Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

As the hon. Lady knows, the Government are making £2 million available to TfL for the Crossrail 2 study to take place. Any proposal to extend the underground is primarily a matter for the Mayor and TfL. To date, the Mayor has made no representations that suggest that the Bakerloo line extension is a priority for him.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Last week, a security scare closed the Dartford crossing and led to six-hour tailbacks along the M25 for local residents. Will the Minister explore ways of mitigating such problems in the future and helping the residents of Dartford, who are sick to the back teeth of problems arising from the Dartford crossing?

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right about the significant repercussions for the residents of Dartford, but he will appreciate that security is our first priority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already called for an in-depth report into the incident, the implications, and what can be done to mitigate such effects in the future.

Rising Cost of Transport

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I do acknowledge that there were rail fare rises of RPI plus 1 under the previous Labour Government, but when times got tough after the global banking crisis and financial crash, the last Government acted to protect commuters. As households struggled, we immediately changed the rules to force train companies to apply strictly the cap on train fares. That was 1% above inflation, not the up to 9.2% that we have seen this year. That rule change would have applied each and every year from then on—

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

rose—

[Maria Eagle]

If the hon. Gentleman allows me to answer the point put to me, I might consider giving way to him a little later.

Putting train companies before commuters is what this Government are doing; when times got tough, we acted to try to support commuters. In future, if we get the chance, we will restore the rule and put it into law so that passengers will always know that the cap on fare rises set by Ministers is the one they see at the ticket office.

As I have said before, I believe that the previous Labour Government should have been bolder in taking on the train companies and they should have done so sooner, but the important fact is that we acted when times got really tough. This Government are just clobbering commuters even more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Buried in the innocuous-sounding Government paper “Rail Fares and Ticketing Review” is a plan to introduce a new category of ticket—the super-peak ticket. It proposes

“a ‘high-peak’ fare priced higher than the current Anytime day fare/a season ticket priced higher than the current season ticket.”

So a commuter who is already paying thousands of pounds for their season ticket faces this year being told that their very expensive purchase is not valid on every train, even if they have no choice about when they have to get to work, and most people do not have that choice. With a captive market, train companies will be allowed to hike fares even higher than they are now on services that suffer the most overcrowding and where there is already no guarantee of a seat. Only this Government would think that the answer to overcrowding on our trains is to price all but the richest off those services. The Defence Secretary gave away this Government’s view of the railways when he was Transport Secretary—“a rich man’s toy”, he called them.

When these tickets are introduced, an even nastier shock is awaiting commuters because the Government’s paper includes modelling on how much the cost of these new super-peak tickets could rise each year. Here is what the Government chose to include in their paper as apparently the favoured option:

“some fares (in the high peak) rising by an additional 7% annually (an additional 40% over the course of five years)”.

So there it is in black and white: new super-peak tickets introduced, with their cost then rising by 7% a year and 40% in just five years. We agree with the Transport Committee, which last week in its report, “Rail 2020”, urged the Government to

“rule out forms of demand management which would lead to even higher fares for commuters on peak time trains”.

The Secretary of State should take the opportunity of today’s debate to do just that, and I hope he will. If he does not, Labour will oppose any attempt to penalise commuters with new super-peak tickets.

The Government are not only hiking the cost of travelling by train but making it harder to buy the cheapest fare by supporting the campaign for the private train companies to close ticket offices or reduce their opening hours. The Government’s paper, “Rail Fares and Ticketing Review”, says:

“Ticket offices are the most expensive way of selling tickets…Train operators will be expected to reduce their costs and this is one important option they will want to consider…it may not be possible or appropriate for ticket office opening hours to continue at current levels.”

It may well be inconveniently expensive for the train companies to have to employ staff to sell tickets to their passengers, but it is one of the best ways for many customers to ensure that they purchase the cheapest ticket, not least when we have a ticketing system so complex that it can be very confusing. Surely decisions should be made on the basis of what is least expensive for passengers, not what is least expensive for train companies.

We know that Ministers do not plan on listening because we have seen leaked e-mails from the Department for Transport showing that plans to close ticket offices are already well advanced. This is what one official said in an e-mail to the Department’s press office advising it on what it could say on ticket office closures:

“We can’t say that the Government has no plans to close ticket offices because we have an application from London Midland where the minister has already decided to approve some ticket office closures (it’s just not been announced yet…and there will be more of those in the future.”

When I first read that out last year during Transport questions, the Minister, the hon. Member for Lewes, said that the official must have been mistaken as he had not approved any ticket office closures. Yet weeks later it was announced that the Minister had indeed approved London Midland’s plans to close some ticket offices and reduce the opening hours of others, despite the company’s abysmal performance in recent months which has caused such misery for passengers. What is even more revealing in the leaked e-mail is that it shows how the Government intend to pass the blame for those closures on to the train companies. This is what the official told the press office:

“your way of slipping in there that the initiative comes from the TOCs”—

the train operating companies—

“not us is very neat.”

So that is the Government’s plan for fares and ticketing: ticket prices rising by as much as 9% every year; more expensive new super-peak tickets which mean that season ticket holders will not even be able to get on every train without paying up to 40% more than other passengers over the next five years; and new freedoms for train companies to close ticket offices, making it harder for passengers to get the best deals. What a contrast with the ideas to make fares and ticketing fairer and simpler that we have heard as a result of listening to passengers during our policy review process.

Those ideas include a clear definition of peak and off-peak, to prevent passengers from facing massive extra charges on the train because it was not clear when peak time ended, and to prevent train operators stretching their peak time to stretch their profits at the expense of passengers. Another is a legal right to the cheapest ticket, so that passengers are offered the cheapest deal available, with rights to refunds if they find that they were mis-sold a more expensive ticket.

Another idea is a more flexible way for passengers to change travel plans so that if, through no fault of their own, they just miss a train and have an advance ticket, they can take the next train without incurring a massive new fare on board. Another is a right to a discount for a rail replacement bus service, because if your train, Mr Deputy Speaker, becomes a bus, which usually results in a longer journey, it should be treated in the same way as a service that is delayed for any other reason. Finally, it is suggested that there should be a cap on annual increases in station car parking charges, because it is increasingly clear that some train companies are squeezing yet more money out of hard-pressed commuters by whacking up parking charges when we should be making it easier for people to leave their car at the station and commute, because by doing so they are helping to cut congestion and helping the environment.

[Gareth Johnson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Henry Smith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is correct in explaining the experience that his constituents are living through. These are not just statistics, but the loss of actual services. Research by the Campaign for Better Transport has found that 41% of local authorities have been forced to cut services that are socially necessary and the support that they give them. That is on top of the cuts from the previous year, when one in five local council-supported bus services were cut or cut back. A tenth of councils have had to cut more than £1 million from support for bus services.

The Government’s own watchdog, Passenger Focus, has warned that the reduction in those services will impact disproportionately on

“older people, less affluent households, those with health related issues, or households containing teenagers”.

I hope that Ministers will accept that they cannot remain in denial any longer about the impact of the cuts to bus services—cuts that could have been avoided in their entirety just by using the Department’s underspend from last year, which Ministers handed back to the Treasury. Ministers need to explain to parents why they are having to struggle with the extra costs of getting their teenagers to college. They should explain to pensioners why the Prime Minister’s election pledge to protect their bus pass did not extend to protecting their local bus services, leaving many with a bus pass but no bus on which to use it, thereby reducing their access to shops and vital services and increasing their isolation.

[Gareth Johnson]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Clearly, bus services, train services and transport systems have always had to be paid for in some way or another. Does she feel that most of the burden should fall on the passenger or on the taxpayer?

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman has missed out the profits of rail and bus companies. Perhaps those ought to be looked at as well. As he knows, all Governments have to strike a balance. This Government have to do so, as did the previous one, and that will no doubt be the case for the next one too.

Because bus services outside London were deregulated, local authorities have for far too long been unable to limit fare rises or properly plan the network of local bus services in the interests of passengers and economic growth in their area. That is why the last Labour Government changed the law to enable transport authorities to use quality contracts to move to a tendered model for bus services, thereby bringing accountability over fares.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

The option for councils to pursue quality contracts remains on the statute book, although I think that any pragmatic council would choose to try to deal with bus companies in a collaborative way before reaching for the nuclear option. Some of the problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman will be dealt with by our responses to the Competition Commission’s recommendations, which pick up some of the unsatisfactory behaviour of bus companies.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to reduce congestion caused by roadworks.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

We are consulting on plans to make it easier for local authorities to introduce roadworks permit schemes allowing them to control and co-ordinate works better. We have made regulations to allow “pioneer” lane rental schemes, and we are increasing the charges that local authorities can impose where works overrun time limits.

[Gareth Johnson]

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, as roadworks can be extremely frustrating for all motorists. Will he therefore do all he can to ensure that utility companies take a co-ordinated approach and that, wherever possible, they avoid undertaking roadworks during rush-hour periods?

[Mike Penning]

Utility companies have the powers to carry out roadworks, but it is very important that they work with local authorities and finish on time. We intend to increase the fine for not finishing on time to £5,000 a day for the first three days, and to £10,000 a day for every day thereafter. I fully understand my hon. Friend’s frustration about works being briefly started and then stopped before being resumed again a few days later. We need to address that.

Railway Stations

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Stephen McPartland]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am a Conservative MP, and I do not want to be party political, but I agree with him.

My final point is that we have high hopes of receiving money to improve the concourse under the national station improvement plan. I am not sure that Stevenage station will look as good as King’s Cross station, but we can hope.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I know that my hon. Friend strongly supports commuters in Stevenage. Does he agree that modernisation of train stations is a wonderful opportunity to improve passenger safety, particularly at night? At too many stations, such as Stone Crossing in my constituency, passengers feel intimidated when they return home late in the evening, particularly in winter when it is dark, and that puts them off using the railways.

[Stephen McPartland]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am the founder of the Knebworth and Stevenage rail user group, which I set up some years ago when I commuted to London for my previous job. Installation of the gate line at Stevenage made a massive difference to station security. First Capital Connect employs people to work with British Transport police, such as police community support officers, and contributes to some of the cost so that we have designated officers on our line. The number of incidents has shown that crime on the line has been reduced as that revenue has been secured. Often, it is people who have travelled without tickets who engage in minor crime. I agree with my hon. Friend.

We have given the Minister an easy ride so far. I have spoken about the great things being done at stations that are collectively improving passengers’ experience at stations in my constituency. However, the changes are incremental, and highlight the fact that the current system does not work. Network Rail effectively owns and manages station improvements, so in reality the money goes towards the big iconic category A projects, such as King’s Cross, when local stations also need investment. There is much more to do at my local stations, but major works are constrained by the relationship between Network Rail and the train operating companies.

Thames River Crossings

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

I am delighted to have so much available time to discuss future Thames crossings, but perhaps in deference to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall not use all of it.

Clearly, this is an extremely important issue for London, and for south Essex, north Kent and beyond, because the proposed crossings will add significantly to the nation’s infrastructure. The proposals generate a number of issues of particular pertinence to my constituents. I wish to raise those issues in the House today and to make some representations to the Minister. For many years there has been a need for additional capacity and more river crossings across the Thames, and, as with buses, two end up coming along at once.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to these additional crossings, and I am particularly supportive of the east London river crossing, a proposal being led by the Mayor of London and to which the Chancellor gave his backing in the autumn statement. However, perhaps of more relevance to my constituents are the proposals for a new crossing in the lower Thames, with the objective of alleviating congestion at Dartford. Achieving that objective has been long overdue, but the crossing proposals being examined are at present little more than lines on a map and I wish to put on the record some points that I would like the Minister and the Department to examine as they develop the options.

People in Thurrock are particularly worried about the impact that any new proposals will have on our road network. I am well aware that although the Department for Transport will be looking at the new crossing as part of the national road infrastructure, its impact will be local and will be felt by my constituents, so it is extremely important that the impact be fully considered. As the Member representing the constituency that sits on the north bank of the Dartford crossing, I have to say that this issue generates more correspondence in my postbag than any other, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) has a similar experience. My constituents have to deal daily with the consequences of congestion generated by the Dartford crossing, and by the M25 and the A13. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) in his place, and I know that he shares my frustrations with the A13 as much as anyone.

The existing Thames crossings are clearly not going to be adequate in the long term, particularly given the potential for economic growth in the locality—in east London and throughout the Thames Gateway—and given the projected increases in traffic volumes more generally. The constraints imposed by the road network in Thurrock and the volumes of traffic using the Dartford crossing are putting real economic opportunities in Thurrock at risk. Although some of the congestion generated by the Dartford crossing, which we are experiencing on a daily basis, ought to be mitigated by the proposal for a new lower Thames crossing, this rather depends on where the new crossing is sited and how it will connect with the existing road network. Given that the three options under consideration pass through Thurrock, this is an issue of very real concern and it is causing considerable disquiet among my constituents. We seek reassurance from the Minister that he will ensure not only that the new crossing will alleviate congestion at Dartford, but that it will not cause us additional problems on the road network in Thurrock.

On the case for more crossings generally, the Government have articulated the importance of appropriate transport infrastructure as a foundation for economic growth and that proposition has to be unarguable. I have no doubt that the inadequacy of current provision is holding back economic development. There are simply insufficient crossings east of Tower bridge; that is shown starkly if one looks at an aerial photograph of London. It is clear that that is holding back the capability of east London and the Thames Gateway to realise their full potential for economic growth. If we have any real ambitions for economic development to shift east, it is crucial that we put in decent road infrastructure.

Looking at current provision, one sees that the Blackwall tunnel and the Dartford crossing are at capacity and that the capacity provided by the Rotherhithe tunnel and the Woolwich ferry are inadequate to provide resilience to the road network. As a result, when either Blackwall or Dartford is closed, as happens all too frequently either because of maintenance or owing to an incident, the consequent congestion causes misery to motorists.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend knows more than most just how severe the congestion is at both Dartford and Thurrock, and she and I both welcome the fact that the Department for Transport is prioritising tackling the congestion at the Dartford-Thurrock crossing. Does she agree that Dartford and Thurrock residents have had more than their fair share of Thames crossings and that if there is to be a further bridge over the river Thames, we should look elsewhere for its location?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I do agree. That is why I am so keen to see another crossing in east London. It has always been my view that many of the journeys across the Dartford crossing take place because there is no other crossing between Blackwall and Dartford. A new crossing would alleviate some of the congestion at Dartford, because it would no longer be the only show in town for London orbital journeys. We need to look at where demand comes from. A big user category is HGV traffic from Dover and we need to look creatively at how we can divert some of that traffic away from Dartford and alleviate congestion there.

As I was saying, the congestion that is caused when one of the crossings is closed is causing misery for motorists, but more importantly it results in significant costs for businesses; they count the costs of the consequences of congestion. That is a particular concern in Thurrock, which is becoming a major logistics hub. It is interesting that this debate follows one on ports, because the growth of the port sector in Thurrock is phenomenal and hugely exciting. In addition to the new port at London Gateway, we have the port of Tilbury, which has gone through 125 years and is expanding, and the Cobelfret port at Purfleet, which has a roll-on/roll-off facility that is expanding. That is supporting a massive increase in job opportunities in the logistics sector and highlights the importance of getting Thurrock’s road network moving.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

It is a privilege to respond to this important debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) has secured. She is absolutely right that we have had many robust discussions on this in the House and when I visited Thurrock, and similar discussions on the other side of the river when I visited Dartford. As she knows, I am acutely aware of the situation in Thurrock, not least because I was a parliamentary candidate for the constituency in 2001 and a fireman in that part of the world for many years. Although I probably do not know the situation quite as well as she does, I did spend my teenage years in that part of the world and so understand the issues there. Many of the concerns raised with me when I was a parliamentary candidate have been raised with me on my more recent visits to Thurrock and Dartford, which is why we desperately need to have this debate and this review. My hon. Friend—he is my friend—the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), the shadow Minister, is sitting opposite me, and he knows that I hardly ever do party political stuff, but the previous Government did duck this issue, and they know that they did.

There is a capacity issue at the crossing. We always talk about the bridge, but going north there are two tunnels, one of which is the original. I remember going through when there was only one tunnel, that is how old I am, but going north the inner tunnel is a smaller bore, which causes problems for high-sided vehicles, and that is one reason why the Government have committed themselves to looking at another crossing, either by tunnel or by bridge.

The existing tunnels and bridge were designed for a capacity of 135,000 vehicles per day, but usage has hit 180,000, and one reason why it is not even higher—businesses tell me this, as I am sure the businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency tell her—is that some businesses shy away from using the bridge. They can work in the cost of the tolls, but not the cost of the delays. For many businesses and many people, however, there is no other option.

I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about Dover, and Dover is interesting, because it is predominantly a roll-on, roll-off port. It is not like the port of Tilbury, or like DP World’s new port—incidentally, it is about to finish the first phase of that project, and I had the privilege of being at its launch. At Dover, however, the lorries are driven on and driven off. Some are on skids, but at the end of the day the freight is on wheels, which are going to roll, and if they are going to go north from Dover there is only one way they can go.

The crossing is significant, with Thurrock to the north, and, to digress for a second, everybody talks about it being the Dartford crossing, but that is only one side. The other side, the northern side, is clearly in Thurrock, but no one talks about the Thurrock crossing very much, apart from those who live in Thurrock, and that is something I have always picked up.

The crossing is of national significance, however. It is part of our national motorway network, and, even though I fully understand that the Mayor of London’s proposals, which we support, will take on some capacity, I do not want to divert larger HGVs and through traffic off the motorways. That is what the motorways were designed for, why they are so successful and why they are the safest roads in the country—because they were designed for their current use. The issue is that they are very successful, so we are expanding them and sweating their assets.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that both sides of the motorway are being expanded, albeit without hard-shoulder running, which is what I would have liked to see. The orders were signed off long before I became a Minister, and the Audit Commission said that there was a massive overspend on the project because we were not able to use the asset as we should have—either by widening the motorway and using the hard shoulder, or by using just the hard shoulder. We did not need to do both, but we could have saved an awful lot of money and spent it more wisely elsewhere.

I am not going to be drawn into a debate about where the crossing should be, because further down the line some bright lawyer will drag me through a judicial review, stating that I have expressed a view too early on, but the business case will be significant. The infrastructure to which there is a connection, and the cost of developing it, will be hugely significant, and the effects on the environment—I am acutely aware of the green belt and the pressures on it each side of the river—will be taken into consideration.

What will also be taken into consideration is the effect on the local communities each side of the river and, particularly, on their local road network, because if we do not do so there will be no point in moving on from where we are today. The reason why we managed to secure significant investment from the Chancellor during the spending round was by, first, having a short-term look, today, at what we can do to alleviate the concerns of my hon. Friend’s constituents regarding pollution, in particular, and congestion. One of the biggest things on which MPs and colleagues throughout the country write to me is congestion, its environmental aspects and its knock-on effects on business .

[Gareth Johnson]

The Minister mentions pollution in the area around the Dartford crossing, but may I press him on noise pollution in particular? When he reviews the situation along the east Thames corridor, will he look at the surfaces on the M25 to see whether there is a way of minimising the noise pollution that emanates from those surfaces near the Dartford crossing?

[Mike Penning]

I was going to move on to other sorts of pollution, including light and noise. I give hon. Members an assurance that when the tarmac needs to be replaced, or the soft surface, as some people like to call it, it will be replaced with low-noise tarmac. That commitment was given by the previous Government and we have continued with it. It is fractionally more expensive, but it removes a huge blight. It is not silent, but it generates about 50% less noise than normal tarmac. The noise is an enormous amount lower than that on concrete surfaces, but the sad news is that concrete surfaces last much longer. They are a huge success, but the road noise from them is hugely significant.

As I was saying, if we get this right, initially by removing the barriers and then by realigning the motorway going south where there is the dog-leg at junction 1A, people will be able to cross the river with confidence, particularly going south—I will return to the problems going north later—without having to search around for change, throw money into a pot and worry about whether the machine has counted it properly. There is currently the smart facility to go through with a DART card, which I encourage people to use. If we can get rid of the barriers, it will significantly free up time for people going through, particularly as different vehicles currently have to pay different fees. There is a debate about how much time it will save. However, that will not alleviate the problem in the long term.

Interestingly, hauliers tell me that the better I make the Dartford crossing, the more they are likely to use it. People would also be likely to invest in the area. There is a significant ferry employer in Thurrock which owns a significant amount of land on the other side of the river in Dartford that it does not use because of the congestion on the bridge. I am not going to say that investment would immediately go up, but the indication that I have is that the congestion going north and south is inhibiting investment in that part of the world. We can alleviate the congestion, and if we do not alleviate the congestion locally, there is frankly no point in doing this. We can build into what we are doing with the removal of the barriers, thus freeing up more capacity.

As I said, the Chancellor has given us the money to look carefully at where a new crossing could be sited. We are rightly supporting the Mayor’s new crossing, which will be excellent news for east London. However, a lot of the traffic that we are considering, particularly the growth in HGV traffic on the M25 through Dartford and Thurrock, will not go that way. That crossing will alleviate the amount of traffic to some extent, but by nowhere near enough.

Members who were here for the previous debate know that I passionately believe that we need to grow ourselves out of the economic situation that we are in. It is right that I need to get as much traffic off the roads as possible, but there is no point in making our motorways wider and wider, managing them and getting them to flow all around the country if, in the most significant spot in the country, with HGVs unable to go anywhere else, there are barriers, toll booths and a northbound crossing that does not have anywhere near the capacity of the southbound one.

We will consider very carefully where the new crossing should go, and we will ensure that any effects on the local infrastructure, particularly junctions 30 and 31, are addressed in the early plans. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock knows, we have looked very carefully at the protracted, but in the end successful, negotiations with DP World over those junctions. I thank DP World for its investment in UK plc. Creating 36,000 jobs in that part of the world is a massively significant boost to the economy, and if we get the crossing right it will be a boost for the economy on both sides of the bridge because a lot of people living south of the river will probably come north to work.

If we can get the crossing right, it will be great for communities on both sides of the river environmentally and in terms of lifestyle, because they will be able to commute and do more things. It will be even better for UK plc, and if we can get it right I am determined to do so as early as possible. We need no more delays, and we have the money to do the early work. We will have long discussions with hon. Members about how the project is structured and how it can work, but UK plc needs a new crossing on the lower Thames and that is what it will get.

Question put and agreed to.

Sikh Turbans (Airport Searches)

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Uppal]

Perhaps I can answer that by specifically referring to this philosophical point. In a sense it is obvious for me, as a British Sikh, to speak about this issue. One has to be very careful, because one can be stereotyped. It is important, however, to come to all such issues from a philosophical point. We very rarely, in legislation or in other things we do, understand anybody else’s pain. I assure hon. Members that I understand the pain of Sikhs on this specific issue, because it is something that I have seen and experienced in my own family.

I will sum up quickly, because I feel that there is a groundswell of hon. Members who wish to speak. We, in Britain, have a rich and deep historical perspective and understanding of the Sikh contribution to British history.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I want to congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I know that he feels very strongly about the issue. Does he agree that it is key to ensure that we have a balance between the security concerns of the travelling public and treating people with respect? It seems to me, and to the Sikh community in Dartford, that we can achieve that balance through the use of modern technology, which has been mentioned, rather than simply having Sikhs manhandled in airports around the country.

[Paul Uppal]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is the balance that we are talking about. Nobody taking part in this debate, nobody to whom I have spoken in a Gurdwara and nobody I have met in my constituency wants security watered down in any way. That is the furthest thing from any right-minded person’s mind, but there has to be a balancing act. That balance is the point, not just in what we do in Britain, but in what is done across Europe. I have mentioned the fact that we have a deep history here. I wanted to raise that point because it would be remiss of me, as a British Sikh, not to remind our European partners of the unique contribution of the Sikhs—not just to British history, but globally—through what they do and their values.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I shall certainly try to fit a visit to Chippenham into my diary. As I said to the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), I believe that longer franchises with more flexibility will encourage private sector investment in the railways. Longer franchises in the past for Chiltern Railways have enabled the train operator to become involved in signalling work. However, we have to acknowledge that major infrastructure works will need to continue to attract public funding, although there is no reason to believe that rail franchising reform could not assist private sector and train operator involvement in improving signalling.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to reduce the incidence of people driving while uninsured.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I am pleased to confirm that a new offence of keeping a vehicle with no insurance is being introduced, and that supporting regulations were laid before Parliament on 11 January 2011. Enforcement of the offence is planned to commence in the spring. The scheme for continuous insurance enforcement identifies uninsured drivers by comparing the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s vehicles database with the motor insurance database.

[Gareth Johnson]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am sure that he would agree that uninsured drivers are selfish in the extreme. Can he tell the House how much money will be saved for responsible drivers as a result of the changes, and will he also confirm that the police will retain the power to seize vehicles that are uninsured?

[Norman Baker]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s welcome for the steps that the Government are taking. I can confirm that the police will continue to have the power to seize vehicles, and he may be interested to know that last year they seized 180,000 such vehicles. Around 1.4 million vehicles are uninsured, which costs responsible motorists around £30 extra in their premiums each year. We think that the measure will save about £6 for each motorist.

Rail Services (West Kent)

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Stanley]

I wholeheartedly endorse everything that my hon. Friend said. I come now to my final point, which is on penalties.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

This is about the issues that Southeastern had to contend with during the recent bad weather. Part of the problem was with communication. Many of my constituents in Dartford were informed by the website that Southeastern advertises that services were running and embarked on treacherous journeys only to find that the services were not, in fact, running. That is part and parcel of the problems that Southeastern needs to overcome.

[Sir John Stanley]

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. The communication failures by both Southeastern and Southern during that period were abysmal.

My final point is that the penalties regime is wholly unsatisfactory, because it impacts solely on lateness. One important question for the Minister on a specific issue: is she satisfied with the accuracy and independence of Southeastern’s calculation? By the most wafer-thin of wafer-thin margins—0.04%—it has managed to escape financial penalties for lateness in its latest figures.

I come to the wider issue of the gross failure of the penalties regime—this was a failure by the previous Government—which applies to lateness but fails to apply to cancellations. As I said in a letter to the Secretary of State, that produces a perverse financial incentive for train operating companies to cancel services willy-nilly to avoid lateness, but the reality on the ground is that our long-suffering constituents and rail travellers would much rather travel on a train that arrives late than stand at the station from which they want to depart, waiting for a train that has not come.

Dartford Crossing (Congestion)

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I am pleased to open the debate and to have secured a discussion on the biggest local issue facing Dartford. As the time allowed for the debate is short, I will try to cover as many points as I can and, with your leave, Mr Rosindell, I will take interventions, about which I have spoken to the Minister. Of course, I will also leave time for the Minister to respond.

Hon. Members will know that the Dartford crossing is probably the most congested part of the country’s motorway network. Tailbacks regularly stretch for miles on both the Kent and Essex sides of the crossing and cause delay and misery for motorists. The crossing is a scar on the face of Dartford. When a problem exists by the crossing, local roads in Dartford also become congested with motorists trying to find alternative routes. The crossing should open up Dartford and encourage businesses to base themselves in the area; instead, it holds it back and strangles commerce. A continuation of the status quo is not an option for the Dartford crossing.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on securing the debate, but on the passionate way he has fought for the issue with different agencies over the years. I applaud his commitment to that. He mentioned Dartford being affected by the crossing, but does he also agree that it affects constituencies around Dartford in terms of businesses, people travelling and holiday makers? It is absolutely vital for the whole of the south-east that we get this right.

[Gareth Johnson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I totally agree with him. The issue affects the whole of the Thames Gateway area—not least Gillingham and Rainham, which are particularly pertinent to him. It is essential that we tackle congestion on the Dartford crossing in order to open up the whole area and allow business to flourish across the Thames Gateway network.

I am pleased that the Minister shares my view that a continuation of the status quo is not an option for the Dartford crossing. Although we may disagree on some issues regarding the crossing, I pay tribute to his work on tackling the problem. His positive, can-do attitude to dealing with the problem has led to more progress on the issue during the six months he has been the relevant Minister than in the whole of the last 13 years. His determination to remove the toll booths, which ultimately cause the congestion, is to be welcomed. I have noticed that each time a difficulty with removing the toll booths has been presented to him, he has not simply thrown the papers away and given up on the notion of removing the booths; instead, he has sought to find a solution that tackles that problem.

I want to make it clear that the tolls on the Dartford crossing should be scrapped in their entirety. That is what was promised to the residents of Dartford by the previous Government. We were told that the tolls would be scrapped when the bridge had been paid for. That happened in 2003, yet the tolls remain. Today, I call on the Minister to scrap the tolls completely.

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He and the Minister will be well aware that I am also in favour of scrapping the tolls on the crossing. There has been a betrayal of what we were initially told about the bridge being free when it has paid for itself. However, I appreciate that we are currently in a tough financial and economic situation. Congestion is a real issue in my borough of Bexley and for my constituents of Bexleyheath and Crayford, as well for businesses and residents of other constituencies. I therefore endorse what my hon. Friend says. Does he agree that we should pursue more radical solutions with the Minister, such as removing the toll booths, and that we should also consider the more effective use of free-flow technology by promoting and developing the DART-Tag scheme further?

[Gareth Johnson]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. I am fully aware of the problems that Bexleyheath and Crayford suffer as a result of the congestion at the Dartford crossing. The No. 1 challenge is to remove the booths themselves, because they are the cause of congestion on the crossing. The tailbacks emanate from the booths and, without them, there would be a dramatic improvement in—and perhaps even the eradication of—the congestion on the Dartford crossing that causes problems in Bexleyheath, Crayford and, of course, Dartford, Thurrock and the surrounding areas.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

My understanding is that by introducing free-flow technology, of course, there would be an increase in capacity on the crossing. However, that would give only a one-off increase of approximately 20%. In recent years, the volume of traffic using the crossing has increased exponentially. Does my hon. Friend agree that ultimately we need an additional crossing somewhere else on the Thames to enable traffic to be diverted from the M25 on to another crossing?

[Gareth Johnson]

I am grateful for that intervention. In principle, I accept that there should be a further crossing over the Thames. The big issue is, of course, where that crossing should be. It is a classic case of nimbyism. I do not think anyone here would hold their hand up and ask for a further crossing to be placed in their constituency. Doing so would add further congestion and difficulties to the particular areas that we represent. Finding a location for an extra crossing over the Thames area is problematic and will be the biggest challenge of all in trying to ensure that we have greater capacity for vehicles to get across the Thames.

We have recently had an announcement that the price of the tolls should be increased. I cannot accept that extra levy on the motorist, who is feeling fairly beleaguered in this particular part of the country. At the general election, I said that unlike my predecessor I would never vote to keep the tolls on the Dartford crossing and that I would only vote to scrap them. I meant that. The Transport Act 2000 was supported by Labour MPs and opposed by Conservative MPs. That piece of legislation allowed the tolls to continue and, ironically, changed them from a toll to a form of congestion charge. I say “ironically” because the tolls actually cause the congestion on the crossing. In this case, the congestion charge itself is responsible for causing the congestion.

I welcome the Department for Transport’s confirmation that the previous Government’s announcement of the privatisation of the crossing will not take place. We have overturned the previous Labour Government’s policy of selling off the Dartford crossing. If the Labour party had won the last general election, the crossing would have been sold to a private company and we would have lost control over the levying of charges on the motorist. Perhaps that is why there are not too many Labour MPs in this Chamber championing this cause. The local resident discount scheme has financially helped some local residents who are frequent users of the crossing, but the initial outlay for the DART-Tag has put off local residents who use the crossing only occasionally.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend knows that I share his long-term desire for the removal of tolls on the Dartford crossing. However, he will also be aware of the enormous sense of unfairness felt by many people in north Kent, who do not qualify for the resident discount scheme. Does he not agree that if the tolls are to stay in the foreseeable future, the local discount scheme should be extended to neighbouring authorities, such as Medway?

[Gareth Johnson]

My hon. Friend has championed that cause for the residents of Chatham and Aylesford for a considerable time, and I pay tribute to the work that she put into the issue. I am pleased that she shares my view that, ultimately, the solution to the problem is the removal of the tolls.

I hope that there is some scope to expand the local persons discount scheme. I am pleased to note that, although the scheme has some limitations, it is likely to apply to the proposed increases in the tolls. The introduction of the scheme coincided with an increase in the toll from £1 to £1.50, which left many more motorists needing change. The highways authority has informed me that it has had to remove some of the automated toll booths to allow for that, which of course has increased the length of the queues and led to the dreadful congestion we see today. It is no advantage to a local person who receives a discount if they have to wait in a queue for three hours to get it.

Removing the booths and replacing them with modern technology to levy a charge on motorists would remove the two worst aspects of the crossing, the congestion and the pollution, but it would not remove the costs. Local businesses have told me that the congestion is the worst problem for them. They can budget for the cost of using the crossing, but they cannot budget for the unpredictable nature of the congestion.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I endorse that point on behalf of businesses in my constituency. The cost of congestion is really adding to the cost of doing business, and at a time when we want to see expansion in south Essex, that is unacceptable. We really need to grip that problem.

[Gareth Johnson]

Members will be aware that the area of Thurrock that is closest to the crossing is an industrial area, and the same is true in some parts of Dartford. We have the Crossways boulevard, which is as area of industrial strength, but it could be so much better were it not for the congestion. For the reasons to which my hon. Friend alluded and the potential benefit for businesses in Dartford, I believe that local businesses will welcome the Minister’s proposals and the removal of the booths themselves, which should lead ultimately to the removal of the congestion.

The congestion at the Dartford crossing has united Dartford against the current toll booths system. Local people despise the impact that it has had on the area, as we have had nothing but misery, congestion and pollution as a result. The local media have played their part in lobbying for the congestion to be tackled. The Dartford Times has had a “Stop the Toll” campaign, the Dartford Messenger has had the “Axe the Tax” campaign, and the News Shopper has also campaigned hard on the matter. They are all correct to do so, because I believe that the only complete solution to the enormous problem is for the tolls to be scrapped entirely.

The Minister’s proposals are a vast improvement on the current situation. They will ensure that there need be no more congestion at the Dartford crossing than anywhere else on the M25. The previous Government did absolutely nothing about the congestion at the Dartford crossing. We had 13 years of inaction. They introduced a local discount scheme, but although it lowered costs, it increased congestion. They announced a plan to sell off the whole crossing. It is yet another mess that we have inherited and that we are trying to resolve. It is a problem that has been ignored for the past 13 years, a problem with which I am pleased that we are now beginning to get to grips.

Private Car Parks

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Perhaps my hon. Friend will agree that there are wider issues here. He will be aware of the Government’s proposal to ban clamping on private land, which would make ticketing the only available recourse, and that would be a failure unless it was responsible ticketing. Consequently, the Government’s plans rely wholeheartedly on responsible companies ticketing only in appropriate cases. Otherwise, the proposal will fail.

[Henry Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I fully support the Government’s proposal to ban wheel-clamping on private land in England and Wales. That has been successful in Scotland since 1992; the ban has not created any problems there. He is right, however, to highlight the fact that such a change could shift some private parking operators from their usual suspect practices to simply using the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database, which is easy to register with, to continue issuing threatening fines. Although I fully support the proposed legislation, I feel that it might create an unintended consequence elsewhere. A complete picture would be provided by better regulation of the way all private operators issue tickets.

What is the answer to the problem? As an elected representative, I see it as my role to raise this kind of issue in this place, and I am happy to do that. However, as a politician, my instinct is not suddenly to reach for the statute book or create a new quango or agency. We have enough of them in this country—we need to trim back on quangos and agencies—and I do not think that they are necessarily the answer. I certainly do not want to place on our police officers or local authority traffic wardens the extra burden of policing private car parks as well.

I wonder whether it would be worth considering giving a power to license private car parks to the local authority—the elected local government in an area—which would, of course, be responsive through the ballot box. Local councils are used to licensing small, local outlets. Publicans are licensed by the local authority, and if they are caught consistently selling alcohol to under-age individuals, they lose their licence. Taxi drivers are another example: they are licensed by the local authority, and if they fiddle with the meter or are convicted of dangerous driving, they lose their licence to operate.

In a similar way, local councils could simply license local car park operators to operate. This could be self-funding through a small levy on the private operator, which makes considerable sums through the business. The council would be able to respond to complaints that come into the town hall, and to say, “There is clearly a problem with an operator, and the licence conditions need to be reviewed.”

At present, the only way that local authorities can have any real influence over rogue car park operators in their administrative area is through planning permission, but that works only if temporary planning permission has been granted to a site. Once a precedent has been set in planning and plans have been approved, rescinding permission is extraordinarily complex and difficult—I would argue that it is almost impossible. Local authorities really do not have many powers in their armoury that enable them to defend their residents—our constituents—from such practices.

There is another possibility. An agency that I was not aware of until recently, the Security Industry Authority, which I understand sits under the Home Office, has been—and technically still is—responsible for licensing private wheel-clampers and other security companies across the country. Obviously, if the legislation goes through—I am sure that it will—and the ban on private wheel-clamping becomes effective, part of the agency will cease to have a role. There would be a golden opportunity to slim it down, and perhaps its power in that respect could be devolved so that local authorities could have greater influence.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this may seem like a mundane issue to discuss, considering the great issues of the day, but I have been struck by the considerable angst and upset the subject has caused constituents, and often those who are most vulnerable.