Tees Valley Rail Transport

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) for securing this important debate. Having a debate on the day before a recess is always dangerous, but he managed to encourage some of his colleagues to attend.

I was in Teesside only recently. I went there by train from London to visit Teesport, which comes within my portfolio. I have been asked to respond to the debate because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), whose portfolio covers regional and local transport, is not here. He has asked me to apologise for his absence.

The points that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar raised cover myriad modal shifts in how to get passengers and freight off the roads, and how better to use available facilities. It was fantastic news for the region when the Tees furnace was reopened, and certainly the new owners, whom I had the privilege of meeting, were thrilled. What was obvious when coming in by train was the unbelievable number of sidings that have not been used for a considerable time. I am the Minister with responsibility for freight, on whatever mode, and it always hurts to see that investment sitting there unused. It may have been made many years ago, but the concept was right.

The port, which is under new ownership, has a huge footprint, and not all of it has been used as well as we would like. There are contamination issues, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware—the new owners of Teesport, however, have good and imaginative ideas, especially in some of the areas to which my hon. Friend alluded—such as problems relating to moving larger containers around. A particular issue in this country is that we cannot move many of them on our canals, which are a great asset, but difficult to use.

My officials have written a brilliant speech for me, but if I read it out, which I am sure is what they would like me to do, I would fail to pay tribute to the contributions that we have heard this afternoon. Investment for the area was planned before the new coalition Administration came to power, and before we realised how bad the economic situation is. I will not go through how bad it is, because everyone knows the situation. The £4.9 million that was drawn down has been well spent, and the stations at Hartlepool, Eaglescliffe and Thornaby have benefited.

I am pleased to hear that the new owners of the airport have sensible ideas for expansion, and how to increase their market share and put the airport on the map in the UK, but that will require investment. They will have to look at their business plans, and create a market that drives people to use it. I was fascinated to hear private companies saying that they would like to put passengers back on that line. They are obviously thinking of doing that because there is a need. The Government may help and, as my hon. Friend knows, two funds have been drawn down.

Sadly, Tees Valley Unlimited was not successful in the first tranche, because it needed to be much better at proving what the economic benefits in terms of jobs would be from drawing down from that fund. Tees Valley Unlimited has discussed the matter extensively with my officials. They have met eight or nine times recently, and I urge them to have further meetings, because the key to both funding plans is that the community comes together, and that a proper business plan is drawn up to create the right climate for further investment in the area. I will not go into the semantics of what it should be called. I have enough problems deciding when to call my football team Spurs or Tottenham Hotspur, and my town Hemel or Hemel Hempstead. It is for local politicians to discuss the matter over a pint on another occasion.

However, it is important—I am sure that this has been discussed—that the area is branded in the right way so that investment comes to the area, and there is no confusion about that brand. The first time I flew to what was Speke airport in Liverpool, I looked for Speke on the departure board, but it had been renamed John Lennon. I had no idea that I was going to Liverpool. When a brand name is used for a community, it must be what the community is looking for. I am sure that the new name was discussed in great depth before it was introduced, but whenever I spoke to people in that part of the world, and especially when I was at Teesport, there was confusion. When I quoted my brief, they did not understand what I was talking about until I talked about Teesport, the Tees area and so on.

There is real scope for local authorities to come together, and to consider joint bids. It is crucial as we go forward with the localism agenda, to which the Department for Transport is fully committed, that local authorities are not parochial and say, “This is our borough, and we won’t join together.” They must have confidence in their area and say, “We know what’s best for our community, and exactly how to generate jobs and go forward.” Four local authorities would probably need to join together to formulate a plan and to give them confidence to return to the Department for Transport, as well as to other Departments, because transport will not be the only issue.

[Ian Swales]

I want to pick up the point about local authorities. Five are involved: Stockton, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar, Cleveland, and Darlington. The Minister can be confident that they are speaking with one voice on such issues, because Tees Valley issues and transport infrastructure cross all five. One reason why the local enterprise partnership got going so quickly was that it was heavily backed by those five local authorities.

[Mike Penning]

I am new to this area, and I may not be back if I make a mess of it, but my brief refers to the four Tees Valley local authorities. If that is wrong, I will arrange for my Department to write and apologise. When talking about local areas, branding is important.

In the next six months, passenger transport executives, groups of local authorities, and local enterprise partnerships should come together to discuss whether they want to take greater responsibility for such services. That is crucial when discussing where they are going, and how. There will be some central Government funding, but not as much as we probably all want, but local communities, especially through local enterprise partnerships and so on, will have much more say in what is done, and there will be an early opportunity to shape the future and destiny of local rail services. We have been discussing bits and bobs, but the discussion should be formalised with a shopping list of what should be done first, what should be done second, and what should be done third.

If we read my hon. Friend’s speech tomorrow morning, and the points that he made—I apologise for this and I am not being critical—will we know what the priorities are, and what needs to be done in the short term, the mid term and the long term? Communities and LEPs must come together to decide that. I am not being critical, but that must be done.

On cost, the McNulty report, which was commissioned by the previous Administration, addresses fares, and the fact that, if we are not careful we may jeopardise the great success—this is not party politics—of the railways today. There are issues about capacity and cost, and whether we are driving people off the railways and into their cars. That is important: we must address it in the franchise agreements and remove bureaucracy. McNulty acknowledged that the way in which the railways operate involves a huge amount of bureaucracy and cost, and in international terms they are very expensive. He estimated that £1 billion of savings could be made without damaging infrastructure, while at the same time encouraging people to use the railways. That will be a difficult task, but anyone who has had anything to do with railways—I am involved purely in freight, which is more successful now than it was—must address the fact that the state can provide only a certain amount of money for new lines. There is only a certain amount of railway capacity for the freight industry, and we must look carefully at how we can encourage a better modal shift and not have so much long-haul freight on the railways.

On today’s network—without High Speed 2 and the lines to the north-east and north-west, which would release more rail capacity—even if we increased rail freight to full capacity we would still struggle to get freight off the road. One of the huge successes in the Teesport region has been made by Asda and other supermarkets that are building what I consider to be the beginning of a renaissance in coastal shipping facilities—I apologise for naming Asda, but it is the store I visited. Bigger and bigger box ships are coming into big, deep-water wharves, but our roads do not have the capacity to move those goods around.

The most efficient way of moving freight anywhere in the world is by sea. We are a maritime nation with over 90 ports in state and trust ownership, yet we do not properly utilise those ports and their capacity. At the Asda hub, all the products that arrive come in by sea. The distribution is then worked out, and followed by what Asda describes as a limited “road bridging” system. That system is beginning to be replicated around the country. I was in the north-west the other day at Stobart’s rail hub. Stobart has developed such a system, not because it wanted a rail hub, but because its clients—Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda; we could name all the supermarkets but I probably should not—have said that they want goods to travel shorter distances. That area is developing.

The rail industry is underused. We have spoken about lines that need to be better utilised, and the railways are a huge facility that we could use to create a modal shift in transport locally through the hubs. The Asda scheme has been a great success, and it is looking at expanding it. It is a badge of honour for the local community and local authorities in that part of the world to facilitate the scheme and understand the needs and demands of their communities. We should also use other lines, especially if we can deal with the problem of bridges, and I know that discussions on that are taking place.

At the same time, we must be honest about what is likely to come in and out of the ports. As my hon. Friend said, if a line is working, it is crucial that it is used. It is much cheaper to use that line in a better way than to rebuild a line or put track back down. A lot of residents—I know this from my constituency—will have moved to live close to a railway line after the track was removed, and there will be an interesting debate about whether those lines should be put back. Those people no longer live next to a railway and without doubt, having a railway at the end of the garden or in the community impacts on people’s lives. That debate would be interesting; it would not be wrong to reopen the line, but such matters take time and must be managed correctly in the communities.

The use of Westminster Hall for a debate such as this is important. Concerns and ideas can be bounced into the arena, and Ministers will respond. I am conscious that I have not answered all the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) in his intervention, but the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, will write to them and answer all their questions. If a further meeting with a Minister is needed, the door will be open.

Severn Crossings Toll

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[David T. C. Davies]

I apologise. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) made a point about the potential level of the toll after 2017. I think that he will agree that it was a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and I am sure that it can be corrected. I shall address the figures to which he has alluded. The current annual revenue from all the tolls is about £76 million a year. The current cost of maintaining the bridge is £15 million. I estimate, therefore—this is purely a back-of-the-envelope calculation—that it would be feasible to levy the toll at about £1.50 and still be able to maintain both bridges. Obviously, there may be other factors that the Welsh Affairs Committee has not been made aware of.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[David T. C. Davies]

I suspect that the Minister is going to make me aware of a few of those factors. I accept that we may want to put money aside for a future bridge or for future major works to be carried out on one of the bridges. I invite the Minister to confirm, however, that it would be possible to set the toll at a significantly lower level than its current one and still be able to maintain both bridges in good working order.

[Mike Penning]

I do not want to pre-empt in anyway my later comments, but my hon. Friend may notice that I am not a Treasury Minister. Treasury Ministers do not do things on the back of a fag packet. Whatever we do must be evidence based and correctly calculated all the way through. We are not going to rule anything out or anything in. It will be very much a Treasury matter, as well as one for the Department for Transport.

[David T. C. Davies]

I appreciate that clarification. However, we are about five or six years away at most from the estimated date of handover. By that time, I would expect people in the Minister’s Department or the Treasury to be thinking about what we will do next. I understand that the current plan for the next five years after 2017 is that the tolls will continue at the current level in real terms and that the money will be set aside for a sinking fund.

To date, no one has even talked to SRC about who is going to man the toll booths or do the maintenance. It surprises us that more work has not taken place and that there is not greater clarity about what is going to happen. Certainly, at some point, the bridge will be in public ownership, both bridges will be paid for and a large profit will be being made by someone. However, it is not being made at the moment and, in fact, the evidence suggests that SRC will not make that big a profit. SRC’s shareholders are not a load of people in top hats somewhere in the City of London; they are anyone who happens to have a private sector pension. We often forget that when we talk disparagingly about shareholders.

At some point in the next 10 years, a large sum of money will be being made from what is basically a tax on the people of south Wales and the west country of England, which is not acceptable. We have a right to know what is going to happen and to absolute transparency, so that when the bridge becomes the Government’s property, we can open the books and see how much is being used to maintain both bridges and how much is simply going back into Government coffers. We could then put aside some money for future works.

I want to squash a couple of myths that are prevalent in the pubs of Monmouthshire and possibly elsewhere. The first myth is that the whole thing is owned by the French Government and that the money will all go back to France. I do not know where that came from, but it is obviously completely incorrect. The second myth that has persistently dogged us over the past few years in Monmouthshire is that the old Severn crossing is falling down and at some point will be closed. We have found absolutely no evidence for that either, and we are assured that that is not the case.

We look forward to finding out a little more about what will happen on the happy day when the bridge goes back into public ownership and ceases to be paid for. We also look forward to a day when the tolls can perhaps be set at a level that is fair, that enables the taxpayer not to lose out because the bridges will be maintained and that is beneficial to all of us who live and work in south Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, in this ground-breaking debate. I wish I had been the first ground-breaker this afternoon, but the Under-Secretary of State for Wales got in first. It is a pleasure to be here, and to respond to the Select Committee’s genuinely excellent report. I had the honour and privilege to give evidence to it early in my time as a Minister.

When I looked at the history of Ministers in my Department, I wondered whether I would be here today. The average life expectancy of a Transport Minister is eight months, and I have been in the post for a year and a day. I am either doing something very wrong, or the Prime Minister has forgotten about me.

To be honest, I was pleased with the report in many ways, not least because it removed some of the myths to which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), the Committee Chairman, alluded. I will try as best I can to respond to the debate, instead of reading out a speech that was written for me, and I will do that as a Minister for the United Kingdom.

The two bridges are national assets, and owned by no one, except that the second one is temporarily owned by the company that was set up to facilitate it. The freehold land that it sits on is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Transport, and the toll booths in Wales are also his responsibility. The analogy is interesting. I have a map that shows the boundary between England and Wales. The original bridge is solely in England, and the new bridge, as it is still called, is predominantly on English soil and water.

That is unimportant, because the bridges are national assets, and I fully respect the concern of the Welsh community, particularly in south Wales, about the importance of the bridge and its efficient working. I also respect the concern about the contract that was entered into when I was still a fireman; most of us here, although not me, were very young in the early days of the private finance initiative, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth alluded. With hindsight, would we be in such a position today? Of course we would not, whether or not the previous Government were still in place.

As colleagues who know me are aware, I am not hugely party political. Nevertheless, I could not help thinking that we had 13 years of a Labour Government and although 2015 is approaching, we are only one year along from when the previous Administration were in place; the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) alluded to that point from a sedentary position. What work did the previous Administration do to bring in some of the technology that I will talk about in a moment, and what is going to happen at a later date, possibly in 2017? I will touch on some of those points in a moment, but the issue depends on the funding that the users put into the bridge as we go forward.

The Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee is a good friend of mine, but he alluded to a tax on Wales. In reality, it is a tax on anybody who uses the bridge. There is an extensive haulier community in my constituency, and I am the Minister responsible for roads, freight and so on. Hauliers from England, Scotland and Ireland, and those from continental Europe, who also pay the tolls, might take issue—although perhaps only fractionally —with the comments made by the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee. I understand, however, how emotive the subject is.

Let me touch on some of the points raised. I will not repeat the brilliant history lesson provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth—again, I am praising the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee—because there is no point going over it again. We all know where we are, and many hon. Members know the situation better than I, despite what I have learned over the past year since taking this position. I, too, sat in queues at the tolls for many years when Wembley stadium was being rebuilt and the wonderful Cardiff stadium was used. I sat in that stadium on many occasions, supporting the England rugby team. I will leave the results for others to comment on.

For me the key questions are where we are now, what we can do in the short term and what is the long-term proposal for the bridge. I listened to earlier comments about technology. It is ludicrous that in the 21st century, technology is only just arriving at the toll booths on the crossing. However, some of the comments made during the debate about what can and cannot be used at the tolls were not factually correct; if my officials are wrong, I apologise. The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden)—I apologise if I pronounce some of the constituency names wrongly; my Welsh is not brilliant and as a cockney lad I was not taught it at school. I mean no offence. [Interruption.] I admit that I picked the easy name first.

A debit or credit can be used at a manned toll booth. It can be used at any time, but it depends on whether the booth is manned. The Chamber will be pleased to know that according to information that I received today, it will be possible in July to use non-PIN card technology at the booths. That is crucial because the use of PIN technology creates delays. I will come on to further technology later in the debate, but my information suggests that that will happen in July—I was told it would happen in the summer, and “July” is written in brackets after that.

The company has an agreement with the banks, but we have had to assist with that to obtain that sort of technology. As hon. Members will imagine, banks prefer PIN technology because of the risk of fraud. We have resolved that issue, however, although there was some surprise about that, not least because we had to get through European legislation. Nevertheless, we succeeded in doing so and in July people will be able to cross using non-PIN card technology, which will help enormously—I am sure hon. Members will hold me to that, and I will hold the company to account should it not happen.

The removal of the 30 seconds that would be added to a transaction through the use of a PIN will help speed through the just under 4,000 vehicles per hour the booths are capable of dealing with. Interestingly, the capacity of the M4 is greater than that when everything goes correctly. I hope that in five hours’ time when the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) makes that journey, the severe tailbacks that were reported to me earlier will have gone—I am joking; as I understand it, the road is clear although information comes in regularly.

The other day, I was pleased to announce a huge investment of £100 million in the M4/M5 managed motorway network. That money comes from the central fund, and will dramatically change the traffic situation on that side of the bridge. As hon. Members know, my background is in the fire service, and I was very sceptical about managed motorways when I first looked at the technology; to me, hard shoulders are dangerous areas that were designed for a reason.

Nevertheless, when the managed motorways system was piloted on the M42 under the previous Administration, it was massively over-engineered at the time, but it worked. We have since moved the engineering down, and rolled the system out around the country. A £100 million investment is being provided in difficult times to the M4 and M5 around the Bristol area. Colleagues will know how difficult the bottleneck on those two major arteries can be, and that will be alleviated once the roadworks are finished. That is always a problem—it is no pain, no gain when it comes to roadworks.

While we are talking about pain, most colleagues will receive a letter from me tomorrow stating that we intend to start work on the road surface of the new bridge. Work will start—I can give the exact date—on 9 June and run until 14 July on the eastbound carriageways, and between 6 September and 11 October on the westbound carriageways. That is due mostly to the fact that the inside lane in both directions is severely worn and will have to be completely replaced.

We looked carefully at how to manage the obvious disruption that will take place. Options included a contraflow system and shutting the bridge while work is carried out. The option that we went for will extend the work—overall it will take about five weeks to put a new waterproof membrane on the bridge and surface the road—but it will leave at least one lane open each way. We made the decision not to shut the bridge or use a contraflow system that would have caused more expense and extensive delays. There will be delays, for which I apologise, but investment must be put into the bridge because of its age, and that will be done. It is a reflection of the amount of traffic that the bridge carries.

The only party political point that I will make during my speech will be to touch on the recent elections and my Welsh colleagues’ proposals to fund the costs of the toll increases through the Welsh Assembly. It is entirely up to the Welsh Assembly whether or not it wishes to use its funds in that way. If the Conservative party had been elected, it would have been its decision how to run the economy in Wales, just as today’s Administration make those decisions. If the Conservative party—or any other party as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) said earlier—decided that it wanted to fund the cost of the difference between the toll today and the proposed increases under the contract agreement, that could be negotiated with the United Kingdom Government. My door is open to the Welsh Assembly, under the respect agenda to say the least. I wrote to my counterpart in that Assembly—I must now write again because the holder of that position has changed—and offered my assistance.

I am speaking on behalf of the Department rather than the Treasury, but if that money were used to offset the difference, the contract would not be affected and would remain in place. The only difference would be that money would be recouped from the Welsh Assembly rather than directly from the tolls. It is a complicated legal issue. It sounds simple, but it is quite complicated. Did I know about this? I have to be perfectly honest: the answer is no. However, that does not mean that we would not get into negotiations or provide every assistance for that to happen.

All the discussions that we have had to date, including in the Select Committee, have been based on whether there could be a reduction in the toll at night or a reduction in the toll for local residents. I must admit that the position is much more complicated in this case than it is in the case of the two other major bridges that are often cited. Could there be no increases whatever? Everything comes down to the fact that a contract is in place that says that the company is allowed, after costs, to recoup X amount of money before the bridge is handed back into the full ownership of the Secretary of State.

If I were the company, would I want to negotiate any changes to the present contract? Probably not. So what we are talking about is an increase in the time that the tolls would be there. At every stage when I talk about the tolls and the bridge and we have these discussions, it is a question of a balance between the length of time that the bridge is out of our ownership, based on the contractual agreement that we have, and when it could come back into our ownership and decisions could be made.

It would be wrong of me to say that we are not thinking about what will happen at the end of the concession agreement. Of course, we are thinking about what will happen. However, as I have said, this is a national piece of infrastructure and a cross-departmental matter. It is a national asset. I am sure that the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh people will understand that we will have to consider what happens to the bridge in the context of the investment going into our networks. However, no decision has been made.

[Geraint Davies]

Naturally, the debate focused on whether we could reduce the toll to £1 up to 2017, but I infer from what the Minister has said that if the money was forthcoming—for example, from the Welsh Assembly or from anywhere else—to pay down the debt now, the bridge would move into public ownership earlier than 2017, in which case we could have lower tolls now, although perhaps not a toll of £1. Can the Westminster Government now pay down that debt from their own money, with a strategy of recovering the money that they pay it down with by reducing the toll now to somewhere between where it is now and £1, so that we could have a lower toll sooner, albeit not as low as £1?

[Mike Penning]

This is where I wish that I had not joined the Army at 16 but had gone to university and become a corporate lawyer. We can discuss the legalities in quite simple terms. Nothing at all can be done without the agreement of the concessionaire, so should the company decide that it does not want to do what has been suggested, that will be a fact. We are trapped in a contract; everyone knows that and the Committee examined the matter in detail.

I can see the logic of where the hon. Member for Swansea West is coming from, but the Welsh Assembly subsidising what would be the increase this year would not cause the contract to be terminated earlier, because all that would happen is that the same money would be recouped from the Assembly or whoever wanted to pay it as would be recouped from tolls. Thus the length of time would be exactly the same. I will write to the hon. Gentleman—the lawyers are probably panicking as they listen to the debate—to clarify exactly what the legal position is. However, I am certain—this is what all the advice says—that if the company that was formed specifically for this purpose does not want to play ball, there is nothing that we can do.

[Jessica Morden]

While the Minister is on the issue of the contract, does what has been said equally apply to car sharing? Would it be equally difficult to resolve the issue of being able to swap between different cars in car-sharing schemes?

[Mike Penning]

I have asked for a note, but it has not arrived. It might do—hint, hint—in the time left. I cannot understand the difference, I must admit. Clearly, car sharing is going on. It happens on the routes that go from where I used to live in Essex into London. We commend car sharing. We want people to share cars, because it reduces emissions and makes travel much more cost-effective for people. I do not understand how the concession agreement would be affected in that respect, but I am sure that the lawyers will tell me why I am wrong—as always, I am being as honest as I can.

The hon. Member for Newport East made a couple of other points earlier. I have already touched on how price freezing and tolling would work. In the Select Committee evidence session, I talked about whether there is more technology that we can use to make things much easier for the communities on both sides of the border and for industry and at the same time to sweat the asset more, as we are doing with managed motorways. In other words, are we getting the best out of the bridge? Clearly, the toll process is causing delays.

We are committed to free-flow tolling at the Dartford river crossing. We made an announcement about that in the spending round, and I made an announcement about it to the Select Committee. There are real technical issues about using automatic number plate recognition, which is what we intend to use. It is similar to what the congestion charge scheme in London uses. There is an enforcement issue, particularly in relation to overseas vehicles. We intend to get that right at Dartford before we introduce the system. However, I can see no logical reason why it could not be introduced at the Severn river crossing.

The problem, of course, is the cost and who bears it. That is what the hon. Member for Pontypridd was alluding to. Let us be honest: why would the company set up in the context of the concession agreement to make this profit say to me, “Okay, Minister, we’ll spend X million pounds doing this for you,” rather than saying, “Will you pay for it?” or “We’ll use our rights to go further in the concessionary period.”

The truth is that by the time we fully implement ANPR and free-flow technology at Dartford, we will be into 2013, not least because of the construction work that needs to be done. Doing free-flow tolling sounds simple, but it is not. Otherwise, people would be hurtling through and we would have speed issues and so on. We will not be that far away from the conclusions about what will happen post the concession. I think that the negotiations will have to include what we would expect a modern tolling system to involve in the 21st century. The issue will arise once we have rolled out the system and done everything that we need to do at Dartford. The last thing that the Select Committee would want me to do is to say yes, we’ll definitely be able to roll it out in 2015 or ’16—in the latter part of this Parliament—if we have not got it running right. I am confident that we can do that, because the technology is there.

I think that we were all sceptical when the congestion charge was introduced in London. The issue was not the rights and wrongs of it, but whether it would work. It does work. The main issue is enforcement in relation to foreign-registered vehicles. I was with representatives of Transport for London only today, working out how we can deal with that.

[Owen Smith]

I want to clarify what the Minister has just said, because it was very interesting. Is he suggesting that some negotiations have taken place already between the Department for Transport and the company and that, subject to the technology being made failsafe at Dartford, an agreement might be struck whereby the Government would be prepared to compensate the company for introducing free-flow technology on the bridge before 2017? Is that what he was implying?

[Mike Penning]

No. That would be a spending commitment, and I do not have the authority in my lowly position to dream of ever giving one. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to put words into my mouth, but the answer is no. The only way of funding that before 2017 would be through the concessionaire, and the discussion would be about whether it is willing to fund it under the existing contract—I doubt whether it would be. If we did not allow the company to increase the toll, it would look for an extension or—this is within the contract, and it would have every right to do so—to seek compensation from the Treasury. That, too, is unlikely.

By a miracle, a document has appeared before me. It says that SRC is prepared to negotiate extending the TAG scheme for car sharing. Naturally, however, it will not want to be financially worse off. That may not fully answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Newport East, but it is the best that I can do. I want to be as open as I can about this. I shall write to SRC saying what I was told during the debate and asking the company to clarify its position. I shall share that information with colleagues. It is only right and proper to do so.

I realise that I still have plenty of time, but I have no intention of filibustering—not least because Members wish to disappear. However, I have a speaking engagement in London this evening, so I am more than happy to continue.

In conclusion, I welcome the Committee’s report, and I shall work closely with the Welsh Assembly Government in analysing the economic effect of tolling. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth rightly pointed out, there is little hard evidence that the bridges have had an economic effect. I do not say that they have not, but the Committee made extensive efforts to find evidence and did not, despite Chinese whispers among local communities. As I have said, the Welsh Assembly has publicised the fact that some 700 companies have located in the region over the past 40 years, long before the Welsh Assembly was formed, so something must be right. I believe that that evidence is shown on the Assembly website.

I realise that the crossing is a vital piece of national infrastructure. I am proud that my portfolio predominantly covers the whole of this great nation of ours. It is for me to work with and alongside the various devolved Assemblies and Parliaments. At the same time, however, I must ensure that they understand that it is a Department for Transport piece of infrastructure—a Westminster one—despite knowing how emotive it is to the local communities in Wales and those on the other side of the bridge in England.

I have listened carefully to the hauliers. I listen to them nearly every day, and they are an amazing group of people. Perhaps I think that because I hold an HGV licence and used to drive lorries when a fireman—like most firemen, I used to drive part-time when off duty.

The key is fairness. If tolls continue beyond the existing agreement, and if free-flow tolling comes in, it would be wrong in my opinion that the tolls should remain one-way. That unfairness would have to be addressed if we had free-flow tolling and if the toll was increased. A number of truck drivers have told me that they go into Wales one way and come out the other because of the toll. Not only is the Treasury losing income, but it is another unfairness that needs to be addressed, although it is difficult to deal with it now, because of the way it is set up.

I hope that I have not delayed anyone’s journey home. Indeed, we will finish a fraction early. I hope that I have answered most questions, at least in general terms. I have been as honest as I can, as I was when giving evidence to the Select Committee. I pay tribute to the Committee on its conclusions, even if we do not fully agree on certain aspects. I was interested to note that all who are here today are Welsh MPs, yet the subject has a significant effect on the UK as a whole.

[Geraint Davies]

I wonder whether the Minister could signal in the most general terms whether he anticipates the direction of travel for the toll post-2017 to be significantly downwards. It would be interesting information for inward investors.

[Mike Penning]

As I have said, I do not intend delaying the Chamber. The answer is no. I cannot give an indication, and the hon. Gentleman can probably understand why.

On that point, I hand over to the Committee Chair. I hope that I have paid the report due credit.

Review of Investigation/Closure Procedures for Motorway Incidents

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Written Statements

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

Today, I am publishing the preliminary report on investigation and closure procedures for motorway incidents. The joint review carried out by my Department, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the Highways Agency (HA), and the Home Office, looked at what needs to be done to reduce the duration of motorway closure incidents and help keep our motorways moving. The report can be found on my Department’s website, www.dft.gov.uk, and an electronic copy has been lodged with the House Library.

As set out within my Department’s business plan, the review supports this Government’s vision for a transport system, which is an engine for economic growth, and their commitment to tackling the causes of congestion and unreliability on the strategic road network.

Motorway closures in England cost the economy around £1 billion a year which is an unacceptable brake on the country’s economic recovery. Tackling the causes of congestion and keeping traffic moving is a vital element in securing the UK’s prosperity.

As such, we completed a review of motorway closure incidents to identify what improvements could be made to achieve the shortest timeline possible for managing such incidents.

The review led by this Department makes 10 recommendations, the delivery of which will ensure that there is overall improvement in the time taken to reopen motorways following an incident. The recommendations are contained within the report.

I am also announcing DFT funding of around £3 million for laser scanning technology that can be used by the police for surveying incident scenes. Recent trials by the police and HA have demonstrated that this can make a real difference in speeding up the investigation process. The £3 million will be used to set up a fund which police forces can bid from to put towards the purchase of this technology. The fund will take a match funding approach thereby potentially enabling a larger number of forces to purchase and use this equipment across the strategic road network and local road network.

Later today, I will be chairing a national summit with representatives from all key incident management parties to discuss the review’s findings, and to formally agree the high-level action plan on the way forward. The majority of the review’s recommendations are expected to be completed by the end of the year, and we remain on track to deliver on a further business plan commitment to set up and implement measures to reduce congestion caused by incidents by December 2012. I am confident that by having open dialogue and by continuing to work closely with the emergency services and colleagues across Government in this collaborative manner, we can manage incidents effectively, efficiently and consistently.

The Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011

Mike Penning Excerpts

Friday 13th May 2011 Written Statements

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

I have today laid before the House draft affirmative regulations which, if approved, will apply part 5 (Work) of the Equality Act 2010 to work on ships and hovercraft and to seafarers.

The regulations will ensure that, as far as possible, the level of protection afforded under part 5 of the Equality Act 2010 is extended to those working at sea. This was not done at the time that part 5 of the Act was commenced because further consideration needed to be given to the issue of seafarers’ pay.

As the law currently stands, section 9 of the Race Relations Act 1976 provides that it is not unlawful for seafarers to be paid different rates of pay on the basis of their nationality if they were recruited outside Great Britain. This includes seafarers from EEA states and designated states, which are states with particular bilateral agreements with the European Union. The European Commission has been investigating a complaint that UK law does not comply with European Law and in January this year it issued a reasoned opinion on that basis. In order to meet its treaty obligations, the Government are obliged to bring UK law into line with European law.

The regulations which I have laid before the House today will, if approved, apply part 5 of the Equality Act to work on ships and hovercraft and to seafarers. The Government are already committed to the Equality Act, most of which, including part 5, was commenced on 1 October 2010. The international nature of the shipping industry requires further clarity in specifying to which seafarers, working on which vessels, operating in which waters, part 5 of the Act applies. The relevant provisions legislate in respect of employment, offering protection from discrimination, harassment and victimisation in relation to certain protected characteristics, these being age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation. Section 81 of the Act contains the power to achieve this by means of an affirmative statutory instrument.

The power within section 81 is also wide enough to legislate in respect of differential pay. The regulations will, if approved, provide that it is not unlawful to offer to pay or pay different rates of pay to seafarers (applicants, employees and contract workers), other than those from EEA or designated states, if a person applies for work as a seafarer or is recruited as a seafarer outside Great Britain.

Under section 19 of the Equality Act (indirect discrimination), where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice has an effect which particularly disadvantages seafarers from EEA or designated states in terms of a difference in pay, this will nevertheless be lawful if the employer can show that the provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified. If differential pay were challenged by a seafarer from an EEA or designated state, it would be for the employer to satisfy an employment tribunal as to that justification.

The Government have consulted ship owners and the Chamber of Shipping as well as the trade unions before proceeding with this measure and have prepared an impact assessment. In preparing these regulations, we have applied the principles of our reducing regulation initiative and taken every care to ensure that the regulations meet the requirements of EU law without unwarranted elaboration, the better to safeguard the continued competitiveness of the UK fleet. We remain committed to the red ensign and to maintaining a sizeable, high-quality and highly competitive fleet under the UK flag.

In accordance with Government policy on transforming the role of regulation in our society and reducing regulation, these regulations will be reviewed every five years and the conclusions of such reviews will be published.

These regulations will apply in England, Wales and Scotland while Northern Ireland will shortly be introducing similar regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 5th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

1. What assessment he has made of the effect on his Department's budget of repairs required to the M1 following the recent fire.

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

I want to praise the effective firefighting by Green Watch of the London fire brigade, particularly led by Mill Hill fire station, at the incident on the M1. I also want to praise the Highways Agency and Connect Plus for doing so much work underneath the bridge, which I saw myself.

That section of the M1 is under a managed contract agreement with Connect Plus. The contract indicates that there is a repair and insurance responsibility to the contractor, and no costs will be borne by the Department for Transport.

[Bob Blackman]

The incident occurred over the busiest weekend at Wembley stadium, where the FA cup semi-finals were taking place. It affected three of the teams quite severely—although it did not affect Manchester United fans from Surrey very much. [Laughter.] Members got it in the end. It also caused traffic congestion on the M40 and throughout my constituency. What action will the Minister take to ensure that across the country there is appropriate storage under motorways in future?

[Mike Penning]

For most of that weekend I was underneath the bridge once the fire was finished and while remedial work was done to install 250 tonnes of steel to secure the bridge so that it could be reopened. The Secretary of Sate has already announced a review of what works can be done and what can be stored under bridges. When that review reports in the next few weeks, we will look carefully at its findings.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

After 17 years of using the M1 between Rotherham and London, I know that it is always under repair on one stretch or another. Is part of the problem that the M1 is used as a suburban rat-run around the big conurbations? Might we not consider introducing a motorway vignette, so that people who use the motorways pay a little extra, we help reduce the deficit and we discourage the urban-dwellers around the M1 from using it as an ordinary road?

[Mike Penning]

In 13 years of a Labour Government, they rejected plans for doing that, and so have this Government. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can blame the M1 for a fire that was underneath it, which reached a temperature of up to 1,000 degrees and buckled the reinforcement bars. The Highways Agency and Connect Plus did a fantastic job. It is sad that there was so much disruption, but they did the work as fast as they could.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I associate myself with the Minister's comments about the Mill Hill firefighters, who worked so hard at the location and in helping local residents. For many years, the councillor for the Hale ward on Barnet council, Councillor Hugh Rayner, has been supporting local residents on Ellesmere avenue in their calls for the scrapyard to be moved from its site under the M1. Does the Minister agree that while we should not act in a knee-jerk fashion and remove all businesses from under railways and motorway arches, we need to look carefully at what activities can be undertaken safely underneath motorways, and take action to ensure that inappropriate uses are eliminated?

[Mike Penning]

It was a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend at the incident and at the site and it was a real pleasure to see the councillor responsible as well as the representative of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. I also visited and praised Green Watch at the station.

It is important that the review looks carefully at what can and cannot be done under railway arches and roads. Different railway arches can have different structures. Once the review is forthcoming, we will look at it very carefully.

[Mr Speaker]

John Robertson is not here, so I call Lyn Brown.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

4. When he plans to announce his consultation on the level of tolls on the Dartford-Thurrock crossing; and if he will make a statement.

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

I hope shortly to announce and publish the consultation which I know my hon. Friend is waiting for on the revision of the road user charging regime for the Dartford river crossing.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I thank the Minister for his reply. A few months ago, he announced his intention to remove the barriers at the Dartford crossing. My constituents would like the tolls removed altogether, of course, but we recognise the need to maintain revenue. The barrier removal will reduce congestion significantly. When he brings forward his proposals, will he include plans to make sure that foreign lorries are charged for using the crossing? Haulage is a big constituency interest for me, and my hauliers are at a competitive disadvantage compared with European suppliers.

[Mike Penning]

I fully understand the concern that if we go to free-flow tolling in Dartford, or any other part of the country, everybody who uses the road should pay, including foreign truckers and foreign vehicles. Some 20% of trucks that go through Dartford are foreign-registered, so we are very conscious of the issue and will make sure that we work on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to tackle uninsured driving.

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

The Government have already introduced the continuous insurance enforcement scheme that will come into force in late June, which says simply that everyone who intends to drive a vehicle on the road must be insured and that a vehicle must have a valid statutory off-road notification if there is no intent to drive.

[Mr Jones]

Uninsured drivers are the scourge of our roads, adding to the insurance premium of the law-abiding motorist. With a fixed-penalty sanction against uninsured drivers of £200 and an average motor insurance policy premium of £892, rising to £2,431 for young drivers, is it not time to consider increasing the fixed-penalty fine to ensure that it is proportionate to the cost of motor insurance, to incentivise those who think that it is right to drive uninsured?

[Mike Penning]

It is estimated that 1.5 million people drive without insurance, which is a huge cost burden to those who do insure, and there is strong evidence that those who are uninsured are likely to commit other driving and criminal offences. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking closely at that.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

One of the biggest incentives to drive illegally is the premium imposed by insurance companies. There are various schemes to try to reduce those costs, particularly for young drivers who are a problem in this regard. GPS can measure journey times, the hours of the day when people travel, and who else is in the car. Is the Department in negotiation with insurance companies to progress such schemes so that young people can afford insurance premiums and avoid driving without insurance?

[Mike Penning]

Yes, we have frequent discussions with the insurance industry, but I must stress that being insured is not a choice; it is a legal requirement. We are trying to drive down the cost, which is partly the result of uninsured drivers driving up the cost of those who are insured, creating a perverse incentive, and partly the result of fraud, which is a massive issue that the Select Committee considered and to which I gave evidence. We are working with the insurance industry on some of the measures referred to by the hon. Gentleman. It is also important when requesting an insurance quote to tell the truth, for example about the number of points on one’s driving record, so that the insurance is not invalid when a claim is made.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I am sure that the Minister will want to commend the automatic number plate recognition scheme, which the police use effectively in west Yorkshire to catch people driving without insurance. However, does he agree that their efforts are undermined by the courts which give derisory fines to people caught driving without insurance? The fines that they give mean that, for many people, crime does pay.

[Mike Penning]

ANPR is a huge move forward in how we catch more people who drive without insurance. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), we are looking at the issue and working with other Departments to ensure that the punishment fits the crime.

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

Uninsured drivers contribute significantly to the number of crashes, deaths and serious injuries on the roads. When will we see the long-awaited road safety framework document, and will it address that issue? Does the Department intend to continue publishing targets for the reduction of deaths and serious injuries on our roads?

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman used to have the job that I have the honour of doing these days, and he knows full well that the Government will publish the road safety strategy as soon as we can; he will have to wait for what is in it. He made a point about targets. If we are not careful, if we set targets the easy option is always the way forward. We have the safest roads in the world and we intend to keep them that way, but we are not going to set arbitrary targets and just say, “We have met that target, so we can ignore the harder option.”

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

9. What recent progress has been made on his Department’s consultation on High Speed 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

T5. In Rugby, a significant number of vehicles on our roads have been brought into the country by foreign workers, and they remain registered in their home countries. When I raised the matter with the Minister, he advised me that such vehicles can be used for six months in a 12-month period, or until the visitor takes up residence. However, there is currently no database for tracking such vehicles as they enter and leave the UK. That means that the owners of many vehicles use UK roads without contributing to the costs of maintaining them. Will the Minister consider a review to rectify that?

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

I am well aware of this issue, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it. I corresponded with him recently on the matter. All vehicles on all roads in the UK should be safe, whether they are UK-registered or foreign-registered, and if they are not, they will be clamped and removed from the road. However, a database is an issue and something we are considering.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

T3. Does the Secretary of State realise that his earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) will have raised deep concerns in parts of the north-west, not least in Warrington, which is hugely dependent on its transport links to boost and develop its economy? Is he prepared to give an assurance to the House that any new franchise arrangements will not reduce the number of intercity trains stopping at Warrington Bank Quay? Yes or no?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that referral fees and the whole claims management industry drive up the cost of motor insurance? Will the Government be doing anything to regulate this industry?

[Mike Penning]

The Government have no plans to increase the regulation on the industry, which is already severely regulated. The Transport Select Committee has considered the matter carefully. Ambulance chasers, as I referred to them in the Select Committee—some parts of the industry did not like that—are a fact and are driving up costs. Claims must be proportionate. Everybody injured on the roads should be able to claim, if it was not their fault, but there should not be an industry out there trying to make disproportionate claims against other insurers.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Wycombe air park will be subject to various security requirements in connection with the Olympics. I learned this week that those arrangements will threaten the survival of Booker gliding club. Will the Minister meet me to try to find a way forward for that valued resource?

Brown Signs

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and to speak in this debate, which affects nearly every constituency in the country. That is why so many hon. Members are here for a half-hour debate. I am conscious that I need to take up my time. I should be okay.

I am a Minister at the Department for Transport, but I have been corresponding with Ministers about this issue since I came here in 2005. I have the wonderful Ashridge management college in my constituency, in the fantastic Ashridge forest. I highlight that because everybody else seems to have highlighted something in their constituency, and it seems apt for me to do so as well. By the way, it is possible to get to Yorkshire, especially north Yorkshire, by going through Hertfordshire, although that is not a sensible thing to do. The reason I corresponded with Ministers about this issue is that brown signs involve a bureaucratic mess. Previous Ministers from various parties have wrestled with the conundrum of how best to inform the public and motorists without causing a hindrance on the road network. I am responsible for strategic road networks, so that is what I will be discussing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) mentioned the correspondence that he received from my coalition colleague, the Minister with responsibility for local transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The Minister was obviously referring to the policy agreed by Ministers in 2003 and inherited by us; the problem has been going on for a considerable time. The letter to my hon. Friend was factually correct when it described the role of a sign. We see the role of a sign in more common-sense terms.

The Department has been engaged for some time in a traffic signs policy review. Believe it or not, it has been going on for years, but it will come to fruition soon, and a report will come to Transport Ministers in May. That is not really what we are discussing today, though; it has more to do with clutter on the roadside and ensuring that our beautiful countryside is not scattered with poles and signs, some of which are completely irrelevant. Some were probably fine post-war, but are not useful at all these days. Different agencies also put up signs on different poles instead of on the same one.

I have been the Minister responsible for the strategic road network for nearly a year now, and during that time I have considered whether the Department for Transport and I as the Minister could issue common-sense guidance to the Highways Agency that could be replicated around the country so that local authorities and businesses could understand exactly what we want from a road sign. If we stick rigidly to the guidance from 2003, we will not get that. We know that to be the case.

Since becoming a Minister, I have had interesting debates with officials, particularly at the Highways Agency, involving the word “why”. Why cannot Warwick castle have a sign indicating that it is off the A1? Why, when a huge investment was made in the M1 in Bedfordshire, was no sign for Centre Parcs allowed, when that development was a multi-million-pound project to which people from all over the country will go? I hope that it is successful, but there is no sign for it.

Motorway services companies came to me asking, “Why can’t we say what’s in our services instead of just saying ‘Motorway service station’? Why can’t we say, for instance, ‘Costa Coffee’ or ‘McDonald’s’ or point out the different choices?”

What we have done in the past couple of months is deregulate that. As the Minister with responsibility for deregulation in the Department for Transport, I have started to use, I hope, a common-sense approach. For instance, if someone now drives down a motorway, they should be able to know whether a service station has a—I will get into trouble with all the companies that I do not name—Costa Coffee, Starbucks, Pret a Manger or Marks and Spencer. I have tried very hard to make sure that it is not a case of why we cannot do it; it should be a case of how we can do it, particularly with brown signs.

Colleagues touched on an issue when they said that they have a plethora of different historic places, monuments and facilities in their constituencies. Lincoln is a classic example. I know Lincoln fairly well from my military days. How many brown signs should be put on the road side and the strategic road network to indicate what is in Lincoln? I think that the answer is to have a sign indicating that Lincoln is an historic city. That is the way in which it needs to be done. There is, however, a tradition within the Department, based on previous legislation—civil servants do what they are told based on the legislation and the rules that they are given—which means that the issue is difficult for them, unless we review it carefully and work together.

Colleagues have touched on tourism. I was pleased to receive yesterday a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who is responsible for tourism and heritage, reminding me of a meeting we had and of our agreement that the

“Highways Agency will work with DCMS and other interested parties to ensure its approach best reflects the needs of drivers and gives the industry a helping hand at the same time.”

That pragmatic approach is brand new and cross-departmental, and we are working on it. The working group of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Highways Agency and VisitEngland officials is due to meet for the first time on 16 May. We will discuss not how we can restrict, but how we can best promote safe roads, informative signs and tourism throughout the United Kingdom.

I know that I do not speak for the whole nation, because a lot of the powers are devolved, particularly in Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) has mentioned. If people are not careful, they will miss what they are looking to do and advertise something that is not a tourism site, but a straightforward business. There is sometimes a grey area between the two. What constitutes tourism? Is it an area of outstanding natural beauty, a world heritage site, or are we talking about a business that employs lots of people locally and that would like to be promoted by a brown sign? I think that what we will get from the meetings is a definitive position on what the brown sign is. Will it be where we started with the 2003 legislation? No, it will not. It will be a relatively new and pragmatic approach for England, and I hope that the devolved Assemblies and other parts of the country will look carefully at how they opened Pandora’s box without thinking through carefully how it could be done.

It is important that we do not just stick to a mantra. I shall quote something that was going to be in my speech. I am not being derogatory in any way to my officials. The speech asked me to mention “TA 93/04 Traffic Signs to Tourist Attractions and Facilities in England—General Introduction”. If colleagues want to read that, it is available on the Department website, but it will make them none the wiser—to touch on what has been said—about how we will work better with local businesses and local authorities in particular, so that we do not dictate to them, but work with them.

It will be difficult to balance what should and should not be advertised. I use the word “advertising,” but my officials and I are not technically supposed to do that. The legislation needs to be tweaked, so that we can carefully work through what constitutes promoting road safety—in other words, giving people an option to get off nice and early, so that they know where they are going—and what constitutes impulse tourism, which is something that I have done for most of my life, especially since my kids came along. I want to go somewhere and they see somewhere else, but we end up going somewhere completely different. That is what impulse tourism is about. If someone is in one of the beautiful parts of the country represented by colleagues present, that is part and parcel of what goes on.

I was in Cornwall the other day, and for the first time in many years, I was being driven. I went to Cornwall many times on holiday as a young man and when I was in the military and always drove. It is a completely different county if one is being driven, because one can see some completely different things. I saw signs, advertisements and tourist attractions that I did not even know existed when I had visited previously. I had an excellent time. It is about how we manage this. It is a big change, after years of a review of road signage to look at how we make sure that strategic road network signage works.

Colleagues have talked about specific areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon was worried about certain aspects of what happened after the road improvement on the A1. That was based on new guidance that was introduced after the initial signs were put in, so when the new road improvements went through, the new criteria were met. I am sure that my hon. Friend was pleased with the road improvements on the A1. If not, I could mention other parts of the A1 north of Newcastle where people are screaming for me to address their part of the world, as is the case in other parts of the country. I accept that, sometimes, if things have been there for several years—many years in some cases—and new road improvements are made, all of a sudden the question is, “Where are my signs?”

I accept that there have been delays, but I hope that issues about particular road signs have been addressed. I am informed that several road signs were removed after the Dishforth to Leeming works were done. In accordance with TD52/04—that is what officials are still working to—the tourist attractions affected were invited to re-apply, apart from Ripon cathedral, which was accepted without re-applying. If there was a delay for Ripon cathedral, I do not understand how that was the case and perhaps my hon. Friend and I can correspond on that again. The cost of re-signing was part of the actual project cost.

I apologise—I have misread. We may need to correspond on what happened with Ripon, because it says here that the Ripon sign had insufficient justification, which is probably what my hon. Friend was alluding to earlier. That does not make any sense to me.

I argue that, if we are talking about tourism and historic sites, a sign on the A64 that reads “Farmer’s Cart/York Golf Range” would probably not, these days, fit the criteria of an area of outstanding natural beauty, a world heritage site, or a site such as Ripon cathedral. That is the sort of thing where we have to be careful with the balance.

The numbers game that the Department plays with the legislation is another grey area. If a certain number of people go to Newton Abbot for the races or for the beautiful coastline, why should it be designated as a problem if the numbers are taken from a particularly bad summer? I hope that that does not happen and that the tourism industry does fantastically well, as it has over the Easter weekend. I do not understand why, if we have fixed criteria, one area of outstanding natural beauty is not as great as another simply because the numbers do not go there. A lot of that is to do with the weather and our wonderful climate in this country.

I think that we can work together and that the Highways Agency is learning fast, with the new Administration under a coalition Government, that it is not about why we cannot do something, but about how we can do it. I met my officials this morning to discuss several brown signs that are not in areas represented by any colleagues present, but those issues need to be resolved quickly. There is no logic as to why those signs could not be used.

To sum up, are things being done? Yes, they are. Do I accept that the Highways Agency needs to work more efficiently and be more responsive to local authorities and businesses? Yes, but there are myriad different communication routes to the Highways Agency. I ask colleagues, particularly in local authorities, to try to channel their applications through a single route, if possible. That would make it much easier for the local authority to be supportive of the brown sign of a local business or tourism attraction. Singing from one hymn sheet tends to achieve a more cohesive approach.

Over the next couple of months, I will keep a very close eye on exactly how the Highways Agency responds and how the new working relationship with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Tourism Minister works. If the two Ministers have agreed to work closely together to promote tourism in the United Kingdom, it is absolutely crucial that the civil servants behind that mechanism listen to what Ministers have been saying and take action.

At the same time—I am going to make a rod for my own back here—if there are individual attractions, areas of outstanding natural beauty, world heritage sites or anything else that colleagues think should have a brown sign, I will be more than happy to listen to delegations of colleagues from across the House to discuss how we can promote the UK. We are coming out of a difficult financial situation that we have inherited. No matter what the Government do with cuts and how careful we are with taxpayers’ money, growth is the way forward. Tourism has to be part of that growth and anything that my Department and my officials can do to help to promote growth in tourism will get my backing.

Motor Sport (Public Highways)

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I believe that this is the first time I have served under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley, since I became a Minister of the Crown, and it is a pleasure to do so this afternoon. I congratulate my hon. Friend and former colleague from the Household Division, the Member for Wear and Preston. I am disappointed that he is not wearing his regimental tie today. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I am not used to his new constituency name. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) on securing the debate and on the lobbying he has done for several months on behalf of the industry and his constituents. I hope that I have come to the debate with good news on how we can progress an issue from 1928 into legislation as soon as possible. We can tinker around the edges, but this will require primary legislation.

I would like to touch on the background. My hon. Friend is right to say that motor sport in this country has a proud history. At a recent event, which my hon. Friend attended, I had the honour and privilege to sit next to Nigel Mansell. He is a great hero in our country, who people look up to and aspire to be like. We saw what can be done in the grand prix this weekend. I was proud to be listening to the commentary of a constituent of mine, Anthony Davidson, the former driver. He is still racing, but not in Formula 1 now. It was good to hear him on the radio.

As my hon. Friend said, looking at the history, it is not only about winning, but about the teams that put together the technology and about where that technology is often applied after its use in Formula 1 and the other types of racing around the world. We talked about disc brakes and the anti-lock braking system, both of which come from Formula 1, and were not used in modern vehicles before that. The many safety features that have stemmed from Formula 1 have led to this country having the safest roads in the world.

I am very proud to be the Minister responsible for road safety, as well as for motor sport, and to be able to say in 2011 that we have the safest roads in the world. We will not be complacent, but will continue to drive down the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads, because 2,222 deaths, by the last count, are too many. At the same time, I am proud to represent this country at road safety meetings I attend around the world, where often people want to know how they can achieve the same safety record. They look up to our record, some of which is due to the excellent education work we have done over the years on drink-driving and the wearing of seatbelts—we need to work on drug-driving—but a huge amount of it is down to technology. Many of the safety features in the vehicles we drive on the roads today come from racing and the investment made in research and development by the great manufactures of this country. That is particularly true of cars, but also of motor cycles, for which, sadly, the safety trends are going in the wrong direction.

My hon. Friend is right to touch on the fact that this is a deregulation issue. I am also Minister responsible for deregulation for the Department for Transport, as well as being the shipping Minister, the devolution Minister, the roads Minister and the roads safety Minister—I could go on. We are trying to empower local communities, not just councils, so that they can say to their council, “Look, we would like to have some sort of event in our patch next year or next week.” It is not all about having Formula 1. That event took place in Birmingham and it had to go through a complicated process, because every time such an event is proposed, an Act of Parliament has to be passed to allow it to proceed. That may have been right and proper in 1928—although I doubt it—but it certainly is not right in 2011.

Let us consider some of the events that could take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North talked about rallying as well as cars and Formula 1. When one of my constituents heard that I was responding to this debate, they reminded me that they want to have kart racing in my constituency on an empty industrial estate that has very little traffic at the weekend. We are world leaders in karting—in fact, this year’s runner-up in the British karting championship lives in my constituency. We can also consider other things, such as rallying.

I will speak to my colleagues in other Departments about why we have so much difficulty with regards state ownership—as is the case with the Forestry Commission, before it moves into whatever its future capacity will be in terms of charitable status. State ownership is impairing investment and competition in the UK. The MSA is not proposing that our streets are closed down every weekend in every town, but we have to make sure that there is confidence out there that that will not happen. We are world leaders in motor sports and in cycling. Indeed, the cycling world championships have just taken place. We might not have done as well at those as we did in the Olympics, but I am sure we will do well in 2012.

We should not create a bureaucratic hold-up for such things; instead, we need to ask how we can empower local communities to go forward. With that in mind, I am today announcing a public consultation on how we will amend the legislation, in which we want as many people as possible to participate, so that we can establish how we can deregulate the matter from central Government bureaucratic control, while ensuring that local communities do not have such things imposed on them. Those involved can perhaps come together in a consortium with the MSA, which will issue the licence for any motor sport activity. We are in a very exciting situation. The consultation, which will last for three months, will proceed from today, and I hope that many different people from across the motor sport and other racing industries come forward with innovative ideas. This country is fantastic at innovation, not just in manufacturing but in terms of ideas about how the exciting events that we see around the world can take place in this country.

I spoke to former Ministers for transport about the matter, who said that they would have liked to have dealt with the issue. I think it was on their agenda towards the end of their Administration. It is not a difficult matter, but I have to be honest and say that it will not get into this year’s legislative programme. By the time I have finished consulting, we will have to ensure that we do not interfere with local election issues or with the associated purdah. I am sure that that will not happen because it is not a party political issue; it is simply a case of how we empower local communities to do something that they want to do.

Although I wish it could be a one-clause Bill, some technical issues surround the legislation. My hon. Friend knows, because he has done his homework, that there is no point deregulating to allow races to be held when a 30 mph speed limit is still in place and so on. The right of way issue has been touched on, but, sadly, there are several other issues to consider. In such a positive debate, I do not want to bring up a load of negatives about why such races cannot take place, and I have asked my officials to consult on how we can do it. That is the reverse of what has happened since 1928.

Such an approach will be popular in some areas, but the road safety community has some proper concerns, and I understand that. All events based around racing will be licensed by the MSA, which has a fantastic track record in making sure that such events take place efficiently and safely. If what we are doing is a success—and I am sure that it will be—the biggest thing I need to convince people about is having a structured programme, so that one community that agrees early on does not have a disproportionate number of events imposed on it. We also need to ensure that the motorist, who predominantly pays for our roads, is not inconvenienced too much. That balance is something the Isle of Man has addressed very well. I have been invited to the Isle of Man TT this year but, sadly, family commitments mean that I cannot be there. I would have liked to take my Triumph across the water and, if not raced on the circuit, perhaps been pro enough to drive it, even if I would have been somewhat slower than the racers.

There are some strange legal anomalies regarding motor sport. Technically, the London to Brighton rally is not a race. If it were, we would have to pass an Act of Parliament every year so that it can take place in November. When we are proud of our heritage, that is a ludicrous situation to be in. I have not discovered why, over the years, subsequent Parliaments of all political persuasions have not dealt with the matter. I use this terminology all too often, but doing so is a no-brainer. As long as we have control and are happy that the community is the driver for this, why should Government hinder such an event? With that in mind, as I say, the consultation will last for three months.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

I welcome the consultation and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) on securing the debate. I am very interested in classic cars. From a historical vehicle point of view, will the Minister look at examples overseas? A great historical vehicle event called the grand prix of the ramparts takes place in Angoulême, France. Although our villages might not look exactly the same as those involved with that race, there are areas where similar events could take place. That would be a great bonus to the historical vehicle owners who would enjoy such an event.

[Mike Penning]

My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. This is not about one type of vehicle; it could involve any type of vehicle. It would be up to the MSA and the local community to decide to go ahead. I have already announced that a consultation will take place on whether we can remove classic and vintage vehicles up to a certain age group from the MOT test. The MOT testers do not want to deal with such vehicles because they are trying to test modern vehicles. However, under law, they have to do an MOT test. I was in a 1911 Rolls-Royce the other day that belongs to Lord Montagu. How on earth could an ordinary MOT station dream of doing an MOT on such a vehicle? I have had the honour of being invited to drive the Mille Miglia in Italy this year, which I have to do in a British Jaguar XK150.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

Is there any chance that the Minister might need someone to join him and carry his bags because my name is at the top of that list.

[Mike Penning]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend might have to speak to my wife, who has very kindly allowed me to go as long as she is with me.

On a serious note, the debate has been very useful. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North not just for securing the debate, but for being informative before it took place. That meant I had the chance to do my homework and listen to representations from the MSA and many people in my constituency. I represent one of the most socially deprived wards and one of the most affluent villages, so there is a good spectrum in terms of the excitement about such an event taking place.

[Mr Wallace]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what is amazing about motor sport is that the supporters are often low profile? It is only when there is an event such as this, that one receives dozens of e-mails from constituents who come out of woodwork and who one never knew were keen supporters of the sport. Such people take part in club events every weekend.

[Mike Penning]

I never cease to be fascinated by how many people get up in the very early hours of the morning on a weekend to watch Formula 1, like we all did last weekend. We were even up for the practice sessions, which I am sure makes us complete anoraks, but we were up and so were millions and millions of other people. This is not a class issue. This is not about the affluent. One of the reasons why the younger chaps in my constituency tell me that they are always out and about in their go-faster cars is that they do not feel that they have an outlet. I am not saying that they are bad guys—they are not. They are just frustrated. They would like to have an outlet to give them an opportunity. This measure, especially if it is done properly—

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House. If the Minister feels that he can finish in two minutes, I think we could run on. If he wants his full four remaining minutes, we should adjourn.

[Mike Penning]

Mr Bayley, I can always take a hint, so in the space of 90 seconds I will sum up.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North yet again on securing the debate and giving me an opportunity, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, to wipe out, in a short period of time—a bit of patience will be needed to get the legislation right—the anomaly that has existed for so many years, since 1928. I hope that local communities will take the opportunity to work with the MSA as a licensing authority to come forward with plans. If they do not, I think everybody would understand, but I suspect that this will be a very popular measure throughout the country. I hope that we can introduce the legislation that will enable local authorities to exercise those controls.

Question put and agreed to.

Agency Business Plans

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce the publication today of the business plans for the Department for Transport’s agencies—the Highways Agency (HA); the Driving Standards Agency (DSA); the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA); the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA).

The business plans set out the services each agency will deliver and any significant changes they plan to make; the resources they require; and a framework of measures by which their performance will be assessed.

The business plans will be available electronically on agency websites, and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Semi-trailers

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

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

The Department for Transport has today published a consultation on a proposal to allow a 2.05 metre increase in the length of semi-trailers and a maximum overall length for articulated heavy goods vehicles of 18.75 metres. The current maximum permitted length of an articulated heavy goods vehicle is 16.5 metres, and the maximum length of semi-trailer compatible with that overall limit is 13.6 metres. However, the current maximum permitted length for a rigid vehicle/drawbar trailer combination is already 18.75 metres, so the new proposed maximum length for articulated goods vehicles would not mean longer vehicles than are already circulating on Britain’s roads.

The proposal is based on research findings and an impact assessment. It would be a relaxation of the current regulatory requirement on the road haulage industry. The Government accept the research findings which show it could have a significant potential net benefit to road haulage, as well as wider benefits in terms of reductions in congestion, local air pollution, carbon emissions, accidents, noise and infrastructure costs.

In June 2009, following earlier work on longer, heavier vehicles, the Department for Transport commissioned a detailed study into the feasibility and impacts of allowing the use of longer semi-trailers in GB, within the existing weight limit of 44 tonnes gross vehicle weight (GVW). The primary objective was to establish whether the introduction of these high-volume semi-trailers would deliver overall economic, environmental and societal benefits or disbenefits.

The study considered two main possibilities: increasing the length of a semi-trailer by up to 1 metre, to 14.6 metres in total, or increasing it by up to 2.05 metres. The latter option would increase the maximum permitted length of a semi-trailer to 15.65 metres, which would provide the same loading length as an existing rigid truck/drawbar trailer combination.

The study also considered the possibility of increasing the overall maximum permitted length of an articulated lorry to 18.75 metres. This would enable the development and use of tractor units with safer, more aerodynamic, frontal designs in addition to high-volume semi-trailers.

Based on the findings of the study, the Government believe there is a good case for permitting both an increase of up to 2.05 metres in the length of semi-trailers, and an increase in the overall permitted length of articulated vehicles to 18.75 metres. The existing weight limit of 44 tonnes GVW will remain in force. The consultation will enable the Department to develop a better understanding of the practical implications on road users generally of such an increase, and to identify proportionate mitigation measures to minimise the risk of unintended adverse consequences. Depending on the outcome of the consultation, the Government will consider permitting the operation of high-volume semi-trailers on a trial basis pending the introduction of the necessary changes to current regulations. This trial could be helpful to determine whether or not mitigation measures are required.

The consultation will run until 21 June 2011. Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Library of the House. Further copies are available on the DFT website at www.dft.gov.uk. Depending on comments received and the Department’s response, amendments may be made to regulations.

Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship Transfers) Regulations 2010

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

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

I wish to inform the House of a further development concerning the Government’s legislation to regulate, ship-to-ship transfers of oil carried as cargo.

In July-September 2010, a review of the Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship Transfers) Regulations 2010, SI 2010 No. 1228, was conducted in view of concerns expressed about those regulations.

The Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship Transfers) (Amendment) Regulations 2010, SI 2010 No. 1769, delayed the commencement provisions of SI 2010 No. 1228 for six months (ie. so that the earliest date any of its provisions would come into force was 1 April 2011), to ensure the provisions of SI 2010 No.1228 did not come into force before the completion of the review.

Amending regulations have been drafted, and work is in train to ensure that these amending regulations take account of representations made. However, consideration of the impact of these regulations on business will take time and is unlikely to be completed until May at the earliest.

Accordingly, I am laying before the House a Statutory Instrument which will delay the commencement provisions of SI 2010 No. 1228 for a further six months (until the next common commencement date, which is 1 October 2011), to ensure that the provisions of SI 2010 No. 1228 do not come into force on 1 April in their unamended form.