HGV Driver Regulation

Gordon Henderson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regulation of HGV drivers sleeping in their vehicles.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, which is of great concern to hauliers and residents in my constituency. I will touch on three important and closely related aspects of this growing problem: first, how the regulations are enforced; secondly, the effect on my constituents of parking by heavy goods vehicles; and, thirdly, the lack of suitable off-street parking for HGVs in Kent.

One of the problems that British hauliers face is the lack of parity between the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe in the way in which the existing regulations are enforced. That disparity results in an indirect and unfair cost on British haulage companies operating in Europe, while providing an advantage to European companies operating in the United Kingdom.

It is illegal for drivers to spend their weekly rest period, otherwise known as their 45-hour rest period, in the cabin of their truck. Those who do not sleep in suitable accommodation are deemed not to have taken their rest, and fines can be levied against both the driver and the transport operator. That, however, is not being properly enforced here in the United Kingdom and, where enforcement action is taken, fines of only £300 are being issued.

Compare that with the much larger fines available to the authorities in other countries. In France, for example, lorry drivers can be fined as much as £26,000 if they are found sleeping in their cab by the side of the road. In May this year I understand that the Germans introduced a policy of fining drivers who are found taking their regular rest in the cabin of their lorry: £54 for every hour that they fall short of the necessary rest and £160 for the haulage operator.

Hauliers in my constituency are upset that EU-based operators use our lax enforcement of the 45-hour rest period to gain a commercial advantage. They do so by getting their drivers to park their HGVs in the United Kingdom over the weekend, ready to start the new working week here without having incurred overnight accommodation costs.

UK hauliers, however, if they try to gain a similar advantage by strategically parking their vehicles on European Union soil over the weekend, have to pay the additional accommodation costs required by the legislation or risk being hit with the punitive fines I referred to earlier. The effect of that discrepancy between enforcement and penalty in the United Kingdom and the arrangement in many other countries is to increase the cost to UK hauliers of doing business in Europe, while allowing foreign hauliers to operate more cheaply here.

My second point relates to the effect that that uncontrolled and illegal lorry parking has on my constituents. Stricter enforcement in other European countries ensures that roads in much of the continent are free from the great ribbons of trucks parked by the roadside that we see regularly in my constituency and in other areas close to the channel ports.

Too often, foreign HGVs park up at the weekends on residential roads, in business parks and lay-bys, and on the slip roads of trunk roads and motorways. Such parking is not only inappropriate but dangerous to other road users. Kent police officers regularly tweet pictures of those vehicles, and I am grateful for the support of Kent’s police and crime commissioner, Matthew Scott, who shares my concerns. In addition to the danger to other road users, there is a health risk to the wider public, because the areas in which the HGV drivers often park lack the most basic toilet or washing facilities.

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. This issue does not only affect Kent. Travelling up to Staffordshire, HGVs can be found littering the roads, business parks and backstreets of towns, as he described. Does he agree that we need to look at the facilities provided for HGV drivers throughout the country? I appreciate the particular concerns in Kent, but they exist in other parts of the country too.

[Gordon Henderson]

I am more than happy to agree with my hon. Friend. It is a national issue, but she is right that we have a particular problem down in Kent, because we are the gateway to the country, so suffer far worse than anyone else. With regard to the facilities, I will come on to that, so I hope she will bear with me.

As I was saying, there are no washing facilities for drivers to use, and sites are often left littered, creating an expensive clean-up operation for the local authority. Even where parking restrictions apply, taking action is not always simple. When fines are imposed, they are often ignored by foreign drivers who simply do not pay them. In addition, where suitable parking facilities do exist—they are few and far between—the police simply do not have the resources to escort the lorries to those designated areas.

That brings me on nicely to my third concern, which is the lack of suitable off-street lorry parking and of the suitable facilities for drivers that my hon. Friend mentioned.

[Jim Shannon]

(Strangford) (DUP): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Many issues are of concern, and he has outlined them well. Others include not only the noise, the smell of exhaust fumes and how those fumes affect local housing, but the lorry drivers being on their own. I have a very good friend with a haulage business. He told me about a person who jumped out of his lorry, where he had been sleeping, but had forgotten to put the handbrake on, and he was crushed. There was no one else about. The safety of the lorry drivers has to be an issue, so any regulation in the system would be for the benefit of the drivers as well.

[Gordon Henderson]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. Part of what I am saying is for the benefit not only of hauliers but of drivers, who deserve and should be given decent working conditions, including decent accommodation when they have their 45-hour rest.

On off-street parking, in November 2015, the then Chancellor announced a £250 million fund to provide a large lorry park alongside the M20 in Kent. Two years on, we have yet to see a single piece of tarmac laid. I would be grateful if the Minister told me what discussions he has had with Kent County Council and what progress is being made to deliver that project.

One lorry park, however, no matter how large, is not the answer. That is why I very much hope that consideration is given to providing more localised solutions, such as the proposed lorry park near the Sheppey crossing in my constituency—a scheme I fully support. Such a lorry park, just off the A249—which, incidentally, is one of the busiest trunk roads in the south-east of England—would provide proper parking for the increasing number of HGVs that service the businesses in the area, which include two major regional retail distribution centres, a number of recycling plants, the largest paper mill in the UK, the thriving deep-water port at Sheerness and Eurolink, which is one of the largest industrial sites in southern England.

In summary, we should take a lead from our European neighbours and clamp down on the inappropriate parking of HGVs by properly enforcing the law on sleeping in cabs.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour on securing this debate and on making the case so strongly that the problem of lorry parking needs urgently to be addressed, across the country but especially in our area of Kent, for the sake of residents and lorry drivers. We must ensure that the parking of lorries in the right place is effectively enforced, and that has to go hand in hand with ensuring that there are places for lorries to park, such as the Operation Stack lorry park and further lorry parks on the route, which he mentioned.

[Gordon Henderson]

I fully agree. My hon. Friend mentioned enforcement; there should be an increase in fines for those who break the law and the police should be given more resources to assist the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency in issuing those fines. We should move quickly to provide the lorry parks needed in Kent and look seriously at local solutions, similar to the one on the A249 to which I referred. One way of achieving that would be to encourage local authorities to work with the private sector, which might feel more inclined to invest in a better lorry park network following a change in the enforcement regime.

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

I am from Aberdeenshire, where we have a £750 million bypass that goes round Aberdeen. I will ask Transport Scotland what they are doing about lorry parks, but does my hon. Friend think it would be better if lorry parks were charged for and had decent facilities?

[Gordon Henderson]

Existing lorry parks are chargeable, and I think that any future lorry parks will be chargeable. However, there is no point having a charge for a lorry park if there is no lorry park in the first instance. We are saying in Kent that we need more lorry parks, and I am sure that it is the same in Aberdeenshire.

The measures that I have outlined would have a number of long-term benefits, including eradicating the financial disadvantage for UK-based hauliers; removing parked HGVs from our residential streets and commercial areas; improving safety on our roads, particularly motorways and trunk roads; reducing the health hazard caused by HGV drivers dumping human waste and unsightly litter; and, last but not least, bringing long overdue relief to my constituents and those of other right hon. and hon. Members.

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this debate on the important topic of the regulation of HGV drivers who sleep in their vehicles.

I am well aware of the scale of the challenges posed by the volume of lorry traffic in certain parts of the country, particularly Kent. We all know that road freight is a critical factor in the success of our economy, accounting for more than three quarters of all goods moved around the country. It is not just a direct enabler of economic activity but an important employer. Drivers alone—this does not speak to the rest of the haulage industry or the supply chain behind it—number something like 300,000 in this country. It is an important part of the UK economy. Alongside the industry, we as a Government must acknowledge the effects and the importance of that economic activity, and the way in which the industry interacts with other road users, communities and the general public, who have a stake in policy outcomes.

I shall address this topic in two ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey highlighted both the specific issue of drivers taking rests in their vehicles, particularly in inappropriate locations such as lay-bys, and the wider but closely related question of the inappropriate parking of HGVs. I acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who secured a previous debate about fly-parking, the negative effects of which are inevitably worsened by drivers sleeping in their cabs, because of the length of time involved.

We recognise that, in many cases, it is a perfectly acceptable option for a driver to spend a night in his or her vehicle. It is understandable that many drivers would prefer to spend a night in a sleeper cab—I discovered when I visited Keltruck in my constituency the other day that that can be a familiar and even comfortable place—rather than a cheap motel, a house in multiple occupation or other interim accommodation. However, although an overnight rest in the cab is a legitimate and established industry practice, we must draw the line somewhere. We are clear that it is not acceptable for a driver to take his or her full weekly rest—at least 45 hours—in the vehicle. Drivers should not spend an indefinite period driving and resting at their place of work—their lorry.

Hon. Members will be aware of the difficulty that the haulage industry is having recruiting new and, especially, young drivers. The Department is actively supporting it with that issue. Such practices do not support the industry’s efforts to convince young people that commercial driving is a good-quality job, a well-paid occupation worthy of their commitment and a good career choice.

Although HGVs parking in inappropriate locations, such as lay-bys, is always likely to be problematic in some respects—I will come to that question shortly—it is particularly troubling when they do so for 45 hours or more. That amounts to a driver effectively living by the roadside, for the most part without even basic toilet facilities, for several days. That practice has obvious environmental impacts on local residents and other road users, and it places financial burdens on local authorities, which literally have to clean up the mess. I know that there have been such problems in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and in lay-bys on the A249, not just because he said so, but because the Department has tracked those issues for some time.

The prohibition of that form of cab sleeping is also an important road safety measure. Mandatory weekly rest periods of 45 hours are a fundamental provision of the drivers’ hours rules, which guard against driver fatigue and seek to protect road safety. I am pleased to say that the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency already has well-advanced plans to step up its enforcement activities to address that issue. From the first of next month, drivers caught taking their full weekly rest in their vehicles may be issued with a financial penalty of £300. Where appropriate, they may also be required to restart their weekly rest period, which we believe should be a significant deterrent to operators that are involved in such behaviour, since it will put contract delivery at risk, with potentially significant financial implications.

Enforcement officers will act proportionately. This is not about waking up drivers in the middle of the night where they are parked in proper facilities in a law-abiding way; it is about deterring problematic behaviour, particularly in certain areas. We will require the DVSA to join up with local police forces, including in Kent, as illegal cab sleeping often goes hand in hand with illegal parking. We recognise that employers, many of which are based overseas, as my hon. Friend highlighted, often encourage or condone their drivers sleeping by the roadside, so it is important that the DVSA also links up with its counterparts abroad to hold culpable operators to account. The DVSA’s current risk-based system for assessing operators needs to be extended.

[Gordon Henderson]

I accept everything that the Minister has said, but does he recognise that a £300 penalty is not as much of a deterrent as the £26,000 penalty in France? That leaves British hauliers who have to operate overseas at a disadvantage.

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The genius of the debate is not merely that he has anticipated work already under way but that he has anticipated the next phase of work. I am aware, and the Department is aware, that commercial vehicle offences incur higher financial penalties in some neighbouring countries, as he said. We are looking hard at increasing those penalties, potentially up to £3,000 for the most serious offences from a road safety perspective such as the manipulation of tachographs. I hope he will agree that that goes some considerable distance towards meeting some of the issues he has raised, particularly in cases where there are multiple offences across a fleet, and in conjunction with the delay I have already mentioned to a potential contract through restarting the rest period.

I come to the broader question of inappropriate parking, which is inextricably linked to this debate. We recognise that even when spending the odd night parked is fine from the driver’s perspective, if it is done in the wrong location it can still be problematic for the local area. A number of colleagues will have heard my predecessor in this portfolio, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), debate and discuss the issue of fly-parking by HGVs in Kent. I take this opportunity to reassure hon. Members that that issue, which has been highlighted today, remains firmly in our sights.

Since my right hon. Friend spoke on the matter, a number of measures have been taken forward. I am pleased to note that at the end of this month, Kent Council, with the Department’s support, will launch an innovative new enforcement approach on a trial basis by implementing an overnight parking ban on a stretch of the A20. As part of the trial, it will pilot a policy of clamping first time—immobilising vehicles immediately, instead of waiting until multiple offences are committed. I will watch the outcomes of these measures in Kent carefully—it is an important trial—with a view to sharing and promoting successes that may come out of that.

[Gordon Henderson]

While I welcome the trial, the Minister will recognise that clamping down on lorries on the A20 will just move them to the A2 and A249, which will probably exacerbate the problem in our area.

[Jesse Norman]

I recognise the point. The question really is not just whether the trial has that effect—that would be an important outcome—but whether, even adjusting for that, it has deterrent effects. Obviously, as successful as such measures may appear in a trial, they will work only if they can be rolled out across a locality. It will be a wider general enforcement power that will create the genuine incentive to change. Of course, there must be alternatives available in a way that assists the process, and I will come on to that shortly.

So far, I have mainly talked about enforcement-based responses to the problem. Much of this antisocial behaviour is in fact illegal and enforcement is therefore an appropriate and logical response. It is often the case that less responsible hauliers—many of them are based overseas, as my hon. Friend mentioned—encourage their drivers to park up by the side of the road instead of paying for them to use proper facilities. However, we must also recognise that such matters cannot be separated from the wider issue of the shortage of lorry facilities more generally. That point was rightly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling).

My predecessor directed a new survey to be undertaken to understand the scale of the issue. My Department will publish the results shortly, but I inform hon. Members that the situation appears to have become—as many knew or suspected—more acute since the last such survey was undertaken in 2011. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members who represent Kent that that county has again been identified as a hotspot for inappropriate parking, and that proper lorry parking facilities in that county are already largely at capacity. That is also the case in several other parts of the country. It is therefore clear that, in certain areas, enhanced enforcement must go hand in hand with more, and better quality, formal parking sites.

The information collected by the new survey will help local authorities to understand better the parking needs in their areas and, we hope, to make planning decisions accordingly. I know that Kent County Council is already investigating where additional provision is most needed in the county, and Highways England is working closely with it. I am also examining how the Government can best assist local authorities in encouraging additional provision of lorry parking more generally. I will inform the House of my intentions in that area in due course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey rightly raised Operation Stack, which is an important part of the Government’s planning. As he will be aware, the matter is currently the subject of a judicial review, which has slowed down the process and forced us to consider the interaction between the Stack elements and the wider issue of fly-parking more generally. We wish to resolve the whole thing on both sides in a satisfactory way, and we will make—and in due course announce to the House—plans for contingency arrangements to accommodate that. It is important that he realise that we also understand, as a separate matter, the importance of providing separate facilities irrespective of what transpires with Stack; I want to give him comfort in that regard.

We are undertaking essential contingency planning to cope with all eventualities, but we also need to recognise the issue more widely, in Kent and nationally. I thank my hon. Friend for this highly constructive debate, and I thank hon. Friends and colleagues across the House for their valuable contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Sheppey Crossing: Safety

Gordon Henderson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered safety measures on the Sheppey Crossing.

I thought that the hon. Members leaving were here for my debate, but no doubt very few people have heard of the Sheppey crossing or know where it is.

Highways England has always maintained that the Sheppey crossing is safe and that there is nothing wrong with its design, but that view is simply not backed up by the facts. During the bridge’s design and build phase, Mott MacDonald undertook a road safety audit on behalf of what was then the Highways Agency. Stage 2 of the audit highlighted a number of deficiencies. For instance, paragraph 3.1 pointed out that the gradient of the bridge is 6% greater than that recommended for all- purpose dual carriageways. It went on to say that,

“This gradient, combined with the comparatively tight horizontal radius, and reduced stopping sight distances, may result, for example, in a higher than expected rate of nose to tail type collisions.”

Mott MacDonald recommended that the horizontal and vertical geometry be reviewed and that the stopping distance be maximised wherever possible. It also recommended that

“super elevation appropriate for the horizontal alignment”

be provided. That recommendation was rejected. An exception was made for the following reasons:

“The horizontal and vertical geometry has been reviewed however there is little opportunity to increase the stopping sight distance without significant amendments to the bridge. To maximise the stopping distance the alignment or bridge width would have to be changed.”

Here is the important bit:

“Changes of this nature would require additional land within the environmentally sensitive marshes and substantially increase the cost of construction.”

Despite the acknowledgement that the stopping sight distances should have been greater, it was decided that the recommendations of the audit would be ignored on the grounds of cost.

In paragraph 3.24, Mott MacDonald highlighted the inadequacies of the manual flat type signs used to warn motorists of hazards. The audit pointed out that those signs would

“present avoidable road safety hazards to both operatives and the travelling public.”

Mott MacDonald recommended that the flat type signs be replaced by remotely controlled signs using rotating planks/prisms or fibre optics—in effect, a matrix warning system. That recommendation was also rejected on the following grounds:

“Consultations have taken place with Kent County Council and the police and it has been agreed that flap type warning signs will be used to advise of high winds.”

I am not sure whether Kent County Council was happy with the flat type signs, but I know that the police were not. That was explained to me in an email I received from Dick Denyer, who was the Kent police traffic officer for the Swale area during the period in which the Sheppey crossing was built. He insists that throughout the consultation process he raised a number of concerns about the bridge’s design with the Highways Agency and the contractors. In his email, he wrote the following:

“Right up until the 11th hour prior to the opening of the bridge I asked and campaigned for the following:...Low level fluorescent lights positioned along the inside of the concrete parapet so as not to contravene the RSPB objections.”

They were never provided. There are no lights on the Sheppey crossing. He asked for

“A safe walkway for stranded motorists to get off the bridge.”

There is no safe walkway on the bridge. Motorists have to sit in their car. He also asked for

“Emergency Telephones to be positioned at regular intervals on the bridge.”

There are no emergency telephones on the Sheppey crossing. He campaigned for

“Matrix warning signs on the approach to the bridge from either side to warn of fog and set speed limits suited to the conditions.”

There are two matrix warning signs, but they are manual ones. He said that there should be

“Gates at either side of the bridge.”

There are no gates on the bridge in case of emergencies.

Mr Denyer went on to claim that he was stalled, ignored and fed misinformation, and that it was only in the month leading up to the opening of the bridge that it was admitted to him in meetings with the contractors and the Highways Agency that his requests were valid and that the bridge had serious safety shortcomings. However, the bridge construction was already considerably over budget, and there was no money left to make any of the alterations that Mr Denyer had requested, but he was told that they might be considered in the future.

Mott MacDonald’s audit statement, which I cited earlier, is very important. It said that the gradient of the bridge,

“combined with the comparatively tight horizontal radius, and reduced stopping sight distances, may result, for example, in a higher than expected rate of nose to tail type collisions.”

On 5 September 2013, there was a massive pile-up on the Sheppey crossing involving 150 vehicles in a succession of nose-to-tail collisions—the largest such accident in Britain’s history. After that crash, I asked that a review be undertaken of safety on the bridge. The Highways Agency said in response that no review was necessary because the police had concluded that driver behaviour was the main contributory factor to the incident, and that they had not called into question any aspect of the bridge’s design or operation. It went on to claim that that supported the view that the bridge, which opened in July 2006, was constructed in accordance with national highway design standards for roads and bridges and was intrinsically safe.

The most charitable way of describing that statement is that it is disingenuous. When I queried it, the police told me in a letter that,

“The parameters of the investigation did not cross over into the design or layout of the Sheppey Bridge in any way, but were focussed on the actions of the drivers involved.”

In other words, there was no need for them to look at the design of the bridge, so it was disingenuous of the Highways Agency to say that the police said that the bridge was intrinsically safe. That is not the case.

In fact, since the bridge opened, there have been a number of other nose-to-tail accidents, including one on 1 July 2014, in which a mother and son were tragically killed. After that accident, I again asked for a review of safety on the crossing, but on that occasion I was told that we would have to wait until after the inquest into the two deaths. I accepted that; it was reasonable.

At the inquest, which has now been held, the coroner made the following telling comments in a report sent to the chief executive of Highways England:

“During the course of the investigation my inquiries revealed matters giving rise to concern. In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken.

Accident data reveals that in addition to the collision subject of this inquest which resulted in two fatalities, there have been a number of rear end collisions on the Sheppey Bridge associated with stationary vehicles being struck, including a multiple vehicle collision in September 2013.

A review of the safety of the Sheppey Bridge published in February 2015 has concluded that a combination of the geometry of the bridge affecting the forward visibility to drivers and the high speeds of vehicles travelling over the bridge, which has a 70 mph limit, impacts on the safety of the bridge. The review recommended a reduction in the speed limit to 50 mph to mitigate the safety concerns.

The speed limit for the bridge remains at 70 mph.”

The coroner went on to say:

“In my opinion urgent action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe your organisation has the power to take such action.”

The action that Highways England took was to introduce a temporary 50 mph speed limit. That was eight months ago. The problem is that few drivers comply with the speed limit and, because of the absence of repeater speed signs on the bridge, it is not possible for the police to enforce it on the Sheppey crossing itself, which somewhat defeats the object of a temporary speed limit. I understand that Highways England has commissioned Arup to undertake a review of safety on the Sheppey crossing. I asked for such a report almost three years ago, so although I am pleased that something is now being done, it prompts the question of why a report was not commissioned when I first requested it.

In November 2014, following the two tragic deaths, I made a speech here in Westminster Hall, in which I pointed out that as a result of the 2013 pile-up, as a bare minimum, there should be proper matrix warning signs on the bridge. I also said that even more measures were needed, including average speed cameras to enforce the 70 mph speed limit; CCTV monitoring of the bridge to spot breakdowns sooner and to enable the police to close the bridge more quickly; and the installation of emergency telephones and refuge bays, so that people do not have to stay in their cars if they break down.

It is now 2016 and no safety measures have been introduced, except for an unenforceable 50 mph speed limit. That is unacceptable. I plead with the Minister to encourage Highways England to treat the matter with the urgency that my constituents deserve. If action is not taken quickly and there is another major pile-up or, God forbid, another tragic death, then Highways England will have blood on its collective hands.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing the debate. It is probably most appropriate to start by saying that I am grateful that it gives me the opportunity to express my sincere condolences to the families of the two people killed on 1 July 2014 on the Sheppey crossing. I also wish for a full recovery for all those injured in the multi-vehicle accident in fog in September 2013.

My hon. Friend has articulated clearly his constituents’ problems with the crossing. He also talked about how local people raised the issues during the planning and construction phase, including those with significant knowledge of the area from an emergency services perspective. I am sure that he is frustrated that the situation is where it is, but we cannot rewrite the past; we have to work to improve the future.

My hon. Friend met my predecessor to seek assurances on the safety of the Sheppey crossing, and I confirm that the Government take road safety very seriously. The target set for Highways England is to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on our road network to no more than 1,393 in a year by the end of 2020. That would be a 40% reduction on the 2005 to 2009 average baseline. As we all know, however, that is still too many people, and we will continue to put road safety at the heart of our decisions as we review the strategic road network.

I am most aware and have always been conscious that behind every statistic is a shattered family. That is why I am pleased that we were able to produce our road safety statement for this Parliament in December of last year, articulating a number of actions that we can take across the spectrum of road-safety issues to improve the situation.

To turn directly to the matter of the A249 Sheppey crossing, perhaps it would be helpful to go over some of its recent history. A road safety audit was undertaken after the road had been open for a year, and it concluded that the accident frequency was lower than the predicted national average. I acknowledge that Kent police have expressed concerns since the opening of the crossing and, in particular, have sought a permanent 50 mph speed limit. Following the multi-vehicle collision in September 2013, however, the Kent police’s conclusion was that drivers had not adjusted their driving to take account of the fog. That happens all too frequently and is a constant source of concern for the network.

Following the tragic fatal accident on 1 July 2014, which sadly resulted in two deaths, as my hon. Friend said, an investigation was carried out by the consortium that operates the Sheppey crossing, in addition to the police investigation. A further study by the consortium reported its findings in February 2015, with the conclusion that no evidence was available to support the premise that inappropriate speed was a contributory factor to the fatal collision or any of the other collisions covered in the report, with the exception of the multiple collision in fog.

The report also concluded that the accident rate at the crossing was no higher than for other similar dual carriageways operated by Highways England.

[Gordon Henderson]

For the Sheppey crossing, I accept that the rate of collisions is lower than the national average, but does the Minister accept that the rate on the accident severity index is higher than the national average?

[Andrew Jones]

My hon. Friend rightly makes an important point. The worst multiple-vehicle collision on record in our country’s history and an accident with two fatalities indicate the severity of the issues in the area.

The report identified a degree of non-compliance with the legal speed limit about one mile south of the collision. On 11 June last year, at a pre-inquest meeting, the coroner asked for urgent action to be taken by Highways England under regulation 28 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013. Highways England responded and commissioned a road safety study. The initial study, published on 27 July last year, recommended that a temporary 50 mph speed limit should be imposed on the bridge and that it should be monitored. If the monitoring indicated that the speed limit was still being substantially exceeded, the use of average speed enforcement systems and other mitigation should be considered.

The 50 mph speed limit has since been imposed, and Highways England is monitoring the effects of the speed limit with average speed cameras that could be used to enforce the speed limit, but at the moment are not used for such enforcement—they are used for measurement, rather than for enforcement.

[Gordon Henderson]

With regard to the speed limit and the monitoring of it, the Minister might not be aware from his briefing that the speeds for July and August were monitored. The average speed on the Sheppey crossing—bearing in mind that it is meant to have a 70 mph speed limit anyway—dropped from 80.55 mph to 75.38 mph northbound and from 78.15 mph to 72.71 mph southbound. So even while the 50 mph speed limit has been in place, the average speed has still been higher than the permanent 70 mph speed limit.

[Andrew Jones]

I was aware of those data and my hon. Friend is correct that speeds are still very high in the area. When I read those data, I was struck by how far above the temporary speed limit the speeds were. He makes a fair point about speed on the crossing.

The average speed cameras will provide Highways England with better information on traffic flows and speed on the Sheppey crossing as they cover a more focused area than the normal journey monitoring system on the A249. With the benefit of such speed and flow data, Highways England and Kent Police will hold discussions about whether the cameras should be used to enforce the speed limit.

I recognise that this is not just a matter of safety: incidents on the crossing have a significant impact on the Isle of Sheppey, both from an economic perspective and on its residents’ quality of life. My hon. Friend has made that point in discussions with me on several occasions prior to the debate.

[Gordon Henderson]

On the question of enforcement, even with average speed cameras the police cannot enforce the limit unless signs are in place. That is clear in D3.7.19—that is the reference that Highways England uses—which says:

“The police can only enforce speed limits where the speed limit signs are correctly placed”,

and we cannot get those signs on the bridge. Unless there are proper average speed cameras and speed camera signs, which are not in place, the limit cannot be enforced.

Dartford Crossing: Congestion

Gordon Henderson Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I pay tribute to his campaigning on behalf of his constituents on transport links in Basildon and Thurrock. As I understand it, the Mayor of London continues to assess the alternatives to the Blackwall tunnel, and that work is ongoing.

With the Dartford crossing, I argue that options D, E and F have been assessed previously and have been properly looked at. We are left with options A and C. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr Holloway) is a vociferous opponent of any crossing east of Gravesend. I disagree with that stance; I believe that there needs to be that alternative for the motorist, but we need a decision. We need something to be built as soon as possible, because the current situation is completely untenable.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

Would my hon. Friend accept that any crossing east of the Dartford crossing would have to take account of the existing problems on the M2 and the A2?

[Gareth Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I would add the M20. It has been years—I cannot remember it happening in my lifetime—since we have seen any major improvements on the M20, A20, M2 or A2. It is high time that we had some road improvements in the county of Kent. We have increasing levels of traffic coming from the port at Dover through to the east of England and round to ports such as Harwich. Kent is being used as a thoroughfare. There are too many pinch points and too many roads that simply cannot cope with the amount of traffic that we have. A garden city is being built in my constituency. We have population growth throughout the county, which in many ways is welcome, but we must have the infrastructure to match that, and a crucial part of that infrastructure is investment in our road network, because the local roads simply cannot cope with the demands of the levels of traffic.

On whether there should be a crossing at Gravesham or Dartford, my argument is that another crossing at Dartford would give us years of roadworks. As a consequence, we would have more traffic squeezed into what is already a pinch point. It would be nothing short of a disaster for the town.

Roads in Sittingbourne and Sheppey

Gordon Henderson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

May I say how delightful it is to see you in the Chair, Mr Chope? I believe that this is the first time that you have chaired a sitting that I have attended in the four and half years that I have been a Member of Parliament, so it is a delight.

This is the third time in two years that I have raised the issue of roads in my constituency. I make no apologies for that, because improving the road infrastructure in Sittingbourne and Sheppey is key to not only the future prosperity of my constituents, but the safety of many motorists.

As I mentioned in those previous speeches, the growth potential in Sittingbourne and Sheppey is enormous. With that growth will come jobs and prosperity. For instance, within the next 10 years, the Eurolink industrial estate in Sittingbourne could well grow to become the largest industrial park in southern England. The Kent science park, which is at the forefront of biotech and life sciences, is thriving and is keen to expand. Several large companies are based at Ridham in north Sittingbourne, including the Morrisons regional distribution centre and the largest paper mill in the country. A new logistics hub was also opened earlier this year by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill). A couple of weeks ago on Sheppey, Peel Ports unveiled its 20-year plan for Sheerness docks that will see a major expansion of activities. In addition, a planning application has now been submitted for the first stage in the regeneration of Sittingbourne town centre, to begin, I hope, early next year, and a new retail park is being developed at Neats Court in Queenborough.

Those are all positive indicators of a better future for my constituency, but their success will rely on several road improvements, including on the A249, one of the busiest A roads in the south-east, which is getting busier because of the large number of houses being built in my constituency. The A249 has several problem areas that I have mentioned in previous speeches, and I want to return quickly to five of them, the first of which is the Stockbury roundabout, which is located at junction 5 of the M2.

My right hon. Friend the Minister is aware of this problem, because he kindly arranged for his officials to visit my constituency recently to discuss the junction with me. Everybody recognises that we need major investment to provide a long-term solution to the daily congestion at the roundabout. Indeed, I would not be exaggerating if I said that solving that problem is the main key to unlocking the door for more commercial development in the area. With that in mind, I recently wrote to the Chancellor and urged him to consider improvements to the Stockbury roundabout when he is drawing up his next priority roads list. I would welcome any support that the Minister could give to ensure my request receives a sympathetic hearing.

Something also needs to be done about the increasingly busy Grovehurst roundabout, which services the regional distribution centre and the paper mill that I mentioned earlier. One solution would be to upgrade the current quite inadequate road that links Ridham to the A249 at the south side of the Sheppey crossing, which is another problem that I will address later.

The next pinch point is the Cowstead Corner roundabout on Sheppey, which is at the junction of the A249 and the A2500. The congestion is caused by traffic lights at the junction between the A2500 and Barton Hill road. Traffic often tails back on to the main A249 dual carriageway, which is an increasing danger to road safety in the area. The Barton Hill road junction is the responsibility of Kent highways authority, with which I am in constant communication, so I appreciate that it is not directly in the Minister’s purview. However, because of the safety implications for traffic on the A249, which is the responsibility of his Department, will he consider putting pressure on the highways authority to take urgent action to upgrade the Barton Hill road traffic lights in an effort to bring an end to the daily nightmare experienced by my constituents who use the A2500? Here, I should declare an interest: I am one of those frustrated motorists.

The fourth problem on the A249 is that the dual-carriageway section ends at the Queenborough road traffic lights, becoming a single carriageway along Brielle way. That is the route into Sheerness docks. I want to see the dualling extended about half a mile further down Brielle way and straight into the docks. I appreciate that we are unlikely to see such a development any time soon, but if the docks expand in the next 20 years, as promised by Peel Ports, the improvements are vital. I will continue to hammer down the stake that I first put in the ground in the Chamber two years ago.

Finally, I will talk about the Sheppey crossing, which is where the real danger to the safety of motorists kicks in. When the crossing was first built, concerns were expressed about its safety, not least by the then chief constable of Kent, Mike Fuller, and by me. It was pointed out that there is no hard shoulder on the bridge, no lighting, no emergency telephones, no permanent matrix signs and no closed circuit television cameras. In response, we were assured that the design of the bridge was perfectly safe.

In September last year, a multiple pile-up on the Sheppey crossing involved 150 vehicles, making it the largest pile-up in this country’s history. I visited the crash scene and it was like a war zone, with a number of seriously injured people, but miraculously and thankfully no one was killed. I asked for a review of safety on the bridge, but eventually the Highways Agency concluded that the design of the bridge was not a factor. That conclusion was based on a police report suggesting that the cause of the series of accidents was inappropriate driving in the prevailing conditions. The report, however, made it clear that the police had investigated only the individual crashes contributing to the total pile-up, but not whether the design of the bridge was a factor.

A few months ago a mother and her son, tragically, were killed when their car broke down on the Sheppey crossing. The police investigation into the accident is ongoing, so I will not say too much about the circumstances. Again, I called for a review of safety on the bridge, but the response of the Highways Agency is that it cannot comment on the accident, nor undertake a review of safety, until it receives from the police the report into the most recent tragedy. I appreciate that the Highways Agency cannot prejudge the causes of the accident, or say or do anything to prejudice any court case that might arise from it, but I do not understand why a review of safety cannot be undertaken as a result of last year’s series of crashes.

I am increasingly concerned about the length of time that the police investigation is taking and I am worried about what might happen while the Highways Agency waits for the report. That worry was brought into sharp relief by an e-mail that I received only on Friday from Eileen Nicol, who lives on Sheppey:

“I have had one of the most frightening experiences of my life this morning when the clutch on my car seized and I was stuck at the top of the bridge around 7.15 am on my way off the Island”—

it would have been dark at the time—

“I waited around 15/20 minutes before the police came to close the road before experiencing cars coming up behind me at great speed and I can tell you I was terrified that something would hit me.

Why is nothing being done to make this bridge safe? The police told me they think it is so dangerous if someone’s electrics go and they are in the dark. They would stand no chance. I felt so vulnerable and could only sit there whilst cars tore past me at great speed. Some came up so fast making decisions to move into the fast lane at the last moment.

Something must be done before there is another death. I would like to know if there are now plans to improve safety and can you please make this your priority as our MP.”

Eileen Nicol is right. Something must be done, and it must be done soon. My constituents and I have waited for more than a year for the Highways Agency to undertake a review of safety on the bridge. After the September 2013 pile-up, as a bare minimum I called for proper matrix warning signs on the bridge. I still think that we need those signs, but I am absolutely convinced that we now need to consider even more measures, such as using average-speed cameras to enforce the 70 mph speed limit, better CCTV monitoring of the bridge to spot breakdowns sooner and to enable the police to close the bridge quicker and the installation of emergency telephones and refuge bays, so that people do not have to stay in their cars if they break down.

Through you, Mr Chope, I would like to make the following plea to my right hon. Friend the Minister. My constituents and I have been very patient with the Highways Agency, but that patience is wearing thin. Please will he put pressure on the agency to undertake a safety review of the Sheppey crossing and to do so without any further delay?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in the Westminster Hall Chamber, Mr Chope, and to respond to the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson). Can there be a more diligent representative of his constituents’ interests than my hon. Friend? He has illustrated his concern, diligence and eloquence again today. I congratulate him on securing the debate and on all those virtues. The subject is of great importance to him, and he has emphasised that it was not the first time he had drawn it to the attention of the House.

My hon. Friend highlighted the issue of congestion on the major roads in his area, and he needs to know that I acknowledge that concern and recognise its consequences. It is vital for us all to understand the connection between good transport links and economic success. We have announced increased levels of funding to deliver improvements all around the trunk road network, targeted at supporting economic growth. Our commitment to deliver a step change in future investment in transport infrastructure was made clear by the Chancellor in his statement of 26 June last year, in which he announced the conclusions of the 2013 spending review: £28 billion is to be spent on enhancing and maintaining local and national roads. That sum includes £10.7 billion for major national road projects and £4.9 billion for local major projects, as well as some £12 billion for maintenance, with nearly £6 billion for repairs to local roads and £6 billion for maintenance of strategic roads, including the resurfacing of no less than 80% of the network.

I will attempt to deal with all the issues raised by my hon. Friend, because they all matter, but if I do not have time, I hope that he will agree that I may write to him, responding formally. I will refer to and be informed by the material prepared for me by my civil servants, but I will not feel constrained by it, because I want to respond specifically to a number of the points my hon. Friend made, including the vivid account of the disturbing events that punctuated and added power to the last part of his contribution.

It might be useful if I say a little more about the approach that we are taking, as that is the mechanism by which we will look at issues on roads such as the A249 and the M2 in the vicinity of Sittingbourne and Sheppey, including improvements to junctions on the M2, such as at junction 5, the Stockbury roundabout. The Highways Agency will produce a uniform set of strategies for the entire network, including the M2, A249 and M20, as part of the “Kent corridors to M25” route strategy. The strategies will establish outline operational and investment priorities for all routes on the strategic road network for the period up to March 2021 —and, by the way, give an indication of priorities beyond that date.

Last autumn, local enterprise partnerships, local authorities and other interested groups were invited to contribute to discussions about the current and future performance of the strategic road network to help identify particular concerns and priorities in their area. The stage 1 evidence reports were published in April and are available on the Highways Agency website. If Members who prefer a more traditional form of communication would like me to let them have those reports on plain, ordinary, everyday paper, I am happy to do so.

The Highways Agency and the Department are using that evidence to identify priority locations for future investment in the strategic road network. My hon. Friend will appreciate that although I am not in a position to say anything further today about the specific proposals emerging from those preliminary studies, they are being studied by the Department in the lead up to the autumn statement and will help to inform our road investment strategy, about which we will say a good deal more, not in months or even weeks, but in the coming days.

What I can say today relates to specific issues raised by my hon. Friend. I will start with the A249 Grovehurst junction. The junction has been improved in recent times, as he knows; nevertheless I make a commitment to him that the Highways Agency will continue to work with the local council, developers and local communities to assess the situation and bring forward, as necessary, any further improvements. I invite him to be a contributor to that process; indeed, this debate has been a catalyst for that further consideration.

Although the A249 Brielle way operates satisfactorily at the moment, I agree that, as the docks are regenerated, all parties, led by the Highways Agency, will need to consider carefully what further improvements, if any, are required to ensure that economic growth can occur and that local communities have safe, reliable access to their homes, schools and jobs. Once again, I invite my hon. Friend to contribute to that discussion. If we need to do more, we will.

I turn now to the A2500—how does one express that? What is the common parlance?

[Gordon Henderson]

We mix it up. Sometimes we call it the twenty-five hundred; sometimes it is the two thousand five hundred. The reason it is sometimes called the twenty-five hundred is because the A250 comes off the A249 and that was the only name it could have.

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend has prevented me from making an important semantic error. I am grateful for his advice in that respect. I understand that the Cowstead Corner junction must be proving a frustration for motorists. It is indeed for Kent county council, as the local transport authority, to look at the junction and take a view as to whether there are any short or longer-term measures that can be taken to improve its safety. Nevertheless, as a result of his overtures, I have asked the Highways Agency to liaise with the county on the matter.

It is widely recognised that the condition and efficiency of the local road network are essential to economic growth. By their very nature, practically all journeys start or finish on local roads, and such roads are relied upon by local residents and businesses alike. In those terms, all roads are local.

As my hon. Friend will know, local road funding in the guise of integrated transport block funding is available to local transport authorities in England outside London, for small transport improvement projects such as road safety schemes, junction improvements and cycling infrastructure. The funding allows local authorities to ensure that their transport networks are kept in good condition, enabling them to improve road safety and stimulate local economies by reducing congestion and improving safety. Between 2011-12 and 2014-15, Kent county council will have received £39.4 million through that funding route and will receive an additional £41 million between 2015-16 and 2020-21.

Highways maintenance block funding is also given to local transport authorities in England outside London to improve carriageways, pavements and so forth. The funding allows local authorities to ensure their highway networks are kept in good condition, to improve road safety and to stimulate local economic growth by reducing damage to vehicles and goods. Between 2011-12 and 2014-15, Kent county council will have received £120 million for highways maintenance. The 2013 spending review commits to providing just under £6 billion to local highway authorities over the next six-year period. That equates to £976 million per year and highlights the Government’s commitment to the country’s most valuable public asset and to ensuring that our local highways are fit for purpose.

My hon. Friend will know that in July this year, as part of the long-term economic plan that is yielding such benefit not only to our economy but to the well-being of our people, the Government announced a series of local growth deals with local enterprise partnerships across England. Almost 80% of the £64 million allocated to the South East LEP for 2015-16 will go to a range of transport projects, including £2.5 million for a Sittingbourne town centre regeneration scheme. I know that he has been at the heart of the work done on that project; indeed, I am not absolutely certain that it would have occurred without his diligence and his campaigning work with other local representatives in that part of Kent. The work we will do there will be informed by local understanding. It is vital that all agencies are sensitive to local concerns. I invite him to make any representations he sees fit, through me, to the relevant agencies.

I turn now to the Sheppey crossing, with which my hon. Friend dealt in the last part of his remarks. I completely understand why he is raising the matter of the Sheppey bridge. My sympathies and condolences go out to those involved in the fog-related incident in September 2013 and the fatalities in July 2014.

I assure my hon. Friend that the Highways Agency is taking those incidents very seriously indeed. It has assisted with both of the police investigations and with the current coroner’s investigation. As he made clear, it would be inappropriate to say too much more about the specifics of those events before the investigations have been completed—I know he would not want me to do that. I can tell this Chamber that the Highways Agency is conducting its own internal reviews and is examining options for various potential improvements. He has long called for those improvements, and did so again today. However, it would be wrong to prejudice the police or the coroner’s findings by making any proposals public at this time. As he is aware, the Highways Agency has agreed to meet him and other interested parties as soon as is possible to discuss concerns and ideas and take matters forward as appropriate.

I will go a little further, if I may, not withstanding my caveat. I listened closely to what my hon. Friend said. He ended his remarks by saying that something must be done, and it occurs to me that more indeed is needed. I do not want to prejudge the detail, but it seems to me that the status quo is not an option.

Perhaps I can just say this: my hon. Friend has spoken about safety on the bridge. The account of the pile-up in 2013, with which he is fully familiar, leads me to believe, as he does, that the events that his constituent endured could have led to a similar incident. I do not want to over-dramatise, but given what he has told us today it seems important that we act very promptly indeed once the investigations are complete. I give him the undertaking that when they are complete, within a very short time—I suggest within 14 days—we will convene a meeting, with which he should be involved, and that from that meeting, again within a short time, we will produce some preliminary proposals. Those proposals will then need to be considered in some detail for their feasibility and cost-effectiveness, and we will want to engage the wider community as well, but it does not seem to me to be unreasonable to introduce a degree of alacrity into the process, given the powerful case he has made.

I have been clear in this all-too-brief contribution to the House’s affairs today that the Government are committed to, and have set out plans for, large-scale investments to improve both local and strategic road networks. I would go further, and say that this Government are taking a more considered, strategic, long-term and wide-ranging view of those kinds of investments than any of our predecessors. We have put together a strategy, looked at the feasibility of delivering it and put the money in place to back it, putting an end to the annualised funding and the piecemeal and reactive policies that—I say this without unnecessary contumely—may have characterised earlier Administrations. Both the forthcoming road investment strategy and the local growth fund provide opportunities for local partners to ensure that future transport needs are identified and that they reflect what is required locally. Once again, my hon. Friend has shown that not only does he have an insight into these matters, but he is truly the people’s champion in Sittingbourne and Sheppey.

Sittingbourne and Sheppey Road Infrastructure

Gordon Henderson Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

It is a delight, Mr Sheridan, to serve under your chairmanship. Two years ago, I took part in a general Westminster Hall debate and used it not only to highlight some of the positive business developments that were taking place in my constituency, but to set out a number of problems with the local roads that needed to be solved if we were to attract even more investment to the area. Those problems have not gone away and in some cases have got worse. I want to use my time today to repeat some of my concerns about the road infrastructure in my constituency.

In many ways, the problem has been brought about by the success of business in our area, which is ironic because the other side of the same coin is that the very same problem could hold back future investment. Sheppey has a major port that is used for the import and export of thousands of cars every year, and we have the largest prison population in the whole country. Eurolink in north Sittingbourne will, when its current expansion plans are realised, be the largest industrial and business park in the south-east. Morrison’s regional distribution centre is also situated in Sittingbourne, and next door is the largest paper mill in the United Kingdom. The thriving Kent science park is in south Sittingbourne and is at the cutting edge of life sciences.

Those success stories generate valuable employment, but also an increasing amount of traffic that is threatening to overwhelm our local roads. When I listen to BBC Radio Kent in the mornings to hear what traffic problems I will face on my drive into London, the same motorways are almost always mentioned: the M25, the M20, and the M2, as well as the Dartford crossing. On the A roads, there is occasionally a problem on the A2, the A20 and the A21, but one Kent road is mentioned every morning without fail: the A249, which happens to be the main road into Sittingbourne and Sheppey from the M2.

Anyone who witnessed the horrendous multi-car pile-up on the Sheppey bridge a few weeks back will appreciate the number of vehicles that use the A249 every day. Not only is it the only road off the Isle of Sheppey, it is also the road used by the thousands of people who commute from Sittingbourne. Traffic from the Eurolink industrial park, the Morrison’s regional warehouse and the paper mill also feeds on to the A249. That has created at least two major pinch points: one at the roundabout at the junction between the A249 and the northern relief road—I will come to that project in a moment—and the other at the roundabout where the A249 meets junction 5 of the M2. The latter is a particular problem because the congestion created at the roundabout affects not only the slip roads from the M2, but local roads.

The Kent science park also creates congestion on local roads in south Sittingbourne, which is another problem that needs to be resolved. The owners of the park, with Swale borough council and Kent county council, have plans for a link from the M2 at what would become junction 5A, but they have been stymied by current Highways Agency restrictions on spur roads from motorways. I wrote to the Minister’s predecessor about the problem and received an assurance that his Department was reviewing that restriction. Is there any update on that? I am keen to see that spur built because not only would it help to relieve congestion on a number of roads in south Sittingbourne; it could form part of what we hope will eventually become the southern relief road.

That leads me back to the northern relief road, which links the A249 to both Eurolink and Great Easthall, which is a housing development north of the A2. The problem is that the northern relief road has never been completed, so it is not much of a relief to anyone. Obviously, local businesses on Eurolink and the residents of Great Easthall want the final link to be built as soon as possible, but many other people feel that finishing the northern relief road without first building a southern relief road would be a mistake because it would simply increase congestion on the A2 and the number of vehicles using rural roads in villages such as Bapchild, Bredgar, Rodmersham and Tunstall as rat runs to the M20.

I have some sympathy with the latter view, which is one reason why I have long held the view that a southern relief road is critical to Sittingbourne’s long-term future. Not only would it open the way to completion of the northern relief road, while protecting the southern villages; it would help to reduce congestion on both the A2 and the A249.

Another pinch point on the A249 is where it joins the A250 on the Isle of Sheppey. Until it hits that junction, the A249 is a dual carriageway, but thereafter it goes into a single lane all the way to Sheerness. That part of the A249 is also the main road into Sheerness docks and we desperately need the dual carriageway to be extended at least as far as the eastern boundary of the docks to allow easier access. That would allow a major expansion of the docks, thereby creating additional employment in one of the most socially deprived parts of my constituency.

There is also a problem on Sheppey with the newly created A2500, which is the main road link between the A249 and the eastern part of Sheppey. The A2500 feeds into Minster, which is the largest community on Sheppey and has seen the largest expansion of housing. Sadly, the junction at the A2500 and Barton Hill drive, which is the main route into Minster, is simply not fit for purpose and is seriously congested daily, all year round. The A2500 is also the main road to the three prisons on Sheppey, and ironically also feeds the main holiday camps on the island, so the congestion increases still further during the summer.

The Minister has kindly agreed to come to my constituency next year to open a new logistics hub that, ironically, is being built alongside the A249 and will no doubt add to the current traffic problems at the Morrison’s roundabout. I wonder whether he would agree to meet representatives from Swale borough council and my local business community on the same day to hear at first hand their concerns about our local road infrastructure.

Rail Fares

Gordon Henderson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

I am in a difficult position because I support the sentiment, but oppose the motive behind the motion. The motive is opportunism of the worst kind.

I support the sentiment because I am very concerned about hard-pressed rail commuters in Sittingbourne and Sheppey, and I want them to be helped. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) compared his constituents and commuters in the south-east. I should point out to him that only a small percentage are bankers travelling to the City of London. The vast majority of my constituents are no better off than his.

Let me read out part of a letter—one of many—that I have received. It states:

“Dear Mr Henderson,

Once again I find myself writing to you on the subject of rail fares. As you will have seen in the press, the Government announced that rail fares will rise in January by an average of 6.2%. By my calculations, this will bring the cost of a non-High Speed, train only season ticket from Sittingbourne to Victoria to £3,954.88. My wife and I both commute from Sittingbourne to Victoria to work in Westminster and the increase will mean the cost of getting to work will take 22% of our combined take home pay—the increase will hit my wife particularly hard as it will represent 30% of her monthly income. The rises come at a time when many people, including us, are experiencing frozen pay or pay cuts.

Theresa Villiers said on the BBC yesterday that the increased fares will ‘make life better’ for rail users by paying for improvements.”

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

The point about investment in rail is important. I commute into London most days, and I welcome the £26 million investment going into Three Bridges station, and the £53 million investment that will go to upgrade track capacity at Gatwick station.

[Gordon Henderson]

My hon. Friend is right about investment, but commuters on Southeastern railways have heard the same tired old tune, year in, year out, and frankly they have stopped believing it, if they ever did. We may have the Javelin service into St Pancras, but that is hardly high speed as it spends most of the journey on the tortuous route through Strood and Gravesend.

The letter continues:

“High speed also means higher cost, due to the supplement charged to travel beyond Gravesend. The service into Victoria has deteriorated over the years to the point where most “fast” trains take almost an hour and 10 minutes to travel from Sittingbourne to Victoria”.

Only 30 years ago the journey was 50 minutes, so travel times have gone up rather than down. I suggest that those who support High Speed 2 consider the impact of High Speed 1 on my constituency.

That letter just about sums up the frustration felt by my constituents—frustration that did not happen overnight but has been bubbling up for many years. The motion calls on the Government

“to restore the one per cent above inflation cap on annual fare rises”.

My constituents, however, have had to pay fares linked to the retail prices index plus 3% for many years because that formula was written into the franchise agreement for Southeastern railways, which runs trains in north Kent. That greater fare increase in Kent was to pay for improvements that were allegedly introduced in the area prior to April 2006, although my constituents often wonder what those improvements were. If those improvements were HS1, that would add insult to injury because people find themselves either paying for a superfast service that is not fast and goes to a London station to which few of them want to travel, or paying for a standard train service that takes longer than it did 30 years ago.

[Katy Clark]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the invitation to tender for the new intercity west coast franchise allows for increases in rail fares of 8% above inflation in 2013 and 2014, and 6% above inflation for the rest of the franchise? Does he share my concerns that yet again, such increases will not lead to proper investment in the service?

[Gordon Henderson]

I share the hon. Lady’s concern because my constituents have a similar problem. The franchise agreement with Southeastern also set out the level of subsidy that it would receive. That is important because the subsidy started at £139.9 million in year one, reducing to £24.7 million by year seven. In year eight, Southeastern will be expected to pay a premium of £9.3 million to the Department for Transport. It does not take a genius to work out that if the Government expect Southeastern to pay them a premium, rail fares will have to rise to fund it.

Who negotiated that franchise agreement? The Labour Government did. Indeed, their stated policy was to recruit more of the cost of the rail service from those who use it, rather than relying on the general taxpayer to subsidise it. It is, therefore, hypocritical in the extreme for Labour Members to complain now about a system of rail fare pricing that they introduced and supported. I greatly fear that spiralling rail fares will have a detrimental effect on commuters in my constituency, and will directly hit hard-working families who are already struggling. The increases will hit even harder people who have recently lost their jobs, such as those at Thamesteel who will have to commute some distance to find a job.

[Mark Reckless]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is particularly difficult because Kent has some of the lowest average incomes in the south-east yet some of the highest commuter fares? The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) mentioned costs in her constituency, but the cost of commuting from Chatham, which is only 30 miles away, is about £100. Brighton is almost 50 miles away, yet the cost is almost the same.

[Gordon Henderson]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The cost per mile of rail travel from our part of Kent is one of the highest in the country, and commuters in my constituency have had to put up with that for a number of years. That is the issue I wish to address, and I welcome the Transport Secretary’s offer to meet Kent MPs. Although he is not present in the Chamber, I assure him that at that meeting I will press for help for commuters in my constituency.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I am in a difficult position. I support the sentiment of the motion but oppose the motive behind it. For that reason, I will abstain, as I hope will all my fellow Kent MPs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gordon Henderson Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I can assure the hon. Lady that this Government are placing a high priority on tackling overcrowding on our railways. In more or less every spending squeeze there has ever been, the first thing that gets axed is transport upgrade projects. We have committed significant funds to the Mayor of London to upgrade London’s transport systems, and we are committing significant funds across the rest of the country to support investment in our railways to relieve overcrowding. It is a high priority for us and for the Mayor.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

T8. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to mitigate the effects of foreign hauliers who use their advantage of being able to buy fuel more cheaply on the continent to undercut British companies?

[Mike Penning]

We have a commitment to bringing in lorry road user charging to level the playing field. It is important, however, that we do not penalise our own truckers with whatever scheme we bring in. We are in ongoing negotiations with the Treasury and we are committed to introducing a scheme in this Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gordon Henderson Excerpts

Thursday 5th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hammond]

As I have said many times at the Dispatch Box, the Government’s programme is for a Y-shaped network that will take the high-speed railway all the way to Manchester and Leeds. I am aware of the scepticism among some Members and others outside the House about our commitment to that programme. I have discussed this matter with Members of all parties interested in securing this programme, and I have given a commitment to find a way of getting into the first hybrid Bill a commitment to the Y-shaped network sufficient to reassure those Members. However, it simply is not practical from a parliamentary point of view to have a single hybrid Bill dealing with the whole line, so it will have to be done as two hybrid Bills. We will ensure that the first Bill contains a commitment sufficient to satisfy the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that a meaningful consultation will take place with rail user groups before any of the existing rail franchises are renewed? I am thinking in particular of Southeastern, which has just had its current franchise extended by two years, despite an appalling performance record on the north Kent coastal line and repeated customer complaints.

[Mrs Villiers]

When we issue new franchises, we carry out a detailed consultation process. We will be doing that when the current Southeastern franchise finishes. No consultation was carried out in relation to the continuation review, because this was a contractual term of the franchise that was agreed by the previous Government, which meant that an automatic extension was granted if targets were met by Southeastern. Those targets were met; we had no choice—the extension had to go ahead. In those circumstances, a consultation was not appropriate.