A5 to M1 Link
Mike Penning Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
It is a great privilege to be responding as the roads Minister this evening in my first Adjournment debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who is my constituency neighbour, on securing the debate, and on the double whammy of having also presented a petition on the same subject tonight. I have been a Member of Parliament for five years, but I have not witnessed that before, and I suspect many colleagues might see it as a way forward. May I also congratulate other Members who have been campaigning hard on this issue, especially the two Members who are present this evening: my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) and the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins)?
This scheme is currently under formal statutory process, so it would not be appropriate for me to discuss it in greater detail than I have done in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire. I will do my best within the restrictions, but I must not risk prejudicing the public inquiry process, if and when it starts.
As my hon. Friend said, the A5-M1 link road scheme has been part of the roads programme since 2003. It has been promoted to address traffic congestion on the A505 and the A5 in the centre of Dunstable, an area that I know well myself—I have been stuck in the traffic there. This is also part of the core trunk road network linking London and the south midlands, and it is a key road corridor for long and medium-distance traffic travelling south from Milton Keynes through Dunstable to the M1, forming part of the historic London to Holyhead trunk road. The A505 to the A5 and the A416 are also affected by this scheme.
As a result of being part of these key transport links, which facilitate the movement of large volumes of traffic, parts of the A5 have become heavily congested, particularly Dunstable high street. I am also conscious that Luton has been affected as well. Interestingly, and probably unsurprisingly, the A5 has a high accident rate. That might be a result of the congestion and of drivers speeding away from that. This morning the accident rates were produced by constituency for the first time, so Members can see the figures for roads in their area. I look forward to hearing their ideas as to how we might overcome traffic problems and improve road safety throughout the road network.
The Highways Agency proposes a new 2.79 mile-long two-lane dual carriageway from the A5 to a new junction 11A on the M1 north of Luton. By offering an alternative link to the motorway, the proposed A5-M1 link road would act as a northern bypass for Dunstable.
In September 2005, the Highways Agency appointed a contractor under the early contractor involvement initiative to take the A5-M1 link through the statutory process and construction phases. Also during 2005, the Highways Agency held a public consultation, and the preferred northern route was announced on 23 February 2007. The scheme was subsequently developed, leading to the publication of draft orders on 9 December 2009. That is where my restriction lies; I must not prejudice the public inquiry because of those draft orders. Under the previous allocation criteria for Highways Agency road schemes, the A5-M1 link was classified as a route of regional importance. Funding decisions on all schemes remain within the remit of the Secretary of State for Transport, irrespective of whether private funding is coming in. If public funding is involved, the decisions are part and parcel of his remit.
I am very personally aware, and not just because of the excellent lobbying that has been done by hon. Members representing constituencies in this part of the world, that the A5-M1 road link is considered a priority. If I were the MP for South West Bedfordshire or for Mid Bedfordshire, I would be sitting on those seats and I would be having this debate tonight, because that is exactly what a constituency MP should be doing. I was also very conscious of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire was aware of the problems and restrictions that I face at the moment.
The scheme proposes to construct a new junction 11A, which would allow a connection with the proposed northern bypass and a connection that joins the A5-M1 link at the eastern end. I wish to deal with some of my hon. Friend’s concerns at this point. I pay tribute to the enthusiasm of not only my hon. Friend and his colleagues on both sides of the House, but the local authorities in Bedfordshire, and to the importance that they attach to the scheme. I recognise that my hon. Friend has been a long-standing and vocal supporter of the scheme; I believe that this is the fourth Adjournment debate that he has had—
Mike Penning
It may well be the last.
My hon. Friend has recently asked a number of questions of the Secretary of State, and I have tried to answer them in as much detail and with as much explanation as possible. I am sure that more will follow in the next few weeks, as is right and proper.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to concerns following the Government’s announcement on 10 June. I am sure that all hon. Members will feel that it was personal to them when the roads programme was suspended and all public inquiries stopped. The rationale behind the move was nothing personal in respect of any particular scheme. The decision had to be made on the basis of whether I could guarantee, and the Secretary of State could guarantee, the funding for a programme, subject to the spending review that will not be with us until October. I could not put forward public money for public inquiries without knowing whether the funding would be in place in the future for a road programme. Where we are using taxpayers’ money, it is important that we are diligent as to how it should be spent.
I know that that decision was a great disappointment, not only to my hon. Friend, but to the many people around the country who are involved in the many schemes and are lobbying me extensively every time that they bump into me. That is right and proper, but the supporters of schemes must understand how hard it is in this difficult financial situation that the previous Government have left us in. We have to be very diligent in determining how money is spent and we must not spend money in advance of its being allocated.
The reasons for postponing the public inquiry and not reinstating it even when there was an offer of partial funding from the private sector for this is that the programme would still have also contained much public funding. As I said, it would not be proper for us to go ahead with the public inquiry, irrespective of whether funding was coming from sources other than central funding, without knowing that we had the money to go forward. This part of the programme is only part of the project on the M1, and it is important that we have this scheme together when it goes before the public inquiry, should that happen.
As a general policy, we have therefore decided that forthcoming public inquiries throughout the country will be postponed for the time being. Our aim is to provide an indication of the way forward for all schemes once the spending review has been completed. Postponing the public inquiry into the A5-M1 link is entirely consistent with that programme around the country and we have taken a similar position with all other schemes.
The consequences of the delay are significant. I am conscious of that fact and I know that there is disappointment about this scheme and other schemes. Should the Secretary of State decide that the scheme should go ahead, it will not be possible to construct the A5-M1 link scheme in accordance with the timetable originally planned. In particular, it will be no longer possible to optimise construction with the works currently under way on the M1 between junctions 10 and 13, as previously intended.
The delay in the A5-M1 link will mean that there will be an increase in the cost of the scheme. We know that. It is not something that we wanted to happen, but it had to be that way otherwise we might have gone ahead with a programme for which we did not necessarily have the funding. I fully recognise how unfortunate and difficult it is for people who have been waiting so long for the scheme to go ahead, but with the funding uncertainties, it remains difficult—impossible, really—for us to go ahead with the public inquiry.
The Highways Agency will review the programme with the aim of minimising the time and cost consequences should the Secretary of State go ahead with the programme. Central Bedfordshire’s offer of funding, as I said earlier, was very welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire has touched on something here that we can take forward with other programmes as regards how we engage the local community much more and how programmes can be seen to bring better bang for our buck, as it were, when so much public money is being spent.
I am also pleased that, as my hon. Friend knows, tomorrow there will be a meeting of my officials with the developers and others so that we can see what is on the table and what programmes are available. I keep having to put in the word “should”, because that is the way that it has to be, but should the programme go forward we will know better very early on how it can be taken forward.
The funding proposals described in the letter from my hon. Friend to the Secretary of State are of interest and I have asked my officials not only to have the initial discussions in the meeting tomorrow but to try to flesh out how they could be taken forward. But—I have to come back to this—it does not provide a sufficient basis to reinstate the public inquiry ahead of the spending review. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that.
The overall project would cost in excess of £150 million, approximately half of which would be for the new junction 11A on the M1. Therefore, even if developer funding were available to fund the cost of junction 11A in full, it would still be necessary for the Secretary of State to commit significant balances to the remainder of the scheme in order for the scheme to go forward. That is something that the Secretary of State is not prepared to do. I know that that has caused a lot of disappointment, but it is consistent with the way in which we have looked at all the projects around the country.
I should also add that if we were to reinstate the public inquiry now, it would not be able to start until the autumn due to the statutory time scales required. The delays would be back in place. That would mean that the construction programme would still be delayed beyond the previously planned start date. Nevertheless, there is scope for developer funding to improve the affordability of the scheme and to develop projects around the scheme and therefore its prospects within the spending review. I therefore consider it to be of the utmost importance that the scope of any funding support, with the whole programme available, should be developed as early as possible.
The way forward is for the benefits provided by the scheme to be considered carefully as part of the spending review. If the scheme remains a priority after the spending review and it can be delivered within the funding available to the Department along with, possibly, funding from local authorities and the developer, the Highways Agency will develop a revised programme to take the statutory process forward—particularly the public inquiry—in liaison with regional stakeholders.
In conclusion, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these issues here today as well as in correspondence with me, privately, behind the Speaker’s Chair and at any other opportunity. I think that is right and proper and, as I said earlier, I would have done exactly the same if I were in his position because that is what a constituency MP does. He is not alone in his campaign: my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire and the hon. Member for Luton North, who are present, have also made their points. We have tried to be as fair as possible throughout the process. Having come to the Department only seven weeks ago, I have been very conscious of the need to make decisions early on, and the Secretary of State has been very conscious that we should be as consistent, open and public as possible throughout our decision making.
I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that the Department is aware of the importance of the A5-M1 link road scheme, and I hope also that he will appreciate the necessity of the Government not committing funds ahead of the comprehensive spending review. I look forward to having further discussions about this with him and other colleagues and officials—indeed, I will speak to officials tomorrow. I hope that by having this debate on the Floor of the House we have aired this issue, which is very important to his constituents and others, and I hope also that we will have an opportunity to look at the scheme properly when the spending review is finished.
Question put and agreed to.
Vehicle and Operator Services Agency
Mike Penning Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
The Department for Transport has today issued a consultation document on proposals to empower examiners from VOSA with powers to stop commercial vehicles for inspection throughout Great Britain. At present their powers are restricted to England and Wales.
The new powers will help them to ensure that commercial vehicles and their drivers comply with road traffic law. Similar minor additions will be made to Northern Ireland legislation where no comparable powers already exist in relation to the stopping powers for the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) staff.
I have placed copies of the document in the Libraries of both Houses.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Penning Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
The Department and the Highways Agency are committed to improving the levels of service experienced by users of the Dartford crossing. The Highways Agency and I will consider a package of measures, including better information and traffic management to help reduce the congestion at the Dartford crossing.
Mr Whittingdale
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware that, since the tolls increased, the delays when approaching the tolling booths are anything up to 45 minutes and more? That causes enormous frustration to those who use the crossing, which is increased by the fact that the original intention was to scrap the tolls once the bridge was paid for rather than to put them up.
Mike Penning
My hon. Friend knows that I am personally aware of the problems at the Dartford crossing, having used it for many years. The £40 million net that we recover from the crossing is a significant income, but we need to consider technology that is being used in other parts of the world, particularly in Australia, so that we can remove the barriers and increase the speed at which traffic comes through while also picking up the revenue that the country desperately needs.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
3. What information his Department holds on the effect of industrial action involving airlines on the number of passengers on flights operated by those airlines.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
15. What his Department’s plans are for the future funding of fixed speed cameras; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 12 and 15 together. The Government will not provide—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am happy to allow the questions to be taken together, but this is the first that I have heard of it. The normal courtesy is that the Government notify me of this in advance. I shall let the Minister off on this occasion, but I do not want to see a repeat performance.
Mike Penning
I had been informed that these questions had been grouped, and I apologise to you if I was impertinent, Mr Speaker.
The Government will not provide any more money to local authorities for new fixed speed cameras. If authorities want to put up new fixed cameras, they are free to do so using their own resources, but we strongly encourage them to use other methods and effective safety measures.
Gareth Johnson
I am grateful for that reassurance. Does the Minister agree that when speed cameras are used more as a money-raising mechanism than as a road-safety measure, confidence in them will continue to fall?
Mike Penning
There are now three times as many speed cameras in this country as there were in 2000, and the public must be confident that speed cameras are there for road safety, not as a cash cow. Under this Government, they will be.
Mr Speaker
I call Richard Harrington. It appears that not only was I unaware of the grouping of questions 12 and 15, but the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), whom the grouping directly affects, was also unaware of it, as he is not present.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Does the Minister not accept that the very good progress made in recent years in reducing the number of deaths and injuries on our roads is partly due to speed cameras, and that the income generated has been less than the money spent by the Government on speed cameras? Will he consider the introduction of more average-time distance speed cameras and making the existing speed cameras less conspicuous?
Mike Penning
The hon. Gentleman, a Minister in the previous Government and a former firefighter, is well aware of how speed cameras can protect the public. As a former firefighter myself, I know that speed has been part of the reason for many road traffic accidents, but not the sole reason for them. The growth of speed cameras has been so great that the public are concerned about whether they are there for safety or to raise money for the Treasury. The Government will not put any more money in; if local authorities want to do so, that is okay. Intermittent and average speed cameras are in use, particularly on motorways, and are an excellent way of easing congestion on our motorways.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Vehicle excise duty remains unpaid on 2 million vehicles, 80% of which are uninsured and 70% of which are owned by people with criminal convictions. Given that these vehicles kill 160 people a year and injure 23,000, may we have a crackdown?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
My hon. Friend raises a very important point, but vehicle recognition technology is now moving forward. I have recently been in police vehicles where we have been able to pick up where other vehicles have not had MOTs and insurance, and I am asking the Association of Chief Police Officers lead on this, whom I met yesterday, to clamp down as hard as possible.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
Brake, the road safety charity, has said that cutting Government funding for speed cameras will lead to blood on our roads. Why is the Minister cutting the funding for them, given that they would raise revenue during the forthcoming age of austerity, and how is Wakefield council supposed to put new ones in when it has just had a £1 million cut to its road safety grant?
Mike Penning
Local authorities have the powers to spend the money as they wish, and if they wish to spend it on more speed cameras that is entirely within their remit. There are other ways in which lives can be saved. I have looked at what Brake says, but I disagree. Such cameras should not be a cash cow. This should not be determined by issues to do with raising tax. It should be about safety; that is the important thing.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
May I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to his new position? Does he agree with me in principle that those people whose homes have been blighted by Labour’s preferred route for high-speed rail should be fully compensated, rather than at the 85% of value as proposed by Labour?
Marine Aids to Navigation
Mike Penning Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
I wish to inform the House that following the publication of the consultants’ report entitled “Assessment of the provision of marine aids to navigation around the United Kingdom and Ireland” in March 2010 (Official Report, 10 Mar 2010 Column 19WS), I am inviting interested parties to provide me with their views on the recommendations.
The report has over fifty recommendations which would require action by the Governments of the United Kingdom and Ireland or by the general lighthouse authorities (GLAs) of both countries. Some of them are self-evidently sensible and straightforward to implement. The GLAs are already doing so in a number of cases. Others would be more challenging and take longer.
I intend to give everyone with an interest a further opportunity to make their views known and I will take account of any opinions that are expressed before reaching conclusions on how the recommendations should be implemented.
Key recommendations in the report include:
Creating a GLA joint strategic board to drive efficiencies;
Using an annual target reduction calculator (RPI - x%) for GLA running costs;
Developing a “roadmap” with the Irish Government on the financing of the Commissioners of Irish Lights, setting out an incentivised financial model which retains the all-Ireland body while allowing its costs within the Republic of Ireland to be covered wholly from Irish sources; and
Changing the structure and scope of light dues.
I should like to invite comments on these and any other findings of the report by 15 July 2010 before coming to any conclusions. I then intend to publish decisions on what action needs to be taken and, if necessary, to consult further on specific proposals.
The report has been posted on the Department’s website (www.dft.gov.uk) and copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.
Equality Act 2010 (Seafarers)
Mike Penning Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
On 30 November 2009, the previous Government published draft affirmative regulations showing how they proposed to apply part 5 of the Equality Act 2010 to seafarers. The draft regulations were silent on the practice of differential pay for seafarers recruited abroad and therefore, if they had been approved by Parliament in their published form, the practice of differential pay for seafarers recruited abroad would have ended.
Those who are likely to be affected by the final regulations were invited to submit evidence-based financial estimates of the likely impact of either:
(a) outlawing the practice of differential pay altogether; or,
(b) continuing to allow the payment of differential rates of pay to seafarers but only where such differentiation would not operate to the disadvantage of nationals from an EU, EEA state (or any other state whose nationals are entitled to corresponding rights under EU law) nor that of seafarers recruited in Great Britain, and the difference in rates would correspond to a difference in the cost of living in the places where the seafarers respectively habitually reside.
The then Government subsequently announced that a review of the evidence submitted would be commissioned.
Today I am publishing the findings of the review commissioned by the previous Government, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on the DFT website (www.dft.gov.uk).
The issues raised by those who submitted evidence are important and the Government wish to provide interested parties with the opportunity to comment on this review of evidence before reaching conclusions on how to proceed. I am therefore inviting comments on this review over the next two weeks. I am especially keen to hear from those parties who previously submitted evidence.
Once I have considered the matter further, I will report back to Parliament.
Motorcycle Test
Mike Penning Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
I am announcing today a review of motorcycle tests in Great Britain. The new two-part motorcycle test that was introduced in April 2009 has clearly led to some concern among motorcycle groups, particularly about the safety of the off-road module 1 part of the test and about the difficulty of accessing the limited number of off-road test centres. The new test was introduced in order to meet the requirements of the second EU directive on driving licences. While most elements in the module 1 test are required by the directive, there may be scope for us to make some changes to the way in which the test is carried out.
We will be working with the motorcycle community and road safety groups to look again at the current form of the motorcycle test. This review will look at the manoeuvres carried out in both modules 1 (off-road) and 2 (on-road) and whether these manoeuvres could safely be conducted in the on-road test.
The review will also look at other related motorcycle testing and training issues, including the options for training and testing for progressive access under the third driving licence directive and how any changes relate to wider proposals to improve motorcycle training and testing.
We are inviting views from members of the public, motorcycle riders, trainers, road safety groups and others on what aspects of the motorcycle test they want us to look at, including how and where they think motorcycle testing might best and most safely be carried out. Views should be submitted to the Department for Transport (RUSD4consultation@dft.gsi.gov.uk) by 31 July. We aim to conclude the review by the autumn.