Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to catch my eye. Colleagues can see how many people are bobbing. We will go to the Front Benchers at 3.28 pm. I intend to start with a three-minute limit to try to get in one speaker from each of the parties. That may not be possible, but I will try to achieve that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Indeed I do.

Sir Alec, just think how much time and effort our volunteer coastguard rescue officers put into ensuring that they can provide the very best service and dovetail with the other emergency services. They are real multitaskers and trained to a very high standard. They have to be multiskilled. They are trained in search skills up to police search adviser standard and trained to medical critical care standard. They have the mud rescue fitness of a fire officer, do water rescue—entering the water in full personal protective equipment, including steel-toed boots—and are trained for cliff rescues and working with rescue helicopters. In other words, they have to be really versatile and ready to go out in the most appalling rain, risking their lives.

CROs give up their own time to do the training, but it is no good just doing the training. They have to maintain the skills through practice sessions, because lives depend on it. They get £11 an hour for some training sessions, but they have to do the practice sessions every week just as volunteers. Of course, many of them have been extremely loyal, given many years of service and even had awards from the King for their service. No one is pretending that volunteer coastguards do it for the money, but a little something towards the costs and inconvenience that they incur is welcome in a cost of living crisis. Yes, they get some costs and mileage, but there are, even there, serious legal matters like having to pay business insurance for their own cars.

Stopping the payments in September looks exceedingly cynical: as if to say, “We will make the most of your skills and dedication over the summer, when we are expecting loads of visitors”—perhaps more than ever, because of the jet-fuel fears—“but come September, we will make the cut that we know might make some of you resign.” I can tell the House that CROs feel so insulted and angry, to put it mildly. Who can blame them? If His Majesty’s Coastguard thinks that it will be able to get new recruits, it is living in cloud cuckoo land. No one is going to volunteer after this treatment. Plus, it takes a very special person to be able to do this type of work, and gone are the days when big employers could release people. It is much more difficult now, given that far more people are self-employed.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister, first, pause the current cuts plan for September to give time for a rethink and then, importantly, find a way for volunteer coastguards to be at least as well rewarded financially as they are now? I do not want any hiding behind legal issues. There must be ways of doing that. Could the Minister also clarify what is happening about death in service for those who pass away while they are still volunteer CROs? That would greatly benefit the families of the deceased.

We simply cannot allow our dedicated volunteer coastguard rescue officers, with all the service that they have given and continue to give, to be kicked in the teeth like this. Lives depend on their good will and expertise, and we have a responsibility to ensure that they are properly respected and rewarded—

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. I am going to break with convention ever so slightly. The next speaker will be the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, as she is one of our new colleagues and I want to give her three minutes. After that, returning to convention, I will call Lloyd Hatton, at which point we will have a two-minute limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend is right, and I will come to that in a second. I want to share quotes from some of many CROs who have been in contact we me. One said,

“Many CROs…make considerable personal financial sacrifices in order to respond to incidents. Whilst nobody joins the coastguard for financial gain, the current remuneration helps offset the real costs associated with responding, including loss of earnings, disruption to employment, interrupted family life, loss of sleep and the wider impacts that emergency responses can have.”

Needless to say, many of the CROs in my area are self-employed. Others say that on this occasion the bosses have

“made us all redundant and re-employed us as volunteers.”

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) spoke about using the model of retained firefighters, who are recompensed through a combination of an annual retainer, hourly rates for training and call-outs, and specific disturbance fees. That is a good model for the MCA to look at seriously.

I gave the Minister advance notice of a large number of questions, so I will summarise some of them. What level of consultation was undertaken with CROs prior to this announcement? What alternative options, including models such as the fire service and the RNLI, have been considered? What workforce modelling has been conducted to assess the likely impact on retention and availability? What operational safety assessment has been completed regarding the potential loss of experience, skills and leadership capability? What contingency plans exist if volunteer numbers fall below expected levels? In terms of viability, how has HM Coastguard satisfied itself on public safety? What impact assessment has been undertaken of the resilience of the future of coastguard rescue teams as a category one emergency call-out?

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

I do want to let everybody have a chance to put something on the record but, due to interventions, I have to cut to one minute. Any further interventions on speeches will reduce that further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Edward Morello.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing today’s debate—quite a feat, given that the Department for Transport was not meant to be answering Westminster Hall debates this week. He managed to secure a debate on an issue that has caused serious concerns not just for our coastal areas across the United Kingdom, but for all of us; I speak as a Member of Parliament representing a seat about as far away from the sea as it is possible to get within England.

The changes to the renumeration of coastguard volunteers have raised fundamental questions about the future of the service, as we have heard clearly from across the House today. I thank my colleagues who have attended the debate to set out those concerns and the scale of the challenges facing the coastguard. Those colleagues included my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who has had to go to run the drop-in event. I welcome his informative comments on the process in the main Chamber, given his constituent’s role in the legal case and the need to get the response to the legal decision right.

The question of how the coastguard operates truly matters. Protecting our coastlines from harm is essential, and the coastguard has played a central role in that over centuries. We must preserve the lives of those who are in danger and support our coastal towns and cities, where upholding safety is a priority. That brings us to the issue underpinning the debate: what happens if we no longer have those volunteers? We know that the 3,000 volunteer staff play a considerable role in protecting the public; it is integral that they remain part of the service.

For as long as the coastguard has existed, there have been questions of remuneration. For example, in 1831, the Admiralty published new regulations as part of a plan for the coastguard to become a reserve for the Royal Navy. It included payments and allowances—a salary of £10 for a chief boatman and £5 for a commissioned boatman. As volunteer servicemen entered the system, the Government provided support to the coastguard and to volunteer lifesaving organisations across the UK. More recently, the 1990s saw the Department conduct internal reviews of the role that auxiliaries should play in the service compared with those working full time.

The relationship between the state and the coastguard has changed throughout the years along with the evolution of its structure, but there has been a principle of ensuring that people can volunteer, while maintaining incentives so that the coastguard is able to operate effectively. Worryingly, the decision that was accepted by the Government, stemming from the court case, completely alters the relationship that has been put in place.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. I am about to suspend the sitting due to Divisions in the House. I will aim to come back earlier than 10 minutes after the last Division starts. If the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the shadow Minister, the Minister and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland are here, we will start as quickly as we can, but it will be no later than 10 minutes after the last Division. I remind Members that if they have spoken, they need to come back to the Chamber. If I start slightly earlier, I will give some leeway, but I expect everybody who has spoken to be back in the Chamber 10 minutes after the start of the last Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

Apologies for de-knighting you earlier, Sir Alec. I thank all hon. Members who took part in the debate and recognise in particular the contribution from the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird). We welcome her to the community of Westminster Hall.

I did not remember to count early enough, but I think that we had at least 32 Members of Parliament in this Chamber at the start. In addition, I had indications from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and the hon. Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) that they would have been here also.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Carmichael, you have been a Member of this House an exceptionally long time. You know that you are not allowed to wear clothing with slogans on it. Please fasten your jacket.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am bereft, Sir Alec. I do hope that nobody goes back and looks at the footage of me when I was inadvertently leaving my jacket open in that manner.

As I was saying, a number of other Members wanted to be here. I listened to the Minister. He is telling me—telling us all, in fact—that the problem is the law, and I am thinking to myself, “My goodness, if only there were something that the Government could do about the law.”

I do not honestly know what the answer is—I am not without sympathy for the position in which the Minister finds himself—but I do know what it is not. It is not to take away the terms and conditions that people have served under up until now and to treat them with the utter disregard that the chief executive and the senior management of the MCA are displaying. I again suggest to the Minister that we need to pause this, work it again, properly, talk to the CROs in a respectful and engaging manner, and then come back with something that focuses not on the process argument that we have heard and that we understand, but on the outcomes, because the outcomes for our communities, if we do not get this right, will be catastrophic and I do not want that to be happening on my watch.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered HMRC guidance and remuneration of coastguard volunteers.

Hammersmith Bridge

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for that question; I will ask the Minister the same thing. Where is that funding? Has agreement been reached between the three bodies, Transport for London, Hammersmith and Fulham council and the Department for Transport? That was the agreement, but where is the agreement now? I am not sure where it is or what funding is on the table, so I am hoping to hear from the Minister later.

The bus taskforce that I mentioned has had to meet monthly since then and is still meeting. It is really good and we are getting a lot done—we are making changes to try to get the traffic moving—but we still have the constant background of the closure of Hammersmith bridge, which in effect makes transport, particularly on the roads in my constituency and those surrounding, less resilient. When one thing happens, there is a knock-on effect that significantly clogs up the roads.

Seven years on, residents, commuters and businesses in Putney are still paying the price. For many residents in Putney and Roehampton, it is not a minor inconvenience or something we could have just got over in the last seven years; it is a fundamental barrier to daily life. The majority of households in the London borough of Wandsworth do not have a car. They rely on buses to get to work, school and medical appointments, as well as to see family. The loss of these connections has made everyday life significantly harder.

Behind the statistics are real people, real stories and real consequences. Ana is a constituent from west Putney who came along to my recent action event at the bridge. She has a 12-year-old son, Santiago, who has Down’s syndrome and complex needs. He attends a specialist school in Hammersmith on the other side of the bridge, which is the nearest school equipped to support him. Before the closure, their journey was straightforward and manageable. Since then, it has become an exhausting and unpredictable ordeal, often taking well over an hour each way.

On one occasion, Ana allowed two full hours to take Santiago from school in Hammersmith back to a medical appointment at St George’s hospital. The journey took nearly three hours and they missed the appointment entirely. Even when the hospital kindly rescheduled, the same journey the following week still took two and a half hours. It should take nowhere near that and certainly would not if the bridge were reopened to vehicles. That is not just an inconvenience; it is missed healthcare.

Furthermore, the closure has cut Santiago off from important social opportunities. He used to attend weekly football sessions for children with Down’s syndrome in Shepherd’s Bush, which supported his physical health, confidence and social development, but the journey became so long and exhausting that he would fall asleep in the car. Eventually, he had to stop attending altogether, missing out on three years of those vital physical activities. I have spoken about Ana’s experience at length because it highlights something we must not overlook: although the closure affects everyone, disabled children and their families are hardest hit. Public transport is not always a viable option, and the long diversions that currently exist place enormous strain on already complex routines.

I have heard countless more stories from constituents before and since I told them about this debate. Caroline, another resident, drives to visit her 92-year-old mother for dinner on Fridays. What used to be a 40-minute journey before the bridge closure now takes up to two hours. Paula told me that her heart sinks every time she gets into her car to visit her daughter and family in Hammersmith. With only one viable route left via Fulham Palace Road, what was once a straightforward journey now often takes twice as long with no certainty about the delays she will face. These are the quiet, cumulative losses—a loss of time with loved ones, missed moments and added stress—that rarely make the headlines, but define people’s daily lives.

I have also heard from residents whose cancer treatments have been disrupted, from separated parents struggling to maintain contact with their children, and from students cut off from study opportunities. Some of the words my constituents have used to describe the reality of living with the bridge’s continued closure are: “nightmare”, “miserable”, “unsafe”, “disastrous”, “absurd” and “national scandal”. That is the human cost of inaction on the bridge.

The consequences are not just limited to individuals; they extend across the local economy as well. More than 75% of local businesses report moderate or severe negative impacts as a result of the closure. Reduced footfall in shops, delayed deliveries and staff struggling to get to work have all taken their toll. Small businesses in Putney have been hit hard. Customers are deterred by the congestion. Journeys that should take minutes take far longer. Deliveries are delayed and more expensive. The closure has created a drag on economic activity across Putney, Barnes, Hammersmith and beyond. At a time when local high streets are already under pressure, it is an added burden they can ill afford.

There is also a clear environmental cost. Thousands of additional vehicles are now being diverted through already congested roads, especially Putney High Street, because we can only go along to the next bridge—we do not have all the options that there would otherwise be in a different area. This has led to increased air pollution, higher noise levels and more dangerous conditions for road users. Cyclists are put off cycling through Putney because of the higher congestion and heavier traffic, making it feel more unsafe. I really am worried about potential cyclists—the people we want to get out of their cars and on to the roads using more active travel—because many in Putney are put off. Bus journeys, as I have said, are further delayed as well. The overall effect is a transport network that is less efficient, less safe and less sustainable, and that is not good for our environment.

The situation has now become even more acute. On the other side of us, the closure of Albert bridge in February 2026, again due to structural issues, is expected to last up to a year, and we do not know how much longer. That has placed even greater strain on the remaining crossings and has intensified congestion across south-west London. Albert bridge carried 20,000 vehicles a day before the February closure. With two key bridges affected, residents are effectively being cut off from travelling north of the river in a reasonable and reliable way. Of course they can travel, but it is the extra time and the unreliability that people tell me about. For a global city like London, that is not sustainable.

Connectivity is not a luxury. It is essential for economic growth, access to services, and the functioning of daily life. Since being elected in 2019, I have consistently campaigned for the full reopening of Hammersmith bridge to vehicles, including buses. I have raised the issue 26 times in Parliament. I have secured debates and led action days and public meetings in Putney. I have worked closely with residents and with Wandsworth borough council, which is also fully engaged and supportive of the restoring of the bridge. I have also worked with campaigners, including the Putney Action Group and Putney Society. I have raised the matter directly with the Prime Minister and pressed for leadership and urgency, and I have raised it with the Mayor of London.

Since April 2019, Hammersmith and Fulham council has spent nearly £54 million simply to make Hammersmith bridge safe. To put that into perspective, all London councils combined spent just £100 million between 2010 and 2021 on maintaining and repairing every road and river bridge across the capital, and even then much of that cost was ultimately picked up by Transport for London or central Government. The impact on Hammersmith and Fulham council’s budget is disproportionate. Thanks to the council’s action, Hammersmith bridge is no longer in danger of collapsing into the Thames, but it still costs the council around £2 million a year just to maintain its current restricted state. That money does not deliver a permanent solution; it merely postpones failure.

Hammersmith and Fulham council cannot afford to fund further repair works. Continuing to spend millions of pounds on temporary fixes is financially unsustainable and fundamentally unfair. The current approach is not viable and cannot continue. It is wholly unreasonable to expect Hammersmith and Fulham council to shoulder sole responsibility for a nationally significant, grade II listed heritage bridge. The unfair cost share must be addressed. In contrast to the Albert bridge, where funding is shared 75% by Transport for London and 25% by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, responsibility for Hammersmith bridge falls disproportionately on Hammersmith and Fulham council, which is expected to fund around 33% of the enormous cost.

Where are we now? Years of stalemate have produced an internationally embarrassing situation and daily frustration for residents, businesses and commuters. That cannot be allowed to continue. I am glad that the new Government and the Minister have taken a much more active role, as the previous Government were so dismissive. The Minister has brought together key stakeholders for the taskforce. A meeting was held at the Department for Transport in January 2025, which I attended along with the key bodies, including the Department for Transport, Transport for London, Hammersmith and Fulham council, Richmond council, Wandsworth council, the deputy mayor for transport, Historic England and the Port of London Authority.

The taskforce considered six options, which I know really well because I get asked about them all the time on the doorstep; people want to know what the options were, what is happening and what will happen next.

Option zero, which is the one that is kind of on the table, is the Foster and Partners and COWI proposal to deliver a temporary double-deck crossing within the existing structure of Hammersmith bridge, allowing pedestrians, cyclists, buses and cars to use the bridge while the full repair and restoration works are carried out around it using barges.

Option one was bridge closure with no access allowed; the structure would remain a beautiful monument, but no more than that. Option two was bridge repair and restoration sufficient to allow for active travel by pedestrians, cyclists and two single-decker buses. That would restore the bridge to how it was before the closure.

Option three was bridge repair and restoration sufficient for active travel only. Option four was a replacement bridge with a 44-tonne weight limit—to just get rid of the bridge and build a new one. I cannot tell Members how many Putney residents are in favour of that one. Option five was an offline replacement bridge—one somewhere else—with the existing structure remaining in place either around it or next to it.

I really appreciate that the Minister took a back-to-basics approach at the meeting to assess all the options and to see where we are now. In the meeting, option zero—the Foster and Partners and COWI one—remained on the table, and options one, four and five were ruled out on cost grounds. At that meeting, the Minister was also clear that leaving the bridge as it is “is not an option”. Officials were tasked with properly costing the restoration, and Historic England agreed in the meeting to look at revisiting its requirements, which is an important step that could help reduce the previously estimated £240 million cost.

I welcome the confirmation since then that funding may be available through the national structures fund and the Minister’s recent statement that Hammersmith bridge would be a strong candidate for investment from that fund. More broadly, the continuing impasse exposes a deeper structural problem. Now is the time to review the ownership and responsibility for all the bridges in London. These strategic assets should sit under a single authority with responsibility for maintenance, repairs and long-term investment. They should be taken out of the responsibility of local councils and put in the responsibility of one single body.

In conclusion, Minister, what concrete actions have been taken since the last taskforce meeting in January 2025? Is the Foster and Partners and COWI option still being assessed and considered? What is the current estimated cost—the updated figure—of fully restoring Hammersmith bridge? Have there been meetings, with decisions made, between Hammersmith and Fulham council, Transport for London and the Department for Transport, and has a viable agreed plan been reached between those three bodies? Has an application been made under the structures fund? If not, when will it be made? Either way, when will a decision about the structures fund funding be made? When will the taskforce next meet—I hope it will be soon—and will a firm timetable be shared with it? Finally, has any assessment been made in consultation with the Mayor of London on transferring responsibility for all bridges to one London body?

Let me be clear: action must be taken now. Potential funding is not the same as secured funding, discussions are not the same as decisions and processes cannot become excuses for further delays. Residents have waited for seven long years—seven years of severed communities, gridlocked roads, lost bus routes and daily hardship. That is not acceptable for a major transport route in our capital city. It is not acceptable for families trying to get to school or hospital appointments. It is not acceptable for businesses trying to survive. It is not acceptable for the many residents who rely on public transport simply to live their daily lives. The social, economic and environmental costs are too high. The human impact is too great.

What is needed now is clear and urgent: a fully funded plan, a clear and credible timetable, and decisive action to begin—and then end—restoration without further delay. The bridge has stood since 1887; it has served generations of Londoners. Now is the time to restore it and to reconnect the communities who depend on it.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

I see two hon. Members who want to speak. I shall call the Front Benchers at 5.08 pm. I will not be setting a time limit, but I am sure Members will consider each other.

Airport Expansion

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Those tests must be met, including through the development consent order. Just for the record, I voted for the framework in 2018, because I thought that it passed those tests.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Many of my constituents in Wetherby and Easingwold use Leeds Bradford airport, and the same will be true of the constituents of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood). For years, I have wanted expansion of Heathrow so that morning flights from Yorkshire could come down to Heathrow airport, allowing transatlantic flights to be boarded in Yorkshire. May I urge the Minister, when considering the expansion of Heathrow, to always give firm attention to regional airports, especially Leeds Bradford airport in Yorkshire? It would allow the economy to grow significantly if people could check in at Leeds and get off in New York.

[Mike Kane]

I could not agree more with the right hon. Member, though it pains me to say it. We have five great northern runways stretching from John Lennon to Manchester, Leeds Bradford and Newcastle, and we should be focusing on regional connectivity in particular. On Leeds Bradford, my recollection is that because of the lack of decision making by the last Government, confidence was lost in its development. Let us see if we can get a framework for improving connectivity at Leeds Bradford, including for those in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood).

Zero Emission Vans

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on securing the debate and on her thoughtful and well laid-out speech, covering a range of really important issues. The way she has brought this debate is a credit to her. In that spirit, I hope the Minister and I can have a positive interaction and try to get some answers.

I know we can all agree that vans play an integral role in our economy, and if the UK is to decarbonise successfully, vans will need to play a central part. Any measures in service of this welcome transition must offer a pragmatic and reasonable way forward, which the hon. Lady outlined so well. It is key to remember that too speedy a transition to electric vehicles can present challenges that we may not yet be ready to address.

It is probably no surprise that I want to draw attention, first, to the measures taken by the last Conservative Government and the manner in which they did so. They spent over £2 billion to transition the UK to zero emission vehicle use, and as of November 2023, the plug-in van grant alone had supported over 40,000 electric vans and HGVs across the UK. The previous Government also acknowledged the challenges presented by battery warranty requirements and amended battery warranty capacities, which was a welcome move. In 2023, the Department for Transport took the welcome step of announcing that the additional five-hour training requirement for drivers would be removed, and that it would make changes to towing allowances for electric vans weighing up to 4.25 tonnes. Again, the hon. Lady touched on some of the very important issues facing the industry.

I urge today’s Government to continue this work and to listen to the sector. Specifically, I ask the Minister whether the Government intend to retain the changes that I mentioned and whether she will commit to the renewal of the plug-in van grant, which is set to expire at the end of March 2025. It is critical that this Government continue on the route established by the previous Government and that they do not get too tied-up in any longer-term reviews that may hold things up. I know that the Minister is widely experienced in transport from her previous role and that she will be across these important issues.

The industry and drivers would appreciate more certainty about what measures the Government intend to retain and what action they intend to undertake. I hope that the Minister will offer some specificity. I also hope that the Government will commit to engaging with the industry on a range of issues, including MOT testing and drivers’ hours to further understand how the Government can pragmatically remove barriers to aid decarbonisation for fleets.

As the hon. Member for Tamworth rightly mentioned, infrastructure is crucial. As of May 2024, the Government, in collaboration with the industry, supported the installation of over 61,000 publicly available charging devices. That included more than 10,000 rapid-charge points.

The hon. Lady spoke about being able to charge the vehicles, and the infrastructure involved. That is very important, but we also need to be able to generate the electricity if the infrastructure is in place. Does the Minister intend to have a wider conversation with the Energy Secretary about how quickly the building of new turbine-run power stations will be up and running so that we can try to meet the current demand, as well that of the infrastructure that needs to be put in place? To reach 300,000 chargers by 2030, the number of public charge points installed annually must continue to grow by around 30%. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have plans to maintain that growth year on year? 

Finally—but of central importance—given that the Government have confirmed it that they are moving the date for new petrol and diesel vehicles back to 2030, can the Minister provide clarity on the timeline for vans? Changes must be pragmatic. I think the hon. Member for Tamworth will not be aware that I sat on the Bill Committee for the Energy Act 2023 in the last Parliament, and that I made the point then that we need a pragmatic approach that takes the public with us. In that spirit, I ask the Minister to reflect on how that can be achieved, communicated and properly undertaken. I ask her to consider how the concerns about the potential costs that might be put on businesses will be addressed through new employment laws, and whether that is one of the unseen consequentials after the Budget that may stop some of the investment. I am requesting that she looks holistically at all the different aspects relating to where small businesses, in particular, may look to invest in this area.

I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some clarity on the questions I posed, and I again congratulate the hon. Member for Tamworth on a very well thought-out speech.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us continue the Yorkshire love-in with shadow Minister Sir Alex Shelbrooke.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Let me say to my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), that my constituency does not have a train station either. Joining up towns and cities in the north of England is a way to untap this country’s great economic potential. As the first ever shadow Minister for northern transport, and a Yorkshire MP, I am incredibly excited about the mass transit system in Leeds that I have campaigned on for years. Along with the rest of Network North, it will be a transformative endeavour but, unfortunately, Labour has a history of not delivering mass transit projects in Leeds. In fact, it seems the only deliveries it is interested in are boxes of clothes from Lord Alli. What message does that send to the people and businesses of Leeds, whose lives it will improve? Can the Minister put them all out of their misery and confirm that the project is going ahead?

[Simon Lightwood]

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the Conservatives were in government for 14 long years. Now, the hon. Gentleman has the temerity to stand there and ask why we are not getting on with it. This Government are moving quick and fixing things. We are determined to work with Tracy Brabin as the Mayor of West Yorkshire to achieve her objectives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

I am delighted by the progress that the hon. Lady mentions, and she is right about that third station. I will meet officials, so that I can write to her with the details. I am keen to work with her local authority to see how we can use regeneration moneys to achieve that end. As for building on the 240 Access for All step-free access stations that we have, we will make decisions shortly. We have been through 300 brilliant applications, and we are shortlisting them for delivery. I will happily write to her to ensure that she has the detail about her projects.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Long before I was elected, it had been identified that in the east direction, the Leeds to Selby railway line had only a footbridge, which restricted access for so many people. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the construction taking place on the Access for All bridge in Garforth? It shows that Conservative MPs working with Conservative Governments improve rail services for all constituents.

[Huw Merriman]

My right hon. Friend is spot on, as always. I thank him for his work, because ultimately that project would not have got off the ground without the campaigning and partnership that he provided. It just shows that a superb MP working in the community, and the Access for All stations fund, which has delivered 240 projects and will deliver more, is a winning partnership.

Zero-emission Vehicles, Drivers and HS2

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I actually can. If the hon. Gentleman goes to the website of Oxfordshire County Council, he will see a very specific proposal for, I think, five roads. That council is proposing to have filters on those roads and to issue permits, enabling local residents to only drive down them a specific number of times a year. That is a Labour-Lib Dem-Green council, or at least it was when the proposal was made. If a resident exceeds that number of permitted journeys, a picture will be taken of their licence plate and they will be issued with a fine. We in the Conservative party do not support those sorts of restrictions being put on motorists by local authorities—clearly the hon. Gentleman does, but we do not, and we will not stand for it.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s statement. Phase 2b to Leeds was cancelled earlier in the year, so does my right hon. Friend know when the safeguarded land through my constituency will be released back? That has had a big impact on constituents who have seen their lives blighted and have been unable to move forward. Any news my right hon. Friend has would be gratefully received; he may want to write to me later so that I can feed it back to my constituents.

[Mr Harper]

To help my right hon. Friend, phase 2a safeguarding will be formally lifted within weeks. Phase 2b safeguarding, which covers the area in which his constituents live, will be amended by next summer to allow for any safeguarding we need for the Northern Powerhouse Rail projects. In the meantime, we will start taking steps to lift the blighting effect of HS2 in areas where safeguarding is going to be lifted. We will obviously set out the details of that in the usual way. There is a proper legal process to be followed, and we will continue working with local authorities in my right hon. Friend’s area and colleagues in the House to keep them fully informed.

HS2: Revised Timetable and Budget

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

The Government are plainly not committed only to delivery between London and Birmingham, because the entire plan is predicated on a two-year rephasing of the parts going up towards Crewe from the midlands. Beyond that, up to Manchester, the indicative timeline does not change at all. The Bill Select Committee remains in place, as does its brief, so that commitment is there. It is not a commitment just to the south-east, and the hon. Member has certainly got that wrong. The £96 billion integrated rail plan is based solely on the midlands and the north, and that shows this Government’s desire to level up across the midlands and the north, as opposed to spending money in the south-east.

Active travel is not part of this urgent question, but £3 billion will be spent by this Government on active travel during this Parliament. There are levelling-up fund bids that go toward active travel. We are absolutely passionate and committed to the delivery of active travel, and that will continue, as will our delivery of HS2.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

So far, the Minister has rightly been talking about phase 1 and phase 2a, but not about phase 2b. My constituents and I are sick to death of waiting for the inevitable announcement that phase 2b is not happening. I have constituents who have been suffering for over a decade while preserved land kept aside has ruined their ability to sell their houses and forced them into compensation schemes. It is not going to happen—Mrs Miggins in the Dog and Duck knows it is not going to happen. So will the Minister stand at the Dispatch Box right now—not to talk to me about the integrated rail plan; I have been hearing that cobblers for three years—and tell me that my constituents will get their land released and stop having their lives blighted?

[Huw Merriman]

When the integrated rail plan was published, it made reference to a Leeds area study that needed to be published, which in itself would unlock money for a mass transit scheme for Leeds. We will shortly bring forward that route study, which will provide the answers on how HS2 trains can go up to Leeds. Until then, the safeguarding will remain in place. I am keen that we get those answers, so that we either find a solution to get HS2 trains up to Leeds—again, that will be down to the study and responses—or, if that is not possible, decisions will need to be made about land and property that is currently blighted. That will occur once the route study has been published and responded to.

Rail Strikes

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend said, billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money was put into the railway industry and it kept almost everybody in employment. In my constituency, many businesses survive by servicing the footfall through the stations. Because these businesses employed staff and they were people’s own companies, they were not capable of getting the loans and grants that were in place, because they had to keep the company alive and keep the people they employed. So what does he think their reaction is to hearing about more public money spent on the railways, on top of the £16 billion, when they are struggling to get their businesses back on track? This strike will make it even worse for them.

[Grant Shapps]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point that out. Just as the railways and the country are recovering—after two years of being locked down, with many of our constituents having lost their jobs and businesses while coronavirus was going on, without the kind of £16 billion of protection that the railways have enjoyed—now is not the time to strike.

P&O Ferries

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I should point out that the workers involved, many of whom I have been speaking to, frankly do not want to go back and work for P&O Ferries and/or have already accepted jobs elsewhere. I think they will be looking for a change in that company before they rush back.

On the P&O contracts, we have not found any that exist. On the DP World issue that the hon. Gentleman refers to, I have seen figures quoted for the amount of money in a contract, but that is actually money that, by and large, goes to the local authority—I think that is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) was making. It is for the local authority to then set out how the freeport operates. The hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt, however, that we will be keeping a close eye on that and increasing the pressure to ensure that the right thing happens with P&O.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which has clarified many technical points. It will be important to analyse how the cruise ship industry accesses British waters and to ensure that the critical infrastructure of freight transport is not allowed to be held hostage again, which is what P&O tried to do on its own terms.

On the point of ensuring that seafarers are being paid at least the minimum wage in our waters, how will that technically be done if they are not registered through HMRC in this country?

[Grant Shapps]

I should point out again that P&O Cruises is not in any way, shape or form related to what has happened here. It is the people at P&O Ferries who are very much in the dock. With the ferries, we will ensure that that policing takes place through HMRC and the work of the ports themselves.