Oral Answers to Questions

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

I am sure that everyone waves at the hon. Gentleman, great man that he is. It was great to meet him when he came to the Department. We talked about Durham coastal service and timetable changes. Today, Transport for the North is discussing timetable changes, so I hope that that proposal goes through and that I can therefore give Durham coastal service the improvement that he asks for.

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

May I encourage my right hon. Friend to cut the money given to the West of England Combined Authority, as it spends it extraordinarily badly on vanity schemes for the Mayor, on cutting bus services for my constituents and on pillorying motorists with this dreadful scheme, which is hated in Saltford, for a bus lane on the A4?

[Mr Harper]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point about regional Mayors, which is that we have devolved powers and resources to them, but they are ultimately accountable to their constituents. I hope very much that if they are punishing the motorist, the motorist will punish them back at the appropriate time at the ballot box.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

All right. I think I know what the hon. Lady was driving at on that question. We said in response to the new report that we would continue to talk to the industry and, if required, consult on a mechanism—an industry-funded mechanism. That work is under way, but we continue to have the ambition to get those SAF plants developed in this country and I am glad that she supports that work.

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

What can the Government do about the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the police chasing drivers who have correctly sent in their forms after they have disposed of a vehicle and who then get notices of intended prosecution for a vehicle that they no longer own when they have done the right thing? It seems to turn on its head the principle of innocence.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. When a person disposing of their vehicle notifies the DVLA that they no longer have the vehicle, they are removed from the record and the DVLA writes to them. If the customer continues to receive correspondence relating to motor vehicle offences, they should contact the DVLA as soon as possible confirming that they are no longer the keeper of the vehicle in question. If he has any constituents with any particular issues, I would be delighted to take them up and look at them as soon as possible.

Seaborne Freight

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

This is a start-up business that did not succeed because its principal backer changed its mind. That is to be regretted and it is a great shame but, as a Minister, I will never make an apology for the Government trying to work with new small businesses. Again, the Labour party does not like small business and does not want us to work with small business. When we do, it shouts and screams. Well, I think the Government should do more for small business, and I am going to carry on doing so.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend cannot possibly be criticised for entering into a contract, which cost the taxpayer no money, with a new business backed by one of the biggest shipping owners in Europe. Is it not eccentric of Arklow to behave in the way it has and to abandon a contract it supported a fortnight ago? Is there any question of the Irish Government’s involvement either to help or to hinder one of their biggest businesses?

[Chris Grayling]

It is not for me to ascribe any motivations to Arklow for the decision it has taken. I regret it having taken that decision, and I think it is a shame, particularly as it gave clear commitments to Seaborne at Christmas time and to my officials and me in January before changing its mind suddenly. I do not know what prompted that decision. I just think it is a very great shame.

DVLA and Private Car Parking Companies

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak, having received several heavy mailbags from constituents about private car parking companies in my area. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for securing the debate and for all his work on the subject. He gave an excellent speech.

For too long, cowboy private car parking companies have operated with impunity. Many have reasonable practices, but a considerable number operate in a way that is not conducive to holiday resorts, as several hon. Members have said, or to town centres, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) mentioned, and that is certainly not in the best interests of motorists or the community in general. Without any substantial legislation or regulation, those companies have been free—to be fair—to rip off car park users and charge bogus fees. In my view and that of the British public, it is time to act. The reality for far too many motorists up and down the country is that people are duped into false charges and harassed by firms that, as has been mentioned, somehow manage to get hold of personal information, whether through the DVLA or other sources.

A considerable number of constituents have written to me asking what can be done to tackle private parking companies, because they have found themselves powerless. Presented with a process that is not transparent but opaque, people have no clear way to resolve problems. I will draw attention to examples from my constituency before suggesting what to do to tackle the scourge. I, too, will name some of the companies involved, but that is because they have been named every week in the Accrington Observer and the Lancashire Telegraph, so I am not bringing anything new to the public that has not been said previously. I am repeating it for the benefit of the House and the Minister.

Eastgate is a big retail park in Accrington. Back in 2012 much anger and frustration was caused for hundreds—I mean hundreds—of people when its private car park operator, Excel, misled them about its parking charges. I recall having to deal with that as the local MP for week after week. Excel changed the three-hour parking limit to 90 minutes without any clear warnings. The firm announced its new policy on signs hidden behind trees on the edge of the car park. It then issued hundreds of fines to shoppers, with demands for immediate payment or even higher fines once they had understandably failed to spot the notices. Some disabled people were also caught out by the changes, and they threatened court action with the help of the National Motorists Action Group, which was very helpful—I would recommend the group to anyone fighting pernicious private parking companies which operate such voracious policies.

The National Motorists Action Group, the local councillor in charge Clare Pritchard and I had a running battle with Excel about changing its policy. The issue was a difficult one and it bounced around the press for weeks and weeks, before the company finally changed—in fact, Excel was fired by the management company. One of the complications was that the retail park owners had not only let some of the units on the site to businesses, but let the parking contract to a management company which had sublet it to the private car parking company.

After that battle, we ended up with Excel deciding that anyone who had not paid was to be let off—the fines were rescinded, and there was no need for people to pay—but it refused to give refunds to those who had done the right thing and paid the fine, even those who had been threatened multiple times. Excel got away with that. I ask the Minister, how can some people have their fines rescinded because they have not paid and others pay but never receive a refund? What does that say to the British public? That is totally unacceptable.

Another car parking company operates at the Accrington Arndale shopping centre. I receive dozens of complaints about some of its practices, with people being fined for whatever little reason, such as being even an inch over the line or five minutes past the time limit. I draw the Minister’s attention to that—surely under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and so on some latitude is allowed to some of our constituents in such a position—and to how the appeals process does and does not work. Going back to Excel, NMAG and a disabled constituent of mine had to go through the courts to seek redress, which is unacceptable.

Another cowboy private company has already been alluded to by Members, and a more recent issue is that of the new buttons on the machines in some car parks. I have had several complaints about a company operating such machines. For example, an elder constituent told me that he had been fined and he had lost his appeal. He is fortunate that he has an appeals process, although he did not win it. He is 81, I think, and he had to bend double to see the buttons. The screens and buttons are at a low height and, on a sunny day, he was unable to bend down sufficiently to enter the information accurately. He tried and, most of the time, succeeded, but on the occasion in question he put the wrong digit in. He explained that he had paid for his time in the car park—he had the ticket—but the company was not interested. He was forced to pay the fine.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that had the car parking operation been a public one, an honest mistake would have been a complete defence? That has been established at the High Court in relation to the congestion charge.

[Graham Jones]

I appreciate that valid point. We are talking about private car parking companies in private car parks, and not about statutory or public car parks, which are not part of the debate. We are talking about the practices of some companies outside any firm regulations or guidelines. I will address the point about that difference in a minute.

One lady could not buy a ticket from the machine at that car park because it was broken. She still ended up with a fine, even though she left a note on her windscreen to say that the machine was broken. The company has been mentioned already, so I will do so again—I have no shame in naming such companies, because they need to be shamed. ParkingEye was also mentioned by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), and it operates that particular car park on the edge of my constituency. I find that practice abominable. She put a note on her windscreen, which should be sufficient if the machine is broken. That £1 parking charge quickly became £100 because of the firm’s own administrative incompetence and failure to fix the machine.

As I say, other constituents have come to see me about that particular car park. One was an elderly gentleman who could not bend down to see the screen and, on one occasion, entered a wrong digit. Giving a fine for that is totally and utterly unacceptable. Members on both sides of the Chamber who have spoken, and probably all Members of the House, are well aware of such scandals in their constituencies. This issue is not unique to my constituency or coastal constituencies—it seems to happen in all our constituencies all the time, up and down the country.

Although private car parking companies were barred from wheel clamping by legislation, they seem, as other Members have intimated, to be in the game of trying to find new ways to extract money from motorists, perhaps to make up for some of their old practices having been barred. One gripe that all Members have mentioned is that, under the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, the DVLA provides information to those car parking companies. Actually, I believe that they can purchase it—according to NMAG, the DVLA sells information, which is worrying. That practice should end, and there should be better regulation. Those companies access that information and then pursue motorists. I am deeply concerned about that relationship, and the Minister ought to look at it, because it is not right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Ms Dorries? I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for bringing it forward, because many of our constituents have complained about what is going on in the parking field. I also thank the Minister and his predecessor for their many courteous replies to the letters that I have written.

The DVLA is at the heart of this issue, not the Department for Communities and Local Government or other bodies. It is the DVLA giving out information that begins this whole unfair process, so the buck stops with the DVLA and the Minister, not with other people or regulations. It is the DVLA that has decided that it will accept accredited trade associations and give out information to them, subject, apparently, to audits that it carries out. It would be useful to hear about what audits have been done.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay mentioned Premier Park. I have no qualms about mentioning businesses without telling them in advance. There is no convention that we should be expected to do that, and we should be wary about limiting our right of free speech in this House. Premier Park behaved quite disgracefully to a constituent of mine and has a reputation for doing so at a place called Popham Diner, which local newspapers have written about. Has the DVLA audited that company? Has it looked into it? Has it, in response to complaints from Members of Parliament, gone beyond the accredited trade association to see what is going on?

The Government are at the heart of this matter, because it is about the principles on which our society is founded and what the Government are there to do. One of the great roles of the Government is to ensure justice and make it impossible for the strong and the powerful to bully the weak and the powerless, but the DVLA is party to helping the strong and the powerful to bully the weak and the powerless. It just says that these accredited trade organisations are, broadly, enough, but those organisations have a vested interest in approving the bodies that sign up to them, because that is where their revenue comes from. The last thing that one of those bodies wants to do is to penalise a parking company that is signed up to it, because if it does, other companies will not sign up and its revenue stream will be threatened. There is a clear conflict of interest.

To my mind, that is where the DVLA is not doing its job, because it is not protecting individuals against those who are more powerful. That is where it should change, and that is where the answer to the problem is. The DVLA should do its own approval of organisations and have its own code of conduct. The fee it charges may cover all of that—it is not unreasonable to charge a fee if you are doing the job properly and there is no vested interest. That work should be done properly by a Government body.

The law is there to protect us. This is essentially a system that is outside the law but to which the Government are party. It is not a legal process, but, as other Members have said, it appears as if it is. It appears to be the same as a fine from a local authority, but it is not. In my experience, the local authorities behave much more reasonably than the private companies. Yesterday, I had a letter from Bristol City Council, which is behaving extremely well to a constituent of mine, erring on the side of leniency to someone who made an honest mistake. The private companies do not seem to do that because their business model is otherwise, and the DVLA is party to that.

[Steve Double]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, where local authorities lease car parks to private operators, the local authority should take a more active role in insisting that those operators work in a way more similar to that of local authorities?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We want fairness in the process. We must understand that the DVLA has the information in the first place as a legal requirement so that the police may know to whom cars belong. That is why, by law, we are obliged to register our cars. We are not obliged to register them for the benefit of a subsequent private contract, which is a subsequent activity beyond the initial purpose of the DVLA. It was to be there for public interest, not for private contracts. Because of the way in which parking has developed, the DVLA has got involved in this private parking aspect. It earns fees from that, although apparently it is loss-making, which if true seems extraordinarily silly.

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

indicated dissent.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If it is not true, that is very reassuring; I am glad. However, the fact that that is not true is worrying in another direction, because the DVLA ought not to be affected in its judgment by its revenue streams. If we have an accredited parking authority that gets revenue from the car park, and the car park pays money to the DVLA to get information, there is a chain of money going through, which seems to be overriding the chain of justice and the right of the state, the duty of the state and the obligation of the state to protect the individual.

The DVLA has the solution in its hands, as do the Government. The situation requires not changes of legislation but changes by the DVLA in how it gives out information. I will carry on banging on about this until we know that companies have been suspended, that companies have been audited, that companies are not getting the information any longer and that the DVLA is taking proper charge to protect our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

I do indeed recognise that. I was just trying to clarify the legal position. My hon. Friend made his case extremely well and has now clarified it again.

The law allows for the release of DVLA vehicle keeper information to those who can demonstrate that they have reasonable cause for requiring it. That provision has been in law for several decades. To receive data, a requester must show that their need relates to the use of a vehicle following incidents in which there may be liability on the part of the keeper or driver. Where a parking infringement may have taken place, it is considered reasonable to provide the vehicle keeper’s contact details, so that the matter can be taken up with the person responsible. Despite the unpopular nature of that process, it is a well-established principle in case law that such enforcement is lawful, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in late 2015.

Despite this being an unregulated industry, and while the law provides for the release of information, the DVLA has strict conditions in place in relation to the disclosure and use of data. The DVLA will only disclose vehicle keeper data to parking companies that are members of an accredited trade association; I will come on to that in more detail in a moment. Such trade associations have codes of practice that are based upon fair treatment of the motorist and require their members to operate to high professional standards of conduct, while allowing reasonable action to be taken to follow up alleged parking contraventions. The codes of practice contain requirements on clear and prominent signage, appeals processes and information that should be provided to motorists on parking tickets. They also contain requirements on the use of automatic number plate recognition cameras, which are expected to be in good working order.

There should be no hidden charges or ambiguity for the motorist as to what is and is not permitted on the land. The codes of practice require that contact with the motorist is not threatening and that parking charge notices are issued promptly, so that the driver can recall the circumstances surrounding the event. A reasonable amount of time must also be given to the motorist to allow payment to be made before any escalation of the matter occurs.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

These codes of practice are marvellous, but the problem that has been established in this debate is that they are not followed, and the DVLA is complicit in that.

[Andrew Jones]

I am coming to that. I recognise entirely what we have heard this morning.

A further requirement in England and Wales, where additional liability for parking charges exists for vehicle keepers, is that access to an independent appeals body is provided. That independent appeals service must be free to the motorist. The outcome of the appeal is binding on the parking company but not on the motorist, who can continue to dispute the charge. Companies that do not comply with the codes of practice can face expulsion from the trade association, resulting in the right to have DVLA vehicle keeper data removed.

Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 20th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) led me astray, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you are quite rightly not allowing him to do that. I shall see him later to discuss Kempton Park’s closure.

My serious point is that this matter could have been dealt with many years ago if the 2010 Act had been scrutinised properly. The omission from that Act has meant that we have needed an entirely new Bill simply to correct a failure, and that is a great shame. The Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011 appear to be the final confirmation that this Bill is not going to change anything, because those regulations are the key piece of legislation relating to the 2010 Act that makes the original provisions redundant. Those regulations were made on 18 July 2011 and came into force on 1 August 2011.

I know that other Members wish to speak, so in the interests of time, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not test your patience any further by reading out the part of the regulations that, in effect, makes the 1994 Act provisions redundant. They deal with the application of

“Part 5 of the Act to seafarers working wholly or partly in Great Britain and adjacent waters”

and make it clear that the 2010 Act does apply to seafarers and to ships working in this environment, so the position is clear. The regulations also come with an interpretation, which makes it clear that the 2010 Act is the Act that applies, goes through what is meant by a “United Kingdom ship” and a “United Kingdom water”, and sets out the legal relationship of a seafarer’s employment within the country.

The regulations therefore did make the position clear, but my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South made the pertinent point that somebody who reads the 1994 Act might not know about the 2011 regulations. How many people in here know about the Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011? It is our job to deal with these things, but how many of us know about those regulations? How on earth can we expect the general public, who might well have been made aware of the law that was in place, to have known that it was superseded by the 2011 regulations? For that reason—normally I might have been tempted to say that the Bill is a solution looking for a problem, and therefore not necessary—I think that the Bill serves a useful purpose.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Is it not further sensible to bring forward this Bill because the courts have watered down the understanding of implied repeal and built up a hierarchy of legislation? Therefore, as the principle of implied repeal has been weakened, it is more important that the legislation that we pass is clear.

[Philip Davies]

I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give the House the benefit of more detail about his good point in a speech—he knows more about it than I do. I know full well that he will correct me if and when I am wrong, but my understanding is that constitutional legislation will always take precedence and, presumably, anything that is not constitutional that came earlier will be superseded by something that came later. He seems to be indicating that that is not necessarily the case, so perhaps he would like to have another bite of the cherry to inform us better.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The historical understanding was quite clear: any subsequent Act implicitly repealed a previous one. In recent years, however, the courts have developed, particularly in relation to the European Union, an understanding of a hierarchy of legislation. They have decided what are and what are not constitutional Acts. We do not list Acts as constitutional and non-constitutional—all Acts that we pass are of the same level—so this is just about creating certainty.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. The Bill therefore does not just have the advantage of being symbolic and removing something from the statute book that I feel should not have been there in the first place, as he makes a good case for saying why it might well have a practical application in law, too. It certainly removes any doubt about the situation—we can all agree on that—which has to be a good thing.

Finally—I do not want to test the patience of the House too much—let me just raise the concern relating to historical cases. During the debates on the Armed Forces Bill, people raised the issue of historical cases in which individuals had been treated unfairly under the 1994 Act and asked whether something could be done. This touches on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley when he said that we cannot really do anything about what happened in the past, and what we can affect is what happens now and in the future. Although I wholeheartedly agree with the repeal of the 1994 provisions, I wish to raise a note of caution about the pardoning of historical cases. A private Member’s Bill has been introduced about the whole issue of pardons for those convicted for homosexuality in the past. I am not going to get sidetracked down that road—

HS2 Funding Referendum Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Friday 23rd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Frank Dobson]

That is so. I think that the right hon. Lady is probably regarded as being in the south-east, where 51% are against and 30% are in favour. In the London area, 48% are against and 34% are in favour. And so it goes on. The supporters of every political party are, on balance, against.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman might give the figure for Somerset. I have a feeling the project is not enormously popular there, either.

[Frank Dobson]

I think that for these purposes Somerset is probably part of the south-west, where 60% are against and 25% are in favour. I should also add a late wire from the course: as of yesterday, a Daily Mirror poll showed that 80% are against and 20% are in favour.

There is something amiss if Parliament is not reflecting the views of the public, especially when they are so overwhelmingly in one direction. In the absence of Parliament reflecting those views, it seems to me that there is a case for a referendum, or possibly local referendums, on the proposals.

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

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clappison]

There is a procedure for making the orders by the local authority. I take my hon. Friend’s point, but I must say that many businesses are dependent on the film industry, particularly in my constituency, because there is so much film making there. People are so used to the film industry that they accept that some inconvenience is associated with attracting to Hertfordshire, and in particular to my constituency, important productions that are of so much general benefit to the public and the local economy. As far as I am aware—I will probably have an avalanche of mail complaining about it—there is a general acceptance of that in my constituency, as well as great pride in our connection with film making and a wish for it to continue. He makes a good point about the generality of the powers, but there are special circumstances to take account of in the case of my constituency.

I hope that I have been frank enough for my hon. Friends about the proposals in the Bill. As I have said, film notices go beyond the existing provisions for special events that I have mentioned in current legislation. Film notices enable the council to issue restrictions on road use where it appears to the council that it is expedient that the closure should come into effect without delay, which is particularly valuable to the film industry.

To turn to the detailed provisions, clause 3(2) provides that a “relevant event” under section 16A of the 1984 Act will include film making. Hon. Friends who are familiar with the 1984 Act will know that roads can already be closed, although for a shorter duration, for the several events specified in section 16A, covering

“the holding of a relevant event,…enabling members of the public to watch a relevant event, or…reducing the disruption to traffic”.

The film order will be added to that list of special events.

Clause 4 deals with restrictions on film orders and notices. Subsection (2) allows for film orders to remain in force for up to seven days, compared with the three days for relevant events under existing provisions, as we have already discussed. Subsection (4) provides that no more than six film orders may be made in any one year, that a film notice shall continue for only 24 hours and that notice of a film notice must be given at least 24 hours before it comes into effect.

Among other matters, clause 5 provides that a breach of a film order or notice will be an offence in the same way as a breach of an order relating to a relevant event under the existing provisions in section 16C of the 1984 Act. I understand that there has been some discussion and, I am happy to say, constructive dialogue between the Bill’s promoter and the Minister, as I hope the Minister will confirm.

Clause 6 provides for the council, as a highway authority, to give permission to film makers for the temporary placing of objects on a highway, subject to conditions imposed by the council and certain defined conditions set out in subsection (3). The general purpose is to ensure that that is done safely, because safety is of overriding importance. Subject to such conditions, clause 6 allows the council to authorise equipment, such as static film cameras, lighting rigs or camera trucks to be placed on roads during filming.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend explain what penalties will apply to somebody who breaks an order, particularly if they were trying to get back to their home on a road that had been closed?

[Mr Clappison]

To assist my hon. Friend, let me point out that those penalties are set out in existing legislation. I hope that I am right in saying that such breaches are dealt with by way of fines, but I will be corrected if I am wrong. I will look at the detail and come back to him in due course.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will there be an exemption for people who are trying to get back to their own property, because it would seem unreasonable if the closure of a road made it impossible for somebody to get a vehicle back to their own drive or for a pedestrian to walk back to their own house?

[Mr Clappison]

I hope that it gives my hon. Friend some comfort to know that the penalties will be exactly the same as those that have existed for a long time under the 1984 Act, under which roads are closed for the holding of specified events. Famously, that related to the Tour de France, but it has also been used for other events and entertainments. I hope that there is a spirit of reasonableness in all such matters and that only somebody who is unreasonable will come anywhere near to receiving the penalties that can be meted out under the law.

In summary, the Bill will benefit film making, particularly in my constituency. I have no doubt that it will be subject to the same scrutiny as every other Bill of this kind. I hope that I have been frank with the House in setting out its provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I wish to speak only very briefly in response to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister gave me regarding the fines that can be levied on people who may use streets when they have been closed. This House should always be enormously careful about passing any further laws that increase the risk of British people being fined when going about what has previously been their lawful business. Every time this Parliament acts to make the life of individuals that little bit harder, that little bit more onerous or makes someone a little more at risk of coming into conflict with the authorities, the worse we make our society.

I would hope that any Bill that we pass reduced the risks of these impositions and that we will be very careful to think about the necessity for legislating when the existing system has worked. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) that films are made regularly and successfully in Hertfordshire, creating a great deal of business for the county. Roads are closed by common consent, good sense and the willingness of residents to co-operate with what they know to be a good and sensible business, even if it is technically a slightly grey legal area. That very British approach to things has worked successfully over many centuries, and if possible it is preferable not to legislate.

Railways

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

I think I am in a better position than the hon. Lady to know what my hon. Friends say, as I probably mix with them more frequently than she does. They are impressed that since privatisation the number of passengers using the rail network has doubled, the number of rail journeys has doubled and the amount of freight on rail, and off our congested roads, has increased by 60%. They want continued investment in infrastructure to improve the quality of journeys and to improve rolling stock and track electrification so that people can travel around this country by rail far better than under British Rail. As someone who, sadly, is old enough to remember British Rail, I find it incredible that so many—almost dinosaurs—on the Opposition Benches seem to have a rose-tinted view of how fabulous it was. It was not.

I turn to the safety aspects of the package, which are important and are of major interest to the various sectors in the UK rail transport chain. In consultation with stakeholders, we are giving full consideration to their implications. The proposal to move from a two-part safety certificate to a single-part certificate is welcome as a simplification of the existing process. We expect it to lead to a significant reduction in the costs and regulatory burdens for railway undertakings. It will especially benefit those who operate cross-border services.

However, we need to look carefully at the justification for the extension of powers for the European rail agency to issue the single safety certificate, and we need to understand how it supports market opening objectives. Enhancement of the agency’s powers for audit and inspection of national safety authorities will change its current role. It is a fundamental shift away from a partnership role to a policing function. We are not convinced that those powers are necessary given the high level of co-operation already achieved between the majority of national safety authorities. We will ask the European Commission for further clarity about how any issues exposed will be resolved.

The communication includes proposals for a recast of the interoperability directive for railways. The Commission believes that there are problems with the authorisation process for rail vehicles, especially when the vehicle is intended for use in more than one member state. It refers to delays and costs reported by operators to the Commission owing to vehicles sitting idle in sidings awaiting authorisation from national safety authorities. To solve the problem, the Commission proposes a recast of the directive and changes to the authorisation process. A key change would be that the applicant applied to the European rail agency instead of the national safety authorities for authorisation of their vehicle.

Removal of powers from national safety authorities to the agency will change their role. The three safety authorities in the UK—the Office of Rail Regulation, the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission and the Department for Regional Development in Northern Ireland—will no longer be able to issue those authorisations.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Does that not indicate the heart of the problem? The European Union is once again seeking to extend its powers in an area where it already has competence. In the review of competences, will my right hon. Friend consider returning the whole area to the authority of the United Kingdom and our democratic control, as we are an island and our connection with the continent by rail is limited to the channel tunnel?

[Mr Burns]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, to which I will respond in two parts. His second point is, I am afraid, above my pay grade. I hear what he says, and I understand what he is getting at, but I cannot give him an assurance. The transport field is a bit more complicated because so much is done on a Europe-wide basis, but I can give him the somewhat glib assurance that no doubt his concerns and his point will be heard and considered in other places. On the narrower issue, I beg his patience because he may be more reassured when I reach our proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but my concern is to protect the interests of passengers and taxpayers. That prompts the reasons for our response to the Government’s proposals today.

Rather than reading the Commission’s non-paper, Members could watch the accompanying video—I wonder how much taxpayers’ money was spent producing it—which is very amusing. They could be forgiven for thinking that there is no real dispute at all, but buried in the impact assessment for compulsory tendering is the giveaway sentence:

“There is a certain degree of uncertainty in the assessment of impacts of some options, as evidence is sometimes fairly recent (e.g. competition in the market) or ambiguous (evidence provided only by specific stakeholders). The choice to move forward with the aforementioned combination remains thus a political choice.”

There we have it. The decision to impose one particular model on European states is a political choice, just as the Government’s decision to re-privatise the east coast main line was ideologically driven.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will make a little progress.

Countries should be free to choose the models that best suit national and local needs. We had just such a need in 2009, after two franchisees walked away from the east coast main line. As a not-for-dividend operator, East Coast has gone from strength to strength. Overall passenger satisfaction has risen and the operator has won a national award for how it manages disruptions to services, with a 12% improvement in satisfaction ratings in the past year. It has provided a public sector comparator at a time when the Government’s franchising policy has collapsed, at a cost to the taxpayer of more than £55 million. By the end of this year, it will have returned £800 million to the taxpayer and invested profits in the service.

The not-for-dividend east coast main line is working, and with a five-year business plan in place the operator could deliver more, if it had the Government’s backing. However, by prioritising the privatisation of the east coast main line, the Government seem to be saying that the service works in practice, but not in theory. We need to proceed on the basis of the best evidence available and build on success stories such as the east coast main line, Merseyrail and London Overground.

I am sure that the Minister will have listened closely to Transport for London’s concerns about the fourth railway package, particularly the definition of a competent authority. Interpreted literally, the definition of an authority that serves

“the transport needs of an urban agglomeration or a rural district”

could force TfL to divest itself of some services at a time when it is looking to take on additional responsibilities. Perhaps the Minister could offer reassurances on this issue, which may impact on other bodies, including the proposed rail in the north executive. The devolution agenda must not be put at risk by these proposals.

Humber Bridge Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy]

Obviously, all members of the board will be created equal. It is essential for private sector members to be able to claim out-of-pocket expenses, but local authority members will continue to be remunerated by their authorities through local government schemes. Given that they are elected representatives, if they made any attempt to draw salaries they could expect a backlash at the ballot box.

It could be argued that the bridge is more advantageous to people living on the south bank of the Humber, but at present 98% of liability for the burden of debt lies with the city of Hull because of the way in which it was constructed. Protracted negotiations took place involving one authority in particular, but the objections of that authority were overcome. It was agreed that the bridge was of equal importance to all four, and that the burden should therefore be shared equally between them.

I hesitate to say this, given the political beliefs of some of my colleagues who are in the Chamber, but no traffic enforcement is currently possible on the Humber bridge. I was told recently that it was possible to drive through the tolls at 100 mph naked on a motorbike without committing any traffic offences. Not many people do that, of course, but we cannot allow such safety issues not to be addressed. Those who do not pay the toll cannot currently be pursued, and the current speed limit is not enforceable. Allowing the board to deal with that is simply a practical measure.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Is there a problem with boy racers from Cleethorpes driving along the bridge at excessive speed, and has it ever been known for a Member of Parliament to do so?

[Andrew Percy]

I will not be drawn down that path. I understand that the person who apparently holds the speed record on the bridge may be well known publicly, but I will not name that person. It is certainly no one in the House.

At present, the board is allowed no flexibility in regard to dispensation from tolls. For those of us who represent the south bank, that is an important issue. Health and other services have increasingly been concentrated on the north bank over the past decade or so. Certain cancer and heart treatments are offered in Hull, but it is not currently possible for any toll dispensations to be given to the cancer and cardiac patients who must travel to the north bank regularly for their treatment.

It causes outrage locally that, while the Home Office will pay the tolls of the families who visit prisoners on the north bank and jobseekers can claim support through Jobcentre Plus, health patients receive no such support. It will now be up to the bridge board to decide whether it wishes to exercise such a discretion, and it has indicated that it is sympathetic to the requirements of certain types of patients who require regular treatment on the other side of the river.

As I said at the outset, there has been a cross-party campaign to modernise the bridge. We feel that the current structure is too rigid, that it does not give the board the commercial freedoms that it requires, and that consequently this change is essential.

Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Friday 9th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My proposal would not end all discretion because, as I made clear, a court may send somebody to prison for up to six months. If my hon. Friend represented somebody as a barrister, and did so with great distinction, as he always used to in his previous life, I am sure that his client would be pleased to escape with just a three-month sentence. The point is that we must have lines in the sand to show that the offence is unacceptable.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I see my hon. Friend cranking into action, so I give way to him.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am interested by my hon. Friend’s new clause, which refers to people “knowingly using” a permit but does not say for what purpose. Would there be a three-month sentence for knowingly using a fraudulent permit as a Christmas decoration, or something like that, or would it have to be knowingly used for the purpose for which it was issued?

[Philip Davies]

As ever, my hon. Friend comes up with an entertaining point, and no doubt a rather good one. He may well be criticising the wording of my new clause in his customary charming way, but I think it is safe to say that using a fraudulent badge as a Christmas decoration would not land somebody in prison for three months. The offence would be using it fraudulently for the purpose for which parking badges are designed.

New clause 2 is along similar lines and states:

“Anyone found guilty of knowingly allowing another to use their disabled parking badge shall be liable on summary conviction to fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”

For the avoidance of doubt, I believe that means a fine of up to £5,000. One thing that particularly frustrates people with disabilities is when people who have a genuine blue badge hand it on to a family member, friend or whoever so that they can park in a convenient location where they would otherwise not be able to park. That undermines the rigour and fitness for purpose of the system, and it is a serious matter. It denies a space to someone who needs it and gives it to someone who does not. Again, I believe it deserves a more serious penalty.

I believe that the offence is currently covered by section 115 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown or the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. The new clause would make the offence specific to the Bill, and it would attract a higher fine than it currently does. We should punish not just people who steal blue badges or own them fraudulently but those who abuse badges that are handed out genuinely. I hope my hon. Friend will see that those are serious matters that need more serious penalties.

New clause 3 states:

“Anyone found guilty of using a stolen disabled parking badge will receive a minimum custodial sentence of six months.”

I suspect that, again, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will be concerned about the lack of discretion that the new clause would give the courts, and some people may well be concerned that it sets out an even longer sentence than new clause 1 does for the use of a fraudulent disabled parking badge. The reason why I believe the offence of using a stolen badge needs a more serious sentence is the double whammy effect that it has. If somebody uses a fraudulent blue badge that they have cooked up and designed to look like the real thing, they effectively take away a space from somebody who needs it. If somebody steals a blue badge, however, the double whammy effect is that not only are they using a space that they do not need and denying it to somebody else, but they have taken the blue badge away from the person who genuinely needs it. That person is therefore also unable to find a space. The reason for the length of the sentences suggested in the new clause is that a stolen blue badge is twice as serious as a fraudulent one—the offender not only benefits but deprives somebody else.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend is not being a little bit harsh in his new clauses. Could he give us some guidance about what other offences attract such minimum sentences? After all, misusing a parking badge is only a parking offence.

[Philip Davies]

I will not get distracted by going off piste and talking about other offences that should have minimum sentences, but they are not an unusual idea. In fact, earlier this year we passed the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which included minimum sentences for threatening someone with a knife. The concept is not unusual, and the Government have been quite happy to use it.

My hon. Friend says that misusing a blue badge is only a parking offence, and he is clearly right, but I suggest to him that it causes a great deal of distress to many people. It not only causes inconvenience but can deprive people of the ability to go out and live their lives. I have spoken to many people who use blue badges, and sometimes they cannot go out because they know there will not be a parking space available to them, as they will all be clogged up by people who do not need them.

Planning regulations now set out a certain number of disabled parking spaces that should be available, so there should be an ample number, but we still find that people are abusing the system. I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from, but I do not see these offences as being just road traffic offences like not wearing a seat belt, which largely has an impact only on the person who does it. I see them as much more serious, because they deprive people of their freedom to go about their daily lives. It seems to me that when someone is found guilty of knowingly and recklessly denying others their freedoms, it is a reasonable punishment that their freedoms are taken away as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It also occurs to me that a lot of people who have disabled badges are elderly and have memory lapses. Therefore, they may have forgotten who they are and may inadvertently be using a badge that had been stolen.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have the privilege of representing a constituency with, I think, the highest proportion of people aged over 85, I am familiar with one aspect of what he refers to: people sign postcards to which I respond by saying that I have sent their postcard to the Minister, but quite often I receive a letter back from the person denying that they have ever signed such a postcard. I then send a copy of the signed postcard to the constituent, who then writes back—people in the Christchurch constituency are ever so polite—full of apologies saying that, yes, they recognise that it is their signature and their handwriting and they must indeed have signed this postcard, but they could not recall having so done. My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley has tried to encourage me to expand on my concerns about his amendments, but I do not think that I need to do so any more. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby), the promoter of the Bill, who will have the first opportunity to discuss, in the presence of the whole House, the virtues of the Bill, not having had that opportunity on Second Reading.