Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

3. Whether she plans to consult on draft legislative proposals on use and regulation of armed guards on ships.

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

The Government are not currently putting forward any legislative proposals for the use and regulation of armed guards. The possession of firearms is already regulated by the Home Office under the Firearms Act 1968. We have issued UK-flagged shipping guidance, and we intend to bring forward further work in the near future.

[Graeme Morrice]

I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome the announcement that armed guards can now be used in the protection of UK ships in areas affected by piracy. He will be aware, however, that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has described the Government’s interim guidance as “thin on detail”, while ship owners have called for regulation to clarify the use of armed guards. When do the Government intend to bring forward clearer guidance or regulation on this issue?

[Mike Penning]

The protection of the UK fishing fleet is a very important issue, especially given the piracy situation off Somalia. This is not a new development; armed guards were on British flagged ships long before we came into power. The issue was ignored, wrongly, by the previous Administration. We therefore made a conscious decision on whether we ignored it, wrongly, under UK law, or did something about it. Guidance was introduced, although I agree with the Select Committee that it needs to be firmed up. At the moment, we do not need legislation, but if we do, we will bring it forward.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

What assessment has the Minister made of the economic impact of piracy in the Gulf of Aden?

[Mike Penning]

That is very difficult to do because no British-flagged ship under armed guard has been taken by pirates, who have attempted to do so but have not succeeded. That is an indication of why it was right and proper for us to move forward on this. There has recently been a decline in attacks. That is partly to do with the excellent work that NATO and our European colleagues are doing with the Royal Navy, partly to do with armed guards, and partly to do with best practice; a lot of it is to do with the weather, as well. We keep a very close eye on this, because it has a significant effect on our shipping as well as on the shipping of other European Union member states.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

4. When she expects to publish the findings of her Department’s review of brown tourist signs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

5. What discussions she has had with the European Commission on the height of trailers.

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

I recognise that this is an important issue for UK hauliers, and I am pressing for a solution that protects our national interests. I raised my concerns with European Commission officials at the second Asia-Europe meeting of Transport Ministers in China in October. We are engaging fully with the European Commission on this issue, which concerns our hauliers greatly.

[Mark Pawsey]

The haulage industry is important to the country as a whole and to my constituency in particular. It has worked hard to maximise efficiency by making use of all the space in larger, streamlined containers. Lloyd Fraser Group in my constituency, which distributes Mr Kipling cakes among other things, is anxious to ensure that the negotiations allow it to remain competitive. Will the Minister give that reassurance?

[Mike Penning]

I wonder whether I need to declare an interest in Mr Kipling’s cakes. We must utilise our roads in the best possible way. If lorries are under the weight limit, 4 metre-plus trailers are of significant importance. This issue has been raised by the Austrians. I do not see why it should affect British hauliers in the UK.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a serious question. It is not just about the height of the vehicles, but about their cabs. These vehicles are killing pedestrians and cyclists in our towns and countryside. The industry knows that cabs should be changed either on the continent or on this side of the channel. These vehicles are killing our people and the design should change.

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman raises an enormously important issue. However, the question was about the height of trailers. I accept that there are other issues and I am more than happy to meet cycling representatives and the industry, as I do on a regular basis. He raises a serious issue, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the height of trailers.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

6. What assessment she has made of the effect on services to Scotland of the bid by International Airlines Group to acquire BMI.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

12. What assessment she has made of the likely effect of proposed changes to the drink-drive rehabilitation scheme.

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

The consultation document, “New Approval Arrangements for Drink-Drive Rehabilitation Courses”, published in November 2011, contained an initial impact assessment outlining the costs and benefits of the proposals.

[Paul Blomfield]

Does the Minister accept that there is real concern among those interested in reducing reoffending, including the Justices’ Clerks’ Society, which provides legal advice to magistrates, that introducing multiple providers in an area will lead to a price-driven race to the bottom, with a consequent impact on reoffending rates? Would not a better solution be to have competitive tendering for a single provider in an area to ensure quality and effectiveness of the services?

[Mike Penning]

This matter has been raised with me privately in the past couple of days by several hon. Members in exactly the way the hon. Gentleman asked his question. I will be looking at the matter. The principle of drink-drive rehabilitation schemes is important. Evidence shows that those who take the schemes are more than two and a half times less likely to reoffend—or at least to be caught reoffending; we do not actually know whether they are reoffending, of course. However, we will consider his point.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

T5. Lorries are involved in 19% of cyclist fatalities. Does the Minister support the call by The Times cycling campaign to require lorries entering city centres to have sensors and mirrors by law to reduce cycling fatalities?

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

This is an important piece of work that needs to be done. We are looking closely at how sensors and mirrors will work, and working with our European partners on mirrors in particular. Sensors are a big issue, and only the other day I met the family of someone who had been killed by a lorry driver turning left at a red light. The conclusion of that discussion was that sensors would not necessarily have helped in that case. In other cases, if the sensor is set off by bollards or traffic lights, and so on, drivers will ignore the beeping and not do what they should, which is to see whether there is a cyclist. However, we are looking closely at this issue, and we will work closely with everybody in this House and in the cycling fraternity to ensure that we make it as safe as possible for cyclists.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

T3. The Department will soon receive a bid to the sustainable local transport fund from Wiltshire council to support services on the Wiltshire TransWilts community rail partnership. Will the Minister give the bid full consideration? Far from being the rural branch service that one might expect from current service levels, the line connects all the major economic centres of Wiltshire with Swindon, and indeed three mainline railways.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

T6. I recently met the roads Minister, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), along with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), to discuss the much needed improvements on the A63 and Castle street in Hull. I wonder whether he can give the House, and me in particular, an assurance that pre-construction funding will be announced soon.

[Mike Penning]

In the autumn statement we announced extra funding for road projects and for projects where we could literally press the button to allow growth to take place. In what I thought was a very amicable meeting with the hon. Gentleman and his colleague, we said that we were looking at new programmes. We are very aware of the effects of the road in question on local infrastructure, particularly the port, and as we go forward we will work with him and the local authority up there to see whether the project can go ahead.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

T8. HS2 will shape the economic geography of the country for decades. Will my right hon. Friend meet colleagues and me to discuss the importance of a stop on HS2 in the north Staffordshire/south Cheshire area, which contains the 10th largest conurbation in the country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

T9. I am sure that Ministers all welcome The Times campaign for safer cycling. What steps does the Department think it can take to ensure that cyclists join motorists in taking responsibility for ensuring their own safety while cycling—for example, by ensuring that their bicycles have bells attached and that they are not listening to music while cycling?

[Mike Penning]

It is the responsibility of everybody on the highway to ensure that they are aware of what their situation is, alert to what is going on around them—particularly if they are cyclists—and, at the same time, visible to other road users. At the same time, however, they need to be protected as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Given the recent disappointing Christmas drink-drive statistics, is it now time to revisit the decision not to accept the North review’s recommendation to reduce the drink-drive limit?

[Mike Penning]

I was not as disappointed by the Christmas drink-drive campaign as the hon. Gentleman was. Any drink-driving is wrong, and it should not happen, but we targeted specific areas—namely, those who drink excessively and younger drivers—and that campaign was successful. We will continue to push to ensure that people understand that they should not drink and drive, and that if they do they will be prosecuted.

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Ricky Burlton

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

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

It is an honour and a privilege and quite humbling to be the Minister responding to this Adjournment debate, which has been secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who is a good friend. As a father, I can only imagine the pain and suffering that Ricky’s family have gone through. I know they are here in the Gallery today, and I hope that some of my comments and those of my hon. Friend will help to bring them some comfort. I commend them for their dedication to the campaign they have been working on for some time with my hon. Friend and others on how we can close this loophole. I hope also that they and anyone else watching the debate will understand that Adjournment debates are usually a very personal affair between a Member of Parliament and a Minister. The fact that there are very few Members here in no way reflects how seriously the House or the Government take the issue. Indeed, there are more here than there usually are and that is because of the seriousness of the debate.

For me, this issue came to light many years ago, long before I came to the House, when I was a fireman in Essex. All too often, we would attend an incident and the police would whisper to us, “Another uninsured driver,” or “Another one with no licence.” One thing I was determined about when the Prime Minister gave me the honour of being the roads Minister was that I would look really carefully at the skills that drivers need to ensure their safety and that of others. I also wanted to look carefully at the whole area of car insurance, which we should remember is compulsory. Unlike many other types of insurance, which we can choose to take out, many of the things that are required by legislation when one drives a car are there because the state says that drivers have to have them. I was very conscious that we should look at the driving test, at the MOT, a review of which we announced in the House in the past couple of days, and at insurance. Why is it so expensive? Why have there been so many uninsured drivers out there? Why is fraud so easy at times? Why are people being allowed to do that and injure and kill other people while also pushing up the cost of insurance through their actions?

I commend the previous Administration because they started the process of change by bringing in things like the continuous insurance legislation that says that if someone owns a vehicle for which a statutory off road notification has not been made it must be insured, no matter where it is. It might be in someone’s garage or in their friend’s yard but if the owner has not made a SORN, they must have an intention to drive it. That change started to deal with the 1.2 million vehicles on our roads that are not insured. However, it did not address the issue of those who are fraudulently driving a vehicle or taking out insurance.

One group whom we have not discussed yet are those who commit fraud almost unintentionally, such as parents who say, “It’s so expensive for Johnny or Mary to insure their car; I’ll insure it for them and say that I’m the main driver and that they are an additional driver”, when in fact they are not. That is also fraud and when insurers realise that that is the case they cancel the insurance when someone tries to make a claim. That is a big issue and that boosts up costs.

This issue is fascinating to me, and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North is right that it is quite simple to address. The DVLA holds the details of anyone in this country who holds a British driving licence, so it should not be rocket science to say that if an overseas national or anyone without a British driving licence tries to get insurance and road tax, as my hon. Friend has described, to make it more difficult for the authorities to realise that they are driving illegally, surely those two parties—the DVLA and insurers—should be able to talk to each other, whether through the Motor Insurers Bureau or the Association of British Insurers. I asked that question very early on and was told, “It’s quite difficult, Minister. Let’s get the continuous insurance legislation out of the way first.” The Government had committed to doing that and the legislation is now on the statute book, and that has been a great asset in driving uninsured drivers off the road, but it is also a great asset to insurance companies and their profits, as we can imagine.

However, as my hon. Friend suggested, the DVLA had already spent a great deal of money trying to give this porthole facility to the insurers. Some 18 months ago I made a speech to the insurers and said, “We will give you this facility. It is expensive, so we will need some financial help from you as well, because you will get a tangible benefit from this, along with all of us.” There have been some difficulties with those negotiations in recent months, which I think is what my hon. Friend alluded to in his earlier comments. However, I am absolutely determined that this will happen.

Some people—the politically correct, in my view—have suggested that giving that information to insurers would be wrong because it would infringe data protection and the individual’s rights. I think the opposite. If someone is asking to be insured, which is a legal requirement for being on the road, they should supply all the relevant information to the insurer so that it can make a judgment on whether it wishes to insure the individual, because there are plenty of people out there who insurers would not want to insure—my hon. Friend alluded to some of them in his comments. The insurers could then make a judgment on the cost of the premium.

Of course, insurance is all about risk. Around 50% of all insurance claims are personal injury claims, which is something else we are working on. In this area, I was told that we should be okay, but I said, “Let us look at it another way.” If a broker or someone who is looking for insurance online is unwilling to reveal that information to the insurance company, that is fine and they should not tick the relevant box, but I am pretty sure that the insurance company will not insure them, because they have something to hide. I think that we have gone over that issue now; there are still some concerns on how quickly we can get that facility, but I am absolutely determined to do so.

[Nick de Bois]

I am grateful to the Minister for his thought-out response to the questions I raised. I think that we could also give some financial encouragement to insurance companies. At present, if a vehicle is uninsured, insurers have to run a fund that means that they meet third party liability costs, which is a growing cost to the industry, so I would have thought that they should factor that into their calculations.

[Mike Penning]

My hon. Friend must have been reading my mind, because I was about to say that the feasibility of this proposal is not just about the necessity of driving people who have done awful and terrible things, such as those done to Ricky, off the road, but about helping us all financially. We all know about the sheer cost of insurance; we have seen the publicity in the newspapers in the past few years. A lot of that is the result of uninsured risk. We need to ensure that insurers—in my negotiations and discussions with them I have reiterated this, because DVLA is my responsibility as Minister—do not go down blind avenues by saying, “This will cost us X, so what benefit will we get from it?” There is obviously a tangible benefit—one of the benefits my hon. Friend alluded to—but there are others, and it is not just in this sort of case that we would benefit.

When I listened to my hon. Friend’s speech I noted very carefully that this was about people reinsuring. There is a big problem with drivers not telling their insurers when they are handed fines and points by the courts. They should tell them immediately, and the insurers should certainly be informed when they do their renewals. I think the insurance companies need to do more than simply ask, “Have your circumstances changed?”

Only the other day, my insurance company texted me to tell me that my insurance was due for renewal. The text told me how much it was—it had gone up, as usual—and that the insurance company will take it out of my bank account at the end of the month and I do not need to do anything. That is very dangerous. It is convenient, both for me and, obviously, for my insurer, but there is no transparency for me, as the person being insured, on whether there have been any changes in my circumstances. I know that the small print on all policies says that we should inform the insurer, but the process should be much more difficult—just for that spare moment—so that we are able to gather the information and know exactly what is going on. It is in many ways just as bad as a parent insuring themselves for their child, but it is certainly not as bad as the case under discussion, because, as my hon. Friend suggests, such behaviour often occurs for a reason.

People who do not have a driving licence take out insurance not because they think, “This is protecting the public or someone else”; they do so to cover up something. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: if you go out on patrol with the police, you see that the modern technology in ANPR cameras is absolutely stunning. The police know whether the driver has an MOT, is insured or is the registered owner. All those things flash up in an instant, and the technology is being rolled out, but it will not pick up whether the driver has a licence, even though it will bring up whether they are insured.

There is another little problem, which my hon. Friend touched on, and it is to do with the new legislation on continuous insurance, because, as he quite rightly asked, if a driver does not have a licence why would they insure the vehicle? The answer is that it may be off the road, and although the driver might not want to SORN it, they might want to insure it so that if, for instance, their garage caught light and was not covered by their house insurance, the vehicle, which might be a classic or something like that, would be protected. So we must not put into the box marked “criminality” people who do not deserve to be, because there may be a genuine reason for their behaviour. But that is a small element and no excuse not to progress.

As we move forward, as we use the technology that we have, as insurers see how they can gain the financial benefits and as consumers see the benefits, we as a Government have to enforce the legislation, which is on the statute book for a reason. It is on the statute book so that everybody knows what will happen if they are hit by someone else or injured by a vehicle.

There is, as my hon. Friend said, a substantial cost from claims due to uninsured third parties, and it is something that we are going to drive down with the current legislation, but I hope that literally in the next few months we will come to an agreement with the insurers and their representative bodies. There is the will to do so, and where there is a will there is a way. It is something that I am determined to drive forward not only for Ricky’s parents, but for all others on the road, whether the issue is a financial one or involves those who have lost their loved ones, too.

Question put and agreed to.

Transport

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Ministerial Corrections

[Paul Blomfield]

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average length of service is of staff employed by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency at each local office and regional enforcement centre.

[Official Report, 17 January 2012, Vol. 538, c. 637-8W.]

Letter of correction from Mike Penning:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on 17 January 2012.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mike Penning]

The following table provides the average length of service of staff employed by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's local office and regional enforcement centres.

[Mike Penning]

The following table provides the average length of service of staff employed by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's local office and regional enforcement centres.

Search and Rescue Helicopters

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Written Statements

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

On 13 July 2011 the Department for Transport commenced a procurement competition for search and rescue helicopter services to replace the existing contracted Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) capability. The procurement process has now concluded, and I wish to inform the House of the results.

A contract has been signed to operate search and rescue services from Stornoway and Shetland with Bristow Helicopters Ltd. A separate contract has been signed with CHC Scotia Bristow Helicopters Ltd to operate search and rescue services from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency bases at Portland and Lee-on-the-Solent. Operations under both contracts will commence by the time the existing MCA service contract expires, and will continue until June 2017. Both contracts will be managed by the MCA.

As I announced on 28 November, procurement is now under way for longer-term arrangements that will see search and rescue contracted nationally. Operations will commence under these longer-term arrangements during 2015 and the future contractor for the UK will assume responsibility for the MCA capability during 2017.

Fishing Vessels (Safety)

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I think this is the first time either as a Minister or a shadow Minister that I have served under your chairmanship, Miss Clark, and it is a pleasure to do so this afternoon. I warmly thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) for securing the debate. The only word to describe her and her family is “dignified.” We cannot imagine the loss to her family, but how she has taken the arguments forward, so that others do not suffer in the way that she and her family have done, is moving. The House needs to pay tribute to the work that she has done and will do, and some of that work will, I hope, be with me.

The really serious situation that my hon. Friend has brought up has touched so many families around this great maritime nation of ours. The shipping industry has been with us, and dangerous, for as long as anybody can remember, but it is particularly difficult at the moment, especially for the smaller inshore fleets, simply because the economics of having a crew on a ship sometimes makes it almost impossible to make the trade viable. With the costs of insurance, harbour dues and fuel, as my hon. Friend mentioned, the one saving available to skippers is to limit the number of crew on their ships, thus limiting their costs, and many of them have made that decision. I used to live on the coast in Southend, and I watched the inshore boys regularly going out single-handed. It helps them in that it reduces their overheads, but it also puts them at enormous risk. Anything that we can do to help them to limit the risk is one of the highest priorities for any Government of any colour or persuasion.

When I took on this job and looked across my portfolio, I was pleased that I shared part of it with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which has responsibility for fisheries policy, and shared responsibility for the Marine Management Organisation, which was a new entity, with a DEFRA Minister. One of the MMO’s key jobs is to ensure that we finance the right priorities in the right way. We have something like 17,500 part-time and full-time fishermen in the UK. Even though the debate is about England, I hope that my colleagues and fellow Ministers in the devolved Administrations are listening, because if we can secure money from the Commission, I am pretty certain that they can.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for that very encouraging response. Does he intend to contact the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to make them aware of the funding? I have talked to some of the fishing organisations back home and I think that they are aware of it, but sometimes a wee nudge from the Minister enables them to move just that wee bit quicker.

[Mike Penning]

I know that I am enormously popular in Northern Ireland in particular at the moment, so I am sure that a nudge from my size-10 boot would not go amiss. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will contact all my counterparts in the devolved Assemblies to ensure that they are aware of the debate and the research that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall has done on behalf of all fishermen, and to give them a subtle hint, because as my hon. Friend knows, it is not quite as simple as it sounds.

It sounds as if I could stand here as Minister and just say, “We all know the safety benefits that could come from installing the emergency stop valve on a boat, so make it compulsory.” Why not regulate to avert such dangers? The biggest reason that I am not going to do that is not because I do not think that it would work, because it would, but because of the costs. The costs would be so bad for small inshore fishermen. The figure of £1,300 is interesting, but the true figure might be £1,300 plus VAT, if they are registered for VAT. It might be more than that in certain parts of the country, but it might be less in parts of the country with more competition. Some fishermen could not even get £1,300 with an overdraft or a loan, and so would not be able to go to sea.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I appreciate the Minister’s concerns about costs; it is a very salient issue for smaller vessels in particular. My concern about regulation is that the experience of recent years has been that where fishermen’s organisations themselves own the issues, self-regulation has been effective, as we have seen with conservation measures. I urge him to continue on the path he is taking.

[Mike Penning]

I have absolutely no intention of regulating, and the reason for that is that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall has found a funding stream from Europe to the UK—what a fantastic thing. I wish we had a bit more like that. It is excellent news. If I regulate and make valves compulsory—I will give way to my hon. Friend if I am wrong—the funding stream ceases. Fishermen have to bid for the funding for themselves or as a group through the relevant bodies. If I say that I will lay before the House a regulation or statutory instrument using my powers, the funding stream will cease. That is the biggest reason I have not regulated.

I will encourage all fishermen who fall into the three categories my hon. Friend mentioned—I think there might be one other category—to apply for funding through the MMO. I will facilitate that. We will have links through our websites and ensure that we publicise it, to draw down the funding and get the valves installed as soon as possible. We must also look at new fleet. There are not as many new ships and many have been adapted from different uses over the years, but we need to ensure that when they come out of any of our boatyards, such technology is included at the point of manufacture.

I was disappointed when the Maritime and Coastguard Agency withdrew the single-handed leaflet. As soon as that was brought to my attention, I sought to address it. It will now be made not only available, but permanently available. It is not a temporary measure and it will be regularly updated, not least with the information that we have heard during this debate. It is crucial that we do that.

We need to work on other measures as well as the stop buttons. We need to address the culture among our fishermen and women whereby the odd injury or risk is seen as acceptable and a badge of honour. When I went to Grimsby earlier this year, I was disturbed to hear from a crew that one of their colleagues had been dragged overboard and had drowned because he was not wearing any buoyancy equipment. After that, they all started wearing such equipment, but the peer pressure suffered by the youngest member of the crew meant that, within six months, they had all stopped wearing it. We have to break away from that culture and work together as a Government and an industry to say that it is not big of someone to put their life at risk. People put their lives at risk enough by going to sea in order to earn a living. It is not a badge of honour to lose a finger. I have seen so many injuries, whether they be scars or the odd missing digit, just by shaking hands with fishermen around the country.

I have discussed this issue with my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall and know that her husband, prior to his terrible accident, had had an injury at sea. We have a responsibility to the industry to say that this is not acceptable. We know that they are proud men and women and that they have a fantastic history, but it would be much better—this is a subtle hint—for their families and young ones if they were as able-bodied as possible when fishing in order to bring in their income.

Through Seafish, we are continuing with the training. Fortunately, we won the court ruling on the funding of Seafish, which is enormously important. The fishing industry safety group is chaired on my behalf via the MCA and I have asked it whether my hon. Friend could join. I ask her whether she is willing to offer her expertise and knowledge to the group. It would have liked to ask her before the debate, but felt that it was for me, the Minister, to do so. I suggested to it that it should have asked me earlier. Even so, if we can get more people with life experiences, as well as “experts,” involved in the industry, I think that we will be able to bring much more understanding to bodies such as the fishing industry safety group. That would be of benefit.

[Sheryll Murray]

indicated assent.

[Mike Penning]

I see that my hon. Friend is nodding, but I shall give way so that she can formally accept my invitation.

[Sheryll Murray]

I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that it would be an honour and a privilege to join the fishing industry safety group. Will he pass on my grateful thanks for the invitation? I would be delighted to accept.

[Mike Penning]

That is fantastic news, because the dignity and knowledge that my hon. Friend has brought to this debate and to that taking place in the country as a whole will now be part of the fishing industry safety group. I also hope that her membership of the group will shake it up a bit. We have got to know each other very well over the past 18 months, and we both know that the industry needs to be shaken up. I also fully understand that my own Department needs to ask “Why?” in relation to certain aspects of this particular area. I am not saying that that is true of everything, but there is sometimes a definite need to ask questions.

In conclusion—I have kept my remarks relatively brief, but there is no point in my waffling on—we completely agree with my hon. Friend and we will address the devolved Assemblies issue. I have nothing but admiration for the fishermen who go to sea. They do so not only to look after their families, but on our behalf, and bring in a wonderful plethora of seafish and crustacean from our wonderful waters, which are being protected more and more. Fishermen have had issues with discard, but that is more of an issue out at sea. I agree with their concerns and we are desperately trying to sort out the issue of discard. If we can continue to protect our fleet as new ships with safety buttons are introduced, and if I can for once not regulate and see some benefit from that—if I regulated, we would not see any benefits—that will be better for everybody, and so many families, such as that of my hon. Friend, would not be in the situation in which they find themselves.

National Policy Statement for Ports

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Written Statements

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

On 29 November and 19 January, the House of Commons debated the national policy statement for ports which I laid for parliamentary approval on 24 October 2011. In the light of the satisfactory completion of that process I am pleased to inform the House that I am today designating it as a national policy statement under the provisions of section 5(1) of the Planning Act 2008, and laying copies before you as required by section 5(9)(b) of the same Act.

The planning system is a key to the future timely development of the country’s port infrastructure. The designation of this policy statement marks a significant step forward, clarifying what is required to enable the successful major port developments that will be essential for trade and economic growth in the long term.

City of Liverpool Cruise Terminal

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Written Statements

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

The Department consulted last year on a proposal from Liverpool city council to alter the use of the City of Liverpool Cruise Terminal. The Department proposed to lift its objection to the removal of a grant condition that precludes use of the City of Liverpool Cruise Terminal for turnaround (start or end of cruise) operations, in return for the phased repayment of £5.3 million of grants. In the light of that consultation, I find that there are persuasive arguments that this level of repayment would be insufficient to reflect the adverse impact on competition with other ports. I therefore intend shortly to seek independent advice on a more appropriate figure.

I will report further to the House when I have reached a decision on the DFT objection. As Liverpool city council is aware, turnaround operations would also require state aid clearance from the European Commission.

Meanwhile, turnaround cruise operations continue to be permitted at Langton Dock in Liverpool.

Charging Heavy Goods Vehicles

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Written Statements

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

The Department for Transport has today launched a consultation on a proposed road user charging scheme for heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) of 12 tonnes and over. This is one of the commitments in the coalition programme for government.

The proposal’s primary objective is to ensure fairer arrangements for UK hauliers. UK-registered HGVs already pay tolls or user charges on motorways and, frequently, other roads in most EU member states. Save on some specific pieces of infrastructure (the M6 toll and various bridges and tunnels), there are no tolls or user charges in the UK. As most foreign operators currently purchase their HGVs’ fuel outside the UK, they therefore contribute nothing towards the cost of our roads.

A scheme for HGV road user charging cannot discriminate between UK-registered vehicles and vehicles registered elsewhere in the EU. It will therefore apply to both UK and foreign-registered HGVs. It must also comply with the Eurovignette directive (Directive 1999/62/EC as amended by 2006/3 8/EC and 2011/76/EU) which sets out a framework of rules for tolls and charges, including maximum daily rates for the latter.

We propose a simple time-based charge, applying to the use of any road in the United Kingdom, meaning that a five-axle HGV of 38 tonnes or more would pay £1,000 a year or £10 a day. The Eurovignette directive’s maximum permitted charge is currently €11 per day, although by the introduction of the charge this is likely to have been uprated by inflation to €12 (about £10 at current exchange rates). The precise level of charges will depend on exchange rate movements and inflation between now and the implementation date later this Parliament. UK hauliers would pay an annual (or six months) charge for each HGV at the same time and in the same transaction as they pay its vehicle excise duty (VED). This would avoid extra administration costs for UK business. Foreign hauliers could pay daily, weekly, monthly or annual charges.

As VED and the charge are paid 12 months in advance, UK hauliers would begin to pay the user charge as they renewed an HGV’s VED from 11 months before the introduction of charging for foreign vehicles.

The Government will also come forward with measures to offset the additional user charges for UK hauliers, through reductions in taxes, duties or charges they currently face, or through appropriate spending measures. The Chancellor has discretion over tax and spending measures, but the most likely balancing measure in practice will be a reduction in VED towards minimum EU-levels.

The overall cost burden will not increase for the vast majority of UK-registered vehicles. We believe that, if we reduce VED to levels at or just above the minimum rates set out in the Eurovignette directive, around 94% of the current UK vehicle fleet would be no worse off, with 98% paying no more than £50 a year extra.

Non-payment of the user charge would be a criminal offence, which could result in a fine imposed by the courts. The user charge would be enforced by DVLA records, ANPR cameras and checks by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) at the roadside. VOSA would also be able to issue fixed penalties on the spot to non-compliant drivers (and take financial deposits from drivers based outside the UK).

We are consulting on whether the scheme as a whole should be implemented, as well as on the details of the proposed charging bands, how the scheme will be administered, payment methods, enforcement and support for UK hauliers.

The consultation will run until 18 April 2012. The consultation document and associated tax impact assessment are available in the Library of the House, or on the DFT website at: www.dft.gov.uk.

Maritime Training Scheme

Mike Penning Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Written Statements

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

Further to my announcement of 22 June 2011, I would like to inform Parliament of the outcome of the independent review into the requirement for Government support for merchant navy training and skills development and how best to spend any continuing Government funding.

I have concluded that continuing Government support for maritime training is required. The consultants’ findings, accepted by the independent panel, were that there was a good value for money case for the retention of Government funding. Evidence was presented to me showing that for each working year of a seafarer who has benefited from Government funding, approximately £14,500 in additional output is created relative to that of a UK worker displaying average productivity.

With over 90% of the UK’s import and export trade by weight transported by the maritime sector, I believe continuing Government support in this area will reflect our ongoing commitment to economic growth and will help to maintain the competitiveness of this sector.

I have therefore decided to provide a budget of £12 million a year for the support for maritime training scheme for the remainder of this Parliament. In view of the forecast national shortage of trained seafarers and the need to develop the next generation of UK officers and ratings, I intend that the majority of the budget be focused on supporting initial training for cadets studying at junior officer level with the remainder supporting ratings training and ratings to officer conversion training.

I will be making a number of minor changes to the current scheme to achieve greater value for money by maximising the intake of trainees while ensuring more rigorous accountability structures are in place.

These changes are consistent with the Government’s wider commitment to improve the transparency and accountability of public spending.

I will also be considering longer-term options to deliver merchant navy training within an overarching skills and apprenticeship framework.

A copy of the consultants’ findings and the recommendations made by the independent panel have been placed in the Library of the House.

National Policy Statement for Ports

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will conclude the debate that started on 29 November, speak about some of the issues raised in that debate and respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who has one of the country’s great ports in her constituency.

Ports are such a significant part of the economy of this country that it was right and proper that so many Members of this House took the debate so seriously. I understand why some colleagues are not present this afternoon, as they made their contributions on the day. The Select Committee on Transport and its Chair, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), have also taken ports particularly seriously in this Parliament and the documents and strategy under consideration today show the significance that the new coalition Government attach to ports.

The huge ports, such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend and the great port of Dover—I could mention all the great ports throughout the country, as they are hugely significant and we are a great maritime nation—and the small ports are very significant to our constituencies around the country. By weight, 96% of all products brought into the country come in through our ports.

We are a great maritime nation and I am very proud, as the shipping Minister, to be responsible for dealing with the red ensign, the shipping industry and the problems of piracy on the high seas, which is one of the most significant issues that I have dealt with in the past 18 months. I have worked on that with the International Maritime Organisation, and I want to take this opportunity to welcome the new secretary-general of the IMO to his extremely important post. I became a good friend of the outgoing secretary-general and we will host a dinner for him here in the House of Commons. I hope the shadow Minister will be here for that—if the invitation has not yet arrived, it is in the post.

Our previous debate served to demonstrate the importance of ports not only in economic terms, but for leisure. As highlighted in a Westminster Hall debate yesterday, there is often controversy about changes to ports, such as harbour revision orders. However, we need growth to get out of the economic mire the coalition Government inherited, and for that to happen we must use the best modes of transport.

We will always need our roads, and significant investment is going into our road system—almost £3 billion in the next three years. We also need to carry more freight on rail, and we are achieving that, too. However, there is a capacity issue, particularly on the west coast main line. That is one of the reasons why High Speed 2 is so important; it will free up capacity.

We also need to think again about our ports. The ships coming into our ports are getting ever bigger, and we must work out how we can get their vast cargos around our country, as our transport networks will struggle to cope. Some goods will be carried by rail, but most will go by road. We must also use coastal shipping, however, and we should use the ports in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal and the new Gateway port on the Thames as hubs to promote a renaissance in coastal shipping in this country.

Happily, that has already started, but we must remain united in Parliament and continue to promote this move. It is the environmentally friendly way of regenerating the economy and bringing jobs to port areas where previously, perhaps, many were employed but which have recently struggled economically.

When ports are altered and harbour revision orders are made, environmental issues must always be addressed. The Marine Management Organisation has a vital role to play in that. We must not, of course, just bulldoze in, but the habitats directive has been a problem in respect of developing our ports. The directive is therefore being reviewed. The findings will be reported in March, and they will be significant for the future of the ports of our country.

The Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, has just entered the Chamber, and I welcome her. She will not have heard this, but I have already praised her Committee extensively. I probably will not have time to do so again.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I represent the small ports of Falmouth and Truro, and they have terrific potential to deliver on the agenda the Minister is articulating so well. Will he let us have the names and addresses of the people involved in the review of the UK interpretation of the EU habitats directive being undertaken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as Members are struggling to find that information and we want to make representations to those people?

[Mike Penning]

I will certainly make that point to DEFRA. I have had the privilege of visiting Falmouth and listening to the issues and concerns there. It is a smallish—although not very small—port, but it is hugely significant, especially in my hon. Friend’s part of the country, and it can clearly contribute a lot. I pay tribute to the work being done there.

I will not rehearse all the points that were made in our earlier debate, but before I close this debate I want to say that this Government are taking the future of our ports, both large and small, very seriously. We have big decisions to make over the next few months and years on matters that can greatly help the growth of the economy and help us get out of the mess we inherited 18 months ago.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Wednesday 25 January, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means shall be entered upon (whether before, at or after 4.00 pm), and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business.—(Stephen Crabb.)