Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we are having cross-departmental discussions on the matter. No decision has been taken yet, but I hope we will come to a conclusion in the near future.

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

When the Government announced trials of 80 mph limits on our motorways, there was dismay at the prospect of higher emissions, higher costs for drivers and collisions at higher speeds. The Minister announced in a recent speech that the trials were still on track, whereas the Secretary of State suggested in a press interview last Sunday that they were off the table. If there is one thing we need in road safety, it is clarity. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government are still pressing ahead with such a dangerous policy?

[Stephen Hammond]

The Government made an initial assessment of the possibility of introducing trials of 80 mph limits, but it is not a priority. What is a priority for this Government is the transformational investment that is delivering growth and road safety. Yesterday’s announcement by the Chancellor will give us the means to deliver that transformational change.

Air Transport (Northern Ireland)

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Burns]

Treasury.

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

Stereo.

[Mr Robertson]

The Treasury is all-powerful. The level of air passenger duty was reduced to that for short-haul flights, and the Government have since devolved decisions on air passenger duty to the Assembly, so it can decide how it wants to play it. That reduction saved that route. I pay tribute in particular to the Select Committee members from Northern Ireland, who put pressure on me as Chairman, allowing me to put pressure on the Government. We saved that route, but it was a close-run thing that demonstrates how important—how big an issue—air passenger duty is.

Okay, we saved that route and that is important, given the relationship with America, but 98.5%—the vast majority—of Northern Ireland passengers take short-haul flights. Many witnesses cited air passenger duty as a major problem and a major cost, particularly for people who travel an awful lot.

I have made mild criticism of the Government so far. They inherited a massive deficit from the previous Government and, as we saw yesterday, it is difficult to cut taxes at this moment. We fully understand that. However, I stress to the Minister—although we are glad that the Transport Minister is present, and we know that three Ministers cannot be here, we could have done with a Treasury and a Northern Ireland Minister here, too—that air passenger duty is important. I hope that he takes that message back to the Treasury, to see what can be done to lower this burden on the people of Northern Ireland.

The Committee also considered visas and tourism, which is important to Northern Ireland and, indeed, to the Republic of Ireland. Of course, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not in Schengen, but in what is known as the common travel area. Although that is helpful, people coming from other countries to Ireland—it is a bit more complicated than this—may need a further visa to get into the United Kingdom, and vice versa.

Again, the Government agreed with our recommendation and are already acting to have discussions with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, to see if this situation can be made simpler. Obviously, there has to be a uniform security policy surrounding the common travel area, if we go down that route, but we encourage the Government in that regard. Of course, the island of Ireland is promoted as one destination in respect of tourism. There is nothing wrong with that, even for Unionists like me. It is sensible. However, we feel that there can be more simplicity with regard to travelling to both the UK and Ireland.

I thank the Committee for all its hard work in compiling this report. I hope that I have stressed the importance of rebalancing the economy in Northern Ireland and of the role that air transport plays in that.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Amess, and it is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). She made reference to most of the report’s key points, which I will also refer to when I comment on the report, and she raised several other issues that I hope to cover. I thank the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), for the report and for his explanation of it: it is clearly a work of some significance. It is a good to see the Minister in his place to respond to the debate, and I hope not to be too long in my contribution, because responding to the points that have been made is clearly a matter for the Government.

I want to make two non-financial declarations, Mr Amess. First, I have family in Belfast, not too far from the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast East, in Holywood. Secondly, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that I sailed from Southampton to Belfast last year to help celebrate the opening of the Titanic Belfast museum, which is a must for anyone interested in British history, British shipping or British tourism. Going to see it was a great opportunity that my wife and I took.

My hon. Friend, along with the hon. Member for Belfast East and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, made some powerful points on air passenger duty, and I will come back to those in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall also commented on links to north America and particularly, potential new links to Canada, which the hon. Member for Belfast East also referred to. I am sure that the Minister will come back to those links in due course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall asked for the Opposition’s view on APD. I know that the Minister would say the same thing as I would; it is a Treasury matter. However, I have had meetings with shadow Treasury Ministers, and the official Opposition policy is that we have given a commitment to undertake a review of APD, because there is an understanding—I am sure with the Government as well, because of the comments that they have been making—of the impact that APD is having on tourism, industry and connectivity. The hon. Member for Belfast East made significant comments on the Oxford Economics report, the PricewaterhouseCoopers report and what APD is doing, as well as whether it should be rebalanced and whether that could provide a greater incentive for the UK economy to grow. I have no doubt that colleagues in the shadow Treasury team are keen to look at those issues.

The hon. Lady made some points reinforcing the report’s recommendations, and I will try to refer to what she said briefly in my review of the recommendations. One thing that I will say is that from my time as aviation Minister, between 2007 and 2009, I know that the vast majority of airports take the issue of noise very seriously. We tried to reinforce the provisions, and the coalition has tried to reinforce the protection for communities around airports. My understanding is that the expansion of the airports in Paris, which we envy, because they have a greater capacity than we have, was partly dealt with by the appointment of a noise regulator for aviation in Paris, which provided the independence that the hon. Lady is asking for. This is about reassuring the public that somebody—whether the Government, an economic regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, or whoever—is looking at the noise footprint and can ensure that it is within the contours; that all the arrangements, whether compensation, double-glazing or air-conditioning, that are in place for most airports are monitored appropriately; and that the matter is being dealt with efficiently.

On the report, the key question relates to recommendation 1 on connectivity. The Government, as I am sure the Minister will tell us, have set up the Davies commission, which is looking at capacity and connectivity. He knows that we think that it was a great idea and that we suggested it 12 months before they did it, but the fact that they got round to it is to their credit. We fully support it, and Labour’s position is that we will wait to see the outcome of the commission and its recommendations.

The only potential recommendation that we have firmly set ourselves against is if the commission comes out in favour of an estuary airport. I cannot imagine that it will, but that is one recommendation that we will not take forward. However, we will look at anything else that Davies comes out with, as the Conservative party has also said. I think that the Liberal Democrats are in a different place altogether on aviation. I am not clear exactly how they view aviation, given how important it is as an economic tool, which everyone who has spoken in the debate so far has recognised.

[Mr Laurence Robertson]

If an additional airport is not in Labour’s plans at all, the hon. Gentleman must be sympathetic to the idea of a third runway at Heathrow.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

For the avoidance of doubt, we have said that we will look at whatever the Davies commission proposes, with the exception of a potential recommendation to build an estuary airport. We said that if that is a recommendation, we are sorry, but we are not persuaded at all by the evidence that that is the way to move aviation forward as an economic tool for UK plc. However, we will look at point-to-point, additional runways at Gatwick or Stansted, or a new hub airport—whatever the Davies commission comes up with, we will look at, but an estuary airport, from our point of view, is off the table.

Anecdotally, a range of events have been organised by a variety of different organisations, industry bodies, think-tanks and so on. The best story that I have heard from many such meetings was a question-and-answer session that included, on the top table, the chief executive of Schiphol airport. When he was asked what he thinks the answer to the UK’s aviation policy should be, his response was, “It’s not for me to say, but the recommendation I would give is that you should take your time and think about it long and hard.” The longer we take to make a decision, the more Schiphol is growing, day by day, week by week, and month by month.

As the hon. Member for Belfast East and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall said, Schiphol advertises itself these days as the UK hub airport. It serves more than 20 British cities, while Heathrow only serves seven. Therefore, the connectivity from our regions is dwindling, and as slots from Heathrow become more precious and more airlines want to get in, that squeezes the ability for our regions and for Northern Ireland, Scotland and elsewhere to get in. Capacity is a big issue, and the connectivity points made in recommendation 1 are therefore significant.

On recommendation 2, we note the Government response. Naturally, I consulted my colleagues in the shadow Northern Ireland team and, if I may, I shall quote the points that they made to me. They said:

“The main political issue is Air Passenger Duty.”

They are aware of the

“keen debate on this around regional airports in the UK, particularly re Scotland.”

They say that their line to date, cleared with the shadow Treasury team, is that

“there are special circumstances in Northern Ireland. It is the only part of the UK that has a land border with another EU member state, which has lower rates of APD. Belfast City airport and Belfast International airport both compete with Dublin…on attracting airlines, routes and passengers. Conversely, it relies on…air transport for a link to the rest of the UK.

The government has removed”—

congratulations to the Government—

“APD on the long-haul New York flight from Belfast International airport, which we supported.”

That move is obviously well supported also in the Select Committee and by colleagues from Northern Ireland.

My colleagues in the shadow Northern Ireland team go on to say:

“We are sympathetic to the argument for reducing APD on all routes from Northern Ireland but would need to examine it fully, including the impact lowering the rate would have on the block grant. There are other options including looking at ‘protected routes’ that already exist in the UK for the air link to the Scottish islands, for example. Belfast-London Heathrow would be the obvious one for this.”

I cannot imagine that the Minister will say very much different.

On recommendations 3, 4 and 5, the Government response says that they concern devolved matters, and clearly that is the case. With regard to recommendations 6 and 7, I think that I covered the relevant points in my comments on APD. Recommendations 8 and 9 concern a key issue, and obviously the Government say so in their response. That matter is very much part of this debate.

On recommendations 10 and 11, we are told:

“The Government notes the comments on these areas”,

which I think is a very erudite thing to do.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is an important report. I am pleased to be here to contribute to the debate. I thank hon. Members for their comments and the Chairman and his Committee for producing the report. Like them, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Lady is extremely charming and in many ways intellectually seductive. She too has been a Minister. There may be only four close honourable friends of mine sitting in the Chamber, but unfortunately the walls have ears. I have always found that it is extremely wise when one is a member of a governing Administration to be bound by collective responsibility, which I happen to believe in as well; one fully understands the merits of the cases that the Government put forward as their policy and one fully supports them. I hope that explains to the hon. Lady that what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had to do was due to the unsatisfactory, if not catastrophic, economic situation we inherited in May 2010. We have had to take some tough and difficult decisions. He is right, because it is right that we address the problems of the debt and the deficit.

I shall move on to the probably more neutral subject of aviation policy frameworks. Overall, the Government want aviation to continue across the country. To that end, we continue to deliver: we have delivered the Civil Aviation Act 2012, to bring the regulatory framework up to date, and we are implementing the recommendations of the south-east task force. We have also acted to ensure that the Northern Ireland aviation sector remains competitive. We plan to create an economic climate that enables people to travel and to use aviation to conduct business and visit friends and family as easily and cost-effectively as possible. Many people in Northern Ireland are concerned, as those in the rest of the country are, about capacity, particularly capacity in London and south-east England. Although it is across the Irish sea from Northern Ireland, capacity there does, as hon. Members have said, have a knock-on effect on those who wish to fly long-haul from Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland to the rest of the world. They will frequently travel to London to meet their connections and then travel on or, as hon. Members have said, in some cases they go to Dublin.

The Government believe that maintaining the UK’s status as a leading global aviation hub is fundamental to our long-term international competitiveness. To make decisions, we need our evidence on the way forward to be as up to date as possible. Dealing with airport capacity, increasing the size of existing airports or creating new airports is highly controversial and arouses strong emotions. It is essential that we get it right, which is why I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse on his party’s attitude to how we are moving forward, but I exclude from that welcome the comments he made about Boris island; I must be totally independent, so I do not want to comment on any option and compromise that independence.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The only difficulty we have with the Davies commission is the timetable the Government have given it to arrive at its conclusions, which is after the 2015 general election. Like Mayor Boris Johnson, the CBI and the aviation industry, we would much rather the deadline were brought forward to before the general election, so that parties have an opportunity to examine the recommendations and include them or otherwise in their manifestos, and people can have the opportunity to decide.

[Mr Burns]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but perhaps I should let sleeping dogs lie; he kindly did not mention that topic in his comments. The time scale that has been given, with interim recommendations for the short term announced at the end of the year and a full-blown report with recommendations in the summer of 2015, is the right one. On a very complex, difficult and controversial subject, the commission must have the right amount of time to assess fully all the evidence and come to a proper decision, rather than rush it for an artificial, more short-term deadline. I fear that if it had had a shorter time scale, all those who did not like whatever recommendation the commission made, would accuse it of a botched job because it was a rushed job, because it did not have enough time.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Forgive me, Mr Amess, but I must comment that the Davies commission was appointed more than 12 months ago. It has a three-year job, but there is no way that it takes three years to arrive at conclusions on an issue such as aviation capacity in the south-east. There is so much evidence available. Three years is far too long. The timetable is a political stitch-up to get past the general election, because the issue is a deal breaker for the coalition. That is the reality in politics. I am not knocking it; it is just where we happen to be. The timetable could have been shorter and that would not have truncated the opportunity for a full, thorough and comprehensive examination of the issues by the commission.

Road Safety

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bayley. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who is a member of the Transport Committee. I can be brief, because the Chairman of the Committee has raised most of the points I would have elaborated on, and we obviously want to hear the Minister’s response to her questions.

In the few minutes I have, I would like to thank the Committee for its excellent report. The Government response is also positive, and there is a lot to be taken from it. I also thank the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, Living Streets and the Motor Schools Association for their submissions to me when I was considering the report.

It is important to put on record that the cross-party consensus on road safety was broken by the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), when he abolished targets as part of the Government’s approach to road safety. He opposed targets in principle. He used the mantra of the war on the motorist as part of his explanation, but there was never a war on the motorist—there was a war on dangerous and careless driving. None the less, targets went and, as the Committee said in its excellent report, the reduction in the number of deaths over the past 20 years in every industrialised country that uses targets varies

“between 4% and probably about 17%”.

Targets therefore have a proven track record. They were introduced by the Thatcher Administration in the late ’80s, and they had cross-party support for the following 30 years.

There was movement following the arrival of the next Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), and there has been movement under the current Secretary of State. The introduction of forecasts, with much more elaboration of how they will be determined, is a positive move. Perhaps the Minister can say a little more about the road safety observatory, which sounds positive. Is there really a difference between targets and forecasts, or is there just a difference in the words? Perhaps he can also tell us about naming and shaming, which has been mentioned. Will it be down to road safety campaigners and local authorities to do that?

On young drivers, we would like to know when the Government’s research and their proposals will be available. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South also asked about graduated learning, and there are some positive suggestions. I am sure there is consensus on that issue. Other issues include young people not being able to get to work in areas where there are no good public transport links. There are issues to be looked at, but the question is, when will the Government come forward with proposals? The question of timing is raised in the Committee’s report. Similarly, on motorcycle safety, we are still waiting for the conclusions from the work started in 2011. The Minister might want to say a little about that.

The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) and the Committee Chair raised the issue of speed limits in transport questions this morning, because there have been mixed messages about motorway speed limits. They were initially going to be tested in 2011. It is now 2013, and there have been statements saying, “No, we’re not going that way.” This morning, however, the Secretary of State said the Government will start trials later this year. That is a very mixed message, and it will not be welcomed by the road safety community. The Minister might like to say something about that and about increasing the use of 20 mph limits in our communities.

Road safety should not be political. I commend the Minister, who made an excellent speech at yesterday’s launch of the report by the all-party group on cycling. He made all the right noises about the campaign by The Times, which the Government are clearly taking seriously. Perhaps he will confirm that they will treat the all-party group’s report like a Select Committee report so that we could have a debate on it. The Committee has also raised the question of votability in relation to the 80 mph trials.

Many of us have lobbied for road safety debating time, and it is a real shame that when we get it, we run up against Prorogation. Mr Bayley, I am sure you can take that message back to the Speaker. A number of us will also approach the Backbench Business Committee to try to get a proper debate in due course.

Road safety should not be political; indeed, it generally is not, and there is consensus on it. I commend the Minister on his determination to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on our roads, because every death is a tragedy for the families and friends of those involved. If six people died every day on trains or in planes, we would have public inquiry after public inquiry. We are killing that number of people on our roads, but the publicity is just not there, and we, as politicians, are not giving the issue as much priority as we should.

Engagement with the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department of Health and the Treasury is a positive way forward. As I say, I commend the Minister and his officials on their efforts. I also commend the road safety campaign groups. We need to keep driving the numbers down. We have been massively successful over the past 30 years, and much has been done, but, as ever, there is much more to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

I am not sure where the confused briefing came from, but I assume that it must be the Welsh Government, because funding for the M4 around Newport is, as the hon. Lady knows, a matter for them.

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

One of the lead stories on the BBC’s “Breakfast” this morning was about potholes. The National Audit Office calculates that it would be cheaper to repair our roads than to deal with the damage and injuries caused by potholes. Regardless of whether they are the result of the weather or the cuts, has the Minister had discussions with Treasury colleagues on trying to get additional funding to use those infrastructure projects to get the UK economy moving?

[Stephen Hammond]

I announced earlier the huge amount of money the Government are committing to highways maintenance. We have continual discussions with the Treasury on the money needed for that, and I am delighted that this Government’s settlement for highways maintenance has been better than that achieved by the previous Government. We remain committed to ensuring that potholes are repaired, and I remind local authorities of their obligations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

If I may say so, the important thing is the measures we take to make roads safer, rather than the arbitrary targets that the hon. Gentleman seeks to introduce. The Secretary of State has made plain, since his appointment to office, the significant importance that he attaches to road safety, and that runs through the Department.

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

A previous coalition Secretary of State suggested that an increase in 20 mph zones could be a trade-off with 80 mph limits on some of our motorways. Doing a U-turn at 80 mph would be crazy and dangerous; may I invite the Minister to do a U-turn here safely, and formally announce that the coalition will not proceed with 80 mph trials?

[Norman Baker]

I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point. The matters about 80 mph are being carefully evaluated and the Secretary of State will make a statement on that in due course.

Humber Bridge Bill

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I rise very briefly to put on record the Opposition’s support for the Bill; to congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and his colleagues on making sure that it was debated this evening; and to thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for indicating the cross-Chamber support for the Bill.

The Minister outlined in some detail the nature of the Bill and we look forward to discussing it more fully in Committee. It is also nice that the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) is in her place to hear the nice things that have been said about her. We have crossed swords on several issues over the years, and it is nice when sometimes we can congratulate Members on the other side, rather than criticise them. We support the Bill and we look forward to its swift passage.

HGV Road User Levy Bill

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 1, page 5, line 4, leave out subsection (3).

I had the opportunity to have an informal chat with the Minister earlier today about the amendment. Although I am aware that technically it may not do the job exactly as required, I shall outline its intent and the background, and I hope the Minister will address both the intent and what is proposed, and deal with the requirements in due course.

The background to the amendment is correspondence from the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association, from Miss Amanda Brandon, the legal and policy executive of the BVRLA, and the legal director, Mr Jay Parmar. The BVRLA, as the Minister and colleagues who were on the Committee will know, gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee on 4 December. In response to a question from the Chair of the Committee, Mr Parmar said:

“However, we have some serious concerns about the drafting of the Bill and the impact it could have both financially and economically on our members”.

He went on to say:

“To give the Committee a feel for the figures, we have estimated that our members tend to dispose of around 20,000 trucks every year, so if we look at a typical fleet that is being disposed of being between band E, as proposed in the Bill, and band G, we believe that, under band E, with two months unused lorry road user fee available, the figure is around £1.06 million, and for band G it is £1.6 million. That is the amount that we would not be able to reclaim under the Bill, which would result in a loss of around £2.7 million each year to UK operators. That starts to give the scale of our concern.”––[Official Report, HGV Road User Levy Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2012; c. 35-36, Q87-88.]

I am sure that the Minister has seen the correspondence received this week from the BVRLA, which says:

“The BVRLA is fully supportive of the Bill’s key aims of creating a level playing field between UK and foreign hauliers and ensuring foreign operators make a fair contribution towards using UK roads. However, clause 7(3) will impose a new cost burden on UK owners as they will be restricted in the amount they are able to claim as a refund for the unused proportion of the levy. A vehicle owner today is able to obtain a VED refund without such a restriction when it is being sold or SORN’d”—

a reference to an off-road notice, as the Minister knows. We had this exchange in Committee, so he is very familiar with this territory.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) for tabling his amendment. I hope that I will be able to persuade him that it does not deal with the concerns raised by the BVRLA, which I should like also to address. I want to try to prove to him that his amendment would potentially, if we were not careful, give a free £200 to an awful lot of people. I hope he will agree with me on that. We discussed the point about clause 7 in Committee when the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) raised the issue of 10 monthly and 12 monthly payments.

Removing clause 7(3) would remove the annual rebating formula and mean that all the rebates would be made under subsection (4), which applies to all periods of time over one month and less than one year. Under the European directive, the charges and rebating formula must be the same for both UK and foreign-registered vehicles.

In selecting the charges for different time periods, we have chosen to offer the annual levy at a discount compared with the purchase of 12 monthly levy payments. That is also compatible with the Eurovignette directive, which states that the annual charge may be no less than 10 times the monthly charge.

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would not have its intended effect, which I believe is to ensure that UK hauliers would be able to claim the rebates in twelfths rather than tenths, as proposed by the Bill. As he has rightly pointed out, I am aware of what the BVRLA has put together. It has been lobbying for a change to the calculation because at the moment it estimates that a UK operator could incur a small loss when it delicenses a vehicle—typically when it is sold—compared with the existing rebating regime for vehicle excise duty, which rebates in twelfths. The BVRLA has identified that a small extra cost to operators could be introduced by the way in which the levy is rebated compared with how VED is rebated.

Currently, when a vehicle is delicensed—typically when it is sold—the previous owner can claim back the outstanding whole months of VED, with the rebate calculation done in twelfths. From the introduction of the levy in 2014, UK operators will only be able to reclaim VED on the same basis that the levy can be reclaimed, namely in tenths. Setting the annual rate at 10 times the monthly rate complies with EU law and will maximise the revenue from the monthly charges. That means, in effect, that it is discounted when compared with the cost of the 12 monthly levy charges.

The decision to offer rebates in tenths was made, as I explained in Committee and as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, to prevent foreign hauliers from paying for a year, using a vehicle for a month and then reclaiming 11 months. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would have the effect—although this is not its intent—of removing that.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I accept the explanation about tenths and twelfths and that we do not want to give an advantage to foreign hauliers, but the question that was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) has still clearly not been answered to the satisfaction of the BVRLA. When someone surrenders VED—a tax disc—they can claim back, but if a vehicle is off the road while it is in the process of being sold, which could take two or three months, and is accruing the levy charge, can that be claimed back? If it can, I think that will answer the problem.

[Stephen Hammond]

I hope that I am about to address exactly that point. I welcome the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk to his place, because he raised the point about the levy rebate, which I hope my opening remarks have addressed.

The BVLRA estimates that rebating the charge in tenths rather than twelfths might cost its members, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse has said, up to £2.7 million a year. That estimate is on the high side, to say the least, because the BVRLA assumes that half the refunds would be for vehicles in the most expensive levy band, whereas, in fact, only 4% of the UK fleet is in that band. Most UK vehicles—83%—are in bands costing between 36% and 65% less. I would therefore question whether the cost is as high as estimated.

The BVRLA also assumes that all refunds are claimed in the 10th month of the VED cycle for each vehicle, which is a worst-case scenario. In fact, there is a peak in vehicle disposals at around month three or four of the cycle, reflecting the fact that vehicles are often purchased in September and sold in January, to deal with Christmas business. The loss for any vehicle at this point is some 60% or 70% less than the worst-case figure.

We estimate that most vehicles will lose in the region of between £30 and £50 when delicensed. That is not a regular event, but it would happen, for example, when a vehicle is sold. The loss therefore needs to be set in the context of the vehicle’s whole lifetime, which can be about 10 years. For example, a typical vehicle that lasts 10 years and is sold twice during that period at a typical stage in the VED-levy cycle would incur between £60 and £100 in rebate costs over its life, because the loss is incurred only when the vehicle is sold or delicensed for other reasons. That cost equates to about £6 a year. Operators can avoid that cost by selling the vehicle taxed or by disposing of it only at the end of the VED-levy cycle so that there is no amount to reclaim.

As the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse said, the BVRLA gave oral evidence to the Committee and raised this point, but it did not give it the prominence that it has been given subsequently. I am pleased that we have been able to discuss it today because it did not feature in our discussion about levy rebates. I am pleased that I have been able to clear the point up. The BVRLA could have submitted written evidence on this point to the Committee, but it did not. It is helpful that it has been raised by way of amendment this afternoon.

[Stephen Hammond]

As I have said, the figure of £2.7 million is predicated on half the vehicles in the fleet being in the largest band, whereas only 4% are in that band. There will be a very small loss, if there is a loss at all. The £2.7 million figure is clearly an overestimate.

I seek to persuade the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse that under the amendment, all rebating would be done under clause 7(4), which is designed for shorter periods of time than one year. Rebating the annual levy under that subsection would not resolve the tenths versus twelfths issue, but it would allow some foreign operators to drive on the UK’s roads for free for up to two months when they purchase an annual levy. That is because, as we discussed in Committee, they would be able to claim a rebate for whole outstanding months at the monthly levy rate, rather than at the discounted rate.

As well as the potential for free use of the roads, a further consequence of using clause 7(4) as the rebating mechanism would be to allow anyone to make a claim for more than they had paid, without ever driving on the UK’s roads. For example, if an operator purchased a levy starting at a future point in time, say 1 February, and immediately asked for a rebate, they would be able to claim 12 times the monthly rate because the levy period would not have started. That would contrast with the actual cost of the 12-month levy, which is discounted to 10 times the monthly rate.

The consequential amendments would mean that clause 7(4) could also be used for annual rebating and would remove the references to clause 7(3) in clause 7(8), which deals with the level of the rebate. Given the unintended consequences of providing updates only through clause 7(4), and given the relatively small value of the typical loss, which is incurred only if the vehicle is delicensed or sold, we do not propose to change the rebating formula from tenths to twelfths.

I will keep the situation under review. I hope that with those reassurances, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse will withdraw the amendment.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

We are very grateful to the Minister for his response. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) raised this matter strongly in Committee. We supported the inquiry by the BVRLA because this seemed to be an issue that was slipping through the cracks. The Minister reassured us in Committee. He has said solidly that he will keep the matter under review. We do not want to see this develop into a disadvantage for British road haulage.

Given the assurances that the Minister has reaffirmed today, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I delighted that I have been joined on the Opposition Front Bench by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), and by the newest member of the shadow transport team, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue).

Despite the previous debate, this is a good Bill, and the Opposition welcome it, as we did on Second Reading. I commended the coalition for introducing it to support British haulage, and I commend the Minister and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who was the architect of the Bill—he built on that which Labour left him when it left office. It is clear from pre-legislative scrutiny and debates in Committee that the Bill has cross-party and cross-industry support.

The Opposition raised a number of issues in Committee: hypothecation, visible evidence of payment, rebates, meandering Irish cross-border roads—an issue covered by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and others—and road safety. We also dealt with the Bill’s timetable, enforcement and reduced pollution certificates. On all those issues, I am happy to say that the Minister was able to respond so positively and provide enough reassurance that none of the amendments we tabled was pressed to a Division. It is to the credit of the Minister and his officials that they responded so positively to the probing to which we exposed them. He reassured both sides of the Committee that the Bill should be supported.

I should make one or two brief comments on the issues we have raised. The Minister made a stout philosophical defence against hypothecation, and the Opposition could not argue against it because we too would have opposed hypothecation. He therefore made a lot of sense when he said that hypothecation was not an appropriate way forward.

On enforcement and the question of using some of the money as supplementary funds for the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, the Minister reassured us on his confidence in the system. We have moved on a lot—we have the success of the congestion charge in London and the technology for automatic number plate recognition cameras—and the Committee was reassured that we have the technology to ensure that the system works.

The one question on which those on both sides of the House have raised concerns was road safety and the disproportionate number of crashes caused by foreign vehicles. Perhaps the Bill will deter some foreign hauliers from coming to the UK, which might in turn reduce the number of crashes caused by foreign hauliers. In that respect, the Bill will have an impact on road safety.

The Opposition also raised the question of giving a tokenistic measure of support for road safety. We suggested using some of the money raised—either from fines or the levy—for road safety purposes. It was suggested that The Times cycling campaign, which has been championed by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State and other hon. Members, was an appropriate campaign to benefit from the levy. That was clearly not going to happen, but we considered it and demonstrated cross-party support for the campaign and for road safety in general, and so indicated that we need to maintain our rigour in respect of trying to reduce the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on our roads. This measure ought to help in that regard.

The Bill is a good Bill. It will make a contribution to rebalancing the playing field for UK hauliers. The previous Government should have introduced it. I discussed the matter with the Treasury Minister responsible at the time, and he too could not work out why we did not introduce it. I assume it was too late in our legislative cycle. That is slightly embarrassing, but Labour has none the less supported the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, as we support it on Third Reading.

We appreciate the efforts of officials and my hon. Friends who supported the official Opposition in Committee. We also appreciate the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chair of the Select Committee on Transport—she was in the Chamber on Second Reading and is here again on Third Reading—whose Committee helped in our deliberations. We want the Bill to make progress and are pleased we are debating it today.

Rising Cost of Transport

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

Happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for inviting me to deliver the winding-up speech for the Opposition. That was especially generous given yesterday’s front page on the “ConservativeHome” website and a lead article written by someone appropriately called Harry Phibbs—it was not spelled Fibs, although I am not sure what kind of future he thinks he has in politics. Mr Phibbs writes about a dozen politicians who he says should defect to the Conservatives, and he names me along with some other distinguished colleagues, including the former Transport Secretary, Lord Adonis, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris). I am grateful that the shadow Secretary of State trusts me with this winding-up speech in the face of such provocation.

I understand Mr Phibbs’s confusion, because in the 21st century, party lines can blur on some issues, of which equal marriage and Europe are good examples. On transport, however, and the motion before the House, nothing could be clearer: as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood laid out when opening the debate, bus fares are up twice the rate of inflation, services are disappearing and a prime ministerial promise of capping rail fares at 1% above inflation has been broken. Fares are increasing not by 4.3%—1% above inflation—but by 9.2%, and even worse, Government documents propose super-peak tickets that will cost even more. There are no problems with party lines on this issue. People are either with the vested interests—the train operating companies and the Government—or with hard-pressed commuters, the Transport Committee and the Opposition motion on the Order Paper. I will return to those issues shortly.

The Secretary of State generously joined the shadow Secretary of State’s tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), and—quite correctly—that was well greeted across the House. The Secretary of State has had difficult times during his short tenure. He is regarded as a honourable man but he has been picking up the pieces of the west coast main line franchise fiasco and the Davies commission signalled a Government U-turn—well, certainly a Conservative U-turn—on aviation policy in 2015. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood is not the only Member critical of the delay in the announcement by the Davies commission, and she is joined by Mayor Boris Johnson and Lord Heseltine. In my view, however, the biggest mistake—

[Mr McLoughlin]

rose—

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me; he knows that time is very limited but I do not wish to be discourteous. I was about to pay him a compliment in saying that in my view, one of the biggest mistakes made by one of his predecessors, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), was scrapping road safety targets that had bipartisan support across the House for 30 years and massively reduced deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Indeed, I commend the Secretary of State because at least he has had the decency to bring in forecasts that acknowledge we need to measure such things and set an ambition to reduce the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on the roads.

We have heard a number of thoughtful contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) made relevant points about the east coast main line and local connections, as well as sharing disturbing data on staffing conditions. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), a former Department for Transport Parliamentary Private Secretary, mounted a sterling defence of the coalition, which was a good way to sweeten his special local pleading, which I am sure went down well.

The distinguished Chair of the Transport Committee covered the recommendation from the new Committee report, to which I shall refer in a moment. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) reminded us how the Lib Dems are the honest brokers in the coalition. He even got the Scottish National party on side, albeit briefly. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) used his characteristic gentle aggressiveness and Transport Committee experience to criticise Labour’s record, and sought to use European comparisons to justify UK prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) raised the question of overcrowding on her local trains, as well as high ticketing costs and local buses, and the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) majored on the question of costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) raised a number of local issues as well as discussing major infrastructure items.

To return to the substance of the motion, according to the Department for Transport’s figures—the annual bus usage statistics for England—there was an increase in bus fares of 6.5%, which means fares have gone up by, on average, twice the rate of inflation. They have gone up by 5.4% in London. As we have heard, research has shown that one in five council-supported bus routes were cut or reduced last year, and that 41% of local authorities have had to axe services. That is not a good record on buses.

As we have heard, on rail fares, the Prime Minister promised to peg increases at 1% above inflation. That is another broken promise to add to the 70 missed targets headlined in The Daily Telegraph today—although perhaps it is one of the 70. The target was not only just missed; fare increases of up to 9.2% have been registered. And it gets worse: the Transport Committee states in its “Rail 2020” report:

“We recommend that the Government rule out forms of demand management which would lead to even higher fares for commuters on peak times”.

Why does it make that recommendation? It does so because of a quote from the Government’s rail fares and ticketing review from last year. The scriptwriters from “Yes, Minister” could not have improved on this language, and hon. Members will need to concentrate on the words:

“To provide a stronger incentive for behavioural change and more even usage of peak capacity among existing passengers, a wider ‘menu’ of fares could…also include a ‘high peak’ fare priced higher than the current Anytime day fare, a season ticket priced higher than the current season ticket”,

which means higher prices on routes. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that, because the Secretary of State did not refer to it, even though my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood raised the super-peak ticket on a number of occasions.

Labour’s position is a total contrast. The noble Lord Adonis set out his view last year of the policy he followed as Secretary of State in 2010. He said:

“Prior to 2010, train companies had the right to increase individual fares by up to five per cent above the…RPI+1 per cent level. This was a legacy of the privatisation settlement. I scrapped this flexibility because I believed it was deeply unfair”.

Of his successor as Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, Lord Adonis has said:

“It was my firm intention to continue the policy for subsequent years, and I was mystified when…my successor…reinstated the fares flexibility. The only people who supported this change were the train companies. It is the job of government to be on the side of the travelling public. Labour took this seriously, which is why we scrapped the fares flexibility. By contrast, the present government appears just to be on the side of the train companies.”

Government Members asked why the policy was introduced only in 2010. That is a legitimate question, but a better one would be: why has it not been repeated since 2010? We have had three years of coalition fares increases, but the policy has not been back.

The Prime Minister promised capped fares, but it has not happened, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), held out the prospect of the end of the era of above-inflation fare increases, but when asked by the BBC when that would happen, he could not answer. The Government are out of touch on rail. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood quoted the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who said that rail is a “rich man’s toy”. The Under-Secretary of State—long-serving in the Government; long-suffering on the Opposition Benches—tried to claim over the new year that rail fares were

“not nearly as expensive as”

they were “being presented”, and that passengers were paying for a “premium service”. If by “premium service” he means paying more, getting less and standing for longer, I agree. Just this week, the rail Minister, the Minister of State, was bullied into using rail by the media, which was a sad passage.

Labour would put passengers first by banning train companies from increasing fares above a cap set by Ministers. Government Members have the opportunity to stand up for their rail and bus commuters by supporting our motion tonight in the Lobby. I strongly urge them to do so and I commend the motion to the House.

Marine Navigation (No. 2) Bill

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Friday 30th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 5, leave out clause 2.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 2, line 7, leave out

‘a member of the crew’

and insert

‘master, first mate or senior navigating officer’.

Government amendment 12 , line 7, leave out ‘member of the crew’ and insert ‘deck officer’.

Government amendment 13, line 8, leave out

‘omit “of which he is master or first mate”’

and insert

‘for “master or first mate” substitute “a deck officer”’.

Amendment 3, line 8, leave out

‘of which he is master or first mate’

and insert

‘master, first mate or senior navigating officer’.

Amendment 4, line 9, leave out

‘a member of the crew of the ship’

and insert

‘master, first mate or senior navigating officer’.

Government amendment 14, line 10, leave out ‘member of the crew’ and insert ‘deck officer’.

Government amendment 15, line 12, leave out ‘person’ and insert ‘deck officer’.

Amendment 5,  line 12, leave out ‘person’ and insert

‘master, first mate or senior navigating officer’.

Government amendment 16,  line 12, at end insert—

‘( ) In section 31(1) (interpretation) at the appropriate place insert—

“deck officer”, in relation to a ship, includes the master and first mate;”.’.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am delighted to be here today. This is the third time we have had to debate clause 2. On Second Reading, we raised concerns about clause 2 and the pilotage exemption certificates, and in Committee we debated amendments that detailed some of our concerns. The Minister undertook to consider those and gave us some assurances. Those assurances were accepted, and we withdrew the amendments. We are pleased, now, to have what we hope will be a final debate on clause 2. It is the only clause that causes the Opposition any concern.

As we said on Second Reading and in Committee, we support the Bill and would like to see it pass today, but that will be down to the will of the House, the assurances we receive from the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), whom I congratulate on piloting—forgive the pun—the Bill to this point, and, obviously, the assurances that the Minister can give on our amendments.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the amendments in my name, including amendment 1, which the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) supports. I know that the Government take every amendment seriously—even more so when those on the Opposition Front Bench attach their names to it—but when the hon. Gentleman adds his tag it captures the Government’s attention, because they know there will be a good discussion about the amendment. Amendment 1 would delete clause 2 in its entirety, whereas our amendments 2 to 5 would amend it.

Amendment 1 registers the principle of opposition to change, based on the need for the certainty that exists at present. In previous debates I quoted from the Library note on the Bill, which outlines the history of pilot exemption certificates—and, indeed, the pilotage regulations—when it says:

“In March 1997 the Marine Accident Investigation Branch…published its findings into the grounding of the Sea Empress at Milford Haven in February 1996.”

The MAIB found that

“the initial grounding was caused by pilot error, due in part to inadequate training and experience in the pilotage of large tankers. It recommended that procedures should be developed and implemented for the effective monitoring of”

competent harbour authorities’ “standards and examination” of all pilots. That is what led to the present arrangements to ensure that vessels are piloted. That is the key issue, because any collision involving a vessel will lead to damage of the vessel or vessels and also poor infrastructure, while any subsequent pollution can have significant consequences, which we all want to avoid.

It was clear in Committee that there was support from the UK Maritime Pilots Association, which I know has been in correspondence with the hon. Member for South East Cornwall, the Minister and others. It said in an e-mail to me that clause 2

“is based on the specific commercial requirements of a small (aggregate dredging) sector of the UK shipping industry which for operational reasons is falling foul of the Working Time regulations. The net result of the clause will be to increase the risk of a serious maritime casualty within a UK port or approaches, seriously threatening: the safety of mariners and riparian communities, the safety of other shipping or vessels, ports’ infrastructures and ability to operate efficiently, environmental protection through increased risk of pollution”.

That is the UK Maritime Pilots Association’s starting point. I know that the whole House agrees that safety is a prime consideration in transport; therefore, when professional organisations raise concerns, they need to be addressed adequately. I am sure that in due course the Minister will respond in detail to the points I raise.

After the UKMPA’s e-mail there was correspondence from the officers’ representative body, Nautilus International, which said:

“It is important to state at the outset that Nautilus has been concerned for many years about the way in which PECs”—

pilot exemption certificates—

“are issued.”

Nautilus continued:

“we struggle to find any rational justification for the clause”—

clause 2—

“which would remove the existing restrictions requiring that PEC candidates should be a bona fide first mate or master.”

If amendment 1 is not accepted, which is contingent on what the Minister and others add to this debate, amendments 2 to 5 would address what we believe to be an inadequacy. The Government agree that there is a deficiency, as they have joined the hon. Member for South East Cornwall to table amendments 12 to 16, which give additional detail about the appropriate officer who should be empowered to pilot a vessel, so clearly there is an issue to clarify. We propose to add the words “senior deck officer”, whereas the Government and the hon. Lady propose the words “deck officer”. We are keen to hear the Government’s logic behind that—I will return to why we would include the word “senior” in a moment.

The Transport Committee’s 2008 report referred to pilotage exemption certificates and to the amendment in the original draft Bill to amend the provision for pilotage to extend the scope of those who can hold a PEC. The report stated:

“The proposed change would impose additional burdens on competent harbour authorities and make it harder to ensure that only appropriately qualified staff carried out pilotage. This could create unnecessary dangers. If it is necessary for the references to the Master or First Mate of a ship to be removed from the 1987 Act, we recommend that the reference to “bona fide” members of a ship’s crew be retained, for the avoidance of doubt. The Government should specify an appropriate rank or level of qualification for PEC-holders, following further consultation with the industry rather than leaving it to individual CHAs to assess each individual applicant’s relevant skills.”

We have also raised the question of the pressure that shipping lines might bring to bear on smaller ports to accept different levels of qualification.

The position in respect of the concerns about PEC holders was supported by port owners and unions alike at the time. Indeed, in Committee recently we heard that the British Ports Association and the UK Major Ports Group were still unhappy with the clause as it stood. I referred to the relevant correspondence, and the Minister kindly said that he would seek further clarification from the industry. I am sure that he will update the House on the outcome of those discussions shortly.

Industry representatives have subsequently written to say that they support the Government’s amendment whereby PECs would be extended to include the term “deck officer”, and that the term should be defined in the “Port Marine Safety Code” and the “Guide to Good Practice”. However, the second paragraph of their communication detailing this change of heart states:

“Having looked in some detail with both the Chamber of Shipping and the DfT as to whether a fuller definition could be contained within the Act, it is apparent that requiring, for example, STCW(Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) qualifications, would debar some existing PEC holders who are already operating safely and with the full support of the harbour authorities concerned.”

I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that the term “deck officer” will not compromise that definition.

The UK Maritime Pilots Association takes a different view. It states that amendments 2 to 5 adequately cover the need for the appropriate competence and qualification. Its correspondence goes further, stating:

“The recently published Final Report of the EU PEC study determines the eligibility of PEC holders throughout Europe that generally the PEC applicant must hold a Master’s (STCW 11/2) certificate and that different rules exist as to whether a Chief Officer can obtain a PEC. There is no mention of junior officers being able to hold a PEC.”

So the definition of “deck officer” is very important to the debate, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us the reassurance we are seeking.

There is an argument that the term “deck officer” in the amendments tabled by the Government and the hon. Member for South East Cornwall is inadequate. The UKMPA argues that the words in the Bill should read:

“Master, Chief Mate or other deck officer engaged on board at Management level holding an STCW A-11/2 Certificate of Competency”.

That illustrates the UKMPA’s acceptance of the term “senior deck officer” that we have proposed. The term “management level” is used in the STCW convention and the UKMPA believes that the term “senior deck officer” captures that meaning. The organisation e-mailed me to say:

“We now understand that it was the use of the word ‘senior’ that the DfT objected to in our proposed amendment…because the word ‘senior’ does not appear in the STCW convention, instead the phrase ‘Management level’ is the term used in its place.”

We are talking about the terms “senior deck officer”, “deck officer” and “management level”. The competence of the officer who may hold a PEC is critical in this regard.

Nautilus International believes that

“there is considerable evidence to show that the issue of PECs should be restricted to vessels that operate on regular trades and where it can be demonstrated that there is adequate manning”—

a word that I am unhappy about; I would much prefer “crewing”—

“to conduct safe pilotage. There is an associated need for a more effective regime to govern the issue of PECs and improved controls against their misuse.”

In conclusion, we still seek reassurance from the Minister and from the hon. Member for South East Cornwall on the very important question of PECs. We will listen carefully to their comments, and especially to the Minister’s response, to see how the Department for Transport interprets some amendments and reacts to others. Once we have listened to the Minister and received any explanation or reassurance he might be able to offer, we will decide whether the Opposition wish to press our amendments or support others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). I am a big fan of his, to be perfectly honest, although I am sure that such a declaration will not do much for his reputation. Nevertheless I am a fan, and I think he made some excellent points. I would also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on getting her Bill to this stage, which is an achievement in itself—something that many people do not do.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I just wanted to draw to the hon. Gentleman’s attention, in case it was not mentioned by his hon. Friends, that Hansard will show that I said some nice things about him as well, when he was temporarily not in his place at the beginning of this debate.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful for that, and I apologise for missing it. It was obviously my embarrassment that forced me to miss his saying nice things about me, but I am grateful. I shall certainly consult Hansard at the earliest opportunity to find out just how nice he was about me.

I rise mainly to discuss clause 2 and amendment 1, which is the only one that has my name attached to it, along with that of the hon. Gentleman, who made some extremely good points.

I support the thrust of the Bill and certainly wish it well in the broadest possible sense, but it is crucial to ensure that any legislation we pass is not passed solely on the basis that we broadly support what is in it, which we generally do. The hon. Gentleman and the Labour party, for example, broadly support what the Bill is trying to achieve and no one wishes it any ill will in that regard. It is important, however, that any legislation we pass is fit for purpose and properly considered and will achieve what we all want it to do.

As things stand at the moment—although I am certainly prepared to listen to what the Minister and my hon. Friend have to say—I have many of the same concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I do not understand the reasoning behind clause 2, as it seems to be a solution looking for a problem in respect of where we are now. It is my understanding—I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong—that the clause proposes to reduce a long-standing, efficient and effective risk mitigation measure in regard to the limitation of pilotage exemption certificate holders to master and first mate only. As far as I can see, none of the reasoning behind the clause substantiates the Bill’s goals, and the hon. Gentleman made the same point.

This provision is based on the specific commercial requirements of a small sector of the UK shipping industry, which, for operational reasons, is falling foul of the working time regulations. As it happens, I am not going to stand up for working time regulations in all their glory or for all the other things passed by the European Union, but that seems to be where we are. If people want to correct me, I would be happy for them to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I take on board the Minister’s point. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) mutters that perhaps we could move to one in, three out, and that would certainly be a step to be encouraged. The point is that the question of one in, one out and regulation and deregulation is not just a numbers game. Although the aim is to have less regulation overall, we want to keep the regulations that serve a good purpose and get rid of the ones that are wholly unnecessary. I firmly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) about European regulations.

I agree with the thrust of the Government’s one in, one out target, or one in, two out, which would be even better—or even the one in, three out proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South. I would be happy to start a bidding war on that. The problem, however, is that a deregulatory measure might be proposed not because it deregulates in the right area, but because it meets the numbers target we have set ourselves. I would not want us to get into that situation. We must address each proposal on its merits, and I am not convinced that we have chosen the best measure in this instance. The Government’s impact assessment suggests to me there may be too much attention on hitting this particular target, and not enough on the merits of each proposal.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The key point is safety, not questions of one regulation in, one out. The point is whether the regulations make the situation safer or less safe. Last week in Westminster Hall we had a disagreement with the Government about European regulations on pilots’ hours, because we thought the UK standard was better and safer than the European standard. So far as we are concerned, the question being discussed today is also fundamentally a safety issue, and we want the Minister to give assurances on the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, which we share.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He puts the case far better than I could. His comments highlight why I wonder whether clause 2 is misguided. Our concerns about it may well be shown to be unjustified and my hon. Friend and the Minister shown to be right: everything carries on as before and all is fine and dandy. But it might also turn out that something goes wrong. We can argue the merits of whether such measures should be introduced in the first place, but once they have been introduced it is a lot more difficult to get rid of them. In effect, it will put the Minister and my hon. Friend on tenterhooks for ever as they will basically be hoping that nothing ever goes wrong in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

The term “deck officer” does not exist there, but it does exist. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the point that management level is covered by the usual definition of deck officer, which is

“an officer in charge of the above-deck workings and manoeuvres at sea”.

That implies that the officer must have operational and management level qualifications.

The term “deck officer” is clear and is widely accepted to be in current usage. It excludes members of the crew who are not responsible for navigating the ship. The second criterion will still apply, so a deck officer would still need to have the requisite

“skill, experience and local knowledge”

to qualify for a PEC.

The port marine safety code and the accompanying guide to good practice are co-produced by the ports, the shipping industry, trade unions, maritime experts and the Government. They provide guidance for ports on the management of PECs and already suggest that competent harbour authorities seek a valid certificate of competency as a deck officer from PEC applicants.

I suggest that the Government amendments are a way forward. We have listened carefully to the concerns of the Opposition and other Members about the definition. Our proposals reflect the ambition of the Bill to reflect modern usage. I hope that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley will be reassured by the Government amendments and will not press their own.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response on our amendments. As I outlined in my opening remarks, the deletion of clause 2 was a principled defence of the status quo in the absence of an alternative.

The alternative that we suggested was “senior deck officer” because that is what was suggested to us. The Minister stated that “deck officer” is a recognised term in the industry. He also acknowledged that our suggestion of replacing “senior” with “management-level” would be appropriate and that that term is contained in other regulations.

In essence, what we are talking about is safety. As the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said, this is not an insignificant element of the proposals, but relates to the fundamental question of safety. We would not want to challenge the Government on their commitment to safety, because we accept the Minister’s assurances. I also know that the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), in whose name the Bill stands, would not want to do anything other than improve safety for mariners. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: Government amendment 12, page 2, line 7, leave out ‘member of the crew’ and insert ‘deck officer’.

Government amendment 13, page 2, line 8, leave out ‘omit “of which he is master or first mate”’ and insert ‘for “master or first mate” substitute “a deck officer”’.

Government amendment 14, page 2, line 10, leave out ‘member of the crew’ and insert ‘deck officer’.

Government amendment 15, page 2, line 12, leave out ‘person’ and insert ‘deck officer’.

Government amendment 16, page 2, line 12, at end insert—

‘( ) In section 31(1) (interpretation) at the appropriate place insert—

“deck officer”, in relation to a ship, includes the master and first mate;”.’.—(Stephen Hammond.)

Clause 5

Harbour directions

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on promoting the Bill and recognise that there is growing interest in it. The Government have managed to accommodate the substantial points made on pilotage. I congratulate the shadow Minister, to whom the Bill is familiar, and my hon. Friend the Minister on that achievement.

I have a number of proposals, one of which is that the simplest thing to do with clause 5 is remove it, which amendment 8 would do. I ought to explain to the House that I spoke briefly in Committee—I cleared my throat—for 15 minutes. We now have 75 minutes for the Bill to make progress. Were we to have, say, two Divisions, we would have about 45 minutes. Hon. Members need to recognise that there are time limitations.

Much in the Bill is of advantage, but clause 5, which amends the Harbours Act 1964, provides that each national authority can designate harbour authorities, which means we can anticipate a larger number of harbour authorities, which can give general harbour directions to ships within or entering or leaving their harbours. That currently requires a byelaw, which requires the approval of the Department. If a Minister is not prepared to approve the byelaw, it does not happen. I believe I am right that the Minister would be advised on whether the byelaw proposed is right and rational, and on whether the authority has been rational in terms of the results of the consultation—the requirement for a consultation will remain if a harbour is designated.

It has been said that, if the Government’s proposals go through, an interested group or person can object to the decision through judicial review, but that is too big a weapon for too many people. In any case, judicial review decides whether the way in which the harbour authority went about its decision was rational. If it goes about the decision unfairly, it can be stopped, but if it does it wrongly, it cannot. The decision would then be made. In the years that my wife and I were Ministers, we never had a judicial review application against us upheld. That means not that all our decisions were right, but that how we reached them was right. That illustrates the distinction.

Proposed new section 40A of the 1964 Act deals with the designation of harbour authorities. Proposed section 40B, which governs the procedure applicable to harbour direction, states that a harbour authority is required to consult users and publicise a harbour direction before and after it is given.

Proposed new section 40C, on enforcement, creates an offence. The Royal Yachting Association, of which I have been a member for some time, has raised issues with this measure. Those with longer memories will recall that, in 2008 and later, when a Bill of this nature was in the House of Lords, there was no equivalent of clause 5, because there were problems with such a proposal.

I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall and the Minister that there will be significant interest in the measure in the House of Lords, to which one anticipates the Bill going after today. I predict that the Bill will be amended if the provisions are not satisfactory—I am not threatening, but anticipating. Private Member’s Bill procedures mean that a Bill amended in the House of Lords will not be at the top of the list of priorities when it returns to the Commons, so getting the Bill right between now and when the House of Lords considers it matters.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Just to reinforce the hon. Gentleman’s point, I do not anticipate that the question of pilotage is over and done with either. I am sure that noble Lords in the other place will want to go through exactly the same discussion that we have had in recent months, just in the way that he is describing for clause 5.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I could go on at great length, but I will spare the House. Trying to create good will while being very clear and determined is probably the most useful way forward. I will certainly listen with interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall has to say, and, if I may say so, to my hon. Friend the Minister when he responds to the amendments.

It has been suggested that the process that was started—I would say started a bit late—between the port authorities, with the help of the Department and the yachting interests, could lead to a code of practice. Only one draft code of practice has been put forward, by the Royal Yachting Association. I understand that in the middle of December there is to be a meeting between the various bodies. It will be interesting to hear—now if the Minister can, but certainly by then—whether the draft code of practice and the methods put forward for consideration for agreement are likely to be agreed in substance or completely.

The next question is what the Minister will say about designating harbour authorities—I do not anticipate that he will be able to speak for the other national authorities other than those for England, but he could indicate whether others may do the same—and whether he will bear in mind the commitment to adhere to an agreed code of practice, and that that commitment, which will not be onerous, and no one is trying to suggest something that would cause more bureaucracy, will be a factor when considering designation. That is one of the crucial issues on which the Minister can address the House. [Interruption.] Is he addressing the House now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) is very generous with his description. I am not sure the Minister would entirely agree, given the amount of work that he has put in during his short time in his ministerial post to ensure that the Bill has made such progress. It is a tribute to the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) that she brought the Bill to us, steered it through Committee, and managed—very eloquently, I thought—to dissuade her hon. Friends from pressing their amendments. They were extremely generous in their acceptance of her commitments and the assurances from the Minister.

I will not detain the House, except to repeat that we have had some serious discussions on the pilotage issue. The hon. Member for Worthing West moved his amendments, and he and the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) indicated their continuing interest in the development of the Bill.

There are other elements of the Bill that we have not even touched today—the tidying up of the issue of port constables and the important reforms to the benefit of the lighthouse authorities, for which the whole industry has been waiting for some time. Its members will have been watching and listening to this debate and wondering whether they would get a mention. The fact that the Government have successfully introduced those reforms will go down well with the whole shipping industry.

Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall. We are happy to support the Bill and see it pass to the other place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

The Secretary of State’s decision will be bitterly regretted by campaign groups across the country. Targets introduced by the Thatcher Administration 30 years ago had cross-party support and have successfully brought down casualty rates across the country. His use of the word “forecasts” indicates that he is trying to claw something back from his predecessor’s bad decision to abolish targets. Will the Secretary of State think again? Targets are not the whole solution but a component; they are part of the way to reduce serious injuries and deaths on British roads.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I know the hon. Gentleman takes this issue incredibly seriously, and although he talks about deaths I think we should look at the seriously injured as well. In the year ending June 2012, there were 1,790 deaths on British roads—a 6% drop on the year before.