Marine Navigation (No. 2) Bill

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Friday 30th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right, but I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you would not want me to get sidetracked into discussing the merits, or otherwise, of EU regulations, so I will not do so.

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

I have good news for my hon. Friend on this point. The Government intend to move from one in, one out to one in, two out as of next year. I am surprised to see him today. He is rightly raising concerns about safety, but he is also raising concerns about regulation rather than deregulation.

[Philip Davies]

I take on board the Minister’s point. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) mutters that perhaps we could move to one in, three out, and that would certainly be a step to be encouraged. The point is that the question of one in, one out and regulation and deregulation is not just a numbers game. Although the aim is to have less regulation overall, we want to keep the regulations that serve a good purpose and get rid of the ones that are wholly unnecessary. I firmly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) about European regulations.

I agree with the thrust of the Government’s one in, one out target, or one in, two out, which would be even better—or even the one in, three out proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South. I would be happy to start a bidding war on that. The problem, however, is that a deregulatory measure might be proposed not because it deregulates in the right area, but because it meets the numbers target we have set ourselves. I would not want us to get into that situation. We must address each proposal on its merits, and I am not convinced that we have chosen the best measure in this instance. The Government’s impact assessment suggests to me there may be too much attention on hitting this particular target, and not enough on the merits of each proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his co-operation in facilitating the availability of his officials since the Committee stage. It has caused me to do an awful lot of reading, for which I do not necessarily thank him. We are dealing with incredibly complex regulations and I want to put on record, having previously chaired the Deregulation Committee, that I believe that there is undoubtedly a case for better regulation, and the Bill is part of that process. When we deal with the regulatory regime, we should not simply count numbers, but focus on better regulation all round.

We cannot compromise on marine safety. Things go wrong at sea and close to shore. Some have tragic consequences and others have an element of humour, not least the recent case of Sandy island. I do not know whether the Minister has caught up with that story, but the island has been on charts since 1876, and it has taken till 2012 for the error to be spotted. A whaling ship—I do not know whether it had a drunken skipper—spotted the island in 1876, and only now has it been proven not to exist.

However, the Bill deals with very serious matters. The difference between us is a matter of definition, as the Minister knows, but the definitions are critical. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) referred to evidence that we received from the United Kingdom Maritime Pilots Association, which says that the current wording of clause 2 contravenes: Department for Transport and Maritime and Coastguard Agency policies and guidance; the Department for Transport and port marine safety code; the International Maritime Organisation standards of training, certification and watchkeeping regulations; the IMO international safety management code; and bridge resource management. The Department has signed up to all those principles.

In Committee, the Minister tried to explain that, in his view, the language of the clauses was adequate to keep within not only the spirit, but the letter of such regulations. However, it is clearly the professionals’ view that that is not the case. I hope that, when the Minister speaks to his amendments, we will have some clear answers to those challenging points, which are very serious.

The first code that I mentioned refers to 10 years and thousands of hours of work required to reach the status of an expert in some of the disciplines that are needed. It is therefore important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse said, that we ensure that the skill levels are properly defined so that we do not put anyone at risk.

The reference to management level is appropriate. There is sufficient cross-referencing in the various regulations and in the way that marine officers, ship owners and Governments have interpreted the law over many years to mean that if we incorporate the word “senior”, we get some way there. The Minister may be able to convince us that he has got it right.

I have received further guidance from my constituent, Mr Youde, who I know has written to the Minister—

[Stephen Hammond]

Extensively.

[Andrew Miller]

He has also written to the Prime Minister, extensively. Mr Youde refers to an incident which, coincidentally, came up in discussion with the Minister’s officials, and he refers to the report published by the marine accident investigation branch, in which a pilotage exemption certificate under section 8 of the Pilotage Act 1987 is a significant feature. The report relates to the collision in March this year outside Belfast between the short sea ferry Stena Feronia and the small bulk carrier Union Moon. The Union Moon was outward bound and had discharged her pilot. The Stena ship was inward bound under the pilotage of a PEC holder.

The report states in express terms in the synopsis that the PEC holder was on board the ship solely for the purpose of conducting pilotage, both at Belfast and at Liverpool, and had no other duty on board the vessel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

We have had a wide-ranging debate on clause 2 and on the amendments, to which the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) spoke ably, as ever. Let me say at the outset—I know that the hon. Gentleman accepts this, but I want to put it on the record—that the Government will do nothing in legislation that would in any way endanger safety at sea. Only a mad hatter would believe that we would do anything that mad.

I listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who, as ever, has been thorough in his investigation and exploration of the clause we are considering. I hope that he is reassured by some of the helpful assurances that I was able to give the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) on Second Reading and in Committee. For example, I was able to say that the Government would reconsider the clause and bring forward amendments on Report, as we are today.

Let me deal with each amendment in turn. Amendment 1 would leave out clause 2. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse for setting out his reasons for tabling the amendment. As with other amendments that have been proposed, alternative definitions of who should hold a PEC have become the crux of what we are debating. The existing restriction limiting the issue of PECs to masters and first mates only no longer reflects maritime operations. For example, many ships and ferries making short voyages no longer have a single master or first mate, because they need to be able to keep the ship almost constantly active. On longer routes, where it is more likely that there is a single holder of each of those roles, there is often the risk of fatigue.

There will always be the alternative for a master to take on board a marine pilot if circumstances mean that none of the PEC holders on the ship is available to pilot it because of the hours worked or limited crew numbers, but if a suitably qualified person is available, it cannot be justifiable that, simply because they do not have the right title, they should not hold a PEC and pilot the ship.

Both the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley suggested that the clause was being introduced solely to satisfy the demands of a small number of operators of dredgers on the River Thames. I say gently to them that that explanation is like the fish that is so rarely caught on the River Thames: the red herring. It is simply not the case—[Interruption.] I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) enjoyed that joke; this is a serious matter and there are few opportunities for levity.

The UK Chamber of Shipping has highlighted its desire to see that change in the UK ferry industry. It considers that recognition of the expertise that already exists on its ships will improve the flexibility and efficiency of operations. The industry is also looking ahead and training younger officers so that they are ready to fill senior roles in coming years, recognising that a large proportion of officers are approaching retirement in the next five years. Clause 2 supports the aspirations of those young officers by offering the opportunity to apply for a PEC when they are ready and able to do so, rather than just holding them back because of a job title. I hope that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, on reflection, will consider withdrawing amendment 1.

I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining the problems he is seeking to address through his other amendments to clause 2. I have already stated that the maintenance of maritime safety must be our key concern. That is why I think that the Bill contains three balanced clauses relating to the management and usage of PECs. I firmly believe that competent harbour authorities would not issue a PEC to unqualified individuals. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will remember the clarification that I was able to give him on Second Reading and in Committee about exactly when a PEC is in operation.

Further, the Bill does not remove or amend in any way the essential safeguard whereby competent harbour authorities may only award a PEC to those whose

“skill, experience and local knowledge”

is sufficient to pilot the named ship or ships to which the PEC applies. The amendments would prevent the deck officers who have that skill, experience and local knowledge from holding a PEC merely because they are not a master or first mate. The addition of a senior navigating officer would not, in practice, extend the restriction at all. Aside from the fact that the definition of the term would be somewhat imprecise, common usage would associate it with what most people call the chief mate under the international convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers.

The term “deck officer” is well known and makes it clear that PECs can be held only by crew members who are regularly tasked with the navigation of the named ship. This definition can be supported by guidance in the co-produced port marine safety code and the accompanying guide to good practice about the qualifications that deck officers are likely to have achieved before they are ready to take the PEC exam.

Clause 2 amends the criteria in the Pilotage Act 1987 for those who are eligible to be granted a PEC. At the moment, an applicant must satisfy the criteria that they must be a bona fide master or first mate and must demonstrate the skill, experience and knowledge sufficient to be capable of piloting the ship specified within the harbour to which the PEC applies. Let me be clear: the clause amends only the first criterion; the second is entirely unaffected by the Bill and remains a vital safeguard to ensure that competent harbour authorities issue PECs only to mariners who can demonstrate that they can safely navigate the ships specified on the PEC. That addresses several of the points made by hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. He should be absolutely clear about the fact that the PEC can be issued only to mariners who have the necessary skill and that it applies only to a specific harbour. I hope that he will reflect on that and recognise that the Bill does not affect the issue at all. All that clause 2 changes in relation to the Pilotage Act is the definition.

Let me turn to the Government amendments. The Government propose that we use the term “deck officer” rather than the terms suggested in other amendments. In Committee, I gave a guarantee that given the importance of this matter to maritime safety, we would give further consideration to exactly what might be the best terminology. The current terminology for such crew as would be appropriate for the qualification of a PEC is “deck officer”, which enjoys the following dictionary definition:

“an officer in charge of the above-deck workings and manoeuvres at sea of a ship or boat.”

I suggest that that covers several of the concerns expressed by the hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse and for Ellesmere Port and Neston.

Members have suggested qualifying terms such as “senior” or “certified” deck officer. However, those do not have the required clarity and are not in common usage, and would therefore maintain the current restriction. I was interested in the term “management-level deck officer” and accept that it could have some merit, but again, it is not in common usage. There may or may not be such a definition in maritime law, but there is no clarity about that.

[Andrew Miller]

In the STCW regulations, there is a reference to “management level”, but there is also a reference to “operational level”. Perhaps the Minister should look for a way of bringing the two together, because somebody can have managerial responsibility without having a hands-on role. The definition must ensure that the person is of operational level. Later in the regulations, there is a reference to

“officers in charge of a navigational watch”.

Somewhere in there, I think that there is a definition that everyone could buy into. The term “deck officer” does not exist in the regulations.

[Stephen Hammond]

The term “deck officer” does not exist there, but it does exist. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the point that management level is covered by the usual definition of deck officer, which is

“an officer in charge of the above-deck workings and manoeuvres at sea”.

That implies that the officer must have operational and management level qualifications.

The term “deck officer” is clear and is widely accepted to be in current usage. It excludes members of the crew who are not responsible for navigating the ship. The second criterion will still apply, so a deck officer would still need to have the requisite

“skill, experience and local knowledge”

to qualify for a PEC.

The port marine safety code and the accompanying guide to good practice are co-produced by the ports, the shipping industry, trade unions, maritime experts and the Government. They provide guidance for ports on the management of PECs and already suggest that competent harbour authorities seek a valid certificate of competency as a deck officer from PEC applicants.

I suggest that the Government amendments are a way forward. We have listened carefully to the concerns of the Opposition and other Members about the definition. Our proposals reflect the ambition of the Bill to reflect modern usage. I hope that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley will be reassured by the Government amendments and will not press their own.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response on our amendments. As I outlined in my opening remarks, the deletion of clause 2 was a principled defence of the status quo in the absence of an alternative.

The alternative that we suggested was “senior deck officer” because that is what was suggested to us. The Minister stated that “deck officer” is a recognised term in the industry. He also acknowledged that our suggestion of replacing “senior” with “management-level” would be appropriate and that that term is contained in other regulations.

In essence, what we are talking about is safety. As the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said, this is not an insignificant element of the proposals, but relates to the fundamental question of safety. We would not want to challenge the Government on their commitment to safety, because we accept the Minister’s assurances. I also know that the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), in whose name the Bill stands, would not want to do anything other than improve safety for mariners. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: Government amendment 12, page 2, line 7, leave out ‘member of the crew’ and insert ‘deck officer’.

Government amendment 13, page 2, line 8, leave out ‘omit “of which he is master or first mate”’ and insert ‘for “master or first mate” substitute “a deck officer”’.

Government amendment 14, page 2, line 10, leave out ‘member of the crew’ and insert ‘deck officer’.

Government amendment 15, page 2, line 12, leave out ‘person’ and insert ‘deck officer’.

Government amendment 16, page 2, line 12, at end insert—

‘( ) In section 31(1) (interpretation) at the appropriate place insert—

“deck officer”, in relation to a ship, includes the master and first mate;”.’.—(Stephen Hammond.)

Clause 5

Harbour directions

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I could go on at great length, but I will spare the House. Trying to create good will while being very clear and determined is probably the most useful way forward. I will certainly listen with interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall has to say, and, if I may say so, to my hon. Friend the Minister when he responds to the amendments.

It has been suggested that the process that was started—I would say started a bit late—between the port authorities, with the help of the Department and the yachting interests, could lead to a code of practice. Only one draft code of practice has been put forward, by the Royal Yachting Association. I understand that in the middle of December there is to be a meeting between the various bodies. It will be interesting to hear—now if the Minister can, but certainly by then—whether the draft code of practice and the methods put forward for consideration for agreement are likely to be agreed in substance or completely.

The next question is what the Minister will say about designating harbour authorities—I do not anticipate that he will be able to speak for the other national authorities other than those for England, but he could indicate whether others may do the same—and whether he will bear in mind the commitment to adhere to an agreed code of practice, and that that commitment, which will not be onerous, and no one is trying to suggest something that would cause more bureaucracy, will be a factor when considering designation. That is one of the crucial issues on which the Minister can address the House. [Interruption.] Is he addressing the House now?

[Stephen Hammond]

I tried, on Second Reading and in Committee, to be as helpful as possible as early as possible so that there was no cause for confusion. It is my expectation and the expectation of the Department for Transport that, when applying for a designation, a harbour authority would sign up to the code of practice.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am sure that what the Minister said will be helpful. The question of whether it is sufficiently helpful will be a second test, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I will take that into account.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the selection of amendments to other clauses in the same debate is, if I may say so, generous to the promoter of the Bill, because it allows for fewer debates than would otherwise happen. I do not make any criticism—I just note that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Ottaway]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming that point.

Another scenario could involve a stipulation that all ships, including sailing and motorised dinghies and other small craft used in navigation, must carry specified equipment such as anchors. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall believes that every boat carries an anchor, but I can assure her that the vast majority do not do so. It could be decreed, however, that they must do so in a tideway so that they could get out of the way and drop anchor. Another possibility could be a requirement that fairways must be avoided by recreational craft, irrespective of whether other shipping is present.

Further possibilities include unjustifiable prohibitions from navigating within a specified distance of environmental features, and prohibitions from anchoring for recreational purposes. Indeed, there is a major dispute at the moment between yachtsmen in the Solent and the National Trust over anchoring in Osborne bay on the Isle of Wight, close to the home of Queen Victoria. The National Trust appears to have exceeded its powers in demanding that yachtsmen should not anchor in the bay adjacent to Osborne house. That is yet another illustration of how unelected authorities can impose a regulation, without having the power to do so or, indeed, without any thought for competing interests. Even if a harbour authority exercises its discretion not to prosecute the skipper of a recreational craft for infringing a harbour direction, the mere existence of that direction may be sufficient to invalidate the vessel’s insurance policy under section 41 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906.

Such general powers of direction have been attained over the years by a number of individual harbour authorities, starting with the Port of London Authority in 1968 and have then gradually taken the place of byelaws, which, unlike harbour directions, have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State and are subject to clear checks and balances. That is why I hope I can persuade the Bill’s promoter to accept amendment 7.

The Royal Yachting Association has become increasingly concerned in recent years at the potential for such powers to give harbour directions to be exercised indiscriminately in a manner that is unnecessary and harmful to the lawful exercise of recreational and other navigational rights. There are instances—quite a number of them—of harbour authorities routinely disregarding the views of their statutory advisory committees. For example, the Saundersfoot harbour commissioners have ignored the views of their statutory advisers, while the Wells harbour commissioners have purported to issue harbour directions despite not having the lawful authority to do so. Those examples do not give me confidence that the power contained in clause 5 would be exercised rationally and with due regard for the interests of all harbour users.

I consider the powers to give harbour directions, in the form proposed in the Bill, to be generally unmerited for a variety of reasons. The making of harbour directions involves the creation of new criminal offences, which many local harbour authorities are not equipped to do. Even democratically elected local authorities do not have such powers and the Bill contains none of the supervisory safeguards usually imposed for law-making bodies. I say to the Minister in all sincerity that granting an unelected harbour authority law-making powers that are not subject to democratic checks and balances and full transparency runs counter to the Government’s own localism policy.

Harbour directions could be made under the power over wide areas used by recreational craft in a disproportionate manner, without proper risk assessment or consideration of the full implications and possible alternatives. They could be used to impose very significant and potentially burdensome restrictions on the navigation and use of recreational craft. It is worth noting, as I described earlier in relation to the Southampton harbour authority, that many harbour authorities have jurisdiction over substantial areas going out to sea, and not just over partially enclosed harbour areas.

Prior consultation is an inadequate safeguard, not least because—notwithstanding that prior consultation—inappropriate or flawed decisions often still follow, as experience across the public and private sector generally shows. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) pointed out, judicial review is not an adequate remedy against an objectionable direction where, as here, powers are expressed without meaningful limitations. There is unlikely ever to be any procedural or substantive illegality to provide a course of action.

The RYA has expressed its concerns over a number of years to representatives of the port industry and to the Government, including in a response to a Government consultation on the draft Marine Navigation Bill of 2008, which contained an equivalent provision to that set out in clause 5. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West said, a meeting between the RYA, the Member in charge of the Bill and the Minister has now taken place, but the RYA understands that those behind the Bill do not propose to drop the provision or amend it in any way to meet the RYA’s concerns. I have to say that that gives me cause for concern. [Interruption.]

I beg the Minister’s pardon. I thought at that point that his body language was moving towards the Dispatch Box.

[Stephen Hammond]

I shall move slowly in the direction of the Dispatch Box.

It was somewhat frustrating that in some of the discussions we thought that we had moved to certain places, and then found two hours later that we had not. Let me gently say that it would be helpful if both sides were prepared to concede some points, so that we could proceed towards the establishment of a non-statutory code of conduct.

[Richard Ottaway]

I hope that that is right, but, as we have only 45 minutes left, it would be of great assistance if the Minister told us now that there would be some movement in that regard.

[Stephen Hammond]

There has been.

[Richard Ottaway]

I was not present during the discussions, but those who were have told me that there has not been movement. If the Minister is able to confirm that there has been, and that he can agree to the code of conduct that is being proposed, his throat can then dry up and we can all move on, quite satisfactorily.

It has been suggested to the RYA that a non-statutory process should be established to ensure that the powers to make harbour directions under clause 5 are used appropriately. That might include a code of conduct setting out how harbour authorities would use their powers to make harbour directions and providing for levels of consultation, a dispute resolution process if objections cannot be resolved, and an arbitration process if the code of conduct has not been adhered to. Model harbour directions would also be developed.

While, from the Department’s point of view, such a non-statutory process no doubt has the advantage of enabling the Department to avoid taking any responsibility for the matter or expending any resources, it would offer no real safeguards against the misuse of the proposed new powers unless all harbour authorities were required by the Secretary of State to commit themselves to the code of conduct as a prerequisite to being designated under clause 5. Given that elected local authorities are subject to such a requirement, why should it not apply to unelected harbour authorities?

[Stephen Hammond]

I said on Second Reading and in Committee that the Department would issue guidelines on the competence of harbour authorities to make directions, and I have already given my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) the reassurance that my hon. Friend has just sought.

[Richard Ottaway]

I am grateful to the Minister, but he has yet to explain why local authorities, Transport for London and the Civil Aviation Authority should be treated differently from unelected harbour authorities.

I had many more points to make, but it might be sensible for me to allow the Minister to set out in some depth exactly what his reaction will be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West pointed out, the Bill still has to pass through the other place. There is a substantial shipping lobby there, which will take a close interest in the Bill. If the Minister can give us some assurances, I imagine that the Bill will be given a speedy passage through both Houses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheryll Murray]

I will be very brief, as I know time is running out, but I want to assure those Members who are concerned about safety that nobody knows better than me that incidents that cannot be legislated for can happen at sea, because my family has paid the cost of that. I have spoken to a lot of yachtsmen, and members of the RYA and harbourmasters. This measure is about port safety. I urge those Members who have spoken so eloquently about the RYA to consider the safety implications of having congested harbours and a harbourmaster who cannot move boats from one area of the harbour when dredging takes place.

I pay tribute to the my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), who had a distinguished career in the Royal Navy. I should declare a special interest, as my daughter is involved in navigation as a lieutenant commander in the Royal Navy and my son deals with electronic navigational aids. I also want to put on record an interest to which I do not strictly need to refer today, and that is my membership of the Sea Safety Group, which I sincerely hope will form the type of organisation that will bring everybody together to draw up the code of practice. Not only was I a member of the Plymouth sea safety group, which brought merchant shipping people, ports, port and harbour authorities and every other user of the sea, including the RNLI and RYA, together, but so was my late husband. I am so sorry that I got angry when I heard that yachtsmen were going to sea without using VHF radios, but nobody knows more than me what that can mean. I apologise for my anger, but I believe that everybody should go to sea with a VHF radio and an emergency position indicating radio beacon.

I am sorry to have taken up so much time and I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) will consider withdrawing the amendment.

[Stephen Hammond]

This has been a passionate debate and I recognise the concerns raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), both of whom spoke passionately and with knowledge. I hope that they accept, as I do, that the concerns have been raised a number of times and I hope we are moving towards a solution. The concerns were raised at a meeting with me before the Committee stage of the Bill. I hope that I will be able to allay some of them by explaining why the Government have chosen the non-statutory safeguards that complement the statutory provisions in the Bill. I understand that they have been agreed in principle by industry in its widest sense, by the Department and in principle although not in detail by the RYA. In total, there are 12 safeguards, some of which are detailed in the Bill. Others are non-statutory and I want to focus on them.

A set of harbour directions will be made available for harbours to adopt, as will guidance on how to use the power. A code of conduct covering good practice on consultation and a mechanism to resolve disputes about harbour directions before they are made will be developed by representatives of the port and the port users. An independently chaired panel will be established to develop and maintain the code of conduct and model harbour directions and I have given assurances on Second Reading and in Committee that the Department will actively engage in ensuring that there are guidelines for what should be covered in the code of conduct, how the harbour authority should make those directions and whom they should be consulting.

I expect the code of conduct to be agreed. I want it agreed by all sides—that is, not just by my Department but by the RYA. That is why the meeting in December is greatly important, as it will bring together a number of the major key stakeholders: the RYA, the UK Major Ports Group, the British Ports Association and my Department. I hope that given my assurance that I expect the code to be agreed or, if it is not agreed, amended as promised in the other place, my hon. Friends will consider that as basis for accepting some reassurance today.

On clause 5 and amendment 7, I have tried explicitly to give the assurance that, when a harbour authority expects to participate, it will have to sign up to the code of conduct before it makes the application.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

It is a great pleasure to bring to a close today’s debate on this welcome Bill, as we acknowledge the Bill that was started under the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) in his time. I am grateful to him and to his colleague, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), for their helpful and constructive contributions.

The Bill has been acknowledged on both sides of the House as desirable and as needing some fine-tuning, which is why we listened in Committee. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and glad that I have been able to provide them with some reassurance on the matters they are concerned about. I accept that further work is needed, particularly on the code of practice, and look forward to ensuring that happens, in line with the commitments I have given today. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) is absolutely right that one of the important aspects of the Bill is what it does in relation to the ports police.

Of course, it is much to the credit of my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) that her Bill has made such rapid progress so far. Taking on board the maritime theme, I think that it has made the progress of a speedy catamaran, rather than a ponderous super-tanker—that is probably enough of my laboured jokes for one day. I am delighted that the Bill has made its way through this House and look forward to watching its progress through the other place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

11. What steps he is taking to reduce congestion on Highways Agency roads.

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

This Government are committed to accelerating the delivery of roads infrastructure. Spending on the major roads programme to October 2012 was just over £1.9 billion. A £217 million programme of pinch point schemes is being progressed, as is a £3.5 billion programme of 20 major road schemes.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Dartford crossing causes motorists in my constituency a lot of grief, and although it is part of the national road infrastructure the congestion impact is very much local. Will he give me an undertaking that he will do everything he can to tackle the congestion at the Dartford crossing and at junction 31 with the A13 and the M25 so that the jobs and economic growth that can be generated in south Essex will materialise?

[Stephen Hammond]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. As she knows, we are already progressing free flow through the Dartford tunnel. We are in discussions with the Highways Agency about the junction that she refers to.

[Oliver Colvile]

I thank my hon. Friend for his recent announcement about the investment of £1.8 million in the Manadon roundabout, which is on the border of my Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency. Following last week’s flooding in the south-west, train passengers’ journeys to and from London have been very disrupted. Can my hon. Friend make an economic assessment of the impact of that on the Plymouth economy?

[Stephen Hammond]

Along with many other members of the Government, I offer my deepest sympathy to those who have been affected by the recent flooding. I recognise that it has been extremely disruptive, both for residents and for businesses, but it is too early to undertake an economic assessment. The Government’s main priority at present is restoring services to all those affected by flooding.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for meeting me to discuss the Woodford lane A5 junction, the scene of many serious accidents which not only add to congestion on the A5 but have resulted in many serious injuries and the loss of a young life in the past year. Does he agree that we need to look seriously at trying to find a solution to make this treacherous junction safer?

[Stephen Hammond]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. He will know that as a result of that meeting I have asked the Highways Agency to conduct a review of the junction’s safety record over the past few years and keep an eye on it over the next six months, and I have agreed to meet him to discuss the matter in the second half of next year.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

One way in which congestion could be greatly reduced would be by having a dedicated police service for the highways? Does the Minister agree?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman will know that there is already a police service that tackles that—the traffic police—and there are also Highways Agency officers who help with accidents.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

3. What steps his Department is taking to improve transport links between England and Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

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

9. What progress he has made on dualling the A1 north of Newcastle; and if he will make a statement.

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

The Department has no current plans to dual the A1 north of Newcastle. In recognition of its importance for freight and other strategic traffic, the A1 north of Newcastle was designated as a route of strategic national importance in May 2010.

[Mr Brown]

Will the Minister explain the logic of that answer to the House, and say how the Government can designate the route as of strategic national importance but not continue to dual it north of Newcastle?

[Stephen Hammond]

As was made clear at the time, reclassification does not guarantee any extra funding, and any proposed upgrade would need to be subject to the usual decision-making process.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. What recent assessment he has made of road capacity in north-west England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

T3. Junction 15 of the M4, in my constituency, is of vital regional and local importance to the economy, but is experiencing increased congestion. Will my right hon. Friend, or one of his ministerial colleagues, meet me and local representatives to discuss how we can alleviate this growing problem?

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

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the congestion on this junction, and I would be delighted to meet him and a delegation of his constituents to discuss it.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

T2. I was interested to hear the Minister’s reply to Government Members about projects in the south, but I hope that he is aware of the huge disparity in public transport infrastructure investment: £5 per head in the north-east compared with £2,700 in London. Will he confirm, therefore, how many carriages will be built under the intercity express programme contract and how many carriages my constituents on the east coast main line can expect to see operating?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Toll increases on the Severn bridge were announced last week. Businesses and commuters in my constituency feel that they are paying the highest tolls in the UK. What they would like to hear from the Government is that they will do what they can to help now, and that when the concession ends the tolls will be substantially reduced for local people, not considered a useful revenue stream for the Government. Will the Minister make that commitment?

[Stephen Hammond]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As she and other members of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs heard, the tolling arrangements will continue beyond the concession because of the debts that are still repayable to the UK Government. We are in discussions and have had letters from the Welsh Government about arrangements post 2018, and I will look at them most seriously.

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

In 2007 funds were awarded under capital expenditure grants—the Bellwin formula—to Hull and Gloucestershire. Will similar moneys be awarded to repair bridges and roads that were severely damaged in the September floods in north Yorkshire?

Warrington (Atlantic Gateway)

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to have the opportunity to speak for over two hours on this exciting subject. I shall of course resist that temptation, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) did. I congratulate him on securing the debate. He spoke this afternoon about two or three really important opportunities for growth in his constituency, and in doing so he spoke for Warrington, its people and its industry.

The two big opportunities my hon. Friend spoke about are the Mersey gateway and the Atlantic gateway. I will respond first to some of his points on the Mersey gateway crossing. It is this Government who have been able to agree and secure delivery of that vital piece of infrastructure after years of planning. Our agreed funding package includes tolling, which is in line with other large pieces of infrastructure across major estuaries and rivers. In his letter setting out his decision on the scheme in December 2010, the Secretary of State for Transport agreed with the inspector that it would be necessary for the promoter to charge tolls for the use of the new Mersey gateway bridge and the existing Silver Jubilee bridge, both to provide revenue for construction of the project and to avoid unacceptable levels of congestion on the existing bridge.

My hon. Friend challenged me to explain why there will be tolling. The issue was of course covered in the public inquiry and is consistent with the inspector’s recommendations. He also challenged me about the fact that estuary crossings in Scotland are free of tolls. As he knows, and as I am sure he has explained to his constituents, that is a matter for the Scottish Government, not this Government.

My hon. Friend also asked about the tolling regime. Let me put it on the record—he might or might not be aware of this—that the Secretary of State has approved the following orders that provide for tolling for new and existing bridges: an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 in respect of the new bridge; and a confirmation of the road user charging scheme under the Transport Act 2000 in respect of the existing bridge. Those two Acts specify the range of the tolls that can be charged. Although tolls can be revised so that they are lower than the specified range, they cannot be increased above it. For cars and light vans, the range is set at £1 to £2.50, at 2008 prices. The tolls can of course be varied over time, according to the retail prices index. I hope that clarifies his queries about tolling. I think it sets out clearly why the toll is there and the range that can be used.

I absolutely understand my hon. Friend’s point that a toll set at the wrong level would have the potential to divert traffic via Warrington, but I am assured that both local authorities—Halton and Warrington borough councils—are alive to the issue and have committed to holding regular discussions on how that can be most effectively managed once the new bridge is opened. I urge him to speak to them as passionately as he has spoken today to ensure that they bring the tolling levels in at the lower end of the range, or even seek to use the discount.

Turning to the Atlantic gateway proposals led by Peel Ports, I agree that they constitute an imaginative strategic package and have great potential to contribute to regional regeneration across the north-west. However, it is fair to say that elements of the package are at various stages of design and elaboration. Some have planning clearance and some do not. I should therefore preface my remarks by making it clear that in responding to the debate, nothing I say should be construed as prejudicing any future decisions of a planning or licensing authority that may follow as part of the package that will undoubtedly come forth in due course.

That does not mean that we cannot take a wider view. As my hon. Friend said, it is a decidedly good thing that the developer, which already operates on a large scale, is able to see synergies between transport, office development, science, media and other parts of the regional industry mix, and to formulate a joined-up view. I am very pleased to see the developer and the local enterprise partnership doing that in the north-west.

The Atlantic gateway covers the area from Liverpool city region in the west to Manchester city region in the east. The Atlantic gateway and some of the schemes that follow from it have huge potential to put this part of the north-west back into the premier league of world economic powerhouses, as is surely fitting for an area that was at the heart of this country’s prosperity in years gone by. At the heart of the proposition is the connectivity that is being driven forward by the Atlantic gateway board in seeking to maximise road, rail and shipping assets in the region. I am delighted to say that this Government, yet again, have been able to provide significant investment in priority projects. My hon. Friend mentioned the Ordsall chord, and I am sure that he would also want to recognise the benefits of rail electrification.

One of the key transport assets for the Atlantic gateway is the unique port corridor provided by the River Mersey and the Manchester ship canal, which links the thriving port of Liverpool with port facilities in Salford and Manchester, some 35 miles inland. More than 40 million tonnes of freight passes through the docks. Mersey ports is one of the most significant and important ports in the UK and a key asset both nationally and locally. The plan proposes significant investment by Peel Ports in facilities and infrastructure to revitalise and utilise the whole of the port and the ship canal. That should provide a world-class port and logistics corridor. However, with this growth come the ramifications and impacts that my hon. Friend mentioned. Port growth is hugely beneficial, but the benefit needs to be enjoyed by all, and several potential impacts need to be managed. While the scheme can take a number of lorries off the road, it can also, as he said, lead to a number of impacts on local traffic.

I understand the importance of this issue to Warrington. My hon. Friend referred extensively to the movements of the swing bridges. In previous discussions with me, he has indicated that his constituency office is on one side of one of the swing bridges and he has sometimes been trapped on the other side, delaying him for some considerable time. I am sure that he meant that only as an illustration of the frustrations felt by local people, because he is right that the swing bridges are vital to Warrington. They provide strategic road access to the town centre and are therefore vital to the economic prosperity of the borough. It is therefore right, in planning and looking forward, that the increased traffic on the canal could be brought together and moved at night. That is not a matter for the Government; it is for the local authorities to work on it with Peel Ports to ensure that the increased benefits, in economic and transport terms, are secured for all the local population.

I am delighted to hear that Mersey ports and Warrington borough council are working together to develop proposals for a memorandum of understanding. I urge the local authority to consider my hon. Friend’s remarks about timing, frequency and the ability to group some of the traffic coming down the canal to ensure that the disruption that is being faced by him and his constituents can be minimised. I understand that significant progress is being made. There is more to be done, but none the less the issue has been recognised and a solution is being found. Ultimately, as I said a moment ago, it is undoubtedly an issue for local transport.

My hon. Friend tried to catch me off guard and tempt me, as Members often do in the week before an autumn statement, to make commitments that are way above my pay grade and that can be made only by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend made a plea for the Arpley chord, which is, of course, quite distinct from the Ordsall chord, and I am sure that his remarks will be read in the Treasury tomorrow. He said that he made a similar plea last year and I wish him well in continuing to speak up for his constituents on that matter.

Like my hon. Friend, we recognise the importance of joined-up thinking for transport matters locally. That is why the Department for Transport has been at the forefront of the Government’s drive for more localised decision-making in transport. We have announced the intention to give local communities and local business more control over decisions and, more importantly, more control over the budgets for some of their major local transport schemes. That is already having an impact up and down the country, and it will continue to do so.

My hon. Friend has raised some significant issues on behalf of his constituents and I am grateful to him for doing so. I hope that my remarks about tolling were helpful to him. Warrington stands to benefit conspicuously from the two major developments. It is important, as he has said, that any adverse aspects are mitigated, but I am pleased that work has started and I am sure that he will continue to raise issues if they do not come to a satisfactory conclusion.

Question put and agreed to.

Speed Limit Exemptions

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Written Statements

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

The Department has today published a consultation paper on speed limit exemptions for vehicles used for emergency purposes.

The consultation paper proposes that section 19 of the Road Safety Act (2006) is brought into effect. Section 19 allows the Secretary of State for Transport to designate other vehicle purposes as being exempt from speed limits in certain circumstances and if drivers of said vehicles complete successfully a “high-speed training course”. Section 19 replaces section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act (1984) in relation to exemptions from speed limits for certain vehicle purposes.

The Department recognises that there are certain vehicle purposes that the wider public may well consider as having a speed limit exemptions but which do not currently. These include, for example, vehicles used to carry human tissue for transplant, mountain rescue teams, bomb disposal squads and others listed in the consultation document.

Branches of the emergency services (police, fire service and ambulance service) are currently exempt from speed limits and provide appropriate training to their staff. No additional requirements will be placed on them.

The Department has worked with representatives of the police, fire and rescue, NHS ambulance services, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and road safety stakeholders on the development of standards for driver training. This led to the creation of a code of practice based on the principles applied in each organisation.

The Department seeks to identify the core competences specified in the code of practice and include them in regulations. It also proposes that the Driving Standards Agency (DSA) will take responsibility for the accrediting and quality assuring training providers seeking to provide high-speed driver training courses, against the competences identified in the code of practice.

A further consideration within the consultation document is to exempt paramedics and other medical personnel from the requirements to wear seat belts in the back of ambulances, particularly when providing emergency treatment.

Drink and Drug Driving

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Written Statements

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

The Government have today launched a consultation on some enforcement issues relating to the current legislation on drink and drug-driving. This consultation encompasses the legislative changes the Government proposed in their response of March 2011 to the reports by Sir Peter North¹ and the Transport Select Committee² on drink and drug-driving (“the Government’s response”³). The changes covered in this consultation should not be confused with the legislation related to driving with a specified impairing drug in the body, which is currently passing through Parliament in the Crime and Courts Bill.

The consultation on enforcement of drink-driving will cover four potential legislative changes:

1) Withdrawal of the right people have to replace their breath alcohol specimens with either a specimen of blood or specimens of urine in cases where the lower of the two breath readings provided does not exceed 50 microgrammes (meg) of alcohol per 100 millilitres (ml) of breath (known commonly as the “statutory option”).

2) Removing the requirement for preliminary testing where evidential testing is undertaken away from a police station. This would mean that a preliminary breath test would not have to be taken in addition to two evidential breath tests, when mobile evidential breath testing devices are used away from a police station. While such devices are not yet available, it is expected that they may be type-approved within the next two years.

3) Streamlining the procedure for testing drink-drivers and drug-impaired drivers in hospital so that a wider range of registered health care professionals are allowed to take evidential blood specimens. This would make it consistent with other policing provisions.

4) The consultation asks for views on whether a health care professional other than a doctor should be able to assess whether a driver may be under the influence of a drug prior to evidential testing.

The legislative changes proposed in this consultation would apply to the Road Traffic Act 1988. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, we intend to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows on the matters covered in points 1 to 4 above.

Other proposals in the consultation

The Road Traffic Act 1998 (and other parallel legislative provisions) apply similar measures to the drink-drive offence to railways, shipping and aviation. The consultation seeks views about whether any changes here should also apply to these other transport sectors.

The consultation explores how further use can be made of vehicle forfeiture powers to get the most dangerous and irresponsible motorists off the road including those who drive while under the influence of alcohol.

The consultation document explores the scope for further research into the processes for reassessing whether a driver banned due to drink-driving should regain their licence. The research would develop the evidence base for longer-term solutions in this area.

The consultation seeks views about the way forward on three as yet un-commenced legislative provisions in the Road Safety Act 2006 relating to the training and punishment of certain road traffic offenders.

In line with the revised guidance on consultations, we propose to shorten the consultation time for this to just over five weeks. We are particularly interested in the views of the health care sector on points 3 and 4 and are planning to meet representative bodies for medical professionals in early December.

¹ Report of the Review of Drink and Drug Driving Law: Sir Peter North CBE, QC (June 2010)

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100921035225/http://northreview.independent.gov.uk/docs/NorthReview-Report.pdf.

² Report of the Transport Select Committee: Drink and Drug Driving Law (November 2010) http://www.publications. parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtran/460/46002.htm.

³ The Government’s Response to the Reports by Sir Peter North CBE QC and the Transport Select Committee on Drink and Drug Driving: Command Paper 8050 (March 2011) at: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm80/8050/8050.pdf.

Cycling Safety

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I am delighted to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. I think that it would be presumptuous of me to provide an answer on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I certainly listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said and I will come to his comments in a moment.

I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) and congratulate him on the debate. He made an excellent speech—a serious speech. A number of questions came up, and I will try to tackle as many of them as I can in the short time available. I am sure that if I do not respond to them all, he will want to write to me, and I will be happy to put the replies on the record. I particularly welcome the debate.

I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) said, and yes, of course there is more to do, but I hope that she recognises the great deal that the Government are doing. We take the promotion of cycling, the ability to cycle safely and our responsibilities seriously. Cycling is not just a convenient, healthy and green way to travel, as hon. Members have said, but relatively inexpensive, and therefore accessible to many. There has never been a better time for people to get on their bikes, and that is exactly what we are seeing.

The trend started after Beijing 2008, which reignited the passion for cycling for many people. As my hon. Friend pointed out, after the heroics of the Olympics, Paralympics and Tour de France, not only have we seen thousands more people cycling, but we expect hundreds of thousands more people to take to two wheels. In some parts of London, cyclists already seem to outnumber other vehicles.

I commend The Times’s excellent cycling campaign; we have taken much of it on board. The hon. Member for Nottingham South was right to commend also British Cycling, Sustrans, the Bicycle Association of Great Britain, London Cycling Campaign and C2C, all of which lobby heavily, carefully and thoughtfully for cycling. It is distressing that, although the number of cycling fatalities has been falling—fatalities decreased between 2010 and 2011—the number of serious injuries has increased. As road safety Minister, I am determined to ensure that our roads are as safe they can be for everyone who uses them, whatever the mode of transport.

The Government have invested substantially in road infrastructure and other safety angles, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) pointed out. The local sustainable transport fund is targeting £600 million of investment over four years to look at local networks. Almost all the projects funded so far include infrastructure improvements for cycling. I could give examples, but will not due to the time. Improvements include landscaping, resurfacing, repainting, new lighting and adding new parts to junctions to improve the safety of cycle routes.

The Department is working on other ways to reduce risk. We have made it considerably simpler for councils to install Trixi mirrors to improve the visibility of cyclists at junctions and to put in place 20 mph limits and zones. I strongly encourage councils to consider the greater use of such 20 mph zones in residential areas, because they clearly have an impact on the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. We have also made it easier for councils to introduce contraflow cycling by changing signage laws, so fewer signs need to be used. I am working closely with cycle safety stakeholder groups on other issues and infrastructure measures that the local sustainable transport fund can bring forward. We have made £30 million available to local councils up and down the country to tackle the most difficult and dangerous junctions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West mentioned HGVs. The hon. Member for Nottingham South is right that training is crucial for HGV drivers, operators, transport managers and employers. That is why I am pleased that the Freight Transport Association, with Government support and backing, introduced a cycling code last year. I was delighted to be at the launch of the Mineral Products Association’s new drivers’ awareness campaign. It targeted young cyclists at Hyde park, where a number of them stopped to see how difficult it is for even the most well trained drivers to spot cyclists, even in the most well equipped lorries with a blind-side mirror and other safety implements. The Government are behind that awareness campaign, and I support the investment from the MPA and the FTA.

All EU member states have implemented the European legislation, which applies to almost all HGVs used in domestic and foreign trade. We continue to drive that agenda in Europe, to ensure that mirrors are required for new vehicles. We have provided £30 million to make potentially hazardous junctions across England safer for cyclists. Of that, £15 million is going to London, because we recognise that in London in particular there has been a huge increase in cycling and in the number of people wishing to access the roads more safely.

We are working with partners, through the Department for Transport cycling stakeholder forum, on a wide range of issues, including safety. I will meet the group in the near future. It is inclusive: it includes cyclists, motorists and representatives from local authorities and the Freight Transport Association, because not having all those people on such a body would mean missing out on opportunities. We strongly encourage local authorities to follow the example of some of the schemes that we have set up and those set up previously to consider actions to improve safety for cyclists

In the short time available, I shall touch on helmets, because the issue has come up a number of times today. In 2009, the Government commissioned and published a report entitled, “The potential for cycle helmets to prevent injury”. It concluded that helmets could be expected to reduce fatalities and injuries in the event of an accident, particularly if a vehicle was not involved. No evidence was found of helmets adding any additional injury risk. Let me make it clear that the Department for Transport supports the promotion of cycle helmets, through measures such as Highway Code rule 59. I was also pleased to initiate the recent THINK! campaign in September. The Government are putting more money into Bikeability cycle training and have committed more money to it over the next three years. The Department also makes its support clear on its webpage and through other schemes.

We equally accept that helmets are a matter of exhortation rather than compulsion. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough made a powerful speech. He is right that the former Minister was excellent and showed strength on this matter—I am not sure that I will live up to my hon. Friend’s hopes. I entirely agree with him; anything outside legislation to promote and exhort the wearing of cycle helmets, I will do in my role as road safety Minister. I am happy, first, to nudge the Prime Minister to ensure that he answers my hon. Friend, and, secondly, to accept his invitation to a meeting. I am sure that he will write to my officials about that.

One of my first acts as road safety Minister was to announce the first THINK! Cyclist campaign. Many will know that we have used the THINK! label for a number of road safety campaigns, but we have not had a campaign dedicated to cycling for 10 years. It concentrates on the behaviour of cyclists and motorists, by getting those who cycle, who are often motorists as well, to think about how they behave on the road as motorists and how they want people to behave towards them as cyclists. I would like to go into more detail on that campaign, but I accept the comment that the little green man should have been wearing his helmet. A number of cities have taken up the campaign and I continue to spend time promoting it. I am convinced that THINK! Cyclist can have a beneficial effect on road safety.

I am acutely aware that we are coming to the end of our debate. Cycling offers huge benefits to both the individual and society. The challenge, which remains a challenge for the Government, is to continue to ensure that our roads are as safe as we can make them. Investment is therefore going into infrastructure and the training of young people, and we exhort people to wear cycle helmets. I hope that when we have a debate on this subject in a year’s time, as I am sure we will, the trends will not only seem to be downwards, but be proven to be downwards.

Parliamentary Written Question (Correction)

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Written Statements

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

I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in the answer given by the then Parliamentary-Under Secretary of State to parliamentary question 97198 on 1 March 2012, Official Report, column 450W, about Driving: Licensing.

The answer says:

VOSA identifies poor performing MOT testing stations through a transparent and proportionate disciplinary points system published in the MOT Testing Guide. VOSA cessate individual testers called Authorised Examiners (AEs) from carrying out MOT tests, not the test stations. AEs cessated in the last three years are 111 in 2008-09, 90 in 2009-10, and 89 in 2010-11 all after appeal.

The answer should be:

VOSA identifies poor performing MOT testing stations through a transparent and proportionate disciplinary points system published in the MOT Testing Guide. VOSA can take action against Authorised Examiners (AEs) and Nominated Testers (NTs). AEs are an individual, partnership or company approved to carry out MOT tests. NTs carry out the actual tests. In the last three years, the agency struck off 111 AEs in 2008-09, 90 in 2009-10, and 89 in 2010-11, all after appeal.

HGV Road User Levy Bill

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

indicated dissent.

[Michael Connarty]

The Minister is indicating that that is not the case. If he is about to tell me that the levy will come in at exactly the same time for everyone, that would be a vast improvement.

[Stephen Hammond]

The Secretary of State confirmed that this afternoon in his opening remarks, and I confirmed that in the Ways and Means debate on 23 October. The only possibility of that not happening would be if there is a minor delay to the procurement of the database, but the reality is that we have moved it so that there will be simultaneous introduction.

[Michael Connarty]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Robert Flello]

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

[Stephen Hammond]

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

HGV Road User Levy Bill (programme)

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

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

Committal

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

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

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

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

Consideration and Third Reading

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

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

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

Other proceedings

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

Question agreed to.

Civil Aviation Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

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

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

Consideration of Lords Amendments

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

Subsequent stages

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

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

Question agreed to.

Heavy Goods Vehicles

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Friday 9th November 2012 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing the publication of a consultation document which aims to examine whether the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) over 7.5 tonnes on single carriageways, is set at the right level.

This follows a commitment published in “The Logistics Growth Review - Connecting People with Goods” document in November 2011.

The current speed limit on single carriageways for HGVs over 7.5 tonnes is 40 mph. The speed limit for smaller HGVs (those between 3.5 tonnes and 7.5 tonnes) is 50 mph.

Stakeholders have told us that the 40 mph speed limit causes unnecessary costs to vehicle operators, congestion, avoidable overtaking collisions and creates an uneven playing field for businesses.

The freight and logistics sector is an essential part of the economy, vital to businesses of all sizes and sectors. Raising HGV speed limits on single-carriageway roads could lead to quicker journeys and lower costs for the sector, aiding economic growth as well as reducing frustration for the many drivers who find themselves stuck behind slower-moving lorries on busy roads unable to overtake. However, there are other consequences of greater speed—both in terms of the environmental impacts and the potential effects on road safety.

We are inviting responses from the trade associations, haulage companies. Government enforcement bodies or police forces and organisations, road safety groups, local authorities and road users.

The consultation will run until 1 February.

EU Transport Council

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Written Statements

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

I attended the first Transport Council of the Cypriot Presidency in Luxembourg on Monday 29 October.

The Council reached general approach on two proposals to amend EU legislation allowing the enforcement of certain provisions of the maritime labour convention within the EU. The maritime labour convention was agreed in the International Labour Organisation in 2006, and ensures certain standards of working conditions for seafarers. The proposals will provide for enforcement to take place as part of the port state control regime. The Council now awaits the European Parliament’s opinion before making further progress.

The Council reached general approach on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the allocation of slots, repealing Council Directive 95/93/EC, by qualified majority voting. Although the majority of the text is acceptable the UK was unable to support the general approach on the day, largely because of uncertainty as to how a number of detailed points will be resolved. However, I was able to successfully preserve key elements of the text which safeguard the current secondary trading of slots in the UK and I was able to narrow down the scope for member states to restrict slot trading within their territory in certain circumstances.

The Council held a debate on a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on roadworthiness testing for motor vehicles and their trailers. I intervened to express the UK’s serious concerns about the proposal. I argued that it would impose substantial costs in the UK, with negligible road safety benefits. I highlighted that the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee have issued an opinion that the proposal was against the principles of subsidiarity. I also argued that the Commission’s impact assessment failed to provide convincing evidence of road safety benefits overall. The UK’s concerns were echoed by a number of other member states.

The Council reached a political agreement on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council. The political agreement is based on the general approach reached in June, and accepts some minor amendments proposed by the European Parliament. The proposal will now return to the European Parliament for a Second Reading.

The Council adopted a decision on provisional application of an agreement to enhance co-operation between the European Union and the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol).