Dartford River Crossing

My hon. Friend has championed the cause several times, and I appreciate how strongly he feels about it. There are relevant factors for his constituents, including, for example, unavailability of the discount scheme to Bexley residents. I will come to that, as well as to the general issues of delays and congestion. We do not want the tunnels to become a glorified underground car-park, or the bridge to become an aerial sight-seeing spot for hours on end. Sadly, that has become the reality for motorists, as the Department for Transport's studies show. That is why I welcome the current "better use" review of the crossing. In a letter to me dated 25 September 2009, the Minister confirmed that the Department was considering two options as part of that review. The first scenario would maintain the two toll plazas, but seek to increase the use of newer technology and new plaza lay-outs. The second option could see the removal of the southbound charges with the installation of a larger northbound plaza through a redesigned lay-out, located in such a way that issues of weaving on the approach to the northbound tunnels could be addressed. As the Minister is probably aware, I am rather sceptical about the requirement for charges at all. Therefore, the potential for at least the charges across the bridge into Kent being lifted is certainly welcome. I look forward to hearing more from him on that issue. However, we are told that the better use review and, indeed, the wider review will take approximately 18 months to conclude. Can the Minister confirm when he expects the review to report to him? If it recommends that the southbound toll charges can be withdrawn safely—I appreciate the need to focus on safety issues and the fact that any changes should not add to problems or cause increased dangers to motorists—when can hard-pressed motorists expect any changes to the arrangements to be implemented? Given the clear recognition by the Department of the congestion and delays, I urge the Minister to speed up the review, so that we can take some positive steps to speed up the traffic generally. If there is a way of decoupling the better use review from the wider aspects of the review of capacity more generally, I urge him to take that option. I appreciate that there may be arguments about the interconnectivity between the two, but as he will recognise, the clear indication from his own Department is that the problems that motorists are experiencing require that the issue of short-term capacity and better use of the existing crossing be expedited, so that motorists can see that there is some prospect of improvement taking place in the near term. Let me move on to the wider review. Will the Minister provide an update on work on the lower Thames crossing capacity study? The initial report was released in January, setting out a number of potential options, some of which had significant environmental sensitivities attached to them. There has been no new information released since the initial capacity study, or detail as to whether the options explored comprise a potential bridge, a tunnel or both. Will the Minister explain what the milestones are in taking that programme forward and when he expects to present more detailed options for consultation? A number of stakeholders, including local residents and other groups, are keen to understand how the process is intended to move forward and how they can become involved in it as it progresses. In looking to the future, we come to the issue of the Government's most recent announcement about the Dartford crossing. In the past few weeks, we have had the news that the Government plan to sell off the crossing to raise about £3 billion in total, as part of the wider package of potential asset sales that they have said they are considering. It is clear that some value or price range has been put on the crossing to reach the headline figure of £3 billion. I appreciate that the Minister may feel constrained in sharing the Treasury's valuation with us this afternoon, but he can share the assumptions made in estimating that indicative amount. What level of charges has been assumed? How many vehicle movements have been allowed for? What assumptions have been made on investment in new technology for administering the tolls? Over what period was the income stream from the tolls allowed for? Most particularly, does the valuation take account of the outcome of the better use review? Clearly, if toll charges into Kent were scrapped, that would have an impact on the financial modelling. I am concerned about whether the Department has determined the outcome of the review in advance, even before the report has landed on Ministers' desks. The Minister needs to give a clear and unequivocal answer this afternoon that any proposed sale will not fetter the implementation of the recommendations of the better use study as and when it reports. In addition, what assurances can the Minister give that, if the crossing were sold off, charges would not be ramped up by a private sector owner, as part of a deal with the Treasury to maximise the capital value, but only through the exploitation of motorists for years to come? Then there is the issue of the level of charges. The crossing generates about £50 million of income for the Department for Transport each year. The Government took away the ring-fenced investment in local transport projects. That was about 12 months ago. Therefore, there is absolutely no guarantee that any of the moneys raised by the tolls will be spent on transport infrastructure in the vicinity of the bridge. It is quite unusual, in a congestion management concept, that the money is not reinvested in public transport or other mechanisms that would see people using different routes in order to reduce congestion. In London, the congestion charge is used to fund bus services and other means of public transport in order to reduce reliance on the car. It is interesting to note that that does not apply to the Dartford river crossing. The historical justification was that the money would pay for the cost of the bridge—the cost of the building and of maintenance. That no longer applies, so there are continued questions about what the justification is if it is not congestion management, for the reasons that I have highlighted. The Government need to consider the whole issue of the charges that are being applied. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) is not present at this debate, but he has raised the legality of the charges overall. It would be interesting to hear whether the Minister has any views on the rationale and justification for retaining the charges. What the Government have done, though, is created a scheme for residents living in the areas of Thurrock and Dartford councils to receive discounts for using the crossing. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how successful that has been. What has the take-up been? How many residents have sought to apply for one of the permits? Equally, it would be interesting to hear the latest information on take-up of the DART-Tag. Previously, the DART-Tag had a facility whereby there were dedicated lanes, but with the introduction of the new toll charges, the dedicated lanes were scrapped, so what might have been seen as one benefit of having the DART-Tag—being able to speed through the toll plaza—was removed, albeit registering for a DART-Tag gives people certain benefits in the form of discounts. However, it would be interesting to drill down on the local discount scheme. How many people have registered? How much money have residents in those areas saved by registering for the discounts since the scheme was introduced? More generally, there is the basic issue of the scheme's fairness. This is a relevant issue for people living in the vicinity of the crossing. Someone can be living nearly 13 miles away from the bridge in Thurrock and receive the benefit of the discount scheme, yet if someone is a resident of Wennington village in Havering, which is in my constituency, or of Crayford in Bexley—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett)—and therefore lives much closer, the discount scheme simply does not apply. That appears to residents of my constituency and, I am sure, of my hon. Friend's constituency as perverse and unfair. It would be possible to operate a scheme based on post codes within a certain geographical area around the crossing. That could be administered. I appreciate that there is a need to consider something that is practical and does not create a new burdensome bureaucracy, but at least that approach would be more equitable and logical. It would certainly be fairer. Therefore, will the Minister commit at least to a review of the discount arrangements, based on the experience that he will have received information about in the past 12 months, so that those basic issues of fairness can be addressed? Anyone who uses the Dartford crossing regularly will appreciate the sheer frustration of being stuck in miles and miles of jams. The Department for Transport needs to get on with its review of the need for additional road capacity across the Thames and, in particular, better use of the existing crossing. The current tolling arrangements appear—motoring organisations suggest this as well—to be adding to the delays and congestion, and motorists certainly should not be seen as a soft target. I therefore trust that the Minister will assure us that his Department is committed to measures that will help to beat the queues, such as scrapping the tolls into Kent. I trust also that he will help drivers who are driven to distraction by delays and that he will help businesses to keep on moving in these times of continuing recession. The crossing and those who use it should not be seen merely as a cash cow for the Treasury.