UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Transportation

  • Simon Clarke – 2020 Speech on Private Car Parks

    Simon Clarke – 2020 Speech on Private Car Parks

    Below is the text of the speech made by Simon Clarke, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 2 June 2020.

    I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for raising this issue and I congratulate her on securing this much-delayed debate. I also want to thank her and indeed, hon. Members across the House because this is an issue that I receive a lot of representations about on a daily basis. It is something that I am keenly aware needs resolving, and Members across the House are firm in their view that action is necessary on the regulation of the private parking industry.

    Too often, our constituents are treated poorly at the hands of parking firms, and I know that many of my constituents in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland feel the same. The clear cross-party support for the Parking (Code Of Practice) Act 2019 was therefore hugely encouraging, and I am pleased that, through the Act the Government are giving motorists greater protection against bogus parking fines and clamping down on rogue operators.

    Self-regulation in the private parking sector has led to some undesirable practices, including misleading or confusing signage, aggressive debt collection, spiralling fees and opaque appeals services, and we heard some of that in the case of my right hon. Friend’s constituent, Mr Hindle. Members see in our postbags the effect that these poor practices have on people in our communities. They include the motorist who made a genuine and minor error entering their vehicle registration number into a machine and received £100 fine in the post; the driver who entered a car park on a busy day and could not park due to lack of spaces but got a ticket regardless because the camera assumed they had parked; the car park with signs that are impossible to read, subject to terms and conditions which are difficult to understand or which change without proper notice. Letters from motorists and even from MPs have gone unanswered by parking companies, although it does sound as though the hon. Lady has a staffer who will not be defeated by such tactics.

    These practices are unfair and not good enough. The private parking industry plays a crucial role in our transport infrastructure, from facilitating commutes every ​morning to making our high streets accessible for shoppers and those accessing vital services. It employs thousands of people and serves millions of customers every day in normal times. We understand its importance, and that is why this Government are taking action to crack down on rogue firms, protect motorists and raise standards across the sector. With that in mind, I am pleased to update Members on the progress of our action after the passing of the Parking (Code Of Practice) Act, which was introduced thanks to the hard work of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), and we are actively delivering on our 2017 manifesto commitment to tackle rogue parking operators.

    The Act provided for the creation of an independent code of practice for private parking companies and a one-stop shop for parking appeals, and our new code will ensure that enforcement and appeal processes are fair and proportionate. It will bring consistency, creating a level playing field across the industry, and it will benefit motorists, operators and landowners alike. If a parking company were to repeatedly break the code, its access to DVLA data could be blocked, and this data includes information on the vehicle keeper, so a company blocked from accessing it would be effectively unable to pursue parking charges. Blocking rogue operators in this manner will grant motorists greater protection against companies not delivering the standards that the Government and the public would expect.

    We have taken steps to ensure that the code is not only reflective of the issues that we want to address but is informed by outside experts. On 3 November last year, the Government announced that the British Standards Institution would write the code in consultation with consumer and industry groups and carry out a full consultation once the draft was ready. The BSI is widely regarded as expert in regulatory delivery and has a proven track record of working with Government. Developing the code of practice as a British standard is thus a guarantee that the new regulation will be robust and of the highest quality, and the Government’s choice of BSI also delivers on our promise to listen to industry and consumers and involve them in the design of the new regulation. BSI’s process for developing new British standards involves reaching a consensus for a range of key stakeholders and seeking a wide array of views through a full public consultation. That will help to ensure that the code is entirely comprehensive.

    I assure my right hon. Friend that, working in conjunction with the BSI, it is a priority to ensure that this code addresses the most significant and recurring issues that consumers deal with.

    Jim Shannon

    I welcome what the Minister has outlined for the right hon. Lady. I think it is exactly what we want to hear in this House, but when it comes to monitoring and checking, will the changes in the pipeline be enforced by locals councils, the police or another independent body?

    Mr Clarke

    It would not be an Adjournment debate without an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. In this case, he raises a really significant point. We need to make sure that these regulations have teeth. The deterrent lies in the fact that repeat offenders will find themselves unable to access the DVLA database and so it will in effect be self-policing.​
    In November, we announced that the Government would propose that the code considers a mandatory requirement to give all drivers the 10 minute grace period, which my right hon. Friend referred to, after their tickets expire. This will be a common-sense measure to ensure that drivers are not unfairly penalised for trying to do the right thing.

    Caroline Nokes

    I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He was very specific then about a 10-minute grace period after a ticket had expired. Will it also include a 10-minute grace period in the circumstance that he himself identified where somebody perhaps drives into a car park and finds that there are no spaces, or that it is too expensive?

    Mr Clarke

    I confess that, given the code is in draft, I do not know the answer to that question, but I will write to my right hon. Friend, as she would expect, to clarify. I suspect that it will make good sense for it to do so in practice, but I will not presume to prejudge what the independent regulation may eventually come up with.

    I also want to address issues raised about debt collection, because it cannot be fair that a hard-working family is prevented from obtaining a mortgage because a small breach of a car park’s terms and conditions led to a county court judgment that, as my right hon. Friend refers to, can have such serious consequences, especially if it is sent to an old address. I have seen constituency cases of that nature. We are proposing that the code considers new protections for consumers, and looks at extra measures to crack down on intimidating and aggressive debt collection practices. We will also look at the appeals system, because this is a particularly significant issue. There are two appeals services in the private parking sector. Both have their own processes and procedures and different rates at which parking charges are overturned at appeal. Which appeals service a motorist has access to depends not on their choice or the nature of the alleged breach of contract, but simply on which trade association the operator happens to belong to. That cannot be fair and is at odds with natural justice, which is why it is the Government’s stated position that we intend to appoint a single appeals service for the entire industry, giving motorists the ability to challenge unfair charges.

    Finally, we are actively exploring ways to combat unfairly issued tickets from automatic number plate recognition technology. There is a widespread sense from motorists that this technology does not function as it should. I have heard of motorists entering and leaving a car park yet still having a ticket issued, and that is obviously a real concern. We want a private parking sector that works fairly in that regard.

    Turning to the substantive issue of timing, I am pleased to update the House that work with the BSI commenced in December, and it has now convened a group of key stakeholders to write the code. This group comprises representatives from the parking industry, consumer groups, standards bodies and, recognising the key role that parking plays in supporting our high streets, the retail sector.

    I can also update the House that we have appointed Steve Gooding, the director of the RAC Foundation, as our technical author, and he has now produced the first draft of the code. The RAC Foundation is a well-respected ​transport policy and research organisation and Mr Gooding is a former director-general of the Roads Traffic and Local Group at the Department for Transport, so he will bring real knowledge, experience and expertise to bear on his work. This is only a first draft and, as I have said, the final draft will be worked up in close consultation with key stakeholders, and there will be plenty of opportunity for everyone to have their voice heard in this process.

    In the context of this debate, I would like to put it on record that the Government are doing all they can to utilise our parking infrastructure to best serve our collective response to the coronavirus. I am sure that the measures that we have announced to support frontline workers and volunteers have been welcomed by both the House and the British public. We are offering free parking for NHS workers, volunteers and social care workers in council-owned on-street spaces and car parks. In conjunction with NHS England, the parking sector and local government, we have produced a free parking pass to allow those workers to park in council spaces, worry free. We have pledged to cover the costs of providing free car parking to NHS staff working in hospitals during this unprecedented time. Our aim is to alleviate any unnecessary pressures on those workers by removing any fears that they may have about fees or fines while they carry out what is by common consent truly heroic work.

    As we take the first steps towards recovery, we want to offer alternatives to public transport, but we are of course wary of an increase in the numbers of people taking end-to-end car journeys. To ease parking capacity, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has announced that the Government will seek to repurpose underused parking facilities outside town centres, made possible by close collaboration with local authorities and private operators. Those who live too far from town centres to cycle or walk can therefore park on the outskirts and finish their journeys on foot, bike or even—excitingly—an e-scooter.

    Individual businesses are also playing a hugely positive role. Many private operators have been offering parking spaces to NHS workers during the coronavirus crisis. I commend such efforts and reiterate the Government’s appreciation for them.

    I recognise the need to progress the new code at pace, and across Government we recognise the urgency of this issue. It is crucial to get the regulations right and, as my right hon. Friend said, the coronavirus situation has had an impact, but we have committed to developing the final code this year. Prior to that, a public consultation will take place to give the parking industry, the public and other interested parties the opportunity to have their say.

    The 2019 Act builds on action that the Government have already taken to tackle rogue private parking firms, including the banning of wheel clamping and towing and the stopping of over-zealous parking enforcement by councils and parking wardens. Beyond our work on the private car parking sector, the Government are taking decisive action to improve public and private car parking throughout the country.

    The Government are taking determined steps to protect motorists across the country. The Act will tackle an issue that our figures show affects literally millions of motorists every year. We will ensure that the private parking industry works to the high standards that motorists ​can reasonably expect, and we will tackle the rogue operators and their unfair practices. It will be an industry that will deliver for everybody.

    I thank my right hon. Friend again for raising the issue of Mr Hindle, and I put on record my own tribute to Mr Hindle for his persistence in showing a certain British doggedness in refusing to accept a fundamentally ​unfair situation. I thank my right hon. Friend for the opportunity to update the House on the work that we are doing to improve the sector. I of course look forward to returning to the Dispatch Box to give further updates when the final code is ready.

  • Caroline Nokes – 2020 Speech on Private Car Parks

    Caroline Nokes – 2020 Speech on Private Car Parks

    Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Nokes, the Conservative MP for Romsey and Southampton North, in the House of Commons on 2 June 2020.

    It feels like groundhog day. This debate has been scheduled, I believe, perhaps as many as four times, but events repeatedly knocked it off course. Today, however, we are finally back in the Chamber physically with a full day of debate, and I have the chance to finally bring to the Floor of the House the long and tortuous case of a single parking ticket.

    My hon. Friend the Minister need not look panicked that I am expecting him to do something about a specific parking ticket—the matter is now resolved—but I wish to draw to his attention the fact that my constituent, Mr Guy Hindle, was bullied by a succession of organisations over a period of some 20-plus months over a six-minute transgression. As Mr Hindle happily agrees, this is not about his experience. He is a resilient individual—very much so—and he eventually negotiated a payment of just £15, when at one point £247.62 was being demanded from him. It is about shining a light on what he refers to as the sharp practices of the wild west of parking services. It is not just my constituent who refers to private parking as the wild west. He is in great company. I tracked down some commentary from my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was a Minister at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; he referred to it—private parking, not the Department—as the wild west, too.

    This case is a litany of bad behaviour. My constituent parked for a mere six minutes outside Vets for Pets in Southampton and did not see any signage regarding the charge for parking, so he was surprised to receive a penalty charge notice. He informed the company, Premier Park, that he intended to defend himself, preferably in court proceedings, because he regarded the £60 charge for a six-minute stop as unreasonable. He heard nothing more until June the following year—2019—by which time the matter had been passed to Premier Park’s legal representatives. Remember the original offence, if one can call it that, happened in March 2018. Then followed a succession of increasingly threatening letters mentioning county court judgments, and each letter and every telephone call my constituent made to Premier Park or their legal representatives made it clear that there would be many more letters—and so it proved. All along, my constituent was responding, “Take me to court. I have amassed a dossier of evidence. I am prepared to defend myself. I believe I have a good case.”

    Finally, in January this year, my constituent received confirmation that Premier Park would commence court proceedings unless my constituent was happy to agree to mediation. This was the first time that mediation had been mentioned. The original offence was in March 2018, and here he was, in January 2020, and suddenly the offer of mediation was made.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I congratulate the right hon. Lady on bringing this case to the House. She is not the only one who has had run-ins with private car park firms. Indeed, the one she talks about ranks high in my mind. I fought a number of cases against it, and I have to say that ultimately I won them all. Does she ​agree that in the times we are facing, the privately run car park sector should show the same flexibility as our council car parks by removing charges and forestalling following through on any contraventions until we are past this very difficult time? Now is not the time for anyone or any private car park to profiteer or take advantage. We have to help our constituents and those individuals who have been held to be in the wrong for these contraventions.

    Caroline Nokes

    I will make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, I have a most excellent staffer who for the last 10 years has described herself as my office expert on parking charges. She cringes somewhat when into the email inbox pops yet another case, but as I tell her, she has a 100% track record so far and we are very proud of her.

    On the points the hon. Gentleman made about private parking charges at the moment, I am conscious that in Test Valley borough, half of which I represent as the Member for Romsey and Southampton North, the borough council waived parking charges right at the beginning of the pandemic and has since extended the free parking period. There are some challenging questions ahead, because as we move forward post pandemic, we want to see our high streets recover and to assist that recovery. I think the Chancellor and the Department have come up with some amazing and really important packages, but I have no doubt that the income from parking that councils have forgone has been a huge cost to them. They will need to find ways to make up that loss, but my plea to them is to show a spirit of tolerance and support for the shopkeepers and to allow our high streets to recover gently from this difficult period. The immediate reimposition of parking charges as lockdown ends would be a retrograde step. I was delighted to see the Minister nodding during that intervention, in which a really important point was made.

    As my constituent said to me, had mediation been offered to him early in the proceedings, he would have taken it—it would have been the sensible thing to do. Instead, however, he kept responding to Premier Park, “No. I’ll see you in court.” The company kept responding, “We’ll take you to court,” or rather, “We’ll send you more letters threatening to take you to court. We’ll get increasingly aggressive. The charges will go up and up. We’ll employ a succession of different legal representatives until you don’t know which one you’re trying to deal with.” But two years on, the offer of mediation was made, my constituent accepted it and they settled on a sum of 15 quid, which I do not think is bad going.

    What worries my constituent and me is the repeated bullying tactics: the threats of legal action, which are then not followed up for many months—in this case 20 months—the alarming threat of county court judgments, which we know have a devastating impact on people’s credit rating, and the threatening assertion that there will be lots more letters like that one.

    I am conscious of the most excellent piece of legislation introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), which came into force in March 2019 and paved the way for a single code of practice for private parking, giving drivers greater protection through a new appeals service. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was at the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local ​Government and occupying a similar portfolio to the Minister, championed the issue on behalf of the Government. This sort of code could have made my constituent’s life much less of a misery.

    More recently, back in November 2019 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government appointed the British Standards Institution to work with consumer groups and industry to write the first ever compulsory code of practice for private parking firms to

    “restore common sense to the way parking fines are handed out…crack down on dodgy operators”

    and

    “introduce a new independent appeals service”.

    I know that is correct, because I lifted it from the press release I found on gov.uk. The code was also to ensure that a mandatory 10-minute grace period, which already applies to local authority car parks, be extended to all private parking services.

    I take my hon. Friend the Minister back to the precise period my constituent parked for: six minutes, which is four minutes less than the minimum grace period suggested. I am prepared to concede that my constituent’s supposed six-minute transgression happened before the excellent private Member’s Bill and before the Secretary of State appointed the British Standards Institution to write the new compulsory code, so maybe it is not reasonable to expect a member of the British Parking Association to apply 2019 standards to a 2018 offence—notwithstanding the fact that it was Premier Park itself that dragged the whole matter out for 20 long months—except that the British Parking Association voluntary code of practice already referenced a 10-minute grace period.

    Returning to the crux of the matter, the previous Minister with this responsibility, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), in response to a written question indicated that the British Standards Institution was contracted in December 2019 to develop the new code. It was tasked with convening a group of key stakeholders to write it, and there was to be a full public consultation within six months. The final code would be developed this year.

    I do not wish to hassle the Minister and try to hurry the process along, and I absolutely acknowledge that covid has got in the way of many things, but this year is ticking by very quickly. My constituent and, indeed, those of other hon. and right hon. Members who have returned to this Chamber time and again to discuss private parking services need the code. I argue that the parking industry also needs it, and it is more than a year since the excellent private Member’s Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire.

    Will the Minister this evening in this much delayed debate therefore please give us an update on progress and an absolute commitment that, exactly as was said in February, the code will be developed this year and introduced? Will he reassure me and my constituent that the 10-minute grace period or transaction period, which allows a driver to enter a car park, establish the charges and then decide whether he wishes to pay them or whether they are far too high for his taste and he wishes to leave and go elsewhere, will be included? That could have saved my constituent 20 months of harassment and pain.​

    That grace period should be a crucial part of enabling drivers to make informed choices in future. That is what this is all about: allowing drivers to make informed choices and giving them a bit of leeway so that they can decide whether that is actually where they wish to park. I learned from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire that there might be many good reasons why parking charges are not advertised outside a car park, such as it being in a conservation area where there might be restrictions on signage. We should give drivers the opportunity to go into a car park, have a look and then potentially leave.

    I conclude by asking the Minister to make that assurance, to give us an update on when this code is coming and when the public consultation will happen or whether it has already happened and to give us a sense of progress and a sense that this matter is in hand and will be dealt with.

  • Grant Shapps – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Grant Shapps – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the statement made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Transport, on 23 May 2020.

    Opening remarks

    Good afternoon, and welcome to today’s Downing Street press conference.

    I’m pleased to be joined today by Dr Jenny Harries

    Latest data

    Let me start by updating you on the latest information from the government’s COBR data file.

    As of today (23 May 2020):

    3,348,507 tests for coronavirus have now been carried out in the UK, including 116,580 tests yesterday.

    257,154 people have tested positive, that’s an increase of 2,959 cases since yesterday.

    9,331 people are currently in hospital with coronavirus in the UK, down 11% since last week.

    And tragically 36,675 people have now died. That’s an increase of 282 fatalities since yesterday and that’s across all settings.

    Not just a list of statistics, but a devastating reminder of the cruelty of coronavirus.

    Our thoughts are with the friends and families of the victims.

    Transport context

    As we start to relax the restrictions, we must plan our route to recovery….

    Allowing people to resume their lives where possible…

    Getting businesses up and running again…

    And building beyond coronavirus.

    In the short term, we will need to bring back more public transport to keep families safe.

    That process has already begun.

    Rail and tube services increased at the beginning of this week – and they’ll ramp up more next month.

    And to ensure that more buses, trams and light-rail networks return to service today I can announce new investment of £283 million to start moving back to a full timetable.

    However, I do want to stress this funding does not mean we can go back to using public transport whenever we like.

    Remember…

    Those who can should still work from home…

    Those who can should still avoid all public transport.

    Even a fully restored service will only be capable of carrying – at best – one fifth of normal capacity, once social distancing is taken into account.

    So only if you need to travel, and you can’t cycle, or walk or drive, should you take a bus, tram or train.

    But please; avoid the rush hour.

    Marshals

    We’re managing the transport network to make it as safe as possible.

    This week saw the deployment of nearly 3,500 British Transport Police, Network Rail and Transport for London employees.

    These marshals worked with the public to prevent services from becoming overcrowded.

    From 1 June at the earliest – as we move to Phase 2 of the unlock – we will start to deploy twice as many marshals with the assistance of groups like the charity – Volunteering Matters.

    These Journey Makers will help provide reassurance, advice and friendly assistance to commuters.

    The last time we did this, at the 2012 Olympics, it was a great success.

    While these are altogether more serious times – if we show the same public-spirited concern for one another, it will go a long way towards helping transport and passengers cope.

    ZipAbout

    As I have said, it’s essential we stagger journeys and avoid the rush-hour.

    That’s why, at a recent roundtable, we asked the tech sector to come up with innovative proposals to help passengers avoid congestion.

    One good example is ‘Passenger Connect’ from Birmingham start-up ZipAbout.

    A personalised information service which tells rail users how disruption and crowding may affect their journey, while providing alternatives and helping people to maintain social distancing.

    The service has been successfully piloted over the past 12 months and it will be rolled out soon.

    Building for the future

    We’re not just dealing with the immense challenges of the present.

    We’re building for the future too.

    Transport is not just about how we get from place to place.

    It also shapes the places; for good or bad…

    Towns. Cities. Whole nations.

    We now have an opportunity to use the power of transport to improve long-standing national weaknesses, and create something better.

    Rebalancing the economy

    The UKs unbalanced economy is one such weakness.

    Our mission is to level-up Britain.

    The COVID-19 outbreak must be the catalyst to get it done.

    Levelling up. And speeding up.

    So, while roads and railways are less busy, we’re accelerating vital projects.

    Take the North, for example.

    This bank holiday weekend, we’re carrying out vital work to fix Leeds station.

    Continuing to build a new platform…

    … Installing new points and switches…

    … And improving the track to Wakefield.

    Just part of 490 separate engineering projects happening around the country this bank holiday weekend.

    Work that would normally take months of weekend closures are much quicker on these quieter railways.

    Beeching cuts

    And we’re getting on with plans to reverse some of the so-called Beeching rail cuts too.

    Dr Beeching wrote a report back in the 1960s which led to the closure of one-third of our railway network.

    2,363 stations, 5,000 miles of track identified for closure.

    Many of the places removed from the map never recovered.

    That report was perhaps the origin of the ‘left-behind town’.

    But we’re working to reverse Beeching.

    The process has already started in Blyth in the North East and Fleetwood in the North West….

    I visited in January, and also took the opportunity to visit Horden Peter Lee to see the building work.

    There used to be a train station 200 yards away, but it was closed, and the town cut off by the Beeching axe.

    This new station will connect a community of over 50,000 people, improving their quality of life.

    And today, the next 10 schemes to benefit are announced.

    It’s development funding…

    … But if they stack up, then we’re going to build them fast.

    Amongst the many schemes is the reinstatement of the Ivanhoe line in the East Midlands, from Leicester to Burton, via Coalville and Ashby.

    And branch lines on the Isle of Wight, and a new station at Wellington in Somerset.

    Roads

    But no matter how great we make the railway of the future, millions will still rely on the car.

    That’s why today I’m publishing the preferred route to complete the dual carriageway on the A66 from Scotch Corner to Penrith.

    The first new all dual-carriageway across the Pennines in 50 years.

    This is a £1 billion programme that will transform capacity by upgrading junctions and widening the road.

    These road and rail schemes will be the first of many…

    Binding our country together, and connecting people with jobs.

    Towns and cities

    But it isn’t just the balance between regions that we need to reshape.

    It’s hard to see millions who – until a few weeks ago – commuted by train into Manchester, London, Birmingham every day – immediately going back to the same old ways.

    So we have to reshape our towns and cities too…

    The Prime Minister once said:

    Cities are where inspiration and innovation happens … because people can bump into each other, spark off one another, compete, collaborate, invent and innovate. That’s when we get the explosion, or flash of creativity and innovation.

    And yet – with social distancing – it makes all that rather more difficult…

    So we have to find new ways of making it happen.

    Therefore – as conditions allow and not until July – we will be looking to support creative ways for businesses to reopen, whilst maintaining social distancing.

    We know restaurants and bars will want to start trading again, and we will work with them so we can enjoy an outdoor summer in a safe and responsible environment.

    Car parking

    For those who live too far to cycle and walk, and must drive to major conurbations, we will repurpose parking in places just outside town centres…

    … so people can park on the outskirts and finish their journeys on foot or bike or even e-scooter.

    Our aim with many of these measures is not merely to get through the lifting of restrictions, and then return to how things were…

    … But to come out of this recovery stronger, by permanently changing the way we use transport.

    Cycling

    Take the bike for example, previously we announced the introduction of a scheme to help bring bicycles back to a roadworthy condition…

    … relieving the pressure on public transport, and improving the nation’s health.

    Today I can provide the detail of the new £50 bicycle maintenance voucher.

    Available from next month, the scheme will help up to half-a-million people drag bikes out of retirement.…

    … Speeding up the cycling revolution…

    … Helping individuals become fitter and healthier…

    … And reducing air pollution, which remains a hidden killer.

    Clean air should be as big a priority for us in the 21st century as clean water was to the Victorians in the 19th.

    Closing remarks

    The measures discussed today will help…

    … more passengers use trains, buses and trams safely….

    … More commuters to take up active travel….

    … And more people to benefit from infrastructure improvements in the Northern Powerhouse, and across the country.

    They give us all an opportunity to harness the power of transport…

    Not just to help us return to the lives in the post-COVID-19 world…

    … But to make our economy more resilient.

    Our population healthier.

    And to change our nation for the better.

  • Jim McMahon – 2020 Speech on Transport and Covid-19

    Jim McMahon – 2020 Speech on Transport and Covid-19

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jim McMahon, the Labour MP for Oldham West and Royton, in the House of Commons on 12 May 2020.

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. I also thank him for the way in which he has maintained communication and shown a willingness to work together in the national interest.

    I know that everyone in this House and at home will join me in sending our thanks to all transport workers across the country. As with all our frontline workers, they are the very best of us. It is so important that we give a voice to those workers. Even today, the official advice is found wanting and it will lead to confusion. The scenes we saw yesterday on public transport were unsurprising when the Government ordered a return to work with 12 hours’ notice but without the guidance being in place on how people can be kept safe. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State why his announcement was not made before the Prime Minister’s statement on Sunday?

    Secondly, the Government have produced guidance for bus passengers and operators, but it leaves too much to chance and fails to protect frontline workers. It risks a postcode lottery on standards and protection, and there is far too much “should”, “could”, “not always possible” and “as much as you can”, rather than clear, directive guidance. For bus drivers, for instance, the guidance is that PPE should not be used, but instead reserved for health and care staff. That is despite shocking figures released by the Office for National Statistics that show professional drivers, including those operating taxis, private hire vehicles, buses and goods vehicles, have some of the highest covid-19 fatality rates in the country. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State for the evidence base to support the position that the provision of PPE should not be provided for frontline staff on transport? What discussions have taken place to ensure co-operation across our devolved nations to offer clear and consistent standards for transport, such as buses and rail that, of course, crosses from nation to nation?

    When the Secretary of State says he announced last week a £2 billion fund for cycling, it sounded awfully familiar. Will he confirm that that actually is not new money, but was instead announced pre-lockdown back in February? In that context, can he confirm whether it has now been paid to local councils?​

    The Secretary of State touched on the aviation sector in the guidance that has been produced. A number of airlines have already announced a significant number of redundancies, affecting tens of thousands of jobs directly and throughout the supply chain.

    Even as we transition to a green economy, protecting jobs now so that people can be reskilled for the future is critical. It will be far easier to transition from a point of strength rather than of weakness. The Government have failed to offer a sectoral deal for aviation. There is a real chance to set conditions on staff wages, payments to UK-based suppliers, a shift to green technology, demand that those who seek our help pay fairly into the tax system, as well as halt the payment of shareholder dividends. Why have the Government failed to act?

    Aviation is not alone. We have seen this with ferry operators and the announcement of more than 1,100 jobs at risk with P&O. The Prime Minister’s 14-day quarantine proposal is a total mess. It states that everyone must be quarantined, unless they come from anywhere in the world via France, which is one of the worst affected countries in Europe after the UK. Will the Government produce the scientific advice that justifies why France should be exempt from that policy? Why have the Government decided that now is the time to implement this measure, two months after other countries introduced it? More than 18 million passengers have entered the UK since January. Will the Government publish the scientific advice that led to that change now and not earlier?

    Finally, we urgently need a comprehensive plan for transport. The public rightly demand an end to the chaos surrounding the exit plan. The risk is not just that more lives will be lost needlessly, but that the economic damage will be far deeper, hurting our communities for a generation to come. The Opposition will continue to work together in the national interest, but the Secretary of State must take a message back to the Cabinet table: no more confusion, no more reckless briefings, and no more delay. This is a national crisis that needs a Government who are fit to respond to it, and we hope for the country that that comes sooner, rather than later.

  • Grant Shapps – 2020 Statement on Transport and Covid-19

    Grant Shapps – 2020 Statement on Transport and Covid-19

    Below is the text of the statement made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 12 May 2020.

    With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the new transport guidance for passengers and operators that has been published by my Department today.

    Coronavirus has cast a shadow over the lives of everyone in this country. As we all know too well, for some it has caused unimaginable heartache. For millions more of our fellow citizens, this crisis has meant an enormous sacrifice in the national effort to beat this disease. The Government are immensely grateful to the British people for the profound changes that they have made to their lives over the last few weeks.

    I also extend my thanks to transport workers and the wider freight sector for their immense efforts to keep Britain on the move during this crisis. We will always remember the way in which the industry has served the country during the most challenging of times. Public transport operators have ensured that all those frontline staff have been able to get to work and fight the virus, while freight firms have delivered vital goods and kept supermarket shelves stacked.

    However, it is now time to consider how together we emerge from this crisis. On Sunday, the Prime Minister set out the first careful steps for reopening society and a roadmap for the weeks and the months ahead. Undoubtedly, transport is going to play a very central role in that recovery. It will be the key to restarting our economy and in time will enable us to renew and strengthen those precious ties that are so deeply valued by us all.

    As I said last week, our nation’s emergence from this crisis will not be a single leap to freedom. It will be a gradual process. We cannot jeopardise the progress achieved over the past few weeks by our shared sacrifices. We therefore remain clear that those who can work from home should continue to do so. However, as those who cannot start to return to their jobs, the safety of the public and of transport workers must be paramount. That is why the Department for Transport has today published two new pieces of guidance for passengers and for operators.

    These documents aim to give passengers the confidence to travel, and they seek to give operators the information they need to provide safer services and workplaces for passengers and for staff. We encourage operators to consider the particular needs of their customers and workers as they translate these documents into action.

    The first document is aimed at passengers. I will summarise some of the main points contained in the advice. First, as I mentioned, we continue to ask people to go to work only if they cannot do their jobs from home. That is because even as transport begins to revert to a full service, the 2-metre distancing rule will leave effective capacity for only one in 10 passengers overall. It is therefore crucial that we protect our network by minimising the pressures placed on it and ensure that it is ready to serve those who most need it.

    As a result, we are actively asking those who need to make journeys to their place of work or other essential trips to walk or to cycle wherever possible. In order to ​help us do more of that, last week I announced an unprecedented £2 billion investment to put walking and cycling right at the heart of our transport policy. The first stage is worth £250 million and will include a series of swift emergency measures, including pop-up bike lanes, wider pavements and cycling and bus-only corridors. That money should help protect our public transport network in the weeks and months ahead. It is my hope that they will eventually allow us to harness the vast health, social and environmental benefits that active forms of travel can provide. If people cannot walk, but have access to a car—I appreciate that I will be the only Transport Secretary to have said this for very many years—we urge them to use the car before they consider public transport, avoiding where possible any busy times of day.

    I do, however, recognise that for some people using transport is a necessity. In this case, passengers should follow the guidance we have set out today in order to keep themselves safe. It recommends that travellers must maintain social distancing by staying 2 metres apart wherever possible to prevent the virus. We also advise that as a precautionary measure, particularly where that is not possible, people wear face coverings when using public transport. That could help protect other travellers from coronavirus where someone has perhaps unwittingly or unknowingly developed the illness, but they are not showing any symptoms. We urge passengers to avoid the rush hour and replan their visits, to use contactless payments where at all possible and to wash their hands before and after their journeys.

    In addition, the guidance also reminds us that at this most challenging of times, it is more vital than ever that we think about the needs of others. Our transport operators and their staff are doing an incredible job to keep everyone safe. Please follow their advice. In stations and bus interchanges, be patient and considerate with fellow passengers and staff. In particular, we should remember the needs of disabled passengers, those with hearing and sight impairments and older travellers, too.

    As I mentioned, we are also publishing a second document, guidance for transport operators, today. Those organisations really are at the forefront of the national recovery effort. They know the insides and out of the needs of their customers and their workers, and they understand like no one else their industry’s specific needs. That is why I have no doubt that the operators are best placed to implement the safety processes that work best for their businesses, their employees and their customers. The guidance we are publishing today advises operators across all forms of private and public transport on the measures they can take to improve safety. The steps include ensuring stations, services and equipment are regularly cleaned, and that passenger flows are clearly communicated to try to avoid crowding to try to keep everyone on the network, passengers and staff, two metres apart wherever possible.

    The guidance will develop over time, in line with our increasing understanding of how coronavirus is spread and how it is contained. In addition, it is likely that there will be no one-size-fits-all approach to implementation. It will need to be tailored and localised, based on plans of local specific transport needs. In preparation for that process, yesterday I wrote to local authorities to set out how we can work together to prepare transport networks at a local level for restart and ensure public safety.​

    The documents I publish today will help ready our transport system to support our country as we seek to control the virus and restart the economy. We will inevitably encounter obstacles along the way as we embark on the next stage of our national fightback against the virus. There is no doubt that we need to continue to work together to overcome those challenges. On that note, I would like to express my gratitude to our partners in the devolved Administrations, the local authorities, the Mayors, trade unions and transport operators for their work over the past few weeks. I look forward to continued collaboration in future, because co-operation will be key to setting the country on the road to recovery.

    If everyone plays their part, and if we continue to stay alert, we can control the virus and save lives. If we all follow the guidance on making essential journeys, I believe that together we can harness the power of transport to build a new and revitalised nation. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Lee Waters – 2020 Statement on Sustainable Transport after Covid-19

    Lee Waters – 2020 Statement on Sustainable Transport after Covid-19

    Below is the text of the statement made by Lee Waters, the Deputy Minister for Economy and Transport in Wales, on 7 May 2020.

    Today I am writing to all local authorities in Wales to invite them to put forward expressions of interest to introduce temporary measures to improve the safety and conditions for sustainable and active travel modes in their area.

    We will make grant funding available to respond quickly to the transport opportunities and challenges that the Covid 19 crisis brings.

    We are currently experiencing unprecedented changes that affect all aspects of our lives, and transport, across all modes, is particularly affected. With the restrictions imposed, we have seen large reductions in motorised traffic on all parts of the road network, much reduced patronage of buses and trains and higher rates of walking and cycling, both for essential journeys and for daily exercise. We have seen a vast increase in digital remote working which has shown that we do not all need to travel long distances for work, and we wish to see this maintained as we find a new normal. For the sake of the air we all breathe, the world’s climate and public health, we need to try and lock in this shift and avoid returning to pre-Covid travel patterns.

    With our support, we want local authorities in Wales to follow the example set by towns and cities across the globe, and to take action to achieve this. These measures should not be limited to large urban areas, as the same principles apply for smaller towns in rural areas. We are seeking expressions of interest from local authorities across Wales to introduce measures to ensure the safety and reliability of sustainable transport modes during and following the Covid 19 crisis. We are looking for low cost – high impact imaginative measures that can be quickly developed and rapidly introduced as well as other measures that reduce the impact and reliance on car journeys.

    There are two main reasons for this call to action:

    Firstly, we want to protect public health and safety. The expectation is that social distancing will need to be observed for many months to come. The space available on footways and shared use paths is often wholly insufficient to allow safe passing distances. There is also additional pressure on the available space from queues outside shops and at bus stops. As a result, pedestrians and cyclists are frequently forced to step or ride into the carriageway to avoid close passing. Whilst this is largely possible with current traffic volumes, it is already problematic for many, for example those with reduced mobility or young children, and it will become extremely unsafe when traffic volumes increase.

    Secondly, we want to address potential increases in car use. There is a high degree of uncertainty regarding the public’s willingness to use public transport modes once restrictions are eased. There is already evidence from China which showed much reduced public transport use and significant increases in car use. There is therefore a high risk that, if no action is taken, we will see even greater percentages of journeys being undertaken by car in Wales in the future. This would clearly go against the policy direction we want to achieve across Government and lead to negative impacts for people, society and the environment. We therefore need to use the current reduction in volumes proactively to create conditions that make non-car modes safer, healthy and convenient.

    We therefore invite initial expressions of interest for funding for ‘pop-up’ measures that enable social distancing. These can include schemes such as footway widening, temporary cycle lanes, speed restrictions, and bus infrastructure improvements enabling social distancing.

    Measures aimed at improving walking and cycling should prioritise routes that are part of existing or planned active travel route networks, in particular routes to schools. A package approach combining different measures is likely to be most effective. Most measures are expected to be introduced on a temporary or experimental basis. However, where they are effective, should be introduced on a permanent basis.

    We are asking for initial expressions of interest by 21 May to allow us to gauge the overall funding requirement. We will then seek additional information as required before considering the proposals further. We envisage measures to be introduced from early summer.

  • John Horam – 1978 Speech on the M25 Motorway

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Horam, the then Labour Under Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 2 November 1978.

    I must confess that junior Ministers do not always welcome Adjournment debates, particularly junior Ministers at the Department of Transport. We have had only two days of this Session so far but this is already my second Adjournment debate. But I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) for raising this issue tonight, and I think that we all agree that he has done the House a service in doing so. Perhaps that explains the unusually high attendance for an Adjournment debate.

    The Government have said continuously that we welcome more parliamentary discussion of the national road programme. This is clearly not a matter suitable for debate at local inquiries. I am therefore glad that the hon. Gentleman has provided an opportunity for the House to discuss the M25 in particular, and I welcome the chance to make the Government position clear.

    The question of priority has been to the forefront of the minds of those hon. ​ Members who have spoken. We said in our White Paper on roads, published in April, that we attach the highest priority to the completion of the M25. We mean what we say. We intend to give the work on the M25 all the available resources in terms of manpower and attention that it requires. Whenever the question of the M25 comes up, it gets first priority for available manpower and resources. That must be plain to all hon. Members, and it is the position that I want to establish.

    In reply to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), let me say that there has been no avoidable delay at all in sections of the M25. Of course, public inquiries take time. All the statutory procedures must be gone through, quite rightly, but there has been no delay due to any failure on the part of the Department to give this the highest priority. I assure the hon. Member of that.

    I hope, therefore, that I have established beyond doubt this evening, once again, the Government’s complete commitment to building the M25 as fast as we possibly can.

    Mr. Townsend

    Is it not possible, though, to bring forward the completion date?

    Mr. Horam

    The answer is “No”. Of course, we shall bring the completion date forward if it is possible to do so. But the major factor in determining completion dates is the progress of the statutory procedures and public inquiries. Everything else is done as quickly as possible, because it is given top priority, frankly, in the office and so forth. Therefore, I think that it is simply not physically possible to bring it forward. If there is any way in which we can save time, of course, we shall.

    But in the nature of things, there is a great deal of public interest in this matter, and there are bound to be long public inquiries. They cannot be avoided, and rightly so. Therefore, I think that we are probably stuck with the sort of timetable that we have now, which is probably fairly realistic in the circumstances. I think that we must avoid delay on that, but obviously I cannot promise that we shall bring anything further forward than we have already said.

    Let us look at the advantages of the M25. The Greater London area, 35 ​ miles across, is a great obstacle to through traffic, including traffic to and from the east coast and Channel ports and Tilbury docks, and the first advantage of the M25 will be to provide a way round this huge area. It will also provide a convenient link between Heathrow and Gatwick and from these airports to the M4 and the M1. This traffic has no business in London and there is a clear need to provide a bypass for it.

    In addition to that, the road will also act as a general distributor. It will link the radial routes which carry traffic in and out of London. Drivers will be able to reach places in London or find the most convenient exit road without crossing the centre or using existing inadequate orbital routes. This function has become more important since it was decided not to go ahead with Ringway 3.

    Thirdly, the M25 will provide some local relief for congested roads on the outskirts of London. This was of particular relevance to the hon. Member for Twickenham and to the other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.

    Obviously, a road designed to serve an orbital function cannot produce relief for all local roads along all its route. We do not claim that the M25 will produce a marked reduction of traffic in central London. But many suburban areas will see a marked improvement to their environment when the road is finished. It will divert heavy through traffic from some roads in inner London. In some places the provision of an alternative route for through traffic will make it easier to introduce desirable traffic management schemes and to prevent rat-running through residential areas. As the hon. Member for Twickenham pointed out with great conviction and strength, it will be much safer than existing roads.

    I now turn to questions of present progress on particular parts of the road, with which the hon. Member and his colleagues are concerned. On the overall picture, the motorway is approximately 120 miles in length. Of that, 23 miles—not 20, as I think the hon. Member said—are now open. Fourteen miles are under construction, and for a further 50 miles the line has been fixed. As has been said many times, we hope for the completion of the entire thing by the middle 1980s. I do not quite know how that ties in with the ​ Golden Jubilee to which the hon. Member refers, but the mid-1980s is the target.

    Mr. Jessel

    It depends on what the hon. Gentleman means by ” he mid-1980s”.

    Mr. Horam

    “The mid-1980s” is a fairly flexible phrase, but, none the less, it cannot be stretched too far.

    On the details within the area, which will concern the hon. Member, which I define roughly as the area between the M4 and Reigate and Surrey—that broad south-west part of the M25—the short section between Egham and Thorpe, as the hon. Member knows, was opened to traffic in December 1976. Work is under way on the section between Thorpe and Chertsey—and we hope that that road will be opened to traffic in 1980—and on the bridge over the Thames at Runnymede. We hope that the bridge over the Thames will be completed next year. The section north of the bridge to Yeoveney will begin soon. The remaining sections still have formal procedures to complete, but I hope that the link between Chertsey and Reigate will be completed in 1983, and to the M4 and to the north by 1984.

    The hon. Member for Twickenham asked me for details of the consequential effect of the M25, when completed, on his constituency and the area generally around Twickenham, Hampton and Kingston. He quoted the figure of 25 per cent. for relief of traffic crossing over Hampton Court bridge, and wanted me to explain the difference between that figure and the GLC figures for relief, for example, on the A312. It was given, quite rightly, as 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. The difference is that Hampton Court bridge is more part of an orbital route, whereas the A312 is more a radial route.

    Mr. Jessel

    That is not correct. The A312 runs from north-west to south-east and at right angles to any radial route into London. It is a purely orbital route. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has been misinformed by his advisers on this.

    Mr. Horam

    I always regret being misinformed by my advisers, and obviously the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of the local geography is infinitely superior to mine. But the basic point, however we define orbital and radial roads, is that radials will clearly benefit less than orbitals from the building of another orbital ​ route. We believe that, basically, relief on radial routes will be about 10 per cent., whereas that on orbital routes will be rather higher. That is the destinction, and it explains the difference between the two sets of figures.

    Concerning heavy goods traffic, the hon. Gentleman asked what would be the relief there. If we are talking about Hampton Court bridge, where we estimate that the traffic will be a quarter less as a result of building the M25, the figure for the reduction of heavy lorries will be roughly 8 per cent. That is the only figure I can make available at the moment. If I have further information on that point I shall make it available to the hon. Gentleman.

    The hon. Gentleman asked me a detailed point about the Hampton Residents’ Association. Obviously a residents’ association of that kind, with the interests it must have, must be given every facility to make its views known at any public inquiry. I do not know the exact circumstances of the particular case, but I shall have them looked into with that general objective in mind. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman after I have conducted my investigations. If he will bear with me on that, I shall certainly try to try to seek to facilitate the residents’ opportunity to present their views.

    The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) and I have talked on many occasions about this road. Indeed, he has brought deputations to see me about the M40 to Maple Cross section in particular. We talked about this last July when he came with some of his constituents and other people interested in this part of the M25. I know of his desire that there should be no avoidable delay in that section. That is a matter which is fairly early in the pipeline. We do not expect it to be completed until the early 1980s, probably by about 1984. I know that he is anxious that the various sections should be completed more or less simultaneously. We shall do our best to meet that, although there are problems in completing a massive project of this kind and getting the timing exactly right in all the sections. We have the problems very much in mind.

    The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) reminded me of his concern, which he has pursued assiduously in the House, and with me personally, for the A128 and the conditions on that. I fully recognise that this is unsuitable for the traffic that it is having to bear at the moment. It will be a major beneficiary from the building of the M25. Things have not gone entirely smoothly in that eastward section of the M25. We have had some problems over court orders and one mistake that we ourselves made set back the progress by some months. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, there is now a public inquiry going on at this moment in Hornchurch. Perhaps by now it has been completed. Again this is something on which progress is being made. All things being said, there has been reasonably satisfactory progress.

    Mr. McCrindle

    Since the hon. Gentleman has confessed that an error at his Department, which I do not hold against him, did indeed hold up progress on the section of the M25 from the A13 to the A12, and remembering that there was to be a gap in time between that section being completed and the section between the A12 and M11, is it a practicable proposition now to try to bring the commencement of each of those sections sufficiently close so that effectively they are developed simultaneously?

    Mr. Horam

    That is a very interesting point and I shall have it looked into. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath was very much in favour of continued progress on this road and made a number of valuable points about the progress of public inquiries. I shall study carefully what he said.

    I come back to the more general point about which the hon. Gentleman was taiking in his contribution. Obviously, hon. Members wish that there was even faster progress than we are able to talk about tonight. I certainly wish that were so. But it would be wrong to underestimate the formidable amount of work in designing a motorway 120 miles long round the fringe of a built-up area such as London. Much of its passes through the Metropolitan green belt, including areas of outstanding landscape value such as Epping Forest and the Kent Downs. From the beginning we have tried to design the road so that it would do the minimum damage to the environment. The greatest care is also needed to avoid unnecessary disruption to homes and communities ​ strung along the route. The new road will affect traffic movements on all the existing roads which lie near its route. All these effects have to be assessed, and the junctions designed so that it brings the maximum relief to existing roads and yet does not create too many new traffic problems on roads which act as feeders.

    We have to consult the public living in the areas through which the road passes to get their views on the preferred route. Then we have to go through the formal procedures laid down in the Highways Acts. In the White Paper on the review of inquiry procedures we described the changes we have made in order to meet the concern expressed by the public about the existing system. I hope that the changes will help the objectors in presenting their case as well as preventing the difficulties which have been experienced at some inquiries and which have made it difficult to hold a fair and reasoned examination of the road proposals. The inquiries which have started this autumn are under the new rules, and I believe this has made things easier for all the parties concerned. In answer to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath, I do regret that some people have still sought to make their protests by noisy, undemocratic means. I am grateful that the inspectors have been able to ensure that this small minority have not been able to stop proceedings, and that examination of the proposals is going ahead.

    We recognise that in the past the scope of inquiries has not been wide enough to examine the justification for a road as well as its alignment and other more detailed effects. We accept that the case for each section of M25 should be examined at the line inquiry in the same way as any other road. But I must make it clear that it is the Government’s policy to build an orbital route round London and the individual sections must be considered against that background.

    The hon. Member has referred to the advantages which the road will bring. I think his views are shared by the over-whelming majority of other hon. Members. But there are some organisations which question that. They fear that when the M25 is completed it will act as a magnet for commerce and industry, drawing firms out of inner London and creating pressures for undesirable development in the green belt.

    Our view of the importance of the M25 is of course fully shared by all the local planning authorities concerned. The South Eastern Economic Planning Council has said that it will have a significant beneficial effect on the economy of the region. Once the M25 is built, journeys will become possible which would not be undertaken at present and new patterns of industrial, commercial and social activity may be formed. These cannot now be forecast except in the most general terms. But there is no reason why these new patterns of movement should create irresistible pressure for growth to the detriment of the green belt or of inner London. The planning authorities have a full range of powers to resist or contain pressures for undesirable development in green belt areas, amply backed by the reserve planning powers of my right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

    At this stage it would be both impracticable and not in the public interest to hold a public inquiry into the entire remaining length of the M25. Decisions have already been taken on the assumption that it will be completed. For example, the recommendations of the Layfield panel on the Greater London development plan and the Government’s subsequent decisions on them might well have been different if there had been no plans—

    [debate adjourned]

  • Toby Jessel – 1978 Speech on the M25 Motorway

    Below is the text of the speech made by Toby Jessel, the then Conservative MP for Twickenham, in the House of Commons on 2 November 1978.

    I am grateful for the selection of my subject—the urgent need to complete the M25 London circular motorway, which is of great concern to many of the 12 million people in South-East England who comprise a quarter of the population of our country.

    In 1934, Mr. Hore-Belisha, the Transport Minister who invented Belisha beacons, set up a committee which recommended strongly the building of an outer orbital road round London. Forty-four years have gone by, and now only 20 of the 116 miles of the M25 circular motorway are open.

    I hope that the Minister will be able not only to reassure us that the Secretary of State for Transport meant what he said in his roads White Paper this April that currently the M25 had top priority—but also that the M25 will at the current rate be completed in time for the golden jubilee of Hore-Belisha’s committee. We expect the Government to get on with it and to get on with it fast.

    The objectors to motorways get so much coverage from the media, both broadcasting and the press, that the case for motorways often seems to go by default.

    The first advantage of motorways is safety. On average, a motorway is three times safer to drive along than an ordinary main road.

    The second advantage is the ease of movement. We all know how exhausting and exasperating it is to try to get from one side of London to the other or to cross London at an oblique angle. If one tries to go from Twickenham to Essex, it is a slow, exhausting journey. The same is true if one drives from South London, for example, from Reigate, across to Enfield or from Sevenoaks to Watford. The journey is all but impossible. Anyone going to another part of the country and trying to do a similar 20 or 30-mile journey between two towns—Manchester to Liverpool, Derby to Nottingham, or Glasgow to Edinburgh—expects to find a fast road between them. There is no reason why the inhabitants of South-East England should be deprived of a fast road for a journey of similar length if they wish to make it.

    Thirdly, there is the benefit to towns and villages now enduring heavy through traffic which will be relieved by the motorway bypassing them.

    Fourthly, there is the economic benefit. Motorways cut costs in the distribution of goods, help to hold down the cost of living and inflation and improve our export prospects. This is especially true of the M25 which will link with the Channel ports.

    However, the construction of the M25 is being delayed, not only by the slipping of the Government programme but by the organised obstruction of local public inquiries relating to different stretches of it. Of course, routes have to be scrutinised closely and Parliament has insisted ​ that under the law people who might be affected have the right to have their say. That is as it should be in a free country. But some people are now abusing that right. They are deliberately obstructing public inquiries from getting on with their work. That is not only turning democracy on its head; it is also utterly selfish, and it is acting with total disregard for the safety and well being of other people.

    I said that on average motorways were safer than other roads. If a motorway is stopped, the effect is to kill and injure people. Let us take as an example the 12-mile section of the M25 from Reigate via Leatherhead to Wisley and the A3. The opening of that part is being held back by protestors against the Leather-head interchange. A delay of one year is likely to cost 600 personal injuries and three deaths among people who would otherwise have used that motorway.

    There are also the people who have to endure the exhausting nuisance of heavy traffic thundering past their houses which would be bypassed by the M25. Their needs are being wholly ignored by the motorway protesters. For example, a massive quantity of traffic is pouring through Uxbridge Road, Hampton Hill and the village of Hampton in my constituency. Part of this traffic would be taken away by the M25, although the amount is uncertain. On 4th February 1977 the Under-Secretary told me that the M25 would cut traffic over Hampton Court bridge by a quarter. Last month the Greater London Council estimated that the reduction of traffic in Hampton would be only 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. That is a lesser amount but it would be a significant cut. I would like to know the right figure and what the percentage would be for the cut in the proportion of heavy lorries, which are particularly annoying.

    I would also like to ask why my constituents who will benefit from the construction of the M25 were not notified by the Department of Transport of the public inquiry into the section which would benefit them. I would like to ask whether the Hampton Residents’ Association and the Hampton Hill Association can be invited to give evidence to the public inquiry.

    It is essential to speed up the completion of the M25. I hope to hear that ​ the Government intend to redouble their efforts to bring that about.

  • Paul Channon – 1978 Speech on Travel to Work Costs

    Below is the text of the speech made by Paul Channon, the then Conservative MP for Southend West, in the House of Commons on 3 August 1978.

    I welcome this opportunity to raise the subject of the cost of travel to work. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport for coming here this afternoon to reply to this debate.

    This is a topic that is of keen interest to my constituents, as it is to the constituents of virtually every other hon. Member. I contend that the effects of substantial travel costs are far wider and more important than just the effect on individuals on the finances of British Rail or on the local bus service or whatever the form of transport might be.

    The implications of fares policy in respect of buses and trains are enormous for the whole community. There are great implications for planning, regional policy, housing policy and the future of the inner cities. All these will be affected in coming years by decisions taken about fares policy and the cost of travel to work.

    I wish in my brief remarks this afternoon to concentrate on rail travel. A large part of my comments applies also to travel by bus or by Underground. I am concentrating on rail travel because that is the subject about which I know most. I shall concentrate my remarks mainly on London and the South-East and on travel to work in that area, but the principle remains the same for other parts of the country. When talking of the costs of travel to work, it is not unreasonable to concentrate on London and the South-East, where there is the most acute problem.

    I think I am right in saying that there are probably about 7 million people who use public transport for travel to work in some variety or another in this country. That figure has recently been issued. In 1976, 868,000 people arrived in central London in the morning peak hours by a variety of forms of transport between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. It is estimated that a further 187,000 came by private transport, mainly by car. Very substantial fare increases have taken place in recent years, as everybody knows.

    It is frightening to discover that in 1938 the yearly season ticket from Southend cost less than £25. That is within the lifetime of most people here. In 1962 it had risen to £93, and since then costs have escalated and fares have risen five of the country. Fares in general have more than doubled since 1972, but in times in the past 16 years in that part London and the South-East they have risen by more than 100 per cent. since 1975. That is faster than the retail price index and far faster than people’s net incomes, because of a combination of events, such as incomes policies, wage freezes and high levels of personal taxation.

    Consequently, the level of rail fares has become an extremely serious burden for many thousands of people. The culmination of the feeling about increases in rail ​ fares came with the proposed increase of more than 16 per cent. last year. Rail fares have an enormous effect on the budgets of many people, particularly young people starting work who find the burden of commuting to London especially severe. Many people are forced to commute because there are no suitable jobs locally. In that sense, they are a captive market and can do little about it. It is an interesting question whether it would be wise to provide more jobs locally or whether that might have a bad effect on the structure of employment in London.

    The Under-Secretary will be aware of the great anxiety that was caused some time ago by the Government’s consultation document which suggested that the outer suburban services of British Rail should meet their full allocated costs by 1981. On top of the burdens already being faced by commuters at that time, that proposal would have been an intolerable extra burden with incalculable effects on the standard of living of many people.

    Those who commute into London on lines which pay their way find it frustrating that it is not possible to find out exactly what those lines are costing. I realise that this is due to a change of policy some years ago, which I regret, but it should be an aim of Government policy to ensure that the maximum information should be given, though I understand that the allocation of costs is extremely difficult and that there must be a rough and ready element in trying to come to a fair allocation of costs for any line.

    The Government’s original proposals would have meant massive increases in fares. Fortunately, the Government retreated from that proposal in their recent White Paper, but they say that fares are bound to rise and suggest that they should be phased so that commuters can have a period of years in which to adjust to the increases. The Government point out that London commuter fares constitute 40 per cent. of British Rail’s passenger revenue and that there will inevitably be fare increases over the coming years.

    Is there any way out of this dilemma? I accept that there is a dilemma between the need to contain the costs of British Rail, the need not to have too vast a sum ​ in public subsidy and the need not to place too great a burden on those who have to travel on public transport.

    Recommendation no. 34 of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries last year should be implemented much more fully than the Government have so far been prepared to do. I urge that the Under-Secretary should instigate a full-scale inquiry into the balance of advantage between users of public and private transport with a view to seeing whether any fiscal concessions are possible. I urge the Minister to take that suggestion back to his colleagues.

    I have argued for many years that there should be a measure of tax relief for travel to work. As long ago as May 1962, I moved a new clause to the Finance Bill to that effect. I have tried to get such a system introduced and I have had the support of many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) and Braintree (Mr. Newton).

    I accept that there are arguments against that suggestion, including administrative arguments, but other countries seem to manage such schemes fairly well, although the Under-Secretary was a little vague in his reply to me yesterday about the practice in other countries. Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands all have systems of tax relief for travel to work and they have not found that to be an insuperable burden. The report of the Select Committee also shows that there is a system of tax relief in Sweden, but there is some confusion about this matter in our Government circles.

    I was told yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State that there were no allowances for costs of travel to work in Belgium. I was rather surprised to hear that. In the answer that I received from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as recently as 16th July, I was told that if the Belgian scheme for relief for travel to work was adopted no fewer than 16 million taxpayers would benefit. There must be some confusion between the Department of Transport and the Treasury. Which is right? I ask the Under-Secretary to tell us. If other countries can give such relief, I do not accept that the administrative arguments are insuperable.

    I accept that the cost would be substantial. On introduction, any scheme would have to be limited. I suggest that it should be limited to public transport. Differing figures have been given. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told me on 16th July that if we adopted a system of tax relief for travel to work by public transport the cost would be about £200 million. In the context of our total Budget, that is a sum that at least could be considered by future Chancellors.

    It is said that there are arguments in equity against the solution that I propose. To the fury of my constituents and the constituents of many other hon. Members, it is argued by some outside commentators that commuters are already a rich group and oversubsidised by the Government. On the contrary, I argue that the standard of living of many commuters has fallen very considerably. It was stated in the Government’s response to the First Report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries of 1977 that between 1974 and 1977 rail fares had more than doubled but that average earnings after tax had increased by about 50 per cent. for a married man with two children.

    There are many commuters, including many of my constituents and, no doubt, the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree, whose real standard of living has fallen substantially over the past few years. The present users of rail transport, including commuters, are frequently locked in by their homes and their jobs. That applies especially, perhaps, to those who live in council houses. As a result of the residence qualifications that exist in many local authority areas, especially in the South-East and in London, it is almost impossible for moves to be made. It is an extremely expensive operation for owner-occupiers. Any large-scale move back into London because of excessive railway fares would make the pressures on housing in London considerably greater, and they are severe enough even now.

    The case is all the stronger because of the recent Inland Revenue ruling in response to Questions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) which were answered on 6th June. It has now become clear that if employers reimburse employees with season tickets, they are not liable to tax ​ in certain circumstances. There is some confusion outside the House, and I shall be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State confirms the position.

    As I understand the Revenue’s ruling, if an employer contracts with British Rail to give an employee a season ticket and the employee’s earnings are less than £5,000 a year, there will be no charge on the value of the season ticket. The employee’s earnings have to be not such as to bring him within the special legislation bearing on benefits in kind.

    If an employer gives an employee a season ticket and the employee agrees to accept a reduced salary in return, he is taxable. There are many anomalies, fiddles and difficulties. If an employer gives an employee a season ticket in the circumstances that I have described, there is exemption from tax. If, on the other hand, an employer pays an employee his expenses of travelling from home to work, there is a liability to tax. We all know of the special situation that applies to company cars and to those who have private and business cars.

    The rules relating to tax relief on travel to work have become increasingly anomalous and unfair. In all the estimates of the costs of tax relief for those who travel to work no estimate has been given of the increase in traffic that would accrue to public transport undertakings. They could be considerable. The long-term effects of present rail policy will have profound effects on London and the South-East. It will have profound effects on planning, housing demands and regional policy in general.

    I ask the Government to re-examine the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries 18 months ago. This recommendation has been brushed aside by the Government. In the interests of those who have to travel to work, many of whom face considerable burdens and are likely to continue to do so if there is no change in policy, I urge the Government to undertake an inquiry so that all these matters can be considered.

    I hope that justice is seen to be done for all. I ask the Minister to consider with his colleagues the setting up of the inquiry which was recommended by the Committee. That would be a great step forward for many thousands of my constituents and many tens of thousands of ​ people elsewhere who travel to work each day.

  • Les Huckfield – 1978 Speech on Concorde

    Below is the text of the speech made by Les Huckfield, the then Under-Secretary of State for Industry, in the House of Commons on 3 August 1978.

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) for initiating this debate, for the title that he has given it, and for the manner in which he presented his case. I also thank the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) for his complementary remarks.

    The Concorde has now carried more than 100,000 passengers, so it is not only a reality but an established reality, with a wide network of scheduled services connecting London and Paris with overseas destinations. British Airways is now operating 10 return flights a week between London and New York, and three a week to Washington. Additionally, there are two British Airways services a week to Bahrain. Air France has seven ​ services a week to New York, four to Rio, three to Washington and two to Caracas. That is indeed an established network of supersonic services.

    Both airlines have early plans for expanding their Concorde network—British Airways westwards from Washington to Dallas/Fort Worth, both on its own account and through its interchange agreement with Braniff, and eastward from Bahrain to Singapore in conjunction with Singapore Airlines, and Air France from Washington to Mexico City as an Air France operation, and from Washington to Dallas/Fort Worth under the inter, change agreement with Braniff. In both cases other destinations are expected to be added later, and frequencies increased on those already served. I shall come later to the specific point raised concerning Singapore and Malaysia.

    In a few months British Aerospace and their French partners will have completed the 16 aircraft whose production was confirmed by the then Prime Minister and the French President in July 1974. This confirmation was without further commitment, and neither Government have any current plans for the production of additional aircraft. My hon. Friend will recall that, for our part, we have made clear that the question of authorising further production can be considered only if all five unsold aircraft—the white-tailed aircraft to which my hon. Friend referred—have been sold, and if it would not increase the overall loss to the two Governments.

    But equally I want to stress that we have retained the capability to produce further Concordes should these be required. The jigs and tools, although they are now being removed in Britain and France to make way for other work, are being carefully stored. In a recent communication to the United States State Department on the subject of the new United States noise regulations for supersonic aircraft, both the British and French Governments have explicitly reserved their rights to operate on the same terms as the Administration have applied to the 16 aircraft any further Concordes that might be produced.

    On the possibility of a successor to Concorde, our position—and this is, of course, the position also of British Aerospace—remains as described by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for ​ Industry, following the ministerial meeting of 2nd November 1976, namely, that British priorities, we feel, lie in subsonic aircraft; that the manufacturers’ proposals for a Concorde derivative aircraft for the 1980s should not be proceeded with; and that, as regards an advanced supersonic transport for the 1990s, we should consolidate the knowledge and experience gained on Concorde.

    Mr. Palmer

    Is there not a danger, if that policy is followed too far, that all our knowledge and experience will be lost to some other country?

    Mr. Huckfield

    I fully recognise that point. That is why it has been very carefully taken into consideration. But I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that the major purchase and procurement decisions which are about to be taken by airlines are, in fact, subsonic ones. But we have other airlines interested, as my hon. Friend has said, and the decision last year of Singapore Airlines to go into partnership with British Airways on the London-Singapore Concorde route was a tangible expression of confidence in the aircraft. Now that the Malaysian general elections have been held, we look forward to the resumption as soon as possible of discussion between our two Governments of recommencing the services which were interrupted last December.

    With the promulgation of the American noise rule and the expected early United States type-certification of Concorde, we shall also look forward to the implementation of the interchange agreements which British Airways and Air France respectively have concluded with Braniff, for a Braniff Concorde service between Washington and Dallas/Fort Worth. A number of problems remain to be sorted out following the demise of the Milford Bill. This would have allowed United States carriers to operate foreign-registered aircraft. Nevertheless, it is significant that Braniff feels sufficient confidence about the outcome of these deliberations to have committed recently a number of its aircrew for early training to learn to operate Concorde. Since this is currently the subject of consideration by the CAA, I cannot, of course, comment on British Airways’ application to continue, as a British Airways operation, its present London-Washington service on to Dallas/Fort Worth, except to say that this is complementary to, and does not supplant, the airline’s interchange agreement with Braniff.

    My hon. Friend also mentioned Pan Am. As has been indicated recently in another place, the Government welcome this expression of interest by the airline, and the manufacturers have been asked to report on the nature and extent of the airline’s interest in Concorde and how it might best be met.

    I can tell my hon. Friend that discussions with Pan Am continue. Of course, these matters are commercially confidential as between the parties concerned, including British Airways which will be invited to undertake the maintenance of the aircraft. That is a factor to which my hon. Friend alluded. Neither hon. Member, of course, expects me to disclose the details today, because they are confidential. But what is clear is that Pan Am has found that it is losing a significant number of first-class passengers to British Airways and Air France Concorde services. As to Pan Am, Braniff and Singapore Airlines and their financiers, it has to be said that they are not being attracted to Concorde for reasons of national interest or prestige but are being attracted by Concorde for reasons of hard-headed commercial considerations.

    Both hon. Members made reference to expenditure. Of course, on 8th May my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Industry referred to the fact that British expenditures on Concorde development are now estimated at £575 million, and on production to the end of 1978 at £352 million, the latter being offset by receipts of £139 million. But in real terms the net expenditures reached a peak several years, ago and have since fallen away sharply. That must be borne in mind in relation to the remarks which both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend made about the British Airways annual report. It also has to be said that for British Airways, supersonically and subsonically, 1977–78 had its problems. There was a shortage of Concorde crews and there were the suspension of the Singapore service and the subsequent redeployment of air crews. But now that all of these considerations have been gone through, I feel that the airline is now able to seize the opportunities presented by the opening up of the access to New ​ York and by its ability to match Air France’s daily frequency.

    Although the hon Member for Gloucestershire, South referred to the fact that Concorde flew an average of only 782 hours per aircraft last year, despite all this the airline came within £2 million of achieving a positive cash flow on Concorde. The New York service has already gone up to 10 frequencies a week, and up until mid-July British Airways, despite having to charge fares 20 per cent. above first-class levels, had achieved load factors of 73 per cent. on the New York route and 63 per cent. on the Washington service. The Air France figures were slightly lower but also satisfactory.

    I believe that it is figures such as those which represent the context in which we must see Concorde today. It is a future such as that against which we must set some of the remarks in British Airways annual report. Figures such as that bode well for the future, and I am happy today to reaffirm to both hon. Members and their constituents the Government’s continued commitment to doing what they can to ensure that Concorde goes from strength to strength in airline service.

    I can assure the House that well to the forefront of our collective thinking on this, as on other matters for which the Government have a Concorde responsibility, will be the theme of my hon. Friend’s debate, namely, the theme of “the success of Concorde”.