Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burden Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

It is a hallmark of this Government that we have taken cycling as seriously as we have, and that is in no small measure due to the work of the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill). All new road schemes must take account of cycling provision, and, although I am never unnecessarily partisan in this Chamber, as you know, Mr Speaker, I am not sure that previous Governments could have claimed that.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his role. Congestion is, as we have heard, all too often made worse by the poor state of local roads. The Local Government Association has warned of a road maintenance “time bomb”. The Minister may think that everything is going swimmingly well, with funding competitions, which pre-date him, that rob Peter to pay Paul, but when the Public Accounts Committee says that it is

“very frustrating that the Department for Transport still has not got a grip on how it funds road maintenance”,

one might think that he would listen, so why will he not?

[Mr Hayes]

I always take that kind of analysis and scrutiny seriously. This Government are going to resurface 80% of roads, because we acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s point about the effect of road condition on congestion. This Government are taking a more strategic approach, putting their money where their mouth is and listening to the kinds of arguments the hon. Gentleman has amplified.

Cycling

Richard Burden Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate, which is a credit to all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. No fewer than 11 Members have made speeches, more if one takes interventions into account. It is a credit in particular to the officers of the all-party group on cycling: my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), who introduced the debate, and the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Winchester (Steve Brine).

It is also right to mention the cycling and active travel organisations that support the all-party group. They have played a big role in making today’s debate happen. Between them they have a great deal of power, because we were told by Ministers more than a year ago—this has been mentioned already—that there would be a cycling delivery plan. More than a year ago, we were told the Government were working on that. We have been asking the Government for a year, “Where is it?” It has been a bit like waiting for Godot, but, amazingly, one Back-Bench debate and suddenly, hey presto, the delivery plan appears—or, as some have called it, the derisory plan.

As this debate has made clear, there are huge benefits to cycling. In particular, it improves people’s health—physical inactivity costs the NHS between £1 billion and £1.8 billion every year—and protects the environment by tackling air pollution and congestion in our towns and cities. As hon. Members have said, therefore, this affects all road users, whether motorists or lorry drivers, cyclists, bus passengers, pedestrians or motorcyclists, and many of us are all or some of those things at different times; we are all road users, and our roads must work for everyone. Getting Britain cycling is not simply a two-wheeled agenda. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) pointed out, the voice of the motorist, the AA, supports the report as well.

If I remember correctly, last year the Minister promised a walking and cycling plan to promote active travel as a whole, but as far as I can tell, we have here a delivery plan—if it is a delivery plan—for cycling only. Why is that?

As the report shows, just 2% of journeys are made by bike, while nearly two thirds are made by car, over half of them shorter than five miles. We lag behind other countries—Germany, Demark and Holland have all been mentioned—that have set impressive targets for cycling. For that reason, the “Get Britain Cycling” report was clear that we needed vision, ambition and strong political leadership, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) also pointed out. But what progress have we seen? The Government’s delivery plan today starts with a section entitled, “Vision, Leadership and Ambition”. Given that the Minister wants to show those things, I would like to ask him about how the plan measures up to that.

The plan puts much emphasis on new partnerships being created between the Government and local authorities to support cycling, and says that they want local authorities to register and expand cycling in their areas. However, unless I have missed something, the incentives on local authorities in the delivery plan are vague at best. What about those areas that do not sign up? Where is the national vision, leadership and ambition there? How will the Minister encourage areas to get onboard that are just starting to dip their toes in the water? How will he share best practice there? In that respect, the point made by the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) was very pertinent.

The Minister talks about the Department’s active travel consortium and an extended local sustainable transport fund knowledge-sharing network being responsible for sharing best practice, but how will that work? Has he learned from past mistakes, because the Government’s record on this is not good. Ministers scrapped Cycling England, which co-ordinated action on cycling, and the replacement cycling stakeholder forum and the so-called high-level cycling group have met just a few times in a year. What confidence can organisations involved in the active travel consortium have that they will have the clout and reach to promote active travel and ensure that better travel infrastructure for cycling is delivered?

I accept that the Minister is serious in his personal support for cycling, but where is the buy-in from other Departments, particularly from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who suggested that cycling was the preserve of the elite? He is not alone in that view. In my own town, Birmingham, a prominent Conservative councillor is on the record saying that cycling is discriminatory against women, particularly women from ethnic minorities. Fortunately, most people in Birmingham do not share that view.

It is good to see a review of how the planning system can support walking and cycling, but I understand that DCLG will imminently be publishing new guidance on transport planning. Will this be another silo, separate from the Minister’s, or will the two relate, and if so, how?

[Mr Bradshaw]

The lesson from when we were in government was that this only works when the Secretaries of State in every Department with an interest in the matter work together. This is a classic area of cross-departmental cost-benefit. At the moment, the problem is that everything is done in silos. Individual Departments are not putting their heads together to work out how much cycling benefits all of us, and that is why nothing is happening.

[Richard Burden]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Why does the Minister himself not take a look at best practice elsewhere? Why not learn some of the lessons that will be unfolding from the active travel legislation in Wales, which will require all corners of government to co-ordinate and get buy-in to promote active travel?

Another message that has been impressed upon us today, time and again, is the need for a clear funding stream. Funding streams need to be predicable and continuous. Today’s delivery plan seems to contain a lot of the right words, but if we look a little more closely, it is not clear exactly what those commitments are. We have heard a lot of talk, including in the delivery plan, about aspirations and wider funding opportunities, but I am still not clear what those are. Forgive me, but I think we need rather more than that from a Government whose use of smoke and mirrors on this issue has been second to none.

This is a Government who claim to have doubled spending on cycling, but when we look closely, we see that they funded Bikeability by top-slicing £63 million from the local sustainable transport fund, which was itself meant in large part to promote cycling. Then the Government claimed they were increasing funding for cycling with the money they gained by scrapping Cycling England. The Government cannot have it both ways. The double counting has to end. All this comes at a time when Ministers have slashed local authority funding by a third and when our research has shown that half of councils have had to cut spending on walking and cycling since 2010.

How about a bit of a change of approach? Instead of centralising power and localising blame, why not do what we have suggested and devolve £30 billion of funding to strong, accountable combined local authorities to get such schemes going? If the Government have set out £28 billion for our roads until 2021, with funding certainty for road and rail, why not get a bit of certainty in funding for cycling? How about heeding what my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) set out in our recent party conference, when she called for action on education, engineering and enforcement?

On engineering, I hope that all references to cycle proofing in the Minister’s delivery plan will take on board Labour’s call for new cycle safety assessments, to ensure that all transport projects are assessed for their impact on vulnerable road users and active travel. However, the proof of that pudding will be in the eating. We need all engineers and planners to include cycling at the design stage, not as an afterthought.

What about enforcement? Nearly half of cyclists say that it is too dangerous to cycle on the roads safely at the moment—we all listened to what the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) said about the tragic case of John Radford. We have called for the restoration of national targets to cut road deaths and serious injuries. I want to know why Ministers continue to resist that. Why do they have to be the ones dragging their feet on HGV safety in the UK and the European Union, rather than taking on board our suggestion of an HGV cycle safety charter, with industry regulation to ensure that HGVs are fitted with minimum safety features to protect cyclists? How will hiking HGV speed limits on single carriageway roads—despite the Department’s own impact assessment saying it will increase deaths—contribute to what we are talking about today?

[Dr Huppert]

The shadow Minister is making some interesting points. He has heard a lot of calls from his Back Benchers to support the “Get Britain Cycling” recommendations and commit money. Will he say now that the Labour party will include “Get Britain Cycling” in its manifesto and will he commit to spending £10 a year per person in the next Parliament if the Labour party is in government?

[Richard Burden]

What I can say to the hon. Gentleman, if he was following my drift, is that we have been absolutely clear that in order for the objectives in the “Get Britain Cycling” report to be taken forward, money has to be available and it has to be predictable and continuous. He will also know that it will be for the shadow Chancellor, just as much as it is for the Chancellor, to commit precise amounts. However, what I can give the hon. Gentleman a commitment to is continuous and predictable funding—something that simply is not in the cycling delivery plan.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I may be being a bit dim, but although I completely accept that Chancellors and shadow Chancellors set overall budgets, surely as a ministerial team with a departmental budget—my criticism of the Government is that they have not done this—it is perfectly within the powers of my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend to earmark a small proportion of the Department’s budget to reach the target. He does not require the permission of our right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor.

[Richard Burden]

The issue of providing clear, predictable and continuous funding is exactly that; it is about providing funding through a funding stream for cycling. A number of prominent people within the cycling community have put it to me that the issue of predictability and clarity is more important than whether we are talking about £8, £9, £10, £11 or £12. That is the point, and it explains what we are going to bring forward.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Richard Burden]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to make some progress, as there is a time limit.

The final thing we need to do is to ensure that the Government take the importance of education and promotion much more seriously—something that the report understands and emphasises in calling for a

“a dramatic increase in the number and diversity of people who cycle”.

For children, this means long-term support for bikeability. For women, who still make up only a quarter of Britain’s cyclists, cycle safety is a big concern. Cycling is also important for all of us who want to make our communities safer, greener and happier places in the future.

I hope that today’s delivery plan heralds a change of thinking by the Government, but I reckon we will need a lot more action to secure the kind of change we need. I suspect that it will take more than a delivery plan; it will take a change of Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

While the Highways Agency network will be dealing with our commitment to cycle-proof new road schemes, local highway authorities, local councils, or the Mayor of London and some of the other mayors around the country deliver on other schemes. We have a good track record of giving money, whether through cycling ambition grants for our cities or through local sustainable transport schemes, nearly all of which include a cycling element. We have seen local authorities deliver that, which is great. Councillor Martyn Bolt in Kirklees, for instance, is a real champion of cycling. I think that every local authority needs a cycling champion to ensure that its priorities are the priorities of the cyclist.

[Richard Burden]

If we are fortunate enough to be elected in May, it will be important for us to be aware of the content of the existing budgets and spending commitments so that we can work out our own ideas. Do the Government consider the £10 target to be an aspiration or a commitment?

[Mr Goodwill]

The word that we use is “aspiration”, but our mention of the £10 figure has put it on record that the Government intend to work towards that aspiration. Many schemes, however—one example is the cycle to work scheme—depend on company subscriptions. We depend on local authorities’ making cycling a priority, and we are keen to ensure that such decisions are made locally. We also work with rail operating companies, which often make decisions on matters such as parking at stations. We feel that our target is genuinely achievable if we work with local government and other organisations, including businesses, and I am very proud that we have put that on record.

Buckinghamshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords]

Richard Burden Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) for the way in which she introduced the Bill. She opened her remarks by saying that she was worried she was going to be the bridesmaid to the main event tonight. I do not think I would ever accuse her of that. Certainly, as regards the encyclopaedic knowledge of the British film industry that she demonstrated, she squashed any suggestions of that absolutely. I was a little worried, I have to say, when she told the House that she had spent an interesting time on the set of a James Bond film. I hope that that was instructive, but I am a little worried about what it involved. If it involved car chases, Beretta pistols or self-defence courses, I, for one, will be watching my step a little more carefully when I say anything at all about HS2 in future.

I am very pleased that, in commenting on the strength and importance of the UK film industry, the right hon. Lady took the opportunity to say a few words about Richard Attenborough, whose passing is mourned by us all. He was a giant of the UK film industry. Obviously, we on the Labour Benches had a special affection for him, given his politics, but nobody can take away the contribution he made over so many years and we will all miss him.

As the right hon. Lady has said, the Bill is pretty much identical in logic and purpose to the Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Act 2014, which we debated last November. We understand why it is important for Buckinghamshire to have clarity on rules and regulations, in order for it to be able to sustain and, indeed, to continue to attract the film industry, which, as the right hon. Lady has made clear, is a significant contributor to local jobs and the local economy. It is also a significant contributor to jobs across the country, given the national significance of the UK film industry.

The Bill enables the council to prohibit or restrict traffic on roads for the purposes of making a film. Those powers are already available to local authorities in London, Kent and Hertfordshire. Like the Hertfordshire Act, this Bill will enable the council to close roads, including, where necessary because of the weather, with only 24 hours’ notice. It aims to deal with unpredictability, which is something that obviously has to be dealt with if we are going to sustain the film industry. After Hertfordshire gained those powers, Buckinghamshire wanted to retain its competitive position as a filming location.

I understand the concerns that have been expressed today—the same concerns were expressed about the Hertfordshire Act—about the possible impact of sudden road closures on local people and, indeed, on motorists passing through the area. That is why a code of practice is important. I am pleased that one has been agreed and think it would be an excellent idea for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons. I detect no desire from anybody—certainly not from the film companies themselves, the right hon. Lady or the Opposition—to restrict anybody’s rights unnecessarily. For the film industry to survive and prosper, it needs the support and confidence of local people. It would not make sense for any company to ride roughshod over any concerns.

That is why it is important that we discuss the Bill in a measured way. It is also why the code of practice is so important, and if anything in it needs a bit of tweaking, that can be looked at—that is one of the great things about a code of practice. If we are able to do that, building on the experience in Hertfordshire and elsewhere, this Bill will be a positive contribution enabling the UK film industry in Buckinghamshire and elsewhere to go from strength to strength.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on moving the Second Reading of this private Bill, welcome the opportunity for this debate and endorse the comments that have just been made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). I am very pleased to put the Government’s position on the record, particularly as I have appeared in an Oscar-winning motion picture.

[Richard Burden]

Tell us more, please!

[Mr Goodwill]

If the hon. Gentleman watches a film called “The Iron Lady”, which is about one of the greatest ladies ever to have lived on this planet, he will see me playing the part of a Government Whip. That is about as far as my acting goes, but I am in the credits, which counts, as I understand it.

I want to make it clear from the start that the Government do not oppose the Bill, which largely replicates previous Bills such as the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2008 and the Kent County Council (Filming on Highways) Act 2010, and closely mirrors the Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Act 2014.

During the passage of the Hertfordshire Bill, we had some initial reservations about the limited procedural protection that it offered to property owners and the travelling public. However, following discussions with Hertfordshire county council, it reassured us that it will follow procedures similar to those set out in the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 when it puts film orders in place. We are grateful to Buckinghamshire county council for agreeing that, to the extent that that there are no mandatory requirements in law, it will also follow the procedures in those regulations.

My only surprise is that we have not yet had a North Yorkshire County Council (Filming on Public Highways) Bill, but I suspect that it is only a matter of time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burden Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

Yes, that is very good news for the residents of Poynton, Macclesfield and the whole of east Cheshire. The scheme to link the A6 to the Manchester airport relief road, to which the Government are contributing £165 million, will improve access to the significant employment opportunities that are being developed at the Manchester airport city enterprise zone.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Listening to the Minister, one would never guess that the National Audit Office has warned that the Government’s approach is not good enough to fix the pothole epidemic on our local roads, which is aggravating congestion; that the Local Government Association has expressed the concern that the Government’s roads policy will lead to gridlock on local roads; that bus use outside London is down, not up; or that British Cycling has expressed disappointment that the Government are not providing the leadership that is needed to get people out of their cars and to walk or cycle. This is not jam tomorrow; it is traffic jams today. Is it not time that the Minister got a grip?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman can keep a straight face as he says that. We are tripling road investment in the Highways Agency’s infrastructure. We have substantially increased the investment for local authorities to address the pothole problem. More money was announced in the Budget and following the bad weather at Christmas. This Government realise that we should be improving our infrastructure and mending our roads. It is not only the roof that the Labour party did not mend in government; it did not mend the roads either.

A47

Richard Burden Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Davies. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) on securing the debate. I understand that when he launched this phase of the A47 campaign—hon. Members have referred to a phase of the campaign; it was not started recently—he did so by driving a Union Jack Mini Cooper along the road from King’s Lynn to Great Yarmouth. It is a lovely car. It was an Oxford-built Mini, and, from a strictly parochial point of view, I remind him that it was the original Longbridge-built Mini that Autocar readers voted the best ever British car the other week. Both are great British cars. If he had been driving the old Mini, it would have said something about how long the campaign for the A47 had been going on.

Many hon. Members have spoken and they have made a powerful case. They have explained why upgrading the A47 is a regional priority not only to improve connectivity with the midlands and the north, but to boost economic growth and improve safety on the road, —an important issue. The case has also been highlighted, as hon. Members have said, by the Eastern Daily Press. I will not add to those points.

The case has been made powerfully by the A47 Alliance —an additional 9,600 jobs; an estimated £400 million gross value added a year; and enabling the area’s knowledge and research industries to grow, which hon. Members have also stressed today. This is a cross-party issue. The Labour-led Norfolk county council has also championed infrastructure improvements. Indeed, my office was talking just the other day to Labour’s Jessica Asato in Norwich.

I should like to focus on how this scheme could fit with the Government’s overall approach to infrastructure. Ministers will be trumpeting the proposed tripling of investment in the strategic road network, which is expected to be £3 billion by 2020-21, and perhaps the Minister will do so today. He has to recognise, of course, that when the Government entered office they pulled nearly £4 billion from the planned investment in our strategic roads and the Highways Agency budget for capital investment was cut from £1.6 billion in 2010-11 to just £877 million in 2013-14. Those are not my figures, but those of the National Audit Office.

Those cuts meant that a number of shovel-ready schemes were pulled, including major upgrades to the A1, A14, A19, A21 and, yes, a section of the A47 as well —not the whole scheme, admittedly, but the £26 million Blofield to Burlingham scheme, one of seven scrapped by this Government in the 2010 spending round, despite its having a cost-benefit ratio of 7:1.

Ministers now seem to have woken up to the importance of investing in infrastructure for the long term. I welcome that, but unfortunately it follows years of indecision and delay. As it stands, the Government’s national infrastructure plan is a long wish list of schemes. We may have heard about major progress being delivered in the autumn statement, but the truth is that a lot of those schemes were actually okayed by the previous Labour Government. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why just a third of the 646 projects in the most recent version of the plan will have been started by 2015—just 10% of the promised investment.

Hon. Members have talked not just about the A47 scheme’s being about unlocking the strategic road network, but about its importance in the local road network. Again, I ask the Minister to think about the fact that Norfolk county council’s integrated transport grant, which covers schemes for buses and cycling as well, has been cut by 80% since 2010-11.

Delivery of the A47 scheme is important, but I am not convinced that we are getting it. Other hon. Members made that point.

I should like to ask the Minister about the feasibility studies to tackle six of the worst road spots in the country. In April 2014, the six scope documents for these feasibility studies were finally published. Let us be clear and understand that, although these documents set out the aims and objectives for the feasibility studies and proposals regarding problems that need to be solved, they do not include plans of action. The scope documents prepare for studies that will then, presumably, be subject to further review and public consultation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) put it so eloquently last week in respect of the A1, which is in a similar position,

“What accounts for the delay between the tentative announcement of yet another study and the setting up of the study? What is left to be studied of this much-studied question?”—[Official Report, 8 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 267.]

Perhaps the Minister will explain why it has taken 10 months to draw up these initial scope documents. Will he answer the point made by the hon. Member for Broadland about whether we can be confident about what will happen by the autumn?

The total cost for undertaking the feasibility studies is projected to be £2.5 million. Can the Minister tell us what is actually being studied as being feasible or not? Are costed and timetabled plans being assessed or is something else being assessed? If it is something else, what is it?

This matter is important, because the Government also recently announced that they wish to set up a wholly owned Government company to replace the Highways Agency. That has attracted a lot of attention. The Transport Committee published a report recently saying that it was unconvinced by a number of the Government’s arguments on that. I am interested in what the Government say in response to the Committee’s criticisms and should like to ask the Minister how that relates to the issue we are discussing.

How is the Minister’s feasibility study on the A47 meant to fit in with the proposed new arm’s-length highways agency? If the feasibility studies following the scope studies, which are then going to be studied themselves, do come out in the autumn, does the Minister then expect a decision to be made on the basis of the feasibility studies before or after the proposed creation of the new wholly owned Government company, whatever it will be called? Its working title is the new GoCo.

Will a decision on the issue then bind that new arm’s-length highways agency or does the Minister expect the matter to go to that agency to be considered, perhaps even—who knows?—for it to do its own feasibility study on this project? I should like the Minister to be just a little bit clearer on how the feasibility study fits in with the timetable and decision-making terms and with the creation of his new arm’s-length highways agency.

The whole story shows the importance of long-term thinking on infrastructure. All Governments have failed to do that in different ways over the years and that must be tackled. That is precisely why Labour has asked Sir John Armitt, chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority, to consider what is needed and why it is producing plans for a national infrastructure commission to get over this and get the long-term thinking that we so desperately need into the system. Will the Minister back that proposal for a national infrastructure commission?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

The Government are considering that measure. The Scottish Government are considering a trial on the A9 north of Perth, where there are particular problems, with a view to increasing the speed limit for trucks to improve safety on the road.

I know my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) would have liked to contribute to the debate, but his ministerial duties precluded him from doing so. I am sure he would have mentioned the importance of the Acle straight and Great Yarmouth to the energy industry.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) talked about the stop-start investment in roads. I am proud that we are tripling investment in roads, and we must not forget that when the Blair Government came into power they announced a moratorium on new road building, even though they had the money to build roads. Later in that disastrous period of government, they had to cut road building because they ran out of money. When we took over, we had to make some tough decisions because of the dire financial position that we inherited. Fortunately, things are looking a lot better, which is why we are able to invest in infrastructure generally, not only in roads but in the conventional rail network and our new high-speed rail network.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the GoCo through which we will deliver many of the infrastructure projects. That is part of our long-term plan to deliver better value for money for the taxpayer. I am sure we will have opportunities to discuss that across the Dispatch Box.

[Richard Burden]

On the timetable, assuming that this idea is approved in the autumn statement, will the GoCo have a further look at the proposal, or will it have been approved at that stage? What is the timetable?

[Mr Goodwill]

The whole point of the GoCo is to get on with these jobs, not to delay them. I can allay the hon. Gentleman’s fears in that regard. Network Rail works in that way, and it does not tend to delay rail projects; it tends to deliver them efficiently.

I met a number of hon. Friends in February to discuss the updated proposals put together by the A47 Alliance in its “Gateway to Growth” prospectus. The updated prospectus is an excellent example of how a range of local and regional interests can work closely together to set out the case for future Government investment. The prospectus sets out a targeted programme of improvements to both the strategic and local road networks. It details some 19 specific schemes, with indicative costs and timings.

I will now set out how my Department will consider options for future investment. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland highlighted the issues on the A47 and the potential for those problems to be exacerbated by planned developments and growth in the region. He will know that the Government recognise those issues and the importance of transport infrastructure to supporting the economy. He will also know that we are committed to identifying and funding early solutions to the long-standing problems on the A47 corridor, initially by undertaking a feasibility study. The A47 corridor feasibility study was announced by the Secretary of State for Transport on 20 August 2013 following the spending review, and it is one of six studies on the strategic road network. On 14 January 2014 I also announced that the section of the A12 between Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft would be included within the study’s geographic scope.

It may be useful if I say a little more about the approach we are taking, as the feasibility study is the mechanism by which we will identify early solutions to the problems on the A47 corridor. The study’s aim is to identify opportunities and understand the case for future investment solutions on the A47 corridor that are deliverable, affordable and offer value for money. Although much of the work has been done previously, agreement has not been reached on the solutions. It is therefore important for us to carry out the study to ensure that we understand the priorities for the corridor and that proposals for investment demonstrate a strong and robust economic case for investment, demonstrate value for money and are deliverable. As part of the study, we have committed to engage with stakeholders to develop and agree the detailed scope of the work. My officials discussed the proposed scope of the work with stakeholders at a meeting in Norwich in late January, and they considered the views expressed before finalising and publishing the scope on 23 April. A number of my hon. Friends have also provided views on the study work’s scope and the range of possible solutions and priorities.

The study work will be conducted in stages, with the initial stage aiming to identify the current and future challenges along the corridor, taking account of local growth plans and priorities. We have built on existing evidence bases and previous study work, including the evidence collected as part of the Highways Agency’s route strategy process and evidence presented in the A47 Alliance’s “Gateway to Growth” prospectus. We are now concluding that stage of the work. We will continue to engage with stakeholders throughout the life of the study.

I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland on securing this debate. I have made it clear that the Government are committed to, and have set out plans for, large-scale improvements to our national strategic road network in the relative short term. The Government have also committed to developing a longer-term programme of investments through the route strategy process.

Through the A47 corridor feasibility study, we will work closely with local stakeholders to ensure that we consider current and future transport problems and the range of possible solutions that could address those problems. As I said, it is important that proposals for future investment are clearly supported by local stakeholders—which the presence of so many Members underlines—and that there is a clear consensus on what is required. Ultimately, any proposals for future investment need to demonstrate a strong business case and the delivery of both transport and wider economic benefits.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burden Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

No, I do not. In fact, I believe that the changes will give the public a better service. For example, if someone rings a private hire vehicle company and all its vehicles—or, perhaps, all its disabled-access vehicles—are occupied, it will be able to call on another company from across the border to fill the gap. People will get the service that they want, and I do not believe that safety will be compromised at all.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Will the Minister reflect on the fact that if his proposals are implemented, someone who gets into a minicab will not know whether it has come from the company that he or she telephoned, will not be able to assume that the person driving it is licensed to do so, and will not even be able to assume that the car itself has been passed as okay to carry passengers in his or her own town or city? Expert opinion after expert opinion has warned the Minister that all this could put passengers’ safety at risk. Why does he feel that he knows better than anyone else?

Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles

Richard Burden Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Chope, to serve under your chairmanship again. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing this important debate and other hon. Members—I counted 12—on their excellent contributions. They covered different aspects of the issue, but were united in asking why it has come forward at this time and in this way.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, we must recognise that taxis and private hire vehicles are a critical but often overlooked public service. They are vital to enable people to get from A to B early in the morning and absolutely vital late at night. They are often the only form of transport available in remote areas for people who cannot afford to run their own car. That is why it is so important that regulations covering the sector are based on the needs of passengers and why the bodies responsible for enforcing the regulations must do that with passenger safety and effectiveness in mind.

It is widely accepted, including by the Transport Committee’s comprehensive report into the sector in 2011, that the current legislation is outdated and needs reform. As this debate has shown, regulations governing taxis and private hire vehicles are complex and often contentious, so one hopes that the Department for Transport will approach reform in an inclusive, comprehensive and balanced way. As hon. Members have said—I highlight the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti)—this reform is not being carried out in that balanced and comprehensive way.

Speeches and interventions today have revealed the grave problems resulting from the attempt to sort the situation out with last-minute amendments to the Deregulation Bill. That has undermined confidence in the previous reform process—the Law Commission’s investigation. There is serious anger and concern from various stakeholders who have felt ignored or marginalised in the process. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington explained, the Government’s guidance on consultations stresses the importance of adequate time, engagement and transparency with key stakeholders in policy making. However, in this case and despite the fact that, as the Minister said, the Law Commission was already consulting before introducing these proposals, Ministers decided that informal consultation based on piecemeal reforms would be enough and that it would take 10 days—eight working days.

I hope the Minister is aware of the views of a host of organisations that have expressed concern: the National Private Hire Association, Unite, which is my union and that of other hon. Members here, the GMB, the RMT, the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers, the Licensed Private Hire Car Association, the National Taxi Association and the Local Government Association. They are not just one set of interest groups; they represent a crescendo of concern.

The Local Government Association said:

“Changes to regulations should be considered in the context of the legislation as a whole, rather than in piecemeal fashion...The failure to discuss these proposals with councils…significantly reduces the opportunity for councils to provide constructive input on the feasibility of the proposals and their potential impact.”

I will echo what my hon. Friends have asked. Given that Government guidelines say that up to 12 weeks is necessary for adequate consultation, why does the Minister believe that 10 days is adequate in this case? Why was it not made clear to stakeholders involved in the informal consultation that these measures were intended for inclusion in the Deregulation Bill? It would be helpful if the Minister clarified why the measures were not initially proposed on Second Reading of the Bill. Was there a specific reason, or was it to minimise parliamentary scrutiny and opposition?

My hon. Friends have made points about the impact of the proposals. First, changing who is eligible to drive a private hire vehicle risks increasing the number of unlicensed drivers pretending to be legitimate. We have heard from hon. Members today about the real safety risks that could accompany that. At the moment, we at least have the safeguard that only licensed drivers can drive PHVs, but the Government propose to remove that without giving councils additional enforcement powers. Currently, licensing officers have no power to stop moving vehicles, to prevent drivers from driving off or even to request a driver to reveal their identity.

The Minister will probably say, “Don’t worry. It works in London, in the capital.” As has been made clear, the situation in London is different. Since responsibility moved to Transport for London, I understand that on-street enforcement is conducted with a police presence, or the police are called on to act when necessary. We simply cannot assume that that would be the case elsewhere. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) said, the health and safety consequences are very real indeed. It is simply not good enough for the Government continually to dismiss these widespread concerns. When will the Minister recognise that additional enforcement powers are necessary if he is going down this road? If he recognises that, what should they be?

Secondly, changing licensing terms will make it even harder to monitor and take action against non-compliant drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles. The vast majority of drivers are excellent, and—pardon the pun—will go the extra mile for their passengers, but we know that things sometimes go wrong. If we need more reminders of that, we can do no better than to remember the story from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West about the 16-year-old in her constituency. If the Government introduce the proposed requirements, how will they ensure that they are effectively policed and monitored?

The Government propose to implement an extremely contentious policy to enable some subcontracting by PHV operators across different licensing districts. We have been told today by my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) about some of the problems that may arise, particularly in respect of people with disabilities. When will the Minister accept that the drafting of the clause is completely inadequate if we are to make cross-border hire work effective?

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point that I did not cover properly. Does he share my concern that, far from increasing employment opportunities, as has been suggested, the contracting-out clause, which is the most damaging, is likely to dilute and drive down earnings if drivers are subcontracted in from neighbouring areas at a lower rate? That would be bad for the taxi drivers as well.

[Richard Burden]

I am sure it would be bad for taxi and PHV drivers. The key point that the Minister must address is how the system will be policed. If we know that local authorities already have inadequate control and powers for effective policing, how can an extension of cross-border work be policed effectively?

In the light of strong and widely held concern about enforcement, the Law Commission’s July 2013 interim statement recommended that, if reforms are to be implemented, they must be underpinned by tougher powers for licensing officers, such as the ability to stop licensed vehicles, to impound PHVs and to issue fixed penalties. Those powers, if they are to work, would need to apply in respect of out-of-area vehicles to ensure that cross-border hire can be implemented safely, too. Why, therefore, have the Government not listened to the Law Commission? As the Government have said, it has had an extensive consultation process on a complex issue, including more than 3,000 written responses from across the trade, a four-month series of 84 meetings and an industry survey.

As Frances Patterson QC, the law commissioner responsible for the review, said:

“The legal framework governing the taxi and private hire trades is complex and inconsistent. The purpose of our review is to improve and simplify it, and ensure it is fit for purpose.”

Amen to that, but if Ministers are determined to plough ahead with reforms before the Law Commission has reported, was the review that they commissioned just a complete waste of time and taxpayers’ money? After continuous delays, the Law Commission’s final report and draft Bill were finally expected—we were told—in April. We now know that they will come in May, after the local and European elections, it seems—presumably because the issue is so sensitive. Is that not clear proof that the Government’s proposals are far too controversial and complex for the paltry 10-day consultation that they had in this case?

The Government are making the point—and will no doubt argue again today—that the reforms are about cutting red tape. However, as my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have made clear, far from cutting red tape, they could increase it. They will increase uncertainty and the potential danger to passengers. The Government state that the reforms will reap benefits for the trade. In light of the concerns I have raised, I want to ask the Minister this: if he really feels that, does he have a shred of evidence to back it up?

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington for giving us the opportunity to debate these issues today; sadly, the Government have not provided the House with such an opportunity so far. They have tried to rush the proposals through without adequate parliamentary or public scrutiny, as today’s debate has made abundantly clear.

Taxis and private hire vehicles are important parts of our transport system, but as we have heard, the legislation regulating them is complex and contentious. It requires close collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders if it is going to be reformed effectively. The Government’s attempts at deregulation have not only been woefully inadequate in doing that, but, as I said, they have undermined the process that they established with the Law Commission investigation. The result is a set of piecemeal proposals so poorly thought through that they threaten public safety and are set to increase bureaucracy and litigation for the trade.

I urge the Minister to reconsider these rushed reforms. If he will not do that today—and I hope he will—I assure hon. Members that when the Deregulation Bill reaches Report, Labour will move to delete new clauses 8, 9 and 10. To do otherwise would represent a complete disregard not only of the taxi and private hire vehicle sector, but—perhaps even more importantly—of the interests of the public, who rely on the sector as an important means of public transport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right. The measures that we are introducing via the Deregulation Bill will apply in England outside London and Wales. They represent the first part of a longer journey towards a deregulated trade. As I said, my hon. Friend is right. I remember in the last Parliament arguing in this very Chamber that pedicabs should be regulated and the member of the Government saying that they should not be. Perhaps there has been a change of view on regulation. I see this as the first part of a journey that my hon. Friend is right to say is likely to take longer than the lifetime of this Parliament, because of the necessary review of the Law Commission report. Let me just state this on the record. I do expect there to be more comprehensive reforms. We have asked the Law Commission to undertake extensive consultation, and it has done that. I referred earlier to the more than 3,000 responses that there have been already. It is worth stating on the record that each of the measures that we propose we have already discussed in detail with the Law Commission.

[Richard Burden]

If I am reading the Minister correctly, he is saying, “Why hang around if there are simple things you can do now?” In that case, may I put to him one of the proposed changes, which is removal of the requirement for annual licensing? We know—we heard this from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling)—that a number of drivers do not always do what they should do, which is to report criminal convictions, bans and so on. The Institute of Licensing has said that if we move away from annual licensing and the licence period is

“extended to 3 years…a great many unsuitable and potentially dangerous persons would remain licensed for longer.”

That surely is not something simple and uncontentious. It requires rather more scrutiny than the Government are giving us today.

[Stephen Hammond]

The whole issue about people who choose to put their licence at risk is about enforcement. I will come on to that direct point in a moment, but I want to set out exactly what these three measures are designed to do. We want to work with private hire operators to help businesses to flourish and grow; we want to make life easier for passengers; and we certainly want to ensure that safety is at the forefront of all that is being done. Private hire operators have said that the existing restriction on sub-contracting such that people can subcontract only to operators based in the same district is frustrating for many of them and artificial. It means that often they have to tell passengers that they cannot take their booking.

Allowing private hire operators to subcontract to operators licensed in a different district is a simple change. It will have a huge impact on the ability of operators to meet passenger needs and to grow their businesses, and it should help to make the passenger’s experience much more convenient. In short, it is a liberating measure. It will allow the private hire trade to operate in the way that it sees fit, not just in the way that the current legislation dictates.

There has been some talk about accountability. It is absolutely clear that there is no compromise to the liability in respect of passengers. The Bill makes it absolutely clear that the onus is on the original operator, who accepts the booking and subsequently passes it on, to retain liability for the satisfactory completion of that journey. It is also clear there is a duty on the operator who takes the booking to keep a full record and to report the full record of that journey.

The second measure proposed in the amendments to the Deregulation Bill will save the private hire trade many thousands of pounds. At the moment, private hire vehicles can only ever be driven by a licensed private hire driver. That creates a substantial burden for the trade, as in many cases people have to buy a second car for family members to drive. That is an unacceptable restriction, particularly in the current economic climate. It came about only because of an unexpected interpretation of the law in a legal judgment back in 1997. At a stroke, that meant that thousands of families had to buy a second car in order to remain within the law. That is a burden too far and one that is ideal for reform using the Deregulation Bill. Therefore, we propose to change the law so that any person with the appropriate driver’s licence and insurance can drive a private hire vehicle when it is off-duty—when it is not in use in connection with a hiring for the purpose of carrying a passenger and not immediately available to an operator to carry out a booking. In that way, private hire vehicle owners and their families stand to make substantial savings.

There is a precedent for the change that we are introducing The judgment was made in 1997. Parliament took account of that judgment when framing the much newer legislation governing private hire vehicles in London. The Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 allows a person who does not hold a private hire driver’s licence to drive a licensed private hire vehicle while it is off duty.

Quite rightly, some concerns have been expressed about safety and the effective enforcement of the measure. That is why in the clause that introduces it, we introduce a reverse burden of proof. If a driver without a private hire vehicle driver’s licence is caught driving a private hire vehicle with a passenger, the clause puts the onus on that person to show that the vehicle was not being used as a hire vehicle at the time when it was being driven. That reverse burden of proof will make things substantially easier for enforcement officers and overcome a number of the concerns about enforcement that are being raised. Of course, in most cases, it will be abundantly clear in a matter of seconds that the passenger is in the vehicle as part of the general domestic use. It will also become apparent very quickly if the driver’s sole reason for being in the vehicle is to undertake private hire work. It seems absolutely reasonable to put the burden of proof on the driver to show that they are not driving for private hire purposes. That reverse burden of proof is significant and it enhances the enforcement powers. If people consider it carefully, they will see that that safeguard goes a long way towards meeting the concerns about safety and enforcement.

The third measure relates to taxi and private hire vehicle driver and operator licence durations. Again, there has been much talk about cost, but there are also savings. This measure will save about £9 million for the trade, as well as a great deal of administrative hassle. At present, the law allows local authorities to grant taxi and private hire vehicle driver’s licences for a maximum of three years. However, far too many authorities are opting for shorter periods. Therefore, three years will be the standard duration for all taxi and private hire vehicle drivers. That seems to me to be a perfectly sensible standard to move to.

I appreciate that some concerns have been expressed about adverse safety implications from allowing drivers to have a licence for three years. The safety of the general public is of course paramount. The licensing system, though, should be proportionate. It should recognise that where there is a requirement, there is also a cost. It is a question of striking a balance. As the hon. Member for Wansbeck said, 99.9% of drivers are safe and responsible. The licensing of those drivers should be proportionate.

I hope that in the few minutes available to me I have been able to demonstrate that the Government have considered the measures carefully. They are pragmatic amendments to the Deregulation Bill. They will allow substantial scrutiny in Committee and will reduce the burdens on the taxi and private hire trade. They are effective and safe steps along the longer deregulatory journey.

Local Authority Parking Enforcement

Richard Burden Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell.

I add my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and her Committee for the important and detailed report that we are discussing. It is also excellent to see my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) in the Chamber. I was sorry to hear that in the report his party affiliation was spelt with a small “l”. However, whether he was listed as “Labour” or “labour”, he was an ’ell of a Minister and an ’ell of a shadow Minister as well. I thank him for his comments.

I hope that the Minister will not only answer the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, but take up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse—in particular about out-of-hours deliveries, which give rise to important parking issues and issues for other road users, such as pedestrians. Those issues could be important for future cycling strategies and the promotion of cycling safety.

I welcome the opportunity to add my comments on the report, which covers a whole range of areas, from the vitality of our high streets to the confusion all too often caused by parking signage. I also have the chance to explode some of the myths about parking that are circulating and to put the debate on to a more rational basis. It is a little surprising and disturbing to see the high levels at which some of those myths are being promulgated.

Parking issues are raised with me, as a constituency MP, again and again—I am sure I am not alone in that—and the Chair of the Select Committee made the point that parking is a matter of great importance to the public. It might not get the headlines that High Speed 2, airports or rail fares get, but it is important none the less, because getting it right is about achieving the incredibly difficult objective of a simpler and more streamlined door-to-door journey. Get parking wrong and we block people from reaching their destination, causing inconvenience to an awful lot of other people as well; get it right and we enable people to get better access to employment, leisure and high streets, quickly and conveniently.

As the Committee has established, parking is a local issue. If it is going to work, it needs to be fully integrated into local authority transport policy, alongside action on public transport. We expect councils to take responsible and common-sense approaches to parking enforcement. As the Committee reported, that means balancing a number of objectives—improving safety, tackling congestion, improving the environment and managing local traffic—and getting that right is a big challenge, particularly in the UK, a country with one of the highest population densities in the world where local traffic is predicted to increase by more than 40% by 2042. We want safe and sustainable towns and cities, and ones that can support economic growth and be enjoyable places to visit and be part of.

I welcome the Committee’s recommendation that we should leverage local knowledge and expertise to ensure that parking provision meets specific requirements. That means bringing businesses, community groups and residents around the table to find the solutions appropriate for different areas. I want to ask the Minister about the Select Committee’s innovative proposals to ensure that local parking delivers for communities. The report has come out, the recommendations are there and the response has come back, so will the Minister confirm today what policies the Department will adopt in practice to make progress? While he is answering that, perhaps he will also comment on whether the Government will consider the provision of any business rate relief for businesses that invest in affordable town centre parking solutions.

We need not only to ensure that local responsibility is underpinned by clear Government leadership, but to interrogate things a little more. How far is that leadership in place at the moment? The Government talk a lot about localism, but in reality Ministers have all too often devolved responsibility for traffic, road safety and parking policy to councils while depriving them of the resources with which to do those jobs effectively. Local authority budgets have been cut by 40% since 2010 and many councils are struggling to deal with competing transport priorities. The Committee’s call for better national oversight on parking is therefore important.

The report called for strengthened statutory guidance, to clarify and support councils in their parking powers and practice as a priority. As has been said, that might include a national five-minute grace period, which already exists in some local authorities, to underpin a common-sense approach; providing greater support to councils on how they can use parking policy to cut congestion, improve road safety and support growth; promoting best practice and innovative solutions, looking at how initiatives such as the workplace parking levy in Nottingham work; and annual local authority parking reports to improve transparency.

Raising revenue from parking is unlawful, but in reality fewer than one in five councils makes surplus income from parking, and that is not from fines, but from on-street parking. As the Committee pointed out, however, the “cash cow” perception remains, even if that does not reflect the reality. We need clear and accessible reports to clear up the myth and ensure that people have a balanced view of what is and is not going on. The Government have agreed that better oversight is needed and they made multiple references to the revision of statutory guidance in their response to the Committee. Given that that was a priority in the Committee’s report, when are we going to get the statutory guidance?

In addition to recommending increased clarity for local authorities, the report rightly underlines the need to make parking simpler for road users. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside said, most people do not intend to break the law, but all too often they are fined because mistakes have been made, and those mistakes might come about because of poor and confusing signage. The Committee was right to call for clarity on the patchwork of pavement parking rules throughout the country, which are confusing for motorists and often dangerous for vulnerable road users. The Committee also urged clarity on the rules for loading and unloading by haulage firms—what my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse said on that was important—and action to rectify persistent problems with poor signage.

We are all anticipating the Government’s review of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, but what my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse said about the timing of that struck a chord with me. I want to know what “in the spring” means. I have become a little sceptical about the Government’s seasonal promises. At the end of 2012, we were told that a Green Paper on young drivers could be expected in the spring, then in the summer and then before Christmas, but now it does not look as if we will get it before the next general election. Given that fiasco, I hope the Minister will tell us what “the spring” means and whether the review will be produced.

It would be good if the Minister provided us with an expected publication date and set out how a review that plans to increase local variation will ensure national consistency as well. Will he also tell us what action the Government intend to take to make the pavement parking rules clearer than at present? We support innovation and local authority flexibility, but the fact remains that, if it is going to work, parking policy must be developed with the road user in mind, and in a way that road users can understand.

Sadly, to put it bluntly, under this Government we are not getting a coherent response from Ministers. In fact, I think there is a bit of a mess. I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to freeze the maximum penalty charge—households are struggling with the rising cost of living and it is obviously not good if they are hit hard by charges as well. But I find it difficult to reconcile what the Government are saying now with what they said just three months before the announcement of the freeze, when the former Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), was proposing to hike parking charges. There does not seem to be great continuity in the Government’s message.

I raise that issue because we are seeing another example of ministerial confusion today, about proposals to ban CCTV for parking enforcement. The Transport Committee pointed out that we need clarity on how cameras are and should be used, as CCTV should be used only where safety and congestion are major issues—for example, around schools, bus stops and pedestrian crossings—and where traditional parking enforcement is difficult. But the move to ban CCTV, if that is indeed what the Government are suggesting, has been opposed by pretty much every single group I have met, including road safety campaigners, local freight groups, bus operators, parking associations and the cross-party Local Government Association.

I have yet to see any evidence base for such a ban. I am prepared to consider it if I see the evidence, but I have not seen any. Ministers have no idea how much revenue councils make from CCTV parking enforcement charges and apparently will not even make an estimate. Given that, we might think it is not a significant problem. If the ban on CCTV goes ahead, however, it could have serious consequences. First, it could have financial consequences. More than 75 councils have made substantial investment in the technology. Mobile CCTV cars cost between £50,000 and £60,000 each, and in a context of slashed council budgets that is a significant sum.

More important than the cost, as many Members have said in the past few months, is the impact the ban could have on road safety. As far as I can tell, CCTV cameras have proved pretty effective in improving safety in high-risk places, such as around schools. To give an example, in Oldham, an 11-year-old girl who was nearly hit by a car outside her school in 2012 campaigned to secure what is called Oscar—the Oldham safety car—a CCTV vehicle that has reduced the number of injuries near schools and improved safety awareness. CCTV for school parking is popular with families. A recent survey showed that 80% of parents in Bromley support its use in those sorts of circumstances. We share the concerns of parents about a policy that could have an impact on the safety of children.

I am therefore shocked that the Government seem prepared to ban CCTV without any economic or safety assessment at all—if indeed that is what they are going to do—and would like the Minister to clarify the following points. First, are the Government proposing to ban CCTV? If they are, what is the evidence on which the proposal will be based, because anecdotes are simply not sufficient? Why will the Government not produce a regulatory impact assessment for the policy? What estimate has the Minister made of the financial support that will need to be given to councils to cover abortive car projects and fund more on-street enforcement? What impact will that have on departmental spending? If the ban on CCTV for civil parking enforcement goes ahead, will primary legislation be required?

Those are genuine questions. Something tells me that they are probably being asked by the Department for Transport as well; it would not surprise me to find that the Minister has been asking one or two questions along those lines himself. There is a rumour abroad that the policy is a bit Pickled. If it is, the sooner we get some clarity on it, the better. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr Pickles)—just to bring him in—has been saying that he wants to give our nation’s high streets a boost, but if that is how he wants to do it, I can think of ways that would be a lot more effective.

How about backing Labour’s pledge to cut business rates for small companies, for example, or creating a British investment bank that has a duty to lend to small and medium-sized enterprises? How about acting on calls from organisations such as Living Streets, which found that supporting high streets actually requires making public spaces more attractive and more accessible, rather than simply providing free parking?

Good traffic and parking management are vital for creating accessible and attractive town centres that can thrive. How will banning the use of technologies such as CCTV achieve that? If I am right in saying that the Department for Transport is not happy and that pressure from another Department is influencing policy on the issue, will the Minister explain why he and his Department are letting another Department dictate transport policy?

There are clearly important issues about parking that need to be addressed. The Transport Committee’s report contains excellent recommendations, and there is consensus across the House on the need for transparency and common sense in local parking policy, underpinned by strong leadership from Government. Sadly, it looks as though Ministers are wasting a lot of time on a bizarre policy to ban CCTV that has no evidence base but does have potentially damaging consequences. It would be better, to be honest, if they were to produce clear time scales and action plans to back up their response to the recommendations in the Select Committee’s report.

I hope that the concerns and issues raised today—principally those raised by the Select Committee, but also those I have raised—will encourage the Minister to think again on the issue of CCTV and start a constructive dialogue on the future of parking in the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burden Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has met the Minister responsible for roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), to make that point, which has been made to me, too, by other people in Eastbourne. However, there is some controversy, not least because the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) has a different view on the matter.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Traffic jams cost UK motorists 30 hours each last year and were often made worse by a £10 billion backlog in the road repair programme. As local road maintenance was cut by nearly a sixth between 2010 and 2013, is the Secretary of State surprised that the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday of a pothole challenge competition hardly has many motorists shouting “bingo” today?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman makes such a point, because I do not know whether he can get the shadow Chancellor to commit to investments such as those we are putting into this country’s road infrastructure. As I understand it, he is not allowed to make any commitments whatsoever. I am very glad not only that the Chancellor yesterday announced an extra £200 million to invest in our roads but that later today I will announce the allocation of the £140 million that I announced a few weeks ago to all local authorities. I hope that they will use the £140 million along with the £200 million announced yesterday to make significant improvements to our roads.

Severn Bridges (Tolling)

Richard Burden Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on securing this important debate, which will now always be known as the Roy Hughes memorial debate. I also congratulate the no fewer than eight hon. Members who have participated either through interventions or speeches. In the last speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) even treated us to some Harri Webb poetry.

The Severn crossings clearly concern hon. Members on both sides of the House because they are an important transport link between England and Wales that play a vital role for businesses and the economy, that help people to keep in touch with friends and family and that keep our two countries connected. It is therefore unfortunate that the cost and experience of using the crossings have been a source of frustration for so long.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East has raised the Severn crossings previously. For many years she has been pressing for reform of what, in her previous debate in 2010, she called an “expensive, inconvenient and inflexible” system. The issues that she has raised today are very much the same.

I will say something about England later in my speech, but the crossings are a key link in the transport and economic infrastructure of Wales, and they are essential to the Welsh economy and its ability to grow. Approximately 25 million vehicles use the crossings each year. Obviously, nobody wants to pay tolls, but the benefits of the crossings are clear and include increased access to markets, suppliers and consumers, and quicker journey times. It is important, however, that the toll price reflects a fair balance between the cost of better infrastructure and the benefits to the people who use it. This debate has made it clear that the cost of the Severn crossings does not appear to be fair, and it has not appeared to be fair for some time. Road users who rely on the crossings have been hit hard by annual increases and, as my hon. Friend said, an inflexible and old-fashioned payment system.

There is an impact on people. First, the tolls are the highest of any crossing on the strategic road network. As we have heard, the current prices are £6.40 for a car, £12.80 for a light goods vehicle and £19.20 for a heavy goods vehicle. On the Humber bridge, the toll for a car is just £1.50 and the toll for an HGV is £12.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that the toll is free in the other direction on the Severn crossings, so the prices are not comparable in that respect.

[Richard Burden]

If we do the sums, the point is still made. Whether or not the toll is free one way, the price is clearly still higher. Those amounts are not theoretical. We are living through the worst cost-of-living crisis in a generation and they hit people hard. A lot of attention has been paid to energy costs, fuel bills, food bills and so on, but the cost of transport is a large chunk of people’s household budgets. That has been made worse for domestic users of private motor cars because they have also been hit by the VAT increase to 20%, which has hit the price of fuel, too.

It would be lovely to say that the tolls should just be scrapped, but, as we have heard, that is not necessarily practical. There is a strong case, however, for considering whether there is a way to make the tolls fairer. It is possible to consider a cap on annual increases, which is a model we use for other modes of transport. There might be a way to take regular and local users into account, for which there are precedents. From March 2014, local people eligible for the resident discount on the Dartford crossing will be able to make unlimited trips over the crossing for just £20 a year, thereby ensuring that that toll on the strategic road network does not hinder local mobility.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point on the local discount, and my constituents have raised the Dartford issue. The Minister might want to address what “local” means. My understanding is that, for the Dartford crossing, it is a very local and tightly drawn boundary. If we had something like that on the Severn crossings, would “local” include my constituents? Would it include some of my constituents and some of the constituents of the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden)? How widely would the boundary be drawn? My view is that if we are to have such a boundary, the right people to make the decision would be the UK Government, who could take into account both sides of the national boundary, rather than just the Welsh side.

[Richard Burden]

I will address the UK Government and the Welsh Government in a while, but the substance of the hon. Gentleman’s point is correct. Working out the meaning of “local” is complex. I am simply saying that the Government should not close the door. They should consider it and see what is feasible, and they need to do so relatively quickly because decisions have to be made in the near future. The situation has gone on long enough.

[Jessica Morden]

That is the point. We do not know whether the Government are even considering the measure. We want clarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

My hon. Friend makes her point well.

I have principally referred to the impact on private transport and cars, but the tolls also significantly affect local businesses. We have heard that many believe the cost of the crossings to be a tax either on Wales or on people trading with Wales that restricts economic activity between our two countries. Even if that is only a perception, it is a problem for confidence. As we have all said, the crossings are undoubtedly an essential link between our two economies, so it is fair to welcome the Welsh Assembly’s analysis of tolling, which provides important evidence on the economic impacts of the Severn tolls. The picture is complex, as has just been underlined by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), but the research shows that the tolls have a severe impact on small businesses, particularly those operating in the transport and logistics sectors across the border. My hon. Friend puts the figure for some businesses at up to £250,000 a year, which is a major burden on a small business. Indeed, it is a pretty significant burden on a business that is not small, too.

There is also an impact on tourism, particularly on those making short trips. When asked if they would expect to make more trips to Wales by car if the Severn tolls were removed, apparently 22% of people surveyed in south-west England said that, yes, they would visit Wales more often in the next year, which is a significant statistic.

In light of those serious concerns for small businesses, tourism and wider economic growth, we would all appreciate the Minister’s assessment of the social and economic impact of the Severn crossings. Also, we would all appreciate knowing the Government’s response to the evidence produced by the Welsh Assembly, which provides food for thought and, hopefully, food for Government action.

I have mainly referred to Wales, and the Severn tolls are not just an issue for south Wales. They are a whole of Wales issue that affects tourism and businesses across the country. The crossings also affect England, particularly south-west England, and businesses and people travelling from further afield. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Forest of Dean made his point on that today. The issue is important and has been raised with me by Steve Parry-Hearn, who, as the Labour candidate for the Forest of Dean, is after the hon. Gentleman’s job. Mr Parry-Hearn has clearly outlined to me the impact of tolls on people in that area. Small and medium-sized enterprises are hit hard by the cost of the crossing, either directly from the tolls or indirectly from increased traffic as operators attempt to avoid bridge tolls by using other roads. He is campaigning against the level of the charges, which he says are having a

“detrimental impact on the lives of working families, businesses and on tourism across the Forest of Dean.”

My hon. Friend for Newport East referred to a protest on the Severn bridge at the weekend, coinciding with St David’s day, which showed the level of local anger. I must admit that I was not aware until today of the particular attire worn on that protest. I hope the Minister listens to those voices and considers discounts for regular business use or some kind of flexible pricing structure. Off-peak pricing for businesses has been suggested, which could provide an economic boost, cut congestion and mitigate the environmental impacts of heavy traffic at rush hours. These things are complex, but I would appreciate the Minister indicating whether he is prepared to consider such options.

We have heard that it is not only the costs of the crossing that are such a big issue, but the lack of convenience. There is no doubt that the Severn crossing has provided a poor service to users. It is absolutely astonishing that a modern card payment system was not introduced until 2011. I note the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) in his previous role as Transport Minister in helping to make that finally happen. It was overdue. Even with that, the Severn crossings are still playing catch up. I understand that the system still requires road users to enter their PIN number into a handheld device, which takes time. That means that cash is still encouraged for quicker transit.

The technology exists for easier and more convenient methods. Remote payments are a possibility and free-flow technology is set to be implemented at the Dartford crossing later this year. Will the Minister confirm the Government’s plans for further modernising payment and usage at the Severn crossing? Can some kind of free-flow technology option be considered? Will he consider the recommendations of the recent Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency review, which called for the agency in Swansea to become a digital centre of excellence? That could be a real opportunity to make online payments and improved digital services a reality on the Severn.

On questions for the future, “What next?” will be important for whichever Government is in power after 2015. I have talked about reforms to price and payment that could bring big benefits for users, but those do not on their own fundamentally address the main point, which is that the concession will soon end. I understand that the estimated end date has slipped again, because of the VAT rise and the costs of introducing card payment. When the date finally does arrive, the crossing will revert to the control of the Secretary of State and into public ownership. The annual cost of maintaining and operating the toll will only be a fraction—20%, I understand—of the current net revenue made from the crossing, which was estimated to be £87 million in 2012-13.

As we have heard, the Government will be left with an estimated debt of some £88 million due to extra operating and maintenance costs. My hon. Friend has asked a perfectly reasonable question. As well as confirmation of that figure of £88 million, it would be useful to have a breakdown of it. That would inform decisions about what is fair for the future. In the fairly near future, a decision must be made about how the debt will be recovered and about future toll charges. That is why it is important that the Government work in partnership with the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly to sort these things out. They should also work with Severn Crossings plc, while it is the concessionaire, to prepare for that without losing much more time.

Last week, the Department for Transport launched a consultation to simplify the procedures for toll increases at local statutory tolled bridges, tunnels, lifts and crossings. If the Minister is considering how best to regulate the price of tolls across the UK, will he set out a clear strategy for the future of the Severn tolls at the same time? The consultation creates an opportunity to do that, and I hope he will seize it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

If the hon. Lady looks into it in more detail, she will find that the Humber bridge review in 2011 found that the Humber bridge had a unique burden of interest in relation to its original cost of construction more than 30 years ago. Although the bridge cost only £98 million to construct, rolled-up unpaid interest meant that the bridge debt had grown to £439 million by 1992. Such unique circumstances justified the Government writing off £150 million of the £332 million owed to them by the Humber bridge board. I hope that provides some context. Some Members might even remember Barbara Castle announcing the construction of the bridge at a by-election in Hull.

At the end of the concession, the Severn crossings will revert to public ownership. The Government will need to continue tolling to recover the costs that they have incurred falling outside the concession agreement. The Department’s latest estimate is that they will be £88 million at the projected end of the concession in 2018, and it will take one to two years to recover that money. Once in public ownership, VAT will no longer be payable on the tolls.

My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) raised various issues. I can confirm that the bridges are indeed a UK asset for the benefit of all UK road users and taxpayers. Much has been said about the Treasury or the Government benefiting from this, but I humbly suggest that it is taxpayers who benefit, and the debt that we have inherited from the previous Government can be reduced by the tolls.

My hon. Friend spoke about maintenance of the bridge, which is of paramount importance. I am well aware of the issue with the cable on the old bridge, which I am pleased to say has now been stabilised, but the toll income already pays for maintenance. On his other point about a new bridge upstream, which would avoid a 33-mile round trip via the M48, there are precedents around the country. There is the Merseylink toll, although those bridges are slightly closer together, and many consider that a new lower Thames crossing could incorporate the existing tolls from the Dartford crossing to make it affordable.

[Richard Burden]

On the £88 million, I am pleased the Minister has clarified that that is the estimated figure. However, might we have a breakdown of how that is made up? What is the debt that is estimated to remain?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am more than happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with that information.

In conclusion, no decisions have been made regarding the operation and tolling arrangements for the crossings once the current regime ends. However, the Government have been clear that any future arrangements will need to make proper provision for repayment of Government costs and future maintenance, and reflect the needs of road users in England and Wales. I suspect that this is something that various political parties may visit when they write their election manifestos, although there is nothing to stop the hon. Gentleman making an announcement today about what a Labour Government—were we to get such a Government after the election—would do at the end of the concession, or at the end of the period when the tolls are paid off.

The Government are committed to the successful operation of such vital crossings. They have provided a huge benefit to the Welsh and English economies through quicker access to places and markets. As the concession draws to an end, the Department will work with key stakeholders, including the Welsh Government, affected local authorities, business representatives, the Welsh Affairs Committee, and other interested parties.