Arbroath and Forfar Driving Test Centres

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I reiterate the earlier comments I made when you took the Chair, Mr Chope: it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir). He is doing exactly what I would do if I were a Back Bencher—standing up for his community.

Let us agree on some things from the start. If the waiting list is 10 to 12 weeks—I take the hon. Gentleman’s word that that is the case—the centres will not close until they are within the guidelines, which is six weeks. Pre-bookings are an issue. People can pre-book in bulk, which causes a problem. The hon. Gentleman said that there were bookings into March. There will be pre-bookings in cases when instructors can predict that their pupils are likely to be able to take the test at that time. That is why there are pre-bookings. It happens around the country—it happened when my daughter was doing her test just 18 months ago.

There is an issue relating to consultation. However, I must say that I have inherited the Driving Standards Agency code of practice that his Government put into place.

[Mr Weir]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

No. I sat and listened, so the hon. Gentleman can listen to me for a few minutes longer and then he can intervene. Let me make my point first. I inherited the current situation. As a result of the distance travelled, the code of practice brought in by the previous Government states that there does not have to be a consultation. I am looking at that issue because I do not think it is acceptable. I am eight months into the job and I have a very large portfolio. I accept that there are issues, but I inherited this situation and I will look at it and see if we can change it. I am happy to do so as long as the hon. Gentleman accepts that his Government were the problem and were closing driving test centres long before I was appointed to my post.

[Mr Weir]

I do not accept that. I was not a supporter of the previous Government just as I am not a supporter of this Government. I represent the Scottish National party. I accept the Minister’s point that he did not introduce the code of practice, but the code of practice exists and he is the Minister. He says he is looking at it, but will he suspend closures until he considers the matter in more detail?

[Mike Penning]

I humbly apologise to the hon. Gentleman. It was wrong and improper of me to assume that he was a member of the previous Government. It is probably because there has been a coalition in Scotland over the years since I have been in politics. I completely and humbly apologise; it was an insult.

[Mr Weir]

It was a great insult.

[Mike Penning]

I have been insulted many times over the years. I am sure we can solve the problem over a pint of beer.

I am not going to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests because I want the Driving Standards Agency to make progress. I shall touch on several points, including those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), regarding how we should be dealing with the matter. The issue has nothing to do with bricks and mortar and buildings; it is about the quality of service, the test and the people who are taking the test. I shall work backwards through the issues.

Long before I took over this portfolio, one of the biggest things that worried me as a father and that worries me now as a Minister is that people are being taught to pass a test, rather than how to drive and be safe on the road for themselves and other road users. My daughter is going through the process at the moment—as is the daughter of the hon. Member for Angus—which is difficult and strenuous. I intend to make it more difficult, not because I am picking on young people, or on anyone who is taking their test, but because if we consider the statistics on 17 to 25-year-old people who pass their test—predominantly boys—they are a huge risk to themselves, other road users and their passengers.

A frightening statistic shows that the riskiest thing a lady aged 17 to 25 can do is to sit in the passenger seat of a car with a 17 to 25-year-old boy of any description, whether he is related to the lady or not. That is a frightening thing. The system is not working, so we must look at what the test involves. For someone to say, “That test centre has a better pass rate than that one so it should stay open,” is really looking at things from the wrong end of the telescope. We have recently changed the driving test to give young drivers in particular—and other drivers—the skills that they need when they leave the test centre and they are sitting in a car on their own with no one telling them which way to go, and they have not driven the route 100 times with their instructor.

[Mr Weir]

I do not disagree to a large extent with what the Minister is saying. I agree that there is sometimes a serious problem with young drivers. I accept that a 10-minute independent drive is now part of the test, but does he not accept that if someone learns to drive in a congested city area and they are faced with the country roads of somewhere such as Angus or perhaps his own constituency, they experience very different driving conditions that are perhaps not the appropriate driving conditions? It would be better if they understood the conditions in which they will be driving, at least in the early months of their driving.

[Mike Penning]

When someone passes their test, there is no restriction at all on where they can drive in the country. Someone can pass their test in Angus, drive to the nearest dual carriageway on their own and go down the motorway. I am also seriously considering how we can give the relevant skills to young drivers who have never driven on a motorway in their life, whether or not someone is sat next to them. At the moment, they can pass their test and go straight on the motorway. We must work on dealing with that.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not looked at the changes that have recently been made to the driving test. We have dealt with the problem of someone going to an area because they know it. We are not publishing the routes that people take for their test, and instructors will not know what the examiners are going to do. However, I agree that people have to understand how to drive on rural roads, which we have in parts of my constituency as well as in that of the hon. Gentleman, and in urban areas. We must have a situation in which we increase the skill base. I have listened to the instructors in certain areas and they have said, “This will have a detrimental effect because we will have to teach them to go there.” That is based on old knowledge and on the fact that we used to publish the routes that examiners would take. We are no longer going to do that. They will not know the routes. People will not only have to be able to drive for 10 minutes without being guided, which is what happens when people have passed their test, but they will not know the routes. The instructors do not know the routes; things will not happen that way.

This a short debate, so let us touch on the important points raised by the hon. Gentleman because I find some of them very worrying, especially his analogy. The reason I changed the motorcycle test is because someone could drive for up to two hours to a test centre and be taken off-road to a piece of tarmac that the Government own to do an off-road test. They could fail the test, yet be allowed to drive two hours back, or whatever the distance is. The test was not fit for purpose, which is why I have reviewed it. The whole test will be on the road, not off-road, and will be done in one go, unlike the present on-road and off-road arrangement. That will give motorcyclists the skills that will enable them to make progress, about which I have been talking in relation to car drivers. The analogy is not there.

As I have said, what is important—I will consider this matter—is that if the waiting list is as great as the hon. Gentleman says and it is blocked, these centres will not close until the capacity can be taken up in Dundee. I give that commitment today. We have to be in that situation. However, I will consider the matter of block bookings by driving instructors who pre-book extensively and block up areas, so that there are no bookings available for other people.

In the short period of time we have for the debate, let us look, if we can, at what the test should be for and see if we can go forward fixated not with buildings, but with service to the community and the people who want to take their test.

[David Mowat]

I was hoping that the debate would touch on what I regard as the major issue, which is the multi-test centres and other super-test centres. They became the policy of the previous Government because they over-interpreted an EU requirement regarding the motorcycle test. I believe that the Transport Committee, inter alia, pointed out that that was wrong, did not need to happen and was an error, yet the concept of a super-test centre is being pursued. It sounds as though that happened in Dundee and St Helens. One result of that, which the Minister might want to comment on, is that motorcyclists have to travel even further for their test, and further back if they fail it.

[Mike Penning]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Select Committee, under the previous Administration, had real concerns about how the motorcycle test was fundamentally changed. It felt that the Government had misinterpreted guidance on kilometres—in English, motorcyclists had to do just under 31 miles an hour. I agree, fundamentally, with the Select Committee, which is why we have broken away from that. We have a pilot at the moment and we have worked with the industry—the testers, the unions and everybody out there—to get a test that I hope is closer to fit for purpose.

There is a fundamental difference, I am afraid, regarding the motorcycle test centres. A plethora of them appeared all over the country. The big problem was finding suitable off-road facilities for part one of the test. I looked at that, and the review looked at it. It was farcical that we spent millions and millions of pounds building pieces of tarmac that, in the near future, we will have to sell off because we do not need them any more.

The key issue and the most important thing, to return to what I was saying, is not the building, the instructors, Members of Parliament or Ministers, but the people who take their test. The test has to be fit for purpose. I am not at all worried about a drop in pass rates, because that would tell me something. For example, quite a few people think that their instructor is a qualified driving instructor—very often, they are not. That is something we need to look at to ensure that the public know exactly who is qualified and who is not. We need to ensure that the test is fit for purpose, and we are doing a lot of work on that.

The next stage is to ask why people who want to take their test have to go to the instructor. Why can the instructor not come to them? The two test centres mentioned earlier, in Forfar and Arbroath, are open two days a week. Why is there not a facility, whatever the demand is, for a tester to go people’s community two days a week? Why are we fixated with a Soviet system that means that people have to come to Government so that we can give them a piece of paper that says they can drive? That, to me, is the way forward. Other countries around the world have looked at that and do not have test centres that are physically big. There are test centres where instructors are based, and they then go out into the community. That would alleviate many of the concerns that the hon. Member for Angus has raised today—how far people have to go, the cost to the community, the risk to instructors and so on. Some of that fear is unfounded and I have touched on why, especially given the developments in the test, but I am more than willing to look at whether it is right, in the 21st century, that if someone wants a piece of paper or card that says that the Government say they can drive a car, motorcycle or a lorry, they have to go into a Government building in Dundee, or wherever it happens to be—in my case, in St Albans.

It is fit and proper to look closely at how the DSA works. I accept some of the criticisms. I have already said that I will look carefully at how the consultation process works. I would like to have been told. I apologise to the hon. Member for Angus for not sending him a letter, because I write to everybody when there are closures and I do not know how that one slipped through the net. I also apologise on behalf of the DSA and the Department, because I am absolutely paranoid about writing to MPs when something happens in their constituency. I think that it is very important that MPs are informed. I will look at the guidance on how the code of practice works. It is not difficult to consult on these things; it is difficult to know how far to go, but it is important that we do so. We must not, I stress, be fixated with buildings. Buildings deliver a service that could be delivered in other ways.

[Mr Weir]

It is not a fixation about buildings; it is a fixation about the service being available in the community. If the Minister can tell me I am wrong I would be delighted to have further details, but what appears to be happening is that the service has been removed from the local community. People will still have to go to a building. That building will not be in Arbroath and Forfar, however, it will be in Dundee, and that will be severely detrimental to the community.

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Under the proposals, that is what will happen. There is not full-time demand in his constituency, so we have a building sitting empty for three days of the week. That is a fact, and I cannot afford to do that in the present situation. Going forward—I stress going forward—the proposals will be developed. It will take time; they will have to be piloted and pushed forward in consultation with the whole of the industry, whether testers or instructors, and relevant MPs, to ensure that there is proper debate.

It must be right that we offer services to the community. That is what this is about. It is not about the buildings, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is about service to the community. At the moment, in his constituency, the service is being taken up on two days a week. That is what I am told. If I am wrong, people should write to me and tell me. The demand may be there, but the centres are not operating for more than two days a week. That is where we are.

Given the cost and the really difficult fiscal situation that we are in, which is the same in Scotland as it is in Wales, Northern Ireland and England, we have to ensure that all assets are being sweated as much as they can be. I will look carefully at the consultation. I will look carefully at the amount of waiting times, but I think I will find a lot of block bookings from the instructors the hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier. If it is a problem of block bookings, we will have to address it. However, if the waiting time is more than six weeks—more than the code of conduct says—they will not close until it is inside six weeks. That is a commitment I give today. What we all want, for all our constituents, is for the test to be fit for purpose, and for people to be able to enjoy the road, no matter what vehicle they pass their test on, so that they are safe for themselves and others. At the moment, I stress that we have a lot of work to do on the test to make it fit for purpose in the 21st century.

Driving Standards Agency (Cardiff)

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Written Statements

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

The Driving Standards Agency (DSA) is responsible for setting standards and conducting theory and practical driving tests for motorists in England and Wales. The DSA is a trading fund which is funded by the fees received from customers, which are set at a level to recover its costs. The DSA therefore has a duty to ensure its costs are kept at the minimum possible level in the interests of its customers, while maintaining standards of service. That means being as efficient as possible in every area of work and considering closely any areas of spending which may not be necessary

Following a review of its operations the DSA has decided to close its area office at Caradog House in Cardiff.

The office has 87 staff who provide administrative support for DSA within Wales, the south of England and London areas—mainly in deployment of examiners, customer service and test centre property management and procurement activities.

Staff have been informed of the decision. There will now be a period of consultation with trade unions. The consultation will be completed by 19 April 2011.

Possible redeployment options for the staff concerned are being explored. It is intended to retain a small office to support some operational staff in the area. Other responsibilities will be transferred to DSA’s headquarters in Nottingham and northern area office in Newcastle.

Closure of Caradog House will not affect testing provision in Wales and the DSA will continue to provide services under its agreed Welsh language scheme.

Commissioners of Irish Lights

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Written Statements

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

In my statement to the House on marine aids to navigation of 26 July 2010, Official Report, columns 75-76WS, I said that the Government believe a solution needs to be found as soon as possible to the imbalance of funding for marine aids to navigation in the Republic of Ireland. I am pleased to inform the House that the Irish Transport Minister and I have now reached an understanding on the reform of the funding of the Commissioners of Irish Lights.

The Commissioners of Irish Lights is the general lighthouse authority which has provided marine aids to navigation for the benefit of mariners visiting and passing the shores of the whole island of Ireland for hundreds of years. The organisation has come to symbolise the close friendship and shared history of our nations.

For many years, the funding of the Commissioners of Irish Lights work has been a joint undertaking, its costs being met primarily from light dues income from commercial shipping raised in both our jurisdictions and paid into the general lighthouse fund.

This funding mechanism has been the subject of debate for a number of years and there have been calls to facilitate a more equitable arrangement, whereby the costs of the work of the Commissioners in the Republic of Ireland are funded solely from sources of income there.

The Irish Transport Minister and I have reached an understanding that we will aim to see the Commissioners of Irish Lights self-financing by 2015-16. This understanding will facilitate the long-term sustainable funding of the Commissioners of Irish Lights and ensure the continued co-operation of the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland in the provision of marine aids to navigation.

Part 3 of the Equality Act (Ships and Hovercraft)

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2011 Written Statements

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

I am today publishing a consultation document which sets out the Government’s proposals for implementing part 3 of the Equality Act 2010 in respect of ships and hovercraft.

Part 3 of the Equality Act 2010 deals with discrimination, victimisation and harassment in the provision of services and the exercise of public functions. Bringing clarity and uniformity to anti-discrimination legislation as it applies to transporting people by ship or hovercraft and a service provided on such vessels is necessary as the scope and the territorial application of such legislation is far from clear. People receiving services onboard ships and hovercraft should, as far as it is reasonable to do so, have the same protection as they would on land.

Nevertheless, discrimination onboard ships and hovercraft is not reported as being a significant problem. So the intended policy approach is to maintain, as far as it is reasonable to do so, the protection which already exists against both direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation but to make the scope and extent of the legislation much simpler and clearer. Anti-discrimination legislation, in respect of the protected characteristic of disability, will however be strengthened in relation to ships and hovercraft when the EU regulation on the rights of passengers travelling by sea and inland waterway comes into force in the UK.

This consultation will assist Government in determining how part 3 is to apply to ships and hovercraft in relation to the actual service of transporting people and the provision of services onboard such vessels as well as those matters relating to performance of a public function in so far as it relates to disability discrimination.

The Government seek interested parties’ views on the proposals. The consultation document and the impact assessment are available on the Department for Transport’s website. Copies of these documents have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Motorcycle Testing

Mike Penning Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Written Statements

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

I am today publishing an interim report on the review of motorcycle testing in Great Britain, which I launched on 8 June 2010. Last week I met the working group established to conduct the review and we agreed a set of high-level findings and next steps. This group included members of the motorcycle industry, trainers, riders’ representatives, road safety and local authority bodies as well as DSA and DFT officials. I will be placing the report on the Department’s website www.dft.gov.uk and in the Libraries of both Houses.

While there is more work to be done on the detail, the review has helpfully identified a set of changes to the test which have the potential to deliver my objectives for a new motorcycle test. My goal is to see the practical test delivered as a single on-road event in a way which will maintain riding standards, protect safety and increase accessibility of the test to all candidates. The work delivered by the group includes a new hazard avoidance manoeuvre which—subject to further trialling—can be carried out on the road, as well as ways to perform the other specified manoeuvres on the road. The working group has also suggested that the slow manoeuvres (manual handling, slalom, figure-of-eight, U-turn and slow ride) might better be examined at training centres, ahead of the main test, by delegated examiners employed by the training industry. It could be followed by a single event on road test conducted by DSA, including the remaining manoeuvres and the other elements of the road-based test. This approach needs further development with the training industry.

The next step for the review will be to hold wider trials, with test-level candidates, to verify the standards, suitability and safety of the new manoeuvres, including a number of on-road sites, to establish the criteria for safe on-road testing. This will be followed by public consultation on the proposed changes. We will aim to implement a new test by the end of 2011 or early 2012, including on-road testing initially in priority areas which are poorly served by the current network of off-road test centres. Any changes to the manoeuvres would be implemented for all tests at all locations. Subject to further work on safety, cost and value for money, there would be a phased introduction of on-road testing moving to general adoption as soon as possible. Changes to the test will need to be monitored and kept under review to ensure that the review objectives are delivered in practice.

I am grateful to the members of this group for their work and note that many of them have given up their own time to contribute to the review.

Coastguard Services (Modernisation)

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2010 Written Statements

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

The United Kingdom is fortunate to have strong and effective front-line search and rescue capabilities, many of which are provided by volunteers, including some 3,500 volunteer coastguards carrying out coastal rescues, the lifeboats operated by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the volunteer mountain rescue teams. I would like to pay tribute to the dedication and commitment of these volunteers who provide a long-standing example of the contribution that individuals can make to the society in which they live.

Our front-line search and rescue services could not, however, function effectively and save the lives that they do without effective arrangements to identify and manage incidents, including directing the best placed and most suitable rescue assets to the scene. These arrangements are provided through our regular coastguard officers who also monitor ship movements around our coasts, provide information and services to seafarers and recreational water users, operate vessel traffic monitoring schemes in some locations, including the English channel, contribute to counter-pollution activities in our waters and support our volunteer coastguard force. They are currently located in 18 maritime rescue co-ordination centres around the UK.

The coastguard has a long and distinguished history. But in common with all public services it cannot stand still. Our seas are becoming busier with larger ships and increasing numbers of offshore renewable energy platforms, making key areas of our seas more congested. There are also increasing numbers of people using our beaches, coastlines and seas for leisure activities.

The current organisation of the coastguard—which dates back some 40 years—is not well placed to respond to these challenges. The lack of national co-ordination between the centres can result in limited resilience and an uneven distribution of the workload, especially during busy periods.

The latest technologies offer opportunities to address these issues and to modernise the coastguard enabling it to deliver a more integrated and improved level of service, at lower cost, with better-rewarded staff taking on increased responsibilities and with enhanced career opportunities.

With these objectives in mind, I am today launching a 14-week consultation about the modernisation of the coastguard service. The consultation document, which is available in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency website: www.mcga.gov. uk, sets out proposals to:

Establish two nationally networked maritime operations centres, located at Aberdeen and the Southampton/Portsmouth area, capable of managing maritime incidents wherever and whenever they occur and with improved information systems, together with a 24-hour centre at Dover looking over the busy channel traffic separation scheme.

Provide for five other sub-centres, fully integrated into the national network around the coast and operating during daylight hours. On the basis of an evaluation of the existing sites and the facilities available at them, it is proposed three of these should be located at Falmouth, Humber and Swansea. We also require sub-centres at either Belfast or Liverpool and either Stornoway or Shetland. The case for selection between these locations is more marginal. We are therefore inviting comments and information about factors that should influence the choice of sites for these two sub-centres.

Provide high quality and demanding jobs for our coastguards, with the job weight and pay reflecting the increased demands placed upon them in line with civil service pay guidelines.

Strengthen the leadership and support provided to our volunteer coastguards in the coastguard rescue service.

Improve present levels of service to the public while reducing costs.

The proposals do not affect the small centre operated by the coastguard alongside the Port of London Authority on the Thames in London.

These changes will strengthen the coastguard service by dealing with potential points of weakness in current structures and adding resilience throughout the system while also maintaining strong regional links and enhancing front-line rescue services through the volunteer coastguard.

Maritime Industry and Light Dues

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing a package of measures relating to the maritime industry following the spending review and a recent review I have undertaken of light dues.

Shipping is important to the UK both as the means by which the majority of goods are moved in and out of the country and as a significant contributor to the UK economy in its own right. The Government therefore wish to see a strong and sustainable maritime sector for the future and to minimise the burdens the industry faces.

With this in mind, the Government have listened carefully to the views of both the shipping industry and the general lighthouse authorities on the need for stability in the future level of charges set by the Department for Transport for marine aids to navigation.

In my written ministerial statement of 26 July 2010, Official Report, columns 75-76WS, on marine aids to navigation, I announced that the Government do not intend to change the basis on which light dues are currently charged. I am now pleased to announce a commitment that there will be no increases in light dues for at least the next three years.

I am also inviting the views of the Lights Finance Committee, which includes representatives of the payers of light dues, on what an appropriate level of dues for the future would be that balances the need to reduce demands on the shipping industry with the need to maintain essential aids to navigation. I have asked the committee to report its conclusions to me by February 2011.

Sustainable economic growth also requires investment in training and skills. I am therefore also pleased to be able to announce that, despite the difficult public spending climate, the Government will continue to provide a partial financial contribution towards the cost of training seafarers under the existing support for maritime training scheme, with the remainder of those costs being met by employers.

Within its spending review settlement the Department for Transport has been able to allocate some £12 million to support maritime training in the next financial year. I intend that the majority of this money should be focused on supporting initial training for cadets studying at junior officer level (SMarT 1). I estimate that this will enable the Department to contribute to the training of up to 1,000 new cadets starting their training during the next academic year. In order to provide reassurance, I can also confirm that we will make funding available beyond next year for all cadets starting SMarT 1 training in 2011-12, and those already undergoing SMarT l training, for the duration of their studies to officer of the watch certificate.

In addition, I intend that funding should also remain available next year for ratings training and for ratings to officer conversion training and I anticipate that some funding should be available to support the first instalment of SMarT 2—helping those SMarT 1 officer cadets who are also working towards foundation and other degrees, higher national diplomas or Scottish diplomas to complete their studies.

For the remaining parts of the SMarT programme, including SMarT 2 training beyond the first instalment, the Government believe that in current circumstances it is more appropriate that the cost of this additional training should be met in full by employers.

During the year I intend to commission a review of the support for maritime training scheme to consider the continuing requirement for Government support for training and skills development in this sector and how best to spend any continuing Government funding. I will report back to the House on the terms of reference for the review in due course.

In current fiscal circumstances, the Government have also had to look hard at other areas of taxpayer support to shipping.

The current crew relief costs scheme (CRCS) provides limited financial assistance to shipping companies towards the cost of officers or ratings joining or leaving their ships abroad. Shipping companies gain many benefits from the employment of British officers and ratings and, in light of this, the Government have come to the conclusion that continuing to provide commercial shipping companies with a subsidy to meet part of the costs of fares for seafarers can no longer be justified. The current CRCS will therefore cease on 8 March 2011. However, under the Merchant Shipping Act, the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, will still be able to provide financial assistance in respect of travel and other costs in exceptional cases. I am also inviting those with an interest in CRCS to submit suggestions for how the Department may be able to provide non-monetary assistance to encourage the continued employment of UK seafarers.

The Department for Transport also currently provides a financial contribution towards the costs of the confidential hazardous incident reporting programme for shipping (CHIRP) which provides an outlet for mariners to voice safety concerns. However, the scheme has not gained the traction hoped for in the commercial shipping and fishing sectors and there are other services established by the industry such as the Nautical Institute’s mariners’ alerting and reporting scheme. I have therefore concluded that the Department should cease to provide financial support for this scheme at the end of this financial year. The Department will work closely with the commercial, fishing and recreational sectors to see how confidential reporting opportunities might be provided in the future without financial assistance from Government.

Ship-to-Ship Transfer Regulations

Mike Penning Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2010 Written Statements

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

I wish to inform the House of the outcome of the review of the Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship Transfers) Regulations 2010.

On 8 July, I announced the review of the regulations and I asked all interested parties to make representations to me by 30 September. On the same day, I also laid a statutory instrument—the Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship Transfer) (Amendment) Regulations 2010—before the House, in order to defer the coming into force date of the regulations from 1 October 2010 until 1 April 2011.

During the period of the review, from 8 July to 30 September inclusive, I received 32 written representations and held three meetings with interested parties at their request.

In considering these representations, I have been left in no doubt that this is an important issue—not only for the shipping companies who benefit from these practices, but equally for local residents who have concerns about the potential impact of any accident on their coastline. In deciding how best to proceed, it has been necessary to strike a balance between ensuring that these operations are properly regulated, while recognising the benefits of ship-to-ship transfer.

On the basis of the written representations and the points made to me in meetings conducted in the context of the review, I have drawn the following conclusions:

I intend to change the policy on ship-to-ship transfers outside harbour authority areas. Instead of a general prohibition, there will be a regime which will:

restrict ship-to-ship transfers outside harbour authority areas to a single designated area within the UK territorial sea;

establish a system of permits issued by the MCA; and

give effect at the same time to the new chapter 8 of annex I to the MARPOL convention.

I intend to maintain, without change, the policy of requiring oil transfer licences for harbour authorities. Harbour authorities which already have a history of hosting ship-to- ship transfers will, of course, continue to benefit from transitional arrangements.

I shall also take account, in reshaping the policy, of some specific instances where a type of ship or a type of activity needs to be treated in a way which departs from the general rules, or where the application of the rules needs to be adjusted to allow normal harbour activities to continue unhindered.

The Department’s officials will now proceed to draft the necessary amending legislation, on the basis which I have described. I shall be taking a keen interest in the progress which they make.

I will be placing an analytical table, which summarises the points of substance made in the written representations and the meetings held with interested parties, on the Department’s website and in the Libraries of both Houses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the effects of reductions in road safety grants and the ending of Government funding for speed cameras on the number of road traffic (a) accidents and (b) fatalities.

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

No assessment has been made about the effect on road accidents that may result from changes to road safety grants. The Government continue substantially to fund local transport in local authorities, including for road safety. Speed camera operations can still continue if the local authorities decide that they wish them to do so.

[Paul Blomfield]

Frankly, I am shocked to hear the Minister say that no assessment has been made regarding the consequences of significant cuts to capital and revenue funding and the ending of specific ring-fencing for local authority road safety grants at a time when local authorities are going to be under unprecedented financial pressure. I urge the Minister to think again about the dangerous consequences of the lack of priority that the Government are giving to road safety.

[Mike Penning]

Especially as an ex-fireman, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that road safety is paramount for this Government. That is why I am taking this forward in such strong ways, particularly with local authorities. It is for local authorities, not central Government, to decide what is best for their communities. Speed cameras have been beneficial in some parts of the country, but they have also been seen as cash cows. It is for local authorities to decide, and we will work with them.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

May I draw the Minister’s attention to early-day motion 1084, tabled by me and co-sponsored by two former road safety Ministers, one Labour and one Conservative? The EDM welcomes a report from the RAC Foundation which confirms that each year the presence of speed cameras prevents 800 people from being killed or seriously injured. In the light of that, will the Minister give more credit to speed cameras, because they do save lives?

[Mike Penning]

I pay credit to the work that my hon. Friend has done over many years on road safety. The truth of the matter is that some speed cameras do fantastic work, and some do not. In local authority areas such as Swindon, where speed cameras have been stopped altogether, there has been no indication of an increase in accidents since they have gone. It is for local authorities to decide, and we will work with them, but the public must be with them when it comes to speed cameras. The public must, whatever happens, be confident that speed cameras are there for the right reason.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The Minister has said:

“We would expect that road safety would remain a priority for local communities and that local spending would reflect that.”

The RAC calculates that speed cameras save 70 lives a year. Can the Minister tell the House how it is supposed to ensure that road safety remains a priority when his Government are cutting funding to local government by more than 30%? Is not the truth that ending Government funding for speed cameras is nothing to do with dictating priorities to local government but all about them making cuts to vital road safety measures that he does not wish to defend?

[Mike Penning]

The shadow Minister is better than that; he knows full well that some speed cameras work very well and some do not. The pre-2004 speed cameras in many areas, including my own, where the money was hypothecated straight back to the local authorities, were there to raise cash, not necessarily to prevent accidents. It is up to local authorities to use the money that has been given to them by central Government for their communities. It is for them to decide, not central Government.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What steps he is taking to ensure that the Thameslink project is completed on time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

12. What recent representations he has received on future expenditure on roads in Essex; and if he will make a statement.

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

I have received correspondence from four hon. Members as well as from Essex county council about investment on the A12.

[Priti Patel]

Is the Minister aware of the “Save Lives Not Time” petition in my constituency? It calls for improvements to the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey, particularly in respect of the need to reduce speed on that road, which—as he may know—is described by the Road Safety Foundation as the 10th most dangerous single carriageway in England. My constituents would welcome a commitment from the Department to work with our local community to improve that road so that lives can be saved.

[Mike Penning]

I know that part of the world very well, particularly the A12 and the A120, and I know how dangerous the section of road to which my hon. Friend refers is. The Department will work with the campaign that she is working hard to pursue. My officials are listening, so they will know that they are to work with Essex county council and other officials to make that road safer.

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

13. What steps he is taking to encourage sustainable local travel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

T2. Prodrive is one of the most cutting-edge and significant companies in my constituency. It does excellent work on automotive engineering, including producing a new generation of Mini rally car. What are the Government going to do to make it easier for rallying to take place on roads in the UK?

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

Legislation dating from the 1930s restricts rallying, time trials and races on highways in the UK. An Act of Parliament would be required to change that. We are looking to deregulate the position so that if local authorities want to hold rallies, time trials or races, they should be allowed to do so.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

The winter resilience review commissioned by the previous Government has produced its final report and recommendations, yet the country is in chaos, with passengers forced to sleep at stations, freezing all night on broken-down trains or getting trapped in their cars, all at a cost to the economy of up to £1.2 billion a day. Why are not the findings of the review being implemented? The public do not want the Secretary of State to announce another review by the person who has already set out the blueprint for improvements. They want him to get on and implement the recommendations and improvements. When is the Secretary of State going to get a grip?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

T5. The Secretary of State is right to consider the introduction of automatic number plate recognition technology at the Dartford crossing to ease congestion. Given that the crossing makes some £45 million a year, would it not be better to consider the effect of how the new technology improves congestion before increasing toll charges to help fund a new crossing?

[Mike Penning]

My hon. Friend has campaigning for many years to get the tolls removed from the Dartford river crossing, but we need the investment not only for vehicle recognition, so that we can have free flow coming through and the realignment of the road, but for the preliminary work for the new crossing.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

In the Secretary of State’s response to the resilience review, he stated that he was dissatisfied with previous performance and the level of disruption and that it would be sorted in time for this winter. What went wrong? His response just now was not good enough. It is not good enough just to say that there has been a bit extra snow.

Dartford Crossing (Congestion)

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure and an honour to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Rosindell. What an ironic coincidence it is that you are chairing a debate on a matter that is so important in your constituency, a part of the world that I know well. I know that the correct protocol for Ministers, quite rightly, is to address the Chamber when speaking on behalf of the Government, but it will be quite difficult to do so as the Opposition Benches are completely empty. I apologise if I have to turn my back to Members who are present for this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on being so persistent about the matter, and on securing the debate. It is a shame that it is only a half-hour debate, as I know that colleagues on this side of the Chamber would have liked to spend more time debating the issues that are so relevant to their constituents.

In the short time I have been a Minister, I have encountered few issues that raise as much local and national concern as has the Thames crossing between Thurrock and Dartford. As a former fireman, I have on too many occasions attended incidents on the Essex side of the crossing where road traffic accidents—road traffic collisions, or whatever modern term we use today—have taken place because people were so frustrated that they took risks. I would ask the drivers and passengers what the cause of the accident was, and all too often they replied that it was anger, frustration and concern that they were being delayed in going about their business or doing their personal duties. Whether they were going north or south, they were usually delayed for one reason: the toll booths on the Kent side of the river.

I am determined, with the Secretary of State’s permission, to do everything we can to alleviate that congestion and pollution. We have not had enough time to debate the pollution, but on both sides of the river it is blighting the lives of many constituents. Visitors to the country are also affected, as 20% of all heavy goods vehicles travelling north through both bores are foreign. The crossing is the lifeblood of the country’s economy. It is invariably how traffic gets from the south to the north.

We have looked carefully at the situation in these difficult times. I fully respect the position of hon. Members who have campaigned over the years to have the previous Government’s promise to remove the tolls honoured. However, we are in really difficult economic times, and the £70 million a year gross revenue that the tolls take in is an important part of the money available for the infrastructure and transport network for the whole country. I know that the matter is really personal for those in that part of the world, but it is a piece of national infrastructure, and the Transport Act 2000 specifically states that the net value of the tolls should be used in transport infrastructure. It is one of the few hypothecated sources of revenue that we have.

I will outline quickly what we have done in the short time we have been able to address a situation that has been going on for years. The first thing we asked was whether it is right in the 21st century to delay people, sometimes for hours, when we expect them to pay a fee to use a crossing. When the tolls are causing the problem and the resulting tailbacks become unacceptably long, we have been releasing the toll charge. In other words, we have lifted the barriers at those times and people are not being charged. There is currently no guidance on how long the tailbacks have to be before we do that, so we hope to have a protocol in place in the new year so that people will know exactly what that distance will be.

That is just an interim measure, because we all know that the way to address the congestion and pollution is to have free flow charging. For the foreseeable future we will have to impose a toll, so how do we minimise the effect on the user while recouping the income? Fantastically, the congestion charge uses vehicle number plate recognition, and it works well. We intend to use that technology to remove the barriers at the north and south of the crossing.

The toll booths are what is really holding up the traffic. As we heard earlier in the debate, the delays are actually being caused by people trying to find change, not realising that they have to pay, or losing their DART-Tag. If we remove the toll booths altogether so that people can drive across the bridge or through the bores, that delay will be removed. Although we are looking at whether we can enhance the number of vehicles that can use the bridge, and 20% seems to be the figure we are looking at, particularly for the bridge—I will come back to the bores in a moment—it is surely fair to the user, whether local or national, that there is free flow.

A considerable amount of construction work is required to realign the road so that there is a straight run, particularly when vehicles come off the bridge. Otherwise, at junction 1A, as those of us who are familiar with that part of the world know, they would be dog-legging to the right at that optimal speed of 50 mph, which will be the speed at which they will be allowed to come down. There will be a great deal of work and cost involved in doing that, and a great deal of technology needs to be put in place as well. Some of that technology is already there. The average-speed cameras will be commissioned soon, and we intend to start commissioning beyond the bridge and back towards junction 2 as the public get used to the 50 mph speed that we want them to use to come across the bridge safely and go towards the bores.

The money will come specifically from the increase in the toll. I would love to have informed the House today that we do not need the 50p from 2011 and 2012, because, obviously, I do not like taxing the British public. However, we need that money, which will be hypothecated for the work we need to do and to pay not only for the non-charging, which we will implement as a short-term measure, but for the free-flow tolling and then—this was touched on by colleagues—to look at a business plan for a new lower Thames crossing.

We all know that the capacity and growth that this country needs will mean that we will struggle, particularly going north. Why will there be such a problem going north? It is because the two bores are not the same size. The inside bore is smaller, so we will struggle to keep a free flow going while oversize vehicles move into the outside lane to go through the larger bore. That is a big technical issue. We still intend to remove the barriers, but we will have to use the matrix signs to slow the traffic going north or halt it so that those vehicles can move across. That will always be a problem.

Secondly, where there is congestion—for example, on the M25 in the Essex section—we cannot legally allow traffic to sit in the tunnel for any length of time. It is not safe, and we have no intention of doing that. Therefore, as we look forward to developing different plans, we have to start to ask whether we will invest some of the money that we are recouping from the region—the net income at the moment is £45 million—in a business plan. As we develop the concept, we must ask, first, whether we should build a bridge or a tunnel, and, secondly, where it will go. Of course, there will be investment not just in the crossing but in the infrastructure on the Essex and Kent sides, which must be linked in.

That was brought home to me starkly when I visited some of my old stomping grounds in Essex recently and, as the Minister with responsibility for shipping, was taken on to the river by the Port of London Authority. I have a dual role when it comes to that part of the country. I spoke to business people who told me that they owned land on the Kent side but had no intention of using it because they could not guarantee that they would be able to get their vehicles across the bridge and back. That is stifling the economy and growth. I freely admit that not one of them has said to me, “We can’t afford to do this; we think that the 50p is going to be a problem for us.” I am sure that there are businesses that will be affected by it, but what they were looking at was the ability to have a business plan that worked. In other words, if they need to get from A to B, and that happens to be from the Kent coast up through the midlands, how can they plan for that when they know, for instance, that they will be queuing at peak times—and sometimes not at peak times?

Several colleagues have written to me in the past couple of days to ask why we did not suspend the toll charges when the winds were bad the other day. The reason was that it was not the barriers that were causing the problem; we had to close the bridge because of the wind. The bridge was not designed brilliantly well—hindsight is a wonderful thing—and does not have the kind of protection from winds exceeding 50 mph that we would expect from a modern bridge. That meant that use of the bridge had to be suspended, and we reverted to using the two bores in the two tunnels—that almost took me back to my youth. I accept that that caused a great deal of trouble. Was the problem caused by the infrastructure or by the tolling? It was caused by the infrastructure not being fit for purpose.

As we work together—I hope that we can—on this project in the next couple of months, I hope to be able to bring in colleagues from all parties who represent constituencies in and around the Dartford river crossing area. I always wonder why we call it the Dartford river crossing area when Thurrock is on the other side. We should call it the Thurrock-Dartford river crossing. I stood as a parliamentary candidate in Thurrock in 2001, and I know only too well that it could be a fantastic growth area if there were confidence in the bridge.

I understand that there may be disappointment that the tolls were not removed when the previous agreement was in place, but I have to stand here as the Minister and say what will be the best outcome for the country as a whole, and for the constituents of hon. Friends who are here today. There are two things that I can do: I can give them confidence in the future that, by removing the barriers so that traffic will have free flow, local people will be able to cross regularly, whether they are going to work or moving socially from north to south and south to north.

The other thing that I need to come back to is the effect on the environment when that free flow comes in. It is of paramount importance that we look after not only the economy of this country but our constituents. We know that the levels of pollution are unacceptably high—particularly when there are problems going north, and because of how close residential properties are to the roads—and are likely to increase. Even though we are driving down emissions, we know from the sheer number of HGVs that come through that we will have issues with that.

We can move as fast as we can for free flow to take place, but we must ensure that the technology works and that local residents have confidence in the local discount schemes. I hope you will not mind my saying this, Mr Rosindell: the take-up of the schemes was as high as we all expected. However, if there are complications—I know that local residents find the schemes complicated—perhaps hon. Members could drop me a line about their concerns.

We are spreading the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) was looking at that, and it has been put forward many times. The problem is where to stop. I fully understand that the people who live nearby get a discount and that others just down the road do not, but we have to draw the line somewhere.

[Mr Evennett]

Bexley residents are much closer to the bridge and the tunnel than many others, but they do not have a discount scheme. Will they be included in the Minister’s thoughts?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

They are certainly included in my thoughts—my hon. Friend uses a good piece of terminology. I am more than willing to look at that, but if I take the discount away from some and give it to others, I will get just as many complaints from the other side. I have to look at the revenue. The key at present is not to have a cash cow but to use the money to make the environment better for my hon. Friend’s constituents in the future.

I hope that this will not be the last debate on the subject. This is not a bid for being here every day, or on a regular basis, but I hope that colleagues will engage with my officials, my Department and me to get the best option. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said earlier that we may not agree on everything, but let us work together on those things we do agree on. Let us use this opportunity to develop the economy and the environment, and to make the area a much better place for everyone to live and work in.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will every avenue be followed to ensure full and thorough consultation with local authorities and residents in the areas that are proposed for any future Thames crossing?

[Mike Penning]

There will be full consultation on that, just as there will be consultation now on the toll increases. Of course consultation will take place, but we must ensure that whatever is built is fit for purpose not just for us today, but for future generations.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford on securing this debate, and I hope we can work with other colleagues on this project.

Question put and agreed to.