Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating Driver First Assist? It has provided great support for motorists, piloting work with the emergency services and the road haulage industry to promote crash-scene first aid and crash management skills among drivers. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State keep an eye out for an invitation to the national roll-out launch, which I believe is winging its way to their inboxes?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am delighted to support that initiative, and I look forward to the invitation. Let me also congratulate the road haulage industry on the work it has been doing to make its drivers aware of the danger posed to cyclists by vehicles, and on its excellent work in upgrading the technology in a number of vehicles.

High Speed Rail

Robert Flello Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I take that as a request to get a move on and get building a lot quicker. We will see what progress we can make.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Although the Secretary of State’s comments about Staffordshire provide some crumbs of comfort, may I impress on him that unless we have a station in the north Staffordshire area the damage that will be done to our economy will be huge? Conversely, if we get one, the benefits will be equally massive.

[Mr McLoughlin]

As I said at the beginning of my statement, and as I shall now reiterate, these are our initial proposals. We have considered the issue, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will look at the early part of the sustainability study, particularly page 10, which shows the work that went in to try and model this. However, I hear what he says, and what my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) are calling for.

HGV Road User Levy Bill

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

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

As the House knows, the reason for this Bill is to enable the introduction of a new levy for all heavy goods vehicles weighing 12 tonnes and over that are kept or used on the UK road network. We plan to implement the levy from April 2014 for UK-registered hauliers. Subject to the completion of a procurement process, it will apply to foreign-registered hauliers from the same date.

We intend the levy to apply to all categories of public roads in the UK and to both UK and foreign-registered HGVs. Vehicles that cause wear and tear to our roads should make a payment that takes that into account. HGVs registered abroad are more likely to carry their weight on fewer axles than UK-registered vehicles, which means that foreign-registered vehicles cause more wear and tear to our roads. It is therefore more unjust that they do not make a contribution towards the maintenance of these roads. They leave the burden to fall entirely on the British taxpayer.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

What about foreign truck drivers who come over with large tanks full of fuel and who do not contribute to the ordinary wear and tear on our roads because they do not pay the fuel duty?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Under this Bill, we will at least charge them something to use British roads—at the moment, they pay absolutely nothing. Although I am not saying that this is the entire answer, we are moving in the right direction.

Foreign hauliers using roads in the UK have long enjoyed an advantage over our own haulage industry in that they do not pay to use the UK’s road network, while our own hauliers pay to use roads through tolls and other charging schemes when they travel abroad in Europe. For many years all main parties have wanted to introduce a measure to correct that imbalance and I am delighted that this Government are actually doing it.

I am sure that the House recognises that HGVs play a crucial role in our economy by supplying businesses and servicing customers. More than two thirds of all goods moved within the UK travel by road and, in the main, on HGVs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McLoughlin]

I very much hope that there will not be a delay. As I have said, I intend the levy to be introduced in April 2014, subject to certain procurement measures. Once it is introduced in this country, there will be a reduction of a similar amount in VED charges, so our lorry drivers should not pay anything extra. Foreign drivers will be charged from, I hope, April 2014. I hope that that addresses the hon. Gentleman’s question.

[Robert Flello]

The Secretary of State is being extremely generous with his time. Will he clarify why overseas hauliers are not required to pay for a year up front, but can pay on a daily, weekly or monthly basis? Is there a legislative reason why they cannot be asked to make an annual up-front payment, as with VED?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Overseas hauliers will pay in advance of coming to this country. However, asking somebody who is bringing a lorry over for a day to pay for a full year would be quite unfair. We are therefore allowing them to pay daily, weekly or yearly. Most HGV drivers who come to this country regularly will find it much more convenient and a lot cheaper to pay for the year than to pay for each individual day. I hope that that clears up the hon. Gentleman’s point.

The Bill states that HGVs weighing more than 12 tonnes will have to pay a duty of excise levied by the Secretary of State if they are used or kept on a public road within the United Kingdom. It will be known as the HGV road user levy. It will be charged to allow both UK-registered and foreign-registered vehicles to use our roads. The levy applies to all roads in the UK. However, clause 3 provides the power for the Secretary of State to exempt specific roads from the charge by way of statutory instrument, should the need arise.

Clause 4 sets out the liability for the levy. For HGVs registered in the UK, liability for paying the levy will lie with those in whose name the vehicle is registered and with the person keeping the vehicle. That applies the principle used for vehicle excise duty in section 1 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. That allows for the levy on UK-registered vehicles to be paid at the same time as vehicle excise duty. For non-UK-registered HGVs, the person who holds the Community licence for the vehicle and the person who keeps the vehicle are liable to pay the levy. For both UK-registered and non-UK-registered vehicles, when two or more people are liable to pay the levy, they are jointly and severally liable.

Clauses 5 and 6 set out the methods of payment for UK-registered and non-UK-registered vehicles. For UK-registered vehicles, the levy will be paid either yearly or half-yearly at the same time as vehicle excise duty. Where appropriate, rebates may be made for vehicles that are stolen or destroyed. The circumstances under which a rebate will be available and the method of calculating the value of a rebate, together with other conditions that must be met to make a claim, are covered in clause 7.

Some types of rigid vehicle weighing less than 12 tonnes will be exempt from the charge. The Bill also provides powers to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that exempt some categories of HGV from the charge.

Collection and enforcement of the charge, and related elements, are covered in clauses 9 to 16.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for sharing with us which Committee he is sitting on. The Committee on this Bill will really miss his attention to detail. I have no reason to believe that there will be any of the problems that he mentions. I have assured myself that what we are doing is wholly within the law and within EU competition rules.

For non-UK hauliers, there will be no physical sign of the levy having been paid. I believe that paper discs or similar signs would impose a needless burden and open the door to fraud. One of the main methods that we will use to detect vehicles that have not paid the charge is by linking our automatic number plate recognition cameras to the payment database. The use of that technology will enable quicker checks to be made on all HGVs. The power to install such equipment where it does not exist is being introduced in the Bill by amending the Highways Act 1980, the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 in clause 16.

[Robert Flello]

What will be the situation if an overseas haulier, either deliberately or by omission, does not purchase a sufficient amount of time? What will happen to the load that a vehicle is carrying if it is seized by one of the agencies?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Drivers will know that they have to pay the levy before they come into the country. If they fail to pay, the measures available to the enforcement agencies will be used. I make no apology for that. If they think that they will be here for three days, they should pay for three days.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I am pleased to make a declaration: I have no interests apart from looking after the interests of my constituents. Hon. Members have said that it is time to level the playing field for road haulage in the UK, but to use more thematically correct imagery, it is time to smooth out the anti-competitive bumps faced by UK haulage companies on the road to European markets.

The Bill will not deal with many anti-competitive burdens placed on the many road haulage companies in my constituency and many others. Grangemouth, which is in my constituency, and which is the only EU-recognised inter-modal transport hub in Scotland, and the many communities along the M9, M8 and M876 triangle with employment in road haulage suffer from damaging high taxation on road fuel. Competitor haulage companies from mainland Europe use that fuel price advantage to collect and deliver in the UK, even in Scotland. The Government must look at that seriously if we are really to level out those bumps.

I know hon. Members want to get on with the debate quickly and that they have discussed the Bill between one another many times, but my constituents probably do not know the Bill’s contents. They know that, currently, operators of UK-registered heavy goods vehicles pay charges or tolls in most European countries—as they tell me every time I meet them—but that foreign-registered HGVs do not pay to use the UK road network. The imbalance is unfair to UK HGV operators.

The Bill will seek to address that by introducing a levy for using UK road networks for all HGV vehicles weighing 12 tonnes and over. The requirement to pay the levy will apply to all categories of public road in the UK and to both UK and foreign-registered HGVs. The levy will range from £85 a year for the smallest HGV to £1,000 for the largest. The idea is to link the charge to the amount of damage caused on the roads by different types of HGVs.

The Bill states that UK-registered HGVs will pay the levy for the same period and in the same transaction that they pay vehicle excise duty, which means that they will pay annually. However, foreign-registered vehicles can pay the levy daily, weekly, monthly or annually, which strikes me as an imbalance, because road haulage companies do not have their vehicles on the road all the time. If paying only when they are on the roads is good enough for foreign vehicles, why should that not be so for UK vehicles?

The Bill states that there will be an associated reduction for UK-registered HGVs in the amount of vehicle excise duty that is payable. That is intended to mean that the vast majority of UK-based hauliers will pay no more than they pay currently. However, if 10 million vehicles use the road and pay the levy, and suddenly 15 million or 20 million start to use the roads, why should the 10 million not pay less than they paid previously? Is this just another way for the Government to make money for the Exchequer, and not a way to advantage current road users?

[Robert Flello]

The intention is that UK hauliers should not pay more, but one of my concerns is that there is no guarantee of that. Some of the numbers I have seen suggest that some UK hauliers will end up paying more. That hardly seems like smoothing out the bumps—quite the reverse.

[Michael Connarty]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend is looking over my shoulder from a distance, but I was about to express that exact concern. The Government have failed to devise a scheme that protects all UK-based hauliers, because EU rules mean that vehicle excise duty cannot be set low enough to compensate all Britain’s HGV users.

I have a number of other concerns, which I am sure will be addressed in Committee. The Bill states that no British road haulier will be worse off as a result of the reform, but I would like to see detailed figures on how much the Government expect to raise from the exercise and on how it will be disbursed. Could some of the money be disbursed to keep vehicle licence duty down for UK heavy goods vehicles? Clearly, the Government need to look at whether they can reduce vehicle excise duty in some way.

Why are UK hauliers set to pay the levy one year before non-UK hauliers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

I congratulate the Opposition Front Bench on winning that battle before it has even begun. That was a cause for concern for the Opposition, so I am pleased if that has now been swept away by their good offices and oration. It was an issue only a few days ago.

Will the Minister look again at whether there is a way to enable UK-based drivers to have the same options for payment as non-UK-based drivers? I made this point earlier. Why should it be that those not based in the UK will pay weekly, monthly or daily, but UK owners will pay every day, whether they run a vehicle or not? That seems to be somewhat strange.

Returning to the question of how to police the Bill, I have serious concerns. How does the UK guarantee collection of the fines—a point I made to the Minister? He indicated that it would be the driver who would be responsible. The reality is that the driver will be changed the next time the vehicle is sent into the country. The driver could be changed again, again and again. We are talking about a massive permutation of drivers. I have been attached to the police scheme twice in this place and have spent time with the Serious Organised Crime Agency. One difficulty we have is that people come into the country with the deliberate intention of stealing. They are brought to court, bailed and then disappear—they never come back to the country. Someone else will turn up in that or a similar vehicle to steal once again.

Is the Minister trying to tell us that they will be able to catch the driver, and that the next time the vehicle comes into the country it will not have a different driver? It is all right when there is a family car, and either the Minister or the Minister’s wife could have been driving the car when they were fined, as happened in the case involving a former member of the coalition Government, but it is not the same with a heavy goods vehicle. The owner can change the driver every single day, so why is it not the owner of the vehicle who gets fined? The fine would not be able to be avoided then.

[Robert Flello]

Does that not come back to the point that if the owner of the vehicle lives in another country, then without the cross-border ability to pursue the owner of the vehicle, the money will be collected from nowhere?

[Michael Connarty]

My hon. Friend must have unbelievable eyesight, because I am just about to come on to that very point. It is clear that some Government Members argue that we should extract ourselves from arrangements such as the European arrest warrant. In reality, however, whether it is the vehicle owner or even the driver it may be that we have to extract the person, who is a criminal if they are breaking the law, from another country by using the European arrest warrant. If we withdraw from the European arrest warrant agreement, how will we pursue such people among the 500 million people who live in the EU?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill. In particular, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) who, as roads Minister, met with me and listened to the complaints of my constituents regarding the previous charging scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) made a good point about the Conservative policy group’s proposal in 2007, which set out a scheme similar to the one in the Bill, to introduce HGV road charging. It is a shame that that scheme was not looked at more seriously by the Government of the day, and that more progress was not made. This Government should be congratulated, because a view was expressed that it would not be possible, under EU law, to introduce a charging scheme, but the Bill demonstrates that it is possible.

Most hon. Members have made the point about fairness—fairness to the UK haulage industry and fairness to the UK taxpayer. It is not fair when large HGVs can fill up with cheap fuel in Europe—typically, in somewhere such as Luxembourg—and make an entire tour of the UK before returning home having made no direct financial contribution to the UK at all. They are not buying fuel, and they are not paying any other charges or tolls here. Typically, our lorry drivers have to do that when they visit the European continent, so it is fair that the measure is put in place to redress the balance.

The issue is of keen interest to my constituents. As the Member for Folkestone and Hythe—I am looking at the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is in his place—I am probably the MP with the closest thing to a land border with the continent of Europe and the EU, as the channel tunnel is in my constituency. The idea of enforcing this measure and these charges across jurisdictions is particularly important, both here and for hauliers operating from outside the United Kingdom. My constituents feel particularly strongly because of our proximity to the port of Dover, and because of the presence of the channel tunnel. We see the costs of the road haulage system on our roads and infrastructure as well. It is a concern that financial compensation is not extracted from foreign hauliers for the road network that they use so freely.

[Robert Flello]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just a matter of the wear and tear that overseas hauliers have on our road infrastructure, but that they also cost British hauliers money by congesting the roads? That means that our British hauliers are more inefficient when driving on our roads, because of the added congestion. That is costing our drivers more money in fuel.

[Damian Collins]

The hon. Gentleman’s point underlines how important it is to have a system that creates a level playing field of charging. One set of hauliers who are not paying UK vehicle excise duty get a free rein, while UK hauliers pay for the impact on the infrastructure that they use in common.

There are other issues that make this particularly important. I want to touch on an issue common in areas with ports that service the UK and the continent of Europe. In my constituency, when the port is closed, owing to bad weather or—typically with the Dover-Calais link—industrial action in the port of Calais, Operation Stack comes into action. This means that lorries are stack parked on the motorway, normally closing the coast-bound carriageway of the M20 at different stages. This is very expensive to enforce for Kent police and adds to wear and damage not only on the motorway network but on the roads surrounding it. It is not unusual to see lorries parked on minor roads and roundabouts and in lay-bys, often creating mess and causing damage.

One reason my constituents have pressed for these measures is that there should be some means of extracting payment through a charging scheme and—I hope—through the measures in the Bill to create a register of hauliers licensed to use our roads, which will be published on the internet. That way we will know who these lorries are owned by and where they are coming from, and it might make it easier to enforce other charges, not just the charge for taking out the vignette to use the UK motorway network. I would like more action taken to follow up lorries that cause damage on the roadsides, that litter and that might be associated with other accidents or problems caused while they are here. Creating this database and register of foreign hauliers using our roads will be a good first step towards taking such action.

I do not share all the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). The important thing is that there is a system of fining, and that the fines are enforced. Hauliers that come here frequently and are fined frequently will soon realise that they would be better off taking out the vignette in the first place. If action has to be taken against the lorry driver while they are in the country, and if their progress is delayed, it will often have considerable financial consequences for the hauliers, which operate on a tight schedule while completing their tours. They will not want to be delayed. If lorries are clamped or taken off the roads while the driver waits for someone to pay the fine, that, too, will have financial consequences for the haulier. The important thing, then, is that the charging scheme is in place, that it is enforced equally and that foreign hauliers are made to pay the charge for using the road or receive a financial penalty for not doing so, either directly or indirectly, through the lorries being clamped or taken off the road.

I mentioned earlier the cost of Operation Stack. I am sure that all colleagues will have a view of what the Government could do with the money raised from this charging scheme. Earlier in the debate, the Secretary of State estimated that it would be between £19 million and £23 million a year. I hope that the Government will be mindful of some of the pinch-points in the motorway network, particularly where the cost from the haulage industry—the impact on the roads and the infrastructure —is particularly great. That can be seen in Kent with Operation Stack, especially in the winter months, when the effects are extremely acute. Let us consider whether some of the funds raised could be given, on a discretionary basis, to alleviate some of the damage and problems caused by the haulage operating on some of these major pinch-points, particularly the one running through Kent in my constituency.

I congratulate and thank the Government for bringing forward a Bill that introduces the level playing field that we want and introduces fairness not only for the UK haulage industry but for the UK taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

As my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Transport said in his opening speech, the intent of the Bill is absolutely clear. It will help to deliver a fairer deal for UK hauliers, going some way to correct an inequality that has existed for too long.

On 23 October this year, we held an extensive Ways and Means debate, and I was urged to make a contribution that owed more to quantity than quality. Today, I have been urged to make my speech one of quality rather than quantity, and I will obey that stricture. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) for the points he raised today and during the Ways and Means debate. He rightly said that the Bill was to be welcomed. I tried in the previous debate to answer some of his questions, and I shall try again to deal with points that he has raised, along with those raised by the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman).

Vehicle excise duty rates will be published in the draft Finance Bill towards the end of 2013, so they will be known well before the start of the levy. There has been a great deal of discussion about enforcement today, and about whether opting out of cross-border enforcement arrangements would hamper enforcement. Let me make it clear that the cross-border enforcement directive is only about data exchange. As we said in the Ways and Means debate, and as my right hon. Friend said earlier today, there is therefore no question of enforcement being hindered by our not being involved in the directive. Outstanding fines and penalties can be pursued even if they are not in the directive.

Questions were raised about who is paying the fine. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was exactly right: it is the driver, but the registered vehicle keeper is jointly liable, so VOSA—the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency—or the Driver and Vehicle Agency can act against both, including by impounding vehicles and by taking drivers and operators to court. Drivers without a satisfactory UK address will be required to pay a financial penalty deposit on the spot by a VOSA enforcement officer. This enforcement strategy is designed to overcome the problem, raised by several Opposition Members, of foreign drivers fleeing back to their own country and out of UK jurisdiction. The question of enforcement has been well dealt with, and there is always the option of a prosecution in the magistrates court for the offence, as set out in clause 11.

Questions have been raised about what would happen if the load was seized and how much of it could be seized. The Bill makes it fairly clear that the whole load is seized. I will consider the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) about a lorry that might be carrying bees, locusts or whatever else, and about what needs to be done at that stage. Let us none the less be clear: the Bill contains the power to seize the load.

As I said in the Ways and Means debate, the Welsh Government were seeking a legislative consent motion at that stage. Since then, after further discussions with departmental officials, they decided that they did not need to do this. Scotland and Northern Ireland had already said that. Let us be clear that the HGV levy is a tax, so it is a reserved matter, but we have no intention of limiting the power of any of the devolved Administrations to introduce charging if they so wish at some future date, and the Bill allows for geographic coverage of the HGV road user levy to be amended by order to allow this, if necessary.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about Northern Ireland. As I said in the Ways and Means debate, Ireland already has road charges in the form of tolls. The new UK charge applying in Northern Ireland is about the same as existing Irish tolls, so this would be relevant to a round trip from Belfast to Dublin and back again. It would be difficult to exempt Northern Ireland, because the Government are introducing this by means of reducing VED. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I am sure we can explore the issue further in Committee.

To return to the main aims of the Bill and the key point about the level of charge, we consider our plan to charge large vehicles £10 a day or £1,000 a year to be fair, proportionate and compliant with relevant EU legislation. For the daily amount, we are seeking to charge the highest level permissible while remaining compliant with EU law.

[Robert Flello]

Does the Minister agree that it might be worth the Department going away and looking again to see if there are perhaps more creative ways of raising that amount? As Government Members themselves have said, a driver from the UK going across the channel and perhaps using an Autobahn or paying a toll in Germany might end up paying a great deal more than £10 a day.

[Stephen Hammond]

I will look at that again, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have already looked at it in some detail. The clear requirement is to ensure that the Bill remains compliant with EU regulations and law about the vignette; at that level of charge, it does.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, asked how many UK hauliers would not be better off. I can tell him that 94% of UK hauliers will pay no more than they pay now, and 98% will pay no more than £50. There are effectively two classes of vehicle for which there may be small problems. First, there are the conventional HGVs—either articulated or rigid vehicles without a trailer. For them—a relatively small number of vehicles, perhaps 6,000 out of the 260,000 in the UK fleet—the maximum calculated loss is £79. Then there are a small number—about 7,000 of them on the road—of rigid vehicles with a trailer. Of those we estimate—the Department has done some analysis—that fewer than 50 will face potentially more than £300 extra in costs. There is, however, a relatively simple remedy for them—re-plating. I am sure that that can be explored further in Committee.

The Bill is not designed as a precursor to increased charges for businesses or road users more widely, as some have speculated. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, our intention is clear: it is to introduce legislation that will level the playing field in order to help UK hauliers.

I am delighted that the Bill has been received so positively today, because I think that it presents an opportunity to correct an injustice that has persisted for far too long; I am delighted with the support that we have had from Members in all parts of the House; and I am delighted that the Bill is to be given a Second Reading today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

HGV Road User Levy Bill (programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the HGV Road User Levy Bill:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 13 December 2012.

3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mr McLoughlin.)

Question agreed to.

Civil Aviation Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Civil Aviation Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 30 January 2012 in the last Session of Parliament (Civil Aviation Bill (Programme)), as varied by the Order of 25 April 2012 in that Session (Civil Aviation Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.

Subsequent stages

2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mr Simon Burns.)

Question agreed to.

West Coast Main Line

Robert Flello Excerpts

Monday 17th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Albert Owen]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) also made the point that we want continued improvement on the west coast line. People in all parts of the House want to improve the line, but many people including the petitioners have real concerns. It is absolutely right that we want the best deal for our areas, but we also want the best deal for the taxpayer and the fare payer.

I can recall a modernisation programme for the west coast in the early ’90s, which was hampered slightly by privatisation, with things put on hold. Many people, including Conservative supporters, thought that rail privatisation was a privatisation too far. There was a lot of under-investment and the programme was put back slightly, and there was also the Railtrack debacle, with Network Rail having to take over. There were therefore massive issues, but that huge investment of £9 billion—mentioned by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey)—still went ahead and made significant improvements, bringing business from the regions of north-west England, Scotland and north Wales closer to London. Many business people, some of whom I travelled down with today from Bangor station, now come to London and can do business in a day. That is how important the west coast line is to many people and why the debate is so important. We need to get things right for the future.

In the early days, there were issues with the operator—Virgin—which hampered the service, for example on safety, with many line speeds and signalling having to be improved. Stations such as Nuneaton, Rugby and Stafford, represented by Members here, had huge investment simply to improve the safety of the lines, because a lot of work needed to be done. Now we can see the results of that investment—faster, cleaner and safer trains travelling on the west coast.

Virgin is a popular brand. I have been contacted by many constituents—not natural Labour supporters—who are concerned about the franchise and how it will run. They want safeguards, and answers to questions, which is what we want from this debate. I understand about franchising, the judicial review and the difficulties for the Minister—whom I welcome to his post, because he has a great interest in the railways—but I hope that he will be able to answer some of the questions asked by my hon. Friends and Government Members today. We are not asking about the details of the franchise, but about some of the principles.

The Minister and the Secretary of State mentioned that if we do not get the matter resolved by 9 December, the franchise might have to be taken into state ownership of some sort and to be renationalised—I think that was the word he allegedly used—temporarily. If that happens, however, it is important for the Department for Transport to have a contingency plan, which I hope that the Minister can tell us about. We understand that there is a responsibility for that to happen under the franchise agreement, but we need to get that plan. The staff and the travelling public need to know, and ticketing for the future has to be set up and run. State ownership might be an attractive proposition to many people, but it was brought into the debate by the Secretary of State, and we need some answers. The Minister should clarify whether that contingency is being planned for, so that we do not have a period when people do not know where to get their tickets if the judicial review is not complete and the new owner not in place.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend’s speech. Does he want to comment a little further on the effect that all the uncertainty and confusion might have on staffing levels, and therefore on service? If staff are, understandably, concerned about their future, they might decide to go elsewhere, if such opportunities are available, and that might affect the service that the travelling public can expect.

[Albert Owen]

That is absolutely right. There is huge anxiety, and morale has been sapped, so it is important to get clarification on where we are going. Yes, the judicial review is out of Minister’s hands, but if the Secretary of State makes announcements about temporary renationalisation, he needs to reassure people that he has the plans in place so that any such period is dealt with as smoothly and efficiently as possible.

I speak to rail staff regularly, and did so only a few hours ago on the train journey down, and they are very anxious. To be fair, they have been given assurances about their future by both Virgin and FirstGroup, but the hiatus because of the judicial review is causing greater anxiety. It is incumbent on the Government, who award the franchises, to make it clear, if they are to take temporary measures, what those measures are.

Many issues have been raised, but some are important and need repeating. We need to know whether all the bids were treated exactly the same and whether the risk of all the bids was assessed, not just for the leading or highest bid. We are not talking about a casino, but about running our transport system—the process is hugely important and needs to be done properly. I hope that the Minister can answer some of the questions and confirm whether he has had a list of questions from Virgin and explain why he has refused to answer some of those questions. Some of them may be commercially sensitive, which I understand, but the ones that I have seen and that I was supplied with by Virgin were general. We want the answers to some of them, in the interest of the 170,000-plus petitioners. I hope that we will deal with the issues of renationalisation over that short period and whether the risk for all bids was assessed equally. A tendering system has to be done in that way—robustly over the 15-year period and not only on the basis of the highest money value to the Government.

A lot of questions have been asked by Members in all parts of the House. I know the sensitivity of the judicial review, but it should not be a shield for the Minister to hide behind and to use to avoid answering general questions. The public have a right to know—the rail is in public ownership and a lot of taxpayer money goes into the franchise agreement—and they deserve those answers, which the Minister could give today and help the debate.

I had a quick response from the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), saying robustly that he was happy with what the Government had done. He also said that the contract remains alive, and that he expects it to be signed soon. He has that confidence and information at his fingertips, and I am sure that the Minister present can share some of that information with us today. It is important that the Government are seen to be open and transparent, because we are talking about billions of pounds of investment.

We all want the west coast main line to be improved. I am not interested in the logo on the side of the trains, but I am interested in the quality of service on the west coast. It has improved considerably over the past decade, and I want it to improve further. I want investment in areas such as Anglesey so that we have connectivity with rail services. This debate is about the petitioners and their concerns rightly being aired by Members of Parliament, and being answered efficiently by the Government.

Cost of Living

Robert Flello Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

The cost of living is an excellent theme for our debate on the Queen’s Speech, because alongside and intertwined with the strength of the economy and the availability of jobs, it goes to the core of what ordinary people are most concerned about right now, as I see in my inbox and hear from constituents on the doorstep and in my surgeries. Frankly, I am amazed that the Secretary of State was able to speak for so long, given the lack of action to help with the cost of living in the Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech.

I think the Queen’s Speech was best described by the deputy political editor of The Daily Telegraph, as

“a ragtag bag of second-order legislation and moderate tinkering, partly to address some quite important issues, but also simply to look as if they’re doing something.”

There are one or two Bills that I am pleased to see and will discuss later, but where was the meat? Where was the creativity? Where were the drive and ambition to get this country out of the first double-dip recession in almost 40 years? Nowhere. There was no change, no hope, and Ministers still act like they have no idea of the impact of their policies on the lives of my constituents. Quite frankly, they just do not have any ideas.

One of the biggest cost of living pressures that working families are feeling is child care. According to the Daycare Trust’s annual child care costs survey, the average price of nursery provision in the north-east has increased by 7.5% over the past year, but the cost of out-of-school child care has increased by more than 25%. That is but one part of the triple whammy that parents are facing, because at the same time the help they receive from the Government has been cut by 12.5%, and child care places are becoming scarcer as the money councils get to ensure availability and affordability is slashed and de-ring-fenced, and private nurseries face a daily struggle to stay afloat, due to the increasing number of women who are leaving the work force or finding alternative care, coupled with increased costs and cuts to child care tax credits.

Add to all that this year’s changes to working tax credit eligibility, which affect an estimated 355 families in my constituency, and ever-rising costs of petrol and public transport, and the result is a situation where the cost of working is forcing parents, particularly women, out of work at an alarming rate. After last year’s cuts to child care tax credits, about 44,000 parents stopped claiming. Many will have left work because continuing just did not make financial sense any more. Last month’s changes will no doubt exacerbate that worrying trend. Where were the measures in the Queen’s Speech to help? Again, nowhere.

The cost of child care is normally higher for children who are disabled or who have special educational needs. In addition, places for those children are scarce: according to the Daycare Trust, only 12% of councils have sufficient places to meet local need. A children and families Bill was announced in the Queen’s Speech; I welcome that and look forward to working on it when it comes before the House. I am delighted that, as part of that debate, the House is to discuss how we can improve outcomes for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. Where, though, is the commitment to increase the availability and affordability of child care for children with special educational needs and disabilities, to allow their parents to hold down a job, which is not only important financially, but provides much needed respite in some cases?

The Government have also said that, in that Bill, they will continue Labour’s reforms on flexible working, allowing mothers to transfer some of their maternity leave to their partner. There are of course social benefits to that, but where are the financial benefits for families? Research commissioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) back in 2010, when she was Minister for Women and Equalities, showed that only about one in five women earned more than their partner, although the number is thankfully rising. With that in mind, transferring statutory leave will come down to a practical economic decision for many families. It will be a luxury that most cannot afford, especially if the Government continue to do nothing to mitigate the rising cost of living.

Colleagues have mentioned a number of other pressures on household budgets, and I will echo their points if I have time. Those pressures include rising energy bills, rising shopping bills exacerbated by last year’s rise in VAT, which took £450 out of family budgets at a stroke, and the rising cost of fuel and public transport, about which we have heard quite a bit.

One particular problem that has been raised with me, and mentioned in the media in the past few months, has been banks hiking up mortgage interest rates while the base rate remains at a record low. Mr Edward Cairns of Washington called my office to complain that on the same day as the Royal Bank of Scotland announced a total bonus pool of £785 million for 2011, despite the fact that the bank had made an overall loss of £2 billion, he had received notification that the interest on his mortgage was being increased by 0.25% to 4.25%. I wrote a letter to Stephen Hester asking him to explain that hike and the fact that it coincided so insensitively with the announcement of the huge bonus pot. Unfortunately, I am yet to receive a response from Mr Hester, so I also wrote to the Chancellor to see what he was going to do about it. I received a letter back from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury saying, in a nutshell and in a very polite way, absolutely nothing.

RBS is a bank in which Mr Cairns, as a taxpayer, has an 84% stake, yet it and other banks are needlessly hitting people like him in the pocket while their executives are being rewarded for failure. That is bad news not just for consumers but for the Government.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that in the letter that Halifax sent out to mortgage customers, it stated that the reason why it had increased its rate was the parlous state of the economy and the recession born out of No. 10.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Very interesting. I hope that Ministers are listening and that my hon. Friend’s point will be fed back.

Banks putting their standard rates up means that average interest rates increase, so the amount that the Government have to pay out in support for mortgage interest also increases. It also means that people have less disposable income to spend in shops, pubs and restaurants, so tax receipts are hit as well. Did the Queen’s Speech do anything to address that worrying trend? No, it did not.

What my constituents wanted from the Queen’s speech was a sign that this Tory-led Government had listened to the message that had clearly been sent to them through the ballot box on 3 May. They wanted a change of direction and some hope for the future. They actually wanted what Labour is offering—a fair deal on tax, instead of a great deal of tax being given back to the wealthiest few; a fair deal on energy, wresting power back from the big six and ensuring that pensioners get deals that allow them to eat as well as to heat their homes; a fair deal on transport, reining in the constant price hikes by train operators; a fair deal for consumers, stopping rip-off charges and practices by unaccountable companies, including payday lenders and secondary ticketing websites; and, above all else, a fair deal on jobs, getting young people in my constituency and others involved in working our way out of the recession that this Government have created. They did not get any of that. It was just more of the same from an out-of-touch and incompetent Government.

Ministers need to listen to Paul Dixon, who lost his seat on 3 May, before which he was the only remaining Lib Dem on Sunderland city council. He said that the coalition Government need to open their eyes, take a good look and realise the damage they have done. I agree with Paul, but the Government need to start putting it right. I hope they do so sooner rather than later, or else they should step aside and allow Labour to do so.

Civil Aviation Bill

Robert Flello Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

Bill to be read a Third time tomorrow.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Herman Henry Diaz, a leading Fensuagro Colombian trade union activist, is suspected of having been forcibly disappeared a few days ago. He was organising a delegation of activists from the Putumayo department. He was last seen in the Puerto Vega area, a heavily militarised region, which raises real concerns that he may have been detained, or worse, by the Colombian army, which has form on this. I have personally met Mr Diaz. Mr Speaker, may I ask, through you, whether the Foreign Secretary would be prepared to make immediate representations calling for his release and for the Colombian authorities to guarantee his safety?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I cannot speak for the Foreign Secretary on this matter, and I have no knowledge that the Foreign Secretary is present in the House today, or no certain knowledge to the contrary. However, knowing the way in which these things work and the efficiency of Foreign Office mandarins, I confidently predict that the content of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order will wing its way to the Foreign Secretary or his officials very soon. More particularly, in the interim, the hon. Gentleman’s concern is on the record, and I thank him for raising it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is tempting me to go down a route that would be straying on to the role of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Decisions on the way in which we will achieve that coalition commitment will be taken in future Budgets.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to support victims of domestic and family violence.

[The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)]

The Government’s approach to tackling domestic and family violence is set out in our strategy to end violence against women and girls and the supporting action plan. This action plan includes 88 different actions for a wide range of Government Departments and our external partners, many of which have already been delivered. A refreshed action plan will be published on 8 March 2012.

[Robert Flello]

A recent report by Professor Sylvia Walby shows that Women’s Aid is daily having to turn away almost one in 10 women seeking refuge because of the substantial cuts in national budgets. Warm words achieve nothing. What is the Minister going to do about this?

[Lynne Featherstone]

The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that has been raised before. The Supporting People budget is £6.5 billion. It is the largest budget and it has been cut by only 1%, so if Women’s Aid is facing a bigger cut, local authorities need to hear loud and clear what the Home Secretary and I have said. We have ring-fenced £28 million of central funding to send out a loud and clear message to local authorities not to cut funding. Furthermore, the national helplines are still being funded by central Government.

M5 Motorway Accident

Robert Flello Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

May I associate myself with the words of condolence to all the families affected and the words of praise for all those involved in what must have been horrific? I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I believe that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), will know—hopefully he has whispered it in the ear of the Secretary of State—about the very positive impact that the Heavy Rescue Partnership has had, saving lives in association with Staffordshire fire and rescue. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the investigation will consider whether the availability of such an approach might have made the difference on the night of that terrible incident?

[Justine Greening]

We will consider all such issues going forward, so the answer is yes.

Trailers (EU Proposals)

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship.

Although talking about the height of trailers does not sound too exciting, the new proposal from the European Commission to limit the height of trailers to 4 metres will have a detrimental effect on the British haulage sector, on our environment and on every person who uses our already crowded roads. One of my constituents, Robin Allen, contacted me towards the end of last year to ask me to raise the issue in this House, hopefully to stir up some support for our country’s hauliers.

Like many people, at first I did not realise the potential impact of the proposed legislation. Of the EU member states, 20 out of 25 have a 4-metre height restriction on trailers for safety reasons. The proposal from the European Commission aims to bring the UK and four other member states into line with the majority. It is my personal view that this proposal demonstrates the unnecessary work of the European Commission, which makes regulations for regulation’s sake.

The UK’s road infrastructure can accommodate trailers that are up to 4.9 metres high and there is currently no limit in Britain on the height that a trailer can be; the only restriction is whether a trailer can pass under bridges here. People might think that a reduction of 90 cm will not make much difference, but, as the excellent report by Professor Alan McKinnon, “Britain without Double-deck Lorries”, demonstrates, this proposal will have a massive impact on Britain’s haulage industry.

Professor McKinnon suggests that, if the height of lorries is restricted, haulage companies will have to increase their fleet size just to accommodate the same load capacity, and it will cost an extra £387 million to distribute the same amount of goods. Double-deck lorries, or lorries over 4 metres in height, cost roughly 10% more money to operate than other lorries, due to their size. Nevertheless, it would cost a haulage company more money to have fewer double-deck lorries and to increase the size of its fleet. Any extra cost would inevitably have a huge impact on the ability of smaller firms to remain competitive, thus resulting in cuts in employment in the sector. As there are several haulage firms in my constituency, I am particularly concerned for their viability, given all the other challenges that they face, such as rising fuel prices and the rise in VAT.

Professor McKinnon’s research suggests that the proposed legislation would result in a 5.5% increase in the number of lorries on Britain’s roads. That would mean more wear and tear on our roads—the previous Government’s economic record already makes it difficult to keep on top of that issue. The increase in the number of lorries using our roads and the resulting damage to our roads would lead to more traffic and more traffic jams. In turn, that would mean higher transport costs and higher costs for goods in the shops, along with increased stress and inconvenience for drivers.

Finally, there is the issue of the impact on our environment; it is probably not the main concern of Britain’s haulage firms, but in my view it is equally important. If in 2008 we had replaced all double-deck vehicles with single-deck ones, the total amount of fuel consumed since 2008 would have increased from 190 million litres of fuel to 342 million litres, which is an 80% increase in fuel consumption. With carbon dioxide directly linked to fuel consumption, it has been predicted that that increase in fuel consumption would increase CO₂ emissions from 0.5 million tonnes to 0.9 million tonnes a year, which relates to a 5.3% increase in the amount of CO₂ emitted by articulated lorries on British roads.

Although the concerns that I have expressed are paramount, I am also concerned by the way in which the European Commission has conducted itself on this issue. The proposal on page 49 of version two of the working paper of the “Fl JPD PE Masses and Dimensions” document is registered for “restricted circulation”, and it is not at all easy to track down. In fact, it took a lot of lateral thinking and persuasion by my staff to finally see a copy. It concerns me that, given the impact this proposal will have on British haulage, this document is being hidden away, despite its being well known within the haulage industry.

Perhaps my lack of trust in the openness of Europe is getting the better of me, but I believe that the European Commission would be better able to defend itself if it were completely open with the industry that it is attempting to regulate. An e-mail from the European Commission received by my office states that the document is not ready to be seen outside the working group on the policy. As I have said, the proposal is already well known within the haulage industry, so I ask the European Union to open the discussion to everyone who will be affected by the proposal, to ensure that anything that is developed is in the interests of British companies.

The European Commission’s proposal has caused concern among those in the haulage industry, from my constituent, Robin Allen, to the chief executive officer of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, Mr Paul Everitt, who has stated:

“The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders’ view on trailer heights is that limiting them to 4 metres would be detrimental to the vehicle industry, UK infrastructure, environment and economy.”

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I come to this debate as the chairman of the all-party group on freight transport, and we discussed this issue at our last meeting. At that meeting, there were organisations around the table from across the spectrum, not only from the haulage industry but from the haulage rescue industry, which would undoubtedly see its work load rise under this proposal.

The hon. Lady has made some excellent points. Does she agree that Britain should be at the forefront of fighting against this proposal, saying, “No, 4.2 metres, 4 metres or whatever the European suggestion is for is just ridiculous. It doesn’t work for British hauliers and should be opposed at every stage.”?

[Pauline Latham]

I agree that we should be at the forefront of the fight against this proposal, because it would impact so greatly on our haulage industry, which, as I have said, faces so many challenges at the moment. It would also impact on the people of this country, who would pay more for their goods. We are already in a difficult, cash-strapped situation, so we do not want to increase the difficulties not only for the haulage industry but for every single one of us. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point and hope that the Minister will take it on board.

Time is short, so I will use what time I have left to ask three things of the Minister—for the sake of the British economy, we need to get this proposal right. Before doing so, however, I thank him for his letter of 22 December 2010. First, I hope that the Minister will use his time today to outline his Department’s position in relation to the European Commission’s proposal. I understand from his letter to me and his comments to the trade press that he and the Department share many of the views of the haulage industry, but perhaps he will put that position on record. Secondly, will he ask the European Commission to make the proposal document available, so that those within the industry who will be affected can give their views? Thirdly and finally, I ask him to write to Government MEPs to ask them to raise the concerns of the British haulage industry in Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. We entered the House together; clearly I have gone one way and you have gone another.

This is a really important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on securing it, so that I can do exactly what she has asked me to do and set out the Government’s position. Also, I say to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) that I would love to speak to the all-party group on freight transport and set out the Government’s position there, too; I know the all-party group well, just as the haulage industry in general knows me very well.

In the short time that I have been a Minister, I have been trying to set out as quickly as possible the new Government’s position on this issue, particularly to hauliers, given the problems that they face. I would love to think that, when the Prime Minister appointed me to my post, he knew that I hold a heavy goods vehicle licence and have done so since I was 17—I was in the military at the time, so I could hold a HGV licence at that age, unlike in civvy street, where someone has to be 21. Sadly, I have never driven an articulated vehicle, although the Stobart Group has encouraged me to do so on its private land; indeed, I will do so in the very near future.

I want to set out right from the start that the Government have absolutely no intention of introducing the 4-metre regulation here; we are fighting it tooth and nail. Yesterday, my officials within this group in Europe attended a meeting, and said exactly that. This is majority vote territory, so we have to ensure that we are not alone, and I am pleased that the information coming back is that other countries with substantial vote clout are indicating that they are not happy either.

It is important that I set out why I am turning around and saying no to my European friends. It is not just that I am a little Eurosceptic, but that the measure would have a fundamental effect on the British haulage industry. Other countries in Europe already have a 4-metre limit—Austria, for example. No vehicle entering that country can have a height of more than 4 metres, which is absolutely fine. The people of Austria have every right to decide that, but they do not have any right to tell us, in this country, what the height of our vehicles should be.

There are a number of key points. We have a system that works perfectly well—it’s not broken, so don’t fix it. We should not put our hauliers in a disproportionately difficult fiscal position. Environmentally, what are we doing talking about limiting the height and thereby increasing the number of vehicles on our roads? I have absolutely no intention of increasing the weight limit on vehicles, so this measure would immediately cause a problem. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it would place a disproportionate burden on our industry.

I am carefully considering proposals to extend the length of vehicles by adding more crates to the back of certain vehicles. The issue has split the industry almost 50:50, and I can see the benefits but also the problems for some of the smaller hauliers, whose trailer stock would have to be changed. The industry should not fear that proposal though, because it is common sense to move more products around our congested roads in just one vehicle, which will take more vehicles off the roads altogether.

I have not only set out the position to the industry here in Parliament, but written articles, provided interviews and strongly set out my views, because I want this market-driven industry, which has very tight profit margins, to know not only what is happening on this issue, but how the Government will protect it in the future. Hauliers come over to this country from other European countries with belly tanks on, drive around our roads, pay no taxation and buy no fuel. It is difficult for our industry to compete with that, so we are looking at lorry road-user charges to create a more level playing field. We are committed to bringing in such a charge for trucks, because it will create a better balance.

I am also trying to limit the amount of regulation, so that the industry does not feel that the Government are on its back all the time. If there are bad hauliers out there with vehicles that are not fit for purpose, it is quite right that our police should bring regulation down on them like a ton of bricks. The vast majority of those in the industry, however, play by the rules and do the very best they can, but at the same time they feel that more regulation and more of a burden is placed on them.

As well as being the roads Minister, responsible for the UK freight industry and haulage, I am the deregulation Minister, and I am looking carefully at the regulations that are out there, some of which we have inherited and some of which have come from Europe. We are talking about just one of the measures that Europe has decided to look at, but about four fifths of all regulations that come through the Department for Transport are either EU or internationally led. It is difficult, therefore, to start to deregulate when these things have already been decided. The key is to get in early, to put our foot down absolutely rigorously right at the start and say, “This is the position we’re in.” To be fair to the Commission, I think that it realises that the measure is not popular and will certainly not get unanimity, and it is starting to learn that not only this country but others will start to kick and push back.

The earlier we push back on regulations from Europe, the better. As I have said, there were meetings yesterday, and there will be more as we go forward, and there is no doubt that the Commission knows this Government’s views—it certainly knows mine. My officials have been told in no uncertain terms to ensure that those views are put forward as strongly as possible. The European Parliament also knows my views, and I certainly will be working with it, and hon. Members, and I can spread the good word about where we are through the all-party groups. I hope to write an article on this matter in the next few weeks, to elaborate exactly where we are, not only on this matter but on the enormously important issue of trailer length.

To move forward on this subject, in which I am sure you are very interested, Mr Hollobone, it is important that not only do I do my bit and my hon. Friend does hers but, as constituency MPs, we all do our bit. It is important that I get as much written support as possible, to show that we have, in our armoury, cross-party support in the House. The matter is not new—it has been around since 2005—and I am sure that the shadow teams, even though they quite rightly cannot contribute to the debate today, understand the problems that have been coming through. It is important that the hauliers in my constituency, my hon. Friend’s constituency and the constituency of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South know that we will do everything we can to support them in this and other areas related to the regulatory burden.

[Robert Flello]

I welcome what the Minister has said today, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on securing the debate.

Taking up the comment that the Minister made at the beginning, I invite him to address the next meeting of the all-party group on freight transport, to set at rest the minds of all the different organisations represented there, and perhaps to discuss issues of great concern and relevance to various organisations out there in the haulage industry, such as the motor insurance database.

[Mike Penning]

I am more than grateful to accept that offer. I am sure that my officials have heard what has been said and will contact the hon. Gentleman in the near future, so that I can discuss these and the many other issues of concern to the haulage industry. On his point about insurance—something that he is perhaps looking into—there should be no fears around that. The idea is to remove the at least 1.5 million people who drive on the highways and byways of this country when uninsured, and I am sure that the haulage industry wholeheartedly supports me on the importance of addressing that.

The haulage industry needs to supply us with evidence, because it is all well and good my standing up here and our having a debate, but we are not experts in this field. The people in the industry are the experts on these problems, which affect their jobs, and their capacity to do them, every single day. As well as us and the Government saying, “Right, we’re going to push back on this,” the evidence has to come from the industry itself, so that when other countries in the European Union say that they are pro this—some are—we can have an evidence-based argument, which is absolutely crucial.

The evidence needs to be not only on the costs and the increased distance travelled—there are different figures around, but there would be an increase of about 4.5% in road use, particularly by articulated lorries—but on the effects on CO₂ emissions. One thing that we all want to do is to protect the planet for our young people and for the future, but at the same time we need growth. The last thing in the world that I want, therefore, if I am sweating the assets on the highways, and particularly the motorways, of this country—something we try to do as much as possible—is to see an increase in the number of lorries without an increase in growth. There would be an increase in cost, but not in profitability. We estimate that this would equate to about 151,000 new cars on the road, which, for those who do not know the industry, would cost road haulage about £305 million a year. Figures such as those—our Department produced them in consultation with the industry—are desperately needed. We need to quantify matters and ensure that we have a proper evidence base.

Impact assessments must be done not only for fiscal problems and emissions but for congestion. One thing that I have learned since I took over this portfolio eight months ago is that congestion involves not only pollution but money for the haulage industry. That is why we have announced, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, that we will remove barrier tolls from the Dartford river crossing by the end of 2012 to allow free flow, so that hauliers do not sit in traffic for 10, 11 or 12 miles. Often, no accident has occurred; it is just that someone is trying to find their money or credit card to pay, while the barriers bob up and down and traffic moves forward. That will open up opportunities enormously for the industry in that part of the world.

I have said to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs that we will consider whether we can negotiate with the contract holder of the Severn bridge crossing to do the same. I was also on the M6 toll road the other day to discuss whether barriers could be removed there and replaced by number plate recognition. Sadly, legislation would need to be introduced—I hope to introduce it with reference to the Dartford river crossing—to allow us to pursue and find people who refuse to pay the tolls that everybody else pays.

The next step is that the Department for Transport will again meet the relevant heads of responsibilities in the European Commission—as I have said, we met yesterday— and make it perfectly clear that we are more than happy with the status quo and do not want to reduce the limit to 4 metres. We have told the other member states supporting us that we are happy with the status quo. They feel that issues might arise involving cross-border enforcement. That operates perfectly well today; as I said earlier, Austria already has a 4-metre limit and enforces it. That is fine for Austria. We do not need to enforce anything, because there is no limit and we are perfectly happy. We have weight restrictions.

I have alluded to allowing free-flow tolling at the Dartford river crossing. Interestingly, the left-hand bore going north is the smaller of the two tunnels, and when we move to free-flow tolling, there will be issues involving how to move oversize vehicles into the right-hand bore. Free-flow tolling going south will cost money, but it is much simpler coming off the bridge.

[Mr Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Because of the size of the regional tunnel—some of us remember when it was the only tunnel available for crossing at that part of the dock—it is absolutely imperative that we consider traffic going north, as there are safety implications. However, we have managed to do it. There are plenty of bridges, tunnels and crossings in this country with height restrictions, and we have pushed hard to ensure that we protect them.

As I said earlier, Mr Hollobone—[Interruption.] It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I mentioned earlier that if we made the change, there would undoubtedly be pressure on me as a Minister to increase the weight limits in line with other parts of Europe. It is a natural argument to make. If I argue that we do not want more vehicles as a result of the height limitation, the pressure will say, “We have dropped to 4 metres. If you want fewer vehicles, it would be better—wouldn’t it, Minister?—to increase weight limits so we can move the same amount of freight around the country on the same number of vehicles.” I am not minded to do so. As it is, our roads are struggling to cope with the size of some lorries. Some lorries, often unintentionally, end up on wrong and completely unsuitable roads—we have all seen it; I have seen it especially in the rural part of my constituency—often sent by some satellite navigation device.

There are some interesting ideas about how trailers can adapt for the 21st century without the need to drop the height. For instance, one interesting idea submitted to me is that the payload might be dropped between the two axles in order to get more volume into the trailer on lighter loads. I am considering the extension of trailers, and, as I have said, I will make an announcement pretty soon.

It all falls into place. Margins are tight for hauliers. They are worried, for instance, about the cost of fuel, wages and insurance. This is the last thing that any Government want. I am surprised that Europe is considering such a measure. I do not actually think that that was what was originally intended; I think that it was drifted into. The matter falls into the area of subsidiarity. Europe should not be touching it; it is a sovereign area. However, it is a matter for qualified majority voting, so as much as I would like to stand alone and say that England can defend our shores, unless we carry the support of a significant number of other European Union countries, we will struggle. However, all the evidence that we are receiving at the moment says that we have support, including, interestingly, from France, our closest neighbour, which is also not interested in imposing the 4-metre limit. It looks as though common sense will come forward.

I think that I have exhausted this interesting and important subject and set out the Government’s position strongly. I hope that hon. Members here today are listening, as are the industry and the European Commission, and that we can move forward and protect our freight industry and hauliers. I am passionate about the issue.

To declare an interest, I drove HGVs young in life—I was a fireman and, like all firemen, had a part-time job, so I drove HGVs during my time off. We must protect hauliers and ensure that we have a robust British industry of which we can be proud. As the Minister, I am determined to defend it.