Rail Manufacturing: Job Losses

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

That is correct—good. I am glad I have got that on the record.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) is absolutely right. This matter is complex and challenging, but I can tell you, Mr Speaker, and the House that the Secretary of State is working at full pelt on this matter with Alstom. I am hopeful that a solution will be found that will demonstrate all of that hard work.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Derby’s Litchurch Lane is unique—the only site in the UK that designs, develops, builds and tests trains. As has already been acknowledged, the Alstom factory is a very significant employer, but it also supports thousands of good supply-chain jobs, particularly in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Frankly, this Government will never be forgiven if that factory is allowed to close due to an entirely avoidable gap in orders. The Minister says that this matter is complex, but my question is simple: when does the Department for Transport intend to issue the invitations to tender for the promised new train fleets for Chiltern, Northern and Southeastern?

[Huw Merriman]

The answer is over the course of this year and next year for all of the train manufacturers that the hon. Lady has mentioned. I well remember the visit that both she and I made to the Alstom site with the Transport Committee. As she rightly says, it is a fantastic site, which is why we are working to find a solution. I am certainly encouraged by the conversations that have taken place. We know that everyone wants to find that solution—the Government certainly do—but the hon. Lady will know from all her work on the Transport Committee that legal challenges have to be dealt with in the correct manner. This matter is very sensitive, and it is market sensitive as well, so finding a way through which provides certainty and does not get unpicked is absolutely the right thing for us to do, and that is what we are doing right now.

Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging (Amendment) Bill

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Friday 22nd March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in opposition to the Bill for three key reasons. First, it represents an attack on devolution. Secondly, it ignores the urgent and important need to tackle poor air quality, not just here in London but in towns and cities across our country. We would be forgiven for forgetting about this urgent public health issue, because the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) barely mentioned it in his introduction, yet it goes to the very heart of having the ultra low emission zone. It is about trying to tackle something that is a significant problem here in London and in towns and cities across the country, and it is not just a problem in city centres. The heat map for my city shows that poor air quality is not restricted to the city centre, and that the ring road has particular issues. Poor air quality is an issue in outer London just as it is in inner London. Thirdly, the Bill uses a serious public health issue for purely party political point scoring.

I begin with devolution. [Interruption.] It would be nice if I could hear myself speak. It is worth remembering that the ultra low emission zone and, indeed, emission charging zones are Tory policy that was pushed on to local government by a Tory Government and first championed here in London by a Tory Mayor. We would not know that from listening to the interventions of Conservative Members.

The Mayor of London has statutory obligations in relation to air quality across the Greater London area. He has a right, indeed a duty, to introduce measures to meet the national air quality targets set by central Government. The whole purpose of devolution is for local people to determine the policies that are needed for their area. The Government have set the targets for air quality, and it is for democratically elected Mayors and local authorities to run their cities or counties in a way that works best for their area, which I know can be controversial.

My city is unique in this country in having a workplace parking levy. I would not say for one moment that it has not been controversial. It was incredibly controversial when it was first introduced more than 10 years ago when, under a previous Conservative-led Government, there was a huge problem with austerity. People were feeling the impact of that austerity, so the levy’s introduction was delayed by a year, but it was about both discouraging people from driving into the city and providing an income stream that could be used to improve alternatives to driving by investing in public transport. It has been incredibly successful. Nottingham is one of the cities that have not been forced to introduce a clean air zone, because its work to improve public transport, in part funded by the workplace parking levy, has led to that situation.

The Mayor of London expanded the ULEZ in August 2023 because toxic air pollution is a public health crisis. He is acting to tackle the crisis of poor air quality. I remind hon. Members that poor air quality is linked to around 4,000 premature deaths per year in London. It leads to children growing up with stunted lungs, and contributes to people developing serious health problems, including asthma, heart disease and dementia. I understand that the hon. Member for Dartford might not agree with the Mayor about the best way to tackle air pollution, but that is democracy.

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend is developing a powerful argument, and this is what the Conservatives have no answer to. What would they put in place to deal with the health aspects of poor air quality, such as damage to children’s development, and people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other respiratory and coronary illnesses who are adversely affected by this issue? The Conservatives are desperate because they have nothing to offer the people of London they seek to scaremonger about this charge. There is no concern whatsoever for the health of Londoners, or those people in outer London who are suffering most from air pollution.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was really telling when the hon. Member for Dartford began to talk about his mayoral candidate that he said nothing about her plans to tackle the serious issue of air pollution.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend hits on a blunter truth about the Bill. In six weeks’ time, our constituents, whether they agree or not with the argument made by the hon. Member for Dartford or with arguments on the importance of tackling air pollution, will have the opportunity to express an opinion at the ballot box when choosing who the London Mayor overseeing this policy should be. Is the message of the Bill that Conservative MPs have no confidence in their mayoral candidate winning that argument, or indeed doing anything in support of their policies? They clearly feel the need to intervene and usurp devolution, so should nobody in London even bother with the Conservative campaign, because their candidate’s own colleagues think she is incompetent?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head.

Progress is being achieved. The vast majority of cars —19 out of 20 in Greater London—are compliant with ULEZ. Labour Members are pleased that Transport for London and the Mayor of London have decided to expand the scrappage scheme to support those who are struggling as a result of the Tory cost of living crisis.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)]

I am listening with interest to the hon. Lady’s speech. The Government obviously support the Bill in the circumstances applied. Will she address the point that is fairly made about people outside a mayoral zone being affected and penalised by entering a mayoral zone, when they did not vote for that?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Unusual as it is for the Minister to intervene, I think the point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). When people from outside London drive into London, the costs of that in terms of health, and wear and tear on the roads, is borne by constituents here in London. It is not unreasonable for them to expect that those who benefit from everything that London has to offer, who travel into the centre causing congestion and poor air quality, should abide by the well-established principle that the polluter pays.

[Kerry McCarthy]

This goes back to what I was saying about the fact that the Government insisted that Bristol had a clean air zone. Obviously that will have a significant impact on people from Bath, for example, who drive down the A4 into my constituency, causing a huge amount of congestion and air pollution, but that is basically how politics works. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend just said: the duty of politicians is to look after people in the patch they represent.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. I will come on to address how we best tackle the issue of air pollution and, at the same time, protect those who are impacted by this charge.

From 21 August last year, every Londoner with a non-compliant vehicle became eligible for a £2,000 grant to assist them in replacing their vehicle. I understand why people have said that £2,000 is not enough, but that has been provided despite central Government giving no financial support to the Mayor of London for it. Of course, if the Government are concerned about the impact—[Interruption.] If they are concerned about the impact of their clean air charging zones, they could have provided additional assistance—

[Sir David Evennett]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

No, I am not giving way at the moment.

As I was saying, the Government could have provided additional financial support to the Mayor of London so that that grant could have been increased, but they chose not to so.

I am proud that Labour is the party of devolution. [Interruption.] It was Labour that created the mayoral model in London, and created the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as always having—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Lady is trying to make a speech. We have a conversation going on between the two Front-Bench teams and rather a lot of shouting at the hon. Lady herself. We need to listen to her speech with respect.

[Lilian Greenwood]

As I was saying, that devolution is as well as always having regional and local decision making and funding across England. I am pleased that the next Labour Government will build on that record. Indeed, Labour Mayors across England are already showing how it is done—whether that is in Manchester, Liverpool, South Yorkshire or West Yorkshire—taking back control of buses, supporting new homes, and reforming employment and skills. I am very much looking forward to seeing Claire Ward elected as the first Mayor of the East Midlands on 2 May. Sadly, while Labour is committed to more devolution, this Bill shows that the Tories are simply trying to roll it back.

I wish to say a little more about air pollution, which is at the heart of this Bill, and the strategies to tackle it. As I have already said, we know the problems that poor air causes. It affects our health and our environment; as many as 40,000 people die prematurely each year as a result of poor air quality. The elderly, the unwell and the economically deprived are those most likely to be affected. The Government’s own estimates say that poor air quality costs the UK economy billions of pounds each year. I think about my own constituency and the arguments that we had about the workplace parking levy. Lots of people in the city do not pay the levy, because they simply cannot afford to run a car at all; they are reliant on public transport.

We also know where the problem occurs. Key pollutants, including nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter —known as PM_2.5—are found in many places, and too many air quality zones in the UK exceed legal limits. The World Health Organisation tells us that there is no safe level of exposure to fine particulate matter. We know what causes poor air quality. It comes from several sources—industry, agriculture, homes, businesses, and, yes, transport. Road transport is responsible for the vast majority of nitrogen oxide concentrations at places in the UK that exceed the legal limits, with diesel engines a significant contributor.

The number of cars and vans on our roads continues to rise and congestion has worsened, which increases pollution in itself. Transport also generates a significant proportion of particulate matter, which can come from both combustion and wear of tyres and brake pads. Cleaner vehicles help to solve the problem, and we have made some progress on that, but not enough.

There are examples from across the country of the action that can be taken to tackle emissions. Low emission zones are only one tool in the toolbox, and it could be said that they should be a last resort. As I have said, in my city, there has been considerable investment in public transport, paid for in part by proceeds from the workplace parking levy. We have had major extensions to our tram network. Nottingham’s municipal bus company introduced new biogas buses years ago, and I am really pleased to see that it has just started to roll out new electric vehicles. I do not deny that there has been support from central Government for some of that investment. For some years, the city council has had an anti-idling campaign. That multi-pronged approach mirrors similar action in towns and cities across the UK, with not one but multiple tools being used to tackle this serious public health issue.

The Department for Transport has supported the development of low emission buses and taxis. That is a good thing, because tackling poor air quality should be about central Government working with local councils and Mayors, rather than dictating to them, as the Bill does. Central Government should support and collaborate with them. In preparing for the debate, I went back to a 2018 report, produced by four cross-party Select Committees, that looked at improving air quality. One thing that the Committees came together to recommend was collaboration and partnership between central Government, local authorities and Mayors, because air pollution is a problem that cannot be fixed by central or local government alone; they need to work together.

Like the Mayor of London, local authorities are already responsible for meeting air quality targets, but they find it difficult to make changes, partly due to a lack of resources and partly because the changes needed are politically unpalatable; I guess that in part is what has caused the debate. It was a while ago, but that joint report from 2018 called for ambitious, co-ordinated cross-departmental action. I am sorry that in some respects the Government have failed on that, as they have prevaricated on removing the most polluting vehicles from our roads. At the time of the report, we called on them to have a more ambitious target for the removal of petrol and diesel cars; I think they were only committed to removing them by 2040. They did at first commit to a more ambitious target of ending the sale of petrol and diesel cars, but more recently, they have rowed back from that, which makes it more difficult for us to achieve the improvements that we know are needed.

There was also a decision to row back on the electrifi-cation of our railways, in favour of bi-mode trains, which have worrying implications for air quality, carbon emissions and noise. Every time I go to St Pancras station to catch my train home to Nottingham, I stand on the platform among diesel trains because the railway is not electrified all the way to Nottingham. Frankly, I am looking forward to seeing new trains on the midland main line next year, but they will be bi-mode trains, and while they will leave St Pancras under electric power, which will improve air quality in central London, by the time they get to Nottingham, they will be operating under diesel power, doing far less to improve air quality in our city. That is the result of a decade of broken promises from successive Tory Prime Ministers, who have paused and cancelled the electrification of the midland mainline. We now know that electric trains will not reach Nottingham until at least the early 2030s. I have sometimes joked that I will be retired by the time we get there, and I am afraid that might be the case.

There is a danger of the Government relying too heavily on new technologies to solve our air quality challenges, and placing too much emphasis on cleaning up road vehicles and not enough on reducing the number of vehicles on our roads. Improving public transport and encouraging active travel should lie at the heart of any clean air strategy. Getting freight off our roads and on to our railways would be welcome, taking many heavy goods vehicles, which are often the most polluting, off our roads.

Back in 2018, the four Select Committees concluded that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport should work closely with local authorities to ensure that councils introducing clean air zones received the support that they needed to implement complementary measures that encourage car drivers to switch to public transport and active travel, and increase the take-up of electric vehicles. I understand that not every journey can be made by public transport or bicycle, or on foot, but if we can change a proportion of those journeys, we can make a real difference. For a while, the Conservative party seemed really interested in walking and cycling —I see the Minister with responsibility for walking and cycling, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), sitting on the Front Bench, but he has not been terribly busy. Yesterday at transport questions, not a single Conservative MP asked a question about active travel. It is disappointing that they have scaled back their investment in that.

Investment in low-emission buses is great, but the value of that investment is magnified if local authorities also take steps to encourage motorists to opt for buses, rather than make journeys by car. I understand the argument made by the hon. Member for Dartford that people can continue to drive, but of course a charge is a disincentive; that is partly how the scheme operates. The pandemic had a huge impact on public transport usage, both in London and across the country. I pay tribute to the Government for their £2 bus fare, which has been a welcome initiative. In London, the Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan has also taken action, both to protect Londoners from the Tory cost of living crisis and to encourage more people to travel by public transport; he has introduced the hopper fare on buses, and has frozen fares in five out of eight years.

Without action or a modal shift, efforts to tackle congestion or improve air quality are less likely to succeed. Many of the policies needed to tackle urban congestion could also help to improve air quality. Tackling both issues could have a positive effect on both the local and the national economy. A significant increase in active travel could make a difference not just to air quality policies but to tackling obesity, improving mental health and building better communities.

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful case for why air quality should be a priority for us all. Ultimately, it is a social justice issue. However rich or poor we are, we all breathe the same air. I suggest to anyone who lives in London that they will see the need to tackle low air quality if they leave London for a couple of days and then blow their nose. They will realise what they have been breathing in. This issue affects everyone. She is right that we must tackle it nationally as well as locally. Does she agree that unless the Conservatives comes up with an alternative plan, they are condemning the poorest in our communities to the worst health outcomes?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I would be surprised if many people decided that they wanted to go in the direction of having a Conservative Mayor in the absence of proper information about how a Conservative Mayor would tackle air pollution.

Finally, this Bill is about party political point scoring. The Government support clean air zones. Indeed, they provided cash for scrappage schemes in Bristol, Bath, Sheffield, Birmingham, Portsmouth and other areas of the country, but not London. I wonder why. In towns and cities across England—not just in London—our constituents have faced 14 years of Tory economic failure. They cannot afford another week, let alone more months or, heaven forbid, years of Tory Government. Families are sick with anxiety as they endure this cost of living crisis, while their local services are under immense pressure.

When times are tough due to the Conservatives’ economic failure, it is essential that we look at options for achieving clean air without disproportionately impacting people. We must secure our economy and make it stronger by getting growth back on course, as the last Labour Government did, whereas we have had an anaemic situation under 14 years of the Tories. [Interruption.] They do not want to hear it, do they? They do not want to hear that growth was faster under a Labour Government than under 14 years of the Tories. Fourteen years of Tory economic failure have left us in this position, where everything is worse and everything is broken. It is by growing our economy that we will provide sustainable, long-term funding for councils, and give local areas the tools and stability that they need for growth, as we push power, wealth and opportunity out from Westminster.

[Gareth Johnson]

The hon. Lady has been speaking for nearly half an hour, and it is obvious that she and the Labour party wish to talk out my Bill to overturn the expansion of the ULEZ scheme. Can I ask what her message is to a lady I spoke to recently in my constituency? She said that she could not visit her sister in Bexley, just a few miles away. As she was a disabled person, she could not use public transport, could not afford to upgrade her car, and could not afford a taxi. That may not affect people in Nottingham South, but it does affect people in Dartford.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I understand that people face a cost of living crisis. What the hon. Member should have explained to that lady is why she feels so much worse off after 14 years of Conservative Government. He should not try to pin it on a single issue; it is down to his Government’s failure, and he should take some responsibility for that.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent speech in support of clean air, which is what this debate is all about. What would she say to the many parents I meet in my constituency who introduce me to children who have asthma on a scale never seen before? Through ULEZ and other measures, they will see their children’s health improve.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that could be lost in this debate, which is that the issue is about health—the health of children and older people. It is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said, about the health of some of the poorest in society; they are most impacted by poor air quality. That is what we should be talking about.

[Clive Efford]

If, as the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), claims, the issue is not health, why are the Government supporting charge zones in other cities?

[Lilian Greenwood]

We will have to listen to the Minister’s answer on that. However, it was clear that the Government wanted clean air charging zones—in fact, they were a requirement on cities that had not succeeded in meeting air quality targets through other measures. I am not going to apologise for speaking in this debate because, as I say, I have long had an interest in air quality. The experience in my city means we have something to offer and share.

Finally, let me turn to the alternative, because the hon. Member for Dartford did not say much about alternatives. I want to talk about that because Labour does have a plan to support drivers. We will support them by focusing on the cost of living and on the infrastructure challenges, which are real priorities for households that have and use a car—that probably includes most of us some of the time, even if we walk, cycle or use a bus most of the time. Our plan includes working with the Competition and Markets Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority and industry on addressing the soaring costs of car insurance. We plan to bring railways back into public hands and to allow all local authorities to take back control of their bus services. London never had to put up with the deregulation of its bus services as the rest of the country did. Those things have the capability to relieve congestion by improving the state of our public transport network, and I imagine other local authorities might like to follow Nottingham’s lead by having a municipal bus company, which, once again, has been shown to provide one of the best bus services in the entire country. I would say that we have the best bus service, thanks to Nottingham City Transport.

A Labour Government would be committed to protecting our environment, helping to decarbonise the economy, and ensuring that we all have safe air to breathe. Labour would work with local authorities and mayoral combined authorities to support them to meet air quality targets in the ways that work best for their areas. We appreciate that emissions levels in different areas vary as a result of the kind of industry and economic activity in those areas, and we will work in partnership with local and regional governments, empowering them to protect and improve air quality, while fostering economic innovation and productivity.

Labour would make it clear that the Government have a direct responsibility to work with our local authorities to avoid the need for charging clean air zones through the adoption of alternative air quality improvement methods, such as those I have talked about: re-routing traffic, land management, speed limits, better public transport, and better options to get freight off our roads and on to our railways. That responsibility should also extend to helping to mitigate the impact of any proposals that clear the strong thresholds set by the Government for a clean air zone.

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I hope that hon. Members will focus on the issue of air pollution and the need to take action in a variety of ways to tackle it.

[Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

Let me begin by congratulating my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), on his Bill, which I was delighted to sponsor. I am delighted to participate in this debate and to congratulate him also on his excellent, informative and constructive speech.

I was rather disappointed in the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for whom I have a lot of respect, because she did not say much about ULEZ. She took us on a tour of Nottingham and told us about other parts of Labour party policy, but she showed a total misunderstanding of—or no understanding of—outer London. [Interruption.] She can barrack me all she likes, but she never had a view on outer London. She also made a statement that was fundamentally untrue, in saying that this Government had not bailed out the Mayor of London. Transport for London has been bailed out so many times in the past few years, but she did not say that. She glossed over the management of TfL. She also did not come up with any facts or figures to show that ULEZ has reduced the level of pollution in inner London. We are still seeing huge levels of pollution in inner London, even on the underground, which came to our attention last year—

[Lilian Greenwood]

rose—

[Sir David Evennett]

The hon. Lady would not give way to me, so I am certainly not going to give way to her. I have also not had the opportunity to start my speech. I know that Opposition Members just want to delay everybody and everything, but I want to speak for my borough of Bexley. We had a long tour about Nottingham, but ULEZ affects my borough and my constituency, not hers in Nottingham, so I think I should have a few minutes to speak. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) did not get up and ask to intervene, but the others did.

The expansion of ULEZ affects my area and the surrounding areas very badly. It blindly copies the approach taken in central and inner London without properly assessing the implications for outer London or the neighbouring areas. The expansion has caused a range of negative social, financial and economic impacts for those who can least afford it. Perhaps this is not the case for the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), for whom I have a lot of respect, but we are inundated with people in my borough, some of whom support his party, who think it is unfair for ULEZ to come to Bexley when Bexley has good air quality, as does Bromley. I am surprised at what he says; I have no doubt that it is correct, as he as a good friend of mine and an honourable man, but I do not believe that there have not been people in Eltham who have said that this is unfair to those who are less well off.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

London has the Greater London Assembly, a Mayor with devolved powers and Transport for London, so this issue is looked at on a London-wide basis. There is an issue in Bristol with people coming into the city centre from places like Bath, but the boroughs are not so interwoven that we cannot see the borders between them, and we do not have the interconnectivity that London has. In Bristol, we were told that we had to bring air pollution levels within legal limits as quickly as possible. We went to great lengths with the modelling to deal with concerns about the economic and social impact. As the Minister said, making the zone as small as possible was one of the factors in that.

It is relevant to talk about the Bristol scheme because it shows what can be achieved by similar measures in London. The scheme came into effect in November 2022, and in January this year we had the first annual report on its effectiveness. It was judged to have been highly successful. The headline figure was that air pollution across all measured sites had declined by 9.7%. The success of the CAZ is measured by whether it lowers nitrogen dioxide levels below the legal limit of 40 micrograms per cubic metre. In November 2022, when the scheme was introduced, there were 18 sites across Bristol above the legal limit. Just 12 months later, that was down to just six zones. The scheme was particularly effective outside the Bristol Royal Infirmary and the Bristol Children’s Hospital, which are bang in the middle of the city centre. Air pollution was down by an incredible 26.9%. I defy anyone to tell me that such big improvements in air quality in areas where there are very sick and vulnerable people, including sick children, is a bad thing. It has been really successful.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this is sometimes presented as a binary choice between motorists and everybody else, such as the children in the hospital, when these improvements are actually beneficial for everyone? One thing that came out of the 2018 report is that some of the worst air quality is inside vehicles, so motorists directly benefit from improvements in air quality.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I was on the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee at the time, both of which took part in that inquiry. It was difficult to bring those Committees together, but the inquiry produced a really good, significant report, which we should still pay heed to when we as House think about what to do on this issue going forward.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I did have an e-bike; it was stolen from inside the Houses of Parliament. One would think that there would be nowhere more secure, but when the Queen was lying in state, whoever was acting as her security removed all the bikes and took off a £130 lock—presumably with an angle grinder or something—and my bike was not seen again. Try explaining to the insurance company that it was people from Buckingham Palace or from the Queen’s lying in state who took the lock off! That is another story, though.

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. I used to hold the shadow green transport brief, and e-bikes are hugely important in allowing people to do those longer journeys. I could not make it up the hills in Bristol without a bit of extra help from an e-bike, but when it comes to delivery vehicles, one of the issues is deliveries inside the areas covered by zones. If we can have hubs outside the city centres and electric vans or e-cargo bikes making those deliveries, that could have a huge impact. Obviously, everybody making food deliveries and similar things really ought to be using clean modes of transport.

I am conscious of time, so I will finish my point about the Bristol scheme. There were concerns that it would lead people to take diversions and increase pollution outside the clean air zone, but air pollution outside the zone has also been measured as down: it has reduced by 7.8%, because the CAZ has encouraged a modal shift among people. I appreciate that people cannot always afford to make that shift in vehicles, but it has happened.

Another concern raised by opponents was that the CAZ would harm the local economy and communities by discouraging people from coming into the city centre. In fact, the opposite happened: retail footfall across four major retail hotspots in central Bristol actually rose from the previous year. There was also an argument that people would become isolated and stuck at home because they could not afford to pay the £9 charge, but again, that was not the case: the number of journeys into or through the CAZ per month was higher at the end of the year than at the start of the scheme, and the percentage of compliant journeys rose every single month. That is what we want to achieve.

It is the same with the landfill tax, for example. That tax is not about raising money because lots of people are sending stuff to landfill. If a landfill tax is effective, the revenues go down and down, year on year. There is actually an issue with the fact that the tax is not keeping pace with inflation at the moment, but assuming it is effective, the revenues will dwindle—it is the behaviour change that we want to make happen. As I said, ideally we would not have introduced a clean air zone, but we have made it work. It is also worth noting that the Government take £2 from every £9 CAZ charge, which we would very much like to be able to spend in Bristol instead.

[Lilian Greenwood]

It is quite difficult to assess the effectiveness of a clean air zone, because it is not about whether vehicle numbers go down, but about whether those numbers are higher or lower than they would have been if we had done nothing. When thinking about the effectiveness of ULEZ in central London, for example, we need to model what would have happened if we had not had ULEZ, rather than just look at whether the numbers have gone up or down.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Exactly—there is very complicated modelling involved. Also, if we can use measures such as these to take some cars off the road, that increases the attractiveness of public transport, because the buses can get to where they are meant to be without being stuck in traffic.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is an absolute champion of that project, and he makes his point clear. Upgrades made in the Gatwick area are already delivering significant improvements to the Brighton main line, and the industry continually reviews how best to respond to changes in demand. I understand that my hon. Friend has been in discussions with the operator on the options for increasing capacity on busy weekend services between Carshalton and London Victoria, and that Govia Thameslink Railway will shortly respond to him directly. I will continue to work with him on the enhancement project that he champions.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The leader of Nottinghamshire County Council, who has a nice side hustle as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), once said:

“The full delivery of HS2’s Eastern Leg is what the East Midlands needs to support and create highly skilled jobs, link communities to opportunities and decarbonise our transport network.”

As he failed to persuade the Prime Minister, who cancelled that vital investment in our region’s rail services, can the Minister tell me how we will now deliver the transformative change to our connectivity, sustainability, job creation, productivity and social mobility that HS2 promised? Filling a few potholes will not cut it.

[Huw Merriman]

I certainly look forward to the day when my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) is also an excellent East Midlands Mayor, and we are devolving more powers to the east midlands to help him with that task. The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) references HS2 moneys, from which more than a £1 billion will be allocated to the Mayor of the East Midlands to spend on the transport projects that he and, indeed, the hon. Lady may want. That allows us to devolve more projects to the local area, and we have been absolutely clear that all the moneys that have been saved as a result of the HS2 cancellation will be reinvested primarily in the north and the midlands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I shall be the duty Minister tomorrow, and I look forward to dealing with this matter.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The Government have been promising action on pavement parking for a decade, but despite a consultation in 2020, we are still no further forward. Will the Minister finally listen to disabled people, parents, children and local councils who overwhelmingly support a ban, and act to curb this dangerous problem?

[Guy Opperman]

That particular issue is on my desk, and we are considering it at present. I can assure the hon. Lady that the results of the consultation will be published in the summer.

Trailer and Towing Safety

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

It has been a decade since a child was killed in my constituency by a runaway trailer. Freddie was just three years old. A 2-tonne trailer came loose from a nearby car as he walked down the street near his home. The consequences of the unsecured tow hitch were fatal. Shortly after I became an MP, I met Freddie’s parents, in 2016. Since then I have campaigned to improve towing safety standards. I am grateful tonight to have the chance to focus the mind of the current Minister on this important topic, and I thank him for talking with me.

Sadly, not enough has been done over the past three years to ensure that our roads are safe for trailers. Back in 2016, when I first met the family, they had researched previous cases and learned that there were other families like theirs. This was not a one-off, and it could have been prevented if better safety checks had been in place. One example that came to light was the death of a four-year-old boy killed by a trailer that had broken free from a car in the Amber Valley constituency in 2007. The then Minister, the former Member for Poplar and Limehouse, commented at that time:

“Introducing MOT-style tests for such trailers is a possibility that we have considered before, and it is a matter that we keep under review. There have been several such accidents in recent months, and I will certainly consider the matter with officials in the Department to see whether we need to move on that”.—[Official Report, 22 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 1354.]

The Road Traffic Act 1988 states that it is an offence to drive an unroadworthy vehicle, and we know that there are many trailers on our roads that are dangerous and in need of repair. We need to do so much more to stop further tragedies from happening.

Since 2015, I have met many road safety Ministers, and I put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) for their time and support in looking at this issue and working with me and the family. I also thank the current Minister’s predecessors, Baroness Vere of Norbiton and the right hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), who have reported to the all-party parliamentary group on trailer and towing safety, which I chair.

In those years there have been many successes in the campaign. I held two trailer safety summits—in March 2017 and April 2018—in Bedminster, where the accident happened, involving Freddie’s family and key stakeholders. In July 2017 the National Trailer and Towing Association introduced the free safety checks initiative—the first of its kind in the UK—which meant that, through its network of accredited members, any light trailer could be given a free 10 to 15-minute visual inspection of key points, and a written report completed. The campaign has also worked with the Department for Transport and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency on a campaign on driver behaviour and the creation of the hashtag #towsafe4freddie. That brings together vital information about towing safely and has hugely increased awareness of the issue among drivers.

Following my amendments to the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill in 2018, the Government had to undertake a statutory report into trailer safety, which was published in July 2019. That was a huge milestone in the campaign. The findings of the Government’s report reinforced the urgency of the issue. As part of the actions of the report, the DVSA conducted roadside checks of light trailers between 2019 and 2021. I was able to join such a roadside check near Bristol.

From the report, we know the horrifying fact that half of all light trailers are non-compliant with safety standards. I was deeply shocked and concerned to learn that 40% of those vehicles were so dangerous that they needed immediate repairs. When people think of towing, they often think of caravans, but we know from the data that caravans and responsible commercial companies are not the issue; it is personal light trailers that contribute to these shocking statistics.

The Government know that a disgraceful number of vehicles on our roads are deeply unsafe—their own statutory report tells them that—so why have they failed to act on that information or to progress the work from the report that they said they would do? Following the statutory report in 2019, the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North, then Minister of State at the Department for Transport, said that a “focus must be maintained on driving up the safety of these trailers.”—[Official Report, 18 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 62WS.]

That is absolutely imperative.

My ask of the Minister is that trailer safety be put at the forefront of the agenda once more. That is because trailer safety is a key part of safety on our roads. The potentially deadly consequences of unsecure trailers demonstrate the need for mandatory safety checks on trailers and formal testing for those using them. The statutory report made the case for that clearly: it recommended considering “revisions and improvements” to the test that drivers use to undertake in order to hold a licence to tow light vehicles—the so-called B+E test. With one in two light vehicles on our roads unroadworthy, that knowledge and training is paramount.

As the former Minister stated in 2019, in his response to the report

“there is further work in this area which the Government will take forward.”—[Official Report, 18 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 62WS.]

That was set out in a work programme from the statutory report. Those were actions that I and the APPG, working closely with industry, officials in the Department and Ministers, were happy to see progress. I thank all those officials for the work they did.

Yet following the 2019 election, we have had a complete U-turn. I was appalled and horrified when in 2021 the Government introduced a statutory instrument that scrapped the towing test altogether, meaning that any driver with a standard B driving licence could tow without further instruction on how to do so safely. This was a reckless decision with potentially dangerous consequences. According to Department for Transport data, 30% of people who have been trained and tested fail, yet we are now unleashing thousands of untrained, unsafe and unqualified drivers of trailers on to our roads.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her dogged pursuit of this issue. I wonder whether, knowing the appalling state of many of our roads in this country—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Suzanne Webb.)

[Lilian Greenwood]

That took me by surprise. I was wondering whether the state of our roads, which many people are aware of, adds to the danger posed by the issues with trailers and driver awareness that she has set out.

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Yes, if the trailer is not towed safely, any damage in the roads—road bumps, potholes and so on—will add to the stress on trailers. That could have more lethal consequences.

The Government’s own impact assessment, which was not released until after the statutory instrument had passed, stated that this legislation could

“have implications for competence of drivers to tow trailers safely”

and

“may potentially increase the road safety risk”.

That was deeply worrying not only for those who have lost loved ones through unsafe towing, but for those in the wider industry, many of whom contacted me to share their anxieties. The public have no idea that so many defective vehicles are on our roads, and now the Government have scrapped the mandatory training that would have helped drivers to understand the importance of safety checks on their vehicles. We have evidence that trailer safety is a serious problem, yet the legislation was deemed “fit for purpose”. The only consolation was that it would be reviewed after three years, which will be at the end of this year.

Two-and-a-half years into this outrageous piece of legislation, I hope that the Minister has a good understanding now of its impact on road safety, and I would welcome an update from him. Between 2019 and 2021, 50% of light trailers were defective. Can the Minister confirm whether that statistic has changed? What recent data does he hold on defective vehicles? He needs to explain what data will be used to assess the impact of the instrument as part of the review and how this data is being collected.

The impact assessment stated that the overall accident rate would have to rise by an average of 14% per year to negate all the benefits of the legislation. I wonder whether the Minister thinks that a 14% increase in accidents is acceptable. How many people could lose their lives or be seriously injured because of this legislation? Surely we should be trying to make our roads safer, with drivers supported and informed to take all the safety measures they need.

There are some who point to the voluntary accreditation scheme for drivers wishing to tow. That information is available to the proactive, responsible drivers who seek it, but the clue is in the name: it is voluntary. The number of drivers undergoing training has fallen through the floor. Department for Transport data shows that from over 29,000 people in one year taking the mandatory B+E test, we now have fewer than 500 taking up the voluntary scheme in the 18 months since it was introduced —a drop of 98%. That is an astonishing percentage. The very real consequence of that is more unsafe trailers on our roads.

What measures is the Minister taking to increase the number of people accessing the voluntary training? What is the Minister doing to ensure that those who use our roads are trained to tow and understand the dangers of unsafe towing? We need a coherent plan for our roads that recognises the importance of trailer safety. I welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we can re-embed the findings and actions of the 2019 statutory report on trailer safety into the current roads strategy.

I have very much enjoyed working collaboratively with Ministers to improve trailer safety. Over the past five years, the all-party parliamentary group on trailer and towing safety has worked steadfastly with the Department for Transport to gather data and information. I hope we can take this moment to refresh that relationship and work together to ensure the safety of all who use our roads. Gathering more and better information on the safety of trailers and the skills of those towing them is crucial. It is through the data that we uncovered the scale of the problem in the first place, and it will be through gathering new data that we can pave the way for improvements in the future. Does the Minister agree that this is of the utmost importance? If so, when and how is he planning to collect that new data?

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on trailer and towing safety, I thank all of my colleagues who have supported and publicised the issue in this place over the past six years. I thank those stakeholders in the towing industry who have done all they can to improve trailer safety—in particular, the contributions of the National Caravan Council and the work of Alicia Dunne at the council have been hugely valuable. Those working in the industry know how important it is to improve trailer safety. Their work in raising awareness and improving driver behaviour and knowledge has been crucial.

Finally, I pay tribute to the incredible bravery of Freddie’s family. I thank them for all they have done to shine a light on this issue and to educate me. If the Minister takes away one thing from today’s debate, I hope that he will remember the lives behind the statistics. Families across the country have been impacted by poor and ill-thought-out legislation—I know that the Minister did not bring the legislation to the House. Improving trailer safety saves lives, and I hope he agrees that we must do all we can to enable drivers to tow safely.

HS2: Revised Timetable and Budget

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

I have the greatest sympathy for my hon. Friend’s constituents. They have been ably represented by him, because he has spoken to me on a number of occasions. I have already set out the steps that will be taken with regard to the decision on HS2 trains to Leeds. That will remain the case, but I am already looking into the case for his constituents. A 30% to 38% increase in rents seems like an incredibly high jump in one go. I need to find out the background to that, but he will be meeting me again, so I can give him the detail that he can then give back to his constituents. I will do everything I can to minimise the impact.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I was 45 when the Tory-led Government gave HS2 the go ahead. Since then, as the Minister knows, it has been repeatedly chopped, changed and delayed. I will be 57 next week. How old will I be when it gets to Nottingham?

[Mr Speaker]

That is a trap.

Rail Strikes

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These discussions were under way when, suddenly, the union decided to ballot its members, incorrectly telling them that a strike would get them off the pay freeze. Nearly every part of the public sector experienced a pay freeze and, in any case, it is coming to an end. These pointless, counterproductive strikes should never have been called, and the Labour party should recognise that fact.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Precisely because of the potential disruption, and instead of calling today’s debate, should the Secretary of State not be taking action to try to resolve these disputes? When did he last meet industry leaders and trade unions to try to get that resolution? Has he had a discussion about bringing in ACAS to resolve this dispute? If he has not, will he commit to doing so now?

[Grant Shapps]

I hear what the hon. Lady says. The Leader of the Opposition claims to care deeply about this issue, yet he is not with us today. [Hon. Members: “Where is the Prime Minister?”] The Prime Minister has already said exactly where he is on this issue, but the Leader of the Opposition cannot find his way to the Front Bench when it really matters and when it comes to standing up for working people, Where is he?

The leader of the RMT, Mick Lynch, said only last month, “I do not negotiate with a Tory Government.” He does not want to meet us. That is the reality of the situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

Following your lead, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will just give one example: cracks to rail. Technology now allows a sensor camera underneath a train to click 70,000 images per minute. That replaces an individual’s eyes or teams of men tracking. I would maintain that that not only makes it more likely that the cracks will be spotted, but means it is not necessary to put people on the asset, which is dangerous to them and means closures that we do not need when the train is operating.

This is not rocket science related specifically to the rail industry. Every single industry innovates, moves forward and develops. This Chamber may seem a funny place to stand and say that working practices are rooted in the past, when this very place is all about that, but the way we speak and operate here does not necessarily impact the lives or enhance the passenger services that I believe we could do in rail, if the industry as a whole, working with the workforce, developed and innovated in the manner I advocate.

I come back to the point about collaboratively working together. It is essential. I saw to my cost, as an MP in the region that includes Southern Railway, damaging strikes that went on for far too long. Passengers could not get to work; it had a huge impact on the economic community and on the workforce. The crazy thing about that strike, which was about who opened the doors, the guard or the driver, was that it ended up being settled with a pay rise for drivers. Ironically, that was on the ASLEF side; the RMT side, which started this, did not get that pay rise. The ASLEF drivers got a pay rise of 25% over three years.

I would say to those on the Front Bench: “Of course take leadership, make that noise, but you have to ensure that you see this through.” There is nothing worse than starting this action, causing industrial relations to decline, and then finding out that we withdraw; it would be better not to do it at all.

[Lilian Greenwood]

rose—

[Huw Merriman]

I will give way one more time because the hon. Lady is my predecessor on the Select Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a great deal of respect for the work that he does, but what conclusion does he draw from the fact that there are no rail strikes going ahead next week in Wales, where there has been an active, responsible Government seeking to bring people together and resolve issues? Is it not precisely the point that active government can get the two sides together and attempt to resolve the issues?

[Huw Merriman]

I certainly take that point, but just I heard from another member of our Committee that Network Rail is still striking in Wales, and when it is about Network Rail members of the RMT, that tends to shut the railway down. In my example of when the RMT was striking in the Southern region, that did not shut the system down because that only happened when ASLEF drivers were involved. We will both check the record on that, no doubt, but that is how I am informed.

Great British Railways Headquarters: Derby’s Bid

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Latham]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It never fails to amaze me how the hon. Gentleman from Northern Ireland can have an interest in what is happening in Derby. It is very important that we include the whole of the United Kingdom and work with all of it when and if we get the Great British Railways in Derby. It is important that Northern Ireland, Scotland and all the other regions are included, so I thank him for that intervention.

Alstom, which has had various names and iterations, is the current train building company in Derby, and it plans to build the first brand-new fleet of hydrogen trains in conjunction with Eversholt Rail. Similarly, Porterbrook and Rolls-Royce recently launched the first 100 mph hybrid battery-diesel train on Chiltern Railways, which links London with Oxford and Birmingham. It is very important that we look to our history, but that we also look to the future of the Great British Railways and rail innovation.

Derby is at the heart of rail innovation. It is home to the largest cluster of rail engineering companies anywhere in Europe, with an international reputation for rail excellence and innovation.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a compelling case for Derby very effectively. Does she agree with me that Great British Railways would benefit from that innovation that she was starting to talk about? Derby’s rail industry is famous for the revolutionary tilting trains that have gone on to be hugely successful. They were first developed in Derby as a result of the technological know-how of the British Rail research team, and that expertise continues in our universities in both Derby and Nottingham. I believe that, at one point in the 1970s, the team also developed plans for a flying saucer. Is that not precisely the kind of innovative, radical thinking that Great British Railways needs?

[Mrs Latham]

We have the expertise in Derby and it is important that we spread it around. If the Great British Railways comes to Derby, it will benefit Nottingham and other counties, including Staffordshire and Leicestershire, because we are quite a tight-knit community. There are so many innovative companies based in and around Derby that it will have a knock-on benefit for so many people and the local economy. It is really important, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, that we have thriving private businesses working with Government organisations. Working together, they can achieve so much more. I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention.

We continue to be the home of rail research, as has been said. In 1935, the LMS Scientific Research Laboratory was established in Derby, which evolved into British Rail’s globally recognised Railway Technical Centre that opened in 1964, and that tradition of innovation continues today through special rail consultancies, dynamic small and medium-sized enterprises, and the University of Derby’s rail research and innovation centre, so there is a host of reasons why the Minister must choose Derby.

Derby is home to the largest cluster of rail engineering companies anywhere in Europe, with an international reputation for rail excellence and innovation. There are more than 11,000 rail sector employees in Derbyshire, spanning operations, design, manufacture, testing, safety, data and finance. Nowhere else in the whole country can we design, test and manufacture a train all on the same site. Not only that, but alongside the University of Derby, our rail industry is leading the way on rail decarbonisation—a huge part of our country’s efforts to achieve net zero by 2050. In addition to these practical reasons why Derby is the best choice, I would like to talk about the longer-term impact of such a decision, and how it fits in with the Government’s policy aims. First, for GBR, choosing Derby brings the opportunity to engage more closely than ever with the private sector. Last year, the Williams-Shapps plan for rail laid out clearly the Government’s intention for GBR to work ever more closely with the private sector, learning lessons and fostering innovation.

As I have explained, there is no better place for interaction with the private sector than Derbyshire, whether seeking to collaborate with the largest rail companies in the land, or to learn from and help to develop the most innovative engineering or railway technology businesses. I know I need not repeat, for the Minister has heard me make the point many times, that Derby is home to the largest private sector rail industry cluster in Europe, and the associated benefits that that would bring to our public sector rail body.

The east midlands is the rail capital of the UK, with a global reputation for excellence. I would like to quote the Government’s rail sector deal:

“The east midlands is one of the largest rail clusters in Europe…The success of UK rail will owe much to the successful nurturing of these clusters.”

In the recently published levelling-up White Paper, the midlands rail cluster is referred to as one of the largest in the world, incorporating rail operations, research and innovation, digital applications, manufacturing, technical services and finance.

Derby and Derbyshire, along with the whole of the east midlands, are often left behind when it comes to public funding. Levelling up is a phrase we have heard a lot recently, and it is really important for Derby. We have heard Ministers and the Prime Minister talking about it, but I would like to see it delivered for Derby. We must be clear that levelling up is about taking advantage of the talents and skills all around the country, not just about giving a handout. That is why bringing GBR to Derby really is levelling up. Placing the headquarters of Great British Railways at the heart of the largest railway cluster in Europe is an example of the Government taking advantage of the amazing skillset and industry knowledge that we have in abundance in the east midlands, which for so long have been overlooked.

[Mrs Latham]

It is important that levelling up works for the whole country, and that we genuinely level up. We need a lot of levelling up in our region, and it is important for the Government to do what they say.

Alongside that, we will have the opportunity for many apprentices and to improve skills we already have. It is amazing that at Alstom, which builds the trains, there are some fantastic female apprentices. They are not straight from school; they have worked outside and come in as apprentices. They are so passionate about building trains and making it right. We have the workforce who want to do the job. With Great British Railways, and all the other businesses in Derby, we could provide an apprenticeship for everybody, because there are so many opportunities with so many different businesses in the area. It is incredibly important—

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way. People may think it is slightly strange that someone from Nottingham is supporting Derby, but it is important to take a view of the whole of our region. Does she agree that if Great British Railways were based in Derby, which of course is a key city of the east midlands, its employees travelling there would see that it is on a north-south line that is not fully electrified, and that, at the moment, we have very poor east-west connections to Birmingham and the west midlands? That might remind them every single day of the importance of the levelling up that she is talking about and the need for more investment in our transport network.

[Mrs Latham]

That is absolutely right. The people who come to work for Great British Railways will see the benefits of what we do in Derby and across the region, and that we need better links. We have links, but we need better ones. It is no good looking at places such as Birmingham, which has huge innovation and lots of other businesses, and does not specialise in rail. Derby specialises in rail, so locating Great British Railways there would have a huge impact on the economy and the area. That will add to the levelling up agenda, and Nottingham will benefit from that. Cities need to play to their strengths. Nottingham has different strengths, and Derby’s greatest strength is the rail industry, as well as Rolls-Royce aero-engines, the nuclear sector and Toyota. We have planes, trains and automobiles in our area, and huge skills in engineering, which are very important. Lots of people from Nottingham work in Derby, and vice versa, because there are opportunities for different industries to employ people.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I should not allow the impression to be given that there are not fantastic rail engineering companies in Nottingham. LB Foster in my constituency produces rail technologies, rail lubrication and friction modification. It has worked on Crossrail, and produced the original boards at St Pancras station. That technology is spread across the midlands, although Derby is very much at the heart of the industry.

[Mrs Latham]

Of course, that is true. The hon. Lady talks about local companies being involved in St Pancras station, and the bricks that were used there came from Butterley in Derbyshire, so we are steeped in the rail industry—from the construction of buildings, right through to the construction of trains and all the engineering in between.

The Minister may not be aware that Derby was home to Britain’s first railway staff training college, which opened in 1938. It is now known as the Derby Conference Centre. That amazing, beautiful building has been repurposed, but it was the heart of the railway staff training college, which is very important to Derby.

Derby’s bid is supported not just by Derby’s MPs, or even Derbyshire MPs. I am delighted by the support that colleagues from across the region have given to our bid. They not only recognise that Derby is the best location for the Great British Railways headquarters, but know that it will benefit GBR, Derby and the wider region in the long term. Some of those colleagues are here today. I would have liked to have said many, but the late night means that not many are here.

I remind the Minister of all the right hon. and hon. Members who have already publicly pledged their support for the bid, demonstrating their support for Derby and levelling up in the east midlands. First, there are the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) and my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Amanda Solloway) and for South Derbyshire. Then there are all the other Derbyshire MPs from across parties. Several are Ministers so cannot speak in this debate, but I know that they have expressed their support to the Minister through other channels. We have also received support from outside Derbyshire. There have been key contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), my hon. Friends the Members for Burton (Kate Griffiths) and for Bosworth (Dr Evans), and the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who is a former Chair of the Transport Committee and was shadow Transport Secretary for a long time, so understands the industry in the area. Also supporting us are my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith), for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and for Mansfield (Ben Bradley)—who is also leader of Nottinghamshire County Council, which is important because it is fully behind us—and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson). That is a formidable amount of parliamentary support. It is not just Derby Members who want it. The support stretches across four counties and at least six upper-tier authorities representing the entire east midlands region.

We have over 11,000 highly skilled people in rail-related employment across the east midlands, with around 45,000 jobs connected to the rail industry delivering train building and refurbishment, infrastructure maintenance and renewals, operations, digital technology, safety management, specialist finance and other key roles.

The thing about Derby is that, compared with other cities in the region, we do not have many civil servants based in our city or indeed in the county. There is one very small rail industry body, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, but apart from that we have very few. If we are talking seriously about levelling up, it means bringing in Great British Railways to take part in this wider rail industry in Derby, Derbyshire and across to Nottinghamshire.

It is very important that GBR comes to Derby, because it would cement the whole of the rail industry. It would benefit from working with the private sector and learning about all the different private businesses there, as well as our huge innovation. A lot of apprentices go from Derby College into the rail industry. The university also works very hard with the rail industry. It is such a key place, and not just for history. History is important, but it is about the future.

The first railway cottages in the world are in Derby. They were saved by the Derbyshire Historic Building Trust many years ago. They were going to be bulldozed to make way for a four-lane motorway through the centre of Derby, which would have been crazy. These beautiful railway cottages are genuinely the oldest in the world. We have history, but we also have the innovation. We have the will of the people in Derby. I hope that the public vote will show that they really care about the railway industry in Derby. Another part of the jigsaw is to bring Great British Railways to Derby.

[Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. My colleague from Derbyshire, the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), has done a brilliantly comprehensive job of making the case for Derby to be the home of the headquarters. She has left very little for anyone else to say, but I will pick up on one or two points.

The hon. Lady covered this ably in her remarks, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), but I particularly want to stress that there is much to be said about the tremendous history of rail in Derby. It is something in which the whole community takes great pride. However, we are not just about the history of rail. The present and the future of rail also have a very strong base in Derby. That is the key point that I would like to leave with the Minister. There are other places with much past connection to rail, but I do not think there is anywhere else that has the unique combination of history, strength, community understanding, skills and families who have all lived with rail right across the city and its environs.

As the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire said, Alstom has the only facility in the United Kingdom—it has been the only facility for some time—that goes all the way from design to production of new rolling stock. As the Minister will know, Alstom, in partnership with Hitachi, is providing the rolling stock for Crossrail and for HS2, so Derby is both looking to the future and to delivering now.

The word “partnership” is very familiar to Derby, as it is in partnership with other places across the country—Hitachi is also in partnership in the north-east—and within our city and community. There is tremendous community spirit and co-operation in the whole business sector in the locality of Derby.

As the hon. Lady has pointed out, we are very much a transport hub; we are not just a rail hub. Toyota is based in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), Rolls-Royce is based in my constituency, and a collection of people are working constructively together all the time. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire touched on the rail forum, which now has some 300 companies from across the UK. I am sure that the Minister will find herself invited, if she has not been already, to various functions in the rail industry, and she will find that a concentration of people are in or have come to Derby and that the spirit of partnership that we all need is very much present.

Reference has been made to the importance and strength of our geographical location, which makes it is easy to travel to places such as Cardiff. As well as the north-south connections, and although there is weakness in the east-west links to Birmingham and so on, people rarely highlight the impressive fact that CrossCountry trains, which run between Inverness and Penzance, run through Derby. In the near future, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy will visit the Met Office in Exeter, and I shall come home on the train, from Exeter straight through to Derby. Geographically, therefore, Derby is an extraordinarily convenient place. It deals with both the present and the future of rail.

As has already been highlighted, there is a great concentration of skills, knowledge and experience in the community, among the existing and the potential workforce, but more than that there is opportunity. There is training and a rail-specific educational engagement programme, run in partnership with Rail Forum Midlands. Those developments can all be of benefit to Great British Railways.

On the issue of whether enough, or any, civil servants are being brought out from the centre into our locality, it is a constant source of astonishment to me that Derby is not recognised more readily as an attractive environment for those who would come to work in the headquarters. We have an extremely competitive housing market—that may not please everybody, but it is certainly true—particularly for people who might be coming out from the centre. We have excellent facilities and, of course, we have on our doorstep one of the most beautiful national parks in England.

Derby has a great deal to offer and has an immensely strong sense of community. It is a community that looks outwards and is welcoming. I have experienced—perhaps the Minister has, too—places with a strong sense of community, but it is directed inward: “If you haven’t lived here for 60 years, you don’t really belong.” Derby is not like that. Even if people have been there only five minutes, we will treat them as if they and their grandparents before them had been there all their life. It is a very warm and welcoming place, where such new employment would be welcomed and could thrive.

As has been touched on, there is the whole question of research and development for the future. The plethora of companies that operate in and around Derby makes it a home of real innovation. For my part, I have a great attachment to the manufacturing industry and, within that, a particular attachment to innovation. We do not devote nearly enough attention to innovation, but it is where Britain has a great track record. It has been said that, under successive Governments, far too often we innovate but do not follow through—other people exploit our innovation. We certainly have the innovation and we should, I hope, focus more on how it can be exploited in future.

The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire also commented on support from across the local business community—not just rail-related business, but the whole business community in Derby and Derbyshire, which works well together on all kinds of projects. As I recall, we have support from Tarmac, which has quarries up in Derbyshire, serviced by rail, where it produces aggregate needed for the housing programme. Its efficient operation is dependent on the facility of rail. Right across the piece, therefore, we see an opportunity. The support should be there to develop rail to the maximum advantage, with a real interest in and pressure for research and future development.

[Lilian Greenwood]

No one understands Derby and its history as well as my right hon. Friend. Does she agree that one thing about Derby and the east midlands is the importance of freight? Derby brings not only that knowledge of rail infrastructure and rolling stock, but interaction with freight customers, which is important because they can sometimes be forgotten in the focus on passengers. Freight is important in our region, historically because of quarrying, and increasingly with the rail freight hub and proximity to the East Midlands airport, which is a huge freight airport. That brings a thinking that is unique in the country.

[Margaret Beckett]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is slightly unfortunate that there is no better link at present, because, as she says, East Midlands airport is the freight airport, in particular for freight from the United States. It is very much an airport linked to freight. That gives us an opportunity to develop strengths and partnerships that might not have been fully developed so far. Again, that is an opportunity to innovate and develop support for the future.

I do not want to take too long or to simply repeat everything said by the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire. However, I hope that we will convince the Minister and those organising the programme for Great British Railways that nowhere in the UK is better suited to house its headquarters—to everyone’s advantage—than the city of Derby. The massive support that the city and its environment can provide for the establishment of the headquarters will very much play in our favour.

Rail Connectivity: Leicester, Coventry and Nottingham

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)]

I rise this evening to discuss rail connectivity between the east and west midlands, specifically the connection between my city of Leicester and Nottingham and Coventry. Currently, the public transport links between Leicester and Coventry, in particular, are woefully inadequate. Leicester has a strong and proud railway history. For a century, roughly from the 1850s to the 1950s, Leicester had seven railway stations within its city boundary. Today there is just one—London Road. That is why I am making the case for real investment into new links for my city and constituents.

In response to my request, I am sure the Minister will talk about the integrated rail plan and the £96 billion investment into our railways. Of course, investment in public transport is welcome, especially during a climate emergency. Leicester did receive some support via plans to electrify the midland main line through Leicester, but more ambitious plans for unlocking capacity at the station were sadly overlooked.

It is also worth noting that the electrification would have already been completed by now if a Conservative Government had not cancelled it in 2017. All the mentions related to Leicester in the 162-page integrated rail plan document are simply a repeated formulation of the electrification policy. Crucially, the long-awaited and long-delayed integrated rail plan was silent on the Coventry-Leicester-Nottingham project, apart from an opaque mention of Coventry and of improving links in the midlands rail hub. I would be grateful if the Minister informed the House whether that mention was indeed a nod to this critical scheme. I and many Leicester residents would welcome some real clarity on that point this evening.

For the Minister’s ease, I will read the relevant sentence on page 16 of the Government’s integrated rail plan:

“By redeveloping the Midlands Rail Hub business case it focuses on improving links to Hereford, Worcester, Coventry and regional links to South Wales and Bristol.”

As the Minister is aware, the midlands rail hub includes a Coventry-Leicester-Nottingham project within its broadest scope. Will she please confirm whether the Government share the view that the Coventry-Leicester-Nottingham scheme is part of the midlands rail hub?

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my frustration at the delays that we constantly get from this Government? It has been almost a year since Midlands Connect developed the strategic outline business case for these improvements, but we have still not had any funding decisions. Does she agree that it is now time for the Government to bring this important scheme to its next stage so that our constituents start to feel the benefits sooner rather than later?

[Claudia Webbe]

I do indeed. My hon. Friend makes an excellent and important point.

Will we be able to access funding via the rail enhancements pipeline as a result of the opaque mention in the integrated rail plan? The view that we should is held not just by me, but by Conservative Members and by Andy Street, Mayor of the West Midlands, who is regularly lauded from the Government Dispatch Box, so I would be grateful if the Minister cleared up the issue of scope for us this evening. That would put a lot of minds in the region at rest.

A recent report by the sub-national transport body Midlands Connect set out plans to reinstate direct rail services between Coventry, Leicester and Nottingham for the first time in two decades, creating more than 2 million extra seats on the region’s rail network every year. The proposals would cut journey times by 30% between Coventry and Leicester and by 35% between Coventry and Nottingham.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Wendy Morton)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) on securing this debate about rail connectivity between Leicester, Coventry and Nottingham. The cities of Leicester, Coventry and Nottingham lie at the heart of this country, serving as beacons of productivity and potential, and so understanding the needs of their communities, passengers and businesses is absolutely crucial in delivering a rail network that works for everyone. That is why the Department for Transport set up Midlands Connect to help to develop a pipeline of proposals for the region, informed by local people, businesses and councils that know what is best for their region.

Midlands Connect is a partnership of local authorities, local enterprise partnerships, Network Rail, National Highways and the business community. It published its first transport strategy in 2017 and has spent the past 18 months refreshing its evidence base in order to produce a new strategic transport plan, which will be published in April. I eagerly await the plan, which will then set out Midland Connect’s investment priorities for the next decade.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for her contribution this evening to that broad evidence-gathering effort. I know her advocacy of investment in the local rail network service serves as a valuable representation of the needs of her constituents. I am sure it will be understood that, given the constrained fiscal environment we find ourselves in, competition for funding is stronger than ever and not all proposals will receive funding. However, she is taking the right approach in advocating for rail investment in her region and, along with Midland Connect’s ongoing work to develop proposals, this work is vital in shaping the future of the rail network in the east midlands, even if funding availability proves limiting in the short term.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I appreciate that our region has to compete with others, but the Minister will know that the east midlands region has the lowest level of transport rail spending in the country and has had for some time. If she is serious about levelling up, do we not have to invest in transport links in the east midlands region? Nottingham and Coventry are 108 minutes apart. They are about the same distance apart as London and Reading, yet the journey times in the south-east are so much faster. Should she not be investing to make that difference?

[Wendy Morton]

I will come on to some of the investments we have been making, but let us not lose sight of the fact that we are investing a massive £96 billion in the midlands and the north through the integrated rail plan over the next 30 years, which is about delivering benefits for passengers.

Taking a long-term approach to rail investment by developing a pipeline of deliverable proposals is the right way to ensure that the east midlands can receive investment as and when funding becomes available. Midlands Connect has produced a strategic outline business case setting out the case for connecting Coventry, Leicester and Nottingham by rail. This provides a useful overview of how rail connectivity between those three cities could be delivered and the benefits it could yield. Midlands Connect has made strong arguments for the proposal, describing a range of economic, social and environmental benefits that it expects to arise from the implementation of the scheme.

I therefore appreciate the desire of the hon. Member for Leicester East to improve transport links between the three cities. My officials at the Department are currently evaluating the case and will report back to me in due course. It is important that I reiterate that, in the context of an unprecedented economic strain as a result of the covid-19 pandemic, not all proposals we would like to deliver can be funded, but each proposal will be evaluated on its merits and affordability.

I also note that we are considering a number of other schemes proposed for the east midlands through the integrated rail plan. The IRP recommends improved connectivity between the east and west midlands via a new HS2 station at Curzon Street in central Birmingham and via existing stations at Nottingham and East Midlands Parkway. It also suggests that the Department works with Midlands Connect to develop connectivity to the east midlands and Coventry as part of the committed midlands rail hub programme. Although it is important to plan ahead and strive for more, I will take a moment to reflect on some of the excellent work that has already been done in recent years to improve rail transport for the east midlands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady is nodding. The pipeline approach is designed to ensure that future rail projects are properly planned and scrutinised to deliver maximum value and benefit to rail users and taxpayers, and that the portfolio is balanced and affordable. It is important that projects continue to be assessed and prioritised based on their business cases and how they contribute to key Government priorities.

The updated rail network enhancements pipeline is due to be published soon and we will set out our revised programme following the spending review. We will continue to work with stakeholders to develop proposals for future funding rounds should it not be possible to take forward particular proposals at this time.

I want to conclude by thanking the hon. Member for Leicester East.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Wendy Morton]

I will continue to conclude.

I thank the hon. Member for Leicester East for securing this debate and shining a spotlight on rail connectivity between Leicester, Coventry and Nottingham. She should be assured that a lot of work is ongoing to understand the needs of the region and to plan a pipeline of work to deliver a better rail network for Leicester and the east midlands. I urge her to continue her work with the Department and with Midlands Connect to bolster our understanding of the transport needs of Leicester and the east midlands and to shape future rail investments for the good of her constituents and the wider region.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend is right to spot a gap in the law here, which is why the Home Secretary is introducing, in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, legislation that would make the actual activity criminal. Instead, we have had to resort essentially to civil law. Through those injunctions, 130 activists have been served with 475 sets of injunction papers. We are seeing the fruits of that when they reoffend and the courts take offence to the fact that they have ignored the court injunction and continue to persist. Prison and unlimited fines are the upshot of that, but a proper law to cover this is coming and I invite the Opposition to support it.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Roads across this country are blocked every single day not by protesters, but by traffic congestion, at a huge cost to health, the environment and business. This problem will only get worse unless the alternatives to rising car use—walking, cycling and public transport—are safer, more convenient and affordable. Will the Secretary of State reverse his plans to raise rail fares by an eye-watering 3.8% next March?

[Grant Shapps]

I do not want to try your patience by switching to a rail discussion, Mr Speaker, but I will say to the hon. Lady, who knows a great deal about this subject, that Opposition Front Benchers do not want to build or maintain any roads in this country. Whether it is a bicycle or an electric bus—to go back to the previous conversation—they all require roads to drive along, so I suggest that she has a word with her Front Benchers and supports our plan for £24 billion for road maintenance and development.

Rail Investment and Integrated Rail Plan

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The people of Bradford are rightly furious about this decision.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful argument. Does she agree that it is not surprising that the Government are reneging on their promises on the HS2 eastern leg because they did precisely the same thing with regard to electrification of the midland mainline, which was promised by 2015, promised by 2017 and promised by 2019, and we will now be incredibly lucky if it is even delivered by 2034?

[Louise Haigh]

This is exactly the problem. The problem that Ministers have is whether we can even trust what is being promised in this plan.

In this country we measure infrastructure investment not in months but in years and in decades. When the Victorians laid the foundations for our modern railway, it was a vote of confidence in our future. The integrated rail plan was the Government’s chance to build a railway fit for the century to come that would help us to tackle the climate crisis, but when the north came to cash its cheque, it bounced. At the heart of these broken promises are the missed opportunities for investment, for growth and for business. The OECD could not have been clearer when it said that investment in regional transport drives growth. Northern Powerhouse Rail could have increased productivity by 6%—a £22 billion boost to the northern economy. That opportunity has been squandered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grant Shapps]

I will make some progress.

You could be forgiven for thinking, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we had abandoned all those plans if you listened to the Opposition, and I would not for one moment want them to mislead the House—albeit inadvertently, I am sure—on what we are doing. As I mentioned, we are not just building one high speed line from Crewe to Manchester; we are building a second high speed line from Warrington to Manchester to west Yorkshire, slashing journey times across the north, and a third high speed line from Birmingham to the east midlands with HS2 trains continuing to central Nottingham, central Derby, Chesterfield and Sheffield on an upgraded and electrified midland main line. Just one of those might be regarded as a major achievement for any Government, particularly given the economic shock of the last two years, but we are doing all three.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that under his plans, the high speed line joins the midland main line at East Midlands Parkway and does not go any further north, thus depriving Nottingham and all the cities of the east midlands of the improved connectivity and faster journey times to Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle and Scotland? Is that not precisely why my constituents are so angry about his broken promises?

[Grant Shapps]

It is absolutely extraordinary: the hon. Lady’s constituents in Nottingham were not going to be served by the HS2 line that was going to be built, so they were not going to get the additional journey times or the improvements, and now they will. I suggest that it is important not to mislead her constituents—[Interruption.] inadvertently, I should say, perhaps through not having read the details of the IRP—with regard to the many advantages that they will now get. As I was about to say, the journey time from Birmingham to Nottingham will be cut from an hour and a quarter to just 26 minutes through the new plan, so it is far better for her constituents. We will reduce rail journey time between London and Derby from almost an hour and a half to just under an hour, and in Leeds we are going to invest £100 million to look at how we can best take the HS2 trains through to the city, as well as to start work on a west Yorkshire mass transit system, which is something successive Governments have failed to do.

I must say I am slightly surprised by the disappointment of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley. I would urge all those who listened to her speech today to study the actual details of the plan, because it is producing benefits not only for the midlands and the north years ahead of what was planned, but for her own Sheffield constituency. She will want to hear the benefits for her Sheffield constituency. I know from her previous work that she was diligent and worked very hard campaigning to get that electrification done, so let us give her constituents some of the facts about what this new plan brings. The midland main line will be electrified to Sheffield, which is something she has been calling for—she has been calling for it—and the upgrade of the Hope Valley line between Manchester and Sheffield will be completed. HS2 trains will reach Sheffield and—get this—the journey from Sheffield to London will be half an hour quicker.

I have a suggestion for how the hon. Lady can use the extra half an hour she will have gained. I think she could spend half an hour speaking to her party leader and convincing him of the case for HS2. She might have her work cut out, though. This, after all, is the man who called for HS2 to be cancelled, and he even voted against his own party’s instructions—defying a three-line Whip—to try to stop the thing she says she is now campaigning for. I have no doubt about her own convictions on the need for HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail, and she has been consistent in calling for the electrification of the midland main line, but I do wonder if she knows her own leader’s views on that project. Recently, he called the electrification of the midland main line “complete nonsense”. As usual, we are looking at a Labour party riddled with divisions and too busy arguing with itself—and that is just the Leader of the Opposition. Meanwhile, we are getting on with delivering, as promised, better, faster and more reliable trains, and they are going to get there sooner as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow, on this side of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones). We both have the distinction of having had two stints as Ministers in charge of HS2 and major rail projects, and we both bear the scars on our backs. One of my first duties as a Minister was to cancel the electrification of the midland main line, so I am delighted to see that the integrated rail plan reverses that. Who knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) might get a surprise in five or six years’ time. Who is to say?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Maynard]

Only if I get another minute!

[Lilian Greenwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that this decision to reverse the previous decision to cancel the electrification of the midland main line shows that the Government do not have a proper strategy for delivering net zero or for delivering rail investment? Is this not the most inefficient way to electrify the railway? Should they not have a proper rolling programme rather than this stop-go approach?