surprise—the parking company did not turn up until after 6 o’clock on most days because it was keen to catch as many people as possible. Thankfully, the car park was in the control of Northern Rail. Alongside Whitby Hospitality Association, we ran the company out of town. We then made representations to Northern Rail, which engaged a much more benign parking company that acted more reasonably and, at the same time, controlled parking in the car park, which is important for those who wish to use the railway station or the Co-operative shop nearby. There are plenty of reasonable companies out there, but unfortunately some of the others give them a bad name.

Good parking helps us to be good neighbours, and it is critical for a growing economy. However, as anyone who has driven round and round to find a space in a car park or has been blocked in will tell you, parking is not simple. The management of private parking can understandably be an emotive issue. Receiving a parking charge is never popular, but measures to control parking on private land are necessary to ensure that parking facilities remain accessible and provide value to all who use them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In the past few weeks there has been some talk about the fines that are imposed on those who allegedly park where they should not. There seems to be a grey area. Is the Minister able to give some indication of the fees that they charge, because I understand that some people will be able to claim that money back?

[Mr Goodwill]

I need to be careful because this matter is before the courts. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley talked about somebody in a pay-and-display car park who overstayed their time. It could be argued that the loss to the parking company was the value of the time that had been used, and therefore that these fines amount to many times that loss.

On the other hand, many businesses—my hon. Friend is a shopkeeper himself—rely on their own car parking areas outside their premises for their customers. If all the parking space outside a kitchen showroom, for example, was taken up by people who were not using that shop, the company could lose an order for a whole kitchen, which could represent several hundred pounds. We need to look more carefully at exactly why people may need to keep car parking for their customers. Many companies get frustrated when people park in the parking area that is meant to be for their customers and is integral to their business. If there is no car park outside, a person may drive by and go to a competitor.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

I understand the Minister’s point. However, The Whalley Arms car park is a relatively large car park for the village that is now used by the entire community, not for any specific shop. All the shops benefit from the fact that the car park is available. It is next door to a GP surgery. The two cases that I mentioned related to people who wanted to use the surgery; one wanted to pay and the other mistyped their registration number. Their loss is the amenity of the car parking space, which costs £1 an hour or £5 for the day—nowhere near £60, £100 or £150.

[Mr Goodwill]

I absolutely understand that point. The point I was trying to make is that there are situations whereby the survival of a business may be determined by it being able to make sure that its customers can use its limited car parking. However, in the case of a car park that might cost £1 an hour, it would be difficult to argue that the loss to the landowner or the parking company was anything like the magnitude of the loss to another company that would lose custom.

Drivers choose where to park their vehicles, and if they park on private land they do so in line with the terms and conditions that should be clearly displayed on signage at the entrance to the car park and around it. If the terms and conditions include that a motorist must pay and display, and stay no longer than the time they have paid for, those are the conditions that the motorist has deemed to have agreed to when they park their vehicle.

Parking management and control is necessary so that landowners who invite drivers to park on their land can exercise their legal rights and gain the benefit to which they are entitled from the use of their property. Without any form of control, indiscriminate drivers might park where they liked and for as long as they liked, breaching reasonable terms and conditions, and without fear of any recourse arising from their misuse of the land.

We are committed to striking the right balance to protect motorists from unscrupulous practices that some parking management companies may employ—we have heard about them this evening—and to ensure that landowners can control the use of their land and benefit fairly from it.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 banned clamping and made a number of other changes to the law related to parking. It banned private sector wheel-clamping and vehicle removal where there is no lawful authority to do so, and, as a balance to that, provided landholders with extra powers to manage parking on their land.

Most private organisations, including private landowners and their agents, are not able to clamp or tow vehicles and have to rely primarily on ticketing to enforce parking conditions on their land. This could be by placing a parking ticket on a vehicle, giving it to the driver or sending a ticket to the vehicle’s registered keeper in the post.

Before the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, a private landholder could only seek liability against a vehicle driver to recover unpaid parking charges and therefore needed to be able to identify who was the driver of the vehicle that incurred the parking charge. There was no requirement, however, for the registered keeper either to say who was driving the vehicle or to accept liability him or herself. This allowed both the vehicle driver and the registered keeper to avoid liability and meant that landholders could find it difficult to manage parking by ticketing alone.

Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act came into power at the same time as the parking sector introduced a new, free appeals service for motorists who received a parking charge. This means that motorists can appeal to the parking operator and to an independent adjudicator, and both those appeals are free to the motorist. However, I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point about an early payment discount, and the suggestion to extend the discount during an appeal certainly has some merit.

Despite perceptions to the contrary, I assure my hon. Friend that significant control is already applied to the operation of private car parking companies. The activities and standards of operation in the sector have changed substantially in recent years and parking trade bodies have improved standards further at the heart of their vision.

Where the terms and conditions of parking have been breached, parking management companies can apply for information about the vehicle keeper so that they can enforce appropriately. The Government control the access to those data through the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, and there is a requirement for companies that receive keeper data from the DVLA to be members of an accredited trade association. Incidentally, the fee for access to those data is £2.50. That means that the parking company must abide by the accredited trade association code of practice based on fair treatment of the motorist, which requires its members to operate to high professional standards of conduct while allowing them to take reasonable action to follow up alleged parking contraventions.

We would expect any organisation that wanted to become an accredited trade association to be able to demonstrate that it has a code of practice that ensures that only a fair parking charge is asked for and that prominent signage is present outlining clearly the restrictions on parking and the charges and conditions that apply. There should be no hidden charges or ambiguity for the motorist as to what is and is not permitted on the land.

[Stephen McPartland]

What does the Minister think about the fact that the terms and conditions can change? I mentioned the ambiguity of three hours of free parking being reduced to an hour and a half on match days, but without match days being specified.

[Mr Goodwill]

I have not looked at that in any great detail, but from what my hon. Friend says, it seems unreasonable to expect a person to know when it is or is not a match day. It does not seem beyond the bounds of possibility to list days when there will be matches to address that particular situation.

The code helps to ensure that contact with motorists is not threatening, and that parking charge notices are issued promptly so that a driver can recall the circumstances surrounding the event. A reasonable amount of time must be allowed for payment to be made before any additional charges are imposed or the matter is escalated.

Even though strong requirements are in place to regulate the actions of parking companies, the disclosure of data from the DVLA is tightly controlled. Parking management companies are visited to audit their operations, and further in-depth checking of individual cases is undertaken to make sure that requests have been submitted for genuine reasons and with reliable evidence to back them up. Car parking operators pay fees when requesting keeper details. The fee levels are set to recover the cost of processing requests so that those costs are not passed on to the taxpayer. The Government do not gain financially from the provision of such information, contrary to what one may read in some newspapers.

Inevitably, motorists who feel that they have been unfairly treated will complain. The parking operator needs to demonstrate compliance with the code of practice of its accredited trade association to retain its membership. The ATA exists to investigate and ensure that, where appropriate, remedial action is taken. It is for the ATA to decide whether the operator needs to be placed on notice with additional scrutiny, follow-up audits and checks to monitor future actions closely. In more serious cases, a decision may be taken to terminate an operator’s membership of the ATA. A company can still manage parking on private land, but if it is no longer a member of the ATA the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will not provide contact details to enable breaches to be pursued. That has a serious consequence for a company’s survival, and it is an incentive for it to behave responsibly.

The DVLA plays a key role. Where sufficiently serious concerns are raised or ongoing issues are identified, it will consider whether continued access to vehicle keeper data is appropriate. Several parking management companies have had their ability to request vehicle keeper data suspended where shortfalls in the standards expected have been identified. In addition, trading standards departments can prosecute companies if they have breached consumer protection law. In short, if a company is not meeting the standards expected, there are serious consequences.

We recently announced a new package of changes to help tackle over-zealous parking enforcement. The changes are designed to help local shops, and they include the introduction of grace periods. As we have heard, drivers will get a 10-minute grace period where they have legitimately parked on the street or in council-owned car parks. That will prevent penalties for being just a few minutes late back to the vehicle. We have also introduced a new right to enable residents and local businesses to demand that their council reviews parking in their area.

Off-street parking has many synergies with policy about car park charges, land-use planning and high streets, so we have decided to transfer responsibility for all off-street parking to Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government. That will enable the Government to look more easily at the contribution that public and private off-street parking can make to a place, and how it can support local economic rejuvenation. Communities and Local Government Ministers will now turn their attention to the behaviour of off-street car park operators, and they intend to ensure that unfair and unreasonable behaviour is dealt with in the way that the Government have addressed on-street parking abuses.

I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley to discuss any concerns he has directly with the parking operator, and if he is not satisfied, with the accredited trade association. Providing them with details of any cases in which his constituents have experienced questionable actions or bad behaviour will allow the ATA to investigate and to take the necessary action.

Question put and agreed to.

Road Traffic

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Drug Driving (Specified Limits) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.

The instrument will include amphetamine, with a limit of 250 micrograms per litre of blood, in the new drug-driving offence of driving with a specified drug in the body above a specified limit. The new offence was provided for in the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which inserted new section 5A into the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Drug Driving (Specified Limits) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014, made on 24 October 2014, specified 16 other drugs and their limits, and the new offence came into force in England and Wales on 2 March. Indeed, the first arrest was made on that very day. I recognise the positive engagement and support of the Opposition in introducing the new regulations.

As hon. Members are aware, the review of drink and drug-driving law by Sir Peter North concluded that there was

“a significant drug driving problem”

and recommended the new offence. It also recommended the inclusion of amphetamine. The expert panel on drug-driving, in its report of March 2013, also recommended the inclusion of amphetamine in the new drug-driving offence. It quoted the European driving under the influence of drugs, alcohol and medicines project—the so-called DRUID project—which suggested that amphetamine caused a medium to high risk of a traffic accident. The DRUID researchers did not find an impairment effect at therapeutic doses, but a negative driving performance could be detected at high doses.

As hon. Members are probably aware, the Government have considered carefully what the appropriate level should be for amphetamine. The expert panel recommended a limit of 600 micrograms per litre of blood if our approach was to look at when the risk of a road traffic collision was most likely to occur. However, although there is significant medicinal use of amphetamine, the Government were concerned about the amount of illegal use. The expert panel described it as “an illicit substance” and

“a long standing member of the drug scene”.

The approach to setting a limit for the drug was therefore not as clear-cut as for the other drugs, because a zero tolerance approach was taken to illegal drugs such as cannabis and cocaine, whereas a road safety risk approach was taken to drugs that were more associated with medicinal use.

The Government used the consultation in summer 2013 to seek further views and evidence on what a suitable limit might be. Many of the responses proposed a limit that was much closer to the zero tolerance approach, so we re-consulted on a limit of 50 micrograms per litre from December 2013 to the end of January 2014. However, we received several objections from the medical profession to the proposed limit.

Specialists in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, for which amphetamine is a recognised treatment, argued that the condition affects the ability to concentrate and that, although patients represent an increased road safety risk when unmedicated, they are just as safe as the general population when taking their medication. Those respondents backed up their arguments with research. Their concern was that prescribers and ADHD patients must not be discouraged from prescribing medication or taking it. We recognise that adult ADHD often goes undiagnosed and that treatment is often stopped after people have had it as a child. That presents road safety risks that need to be addressed through treatment. We concluded that the limit of 50 micrograms that we initially proposed might discourage those with ADHD from seeking or continuing with treatment.

To be clear, the amphetamine treatment for ADHD that we are talking about is not Ritalin, which is often associated with ADHD. Although similar to amphetamine, Ritalin is a methylphenidate. Amphetamine drugs, including lisdexamfetamine, which is produced by Shire pharmaceuticals, tend to be used as a second-line treatment when methylphenidate is not successful.

It is therefore appropriate to set a limit that is above the therapeutic range that ADHD sufferers are most likely to be prescribed and below the level that is most likely to be the result of people abusing the medication. After holding extensive informal discussions with specialists in ADHD and the Secretary of State’s honorary medical advisory panel on alcohol, drugs and substance misuse and driving, we have agreed that 250 micrograms per litre of blood is the most appropriate limit. The advisory panel quoted the analysis of 2,995 blood samples that were taken between 2008 and 2012 across the UK in suspected drug-driving cases, which showed an average concentration of amphetamine of 456 micrograms per litre of blood. The Government concluded from their consultation with the ADHD specialists and the advisory panel that the level of 250 micrograms would successfully balance the legitimate use of amphetamine for medicinal purposes against its abuse by those who represent a risk on the road as a result of taking it.

The House may recall that in September last year, during the debate on the regulations that specified the 16 other drugs and their limits, the Government indicated that they intended to re-consult on a limit for amphetamine. Given the extensive discussions that we have held with medical stakeholders, we take the view that we have had sufficient opportunity to consider the views of all the relevant parties and that conducting a third formal consultation on a limit for amphetamine is no longer appropriate or necessary.

The new drug-driving offence commenced on 2 March, and the Government believe it important that amphetamine is added to the list of drugs as soon as possible, so that those who abuse amphetamine and continue to drive and put lives at risk can expect to be caught and prosecuted for the new offence. I acknowledge that there is no roadside screening device for amphetamine—currently only cannabis and cocaine have an approved device that tests saliva—but should there be any suspicion of the consumption of that drug or any other specified drug, a blood test can be carried out, and a blood concentration level above the specified limit will result in prosecution.

Specifying amphetamine will create certainty in the market and enable manufacturers to consider the research and development of roadside screeners for that drug, which is one of the most significant in drug-driving cases. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support extending the regulations to include amphetamine at the limit proposed, to send a strong message that the House, Parliament and wider society will not tolerate those who persist in drug-driving and the threat they pose to other road users. I recommend that the House approve these regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) for raising several questions, some of which we covered in Committee last week. He asked why we did not re-consult on the level. Although we decided that 50 micrograms was not the correct limit at the end of March 2014, we had to consult informally with a range of medical experts to ensure we got the number right, and that took time. Most importantly, we are confident that 250 micrograms is correct, as it successfully balances the legitimate use of amphetamine for medical purposes against its abuse by those who represent a risk on the road as a result of its use. Given our extensive discussions with medical stakeholders, we think that we have had sufficient opportunity to consider the views of all relevant parties and that conducting a third formal consultation on the limit for amphetamine use is no longer appropriate or necessary. No additional significant risk is associated with going from 50 micrograms to 250 micrograms, as advised by the Secretary of State’s advisory panel.

Importantly, the level we have set for the eight illegal drugs effectively represents a zero-tolerance approach. We have set the level sufficiently high so that there can be no opportunity for loophole lawyers to get people off or for people to use the defence that they were accidentally exposed to drugs by, for example, sitting next to somebody who was smoking cannabis or handling an item that had been used for cocaine.

It is important to remind the House that existing legislation on impairment remains on the statute book, and many prescribed drugs will carry a warning indicating that people should not take them if they feel drowsy or their vision is blurred. That has not changed, so people taking prescription drugs below the levels set in the regulations will still be committing an offence if they are impaired. If they take levels above those set in the regulations, but are not impaired, they will have the medical defence. The advice has gone out to pharmacists, doctors and patients that if necessary they should carry evidence of their prescription as a medical defence.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I want to make a point about notices on prescription drugs. Many years ago, the message that cigarettes were harmful to health would have been smaller and much less obvious than it became. That seems to apply now to prescription drugs. Does the Minister have a view on whether the message about the danger of taking prescription drugs, even below the levels he has mentioned, should be much more obvious to users?

[Mr Goodwill]

We have issued specific advice to pharmacists on the nine drugs we are specifying, but there is a general warning to patients as well that taking prescription drugs can affect them. In the case of the drugs specified in the regulations, we have issued stickers to pharmacists and doctors to provide an additional reminder.

On the cost of screening, it is true that although a breathalyser now costs about 17p to administer at the roadside—we now have breathalysers that are evidential—the cost of these new roadside tests will be about £20. Of course, we want more competition in the market in terms of the number of devices available and the number of drugs that can be detected. As we get more competition and more players in the market, the cost will come down. I am sure that police forces and police and crime commissioners will take decisions based on where this equipment is deployed. Even if it is not in every police car, it will be important, particularly for fatal or near-fatal accidents, that the equipment is available, to ensure that a screening test can be quickly taken. Of course, if the two drugs that we can currently test for are not detected, there will be the option of going to the police station to take the test there. The blood test, not the roadside test, will form the basis of the prosecution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) said that this is a further step made by the Government towards improving road safety. Personally, I am pleased that we have now reached, I hope, the end of the road on this; I personally insisted that the issue should be put in the Conservative manifesto at the last general election. With a couple of weeks to go, we have finally got the matter completed and on to the statute book.

Drink-drive limits were mentioned. I shall not be tempted to speak at great length on that issue because it is not within the terms of today’s debate, but it will be interesting to take account of the experience in Scotland. It is important to note that when the drink-driving legislation came in, many people thought that drink-driving was acceptable, but we subsequently saw a great cultural change take place on this issue. If we read about the horrendous accidents that occur because of drink-driving, we often find that the driver was three or even four times above the existing limit. As I say, it will be interesting to see how things develop in Scotland. We will, of course, keep everything under review. I conclude my comments there.

Question put and agreed to.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

It is because people have not woken up to the consequences of this Bill yet. Unless someone has gone through the experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) has in Earls Court and seen the consequences, people do not fully understand this. The Bill is short—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The hon. Gentleman says that a number of people have not woken up to the consequences. Would that include the right hon. Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) and for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who all aspire to be Mayor of London?

[John McDonnell]

People cannot help but introduce a bit of knockabout in all of this. I have not intervened in the mayoral election yet; I have not made any comment about any candidate so far—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

No.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

What an extraordinary spectacle we have seen on the Government Front Benches! As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, a set of proposals are being brought forward on important issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has spoken at length—some might have thought that he spoke at too great a length, but that is not for me to judge.

During all that, however, those on the Government Front Bench have remained mute on an issue of great importance to Londoners and to us all. I want to know why the Government have taken that position. Has the Minister consulted with the great helmsman of infrastructure, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will not be happy that the Government are not putting forward a position on the Bill? If he wants to intervene on me, he is welcome to.

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. This is private business. A number of amendments have been tabled that, in my judgment, have very little support, even on the Labour Benches and among London Members whom the Bill affects directly. I will make the Government’s position clear when we reach Third Reading.

[Mr Marsden]

I am sure the House is extremely grateful that the Minister is not going to take a Trappist vow of silence for the whole debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am not quite sure how far it will become a major issue in the general election, but I will certainly do my best to make it a major issue in Islington North, and I will draw the attention of the people of the area to what is going on with this Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point about sequential repair of the lifts at Tufnell Park and the disruption that could be caused. I am more than happy to get in touch with TfL and find out exactly why it is planning to do this work in this way and ask whether it has looked at alternatives.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am grateful to the Minister; that is helpful because there is understandable concern locally about the stations I have mentioned and their safety. If it helps him, I am happy to write an explanatory note about it and send it to him straight away, so that he can understand my concerns and the local concerns, and we can then have a serious meeting and discussion. I thank the Minister very much for that.

Big Bike Revival

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I am today announcing funding of £1 million to support the development of the Big Bike Revival—a programme of activities on the ground, designed to unlock cycling potential by encouraging people who do not currently cycle but would actively consider it, to start or return to cycling. The programme will be delivered by CTC: the national cycling charity.

In 2013, 42% of adults in Britain had access to a bicycle, yet 63% said they had not ridden a bicycle in the past year. Despite this, 37% of adults in Britain agree that many of the short journey—less than two miles—that they currently make by car could just as easily be made by cycling. The Big Bike Revival will aim to convert the high level of cycle ownership into increased cycle usage and replace short trips by car with trips by bike.

The programme comprises a nationwide programme of events in towns and cities, delivered in conjunction with bike recycle centres to present members of the public with an opportunity to:

Fix a cycle so it can start to be used and learn how to maintain it

Trade a cycle for one better suited to individual needs and donate surplus cycles

Learn where best to cycle in their local area and discover local cycling activity

Receive cycle training to increase confidence in cycling on the road

A pilot programme was held during half-term week in October 2014. This demonstrated significant health and economic benefits, with many of those attending the events committing to cycle more frequently and a number of respondents making a change to start commuting to work by bike.

CTC’s delivery of the Big Bike Revival is scheduled to commence during mid May, with many of the events being held during the school half-term week.

[HCWS375]

Motorcycle Compulsory Basic Training Consultation

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

Research conducted in 2014 recommended a number of areas for the improvement of compulsory basic training for learner motorcyclists. I am today announcing a public consultation on proposals to strengthen the structure and delivery of the course.

The research was commissioned by the Department to gain a more detailed understanding of who is taking compulsory basic training and why; to seek the views of trainers and learner riders on the current course content and how any changes to the content or structure would affect them.

The Government recognise that motorcyclists, particularly those who are young and/or inexperienced are especially vulnerable and are disproportionately represented in the killed and seriously injured statistics. In 2013, motorcyclists accounted for 22% of all road user deaths despite representing only 1% of vehicle traffic; 19% of all reported motorcycle casualties involved young riders aged 19 and under.

Compulsory basic training has remained largely unchanged since its introduction 25 years ago. This consultation does not propose any changes to the syllabus of the course. However, as a result of the increasing numbers of new young riders who do not take a test and who feature in the casualty statistics, it is now appropriate to review the delivery of compulsory basic training, to help ensure that learner riders are better prepared to ride safely on today’s public roads.

The proposals set out in the consultation paper, which have been developed in conjunction with motorcycle stakeholders including trainers, are primarily aimed at younger riders. However, we believe that there will be benefits for all new riders as the changes proposed would also improve the training received by riders aged 24 and over.

The proposals under consideration cover three broad areas:

The structure and content of compulsory basic training courses;

The qualification process for instructors;

Standards checks for instructors.

A copy of the consultation paper has been made available in the Libraries of both Houses and can be found on the Department’s website at: https://www.gov.uk/dft#consultations.

[HCWS359]

Lake Lothing: Crossings

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this debate on the third crossing over Lake Lothing in Lowestoft. I know that the subject is of great importance to him and his constituents, including businesses within the area, and he spoke eloquently. I visited Lake Lothing and Lowestoft on 4 July as a prelude to my epic road trip along the A12/A47 that culminated at Peterborough. I know that the road is very important for a number of Members whose constituencies lie along it, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who I note is in her place.

Lowestoft is an important centre in Suffolk and the east of England. While its traditional industries, such as fishing and tourism, have declined over the years, the town has begun to develop as a key centre of the renewable energy industry in the UK. As with any key centre, having good transport links is vital for continued economic growth. With its particular geography—indeed, I believe it is the most easterly point of the British mainland—Lowestoft needs good connectivity to compete effectively. That goes for the country as a whole, and the Government certainly recognise the importance of an effective transport infrastructure to the economy and to delivering improvements targeted at supporting economic growth. That is why just before Christmas the Government announced the road investment strategy—the biggest upgrade to our motorways and key trunk roads in a generation. It is a £15 billion programme to triple annual investment by the end of the decade. It represents an enormous opportunity to transform the roads that traverse our nation and includes an unprecedented £3 billion of investment for the east of England, of which some £1.5 billion is new investment.

The key artery of the A47/A12 will see a £300 million package of improvements that includes dualling of three sections of the route and improvements to the Acle Straight and junctions around Norwich and along the A12 in and around Great Yarmouth. The aim is to address challenges and reduce congestion, delays and accidents on that key corridor. As part of the improvement package, we also plan to renumber the section of the A12 between Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft as the A47. The renaming will better reflect the route’s nature as a continuous corridor. Time scales for the next stages of work are due to be published in the Highways Agency’s delivery plan, which is expected to be published later this month.

Improving our national networks is about not just roads, but railways. They are all part of the picture of improving connectivity, of which the proposed third crossing is a vital part. The Government support the key recommendations put forward by the Great Eastern main line taskforce. The group wants to see better rail journey times to East Anglia, with the journey to Norwich reduced to 90 minutes—the “Norwich in 90” campaign. We want to see bidders for the new Greater Anglia franchise incentivised to submit plans for achieving these recommendations for services and other associated benefits along the Great Eastern main line. In addition, east-to-west rail connectivity is important. We understand that good progress is being made on the ambitious east-west rail project, which aims to link Ipswich, Norwich, Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Oxford by rail. Those are some of the fastest-growing urban centres in the country.

The local road networks in Lowestoft are vital for the local economy and for the journeys that residents make day in, day out. As Members will know, local roads are the responsibility of the local highway authority, which for Lowestoft is Suffolk county council. From 2011 to 2015, Suffolk county council received £74 million from Government for the maintenance of its local road network, with a further £18.5 million for local transport improvements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned, we have also invested in addressing known areas of local congestion through the Department’s local pinch point fund. In May 2013, Suffolk county council secured £4.6m of Department for Transport funding towards the £6.6 million cost of completing the Lowestoft northern spine road. That work is due to be completed shortly and will allow better traffic flows and a quicker route to the northern part of the A12. Members will be aware that we have made some substantial changes to how we fund local transport schemes. As part of the growth deal process, we have a more decentralised and devolved system through the local growth fund. That gives real decision-making power to local areas, allowing them to develop and prioritise key projects to best help to realise economic growth in their areas.

Transport projects play an important part in the process. The initial round of the local growth fund allocated about £6 billion to areas around the country, about £3 billion of which went to proposed new transport schemes. The local enterprise partnership for the east of England benefited, with £173 million allocated in the July growth deal announcement. A considerable amount of that allocation is for transport projects. In addition, a further £48.5 million was made available to the LEP through the second stage announced in January.

Many local transport schemes, such as the third crossing over Lake Lothing, will look for funding to further rounds of the local growth fund. However, the process is competitive and the funding is not a bottomless pit. Only the projects that produce the most compelling business case will be successful in securing funding, and they will also need to be top priorities for the LEP, as it determines which schemes are needed to deliver economic growth in the LEP area.

A third crossing at Lowestoft has been under consideration for some time now. I am aware that the Highways Agency commissioned a feasibility report into the options for a crossing at Lake Lothing a number of years ago, and I note the recent report commissioned by Suffolk county council to look at options for a new crossing. There have also been a number of public-facing events to gauge local opinion on the location and design of the options. The prospect of a third crossing appears to generate considerable local support, and I appreciate that my hon. Friend welcomes the momentum behind the project.

The Government would look to support well-evidenced local major transport schemes that are prioritised by the local enterprise partnership, would help to deliver local growth, and offer good value for money. We know that local residents are frustrated by the town’s long-standing traffic problems and want a solution, which is why, in July last year, the New Anglia local enterprise partnership secured £100,000 through the local growth fund towards development work to look at the options for a third river crossing in Lowestoft. That funding will enable the LEP to develop a more detailed technical feasibility study for the project. It is now for the LEP and its key partners to take that work forward.

As part of the next steps, I urge my hon. Friend and all the interested local partners to continue to help to take the project forward; to help to build an effective and convincing evidence base; to continue to gather strong local support; and to continue to develop that support through the LEP. We want to see local areas creating the best local infrastructure solutions for growth.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important topic, which I know has generated considerable local interest. I also thank him for highlighting the issues in Lowestoft. It is now for the LEP and local partners to take forward the assessment work and to consider the outcomes and the best way to take the proposal forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

3. What plans he has to review vehicular access rights to bus lanes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

Decisions on the use of bus lanes, including any exemptions or exceptions, are for local authorities.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am sure that the Minister will be aware that a number of local authorities still do not allow ambulances to drive in bus lanes unless they are responding to an emergency. Does he agree that if an empty taxi returning to a taxi rank can drive in a bus lane, an ambulance returning to a hospital should be able to do so?

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although an ambulance can use a bus lane when responding to an emergency, it is otherwise up to a local authority to use its discretion on that matter. Indeed, local authorities such as Labour-controlled Manchester and Sheffield do not allow ambulances in bus lanes. I have written to every local authority in the country to make that point and ask them to bear it in mind when they make their local decisions.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The Minister has talked in detail about privatising buses and bus lanes, but the process needs more than warm words from the Government; it means bus lanes with strong local management and control of funding. Why will the Government not sign up to our franchising proposals to allow communities and councils to plan a network that includes the bus lanes they need? Why, instead of real localism, have this Government presided over a failed record, with bus fares up 25% and 2,000 routes cut, and a broken bus market, which lets users down, but which Labour will fix in government?

[Mr Goodwill]

The Government have a very good record on buses. Bus companies, including the one in my constituency, have very full order books, because they are investing as never before in new buses on routes such the one north of Whitby in my constituency. We have a very good record to protect.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

4. When he expects to publish the invitation to tender for the Greater Anglia rail franchise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

8. What steps he is taking to increase levels of cycling and walking.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The Government are committed to increasing walking and cycling. We have more than doubled the funding compared with the previous Administration. We added a section to the Infrastructure Act 2015 that places a commitment on Government to produce a cycling and walking investment strategy. In addition, our funding for bike and rail has put us on track to triple the number of cycle places at rail stations.

[Stephen Timms]

I am delighted that an excellent campaign forced Ministers to concede the cycling and walking strategy in the Infrastructure Act. When are we now going to get a strategy with proper resources and targets? When will Ministers implement the powers in part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, so that councils outside London are finally able to enforce those powers against driving in cycle lanes?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am very proud of this Government’s record. Indeed, when we discussed this with officials on the Infrastructure Act they said, “But Minister, it doesn’t need to be in there. You are doing this already.” I said, “Put it in anyway to underline that fact.” I am very proud that, while we inherited £2 a head spending on cycling, we have increased that to £6 a head and in our cycling ambition cities we are already delivering £10 a head. However, I know that driving in cycle lanes is an issue of great concern to cyclists, whose safety is paramount.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I suspect the Minister will be too busy in May to attend the Isle of Wight walking festival, but if he would like to see initiatives that really work to increase the level of cycling, and indeed tourism, may I invite him to attend the Isle of Wight cycling festival in September?

[Mr Goodwill]

I must make a terrible admission: I have never visited the Isle of Wight, but I now have two very good reasons for doing so.

[Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Thanks to this Government, more than £35 million is being invested in roads in Basingstoke to reduce congestion. Will the Minister explain what he will be doing to ensure that that important investment will also benefit cyclists?

[Mr Goodwill]

We have made it absolutely clear that all our new road schemes must be cycle-proofed to ensure that we do not have a situation where a new roundabout or bypass prevents cyclists from making their journeys too.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Confidence in road safety is key to increasing rates of cycling and walking, but after decades of progress, last year saw three consecutive increases in road deaths. Answers to parliamentary questions have revealed a dramatic reduction in the number of prosecutions for dangerous drink-driving and mobile offences at the wheel. With the number of traffic officers down by 23% since 2010 and apparently two years without any at all in Devon and Cornwall, whether these things are the fault of Transport Ministers, Home Office Ministers or even the Prime Minister himself, is it not the reality that the Government have failed to protect front-line policing and keep our roads safe? Is it not right for the next Labour Government to reintroduce proper targets to cut the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads?

[Mr Goodwill]

We do have targets for the Highways Agency network, which we have control over. Other roads are the responsibility of highways agencies. When I stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box five years ago and put it to the Labour Government that we should introduce drug-driving legislation, they said it was impossible. I am proud to say that on Monday this week we gave the police the tools they need to prosecute those who put other road users in danger by drug-driving, and we now have the legislation on the statute book to do that—something that Labour said was impossible.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

I note that the Minister has not been to the Isle of Wight, but has he been to Ribble Valley, where we have some of the best cycling areas and walking routes through some of the greatest beauty that one will find in England? Does he believe, like me, that if we can encourage more youngsters, in particular, to cycle and to walk, that could help with the problem of obesity, and that perhaps we could get Government, schools and local authorities working together to encourage people to have step monitors to give them some focus so that they can become healthier human beings?

[Mr Goodwill]

I have indeed been to Ribble Valley, which is a very beautiful part of the country despite not being in Yorkshire. It is very important that we get young people on their bikes. That is why I am delighted that we have delivered 1.6 million Bikeability places, mainly to young people, and we expect a further 280,000 places between April 2015 and March 2016.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

9. What recent progress his Department has made on the feasibility study on dualling of the A69.

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

T5. Tactile indicator cones play a valuable role in making pedestrian crossings safer for all people, and especially those who are blind and partially sighted. Unfortunately in Wiltshire they cannot be sure of finding these cones at pedestrian crossings when they need them. Will the Government incentivise all local authorities to retrofit these tactile indicator cones to pedestrian crossings and open up our streets to everyone?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

Tactile cones are probably one of the best kept secrets of our transport system. If one feels underneath the box on a pelican or puffin crossing, there is a small cone which, if held, rotates when the lights turn to green. It is very helpful for people with vision problems. They were developed by the university of Nottingham and there are 10,000 out there, and I encourage local authorities to retrofit as many as possible.

[Sir Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

T6. In October last year the Prime Minister visited York and expressed publicly concern about congestion on the outer ring road, and in January a petition from business leaders in York asking for the dualling of the ring road was delivered to Downing street. What action has the Department taken since the petition arrived?

[Mr Goodwill]

I had a meeting with the chief executive of North Yorkshire county council, who works closely with City of York council, on addressing the problems on the northern ring road, and I hope that any scheme that is brought forward can also mesh in with the Hopgrove roundabout project which has already been announced. If City of York council wants to help the motorist it should think back to what it did on Lendal bridge and the atrocious way it persecuted motorists using that route.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

T8. I recognise this Government’s enormous investment in our railways, but I am keen to know when we might see some improvements to the London to Portsmouth line. It is still faster to get to Doncaster, which is twice as far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

T9. Ever since the Romans built the Fosse way and the Great North road through our town, road hauliers have been an integral part of Newark’s economy. However, those hauliers have had to compete with foreign competitors on an uneven playing field for too long. Will the Minister update us on the success of the HGV road user levy?

[Mr Goodwill]

They say that Rome was not built in a day, but I was not the foreman on that particular job. I am delighted to report to the House that, despite being told when we were in opposition that we could not introduce a lorry road user charge for foreign trucks, we have done so. We predicted that it would yield £25 million in revenue, but it is on track to yield more than £45 million in the first year, levelling the playing field for hard-working British hauliers.

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

T10. Sadly, but unsurprisingly, the Government ignored the views of the people of the north-east when they ploughed ahead with the privatisation of the east coast main line. Will they back the wishes of the people of the north-east in introducing a quality contract scheme for the operation of our bus services, so that the buses can be put into the people’s hands and taken out of the hands of profiteers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am glad that Machrihanish is on the shortlist to become the UK’s first spaceport. It is far from any centres of population, it has a 3-km runway and the facilities of an RAF base, and I believe that it is the ideal candidate. I hope that the Department for Transport will support Machrihanish’s case.

[Mr Goodwill]

We are certainly looking at all the candidates in Scotland, Wales and England, and we believe that Britain will be at the forefront of the space race to get satellites into space cheaply and to introduce space tourism.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—