Pedicabs (London) Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Friday 19th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am aware that time is of the essence, so I will make this as quick as possible. The reason I am bringing the Bill to the House again is that pedicabs remain the only form of public transport on the streets of London that is unregulated. Black cabs and private hire vehicles such as Ubers are all under very stringent regulation and have licences through Transport for London. Under some legal anomaly, pedicabs remain unlicensable and unregulated by TfL, and I think that is wrong and must be addressed.

I welcome the fact that the Government have supported my Bill, and I hope we can get it through today, because women’s safety is at risk. We should be under no doubt that as it stands, pedicab drivers and their vehicles are not checked. They go through no checks on the security of the drivers and the vehicles go through no form of MOT. That is unsafe for women and for passengers. There is also no fare regulation, which affects tourists in particular. They enjoy using pedicabs, and why would they not? They can be an exciting offer for central London in particular. A tourist couple reported getting into a pedicab in Leicester Square, going 0.8 miles to Stratton Street and being charged £380. An Uber fare for the same trip would cost £7—54 times more was charged by the pedicab driver. Until they are regulated, we will not stop this dreadful practice.

The police and councils such as Lambeth Council and Westminster City Council have supported my Bill, as have the Mayor of London and the deputy Mayor of London for transport. It is important to mention that some enforcement is available under antisocial behaviour legislation, but I can tell the House from speaking to council officers and councillors that there is nothing they can do to stop drivers or prevent them from going about their business. They can ask them to stop their noise and playing ghetto blasters, but they cannot take them off the streets. The police and Westminster Council, under current legislation and current regulations, cannot police drivers for having no insurance, no training or unsafe vehicles.

Having a licensing regime, as suggested by my Bill, would bring in the ability for TfL to provide licences where drivers have to prove that they are safe and their vehicles are safe. If a council worker, official, city inspector or a police inspector comes along, they can check their licence and ensure that they are safe. If they are not, the licence can be taken away and, importantly, the vehicle can be taken away and impounded. That is key to why I want to bring in this Bill—at the moment, those actions are not possible. A city inspector from Westminster City Council can present an enforcement notice, but without any proof of who that person is, that person will not turn up at the magistrates court and will not be held to account by anybody. Under the licensed and regulated scheme that I am suggesting, that would happen.

It is important to note that we are talking about a minority of rogue drivers. The London Pedicab Operators Association supports what I am trying to do. It has told me that it is

“in concord with the universal view that pedicabs must be fairly and appropriately regulated—fast!”

The guys who are part of the association do their own checks. They organise their own insurance, but they are under absolutely no obligation to do so, and that is why I want to bring in this Bill to ensure that there are proper safeguards for them and a level playing field. Black cab drivers have to do that, and they will be parked up at traffic lights next to a pedicab driver who may have passengers. The passengers in the black cab know that they have safeguards; the passengers in the pedicab have no safeguards.

The noise and disruption that my constituents are having to live through is getting worse. Since lockdown, it has got worse. I have had 4,000 representations made to me about this one issue. People living in Soho and Covent Garden are particularly suffering from this dreadful antisocial behaviour and rogue type of pedicab driver. Let us not forget that the majority of people who live in Soho and Covent Garden are in social housing. They do not have the choice to move; they are there because they have the privilege of a social housing home, but that means that they cannot move. People who have a private home can sell up or not have to rent any more, but let us remember people in social housing.

Let me give the House an example from Covent Garden last weekend. A city inspector from Westminster City Council told me:

“At approximately 21.10…two city inspectors attended the area…there were 25 Pedicabs all parked up on Drury Lane…City inspectors spent the next 45 minutes moving Pedicabs along, as they were blocking road traffic”.

The inspectors had no real enforcement powers but to move the pedicabs on; they could take the drivers’ names and addresses, but they could not prove whether they were real. There was no further action that these guys could take.

Pedicabs have no regard for disabled people, either, or for people trying to cross the road with guide dogs or in wheelchairs. This is a real, real issue: I have been told by numerous people about the noise that rogue pedicab drivers make. I emphasise that there are many who are part of the London Pedicabs Operators Association who are good, but there is an element who are not. I quote from an email from a constituent who spoke to a pedicab driver:

“He said ‘There’s nothing the police can do about it. This nuisance is permitted as the operators are able to use a bylaw related to the power of their machines.’”

That means that the operators know that pedicabs are currently not regulated. This is not only about noise and sheer antisocial behaviour, but about safety and fair regulation. That is why I ask all hon. Members present to support the Bill.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Do pedicab drivers need a driving licence? Do they require insurance? If not, it seems that that could be dangerous.

[Nickie Aiken]

That is the crux of the matter: a pedicab driver does not need a driving licence and does not need insurance. Under my Bill, that would change. They would have to have insurance, have a driving licence and prove that they have been properly trained. At the moment, they can ignore the highway code—believe me, I have example after example of pedicab drivers ignoring it.

I emphasise that the Bill is not about banning pedicabs. I firmly believe that pedicabs, properly regulated and licensed, can provide an offer to tourists in central London as they do in other European nations. In London, they are not regulated; in every other part of England, councils have the powers to regulate and license them. I wonder whether that is why we do not see them in other cities. I was in Manchester recently, and I do not recall seeing a pedicab. I would have thought that a city such as Manchester would want pedicabs, but because they can be regulated and licensed, many of the rogue elements choose not to operate, because they know that they will be held to account.

Does the Minister agree that it is so important to give my pedicabs Bill a Second Reading today so that we can keep our passengers and tourists safe, keep other road users safe and ensure that the west end and central London remain a vibrant place? I hope that all hon. Members will support the Bill today.

Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Aviation Safety (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I wish you, Committee members and the Clerks a very happy Christmas.

The draft instrument will be made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will be needed if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal next March. Following the UK’s decision to leave the EU after the referendum in 2016, the Government have been working hard to develop a positive future relationship with the EU. The Department for Transport has undertaken a significant amount of work with respect to the withdrawal negotiations themselves, and to prepare for the full range of potential outcomes from the negotiations. As Committee members will be aware, the best outcome will be for the UK to leave with a deal, and hon. Members will know that a draft withdrawal agreement is being considered. We remain confident that that agreement will enter into force at the end of March next year.

However, we must, of course, also make all reasonable plans to prepare for a no-deal scenario. To that extent, we have conducted particularly intensive work to ensure that there continues to be a well-functioning legislative and regulatory regime for aviation. We set out how this will work in the technical notices published in September, and the draft instrument will provide the means to deliver some of those outcomes.

The draft instrument corrects five principal EU regulations relating to aviation safety, together with several Commission implementing regulations made under them. As Committee members will understand, and as you will appreciate, Mr Evans, these are rather technical matters, but it is important to be clear about them. The most important of the regulations is EU regulation 2018/1139, more commonly known as the EASA—European Aviation Safety Agency—basic regulation, which establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework for aviation safety in the EU. In particular, it provides for the continued establishment of EASA and the adoption by the European Commission of implementing regulations on aviation safety. These implementing regulations also ensure that EU member states can meet their obligations under the wider convention on international civil aviation, known as the Chicago convention.

There are 13 implementing regulations dealing with different aspects of aviation safety that will be corrected by the draft instrument. These cover the design, construction, maintenance and operation of aircraft; the licensing of flight crew, maintenance engineers and air traffic controllers; the provision of air traffic management and air navigation services; and the design and operation of aerodromes.

The other principal regulations are: regulation 3922/91 on technical harmonisation, which has largely been replaced by the EASA basic regulation, although the flight and duty time limitations established under the regulations still apply to the crews of aeroplanes undertaking air taxi, emergency medical service and single-pilot commercial air transport operations; regulation 2111/2005, which establishes the list of air operators banned from operating to the EU on safety grounds; regulation 996/2010, which sets requirements for the investigation of air accidents and incidents; and regulation 376/2014, which establishes requirements for civil aviation occurrence reporting.

The draft instrument will correct deficiencies in the retained EU regulations that I have listed. It will also correct domestic legislation made to implement aspects of those regulations. These changes should ensure that the statute book continues to function correctly after exit day. Many of the corrections are to make clear that the retained legislation applies only to the UK. For instance, references to

“the territory to which the Treaties apply”

are replaced with “the United Kingdom”. References to “the competent authority” are replaced with references to “the CAA”. Other amendments relate to the relationship between member states. For example, requirements on mutual recognition are deleted, as are requirements for co-operation and the sharing of information.

The draft instrument will also reassign functions that currently fall to EU bodies. The majority of regulatory functions required under the EU regulations are currently undertaken by the competent authorities of the member states. Those include licensing pilots, air traffic controllers and maintenance engineers, certifying the airworthiness of individual aircraft, certifying airports and airport operators, approving production, maintenance and flight training organisations, and approving air traffic management and air navigation service providers.

However, EASA is responsible for a number of functions, which include preparing proposals for new technical requirements and for amendments to existing technical requirements; approving organisations that design aircraft and aircraft engines, and certifying the design of aircraft and engine types; approving organisations based in third countries—for example, flight training and aircraft maintenance organisations; and functions relating to the management and oversight of the aviation safety regulatory system, which include managing the mechanisms for the exchange of information and auditing the application of technical requirements by a member state’s competent authorities.

The Civil Aviation Authority will take on those functions, with the exception of those relating to the management of the EU safety regulatory system. While design certification has formally sat with EASA since 2008, it is not a capability that the CAA has totally relinquished, and we are confident that it will be able both to meet the needs of industry and to fulfil the UK’s international obligations as the state of design. The CAA is implementing contingency plans to ensure that it will be able to undertake the new functions effectively from exit day. In all, the CAA will need to take on around 59 new staff.

The European Commission also has a number of functions under the EU regulations. Most notably, it has the power to adopt regulations, to adopt or amend technical requirements, and to make limited, specified amendments to the principal EU regulations. Those functions will be assigned to the Secretary of State. The power to amend the retained principal EU regulations is very limited, and is designed to ensure that the regulatory system can adapt to technical developments and changes to the international standards adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. Those powers mainly relate to the annexes to the regulations.

Most notably, the Secretary of State will have the power to amend the essential requirements contained in the annexes to the EASA basic regulation by making regulations subject to the negative resolution procedure. The essential requirements are the high-level safety objectives, which are implemented through the technical requirements. Amendments can be made only where it is necessary to reflect technical, operational or scientific developments or evidence in the relevant technical field to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives of the EASA basic regulation. In addition, the draft instrument revokes four implementing regulations that set out internal procedures for EASA, as they will not be relevant to the UK after EU exit.

Finally, I should stress that none of the amendments changes any of the technical requirements established by the retained EU regulations. All certificates, licences and approvals issued by EASA or EU/European economic area states prior to exit day will remain valid in the UK by virtue of the withdrawal Act if valid in the UK immediately before exit day. The draft instrument provides that such certificates shall be treated as if they were issued by the CAA. With the exception of certificates relating to aircraft design, the instrument also limits the validity of such certificates to two years after exit day, after which CAA-issued certificates will be required.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I do not want to detain the Committee for long. I have a question on the amendment of regulation 2111/2005, on the banned operator list. At the moment, the banning of an air carrier is based on information from right across the EU, so if an air carrier has performed badly in eastern Europe, it could well be banned. Will we in the UK have access to that sort of information when deciding who should be banned in Britain, or will it be a less full process?

[Jesse Norman]

It is a fair question. As my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware, we are discussing a context in which we do not have a deal with the EU, so this is a contingency that is not covered by the main case. Even in this contingency, however, there is every reason to think that the very extensive information sharing that exists would continue, even if only informally, for a period until the necessary protocols could be retained. He will know that the CAA was itself one of the progenitors of EASA, and there are extremely close working relationships between the two sides.

The restriction I have described is necessary, as the CAA needs to issue the safety certificates to have full oversight of aviation safety in the UK, in accordance with our obligations under the Chicago convention. We are working to achieve a positive deal with the EU, but this instrument is an essential element of our contingency planning for a no-deal exit; it will enter into force on exit day only under those circumstances. The instrument will ensure, in the event of a no-deal EU exit, that the UK’s aviation safety regulatory regime continues to work effectively and the aviation industry has clarity about the regulatory framework in which it would operate. I commend this instrument to the Committee.

Confidence in the Secretary of State for Transport

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I give way to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald).

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know of the misery—because I have told him—on my line, with five stations where people’s lives have been blighted over recent weeks, but does he agree that privatisation does have one merit, which is that we can get rid of the operator if there is a huge crisis, and if this is not sorted out very soon, will he take the necessary steps to attack the franchise?

Rail Timetabling

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I fully expect Stephen Glaister’s review to look at all the players in this, including my Department. The industry readiness board set up by my Department to assess the process of introducing the new Thameslink timetable recommended in May that the timetable could go ahead. When experts are called in for advice and they advise us to do something it is generally a good idea to listen to them.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

At Letchworth station this morning, I spoke to passengers who have suffered great delays and many cancellations, children going to school whose train had been cancelled—one of them in tears—and workers who have been told, “You can’t keep on being late like this.” Is it not time that Govia Thameslink Railway actually produced the timetable, the service and the reliability of information that those people—my constituents—deserve? What is going to be done to encourage it to get on with this and provide that service quickly?

[Chris Grayling]

The No. 1 priority is to restore a reliable timetable, and I have been clear that GTR has an urgent duty to do so. There is unquestionably a large question mark over its future, but it needs to sort the problem out as quickly as possible to have any chance of surviving in the rail industry.

Draft Community Drivers’ Hours Offences (Enforcement) regulations 2017

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2017 General Committees

[The Minister for Transport Legislation and Maritime (Mr John Hayes)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Community Drivers’ Hours Offences (Enforcement) Regulations 2017.

I shall say just a few words about these important but I think uncontroversial draft regulations. They are being made to enhance the powers of enforcement agencies in respect of the rules on drivers’ hours. For the benefit of Members who may not be aware of the drivers’ hours rules, I shall make a few introductory remarks.

The rules are central to keeping our roads safe; they set maximum driving times and minimum break and rest times for most commercial drivers of lorries and buses. For example, the rules mean that after four and a half hours a driver must take a 45-minute break, and daily driving time is normally limited to nine hours. The consequence of drivers working when fatigued can of course be catastrophic, so while we can be pleased to note that the number of road accidents involving buses and lorries has been reducing over time, we should never be complacent.

The rules are enforced by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and the police with targeted roadside checks and by visiting operators’ premises. Most breaches of the rules are identified swiftly and dealt with efficiently by means of fixed financial penalties. More serious breaches are referred to traffic commissioners or lead to prosecution. The draft regulations will extend the use of fixed penalties to a wider range of infringements of drivers’ hours—in essence, that is what they do. The regulations are based on well-established practice, widely acknowledged to be the right thing, and take that a little further.

The tachograph, the device that is used to check compliance with the rules, has an historical memory but “on the record” or so-called historical drivers’ hours offences can be sanctioned at present only through court prosecution. To use a shorthand, the draft regulations will establish a mechanism by which those historical offences can be dealt with in the same way that contemporary or current offences are dealt with now.

The problem with the existing arrangements is that they are time-consuming, bureaucratic and costly for the enforcement agencies and for the operator and driver involved. Particular difficulty is created in respect of non-UK drivers, so probably the biggest consequence of this change is for them. Now, when non-UK drivers are issued with a court summons, regrettably they do not always regard it as seriously as they might. Drivers who are issued a court summons but are off to some distant land probably will not take notice of it. At the moment, the only practical, but rarely used, means of dealing with that is to arrest the drivers and to hold them in police custody. Generally, therefore, they are just given a warning.

The draft regulations will enable the enforcement agency to issue a fixed penalty for infringement of drivers’ hours and that will apply to any offence that has taken place in the 28 days preceding the check I described. In essence, the regulations will help to level the playing field for UK and non-UK offenders. They will also bring the UK into line with several other European countries that already issue on-the-spot penalties for historical drivers’ hours offences. The enforcement agencies will be saved time and money by their being given the option of taking fewer cases to court.

The new powers will not be used indiscriminately. The DVSA intends to issue fixed penalties when the case might previously have been taken to court, not every time a minor historical offence is identified. There is already a reasonable degree of discretion in this exercise. If someone is repeatedly abusing the system in a minor way, or more seriously, typically the DVSA will take a view, but it exercises a reasonable degree of discretion.

We undertook a formal consultation on the changes, but I will not tire the Committee, or indeed you, Mr Pritchard—who, by the way, it is a delight to serve under—by going through it in exhaustive detail. However, I have the consultation with me and it is available to any Member who wants to look at it more closely and carefully. It received broad support from respondents, including the trade associations. No one really wants this important restriction on what drivers may do, which is of course in their interests, to be abused routinely. Everyone wants the mechanisms to avoid that to be fit for purpose. By filling the gap that I have described, the draft regulations will make the method, means—

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I will give way very briefly, although I was about to come to my exciting conclusion.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. One point that the trade bodies made was that they would not want an offence that occurred before a driver joined their operator company to be scored against the operator’s score compliance risk, because that could affect the operator’s licence. Was it possible to find a solution to that concern?

[Mr Hayes]

That is the point I just made—I referred to the consultation a few moments ago. The consultation document makes it clear that, although the point made about current and historical offences is true, operators are sufficiently persuaded by the discretion that I described to be confident that the draft regulations will be applied proportionately. They are not designed to catch people out; they are designed to do the right thing. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend knows that the representative bodies have warmly welcomed these changes on the basis of the exercise of that kind of discretion, which is already well established in their experience and in the mind of the Committee, I am sure.

Without further ado, because I know people will want to deal with this matter thoroughly but efficiently, I simply say that I think the draft regulations are entirely reasonable and deserve the support of the whole Committee.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 23rd October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am, one might say, preoccupied by the subject of skills because I understand the relationship between skills and social justice. One might even say that I have been characterised by my determination to ensure that people get chances to acquire the skills necessary not only for our economy but for them to fulfil their potential. There will, of course, be all kinds of new skills associated with this technology, but I am not sure it is the time at the moment to dictate what they might look like. The job that the Government are doing is to legislate sufficiently so that change, innovation, and research and development are not inhibited, but not to the point where we dictate, or try to dictate, what the future might look like in this regard.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that the message should not be that an electric car or an automated vehicle is an unpleasant driving experience, and that the only kind of car that is worth driving is a classic car? The modern car is a joy to drive. I hope that will remain the case and that he is not going to stop us doing it.

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, that is true. Electric cars can be a different but altogether just as enjoyable an experience. I have had the opportunity of test driving an electric car. As a Minister, I have travelled very frequently in an electric car driven not by me but by the driver from the Government car service. Only in the past few days, I have had the chance to drive in one of the new electric taxis. To experience that is to see a different kind of future and to enjoy a different kind of driving experience. I do not think it is worse. It is certainly different, but better in all kinds of ways, as I shall explain.

Cycling: Government Investment

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Chris Green]

I appreciate that. It sounds like a great use of local initiative. We must be very careful about prescribing too much and telling local authorities, “This is what you must deliver and how you must deliver it.” They must reflect local circumstances and ideas for the local community, because they can make a huge difference.

Many cyclists see how much priority councils sometimes give to maintaining cycle lanes—if a cycle lane is unusable, is it really a cycle lane? We often see overhanging branches, impassable potholes, large puddles, parked cars and poor-quality surfaces, which are especially noticeable for those on racers. I have a racer, and I cannot use some cycle lanes. I have to go on the road, simply because of the nature of the bike. I wish I had four bicycles so that I could choose one appropriate to the road surface. All cycle lanes should conform to the Department’s design guidance, but too often it seems the bare minimum is done rather that what most cyclists want. The design should be centred on cyclists’ needs. It would be better if more people cycled—if those who made decisions about cycle tracks were cyclists, they would understand better what should be implemented. It is particularly important to have good cycle tracks for disabled people who are able to cycle and use a bike as a mobility aid, but find that the infrastructure is working against them.

As a cyclist, I am acutely aware of the lack of good-quality bicycle racks, which, by their presence alone, promote cycling. If we create the right environment, the cyclists will come. Our local authorities have a duty to provide an environment suitable to support and promote cycling.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that good-quality cycle racks, in quantity, are important at railway stations so that people can interact with another form of transport that might take them to London or another city?

[Chris Green]

Absolutely. It is important that cycling is part of a daily routine, perhaps as part of a journey if not the whole journey. I was thinking earlier about Bolton station, a major station serving many of my constituents, who have to travel all the way through the station to one of the platforms to drop their bike off at the cycle rack. Then on the return trip, instead of just being able to just pick it up at the entrance and off they go, they must make an awkward journey through rush-hour passenger traffic. It is important to have the right facilities at railway stations.

Naturally, interest in cycling naturally peaks with the Olympics and the Tour de France, which generate a great deal of interest in cycling as a sport, but we need to ensure that people feel that they can cycle as part of their daily routine. Good governance is essential in improving investment in cycling and the execution of that investment in local government and communities. Many hon. Members will be aware of the Government’s cycle to work scheme, which operates as a salary sacrifice employee benefit. Employers buy or lease cycling equipment from suppliers and hire it to their employees. Employees who participate in the scheme can save up to about 40% on the cost of a bicycle and cycling safety equipment. More than 600,000 employees have participated in the scheme to date. I have heard anecdotally that councils have a slightly lower take-up rate than the private sector, which is not only a concern for the health of council workers but is perhaps suggestive of councils’ enthusiasm for cycling.

The cycle to work scheme provides a mechanism to change the perception of cycling and sustainable travel and behaviour towards it. The Cycle to Work Alliance’s recent survey showed that 62% of participants were non-cyclists, novice cyclists or occasional cyclists before joining the scheme. Having joined, 79% of respondents described themselves as enthusiastic cyclists.

Airport Expansion: East Anglia

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of airport expansion on the Anglian Region.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Pritchard. It is an honour to serve under you for the first time, and I am glad to see that you are enjoying being a member of the Panel of Chairs. I also welcome the Minister—if he grimaces at any stage in the course of my remarks, it may well be because he feels he has heard it all before—and I welcome colleagues from the region and others who have come to take an interest in the debate.

I will give a little history, if I may. In 1977, I became very fortuitously the successor to R.A. Butler and Sir Peter Kirk as the Member of Parliament for Saffron Walden. They had fought successfully up to that point against the proposition that Stansted should become London’s third airport. Despite their efforts, the fascination of officials in Whitehall persisted. Here was this very long runway built by the Americans for their bombers in the 1940s; surely it could be put to civilian use.

When I came to Saffron Walden, I had previous, as they say: I had been the Member of Parliament for Middleton and Prestwich in Greater Manchester between 1970 and 1974 and had very much absorbed the findings of the Roskill commission—a long-time predecessor to the Davies commission that had been asked to advise the Government on where to provide extra accommodation, specifically in terms of a third airport. The commission rejected Stansted, even on its shortlist, and by a majority recommended Cublington in Buckinghamshire. There was a dissenting view by Colin Buchanan that there should be an airport in the Thames estuary. That was adopted by the incoming Government of 1970, who proceeded to construct the airport, which was termed “Maplin”.

I had time in those days to fully read the Roskill report, and I also became familiar with all the inland sites being considered. I came to the view that a third inland airport would be a mistake, so I heartily supported the proposition that there should be a new airport altogether in the Thames estuary. Why, I asked myself, should there be a third airport when there were already two?

What was, to my mind, unfortunate was the legal agreement arrived at between West Sussex County Council and the British Airports Authority, when it was still a statutory authority, that there should be no second runway at Gatwick for 40 years, expiring in 2019. In a sense, it had cut off a limb for expansion and was seeking a third site. I did not think that that made any sense in 1979, and I do not think it makes any sense now.

After the airports inquiry of 1981 to 1983, which considered further expansion at Stansted or Heathrow, the recommendation was to allow a terminal at Stansted, limited to 15 million passengers per annum. It took about two years for the Government to reach that decision after the inquiry reported—Howard Davies, please note. The inspector also stated firmly that he would only recommend such a degree of expansion at Stansted provided it was made clear that there should never be a second runway—Howard Davies, again, please note the worth of that type of promise.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend remembers this, but it is my understanding that Stansted airport was then marketed to the local community as its own airport in the countryside, not at all with the sort of pretensions necessary for a major airport such as Heathrow.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

My hon. and learned Friend is quite right. There was an attempt to damp down the feelings locally about Stansted by not referring to it as London’s third airport, but the assumption in its design and construction was that it would, indeed, share an even amount of the traffic coming into London.

What followed? Well, traffic distribution rules were abolished. The effect was that 19 airlines promptly moved from Gatwick to Heathrow, leaving rather a large hole at Gatwick, which made that airport much more attractive at the time than Stansted. The next decision was to give BAA, when privatising it, a monopoly of the three London airports, which of course meant in the circumstances that it had no particular priority for Stansted. It was probably making more money at the other two airports, so there was no pressure from that direction to improve access to Stansted.

Road Investment Strategy

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

The planning procedures will necessarily have to be gone through and the hon. Gentleman will have seen the details set out in the road investment plans and strategies that accompany today’s statement. I pay tribute to him and my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) for working together on this important matter and will check the wider implications for Mottram and Tintwistle.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, I, my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) and for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) have been campaigning for a long time to have the A1 widened between Welwyn and Stevenage. I thank the Secretary of State, because this has blighted Hertfordshire for a long time. Widening the road, allowing the extra running and the motorway technology that he is introducing are very welcome, so may I thank him on behalf of Hertfordshire?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his comments. I know that he is meeting the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), tomorrow to discuss these issues and will no doubt want to look at the plans in more detail.

A1(M) (Hertfordshire)

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Friday 21st November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the issue of Hertfordshire’s roads and the widening of the A1(M), which is an important concern for my constituents, Hertfordshire and the UK economy.

Each morning and evening on the A1(M), between Welwyn Garden City and Stevenage, there are long tailbacks, and this bottleneck is affecting several constituencies and our national infrastructure. I am grateful to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), the trunk roads Minister, for agreeing to meet me, along with my right hon. Friends the Members for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) and for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), to discuss in more detail what improvements might be possible.

Given that the Minister agreed to this meeting, it might be helpful if I set out some of the main concerns. Hertfordshire is one of the most productive of revenue-raising counties in the country. Its geographical location and the nature of its economy make it suited to sustainable business growth. It has world-beating industry, such as Johnson Matthey in Royston, and major companies, such as MBDA and GlaxoSmithKline in Stevenage. Watford is a business success and the county is a centre for the cultural industries: it is home to Elstree studios, and many film and television programmes are shot on location in the county. Letchworth garden city, in my constituency, has an innovative Da Vinci school specialising in training young people, from 14 to 19, in cultural industry skills.

The Hertfordshire local enterprise partnership makes it clear that congestion is a key issue for businesses and residents and that addressing the issue will be instrumental in accommodating further growth in the county. The LEP believes that increased capacity on the A1(M) is the No. 1 priority for the county’s road network between 2015 and 2020. Our strong local science base has huge potential for further growth. Some 861 hectares of employment land are accessed from the A1(M), and the area employs 200,000 people, with 60,000 commuting in. Many homes are due to be built in the corridor over the next 20 years. By 2017, that section of the A1(M) will be under even greater stress and will struggle to accommodate any growth in the corridor without additional capacity.

Hertfordshire can be accessed easily from London and the midlands. It is convenient for the east coast ports and it has five railways and main roads—the A1(M), the A5, the A6, the A41, the M1, the M11 and the M25—that provide access to the rest of the country. We also have two airports, at Luton and Stansted, on the borders of the county, which open it up to the rest of Europe. This successful part of the country needs a well-functioning and well-funded transport infrastructure. Although much of our infrastructure is good, there are instances where we are let down. I would like to elaborate on three of them and consider the widening of the A1(M) a little later.

I held an Adjournment debate on the subject of roads of Hertfordshire in 1998, in which I called for three bypasses in my constituency: one for Baldock, one for Wadesmill to Puckeridge, and one around Royston. I can report that two have been built, which is a substantial investment, but not the one for Royston. There has long been a bypass to the north of the town, diverting the east-west A505 around it. However, the north-south A10 still goes right through the town centre. In the 17 years since I first called for a bypass on the A10, the situation has, if anything, worsened. The joint success of London, Hertfordshire, the midlands and Cambridgeshire, and a natural growth in the town’s population has put even more pressure on our road networks. Royston’s problems are becoming more serious, with heavy traffic streams through the town on a daily basis, tailbacks and road congestion clogging up Melbourn road, which affects children attending the main schools located on the other side of the A10.

Both the town council and local county councillors are united behind a plan to improve the situation with a bypass. In 1994, the Highways Agency announced that it supported the construction of an A10 bypass at Royston and the then Minister pledged to keep the case under review. I think you would agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is a long review. Royston remains the only town on the A10 between London and King’s Lynn without a bypass. In my view the case is a strong one. I wonder whether the Minister would write to me about how best to make progress on that.

We have been fortunate locally in recently gaining funding from Government for a bypass on the A120 around Little Hadham and improvements to the A602, both in my constituency. The county council is consulting on the detail of those schemes, but given the strategic importance of the link between the A10 and the A120 in relation to Stansted airport and travel on the A120 east of Bishop’s Stortford, I would be grateful if the Department started to consider how best to improve the route further. I would argue that a Standon bypass is needed to complement the works that have already been agreed.

I should like now to turn to issues surrounding the widening of the A1(M). I have described the huge value of Hertfordshire in terms of its businesses and local enterprise. From our multinational corporations to our small and medium-sized enterprises, at all levels of the supply chain our businesses are successful. UK Trade & Investment says that inward investment to Hertfordshire shows a 61% increase in the last year. Members of Hertfordshire chamber of commerce tell us that the pool of skills comes not just from local residents. Major companies such GSK and Airbus, although based in north Hertfordshire, cast a wide net for employment. Those commuters must be catered for on our roads. The road network is not as strong as it should be, so some of Hertfordshire’s potential is not being realised.

One of the most important of those roads is the A1(M). Starting in London, it moves into Hertfordshire, servicing Hatfield, Welwyn, Stevenage and Letchworth in my constituency, and then goes on to Peterborough, Doncaster, Leeds and finally Edinburgh. The road is important in getting workers to work and also products out to the UK market and beyond. London and Edinburgh are extremely important in that, and recent announcements by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about the creation of a northern hub will make the A1 even more significant. The section between Welwyn and Huntingdon needs further improvement. The road is not as good as it should be. The section of the A1(M) between Stevenage and Welwyn is important, but it is composed of only two lanes in each carriageway. Every morning and evening, the road is congested and tailbacks are long, as the road narrows for that section.

I recently received a letter from a constituent in Letchworth, explaining that these problems had lasted for 25 years. He said:

“During that time I have travelled up and down the AIM between Letchworth gate and the clock roundabout at Welwyn and ended up going into work before 7 and coming home after 7 in the evening to miss the jams on the AIM. Even when I was travelling 25 years ago the bottleneck of the dual carriageway motorway from the Corey’s Mill roundabout at the Hitchin Junction and the clock roundabout is a crawl that adds considerably to travel time, pollution and frustration…Even today when I travel to Heathrow or Gatwick airport you either have to travel at 5 in the morning or the day before and the cost of a hotel because of the bottleneck. Successive governments have failed…on upgrading the road to 3 lanes in each direction.”

Junction 7 at Stevenage connects one of the biggest industrial areas in Hertfordshire with the rest of the UK, but drivers see regular queues on the motorway and some members of the Herts chamber of commerce suggest that continued non-remedied access to Stevenage could prompt them to relocate. We cannot let this happen. At the other end of the two-lane section, Welwyn Garden City junction 6 is dead-centre of the so-called golden triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London. The problems here are a blight on one of the powerhouses of the UK economy.

Some changes to the slip road at junction 6 have been suggested, but there is confusion locally about the announced managed motorway solution. At first, it spoke of use of the hard shoulder to add capacity, but that was then rejected by the Department for Transport. One of the best and simplest things that could be done is the widening of this section of the A1(M) to three lanes on each carriageway. This would allow for a greater stream of traffic, it would ease congestion and enable an important national connection to flow more freely. Businesses would be helped, things would be made easier for commuters, less time would be spent in traffic jams and it would reduce pollution.

Hertfordshire is a strong contributor to the UK and to public spending across the country. Hertfordshire contributes £12 billion in tax revenues each year and receives £8 billion in public expenditure—meaning that the county’s net contribution is £4 billion a year. My constituents feel that some of these public funds should be used in Hertfordshire to sort out the problems I have outlined.

I look forward to meeting the trunk roads Minister with my colleagues. I hope that the Minister responding today will be able at least to acknowledge the importance of the Hertfordshire economy and the need for a good strong infrastructure to support it.