Roadside Recovery Vehicles: Red Lights

Debate between Mike Penning and Tracey Crouch

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Tracey Crouch]

That will be the focus of my speech. There are nearly half a million roadside recovery operators, in a variety of guises, who deserve protection. There are many parts to the wider campaign, but I want to focus on one specific call: to allow the use of red lights by the roadside recovery industry. We are simply asking for recovery operators to be permitted to use prominent red warning beacons while attending accidents and breakdowns on the hard shoulder or on other roads; I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead has particular concerns around countryside roads in his area.

This campaign is supported by the wider industry of both independent firms and nationwide operators such as the RAC and the AA, and I am grateful for their briefings. Evidence given by the AA suggested that although UK motorways are the safest roads to drive on when calculated using serious accidents per billion miles, they are also the most dangerous to work on as a breakdown patrol or vehicle recovery operator; there have been at least three known fatalities of operators in the past 18 months.

There is a firm view within the industry that the use of red lights while attending a breakdown would alter behaviours enough for drivers to become more cautionary in their approach, and there is enough science to back this up. In a previous speech in the House on the wider campaign, I referenced the Rayleigh effect, which means that red can be seen from further away. With significant help from Stephen Westland, a professor of colour science at Leeds University, and Hugh Barton, from Opticonsulting Ltd, I have learned a lot more on this, including regarding the neurological response to red.

Mr Barton helpfully points out that red light as a danger signal can be traced back to the 1820s, when the first passenger trains were signalled using red, green and white flags, which were later replaced by red and green semaphore signals. Red is a useful colour for long-range warning signals, because it suffers from atmospheric scatter to a lesser degree than other colours, due to the effects of Rayleigh and Mie scattering processes: at the limit of visual detection red lights are seen as red, whereas other colours are seen as lights with no specific colour attribute.

Professor Westland provided me with some comments regarding the psychological aspect of red and its association with stop and danger. In a traffic situation, everyone knows that red means stop and danger. He kindly forwarded me an interesting paper in an ergonomics journal, which provided some interesting data on this. In one experiment, for example, the researchers presented words on a screen in one of three colours: red, grey or green. Participants had to categorise the words as being danger words or safety words. The reaction time to identify the words in the danger category was quicker when the words were red than when they were green or grey. The same sort of effect was found with danger symbols rather than words: red danger symbols are more quickly categorised as danger symbols than, say, green danger symbols. In other words, although this is a psychological effect, there are implications for performance. One could rightly surmise that a driver noticing a red light on the hard shoulder would be more likely to slow down than if they saw an orange light, and their reaction times would likely be quicker.

With that science in mind, I ask the Minister to review the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989, which currently prohibit roadside recovery vehicles from using red lights. This change in policy can be easily implemented. Highways England vehicles have recently joined the fire service in being exempt from these regulations via a statutory instrument; they are permitted to use red lights in their regulation of traffic around accidents and other road incidents. The Campaign for Safer Roadside Rescue and Recovery argue that the work that roadside workers do on the side of the road, whether a motorway or a country lane, is dangerous and ought to receive the same level of protection. I would argue that, too. The issue is not just their safety, but the safety of those they are there to help.

Before I conclude, it would be remiss of me not to mention that one in 12 men and one in 200 women are colour blind. Although the primary purpose of this debate is to call for a change of use from amber to red beacons to protect recovery workers, for some it would make less of a difference. Perhaps part of a review could be to consider how we support colour blind drivers too, perhaps through shaping or flashing techniques within the beacon.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. When I was the Minister with this portfolio, sitting where the Minister sits today, one objection to this deregulation, which could save lives, was that the police did not support it. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the Minister have seen the evidence that the police now support this measure, which will save lives.

[Tracey Crouch]

I agree. Now that the police have lifted that objection, I see absolutely no reason why roadside recovery operators should not have that same level of protection. At the end of the day, they help the police and Highways England to open up the network, so that our roads can continue to operate and provide the great economic value that having an open and flowing network brings to the country. I hope the Minister has seen that evidence suggesting the police have lifted their objection to this and will bear that in mind in his response.

This debate was borne from tragedy, and I pay tribute to Sam for the campaign she continues to champion. This is just one part of the wider campaign but it is also the simplest to achieve. As the baton passes from one Administration to another, and we all consider what we want to be remembered for, maybe this is something—a small thing—that will make an enormous difference in protecting those who come out, rain or shine, when we are at our most vulnerable on the side of the road.

Social Security

Debate between Mike Penning and Tracey Crouch

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I welcome the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 and the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2019. I understand that both schemes, which will ensure fair and timely payments to those with asbestos-related diseases, fall outside the general benefits uprating process and that, as such, no review mechanism is formally built into legislation to uprate the payments each year.

The Government’s 2.4% increase in the payments is very welcome and rightly demonstrates an ongoing commitment to supporting those suffering from asbestos-related diseases, many of whom contracted the disease through no fault of their own, and their families. For reasons that will become apparent, I wonder whether a future statutory instrument will include a table of occupations or professions—the regulations include a helpful breakdown of the ages of those with mesothelioma at first diagnosis—as that would help to identify those at risk and could perhaps be cross-referenced with other areas of support for those suffering from mesothelioma, where necessary.

Five years and one month ago, our former colleague from Wythenshawe and Sale East, Paul Goggins, tragically and suddenly passed away. Paul and I had tabled several cross-party amendments to the Bill that became the Mesothelioma Act 2014, and colleagues on both sides of the House will agree that his expertise and compassion have been and continue to be a great loss. He was the driving force behind much of the work on mesothelioma, and the ongoing success of the scheme is testament to his commitment to the issue and a fitting legacy for him as a parliamentarian.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

I was the Minister responsible for taking the Mesothelioma Act through Parliament and, despite the restrictions I was under, Paul was an enormously useful knowledge base. At times I went back to my civil servants and said, “No, I have facts from people who were involved in this.” That was very useful, and the House should recognise the work of Paul Goggins.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention. I still have the Christmas card that Paul gave to me just before we rose for Christmas in 2013, in which he started, “Dear fellow meso warrior”. He was passionate about this, and it was a real privilege to have tabled amendments in his name—obviously, he was unable to be here to push them through.

We were successful during the passage of the Mesothelioma Act—with the support of colleagues on both sides of the House and in the other place, led by Lord Alton of Liverpool—in aligning payments with the 100% average civil damages. I am therefore sure that, like me, Paul would have welcomed the Minister’s written ministerial statement of 23 January on the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme which confirmed, thanks to the excellent work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), that the levy to be charged for 2018-19, payable by the insurance industry to fund the scheme, will be just short of £40 million.

Since the launch of the scheme in 2014, £130 million has been paid in compensation to almost 1,000 sufferers—that is £130 million that was not previously available to those suffering from mesothelioma who are not covered by the alternative schemes and unable to trace their employer’s liability insurance. I am grateful for the efforts of everyone in the House, including the late Paul Goggins and my right hon. Friend, who was the Minister at the time, in helping to provide such compensation for those who would not have had it previously.

Having worked with long-suffering officials at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for three and a half years as a Minister, I will take a second to praise the oversight committee’s annual report on the scheme. The report is well set out and tells us everything we need to know in a clear and transparent way, so I thank the officials who worked hard on it.

One amendment that Paul and I were sadly unsuccessful in adding to the legislation would have introduced an additional levy on the insurance industry to fund research into mesothelioma. It remains the case, as it has for decades, that mesothelioma is poorly understood and underfunded. We know it has a long latency period and is an incredibly aggressive form of lung cancer, and we also anticipate a future spike in diagnoses, with Medway a particular hotspot for the disease given its rich shipbuilding and industrial heritage. I am pleased that Medway clinical commissioning group is working with the local hospital to review its respiratory pathways, including the care of lung cancer patients, and the CCG is keen to be in the next round of lung health checks because of the higher incidence of mesothelioma in the area.

As the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) said, we urgently need better to understand the disease. We need to work towards a meaningful treatment, and perhaps even a cure. Although I accept that this does not fall wholly within the remit of the Department for Work and Pensions, it is notable that the annual review shows that the levy scheme had a £3.45 million surplus last year. Following agreement with the insurance industry, the surplus was divided equally into the levy for the next three years. It might have been better to put that money into research, as while £3 million is small change in the insurance world, it is a lottery win for research. Again, that might be worth considering for next year. I would be grateful if, on the back of this debate, the Minister would write to me to elaborate on what work her Department is undertaking to engage the Department of Health and Social Care in better understanding the disease and improving outcomes for sufferers.

Asbestos in schools is an important topic. Although, again, this does not fall wholly within the remit of the DWP, it does have important implications for the various schemes the DWP administers for sufferers. In a 2015 Adjournment debate on asbestos in schools, I mentioned that the issue needed a cross-departmental effort led by the Department for Education through the Priority School Building programme. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on any discussions she has had with DFE colleagues on the potential impact of asbestos in schools. For example, is any data shared on the profession of applicants to the asbestos-related schemes whose benefits are administered by her Department?

There is a huge amount to commend in the Government’s ongoing commitment to supporting those who suffer from mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases. I miss my meso partner in crime, Paul Goggins, enormously. Although he would agree that the progress should be celebrated, he would continue to say that there is always much more that can be done further to improve the outcomes for sufferers of this terrible disease.

UK Basketball

Debate between Mike Penning and Tracey Crouch

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Tracey Crouch]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. That is why it is important that we continue to invest in the grassroots and community delivery. I completely empathise and sympathise with the points that he and others have made about the talent pathway. That is why we need to continue to have these conversations, particularly around 3 on 3 funding.

As other colleagues have mentioned, basketball is not the only Olympic sport that UK Sport does not fund. While I completely agree about the good opportunities it can deliver in communities—that is why we will continue to do much through grassroots development—many other sports could set out equally credible reasons to receive elite-level support on a variety of different funding criteria. Eleven governing bodies, including British Basketball, did just that most recently under the banner of “Every sport matters”. I have all 11 in mind as we consider the asks made today.

[Sir Mike Penning]

The Minister is passionate about sport and in particular about basketball, although I know she does not want to be drawn into her personal views and, as a former Minister, I fully understand that. The difference between basketball and the other sports on the list she just referred to—I have looked at it—is that basketball touches areas of the community that are not touched by those other sports. We are reaching out beyond communities such as Tottenham, where I grew up, into areas such as my constituency, where we did not traditionally have that reach. The participation across communities is not touched by those other sports. Every sport says that it is different, but basketball is clearly different.

[Tracey Crouch]

I hope that so far in my speech I have assured colleagues that I absolutely recognise that point. It is why we look at different funding criteria for different sports across the whole activity perspective in the sports strategy. We also do that in the work we do in all Departments, whether that is to get people healthy or to get them engaged in their communities and so on. I hear what colleagues are saying, but at the same time funding criteria are set by UK Sport for the Olympics.

It is important to say that no funding criteria have been set beyond Tokyo 2020. UK Sport will begin its Paris 2024 funding cycle in due course. Criteria will be reviewed, offering the opportunity to reflect on the existing strategy of investment for the next cycle. UK Sport will then publish a clear set of investment principles against which future awards will be made. I hope that that reassures Members that this is not a closed book.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mike Penning and Tracey Crouch

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Will the Minister provide the House with an update on the implementation and delivery of the mesothelioma compensation payment scheme?

[Mike Penning]

I am really proud that the coalition Government have introduced this new scheme. It is now fully funded and it is rolling out on time. Payments will be made on time to the people who need those funds so much, through no fault of their own, and we are all very proud of that.

Payment Scheme (Mesothelioma)

Debate between Mike Penning and Tracey Crouch

Monday 17th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I do not wish to detain the House long. As the Member who tabled the amendment on Report and put it to a vote, I was disappointed when the Government did not listen to the call to raise compensation to 80%. Members will therefore not be surprised to learn that I am delighted that progress has been made and that the Minister and his officials have managed to find savings, through the tendering process, to ensure that those who contract this dreadful and fatal condition receive the compensation they deserve.

It is worth reminding the House that mesothelioma is one of the worst diseases that anyone can contract simply by going to work. There is no reason behind having mesothelioma other than exposure to asbestos. Unfortunately, those who do contract it often die very quickly, leaving their dependants without the financial security that they would have hoped to have provided in any other circumstances.

The Mesothelioma Act 2014 provides compensation to those who are unable to get compensation via the civil claims process. Increasing the compensation level to 80% is the right thing to do. I know there is still disagreement across the House on the level of compensation, but there was consensus on an initial minimum compensation level of 80%. Other hon. Members may wish to increase that to 90% or even 100%. The perfect outcome would be 100%, but that is unachievable, and I believe that 80% is the right figure to settle on at this stage.

Following Report, many people across the country—not just in my constituency—contacted me to ask when the scheme would start and how they would be able to access it. Will the Government ensure that a “How to” guide is published on the website and is readily available for all victims?

[Mike Penning]

It is important that we make the scheme as simple as possible. There will be a direct link on the Department for Work and Pensions website to the administrator’s website. We want to make that as simple as possible so that, as I suggested earlier, in some cases the legal profession will not need to be involved. I urge colleagues and representative bodies to get the information out there. The administrators will do that, and we need to do that in constituencies where mesothelioma has blighted the lives of so many. All hon. Members across the House have websites, and they should use them to promote the scheme.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. It is very important that we make it as simple as possible for people to understand exactly how to access the scheme. As long as they are aware that it is a scheme of last resort, and have gone through the appropriate civil process, we can do what is best to ensure that victims and their families receive compensation quickly and fairly.

There has been good progress, and that is a fitting tribute to the late Paul Goggins. The issue of mesothelioma is wider than just compensation, although that is very important, and I will do my bit to continue to fight on many of the issues on which he made a start, such as better research funding to ensure that we find a cure; that is beyond the remit of the Minister’s Department. I recognise that the Minister has done an incredible job. He has not just listened to Members in all parts of the House, but ensured that the level was increased, and that those in the insurance industry settled for that. I will not say that they have welcomed that, or are happy with it, but they have settled for it, and they have not walked away from the scheme. It will provide valuable financial security for those who contract this dreadful disease.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Debate between Mike Penning and Tracey Crouch

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch]

I am pleased that we have reached Third Reading of this Bill. It is a welcome Bill, but I remain disappointed that it is not as good as it could and should have been if we were to provide fair and reasonable justice to the victims of mesothelioma. I recognise the constraints that the Minister was under as a consequence of the negotiations that were made before the Bill entered this Chamber. Although it is a good day for the victims of mesothelioma, it could have been a great day for them had some of the amendments that were tabled on Report been listened to.

[Mike Penning]

Let me place it on the record—I think I did this earlier—that my hon. Friend could not have done more for her constituents during the progression of this Bill through the House. I paid tribute to her earlier on, and I do so again now.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. My constituency has high levels of mesothelioma because of its dockyard history and the heavy industries that surround the Medway towns. Earlier, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) expressed concern that I might be poacher turned gamekeeper as a consequence of my time in the insurance industry before coming to this place and trying to secure better compensation for mesothelioma victims. My bosses from my previous life know that I was strong campaigner for mesothelioma victims. Indeed I was proud of the efforts that I took during my time in the insurance industry to try to improve access to compensation. It just so happens that I was also elected to a constituency that has high levels of mesothelioma.

I am pleased that we had a debate today, but, as I have said, I remain slightly disappointed that nothing has happened to the Bill since it received its Second Reading. I see that as a failure in the way that Parliament works. Although I pay tribute to the Minister’s officials, who have worked incredibly hard and been generous with their time, it is a shame that the Bill that was prepared before our debate in Parliament is exactly the same now despite the fact that there is a strong will on both sides of the House to improve the legislation.

Let me pay tribute, as I did on Second Reading, to Lord Freud. He had a difficult time in getting the insurance industry to the table. I notice from the list of meetings that he met with the industry many times. Although he has had fewer meetings with the asbestos working group, it has had access to civil servants. He has done a good job, and would, I think, share the Minister’s view that this is not a perfect Bill. In a perfect world, he would have liked much better legislation.

None the less, both Ministers, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) and Lord Freud, are quite right when they say that this legislation would not have happened had it not been for this Government, and I welcome that. I remember the negotiations that took place with the previous Government and it is quite right for the Ministers to say that they are proud of where they have got to. Mesothelioma victims will be better off as they will have access to some compensation but, as I have said, I still think that the Bill is flawed.

I also want to pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), who did a fantastic job in Committee in raising many of the issues I would have liked to have raised personally. He brought to the debate understanding of the issues of mesothelioma and the concerns of the victims. Having met victims, he understands how awful the disease is, that it is a fatal disease that can be contracted only through exposure to asbestos and that victims will, unfortunately, die an incredibly painful death. He did a fantastic job of bringing forward many of the points I would have liked to have made.

I also want again to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins). He and I have worked on this issue for many months and years and it seems strange to stand up in this Chamber and discuss mesothelioma without his being in the House. I hope that he recognises that those of us who have tabled amendments and spoken in the debate have done so partly on his behalf. He has been a sound campaigner on the issue for many years. He is a decent man and all he wants to do is to try to improve the compensation for victims of this dreadful disease.

I look forward to the publication of the regulations and welcome the fact that there will be a review of the legislation. Like the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), I rather innocently and possibly even naively believe that we should be making legislation that does not need to be reviewed in four years’ time and that it could be better scrutinised and considered in this place and in the other place before it passes into law. We are where we are, however, so I congratulate the Minister on getting the Bill through the House on time. I am pleased that many victims will secure some sort of compensation for a disease that they got simply by going to work.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Debate between Mike Penning and Tracey Crouch

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was persuaded by the 100% argument, but having read the House of Lords debate, I now think that 100% would not be right. There is room for compromise on the percentage and we need to ensure that we put the victim at the heart of the compensation scheme—not the insurers and lawyers who may ultimately benefit from it.

I am also concerned about the lack of clarity on assumptions relating to the age of people diagnosed with mesothelioma. Some think that those accessing the scheme will be younger than the current age group of claimants going through civil schemes, whereas the Department has assumed that there will be an older age group. I tend to believe that, as employers’ liability insurance has been compulsory since 1972, and given this disease’s latency, those unlikely to be able to trace their insurer, making them eligible for this scheme, would surely be older and the younger workers would be fewer. Again, there is room for negotiation with the insurance industry over the compensation levy.

I understand that the industry is worried about a cohort of younger people who might access the scheme because of exposure in schools and other areas with a less obvious asbestos risk. I am afraid that that is bunkum, because not only would schools have some form of liability insurance, but it would be possible to access compensation via civil procedures. For me, the current 25% running cost of the scheme is far too high, and I genuinely think that this is a poor outcome for the sufferer and a good outcome for the industry, which, as the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said, has behaved poorly over many decades in this area.

[Mike Penning]

I am conscious that during the course of the debate I may be able to alleviate some concerns across the House about how the scheme is proceeding. Earlier in her comments, my hon. Friend asked whether the legal fees would be in addition or inclusive. They are clearly in addition to any payments that the person receives from the scheme.

[Tracey Crouch]

We will have an interesting discussion about that in Committee. The representations I have received are contrary to what the Minister says, suggesting that the fees would still come from the claimant, albeit that the Government will uplift the amount of compensation payable in the first place. A victim might get £57,000, for example, but would then have to pay the £7,000 fee out of it—unless the legal fee comes in lower than that, in which case they get to keep the difference.

[Mike Penning]

Let me clarify once and for all that the legal fee of £7,000 is outside the payment. If people do not spend £7,000, they keep the difference. It is outside, not part of, the compensation.

[Tracey Crouch]

As I say, we will have an interesting debate in Committee. Is the Minister saying that the insurance industry will pick up the legal fee? Where is this magic legal fee coming from? Who is paying for it? If it is not the claimant, it must surely be in the 25% administration costs. Officials have said that it is not within those costs, so we are going to have an interesting debate about where this £7,000 is coming from and, indeed, what it actually equates to.