Access to Ports

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw). My party affiliation in the report is spelled with a small “l”, but I was actually a member of the Transport Committee for at least part of the inquiry, so that is still unexplained.

I want to make a few brief comments on the Government’s response to some of the Select Committee’s recommendations. Point 1 of the response quotes the Select Committee as recommending that the

“DfT should act as an advocate for ports”.

I was somewhat disappointed by the response.

As I said in the previous debate, the road safety Minister, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), is held in high regard; the shipping Minister, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), is also held in high regard by the industry and those of us who take interest in such matters because of the work that he has done. He knows as well as I do the plethora of organisations involved in shipping—the UK Chamber of Shipping, the UK Major Ports Group, the British Ports Association, Hutchison Ports, Peel Ports, the London Gateway, the Port of London Authority, TfL, Maritime UK and others. The industry has really come together in the past five years to speak with one voice, which has given them much greater authority.

To the Minister’s credit, the Government have responded to that and created the joint Cabinet Committee; the Minister has been instrumental in ensuring that that Committee has been organised and that meetings are arranged. My disappointment is perhaps caused by the fact that the Government could have made a lot more of saying, “We are giving leadership.” Their response to the report does not say that they are doing anything. There is a little omission there; they missed a trick in terms of demonstrating just how committed to shipping they have been, and hopefully will continue to be.

I should say that I am in the middle of an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship on logistics, and I would like to thank Associated British Ports for its assistance. I have visited Southampton, Immingham and other establishments in the course of my fellowship. It has been extremely useful for me to see what is happening on the ground.

I would like to make a couple more comments, if I may. I want to pick up on the points made by my hon. Friend the Chair of the Transport Committee and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood about short-sea and coastal shipping. Point 6 of the Government response refers to the Select Committee’s disappointment that the waterborne freight grant has been so ineffective, and my hon. Friend asked what its successor is going to be. The Government response states:

“State Aid approval will be needed”—

blah, blah, blah—

“which limits the potential design of any scheme.”

Does that limit the UK’s ability to devise a new scheme? Or does it limit our ability to get the European Commission’s approval because of the 2015 re-start? Is it our responsibility or are we going to have to wait for the Commission?

The Minister knows that coastal shipping is a much-undervalued policy area. Look at the pressure on freight and our major road networks—how much more could be accomplished if we could use short-sea and coastal shipping to take heavy goods vehicles off our roads and transport their cargo by sea? That would be a win-win for everyone concerned, particularly shipping. It would perhaps not be as good for the road freight industry, but that already undertakes a large volume of business. As the Government keep telling us, the economy is picking up, so there should be more freight and more opportunity. Perhaps we should be looking at alternatives.

[Mrs Annette Brooke in the Chair]

I want to look at point 8 in the conclusion of the Government’s response, and return to the point I made at the start of my speech. Will the Minister spell out some more detail on the joint Committee on shipping, how much it has accomplished and what the Government are doing? Will he elaborate on the perennial conflict, raised in point 8, that we in Britain are not nationalistic enough when it comes to promoting our own industries and manufacturing? Look at what the French and German Governments do by way of investing in train companies and in manufacturing infrastructure.

British shipping and ports are proud of what they do. They look to the continent and see state subsidies and Government support, and ask, a little jealously, “Why are there two different rules?” Will the Minister therefore say a little more on the EU versus UK approach? The industry is of course worried about the prospect of a new EU directive, and I know that the Government are doing everything they can to protect our port interest in that respect. Perhaps the Minister would like to reinforce that sentiment.

It is nice to see you in the Chair, Mrs Brooke—I apologise for not noticing the personnel change earlier. My final point relates to what my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee outlined in her speech. The significance and importance of shipping is all but invisible to the country, other than to those of us who are involved in one way or another. There is a great story to tell about a hugely successful British industry that directly or indirectly employs hundreds of thousands of people and makes a massive contribution to UK GDP.

Given how scarce Government business currently is in the House because of the lack of legislation—we have been criticised in the media for having extra holidays and so on—and the expectation that the legislative programme next year will be equally light, as the coalition partners divest themselves of such activity to reinforce their respective identities in the run-up to the general election, I suggest to the Minister that a debate on shipping in Government time, to promote shipping, ports, coastal shipping, maritime industry, the businesses, unions and personnel, would be supported by everyone. Such a debate would also be welcomed strongly by the industry.

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

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but he will be aware that last year there was the highly successful London shipping week, which was warmly praised by all sectors. Some of us hope that such events may go beyond London, with all due respect, but does he agree that that would be an admirable week in which to have such a debate?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. London shipping week was an animal created by the new unified voice of shipping, supported by the Government. It was a great showcase and very successful. I know that the plan is to ensure that next time it extends way beyond London to be celebrated in as many of our major ports as possible.

I strongly suggest to the Minister that the debate would be better timed if held in the autumn, six months ahead, so that it could be used as a springboard to promote next year’s UK shipping week. I am sure the Secretary of State for Transport, who I know is sometimes embarrassed by his attitude to aviation because of his aversion to flying, would have no such aversion to leading a shipping debate, and I know his hon. Friend, the shipping Minister, would do an excellent job of winding up such a debate. I am sure the Transport Committee would get behind such an initiative.

Local Authority Parking Enforcement

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Rosindell, and to follow the distinguished Chair of the Select Committee on Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), in raising the report with the Minister. I look forward to his comments and those of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden).

I am a relatively new member of the Transport Committee, which I assume is why the current membership list on the first page of the report states:

“Jim Fitzpatrick (labour, Poplar and Limehouse)”—

Labour with a small l—while every other member’s party is spelled with a capital letter. Perhaps that is a demarcation issue for the Stationery Office, but I take it as no slight. My contribution will be brief and may repeat some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, because the Government’s response to our report, which they have been good enough to provide, leads to some questions.

My first point, already raised by my hon. Friend, is about the consultation that ran until 14 February, which is mentioned in the opening paragraphs of the Government’s response. How is that consultation going? When might we expect its findings to be published?

On recommendation 1, about pavement parking¸ the Government response states:

“In 2011 the Department for Transport gave all local authorities in England the authority to introduce local restrictions on pavement parking”.

How many local authorities acted on that advice? The Minister may not have that information, but given that the Government issue guidance and authority to local councils, it would be interesting to know how many took it seriously and responded locally.

The Government’s response to recommendation 2 states:

“The Government will consider the views of stakeholders and respond to the consultation in the first half of 2014.”

Is that on track? Given that we are now approaching April, can the Minister be more specific than “first half of 2014”?

In response to recommendation 3, the Government say that the Department for Transport

“intends to revise and update its statutory guidance to local authorities on parking enforcement.”

As my hon. Friend suggested, it would be interesting to know when the Government expect to be able to do that.

The Government responded to recommendation 5, about regimes, by saying:

“We agree that a roundtable discussion might be useful and DfT will talk to local authorities and the freight industry to see how this might be organised.”

Has a roundtable taken place? Will one take place? London had a positive experience during the Olympics, when so many deliveries were made out of hours. Local authorities introduced new procedures, such as adjusting vehicles to ensure that radios turn off when cab doors open and installing rubber wheels on delivery trolleys. Local authorities and businesses adopted all manner of simple but sensible arrangements, so that middle-of-the-night deliveries were almost silent. I recall that there were no complaints that the system did not work well, so there is room for optimism that such procedures could be adopted in other places with congestion.

Recommendation 6 asked that the Government

“provide greater clarity on the rules for loading and unloading”.

The Government said that they

“will review its guidance to local authorities and will update it as appropriate.”

Has that happened? Will that happen?

The Government’s response to recommendations 7, 10 and 13 are identical. In all three answers, they said that local authorities

“should collect and publish data”

and that the

“revised Code of Transparency for Local Government states that local authorities must”

publish data on revenue collected and parking enforcement fines. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whose Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), is present and is taking a great interest in the debate? Has the Department for Transport met the Local Government Association? What progress has been made on the publishing of data? Are local authorities routinely publishing such data? Is the Department is happy with the progress of authorities that previously did not publish as much data, if any? It seems sensible that residents should be able to see, as my hon. Friend the Chair of the Transport Committee suggested, whether parking and enforcement fines are appropriate and are being used to pay for enforcement officers, CCTV cameras and appropriate road markings and signage. The publishing of such data provides an easy way for residents to be reassured that the balance is right. I am sure the Minister will have information on how well it is going.

In response to recommendation 12, the Government state:

“Consultation of draft regulations is programmed for spring 2014, to come into effect by March 2015.”

Is that on time? As a former Minister responsible for time at the Department of Trade and Industry, I know that time in the civil service lexicon is a vey flexible feast. I have told the story of when I had to sign off an answer to a parliamentary question asking, “When will this be done?” and the answer from the civil servant was “by autumn”, so I asked the civil servant, “What does autumn mean?” and I was told that autumn was 23 December, because that is when the autumn session of Parliament started. Most people would probably think that we were pretty much into winter by that time, so what does “spring” mean? Is that the Easter recess? Is it the Whitsun recess? Or is it the middle of July at the start of the summer recess? I suspect that it is probably the July date, which would give the Government more time—I am not quibbling about that—but it would be nice to know what spring means in this context.

My penultimate comment is on recommendation 17 and the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside about the general European-wide power. While the Government state that they remain

“open to considering a general European-wide power”,

they say later in the response:

“In March 2011 the Government announced that it would not opt in to a European Directive facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety.”

Many of us were unhappy about that at the time and still are. If the Government will not opt in to a directive on road safety, which most of us would deem far more important than parking—notwithstanding how important parking is to drivers across the country—it is disingenuous for them to say that they remain open to a joining a European-wide initiative. If the Government are not going to do that on road safety, surely the Minister can confirm that they will not do it on parking.

I am pleased to see the Minister and his shadow, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield, in the Chamber today. I look forward to their comments.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell.

I appreciate the work that has been done by the Select Committee in looking at the issue of parking and bringing forward its views, which the Government are considering along with other recommendations that have been brought to us. It is indeed an opportune time to discuss parking issues following the publication of this excellent report and also the Government’s consultation on parking, which concluded on 14 February.

Let me say straight away that we are currently considering over 800 responses to the consultation, and will be responding in full in due course. [Interruption.] I do not know whether, when the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) was in the Department, he had to respond to things in due course, but I reassure him that this matter is in my in-tray and I am giving it a great deal of attention. It has not been parked in the tray marked “too hard to attend to”.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The Minister knows that he is held in high regard by the Opposition, as he is by his Government colleagues. I wish him every success with his in-tray.

[Mr Goodwill]

I wonder whether the reason why, in the report, there was a small “l” for the party name after the hon. Gentleman’s name is that the word “labour” is used not only as the name of a party but as a reference to someone’s working very hard on a subject. That could well be the reason.

This debate is timely. It is not simply a case of responding to the consultation and considering all the points but ensuring that we have agreement across Departments and across the coalition, as different Ministers may have different priorities when they arrive in Departments.

We ask parking and traffic management to deliver a number of objectives in parallel, and managing those competing demands on our roads will never be simple. The UK has more motor vehicles per mile than France, Germany or even the densely populated Netherlands, and traffic on our roads is forecast to increase. That is why we are investing £24 billion in the strategic road network in this Parliament and the next, a tripling of previous investment levels seen in this country. By 2021, we will be spending £3 billion every year on improvements and maintenance, which is the most significant upgrade of our roads ever. It is also why parking and traffic management have a vital role to play. Effective management enables people, goods and services to get to where they are needed and is essential for a growing economy.

Over the past few years, we have seen major changes in how parking is enforced. More than 90% of local authorities have taken over the civil enforcement of their parking services. I wrote to the other 10% today suggesting, without wanting to impinge on their local decision-making processes, that they look closely at the advantages of opting for civil enforcement. It has improved compliance, reduced congestion, freed up the police and, most importantly, made our roads safer.

When effective parking management breaks down, as in Aberystwyth, and in Scarborough in my constituency, where a couple of enterprising former police officers, armed with tape measures and copies of the science manual, managed to delay the introduction of our civil enforcement, the result is chaos. That is not good news for motorists and certainly not for businesses because it causes real problems. We must keep a close eye on the matter. How parking is managed matters to us all at some level, and we must ensure that the basic rules and regulations help councils to deliver balanced and effective parking strategies.

We are here today to discuss the Transport Committee’s recent inquiry into local parking enforcement and the Government’s recent wide-ranging parking consultation, which invited views on many of the Committee’s main recommendations. Despite what some press reports have claimed, we have not already reached a decision on changes to Government policy following the consultation. I will look carefully at all the responses, and am very aware of the wide range of views among stakeholders about sensitive issues such as camera enforcement.

The Select Committee’s inquiry and our consultation were prompted by three big issues for parking and traffic management: first, the challenges facing our high streets; secondly, the potential for the deployment and use of new technologies to improve the use of our roads, recognising that, in some cases, they cause the public concern; and thirdly, the widespread belief among motorists that some councils seem to view parking enforcement primarily as an opportunity to raise revenue. I will say a few words on each of those issues.

Our high streets are essential to our national life. They bring people together and are at the heart of our daily life and economy. In London, more than half of the jobs in the capital are spread across just 600 high streets, and two thirds of Londoners live within a five-minute walk of their local high street. However, our high streets are going through long-term change. Those changes are significant and require communities to play an active role in shaping their high streets. There are far too many empty shops throughout the country. We have put in place a £1 billion package of support to help local people reinvigorate their high streets. Recent figures show that the number of empty shops on UK high streets fell in December 2013, which was the first time the rate has fallen below 14% since July 2010.

Ensuring that convenient and safe parking is available at reasonable cost is part of the answer and many areas need to improve. During her recent review, Mary Portas found that in many areas

“parking has been run-down, in an inconvenient place, and most significantly really expensive.”

The recent survey from the Association of Town and City Management and the British Parking Association found that some mid-range areas were charging 18% more for parking than larger and more popular retail locations. Indeed, many such locations have free parking. The question for local businesses and residents is: what more is needed to get the local council to improve parking provision in their area?

In the consultation, we suggested one way that could be achieved: by allowing local residents and firms to be able to petition the council to initiate a review of parking policy in their area. That might be a request for lower charges, for a review to see if additional spaces could be provided, or for better street lighting to improve safety.

The second issue is the potential for new technologies to help to manage our roads more effectively. The introduction of GPS-based systems, new sensor technologies and increasing integration with smart-phones can revolutionise parking. When I parked at York station this week, I used my phone and if my return is delayed, I can update my parking period using my phone without the anxiety of perhaps being fined for overstaying.

Better and more efficient parking services can be delivered in real time, bringing benefits to high streets and road users throughout the UK. However, the capabilities of new technologies bring with them an increased responsibility to ensure that parking is enforced fairly and proportionately. I firmly believe that most of those involved in the parking industry, from local authorities to private sector service providers, aim to do just that. However, the use of CCTV, in particular, causes public concern.

The Department’s guidance states that CCTV cameras should be used only where parking enforcement is difficult or sensitive, and enforcement by a civil enforcement officer is not practicable. Cameras can be more contentious than boots on the ground, and the Select Committee took evidence that resident permits and blue badges may not always be visible to cameras. The Committee reported that in some cases cameras are used routinely for on-street parking violations, despite my Department’s statutory guidance. Our consultation also asked about options to address those concerns, bearing in mind that, as the Committee pointed out, cameras can have a useful role in some circumstances, such as outside schools and in keeping bus lanes clear. We must look at the needs of all road users in the round and look for balanced solutions to the issues.

Finally, there is a real problem with the public’s view of local authorities’ approach to parking and traffic enforcement. The Select Committee said that there is a

“deeply rooted public perception that local authorities view parking enforcement as a cash cow”.

From 1997-98 to 2010-11, net surpluses from parking rose from £223 million to £512 million. Net income from local authority parking services is expected to rise from £601 million in 2012-13 to £635 million in 2013-14, an increase of 5.6%. That headline figure reflects parking charges as well as penalties, but I am determined that public confidence in enforcement should not be undermined. The Committee has identified the importance of the Government mandating the production of annual parking reports by local authorities, so the public fully understand the strategies, and where the money from parking goes. We have been very clear that the ring fence on surpluses will remain. Fines for those who break the rules will be used only to improve the roads or environment for those who play by the rules.

The Select Committee asked whether the current system is as fair as it can be for those who inadvertently make a mistake. First, it asked whether independent traffic adjudicators should be able to allow an appeal when they determine that a council has ignored statutory guidance. Secondly, it asked whether the current system acts as a disincentive for people to appeal. There is a legitimate concern that discounts on prompt payment following appeal would result in every charge being appealed so, following the Committee’s recommendation, we have asked whether the introduction of a 25% discount for motorists who pay within seven days of losing an appeal might be worth while. In addition, it might be worth considering whether discount for appeals that are lost could be allowed only if the appeal was made during the period for which the initial discount applied. We will consider that in more detail.

Thirdly, the Committee recommended that the statutory guidance should stipulate a grace period after the expiry of paid-for time. The British Parking Association’s response to the consultation states that in practice most local authorities do that already, so we are also considering whether mandating a grace period of perhaps five minutes after the end of paid-for parking might provide the public with reassurance that they will never be issued with a ticket just one minute after the meter runs out.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) made several points. She talked about the possibility of validating tickets so that someone who pays in a local authority car park can use that ticket to obtain a discount in a local shop, which would presumably be reimbursed by the local authority—or perhaps by the shop itself as part of a local discount scheme. That already works in some supermarkets to encourage customers only to use those supermarkets, but that is a matter for local councils, as is free parking for short periods at certain times, such as Christmas, which Scarborough borough council provides as a way of getting people into that excellent shopping location.

Are local authorities following the code of practice? If people appeal on the ground that the code of practice was not followed, the adjudicators will see that as important. They will often be sympathetic if people make honest mistakes.

The hon. Lady talked about the response to our consultations. I have some of the responses here. For example, the question was posed:

“Do you think motorists who lose an appeal at a parking tribunal should be offered a 25% discount for prompt payment?”

The overall response was: yes, 44%; no, 56%. However, among individuals, as opposed to organisations—I suspect that quite a lot of councils were among the organisations—54% favoured the rolling forward of the discount and 46% were against, while among organisations only 23% were in favour of rolling forward, while 77% were against. Therefore, even among individuals there was a mixed result.

We also posed the question:

“Do you think that authorities should be required by regulation to allow a grace period at the end of paid for parking?”

There again, the results were balanced. Overall, the response was exactly 50:50. Among individuals 51% were in favour and 49% were against, and among organisations 45% were in favour and 55% were against. The picture from the consultations is not clear on the rolling forward of the discount or the period of grace at the end of paid-for parking. As I have already said, however, many local authorities already have a grace period.

The hon. Lady also asked about pavement parking. We have given local authorities powers on pavement parking, but we do not collect statistics on how many authorities have used those powers. In London, of course, there is an enforceable general ban on parking on the pavement. On guidance issued to local authorities, we are considering the responses to the consultation and we will reply in due course.

On local authority transparency, the Department for Transport does not know whether all local authorities are fully transparent regarding their fine revenues, as that matter is reported to the Department for Communities and Local Government.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Before the Minister continues on transparency, he was answering the question on pavement parking that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside and I raised. That is a huge issue for organisations such as Guide Dogs and Living Streets, which campaign for people with mobility difficulties. He said that he is waiting on the responses and on further consideration by his Department, but will he assure us that he will look carefully at that? As he said, in London the protocol is that such parking is forbidden unless specifically allowed, whereas elsewhere it is almost the reverse of that. Those campaigning organisations would rather see more emphasis on looking after people with disabilities and mobility difficulties than allowing a free-for-all.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I am sure that, like me, he gets letters from constituents complaining about pavement parking. People are often surprised to discover that in many parts of the country such parking is perfectly legal. We have a similar problem with motorcycles in bus lanes, in that we do not have a consistent approach throughout the country.

There was also discussion about non-UK vehicles and whether we engage in cross-border agreements with other member states. We are talking not just about foreign vehicles breaking regulations in the UK, but British drivers caught contravening rules in other parts of the European Union. Although I am sure it would be popular in the UK to ensure that foreign vehicles fully comply with our rules, I suspect that we might see stories in the Sunday newspapers and some of the tabloid press about people being unfairly penalised for potential offences carried out in other parts of the EU where their ability to appeal might be restricted by language difficulties and so on. It does work both ways. Indeed, there is a system for the heavy goods vehicles levy whereby a deposit payment is taken in advance of a court case. In many cases, when the offence is admitted, the deposit is taken in default of the actual penalty.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse talked about fines and foreign-registered vehicles. As the law stands, parking companies and local authorities can and do use European debt collection agencies. We recognise, however, that that may not always be economically realistic and that sharing of vehicle-keeper information to pursue those debts is not currently covered by international treaties. Many member states have reservations about data sharing across borders and any proposal in that area would need to be carefully thought through.

In conclusion, I believe that the majority of local authorities and parking providers are doing very good work. The challenge now is to deliver equally high standards throughout the parking sector as a whole. That means preventing the examples of poor management or bad practice that are so prominent in the media.

As I mentioned, we have received more than 800 responses to the parking consultation. I have no illusions about just how important these issues are, and following those responses and our useful debate I will be looking carefully at the options going forward. Parking and traffic management is important to the public and to our communities, and it is vital to the health of our local economies.

Disabled People (Access to Transport)

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Dorries. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) and the Chair of the Select Committee on Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). I am now a Member of the Committee, but was not when the report was compiled. I hope to be in line with your recommendation to be brief, Ms Dorries, but I want to cover a few points.

I thank the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and Rhiannon Hughes, Public Affairs and PR Manager of Whizz-Kidz, for their briefings, and the disability groups that gave a presentation to the Committee on Monday night. As the Chair of the Committee said, the Committee’s second recommendation was about shared space. I want to refer specifically to one of the shared spaces shown on the film: Exhibition road in west London. It is situated between the Victoria and Albert museum, Imperial College London and the Royal Albert hall, and is a major thoroughfare for tourists, children and all manner of people.

The shared space is very attractive and its arrival is welcomed by everyone, but particularly by people with young children, people in wheelchairs and people with shopping. However, the film demonstrated graphically that Exhibition road is a race track. We seem to be falling down in the UK in the demarcation between where what was the pavement finishes and where the road starts. The recommendation addresses that, and the Department’s response, which refers to work that has been undertaken to look at that, and says specifically of the guidance to local authorities on the introduction of shared space that

“work…has been halted for the time being, as a consequence of corporate planning and resource constraints.”

My first question for the Minister is: what is the latest on shared space and guidance from the Department to local government?

I next want to refer to recommendation 4 and the submission from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside and the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, 89% of blind and partially sighted passengers report having missed a stop. The Department’s explanation that there has not been a business case seems flimsy. There is a social need and I suspect that the business case is stronger than that which was accepted by the bus companies. We have talked about inability to get to work, and missed hospital and medical appointments and interviews. That results in a cost on the state and on taxpayers. The business case may seem to be less strong than it is.

The Government’s response mentioned that the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), had written to the bus companies encouraging them to work in partnership with local authorities to see if the uptake of audiovisual systems could be increased voluntarily. My second question for the Minister is: what was the outcome of the letter, the encouragement to bus companies and the discussions with local authorities, and has there been any progress?

I have received a briefing from Whizz-Kidz, which made three recommendations:

“That transport providers treat young disabled people like any other passenger…That disabled people play a key role in auditing and assessing the transport services…That accessible transport is a key focus of the Paralympic Legacy”.

That last point was mentioned by the Chair of the Select Committee. The briefing also referred to three recommendations from the Select Committee report that it particularly supports: for the Department for Transport to involve disability organisations and charities in the prioritisation of transport, for it to provide disability awareness training for staff in the bus and coach industry and for it to develop and publish a methodology on that.

The Whizz-Kidz briefing covers a variety of recommendations, but specifically refers to recommendation 16. The Government’s response said that the

“DfT remains committed to review the use of exemption in a year’s time”.

Both the hon. Member for Eastleigh and the Chair of the Select Committee referred to that. The Government said that the exemption will be reviewed by March 2014, which is only six weeks away. The question, which I am sure the Minister will be able to respond to, is about whether that review is on course and what its outcome has been.

In conclusion, I congratulate the Transport Committee on another excellent report. I have seen many reports over the years, as both Transport Minister and shadow Minister, and this one lived up to all my expectations. I am sure that the Minister, who is known to take a keen interest in these issues, will respond as positively as he can. Having read the Government’s response to the report, I have to say that its tone is not as positive and optimistic as it should be, although I am sure that he can correct that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

As I thought I had made clear, where Crossrail is carrying out substantial construction work at stations, it has an obligation to make those stations accessible, but where stations are not being modified, Crossrail is not forced to make them accessible to be legally compliant. However, as I have said, work is ongoing, and we will be in a much better position by the spring. May I also point out that the wonderful new north-south railway line that we are endeavouring to build will be fully accessible on High Speed 2?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The Minister must be very frustrated by this situation, because Crossrail will be the showcase for UK plc—the latest 21st-century addition to our major national infrastructure. He knows, as we all do, how difficult it is to retrospectively make all these kinds of changes. Crossrail is being built now; if this work is going to happen, it should be happening now. I hope that he will make his best efforts to ensure that Crossrail finds a solution to the problem of the small number of stations that are still being left out at present.

[Mr Goodwill]

I hope that what I said did not close the door on doing something. The points that the hon. Gentleman makes are absolutely valid, and we will be able to make the position much clearer by the spring of this year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

HS2 will have a connection via Old Oak Common that provides quick Crossrail connections to Heathrow airport as well, with an 11-minute connection time and eight trains per hour.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that in order to promote Birmingham airport it would be a good idea to rename the railway station right next to it Birmingham airport station?

[Mr Goodwill]

I suspect that people will start to call it that anyway, so it seems an eminently sensible idea.

Transport Infrastructure

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

The commission is taking all our carbon reduction obligations into account, as I would expect.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

At the last general election, both coalition parties opposed an increase in runway capacity in the south-east. I think it is clear that the Conservatives have now realised that that was the wrong decision and have changed their minds, but the Liberal Democrats are still in denial. Most of us want the Davies commission to report earlier than the summer of 2015. Who set the deadline—the Secretary of State, Sir Howard, or the Liberal Democrats?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I note that the hon. Gentleman is now speaking from the Back Benches about a subject on which he used to speak from the Front Bench. When he was on the Front Bench, I challenged him to tell us, if his was such an easy solution, what proposals he would support. He was unable to answer that question from the Front Bench, but perhaps he will be able to do so from his more privileged position on the Back Benches.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

We have introduced measures to ensure that anyone disqualified for drink-driving twice in 10 years will be classed as a high-risk offender. High-risk offenders cannot get their licence back until doctors are satisfied that they are medically fit to drive again. The figures that my hon. Friend mentions are of concern, but they are against a trend of ever-reducing levels of fatality on our roads involving drink-driving.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The biggest killers of young people in the UK are road crashes. The Government have been promising a Green Paper, not a White Paper, on graduated licensing for young drivers since the spring. When are we likely to see it?

[Mr Goodwill]

It is absolutely true that while young people make up 8% of drivers and account for 5% of miles driven on our roads, they account for 18% of accidents. We will publish the Green Paper before the end of the year.

Aviation Strategy

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I join others in congratulating you on your election to your new office, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is a great pleasure to be speaking in one of your debates for the first time. I also congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), on his appointment as the Minister responsible for aviation. Welcome to the hot seat!

I commend the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and her Committee for tackling this important issue at a time when it is very topical. As a fellow Select Committee Chairman, I can vouch for the fact that policy inquiries such as this are the most difficult in which to engage. Certainly the evidence is the most difficult to assess. However, while I agree with the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) that the hon. Lady has got some things right, I think that some of her Committee’s decisions were wrong.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on recognising that London will not survive as a global city unless we maintain its connectivity. Being a city is about being connected. If we want London to remain the world’s global financial centre—the premier international city—we must have international connectivity. Aviation services are the new rivers of our generation. Along with the airwaves and the internet, aviation is what connects cities nowadays, and if we cut ourselves off by persevering with a patch-and-mend aviation policy in London and the south-east, we shall see an end to London’s global status in our lifetimes.

The hon. Lady is right about “Heathwick”—it just would not work—and she is entirely right about hubs. However, she is wrong about Heathrow. As the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich pointed out, experience and the political reality tell us that there will simply not be any new runways at Heathrow. Have we not learnt from the fact that, although every member of the last Government was absolutely committed to getting that proposal through, it did not go through? That was due to the sheer scale of opposition from west London constituencies. Far more marginal constituencies would be affected by the development of Heathrow than would be affected by the choice of any other possible site for an airport. It is simply not possible to generate enough political support for development at Heathrow—one party or another will always oppose it.

Which mayoral candidate will stand, and be elected, on a pro-Heathrow policy? That will never happen. Ken Livingstone was against development at Heathrow, Boris Johnson is against it, and I guarantee that all three members of the main political parties who stand in the mayoral election will be against it. It is never going to happen.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point, to which I hope to return if I am lucky enough to be called to speak. Given that the Conservative party went into the 2010 general election as the only party that was totally opposed to the third runway at Heathrow, why did it not win that sweep of west London marginals?

[Mr Jenkin]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we would have won even fewer seats in London had we supported the Heathrow case. There is no doubt about that. Why does he think that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is so strongly opposed to a new runway at Heathrow?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am pleased to congratulate you on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker; this is my first opportunity to do so formally. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). He rightly said that this is a crucial issue for UK plc, but after that I stopped agreeing with him as he went on to develop his support for the estuary airport and the proposal of Mayor Boris Johnson, which is very much the wrong one. His suggestion of closing Heathrow would be an economic disaster for London, certainly for west London.

I also welcome the Minister to the Chamber. When he was my shadow in 2007-08, he coveted my office and told me that he would have it one day. He has now got it, and I hope he enjoys it—of course, it was not my office, but that of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport. I would be surprised if he does not enjoy his time there. May I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) to the shadow Front-Bench position? We have already had one or two discussions, and I wish them both well in developing the aviation strategy that has been suggested by the Transport Committee.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chair of the Committee, and commend the Committee’s report to the House. I agree with the vast majority of its conclusions. Recommendation 34 is the most important, and that is what I shall be seeking reassurances from the Minister and the shadow Minister about in due course.

Colleagues will know that I was the aviation Minister in the previous Labour Government between 2007 and 2009, during which time I argued for the third runway, both in the House and outside, and that I was shadow aviation Minister until the Syria debate a couple of months ago. I have therefore spent a lot of time looking at this issue. The Select Committee’s examination is timely and its recommendations are food for thought for the Government, so account ought to be taken of them.

I will not repeat all the statistics that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside set out, but I will say that aviation is responsible for a turnover of £28 billion and 120,000 directly employed jobs, and that it raises £9 billion in tax and duty. In addition, most of the £18 billion achieved through tourism is raised from air passengers. All that demonstrates the importance of aviation to the UK economy and UK plc. It has been clear that the vast majority of the speakers in the debate have underscored the importance of a hub airport in that regard. However, there are also key concerns to address—noise and the big problem of emissions—and recently we have seen the noise health study and the report on impacts on human health. Both the 2003 aviation White Paper and the third runway proposal addressed those issues, as does the Select Committee. It is important that they are addressed—they cannot be ignored—so that residents under flight paths and near airports are reassured.

The 2003 White Paper pointed the way forward, and the 2007 proposal for a third runway was hotly contested. The Conservative party made that a party political issue in the run-up to the 2010 general election. That was political opportunism. I am not criticising that; I suspect that we probably would have done the same thing if we had been on the other side. I would hope that we would not have done, but we did not have the opportunity to demonstrate that opportunism, whereas the Conservatives did. A clutch of west London marginals did not fall because Heathrow has underlying, solid support in west London, however.

Naturally, the Lib Dems are in complete denial on aviation—at least they have been consistent on that. One of the red lines of the coalition agreement was, “No aviation capacity whatsoever.”

[Mr MacNeil]

I am a bit stunned. Has the hon. Gentleman put his finger on something that the Lib Dems have been consistent about over the past few years, both in opposition and in government? That must be some sort of record; I congratulate him on his observation.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that, as we all know, the Lib Dems are not consistent in opposition and in government. He rightly says, however, that this is one issue on which they have been consistent—consistently in denial.

When we look at the international competition from Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt, and from the new airports that have been built or are being built in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Berlin and Istanbul, we see the importance of aviation and having a aviation hub. We are falling behind the times. However, when the Prime Minister indicated that the Government were appointing the Davies commission, we saw the beginning of one of the longest U-turns in recent British politics. The moving of the right hon. Members for Putney (Justine Greening) and for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) to other Departments and the appointment of the current Secretary of State for Transport clearly indicated that, after three years, Conservative Back Benchers who had been arguing the case—as did the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, London First, the TUC and others—had gone to the Government and said, “This issue is too important. We’ve got it wrong and we need additional capacity.”

I think that the Conservative manifesto for 2015 will have a commitment to the Davies commission’s conclusions, although I want to hear what the Minister says about that because he has history on this issue, given his support for the village opposed to the third runway at Heathrow. When the right hon. Ladies were moved and the new Ministers were brought in, that was a sign of encouragement for the aviation industry and those who support additional capacity. However, when the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), and Baroness Kramer, the predecessor of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), were appointed, it was almost as if the Government were going back to where they were before the last reshuffle. I would like reassurance from the Minister about what that means.

For me, the Transport Committee’s key recommendation is No. 34. Whether we support the Heathrow plan, the estuary plan or point to point, there is general agreement that capacity is an issue, as well as about the importance of aviation to UK plc and the significance of a hub airport. The Davies commission at least gives us a chance of a fresh start and an opportunity to try to build consensus so that there is not the party political squabbling of the past 10, 20 or 30 years and the piecemeal approach to aviation that was cited by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst).

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman reflect that if Davies comes down in favour of some cobbled together compromise on Heathrow, we will go straight back into that kind of paralysing debate? If he comes down in favour of a Thames estuary airport, that will be decisive and a way forward. There will be far more consensus around a long-term solution than around a patch-and-mend, short-term one.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the point. He said that there was no showstopper for the estuary option, but for me the showstopper is the £50 billion to £70 billion—depending on the estimate—of public sector money that it would cost. The options for Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and elsewhere involve private sector money, which is a whole different ball game.

If the Davies commission says that Heathrow is the answer, some people will oppose that—the Lib Dems, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and, I suspect, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). Some have been consistently against aviation or Heathrow, but I hope that the general consensus will be, “Davies has been given three years to do the job. We have wasted 20 years already—we can’t waste another decade.”

[Rehman Chishti]

I support a lot of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the estuary airport. Does he agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) has to explain which public services he would cut to fund the £50 billion to £70 billion needed to build the airport, which is completely unviable?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I agree, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to develop those points.

My conclusion is that everybody in the Chamber agrees that we need an aviation strategy. The Davies commission provides a new opportunity. Whatever its conclusions, they will be controversial and opposed by some. However, we need a strategy—of that there is no doubt—and hopefully the Davies commission will give us the chance to have one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

I can always try, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I know the importance of aviation. I fly probably more than any other MP—at least four times a week and sometimes six times a week. At least, I did until flights in my constituency were vandalised by the local council, which axed 60% of inter-island flights between Stornoway and Benbecula and Barra and 100% of flights to the most vulnerable island community. That was all the more strange given that they were public service obligation routes. While the council can make arguments about rurality and peripherality in Edinburgh, London or Brussels, the arguments hold no weight it seems once it secured the money within its own corridors of power. Indeed, flights used by people going for cancer treatment have been described by the council leader as 10-minute tourist flights, which is very disappointing. The flight was not 10 minutes and the councillors he dragooned into voting to axe flights to these communities have not been to visit them since their election. The upshot of this transportation vandalism is that travel from one end of the Outer Hebrides to Edinburgh, London or Brussels is faster for most of the week than going to the other end of the Outer Hebrides.

Why do I mention this? The debate has concentrated on the south-east of England and Heathrow, about which there seems to be a love-hate relationship. London has tremendous connectivity, with 360 destinations—almost one for every day of the year—which I think is more than Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam enjoy, although the individual airports are better.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when I was Minister with responsibility for aviation, I heard repeated requests by Members from the regions for access to Heathrow. That clearly was not possible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, because short-haul routes were taken out so that there could be flights to international destinations.

[Mr MacNeil]

The building of Heathrow has been brought about through general UK taxation. Scots have on average paid more tax than the rest of the UK in each of the last 30 years. We have contributed to Heathrow, as have other areas of the UK, and our investment should be protected. There are 360 other areas that have contributed and are arguing for the benefits of Heathrow. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

Heathrow is a disappointing airport. If one travels to it by train, one straightaway meets a glass wall between the train and the lifts. That is indicative of rest of Heathrow and terminal 5, where passengers seem to be reversing into each other constantly. Gatwick is no better—a veritable rabbit warren that makes London City airport almost look like bliss. The Heathrow Express, Heathrow airport and the airlines seem unable to talk to each other when there is a train delay—an example of component efficiency rather than network efficiency that is sadly all too typical around UK airports.

There is doublethink at the heart of the relationship with Heathrow. Recommendation 9 of the Select Committee report states:

“It is imperative that the UK maintains its status as an international aviation hub.”

That seems to be about a badge of prestige rather than transporting people, as the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said. I have mentioned, yesterday and today, that decades of bilateral agreements have favoured London airports to the detriment of Scotland and other places. This has now come back to bite the south-east of England. One solution could be co-operation with the Dutch and the French. Schiphol and Paris are not that far away, and increased and improved surface transport could bring them closer. As the hon. Member for North Thanet said, it is time, not distance, that matters to the passenger. A global mega-region encompassing either side of the Channel would benefit passengers globally. There is an economic benefit to linking hubs, an argument I would make for the central belt of Scotland, too.

What happened to the south-east of England when the London docklands lost its pre-eminence to Rotterdam will happen in aviation. Schiphol will win and Heathrow will lose out, as the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) said, because of the UK’s piecemeal approach.

The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) pointed out that with direct air links trade improves twenty-fold. As a result of the imbalance in the UK, Scotland has definitely lost out; we have paid in, but we are not getting the benefits. It is disappointing that this high-tax Government are not interested in reviewing APD at any point. Their “see no evil, hear no evil” approach continues. In the meantime, Spain is getting rid of it and Barcelona has seen 37 new routes in the last year. APD is a demand-management tool for Heathrow and it comes at a tremendous price for other areas of the UK, particularly Scotland. With independence, I am hopeful that we can sort that one out.

Coastguard (Maritime Incident Response Group)

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He highlights a crucial issue causing major concerns that have not yet been resolved.

To return to coastguards and co-ordination centres, under the revised proposals, the number of professional coastguards will fall to 436. The new maritime operations centre was due to be operational by April 2014. That has now been delayed until September 2014. Co-ordination centres at Solent, Portland, Brixham, Liverpool, Swansea and Thames are due to close after that.

We published a second report on the revised proposals in December 2012, and we continue to receive deeply disturbing information from coastguards about staffing and morale in the service. It is to those issues that I now turn. The Committee accepted that there is a case for a national maritime operations centre to manage particularly large or difficult incidents, which could overwhelm an individual co-ordination centre or two centres working together. However, we remain unclear about what coastguards at the national centre would do at times when such an emergency was not taking place. Coastguards giving evidence to us said that they had no idea how the new maritime operations centre and the co-ordination centres would work together.

In their reply to our report, the Government spelled out in more detail what they saw as the main responsibilities of the maritime operations centre, particularly in co-ordinating the work of coastguards across the country. The recent agreement on the roles and responsibilities of coastguards under the new system might also bring greater clarity in this area. Will the Minister explain how the new system will work—not just during a major incident, but at quieter times?

We heard strong criticism of the decision to close three maritime resource co-ordination centres before the new system is in place. For example, Shetland coastguards explained that they had to use their own time to gain local knowledge of parts of the northern Scotland coastline for which they would be responsible after the closure of the Forth station. There have been continuing concerns that some co-ordination centres are now severely overstretched.

We were told in March this year that, already, staffing at Belfast co-ordination centre had been below the risk-assessed staffing level on 124 occasions out of 158 shifts. At the same time, Yarmouth co-ordination centre, which has since closed, was moved to daylight-only operations because of staff shortages. It is testament to the professionalism of the service that the closures have been accommodated without major incident.

It was widely believed that ministerial statements and Maritime and Coastguard Agency documents had given a commitment that the maritime rescue co-ordination centres would not be closed until the new system was put in place. This was denied, but the language used by the Minister’s predecessor in the House and some of the documents published by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency back in 2011 were at best ambiguous.

One key area of the dispute is the importance of local knowledge. Coastguards emphasise its importance in their work, and they are tested on their local situational knowledge. Knowing that a particular rock or headland has three names in two languages can help to ensure that assistance reaches people in distress as quickly as possible. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency discounted its significance, considering that local knowledge could be stored electronically, so that it could be used by any coastguard based anywhere. Indeed, when we heard evidence from the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, he seemed to disregard the importance of critical local knowledge, which is about geography, tides and currents, language and dialect, and the availability of additional volunteer sources for rescue in the area concerned.

Coastguards remain concerned about the issue. They challenge whether the knowledge built up over many years by experienced coastguards working in their areas can be replaced by databases. Coastguards taking on new areas of responsibility will still be assessed on their understanding of local factors, although it is hard to see how this will apply to the coastguards in the new marine operations centre. Perhaps the Minister will explain what importance he attaches to coastguards having local knowledge and how it will work under the new system and be tested.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend—I sense that she might be concluding. Her Committee has obviously done another thorough job in monitoring the good work of the shipping Minister and his officials under her excellent leadership, but can she give us a sense of what progress she thinks has been made compared with where we were last year and the year before? Is her Committee more worried about the situation? Is there the same level of anxiety, or is she more reassured because of what she has heard in the various examinations that her Committee has undertaken?

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for the excellent work that he did in a previous capacity. It is good to hear from him. I remain concerned about the situation. There is now more clarity about what exactly is going to happen, but major questions remain. That is why I am pursuing them today. I hope the Minister will be able to give reassuring answers.

Staffing and morale were both raised with the Committee as significant problems. We heard concerns about the level of vacancies in the service, the proportion of coastguards on fixed-term contracts and the loss of experienced staff. The coastguard service’s vacancy rate doubled between December 2010 and November 2012, when it stood at 13.8%. In other words, nearly one in seven posts in the service was vacant. Can the Minister tell us what the current vacancy rate is?

Going back to my hon. Friend’s comments, I continue to receive representations from coastguards. These include allegations of stress caused by understaffing, lack of leave and unreliable communications equipment. The high level of vacancies puts strain on coastguards, who must work harder to fill the gaps. What assessment has the Minister made of the high level of vacancies? Has sickness absence increased? Does the Department even monitor coastguards’ morale? What actions are management taking to help staff get through what is obviously a difficult and unsettling period of change?

Low morale and disillusionment with management were reflected in all the evidence the Committee received from coastguards. We have received further correspondence that reinforces that since our report was published. For example, we were told that the new contract offered to the coastguard

“increases the number of days worked, reduces the number of days off, reduces the annual hours leave, reduces the opportunity for leave, and reduces the pay by regrading the majority of the older staff to a lower level of pay, capping the shift allowance at a low rate and removing allowances for shoes and telephone line rental—all in all, these changes are unworkable to existing staff and are surely a case for constructive dismissal”.

We have also heard complaints from volunteer coastguards about the operation of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Again, long-standing volunteer coastguards feel that they are no longer valued and are subsequently leaving the service. I have received representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) that nine out of 13 volunteer staff at the Walney coastguard have resigned, claiming they have been bullied by MCA staff. Will there be an independent investigation into that? It is clearly a matter of grave concern.

Our report concluded that the loss of experienced coastguards was one of the most significant risks to the successful implementation of the Government’s modernisation programme. Everything we have heard since has confirmed that view. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency now has to manage another round of MRCC closures and find sufficient qualified staff to fill positions in the new maritime operations centre. This is a major challenge. Many experienced coastguards may prefer to leave the service than move to Fareham to take on new roles. Will the Minister tell us when recruitment of MOC staff will begin and what mix of skill and experience he will want staff working there to have? What assistance will be available to coastguards who wish to relocate to Fareham?

The coastguard reform programme will have been stretched over five years when it finally comes to an end in 2015. That is five years of uncertainty and worry for coastguards about their jobs, pay, and terms and conditions. My concern is that by the time the new system is operational, many experienced coastguards will have left, weakening an essential emergency service. I hope that the Minister can demonstrate today that he is actively trying to ensure that that does not happen.

The coastguard service is about saving lives. It is staffed by dedicated people. It deserves the unequivocal support of the Minister and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. I hope the Minister can assure us today that he is committed to securing the confidence of those who work in this essential service, so that the public’s safety can continue to be protected.

Cycling

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the co-chairs of the all-party group, of which I am a member, on the report. It is sponsored by The Times, which I congratulate too. I should declare that The Times is still in Wapping in my constituency, so there is a little bit of self-interest there. Other national newspapers—The Guardian and The Independent—have been trying to catch up and are supporting the campaign. My comments will be made as a Londoner and as a London cyclist, and will not necessarily reflect issues in other parts of the country.

I invited my constituents, through the social media of Twitter, Facebook and the East London Advertiser, to contribute to the debate by raising issues that they thought I might want to mention. I was staggered by the response—more than 50 people e-mailed or tweeted issues that are of importance to them. I am very limited for time and cannot name them all, but I will list some of them. Before doing that, I want to thank the cycle firms in my constituency, in particular Bikeworks, a social entrepreneurial group that does great work and made a running repair to my bike in half an hour last Wednesday morning to get me back on the road, and also Halfords and Evans, which are national organisations that support cycling in Tower Hamlets and in the community.

I will run through the list of issues raised by my constituents: keeping cycle routes clear when there are roadworks and parking problems; cycle superhighways not being up to the necessary standard—my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) raised the incident of the Aldgate East fatality—with just a coat of paint on a road and nothing more; and lower speed limits, an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North. Cycle training and education in schools was mentioned by several hon. Members. That is critical. I am doing an Industry and Parliament Trust Fellowship on logistics. I spent some time with TNT, which trains its postal delivery people to ride bikes. When they have down time, they partner local schools to train the kids there. If TNT can do it, the question to the Minister is this: is Royal Mail doing it? There must be other companies out there that could contribute, too.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

Royal Mail is doing that. It has a cycle workshop in my constituency, which maintains 500 bicycles used by the Royal Mail in the Greater York area.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the extra time he has given me; I knew that somebody would respond positively on behalf of Royal Mail.

Questions have been raised about HGVs and the fear factor, a road deaths investigation board and improved statistics on serious injuries and fatalities. The Home Office and the Department for Transport have always resisted a fatalities inquiry board for road traffic fatalities because there are just too many of them, but we have to raise the bar and look more seriously at investigating more thoroughly the fatalities on our roads.

Other issues raised include: congestion charging and road closures to force traffic to surrender more space to cyclists; advanced stop areas; earlier green lights for cyclists; blitz enforcement of transgressors—whether car drivers or cyclists—in advance areas; cycle storage; and mandatory helmets. I know that many people are opposed to making helmets mandatory. I am in favour, but it is not going to happen. The evidence against it coming from Australia and America is somewhat time-limited. If we get our kids using helmets in schools, they will graduate into wearing them.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

No one who is favour of cycling should be against encouraging people to wear helmets, but will my hon. Friend accept that the overwhelming evidence—not just in Australia, but from all over the world—is that where cycle helmets have been made compulsory the impact on cycling has been negative, and therefore the overall public health impact has been negative?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I hear what my right hon. Friend says and there is a cultural question here. I am sure we all watched the 100th Tour de France this year. All the way down the decades of historic footage, none of the cyclists was wearing helmets. Every Tour de France rider now wears a helmet. That is professional leadership. They are in the game of minimising and mitigating risk, and they give a lead to all cyclists.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

If I have time at the end I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to get through the points raised by my constituents.

The last two negatives raised related to fatalities and punishment to fit the crime. We all hear tragic stories from constituents about punishments that do not fit the crime. On the conversion of wider pavements, Boris Johnson certainly has done that in London, particularly on the Embankment.

What I find fascinating is the counter-culture that comes through from my cyclist constituents. They complained about bad cycling behaviour and said that the cycle demographic in our country is mainly young, white, aggressive and male. That is why we do not “go Dutch” and why many people are put off cycling: they see a race track and do not want to join it. We need to address that problem, and the only way we are going to do so is through enforcement against those who cross red lights and pedestrian crossings.

People complained about cyclists who disregard the rules by wearing earphones; running red lights; crashing pedestrian crossings; not signalling whether they are turning left or right; not warning when they are overtaking; riding on pavements; using mobile phones; speeding on the Thames path; not ringing to alert pedestrians or other cyclists that they are overtaking on tow paths; swearing at pedestrians—some cyclists, like some drivers, think that they are entitled to a free run at the road; not dismounting in foot tunnels; not having lights; not having bells; and not wearing high-visibility clothing. Cyclists are not perfect. We have to give a lead to cyclists to say, “We should show a better example in the way we behave, to ensure that drivers behave in the way we want them to.”

In conclusion, my wife Sheila and I visited Amsterdam and Copenhagen recently. There is less racing, more sensible cycling and a much wider demographic; there is a different culture. We must have that more varied cycling demographic in our country. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State recently asked two questions of the Government. First, why do we have annual road and rail budgets to 2021, but not one for cycling? Secondly, why do we not have cycle safety assessments, similar to economic and equality impact assessments, for all road schemes?

My final question is about something that is raised in the report—I am not quite clear about the Government’s response—which said that we should have champions.

[Dr Huppert]

The issue with cycle helmets is that although they might save some lives, the countervailing loss of life from people not cycling and being less fit massively outweighs that. Indeed, one academic analysis suggested an extra 250 or so deaths a year net.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful for that intervention. That discussion needs to be had, and I am happy to ensure that we are raising it tonight.

My final question to the Minister is this. The report says that we should have national, regional and city champions. It is not clear from the Government’s response whether he is the national champion or not. If he is not, he should be. When will he recruit his regional and city-wide teams?

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

It gives me great pleasure to move amendment 1 and to discuss the other amendments in the group. I begin by paying tribute to the promoters, who said earlier today that two of my amendments in a subsequent group will be accepted, and I think that is a perfect answer to all those people who look askance at Members of this House who force debates on issues such as this and table amendments. The promoters have, by their actions, demonstrated the worthwhile nature of that behaviour.

The concerns of my hon. Friends lie in trying to find out more about the proposals before us and ensuring that the same standards of high-quality legislation are applied to private legislation as are applied to normal public legislation. I shall refer to some examples later and I hope that the House will agree that there are examples of legislative provisions that are too woolly or imprecise to deserve to be put on the statute book.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The critics to whom the hon. Gentleman refers have obviously never had the opportunity of being in the Chamber and listening to the amendments that he and his colleagues have tabled. They have clearly demonstrated their worth over many, many years.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to crow, other than to say that it is important that just because a Bill is a private Bill it should not be subject to less scrutiny than a public Bill. As was said on Second Reading, why should a local authority impose a statutory regime in its area different from the national regime?

I am delighted to see the Minister, who will be able to respond to some of the concerns about why a regime for dealing with skips different from the regime that applies elsewhere in the country that has to be introduced private legislation rather than through a public Bill promoted by the Government.

Before I get too distracted from the subject matter of the amendments, I should say that amendments 1 and 2, which can be considered together, are an example of why the Bill is unnecessarily complex. The Bill applies to the whole of London other than the City of London, yet it is proposed that its provisions should be brought in at different times in different areas. If we are to have a regime for skips, for example, in London, surely the changes should apply to the whole of London at the same time rather than piecemeal. Yet clause 3(2) states:

“Different days may be fixed under this section for the purpose of the application of the provisions mentioned in section 1(3) to different areas.”

Likewise, clause 3(3) states:

“Different days may be fixed under this section for the purpose of the application of the provisions mentioned in section 1(3) to an area.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Exactly. My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

Clause 5(5) falls into the “ludicrous and superfluous” category. It says:

“This section shall not be taken to exclude the employment of any method of service not expressly provided for by it”,

but of course the clause is only permissive; subsection (1) says that a notice

“may be served by post.”

What does clause 5(5) add to the statute book, other than completely superfluous wording? I would have thought it a statement of the obvious. Do we really need to include on the statute book lots of statements of the obvious, like this one? Amendment 6 would therefore leave it out.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman is making a strong argument for the amendment. If I heard him correctly, he said that he had received an indication that some of his amendments may be accepted by the sponsor. Is this amendment one of those that he anticipates being acceptable to the sponsor?

[Mr Chope]

I hope so, but I have not yet received formal notice about this amendment. The two amendments about which I have received formal notice are in the second group, and I will not go into those now. From the hon. Gentleman’s comments, it seems that he is supportive of the amendment—I am not sure whether he is referring to amendment 5 or 6; perhaps he could indicate that more clearly.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I was not indicating whether we supported or opposed the amendment; all I was saying was that the hon. Gentleman was making a strong argument.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman suddenly seems rather nervous about committing himself. I am grateful to him for acknowledging the strength of the argument, even if that is not carried forward into support in the Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

It would be shocking; indeed, it would be shocking if the emergency services did not have the keys to access such a gate when they arrived at the scene, which in my experience they always do. To my knowledge—I will bow to anyone else’s superior knowledge—there has never been a situation where the emergency services required access to such a gate but were prevented because they were not carrying the keys.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Is it not also the case that the emergency services have a statutory power of entry when they are fulfilling their duties under the appropriate legislation?

[Bob Blackman]

I cannot imagine that anyone who was acting under the authority and direction of a member of the relevant services would be prosecuted for that.

In summary, on behalf of the promoters, I hope that I have given sufficient explanation to enable the mover of the amendment to withdraw it, rather than pressing it to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East described the clause as “a decluttering exercise”, and I agree that there are far too many signs about, which is very confusing. I wholeheartedly support any measures to do with decluttering. I would be even more impressed, therefore, if clause 4 were headed “Removal of street lamps and signs to buildings” rather than “Attachments of street lamps and signs to buildings”, which suggests to me that the aim is not to remove the street lights or signs, but to make provision for them to be added to a building. As far as I can see, that is what the clause is about—the circumstances in which a sign can be added to a building; hence all the rules and regulations about serving a notice before such action is taken. I am not entirely convinced. There might well be some ideas about how to get rid of the superfluous signs that clutter up our streetscapes around London. As I say, however, I would be more impressed if there were some evidence of that on the face of the Bill.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman says that he is not convinced by the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who I think said that many of the decluttering proposals were being supported, indeed perhaps even sponsored, by English Heritage. Is the hon. Gentleman thus not only unconvinced, but confused that English Heritage is putting forward these proposals that are about trying to declutter our streets?

[Mr Nuttall]

What I cannot understand is why we would need legislation to remove a sign. I understand why legislation is needed to put a sign up, but I am not aware that once a sign is up legislation is required to remove it; someone could just go and take it down. I would be interested to know from others whether I am right. Perhaps after a certain period, a sign acquires some sort of importance. If it is attached to a listed building, it might become part of the listing. However, there is no evidence in the Bill that that is intended. There is merit in saying that special provisions should apply to the effect that clause 4 should not apply to any building in a conservation area.

Amendment 5 deals with a

“notice served under section 4(4), (8) or (11)(a).”

Such notices can be served in a number of ways. I leave aside the irrelevance of the whole clause; we will come to that in a moment. Clause 5(4) states that the notice could be left

“in the hands of a person who is…resident…employed on the land or leaving it conspicuously affixed to some building or object on or near the land”

or with someone who “appears to be resident”.

I have personal experience of doing the job. When I was first employed as a trainee legal executive, part of my role was to go to far-flung parts of Sheffield to serve such notices. I have done the job and know the problems of serving notices and trying to find somewhere suitable to fix them. I can imagine the situations that may arise when some poor council official is faced with being sent out on a rainy Friday morning to some distant part of London to try to serve a notice.

We need to consider the purpose of serving the notice. It is to ensure that a person affected by this legislation knows what is about to happen. The problem with clause 5(4) is that a notice can be given to someone who just “appears to be resident”. They might not be resident; they might be passing through or cleaning the windows. Some owners clean their own windows, while others employ people to do it. The person serving the notice might easily leave it with someone who they genuinely thought lived there, but that person might stuff it in their pocket without thinking twice.

I will not detain the House any further on this matter, but there is clearly scope for the four words in amendment 5 to be taken out of clause 5(4). The clause would be much better without them.

Amendment 6 would remove an even more bizarre subsection:

“This section shall not be taken to exclude the employment of any method of service not expressly provided for by it.”

In other words all the mentions of methods of serving a notice, such as by post, or sending it to an address that has been given or to a limited company, or, as I have just mentioned, of actually going and giving it to a person—an employee, perhaps—or putting it on an object nearby or on to the building, can be left aside and people can do whatever they like. They can just turn up, perhaps, or put it in a hot air balloon and hope it will drift by, and say, “Well, that was the method I thought of. It wasn’t a very good one, but this doesn’t exclude the employment of any method, so I thought of that. A colleague tried to convince me it should be a carrier pigeon, but I thought a balloon would be a good idea.” This is just nonsense.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) rightly brought up the question of e-mail. Subsection (5) may well be intended to provide for the use of e-mail, in which I case I would say that that is fine and in the modern world there is nothing wrong with serving notices by e-mail. Bearing in mind the long gestation of this Bill, however, I cannot understand why that is not expressly set out in it, if that is what the promoters had in mind.

Amendments 7 and 8 are best dealt with together. The issue in question is slightly confusing because it all revolves around the words “may” and “shall”. As we heard in the exchanges that took place a few moments ago, the interpretation of this clause is everything, really. The whole essence of the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is simply to make things clear. As the clause is drafted, the authority might make good the damage, but they might not. My hon. Friend’s amendment makes it the case that the highway “shall” be repaired. I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East about that imposing an obligation on authorities, but I would have thought that they would want to see the highway properly maintained for a number of reasons, first from the point of view of their residents and secondly from the point of view of risk reduction. As we all know, it is a very costly exercise for local authorities not properly to maintain the highway, so I would have thought that they would in any event want to make good any damage caused by a contractor, and I see no problem with replacing “may” with “shall” or with moving the word “may” to before the word “recover” so that they may recover the expenses. It may well be that they will do that in every single case, so in 100% of cases they will have the right to go and recover the expenses from the contractor, but that does no more than the clause as drafted does. It already says that they may make good the damage and recover the expenses, so it implies that they may not. I cannot see why this amendment cannot be accepted.

Amendment 9 is very well thought out. I understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East made on behalf of the promoters, which was that they understandably want to recover the costs they have incurred, but I cannot understand why they should try to recover them from somebody who may have nothing to do with the damage caused. It makes sense to recover the costs from whoever has caused the damage, on the “polluter pays” principle—I entirely agree with that. However, simply saying that they should have the right to recover them from the owner of the land, without any explanation as to how the owner may be identified—without saying whether it is the freeholder, the leaseholder, the sub-lessee or the tenant—creates a lawyer’s paradise, a description I shall use in relation to amendment 20. I can just imagine the length of the litigation that might ensue from this provision were it allowed to remain in the Bill, so I strongly support amendment 9.

--- Later in debate ---

In the interests of brevity, I will not go through the other amendments that he ran through. I hope I have made it clear that on some it was good to tease out the answers from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, but those amendments are not worth pursuing. Amendments 5 and 20 are welcome and I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will find a way to press those to a Division.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).

When the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) was initially moving his amendments in a self-deprecating fashion, saying that he is sometimes criticised for the role he plays in private Business, I said in an intervention that that is not the view on the Opposition Benches. We value the service he provides, ably assisted by his hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for Shipley. I sometimes query whether the length of time taken is necessary, but I do not in any way, shape or form challenge, question or criticise the right to table amendments and make sure that legislation such as this is scrutinised.

Having listened to the arguments from the hon. Member for Christchurch and his hon. Friends and the explanations from the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), I regret to inform the hon. Member for Christchurch that should he press any of the amendments in this group to a vote, Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition will not be joining him in the Lobby.

[Mr Chope]

With your encouragement, Mr Speaker, this has been a very civilised debate and we have covered the ground. As I said, this is the first opportunity we have had to look at much of the detail of the Bill. I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for having responded to the points that were made. I have been convinced by many of the arguments, and he produced answers to many of my concerns.

With regard to the two amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) identified as being worthy of further consideration by testing the will of the House, my inclination is not to press amendment 5, because my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said that clause 5, to which the amendment relates, is a complete replication of the existing law set out in section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972, in which case to divide the House would probably be to seek its indulgence in a way that I would prefer not to do. I hope that it will be possible in due course to seek the House’s view on amendment 20, which would mean having a Division after we consider the next group of amendments.

Having listened to the debate, it seems to me that the issue of gated roads has national application, rather than being confined to London. If we are to create a completely new offence, as both my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) have said, we must ensure that the legislation is as plain as a pikestaff so that everybody knows where they stand. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said, we cannot be in the business of passing laws that are a matter of interpretation.

I think that it would be wrong to create through legislation a new criminal offence that could have the effect of penalising a good Samaritan. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, it is idiotic that a person who closes a gate after him, when it had been open, could find himself on the wrong side of the criminal law. There is too much control by political correctness. We now have a situation in which firemen are not prepared to go and rescue somebody because that might be against health and safety regulations. We do not want a situation in which a person does not close a gate in their neighbourhood that is normally closed because they fear that to do so might be to commit a criminal offence. For those reasons, and thanking everybody who has contributed to the debate, I seek the leave of the House, at the appropriate moment, to test its opinion on amendment 20.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, it would be incumbent on the person served with the PCN to substantiate that the contravention was down to someone else, in the same way as they would make representations against any other PCN. The local authority would then examine those grounds, and if they were relevant and someone else was responsible, the PCN would be withdrawn and issued to the relevant person. That is exactly how local authorities deal with highways offences.

Amendments 17, 18 and 19 deal with potential immobilisation. Clearly, local authorities in London want the power to immobilise a skip if they deem it appropriate, but of course if a skip is in a dangerous position on the highways, the last thing they are going to do is immobilise it; they will want it removed. If, however, it is in a reasonably safe position and a notice to change the lighting has been issued, the local authority could step in, light the skip and immobilise it using the devices on the market that allow that to be done, making it safe for pedestrians and other road users. At the same time, they could pursue the person who has contravened the rules. A local authority would do that only if it was appropriate to do so, which is quite right. Amendments 17, 18 and 19 deal with that issue.

One of the challenges is what is in the skip. Obviously local authorities need the discretion to remove anything that is inappropriate.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

If I remember correctly, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) pointed out on Second Reading that many people did not realise that skips could be immobilised, given their size and weight. However, the hon. Gentleman has just explained that such devices are available. When it is safe, their use may be appropriate to prevent people from flouting their responsibilities when they place skips on our roads.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the issue.

In summary, let me say on behalf of the promoters that we accept amendment 11 and oppose the rest of the amendments in this group. Part 3 of the Bill deals with appropriate action to make London streets safer when people put skips on the public highway, by ensuring appropriate fines and enforcement action when people break or flout the rules. We will accept amendment 11, but I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch not to press the other amendments.