Road User Charging Schemes

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Theresa Villiers]

No, the hon. Lady will get her turn in a moment.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Theresa Villiers]

I am going to make some progress.

Constituents stop me in the street to tell me how much they oppose Mayor Khan’s proposal. A protest I organised, which I was expecting to attract about 10 people and be rather low key, attracted a crowd of about 60. Outer London high streets in places such as Barnet are already suffering from the big switch to online retail, accelerated by the pandemic; losing their customers from outside London could be a killer blow.

Our public services in outer London depend heavily on workers who do not live in the capital. Schools, the NHS and the police already struggle to recruit the people they need. Setting up a ULEZ pay wall around London will make that task even harder and place even greater pressure on NHS waiting times.

Many people living in areas around London will find that they cannot avoid driving into the capital to work, to care for relatives or for hospital appointments. They will have to pay, despite never having a vote in an election for the Mayor of London. That is a shocking example of taxation without representation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) pointed out in this Chamber only a few weeks ago.

The issue is made worse by Transport for London’s unhelpful and negative approach to cross-border bus services, such as the 84 service in my constituency. The operator discontinued the route between Potters Bar and Barnet last year after concluding that it was not commercially viable. However, despite many appeals from me and others, TfL and the Mayor have not lifted a finger to get it reinstated. The Mayor promises that the ULEZ expansion will fund transport improvements, but there is no sign of them so far. The one orbital bus route that has been announced will be a wholly inadequate substitute for the millions of journeys that will be hit by the new charging scheme.

The ULEZ proposal comes on top of a host of anti-car measures. Too often, schemes such as low traffic neighbourhoods and segregated cycle lanes have worsened congestion, transferring traffic from leafier, more prosperous areas to main roads that are home to more disadvantaged communities, which may be hotspots for air pollution. When it comes to the radical schemes seen in London over recent years aimed at promoting cycling, we need to balance the interests of the small minority who cycle with those of the majority who do not, including the elderly and people with mobility impairments for whom getting on a bike is just not a viable option.

It is not acceptable that taxies are being caught up in Mayor Khan’s war on the motorist. Nearly half the licensed taxi fleet is now zero-emission capable, and within a decade, all licensed taxis are expected to be electric. Licensed taxis are a crucial part of our public transport system, and the only form of fully accessible door-to-door transport in our city. There is no justification for excluding them from Bank, Bishopsgate or Tottenham Court Road, as is currently the case. That goes against years of cross-party consensus that meant that taxis could go wherever buses could.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for leading the debate.

At the outset, I have to say that I fully support the sentiment of both the petitions we are discussing today, but I will primarily speak to the petition that refers to a desire to amend the GLA Act 1999 to remove the Mayor of London’s power to impose road user charges. The issue has been brought into very sharp focus by the Mayor of London’s decision late last year to move forward with the expansion of the ultra low emission zone to the Greater London boundary, a policy that I have spoken about in the House a number of times.

My Orpington constituents are part of the London Borough of Bromley, which will be impacted by the decision. My constituents are overwhelmingly opposed to the expansion of ULEZ, which they see quite rightly as a tax-grabbing scheme to fill the holes in Transport for London’s finances. Moreover, it is a tax-grabbing scheme misleadingly dressed up as an environmental measure. Despite a growing clamour and loud discontent, the Mayor is continuing with its implementation. Indeed, he has effectively made a mockery of the public consultation on his plans by ignoring the fact that it showed that over 60% of those consulted were against the scheme, including 70% of those living in outer London.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed that TfL began ordering hundreds of the number plate recognition systems required for the expanded ULEZ in April 2022, a full month before the public consultation even started. Documents obtained by the London Assembly Conservative group show that the Mayor’s office, having been briefed that the vast majority of consultation responses coming in were opposed to the expansion, then attempted to influence the outcome by targeting an advertising campaign at particular groups of people who were more likely to respond favourably. There also appears to be a strong indication that City Hall attempted to suppress responses from certain individuals in order to make the outcome appear closer than it was.

It is completely clear that the Mayor was never interested in any opinion that did not concur with his own, including that of my constituents. Time and again, he has shown himself to be entirely unrepentant in his determination to impose prohibitively high extra costs on Londoners. Orpington simply does not have the public transport alternatives that exist in central London. We do not have the tube. We do not have trams. We have a bus network that is far from comprehensive and is unreliable. We have country lanes, farms and hedgerows. It is a vast place, and people need their cars to get around.

My inbox and postbag have been full of messages from people who are desperately worried because they own a non-compliant vehicle and can afford neither the daily charge nor the cost of a replacement vehicle. For some, the expansion will simply mean that they are not able to drive any more. Indeed a TfL-commissioned report by the consultancy firm Jacobs, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), was published in May 2022 and warned of a disproportionate impact on low-income households due to their lesser capacity to switch to a compliant vehicle and/or to change mode.

The Labour party likes to hector everybody about the cost of living, but this scheme is by one of their own Mayors and it will hit people on low incomes the most, because they are more likely to have an older vehicle. Elderly constituents have written to me distraught about how they may no longer be able to go out and do their weekly shop or see family and friends because they cannot afford to drive their cars. They are terrified of isolation. They have survived the pandemic, but they may not survive this.

Single traders have told me that they will no longer be able to operate. Social care workers have told me that they will have to leave the profession. My local higher education college has told me that the impact on large numbers of their staff will be devastating. I must agree with small business owners, who are rightfully complaining that after the pandemic the ULEZ charge is a crippling additional cost they do not need at this time. Restaurants and venues within the ULEZ will see a reduction in footfall. The Mayor clearly fails to grasp that a painter and decorator or a builder or tree surgeon cannot take their tools up and down escalators and compete for space on public transport.

To add insult to injury, the scheme may close businesses in Orpington. One of my constituents recently told me that he will have to give up his business, because if he is forced to buy a new vehicle or pay £12.50 every day, it will no longer be viable. That is the reality of the situation—businesses closed, family visits severely restricted and workers worse off. All of that is about to be imposed by the Mayor of London at a time when the cost of living is increasing. That arrogance and total disregard for the great difficulties that will be imposed on less affluent people are driving my constituents to despair, and the scheme is entirely unnecessary.

[Elliot Colburn]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he share my surprise that, when challenged in the London Assembly on the issue, a Labour member responded to those worried about the cost of living by saying, “Go and buy a new car; it will only cost £3,000.”?

[Gareth Bacon]

I would like to say that I am surprised by that answer, but I am afraid that I am not. It comprehensively shows the lack of grip from some of the people making the decisions that we are talking about. I remind Members present that every single member of the Labour group on the London Assembly voted in favour of this when they had the opportunity to stop it, as did every member of the Liberal Democrats group and every member of the Green group.

The Mayor’s own independently produced “London-wide ULEZ Integrated Impact Assessment” states:

“The Proposed Scheme is estimated to have a minor (NO₂) to negligible (PM_2.5)…impact on exposure to air pollution”.

Asthma UK ranks Bromley and Havering as the second and first boroughs, respectively, in terms of the cleanest air quality in the capital, so why should my constituents have the ULEZ imposed on them in this way? Improving air quality sounds great on paper and might earn the Mayor of London brownie points from rich Labour donors who finance anti-democratic pressure groups such as Just Stop Oil, but the reality is that the scheme will change little in terms of air quality.

Devolution, as personified in the form of elected metro Mayors, has created a form of electoral dictatorship in certain regions of the country. Most metro Mayors have almost no elected scrutiny of their actions and no local checks on their power. The London Assembly has done valuable work in scrutinising the Mayor, but in practice it is a toothless tiger in terms of its ability to check his power. The expanded ULEZ will do little to improve air quality, but it is likely to go ahead because the Mayor and local authorities have the power to create clean air zones even if they are flawed. That power needs urgent review.

Section 143 of the GLA Act 1999 appears to offer hope to my constituents, because on the face of it the section gives the Secretary of State for Transport the power to direct the Mayor of London with regard to his transport strategy under certain conditions. However, I am aware that Department for Transport lawyers apparently see that as a grey area. So let us put the issue beyond doubt and do the right thing: let us agree with the petitioners and seek to remove the power of Mayors and local authorities to unilaterally impose these charges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Johnson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why it has been so good that Kentish MPs have been working with our distant cousins from across the border in the smoky town. These are hon. Friends who, over this issue, would quite like to be in Kent—but we will not let them.

It is important that we make the point about the penalty notices. Income from penalty notices has been factored in by the Mayor of London in the overall budgeting for this. The Mayor relies on people forgetting to pay, or not knowing that they have to pay. That is part of the impact that the Mayor is placing on us.

As has been said a few times in this debate, the charging scheme is not about air quality. That is the façade that has been used. In Dartford we have poor air quality. We suffer from the impacts of westerly winds and the Dartford crossing, and as a consequence we have poor air quality. Therefore, if it was about air quality, I would be one of the first people to be sympathetic, but it is not about that. If it was about air quality, Sadiq Khan would be banning vehicles from London. He does not want to ban them; he just wants to make money out of them—and he needs to make a certain amount.

We know that the London underground is far more polluted than the air on the streets, yet the policy will force more people to use the underground and so suffer a bigger impact because of the quality of the air they will be breathing. The scheme has absolutely nothing to do with air quality. At the moment, the Mayor of London is doing away with our daily travel cards, which again pushes more people on to the London underground, where the air quality is far worse.

[Gareth Bacon]

At recent public meetings, the Mayor of London equated the expansion of the ultra low emission zone to the banning of smoking in pubs. Would my hon. Friend agree that the banning of smoking in pubs was not subject to a £12.50 charge—as if someone paying £12.50 would not be polluting the air in the pub while smoking? The comparison between the two is completely and utterly bonkers.

[Gareth Johnson]

Absolutely. It is also fair to say that in any consultations that took place at the time, the majority of people were in favour of banning smoking in pubs. Even if we accept wholeheartedly what the Mayor of London has said about the consultation process, we know that a majority of people do not support the ULEZ expansion. It was a sham consultation. What is the point in having a consultation and totally ignoring its outcome? There are lots of rumours that the cameras were bought before it took place, and that therefore there was never any chance of Sadiq Khan rolling back on the policy. He was hellbent on expanding the ULEZ no matter what anybody said, and no matter what the outcome.

What we have not heard is Sadiq Khan saying that he will not move the goalposts. I firmly believe that he has in mind the fact that he has to earn a certain amount of money to pay for the infrastructure that he will put in—£250 million, for a start—and to fill the black hole in his finances. If too many people switch to compliant vehicles, he will move the goalposts, so the next category of vehicles will no longer be ULEZ compliant, until all petrol and diesel cars are not compliant and are therefore charged. The Mayor of London has not ruled that out, and I firmly believe that it will happen. This is not the end, but the beginning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elliot Colburn]

I have long been opposed to ULEZ.

[Gareth Bacon]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the inner London ultra low emission zone is contained in the congestion charging zone, which has a massive surplus of public transport alternatives and demonstrably worse and less clean air than outer London? That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) was in favour of it while she was leader of Westminster City Council and why it was supported when it was initially consulted on under the mayoralty of Boris Johnson by the GLA Conservative group.

Outer London is completely different. It does not suffer from the same bad air or have the public transport alternatives. That may help the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) to understand why there is a very big difference between the inner London ultra low emission zone and the outer London ultra low emission zone proposed by the Mayor.

[Elliot Colburn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Characteristically, and as a former member of the London Assembly, he is absolutely right. Indeed, I imagine that our hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) may have been less supportive at the time if she had known that, only a few years later, the Mayor would be looking to cut the historic No. 11 bus route out of central London and her constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

There is absolutely no doubt that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The owner of a small business who literally carries the tools of their trade in the back of their van does not have other options. Even if people are not the owners of small businesses but are just commuting to work in a car or van, the Mayor has now hit them on the other side with a day travel card, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) said. In addition to those extra £50 million of costs, they are being told to use public transport and then told to pay an absolutely huge amount more for it, particularly if they are coming from outside the Greater London area. Again, that is a change that hon. Members have been reflecting on today. It means that the people affected by the change pay more but still do not have any say over the person responsible. That is part of the democratic deficit argument that Members have talked about.

I need to move on to local government powers around air quality. Powers enabling local authorities to introduce road schemes that charge users are of long standing. They can be used by local authorities to deliver what they want in their areas. There are no plans to revoke these powers, which are in the Transport Act 2000. They provide local authorities with an important tool. It is for local authorities to make decisions and to be accountable for those decisions.

We require local authorities to consult on these schemes. The Prime Minister has spoken at the Dispatch Box—I think it was in response to a question from one of the hon. Members here today; it might have been my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon)—on the consultation around the ULEZ scheme. The Prime Minister thought it would be a sensible idea for the Mayor of London to think again and I tend to agree with him. This scheme needs to be thought about again, more broadly.

These powers have been used by some local authorities in various areas, but what I would say to all local authorities across the country is that if they want to take people with them, they should not try to drive people out of using cars; they should provide better quality alternatives. It is particularly sad to see the Mayor of London reducing some bus routes, particularly historical bus routes, and not allowing that alternative when people really need it. I have pledged before to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) that I will speak to the transport commissioner in London about the No. 84 bus. I will see the commissioner in the next few weeks, and I will do so again.

The Government recognise the need to support a range of solutions across the board for individuals and businesses affected by measures to tackle air pollution. That is why we have already awarded £402 million through the clean air fund to some of the local authorities that face some of the most pernicious negative impacts of air quality that are also difficult to mitigate.

Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, transport in London is devolved to the Mayor and Transport for London. It is the Mayor’s responsibility to manage and oversee the transport network. This includes the power to create, or vary, road schemes that charge users, which is why the petitioners drafted their petition in the way that they did. It is up to the Mayor to determine and justify what he is doing.

The mayoralty in London has previously used those powers to introduce the congestion zone, the low emission zone and the current smaller ULEZ in central London. When the Mayor brought forward his transport strategy, which was voted on, it could have been rejected by the members of the GLA, but instead it was supported by every party in the GLA apart from the Conservatives. That is where the Mayor gets his ability to do this from.

[Gareth Bacon]

The GLA Act gives the London Assembly the power to accept or veto mayoral strategies, including the transport strategy, but only on the proviso that two thirds of elected members of the GLA agree on an alternative, which means that of the 25-member GLA, 17 would have to agree on the alternative. The electoral system for the London Assembly guarantees that no one party will be able to achieve that; Labour votes would have been required to achieve that. That is why the Mayor’s budget has never been amended and why no strategies have ever been amended. Does the Minister agree that that is precisely why the petitioners have put forward this petition today? The London Assembly does not have the effective power to veto the Mayor’s transport strategy, which is why the petitioners are calling on the Government to step in and do that.

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. What is particularly interesting today about Labour Members is how few of them are here. In fact, no Labour Back Bencher is here. I would be really interested to know why that is the case. It is clear to me that a few of them, secretly and in the background, would go against their party leader, the Leader of the Opposition, who is fully behind Mayor Khan’s plan for the massive expansion of the ULEZ. I think a few of them would like to speak up in that way.

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes and I will address it directly at the end of my remarks, if I may, but I think it is very important that we also say to people, “If you want change, then rather than trying to change the rules or the legislation in this place, you can change the person in charge of implementing them.” That is the most important message that we can send today, and a really important way of sending that message in the very near future is to deliver it in Uxbridge in the next few weeks—sorry, Mrs Murray, I digressed slightly there.

The mayoralty in London has previously used the GLA Act to introduce various measures, and there has been a significant reduction in nitrous oxide as well as particulates and other pollutants over the last few years, but that is due to improvements in engines as well as to other factors. The Mayor of London needs no agreement from the Government or the London boroughs to pursue his proposed expansion of the ULEZ under the current law, and although the current Mayor notified the Department for Transport of his intention to expand the ULEZ, he is not obliged by the legislation to consult the Department. At the last mayoral election, in 2021, the Mayor stood on a manifesto that included a pledge to expand the ULEZ to the boundary of the North and South Circular Roads; his manifesto did not say that the ULEZ would be expanded to the boundary of Greater London. To implement his preferred option of expanding the ULEZ, the Mayor had to revise his transport strategy, and this was subject to a consultation and a vote in the London Assembly.

The car is an important, and often the only, way for people to get around in their daily lives; the same is true of small vans. These vehicles are particularly needed for people who have limited mobility—another element to this issue that we all need to consider at the moment. People depend on their vehicles for food, for their health, for their livelihoods and to visit friends and family. They should be given a choice of how they travel. Imposing obstacles and doing so during a cost of living crisis is quite a blow to those who need their cars, who have no real alternative and whose choice is being removed. The Mayor could have proposed other, less intrusive measures to improve air quality in the capital, but he did not; instead, he and has chosen to expand the ULEZ. That is his decision, and he has the power to do it under the current law.

Before I conclude my remarks, I want to touch on the rest of the country, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North also raised important points. One area where we do recognise an emerging inconsistency is in the powers of local authorities to look at charging systems where the approach taken in London differs from those outside the capital. The judicial review of the Mayor’s proposal is being heard in July. At the moment, I cannot speak in much greater detail about that, aside from saying that the case will be heard on four grounds—it was two previously, before the recent appeal—including how the Mayor conducted his consultation, and his scrappage scheme. Clearly, it would not be proper to comment on that, but we have seen the difficulty that the inconsistency in local authority powers can create, with four London borough councils, alongside Surrey County Council, challenging the decision. It is important to recognise that. As many hon. Members have said, constituents being impacted without their having the ability to change the Mayor is a real issue.

Outside London, combined authorities have their own locally agreed decision-making processes. For road schemes that charge users, powers are typically held by combined and local authorities, and some degree of local authority agreement is required to introduce schemes. That is separate and different from the situation in Greater London. Two decades on from the re-establishment of the mayoralty of London, it is right that the Government take stock of how London’s devolution settlement is operating in practice, which is why the Government are committed to reviewing the London devolution settlement as part of the English devolution accountability framework more broadly.

I am not in a position today to announce any change to the Government’s position on this issue—it is more proper for Ministers in other Departments to fully reflect on it—but I recognise the strength of feeling not only of hon. Members present but of the petitioners. I commit to raising the concerns expressed during the debate with ministerial colleagues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Holden]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman said that, because through the city regional sustainable transport settlement this Government have provided billions of pounds of long-term funding for greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and other combined authorities right across the country, allowing them to do that long-term investment. Labour might claim credit for it on the ground, but this Government are providing the money to allow it to happen.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with Transport for London on plans to expand the Ultra-Low Emission Zone.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)]

Transport in London is devolved to the Mayor of London, and he is accountable to the electorate for the decisions that he makes, including those regarding road schemes that charge users. We have been clear that Government grant funding, via the longer term funding settlement, cannot be used to cover the cost of implementing the scheme.

[Gareth Bacon]

Several outer London boroughs have refused to enter into section 8 agreements with Transport for London to allow ULEZ cameras to be installed on their roads. Sadiq Khan believes that he can override the boroughs and install his hated ULEZ expansion without their permission. Ministers have previously said that they would get legal advice on that. What advice has been received?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend has been campaigning strongly on behalf of his constituents against the expansion of the ULEZ scheme. Under schedule 23 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Mayor of London and Transport for London have the relevant statutory powers to install the infrastructure required for the expansion without obtaining the London boroughs’ consent. That reinforces my earlier answer that the Mayor of London is accountable. If electors in London do not like what is going on, they have the power to deal with it at the ballot box.

Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution —I am of course the Member of Parliament for Swansea West, but I was formerly the leader of Croydon Council and an MP for Croydon—to support the ultra low emission zone. I am horrified to see so many outer London Conservatives gambling with people’s lives for their own political survival. We are 70 years on from the great London smog, yet 4,000 people in London are dying prematurely, 11 every day, from air pollution. As leader of Croydon Council, I introduced the Tramlink, 26 km of light rail. When I was in Croydon, I had to regularly take my oldest daughter to Mayday Hospital with asthma attacks because of air pollution. Now, in Swansea, my children have not had to go to hospital.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman familiar with the report produced by Jacobs entitled “ULEZ Scheme Integrated Impact Assessment”? If he is, how does he square his comments about Conservative Members from outer London not caring about people dying of air pollution with statements in that report such as this?

“The Proposed Scheme is estimated to have a minor (NO₂) to negligible (PM_2.5) beneficial impact on exposure to air pollution and achieving WHO Interim Targets across Greater London.”

[Geraint Davies]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman mentioned that, because the expectation is that the expansion of the ULEZ will reduce PM_2.5 in outer London by 16%. He should know, but I am sure he does not, that studies at Harvard University and a Max Planck Institute found that covid deaths increased by between 8% and 12% when there was a marginal increase in air pollution from PM_2.5—an increase much less significant than the fall that I mentioned. That is particularly relevant to poorer, more polluted areas and more diverse communities. We are talking here about life and death.

We know from studies done that there will be a massive reduction in PM_2.5 and Nox as a result of the expansion. Indeed, there will be a major contribution towards mitigating climate change. The scheme already reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 12,300 tonnes; an expanded one will reduce it by 27,000 tonnes. We will be saving lives and saving the planet. The truth is that if we do not act, we will end up with 550,000 more people unnecessarily getting pollution-related diseases in the next 30 years, at an estimated cost of £10.4 billion. We should move forward on this. People who are neutral, such as the chief medical officer Chris Whitty, who has just released a report on air pollution, very much commend what Sadiq Khan is doing to save lives, as does the United Nations.

As a result of the ULEZ, there are 21,000 fewer vehicles in inner London and 67,000 fewer non-compliant ones—the latter figure is three times the former—so there are fewer vehicles overall. The scheme affects only 15% of vehicles—the most polluting—and £110 million has been set aside for scrappage schemes to enable conversion. The other thing to bear in mind is that the Government a year ago passed the Environment Act 2021. I wanted them to use COP26 to enforce World Health Organisation air quality standards, but instead, a year on, the Government are saying, “Why do we not try to get PM_2.5 at 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2040?”, as opposed to 2030, which was the previous deadline. The limit prescribed by the World Health Organisation is 5 micrograms, which Europe will achieve by 2030. We could achieve that here—this is a condition of doing so—with ultra low emission zones. Instead, the Conservative position is, “No, we will not bother with that. We will play politics with this, and continue to have 3,600 children every year in London going into hospital with asthma”, as my daughter did. That is unnecessary—and despicable, because it is avoidable.

[Geraint Davies]

I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman supports trams. I very much agree that we should move forward with trams across London and elsewhere. As an aside, the tram system cost us £200 million at the time. It was a public-private scheme with £100 million of private money and £100 million of public. We could get 1,000 of those schemes and integrated transport across Britain for the cost of HS2, but that is controversial and off the point.

We should certainly take people with us; the YouGov poll shows that people support the extension of the ULEZ by a ratio of 2:1. It is very easy to go round knocking on people’s doors and saying, “Do you agree with Sadiq Khan’s attempt to tax you more in this despicable way?”, but if we do a neutral, objective study through YouGov, we find that people support it by 2:1.

[Gareth Bacon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geraint Davies]

Yes, I will. The hon. Gentleman can carry on with more of his science.

[Gareth Bacon]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figures quoted by Conservative Members come from the Mayor’s own consultation, in which 66% of people said, “No, don’t do this”? That was despite being asked a load of leading questions about air quality. Despite that, it delivered a two-thirds opposition. That was not people knocking on doors; that was the Mayor’s own consultation.

[Geraint Davies]

So that we are clear about how these consultations work, the Mayor, a devolved Administration or whatever puts out a consultation that says, “Tell us what you think”, and then groups of people campaign around it. They put in their submission and await the outcome. YouGov takes a representative sample; it found that people are in favour by 2:1. That is the answer. The hon. Gentleman should read up on how these things work, rather than spouting off about how they do not.

In a nutshell, we are talking about ensuring better public health, and ensuring that we reach World Health Organisation standards in time. This is a critical part of moving forward, because London is a sort of death spot in terms of pollution. If we do not get London right, we cannot move together as a nation. We will end up with these ridiculously unambitious targets of 10 micrograms by 2040, instead of 5 micrograms by 2030. I very much agree with what the Mayor has done; best of luck to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) for securing this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who was right that I have taken a deep interest in the ultra low emission zone expansion for some time, and that is because there are a number of big problems with the policy.

The first problem is that Sadiq Khan does not have a mandate for this policy. He claims that ULEZ expansion is essential to tackle air pollution, and we heard his briefing being faithfully read out by the hon. Members for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson). Given that the Mayor was re-elected to City Hall only last year, we would imagine that this policy featured prominently in his manifesto, but it did not. He went to the polls on a 100-page manifesto, and one paragraph on page 55 mentioned the ultra low emission zone, but it pertained specifically to the extension to the north and south circular in October 2021, which he had already announced. There was no mention whatever of expanding the boundary to the outer part of Greater London.

When the Mayor decided in May this year to push ahead with that expansion, the Evening Standard article that covered the announcement said:

“On Friday morning, Sadiq Khan insisted that he would not press ahead with the plans if the public overwhelmingly rejected them during the public consultation.

He said: ‘It’s a genuine consultation—as were the previous two consultations in relation to the central London Ultra-Low Emission Zone and the expansion. I hope Londoners who care about the health of their families will respond.’”

They did, in large numbers, but the Mayor initially refused to release the results of that consultation. Eventually, after public pressure, the results were released on 25 November. They revealed that 60% of respondents opposed Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ expansion to outer London. That figure increases to 68% when we include the organised responses that the hon. Member for Swansea West mentioned; 70% of outer London residents oppose the expansion and 80% of those who work in outer London were also opposed.

This policy has no mandate and no public support. It turns out that it is not about air quality, either, contrary to the propaganda read out by Opposition Members, which comes directly from the briefing sent by the Mayor of London. The document I quoted earlier is not a hatchet job, but the Mayor’s own integrated impact assessment. I gave one example, but there are many, of where it uses phrases like “negligible to minor” in terms of the impact that the expansion would have on air quality.

There is no mandate, there is no public support and it is not really about air quality, because the impact is negligible. So why is the Mayor of London so interested in ULEZ expansion, and why is he rushing it? The answer is as old as time: it is about money. This is a cash grab, pure and simple. According to Transport for London’s own figures, it expects the £12.50 charge to hit 160,000 cars and 42,000 vans per day. In monetary terms, that is about £2.5 million per day—a big cash injection into the Mayor’s coffers.

There is a question about timing. When the inner and outer ULEZs were introduced, people had years to prepare. In this case, we have nine months. The average family cannot save up to buy a car that quickly, especially when household bills are rising, and we know that they are. Small businesses and charities may be forced to replace one vehicle or even a fleet that they had banked on being able to use for many years to come.

Who will be hit? The Mayor of London does not seem to understand who will pick up the bill for his policies. It is not wealthy Londoners—it is ordinary working people, on the poorer end of the socioeconomic spectrum, who are less likely to be able to upgrade their car, and more likely to own an older vehicle. There is a myth that Mayor Khan attempts to spread around that low-income Londoners do not own cars, or drive in Greater London. That is categorically false. What is more, he knows it. The “Travel in London” report produced by TfL in 2019 shows that, by its own analysis, 50% of outer London households earning as little as £10,000 own a car. Car ownership rockets to in excess of 70% for those earning upwards of £20,000. According to TfL’s impact assessment, low-income Londoners are more likely to own non-compliant vehicles. The ULEZ expansion is not a tax on wealthy drivers, but on poorer people who simply cannot afford to buy a new vehicle.

In my constituency, we do not have tubes or trams. We have trains that go into central London and we have private vehicles. Some 83% of Orpington households own a car, meaning that a great number of my constituents could be liable to pay the charge. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), many of my constituents use their car every day to go to work, to the shops and to visit family and friends. Under the Mayor’s plan, they face a potentially disastrous annual bill of £4,500.

Other Members have spoken about the impact on public services. More than half of Greater London’s police officers and firefighters and around a fifth of the workers in my local NHS trust come into Greater London from outside. Those who work in outer London and those who work in shift work are especially reliant on their cars. Someone on a night shift faces a double whammy of a £12.50 charge driving to work, and a £12.50 charge after midnight when they drive home. It could cost them £25 per shift to go and do their work.

The ULEZ expansion will also impact on businesses in outer London. Many people drive in from Kent to shop in Petts Wood in my constituency. TfL estimates that 8% have non-compliant vehicles. Rather than paying £12.50 a time, many will simply choose to shop and visit elsewhere, depriving London’s high streets of customers.

Many drivers, both in London and those who travel from outside to work, shop or visit outer boroughs, are unaware that they may face an even higher bill. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford about the increase in the level of fines—up to £180. The Mayor has just hiked the fine from £130 to £160, and will go further from January next year, raising it to £180. If a driver crosses into Greater London, perhaps unaware of the boundary or unaware of the existence of the charge or that their vehicle is not compliant, they will unknowingly rack up a cripplingly high bill. Potentially as many as 12,000 cars and vans a day may be hit by a fine.

The RAC estimates that Transport for London could raise £260 million a year by imposing those penalties. To put that into context, Churchill Insurance estimated that the total parking fines raised by every council in the country combined would come to £250 million—£10 million lower than Transport for London would make with those penalties in the first year. TfL could in fact earn significantly more than that, because if not all drivers pay within 14 days—reducing the penalty from £180 to £90—that could raise £390 million every year.

The Mayor of London has not been a success in office. The Metropolitan police and the London Fire Brigade are both in special measures. Violent crime has reached record highs, and it has not abated. He is not on target to deliver enough affordable homes, despite what he boasted about as being the largest settlement from central Government on record. Crossrail was years late and billions of pounds over budget, with billions more lost in fares that were never raised.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to get back on to low emission zones.

[Gareth Bacon]

Indeed I am. The point I am trying to make is that Sadiq Khan is looking for something he can point to and claim as his. Leaving aside the fact that the ultra low emission zone was not even his idea—it was conceived and the preparatory work was done under my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)—the Mayor has adopted it as his big idea. The expansion of the ultra low emission zone to outer London has no mandate or popular support. It will do almost nothing for air quality, it will be economically damaging and it will hit the poorest hardest—damaging not just those who live in outer London but millions who live outside Greater London. It is an appalling and unjust policy and it should be scrapped.

Smart Road Pricing

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing this important and increasingly topical debate.

Finding new ways to justify charging motorists to drive their cars is becoming increasingly fashionable among certain politicians in this country, especially in London. Just last week, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, announced a consultation on expanding the ultra low emission zone to the Greater London boundary. He claims, of course, that it is to do with air quality and congestion, but it is not.

I am holding up a map taken from Transport for London’s website at the time when it was investigating setting up the ultra low emission zone. There is a colour code. Yellow is the legal limit for air pollution in London. The worse the air gets, the redder or more orange the map gets; the better the air gets, the bluer or greener it gets. As hon. Members can see, bad air quality is located in central London, around Heathrow airport and on some of the trunk roads into and out of those areas. There is not bad air quality outside the North and South Circulars or in outer London.

The expansion of the zone is actually about raising revenue—not surprising, given the financial mess that Transport for London is in. It is true, of course, that the pandemic hurt Transport for London grievously, and it would not be sensible to deny that. However, a catalogue of blunders preceded the pandemic, such as the unaffordable fares freeze, which, by its own calculation, cost Transport for London at least £640 million although likely much more. There was the failure to maximise the commercial revenue for Transport for London and of course the complete mess that Sadiq Khan made on the oversight of Crossrail. The Mayor’s TfL business plan was predicated and extremely reliant on the revenue that Crossrail was going to deliver if it was on time and on budget. But thanks to the Mayor’s failure to adequately scrutinise Crossrail despite his role as chairman of Transport for London, which is the overseeing body, TfL is now short of billions of pounds of fares revenue that it would otherwise have raised.

Expanding the ultra low emission zone to the Greater London boundary will have shattering consequences for people living in outer London. It will cost the owner of an older vehicle who uses it every day £4,500, even before they have paid for fuel or road tax. That will hit everybody, of course, but the poorest Londoners—those less able to replace their vehicles—will be hit hardest.

[Sarah Olney]

I just want to challenge the hon. Gentleman on the point that the charge will hit everybody. Obviously, I have experience of ULEZ coming into my constituency. It applies only to diesel vehicles and petrol vehicles over a certain age. I was worried about the impact, but I have to say that the number of people actually affected has been much less than I thought.

[Gareth Bacon]

The hon. Lady is correct. The charge will hit petrol vehicles registered in 2006 or before; as I just said, poorer Londoners will own those. It will hit diesel vehicles registered in 2014 or before. A car registered in 2014 is not particularly old. I had a diesel vehicle that was registered in 2012, which I got rid of the minute Sadiq Khan was elected Mayor of London. I knew that the charge was coming, that it would be unaffordable and that there would soon be no second-hand market for the vehicle. I was fortunate enough to be able to afford a newer car, but many people in London will not be able to, and the charge will hit them. The point that I have made using the map in my hand is that the charge will be hitting them completely unnecessarily.

There will be a devastating hit on an economy struggling to recover from the pandemic—for no reason. This is the thin end of the wedge. We know that Sadiq Khan’s ultimate ambition is to introduce road pricing in London. He has not hidden that. The letter to every London MP accompanying the announcement of the ultra low emission zone actually said that his ultimate objective was to replace all forms of charge in London with a road pricing scheme. The Mayor’s transport strategy of 2018 says that he will give consideration to the development of

“the next generation of road user charging systems. These could replace schemes such as the Congestion Charge, Low Emission Zone and Ultra Low Emission Zone. More sophisticated road user charging…could be used to contribute to the achievement of the policies and proposals in this strategy…to help reduce congestion on the road network and support efficient traffic movement. In doing so, the Mayor will consider the appropriate technology for any future schemes, and the potential for a future scheme that reflects distance, time, emissions, road danger and other factors in an integrated way.”

In the same document, which is revealing of the Mayor’s thinking, he says that people need to address

“the fundamentally inadequate and unfair way in which road use is paid for in London, with motorists paying too little, and in effect being subsidised by public transport fare payers. Measures such as road user charging (where appropriate), land value capture and the devolution of financial powers to local level are essential to delivering an efficient and fair funding system.”

I want to concentrate on the claim that motorists are subsidised by public transport users. That claim simply does not stack up. Setting aside the fact that most Londoners use a mixture of travel modes and cannot easily be categorised as motorist, pedestrian or cyclist, it is notable that at the time at which the strategy was launched, the Transport for London annual bus subsidy amounted to £722 million and, in addition, Transport for London provided in excess of £318 million for concessionary travel across its network, taking the level of publicly funded subsidy to well over £1 billion per annum. By contrast, London’s 2.6 million drivers were collectively paying £1.9 billion in motoring taxes, so I do not see how the Mayor can make the claim that motorists are being subsidised by public transport users. It is actually very much the reverse.

For many people, driving represents freedom. We should not be sanguine about the state seeking to undermine people’s ability to get into their own car and drive directly to wherever they want to go. Owning or having access to a car can significantly increase an individual’s travel opportunities, but road pricing is a policy that seeks to curb, undermine or remove that.

I would like to make a further point regarding freedom and it touches on a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington made in his introductory remarks. The technology required to make this form of road pricing work would almost inevitably have to include some form of global navigation satellite system technology. In other words, there would have to be in every vehicle a black box that would be capable of identifying exactly where each car had been located at any given time. That creates both practical and civil liberties considerations.

In practical terms, there is the question of how the technology would be imposed on those driving in London—if indeed we are talking about road pricing solely in London. Currently, some British motorists choose to install a black box in order to get cheaper car insurance, but a situation in which the technology was mandatory would be very different. How would the Mayor ensure that anyone who wished to drive in London had a black box in their car? Londoners drive around London, but people from outside London also drive across the Greater London boundary, so how would that work? Trying to introduce road pricing in Greater London alone, rather than in the whole of the UK, would be, as has been touched on by colleagues, fraught with difficulties for that very reason. In terms of civil liberties, many people would be very uncomfortable with the idea that the state might be able to track their every move via their car. As yet, that issue has not been addressed by anyone advocating any form of road pricing.

Therefore there are significant economic, practical and civil liberties problems with this idea, but it is the impact on people’s everyday lives that merits the highest consideration. If Sadiq Khan tries to force Londoners out of their cars by increasing the cost of driving, he will inevitably catch those who have little choice but to drive. Even if there are exemptions for specific individuals —for example, blue badge holders—there will still be ordinary Londoners who need to drive but can no longer afford to do so. For a great many of my constituents, in common with those of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, a car is an essential feature of their everyday lives, not least because there are few genuine alternatives for many journeys. In much of outer London and particularly in south London, the choice for those using public transport is the train or the bus. Trains are mostly a radial option; they are very useful for travelling into central London, but they are of little use if people want to make an orbital journey. Buses are much more useful for orbital journeys, but by their very nature, they are both relatively slow and often indirect. Many Londoners feel that their car is their best option for journeying outside London. That is particularly the case when the public transport alternative would involve travelling into central London and then out again. Road pricing, even if applied only to the London-based section of a journey, would increase the cost of those journeys without doing anything to improve them.

In conclusion, it is not a surprise that the current Mayor of London would prefer to squeeze more money out of Londoners and, ideally, outer Londoners, who are less likely to vote for him. Nor is it a surprise that he should seek to dress this cash grab up with high-minded justifications about air quality and emissions. Such a policy is fraught with difficulties and has so many downsides that it should be a non-starter, but if the Mayor of London decides to proceed with expanding the ultra low emission zone or, worse, introduce per-mile road charging, the Government should step in and stop him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Courts]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent suggestion. We have committed to looking into and radically simplifying the way that the PLF works. It remains necessary for now but I shall take that suggestion on board and consider it in any upcoming review.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to improve the condition of roads in England.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)]

The Department is investing more than £5 billion over this Parliament in local highways maintenance—enough to fill in millions of potholes a year and resurface roads throughout England.

[Gareth Bacon]

The Mayor of London is considering a daily charge of £2 to drive on Greater London’s roads that would slap more than 2.5 million people with a substantial new driving bill. My constituents, like those in many places in outer London, rely on their cars to get around because the public transport alternatives are inadequate. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Mayor should look at more creative ways to fix Transport for London’s finances instead of planning highway robbery?

[Trudy Harrison]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend: hammering motorists is not the way to do it. Transport in London is devolved to the Greater London Authority and therefore decisions on road-user charging are for the Mayor of London, not the Government. We will continue to work with the Mayor to help him put TfL on a sustainable long-term footing, but it is exactly as my hon. Friend said: creative solutions need to be put forward.

Outer London Congestion Charge

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Rees.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) for securing this timely and important debate, and I speak in it as a Member whose constituency is right on the edge of outer London, just inside the boundary.

The proposal by Sadiq Khan to impose an outer London boundary tax is one of the silliest ideas that he has come up with in the past five years. Some of his defenders have said that it is about improving air quality, but that is nonsense. This proposal has absolutely nothing to do with improving air quality.

Transport for London knows where the bad air is in London; indeed, it has published the analysis it made when considering the creation of the ultra-low emission zone some years ago and it is still available for anyone who wishes to see it. That analysis is in the form of a heat map, which shows the bad areas for air quality inside Greater London. Unsurprisingly, they are around central London, around Heathrow airport and on some of the trunk roads into and out of London. Where the bad air demonstrably is not is in outer London.

This proposal is, purely and simply, a revenue-raising exercise. Since the Mayor will aim it squarely at people who do not live inside Greater London and who therefore have no say or vote in the matter, it is—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has said—effectively “taxation without representation”. There is a huge democratic deficit here.

However, just because the people forced to pay this charge do not live in Greater London does not mean that it will not have an impact on those who do live inside Greater London. As other hon. Members have said, this proposal would deliver a hammer blow to outer London’s businesses. They rely on suppliers and customers driving in from outside the local area to shop and work, and this measure would jeopardise people’s livelihoods and our recovery from the pandemic.

It is not just those working in or using our local businesses who will be impacted. Those who provide our public services will also be hit; 51% of Metropolitan police officers and 52% of London firefighters live outside the Greater London boundary. They work shifts and often have to drive to work, as do almost 3,000—more than one in five—of the employees of my local NHS trust.

A few weeks ago, I wrote to headteachers in all the schools in my Orpington constituency, to seek their views on the charge and to find out how many of their staff and pupils would be impacted by it. A great many have written back to me, all of them expressing serious concerns about the detrimental impact it would have. A common concern has been the impact it would have on teacher recruitment and retention. One headteacher commented: “For us as a school this equates to 40% of our teaching and leadership staff and 33% of our administrative staff. To penalise staff by imposing a £3.50 daily charge would undoubtedly add financial pressure to individuals, but would also negatively affect recruitment from Greater London boroughs such as Bromley. I honestly believe that if this proposal is to go ahead, it will have a profound effect on recruiting and retaining staff in Greater London boroughs. Some of these staff are young, who took advantage of relatively lower housing costs to purchase outside the Greater London area. For them and others, this additional daily cost will be particularly hard. There is no serious public transport alternative to use, and therefore this will be a severe blow to those who are impacted. It will feel like a tax on work.”

Another observed: “For our full-time staff the additional cost will be like a salary reduction of £1,000 per annum. This will make us less competitive in terms of recruitment relative to schools in Kent and Surrey, or those who have public transport close by. This potentially would result in some families not being able to afford to bring their children into school, some of whom are deemed vulnerable children.”

Finally, I had a letter unprompted from another constituent. It is worth quoting this at length: “I am a teacher. I have taught in Orpington for 22 years. This charge will affect me and other workers every single day. This charge might be appropriate for inner London, where there are alternative means of transport, but that is not true here. We do not have a good, reliable bus service. We do not have the tube. With a newly unemployed husband and a family, this is a cost I just can’t bear and one that is grossly unfair, given the lack of available alternative public transport. I doubt Orpington High Street and the Nugent retail park will survive if shoppers from Swanley, Dartford and other surrounding areas put off by the charge cease to come.”

Sadiq Khan has been Mayor of London for five years, and for most of that time City Hall has been an achievement-free zone. There has been lots of virtue signalling, a good deal of showboating, and lots of finger pointing and blame shifting, but in terms of the core deliverables—building houses, running a transport system and keeping people safe—the past five years have been marked by ignominious failure. One thing that he has said has struck a chord, however. His “London is open” slogan is a sentiment that previously united Londoners and the surrounding areas, but introducing such a proposal shows how empty that slogan is. London is not open if people are taxed whenever they attempt to enter it.

There is no denying that under Sadiq Khan’s leadership, TfL’s debt has risen to record levels, key infrastructure projects have been delayed or cancelled, the delivery of Crossrail has been bungled, and hundreds of millions of pounds of potential income have been thrown away on pet projects. It is simply not acceptable for him to look to recover his losses by imposing a damaging border tax. He should drop this silly proposal immediately. If he refuses, I will call on the Government, in common with colleagues, to remove his power to impose it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Tarry]

It is clear at the moment that the key issue we want to focus on is a long-term funding deal for TfL, which would mean such options would not need to be considered. That is perhaps something on which we could all agree. I again point out that there would be no need whatsoever for a Greater London boundary charge if the Government supported the calls from the Mayor of London to allow the capital to keep its share of the vehicle excise duty, which is roughly £500 million a year.

If we gave TfL the level of revenue in capital funding it had for the first 20 years of its existence, that would be a game changer. Let us not forget that it is the current Prime Minister, the previous Mayor of London, who negotiated away the direct operating subsidy in 2015. That ensured that the brutal austerity measures of the then Chancellor George Osborne, inflicted on councils and the rest of the public sector from 2010, were also applied to Transport for London, literally robbing our country’s transport Crown jewels in front of the eyes of Londoners.

Let us focus on vehicle excise duty for a moment. Every year, Londoners pay £500 million in VED, money which is spent almost exclusively on roads outside of London. We, therefore, have the nonsensical situation whereby road maintenance in London is in effect subsidised by people using public transport. To put that another way, tube users pay for car drivers. I would like to know if the Minister agrees that City Hall should be allowed to keep the VED.

[Gareth Bacon]

Will the hon. Gentleman concede that people do not just use one mode of transport? Car drivers also walk, cycle and use public transport, so they pay into the public transport system. The idea that car drivers are being subsidised by public transport users is further undermined by more than a £1 billion of subsidy that Transport for London puts into the bus system and the other concessionary fares. Would he concede that that statement, which is often used and comes directly from City Hall, is misleading and wrong?

[Sam Tarry]

I think of lot of Londoners will disagree. Their money is spent elsewhere in the country. As I have said in the Chamber before, it would be good to see an agenda not of levelling down London, but genuinely levelling up the rest of the country’s transport networks, as needs to happen. As I was saying, I would like to hear whether the Minister agrees that City Hall should be allowed to keep that VED, which is paid by Londoners, so that it can be spent on their transport system. That seems only fair, given that London contributes over £40 billion net to Treasury coffers every single year.

Does the Minister agree that allowing London to keep its share of VED, so that TfL can invest in London’s roads and public transport services, is actually a very reasonable request, not least given the fact that the Conservative party at City Hall has supported that very position in a cross-party letter? Indeed, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon is on the record as having previously supported that position.

[Gareth Bacon]

The letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers was written before this proposal was put in place, and this is not an either/or question. The Mayor of London is throwing up smoke and mirrors by saying that either vehicle excise duty is devolved or there is an outer-London charge. That is not the case at all. As chairman of the cross-party budget committee, I was obliged to sign that letter because the majority of the committee said that they wanted vehicle excise duty to be devolved, but that was before the Mayor of London called for this, so the two things are not related at all.

Transport for London: Funding

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. At the outset, it is important to say that Transport for London is critical to the functioning of the city. It is vital for the economic and social wellbeing of London. These days, although it is unfashionable to say so, London is the economic motor of the UK economy. If TfL does not function, London does not function, and the knock-on effect on the country is inestimable, so it is right that the Government have stepped in.

It is worth pointing out that neither Transport for London nor the Government are responsible for the health crisis that we are in. It is true that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) pointed out, the pandemic has devastated Transport for London’s finances. That is a fact and is not open for debate. It is right that the Government have stepped in twice over a six-month period, to the tune of £3.3 billion, and that cost is borne by the UK taxpayer collectively.

There has been much comment that certain benefits enjoyed by Londoners before the pandemic are not covered by the bail-out agreements. It is important to note that at pre-pandemic levels, there was more than £1 billion within Transport for London’s transport provision. More than £700 million of that went into buses, and there were £330 million of other concessions. The Government’s position in both bail-out agreements is that it would be inequitable to taxpayers across the country to pay for subsidised travel that is not enjoyed elsewhere. Why should taxpayers in Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham pay for a benefit that Londoners enjoy but they do not?

London’s deputy Mayor for transport, speaking on behalf of the Mayor, has pushed back on that. She said that that amounts to levelling down, and that Londoners are more dependent on public transport. I think there is something in that argument, but the financial management at City Hall over the past four years leaves a lot to be desired.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington when he said that he had crudely politicised this issue. Has he ever met Sadiq Khan? I cannot imagine a politician in this country alive today who misses an opportunity to crudely politicise any issue at all.

There are other facts, which were laid out at some length by my hon. Friend. There is the fares freeze—or partial fares freeze, as it should be called, because it is not a complete fares freeze. I am sure that much will be made by Labour Members, when they come to speak, of the withdrawal of the revenue grant from Transport for London’s budget. They will not acknowledge that much of that is replaced by business rates, but they will harp on about the £700 million. They are right to draw attention to that withdrawal, because it has harmed Transport for London’s finances, but it did not happen in one year or overnight; it was phased in over a three-year period. The first year of it was under the previous Mayor, so candidate Khan, before he became Mayor Khan, knew about it. He knew that that money was going to disappear and he still, recklessly, pledged a fares freeze, a partial fares freeze, for the next four years in order to help garner votes to get himself elected. Transport for London’s costing of that at that time was £1.9 billion. Then, a few weeks later, it watered that down, because the commissioner was desperate to keep his job, to £640 million, and that is the figure that it is sticking at for the moment.

On top of that, we have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, the massive delay to Crossrail. It is nearly £4 billion over budget and is four years late, and that will cost more than £1.6 billion in unachieved fares revenue. These things do not help, and they have happened.

Labour Members will say, and the Mayor has been saying ad nauseam, “Well, of course, this is a co-sponsored project between the Department for Transport and Transport for London.” That is true, but Transport for London is, and always was, the delivery arm for the project, because Crossrail Ltd, which the Mayor likes to blame, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Transport for London. And who chairs Transport for London? The Mayor of London. Crossrail’s delay can be laid squarely at the feet of Sadiq Khan.

We have heard about the 21 capital projects that have been delayed. We have heard about some of the fringe benefits—the TFL nominee pass scheme. We have heard—well, we had not heard about this—that trade union facility time at Transport for London has more than doubled under Sadiq Khan. There are now 81 people. The number of people who spend more than half of their time working solely on trade union facility activities has more than doubled. That is more than for the whole of the civil service put together.

We have seen other examples of Sadiq Khan’s wasteful approach to management. Staff costs at City Hall have gone up by 82% in four years. Does anybody believe that London is 82% better governed now than it was in 2016? Anyone at all? Of course not. The Mayor’s press office costs have increased by 33% since Sadiq Khan took office. There have been other really good headline-grabbing things, such as £800,000 spent on beach parties in 2018. And in 2019, £10 million was spent by the Metropolitan police to put every police officer over the rank of sergeant through a personality test to assign a colour to their personality. Apparently, that was critical. Ten million pounds was spent on that by this Mayor of London.

We are living in extraordinary times. The Government are dealing with an unprecedented health crisis. There is no manual for how to do this. The Government interventions, if they go to the full extent announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, will amount to £280 billion, and they are very, very extensive.

In London, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to maintaining the core functions of Transport for London by injecting £3.3 billion of UK taxpayers’ money to keep Transport for London afloat. I do not think that anybody in this Chamber will argue with that, but in the circumstances, given the fact that the benefits in question are not enjoyed outside London and that City Hall under Sadiq Khan has been so wasteful with public money, it is hardly surprising that the Government should expect City Hall to fund the retention of such benefits.

[Sir David Amess (in the Chair)]

I now have to impose a formal time limit of five minutes.