Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]

Alex Sobel Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 5th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill because it takes the first step towards the creation of a framework within which automated vehicles can operate safely. The future of sustainable travel lies in such vehicles, and the UK now has a good opportunity to join the growing number of countries that are embracing this new technology. The tech sector in the UK is particularly strong, and the Bill should give confidence to investors if we are to develop a self-driving vehicle industry and take full advantage of its potential. A large part of that potential relates to road safety: there are still too many road accident victims, and I believe that automated vehicles can contribute significantly to reducing that number if we get this right. The Bill also has the potential to help us reach net zero. We may need to question, and reduce, individual car ownership in future if we want to hit our net zero targets, and automated vehicles may help us to do that.

However, the potential of this industry will only be realised if there is a high level of public confidence in the protections that the Bill gives to public safety—particularly the safety of other road users such as cyclists and pedestrians, who are more at risk than motorists. There is clearly scope for improving the safety of our roads, given that nearly 90% of traffic accidents are caused by human error. Many of the accidents that involve more vulnerable road users, such as cyclists, result from driver impairment or from drivers’ disobeying traffic laws.

Evidence emerging from trials of AVs in San Francisco relating to overall safety improvements is encouraging, but a report of just one thing going wrong will set back efforts to secure public confidence in the safety of these vehicles. It will be important to set out very clearly the scope of any trials in the UK. We may receive reassurances from the industry that the technology is being improved continuously, but we must set out our expectations of what the trials can and cannot achieve. No technology will ever be 100% safe. If there is an interaction between technology and the human being sitting in the car, there is the potential to override the system. The nature of that interaction is almost a philosophical question, which has not been entirely resolved today, but the Minister has been generous in allowing us to raise our concerns.

During the San Francisco trials, issues arose relating to AVs’ hindering emergency vehicles and stopping in cycle lanes, and those need to be addressed. Of course some issues are to be expected in trials, but a repetition of those incidents will damage public trust. People must be confident they will not be repeated on UK streets, and that will require a robust legal and safety framework which will also cover our trials.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s concession in changing the standard of safety for AV drivers so that they will have to meet or exceed the level of safety of careful and competent human drivers. The implications of that for driving tests have already been mentioned, and it is important for that discussion to continue. The Bill gives us a chance to improve the safety of our road networks for the long term, and we should see this as an opportunity to improve accessibility and safety for the public rather than just maintaining current standards.

Automated vehicles also require adequate infrastructure to support them. The poor state of UK roads has led to the highest number of pothole-related call-outs for the RAC in the last five years. Assurances must be given that improvements in road surfaces will be made before the roll-out of AVs. Will minimum standards for road quality be set for their use, and will local authorities be given the additional resources they will require in order to meet them?

Older and more vulnerable people are more reliant on taxis and private hire cars, a great benefit of which is a driver who can help them with access. The benefits of increased affordability that AVs may bring must not come at the cost of reduced access for disabled and vulnerable users, who will also require assurances about access on automated public transport if it is to be completely unstaffed. We have not talked enough about the human input into this brave new world of automated vehicles and about whether, for instance, someone will be available to assist a disabled person using such a vehicle.

Another area of concern, which has also been mentioned today, is the attention given to data protection in the Bill. It is of course essential that AVs can take in data for machine learning algorithms, which enable them to improve the way in which they navigate. However, a large number of parties will inevitably have access to the data. It will include personal information, including people’s faces. The overlap between commercial and personal data creates issues with access and storage. When data is shared between parties, including private companies, can we be sure that people’s personal data is not being monetised for commercial gain? The Government have not yet given adequate assurances that personal information will be protected.

What about insurance? Insurers have said that the data from AVs must be readily available to establish liability, but drivers must feel confident about how their data is managed. How the data is stored must be open and transparent, and it must be held independently. Establishing a clear path of accountability is essential for public confidence. Cyclists and pedestrians who do not hold personal insurance should receive fair and swift compensation when they are victims of an accident. Further assurance is needed that insurance companies will receive adequate guidance for such claims.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, but I urge Ministers to carefully review how it will impact on access for disabled and vulnerable transport users. I also encourage the Government to look further at data protection regulation. We must see this Bill as the beginning of a framework, not the end.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Member is giving a list of things that are absent from the Bill. In my constituency we have autonomous delivery robots, which are currently on pilot; they are not regulated at all in the UK. Is this not another area that the Bill should regulate, in addition to the issues she has raised?

[Wera Hobhouse]

We always try to solve other problems with Bills in front of us, so we have to be a bit careful not to hang something on this Bill that actually goes into other areas, but new technologies create new challenges for all of us. For example, there are safety issues with such deliveries, but that probably requires a separate Bill. However, it is important that the Government make sure that we have adequate regulation of new technologies.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, there are many exciting opportunities for technological change, and we must embrace them. If we do not, other countries will go ahead, and then we will have them anyway. We must take the public with us, understand the risks and make sure that the huge potential of AVs is seen for what it is, but we must avoid unintended consequences that will lead to the public not coming with us, so let us get this right. It is a great opportunity, and let us make sure that we minimise the risks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Alex Sobel.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker: I was beginning to lose hope.

The previous Prime Minister made a promise on Northern Powerhouse Rail, but when the announcement came it did not include a new line. This Prime Minister has made a promise on Northern Powerhouse Rail, but will we see a new line between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford that is not an upgrade of the trans-Pennine line; when will the funding be delivered; and when will spades go in the ground? We need that line for the growth that the Government want to see.

Transport Connectivity: Merseyside

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my good and hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on securing this hugely important and topical debate.

I will avoid wasting any time mincing my words and get straight to the point: the Minister’s Department, the Secretary of State and the Government are badly letting down the people of Liverpool city region. For all the talk of levelling up, excluding our city region from the Northern Powerhouse Rail network and introducing the integrated rail plan is an abject failure to support economic growth in one of the great cities of the north. Our metro Mayor Steve Rotheram called the new plan “cheap and nasty”, and those are words I echo without equivocation.

Alongside Members from the city region, the metro Mayor and the portfolio holder on the combined authority, I wrote to the Secretary of State in December to make our position clear. For the purpose of today’s debate, I will reiterate that the IRP will be remembered for what it does not deliver for Merseyside.

There will be no new line connection to Liverpool. That fails to integrate us into the High Speed 2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail networks. Upgrades to existing lines in and out of Liverpool will cause up to six years of disruption, which will be significant for the Liverpool city region, causing an economic hit of at least £280 million each year. The plan will fail to deliver transformational extra capacity, as it includes using the already congested west coast mainline into Liverpool. That means little ability to grow local services. In fact, some services will be lost.

There will be a detrimental impact to freight, as 88 freight trains will be unable to operate each week during the upgrade phase. That freight traffic may never return to Liverpool. The plan will constrain the port of Liverpool’s growth as the main deep-water port on the west of the British mainland. There will be no new station for Liverpool, which is vital to ensure the capacity for more long distance and local services. As the plan does not intend to commence work until the 2040s, there will be a slower delivery time. There are multiple caveats regarding the approvals and further progress. Do the Government have any intention of delivering anything beyond phase 2b to the west, and the west to east midlands link? Everything I just mentioned will prohibit the city region’s ability to achieve net-zero emissions.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The original Transport for the North NPR plans proposed a real levelling up of the north of England, meaning that people in Liverpool city region and Merseyside could have economic opportunities in Manchester, Leeds and Bradford. It would have taken millions of cars off the M62, but these new plans bring us right back. The whole of the north will suffer, as will the whole of our economy, once again at the expense of London and the capital. Does my hon. Friend agree that these plans are letting down the whole of the north?

[Paula Barker]

My hon. Friend makes incredibly salient points, all of which I agree with. It is the whole of the north that will suffer under these detrimental plans.

As I was saying, support for HS2 in the north is largely predicated on delivering NPR in full, as promised, so that LCR and our regions can realise its full benefits. It is clear from the reply I received from the Department that cost is the driving factor in this deal, not the transformational change that Northern Powerhouse Rail would have brought. The IRP represents another broken promise from a Government who are intent on talking the good game of levelling up while delivering nothing of the sort. The consequences for the Liverpool city region and beyond in the north will be grave.

Electric Vehicles: Transition by 2030

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this important debate in our transition to net zero.

I want to start by talking about a significant zero-emissions capability. When defining that capability, the Government must look to the spirit of their decision to phase out the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles from 2030. Any vehicle that does not have the ability to run continuously, creating zero emissions, for a meaningful range is predominantly an internal combustion engine vehicle. To continue to allow the sale of such vehicles after 2030 is contrary to the Government’s own decision. Therefore, only vehicles with a chargeable battery and a plug should be included, not mild hybrids.

The only suitable metric to measure that is miles of continuous zero-emission range, which should be set at a minimum of 100 miles, to ensure that consumers realistically make journeys on electric miles. There is no fundamental technological barrier that impedes plug-in hybrids from delivering higher ranges today. It is merely how to optimise the battery size of a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle—or PHEV—to comply with today’s CO₂ regulations.

We also need a zero-emission vehicle mandate, which is a target placed on car manufacturers to ensure a certain percentage of vehicles are zero-emission vehicles. Of course, the definition of that mandate is extremely important. California has had a working version of such a mandate and has in fact had a ratchet mechanism to get more lower carbon vehicles on to the road since 1990.

In the pure form of a ZEV, only vehicles capable of zero-tailpipe emissions should be included, so battery electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, but, from a more pragmatic standpoint, plug-in hybrid vehicles could be included, but given a value reflective of how far they can drive on zero emissions. California includes BEVs—battery electric vehicles—PHEVs and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. If 20% of a vehicle’s stated range is electric, it should be a awarded a 20% value. That would be a reasonable level in the mandate.

How should that work in the UK? In simple terms, there is a crediting system within a ZEV mandate that attributes different credit values to different types of vehicles and, for the longest range vehicles, a super credit. The California mandate and the China mandate offer four times and six times for the longest range electric vehicles. As the UK looks at the design, we should learn from the others and not use super credits, as large super credits just lead to a surplus of credits and a dilution of the targets and therefore vehicles on the road.

There should, of course, be a reward for innovation that drives longer range and more efficient vehicles—the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) explained that better than I could—and we need to ensure that vehicles produced have a meaningful range so people will want to replace their diesel or petrol cars with an electric one. However, we should cap the maximum credit value at more than one credit but not as high as two credits. The average EV should receive one credit, which today is around 250 miles. That average can be recalculated annually, to reflect the state of the market and to manage credits.

The Government have announced that the ZEV mandate will start in 2024. Any target will need to be ambitious, yet achievable. Looking at the industry’s own projections, SMMT figures for its high uptake scenario for 2024 are around 35% of zero-emissions vehicle sales in that year. The industry could meet that target, but it needs incentives. Funnily enough, it happens to roughly correlate to the Climate Change Committee’s figure for 2024. That Committee recommends that 50% of new sales should be zero-emissions vehicles in 2025, meaning a steep gradient in the Government’s mandate.

A zero-emissions vehicle mandate is a supply-side tool, but a fleet mandate is the demand-side tool. The Government could look to create a fleet mandate to ensure that there are targets for fleet vehicles. The sector is around 55% of the marketplace in the UK and provides an important feeder to the second and third-hand market. Given that there is a favourable taxation treatment for this marketplace, a mandate could help drive uptake. The fleet mandate would need to be significantly higher than the zero-emissions vehicle mandate. We need to remember that fleet vehicles enter the used-vehicle market three to five years after becoming fleet. It will mean affordable, zero-emissions vehicles by 2030. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) touched on affordability. Everybody should be able to afford a zero-emissions vehicle by 2030.

On charging infrastructure, the Government have announced some significant funding to remove the barrier of connection costs. The charging points all need to work, though. This £950 million rapid charging fund is for strategic roads and motorway service stations, but it has yet to be rolled out. Connection costs is an issue at these locations, but the same issues exist everywhere. The Government can do more. For example, more can be done with our existing policy mechanisms without further grants from Government. One example is the renewable transport fuel obligation. The UK is falling behind other European nations when it comes to using this policy to drive down transport emissions.

The renewable transport fuel obligation seeks to reduce emissions from transport fuels and many other countries have already reformed their versions to provide revenue generation for a struggling charging sector. European nations have their versions of the RTFO, and California has a similar instrument called the low carbon fuel standard. The key difference is that Holland, Germany and soon the whole of Europe allow renewable electricity use in vehicles to count towards these reduction targets, as does the low carbon fuel standard. I call for the Minister to look at changing the RTFO, because it will drive that infrastructure through to renewable electricity production.

I will finish by talking about plug-in grants. The price gap between zero-emissions vehicles and internal combustion engines continues to reduce, but there is still a significant differential. Many people are asking for an extension to the plug-in car grant. I would support that, but I ask the Government to also look at an alternative: the bonus-malus. The operation of a malus or levy is placed on the purchase of new fossil-fuel vehicles, and this is used to fund a bonus or grant for zero-emissions vehicles, meaning that it is neutral for the Government and does not require state funding.

Rail Investment and Integrated Rail Plan

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My colleagues and I were extremely disappointed with the decision to scrap Northern Powerhouse Rail between Leeds and Manchester. Although the IRP, or, as I like to call it, the bus replacement service, has some things to like —we will be constructive about them where they meet our aims for Yorkshire—the impact of the loss of high-speed rail will have ripple effects through every community in our region.

A lot of people do not fully realise that high-speed rail infrastructure, on dedicated lines, is not solely about getting to London or the midlands more quickly. It is about releasing capacity so that local lines can run effective local services and we can ensure the future of our network, the growth of our region and the environment around us. Northern Powerhouse Rail promised three things: faster services on a dedicated line, new trains and new stations. It promised an all-electric dedicated line between Bradford and Manchester. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) has already made the point about the short-sightedness of not connecting the people of the UK’s youngest city with the opportunities that that would have brought. Instead, the Government have written in the IRP:

“We will also upgrade and electrify”—

I just want to say that many people here do not understand what “upgrade” means. It does not mean getting something new. If I put a new stereo in my car, it is not a new car; it is just a car with a new stereo in it—

“the line between Leeds and Bradford giving a non-stop journey time which could be as low as 12 minutes.”

That sounds good at first glance, but without the dedicated line, there are knock-on effects that are not printed on the tin.

There are currently two lines that run from Leeds to Bradford. One takes 20 minutes, stopping twice, and the other takes 24 minutes, stopping four times. Both those lines are at maximum frequency. There is no way, on the current line, to meet the 12-minute target to Bradford without sacrificing local services and local stops. I have constituents living between those stops who do not feel that the cancellation of NPR affects them, but when residents who commute to Leeds or Bradford by rail find that their service will be cut to meet the Leeds-Bradford target, what will they do? The answer is probably to increase car use. We have been promised new trains, but new trains are not a replacement for new services. More than that, they will work only on electrified lines, which do not extend beyond Bradford westbound through Huddersfield or northbound to Preston.

[Naz Shah]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the commute from Bradford to Leeds, or from Bradford to Manchester, puts more cars on the road and does not help us to meet our COP26 obligations?

[Alex Sobel]

Absolutely. Only NPR will get people on those routes on to the train.

Most concerning is the broken promise of new stations in Leeds and in Bradford. Faster and more regular services require more platform space, and Leeds is already at capacity. Without extra capacity, will my constituents who use the Harrogate line have their services cut? I would like the rail Minister to answer that question. On the electrification of the Harrogate line, the recent Network Rail transport decarbonisation network strategy includes a recommendation for electrification between Leeds and Harrogate. Will that come forward?

On Northern Powerhouse Rail, we have been sold a pup, but I also want to address the problem of getting to a train station in the first place. Otley in my constituency was cut from the train line by Beeching. Our Mayor, Tracy Brabin, has an ambitious and achievable plan for a mass transit system to reach Otley, linking it to Leeds and Bradford, where we thought it would join NPR. The Government committed to that scheme in their manifesto in 2019. The Prime Minister said in this Chamber:

“We will remedy the scandal that Leeds is the largest city in western Europe without light rail or a metro.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2019; Vol. 669, c. 47.

However, trams are built not on the hopes and dreams of a whimsical Prime Minister, but on cold, hard cash.

The Prime Minister has failed to show us the money. All the Government have committed to is £200 million, of which they have said £100 million should be used to work out how to get HS2 trains from Sheffield to Leeds—something that the DFT, not the West Yorkshire metro Mayor, should be doing—and that falls well short of the £3 billion required for us to build the tram scheme. The people of West Yorkshire have been short-changed for far too long. What the Prime Minister has offered is not levelling up, but pushing us down a hill. He is indeed northern infrastructure’s grand old duke of York, marching us up to the top of the hill and right back down again.

Integrated Rail Plan: North and Midlands

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

We are absolutely cognisant of the fact that we can spend the money only once and want to make sure that it benefits as many people as possible, and we are doing exactly that. I have said to the House, we are still going to spend time, energy and money on the best way to get HS2 trains to Leeds, but without some of the disruption that my hon. Friend described.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I invite the Secretary of State to travel with me the 46 miles from Otley in my constituency to Manchester Piccadilly at peak time. He will then see the twin challenges of connectivity and capacity. First, if the bus turns up in Otley it then takes more than an hour to get to Leeds train station, and there is then the challenge of actually getting on the train to Manchester, because it is full. That is why we need, first, Northern Powerhouse Rail in full, because we need additional capacity, and secondly, £3 billion for a full mass transit system for West Yorkshire to be not just promised but delivered into the coffers of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority.

[Grant Shapps]

The good news is that there will be much-improved frequency of trains from Leeds to Manchester—it looks like around three trains an hour will become seven or eight trains an hour under the plan. The hon. Gentleman will thereby get a lot of good things, including a reduction in the capacity restrictions that are the major cause of problems. That also answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) a few moments ago about why we need that link from Manchester out to West Yorkshire.

HS2

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing forward today’s debate, and the 311 constituents of mine who have petitioned. The Government need to get a grip of this project; that has come over loud and clear in the debate so far, and that point will no doubt be echoed in the next hour or so.

We are in the midst of not only a climate emergency, but an environmental emergency. We cannot plough lines through the middle of these cathedrals of nature, while avoiding wonderful cathedrals such as that in the destination city that HS2 is meant to arrive at some time in the future—we know not when. The paths these lines take should be integrated with the rest of the rail network.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is not the effect of what is happening with HS2 that we have further delays to Northern Powerhouse Rail, which is hugely important for connectivity across the north of England, and other rail projects?

[Rachael Maskell]

I agree that the sequencing of this project needs to be re-examined, because we need interconnectivity, and we need it mapped on to the rest of our rail system.

I want to focus on the impact the plans are having on the economy of York. In Crewe, we are talking about 36,000 jobs, and in Curzon Street, 37,000, yet in York there will be just 6,500 jobs, in areas adjacent to the rail system—on Network Rail land, which comes under the Minister’s Department. The question I want answered today is: why is the economic opportunity of HS2, which the Minister has espoused, not translating into reality? Network Rail will redevelop that land for luxury apartments—not for anybody in my constituency to live in, but so that people can commute down to London, sucking out the wealth from my constituency. It does not make economic sense. It does not make sense for transport, and it comes at a cost to our environment. Therefore, the project needs to re-examine its purpose.

The Minister has a responsibility to ensure that jobs come to my city. There is no point talking about spending all this money if it is not going to drive up the opportunity for my constituents, so I ask the Minister to take a look at the figures. We see that 2,500 housing units are to be built adjacent to the station. My constituents simply cannot afford them because of the high cost of living. It does not make sense to push out those job opportunities while saying that they are the whole purpose of the railway. I have to say to the Minister that in the light of HS2’s economic suction from the north and my constituency, and its environmental impact, he has not yet presented a case that stacks up, and that says that HS2 will benefit places such as York. I ask him to look at that again.

Finally, if we are looking at truly levelling up, we have to look at all the opportunities for interconnectivity. In the north we need to see Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester and York as part of the rail network, and have proper integration and speeds, and that simply is not happening. The east-west route is far too slow and costly for my constituents to really benefit from. We have to see connectivity across the network before this project proceeds, not least because we know that people have changed the way that they are moving about our country. At this time, we need to ensure that we are investing in things that will increase our productivity.

Aviation, Travel and Tourism Industries

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will try to be as brief as possible, to give Members the maximum time. My role as shadow tourism Minister means that I am lucky enough to visit many of the wonderful and various tourist attractions that Britain has to offer. Just a few weeks ago, I celebrated the reopening of museums and galleries by attending the launch of Grayson Perry’s “Art Club” exhibition at Manchester Art Gallery. More recently, I visited the beautifully kept gardens and buildings at Chiltern Open Air Museum and enjoyed the gardens at Batsford arboretum. School holidays for my children have been made more enjoyable for the whole family thanks in no small part to Legoland Windsor, the Wave in Bristol, Whipsnade zoo, the Wild Place Project and Roger Tuby and Stewart Robinson’s fairgrounds. I also visited Stratford-upon-Avon, one of our biggest tourist magnets, and was delighted to see it so busy, and I visited Scarborough to welcome back domestic coach tourism.

While all these attractions are still doing what they do best—educating, entertaining and enchanting their many visitors—they have one thing in common: they have all been let down in one way or another by the Government’s lacklustre and patchy support over the course of the covid-19 pandemic. Last September, I stood here and impressed the need to protect the hospitality industry. We know that hospitality is one of the major forces powering the UK tourism economy. Establishments providing food, drink and accommodation rely heavily on the tourism trade and must be protected for their sake and the sake of tourism—an industry worth £155 billion and responsible for more than 3 million jobs. That is why my party—the party that supports frontline businesses—is calling for a flexible repayment scheme to tackle the £6 billion debt burden facing the hospitality industry without harming the recovery of businesses that are still unable to turn a profit. It is the fair thing to do.

We also need to consider the other huge threat to hospitality recovering: the staff crisis. Venues have been hit by the triple whammy of changes to the immigration rules post Brexit, many workers deciding to return to their country of origin in Europe, and the pandemic and previously furloughed workers retraining and moving on. I have heard this time and again from Bristol to Scarborough. The Government must address the shortage of workers.

To protect the tourism industry itself, we were promised a plan, to which the Minister referred. In April, the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston)—who is present and can advise the Minister—assured me that the tourism recovery plan was on the way and would be announced by the end of spring. But the sector is starting the season late and there is still no plan. Neither our domestic nor our international travel and tourism industries know what support they can count on as the summer season starts. Instead, we wait. Will the Minister tell me whether we are having the longest spring on record? When can we expect the plan? I am sure his DCMS colleague will help him with that.

The coach industry waits for a package of support that aligns it with other areas of the leisure and hospitality sector. Tour guides, events staff and other excluded workers wait to see whether they are eligible for Government support in the plan. Fairground operators wait to see whether there will finally be a Government support package that does not exclude them because of their lack of static business or shop front. Travel agents wait for sector-specific funding, while the lack of inbound and outbound travel and the uncertainty over testing regimes and quarantine continue to hit bookings. Zoos and aquariums do not wait; they continue with the inadequate zoo animals fund—which many in the sector call the “zoo closure fund”—and ask what the tourism recovery package will do to help them, their staff and their animals.

I should mention that the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire, has chosen this period to undertake a review of destination management organisations. It is important that DCMS aligns the review of DMOs with the tourism recovery plan to best support the promotion of local and regional tourism. Any funding must be used to encourage co-operation and streamline processes, ensuring that DMOs are best placed to be at the centre of the English tourism ecosystem, while ending the need for them to compete for limited funding. I hope the Minister will give us clarity on both the tourism recovery plan and the review of DMOs when he responds to the debate.

Nowhere is uncertainty felt so keenly as by the outbound travel industry, with so many yearning for a holiday abroad. We have been told that we absolutely should not travel to amber-list countries, but essential travel is okay. Then we were told that perhaps holidays could be essential—then that, actually, it is dangerous to travel abroad this year and we should not do it, but to just be careful if we do. “Go to Portugal.” “Come back from Portugal.” “Why did you even go to Portugal?” Why were there so many mixed messages on outbound travel? It is key to the UK economy and, right now, clarity on holidays is critical to the UK’s collective psyche. The Government must step in to bring reassurance.

It is worth remembering that planes are not the only way to get abroad. The pandemic has hit Eurostar and other train operators hard, yet the Government have not supported them at all. We need a comprehensive strategy for our regional, national and international railways that goes beyond the current franchise-support programme to address the impact of covid-19 on operations such as Eurostar.

We all want to go back to normal. As a country, we have endured so much. We are tough. We do not need to be infantilised by the Government; we just want clear, truthful messaging. We know that uncertainty hurts our economy and that financial support promotes recovery and levels the playing field with the competitors in Europe—many of which have received the sort of support that we should provide to our tourism industry—that are taking advantage of the lack of support for our sector. Now is the time for the Government to step up and deliver a package that will give businesses certainty, the ability to plan for the future and a chance to rebuild.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel]

There were so many excellent speeches from the Back Benches in this debate that someone would think, if they did not know, that they all came from the same party. I am sure the Minister will reflect on that. It does feel like the House speaks with one voice on this issue. I reiterate that, even if the Government publish the tourism recovery plan this week, it is still too late for the spring season and we are playing catch-up.

I completely agree with the right hon. Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). That might be the first—and possibly last—time that I will ever say that, but they were clear that the mixed messaging has created an existential threat to outbound tourism.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) was absolutely right that we are still waiting for the sector-specific support that was promised right at the start of this crisis. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) is right that outbound tour operators, especially small specialists, have been disproportionately hit and need the tourism recovery plan now. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) was right about the need to retain workers and skills—something that the tourism recovery plan should do. I also wholly support his call, echoed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and others, for the Government to legislate to outlaw fire and rehire, an absolute scandal. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) was right that we need grants as well as loan finance, as loan finance just defers the pain, and that we need to beef up consumer protection.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) was right that business travel, especially for events and conferences, has been hugely hit and I look forward to seeing them included in the tourism recovery plan. The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) rightly recognised the importance of domestic tourism and I look forward to visiting Blackpool this summer—a great British holiday. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) is right that the sector has been let down by late and poor communication. She is absolutely right about consumer refunds, which many airlines have sadly been lacking in making. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) made excellent points and I support his call for more resources for the sector and related services.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) was right that France and other countries have put climate conditions on support for the aviation industry. We need more support, but conditional support, for net zero, and our Government did not make those conditions. They talk loudly on net zero but are failing to deliver. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) is a doughty defender of her constituents’ health, especially on noise and air quality, and she is right that we need to look again at flight paths over cities, including hers and mine. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) called for support for shipping and cruising. She is right that the multi-nation aspect of cruises going from country to country means that the chaotic handling of the traffic light system makes it impossible for them to restart. The Minister needs to take her points on board.

I thank all who have contributed to this excellent debate and look forward to the Minister’s response.

3.57 pm

[Robert Courts]

This has been a very thought-provoking and wide-ranging debate, in which many excellent points have been made. The importance to the whole country of aviation and travel was perhaps most beautifully expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), but we have heard all sorts of other points, from the importance of the supply chain, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), through to the beauty of our constituencies, as stated by so many hon. Members that I dare not recount them all, although I do perhaps lean towards the points made by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), for fairly obvious reasons. We in this House are united, however, on the critical importance of tourism, travel and aviation, for all sorts of reasons: because of the jobs they support in our constituencies; because of the economic support they bring; because of culture; because of the businesses that operate; but above all because of people’s lives: because of the families, because of what this means to people on a real, everyday personal basis.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for his tireless advocacy for Gatwick airport and the sector and for his expertise. Similar points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said that this is not just about two weeks in the sun, and I agree. Leisure is vital and travel broadens the mind of course—it increases understanding and culture—but it is also about jobs and people’s livelihoods and families. I agree with him that a safe reopening of aviation should very much be, and is, our aim.

A number of other points were made. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) for his points. I had to disagree with him when he said that the Government’s response has been “lacklustre and patchy” given that Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund said it has been extensive and “unprecedented” and

“one of the best examples of coordinated action globally”.

So, as he would expect, I do not agree with him about that. The tourism recovery plan is due soon, and we will be able to update him more on that when we get to that stage.

I am hugely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for her great expertise. She mentioned international standards and we continue to work with international partners such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the International Maritime Organisation and the World Health Organisation, as well as with bilateral partners. Of course, the announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport of the US-UK travel taskforce is hot off the press. My right hon. Friend asks why we are in the position that we are today as compared with where we were last year. Of course, there has been a change through the variants of concern and the huge success of the vaccine rollout, which we must protect. She says that we will not eradicate covid and she will remember that I referred to its being an endemic disease in my opening speech. As my right hon. Friend and others talk about the freedom that will be brought by vaccines, I can confirm that we are working to see what more we can do to open up international travel with the aid of vaccines.

I am conscious that I am very short of time, and that you are worried about the next debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise in advance to all right hon. and hon. Members. I have a detailed note of all the points they made and will write to them if there are any specific points that they wanted me to make. If I may trouble the House for 30 seconds more, I would like to say thank you to the Chairman of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who made a number of great points, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). They talked about the vaccines and how they are the way out and our hope for the future.

Let me close by referring the House to my understanding and that of the Government of how difficult things are for the sector at the moment. We have a plan in place to restart tourism and aviation recovery in the short and long term. We are seeing the relaxation of restrictions as we are building out from covid. I shall end by quoting my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands. She says that life is about more than just eating and sleeping; it is about experiences and people. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), quoting Hans Christian Andersen, said:

“To travel is to live”.

Of course, I entirely agree with that. The tourism recovery plan, due to be published shortly, in conjunction with the forthcoming aviation strategy, will set out and reinforce the Government’s commitment to both sectors and help us to reconnect and see the world with the help of our world-beating vaccination programme.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the aviation, travel and tourism industries.

Income tax (charge)

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. Last week’s Budget focused on two issues: the UK’s co-ordinated initial response to the serious threat posed by coronavirus to the UK economic outlook, and a significant increase in public spending to raise productivity, promote growth, and spread its proceeds to all corners of the UK—a process that has been dubbed “levelling up”. That is particularly important in my constituency of Waveney, which is the most easterly constituency in the UK. I shall be focusing on the second issue, but such is the gravity of the first—it is increasingly apparent that this will not be a short-term blip—that the two issues are increasingly becoming intertwined.

It is right to increase public spending in this way, although it is not without risk. It is right because as we leave the EU, we need the economy to be firing on all cylinders, not spluttering along in third gear. Our productivity remains stubbornly low, and in many places our infrastructure is crumbling. We have a host of challenges to address, such as climate change and promoting the green economy, the crisis on the high street, and the urgent need to improve social mobility, so that young people, wherever they live and whatever their circumstances, have the opportunity to realise their full potential. Added to that cocktail, we must now support people and businesses to get through the enormous challenge of coronavirus.

It is important to emphasise the political case for this about-turn. The Brexit vote, which in many respects was repeated last December, was a cry for change. The UK economy as a whole has performed well over the past 40 years, but the proceeds of growth have not been evenly distributed, but rather concentrated in London and the south-east. For so many people, and so many communities, the improvement in our national economic performance has passed them by. They voted for a different way of doing things, and we must now deliver for them.

That different course is not without risk, and it is important that the Government provide reassurance that in the long-term, the UK is still committed to the sustainable and responsible management of our finances. When it comes to infrastructure, the right schemes must be chosen—not vanity projects, but productive and growth-enhancing schemes that are a catalyst for private sector investment. We must ensure that we have the capacity to deliver those projects: the right skills, enough engineers, project managers and planners, and a ready supply of steel, concrete and tarmac. If we do not do that, prices will escalate and schemes will not be delivered on time.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and although we differed on the question of Brexit, I agree with many of his points. Does this current crisis reinforce the fact that we must also ramp up UK production and UK ownership of production, and have more British-owned firms? In times of crisis such as this, production overseas and overseas ownership create difficulties. Although we obviously need inward investment, we must balance that with UK ownership.

[Peter Aldous]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman to a large extent, and we need more companies to be investing in, and based in, the UK. It is important to have UK companies, but I am also proud when companies from around the world invest in the UK. That is something we should be pleased about.

Let me return to infrastructure projects and the need to have the right skills and supply of materials. In 2014, funding was provided for six schemes on the A47 from Lowestoft through Norfolk to Peterborough. Six years later, five of those schemes have yet to see any work starting on the ground. We must ensure that planning and legal frameworks are fit for purpose. The third crossing project in Lowestoft will bring about great positive change to the town. It is an oven-ready scheme—we are ready to go, yet we still await a planning decision that should have been made more than three months ago.

I wish to highlight three aspects of levelling up. First, coastal communities have been left behind in recent decades, but they have so much to offer to UK plc. In Lowestoft, there is a compelling case for investment in the port, which occupies a strategic location. It lies in close proximity to one of the UK’s most productive fishing grounds, from which, as we leave the EU, we have a great opportunity to land more fish and to revive the local industry.

Transport

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Huw Merriman]

I will take one more intervention, as I am conscious that others wish to speak.

[Alex Sobel]

I congratulate the hon. Member on his election. On hydrogen production for trains and transport in general, we need to think about how it is produced. ITM Power in Yorkshire produces its hydrogen using electrolysis, which actually means it is a zero carbon fuel. We need to take this in the round, because sometimes decarbonisation does not mean decarbonisation if the fuel still needs carbon and fossil fuels for its manufacture.

[Huw Merriman]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. If we are to call it completely green technology, it needs to be as he describes. Perhaps we should have in mind a trip to Yorkshire.

I want to talk about the development of batteries in trains. On the Southern network, for example, there are still two diesel services, even though there is usually a third rail, because part of it does not have the third rail and the services therefore need diesel all the way through. The idea with batteries is that we charge and then use them for the part where there is no third rail. As I have mentioned, that incredibly exciting technology will allow us to move away from diesel.

I want to touch on parts of the motion that involve a more wide-ranging set of issues. There is the desire to cut rail and bus fares, and I absolutely agree that we should be looking to lessen increases in rail fares. It is very frustrating that we still use RPI rather than CPI to calculate rail fare increases; in the past year, fares would have gone up by 2.5% instead of 3.1%. The challenge is that a third of all the train operators’ costs go on employing staff, and if the staff continue to be paid on an RPI basis it will be very difficult to move that over.

I am excited by the ideas on fare reform that have been put forward mostly under the guise of the Williams review. It is absolutely ludicrous that those travelling to work for three days of the week, perhaps working from home during the rest of the week, are still unable to get a three-day-week ticket. That can make it too expensive for people to commute, so I would welcome such a reform.

I would dearly love to see automatic rail compensation. The train operators take the money they receive from Network Rail when there are delays, but two thirds of passengers who experience a delay do not claim compensation, so the rest is banked by the train operators. I would like them to have to ring-fence that money in a fund, and to invest in technology that allows us to tap on and tap off the train, so that if the train is delayed by more than 15 or 30 minutes, we would get compensation into our bank account without even needing to know that we had been delayed. We must get the train operators to deliver that technology, so that commuters and passengers feel that they are getting value for money, or at least that they are getting compensated when they have not had value for money.

I will not mention HS2, because I fear that will come up in many other debates, but I certainly envisage the Committee looking at it. However, I do want to talk about buses. Three out of five of all public transport journeys are undertaken by bus, yet it just does not receive the attention it should. I am looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), and he and I may be about to disagree, but when he was the Buses Minister, we had the Bus Services Act 2017. I really felt it should be a case of franchising for all authorities that wanted it, followed by partnerships and then followed by municipals in situations where partnerships and franchises did not work. I know the view was to stop further municipals, but if we now say to local authorities, “If developers aren’t building out, then you build council houses and compete with them”, why can we not do the same thing when the bus service disappears?

On the buses strategy, may we examine more closely whether deregulation is working? With train operators, the trains are paid for by the passengers who use them, so there is no subsidy as far as that is concerned, yet we tell the train operators when the trains stop and how often. However, when it comes to buses, which receive a £2 billion public sector subsidy, we do not impose the same conditions, so bus services may disappear, or get rerouted so that they no longer pass the GP’s surgery.

The buses strategy, which I absolutely welcome, needs to set out some teeth in terms of what bus service providers provide to our constituents. I say that very much looking at my new parliamentary party, with colleagues from parts of the north that we have not represented before, where the bus is even more of an essential service than in other parts we have previously reached. I very much hope that we will have the power, on the Conservative Benches, to ensure that bus services are properly restored. I also ask why young people cannot get to places of Saturday or part-time work because the bus service is too expensive or does not exist, yet we allow millionaire pensioners to receive free bus travel. It is essential that we ask these very searching questions.

We have talked about aviation; it is going to be incredibly difficult to green, but I disagree with the Liberal Democrats’ amendment that we should not proceed with Heathrow. We need to demonstrate that we can still build big.

I do not have time to talk about motor vehicles, but 70% of the footprint is motor vehicles, and a third of all journeys taken by e-scooters would have been by car. We must legalise e-scooters.