Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Burden and Andrew Jones

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

The new Azuma trains entered service on the Hull and Leeds routes in May this year. We will launch Edinburgh services on 1 August and they will be reaching destinations north of Edinburgh by the end of this year.

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

Does the Secretary of State share my concern that in response to a survey by the Guide Dogs charity, 42% of assistance dog owners reported being refused access to taxis and minicabs because of their dogs. What is he going to do in practice to ensure that all drivers of taxis and minicabs receive disability equality training?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Burden and Andrew Jones

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

The Department monitors performance on a daily basis, and there is a range of actions that we can take when performance falls below agreed levels. I understand that performance on the Redhill to Tonbridge line has been impacted by various things, including speed restrictions, but I am able to tell my hon. Friend that performance on the line has been much improved since the start of the year, with 90% of services now arriving within five minutes of schedule.

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

After awarding the contract to Seaborne Freight, the Secretary of State boasted to the House that he was backing a British start-up. I tabled a written question to his Department asking whether it was his working assumption that any ships operated by Seaborne would operate under the British flag. Why were his Ministers, in the answer I received on 14 January, unable to give a straight yes or no answer?

Car Insurance: Young People

Debate between Richard Burden and Andrew Jones

Monday 20th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for opening this debate on the important subject of the cost of car insurance for young people. I also thank all hon. Members for the very good debate we have had this afternoon.

I reassure hon. Members that we take the cost of car insurance for young people—indeed, for all motorists—very seriously. Ultimately, the issue is about road safety and recognising that many people lose their lives or are seriously injured on our roads each year and that behind each statistic there is a shattered life and a shattered family. This is not just about numbers, but about people.

I congratulate the original petitioner, Rhys Michael Parker, who described his own experience of finding motor insurance costly to obtain as a novice driver. I recognise that, like Mr Parker, many young people use their cars to access work, education, caring responsibilities or even just the fun of social activities.

I remember receiving my driving licence—that moment might be 33 years ago to the week for my hon. Friend, but it is almost 36 years ago to the week for me; I took a moment to work that out. Getting a driving licence is a fantastic moment of opportunity in someone’s life and that is why we are committed to bearing down on the cost of car insurance for young drivers. In order to do so, the Government have identified the root causes of high insurance premiums and they are addressing them, as I will discuss.

The first root cause is the alarming rate at which fraudulent, minor and exaggerated whiplash claims have increased in the UK. The scale of the problem is highlighted by the fact that 90% of recent personal injury claims relating to road traffic collisions were labelled as whiplash or soft tissue injuries to the neck and back. The magnitude of costs that insurers inherit from whiplash claims are then often passed on to their consumers through higher insurance premiums. To tackle the issue, we recently introduced the Prisons and Courts Bill to Parliament; it is having its Second Reading today and includes measures to cut fraudulent, minor and exaggerated whiplash claims. That will generate estimated savings to insurers of around £1 billion per year. In this debate, colleagues have said that savings are not always passed on. We expect insurers to fully pass those savings on to motorists through lower premiums. The point was well made by colleagues. I am pleased to inform the House that three leading insurers have already committed to do that.

I would now like to address another of the root causes: the high levels of risk associated with younger drivers. Colleagues have highlighted the well-known fact that younger drivers are over-represented in road collisions. Car drivers aged 17 to 24 are four times more likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with drivers aged 25 or over. That is a terrible statistic and we should not in any way be complacent about it. Higher levels of risk associated with younger drivers have resulted in higher insurance premiums. While we do have some of the safest roads in the world in the UK, we are determined to make them safer; addressing the cost of car insurance is one additional factor spurring everybody on.

I have been asked about a Green Paper, but frankly it has been overtaken by events. We have no intention of publishing a Green Paper because we published the British road safety statement in December 2015. It included proposals aimed at younger drivers—indeed, all drivers—for making our roads safer, such as improving the safety of young and novice drivers both before and after they take their test. It includes our intention to commission a £2 million research programme to test the effectiveness of a range of technological solutions and educational and behavioural measures, including telematics, to improve the safety of young and novice drivers. Those interventions will be designed with careful consideration of behavioural change.

It might be helpful if I explain a bit more about how telematics policies work and play an important role in helping young drivers to access lower insurance premiums. Telematics is a key part of the future and I strongly support the expansion of telematics products in the marketplace. Telematics devices allow information on driving styles and behaviours—such as speed, braking, acceleration and where and when the vehicle is being driven—to be monitored and considered alongside the traditional risk factors that insurance companies consider, such as the driver’s age, to set premiums that are more tailored to the risk of the driver than traditional motor insurance policies.

We are seeing an increasing take-up of telematics. The technology is increasingly being chosen by young drivers as a way of ensuring that their premiums are lower. In March 2016, the British Insurance Brokers’ Association reported that there were 455,000 live telematics policies in the UK—up 40% in just two years. However, that needs to be put into the context of how many policies there are in the marketplace to show how much progress we need to make to encourage their wider use. We are not in any way complacent, but I recognise that young people benefit from telematics.

A number of organisations have lobbied me about the insurance premium tax rate exemption for young drivers with telematics policies. It is important to stress that IPT is a tax on the insurer, and there is no guarantee that it will be passed on to the customer. I also have to say that taxation is a matter for Treasury colleagues.

We are focusing our efforts on a number of other measures to ensure that younger people are fit and safe to drive. We encourage learners to do more on-road, pre-test practice and to practise in a wider range of conditions. As has been mentioned, we have recently consulted on allowing learner drivers on to motorways—with an approved driving instructor, of course—and we are analysing the results. That is very important given that people can go along at a low speed and then suddenly encounter what can be very difficult driving conditions. It can be pretty scary, although it is worth noting that the strategic road network in this country is the safest it has ever been.

We are ensuring that driving tests assess the skills needed for safe, independent driving and are raising standards across the driver and rider training industries. Importantly, we are looking at changing driving tests, which evolve continually. We have been trialling more free-flow driving and using fewer set pieces. Notwithstanding the parking issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) mentioned, we are looking to remove some set pieces so that people have more understanding and experience of free-flow driving and are more road-savvy. That will include taking instructions from a sat-nav during the test. We are trying to make the test more reactive to current technology and the benefits that it can bring.

We are also looking to identify innovative applications, such as augmented and virtual reality, to improve drivers’ hazard perception—that is, the skills required to correctly assess a situation. That could mean using technology from the games industry to complement the existing on-road practice and the testing regime. We are always looking at finding ways to get people better prepared for the marvellous freedom ticket that is their licence.

[Richard Burden]

I agree that looking at ways in which the test can evolve and exposing the person taking the test to the greater range of experiences that they face when driving are important. However, could I take the Minister back to graduated licensing? A focus of the call for a Green Paper was that the pros and cons of graduated licensing need to be weighed up and a decision made. If the Minister has turned his face against the idea of a Green Paper, does that mean that the Government have completely rejected the possibility of looking at graduated driving licences, or are they still prepared to look at it, but want to do it differently?

[Andrew Jones]

We have been considering the idea of graduated driving licences but I am not inclined to support them, because we want to strike the right balance in respect of freedom for young drivers. As we have discussed, many people need their vehicles, particularly in rural areas; rather than imposing post-test restrictions on novice drivers, our efforts are all about improving driver training and testing so that people are better able to benefit from a driving licence.

I am not looking to introduce a graduated driving licence system in the UK. We have heard from colleagues how that might impact on people who live in darkness for part of the year as they perhaps seek to get to shift work early. All those factors have impacted on and led to our decision not to go down the route of a graduated driving licence.

Road Traffic Law Enforcement

Debate between Richard Burden and Andrew Jones

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes, I think for the first time. I cannot claim to be a West Ham supporter—I very much hope you will forgive me for that.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

You should claim to not be a West Ham supporter.

[Richard Burden]

I will not rise to the Minister’s bait, even though he tempts me to do so. I congratulate the Transport Committee and its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), on securing this debate and on considering the Government’s road safety strategy and, in particular, the issue of enforcement. I thank the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) for their important contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend’s contribution was remarkable. As he observed, he managed—according to the annunciator—to achieve omnipresence, being here in Westminster Hall and speaking in the Chamber simultaneously.

This is a really important report. We all know—it has been mentioned several times in the debate—that the UK has a proud road safety record. At least, it had one for almost two decades, when deaths and serious injuries fell sharply, but the worrying reality is that since 2010 that progress has stalled. The latest rolling figures show that there has been no reduction in total road deaths and a 2% increase in serious casualties in the past 12 months. Meanwhile, even though a great deal was achieved over those decades, drinking and driving-related casualties have been effectively stuck at about 240 a year since 2010.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, and all hon. Members who spoke, drew attention to the situation regarding mobile phone use at the wheel. I know that at the end of last year the Government introduced more stringent measures on mobile phone use, which are welcome. However, is that really enough when the RAC’s latest report on motoring estimates that almost one in three drivers still thinks it is okay to check their phone while at the wheel? In the way that it was made socially unacceptable to ignore having seatbelts in a car or to drink and drive, we must use every tool at our disposal to change the culture of drivers using mobile phones at the wheel.

Personally, like my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse, I do not doubt the Government’s sincerity on road safety. However, the reality of their record has been one of disappointment in recent years. They are failing on their manifesto commitment to reduce casualties year on year. Some important causes of that failure have already been alluded to. The first, which my hon. Friend was right to mention, concerns road safety targets. They were introduced under Labour, and I have no doubt that they successfully reduced the number of KSIs—those killed or seriously injured. The reduction was about a third. Road safety targets focused minds and attention, and I still do not see the reason and logic behind the Government’s persistent refusal to bring them back. As my hon. Friend mentioned, why, when we support international targets at the UN and European level, do we still reject them as far as our own country is concerned?

We also need to think about whether the Government’s 2015 road safety statement was really up to the mark. I do not think it was. There was no clear statement of resources or guidance for local authorities, and there were no objective measures to improve young drivers’ safety. Throughout virtually all of the last Parliament we were eagerly awaiting a Green Paper on young drivers that never materialised. It was going to be published “next year”, then “at Christmas” and then “shortly”, but then it never came at all. The 2015 statement also had no mention of the “Vision Zero” goal that other countries have adopted—the goal of eliminating deaths as part of a safe systems approach to road safety. As for measures to protect vulnerable road users, we are still waiting for the fully funded cycling and walking strategy that the Government have been promising “shortly”—in their word—for quite an extraordinary length of time.

The fact is that the Government’s approach on this issue has been piecemeal and limited in effect. Central to that failure is the title of today’s debate and the key recommendation underlined by the Transport Committee in its report last year: the question of enforcement. According to the response to my written question on 1 February, official figures show that since 2010 the number of officers outside the Metropolitan police with road policing functions has fallen from 5,337 to 3,436. That is a cut of about one third; it is actually a bigger cut than that identified by the Transport Committee. The Committee is right to say that a combination of education, engineering and penalties is key to improving safety conditions, but also that those things

“must be backed up by effective enforcement with road users knowing that infringements will be detected.”

That brings me to the question of how policing priorities are set and the constraints in that regard. The Government can say that policing priorities are a matter for local forces, and in a sense that is right—it is important that they are set locally and reflect local conditions—but they cannot be in any way meaningful if the police up and down the country simply do not have the resources to deliver the priorities that they want to deliver across the piece.

As the Transport Committee noted in paragraph 7 of the report, road policing is not a nationally set strategic priority, and the variation in strategies appears to be continuing. For example, in quarter 1 of last year, seven forces did not even submit casualty reports to the Government on time, forcing the DFT to estimate the figures. Meanwhile, across the country we have seen fixed penalty notices for mobile phone usage plummet by not far short of 90% over five years. I would like to think that that reflects a sea change in the attitude of motorists to using mobile phones, but I think we know from the RAC report and elsewhere that the reality is likely to be different. In evidence to the Select Committee, the Institute of Advanced Motorists noted that the falling levels of enforcement risk developing a culture in which being caught is seen as a matter of bad luck rather than bad driving.

I therefore ask the Minister to address the question that has been put to him twice in this debate so far. Will he reveal what impact assessment he has done on the effect of falling police numbers on road safety, and if there has been no such impact assessment, will he please undertake one? Can he also assure us that he will speak to his Home Office colleagues to ensure that forces send through accurate and timely casualty reports, which are essential? What meetings has he had with the Association of Chief Police Officers following the report from the Transport Committee and the latest statistics for the number of officers involved in road safety duties?

I have no doubt that every police and crime commissioner and every chief constable in this country wants to see safe roads. I have no doubt that every single one of them wants to devote as many officers as they can to achieving safety on our roads. However, if they do not have the resources to do that, all too often it is road traffic policing that ends up falling off the end of the list of priorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse was right: the Department for Transport has a key role to play if that culture is to be turned around.

There needs to be a cross-Government strategy. It is vital that central Government does not work in silos on this issue and that the DFT steps up to take the lead on how we can ensure that the necessary resources are made available for effective enforcement. I hope the Government will think about how road safety can be integrated into their third attempt at producing a clean air strategy, and will they also think about whether the second road investment strategy can allocate a specific budget to road safety?

I hope that the Minister will address the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside about ensuring that cross-border work on road safety, particularly in relation to the European Union, is maintained at a high level and that Brexit does not jeopardise or undermine that.

Will the Government also think about what levers can be used to incentivise further the uptake of telematics or black boxes and the use of technology to deter mobile phone use at the wheel, which various hon. Members have mentioned? Could the recently published Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, which has clauses on automated vehicles, be used as a vehicle—pardon the expression—for pursuing some of those agendas?

I hope the Minister will recognise, from today’s debate and others, that there is cross-party concern about this issue. I hope he will agree to take full stock of his Government’s road safety approach and recognise that despite their sincere pledges to improve road safety, the strategy is falling short as things stand. This is a cross-ministerial challenge for not only his Department but the Ministry of Justice and, equally, the Home Office. I hope he will ensure that the Home Office, police and local authorities are all on the same page and have the capacity, in practice, to enforce the law as we all want to see it enforced.

I would like to end with four further questions to the Minister on improving road safety. Will he commit to ensuring that all police forces have sufficient support to deliver reductions in all forms of casualties? What work is he undertaking to review the Scottish drink-drive limits that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South mentioned? We need to look at what the impact has been of reducing the limit there and whether we can learn any lessons.

Will the Minister give us a timeframe for when the cycling and walking investment strategy will be published and an assurance that it will have the resources to back it up when finally it is published? Finally, will he listen to campaigners within the road safety community and do what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside has urged him to do, and which I urge him again to do, by reinstating road safety targets? They can perform a valuable role in achieving the vision of nobody being killed or seriously injured on our roads in future.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I am not sure I have served under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I am not a West Ham supporter; I have to put that on the record right away. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing this debate. Before we go any further, I must say that I will relay the comments on road policing to the Minister responsible in the Home Office. I have regular meetings with colleagues in the Home Office. This is very much a cross-departmental initiative, and we have had some very positive moves. I expect to see that continue.

In the Government’s road safety statement in December 2015, we welcomed the fact that the Transport Committee was looking at this topic, and I am happy to reiterate that welcome in today’s debate. This debate is extremely timely. Three weeks ago, my Department published road casualty statistics for the third quarter of last year. The figures for those killed and seriously injured on our roads showed an increase of 6% in the year ending 2016 compared with 2015. That is clearly a move in the wrong direction, and we must not in any way be complacent, but we must also be cautious before jumping to conclusions. There is not enough evidence yet to conclude that the change can be explained by statistical natural variation in deaths over time. I am very aware that we will want to keep that under close review.

We have a manifesto commitment to reduce the number of road users, including cyclists, who are killed or injured on our roads every year. Enforcing road traffic laws to ensure that offenders pay the penalty for their wrongdoing can help to get that statistic on a downward trend again. I was asked whether I met regularly with the police service on the matter, and I do. The police lead is Chief Constable Suzette Davenport from Gloucestershire. I have also written to each of the forces around the country about their reporting, so I am happy to give confirmation right away on some of the questions asked.

[Richard Burden]

Before the Minister leaves the question of the police, I accept and am pleased about what he said before—that he will talk to his Home Office colleagues—but he was also asked a direct question on at least two occasions today about whether he had undertaken any review of the reductions in police numbers devoted to road policing and the impact on road safety. If he has not undertaken any such review, will he do so?

[Andrew Jones]

We look at all the ingredients that combine to influence road safety. On penalties for use of mobile phones, for example, it was highlighted that the number of penalties issued had fallen significantly—that is a fact—but during that time the number of people who have suddenly lost their lives in incidents in which handheld mobile phone use was considered a factor has remained exactly the same. The figure has been consistent. That tells us that mobile phone use is an ingredient, but that there is no direct causal link between one fact and another—a number of factors are in play. Do I think that enforcement matters, however? Yes, I do. I agree entirely with the principles of education, engineering and enforcement. Are we reviewing that? Yes, it is one of the many ingredients that we review constantly.

To go back to the big four, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, the most common traffic offence is indeed speeding. We know that excessive speed kills, and I agree with the Select Committee that cameras are an important and effective technology in detecting speeding offences. We use technology in every other part of human life, so why on earth would we not use it in something as critically important as road safety? I occasionally get letters saying, “We need to remove cameras. They are an infringement of civil liberties”, or that we are unfairly targeting motorists. That is absolute nonsense. It is, however, for local authorities and local police forces to determine where cameras should be sited for their best effect.

The best effect lies, I agree, in getting drivers to respect the speed limits, not in simply generating revenue. Where a camera generates significant ongoing revenue, the local safety partnership should be asking why and whether, for example, the speed limits are clearly signed. The Government are not generally in favour of hypothecating tax revenues—we are no different from Governments of all colours over many years—but, having said that, we are working to hypothecate the vehicle excise duty to Highways England and the road investment strategy. There is not, however, a parallel between hypothecating speed fines and road safety.

I agree that there is a high level of compliance—the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) called it “obedience”, but it is compliance. That is the word we are looking for when we see the use of average speed cameras, because a marked change in driver behaviour results. That is a personal observation. He also asked if we had information from communities on local camera use and so on. I do not have that information, but I will see whether we can find some. If we can, I will share it with the hon. Gentleman.

Drink-driving is clearly a critical issue. We certainly take seriously the threat that all dangerous drivers, including drink and drug-drivers, pose to the safety of other road users. However, I must be up front and say that we have no plans to change the drink-drive limit. The rigorous enforcement of the limit and the serious penalties for drink-driving in this country are a more effective deterrent than changing the limit. We may have a higher drink-drive limit than other countries, but we also have a more successful culture of enforcement and of removing the issue than other countries.

It is also fair to recognise that we have made other changes. We changed drink-driving legislation in April 2015 to require high-risk offenders to undertake medical tests before they are allowed to drive again. We have also removed the so-called statutory option that allowed suspected drink-drivers the choice of an evidential breath test or a specimen of blood or urine, which afforded the potential for people to sober up during the time lag between the two. That option has now gone. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) is correct in saying that the average blood alcohol level for those stopped and convicted is not in the 50 to 80 mg category, which represents about 2% of those stopped. The average is in the 150 to 180 mg category. The people causing drink-drive problems pay absolutely no regard to drink-drive limits; they just do not think that the limits apply to them. The limits are not the issue here.

The Select Committee report did not explicitly consider drug-driving, but the Government’s response did, noting that drugs in a driver’s bloodstream can pose as much of a danger as alcohol. We have provided £1 million to police forces in England and Wales to support drug-driving enforcement. The evidence so far is that it has been highly successful, and for 2016 we are expecting an eightfold to tenfold increase over the previous year. When the data come out, we will be able to confirm that properly, but that is the indication thus far. We have some time to go before we get the final data, but it is clearly a successful policy.

The anecdotal feedback from police services around the country is that it has been a great addition to their toolkit, and that they have used the drug-driving laws to disrupt far more criminal activity, such as drug-dealing rings, tackling the drivers to take the rings out of circulation for a period. That is interesting. It is not exactly why we introduced the drug-driving rules, but it is a welcome side effect nevertheless. In March last year, just as the Select Committee report was being published, we launched a THINK! campaign to educate people about the dangers of drug-driving and send a clear message that it is unacceptable. A point was made about social unacceptability. We want drug-driving to be as socially unacceptable as drink-driving. We as a society are a little further back on that journey, but it is clearly the direction that we want to go in. I want everybody to know that the consequences for drug-driving will be serious.

We talked a little about mobile phone use, particularly under the heading of distractions. I know that the Select Committee welcomes the higher penalties that Parliament has approved for drivers who use their mobile phones. Whether they are calling, texting or using an app, motorists caught using a handheld device will receive a fixed penalty notice of £200 and six penalty points on their driving licence. The changes will come into effect next week, on 1 March, making it one of the toughest fixed penalties. Drivers risk losing their licence after two offences, totalling 12 points, and new drivers who reach six points in one offence will lose their licence right away and have to retake both theory and practical driving tests. Such penalties will be effective only if drivers believe that an offence will be detected.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse asked whether fixed penalty notices were still appropriate. Our police service has operational independence. It is fair to say, though, that the Government would like more fixed penalty notices to be issued, particularly at the start of this major change to the penalty regime, so that the heavy penalties are understood and widely communicated and are used to effect behaviour change, because that is what this is about. If people see others losing their licences, it will effect a behaviour change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Burden and Andrew Jones

Thursday 10th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burden]

On a different but also topical subject, I was in Kent yesterday talking to businesses that had felt at first hand the traffic chaos surrounding 32 days of Operation Stack last year. I know that the Government are consulting on lorry parks and junction improvements for future years, but what are they going to do to prevent a repeat of last year’s scenes from occurring in 2016? I am not asking the Minister to tell me who he is meeting; I am asking him what the action plan is.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

Operation Stack is a critical part of controlling access to the ports and trying to make the ports flow more smoothly. We had exceptional circumstances last summer, with strikes as well as challenges over migrants closing the tunnel. The Operation Stack proposals, which are effectively to create an off-the-highway holding area, represent a significant investment; it is a £250 million project. The closure of the consultation is only a few days away. I have met Highways England and local providers of highways, and we are working on what we can do in the short term. I will keep local Members informed of that progress.

Draft Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Tachographs) (amendment) Regulations 2016

Debate between Richard Burden and Andrew Jones

Wednesday 10th February 2016 General Committees

[Andrew Jones]

There were many questions there. Let me start with the consultation, to which we received 13 responses. I am aware of concerns, but also the broader welcome for the proposals, which I want to put in context. In March 2014, the regulations changed across Europe, so that the exemption was either 100 km or zero. That automatically increased the radius of operation for certain drivers’ hours.

These derogations are common sense and limited. They are limited in distance to 100 km, but they are also limited to the type of vehicle they apply to. They would apply to Royal Mail vehicles, vehicles transporting live animals, and light goods vehicles that are propelled by gas or electricity. This is not a wholesale change to all drivers’ rules. If we had not made the change to 100 km and it was zero—we had a choice of either zero or 100—we would have brought into play thousands of vehicles that are currently outside the scope of the regulations, which would have been disproportionate.

I will write to the hon. Gentleman with information about the number of prosecutions. The number of fixed penalty notices has gone up in the last few years. Some 22,494 fixed penalty notices were issued last year, raising £3.8 million, which is the highest figure for some years. To put that in context, 17,000 fixed penalty notices were issued two years ago, raising £1.9 million—the amount of money raised has doubled in two years. He asked what proportion of that is tachograph-related, and I will have to do some further investigation, but obviously I will write to him.

[Richard Burden]

If I could take the Minister back to what he said before—this makes the point about why we need a review—if he is right that the EU regulation allows zero exemptions or 100 km exemptions, why is none of that mentioned in any of the paperwork that I have seen so far? How does that work? As I understand it, the whole point of the exemptions is to set out not what the regulation requires, but where there can be national derogations, so how on earth can the regulation say that we can either have zero or 100 km? It allows up to 100 km, but where does it say that we cannot have 50 km?

[Andrew Jones]

My understanding is that that choice was made in 2014, so we had no choice—that relates to previous amendments that were debated and discussed at the time. Our choice now, two years on, is different—it is a choice of either zero or 100. Let us remember that the choice applies to Royal Mail vehicles, vehicles transporting live animals and light goods vehicles propelled by gas or electricity, and only these categories.

[Andrew Jones]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the question I answered on 10 December 2015. Basically, the exemption applies to small passenger-carrying vehicles—effectively people carriers, with eight passenger seats or fewer. These are effectively private vehicles. Such vehicles are exempt from EU drivers’ hours rules and the need to use a tachograph. The same applies to vehicles with between 10 and 17 seats used for non-commercial purposes, which is effectively a minibus carrying scouts or a club football team, and vehicles that are used to carry passengers along regular routes—effectively a local bus service. Such services will be caught up by the change to 100 km. That is my understanding. If I am not correct, I will of course write to the hon. Gentleman.

In Operation Stack, the M20 lorry park is used when there are blockages at the port of Dover or the port of Calais that mean that HGVs cannot pass through as smoothly as possible. The key has been to get the holding area off the highway, and we have had problems when the M20 was closed in both directions because of problems last summer, which brought much of the local economy to a standstill. There has been a consultation on replacing the holding area, and we do not yet have a date for publishing the results, but it is clear that we want to press on. This is a national issue, which is why the Government allocated £250 million to create the holding area in Kent, and we want to press on with that as quickly as possible.

The question about benefits for drivers is very important. The road haulage industry is hugely important to our country. If there were no road haulage, we would be running out of food within days. If we do not have the right numbers of drivers, we will struggle. However, there is a piece of work being carried out by the industry, in partnership with Government, on what we can do to increase the numbers of people joining the industry. The industry has reckoned that there are some significant gaps in driver numbers; however there is a very positive story in the numbers of people now applying to join the sector. To update the Committee, the data showed that 55,000 applicants joined the industry—took their tests—in the past year, which is a significant upgrade on previous years. My intention is to build on that.

There are initiatives to try to bring people into the industry, working with the Department for Work and Pensions and with the armed forces, bringing in people who are leaving our military, but as well as tackling the supply—people joining the industry—we also have keep people in the industry, which is the retention piece. That is where driver facilities come into play. Driver facilities are simply not good enough—that is clear. I am not sure, however, that we can say that that is the responsibility of Highways England; these facilities are largely delivered by private sector organisations and that should continue.

Timescales for introduction were also mentioned. Essentially, we are looking at 2019 for the introduction of smarter tachographs, but they would not have to be applied to domestic vehicles, I think, for another 15 years— therefore, they would not apply until 2034, which is some way away. I think I have answered all the questions that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield asked.

[Richard Burden]

There is one question the Minister has not answered and it is crucial to the way we respond today: will he review the operation of these regulations? In other words, will he change what he said in his explanatory memorandum?

[Andrew Jones]

I review all road safety issues on a rolling basis. I do not think we need to build in any kind of statutory position in legislation to do that. This is a regular feature of all policy development. Road safety is at the heart of what we are trying to do. Tachographs play a key role in ensuring that drivers are not abused by their employers and not driving when they are tired. They contribute to road safety as part of a broader road safety plan. The Government published our road safety plan in December and it has been widely welcomed by the industry. We do not need to have periods of statutory review, but whenever we look at the data, which are published on a quarterly basis for all road accidents, we of course try to look at the causes, and I obviously keep that under review.

[Richard Burden]

I am grateful to the Minister for that, but I go back to his explanatory memorandum, which says that review mechanisms should be built into secondary legislation unless there are exceptional reasons not to do so. What are the exceptional reasons for not building in a review mechanism in this case?

[Andrew Jones]

Let us remember that in this case we are dealing with a very small number of vehicles. The exact nature of the tachographs is still to be defined, so there is further round of legislation to follow, but we are not planning to make any changes, because only a very small number of vehicles are involved.

Question put.

Assessment of Exhaust Emissions

Debate between Richard Burden and Andrew Jones

Monday 8th February 2016 General Committees

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

I apologise to the Committee in advance, Mr Nuttall, as I am suffering from a cold. I hope that I do not tax Hansard too much, and that it does not mess up the Official Report too much if I start coughing, spluttering or sneezing.

I have two sets of questions. I welcome the fact that the regulation has been scheduled for debate; I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for recommending it. My first set of questions is on the regulation itself, and the second set is on the subject of Volkswagen, which both the European Scrutiny Committee and the Minister have mentioned as being directly related to it.

A number of organisations opposed to the revision of the emissions testing rules, including, I understand, the European Parliament’s own legal affairs committee, have argued that the introduction of conformity factors runs counter to the aims and content of the 2007 EU regulation on the type approval of vehicles. Will the Minister confirm what legal advice the UK Government have received on that matter, and can he assure the Committee that the UK would not end up being prosecuted in the event of a legal challenge?

Will the Minister also confirm how he expects the review mechanism to work in practice? He is absolutely right that the regulation itself will not weaken Euro 6 regulations, but let us be clear that the criticism has been that by allowing a conformity factor of 0.5, there could be an open-ended permission after 2020 for manufacturers to breach the standards by up to 50%. If the reason for the conformity factor is technical deficiencies, or potential technical deficiencies, in testing machinery, what will be done to stimulate the technological improvements that will avoid the need for a conformity factor so great after 2020, and hopefully altogether?

My third question relates to recent discussions in the Select Committee on Transport. In correspondence with the Committee and the Commission, the DFT emphasised its willingness to focus on a new test approach based, I understand, entirely on real-life driving. Will the Minister tell us what feedback the Department has received from the Commission about supporting research by the Joint Research Centre, and what steps the Government are taking to implement that approach?

To simplify administration and the cost of testing, manufacturers will need to test only a minimum number of vehicles representing extremes of performances of wider families of vehicles. How will the Minister ensure that that is done appropriately, and what assessment has he made of smaller manufacturers, for which testing costs could be most acute?

I turn to the VW scandal. The Minister will be aware that legal proceedings are under way in several countries, including Germany, the United States of America and South Korea. What discussions has he had with the Serious Fraud Office and the Competition and Markets Authority, and why is the UK not suing VW? In a written answer before Christmas, he assured me that he would make a statement in the new year on the emissions inquiry, so can we have one now on how many vehicles have been re-tested, what has been found, at what cost, and when he expects the programme to be completed? Will he confirm that the Government will still seek reimbursement for the Vehicle Certification Agency’s re-testing? Does he agree with VW’s decision not to compensate VW owners in the European Union?

Finally, in addition to the 1.2 million customers affected by the NOx defeat devices, I understand that Volkswagen has since admitted to irregularities in tests for carbon dioxide affecting up to 36,000 vehicles. What tests have the Government done to verify that, and can the Minister assure us that VW will be liable for the costs relating to the tests and any shortfall in vehicle excise duty that arises from those irregularities?

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Gentleman asked quite a number of questions. I will take the questions on VW first.

The Government first became aware of the installation of software fitted to Volkswagen vehicles to distort emissions testing following the announcement of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s investigation on 18 September last year. We have widely condemned VW’s behaviour and demanded that it take early action to rectify the situation. Our priority is to protect the consumer, to restore confidence in the real-world performance of diesel vehicles and to ensure that VW supports its UK customers.

The VCA has secured an assurance from all automotive manufacturers outside the VW group for which it has issued emissions type approvals that defeat devices have not been used. The Government have called on the EU to conduct a Europe-wide investigation into whether there is evidence that cars have been fitted with illegal defeat devices. We have obviously gone on to test vehicles, and on 10 November, the Secretary of State announced an emissions testing programme to look for defeat devices and to improve our understanding of the real-world emissions performance of vehicles used in the UK. That investigation is vital to restore public confidence.

The VCA, our type approval authority, first reran lab tests for those VW group vehicles for which it had provided approval. Those initial tests provided valuable information for improving our ability to detect a defeat device and strengthened our understanding of the impact on vehicle emissions. To ensure the independence of the testing, the Department is funding the programme and neither the cars nor the testing facilities will be provided by the vehicle industry. We are completely distant from anything in the sector. We are testing 40 vehicles that are representative of a significant proportion of the overall vehicle fleet. The testing is proceeding well and we are using all the facilities we have in our country to make the process happen as quickly as possible, but we are only halfway through it. That is why we have said that the findings will be published in the spring. It would be premature to make further announcements today because we would be doing so only halfway through the programme, which would not be appropriate. We have been clear that we will not provide an ongoing commentary because we will need to conduct in-depth analysis when we have completed the process and ensure that the results are viewed in context, which can be done only at the completion of the testing. I cannot say more than that on the VW issue today.

I emphasise to the Committee, however, that although the VW crisis has brought things more into the public eye, the work on real driving emissions started long before the VW issue was on anybody’s radar, and that will continue. The proposal before us is about testing for all marques, not just one, and for all vehicle fuels, not just those diesel fuels used in the particular type of engine that caused the problem at VW. While VW is a part of this, that is only in the sense that it has brought the issue further into the public domain. On how we can improve performance, we are building on the success and progress that we have had on air quality over some years—we have gone from Euro 3, Euro 4 and Euro 5 up to Euro 6—and these proposals are a step change. I just want to put things in context for Members, because while that issue is related, it is not the key one.

I will now deal with some of the other questions. Provisions for small manufacturers will be discussed and agreed in the package 3 negotiations, which will take place later this year. The UK has already highlighted the importance of the matter to the Commission and is in discussions with manufacturers here, such as Aston Martin.

I can certainly confirm that discussions are continuing with the Serious Fraud Office and the Competition and Markets Authority. They are independent bodies, so it is for them to decide whether to investigate. We are fortunate to live in a country in which politicians do not direct the legal process.

We need to reflect a little on the issue of changes to measurement tolerance, which is a significant factor. The intention, with the first transition step in 2017, is that the conformity factor can be reached through software and calibration changes alone, and a conformity factor of 2.1 has been agreed. That includes any measurement uncertainty.

The second and final step, in 2020, will brings the conformity factor down to 1, which represents parity with the lab test plus, again, measurement uncertainty. Research conducted by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre examined the various sources of error in on-road emissions measurements. Its conclusion was that there was a worst-case error margin of 0.375, which was why the UK supported 0.4 as a conformity factor. However, some member states argue that other factors that increase NOx emissions in real-world conditions should be taken into account, so an overall figure of 0.5 was agreed.

The Commission has committed to the European Parliament to review the tolerance quickly. We are dealing with new equipment and relatively new technology. The reason why such testing has been used for heavy goods vehicles before cars was simply that the equipment was so big—it could be put in the back of a truck, but not in the back of a car. We are not in that position now as technology is miniaturising. The Commission has committed to a quick review of the tolerance and possibly to moving to much tighter tolerance. We therefore know exactly the direction of travel and there is clear technological progress.

A further question was asked about reviewing our own position on real-world testing, but we have to be clear about what we are asking for before we speak to the European Commission. The Department and chief scientists are considering the matter. Once we know what must be done, we will engage with the Commission and the Joint Research Centre.

On the question of legal challenge, I think that we can be very secure and we have no concerns about that. Our legal opinion is that real driving emissions measures are consistent with Euro 5 and Euro 6 measures. We are not aware of legal challenges on that, and the Commission and the European Parliament are also content. The proposal will complement Euro 5 and Euro 6 testing in a laboratory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the portable emissions measurement equipment, which has been developed largely in response to the UK and others in Europe pushing for RDE, that actually enabled the investigators to unearth the VW issue in the first place. Europe is the first place in the world to introduce on-road emissions testing. The idea that we have been off the pace, complacent or asleep at the wheel is simply not true.

Has the reputation of the sector been damaged? Yes, it has. Has VW’s reputation been damaged? Yes. For what it is worth, my car has been recalled as part of the process. VW is not quite the company I thought it was when I bought the vehicle, and indeed paid extra for the environmental package as I sought to be a low-emitter driver. I am sure that the sector recognises that its reputation has been damaged. I have had that conversation with automotive industry players and with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. Real driving emissions testing is part of the answer and the key to recovering trust.

[Richard Burden]

I think the Minister is running two things together now; they are related, but they are separate. One is the need for real-life driving emissions testing, which is the purpose of this regulation, but the second point relates to VW and I do not think the Minister has addressed it. Before the scandal broke in the United States, in 2013 the EU Commission’s Joint Research Centre raised concerns about the use of defeat devices. I am not aware that that was followed up on. Was it and, if so, where was the follow-up? If it was not, why not?

[Andrew Jones]

Well, no hard evidence was shared by the Commission or the Joint Research Centre, and we cannot take action without hard evidence. It goes back to the point about real driving emissions testing being the answer. It is not a question of conflating different issues. VW and real driving emissions are separate but related issues. The VW crisis has brought to a head the work on real driving emissions, but that work started long before the VW crisis and will continue after the situation is resolved.

The Department was first aware of the situation on 18 September, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his written ministerial statement. He has been following up on the matter and pressing VW to take care of its UK consumers. For example, he took the issue up with its UK chief executive on 10 December. There was a further question about whether VW has breached EU regulations. I have to say that it is not clear that VW has breached EU regulations, which is why the RDE package 2 agreement has included an amendment of the text relating to defeat devices to require vehicle manufacturers to declare any alternative emissions strategies.

The situation regarding compensation is also different in the USA and in Europe. In the USA, Volkswagen does not have a technical solution; in Europe, it does. However, the point remains that we are in the middle of the testing process. We have ruled nothing in or out and we will not comment further until we get to the end of the process and put all of it into context, but we will certainly speak up for UK consumers, and that is what we have done consistently.

We are committed to improving air quality, and the RDE agreement is crucial to delivering improvements in UK air quality and decreasing real-world NOx emissions. The current arrangement is the best option we have for environmental and health benefits and to ensure that vehicle manufacturers improve real-world emissions now. The implementation dates and conformity factors are challenging, as everybody in the industry recognises, but they are achievable. It is right to set demanding targets, because the goal of clean air will benefit our communities and is clearly important. It will require vehicle manufacturers to produce cleaner cars, starting next year.

I recognise that more work needs to be done at technical level. The UK is committed to playing a full and active role in finalising the remaining technical issues. We will certainly press the Commission to start a review of how RDE functions, with the clear aim of reducing the margin for measurement uncertainty that is in the final agreement.

The motion urges the UK Government to continue to press for action on real driving emissions. I am happy to make that commitment, but I hope that it has become clear in the course of this debate and in the answers that I have given that we are not just pressing for action; we are taking action, and we are leading the way on taking action. We started a long time ago, and we will continue to do so. The UK has a strong record on public health and automotive, and we have brought the two together to provide significant benefits for the people of this country.

Question put.

London Black Cabs

Debate between Richard Burden and Andrew Jones

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Jones]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. This Government will not be bullied by any individual company. We must keep in mind the qualities of the taxi and private hire sectors and what they have delivered over many years—in some cases, over centuries—for our city. Both are strong, important players and need a protected future.

I know that the London taxi trade fundamentally disagrees with TfL’s views on how Uber calculates a fare. Many members of the taxi trade consider Uber’s smartphone app to be essentially a taximeter. Taximeters are, of course, forbidden in London’s private hire vehicles. Transport for London has recognised that the law in respect of the issue is unclear and has applied to the High Court for a declaration. Members have asked when that case will be determined. It is due to be heard in the High Court next month, so we should let the court make its decision.

Transport for London’s vision and strategy for the taxi industry is designed to maintain and enhance the high standard of service on which customers have come to rely. It will include development of the next generation of taxis, which will be environmentally clean and modern and suitable for passenger needs, particularly those of disabled people, a point consistently made by Members in this debate. The taxis will retain or enhance accessibility features to ensure a safe, smooth and comfortable ride.

The Mayor of London has announced plans to improve air quality in London, including by increasing the number of ultra-low-emission taxis. In April this year, the Office for Low Emission Vehicles announced the launch of a £45 million fund to support the roll-out of ultra-low-emission taxis across the United Kingdom. It includes £25 million set aside specifically for the Greater London area to help taxi drivers cover the costs of upgrading to a greener vehicle. The Mayor of London has pledged an additional £40 million, creating a £65 million fund to encourage the cleanest and greenest taxi fleet in the world.

At the same time, Geely, which owns the iconic London Taxi Company, announced plans for a new £250 million state-of-the-art facility to produce the next generation of low-emission London taxis in Ansty, near Coventry. Geely was awarded £17 million from the Government’s regional growth fund to build the facility, which will create 1,000 new jobs and ensure that the London taxi continues to be designed, developed and made in the United Kingdom. This shows the Government’s support for the taxi trade throughout the country and will mean that the London taxi trade will play a leading role in improving the capital’s air quality and meeting our climate change obligations.

Hon. Members may be aware that last year, the London Assembly’s transport committee began an investigation into taxi and private hire services in London. As a result of that scrutiny, the committee made a number of recommendations to the Mayor and Transport for London on steps that they could take to improve taxi and private hire services in the city. In some cases, the committee was critical of the role of the taxi and private hire section of TfL, and I understand that members of both London’s taxi and private hire vehicle trades gave evidence to the committee as to their dissatisfaction with TfL’s actions as the licensing authority. The committee is responsible for questioning and scrutinising the actions of the Mayor, so it is not for the Government to comment on local licensing matters or the committee’s actions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park will be aware that the Department for Transport asked the Law Commission in 2012 to conduct a review of taxi and private hire vehicle legislation throughout England and Wales, including London. That was against the backdrop of the Government’s red tape challenge and legislation that dates back to the first half of the 19th century and the age of the horse-drawn hackney carriage. Despite more recent legislation to allow for the regulation of private hire vehicles, the recent innovations that I and colleagues have described this morning have demonstrated that the legislation used to regulate both the taxi and private hire trades is becoming increasingly outdated. Licensing authorities throughout England and Wales are now faced with the challenge of accommodating 21st century technology in 19th century legislation.

The Law Commission undertook a comprehensive review, its final report containing recommendations for a modern and simplified structure. The report not only provided crucial analysis of the problems posed by the current law, but provided solutions designed to make a difference to both the travelling public and people in the industry. Updated and simplified legislation will provide a modern and simple framework, ensuring public safety and providing the trade with certainty, making growth and competition easier. I cannot yet give the House a date for the Government response to the review, but the Law Commission’s work has been powerful and important.

[Richard Burden]

It is good news that the Government are looking at the legislation, but it is not enough for the Minister to say that he does not know when the Government will respond. TfL is doing a review, the London Assembly is considering such matters, and Uber is growing. If the Law Commission has been meeting since 2012, when on earth will the Government make a decision about whether they are going to do something?

[Andrew Jones]

I completely recognise the importance of this case. We are seeing technological changes that require a legislative change, but getting this right is critical. The Government are still considering the matter, and I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any more detail at this moment.

Severn Bridges (Tolls)

Debate between Richard Burden and Andrew Jones

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Jones]

I cannot give the hon. Lady a final date, but I can tell her that that work has started and is taking place in the Department, with colleagues in the Wales Office. Let me leave hon. Members in no doubt that the Government are committed to the successful operation of the crossings. They are vital, and the economies on both sides have benefited greatly from their presence.

[Richard Burden]

I think that the Minister may inadvertently have misunderstood my hon. Friend’s question. She was not asking him when the Government will make their final decision; we understand that that will take some time. She was asking for a timetable or road map of the process whereby decisions will be made. Who will be talked to at which stage? Which agenda items will be discussed at which stage—the debt, toll levels, the technology, off-peak reductions? In the autumn, can the Minister give some kind of timetable for when those things will be considered?

[Andrew Jones]

I mentioned earlier that we are already committed by the road investment strategy to work with the Welsh Government, and we are more than happy to continue with all the strategy commitments. As I said, I have already started work with my colleagues in the Wales Office. I am expecting more work to be done over the summer and in the early autumn by my officials in the Department, and will be more than happy to share it more widely as we go forward, but I cannot yet give a specific date. However, it is work in progress, and we are starting that work. It will certainly involve wide co-operation and consultation.