Driver and Vehicle Agency (Northern Ireland)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing this debate. It is nice to have a bevy of Northern Ireland MPs here—for once, we are the biggest party in Westminster Hall—to collectively support the need to retain the DVA in Coleraine and to ensure a good level of service provision for our constituents. That is why we are here: to see a continuation of the service that we have. As elected representatives we have an opportunity to respond and turn issues round in a few days or even after a phone call. The contribution from my hon. Friend and the evidence that we have individually show that such a response will not be possible if the service goes from County hall in Coleraine to Swansea in Wales. The 300 workers will certainly feel the pain.

I also congratulate in his absence my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) on his questions to the Transport Minister a few weeks ago. It is unfortunate that he cannot be here today owing to a family bereavement, but we thank him for his significant contribution. I know that he has worked long hard hours alongside my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry.

The detriment of the proposals will not simply be suffered by those who work in the DVA office; they will be suffered by those who use the service. I want to mention the service, the work that people do, and how that affects those outside, because there is a benefit to the whole of the local community. It has been estimated that some £22 million a year would be removed from the Northern Ireland economy if the move went ahead, which is something that could not be absorbed in such a short time. It would be detrimental to the economy of Northern Ireland, not only in East Londonderry but throughout the whole province. It seems that Northern Ireland would lose that personal service and the money that goes into local shops and businesses.

I am unsure about where the benefits will be and where the ripples of change will end up. I know that the local shop owners and businesses, who will no longer have that spending money in their shops, will certainly not feel any benefit from the relocation, and neither will those who work in those businesses, whose jobs or hours will be cut. I am not being melodramatic; I am explaining a sequence of events that has been seen in many areas and which cannot be allowed to take place. I am explaining the effect of relocating the DVA from Coleraine to Swansea.

My colleague is certainly right to highlight the irony of the Prime Minister removing jobs from Northern Ireland while at the same time celebrating the potential for business investment. If we look at those two statements from the Prime Minister and then the reality on the ground, we look with cynicism as we see the practicality of what is proposed. The notion of robbing Peter to pay Paul—robbing one area of jobs to provide in another area—is not an acceptable form of governing, and I trust that all MPs present here and elsewhere will send the message that such a movement of position and jobs is not simply an accounting form of moving numbers from one column to another; it is playing with people’s lives and the effect will reach out far beyond where we are.

Northern Ireland is an intricate part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. As such, it is right and proper that we are used for central government purposes. The DVA centre is fit for purpose and is doing a great job. My hon. Friend outlined the service and efficiencies that are delivered at Coleraine, and he described the experienced personnel who deliver the service.

Will the relocation lead to efficiency? Indications show that it will not. I know the Minister has already responded to a couple of questions and he has given us his figures. However, the figures mentioned by my hon. Friend showed dissatisfaction with what has been delivered by Swansea. If that is the case, why move the DVA from Coleraine to Swansea? It seems illogical and will certainly not achieve efficiency, so it can only be for other—small p or big p—political decisions. If that is the reason, the Government are doing us an injustice, because we are very much a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we want to remain so.

I recently read that there has already been clear evidence in Scotland that the ordinary purchase of vehicles and changing of tax discs is being delayed by up to six weeks. In Coleraine, that can be done in five days. It is efficient. The Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance has figures that show a customer satisfaction rate of 98%. Where else in the United Kingdom is there a business with a satisfaction rate such as that? We have it in the DVA in Coleraine. Because of that delivery and efficiency, the decision should be looked at again.

Centralisation of work in places such as Scotland has led to numerous complaints and delays in what should be simple services, as well as huge disruptions to the cash flow for car dealerships. The efficiency that the centre in Coleraine displays should make it a flagship centre and not one that is flagged to close. We have something good that is delivering efficiently. Let us ensure that it continues to do so.

I fully support my colleague, and, more importantly, I support the high level of service that is provided at Coleraine. I fully support the inherent right that we have in Northern Ireland to be a cog in the wheel of central Government provision. We want to be part of that. We deliver it in every sense of the word through our contribution to the economy. Our contribution is a central part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim has said, the Minister has the same jurisdiction in Coleraine as he has in Swansea. He also has the same duty of care to his workers there, and now is the time for him to set minds at ease and tell us that he is going to do his duty by the workers of Coleraine, recognise their work ethic and keep operations running smoothly in Coleraine. I am happy to support the proposal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. Some of the matters that he has raised are outwith our control, but we seek to pursue the strategy that he advocates wherever it is within our control.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Recycling targets are set for households, councils and manufacturing businesses. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to set targets for the House of Commons Commission so that it is trying to achieve the sorts of targets that we try to achieve at home?

[John Thurso]

I am delighted to confirm that we have a target. The House has a target to reduce by 75% the waste that is generated by weight by 2020-21, based on a 2008-09 baseline. Our recycling rate for the 12-month period ending 31 August was, as I have just said, 58.4%. I hope that the measures we are taking will get us far closer to our target.

EU Directive 2007/46/EC

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

On behalf of my constituents, I thank you for granting me this adjournment debate, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister in advance for his response. I hope that we can achieve a positive outcome. I realise that this is a very specific topic. It is a technical and perhaps quite dry subject, and I doubt whether millions of people are at home, glued to BBC Parliament right now, but it is vital to small and medium-sized businesses whose working practices are now affected by this directive.

The issue that I want to raise and discuss is not the directive itself, which in principle I have no issue with and which does make sense. It will improve safety standards across Europe, and open up a wider market to UK manufacturers—both things that are, of course, advantageous. I want to focus on its implementation in the UK, which I believe could be done much better. In particular, I am very concerned that no further assessment or scrutiny has been carried out since the initial impact assessment back in 2009, just before the first part of the directive was due to come into effect. However, I do not simply want to criticise; I want to work with the Minister, to tackle some of the issues. I hope that the process can be made much easier for businesses in my constituency of Stalybridge and Hyde that have contacted me about it. I would like the Government to carry out another assessment on the directive now—this is paramount—before it is fully implemented next year, to address the issues that I will present this evening.

I have my own interest in this area. As vice-chair of the Associate Parliamentary Manufacturing Group, I work with colleagues across the House who share my passion for manufacturing. I have been keen to address this topic because it is hitting exactly the sort of businesses in my area that everyone wants to give more support to. I am talking about small and medium-sized manufacturing businesses, providing skilled, private sector jobs in the north of England.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Is this directive not another example of EU legislation adversely affecting small and medium businesses? Does the hon. Gentleman feel that if the Government do not act, there will be lay-offs and businesses closing?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

There is no doubt that my motivation in seeking this debate has been the news communicated to me about the impact that the implementation of the directive will have on businesses in my area. The goal of the directive is not a bad one, but if it is implemented incorrectly, there is no doubt that some manufacturers and some jobs might go.

The directive was introduced to ensure that automotive goods—including cars, vans, lorries, trailers, caravans and so on—meet a minimum EU-wide set of regulatory, technical and safety requirements. That is entirely understandable and a good thing, in terms of both safety and potentially opening up a bigger market for our manufacturers. However, the directive has meant that manufacturers have to do much more to ensure that their products meet the standard, drastically altering their previous processes. Instead of needing approval to work on a certain manufacturer’s product, businesses now need approvals for different vehicles from the same manufacturer, even though the differences between models might seem minor. In the original impact assessment, back in 2009, the previous Government had two options. They chose the right option by offering a lower-cost approval scheme to businesses that wish to sell only in the UK. I am pleased that the current Government stuck to that. However, four years later, more issues are appearing, which I shall now explain in more detail.

The first issue, unsurprisingly, is the increased costs that the directive has imposed on businesses. The number of approvals needed has spiked massively, and obtaining each type approval costs money. Whereas costs were managed by needing only a few approvals, with the new European Community whole vehicle type approval, as well as the number of approvals that come with it, costs have risen sharply and quickly. Many SMEs are struggling. I have heard reports of businesses that will either scale down the products that they offer or simply pack in altogether when the directive is fully implemented next year. That is not encouraging manufacturing—quite the opposite—and that should concern us all.

The staff hours involved in obtaining new approvals have also risen due to the complexity, the amount of new approvals needed and the length of the process to obtain just one approval. The Federation of Small Businesses has told me that its members feel that the process is confusing and burdensome. That is particularly true of SMEs, which find the paperwork—something that they have to go through every time they want to start work on a different product, even if the differences are fairly minor—demanding and discouraging. Other areas of the business then suffer, as staff are taken away from other roles to spend what they believe to be a disproportionately large amount of time on securing type approvals.

A lack of communication to businesses by Government and government authorities such as the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and the Vehicle Certification Agency is another issue. Some businesses were not even aware of the initial impact assessment in 2009. They feel ill-informed and still in the dark about what is required from them and any help that they can receive. Businesses have told me that they feel abandoned. Some businesses have also told me about what they feel to be a lack of consistency, with the process frequently changing. One managing director described it as the “goalposts constantly being moved”. There is a lot of confusion and worry out there in the industry at the moment, which needs to be addressed.

Let me present the House with a case study from my constituency. This issue was brought to my attention by Truck Craft Bodies Ltd—a small to medium-sized business in Stalybridge. It is deeply concerned about the effect that the directive will have on its business once it is fully implemented and about the ability of such SMEs to survive. The business has told me that it has gone from simply needing one approval per manufacturer to needing up to 30 approvals for just one manufacturer.

Like me, the company agrees with the premise of the directive, but it is particularly concerned about the resulting costs and increased staff hours. It is also unhappy about the lack of help and support on offer. The help that it could receive from organisations such as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has so far been inadequate. The Government should be speaking to companies such as Truck Craft Bodies. They are the ones in the field, and what they have to say on implementation is invaluable.

That leads me to my main point, which is the lack of scrutiny or assessment of the directive’s implementation since the initial impact assessment more than four years ago. I am concerned that as the date for full implementation—November 2014—looms closer, the answers to a number of questions are still not known, purely because of the lack of scrutiny. First, does the system provide value for money? The Vehicle Certification Agency is the UK’s designated approval authority, and it needs to be cost-effective for the businesses that use it. Secondly, do the Government know how the implementation of the scheme is going, given that no assessment has been carried out since 2009? Are the Government aware of the problems that are being experienced by many businesses? How will they address those issues and provide further help to businesses that need it? We need to know the answers to those questions if we are going to help the SMEs that are facing a testing and uncertain time.

The point of this debate, however, is not for me to stand here and criticise the Government. That would be unfair, especially on a matter that is so technical and complex. I want the debate to achieve positive outcomes and improvements, as my ultimate aim is to help businesses that are struggling and that are worried about the effect of the directive on their trade and their ability to survive. I have no doubt that the Minister shares that view. There are potential solutions to the problems that I have outlined so far, and I hope that the Minister will give them serious consideration.

Most importantly, I firmly believe that the Government need to carry out another impact assessment before the directive is fully implemented in 2014, and I call on the Minister to do that at the earliest opportunity. The lack of scrutiny so far worries me deeply. This cannot wait until after the full implementation of the directive; it needs to be done as soon as possible. If we wait until 2014, it will be too late, especially as some businesses are planning to stop their current operations once the directive comes into full effect, unless there are changes. An impact assessment now would help properly to identify the hurdles that businesses are facing because of the directive, and it would do so in far greater detail than I can describe in the debate today.

Carrying out a new, updated assessment now would have numerous benefits, and I hope that I can convince the Minister to do so. It would offer solutions and ways of dealing with the problems that the directive has caused to businesses, not to mention giving the Government an idea of how the directive’s implementation is going and an opportunity to improve it. Most importantly, it would involve the manufacturers and businesses. After all, they are the ones that are most affected; they currently feel abandoned and are not sure where to turn. This is of course their industry, and they are the ones that know it best. Overall, I believe that a new assessment should be carried out as soon as possible and definitely before full implementation. I sincerely hope that the Minister will give that suggestion some serious thought.

Certain specific suggestions are worthy of consideration. Indeed, any new assessment might come to similar conclusions. They include changes such as making the granting of licences easier. As previously mentioned, the VCA is the only body in the UK that can grant type approvals to SMEs that want to operate only in the UK. There is scope to funnel down the process, which at present appears top-heavy and cumbersome, to give manufacturers and businesses more involvement. That would take some of the work load off the VCA and run down costs on both sides. Businesses that I have spoken to are unhappy with the current process that the VCA operates. For example, the agency already has a lot of the information that manufacturers have to supply. The duplication that the companies have to undertake costs money and time, and seems unnecessary. Perhaps this has been overlooked, and it could be identified by a new, updated assessment.

Furthermore, a common complaint from the industry is that the support offered to it has been found wanting. Manufacturers feel left out of the loop and abandoned, and are unhappy with the general lack of communication about a matter that is so vital to their continued existence. The Government need to communicate their plans better. It is also imperative that the Government look at the UK system and make it as easy as possible for small and medium-sized businesses, in particular, to comply with the new regulations. The FSB supports that proposal and believes that that should happen.

Mr Speaker, I thank you once again for allowing this debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I am sure that he and I both want the same thing: for manufacturing to thrive in the UK. The directive does not necessarily have to hinder manufacturing by firms such as Truck Craft Bodies. Improved safety and access to bigger markets are of course in everyone’s best interests. However, because the directive involves such a radical change from how manufacturers have previously operated, it is imperative that it should be monitored closely. That has not happened so far, as we have seen from the lack of any real assessment or scrutiny by the Government since the initial impact assessment in 2009. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take on board the suggestion to hold another assessment soon, before full implementation in 2014.

Cycling

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

As one of the panel members of the all-party parliamentary cycling group’s report “Get Britain Cycling”, I am delighted to take part in today’s debate. I am delighted, too, because I am undertaking the parliamentary sports fellowship with British Cycling for the coming year.

I fully support the report’s aims, especially the target to have 10% of all journeys made by bike by 2025 and 25% by the year 2050. The motion also calls for the Government to show strong political leadership, including an annual cycling action plan and sustained funding for cycling. I would particularly like to welcome the latest Government action, which includes making it easier for councils to install cycle facilities, cycle proofing of road infrastructure and stumping up £148 million of new funding between now and 2015.

In fact, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary State for Transport, I was at the headquarters of the Peak District national park over the summer, hearing about its ambitious plans to improve and encourage cycling there. As part of that national park is in my constituency, I was delighted to hear that cycling in the park is being given a £7.5 million boost to enhance the cycle trail network. This will put an estimated 3.5 million people within reach of the Peak District national park cycle network, either by bike or following just a short train ride.

Cycling has gone ballistic in my part of West Yorkshire. My personal passion began with a series of country-wide charity bike rides with Huddersfield Town football club. The “Keep it Up” campaign has raised just short of £1 million for the Yorkshire air ambulance, as hundreds of Huddersfield Town fans have been sponsored to cycle to and from opposing teams’ football grounds. Well done to all of them!

The grand départ will go through my constituency on Sunday 6 July next year. A huge number of cyclists are already out on the route, B and Bs are booked up, and cycling-related festivals and events are being planned. The Government are backing the Tour de France in Yorkshire with £10 million of funding. However, there will not be just one day of the Tour in Yorkshire, because there is now a legacy project called “Get Yorkshire Cycling”—a 10-year strategy which will unlock potential in the fields of health, the economy, the environment, transport, tourism and community engagement.

As well as investment, cycling safety is paramount, and has been foremost in the minds of many people in my constituency this summer. John Radford of Meltham is a popular cycling champion, but he is now fighting for his life following a collision with a car. He suffered severe head injuries and had to be airlifted to Leeds general infirmary, where he remains critically ill. John is chairman of Huddersfield and District cyclists touring club, and has been working tirelessly to promote cycling locally and nationally.

Cycling is a community. Last month I joined 200 of John’s friends to take part in a six-mile ride to show our support and help to raise cash for the Yorkshire air ambulance, which flew him to hospital. The ride was organised by Councillor Martyn Bolt, the mayor of Kirklees. I know that all Members will want to send their best wishes to John and his family.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jason McCartney]

I will not, because I have only 30 seconds left.

British Cycling is continuing to work with Ministers and the likes of Sustrans and the CTC to push for change. This is not just about safety. Cycling needs to sit at the heart of transport policy, and as it becomes more and more popular, we need to make it safer as well. We need better collaboration between Government departments. Mr. Speaker, let’s “Get Britain Cycling”.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I did not learn the joys of cycling in Holland or even in Hexham; I learned them in the constituency of the Minister when I was a young teenager. However, I have gained a far greater appreciation of cycling since becoming the Member of Parliament for Macclesfield. At the elite level, we are fortunate to have the national cycling centre in Manchester, and Team GB were often seen training on the junction between the Cheshire plain and the Peak district, where we in Macclesfield are so fortunate to live. We saw them cycling up the Cat and Fiddle road and clearly setting the standard on how to take elite sport forward.

My area is also privileged to have Dame Sarah Storey, our most decorated Paralympian of all time, who lives in Disley. It is only fitting, but I am delighted that Disley parish council is unveiling a commissioned sculpture in her memory in a few weeks’ time and celebrating her tremendous accomplishments with an amazing cycling day in the village. We are also fortunate enough to have an incredible cycling club, Macclesfield Wheelers, which sets an incredibly high standard with its legendary cycling trials between Macclesfield and Congleton. It is also setting a really high standard as advocates for its pastime and passion, and the club has certainly helped me to gain a greater understanding of what needs to happen to take cycling forward.

What most encourages me is the number of people taking to cycling on their own initiative, whether it is getting out into the Peak district—many MPs have spoken about that—enjoying Macclesfield forest, getting out on the Middlewood way with their families or just taking the bike to go to the shops. The public in Britain get cycling. They understand its benefits, and not only because of the Olympics and the Tour de France, with the great successes of Sir Bradley Wiggins; they are seeing the health and well-being benefits of cycling.

[Jim Shannon]

One thing that has perhaps been omitted from the report is the issue of safety helmets for children under the age of 15. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that their use should be compulsory for people of that age in order to prevent accidents, because that is when the greatest number of accidents takes place?

[David Rutley]

That subject has been well debated today. There are pros and cons, but the overwhelming suggestion from people here is that if we make helmets compulsory, fewer people will cycle. We are trying to say, “Let’s get people cycling.” This is not about having a health and safety-fest; it is about encouraging people to get out cycling and seeing the health and well-being benefits, which are profound. They are also lifelong, unlike those associated with football, rugby or some of the other sports we are keen to support.

The other thing we should note is that cycling also gives a real boost to the local economy, particularly in rural areas. Cycling is vital as it provides revenues for countless B and Bs, guest houses, cafés, pubs and, let us not forget, local cycling shops, which seem to be springing up in many villages. Given those important benefits to tourism, I am delighted to join my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) and colleagues from elsewhere in highlighting what the Peak District national park is doing to get more people cycling through its cycling festival, which I believe is taking place next weekend. I have also been out cycling with the Secretary of State for Transport on the Monsal trail. That just shows that he is absolutely committed to, and understands the importance of, cycling.

As co-chair of the all-party group on mountaineering, I am passionate about campaigning to get people out and active outdoors. Normally, this is about getting them out and active on two feet, through the “Britain on Foot” campaign, but I recognise today that it is vital to get people active on two wheels as well. It is fantastic to see the degree of participation in this debate.

I am delighted that the Government are taking action in this area. Many have talked about the important funding for cycling ambition grants, which will have profound benefits for cities such as Manchester and national parks such as the Peak District. I am pleased that more steps are being taken to encourage the setting up of 20 mph speed limit zones and to make it easier for them to be established. However, I was talking to Macclesfield Wheelers and its chairman, Peter McGuckian, earlier today, and there is more that needs to be done. We must improve signage to ensure that people feel safer on the roads when they are out cycling. He also talked about the importance of setting up more advanced stop positions, which are vital for cyclists. He also asked me to urge that motor-related offences against cyclists should be taken much more seriously than they have been in the past.

Let me conclude by focusing on the potential for cycling. My mother is Danish, so I understood the importance of cycling from an early age. For many people it is not just a sport, an outdoor activity or a mode of transport—it is part of people’s lives. There is real potential to make this a way of life that will benefit countless people.

High Speed 2 (Ancient Woodlands)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Michael Fabricant]

That is absolutely right. My hon. Friend and I are affected by phase 1 of the route. We have been living with this issue since before 2010, and my constituents have been living with it too. The issue is, therefore, urgent, and it needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later. However, let me get on to the main subject of the debate.

The compensation packages must be the same for both phases, because it would be totally wrong for people living south of Lichfield, who are affected by phase 1, to be treated differently from those in the north of my constituency, who are affected by phase 2.

The Woodland Trust has indicated that the preferred routes for both phases will cause loss or damage to at least 67 irreplaceable ancient woods, which are home to 256 species that are of conservation concern. Some lessons have been learned in the design of the phase 2 route, because the most devastating environmental impact occurs in the construction of the London-to-Lichfield route, or phase 1. However, that alone will damage 21 ancient woods, while noise and vibration will affect the delicate balance of a further 48 woods within 100 metres of the line.

Ancient woods are lands that have been continuously wooded since 1600. They form only about 2% of our land. Their unique, undisturbed soils form the UK’s richest habitats for wildlife. They just cannot be translocated, and, once destroyed, they are lost—in effect, for ever.

We cannot credibly lecture other countries on deforestation while taking a cavalier approach to the loss of our own equivalent of the rain forest. Ironically, given their support for such a destructive route, the Government fully recognise the unique place ancient woodlands hold in our society. The forestry policy statement published earlier this year notes:

“England’s 340,000 hectares of ancient woodlands are exceptionally rich in wildlife, including many rare species and habitats. They are an integral part of England’s cultural heritage and act as reservoirs from which wildlife can spread into new woodlands.”

I agree.

As I indicated, my constituency is unique in that it will suffer the double whammy of construction during both phases of HS2. Phase 1 passes between Lichfield and Whittington below Fradley junction. Phase 2 joins the phase 1 route just below Fradley junction and travels through the constituency towards Stafford, passing Colton and the villages knows as the Ridwares. The phase 1 route will continue beyond the junction with phase 2 to join the west coast main line. The damage it will do is heartbreaking.

As a result of such extensive construction, three ancient woods in the constituency would be severely damaged. The line will pass directly through Ravenshaw wood, Slaish wood and Black Slough wood, while Vicar’s coppice, being only 62 metres from the line, would be damaged by noise and vibration during its construction—damage that, as I said, is irreparable.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing the matter to the House. HS2 does not have any direct impact on my constituency, because I am a Northern Ireland Member, but none the less as a parliamentarian I have an interest in the environment, including what happens to ancient woodlands. I understand from the background information that four wildlife trust reserves, 10 sites of special scientific interest, 50 ancient woodlands and 84 local wildlife sites will be affected. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that it is not yet too late to give full consideration to the retention of habitat for wildlife including flora and mammals?

[Michael Fabricant]

I have pleasure in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope indeed that the Minister will deal with that issue. The simple answer is no, it is not too late. I hope that the Government will rethink the route, because in my view it should not carve its way through previously unspoiled countryside, cherished by the communities who live in harmony with it. If it does, it will cause environmental damage not only to southern Staffordshire, as I have described, but to other sensitive areas such as the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), wanted me to point out, as, being a Minister, he cannot do so today, that South Cubbington wood in his constituency will be damaged too.

Not only does the plan fly in the face of common sense and environmental progress; it transgresses the Government’s own policies on protection of ancient woodland. Indeed, the forestry policy statement of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs states categorically:

“Protection of our trees, woods and forests, especially our ancient woodland, is our top priority.”

Disabled Access (Train Stations)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter before the House. The reason why everyone is here is that we can all relate to this issue.

In a previous life in Northern Ireland, I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which decided to introduce a strategy to address the issue. Every train and almost every station in Northern Ireland now has disabled access. Some £18 million was set aside last year for that purpose, and there are only two stations left to do in Northern Ireland. Is not the real issue that the Government have to set aside money to meet the equality legislation, as we decided to do to meet the needs of disabled people across the whole of Northern Ireland? We have two stations to do—almost there.

[Rory Stewart]

That is a wonderful example. The argument is about learning not just from Northern Ireland, but from the symbolic benefit. At a time when the public are increasingly frustrated and perplexed by what politicians are up to and about what our job is, such projects are highly visible—people can relate to them and see them—and they generate employment. They are exactly the kind of highly visible infrastructure projects that this Government are promising and that I believe we ought to be able to deliver.

Car Clamping (Private Car Parks)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is absolutely correct, and the Minister needs to look into the unfettered handing-out of that information to private parking companies, because it is placing a lot of people, particularly the elderly and those who are disabled, in great distress.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the matter to the Chamber; it is important, as she said, to all of us across the United Kingdom, and especially to those in Northern Ireland. Does she agree that many companies seem to have no care whatever for people? In particular, they seem to have a zealousness for clamping the cars of those with blue badges, who are clearly disabled. Does she feel that perhaps the Government should take that on and train them, so that we ensure that they do not do a job that aggravates people, and pick on those who cannot necessarily defend themselves?

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I agree with him. He highlighted areas that I will move on to in my speech. These car parking companies are particularly zealous in their desire to overcharge people, and when they are taken on, they withdraw the charge. That makes me ask whether it was ever valid in the first place. He will be aware of some of the experiences that my constituents have had in his constituency, in the town of Newtownards.

I accept that we are talking about a legal marketplace, within which there are many reputable companies, but I would like to highlight the most pertinent examples of bad practice and the existence of less reputable companies. From the outset, it must be clarified that private operators do not have the right to levy a statutory fine. Instead, they are effectively levying a charge for loss incurred by the operator due to breach of contract. However, in practice, in the cases brought to my attention, it would appear that some companies often go to every length to give the appearance to the customer that they are being fined, and that the fine is non-contestable.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have found instances of that in Northern Ireland, but the rating of particular properties or pieces of wasteland now used for car parking purposes in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter. In this debate, I want to concentrate on the issues that are particularly the reserve of the Minister and the Department. However, I take my hon. Friend’s point. There is a certain over-zealous attitude on the part of many of the players, but the bottom line is that the ordinary person, whether they are elderly, young with a family, or disabled, is placed at great disadvantage—particularly a financial one—some months down the line.

I would like to give some brief examples of the way in which certain companies go to every length to put a significant amount of pressure on people to settle up as quickly as possible, without querying the nature of what they may perceive as an inescapable fine. Often the correspondence, especially the initial notification letter to the customer, will be designed to look like an official statutory notice of the kind issued by a council or a local authority. For example, they will commonly refer to “parking charge notices”, otherwise known as PCNs, mimicking the “penalty charge notice” title of official council tickets, and that will often be accompanied by an official-looking logo, such as the scales of justice. Such notices are clearly designed to make the person feel that this is something they have to pay, and that its source is a body other than a private company, thus making the person—it could happen to any single one of us—deeply uncomfortable.

In addition, companies will present the possibility of the Debt Recovery Agency becoming involved as early as the first correspondence with the customer. Such a threat is clearly vastly out of proportion for what amount to relatively small civil claims. Again, the purpose of that is clearly to get the person to pay up as soon as possible and not to question the source, reasonableness or accuracy of the claim. People are made to feel under pressure and that they have no right to recourse.

Such tactics are reprehensible, especially in that many of those being pursued are elderly or vulnerable, and they have even been employed in my constituency against people with disabilities who have very specific parking requirements. Surely the Minister agrees that his Department should not facilitate things for companies that operate in that manner, and surely he will confirm that he would act on evidence that companies are harassing members of the public over dubious claims.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way. Is she aware in her constituency, as I am in mine, that when the companies are pressurised on behalf of our constituents, after a period of time, on many occasions, they back down and renege on the original clamping that they did? Does she feel that that underlines the fact that the Government need to be more aware of what the companies do within the law?

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In my experience, the companies do back down and withdraw the fines, but that is after a considerable period of time in which my constituents or other people in other areas have felt deeply under stress—

[Jim Shannon]

Harassed.

[Ms Ritchie]

Deeply harassed by the companies. These people feel that they are criminals when they are not.

Having considered the manner in which some claims are pursued, we need also to consider the fairness and reasonableness of the claims. Again, it seems that certain companies are pressing claims that are spurious at best. Previous court guidance has said that charges must be proportionate and that an owner is entitled to seek only damages relating to actual loss. For a start, the existence of tiered levels of payment depending on how quickly fines are paid suggests that any real evaluation of loss is not being used. The charges also seem excessive against any determination of an actual loss incurred. The fact that some companies are charging up to £150, which is more than 50% higher than, in our case, the Roads Service’s fine, or a council fine, indicates that it is not actual loss that is being charged to the customer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the acknowledgement that the third track will make a difference to the areas he mentioned. Obviously, we are always willing to discuss with airport operators how best to improve infrastructure connections, and I will be more than happy to do that once the new ownership arrangements are finally in place.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Exclusively on the matter of Stansted airport, Mr Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his response about Stansted airport. Obviously the sale of any airport in the United Kingdom, for example, Belfast international airport alongside Stansted airport, would cause uncertainty to the workers. Will he confirm that the sale of any airport in the United Kingdom, be it Stansted or Belfast international, would be a matter that the Government would look after for the workers?

[Mr Speaker]

I fear I was too generous.

HGV Road User Levy Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I should also like to thank all the Committee members, the Minister and the shadow Minister for working together so well to get this Bill through. It is always good to see positive work coming out of the House. We all like to see that happen, and this is a good example of it. The House can be proud of this good work.

I represent a constituency in Northern Ireland in which road transport is, to put it simply, the key to the economy. It is also the key to the economy of Northern Ireland. The Freight Transport Association and the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association have collectively expressed concern about clause 7(3), which deals with the cost burden. They felt that there had been a clear undertaking that there would be no extra costs for UK hauliers. The FTA has stated that there will be a cost of some £2.7 million, but I understand that the Minister has given an assurance that that figure has been greatly overestimated. If that is the case, it will be good news. I hope that he can give us confirmation of that, and reassure the FTA and the BVRLA that the provisions will not adversely affect their industry. It will be important to get such an assurance on the record in Hansard, because the people out there who contact us will want to know the final word on the matter.

The FTA has identified three issues

“where current details are sparse or under review and where further consultation is expected”,

and I would like the Minister to give us some clarification on them. The first point is that the arrangements for the operation of the levy in Northern Ireland involve the only UK land border with another EU member state. The second point is about compensation arrangements for holders of RPCs—reduced pollution certificates—which will be withdrawn following the introduction of the levy. The third point is about the mitigation of the disproportionate increase in charges for operators of 2x2 axle, 28-tonne articulated vehicles—commonly referred to as “urban artics”—used for deliveries to pubs and retail stores in town and city centres. I ask this question because I have some of them in my constituency, and I suspect that other Members will have them in their constituencies as well. We are not being awkward; we are just looking for the necessary clarification. I am sure that the Minister will give us the reassurance we need in his response.

It is not often that all the political parties work together to initiate legislation on behalf of an industry. There seems to be a real willingness to make sure that it all happens—for my constituents in Strangford and for those involved in the freight trade business. There are many of them. I wish to represent them at the highest level in this House. I therefore seek reassurances from the Minister.

Rising Cost of Transport

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

People often travel at peak times because those are the times when they have to get to work. They have no choice. However, there are other ways of addressing the question of demand, and I shall say something about them later.

The report also talks of the importance of achieving efficiencies, although we think that the aim of making efficiency savings of £3.5 billion by 2018, as McNulty recommends, is a challenging one. The bringing together of different parts of the rail industry in the Rail Development Group, and through other means, is welcome, but it is important for the industry then to work in the interests of passengers and the taxpayer, not just in its own interests. It is also important for it not to cut corners and put safety at risk in order to achieve efficiencies. We have high safety standards which should not be jeopardised, and strong regulation is particularly important for that reason. The regulator needs to be able to act firmly and decisively.

Members have mentioned other means of achieving efficiencies and reducing fares, or at least reducing the rate of increase in fares. We need to think about smart ticketing and innovation, and about introducing more flexibility in the way in which fares policy is drawn up and implemented, which has been sadly lacking. There should also be more transparency in the use of public funds. It is extremely important for the rail service to receive a public subsidy, because it is a public service, but it is equally important for the £4 billion public subsidy going into the system this year to be dealt with in a way that people understand, so that they can assess whether it is being used effectively. Not all the information that we have at present enables them to do that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Ellman]

I am sorry, but my time is very limited.

Some information has been published about the subsidy for the London North Western route, which, we are told, amounted to £1.2 billion in 2010-11. That is a significant proportion of the £4 billion that is going into the overall system. The area covers wide expanses, including the west coast main line run by Virgin and Cumbrian rail services run by Northern Rail. We have been given an overall figure—a very major figure—but we do not know how the subsidy is allocated between different services, or indeed between different parts of the country. That is just one example of the need for more transparency so that we can assess whether subsidies are effective.

I welcome Network Rail’s recent announcement that more than £35 billion will be invested in the next control period, 2014-19. However, the Committee will look at the figures in detail and consider what they actually mean, and the rail regulator will look at them as well before anything is finally approved. It should be noted that although the announcement of more much-needed investment in the rail system has been welcomed, passengers have expressed the fear that they will have to pay for it through even higher fares, which renders the need to look again at a policy on regulated fares even more urgent. The Committee has asked Ministers to do that.

In due course there will be an opportunity to discuss the Committee’s complete findings, and we will do more work on rail franchising and rolling stock acquisitions, another important area in respect of savings. I hope my comments this afternoon have helped to inform the debate. Rail is increasingly popular and a good service is currently offered, but there is increasing concern about fare levels, and we must address that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Let us leave aside the fact that there are not many operators in the field to bid. I am not saying that an individual operator is necessarily inefficient, but that the system as a whole leads to inefficiencies as well as to profits being paid out to private companies when they could be invested in the system.

I said that not all companies are inefficient. One example that showed the difficulties and negative effects of privatisation at their highest was the disaster of Railtrack, which was linked not just to private ownership and that company’s motivation in its operations but to the fragmentation of the operators and Railtrack’s distance from the train operating companies. That example also shows how some of the damage caused by privatisation began to be turned around. It is not a perfect organisation, but the publicly owned Network Rail has managed to repair some of the damage caused by fragmentation of the system and we have seen a safer railway network and better value for the taxpayer, for passengers and for other users of the rail network in the costs of maintaining the system.

[Jim Shannon]

One of the greatest burdens for people in employment is that 30% of their wages can go on travel. People are travelling further, too, to get jobs and employment. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that consideration has been given to those people who regularly use public transport, be it bus or rail, to get to work?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Absolutely. That is an example of how increased rail fares damage people daily and effectively worsen their standard of living.

The most recent example of the damage caused by the privatised regime on the railways has been the fiasco of the west coast main line franchise. That fiasco is likely to land the Department for Transport—and therefore the taxpayer—with a bill for hundreds of millions of pounds, which could have been spent on improvements to routes, stations and rolling stock. In contrast, we have the experience of the east coast main line, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) referred earlier. Bringing the franchise into the public sector has been good business for the taxpayer and the directly operated company has brought money back into the public sector. In the last year, it has brought a premium of almost £200 million into the Department, which has gone back into the public sector rather than being siphoned off into a privately owned company.

The problem is that there is an inherent difficulty in the tendering system that operates on the railways under the privatisation scheme introduced by a previous Conservative Government. In order to bring about long-term investment and security, a Government will want to see long-term tenders, but the longer the tender the less reliable any prediction of future traffic and income can be. That leads to a risk of the tender becoming either a loss-maker, with the operator seeking to hand it back to the Government and to make them pick up the tab, or one in which excessive profits are reaped by the private operator. The system itself is at the heart of the problems with the railways and of the fact that money that could be used to benefit our passengers has unnecessarily flowed out of the rail system.

I want to concentrate on the east coast main line, which is of particular relevance to my constituency and to communities further south along the line. I urge the Government to drop the ideology and to choose the option that works and that will keep prices down for the traveller. They should keep the east coast line, which is successfully operated by Directly Operated Railways, in the public sector. I would rather that that was done on a permanent basis, but if the Government, for ideological reasons, are not prepared to do that, they should at least give the operators a long-term contract rather than leaving a sword of Damocles hanging over the company, the staff who work for it and the passengers and communities that rely on it.

The Government could also take the opportunity to allow Directly Operated Railways’ east coast line to be a genuine public sector comparator for the rest of the network. If the Government will insist on reprivatisation for the west coast main line, they should at least ensure that a public sector bid can be put on the table as a comparator against which we can judge which provides best value for money for the taxpayer and the best services for the passenger. That is the way forward. Let us start putting passengers first and make sure that they get the benefit of investment rather than the companies, which have taken too much out of the railways for too long since privatisation was introduced by a previous Conservative Government.