Airspace Restrictions (Glasgow Commonwealth Games)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Written Statements

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

The 20th Commonwealth games are due to take place in Glasgow this summer. While overall responsibility for the security of the games rests with Police Scotland, aviation is a matter reserved to the UK Parliament under devolution legislation. Police Scotland has, therefore, requested that the Government develop a set of temporary airspace restrictions from 13 July to 6 August to help protect the games venues from potential airborne risks.

Initial proposals were developed during the autumn of last year, based on a scaled-down version of the model used successfully during the London 2012 Olympic games. Police Scotland, working with colleagues from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), has subsequently engaged extensively with aviation representatives from the airports located within the proposed airspace restrictions to test the proposals and to develop mitigations to minimise the impact on business as usual.

As a result of that engagement work the Government, with the assistance of the CAA, refined their proposals and have now prepared the necessary statutory instruments to give effect to the temporary airspace restrictions that will be put in place for the Commonwealth games. NATS, the UK’s en route air traffic service provider and publisher of the UK’s aeronautical information, will be publishing the details of these regulations on 17 April 2014 in a number of aeronautical information circulars. In addition, full details of the planned airspace restrictions, including maps, will be published on the airspace safety initiative website at www.airspacesafety.com

In total there are six sets of regulations, two covering the Glasgow area (a core prohibited zone over the city’s Commonwealth games venues and athletes’ village, surrounded by a larger restricted zone), and four smaller restrictions of shorter duration, protecting specific events—the cycling time trials at Muirhead, the triathlon events at Strathdyde country park, the diving competition at the Royal Commonwealth pool in Edinburgh and the shooting competition at the Barry Buddon range near Dundee.

All the regulations have been designed to allow aviation business to continue as usual so far as possible, while ensuring the safety and security of the Commonwealth games. They also provide specific exemptions for aircraft such as those operated by the police or emergency medical services to enter the protected airspace. We do not expect that any airports within the restricted airspace will need to close as a result of the planned measures, and there should be no impact on scheduled air services that will be vital to competitors, officials and spectators.

The Government’s paramount objective is the delivery of a safe and secure 2014 Commonwealth games for all, and the airspace restrictions will help to provide this while minimising the impact on the aviation community, so far as possible. However, the Government reserve the right to implement additional airspace security measures should the need arise.

Local Authority Parking Enforcement

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Westminster Hall

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

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

I appreciate the work that has been done by the Select Committee in looking at the issue of parking and bringing forward its views, which the Government are considering along with other recommendations that have been brought to us. It is indeed an opportune time to discuss parking issues following the publication of this excellent report and also the Government’s consultation on parking, which concluded on 14 February.

Let me say straight away that we are currently considering over 800 responses to the consultation, and will be responding in full in due course. [Interruption.] I do not know whether, when the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) was in the Department, he had to respond to things in due course, but I reassure him that this matter is in my in-tray and I am giving it a great deal of attention. It has not been parked in the tray marked “too hard to attend to”.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The Minister knows that he is held in high regard by the Opposition, as he is by his Government colleagues. I wish him every success with his in-tray.

[Mr Goodwill]

I wonder whether the reason why, in the report, there was a small “l” for the party name after the hon. Gentleman’s name is that the word “labour” is used not only as the name of a party but as a reference to someone’s working very hard on a subject. That could well be the reason.

This debate is timely. It is not simply a case of responding to the consultation and considering all the points but ensuring that we have agreement across Departments and across the coalition, as different Ministers may have different priorities when they arrive in Departments.

We ask parking and traffic management to deliver a number of objectives in parallel, and managing those competing demands on our roads will never be simple. The UK has more motor vehicles per mile than France, Germany or even the densely populated Netherlands, and traffic on our roads is forecast to increase. That is why we are investing £24 billion in the strategic road network in this Parliament and the next, a tripling of previous investment levels seen in this country. By 2021, we will be spending £3 billion every year on improvements and maintenance, which is the most significant upgrade of our roads ever. It is also why parking and traffic management have a vital role to play. Effective management enables people, goods and services to get to where they are needed and is essential for a growing economy.

Over the past few years, we have seen major changes in how parking is enforced. More than 90% of local authorities have taken over the civil enforcement of their parking services. I wrote to the other 10% today suggesting, without wanting to impinge on their local decision-making processes, that they look closely at the advantages of opting for civil enforcement. It has improved compliance, reduced congestion, freed up the police and, most importantly, made our roads safer.

When effective parking management breaks down, as in Aberystwyth, and in Scarborough in my constituency, where a couple of enterprising former police officers, armed with tape measures and copies of the science manual, managed to delay the introduction of our civil enforcement, the result is chaos. That is not good news for motorists and certainly not for businesses because it causes real problems. We must keep a close eye on the matter. How parking is managed matters to us all at some level, and we must ensure that the basic rules and regulations help councils to deliver balanced and effective parking strategies.

We are here today to discuss the Transport Committee’s recent inquiry into local parking enforcement and the Government’s recent wide-ranging parking consultation, which invited views on many of the Committee’s main recommendations. Despite what some press reports have claimed, we have not already reached a decision on changes to Government policy following the consultation. I will look carefully at all the responses, and am very aware of the wide range of views among stakeholders about sensitive issues such as camera enforcement.

The Select Committee’s inquiry and our consultation were prompted by three big issues for parking and traffic management: first, the challenges facing our high streets; secondly, the potential for the deployment and use of new technologies to improve the use of our roads, recognising that, in some cases, they cause the public concern; and thirdly, the widespread belief among motorists that some councils seem to view parking enforcement primarily as an opportunity to raise revenue. I will say a few words on each of those issues.

Our high streets are essential to our national life. They bring people together and are at the heart of our daily life and economy. In London, more than half of the jobs in the capital are spread across just 600 high streets, and two thirds of Londoners live within a five-minute walk of their local high street. However, our high streets are going through long-term change. Those changes are significant and require communities to play an active role in shaping their high streets. There are far too many empty shops throughout the country. We have put in place a £1 billion package of support to help local people reinvigorate their high streets. Recent figures show that the number of empty shops on UK high streets fell in December 2013, which was the first time the rate has fallen below 14% since July 2010.

Ensuring that convenient and safe parking is available at reasonable cost is part of the answer and many areas need to improve. During her recent review, Mary Portas found that in many areas

“parking has been run-down, in an inconvenient place, and most significantly really expensive.”

The recent survey from the Association of Town and City Management and the British Parking Association found that some mid-range areas were charging 18% more for parking than larger and more popular retail locations. Indeed, many such locations have free parking. The question for local businesses and residents is: what more is needed to get the local council to improve parking provision in their area?

In the consultation, we suggested one way that could be achieved: by allowing local residents and firms to be able to petition the council to initiate a review of parking policy in their area. That might be a request for lower charges, for a review to see if additional spaces could be provided, or for better street lighting to improve safety.

The second issue is the potential for new technologies to help to manage our roads more effectively. The introduction of GPS-based systems, new sensor technologies and increasing integration with smart-phones can revolutionise parking. When I parked at York station this week, I used my phone and if my return is delayed, I can update my parking period using my phone without the anxiety of perhaps being fined for overstaying.

Better and more efficient parking services can be delivered in real time, bringing benefits to high streets and road users throughout the UK. However, the capabilities of new technologies bring with them an increased responsibility to ensure that parking is enforced fairly and proportionately. I firmly believe that most of those involved in the parking industry, from local authorities to private sector service providers, aim to do just that. However, the use of CCTV, in particular, causes public concern.

The Department’s guidance states that CCTV cameras should be used only where parking enforcement is difficult or sensitive, and enforcement by a civil enforcement officer is not practicable. Cameras can be more contentious than boots on the ground, and the Select Committee took evidence that resident permits and blue badges may not always be visible to cameras. The Committee reported that in some cases cameras are used routinely for on-street parking violations, despite my Department’s statutory guidance. Our consultation also asked about options to address those concerns, bearing in mind that, as the Committee pointed out, cameras can have a useful role in some circumstances, such as outside schools and in keeping bus lanes clear. We must look at the needs of all road users in the round and look for balanced solutions to the issues.

Finally, there is a real problem with the public’s view of local authorities’ approach to parking and traffic enforcement. The Select Committee said that there is a

“deeply rooted public perception that local authorities view parking enforcement as a cash cow”.

From 1997-98 to 2010-11, net surpluses from parking rose from £223 million to £512 million. Net income from local authority parking services is expected to rise from £601 million in 2012-13 to £635 million in 2013-14, an increase of 5.6%. That headline figure reflects parking charges as well as penalties, but I am determined that public confidence in enforcement should not be undermined. The Committee has identified the importance of the Government mandating the production of annual parking reports by local authorities, so the public fully understand the strategies, and where the money from parking goes. We have been very clear that the ring fence on surpluses will remain. Fines for those who break the rules will be used only to improve the roads or environment for those who play by the rules.

The Select Committee asked whether the current system is as fair as it can be for those who inadvertently make a mistake. First, it asked whether independent traffic adjudicators should be able to allow an appeal when they determine that a council has ignored statutory guidance. Secondly, it asked whether the current system acts as a disincentive for people to appeal. There is a legitimate concern that discounts on prompt payment following appeal would result in every charge being appealed so, following the Committee’s recommendation, we have asked whether the introduction of a 25% discount for motorists who pay within seven days of losing an appeal might be worth while. In addition, it might be worth considering whether discount for appeals that are lost could be allowed only if the appeal was made during the period for which the initial discount applied. We will consider that in more detail.

Thirdly, the Committee recommended that the statutory guidance should stipulate a grace period after the expiry of paid-for time. The British Parking Association’s response to the consultation states that in practice most local authorities do that already, so we are also considering whether mandating a grace period of perhaps five minutes after the end of paid-for parking might provide the public with reassurance that they will never be issued with a ticket just one minute after the meter runs out.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) made several points. She talked about the possibility of validating tickets so that someone who pays in a local authority car park can use that ticket to obtain a discount in a local shop, which would presumably be reimbursed by the local authority—or perhaps by the shop itself as part of a local discount scheme. That already works in some supermarkets to encourage customers only to use those supermarkets, but that is a matter for local councils, as is free parking for short periods at certain times, such as Christmas, which Scarborough borough council provides as a way of getting people into that excellent shopping location.

Are local authorities following the code of practice? If people appeal on the ground that the code of practice was not followed, the adjudicators will see that as important. They will often be sympathetic if people make honest mistakes.

The hon. Lady talked about the response to our consultations. I have some of the responses here. For example, the question was posed:

“Do you think motorists who lose an appeal at a parking tribunal should be offered a 25% discount for prompt payment?”

The overall response was: yes, 44%; no, 56%. However, among individuals, as opposed to organisations—I suspect that quite a lot of councils were among the organisations—54% favoured the rolling forward of the discount and 46% were against, while among organisations only 23% were in favour of rolling forward, while 77% were against. Therefore, even among individuals there was a mixed result.

We also posed the question:

“Do you think that authorities should be required by regulation to allow a grace period at the end of paid for parking?”

There again, the results were balanced. Overall, the response was exactly 50:50. Among individuals 51% were in favour and 49% were against, and among organisations 45% were in favour and 55% were against. The picture from the consultations is not clear on the rolling forward of the discount or the period of grace at the end of paid-for parking. As I have already said, however, many local authorities already have a grace period.

The hon. Lady also asked about pavement parking. We have given local authorities powers on pavement parking, but we do not collect statistics on how many authorities have used those powers. In London, of course, there is an enforceable general ban on parking on the pavement. On guidance issued to local authorities, we are considering the responses to the consultation and we will reply in due course.

On local authority transparency, the Department for Transport does not know whether all local authorities are fully transparent regarding their fine revenues, as that matter is reported to the Department for Communities and Local Government.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Before the Minister continues on transparency, he was answering the question on pavement parking that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside and I raised. That is a huge issue for organisations such as Guide Dogs and Living Streets, which campaign for people with mobility difficulties. He said that he is waiting on the responses and on further consideration by his Department, but will he assure us that he will look carefully at that? As he said, in London the protocol is that such parking is forbidden unless specifically allowed, whereas elsewhere it is almost the reverse of that. Those campaigning organisations would rather see more emphasis on looking after people with disabilities and mobility difficulties than allowing a free-for-all.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I am sure that, like me, he gets letters from constituents complaining about pavement parking. People are often surprised to discover that in many parts of the country such parking is perfectly legal. We have a similar problem with motorcycles in bus lanes, in that we do not have a consistent approach throughout the country.

There was also discussion about non-UK vehicles and whether we engage in cross-border agreements with other member states. We are talking not just about foreign vehicles breaking regulations in the UK, but British drivers caught contravening rules in other parts of the European Union. Although I am sure it would be popular in the UK to ensure that foreign vehicles fully comply with our rules, I suspect that we might see stories in the Sunday newspapers and some of the tabloid press about people being unfairly penalised for potential offences carried out in other parts of the EU where their ability to appeal might be restricted by language difficulties and so on. It does work both ways. Indeed, there is a system for the heavy goods vehicles levy whereby a deposit payment is taken in advance of a court case. In many cases, when the offence is admitted, the deposit is taken in default of the actual penalty.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse talked about fines and foreign-registered vehicles. As the law stands, parking companies and local authorities can and do use European debt collection agencies. We recognise, however, that that may not always be economically realistic and that sharing of vehicle-keeper information to pursue those debts is not currently covered by international treaties. Many member states have reservations about data sharing across borders and any proposal in that area would need to be carefully thought through.

In conclusion, I believe that the majority of local authorities and parking providers are doing very good work. The challenge now is to deliver equally high standards throughout the parking sector as a whole. That means preventing the examples of poor management or bad practice that are so prominent in the media.

As I mentioned, we have received more than 800 responses to the parking consultation. I have no illusions about just how important these issues are, and following those responses and our useful debate I will be looking carefully at the options going forward. Parking and traffic management is important to the public and to our communities, and it is vital to the health of our local economies.

Drug Driving

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Written Statements

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

In May 2012 the Government introduced primary legislation to Parliament that would create a new offence of driving with a specified controlled drug in the body above the specified limit for that drug. The Crime and Courts Act 2013 inserted a new section 5A in the Road Traffic Act 1988 and sets out the framework for the new offence.

Regulations now need to be made to specify the drugs to be included in the legislation and the limits to be specified. I have today published the summary of responses to the two consultations which sought views on these regulations.

The summary concludes that overall there is support for the Government’s proposed approach and I intend to lay regulations in Parliament on this basis.

However, the Government have also concluded that there are significant concerns on the proposed limit for amphetamine. I have therefore asked my officials to reconsider the limit for this drug, with a view to consulting again later in the year and including the new limit in further regulations at a subsequent date.

By taking this approach to the new offence our roads will be safer by making it easier for the police to tackle those who drive after taking illegal drugs and clarifying the position for those who take medication.

Copies of the summary of responses will be laid in the Libraries of both Houses.

Rail Services (Eccles)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Mr Davies, for calling me to speak. I also thank the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) for securing this afternoon’s debate. My goodness, she is persuasive, isn’t she? She has raised a subject of interest to many of her constituents and others. I hope to address some of the points that she has raised.

The people of Eccles are served by a station that opened on the Liverpool and Manchester railway in September 1830—the world’s first major inter-city passenger railway. They have considerable pride in their local station, although we heard from the right hon. Lady about the tragic circumstances of the opening of the line. That local pride is demonstrated by the passion of the Friends of Eccles Station, which she has spoken about today.

By the way, I wonder whether George Stephenson had the same problems building his railway line as we are having building the High Speed 2 line. In Stephenson’s time, the major argument deployed against rail was, “Why do we need a railway when we have got the canals to use?”

[Hazel Blears]

I can help the Minister with that query. Apparently, Robert Stephenson had the same problems. He brought a Bill forward in the House of Commons; it was rejected; there was a revised Bill for a new alignment; and the revised alignment had a problem crossing Chat Moss, which was apparently a bottomless peat bog. I have no doubt that Stephenson faced exactly the same difficulties that the Minister might face in the future, but he persevered, had determination and got there in the end. I am sure that the Minister will want to do the same.

[Mr Goodwill]

“Plus ça change,” as I am tempted to say. I am told that only one thing is more difficult than building a new railway line: closing an existing one.

I welcome the investment made at Eccles station during 2013, which included a brand new ticket office building. That £235,000 project was funded by the national station improvement scheme, with contributions from TFGM and Salford City council. It provides a waiting area that offers much-improved facilities for passengers, and a raised section of platform—I am told it is called a “Harrington Hump”—has been provided on the eastbound platform. That will reduce the stepping distance from the platform to trains at Eccles, making it easier for people with reduced mobility or those with baggage or pushchairs to board trains to Manchester.

Northern Rail is installing a cycle hub at Eccles, which is due for completion next month. Having said all that, I understand that having a waiting room is no good if people have to wait too long for their train.

In July 2013, the Secretary of State for Transport unveiled a plaque at Eccles to commemorate the substantial completion of the first phase of electrification of the Liverpool and Manchester Chat Moss route. I commend the efforts of the volunteers who form the Friends of Eccles Station group, which has made such a contribution to improving the environment at Eccles station and promoting the benefits offered by the local railway, working with Northern Rail’s client and stakeholder manager and others.

Freccles, as we have to call the group, is just one of the groups of friends, station adopters and community rail partnerships made up of local people who volunteer their time and energy to improve their local stations and promote train services in the north of England.

[Barbara Keeley]

I did not want to let the Minister mention Freccles, an excellent group that does great work, without also mentioning Friends of Patricroft Station, a station near Eccles. That group is also campaigning for two trains an hour, as well as for the implementation of Sunday services. For some of these stations, a Sunday service would mean everything. It seems crazy to build up the numbers of passengers and the footfall during the week without having a Sunday service.

[Mr Goodwill]

It seems that there is not a friendless station in Lancashire. These volunteers who we have heard about make a considerable contribution at Eccles, other stations in the north and right across the Northern Rail network.

I am aware that Freccles wishes to see additional train services calling at both Eccles and Patricroft. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who also mentioned air quality issues in a brief intervention, wrote to the Secretary of State on this subject on 7 March.

I appreciate the view of Freccles that additional trains at Eccles could provide local people with a broader range of direct journey opportunities to Liverpool, Chester, north Wales and Manchester airport for work and leisure. That would make it easier for people to travel to work opportunities by train, including the opportunities at Manchester airport and the growing Media City in Salford.

Local train services at Eccles and Patricroft are sponsored and specified by TFGM, which is a co-signatory to the Northern Rail franchise agreement. The Government believe that TFGM, as the local transport authority, is well placed to decide how best to deliver local transport to serve new employment opportunities such as those at Media City, and to offer sustainable and convenient journeys that bring economic benefits and access to jobs and leisure, while helping to reduce carbon emissions from transport.

The railway industry has to develop services that best balance the competing needs and aspirations of all passengers within the capacity of the infrastructure and the funding available. A balance has to be struck between people making local journeys, who wish for trains to call at a number of stations, and other passengers making longer journeys, who are attracted to the train because it can offer a quick journey between main city centres. It is for train operators to decide, in partnership with TFGM, whether there is an appropriate business case for their existing train services to make additional calls at Patricroft and Eccles stations.

Although there may be little obvious cost in an existing express train stopping at those stations, operators have to consider whether the additional fare revenue from new passengers is likely to cover the increased use of fuel and other industry costs. There would also be an impact for existing passengers from extending journey times. By offering quick journey times, express trains offer people a competitive alternative to other modes of transport.

An additional station call would require changes to the timetable, as a station call typically adds two or three minutes to a train’s journey. At busy junctions around Manchester, slowing a train by only a few minutes could mean that it arrives at the same time as a train that is currently running behind it or one that crosses the junction in a conflicting move. The railway infrastructure around Manchester Piccadilly is used to full capacity at peak times. Additionally, train operators need to consider how busy their existing trains are. For example, would a greater number of passengers making short journeys on an existing train lead to those making longer journeys having to stand?

[Hazel Blears]

I am listening carefully to the Minister, and I am afraid he is not giving me a great deal of hope—my heart is not fluttering and I do not feel that, after 10 years, we might be making some progress. These are exactly the same arguments that I have been pursuing for the past few years with Arriva and Northern, and they would not change the situation because of financial reasons. Then there were issues about the time scale, and about the two minutes here and there. I understand that those are all genuine matters, but TFGM said in its letter to me that it shares our frustration and wants to get two trains per hour at “the earliest opportunity” possible. It also says that the Department for Transport is launching the consultation.

I am afraid I am asking the Minister for more than his simply saying that the issue has nothing to do with the Department and it is all a local matter, because, clearly, he has overarching responsibility. I should like to hear from him that he agrees that we have an excellent business case for making sure that we get these trains.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am merely outlining the problems, although they are not insurmountable. A balance needs to be struck between the needs of the express passengers, who want a quick journey, and passengers who may wish to stop at intermediate stations.

Passenger demand on Northern services has increased by more than 40% since 2004 and its trains are now used by some 85 million passengers per year. In the same period, passenger numbers at Eccles have doubled, as they have on TransPennine Express services. Such increases in demand for trains and track capacity are among the reasons why the Government are investing more than £500 million in the northern hub scheme over the next few years. That will increase capacity on the railway network serving Manchester and the cities of the north of England, enabling more trains to be operated in 2014, with further capacity improvement and more electrification due to come into use in 2016.

The right hon. Lady knows that Government investment in the railways of the north-west includes electrification of the lines between Liverpool and Manchester via Newton-le-Willows and Eccles, and from Liverpool to Wigan and Manchester to Preston and Blackpool North via Bolton. The first phase saw TransPennine Express introduce a fleet of 10 brand new four-coach electric trains between Manchester and Scotland, running via Wigan North Western. These entered service from 30 December 2013, with the full fleet now delivered.

From May 2014, TransPennine Express will provide additional carriages across its network, increasing overall capacity by 30%. That will include non-stop expresses between Liverpool and Manchester for the first time in several decades. These new train services will offer probably the fastest and most frequent express trains ever to run along the original Liverpool and Manchester railway.

Network Rail is nearing completion of the work for the next phase of electrification from Newton-le-Willows to Liverpool. Electric trains will be able to operate along the Chat Moss line from December. Some two years later, in late 2016, electric trains will be able to use the route from Manchester to Blackpool North via Bolton, too. That is all part of the Government’s massive electrification and investment project, providing more than 850 miles of electrification, which I probably do not need to remind the right hon. Lady is 842 miles more than delivered by the previous Labour Government in respect of improving our railways.

Although subject to reaching agreement, it is expected that a small number of train services between Liverpool and Manchester via the Chat Moss route will be provided using cascaded electric trains from the start of the December 2014 timetable. The planned phased introduction of four-coach electric trains will enable the operator to provide electric trains offering additional capacity for passengers travelling to Eccles and Patricroft during 2015.

[Hazel Blears]

I trust that the Minister will conduct the rest of this debate in the consensual way that has prevailed so far, otherwise I might be tempted to offer a different tone. Transport for Greater Manchester said:

“In the immediate short term, the major concern within TfGM is that the Department for Transport…has not confirmed when and how many electric units will come north to operate services over the newly electrified…line from this December.”

Will the Minister say how many are coming, to enable us to have that capacity?

[Mr Goodwill]

I will have to write to the right hon. Lady with precise details. I would not want to mislead the Chamber by giving the incorrect figure.

If agreed, it is hoped that the introduction of electric trains will enable a small number of the diesel trains used today to move to other routes. It is hoped that that will enable additional places to be provided for passengers travelling from Bolton and local stations on that line to Manchester at peak times, from the December 2014 timetable change.

Investment is being made on the Chat Moss route, to reinstate two tracks between Roby and Huyton that were removed in the 1970s. Initially, there will be a third track, but in a few years’ time, a new section of four-track railway will enable express trains to overtake local services, increasing capacity and reducing journey times.

In conclusion, we welcome the popularity of the railway in the north of England. Although I recognise that that has led to some services becoming very busy, the Government are investing to provide more, longer trains and to introduce electric trains and reduce journey times. I have outlined how the Government are working with operators and stakeholders to deliver increased capacity to the railway network, so that operators are able to provide passengers with more carriages and new, improved train services over the next few years. I hope to see electric trains calling at Eccles before the end of 2015, with operators working with TFGM and other local stakeholders to offer a more frequent service where there is a business case for doing so.

[Hazel Blears]

My heart fluttered a little when the Minister said “before the end of 2015”. Does that mean that he foresees the possibility, by the end of 2015, of two trains an hour—a half-hourly service—rather than the hourly service that we have now?

[Mr Goodwill]

The right hon. Lady mentioned this summer’s consultation and the opportunity that the new franchise may present. Let us hope that I have also seen that glimmer of hope, too, and let us hope that, in this case, it is not a false dawn.

I thank the right hon. Lady again for bringing this matter to my attention. If enthusiasm was a way of getting this matter pushed through, she would certainly have the train already. I appreciate that it is difficult for people to plan their lives around a train service that runs only on the hour. I have a similar problem with the Northern Rail service to Whitby in my constituency, where there is also a campaign for a second train, to give us an early morning service. The problems faced in Eccles are not confined to the western side of the country; they are also encountered in my constituency.

I appreciate the opportunity to make the case and to respond to the right hon. Lady’s points, and I look forward to seeing what developments come in future.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

2. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of public transport links to Durham Tees Valley airport.

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

My assessment is that public transport links to Durham Tees Valley airport are very poor. However, we stated in the aviation policy framework that we will work with airports, transport operators, local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to improve surface access to the UK’s airports.

[Ian Swales]

In the year to last March, the station at Durham Tees Valley airport had eight passengers—not per hour or per day, but in the whole year. Only one service a week stops there, cynically avoiding the costs of a real closure. This is a symbol of the long-term neglect of the area and its airport. Will the Minister require the airport operators to link their passenger terminal to proper public transport services, timed to serve their flights?

[Mr Goodwill]

I know that this is what is known as a parliamentary service, which does save the cost of closure, but given that the passenger numbers were 900,000 in 2006 and 161,092 in 2013, action on more than just public transport links will be required to ensure the airport’s future.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that the Tees Valley metro was seen as a key component in establishing better links to the airport. That concept appears to have slipped somewhat. Will he meet me to discuss the viability of the Tees Valley metro so that we can pursue our economic ambitions right across the Tees valley?

[Mr Goodwill]

I will be more than happy to do so, and ensure that Teesside has the same good transport links from which many other parts of the country benefit.

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

3. When he next plans to meet representatives of the Passenger Transport Executive Group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

4. What progress he has made on implementing recommendations of the “Get Britain Cycling” report of the all-party parliamentary cycling group. [R]

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

My hon. Friend chaired the all-party parliamentary cycling group yesterday when I outlined the Government’s commitment to cycling. With regards to the all-party group’s recommendations, the Government provided an update to Parliament last month.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for coming to speak to us yesterday. We made a number of recommendations, which were endorsed by this House when we debated the subject. Two of those would have a cross-departmental action plan and sustained funding at £10 per head. We have had some pots of money, but not at that level. Will he update us on those two issues?

[Mr Goodwill]

The first point that needs to be made is that, compared with the previous Government, we have doubled spending on cycling. Indeed, the eight cycling ambition cities have benefited from that funding, and Cambridge is one of them.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

If we are to get more people cycling, the physical fear—real or imagined—must be removed, particularly on busy roads such as those near my constituency where a number of people have died. How can the Government address that and take away the physical fear of cycling on busy roads?

[Mr Goodwill]

The Highways Agency is spending £40 million on cycling improvement schemes. I think that some of the media coverage, particularly in London last year, gives the impression that cycling is more dangerous than it actually is. It is safer now than it ever has been.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Local communities in Northumberland are keen to access the future cycling fund. Will the Minister meet me and representatives from Northumberland to discuss how the local enterprise partnership and individual communities can access future funds, and when that will happen?

[Mr Goodwill]

We are certainly always keen to meet local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to look at imaginative ways of encouraging more cycling. Indeed, we will publish our cycling delivery plan later this year.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

5. What assessment he has made of Network Rail’s planned control period 5 investment programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What estimate his Department has made of the number of people who will be killed or injured in road traffic collisions in the UK between 2014 and 2030; and if he will estimate the economic value of preventing such casualties.

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

Road casualties have followed a declining trend over recent decades. With unprecedented investment in roads and continued improvements in vehicle technology, there are signs that this trend will continue. The economic cost of each casualty has been calculated at £1.7 million.

[Mr Sheerman]

The Minister knows of my long-term interest in road safety as chairman of the parliamentary advisory council for transport safety. Are we not in danger of becoming complacent? From now until 2030, it is likely that a third of a million people will be killed and seriously injured on Britain’s roads. The cost to families, to communities and to the national health service is going to be dreadful. Should we not act now to improve our performance?

[Mr Goodwill]

The UK leads Europe in road safety. Only Malta has a better record, and our record is twice as good as that of France. However, that is no reason for complacency or for letting up in the measures that we can take further to improve road safety.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend’s constituency and mine are served by the A64, and there will inevitably be casualties and fatalities on that road. Will he take this as a representation on improving it to reduce the likelihood of any such future casualties or fatalities?

[Mr Goodwill]

There are a number of single-carriageway trunk roads where we have particular concerns about the fatality and casualty levels. The Department collates data and produces a list of the worst blackspots which we can then identify for future investment.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

7. What plans he has to review funding for mountain rescue teams.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

9. What his plans are for the Severn bridge tolls when the current operator’s licence ends.

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

The UK Government are committed to the continued successful operation of these vital crossings. No decisions have been taken on future management or tolling arrangements on the crossings after the end of the current concession. However, any future regime would need to recover the costs it has incurred relating to the crossings, make provision for maintenance of the crossings and reflect the interests of roads users in England and Wales.

[Kevin Brennan]

If the toll since the first bridge was built in 1966 had increased simply in line with inflation, it would be just over £2 today, yet it is now £6.40 for a car. That is a tax on the south Wales economy, as the tolls operate only in one direction. Should the Government not give careful consideration to reducing the tolls when the opportunity arises or getting rid of them altogether?

[Mr Goodwill]

At the end of the concession period VAT will no longer be payable, so the Government of the day could take a decision based on that. Tolls for heavy goods vehicles are comparable with those at other crossings. For example, after taking account of the fact that crossing is free in one direction, the toll at the Humber crossing is £12 to save 45 miles, and the toll at the Severn is £9.60 to save 52 miles.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

The Minister will know from the recent debate in Westminster Hall that the old Severn bridge is entirely in England and half of it is in my constituency. When he is considering the future use of toll revenue, will he bear in mind my request for consideration of a third Severn crossing to relieve traffic congestion in my constituency, and whether toll revenue may be used to part-fund that if that is entirely necessary?

[Mr Goodwill]

The Government should certainly consider that. Indeed, the announcement in yesterday’s Budget on the Merseylink crossing indicates that there can be some cross-subsidisation of crossings to fund new provision.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

10. What steps he plans to take to improve road and rail infrastructure into Devon and Cornwall.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Government have committed up to £900 million to promote the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles. Measures include a £5,000 buyer incentive and funding for charge points, including at people’s homes and locations such as train station car parks and the public sector estate.

[Mike Thornton]

I welcome the pioneering initiative the Government have put in place and the efforts to ensure that this country becomes a global leader in the field. However, I recently met representatives from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, who brought to my attention the danger that these very quiet vehicles can hold to those whose sight is impaired and to older people and children. These people rely on vehicle noise to help them judge whether it is safe to cross the road. Is the Minister aware of the research that shows that such quiet vehicles are involved in 25% more pedestrian collisions than conventional vehicles?

[Mr Goodwill]

The latest advice I have is that there is not a higher level of accidents involving these types of vehicles. We have an awful lot of vehicles that make no noise on our roads—they are called bicycles and people have to be aware of them as well.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Minister initially said that the Government would spend £400 million supporting low-emission vehicles. Answers to parliamentary questions have shown that £170 million of that will not be spent by the end of this Government’s life. Last year, the Chancellor cut the first-year capital subsidy for low-emission vehicles, as a result of which no right-handed vehicles are being produced in the UK. What will he do to incentivise this industry, and to ensure that the emissions causing the deaths of 29,000 people each year are cut down?

[Mr Goodwill]

As more manufacturers produce these vehicles, they are becoming much more mainstream, and people are getting used to the issues about range anxiety. As a Yorkshireman, I was particularly pleased to hear that the new Volkswagen model is to be called the e-up!

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking to ensure adequate supply and stability of rolling stock until 2018.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

Yesterday, the owner of Manston airport in Kent announced the proposed closure of that important airfield. Given that Manston has the fourth longest runway in the country and is a major diversion field and a search and rescue base, will the Secretary of State review the matter in the national interest to see how Manston may be kept open?

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

It certainly is disturbing news, given the importance that we place on regional airports. It is disappointing that Manston has not been able to attract some of the low-cost carriers that it hoped to, but I am certainly happy to meet my hon. Friend to see whether there is a way forward.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Secretary of State make bus driver disability awareness training compulsory in his Department’s review of the EU bus and coach regulation this month?

EU Transport Council

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Written Statements

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

I attended the first Transport Council under the Greek presidency (the presidency) in Brussels on Friday 14 March.

The Council reached a general approach on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Railways. There was strong member state support for the presidency text—it was seen as a key step towards breaking down barriers to a single market and supporting the efficiency, transparency and increased competitiveness of the European rail industry. This important piece of legislation completes the technical pillar of the fourth railway package and will help to further develop the single European rail area. The Commission called on the Council to begin discussions on the remaining market opening and governance pillars to retain the “package” concept of the fourth railway package. I strongly supported this position.

There was a positive discussion on a proposal for a Council regulation establishing the Shift2Rail joint undertaking which resulted in the adoption of the Council position on the proposal. The joint undertaking would lead to the development of a co-ordinated approach to research and innovation in the rail sector, enhance the competitiveness of the EU rail sector and further support the completion of the single European rail area.

A wide-ranging policy debate was held on the Commission communication entitled “Together towards a competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility”. While there were varying views on funding options, there was unanimous support from member states for the Commission’s plans in so far as they remain flexible and respect the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission confirmed that it had no plans for legislative action in this area. I welcomed the communication which provides a helpful framework for urban mobility planning and highlighted that the UK already met most of its objectives.

Under any other business, the presidency provided information on three legislative proposals. First, on the political agreement that was reached on a proposal for a regulation on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports. This was the first political agreement reached on the airports package under the Greek presidency. The European Parliament plenary vote is scheduled to take place in April. Secondly, on their achievement on a proposal for a regulation on community fleet capacity policy to promote inland waterway transport. This regulation does not apply to the UK as we have no inland waterways which meet the criteria for inclusion. Finally, the presidency informed member states that an agreement was within reach on a proposal for a directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure—clean power.

Also under any other business, France supported by Germany and Czech Republic urged member states to commence discussions on how best to prepare for and exploit the benefits of using the European Galileo system in civil aviation by 2025. The Commission provided a brief summary on the successful outcome of the EU-ASEAN aviation summit held in Singapore on 11-12 February. Estonia presented a proposal on state aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty.

I used the opportunity of my attendance to hold bilateral discussions with Transport Secretaries from Greece, Italy and Germany.

EU Transport Council

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Written Statements

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

I will attend the first Transport Council under the Greek presidency (the presidency) taking place in Brussels on Friday 14 March.

The presidency is aiming for a general approach on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Railways and repealing regulation (EC) No. 881/2004—part of the fourth railway package. This is an important piece of legislation that will serve to further enhance the operation of the single European rail area. The UK’s position on the recast regulation is to ensure that it reflects the agreements reached in the general approach texts on the recast railway interoperability and railway safety directives. The European Railway Agency must have the necessary powers to ensure that the framework created by these proposals can operate effectively. All UK interests and objectives are maintained by the presidency’s text. I therefore fully support this proposal and the adoption of a general approach by the Council.

I anticipate that the Council will adopt its position on a proposal for a Council regulation establishing the Shift2Rail joint undertaking. The UK welcomes the Shift2Rail proposal as we share the vision of reducing costs and increasing capacity and reliability through research and innovation. We fully support the close involvement of the rail industry in this new joint undertaking and the increased emphasis on the needs of passengers and freight customers.

There will be a policy debate on the Commission communication entitled “Together towards a competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility”. This communication provides a helpful framework to support and promote competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility at a national and regional level. The key issue is to retain flexibility in this matter, not prescription. Most of the aims and measures are already being delivered in the UK through devolved local measures and national initiatives. It is important, therefore, that this communication is limited to a non-regulatory framework.

Under any other business, the presidency will provide information on several legislative proposals. Firstly, a proposal for a regulation on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports. Secondly, a proposal for a regulation on community fleet capacity policy to promote inland waterway transport. Finally, a proposal for a directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure—clean power. The French delegation will provide information on the modernised aviation navigation system based on a combined use of GPS and Galileo. The Commission will provide information on the outcome of the EU-ASEAN aviation summit held in Singapore on 11-12 February and the Estonian delegation will provide information on state aid provisions for air carriers.

Severn Bridges (Tolling)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Paul Murphy]

Indeed. That is why, in a post-devolution world, the Welsh Government have a huge interest in this matter. I hope that the Minister tells the House that he has been in conversation with his colleagues in Cardiff.

Finally, let me mention what happens to tolls after the concession finishes. Yes, of course, VAT means that there will be money available anyway, and what is collected in VAT should at least go to ensuring that the toll is lowered, but there is more to it than that. Lying behind everything in Government is the dead hand of the Treasury. I spent a decade having to deal with the Treasury as a Minister. Anybody who has been a Minister knows that it wants to get as much money as possible—that is its job—but it is the job of Ministers to obstruct it as far as they can, to ensure that the people can occasionally benefit from a concession.

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

If I may help the right hon. Gentleman, he gave a figure of £120 million outstanding at the end of the concession. The projection that I have is of £88 million at the end of the concession in 2018. It will take one or two years to recover this money. Under the terms of the Severn Bridges Act 1992, an update will be given to the Welsh Affairs Committee in April on the accounts of the previous year.

[Paul Murphy]

The Minister will, of course, have greater knowledge than me of the figures from his Department, but whether or not it is £88 million, they would like it to be £112 million, and probably a bit more than that. Ultimately, the money that is there to pay the concessioner, which is going into the pockets of the Severn crossing company, could eventually be made available to reduce the tolls on the bridges and save people who use it from being burdened. My fear is that there is a huge temptation, whether in the Department for Transport or the Treasury, to retain that money and simply put it back into the public coffers. That would be deeply wrong.

The hon. Member for Forest of Dean made a valid point when he said that the money could be used for infrastructure. However, I disagree, because there is no need for a third Severn crossing. There may be a case for infrastructure around the bridges, but that would be a relatively small amount in general terms. No, the people of Wales and England—and the people of other parts of Europe who use our bridges—should be given the opportunity to have lower tolls when the concession ends. Although the Minister cannot commit himself to that today, I hope that he does not dismiss that outright as the aspiration of all of us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

Yes, indeed. Of course, many other firms in Wales are affected by the tolls on the bridge, too. Whether it is a small electrical contractor, a plumbing business wanting to serve customers on both sides, or a large haulage firm, those businesses are at a disadvantage compared with competitors who do not have to use the bridges regularly.

[Mr Goodwill]

To clarify, on discounts for frequent users in heavy goods vehicles, the Eurovignette directive imposes a 13% cap on any discount for HGVs, and the discount for HGVs on the Severn is near the maximum allowed under that directive. I do not need to mention that hauliers reclaim the VAT on these charges.

[Nia Griffith]

I was about to come on to the issue that the Minister mentions. He kindly sent me a letter containing that information this week. What I would ask is: how close are we to that 13% limit? Is there any wriggle room at all, and would it be possible to open a discussion on further concessions? I think he said in our meeting that that would be likely only if we had a tit for tat, and traded such concessions off against others. If anything like that were to be suggested, the freight companies would need to be closely involved and see the detail, because they would not want to end up paying much more in the daytime to get a night-time concession if their bills ended up being higher. They are still interested, however; they have said that they would be interested in looking at concessions, even if that means that the tolls continue a little longer beyond 2018.

I question the suggestion that EU law means that freight and ordinary car use charges cannot be varied, and whether that is a competition issue. If all freight lorries use the bridge no matter where they come from, it would not be a matter of having more favourable laws for British-based lorries than for Dutch or French-based lorries. It would be helpful to have a little more information on that.

[Mr Goodwill]

The current 10% discount, which is offered by way of the season TAG, is based on 22 trips a month; that is quite close to the 13% maximum.

[Nia Griffith]

Perhaps I could ask the Minister to look at that remaining 3% and see if there is any wriggle room at all, because when we are talking about paying the huge amounts mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), even 3% would make a considerable difference.

VAT is a massively important question. The Minister confirmed in his letter to me that VAT comes off the charge when the crossing is managed by a public, rather than private, company. We would be delighted if that meant an automatic 20% decrease. However, if the rates were to be kept the same, that would be a massive penalty for all the business users who currently reclaim the VAT, because effectively they would have to pay 20% more and would have no opportunity for clawback.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) mentioned the figure of £112 million. Mercifully, the letter from the Minister says that that has reduced to £88 million. Of course, we on the Welsh Affairs Committee would be pleased if the Department for Transport were to revise that figure downward again. There was an issue about how that was calculated in the first place, and we want to ensure that we get up-to-date information about that. Although the Minister previously said that 2018 was a long way away, firms such as Owens are investing long-term, looking eight to 10 years ahead, and they have to make decisions. The more certainty such firms can have, the better.

The Minister may think that we will have another Government in place in 2018—some of us hope that we will—but I am sure that every Department plans ahead and thinks about what it would do. The Department for Transport is in a position to make the necessary assessment and get hold of the statistics, so that we can have more information about the £88 million being paid back, about when there will be an opportunity for the bridge to be debt-free and just have a maintenance charge, and about what would be done with that maintenance charge.

I am a little concerned by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) saying that he would like a levy on the existing bridges—in other words, on people coming into Wales—to fund a bridge further up the river. I much prefer his first suggestion, which was that such a bridge should be funded through general taxation spread across the UK, to the suggestion that we penalise one particular group of users. One of the main bones of contention about the bridge all along has been that such charges are unusual in this country; it is not like in some countries on the continent where most of the motorway network is tolled. That is why there is such great resentment of the toll, and the level of it, in the first place.

We certainly want a little more clarification of what will happen in the future. I would be grateful if the Minister gave us any indication of where we are going, and kept the Welsh Affairs Committee fully updated with any further information.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Goodwill]

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

[Richard Burden]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on securing this debate on the Severn crossings. Before I discuss the tolls on the Severn crossings, I make the point that it has been the policy of successive Governments since 1945 that crossings on estuaries should be paid for by the user rather than by the taxpayer. Successive Governments have taken the view that tolls on all such crossings are justified because the user benefits from the exceptional savings in time and money that those expensive facilities make possible.

It might be helpful if I give a brief outline of the history of the Severn crossings, some of which is relevant to the issues that have been raised. The first Severn bridge was opened by the Queen in September 1966, providing a direct link from the M4 motorway into Wales, with a toll in place for use of the bridge to pay for the cost of construction. In 1986, the Government said that a second bridge would be constructed. In July 1988, they announced that the private sector would be given an opportunity to participate in the scheme, and in April 1990 they announced the selection of the bid led by John Laing Ltd with GTM-Entrepose to design, build and finance the second crossing. That consortium was also to take over the maintenance and operation of the existing Severn bridge.

In October of that year, the concession agreement between the Government and Severn River Crossing plc was formally signed. In February 1992, the Severn Bridges Bill received Royal Assent. The concession agreement was enshrined in an Act of Parliament and commenced in April 1992. Severn River Crossing plc then took over both the operation and maintenance of the present bridge and the construction of the new bridge. The concession agreement was structured so that certain risks were borne by the Government, rather than by Severn River Crossing plc, for example, costs relating to latent defects on the first Severn crossing. By bearing those risks, the Government could finance the construction of the second crossing and maintenance of the crossings at a much lower cost. If those risks had been included in the concession arrangement, the tolls would have needed to be higher or the end of the concession would have been longer than under the current arrangement.

Construction of the new bridge started in September 1992, and the new crossing was opened on 5 June 1996 by the Prince of Wales, almost 30 years after the opening of the first bridge. As part of the concession agreement, Severn River Crossing plc is authorised to collect tolls to meet its financial obligations. The tolls repay the construction and financing costs of the second Severn crossing, the remaining debt from the first existing crossing from 1992 and pay for the maintenance and operation of both crossings. It is worth stressing that that is the company’s only source of income. The concession period is limited to a maximum of 30 years. The actual end date will be achieved when the concessionaire has collected a fixed sum of money from tolls, which is £1.029 billion at 1989 prices.

The Severn Bridges Act 1992 applies a clear structure to the tolls to give the concessionaire confidence that it will be able to meet its liabilities and manage the risks that it accepted through the concession agreement. The toll levels were set for three categories of vehicles at the time of tender and are embodied in the 1992 Act. The Act sets out the tolling arrangements and the basis for yearly increases in the toll rates. Toll rates are fixed in real terms. The new rates are introduced on 1 January each year and are increased in line with the retail prices index using a formula, and rounded to the nearest 10 pence.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), asked about the possibility of introducing free-flow tolling on the Severn crossing, as is to be introduced on the Dartford crossings, but that depends on decisions on future charging arrangements that are yet to be taken. For example, it would be imprudent to invest in an expensive tolling system that operated for only three or four years, were the Government of the day to decide to discontinue charging. We would need to assess the costs and benefits of free-flow tolling on the Severn crossing as we did on the Dartford. However, as a general principle, the Government support moving towards more efficient ways of collecting tolls, which benefit traffic flow.

[Jessica Morden]

As the Minister looks toward the end of the concession in 2018, could he address the VAT issue and clarify what was meant in the letter sent to the Welsh Affairs Committee this week? When the VAT charge comes off the bridges, because they return to public ownership, will that mean a reduction in the tolls, or are the Government planning to keep the tolls at the current level?

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. From 2003, when VAT was imposed, to 2012, about £120 million gross has been collected. However, some business users will have reclaimed a fair proportion of the VAT. It is the case that when this Parliament comes to an end, it would be open to the Government of the day to make a decision as to whether they continue to charge the same fee, or reduce it by 20% or whatever the prevailing rate of VAT. No decision has been made, and I suspect it would be above my pay grade to make that particular decision. It is probably slightly early to consider that point.

[Jessica Morden]

Will the Minister provide us with an update on the money that has been collected to date, since the VAT changes and the changes in the industrial buildings allowance, so that we can have a full update of how much money the Government have collected so far? I am happy for him to write to us.

[Mr Goodwill]

Yes, by all means. I have given the hon. Lady the latest figure on the VAT. If I may, I will write to her with a more up-to-date figure on the VAT, if we can get hold of it, and also on the buildings tax that she mentioned.

[Mr Harper]

On the VAT, may I clarify what the Minister said? I think he said that the Department for Transport can account for the gross amount of VAT collected, but it is not able to ascertain how much was reclaimed. It would be helpful, so that people can see the net amount that the Government have collected, at least to break it down into that collected for car users and that collected for freight. It would be a reasonable assumption that most freight users were VAT-registered and would therefore have reclaimed the VAT. It would be unhelpful for people to assume that the gross amount was collected and retained by the Government, and not to take into account the fact that for freight users, a lot of it would have been reclaimed, or would not have been a cost to their businesses.

[Mr Goodwill]

Yes, it would be reasonable to assume that most business users reclaim the VAT, so when we write to Members participating in this debate, we will estimate that level. When there is talk of the Government using this as a cash cow, it must not be forgotten that every vehicle saves 52 miles by crossing one of the crossings, but on the long journeys going the long way round, they would actually be paying a fair amount of fuel duty. So it is not simply that the Government benefit from the VAT; there is actually a loss in terms of the amount of fuel revenue that otherwise would have been collected.

I want to stress an important point: the Secretary of State does not have the authority to reduce Severn tolls without amending primary legislation and obtaining the concessionaire’s agreement. The concessionaire would not be able to agree to anything that would affect its net revenue without compensation and agreement from its shareholders and lenders, which would result, if such an agreement were forthcoming, in a cost to the taxpayer. Any discounts or exemptions are a matter for the concessionaire to decide, provided that those provisions comply with existing legislation, such as the Eurovignette directive. Where that is not the case, such schemes cannot be introduced without changes to the concession agreement.

Discounts of 10% for vehicles of over 3.5 tonnes, and 20% for other vehicles, are offered by way of a season TAG, based on 22 trips per month. Blue-badge holders and the emergency services are exempt. There are significant discounts for users, including businesses that make multiple trips per day. Tolls are charged in a westbound direction only, from England into Wales. The current toll prices are: £6.40 for cars; £12.80 for vans; and £19.20 for vehicles over 3.5 tonnes.

Once one-way tolling and the distance saved owing to the existence of the crossings are accounted for, Severn tolls compare favourably with toll levels on other crossings. On the points raised by the hon. Member for Newport East, I can give some examples. The toll for a car is £6.40, but, with the free return journey, it is equivalent to £3.20 for a saving of 52 miles; the Dartford toll is £2 for a saving of 22 miles; and the Tyne tunnel has a charge of £1.60 for a saving of only eight miles.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield mentioned lorries. In the case of the Humber bridge, lorries pay £12.50 for a saving of 45 miles, whereas on the Severn crossing—if we divide by two for the free return—it is £9.60 for 52 miles. Some of the comparisons made with other crossings in the country do not necessarily bear scrutiny, or perhaps Members can pick their example to support their case.

[Jessica Morden]

Does the Minister also accept that the Government stepped in recently to the tune of £150 million to reduce tolls on the Humber bridge? If they can do that on the Humber, why can they not do it for the Severn bridges?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

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

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

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

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

[Richard Burden]

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

[Mr Goodwill]

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

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

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

A303

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on securing this debate on the future of the A303. I know this subject is of great importance to him and to other hon. Friends and Opposition Members. I am aware that he has raised issues about the performance of the A303 at Stonehenge and details of the Department's feasibility study during business questions.

The A303 is an important trunk road that passes in close proximity to the Stonehenge world heritage site, and the issue of improving this road has been considered by successive Governments, as we heard. I very much recognise the strategic importance of this corridor and therefore of finding solutions to its problems. Before I respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend, the Member for Salisbury, it is perhaps worth taking the opportunity both to set out this Government’s position on investment in the strategic road network, but also the history of proposals for major improvements to the A303, as well as setting out how my Department will consider options for future investments. Indeed, I hope that I can make progress where even Mrs Thatcher failed.

Before I go on, I will respond to a couple of the points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). He recognised that the previous Government had been engaged in a degree of stop-go—mainly stop in terms of the A303. Although he recognised that fact, there was no straightforward apology, and I was rather perturbed to hear him say that when they left office, they had a costed plan. Nothing was costed when the previous Government left office. The public finances were in a catastrophic state. Indeed, when they had some money in 1997, when they took office, they announced a moratorium, so I will take no lessons from the Opposition on how to organise a road investment programme.

We have controlled spending so that we can increase genuine investment, and we will build on the previous work done in planning the feasibility of this route. On timing, we have set ourselves an ambitious programme, and we hope to have some news in the autumn statement. Indeed, when the announcements are made in the autumn, it will be interesting to hear what the shadow Chancellor says about following through on the promises when the Labour party writes its manifesto.

[Alison Seabeck]

The Minister is talking about financing and the envelope in which we are all working. Has consideration ever been given—this will not be popular in some parts—to tolling a tunnel and paying for it that way?

[Mr Goodwill]

I made it clear in front of the Select Committee last week that we are certainly not going down that route. The decision on the A14 Huntingdon bypass makes that very clear indeed. In fact, I was reported as saying we have drawn a line in the sand on that one.

As part of the progress we are making, Department officials met local stakeholders in Taunton on 24 January to discuss the scope of the study, and officials are working to incorporate the views of stakeholders when finalising the scope.

I said that it may be useful to set out the historical background in terms of the previous proposals for major strategic improvements to the road. Proposals to complete the dualling of the A303 were made in the 2002 London to south-west and south Wales multi-modal study, and, together with improvements to the A358 between Ilminster and Taunton, they could have created a second strategic route to the south-west. However, by 2007, with the cancellation of the Amesbury to Berwick Down scheme owing to increased costs and the south-west region’s conclusion that some schemes could not be funded from the regional funding allocation, the Highways Agency was no longer able to progress the proposals.

My hon. Friend may also be aware that Somerset county council held a summit with other relevant stakeholders in 2012, the outcome of which was a commitment for further work on the relative prioritisation of potential interventions and consideration of possible funding avenues. A grouping of local authorities and local enterprise partnerships produced an initial analysis and business case for future improvements to the A303 corridor, to reiterate the importance of investment in the corridor. This work provides a useful starting point for more detailed work into the consideration of possible solutions to the problems along the A303.

On this Government’s commitment to infrastructure investment, we have already announced increased levels of Government funding to deliver improvements all around the strategic road network, targeted at supporting economic growth. Our commitment to deliver a step change in future investment in transport infrastructure was made clear by the Chancellor in his statement of 26 June last year, which announced the conclusions of the Government’s 2013 spending review.

The Treasury’s Command Paper, “Investing in Britain’s Future”, set out that the Government will invest more than £28 billion in enhancements and maintenance of both national and local roads, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) mentioned. This includes £10.7 billion for major national road projects and £4.9 billion for local major projects. More than £12 billion has been allocated for maintenance, with nearly £6 billion for repairs to local roads and £6 billion for maintenance of strategic roads, including resurfacing 80% of that network.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury is aware, for future investment planning, the Highways Agency is conducting its route-based strategy process, which involves local stakeholders in the consideration of future priorities. It might be helpful to say a little more about the agency’s approach, because that is the mechanism by which we will consider the investment needs of the entire strategic road network.

In our May 2012 response to the recommendations of Alan Cook’s report, “A fresh start to the strategic road network”, we agreed to develop a programme of route-based strategies to inform the identification of future transport investment for the entire strategic network. Route-based strategies will provide a smarter approach to investment planning throughout the network and see greater collaboration with local stakeholders to determine the nature, need and timing of future investment that might be required on the network. We will produce a uniform set of strategies for the entire network, including the A303, as part of the south west peninsula route-based strategy.

The Highways Agency completed a series of local engagement events last autumn to help identify performance issues and future challenges. I welcome the enthusiasm with which stakeholders in the south-west, including those in my hon. Friend’s constituency, have participated so far. The agency and the Department will use the evidence to prioritise and take forward a programme of work to identify indicative solutions that will cover operations, maintenance and, if appropriate, potential road improvement schemes. Route-based strategies therefore provide an opportunity for stakeholders to provide evidence about problems on the A303, so that the need for improvements can be considered and a plan for future investment developed.

My hon. Friend highlighted the issue of congestion on the A303 and the problems experienced as the road passes the Stonehenge world heritage site. The Government very much recognise such issues and the importance of transport infrastructure to support the economy. We are committed to identifying and funding early solutions to the longstanding problems on the A303-A30-A358 corridor, initially by undertaking a feasibility study.

[Richard Burden]

The Minister was rushing through different things—the route-based strategy and the feasibility study—and I may have missed something, but will he clarify when he expects the route-based strategy to be completed and how it will feed into the feasibility study? Given the estimates that I have heard, the report of the feasibility is due in the spring of 2015. Is that what is intended?

[Mr Goodwill]

No, we hope to make better progress than that and to be in a position to make an announcement based on that study in the autumn statement this year. The good news is that that study is one of six on the strategic road network. The A303 is already in the final of that competition.

[Mr Heath]

The Minister should be aware that making such an announcement in the autumn statement, and it including the Sparkford to Ilchester stretch of the A303, will enable me to retire a happy man.

[Mr Goodwill]

I wish for no less for the hon. Gentleman, I am sure.

It might be useful to say a little more about the approach we are taking, as the feasibility study is the mechanism by which we will identify early solutions to the problems on the A303-A30-A358 corridor. The aim of the study will be to identify the opportunities and understand the case for future investment solutions on the corridor that are deliverable, affordable and offer value for money, including noise mitigation where appropriate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury suggested. Much work has been carried out, but agreement has not been reached on a set of solutions. It is therefore important for us to carry out this study to ensure that we understand the priorities for the corridor and that proposals for investment demonstrate a strong and robust economic case for investment, as well as value for money, and are deliverable.

[John Glen]

Does the Minister accept that the Stonehenge case will require not only a value-for-money approach, but a perspective on the wider heritage interests? What work is he doing to engage with other colleagues in government to take account of the particular concerns at Stonehenge?

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. A number of issues associated with the route-based studies up and down the country include environmental or heritage considerations. It is important not to take the view that, because they are sometimes too difficult, they should not be considered properly.

The study work will be conducted in stages, with the Department initially looking to identify the current and future challenges along the corridor. We are keen to ensure that we have the most up-to-date and relevant information available to inform the study. The Department has asked stakeholders to furnish us with any additional study work or analysis that they might have commissioned. The next stage will be to identify the range of solutions or measures that could address the problems identified along the corridor. Again, we will look to build on previous work, rather than starting from scratch, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield suggested, but we will not rule out other potential investment proposals that may emerge from the first phase of the route-based strategy process, as well as potential investment proposals on the A358.

We will look to engage with a range of stakeholders throughout the life of the study, including local highway authorities, local enterprise partnerships and local environmental groups. A stakeholder reference group will be established to ensure a mechanism through which the views of stakeholders may be incorporated in the study work. The views of hon. Members will also be important in the deliberations. The outputs of the route-based strategy and of the six feasibility studies will inform the Department’s roads investment strategy, which is being developed and which we have committed to publish by the end of the year.

I fully understand the Stonehenge concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. As is well known, the single carriageway section of the A303 can cause congestion during traffic peaks on bank holidays and through the summer. I am aware that local lobby groups have been established, such as the Stonehenge traffic action group, of which I understand that my hon. Friend is aware.

The new Stonehenge visitor centre opened in mid-December 2013 and is situated at Airman’s Corner on the A360. In terms of traffic to the centre, the car park fails to meet demand at busy times, and this leads to traffic that is queuing to enter the visitor centre backing up along the A360 and blocking it to other users. In extreme cases, the traffic has reached as far as the A303 at Longbarrow roundabout, causing congestion on the A303. In support of the new visitor centre and closure of the local road, the Highways Agency has carried out extensive improvements to the Longbarrow roundabout at the junction of the A303, with significant investment of more than £3 million to support the Stonehenge attraction.

In addition, drivers have been using the nearby byway and lay-bys to get a good view of the stones, which has further exacerbated congestion on the A303. The Highways Agency has worked with Wiltshire county council and the police to prohibit certain movements and to prevent drivers parking illegally, guiding them by the designated route to the visitor centre. I assure hon. Members that while we await the outcome of the feasibility study, the Highways Agency will continue to monitor and respond to congestion at this location. Wiltshire police have invited some local representatives to a meeting with key agencies, including the Highways Agency, the county council, English Heritage and the National Trust, to look at the short-term issues likely to arise this summer.

Given the flooding that we have seen over recent weeks and months, I emphasise to my hon. Friend that the strategic road network in the south-west has performed well, although there was a closure one weekend. By and large, the network has been kept running, keeping the south-west open for business during this difficult period and allowing the replacement buses to run. The importance of the A303 has been emphasised in light of the issues experienced on the rail network.

Flooding occurred at two locations on the A303, at Ilchester and at Deptford, which was due to adjacent water courses and groundwater run-off from fields. Flooding at Ilchester meant that the A303 was closed in both directions for 20 hours. The diversion route was utilised to keep the route into the south-west open. The flooding at Deptford saw the eastbound carriageway affected for 12 days, although within two days a contraflow was put in place, enabling traffic to get through.

In conclusion, I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury on securing the debate. I have been clear that the Government are committed to and have set out plans for large-scale investment to improve our strategic road network in the relatively short term. We are also committed to developing a longer-term programme of investment through the route-based strategy process. Through the A303-A30-A358 corridor feasibility study, we will work closely with local stakeholders to ensure we consider current and future transport problems and the range of possible solutions that could deal with them. As I said, it is important that proposals for future investment are clearly supported by the local stakeholders and that there is a clear consensus on what is required. Ultimately, any proposals for future investment need to be able to demonstrate a strong business case and the delivery of both transport and wider economic benefits.

Every cloud is said to have a silver lining, and the weather in the south-west this year has emphasised the importance of a resilient road network when we have problems on our rail network. The fact that big investment is going into north-south rail connections makes an even stronger case for investment in roads in the south-west. I look forward to my road trip to Tiverton and Honiton—a road that I have travelled before. Having heard the points made today, I think that I need to set off in good time.

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

I thank hon. Members for their participation in that important debate. I wish the Minister well on his road journey.

Local Tolled Crossings

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2014 Written Statements

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

Today I am publishing a consultation document detailing proposals to simplify the process set out in Transport Charges &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954—the “1954 Act”—for amending tolls at local statutory tolled undertakings.

Local statutory tolled undertakings can be bridges, tunnels, lifts and ferry crossings where tolls are charged for their use in accordance with relevant Acts of Parliament. The majority of these are owned by private companies or individuals but some are owned by local authorities. There are around 11 local statutory tolled undertakings in England that are currently required to follow the procedures contained in the 1954 Act to increase their tolls.

Under this Act, operators are required to apply to the Secretary of State for any increase in tolls regardless of how big or small. This process can be costly and time consuming for the operator, and will often involve a public inquiry. These costs are likely to be passed on to the user through higher tolls. The Government have therefore decided the process needs to be simplified to reduce the administrative burden on operators and Government, while ensuring the interests of users continue to be protected.

Our preferred option is a simplified procedure for increases in tolls which are no greater than inflation minus 1%, so providing an incentive for the crossing operators to keep any increases in tolls below this level. The consultation document, including the impact assessment, will be available in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Department’s website.

Locations:

1. Aldwark bridge, near Linton-On-Ouse, north Yorkshire

2. Bournemouth-Swanage motor-road ferry, entrance of Poole harbour, Dorset

3. Clifton suspension bridge, Leigh Woods, Bristol

4. Dartmouth-Kingswear floating bridge, Dartmouth, Devon

5. Dunham bridge, Dunham-on-Trent, Lincolnshire

6. Rixton and Warburton bridge, Warburton, Cheshire

7. Shrewsbury (Kingsland) bridge, Shrewsbury, Shropshire

8. Swinford bridge, Swinford, Oxfordshire

9. Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry, Saltash, Cornwall

10. Whitchurch bridge, Whitchurch-on-Thames, Oxfordshire

11. Whitney-on-Wye bridge, Whitney-on-Wye, Herefordshire