Transport

Chris Loder Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sam Tarry]

We stood at the past two elections on a very clear manifesto, which the current leader of the Labour party backed. Our current strategy, which the leader of the Labour party backs, states very clearly that we back it. It is not us who have proposed that HS2 should be cut; it is the Government who have implemented that cut to the eastern leg.

The hon. Gentleman does not have to take my word for it. Tory councils have joined the backlash against what the Prime Minister has done over his pathetic bus funding plan. Conservative Don Mackenzie of North Yorkshire County Council said:

“We knew the Bus Back Better budget had been severely curtailed, but I expected to get some money, not nothing at all, so I’m very disappointed.”

In Shropshire, the Conservative cabinet member for transport said she was “devastated”, adding:

“We are at a complete loss as to why we have been completely overlooked.”

It is a sad and sorry tale that so many Conservative councils across the country are being let down by their own Government.

The sad truth is that, for too long the Tory party has overlooked buses. Some 5,000 services have been lost since they came to power—a staggering quarter of all bus routes in the entire United Kingdom. Far from a bus transformation, many will continue to see a managed decline. The underfunding by the Government has become so severe that a recent report by the former UN special rapporteur Professor Philip Alston highlighted a broken and fragmented system, with skyrocketing fares, plummeting service standards and disappearing routes depriving bus users of an essential public service. The report even went as far as to say that we are failing in our fundamental human rights obligations by allowing this essential service to deteriorate so severely.

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for giving way—I do appreciate it. Does he agree that some of the issues he highlights, which are affecting councils across the country, are the result of continual multibillion-pound settlements having to be directed to Transport for London to bail it out because of the Labour Mayor’s previous poor decision making?

[Sam Tarry]

My former colleague on the Transport Committee knows that that is a very scurrilous question. The money spent in London supports tens of thousands—and as many as 50,000—jobs outside the capital. For every pound spent in London, over 50p is then spent outside London, so every time money is spent in London, it benefits the wider economy.

[Chris Loder]

Even during the pandemic, over 18 months —this was even on the TfL website—there was an “extraordinary” funding settlement of £4 billion to bail out TfL because of some of the poor decisions made by the Mayor of London, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that things are not necessarily as clear as he suggests.

[Sam Tarry]

The reality is that the problematic, poor decisions were made by the chap who is now in Downing Street: the former Mayor of London. He is the chap who cut £1 billion off the budget that was given to TfL every year. TfL was the only major, and probably the biggest, transit system in the western world without any direct Government subsidy until the pandemic. If we ask a transport system to wash its own face—to pay for things only through fares—and 90% of that fare revenue disappears, how on earth can we expect that system to survive? Let us have some serious economics here, not the economics of jokesters.

As I said, the underfunding by this Government has become so severe that the UN special rapporteur has highlighted that it is hitting our poorest communities—communities such as those in Dorset. The report even went as far as to say that the Government were failing the fundamental human rights of people in rural communities. I know that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) is passionate about badgers, but he needs to be more passionate about buses and speak to the Prime Minister. The worst part of all this is that the same working people who have such shockingly bad services are bearing the brunt of the Conservatives’ cost of living crisis.

Many people are paying 50% more on rail and bus fares to get to work than a decade ago. In March, the Government announced that they would go further still, with a brutal 3.8% rail fare hike for millions of passengers, and with bus fares rising nationwide. As the Minister said, it is great that there is a sale, but as he well knows, £7 million of tickets is a drop in the ocean of fare revenues.

[Sam Tarry]

Actually, the last Labour manifesto probably had the most comprehensive plan ever put forward at an election for running our rail and other transport networks. It is interesting that a lot of the ideas now being implemented by the Government are watered-down versions of what we put forward then. Instead of having weak lemonade, is it not about time that we had the full pint and something serious?

Incredibly, the Rail Minister had the cheek to say that the eye-watering rail fare hike would make rail more attractive. Many will wonder what planet Ministers are living on if they think people can afford that. Up and down the country, families are really paying the price for decisions made in Downing Street.

While the Conservative party punishes local communities with sky-high fares and substandard services, Labour is fighting across the country for better, cheaper and more affordable transport. In towns and cities nationwide, our leaders in power have a plan to turn the page on a decade of decline, putting communities back at the heart of public transport and transforming it for good. The vision of these Labour leaders is simple: to build buses quicker, cheaper, greener and more reliably. Last year, Andy Burnham decided to move to franchising, with a clear vision that talked of

“a world-class, integrated transport network which can unlock opportunity for all; providing access to jobs and education, reducing pollution, attracting investment and reducing isolation.”

Similarly, Tracy Brabin in West Yorkshire has promised to put “people before profit” by introducing

“simpler fares, contactless ticketing, and greener buses.”

In addition to investing millions of pounds in new routes and services, both Mayors are set to cap bus fares at £2, saving passengers up to £1.50 in West Yorkshire and, in some cases, more than £2 in Greater Manchester. That is the difference that Labour in power is making.

[Chris Loder]

It is important that the House notes that the Labour Mayor of London required continual multibillion-pound bail-outs from this Conservative Government—funds that would otherwise be invested in other parts of the nation. The Labour party is advocating making the same mistake again in Manchester, the west midlands and other places. The hon. Gentleman is advocating a fixed fare, with costs being completely unmanaged and the Government therefore being required to bail out the cost deficit again.

[Sam Tarry]

I had the misfortune of catching a bus in Manchester about a decade ago, when we had a variety of competing transport companies charging more than £5 a fare. That is clearly not right. All around the world, progressive administrations are making transport affordable. If we are serious about climate change, we need to get people on public transport, whether that is buses, trains or trams. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, finances in London are all to do with the crash in ridership on the tube and the wider TfL system. I am happy to see passenger levels start to rise again, and to do so very quickly, because of the work of our Labour Mayor.

What communities up and down this country need is a Government who match their ambition, not a Government who tell them to be ambitious and then give them hardly any money. We need a transport system that is fit to tackle the climate catastrophe unfolding before our eyes, and that works for the passengers and communities who rely on it. Labour would wrest our rail networks back in full from inefficient private operators. We would put into public hands the parts of the railways that the Government have not. We would give communities across the country London-style powers to reform bus networks, keep fares down and improve services. We would invest in our vital transport infrastructure to boost economic growth and rebalance the economy, which will create thousands of good, green, long-term, unionised jobs. Unfortunately, unless the Government match their communities’ ambition on local transport, they will have failed millions across the country, and their hotchpotch agenda on levelling up will not be delivered. Instead, it will lie in tatters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

That may well be the case, but the bus operators to whom I speak would not welcome any decline in the subsidy—far from it. I am lucky in that Renfrewshire has more electric buses or zero-emission buses than anywhere in the UK outside London, but it still has diesel buses as well. I am not convinced that bus operators would welcome the removal of that subsidy at a time when fuel prices are high. When fuel prices come down, the hon. Gentleman’s idea will not be without merit.

As has become the norm in the Department for Transport, we have a glossy booklet for the Secretary of State to plonk on the shelf behind him while he is on camera—at least when he is not flying to New York for location filming in yet another cinematic masterpiece. I hope the folk at BAFTA are taking note of his current videos on Twitter. Behind the gloss, however, the electric vehicle strategy is thin gruel. While the Scottish Government plan to maintain our record as the UK nation with the highest per capita number of public charging points by doubling their numbers by the end of this Parliament, the UK Government are letting England fall even further behind. Already England, outside London, has been left in the slow lane as charging infrastructure is rolled out. That gap will only grow over the coming years, and as always it will be the poorer and more rural areas that will lose out as private investment focuses on high-density, high-capacity locations while intervention from the state is minimal. That ideological direction has to change, and change soon.

The fact that home charging attracts the standard VAT rate for domestic electricity supplies of 5% while public charging points are still subject to the full 20% is not just a disincentive to people thinking of making the switch; it also penalises electric vehicle users who do not have the benefit of a driveway or a space to park a car. I own an electric car, which I can charge at home, making use of the cheaper rates, but people not in that position are having to pay the 20% rate. Anyone living in a flat or shared space is paying a great deal more to charge their car than those with front-door properties. That is essentially a tax on the less well-off. There is no word in the programme for government of any action to tackle this inconsistency. I hope that the Minister will be lobbying her colleagues in the Treasury to address the anomaly and ensure that all those making the switch to electric vehicles are on a level playing field.

The DFT is also miles behind on zero-emission buses. Scotland has ordered nearly three times as many per capita, and since the start of the year those aged 21 and under, as well as those over 60, travel on them free of charge.

Active travel seems not to merit a single mention in the outline of the transport Bill. After two years of low traffic neighbourhoods, Spaces for People, a continued increase in cycling, the move towards 20-minute neighbourhoods and the exponential growth of e-bikes and e-scooters, I find that staggering. Within three years Scotland will be spending 10% of our entire transport budget on active travel, an unprecedented amount across these isles and a genuinely transformational level of spending. The potential waiting to be unlocked in our towns and cities through this spending is huge. Down south, however, the DFT is still stuck in same mindset: a funding scheme here and a bidding process there, dripping out relative crumbs of funding to local government.

By 2024-25, Scotland’s active travel spend will amount to £60 per person per year, adding up to £320 million every year. That is transformational spending, not just because it will reduce emissions and offer alternatives to cars, but because it will give a huge boost to our town and city centres and local neighbourhoods. In England, the DFT plans to spend barely that annual amount over the next five years, which works out at just over £7 per person. That is not simply a lack of ambition; it shows the lack of any kind of lessons learned from the pandemic. I give the UK Government credit for at least having the good sense to put Chris Boardman in charge of Active Travel England. He is backed by a cross-section of stakeholders. However, in the absence of real resources behind his plans and real political commitment from the Government, this is like expecting him to win the Tour de France on a bike with no pedals.

I hope that Ministers are noting the Scottish Government’s spending plans, because our interests in Scotland are England’s interests too. There is little point in putting out the fire in your house if your neighbours are dousing petrol on theirs. We need the policy makers here, and the Treasury, to understand the importance of active travel in the context of transitioning to zero carbon and boosting local economies to the benefit of both people and small businesses.

On rail, we are promised the establishment of Great British Railways. It has been clear for decades that the fragmented and illogical mess left behind by the Secretary of State’s predecessors back in the Major Government and continued by their successors, both Labour and Tory, must be radically transformed. Reintegration is to be welcomed, and having heard in the Select Committee from the transition team’s lead, Andrew Haines, I know that the will and the experience are there at the operational level, but the hard fact is that building a better railway system across these isles needs political will and ambition. Notwithstanding what the Minister of State said in his opening remarks, one look at the Government’s track record since 2010 would lead anyone to conclude that ambition barely exists. Umpteen electrification schemes have been dumped or hugely scaled down, key parts of HS2 serving the north of England have been scrapped, and Crossrail is £4 billion over budget.

Everyone concerned with transport in the UK isles wants to see Great British Railways succeed, and begin to put an end to the wasted years that have seen the UK left in the sidings while other European countries have quietly got on with bringing their networks into the 21st century. However, if the DFT and the Treasury cannot match that good will with cold hard cash and a change in attitudes, I fear that we will be having these same debates in five, 10 or 20 years’ time. If GBR is established without changes to the way in which rail infrastructure is governed, that will constitute yet another missed opportunity to put full control of our railways where it belongs, with the Scottish Parliament.

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gavin Newlands]

I had a feeling that my colleague on the Select Committee might pipe up at this point, and I am happy to give way to him.

[Chris Loder]

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Rail operations in Scotland are, of course, delegated to the Scottish Government. The hon. Gentleman will know full well that there are great difficulties with the Scottish operations at present, not least because of copious strikes. It is clear that the Scottish Government have allowed the unions to run the railways in Scotland, hence the difficulties, particularly at weekends. Given this Government’s commitment to the Union connectivity review and to ensuring that we have excellent connectivity throughout the UK that benefits the economy of the whole UK, does the hon. Gentleman not think that before calling for too much more of what he would like—independence and delegating things away from Westminster—the Scottish Government ought to get their own house in order?

[Gavin Newlands]

I do not recognise the picture that my colleague paints. The fact is that with its integrated approach to track and train in Scotland, ScotRail provides the rest of the UK with an exemplar of how to run a rail system. As for the union connectivity review, we had backed HS2 to come all the way to the Scottish border and provide high-speed rail in the central belt of Scotland and beyond. I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State winds up the debate, she will be able to tell us when HS2 will actually reach the Scottish border and we can marry up that high-speech connection with Scotland. I should be very interested to hear about that, because the Scottish and UK Governments agreed to it a number of years ago.

As my colleague has pointed out, ScotRail is now in full public ownership, so now is the time to transfer full responsibility, permanently, for the infrastructure currently in the hands of Network Rail to the Scottish Government so that we have a truly integrated rail network. That will also allow for reform of the current track access charge regime, which is sucking resources from Scotland’s railways to be mixed into the Network Rail pot, rather than their being invested directly in Scotland’s track and infrastructure. ScotRail is forking out twice the access charges of Northern, despite a broadly comparable passenger network. West Midlands Trains, with almost exactly the same number of passenger kilometres as ScotRail, pays only one third of the charges paid by our publicly owned train operator. If the transport Bill is going to be mainly about implementing the Williams rail review, it must fundamentally alter the structure and framework of track access charges and provide a level playing field for publicly owned companies such as ScotRail, as opposed to the private concessions that will continue to operate in England under the auspices of GBR.

I welcome any action by any Government who try to put a stop to the shameful behaviour of P&O Ferries. It is still shocking to recollect that the chief executive not only admitted that his company flagrantly broke the law in treating 800 loyal and hard-working staff with the contempt that was shown by him and his colleagues, but said that he would do the same again. However, it is the Government who should be acting, rather than subcontracting their role to others. Palming off responsibility for employment law to port authorities—most of which are now privately owned—is not what workers in our maritime sector need. They need real protections from the likes of P&O, enforced by Government rather than subject to the decision making of port owners.

Privatising employment law must be the ultimate in Tory ideology. Who needs Governments to enforce the laws that they make when private enterprise is there to do their job for them? It also beggars belief that they are happy to transfer responsibility for employment law to the private sector, but still resist transferring it to a democratically elected Parliament in Edinburgh. The Scottish Government have made it clear that they want pernicious employment practices such as fire and rehire to be banned, but Scotland’s workers are still trapped under the current antiquated system. If it is good enough for companies such as Associated British Ports or Peel Ports, it is good enough for our democratically elected Government in Edinburgh.

We know the important role our transport sectors play in our society and our economy. Since the last Queen’s Speech, we have seen chaos at our ports caused by Brexit, huge cutbacks in funding for public transport in England and the continuing evidence from here and elsewhere in the world of the existential threat that climate change poses to us and the rest of humanity. Those threats need radical action to tackle not only the global challenges but those closer to home. Sadly, the Government’s programme on transport falls well short.

No country can provide all the answers or claim perfection, but at least the Scottish Government are putting up a fight and trying to make the necessary changes, some of which are tough and, dare I say it, unpopular. If the UK Government do not want to make those changes, that is regrettable for all of us, but that should not allow them to continue putting up barriers around Scotland’s response. We cannot be hindered by inertia and a lack of ambition any longer. On transport policy, like so much else, it is for the UK to try to show why Scotland should continue to be part of the Union. On the evidence so far, it has an impossible task.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate; it is a pleasure to contribute and to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I worked for the railways for a long time before being elected to this House.

I am proud of the Government’s ambition and determination to level up across the UK. I am also proud of the Bills in the Queen’s Speech, particularly the transport Bill, but if I may, I will focus today on railways, buses and roads.

The Great British Railways proposal is good for the United Kingdom—the whole of the United Kingdom. I am particularly pleased about it because the current model has probably reached the end of its life. The results from that model have been good—we have seen passenger numbers increase 100% since privatisation began—but the Government fully understand that things need to change.

I draw the Government’s attention to some initiatives that could provide further opportunities within the GBR proposal. In Japan, for example, the relationship between real estate and funding for railway operations is very close, to the extent that Government investment is often not required. That is because of the model that is adopted. I urge the Minister and her officials to look into that.

Enormous amounts of money are invested in transport, but it is important that we do not get carried away with the number of billions that will be spent. We need to be more concerned about the specific outputs than the amount of money that will be spent. We see billions going to Highways England—I think the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), said that it was £27.4 billion—yet there is consultation after consultation for years and years before any spades actually go into the ground.

It is the same in the railways, particularly in relation to the rail network enhancement plan, which has been a long time coming. We have seen some really good announcements for the midlands and the north—the integrated rail plan is bringing in £96 billion there—but regrettably we have seen nothing yet in the south-west. Even worse, when Network Rail announced that it was going to invest in re-signalling to enable more capacity and flexibility, the schemes were deferred at the end of the last control period with no hope in sight of the most basic re-signalling programmes.

We talk a lot in this House about tens of billions of pounds. The Opposition want more than £96 billion, forgetting that we pay £82 billion a year in interest. However, we must remember other parts of the country, particularly the rural parts and specifically the south-west—the local challenges in Dorset and Somerset have been immense. I am grateful for the Minister’s support for returning the frequency of trains and the direct services on the Waterloo-Exeter line and the Waterloo-Dorchester-Weymouth line, which came into effect with the last timetable.

GB Railfreight, of which Parliament should be incredibly proud, is taking important steps to decarbonise the railway’s freight sector. It recently introduced a first Class 99 hybrid locomotive that will eventually succeed the diesel-power Class 66. It will go a long way to decarbonising the freight network and we have much to learn from it.

The help that we give transport and railways in Ukraine is not often spoken about in the House. We take great pride in what our nation has done in past decades to help those escaping tyranny by train. Although we are not a neighbouring country to Ukraine, I urge the Government to participate in and actively support initiatives such as ALLRAIL, a group of European train operators that run up to the Polish-Ukrainian border and have brought people out of Ukraine and taken them across Europe. It would be a wonderful statement by the Government, on top of all the wonderful work that they have done so far, to participate in such an initiative. I encourage the Minister to consider that.

The bus service improvement plan has been quite painful for Dorset. I fully recognise that it has been good for the country in many ways, but Dorset and many other rural areas have not been successful. It is important that the Government consider what can be done to support rural areas, not necessarily with financial bungs but with tangible initiatives. That would be very much appreciated.

Future of Rail

Chris Loder Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Ealing and Acton would not be here without the railways. Both have stations underground, overground—not wombling free—east, west, south, broadway, common, central. They are in “that there London”, so people might be thinking, “You’re all right, Jack,” but I want to counter this misperception that has grown up around the Government’s levelling up rhetoric. It is in the suburbs of London that we feel this most acutely. Our trains are full and getting fuller, fares are rising faster than wages, and west London, the sub-region with Heathrow, is a key driver of our national economy, but it needs transport fit for purpose, not just to and from central London but between the suburban bits.

An obvious solution would be breathing life into the old Beeching line, the west London orbital. There is Ealing, the centre of west London, and to the north Brent Cross, with lots of jobs, and to the south, Brentford, but good luck to anyone trying to get between any of those three. There is the super-development opportunity area of Old Oak, which has promised 24,000 dwellings and jobs, jobs, jobs. Again, this proposal could link them all, but there is no chance in sight, because the Government will not commit long-term funding to TfL.

Instead, we have the ignominious situation of cap-in-hand, eleventh-hour settlements, being marched to the top of the hill and down again. We are pretty much the only capital city on earth—I am not counting Singapore—where there is no central Government subsidy. We need reliability, predictability and all those things. When the current Prime Minister was Mayor of London, he was bequeathed a load of goodies from his Labour predecessor: the bikes that bear his name, the TfL rail Overground—it used to be quite scary when it was the Silverlink; it is brilliant now—the DLR extension and bus investment. But for Sadiq Khan—bless his cotton socks—the cupboard is bare.

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) on securing the debate. I have been listening intently to what the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) said about the finances for TfL. Does she agree that if the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport did not strike so often in London and bring the whole of London to a standstill, the TfL finances might be in a better position?

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Gentleman is falling into the Tory trope of union bashing. I am a proud trade unionist, and the unions are there to better the conditions of their members. We do not want exploitation, do we? Is he going to be shoving kids up chimneys next? I fear the track he is going down. This issue is a bit of a smoke screen. We need long-term funding and a dependable model for London, which we used to have. Every other London Mayor had that, but in 2016 George Osborne suddenly cut the support grant. I think that had something to do with the complexion of City Hall, but—[Interruption.] I am not going to give way, because I do not get any extra time.

With covid giving way to a cost of living crisis, what did we see from the Chancellor? A cut in fuel duty and a 3.8% rise in fares, and I am not counting that gimmicky video—that thing, whatever it was—about the 1% of journeys where someone can get a cheap fare, going to the right place on the right day. That is not going to affect any of my constituents.

Meanwhile, we can only marvel at what they are doing outre-Manche in the rest of Europe. Look at Austria’s climate ticket. In Germany, there is a €9 a month regional transport ticket. In this country, no one between 25 and 65, which is probably most of the people here, is eligible for a national railcard, which is available elsewhere. I urge the Minister to look at something like that.

In conclusion, the future of rail should include projects that complete vaguely on time. I have an Oyster card holder that says, “Crossrail—new for 2018”. Ha! The future of rail would have considerate construction. HS2 goes through my seat and has made life a misery for the residents of Wells House Road, NW10. The future of rail would also have a visionary Government that could think long term, rather than say, “It’s all Sadiq Khan’s fault,” any time a London MP stands up to say anything, when we know that our London Mayor is doing a fantastic job against the odds. The country cannot be levelled up by levelling down London. The new Piccadilly line trains, due in 2025, are being built in Yorkshire. Level up London and the whole country benefits. Let us get Ealing, Acton and Chiswick back on the rails. Now that’s what I really call levelling up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me, Sir Charles. Well, with three minutes I will just get to the point, if I may.

I appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). I should just say that the RMT does not quite agree with her about the London Mayor. I respectfully make that point, because the RMT has itself said that it is the London Mayor who is causing the logjam, and ultimately that has a considerable impact on the finances available. I represent a constituency that I am afraid has a three-hourly train service frequency, and when I see Transport for London getting such considerable amounts of money, it is a matter of great concern to me. That is money going to support the good people of London, rather than to support the Heart of Wessex line. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of my strong views on that point.

I will move on to the future of rail. I spent 20 years working for the railways before being elected to Parliament. I am not sure whether there are any Opposition Members present who used to be members of the RMT. I was once a member and should give it a big shout-out for its policy briefing, which was very interesting and for which I am grateful. The railways are very important for the future of this country. I appreciate that lots of people have strong views on where the new GB Railways HQ should be, although personally I do not think that will make much of a difference to the future capability of the railway; what will make an enormous difference is where the Government look to invest. The Government have supported the railway to the tune of £14 billion during the worst time of the pandemic. They have kept thousands of people in jobs, and they have done so to ensure that the future of our railways is extremely good and supports the future of our country.

It is really important that we also consider the wider things that the railways have to change going forward. The railways have been marvellous in lots of ways, but the fact that it can take 12 months to change a timetable is not acceptable in the current day and age. Why is it that we have a timetable that is the same on a Monday as it is on a Friday, when we know that the demands are very different? There are fundamental changes that need to happen in order for our railways to excel.

I am conscious of time and am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. As a final point, it is really important that we remember it is not all about the cities; it is about connecting the rural areas as well—areas such as West Dorset and other parts of the country that would greatly benefit from that in the future.

Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Bill

Chris Loder Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 18th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) for bringing the Bill forward. I hope that it will make progress and become law. I am delighted that the Opposition are supporting it.

The Bill makes some important changes and improvements to the Equality Act 2010. Those who are wheelchair-dependent or who have assistance dogs have expressed rights in that Act, but others who are in need do not. I am delighted that the Bill will look to address that point. There is currently no requirement for a local licensing list to register and only 70% of local authorities have registered lists. That is a cause of concern for me so I am also delighted that the Bill will make progress to fix that.

Specifically, I draw the House’s attention to proposed new section 167A of the 2010 Act, which brings forward new offences where drivers fail or refuse to accept a booking from a disabled person because of a disability, which is important. I listened intently to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and the experiences that she shared. Many hon. Members have also had those experiences shared with them by constituents. It is important that we look to address that and put it right. I cannot commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam enough for addressing that.

A theme that has come through so far in the debate is the effect that the Bill will have on those living in rural areas, where taxi drivers have a considerable impact. In many cases, it is regrettable that there is such a high dependency on taxis. It is incumbent on the Government to take note of the fact that bus services in rural areas have not been the highest priority for a while. I hope that that will be fixed through the recently announced White Paper and the work that the Government are doing. When the Minister responds, I hope that she will update us on that, particularly on the effect on disabled access and those needing it.

The debate is about taxi access, however, and I pay tribute to my local taxi firm Beaver Cabs in Sherborne, which does a wonderful job. Those taxi drivers do much more than just drive someone from A to B: they have a relationship and they are often one of the few people that a resident will interact with over a period of time.

Many hon. Members have large rural constituencies. I listened to some statistics from hon. Friends earlier about the size of constituencies and I know that Conservative Members like to have a bit of a competition, but West Dorset is a constituency of 400 square miles and 132 parishes—it is vast and it has 84,000 electors. It is a considerable rural constituency and there are very high levels of dependency on taxi use. Of course, there are also many hidden needs, some of which my right hon. and learned Friend covers in the Bill.

It is key to build on the generosity and kindness of taxi drivers. We have to take care not to portray all taxi drivers in the same way as the few who are perhaps less kind and less generous with their assistance and help. The majority of taxi drivers already do many things. The good thing about the Bill is that it will legislate to ensure that those who do not do these things as standard will have to do so.

In West Dorset, there is a particular difficulty with disabled access by car and taxi to and from railway stations. There are seven stations in my constituency, only two of which are accessible. The other stations that serve the wider area are not accessible either.

[Alicia Kearns]

My hon. Friend has great expertise when it comes to all things choo-choo, I believe. Why does he think those stations have not been given the facilities that they need for accessibility? We have the same problem in my rural constituency.

[Chris Loder]

As in most cases, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

I have been actively pursuing this matter at Dorchester West station. Dorchester is the county town of Dorset. Dorchester West is now fully accessible, as a result of one of my many campaigns. However, it has taken far too long. Dorchester South, the county town station from which trains go to London, is not fully accessible. If a taxi for a disabled person pulls up at that station and the train is arriving from London Waterloo, the disabled passenger cannot access the taxi. Yeovil Junction, which is not in my constituency but serves the vast majority of the rural north of it, is not staffed all the time. A disabled person who gets off a train and cannot manage the steps will be stranded. That is unacceptable, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give due consideration to it—along with many other issues that I must share with her and her colleagues in this context.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has great expertise and experience in this field, so I hope he will forgive me if I ask him to acknowledge, at least, that the Government are making investments in our railway network and stations to improve accessibility through the Access for All programme, which will result in £350 million of investment between 2019 and 2024. Perhaps his constituency has not yet benefited from that investment, but he should certainly seek it.

[Chris Loder]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind intervention. I entirely agree with him: I think that the Government’s work in this field is excellent. Regrettably, however, it is not excellent in West Dorset yet. When a county town station is not fully accessible and the second town of Somerset, on the border, is served by a station at which someone who is disabled and arrives after 8 pm will be stranded, that is completely unacceptable. However, I wholly support what the Government are doing through Access for All, and would warmly welcome more of that investment in West Dorset to address this issue.

[Peter Gibson]

While we are on the issue of railways, on which my hon. Friend is an expert and speaks eloquently, and as we are talking about access to them for disabled persons, may I draw his attention to my campaign for the installation of tactile paving, an essential means of ensuring safety for disabled persons, at Darlington’s Bank Top station? May I also be the first to wish the Minister well with the GB Railways headquarters? We learned today that 42 possible locations had been named; I just want to put Darlington’s bid on record, and to wish the Minister well with that.

[Chris Loder]

I would welcome investment in the tactile paving that my hon. Friend will be receiving at Darlington. I understand that it is part of a £100 million scheme to develop the whole station. That is major investment for a wonderful part of the world, but West Dorset is equally wonderful, and I cannot remember the last time we saw major investment in one of our railway stations in rural Dorset. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to make this point. Access for disabled people who need to travel in taxis to and from trains, especially in the absence of rural bus services, is incredibly important, and we often do not pay attention to it.

You may be interested to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in three areas in rural Dorset one has to put one’s hand out for the train driver to stop. Those train stations have only steps, and they are completely inaccessible to disabled people arriving by car. I hope the DFT and my hon. Friend the Minister will pursue a wider piece of work to develop connectivity for disabled people who travel by car and taxi to get on a train.

[Gareth Davies]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Does he take comfort from the fact that Great British Railways will have a statutory duty to make train stations more accessible? And will he support Grantham’s bid to host the headquarters of Great British Railways?

[Chris Loder]

I am open to being lobbied to support bids. I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me for not declaring at this moment which bid I will support. We need to be careful not to stray from the point.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the future of GBR. He asks whether I take comfort from the fact that GBR will also have the ability to make progress. Yes, I do take comfort, but I do not take comfort from having to wait for it. There is no reason to wait for this to happen to address the very difficult disabled access issues we have today. Many of us, particularly in rural areas, have already had to wait for decades and we should not continually have to wait. I welcome the GBR initiative, which will do great things for the railways of this country. I warmly commend my hon. Friend the Minister and her colleagues for their work.

I am conscious that we are straying into trains and railways. I am delighted to take interventions and questions from my hon. Friends, but I am conscious that I am not at the Dispatch Box. I hope they will bear that in mind.

The absence of rural bus services means that disabled people are much more dependent on taxis. We have to bear in mind the cost to disabled people. It is sad that disabled people, particularly in rural areas, have to pay more to be connected and to go to places because of the nature of their disability. That is something we should note. I am delighted that the Bill looks to address many of those matters.

[Alicia Kearns]

If we are to reduce the reliance on taxis in the most rural areas, perhaps the Government need to consider improving the local government finance settlement and the funding to rural authorities. Otherwise we will have an increased reliance on taxi services, which sometimes struggle to operate in rural areas. We need that funding to ensure that there are adequate buses. The Government should be stepping forward to provide fairer funding to rural areas.

[Chris Loder]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I looked through the revenue support grant list, but I cannot recall how her constituency benefited or not. Dorset did not benefit at all from the revenue support grant—it was zero. That compounds the difficulties we experience, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for meeting my Dorset colleagues and I to look to address that.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton that this is a matter of real concern to many of us in rural constituencies. It is important that the balance is now readjusted, as rural areas are important. We have taken them for granted, particularly on disabled access and disabled transport, for too long. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam is making good progress on that in this Bill, and I am sure the Department will take it further.



I am conscious of the time and I am very grateful for the time afforded to me, but I will just conclude by saying that the dependence on taxis, because of the absence of rural bus services, particularly for disabled people, is an ongoing concern. For the past two and a half years, or just under, since I was elected, we have seen a considerable reduction in rural bus services. That has put undue pressure on those who do not have their own car, particularly those who are disabled, who need to get to the hospital, who need to go to the doctors and the dentists, who need to go shopping—the most basic of things. I look forward to progress on that in due course.

Finally, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam has done a sterling job with the Bill, which will make a huge impact and be of huge benefit to many people who maybe do not even realise that we are talking about it today. I am sorry not to see more Members on the Opposition Benches. This House has talked a lot about the issue of accessibility and equality over many years, and I am very sorry that the Opposition Benches are so free and empty. I just say to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) that that is not meant to be a political point, but we have talked about this matter a lot in this House. It is important that today we can demonstrate, as the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, that we are making real progress on a matter that will affect a lot of people. I pay tribute, once again, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I rise in support of the Bill and I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) for this important piece of legislation which will widen access and improve the Equality Act 2010. I very much welcome that it has support from the Opposition.

As we have heard today, connectivity is a huge issue in rural areas. I do not want to get into Top Trumps on the sizes of rural constituencies, but Penrith and the Border is the largest and most sparsely populated constituency in England. It can sometimes take up to two hours to get from one end of the constituency to the other by car. Having said that I did not want to indulge in Top Trumps, I just have.

[Chris Loder]

We cannot not respond to such points made in the House. West Dorset is 400 square miles and has 132 parishes. I cannot quite remember the statistics for the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), but I think hers is slightly larger than mine. Is the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) more beautiful than West Dorset? I am not quite sure on that point.

[Dr Hudson]

Yes, it is more beautiful. [Laughter.] Let us put the Top Trumps to one side now and get to the heart of this very important Bill.

My colleagues in rural constituencies, and also those in urban constituencies, have highlighted the importance of my right hon. and learned Friend’s Bill in connecting people, in getting them from A to B, in equality of access for all people who need it, and in ensuring that disabled people have equality of access. That is so, so important.

Points were made about there being many, many good taxi drivers and private hire vehicle drivers who are doing the right thing. Again, I want to thank those drivers for doing the right thing. The Bill will set the balance and get that to be uniform. For too long, unfortunately, disabled people have been facing behaviour that makes their lives very, very difficult. When there is outright refusal of service, it is incredibly distressing. I welcome the Government’s intention to go further and move towards disability training as part of the standards for licensing. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister on that point.

I also echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on the importance of having a database, so that people hiring vehicles know exactly where and when they can access them. That is a very important point and I look forward to movement on that.

I welcome the important tenet of the Bill to refrain from charging disabled people extra. It is so important to get that on to the statute book.

I very much welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s work on the Bill. Notably, he has consulted widely with disability groups as well as transport groups, and inserted practical safeguard balances into the Bill so that people providing services will not be penalised. It is well-balanced legislation that will move us forward positively.

As the Bill comes on to the statute book—as my right hon. and learned Friend said, that will be a couple of months after Royal Assent—it will be beholden on licensing authorities to become involved, but as has been mentioned, there are many pressures on local authorities. In Cumbria, we face radical local government restructuring to create two new unitary authorities. I have said many times that I am passionately against the restructuring, which is the last thing that a huge county such as Cumbria needs, and it is the worst possible time to be changing everything as we come out of a pandemic. That said, we are where we are and we need to make it work, but there will be pressures on the Cumbrian system to institute such changes.

I have been concerned about how the restructuring in Cumbria is leading to paralysis and inertia in decision making and in acting on legislation that may come through. To illustrate that, the local Liberal Democrat-led Eden District Council is delaying decisions on waste collections, so some villages in my constituency do not get green waste picked up while others do. The Liberal Democrat administration is blaming the previous Conservative administration and local government reform, and it is blaming central Government for the restructuring, which it cannot do anything about. That is not good enough. We cannot have delays in decision making because of such restructurings.

It is so important that we have connections across my constituency, so taxi drivers and private hire vehicle drivers are really important in that. It is also important, as colleagues have said, to have connectivity to other services. Rural buses have been highlighted often, and we have many fantastic local services for which volunteers have stepped up, such as the Fellrunner bus and the Border Rambler bus. Unfortunately, over the years we have seen increasing pressure on the rural bus network, so we have lost services.

Sadly, in 2014, Cumbria County Council took the retrograde decision to stop using central Government moneys to subsidise rural bus routes and, accordingly, some routes had to close as they were not financially viable. I urge local and central Government to ensure connectivity by working hard together and using moneys sensibly. In rural areas such as mine, people depend on the bus network, taxis and private hire vehicles.

Trains have also segued into the debate and, in my part of the world, I very much believe that we must improve train services. I have been campaigning for the reopening of Gilsland station and for the extension of the Borders railway from the borders down through Longtown in my constituency and on to Carlisle. We need joined-up thinking. The Bill is so important in improving equality of access to private hire vehicles and taxis, but I urge the Government to work with local government to ensure that our rural bus network is improved, bolstered and supported and that the train network is supported as well.

I raised many of those issues a couple of weeks ago in an Adjournment debate on support for levelling up rural communities. Bills such as this are very much about levelling up society, are they not? It is so important that such Bills come together, but we also need joined up-government to ensure connectivity across all walks of life. I firmly believe that this is an important Bill, which highlights the need to join up people in our communities, whether they are urban or rural.

We have highlighted some of the pressures in rural communities. Last night, I chaired a roundtable of rural stakeholders in my constituency. The pressures faced by such people, including farmers, due to the cost of living crisis include increasing fuel and diesel costs and increasing fertiliser costs. People in rural communities also have the cost of putting oil into their heating systems. I urge the Government to listen to those concerns and hope that, in the coming days, the Chancellor will try to mitigate some of the pressures that face our rural society.

In conclusion, I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam on the Bill, to which I give my full support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Loder Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

As I explained to the hon. Lady, my officials and I are in regular dialogue with SWR, working hard on the issue of services, because we absolutely understand that it is what matters to passengers right across the country. Services will be restored as soon as possible.

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

I very much welcome the news from the Prime Minister yesterday that services in Dorset and across the west country will be returned on 19 February. Will the Minister share with the House how we got to the place where an entire region of the United Kingdom—Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire and Devon—had its direct service to London completely severed and slashed in half, without MPs even being told about it?

[Wendy Morton]

I assure my hon. Friend that the Department continues to work closely with rail operators, as we work through mitigating the impact of staff absences on rail services. I assure him that the current temporary rail timetable is exactly that—temporary—but it is providing passengers, especially the country’s key workers, with certainty, so that they can plan as much as possible, with the confidence that we want. I really hope that as staffing pressures start to ease, alongside passenger demand increasing, we will see those rail services, which are key, starting to increase accordingly.

Draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Chris Loder Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 General Committees

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Stringer.

The last time I responded on behalf of the Opposition in a statutory instrument debate on the important matter of Brexit implications for our rail network I urged the Government to be ambitious in their view of our track connection to Europe. I urged them to support Eurostar services when covid-19 threatened their existence and to provide clarity on the important intricacies of rail services that run between here and mainland Europe. Sadly, neither was provided by the Government, so I am pleased to note that the regulations before us provide greater clarity on future train driving licences as the transition period relating to them comes to an end.

I think that we can all agree that as we legislate to implement the various consequences of leaving the European Union, safety regulations should be of the utmost importance. That is vital to ensuring the safety of passengers, protecting the highly skilled work of drivers and continuing the smooth running of our cross-border link. By doing so, we will guarantee that, as our network mergers with those of our European neighbours, proper regulation and legal requirements are met.

I hope that the new agreements reached will provide some clarity about the future framework of train driving licences for operators and drivers alike. The regulations will ensure that European train driving licences will not cease to be valid in the channel tunnel border area from 31 January 2022 and that British-held licences will be recognised up to Frethun freight and the passenger tunnels in Calais.

As the Minister said, the initial regulations provided a two-year recognition period, which will last until 31 January 2022, so the urgency of the matter is absolutely clear. However, I have some concerns that I would like the Minister to address. The SI stipulates that the ORR will continue not only to recognise the European train driving licences within the channel tunnel zone, but will ensure the issuing of British train driving licences. Can the Minister say whether that arrangement will continue when Great British Railways comes into operation? Will the body that will manage that entity have sufficient capacity to ensure that those processes continue? Although the Shapps-Williams plan for rail notes that the

“ORR’s existing role as safety regulator will continue”

some responsibilities will be taken on by Great British Railways. Considering that that new organisation will be operable by 2023, I know that operators and drivers would appreciate some clarity on the matter. Sadly, the proposed £2 billion cut to rail services does not fill me with confidence about that.

Much of the SI seems to rely on communication and information-sharing with our French counterparts, to ensure that safety and other related standards are met on our network. I hope that the Minister can assure me that measures are in place to ensure full co-operation on both sides. Can the Minister confirm that France is on track to sign the agreement? If not, what would be the impact? What steps would the Government take to mitigate the consequences? I know that the Government have a reputation for last-minute, often botched, agreements, but we must ensure that delays arising from unnecessary administrative burdens are avoided. We must heed what we have seen in the HGV sector.

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is this Government who have consistently sought to maintain the connection from the UK to the rest of Europe? Almost 12 years ago, the Government sought to connect London with Frankfurt by direct train. It was not the Government who sought to frustrate that with issues related to the channel tunnel, but the French Administration. Would the hon. Gentleman care to consider that fact?

[Mr Dhesi]

The Labour party has continually argued that the Government need to support Eurostar to ensure connections with mainland Europe, but they have ignored us time and again. The lack of services has been a bugbear for many right hon. and hon. Members with Kent constituencies, with trains no longer stopping at Ashford and Ebbsfleet. A great deal needs to be done and that is why many individuals are disappointed with the Government’s performance.

To ensure the smooth running of cross-border services should be an important priority for our rail network. Indeed, the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), shared that belief and noted just last year that the continuation of those services was needed to provide significant economic and social benefits. I hope that we bear that in mind in the future and seek to maximise the benefits for passengers, operators and freight services.

Smart Motorways

Chris Loder Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris]

That is a reasonable point. I certainly do not disagree with my right hon. Friend. I point out that our third inquiry was launched in response to concerns that the Committee had received about the increasing number of fatalities and to criticism by professionals, including coroners, about the risks that arise when we do not have hard shoulders, or when they are used as an additional lane.

As we heard in the Chair of the Committee’s opening remarks, the number of miles of motorway without a hard shoulder increased from 172 to 204 between 2017 and 2019. Over those two years, the number of deaths on motorways without a permanent hard shoulder increased from five to 15. At least 38 people have been killed on smart motorways in the past five years. On one section of the M25 outside London, the number of near misses has risen twentyfold since the hard shoulder was removed in April 2014.

Thanks to the dedication of bereaved families, the roll-out has been paused. As part of the Committee’s inquiry, we heard some of the most harrowing and moving evidence from the families of those who, tragically, have died on smart motorways. That testimony, I believe, was very valuable and I thank all those who gave evidence in person and in writing.

All lane running motorways were primarily a money-saving exercise. We skirted around that issue earlier. In the rationale, they were introduced to add capacity while delivering savings on capital, maintenance and operational costs compared with previous smart motorway designs. The aim was to achieve the savings required by the 2010 spending review while maintaining Highways Agency safety standards. Clearly, those motorways could reduce the costs of implementation by up to a quarter.

It is now evident, however, that cost-cutting has played a part in the utterly inadequate roll-out of smart motorway features. That has put lives at risk. Many of the problems with the safety of all lane running motorways remain, years after the original Transport Committee report.

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

National Highways has been given £27.4 billion this year. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it might be a case not of a shortage of cash at National Highways, but more a lack of focus on the need for safety?

[Grahame Morris]

Some important questions need to be asked, and agencies and individuals need to be held to account for the decisions made.

It is staggering that since the first smart motorways went live, those basic standard safety features referred to earlier and in the statement this morning have still not been fully implemented—that smart technology to detect broken-down vehicles in live lanes. Emergency refuge areas are too far apart. CCTV cameras on smart motorways are not routinely monitored, which is an incredible admission that the Committee uncovered. Compliance with and enforcement of red X signs remain problematic.

Cameras capable of enforcing compliance will not be fully rolled out until September this year. As the Chairman of the Committee alluded to, the Committee was originally promised that the deadline for that would be six years earlier and that those cameras and that technology would be implemented in 2019. Also, we have now been told that stopped-vehicle detection will not be rolled out across all lane running motorways until September this year, six years after the Transport Committee was told that the technology worked and would be part of the standard roll-out of these schemes.

Emergency services and traffic patrol officers still struggle to access incidents in a timely manner, especially during periods of heavy congestion. Of course, the introduction of all-electric vehicles brings a whole new dimension into potential chokepoints and road traffic accidents, if such vehicles were to run out of power on an all lane running motorway.

The Committee’s report makes it clear that engagement and clear communication with the public about smart motorways will be key to their safe and successful roll-out, so education is a key issue. However, almost half of the British public do not know what to do in the event of an emergency on a smart motorway. We do not have any smart motorways or all lane running motorways in the north-east, but my constituents travel down to London and use these roads, which do not have a hard shoulder, so education is absolutely vital. However, it was a profound mistake that the first public information awareness campaign about smart motorways was not launched until 2021, years after they came into operation.

We know that smart motorways, given their current form and inadequate safety standards, are not fit for purpose and put lives at risk. I believe that Ministers were wrong to press ahead with them when there was strong evidence that safety-critical features should be introduced as the sections of smart motorways were being developed.

I am pleased that the Government have acknowledged the Committee’s concerns and paused the roll-out of all lane running smart motorways until five years of safety and economic data is available, and improvements have been delivered and independently evaluated.

I will conclude with several questions for the Minister. First, is it not illogical that hundreds of miles of smart motorway will continue to be used? What about the remedial work? How is that being programmed? Does she agree that the delay of the roll-out programme, caused by the delays in installing the relevant technology to detect broken-down vehicles, has risked lives, and that the continuing use of hundreds of miles of smart motorways before remedial work has been carried out is a risk to public safety? And will she and the Department for Transport engage with the Transport Committee to agree what data will form part of the evidence-gathering assessment over the next five years to determine the relative safety of smart motorways?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate, Mr Hollobone, and to serve on the Transport Committee under its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman).

This report is the most substantial and impactful that the Transport Committee has produced for many years. It has looked to address some particularly difficult issues. All of us—both Members of Parliament and the Government—should ask ourselves why has it taken six years and three inquiries to get to this point? None the less, I am pleased that we have reached a point where a Transport Committee report has been accepted pretty much in its entirety by the Government.

My contribution will focus specifically on safety. Today, National Highways is focused on delivery, providing capacity and basically getting tarmac on the ground but, as I asked a senior director of National Highways at a recent meeting, how many people have to die on our national road network for National Highways to take safety seriously? How can it be that a fundamental part of the system—stopped-vehicle detection technology—was not working, despite the assurances that had been given to the Committee and others that it would be delivered? That is an absolute disgrace.

I hope the Minister will address that issue in her response. I look forward to hearing what she, her Department and the Secretary of State will do to address the issue. It is fair to say that very few people believe—I certainly do not—that National Highways take safety seriously enough or ensure it features in its decision making.

That leads me to the role of the Office of Rail and Road. As most Members here will know, before I came to this place my career was with the railways. I worked in the transport industry for 20 years, and I had many dealings with the ORR, in different ways. As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee said earlier, only 19 of the 350 employees of the ORR are focused on highways, because highway safety is not really part of the ORR’s portfolio.

In the same way that the ORR has safety responsibility for the railways, we should deal with the safety issue of our highways by having a proper safety regulator, in order to hold National Highways, and other organisations, to account. As we have seen in this report, and heard in other contributions, we have an organisation that has been able to wriggle out of delivering key safety measures. That is a national disgrace, and a matter of huge, enormous, personal pain for the families of those who have lost their lives on the smart motorway network.

In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee and the Transport Committee team for what they have done. This is undoubtedly the most impactful report we have seen for a long time. I am especially pleased that the Government have supported pretty much everything we said, but we now need to see the Government taking these actions forward. Going forward in my role on the Committee, I will focus on ensuring that the safety issues I have outlined, specifically around National Highways’ responsibility to deliver safety matters and the ORR’s responsibility to address safety, are dealt with in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

I absolutely can confirm that, and I will move on to that when I address Members’ comments. The Government are bringing forward work to ensure that it is complete by September, which is six months ahead of the previous target.

We are taking forward all the recommendations made by the Transport Committee, including the recommendation to pause the roll-out of future all-lane-running schemes in order to gather further safety and economic data. We want to make sure that we have five years of that data across a wider network of open all-lane-running motorways. We want to complete and evaluate the roll-out of measures within the stocktake, which the Secretary of State commissioned, and the action plan with its 18 actions. It will enable evidence to be gathered to inform a robust assessment of options for future enhancements of capacity on the strategic road network as we prepare for the next road investment strategy. We will also take forward the recommendations to pause the conversion of dynamic hard-shoulder smart motorways to all-lane-running motorways until the next road investment strategy.

We will retrofit more emergency areas across existing all-lane-running schemes. We will conduct an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of stopped-vehicle detection technology. We will explore the introduction of the emergency corridor manoeuvre into the highway code, and we will investigate the benefits of health and safety assessments being undertaken by the Office of Rail and Road.

[Chris Loder]

I thank the Minister for the points she is making. Can I press her on the point about health and safety assessments by the Office of Rail and Road? It is very clear from a lot of the work that we as a Committee have seen that there is a fundamental and systemic problem with the prioritising of safety within National Highways. Does she agree that the need to have an assessment might not be quite as substantial as it should be? Will her Department look to consider a substantial regulatory role for road safety within the ORR going forward?

Rail Investment and Integrated Rail Plan

Chris Loder Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have not been to his part of the country yet, but I am sure that I will make plans to shortly. I have no doubt about what he says, and I am entirely unsurprised by it. I am sure—or at least I hope—that the Secretary of State was listening to what he said.

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gavin Newlands]

I apologise to my Transport Committee colleague, but I promised to try to keep my contribution under 10 minutes because of the number of Members who want to contribute. [Interruption.] It is a devolved matter.

It is the usual pattern for Downing Street. Don’t like something? Ignore or marginalise it. Transport for the North speaking up for a real rail network, and against the Government’s plans? Neuter it out of any real existence. Afraid that the Welsh Government might use Barnett consequentials from HS2 spending in a way that shows up the paucity of ambition on the other side of the border? Just do not give them any. Worried that the Scottish Government will come to some different conclusions about what is needed for real connectivity across these isles? Just ignore them when they look for real engagement. And, dare I say it, do not like the rules about Christmas parties during a pandemic? Organise that secret Santa anyway.

To be crystal clear, the Minister, in his summing up, must confirm that Scotland and Wales will receive full Barnett consequentials from the English rail plan and confirm the level of consequentials and the timing, because the transfer of the funds simply cannot be punted down the track. Everyone on these isles would benefit from improved connectivity internally and externally, but instead of working collaboratively with the devolved Administrations, Mayors and combined authorities in England, once again Whitehall knows best, and Whitehall, as ever, knows London best.

[Chris Loder]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gavin Newlands]

I will give way once to the hon. Gentleman because he is persistent.

[Chris Loder]

I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way and it is always a pleasure to serve with him on the Transport Committee. In the interests of collaboration, which he just mentioned, would he care to share with the House why, during the Union connectivity review, the Scottish Government refused engagement on this issue from the United Kingdom Government to achieve that very point?

[Gavin Newlands]

As I have outlined, that is not true. We asked for engagement on a number of issues and those advances were rebuffed by the UK Government. [Interruption.] It is a simple fact.

In the last financial year, the east midlands saw spending on transport of £477 per person. London received £1,476 per head. Even allowing for the fairly extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic, if we go back another year, we see a similar picture: £377 per person versus £856 in London. On every metric going back decades, we find a similar picture, with every single region of England not just outstripped by London, but overpowered by multiples of 200%, 300% and even 400%.

This system is holding back every part of these isles while making sure that London gets the lion’s share year after year, decade after decade. For all the Government’s talk of levelling up, there is no sign, and nor has there been since time immemorial, of making the kind of investment in the rest of England that is deemed necessary in Greater London. Even assuming that every single inch of track and electrification laid out in the integrated rail plan actually happens—about which, given the precedents of cancellation that have been referred to in this debate, we are right to be sceptical—it will do little or nothing to close the gap between the north of England and London.

There is a fundamental flaw in not just how the UK is governed, but how policy is decided, that allows this kind of warped disparity to go not only unchecked, but positively encouraged by successive Administrations and Transport Secretaries. Again, places such as the north of England, the south-west and the midlands bear the brunt of that dysfunctional system.

Lest anyone thinks that it is just SNP Members calling out the Government for their failures, let me correct that record. The chair of Transport for the North called the integrated rail plan “woefully inadequate”. The former technical director of HS2 said:

“You can’t have prosperity without being well connected.”

The chair of the North East Joint Transport Committee said that the plan is

“a hammer-blow for the North East and…the very opposite of levelling up”.

And the chief executive of the Rail Industry Association asked:

“How certain can the railway industry be that the”—

plan—

“will actually be delivered, given what’s happened to the previous plan?”

Once again, the north of England is being let down by a Government whose action, if not their rhetoric, stops at the M25.

We in Scotland are well used to being let down over connectivity. Nearly three decades ago, we were promised direct rail links to Europe through the channel tunnel. Just as with HS2 to the north-east of England, those promises were buried as soon as it became politically expedient. Even the proposed sleeper trains were punted off to Canada, and what a mistake that looks now. Europe is seeing a rapid renaissance in cross-border sleeper trains. Today, anyone looking to avoid flying to Europe will be boarding in central London, not Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh or Glasgow.

Around the same time—[Interruption.] That is a bizarre contribution; I will take an intervention, but I would advise against it if that is what it would be. Around the same time, the old Strathclyde Regional Council brought forward plans for a new and modern light rail network for Glasgow. They were kiboshed as the UK Government were more interested in their dogmatic rush to privatise British Rail. Residents of Leeds should look into the history of the UK’s commitment to urban light rail in Scotland, given the promises now being made to them as a fig leaf to cover the HS2 cancellation. It was the UK Government who spent months and who knows how many fag packets drawing up madcap schemes for bridges over munitions dumps instead of working to improve our infrastructure in the real world. Knowing that, it was rich to hear the Scottish Secretary laud his Government’s Union connectivity review the other week. It is only since the dead hand of Westminster was removed from transport policy in Scotland that real progress on rail modernisation and a decarbonised future has been made.

It is the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Governments —in fairness, from three political parties on these Opposition Benches—who have upgraded, reopened, and decarbonised the four rail lines running between Scotland’s two biggest cities over the past two decades, and launched many other electrification projects, including Paisley Canal, which boosted demand by up to 35% at some stations. The length of track electrified in Scotland has gone up by nearly 50% since devolution under both SNP Governments and Labour-Lib Dem Administrations. In contrast, in England and Wales the increase is more like 14%.

It is the Scottish Government who have overseen the reopening of the Airdrie-Bathgate line, the current work on the Levenmouth rail link and, of course, the Borders Railway, with demand far outstripping predicted passenger numbers. We have got on with reversing Beeching without the need for exaggerated rhetoric, overpromising and underdelivering. It is also the Scottish Government who are taking our rail services back into public ownership, where they belong, from next year.

Scotland’s economic prosperity depends on not just our own domestic connectivity, but that of our neighbours. We want and need a prosperous and well connected north of England. Collectively, Scotland and the three northernmost regions of England have a population of 21 million. That is bigger than all but five EU member states, but nearly 16 million of those people are being let down by a UK Government and a Department for Transport who are stuck in a 19th-century mindset, where Whitehall is the centre of power and woe betide those who challenge its authority, as Transport for the North is now finding out.

To conclude, the north of England deserves better. The birthplace of the first steam railway, the first inter-city railway and the first purpose-built main line electric railway; the cradle of an industrial revolution where the railways and commerce went hand in hand—it is being let down, as it has been for decades, by a Westminster Government who lack vision, lack ideals, and above all lack commitment.

The new industrial revolution will be much different from that of the 19th century. It is about decarbonising our economy and society to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Scotland’s rail network will play its part by decarbonising all passenger services by 2035.

Britain’s Railways

Chris Loder Excerpts

Thursday 20th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s welcome of the policy paper and I know he is meeting the rail Minister on this as well. We will publish the pipeline for future railways works shortly and the hon. Gentleman’s effective representations will have been heard.

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

I support the comments made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) in respect of the Yeovil south-east chord. This announcement is absolutely brilliant news: it is the first clear statement we have had in this House on radical reform to our passengers’ benefit. It will also correct Labour’s disastrous Railways Act 2005, which further separated the railway, rather than reintegrated it. When a Member of Parliament has to point out to his local train operator that 15 lights at a train station are not working and the operator still cannot fix them, something is terribly wrong with the system today. That is one example. Will my right hon. Friend assure me personally that he will not only prevent franchise boundaries from being a blocker to further through services for regional connectivity, but work with me to sort out the dreadful frequency and continual issues we have on the Heart of Wessex line, which has the worst frequency in the entirety of England?

[Grant Shapps]

It is a pleasure to respond, on this last question, to somebody who has actually worked on the railways and understands these things. I feel for his franchise, because it has to deal with him and he will not take no for an answer—and quite right, too. He points out several things about this reform that are really important. The franchise boundaries, as he rightly describes them, cause too much disruption and fragmentation—that is the key thing that will end with Great British Railways bringing it all together and finally listening to the representatives of the people. I believe and have, I hope, strongly indicated through things such as the Beeching reversal fund that Members of Parliament in this place have an absolute right and duty to be involved in the way that services develop in their areas. I know that my hon. Friend and other Members throughout the House will appreciate that Great British Railways will be more responsive to them, as the rightful representatives of their constituents.

Railway Station: Gamesley

Chris Loder Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Largan]

My hon. Friend and county neighbour is an excellent champion for the people of Bolsover and I absolutely agree with him.

Gamesley station will not just benefit the people of Gamesley. The nearest station to Gamesley is Dinting. Demand at Dinting has grown significantly in recent years as more and more houses are built in the Glossop area, which has led to growing parking pressures at Dinting. Building the new station will help reduce those pressures, shorten commuting times for many people who drive to Dinting and, crucially, get more cars off the road. That would help address the notoriously bad traffic problems in the Glossop area.

Traffic is not a new problem. The need for the Mottram bypass has been talked about for over half a century, and traffic is now worse than ever. For many in the region, Glossop has become synonymous with traffic jams, so I am pleased the Government recognise that and that the Prime Minister recently backed building the bypass. It would not just be a gamechanger for people in places such as Glossop, Hadfield and Charlesworth, but would help address a major bottleneck in the national strategic road network between Manchester and Sheffield. We also need to address the traffic problems at Tintwistle, and I am pleased that the Government continue to study proposals for the trans-Pennine tunnel, which would reduce journey times in the region by around 30 minutes.

To solve the problem in the long term, however, we need not just to build the Mottram bypass, but to get more cars off the road, and Gamesley station would be a key part of that. People in High Peak are serious about tackling climate change, and Gamesley station would play a part in reducing carbon emissions and getting the local economy to net zero carbon. An awful lot of rat running goes through Gamesley and Charlesworth to Broadbottom station, and Gamesley station would remove the need for that. If done right, there is also an opportunity to link the new station to the Trans Pennine Trail, and the station can be linked by footpath to Simmondley.

I said at the start of my speech that Governments of all parties have failed to invest in our transport infrastructure for decades, but we now have a Government who have promised to build, build, build. The political will is clearly there, but we need more than just political will. We need to change our whole approach for infrastructure, and that means sorting out the Treasury Green Book rules and traditional WebTAG approach.

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. I agree with what he says about the Green Book, which the Government and the Treasury use in determining the economic value of infrastructure enhancements, particularly for rail. While the coronavirus has been devastating across the country, does he agree that there are many opportunities in terms of infrastructure, levelling up and ensuring that the models to which he refers can be recalibrated to help station projects such as Gamesley?

[Robert Largan]

My hon. Friend is an expert in rail matters and infrastructure projects and a real asset to this House. He is absolutely right that the current approaches just do not properly assess the true value of infrastructure projects. They fail to take fully into account the wider economic and social benefits of levelling up, and that has helped contribute towards the bias in spending on infrastructure projects towards London and the south-east.

When Transport for Greater Manchester and Derbyshire County Council complete the business case later this month, I hope the Government assess the proposals based on the wider benefits, rather than just narrowly focusing on outdated Treasury cost-benefit ratios. The cost of Gamesley station is modest—perhaps we could call it a rounding error in the Crossrail budget. We can also help to reduce the cost of infrastructure projects by getting the nuts and bolts of delivery right, focusing on things such as our infrastructure industries. The Chancellor’s great announcement about training schemes was welcome, and we should be thinking about focusing that on to the industries we need to deliver infrastructure investments.

[Chris Loder]

Does my hon. Friend also agree that leaving the European Union gives us an enormous opportunity to shed some of the shackles, rules and regulations that we have had to contend with for decades and that have massively increased the costs of building train stations such as Gamesley?

[Robert Largan]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are huge opportunities ahead for places such as Gamesley.

By building Gamesley station, the Government can offer a helping hand and send a clear message to the people of Gamesley that they are not forgotten. It is time to deliver on the promise made 52 years ago and build Gamesley station.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Loder Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

Absolutely. The £3 billion, which is going into new buses, will help us to produce 4,000 additional buses. We want them to be low and zero-carbon electric buses, of course, but also hydrogen buses, so we will certainly be taking that forward. I will be saying more about that very shortly.

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to support commercial bus routes that are in service during the covid-19 outbreak.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

When he next plans to meet with representatives of bus and coach operators.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)]

The Government are providing significant funding for the bus industry at this time. Our covid-19 funding package for England’s buses totals £651 million. The Government provide £43 million annually to local authorities for supporting socially necessary services, plus £30 million of additional funding in 2021 to support, improve or restore services. Ministers and officials meet regularly with key stakeholders, including local transport authorities and operators to discuss a wide range of matters.

[Chris Loder]

The Government’s public messaging to discourage the non-essential use of buses, and of open-access trains for that matter, is deeply damaging commercial routes that rely on public fares to remain viable. Will the Minister commit to reviewing that message and to safeguarding those commercial routes, such as the rural bus routes in my constituency of West Dorset?

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend is right. We obviously keep all measures under review at all times, but our priority is always to keep the public safe. Thanks to the support that the Government have put into the bus industry, the vast majority of bus services in England are currently running.