Jesse Norman
MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“In view of the new Prime Minister’s spending priorities, it now seems highly unlikely that the ruinously expensive current plans will be put to the House before the end of this year. Seven months have already passed with no action.”
“10 North have real spending powers of its own? If the answer is yes, then this will be a new kind of cross-departmental Ministry—perhaps a territorial Ministry, like a regional Government but with no defined scope or mandate. We will need to see the legal instruments delegating Treasury authority and functions to it.”
“I rather fear that, given our longevity and at least the level of banter on the Government side of the Dispatch Box, we will be seen over time as the Morecambe and Wise, or perhaps the two Ronnies, of British politics.”
“The past few weeks have brought news of the deaths of Dolly Parton, Tim Curry and Wendell Berry. I am sure that many colleagues will share my sense of shock and sadness at the loss of those extraordinary figures, but also give great thanks for their lives. Truly, we live in a world of change.”
“10 North will not have spending power of its own, then ultimately the Treasury and the Chancellor will continue to sign off on its public spending and on any taxing matters. Decentralisation is really important, but No. 10 North will not be a means of decentralisation in this scenario; it will be just another layer of Government.”
“But we are not going to cast nasturtiums, in the words of a friend of mine, on any of this nonsense—not even on Baroness Lloyd and the hopeless Building Digital UK, who have entirely failed to address the issue of fibre broadband in neglected parts of my constituency and simply repeated the same language of incompetence and failure to me…”
The complete record
Every one of 5,414 lines we hold for Jesse Norman, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 72 of 109.
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing this debate on the effect of the M26 road closures on local residents and businesses. I, and of course colleagues and officials, appreciate that this is an issue of great concern to him, on behalf of his constituents. I have met him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon). Knowing the very strong feelings that my right hon. Friend has expressed in public, it is a pity that he could not join us for this important debate and share directly with us the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. I know that my hon. Friend has raised this with the Secretary of State, and he and I have of course separately discussed it. Let me be clear: the Secretary of State has apologised to my hon.”
“We therefore need to update the fees orders for those functions to show that they will now be delivered under domestic law, as opposed to EU law, and to allow us to continue to take account of matters relating to the delivery of those functions. That will also ensure that when the fees are amended in the future, they continue to reflect accurately the cost of their delivery. In effect, the amendments in this instrument will ensure that the fees orders recognise EU exit but otherwise maintain the status quo. They do not extend the Secretary of State’s powers in any way. I therefore hope that the Committee will approve these regulations.”
“It may be a source of comfort to the Committee to know that, before any change can be made to the fee level in other legislation, the Minister must have the Treasury’s agreement, conduct a consultation with organisations representing those affected and consider the impact on stakeholders. They must take account of the impact in deciding whether to proceed. Only after that process has been followed will the SI be laid before Parliament. I assure hon. Members that the making of these amendments will not in any way amend the process for changing statutory fee levels. In other words, this instrument does not make the process any easier. In conclusion, the Government intend for the functions in the fees orders to continue, and other legislation is being amended to allow for that.”
“The fees orders themselves do not set or amend fees; they set out in secondary legislation the matters that can be taken into account when setting fees for delivery of the functions specified in the orders. Although some of those functions are currently delivered under an EU obligation, that does not mean that Brussels has had any oversight or control over the setting of those fees. The draft regulations will not themselves affect any stakeholders, because after EU exit the functions they relate to will continue to be delivered, albeit under domestic rather than EU law. The regulations do not alter the current level of fees charged for carrying out those functions. The detail of the delivery of the specified functions and the prescription of the actual fee levels that can be charged for the delivery are set out in other legislation.”
“That will be done by removing references in the fees orders to the Secretary of State carrying out functions to comply with EU law. In practice, the functions will continue, but under domestic law rather than EU law. The best outcome for the UK is to leave with a deal. If a deal is reached whereby we get a withdrawal agreement, the implementation date of this instrument could be changed by any subsequent Bill that the Government introduce to implement the withdrawal agreement into UK law. However, it is sensible to prepare for all scenarios, and that is what we are doing. The functions contained in the fees orders all relate to road vehicles and drivers.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Department for Transport (Fees) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. These draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They form part of the work being done to adjust our existing legislative framework in readiness for leaving the European Union next year. If approved, they will make minor and technical amendments to three Department for Transport fees orders to correct deficiencies that would arise from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. The fees orders relate to EU and domestic law. The regulations are concerned only with amending the EU-related aspects of the orders.”
“All it does is relocate laws from one jurisdiction to another.”
“That is in line with the general principle of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which is to relocate within UK law powers that presently operate under EU law. The hon. Member for York Central asked why there had been no consultation on the order. The reason for that was delicately alluded to by the Chairman when he reminded us of the proceeding’s scope. The regulations do not set fees; they only govern what considerations the Secretary of State can take into account in any setting of fees. As I said, fees themselves cannot be changed, except with a staged process that requires the agreement of the Treasury, a consultation with representative organisations that are affected and a consideration of the impact upon stakeholders. There has been no consultation on the order because it has no such impact.”
“I am grateful to the two hon. Members for their contributions. I hope I can reassure the hon. Member for York Central on many of the questions that she raised. I take the point eloquently made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk as appropriately rhetorical, in flagging the potential efforts to which officials and Ministers have gone in ensuring that we will be properly protected in the event of EU exit. I remind the Committee of the extremely modest length of this piece of secondary legislation. There are a very small number of changes, which are, broadly speaking, to remove references to EU obligations and to repose in the Secretary of State some powers that presently lie with the EU.”
“The whole point of this is to recover the costs associated with the activities in question. There is no revenue stream, in that sense, to be derived. The hon. Lady said, “As the economy sinks into crisis.” I am afraid that her flair for rhetoric is getting the better of her. So far the economy is discounting any crisis—it continues to grow robustly and no one is expecting anything on that account. She then referred to a series of other matters that have been amply covered in discussions on the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill, with several points raised in Committee and before the House. I refer her to those discussions. Question put and agreed to.”
“One cannot predict whether the functions cost would go up or down, but that is immaterial to these regulations, which bear on the considerations that the Secretary of State is entitled to take into account and were formerly taken into account under EU law. The hon. Lady asked what discussions have taken place with agencies. Of course, discussions routinely take place between Ministers and agencies on a variety of things. In this case the agencies are aware of this change of law, but it is not—I repeat—a matter of changing the substance of any actual fees. Therefore, those conversations do not need to touch on anything other than the formal change that has been described. The hon. Lady asked whether this will be used as a revenue stream after withdrawal from the EU. Fees are not used as a revenue stream.”
“If I may, I will just finish what I am saying and then the hon. Lady can make further comments. If there were any possible changes to fees, they would arise out of substantive Acts, rather than the scope that is demarcated by this purely formal change of location of powers. If that were to occur and there were some possibility that fees would have to go up, we would follow the process described, which would involve a consultation in the way the hon. Lady described. That answers her second question, which related to divergence, and her third question, which related to the cost of providing any functions.”
“Finally, the SI will make two minor technical changes to domestic legislation that implements elements of the EU regulation, to ensure that where such legislation refers to the EU regulation, those references are aligned with the retained EU regulation as amended by the SI. The SI will be essential to ensure that the EU legislation on insurance requirements for airlines and aircraft operators that will be retained by the withdrawal Act continues to work effectively in the UK from day one of exit. This will provide clarity to the aviation industry, ensuring that the legal requirements that apply in relation to insurance are clear immediately after exit and provide certainty to consumers that air travel in the UK will continue to be desirable and safe. I hope that colleagues of all parties will join me in supporting the draft regulations.”
“The regulation sits alongside requirements contained in multilateral treaties such as the 1999 Montreal convention. The regulation provides that the values in article 7 may be amended where this is required as a result of changes to international treaties. As the EU legislative procedure that enables such amendments will not apply once the UK has left the EU, the SI instead makes provision for the Secretary of State to amend those values by regulations if required as a consequence of changes to international treaties. We are committed to ensuring that these powers are subject to appropriate scrutiny, and have therefore provided that any such regulations made by the Secretary of State must follow the affirmative resolution procedure and be approved by both Houses of Parliament.”
“The second type is those changes that are necessary to reflect the fact that EU processes set out in the regulation will not apply to the UK once it has left the EU. For example, the regulation requires member states to submit to the European Commission on request information on the application of the regulation. The SI amends that requirement so that the Secretary of State can request the Civil Aviation Authority to provide that information to him instead of to the European Commission. The third type of change is to retain flexibility for the UK to adjust the required levels of insurance within the parameters set by the regulation, where such flexibility is currently provided for in the regulation. For instance, article 7 sets out the minimum insurance cover in special drawing rights per accident for aircraft according to mass.”
“That will mean greater clarity for air carriers and aircraft operators regarding the insurance requirements that they must meet irrespective of the outcome of negotiations with the EU. The draft regulations help to ensure that the UK’s regulatory regime after exit continues to make the UK a safe and desirable place for passengers to travel by air. The changes made by this statutory instrument fall into four categories. The first is those changes that are necessary to reflect the fact that the retained legislation will apply only in the United Kingdom, as opposed to all EU member states. For instance, the SI changes the scope of the retained regulation from “a Member State to which the Treaty applies” to “the United Kingdom”.”
“Those make provision for exceptional situations in which a failure of the insurance market means that carriers are not able to demonstrate that they are adequately insured in respect of all the risks specified in the regulation. The draft regulations that we are considering make the changes necessary so that the EU regulations, as retained by the withdrawal Act, continue to function correctly after exit day, alongside the domestic Civil Aviation (Insurance) Regulations 2005, which were made to implement the EU regulation. The withdrawal Act will ensure that the same minimum insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators that apply today continue to apply after exit day.”
“EU regulation 785/2004, on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators, requires carriers and operators to be insured in respect of passengers, baggage, cargo and third parties and against other risks, such as acts of war, terrorism, hijacking, acts of sabotage, unlawful seizure of aircraft and civil commotion. The amounts for which carriers and operators are required to be insured are measured in special drawing rights—an international reserve asset created by the International Monetary Fund. The EU regulation also requires carriers and operators to demonstrate their compliance with the minimum insurance requirements set out in the regulation. Elements of the regulation were developed in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States.”
“Some amendments to the retained EU legislation are required to ensure that the legislation continues to function effectively once the UK has left the EU. These amendments are technical and limited to what is needed for the legislation to continue to function. We have the third-largest aviation network in the world after those of the United States and China, so the aviation industry is crucial to the UK’s economy. There are direct flights to more than 370 international destinations in more than 100 countries, and the aviation sector provides at least £22 billion to the UK economy every year. Ensuring that air carriers and aircraft operators are adequately insured is essential for consumers to be able to benefit from an industry that operates safely and effectively.”
“However, although we remain confident of securing an agreement this autumn, we must make all reasonable plans to prepare for a no-deal scenario. To that extent, as the Department responsible for aviation, we have conducted particularly intensive work to ensure that there continues to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime for aviation. The legislation is required only in a scenario in which the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will retain directly applicable EU legislation in UK law on exit day to provide continuity and certainty to industry and consumers, without prejudice to the outcome of the negotiations.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Civil Aviation (Insurance) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Following the UK’s decision to leave the European Union in the 2016 referendum, the Government have been working to develop a positive future relationship with the EU. As part of that, the Department for Transport has undertaken a significant amount of work with respect to the withdrawal negotiations themselves and to prepare for the range of potential outcomes from those negotiations. The best outcome is for the UK to leave with a deal, and we have put forward a serious and credible proposal for our future relationship with EU colleagues.”
“I could indulge myself with a substantial discussion of the issues raised, but the hon. Gentleman—my friend on the opposite side of the House—has put his finger firmly on the point, which is that the draft regulations are essential and technical in nature. I am therefore delighted to content myself with inviting colleagues to support them. Question put and agreed to .”
“Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) is absolutely right to pick up the point about agricultural vehicles, and I will be writing to him separately on the topic of the A30. RIS 2 will be announced in the middle of next year. I had better sit down. Mrs Moon, you have been a brilliant Chair. Thank you so much.”
“Member for Kingston upon Hull East mentioned, there are countries with targets that have better safety records than ours, but there are also countries with targets that do not have better safety records than ours. The matter is not absolutely clear by any means, and we will continue to discuss it over time. On 20-mile-an-hour zones, I remind colleagues that local authorities are fully free to use a range of traffic-calming measures, including all-day limits or partial limits. I am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) regarding the situation of Mrs Billett, as he will know. We have all kinds of flags at ports, and we have bollards and interventions on roads, but he is absolutely right to flag that issue. Finally, my hon.”
“We have thought about that in the context of cycling and walking, but we are trying to balance that with specific evidence of places where one needs to be able to address actual harm inflicted. The response cannot just be about predictive anticipation of where there may be collisions. It also has to be about showing a local community that a collision has been addressed; an accident has met with a response; and a concern has in some sense been understood, recognised and salved, if not solved. It is important to recognise that we adopt that approach within Government, and we do so seriously. I have constantly gone round the houses on the issue of targets with my great friend the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick)—a brilliant fireman and, I have no doubt, a great campaigner in this area—and with others. As the hon.”
“The Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy safety review has had an enormous response. Something like 13,000 responses have been received; a lot have come through formal write-in programmes, but many have come from ordinary cyclists and members of the public, and rightly so. One of the things that has come out of that, on which the Government have done a lot of work, has been the work of the West Midlands police on close passing. We have already announced some further work on that, and I expect that to continue. The PACTS report is the original instigator of some of this debate. I congratulate PACTS on the work it has have done, and I thank Ageas for its work as well. I welcome the work on the indicators that are being used. The Government are already very engaged with what might be considered the “safe systems” approach.”
“She will understand that a formal response to the safety review consultation is coming, and a formal action plan, I hope, will follow later in the year. There is some further work to be done on road safety that I hope to announce before too long, so there is a pattern of things under way. I cannot always anticipate things that are going to be made public in formal statements after proper agreement across Government, but she recognises—as does my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South—that there must be, and is, a hierarchy of road use, and that cars do enormous damage to vulnerable road users of every kind, not just cyclists. That is the fitting counterpart to the work we have been doing through the Thomas report, and of course, the killed and seriously injured statistics show that cars are much more dangerous.”
“It was my very unhappy duty to meet with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, and the Clarke family to discuss the awful situation of Poppy-Arabella. I remember it extremely well, and I hope that Rachel and Phil were glad of the opportunity to talk about their situation and the experience that they had. It is important to say that optometrists already have a duty of care to check eyesight, and at the moment there is not any evidence that a compulsory, formal duty to assess eyesight would have a marked positive effect. However, that is one of the things that we are trying to cover—if not directly now, then as part of a future flow of work—through the two-year action plan. The issue of cyclists was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth.”
“He will be aware that in Shropshire, not far from his constituency, there is the A529 between Hinstock and Market Drayton, which has the unhappy accolade of being the most dangerous road in that part of the UK, according to analysis carried out by the Road Safety Foundation in 2014. That is just one of the areas that has been targeted with nearly £4 million through the fund. Of course, Stoke-on-Trent City Council should be congratulated on the work it has been doing on investing in road and pavement maintenance, re-allocating bus lanes, upgrading traffic signals, and the like. I mentioned that the two-year action plan focuses in particular on young people, rural road users, motorcyclists, and older people—not just the damage that older people might do to themselves, but the hazard they pose to others.”
“I was pleased to note that the national speed awareness course is having a real effect, and is more effective at reducing speed re-offending than fines and penalty points, according to a recent evaluation over a period of three years following the initial offer to attend. The Government are also thinking about interventions to support new drivers. A range of measures is being trialled, but legislation is now in force that allows learners on to motorways when accompanied by an approved driving instructor, so they do not have that cliff-edge experience of going from driving on local roads to driving on fast-flowing motorways. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South rightly mentioned the safer roads fund.”
“That harm is not large in numerical terms—it is very small compared to the number of cyclists killed by drivers—but it is undoubtedly worth noting as we evolve a wider ecology of road use. We have taken measures to address drivers specifically, including doubling the penalty for the use of mobile phones to six points and a £200 fine, and targeting drink and drug driving. Drug driving is a particular menace, killing some 200 people a year, and we have targeted it through a new regime of roadside swab testing, which has proven to be a fast and efficient means of identifying drug drivers. Of course, some things are best handled not just through regulation, but through other, softer interventions.”
“Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). It is also important to note the £350,000 competition run by PACTS to provide police forces with the next generation of mobile breathalyser equipment. If that is being adopted in Scotland as well, we can be delighted, because that is a source of improvement. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) suggested that somehow, the Government were only targeting cyclists with our latest announcement about the review of cycling road offences. First of all, that is clearly not true, although there are specific concerns about potential risks and harm posed by cyclists, which Laura Thomas mentioned in her report and have existed among the judiciary and the legal fraternity for a long time.”
“The first group is motorcyclists, and the second is rural road users, who have been mentioned; I think the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) rightly picked up the issue of rural roads. The third group is older and more vulnerable users—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) mentioned elderly drivers and the effects posed by them—and the fourth is young road users, who are disproportionately implicated in killed and seriously injured statistics. We are also trialling many new and different approaches to try to get at the root of what is clearly a hard problem. That is why earlier this year, the Prime Minister announced a £480,000 partnership between the police and the RAC Foundation to trial the new approach to investigating road collisions, along the lines of the road collision investigation branch mentioned by the hon.”
“Member for Kingston upon Hull East has mentioned the RAC Foundation’s report into the effect of the investment that was made in safer roads. That £100 million was bid for by 50 local authorities, and it was allocated to them. I am sure we will return to that subject over time, but it is worth saying that as the report shows, that money is projected to have a very positive effect on reducing casualties and deaths, and—purely in economic terms—a high cost-benefit ratio, as one might expect. That in itself is worth mentioning. However, as an indication that the Government are not in any sense letting the grass grow under our feet, we announced in June a two-year action plan to address four specific priority groups within the overall road safety statement, as part of a refresh of that statement.”
“However, it is important to say that I recognise, as do the Government, the billions of pounds in economic costs alone of road casualties, and that is not to say anything of the human costs. Three dreadful stories of death on our roads have been mentioned in the debate, and I hope to have the chance to touch on those. If I may, I will briefly rehearse the current state of play from the Government’s standpoint and then come to the many interesting questions that colleagues have raised. As colleagues will know, in 2015 my predecessor announced an overarching strategy known as the road safety statement, and I think the evidence is clear that we have made very good headway in many areas. However, we absolutely recognise that there is more work to do. I am glad that the hon.”
“An interesting example is a case I have officials looking at, which is the recent concerns about seatbelts and the proportion of accidents in which failure to wear a seatbelt has been a contributing cause. That has rightly been touched on in the debate. It is sometimes important to remember that seatbelt use is observed by 98.2% of car drivers in England and Scotland, which is one small indication of how attitudes and practices have changed over time. Although the number of fatalities has levelled out recently, as has been said, we should be very proud that that number fell over a consistent period and is significantly lower now than it was even 10 years ago.”
“I thank you, Mrs Moon, and I thank all colleagues across the House for the very interesting and wide-ranging debate this afternoon. Far from not being held to account, I think this is the third road safety debate I have done in recent months, and it speaks to the vigour of our democracy that Ministers can be held to account on this important issue. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) who has done excellent work on the Transport Committee. He knows from that, and from his work before entering Parliament, that this country has what was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner)—perhaps I should not refer to him as my hon. Friend, but he is—as a “proud record” in road safety improvements, and that is rightly recognised.”
“As my hon. Friend will know, the Department has provided up to £4 million of funding to Essex County Council to support the development of proposals for improvements to the A120 between Braintree and Colchester. The council consulted on options last year and announced its favoured route in June 2018. My Department is now considering whether or not to include the scheme in the next road investment strategy, which will be published next year.”
“Aware, Mr Speaker? How could I not be aware? My hon. Friend has been indefatigable; in fact, few parliamentarians in any Parliament could have matched his energy and zeal in pressing the case for the A120. He has been terrier-like in his lobbying, and he can take it from me that the Minister has been duly terrierised.”
“I am frightened and worried to think that that may be the only use for the new road; if that is in fact the case, perhaps we should reconsider the investment case. My hon. Friend can take it from me that the Department for Transport has been following the issue very closely. It is entirely a matter for SEMLEP and Northamptonshire County Council, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further.”
“As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government’s mission is for all new cars and vans to be effectively zero emission by 2040. The Road to Zero strategy, which we published in July, sets out a wide range of actions that have been taken to achieve that goal, as well as steps to drive down emissions from conventional vehicles in the meantime. Those measures involve about £1.5 billion of investment.”
“Yes I have—not only have I read the report, but I have talked to Sir John Armitt, head of the National Infrastructure Commission, about the implications of the work it is doing. I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman. This is the first I have heard about the issue from him, but if he wants to come and bring with him representatives from his local authority, he is welcome to have that conversation.”
“I will leave the Secretary of State to answer for himself in future questions and conversations, but there cannot be much doubt that the goal is to balance the effective use of all modes of transport with the important need to make a transition to low emissions as fast as possible. We are doing so at a great pace, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the many decisions that have been taken about improving air quality across the country, of the zero emission vehicle summit that we held in September, and of the Birmingham declaration that was world-leading in bringing other countries to the table.”
“I apologise for being the same person that I was when I answered the previous question and not the Secretary of State, but let me pick up on the hon. Gentleman’s points. In August, 12% of new vehicles were electric, and that is because electric vehicles are beginning a fast S-curve of take-up. They have been heavily supported by this Government, and they will continue to be so supported. [Official Report, 15 October 2018, Vol. 647, c. 5MC.]”
“A man can only dream. My hon. Friend will, I hope, be delighted by the enormous energy that the Government have been showing in the area of cycling and walking, following our investment strategy published last year. That includes: the new safety review; new funding; cycle ambition cities; the transforming cities fund, which is being heavily used to improve urban environments for cycling and walking; support for changes to the “Highway Code” on close passing; and a great number of other measures. When we announce the response to the cycle safety review later this year, I hope there will be more to say on this topic.”
“I certainly share that ambition. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are seeking to have a child of 12, as well as people of all sexes, races and backgrounds, able to cycle without fear or impediment. Not all housing estates will be suitable for this kind of change—[Hon. Members: “Why not?”] Some may be too far removed from urban city centres, but where they are suitable, I would support that ambition in the way that the Government have done by looking at electrification for new housing.”
“Well, I think I said that we had a long way to go to match the standards set in some European cities that have been pioneers in this area. I do not think there is any doubt that the Government are doing more than any previous Government have done, and certainly more than the last Government by a factor of some three times in terms of funding per person— [ Interruption. ] The national chuntering club is out on the other side of the House. We have also taken a host of other measures to try to support cycling and improve safety, with precisely the laudable aims that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.”
“We work closely with the sub-national transport bodies, which can be rather helpful in assessing local demand and local needs across a region.”
“We absolutely recognise the problem. At present, the unsuitable use of roads is controlled through information and traffic control mechanisms, by Highways England and local authorities. We are tracking the geo-fencing technology closely. It requires a lot of other moving parts, but we are certainly thinking about it.”
“As my hon. Friend will know, the council is carrying out preparatory work on the road. We have been delighted to offer more than £80 million of funding under our large local majors scheme. We would like the work to begin in 2020, but we rely very much on the extra commitment that the council is making to ensure that the different aspects work.”