Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 5th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. I am very comfortable with the driving test; it continues to be updated to make sure drivers are familiar with features such as satnavs, and the new technology will be added. The wider question about how often drivers drive and how experienced they are of course arises now. Someone can take a driving test and not drive very much but occasionally hire a vehicle, and we hold them to the same standard as those who drive day in and day out; they are still responsible. There might in these circumstances be a question about whether it would be sensible for people to take refresher courses and do further training, and we will want to monitor that and determine whether we should legislate for it or issue guidance. It is an interesting point for us to keep an eye on.

As well as the legal issues, making driving more convenient in this way also makes it potentially much more accessible, by for example giving those who cannot drive at the moment, such as the 340,000 people registered blind or partially sighted, new options to travel independently, opening doors to economic and social opportunities that have thus far remained closed. Interestingly, in the United States, where this technology has been rolled out earliest, it is those groups who have been most vocal in arguing for the technology, because it changes their lives for the better and opens up their opportunities.

The third area is learning and enforcement. This technology will get stronger, smarter and safer over time. The safety data will be collected by the vehicle, monitored by its operator and scrutinised by a Government regulator, which means we can take enforcement action when things go wrong or through sanctions and suspensions if a company withholds data. The Bill also includes measures to investigate incidents independently and ensure that lessons are learned. I have spoken about the context behind the Bill and addressed some of the key components and will turn now to some of the benefits self-driving vehicles will bring.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

This is an exciting Bill about an exciting future. I have listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend has said about who will ultimately be responsible if there is an accident. My understanding is it will always be the manufacturer and will never be the person who owns the car. In my constituency, as in many others, large numbers of people like modifying their cars and I am sure when autonomous vehicles are introduced people will want to modify those as well. They might change them in ways that ultimately slightly limit or diminish some of the safety features put in when the car was built, so who will be ultimately responsible in such circumstances? People may make modifications without knowing the implications, potentially, for diminishing the safety of the car. Will the manufacturer still be responsible when the car is modified, or will it be the owner?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point that we must make sure is covered. Clearly, if people make modifications that alter the functioning of the self-driving features of the vehicle, we would either have to say that that was not acceptable or they would have to accept that the vehicle was no longer self-driving. There would need to be rules. The vehicle will go through an authorisation process to go on the road, and there will be things that people will be allowed to change and things that they will not. I suspect that manufacturers will be very clear that they will no longer be responsible for a self-driving vehicle if someone has modified it. As long as that is clear, that is fine, but people will have to accept that, as cars become more technological with more technology built into them, the days of being able to tinker around with them under the bonnet and alter things will be long past if we want that technological stuff to kick in.

[Alexander Stafford]

My question was not just about modification that may change the safety of the car but about any modification. If someone who owns an iPhone changes the screen, it is no longer under manufacturer warranty even though that does not affect how it works. If someone has modified their car and it does not affect a safety feature but there is then an accident, will the manufacturer be able to say that the car has been modified and that, even though the safety features are unchanged, it is therefore no longer its responsibility? Will the liability pass to the owner if the manufacturer decides it has nothing to do with it?

[Mr Harper]

These cars will have to be authorised by the regulator to go on the road, but my hon. Friend makes the good point that, as part of that process, what the user of the vehicle can and cannot do needs to be clear. I suspect there will be very limited things that they could do without affecting the operation of the vehicle, but it is good to put on the record that in the information provided by both the manufacturer and the regulator we must be clear about what the user of the vehicle can and cannot do to ensure it can be driven safely.

Despite Britain having some of the safest roads in the world, the levels of serious injury and road deaths remain too high. That could soon change. If we can eliminate driver error, which is involved in 88% of road collisions, we could get to the point where self- driving vehicles are a game changer for road safety: they do not drink and drive, they do not get stressed or distracted, they do not speed, get tired, bend the rules of the road or push their luck.

Self-driving vehicles will save lives and we cannot ignore the economic impact either. According to industry estimates, 40% of new cars will by 2035 have some self-driving capability. This is a growing global market, Britain’s share of which could be worth £42 billion and generate 38,000 skilled jobs in areas ranging from cyber-security to AI, and thanks to Government support, our self-driving vehicle industry is not only thriving but recognised the world over.

Victims of Road Traffic Offences: Criminal Justice System

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing today’s debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for the incredible work he does on the APPG for cycling and walking. We have heard so powerfully today about why we need greater justice for vulnerable road users—for cyclists and pedestrians and for those who wheel and scoot.

The APPG report articulates where those changes need to be focused, and I trust that, in his response, the Minister will refer to the report’s 10 recommendations and to the opportunity to put in place a system of justice that addresses the huge inequality that vulnerable road users experience. In particular, the right to continue to drive needs to be examined in greater detail, because we know that disqualification is a major intervention that will change behaviours. That, together with sentencing, re-testing and an escalation of penalty, is long overdue.

I want to focus on speed limits, which other hon. Members have talked about today. I thank the York Cycle Campaign for its work on abiding by speed limits. In the entry and exit points of York, in particular, people accelerate beyond the speed limit. It cannot be beyond the mind of technology today to better audit, monitor and provide penalty for those who exceed the speed limit. However, across all urban areas, we need to consider whether 30 mph and 40 mph are appropriate speed limits. The Minister will be very familiar with the 20’s Plenty for Us campaign, and we do need to look at this issue, particularly where there are blind corners and steep hills, which can occlude a driver’s vision.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a very important point about speed limits. In my constituency, on Swinston Hill Road in Dinnington, we have an issue with speeding. The council conducted a speed watch to work out how fast drivers were going. Drivers were speeding, but the council’s response was that maybe the speed limit was too low and that it should be raised because there were no accidents. Does the hon. Lady understand the concerns of residents who report speeding, when the council says that, if there are no accidents, there is no problem? Speeding is always a problem.

[Rachael Maskell]

I agree, and we must ensure that we put safety first at every juncture.

I want to address the issue of creating zones around schools, nurseries and other areas where young people play, as well as around heavily pedestrianised areas, to ensure that there is a safety strategy in such locations. There are many schools across York where young people have to navigate dangerous roads, and 30 mph is not a safe speed for children. I urge the Minister to consider an integrated schools strategy, so we can deploy proper measures to keep children and young people safe when they walk, wheel, scoot or cycle to school. The work done in Manchester, which states that the infrastructure should be there for a 12-year-old to navigate, is really important, but we need to ensure that it is applied across the country, because it is clear that there is inequality at the moment.

Where we see repetition in a locality, or indeed even a single incident, there should be a duty on local authorities to ensure that proper signage and speed mitigation are put in place to highlight areas of risk and to ensure that junctions and other areas are safe for walkers and cyclists. I urge the Minister to look at that.

I draw Members’ attention to the work of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety on speed limits and the opportunities for technology in this area. Its recommendations, too, are important, and I thank it for its work.

I also want to raise with the Minister the work undertaken by the Institute for Safe Autonomy at the University of York, in the light of the on-board technology that is available for vehicles, which can act as evidence in court cases. That could secure more convictions and ensure a chilling effect on poor driving.

The licensing of taxis is long overdue, and the Government have had a long time to implement the Law Commission’s report on it. We often see some of the worst driving behaviours in our city when licences have been granted in authorities other than our own. I really urge movement on that issue to ensure that licensing relates to the authority in which somebody is licensed to drive, and to bring greater safety for road users.

Finally, I want to draw attention to the work City of York Council is doing with its transport consultation. If we are serious about seeing an escalation of active travel and proper safety measures put in place, it is really important that every local authority has a proper integrated transport plan. That would benefit not only the environment and the economy, with all that that brings, but cyclists, walkers, wheelers and scooters, ensuring that their safety in the road space is acknowledged and made a priority.

Zero-emission Buses and Air Quality in Sheffield

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this very important debate. I declare an interest: my sister lives in Sheffield, and I have visited her regularly for many decades. I certainly understand what the hon. Member means about all the hills. I have walked and driven up and down them, and I completely understand the challenges that Sheffield faces in comparison with many other cities.

As the hon. Member said at the beginning of his comments, the Government completely share the ambition to eliminate air pollution. It is toxic, particularly nitrous oxides; that is why we set up the clean air fund. There have been a whole range of different Government initiatives to work towards that. We are also under a legal requirement by court action to act as quickly as possible. We do not want to delay or wait for new technologies that may eventually be helpful; we want to act now. Part of that scheme was the clean air zone programme that applies across the UK for cities where nitrous oxides and other pollutants are above permitted levels. As the hon. Member mentioned, Sheffield was one of them. Sheffield launched its class C clean air zone on 27 February 2023.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

Rother Valley borders Sheffield, and many of my constituents go to work and drive vans into the Sheffield clean air zone. They are being penalised and the clean air zone is adding more money on to their bills. There is also talk of a clean air zone, or ULEZ-style scheme, coming to Rotherham. Can the Minister assure me that clean air zones and ultra low emission zones will be introduced only in areas where there is a business case for them and where people want them? At the moment, people in Rother Valley are being hit by the clean air zone in Sheffield, and they are worried that a similar one will come to Rotherham as well.

[Anthony Browne]

That is a valid point. Clean air zones impose costs on people, but they are only necessary and only required where air pollution is above the legal limit. In those places, not only are we required to introduce them by law, but it is the right thing to do to reduce air pollution as quickly as possible. The clean air zones are temporary. They are there only while air pollution exceeds the permitted levels. Clean air zones are supported by the Government, but the design and structure of them, including which vehicles are included or excluded, and their funding are decided by local authorities. As a result, all the clean air zones in the country are variations on a theme. For example, ordinary cars are not included in the Sheffield scheme, but taxis are. It is different in other places.

Because of the need to act quickly, the Government introduced the retrofit programme. As the hon. Member for Sheffield Central mentioned, that has been troubled. I have been in this job for three weeks, and it has landed on my plate. As he says, it has not performed as we expected in real-world conditions. We are currently analysing exactly what the impact is and what the mitigations can be, and we will publish the results soon. I cannot release them now—we need to make exec decisions—but when we do, it will be within the framework of eliminating air pollution in Sheffield and other cities as quickly as possible, as we are legally required to do, and as is the right thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

The hon. Member makes a very valid point, which I will discuss with officials. I want to pick up on a point that he made earlier—

[Alexander Stafford]

rose—

[Anthony Browne]

I still have time, so I will give way.

[Alexander Stafford]

Further to what my Labour colleagues the hon. Members for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, we in Rother Valley would also like hydrogen buses, and we hope to join in. There is cross-party support for hydrogen buses in South Yorkshire. I hope the Minister takes that point away.

[Anthony Browne]

I am reading the message loud and clear: everyone in the room likes hydrogen buses. I will discuss them with officials.

On the point about ITM Power, I was very interested to hear about that production facility. Again, as a Government, we are very keen not just to procure buses and other vehicles from other countries, but to make them in the UK—such as with Wrightbus in Northern Ireland and Alexander Dennis in Falkirk, Scotland—and to produce the power as much as possible in the UK, whether it is hydrogen or electric batteries. In my three weeks in the job, I have been doing quite a lot of work on sustainable aviation fuels. We want to make them in the UK, and to look at the whole supply chain and the whole energy transition that we are going through.

This technological transition creates an awful lot of opportunities in different sectors, including hydrogen. I do not like the phrase “green jobs”, because it has become a bit of a cliché, but these are green jobs. They are real jobs, they really exist, and they are often highly skilled. I have been meeting many companies that are entering this sector or developing the new decarbonised transport sector, if we want to call it that, and there are huge opportunities. The more rapidly we develop as a country, the more we can use it as an opportunity internationally as well for exports. If we solve the problems with hydrogen buses, for example, and work out how to make them work, how to power them and so on, I am sure that there will be an export opportunity for UK plc as well.

I am ready to wrap up. This has been a really important debate, and I am very glad that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central managed to secure it. He made many valid points. We will be publishing the results of the bus retrofit programme shortly, in terms of looking at how we can mitigate it. If Sheffield has not applied for ZEBRA 2 and is interested, it knows what to do. The deadline is 15 December. I will press officials to announce the results as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

High Speed 2

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Holden]

I certainly will. I was delighted to be in East Anglia just last week at the opening of the new A11 road, where there has been £65 million of investment, and I have been delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency on multiple occasions, including to see the investment that is going into his local bus network. I will certainly pass on his representations on behalf of his constituents regarding Ely junction.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

We had great news a while ago when the Government said they would scrap the 2b arm of HS2, which would have devastated hundreds of homes across Rother Valley in Bramley, Wales and Aston, but many of those homes are still under safeguarding measures, meaning their owners are stuck in limbo. I know that the Government still want high-speed trains through the area, but the only financially viable way of HS2 getting to Leeds is by using existing track. Why is it taking so long to release the land when everyone knows and accepts that we will not be building a new track through Rother Valley to Leeds? Will the Minister release the safeguarding and release people’s homes?

[Mr Holden]

I know that my hon. Friend has raised this issue multiple times with the rail Minister. I will certainly take it back to the Department and discuss what can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Trudy Harrison]

Rural communities are particularly close to my heart, because I live in one. It was a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency of North Devon to enjoy a ride along the Tarka trail, which was absolutely fantastic. We will continue to support walking and cycling, as I have set out. In terms of her specific question, I hope that she will look forward to our rural strategy. The Government provided £20 million, as we have heard, to the rural mobility fund, which is just one of the ways to improve services in rural areas.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I am proud, on behalf of Rother Valley, to support Doncaster’s bid to be the headquarters of Great British Railways. Doncaster is a great location that serves the whole of Rother Valley and the whole of South Yorkshire. Will the Minister look favourably on South Yorkshire’s bid to be the home of Great British Railways?

[Wendy Morton]

We had an amazing 42 bids for the Great British Railways headquarters and all have been carefully considered. The shortlist will be out shortly and I wish them all success.

Public Transport Authority for South Yorkshire

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a public transport authority for South Yorkshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your tutelage today, Mr Hosie. In this debate, I am calling for the creation of Transport for South Yorkshire: a local government body responsible for co-ordinating South Yorkshire’s transport network and delivering a clear, unified regional strategy.

Since my election, I have heard loud and clear the repeated calls for change to the dismal transport network in our region, both from my constituents in Rother Valley and residents across South Yorkshire. So pressing is the issue that I raised the sorry state of our buses at my first ever attendance at Prime Minister’s questions. I set up the Rother Valley Transport Task Force to work with constituents on improving our local transport facilities and have heavily canvassed local opinion. I have held many meetings with local bus executives and organised residents’ meetings with the managing director of First Bus, so that my constituents can pose questions directly to the decision makers at the operators. My engagement with constituents has informed my views on what residents want and why Transport for South Yorkshire is so necessary.

For too long, we have endured terrible provision, which is fragmented between operators, with unreliable and infrequent services.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I am with the hon. Gentleman on the arguments he has mounted so far. However, does he recognise that we had the sort of cheap, reliable, popular and well-used service that he aspires to in South Yorkshire until a Conservative Government took it apart in the 1980s?

[Alexander Stafford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. Unfortunately, as I was born in the late 1980s, I cannot recall such a service. When I look to London and Manchester—even when I look to West Yorkshire—I see what can be done. I will get to that later on in my argument.

At the moment, we have limited and slow routes and expensive fares, which results in poor social and economic outcomes for South Yorkshire. Our residents are unable to access employment opportunities and key public services in health and education, as well as social gatherings. The lack of connectivity cuts off our towns and villages from each other and large regional cities, reducing our ability to pool world-class services in our population clusters. Most worrying of all, the most vulnerable in our communities are left isolated and denied access to a key lever for poverty alleviation: reliable and affordable transport.

It is clear that enough is enough. My campaign to create Transport for South Yorkshire is a core part of my transport plan, and will utilise the devolved transport powers that lie with the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority and the Mayor of South Yorkshire. Transport for South Yorkshire must be in charge of a bold and ambitious regional transport strategy for the decades ahead. It must place capital transport investment and sustainable green technology at the heart of transport in South Yorkshire. Transport for South Yorkshire must integrate buses, the Sheffield super tram, local trains, principal road routes, taxis, waterway travel and cycling provision, into one comprehensive, holistic and unified network. Furthermore, Transport for South Yorkshire will ensure that the wants and needs of local communities are a crucial part of the decision-making process and are accounted for at all times. Our rural communities will also benefit from the investment in both the transport service and infrastructure.

I will first address the state of our bus network, and how Transport for South Yorkshire will transform bus travel. The creation of this body provides the opportunity for huge investment in our buses, with the benefits overseen by local residents rather than private company shareholders pocketing large revenues with little investment in return—as we currently see. Transport for South Yorkshire will ensure the integration of the bus network across the county, and will feed into the Bus Back Better national bus strategy. The proposals that I have mentioned have been supported by the managing director of First Bus, who, in a public meeting, noted that bus franchising based on the Greater Manchester model is good for business, good for operators and ultimately good for the public.

[Paul Blomfield]

I am fascinated that the focus of the hon. Member’s speech on bus improvement is on structure. Would he not agree that investment is critical, and therefore that it was deeply regrettable that the Government turned down the £474 million bid for bus improvements that we made?

[Alexander Stafford]

I thank the hon. Member for his point; it will be no surprise to him that I will address it later on in my speech—it makes up a good part of my speech. Unfortunately, those plans were not very ambitious. What I am outlining is a more ambitious programme. The subject of this debate is the public body, but, do not worry, I will address that failed and lacklustre bid later on in my speech. [Interruption.] There will be opportunities to intervene later if the hon. Member wishes to.

Transport for South Yorkshire must achieve the following vital objectives. First, it must preside over a fully integrated, high-capacity bus network for South Yorkshire. In order to do this, it must set standardised, affordable bus fares across the county to apply to all services and routes, regardless of the private operator. That means a ticket or pass can be used on any bus, anywhere in the county. Additionally, the transport body must subsidise more affordable fares for eligible pensioners, children and disabled people. Furthermore, it must centrally plan and control all routes, timetables and funding. All services must operate under Transport for South Yorkshire livery and branding, as is the case in London.

Secondly, Transport for South Yorkshire must deliver more frequent bus services and many more routes. There should be a mixture of routes that link up every town and village in our region, and superfast direct routes between large towns and cities. The transport body must pay for better services at times and in areas where no commercial bus services are provided, or should make the awarding of certain lucrative franchises contingent on the provision of universal service obligation routes by private companies.

Thirdly, there must be clear performance targets and benchmarks to guarantee reliable service, with the option to remove the franchise from an under-performing private company if necessary. In line with that, there must be an easily accessible central complaints procedure for passengers, with the right to official response.

Fourthly, Transport for South Yorkshire must invest in the region’s physical and digital bus infrastructure, making bus travel easier and smarter. The body must introduce a clear and consistent network map and a bus numbering system that can be easily understood and remembered. There may need to be a wholesale revamp of South Yorkshire’s bus stations, bus stops and bus shelters, with new modern transport interchanges where necessary. In terms of digital infrastructure, there should be a mobile app, allowing people to plan their route and track their bus; electronic bus boards at every stop that indicate the time until the next bus; and tap-in and tap-out contactless fare technology, as operates in Manchester and London.

I have laid out what Transport for South Yorkshire must achieve in the realm of buses. However, my ambitious vision lies in stark contrast to what has already been proposed by the combined authority. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) is clearly keen for me to talk about the fact that the UK Government did not accept the combined authority’s bid for the bus service improvement plan, signed off by the Mayor. The plan purportedly aimed to bring in a fare cap, new bus shelters and an improved fleet. The Mayor claimed that central Government had “shafted” South Yorkshire by rejecting the bid. The truth, however, is that the bid failed because it was nowhere near ambitious enough. The people of South Yorkshire want a similar integrated transport system to the one in London. The lack of ambition is why the combined authority’s bid failed.

This is not a red or blue thing: the Government awarded transport funding to Labour-run Greater Manchester and Labour-run West Yorkshire because they were miles ahead of us in their thinking and ambition. Transport for Greater Manchester is a prime example of replicating the successes of Transport for London from the same base as ours in South Yorkshire. Put simply, all other mayoral combined authorities are far more advanced in this process than we are in South Yorkshire. South Yorkshire is no further ahead, and the combined authority has just said that it will look into franchising. It is not good enough; there can be no more excuses.

This is the truth about transport in South Yorkshire: the combined authority has the power to change transport and be truly ambitious and country-leading, but it always plumps for the minimum it can get away with and then blames the Westminster Government. South Yorkshire leaders should rush to embrace franchising powers and take back accountability, but too many would rather continue to blame the past or what happened many years ago in the ’80s, rather than their current inaction. That is why we need Transport for South Yorkshire with a clear mission statement, as well as effective, transparent leadership and governance structures, all held against discrete and ambitious targets.

However, buses are not all that Transport for South Yorkshire would oversee. Trains are an efficient and environmentally friendly model of transport, and Transport for South Yorkshire would make transport by train a priority.

It is also disappointing that the combined authority ignores the small communities, which badly need rail connections. My campaign to reopen the old South Yorkshire Joint Railway would regenerate those former mining towns and link them up. Despite the line being for the occasional freight train, and my plan securing provisional backing from the rail operator, the combined authority has not yet endorsed the project. Transport for South Yorkshire should look to reopen closed lines that connect our former mining towns and villages.

Furthermore, we need a new train station at the growing village of Waverley. There is no point having high-skilled industrial jobs at the manufacturing park there if residents from small towns across South Yorkshire cannot reach it by multiple modes of public transport, such as by train. My constituents tell me constantly that they need bus routes and active transport options that connect communities to where employment options are. There are few, if any, direct services in my part of South Yorkshire to the Advanced Manufacturing Park or Crystal Peaks, or to the big employers around Manvers and Doncaster. It is time to invest in South Yorkshire’s rail network to make it the envy of every other region and ensure residents have access to amenities and employment opportunities.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alexander Stafford]

I will give way one more time to the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure he will want to make his own speech at some point.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman asked you to give way and you said yes. We do not need a commentary.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way one more time. He talks ambitiously and grandly about the need for investment, and he is absolutely right, but how does he think that sits alongside the practical experience of this Government, who have cut spending on public transport from £3.9 billion in 2009 to £2.4 billion in 2020? Where is the ambition there?

[Alexander Stafford]

That is an interesting point, but once again I look at what happened in Manchester and West Yorkshire. They got Government funding because their plans were ambitious. There is no point putting money into a plan that will not work, or will provide only minimal benefits. We want a grand plan to get the funding and resources we need, and I hope Transport for South Yorkshire will be the body for that.

This is not just about buses and trains; active transport should be at the heart of operations. Currently, there is a chronic lack of cycle routes for rural communities, leaving cyclists at the mercy of dangerous stretches of road. The combined authority is in charge of active travel and has been given a pot of money to that end. However, its cycling plans exclude rural towns and villages, and are mainly focused on the big towns. The combined authority is spending money on poorly designed cycle lanes in Rotherham town centre, but the communities that need them are not on the radar. For instance, in one local to me there is a great appetite for a cycle lane between Harthill and Kiveton Park. Transport for South Yorkshire should focus on cycling for all communities in the county. After all, cycle lanes are good for the environment, health and connectivity, and they reduce the danger of cycling on the roads.

As with active transport, I believe that a good transport system is holistic and recognises the worth of modes of transport beyond road and rail. A good example is the Chesterfield canal, a beautiful and varied 46-mile stretch of waterway that links Nottingham, South Yorkshire and Derbyshire. Transport for South Yorkshire should make the nine-mile Rother Valley portion of the canal fully navigable from start to finish. It should also fund a new marina at Kiveton Park and make the Rother Valley link a reality, connecting the Chesterfield canal to the rest of the waterway system. Transport for South Yorkshire’s support for the regeneration of the canal would have benefits for transport connectivity, health, leisure and economic rejuvenation.

We must also consider the condition of our roads in South Yorkshire. The combined authority is in charge of pinch points, but it has not tackled them in areas such as Rother Valley. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council admits that there is an issue, but it and the combined authority always seem to focus on pet projects in Sheffield city centre and Rotherham town centre, instead of addressing issues on our roads in South Yorkshire. [Interruption.] There is chortling on the Opposition Benches, but where is the solution for the A57 Todwick roundabout, which constantly has accidents and congestion? Where is the solution for the Whiston Worrygoose roundabout congestion? We do not have it.

Transport for South Yorkshire would ensure that residents could not be penalised for using their cars to get to work if viable, efficient and affordable alternatives are not provided. Currently, the combined authority is considering a workplace parking levy on companies that have a certain number of parking spaces for employees. That is altogether unreasonable, and it is essentially a tax on business and workers. It is completely irrational to impose that on residents of areas outside Yorkshire’s four conurbations because, unfortunately, driving a car is the only way to get to work in the light of the combined authority’s failure to institute a robust local transport system. We want to reduce reliance on cars, but it has to be in line with the quality of transport provision locally.

Other transport issues that must be addressed include the installation of electric vehicle charging points across South Yorkshire to encourage the transition away from fossil fuel-powered combustion engines, as well as the need to work with the Government to remove the safeguarding of local land for the now scrapped phase 2b of High Speed 2, which I welcome. All of this can be achieved with Transport for South Yorkshire. However, the power to create the body lies with the South Yorkshire Mayor. The authorities in Sheffield must realise that the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive is not sufficient to deal with the transport crisis and does not have the powers to revolutionise travel in our region. Any plans that have been put forward so far by the combined authority exclude rural communities in South Yorkshire, such as mine in Rother Valley, and do not correspond to residents’ wants and needs. I therefore call on the new Mayor, from whatever party they are, to work with me to establish Transport for South Yorkshire. I stand ready to begin discussions with them on this issue.

I have a couple of asks of the Minister before I wrap up. The first is that Transport Ministers should strongly encourage the combined authority to franchise transport by creating Transport for South Yorkshire, based on the London and Manchester models. Currently, the people of South Yorkshire are being left behind by proposals that are lacklustre and unambitious. The second is that once the combined authority finally submits a funding proposal to the Government to create Transport for South Yorkshire, with the full powers and remit that I have outlined, the Department should judge approval of funding for the plan based on the plan’s ambitions and whether it actually addresses the systematic inaction and underfunding in transport locally, which has failed residents for years. Only an ambitious proposal that is fit for purpose should be accepted. The people of Rother Valley and South Yorkshire deserve better than half-baked, half-thought-out schemes. We want the full gamut, and we want what Manchester and London have—we deserve that.

I look forward to the long-overdue creation of a transit system of which we can all be proud. I cannot wait to be an eager passenger on a wonderful Transport for South Yorkshire service in the very near future.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. I should perhaps begin by declaring a very relevant interest as the Mayor of South Yorkshire—at least for another week or so.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) on securing this important debate, but let us now inject some reality into it. In my four years as Mayor, I made transport a central priority. I knew just how important it was for productivity, access to opportunity and quality of life. By 2023, we will have invested £87 million in cycling and walking, with more to come. We are getting people fit, making it easier to get around and cutting car use. We are investing £100 million to put our trams on a solid footing and, I hope, to lay the foundation for expansion. We have put millions into bus concessions as well as into better infrastructure and services. We gave young people 80p fares so that they can afford to get about, get to work or to their studies, and we began the formal process of investigating bus franchising.

We have been working under huge pressure to protect and, where we can, improve our bus network across the whole region—in rural villages just as much as our urban centres. I am immensely proud of our record, but I am also deeply frustrated that we could not do more. More powers would have been invaluable. Of course, regional governments like South Yorkshire should play a role like Transport for London has in London, with a fully empowered public transport authority providing co-ordination and local control.

We already have a strategic role, but the truth is that powers are not enough without funding. For all the fine words, the reality is that from 2009 to 2020, Government spending on public transport in the UK declined by almost 40% from £3.9 billion to £2.4 billion. The Government spend almost three times per head more in London that in Yorkshire and the Humber. Meanwhile, amid all the talk of devolution, the Government’s default model is still forcing local government to endlessly compete for disparate, uncertain, centrally controlled and inadequate pots of money, sapping resources and hamstringing any attempts at strategic planning. South Yorkshire shows that especially well.

The national bus strategy expressed a grand aspiration, so we produced—let us be very clear about this—an ambitious, detailed £474-million bus service improvement plan, including free travel for under-18s, daily and weekly fare capping and a network of bus priority routes, but we were rejected along with 60% of other applicants. That was perhaps inevitable given that the available funding, which was originally promised to be in excess of £3 billion, ended up being just over £1 billion. Let me say that again: most areas will get nothing under the Government’s flagship bus improvement programme.

[Alexander Stafford]

On that programme, will the hon. Member acknowledge that there was just over £1 billion available from the Government for the whole country, yet South Yorkshire put in a bid for £400 million? That is almost half the money for the entire country. Surely that shows unrealistic expectations from South Yorkshire. Surely we should be more realistic.

[Dan Jarvis]

Oh dear, oh dear. I thought we would get through this in a reasonable way. The hon. Member for Rother Valley cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, he says we are not ambitious enough; on the other, he has just said that, actually, we are being too ambitious. The truth of the matter is—and the hon. Gentleman really needs to do his homework—that when we began the process of submitting the bus service improvement plan, the steer from national Government was that the money that would be available nationally from revenue funding would be well in excess of £3 billion. That is a statement of fact, and I am sure the Minister would not demur from it. The truth is that we have ended up with a pot of money that is just above £1 billion for the whole country. The hon. Gentleman has to do the maths and understand that, in conversation with the Government, we were given assurances that there would be in excess of £3 billion. That £3 billion was massively reduced to £1 billion. That is the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. I wish that were not the case—honestly, I do—but it is.

[Alexander Stafford]

I would be grateful if the hon. Member outlined why West Yorkshire got the money whereas South Yorkshire did not. To me, that shows that the money was available and was on the table. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, our bid was not good enough to make the cut, whereas West Yorkshire’s bid was. Clearly they got it right and we got it wrong.

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point in terms of getting detailed feedback from the Government. He may have received that; we have not. Let us be honest about it: it would be foolish and naive of anybody not to assert that this is a political decision taken by the Government. Where is the hon. Member for Rother Valley when it comes to lobbying the Government to ensure that we secure the resources we need to invest in our services? It is not the case that our bid lacked ambition. We will see what the Minister has to say, but I honestly do not believe that any Minister of this Government could look this House in the face and say that the bid lacked ambition, because it just did not.

[Alexander Stafford]

It still failed, though.

[Dan Jarvis]

So let us get detailed feedback from the Government as to why they did not want to put money into what was a detailed, ambitious proposal. A huge amount of time and investment was put into it; frankly, it is not the case that it was not ambitious. That is a ludicrous assessment of the work, and is actually pretty offensive to some very dedicated and professional officers who worked with local authorities and a range of stakeholders, including nationally and in the Department for Transport, with whom I think we have a good relationship. I have a lot of time for the Minister. He is good at his job, and I do not blame him or hold the Government entirely responsible for this decision. The answers to some of the questions that need to be responded to lie in No. 11 Downing Street. Why was it that the Treasury, having initially promised £3 billion, got us down to £1 billion?

The hon. Member for Rother Valley can seek to argue that our bid was not ambitious, but I will rebut that at every point, because it is not the case. A lot of good work went into it, based on the very good report that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) produced a while ago. A lot of time, energy and investment went into drawing that plan together. The decision taken by the Government was entirely political, and did not in any way reflect the quality of the bid.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. For the remainder of my term—which, admittedly, is a pretty short period of time—I am very happy to sit down with the hon. Member for Rother Valley and go through the detail of the bid that we submitted. The hon. Member has chosen today to make these points; he has not come to me previously. I routinely brief local Members of Parliament, and I have not seen the hon. Member at any of those meetings. It is only today that he takes the opportunity to raise these points.

[Alexander Stafford]

That is not true. I have been on numerous calls, and I have regular conversations with the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority and the hon. Gentleman’s offices and officers about a whole range of transport issues.

[Dan Jarvis]

I hope the hon. Gentleman has clocked that the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive is being subsumed into the mayoral combined authority, and what we are waiting for is Government time so that the order can go through this place to complete that process. That is something I decided was in our interests as a region, to allow for more effective and more accountable decision making.

I am conscious of time, so I will move on. However, given that we are rightly focusing on the importance of investment, I will just make the point that our plight was not helped—to say the least—by the fact that the £50 million levelling-up fund that the MCA put forward, which would have drawn down vital resource to invest in our bus network, was rejected. Again, that was a good, detailed, ambitious proposal that we put forward to the Government as part of—

[Alexander Stafford]

indicated dissent.

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I look forward to hearing his detailed critique of why that £50 million bid that was put forward to Government was rejected. I am happy to give way, if he wants to offer a critique of what was wrong with that bid—was that not ambitious enough?

[Alexander Stafford]

I find the hon. Member’s argument quite astounding. On the one hand, the South Yorkshire mayoralty failed to get one pot of money; it has now failed to get another pot of money. Surely, this is just a failure of leadership. If it keeps getting things wrong, it is not a problem with the process but a problem with how the bid has been written. Surely, it undermines his argument completely—if it is not getting any of the bids right, it needs to review how they do bids.

[Dan Jarvis]

Honestly, the hon. Gentleman’s approach is somewhat blinkered. Even if it is not today in this place and in this debate, he needs to have conversations with Ministers. If this Government seek to be serious about the levelling-up agenda and unlocking the potential of South Yorkshire, they will have to do much better than just saying that our bids were not ambitious enough. That is not the case. I give the House absolute assurance that the bids put forward would be independently assessed as very high quality. We have been here before with freeports, where the Government’s own analysis showed that our bid was better than some of the successful bids. Let’s keep this real.

Our concerns about investment in public transport extend way beyond buses. The Minister is an expert on Northern Powerhouse Rail and HS2, which I know is the favourite subject of the hon. Member for Rother Valley, so I will not get into all that detail. I have a lot of time for the Minister, so it would be remiss of me not to say—I am afraid this undermines the hon. Gentleman’s argument—that we have been successful in some areas. The same team of people who put forward the bid for the city region sustainable transport settlement, who worked with the same local authorities and closely with the Minister’s Department, successfully secured £570 million. Why was that bid successful and others were not? It is not clear to me. To be fair to the Minister, the same team of people put forward a successful bid for zero emission buses regional area funding for our electrical bus fleet.

The problem for the hon. Member for Rother Valley—whether he is prepared to admit to us or to himself is unclear—is that the resources made available by Government are inadequate for the transformation that the Government want. I support the levelling-up agenda, but the truth of the matter is that the potential of the north and places such as South Yorkshire will be unlocked only with serious long-term investment. The Government need to provide a step change in funding for revenue and not just of capital spending, to give it everywhere, not just where it is politically convenient and suits the Government, and to allocate the majority in a way that we can count on, plan for and control.

The hon. Member talks about a strategic approach; it is entirely impossible, as I believe the Secretary of State for Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities would acknowledge, to be strategic because we have no certainty whatsoever about our funding streams. The funding needs to be much more certain than it has been, genuinely transformative and genuinely devolved. I am sad to say that it is impossible for me to conclude that the Government are serious about the process, which is a terrible shame, because without it we will not unlock the huge potential of areas such as ours. People not just in South Yorkshire but right around the country deserve much better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alexander Stafford]

May I thank everyone for such a lively debate? We may not all agree about the solutions, but at least we all care about our region. Before I sum up the arguments, I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). We may disagree profoundly about a lot of things that go on in South Yorkshire, but I know that he cares passionately about the region. I thank him for his service over the past four years.

We have had some very interesting speeches. My neighbour, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), is right that services have got worse and that change is long overdue. We all agree on that; we may disagree on the funding models, the ambition or whatever, but at least we are all coming from the starting point that things need to get better. No one is sitting around arguing that the service is good. It is woeful.

I really enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). I am glad that he supports franchising, because I am a very big supporter. He raised an interesting point: I think he said that there is no point in giving powers without any additional money. Actually, I would argue the opposite, because we need to show what we would do with the powers before we get the money and put the plan in place—it is a chicken and egg situation. However, I think that overall the hon. Gentleman and I are looking from the same perspective.

The hon. Member for Barnsley Central made an impassioned speech about what he has done as Mayor in the past few years. Dare I say that perhaps there was a bit too much focus on the failed bids? It would be nice to see what the future holds as well. One point that I would like to pick up is that he called it a political decision of this Government not to give money in the last round. I say that it cannot have been a red/blue political decision: the Labour-controlled authorities of West Yorkshire and Manchester got funding, while blue areas such as North Somerset did not, so I just cannot accept that point. There has to be another solution.

The Minister made a very interesting point about funding. The Government have given £570 million for transport in our region, so we need to use the money wisely.

I hope that all hon. Members present will take forward the arguments, put aside our political differences and look towards what we all want: a bold, ambitious programme for South Yorkshire. We all agree that our transport, our buses and our connectivity need to get better. Whoever is Mayor in 10 days or so, I hope that they will take that point to heart when they listen to this debate or read it in Hansard, so that we can all get together and try to achieve that ambition. We in South Yorkshire deserve a system akin to Manchester’s or London’s. We should not be left behind, but our transport is woefully left behind.

Thank you, Mr Hosie, for your chairmanship today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a public transport authority for South Yorkshire.

Rail Investment and Integrated Rail Plan

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend’s powerful point. This is not the local transport revolution that was promised to the people of the north and midlands. In fact, what is now before us is not only less than what was promised, but could deliver a poorer service for many of our towns, cities and communities than the already unacceptable service that they currently have.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady make it explicitly clear: if Labour was in power, would it build the 2b arm of HS2 that would go through Rother Valley?

[Louise Haigh]

Yes, I just said that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grant Shapps]

It is an extraordinary idea that £96 billion is “cheap and nasty”, but maybe this is a question of language. Those in Liverpool should know that the current journey time from London to Liverpool is 132 minutes and that will be slashed to just 92 minutes—“cheap and nasty”, but 92 minutes.

The common-sense approach we have taken delivers a plan that under the original plan would have been years and years in the making—until well after many of us had stopped serving in this House. This plan benefits smaller towns and cities, which would have been ignored under the plans Labour still backs. The smaller towns and cities would have seen no improvements at all; in fact, in many cases they would have seen deteriorating services, and let us face it, these problems have been known about for years.

[Alexander Stafford]

My right hon. Friend is completely right: the smaller towns and villages will benefit from this plan, not least Bramley, Wales and Aston in Rother Valley because HS2 was going to bulldoze through them, destroying 400 homes. However, there is still safeguarding around the route, so can the Secretary of State update us on when that will be lifted so that people in Rother Valley can get on with their lives?

[Grant Shapps]

We will of course continue to keep the matter under review, but as my hon. Friend knows £100 million is going to west Yorkshire and Leeds to see the best way of getting HS2 trains to Leeds so I ask him to be a little more patient on that front.



However, he is absolutely right to mention the smaller towns and cities that the Labour party seems to have largely forgotten about. The existing plan would have seen deteriorating services. We intend to revise the plan, because as far back as 2014 it was recognised that the existing plan would

“deliver maximum disruption and minimal benefit.”

Those are not my words about the plan that Labour is proposing, but those of the now Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham.

Integrated Rail Plan: North and Midlands

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

No, they will go in on the platform of saying that we have reduced journey times, provided more seats and increased capacity and reliability. For example, Newcastle to Peterborough is a big winner, with 21 minutes cut off the train journey to London. I do not know about my hon. Friends, but I think they will have plenty to say.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

On behalf of the people of Rother Valley, I thank the Government for getting rid of the eastern leg of the 2b arm. It was a damaging and destructive thing for South Yorkshire that would have given us no benefits. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, now that we have scrapped that ridiculously expensive project, we are going to invest the money into the projects we actually need, such as better regional buses, better regional transport and better trans-Pennine links?

HS2

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Mundell; I am conscious of the time.

I stand here in Westminster Hall today to oppose HS2, as I have opposed it ever since being elected. Over 700 of my constituents signed the petition. And I was actually joined at one of my street surgeries just last Friday by Sandra Haith, a stalwart member of the Bramley anti-HS2 group. She gave me another petition that was signed by 8,000 constituents a couple of years ago. In Rother Valley, a northern seat and a seat that the Government want to level up, we say that we do not want HS2.

I want to challenge this fallacy that HS2 is involved with levelling up. It is quite the opposite: HS2 takes money and resources away from levelling up. I say that HS2—I am particularly talking about the 2b arm that runs roughshod through my constituency, destroying 400 homes—damages the levelling-up process. Why is that? First of all, we have heard about £150 billion. What my constituency could do with £15 million would be transformative. Give us some of that; do not give us a rail line that we cannot get on to. That money is what we need.

On top of that, we have talked about the trans-Pennine route here today; that is what we need. But what I hear from suppliers and construction companies is that there are not enough resources. There is not enough concrete; there are not enough tradesmen at the moment actually to build anything else. That is because HS2 is this gaping maw that is sucking in resources, sucking in money and sucking in everything, but not actually delivering anything. That undermines the whole concept of levelling up, so I say to the Government: we need to stop HS2 and the 2b arm.

If newspaper reports are to be believed, the 2b arm will be scrapped. I welcome that and I hope the Minister will confirm that. Hundreds of my constituents, whose homes are being destroyed or compulsorily purchased, are being left in limbo. They do not know what is going on. We cannot just mothball it. We need to cancel it so that they can get on with their lives.

I have one more point: we are destroying 400 homes in the Rother Valley. At the same time, Rotherham council is building new homes on the green belt, which is ridiculous. We are destroying the homes that we have and building on the green belt to make up for the loss. The HS2 project is a disaster, and 2b needs to be fully cancelled.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I thank the hon. Member for sticking to the time, and I thank Mr Newlands who has reduced his time available so that other Members can participate in the debate. I call Gavin Newlands.

Transport Decarbonisation Plan

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) for raising this important issue. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I rise today to speak on an issue on which I feel strongly. My hon. Friends will know that much of my work in the House has focused on bringing the green revolution to left-behind areas across the United Kingdom, including Rother Valley, and that green transport has been a focus for me. In fact, I sponsored the first two debates on hydrogen and the first debate on critical minerals in the UK Parliament, and I shall speak about those topics today, as I firmly believe that they are vital in the context of our transport decarbonisation plan.

Critical minerals are incredibly important to our green energy and low-carbon transport needs. On average, each electric car uses 100 kg of copper, rare earth for the magnets, and lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite for the batteries. To meet the Prime Minister’s vision for wind power, we also need more than 26,000 tonnes of rare earths and more than 4 tonnes of copper. Importantly, seven points in the Government’s 10-point plan for the green recovery are dependent on a secure green supply of critical minerals. The UK Government must acknowledge that the construction of renewable energy technology and low-carbon electric vehicles is inextricably linked to the supply of our critical minerals. We must take action accordingly to protect our energy sector, the generation of clean power and the future transport technology for low-carbon vehicles.

The challenge to the UK is not just that rocketing demand will leave shortages, but that our suppliers of critical minerals—namely the People’s Republic of China—are unsustainable and unreliable. More than 75% of the world’s lithium-ion component manufacturers are located in China, resulting in more than 72% of lithium-ion batteries and 45% of all global electric vehicles already being produced there. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) mentioned Shenzhen and other areas in China with huge electric vehicle networks. That is a positive in some ways, but also a concern, as they are almost hoovering up the critical minerals that we need to decarbonise here in the UK and across the globe. In December 2020—only a few months ago—the Chinese legislature passed a law on export control allowing the Chinese Government to ban exports of strategic minerals and advanced technology whenever they wished, so they have a stranglehold on the supply of essential minerals.

I have been active in persistently calling on the Government to adopt a comprehensive critical minerals strategy and to collaborate with the Five Eyes and Commonwealth partners on a unified supply network. I am pleased to hear that my call has been heeded and that Ministers and Whitehall are waking up to the urgency of this policy sector. Time is of the essence, and we must move now.

Furthermore, I submitted questions to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the role of assured data in mineral supply chains and the role of the Government in the stimulus and advancement of deployment of technology, including distributed ledger technology, used in the distribution system for critical minerals. I was a bit disappointed that the Department chose to group its responses together and provide, frankly, a very short and unresponsive answer. I hope the Minister can speak to her colleagues in BEIS and get them to commit to look at the questions again, because they are essential to our future critical mineral needs.

I wish to devote the rest of my speech to hydrogen. Some great work has already been undertaken by the Government on this issue, and I have spoken a lot about it in the House. However, with COP26 coming up in the UK, we must seize the opportunity to steal a march on the competition and become a pre-eminent world leader in hydrogen technology. I would like us to go further by introducing a vehicle capital financial support mechanism that applies to vehicle types where hydrogen has the potential to significantly reduce emissions. We should also introduce a financial support mechanism per kilo of hydrogen sold. That can be achieved quickly through the liberalisation of the renewable transport fuel obligation, which has recently gone out for public consultation. Further, we hope the hydrogen strategy will enable the development of a more refined scheme, such as, potentially, contracts for difference.

In addition, we should urgently develop hydrogen train schemes and use the 4,000-strong zero emission bus scheme to buy a large number of hydrogen buses to help kickstart investment in UK-made buses, as well as hydrogen production. We must modernise the bus service operators’ grant to align with the UK’s net zero ambitions and favour zero emission fuels over and above fossil fuels. We must commit to an explicit medium-term, zero emission freight deployment programme with vehicle deployment targets, and relax and clarify the conditions for hydrogen projects to qualify for the renewable transport fuels obligation, which will support the entire production and supply chain infrastructure needed for full hydrogen mobility. Combined, those policies have the ability to accelerate progress to net zero, stimulate private investment and create jobs across the Union, all with minimal taxpayer spend.

One other small point I want to touch on in relation to the low-carbon transport strategy is the nature of our technology and the batteries. Let me talk briefly about oil, as someone who used to work for Shell in the oil industry. Many people do not know the amount of oil that goes into an electric car. It is a huge amount, mainly for cooling the batteries, because at the moment that is the best way to cool them down. As battery range increases, batteries will get hotter and will need more cooling, therefore needing more oil. We cannot get away from the fact that, even in a low-carbon future, we will still need oil in the engine. It is not burned; it is first fill, so it is sealed in the engine, but when the engine battery is recycled or destroyed, that carbon will be released.

In future strategies, the Government need to acknowledge that there is carbon that we will have to get rid of at some point, and there needs to be a true way of recycling it. They also need to realise that some of that oil will get lost and carbon will be released, so we need to invest in offsetting that carbon usage. We will never get to zero carbon—net zero, but not zero carbon. In the strategy that is hopefully coming up, we need nature-based solutions and, potentially, carbon capture and storage. That needs to be at the heart of the strategy. We cannot ignore the elephant in the room: there is oil still in electric vehicles.

I commend the Minister for the work the Government have already done on critical minerals and hydrogen. However, without further decisive steps in both sectors, we risk losing out to the rest of the world, putting our net zero, energy security and economic growth at risk. We must see the rapid publication of the transport decarbonisation plan and the hydrogen strategy, which I think we are still waiting on. Every time I raise that with the Government, they say it will come soon. I hope it is sooner rather than later. We also need the critical mineral strategy. Industry, politicians and international partners are waiting. Now is the time to rise to the challenge and set the gold standard for transport decarbonisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alexander Stafford]

Tarmac is made of oil, so when making roads, we need to go back to offsetting some of our emissions because we will always need that oil. Does the hon. Lady think that should be part of the plan as well?

[Kerry McCarthy]

We need the environmental impact assessment from the Department so that we can assess the carbon footprint of road building, and look at whether more sustainable materials can be used and whether the extent of the road building programme proposed by the Government is compatible with reaching net zero, or whether other decisions need to be made.

We desperately need a comprehensive strategy to guide the Government’s approach. We do not want to see in this plan only platitudes and declarations of intent; we need clarity about how the Government intend to boost zero emission vehicle sales, speed up the transition to sustainable fuels, including for aviation and maritime, and encourage more people to use public transport, which we must ensure involves clean, greener vehicles.

We need a bold vision, linked to planning, housing and economic policy, on what role transport will play in the future, with post-pandemic adjustments to the way we live, move around, buy goods and access services—for example, the idea of the 15-minute city, which has been championed in Paris, and the role of the logistics sector. Many more people have resorted to online deliveries during the pandemic. I believe that pattern of behaviour will continue, so what is the strategy to keep heavy polluting vehicles out of urban centres wherever possible and rely on more sustainable forms of transport, whether electric vans, e-cargo bikes or other alternatives? The other day I visited Magway, a company that is looking at an underground delivery system, which it will be trialling in west London soon; that is really quite exciting stuff. Will we see ambition on that sort of thing in the plan?

I would welcome any insight from the Minister as to what concrete measures we can expect to see. Are the Government considering a zero emission vehicle mandate, as recommended by the Green Alliance and Policy Exchange, to ease the transition to 100% new zero emission vehicle sales by 2030? Are they considering a sustainable aviation fuel blending mandate to incentivise production and the adoption of stable fuels derived from waste? Will we finally see the timeframe for the production and roll-out of the 4,000 zero emission buses promised by the Government? How does the Government’s consultation on cutting air passenger duty for domestic flights square with all of this?

There is huge potential for jobs, and for the UK to lead the way in technological development. What we really want to hear from the Minister is a real strategy to get us there.