Bridges in London: Maintenance Funding

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting my request for a debate on the funding of London bridges. I am proud to be a River Thames MP, with Putney bridge a major and much-loved landmark as well as an essential road route in my constituency. However, it is not Putney bridge but the closure of Hammersmith bridge and its huge impact across London that brings me here this evening.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. More than a year ago I asked the then roads Minister, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), for a meeting to discuss the repair of Hammersmith bridge. I followed up that request on at least six occasions, but he had not replied by the time he was reshuffled yesterday. I did, however, receive a reply to my letter to the Secretary of State for Transport after the cancellation of the future stages of HS2. I had asked for a little of the £36 billion to be redirected to Hammersmith bridge, given that 0.5% of that would pay the full cost, and we know that the Department for Transport typically pays between 80% and 90% for strategic road schemes. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only reason the bridge has not been repaired is that the Government refuse to pay more than a third of the cost, and cash-strapped local authorities cannot meet a bill running into hundreds of millions of pounds?

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. He puts the case very well that finance is available, that it could come from the money allocated for HS2 funding for south-east roads and that Hammersmith and Fulham Council cannot be expected to pay a third of the costs for this bridge, which are very high and rising. He has summarised my speech very well but it will be going ahead, and I hope that the Minister will respond by using this opportunity to at last announce the funding for the reopening of the bridge. Here we are, my hon. Friend and I, representing both sides of the river and both seeing the impact that this is having on our constituents.

High Speed 2

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Holden]

My hon. Friend is quite right; that is exactly what would happen in that scenario. I will pass on the point he makes to the Treasury.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

HS2 has just applied for planning permission for works to enable Old Oak Common station to serve as a temporary terminus. “Temporary” previously meant the 2040s, but now it means forever. The works proposed block the eastern access to the station—just one example of a total lack of coordination. Will the Minister commission a report on the implications for HS2 of Old Oak Common’s being the London terminus?

[Mr Holden]

Old Oak Common itself will deliver regeneration of 1,600 acres of London, delivering more than 40,000 homes and supporting 65,000 jobs in outer London. The Government will continue to update the House if anything else changes with HS2.

Heathrow Airport Expansion

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing the debate. I agree with everything that she said, including about the toxic effects of Heathrow, which apply equally, if not more so, to my constituency of Hammersmith and Shepherd’s Bush and across west London.

We know the arguments against Heathrow: congestion on the roads and on public transport, noise pollution, air pollution, safety and the threat to whole communities. Those arguments have not changed. What has changed is that the aviation sector does not support Heathrow. We have expansion plans from London airports—Stansted, Luton and Heathrow—that will take up the carbon allocation. Regional airports, as we have just heard, are severely underused. Manchester is at about 50% capacity, and Birmingham airport, which will be about half an hour from Old Oak station in my constituency by High Speed 2 when it is constructed, is an alternative and is running at 40% capacity. We have heard that the airlines have withdrawn their support and some, such as Virgin, actively oppose the expansion.

What has changed since covid and the pause is that climate targets have got harder to meet, and the cost of doing so has become greater. Construction costs have gone through the roof. Heathrow has lost about £4.5 billion. It has also lost its chief executive and not yet recruited a new one. It is not in a good state.

Like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), I believe in a better rather than a bigger Heathrow. We understand the advantages of Heathrow to the economy—across the whole Thames valley, as well as to London, and west London in particular—but it is obscene to think of increasing its capacity by 50%, given its location. Transport policy has moved on.

We have heard that the airports national policy statement is five years old, and the airports commission is eight years old. Transport policy has moved on and history has moved on, but Heathrow has not; it is stuck trying to talk in the language of one or two decades ago and, unfortunately, the Government are listening. Well, the Minister is clearly not listening, because he is texting away, but I hope that when he responds, he will show a shift in Government policy on the issue. It is long overdue. Other Opposition parties have thought about this and changed their policy over time. In the Labour party, we welcome that. I hope that we see a realistic appraisal by the Government—a genuine review of the situation—because from any impartial or unbiased view of Heathrow, it should not expand. There are many alternatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

That is a whole ’nother debate. Given that the Government will not fund major strategic infrastructure because it is in London—if it were anywhere else in the country, they would be paying 80% or 90%—and given how much they have dragged their feet for years on this project, the Minister has a cheek, quite frankly, to make the comment he has just made.

[Jesse Norman]

I do not have much time, but I think the Chamber knows that the funding per head and the sources of revenue that exist in London are vastly greater than in other parts of the country, and it is appropriate that that money should be properly invested alongside any other support that can be given.

We are not going to be distracted from this important topic. On a more constructive point, it is noticeable that the Opposition’s position on the issue of Heathrow expansion is not so very different from that of the Government. It is important to explore what the Government’s position is.

Hon. Members will recall that, in 2015, the independent Airports Commission’s final report concluded that a new north-west runway at Heathrow airport was the best solution to deliver the future additional airport capacity the country required. The Government considered the commission’s recommendation and announced in October 2016 that they agreed with the conclusions.

The Government then developed a draft airports national policy statement that provided the framework and criteria against which a development consent application would be judged. The draft statement was published for consultation in 2017 and scrutinised by the Transport Committee, before being laid before Parliament. In June 2018, the airports national policy statement was designated, following Parliament voting overwhelmingly in favour of the north-west runway proposal, by 415 votes to 119. That is an overwhelming majority in favour of the north-west runway proposal. Following its designation, the airports national policy statement was subject to a number of legal challenges, which have been heard in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The legal challenges concluded in December 2020, when the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the airports national policy statement is lawful.

Challenges against the statement, however, did not end there. The Planning Act 2008 requires the Secretary of State to review a national policy statement whenever they consider it appropriate to do so. Between 2019 and 2021, the Department received numerous requests from third parties to review it. When the Supreme Court determined that the airports national policy statement once again had legal effect, those review requests were considered. In September 2021, the then Secretary of State for Transport decided that it was not appropriate at that time to review the airports national policy statement. The Government said that the matter would be considered again after the jet zero strategy was published, and that the timing of re-consideration would need to have regard to the availability of long-term aviation demand forecasts.

The jet zero strategy was published in July last year and sets out the Government’s approach to achieving net zero aviation by 2050. The idea that the Government have not thought at length and in depth about this, and set out a strategy for achieving it, as was raised earlier in the debate, is nonsense. The jet zero strategy and its accompanying documents set that out. The strategy focuses on the rapid development of technologies in a way that maintains the benefits of air travel while maximising the opportunities that decarbonisation can bring to the UK. It creates a strategic framework for aviation decarbonisation.

It is clear that the Government continue to support airport growth where it is justified, and that expansion of any airport in England must meet our strict climate change obligations to be able to proceed. The Government’s approach to sustainable aviation growth is supported by analysis that shows that the country can achieve net zero emissions by 2050 without the need to intervene directly to limit aviation growth. The jet zero strategy set out a range of measures to meet net zero. I will touch on three of those.

First, we are supporting the development of new, zero-carbon emission aircraft technology through the Aerospace Technology Institute programme. An example of that is the announcement last week by Rolls-Royce that it has commenced the testing of its UltraFan technology, which will enable efficiency improvements in current and future aircraft and is 100% SAF compatible.

Secondly, this year the Government have conducted a call for evidence on implementation of a 2040 zero-emission airport operations target in England. My Department is currently considering responses and will publish a Government response shortly. Thirdly, the suggestion that this country is behind its international competitors on sustainable aviation fuels is entirely wrong. We have published a consultation on the SAF mandate, and that is currently available for discussion.

HS2: Revised Timetable and Budget

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

May I thank my hon. Friend? It was a pleasure to visit him and see some of the impacts in Buckinghamshire, which he so ably represents. I absolutely accept, as does HS2 Ltd, that right now HS2 is at the peak of construction—I referenced the amount being spent each month—which means the impact is probably at its greatest for residents. That will reduce as the line is delivered to Curzon Street, which it will be. We remain committed to delivery, but we are also committed to ensuring that we work with hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend, on mitigation measures. I am very happy to discuss with him further what more we can do to assist his constituents, but I have to be absolutely clear that we are delivering HS2 to Curzon Street in the time specified. It will continue to take place. I am very proud of that delivery and I want to thank everyone who is doing it.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The consequences of this announcement for Old Oak Common include doubts about the capacity of the Elizabeth line; limited interchange between lines at the station, especially for disabled people; very limited access to the station site; and the postponement of development of HS2 land until after Euston opens. Will the Minister meet me and other MPs who are concerned about the indefinite delay to Euston opening to discuss the consequences for my constituents, which are game changing?

[Huw Merriman]

I try to make myself available to all colleagues across the House, and I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. To be clear, Old Oak Common is a massive regeneration opportunity that is being realised for west London. As I have stated, it will be one of the largest train stations delivered. It offers connectivity not just into London via the Elizabeth line, but to the west country and Wales via Great Western Railway. One amazing thing about Old Oak Common when I visited was that rather than lorry loads of spoil being taken away through the community, a conveyor has been built so we can use the existing freight line to take the spoil away. That is better not only for costs but for the environment, so I am very proud of the work being done at Old Oak Common. I would be very pleased to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss it further.

Road Traffic Collisions Involving Cats

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. That is exactly what I am going to talk about. I agree that the microchipping legislation should be brought forward.

Under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, drivers are required to stop and report incidents of hitting a horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti). The Act reflects an understanding of animals as having a financial value attached to them as livestock or working animals. As such, cats are not covered. The petitioner, Olivia, and organisations including Battersea and the Blue Cross want this to change.

Because there is currently no legal requirement to report, we do not know how many cats are killed by vehicles. One needs only to have a quick search through their local area’s Facebook groups to know that. It is sadly very commonplace. Some 52% of respondents to the Petitions Committee’s survey for this debate said they had lost a cat as a result of a road traffic accident, with a further 40% suspecting that their cat had been killed but without any proof.

The reality is that not all drivers comply with the 1988 Act as it stands. For example, one particular road in my constituency has become notorious for cattle deaths at night, with the deceased animals being found by other drivers in lighter hours and reported then. Whether or not there is a place for cats in the Act, we know that it is not fully fit for purpose as it stands. How can the Government help to ensure that cat owners such as Olivia are not left in limbo when it comes to losing their beloved pet?

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I had the pleasure of hosting a Cats Protection event just before Christmas. Some 76 MPs and peers turned up, which shows where the sympathies of Members lie. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a shame the Government are out of step with the view of Members and that they should look at this matter again? They have dismissed it rather out of hand in their response to the petition, but this issue goes hand in hand with microchipping. The Government said they would bring forward microchipping by the end of last year; they should now do so, in tandem with introducing provisions on reporting.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point and for hosting Cats Protection before Christmas. That event really was well attended. The point of such events is to raise awareness of legislation that is not fit for purpose and to talk to peers and Members of Parliament about the importance of cats. We do not need a huge uprooting of legislation to get this right: small changes would make a huge difference to cats and cat owners.

First, we need the Government to finally make good on their promise to make it a legal requirement for cats to be microchipped. In its 2022 “Cats and Their Stats” report, Cats Protection estimated that 2.8 million cats are not microchipped, meaning they do not have any permanent identification. Microchipping is a hugely important part of responsible pet ownership, and making it compulsory for cat owners would send a vital message that it is an integral part of looking after a cat. The Government had planned to lay regulations by the end of 2022 to bring compulsory cat microchipping into force after a transition period, but sadly that has not yet happened. I would be most grateful if the Minister could confirm a timetable for the enactment of that legislation. He has a wonderful opportunity to come forward with that change, which the Government have supported.

Secondly, requiring local authorities to scan and log cat fatalities would make a huge difference. National Highways contracts already include a requirement to identify and inform the owner of any domesticated animal fatality on main trunk roads, with keepers given the opportunity to come forward and collect their pet’s remains. The local authorities that cover the rest of the road network are duty-bound to remove deceased animals but not to scan and log, although many do—the situation is inconsistent across the United Kingdom, but the infrastructure already exists.

By requiring local authorities to make attempts to identify cat fatalities, comfort and certainty can be given to owners whose cats are killed in accidents. A freedom of information request carried out by Cats Protection in May 2019 found that 92% of local councils in England have some sort of arrangement in place to scan cats, but only 75% inform the chip company. It is clear that there is a lack of consistency on this front, and intervention from the Government would only improve the situation.

It is true that cats and dogs, while both beloved choices of pet, have different legal standings. We should be creating parity between the two and making things less difficult. Dog owners are legally required to keep their dog under control in public, whereas cats are said to have the right to roam, although owners are still responsible for making sure that their cats do not cause injury or damage to property. The so-called right to roam has often ended conversations on cat welfare legislation, for reasons I have already discussed, but that need not be the case.

Unlike so many of the issues we discuss within these walls, this is not a complex problem. The infrastructure needed to implement the changes already exists and charities such as Cats Protection are already working with local authorities to provide scanners and support their work. The changes requested may not save cats, but they can prevent any added heartbreak. I extend my deepest thanks to Olivia for starting the petition and starting the conversation. She is asking not for an overhaul of legislation but just the chance for other owners to feel the closure that she has felt at such a traumatic time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairpersonship, Ms Harris.

Cats get a bad rap. They are working animals. The reason that cats are in this country and widespread around the world is because they had, and still have, a job to do in many different guises, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) said, is to keep vermin down. But they constantly get a bad rap. I am loyally owned by two rescue cats, and my family have constantly had cats throughout our lives. As a child growing up, my cats were my constant companions, and it was devastating when a cat ended up being knocked over and left for dead.

Sadly, while I was walking around my constituency with a friend this autumn, we came across a cat in a very bad state on a pavement. The cat was still alive, so I suggested that my friend went to get her car, and I did what the car owner who hit the cat should have done: I randomly knocked on doors to see who would answer. It is quite a nerve-wracking thing to do—how do you tell somebody you have never met before that they may have a very poorly pet in front of them?—but as a good neighbour and somebody who knows what it is like to lose a pet, I hope that somebody would do that for me.

I knocked on doors and managed to find the owner, and I said, “If you’ve got a black and white cat, he is still alive, but sadly I think he has been hit by a car.” Quite a few people owned black and white cats, but when I took the owner to see him, it was their family pet Stevie. Stevie was in a really bad way. I took my jacket off and cradled him with my constituent Helen Bampton, and we were able to take him to the Blue Cross. The Blue Cross was absolutely fantastic but, sadly for Helen and her family and for Stevie, his injuries were too terrible for him to survive. Sadly, he had to be put to sleep

It is really sad that, but for the insertion of just one more animal into the legislation, we are not making sure that cats are protected, although we know that that is not a panacea. Thanks to organisations such as Cats Protection, there are very few stray cats in this country; most have an owner and a family. Anyone can be involved in an accident involving a cat or another animal—it can happen suddenly because cats can move very quickly, especially if their owner is calling them and they are trying to get home—but we want people to realise that that cat is usually a pet. The police have told me that if a cat were stolen, they would treat the case as theft. I do not understand why cats are viewed as possessions important enough for the police to investigate if stolen, but are not considered important enough for it to be a legal requirement for drivers to report a collision involving one.

[Andy Slaughter]

The hon. Member is making a good point. National Highways requires its contractors, where possible, to identify cats in such situations. That seems entirely anomalous. As far as the Government are concerned, if they require reporting in relation to collisions on major trunk roads and motorways, why do they not require it generally?

[Lia Nici]

The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. There is another anomaly. Rule 286 of the highway code advises that drivers need to report any accident involving an animal to the police and, if possible, to make inquiries to ascertain the owner of domestic animals such as cats to advise them of the situation. I do not quite understand why that is already advised in the highway code but we have no legal protections for owners and their cats. I would like the Minister to go back to his Department and really ask that question.

As hon. Members have said, there are more than 12 million cats in this country, which means that about 28% of homes own a cat or cats. This issue is important to people, especially to those who have experienced the loss of their cat—either never knowing or, sadly, knowing that somebody has hit their pet and deemed it not important enough to take care of the situation. Even if it is not currently a legal requirement to report such an incident to the police, people should at least be neighbourly, have some community heart, knock on a door and find out who the owner is, and provide them with some consolation. That is just the right thing to do, as everybody knows these things are rarely done on purpose. Will the Minister consider the fact that the highway code already advises such reporting for road users anyway?

Night Flights: Impact on Communities

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

Indeed, that is the pertinent question: what are the Government going to do?

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady, my neighbour, for giving way. To answer her question, we know what the Government are doing: they are increasing the misery for our constituents. The southern part of my constituency is already under the flightpath and the whole of it will be if, God forbid, the third runaway is ever built. There is a totally cavalier attitude, particularly to depriving people of sleep. No other country, certainly in Europe, would put up with an airport like Heathrow’s being expanded and the transgressions that night flights in particular make on the people who have to live with them.

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about expansion, and I will come on to that later.

The current night flight quotas are in place until October 2025. The Government have agreed to consult on proposals for the next regime over the course of 2023, but that will be of little comfort to many Londoners facing a further three years of disruption. Night flights are becoming an increasing issue across London. Data from the Civil Aviation Authority shows that night-time noise events from Heathrow affected 974,000 people in 2018—that is 140,000 more people than in 2006.

Hammersmith Bridge: Restoration Funding

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Members who are present for this important Adjournment debate.

Here I am again, and talking about Hammersmith bridge again. It has been closed to vehicles for three long years, and that closure is still having a huge impact on the everyday lives of residents in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, and much more widely across south-west London.

I last held an Adjournment debate on the closure—and, hopefully, the reopening one day—of the bridge in April 2021, and I have raised it in the House several times since then. Since that debate there have been welcome stabilisation works to make the bridge safer, and it has reopened to pedestrians above and river traffic below. However, I am here again because there has still been no agreement on the building of a temporary vehicle bridge, on any date by which the restoration of the bridge will be complete, or on when—and residents are crying out “When?”—the bridge will fully reopen. I hope to hear much better news from the Minister this time than last time, and I know that plenty of people in Putney and across south-west London are listening to the debate and also want those answers.

The Government have been dragging their feet, and the taskforce has had no task and no force. Responding to my last debate, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), simply said:

“The buck stops with Hammersmith and Fulham.”—[Official Report, 14 April 2021; Vol. 692, c. 442.]

That was a very disappointing end to the debate. I will be describing all that Hammersmith and Fulham Council is doing now, because it is the council that is responsible for the bridge, and explaining why it is the Government who need to do more.

It is Hammersmith and Fulham Council that made the assessment of the danger in the first place, has made the business case for the stabilisation works and funded those works up front, and has drawn up the memorandum of understanding between the council, the Government and Transport for London, the three parties that will be responsible for the funding. However, Transport for London does not have the funds to restore the bridge because of reduced fees and other payments as a result of covid, so it comes down to the Government. What have the Government done, what will the Government do, and when will the bridge reopen?

Let me first say something about the impact of the closure. It has resulted in between 500 and 4,000 vehicles a day coming through Putney High Street. Local residents complain constantly of increased travel times for journeys by bus and car, of increased congestion and pollution and of accidents on the roads, especially involving children near the schools on the most affected roads.

We want more safe cycle routes in Putney, and in Wandsworth we have one of the highest “propensity to cycle” ratings. However, the increased traffic and traffic jams make cycling more dangerous and put people off cycling. In meetings that I have held with potential cyclists, most people say they feel that Putney Hill, Putney High Street and Putney Bridge are very dangerous roads. That in turn means worse air quality, because if there are fewer cyclists on the road there are more vehicles, which add to the congestion. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, each year more than 4,000 Londoners die prematurely as a result of air pollution, and more than 500,000 people in London boroughs suffer from asthma and are vulnerable to toxic air.

Recently, for Clean Air Day, I undertook readings using an ultra-fine particle counter—lent to me by Imperial College—along Putney High Street and the Lower and Upper Richmond Roads, the main diversion routes from the bridge. The readings were exceptionally high, even from inside homes along those roads. Residents have shown me the black soot that builds up in their homes, and companies tell me about the impact that the poor air quality is having on their business.

The Putney Society is concerned about this as well, and it has sent me the following statement about the impact of the bridge closure:

“Congestion is at an all time high with roads leading towards Putney Bridge clogged up before 7 am in the morning, with traffic jams continuing well into the evening. Prior to the Bridge closure in 2019 Putney already suffered from one of the most polluted High Streets in the country. And despite positive measures such as the introduction of cleaner buses and the ULEZ zone, our pollution levels continue to exceed UK legal limits, in part because of additional traffic resulting from the Bridge closure. Around 60 constituents die prematurely each year because of this pollution, and we now face the prospect of this continuing for several more years until Hammersmith Bridge is fully repaired.”

The statement continues:

“The extra traffic has affected thousands of people. Aside from the impact of pollution on residents’ health, children and students have suffered disrupted journeys to their school or college; workers, especially those travelling from Roehampton, have faced significantly lengthened bus journeys and businesses have had delayed deliveries. And the most vulnerable people, who require access to healthcare, whether appointments or vital emergency treatment, face delays in getting an ambulance or reaching nearby hospitals. Why? Because ambulances can no longer take a short hop across the Bridge to Barnes or beyond but now spend much, much longer in traffic”.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, particularly in drawing attention to the fact that the closure of Hammersmith bridge is having a sub-regional and regional effect. It is much wider than just the immediate locality. Does she find it surprising that the Government have dragged their feet all the way along the line on this, first by asking Hammersmith to find all the funding, then £64 million and now a third of the cost, which is more than double what they would propose for similar schemes? Does she agree that until the Government are prepared to take their responsibilities in this matter seriously, we are not going to see progress?

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have just had a debate on Government failure, and this is Government failure 101. Not keeping a major transport route open in our capital city and letting it stay closed for so many years—and who knows how much longer—is a Government failure. They need to step up with the funding, and I will be outlining more information about that.

Hammersmith bridge is a very unusual bridge, and this is why it requires special attention from the Government. It is a grade II listed structure and part of Great Britain’s engineering heritage. It is also one of the world’s oldest suspension bridges, and only five years younger than the Brooklyn bridge in New York. It is unique, having been built out of cast iron, wrought iron and wood. No Government, surely, would allow the Brooklyn bridge to stay closed, so why let Hammersmith bridge do so? It has suffered from over seven decades of deterioration and corrosion. This corrosion, along with the fact that the bridge was designed for the needs of the 19th century, is what makes Hammersmith bridge one of the most expensive bridges in Britain to repair. When warnings of its possible imminent collapse forced its closure, I perfectly understood that the engineers faced huge challenges.

Transport for London has estimated that the repair bill could be between £141 million and £161 million. By comparison, the cost of repairing other Thames bridges is far smaller. For example, Chiswick bridge cost £9 million to repair, and Albert bridge cost £9.7 million. In those cases, Transport for London largely funded the works, paying between 85% and 100% of the costs. The responsible council was not left to foot the bill in the way that Hammersmith and Fulham Council is being asked to do. The bridge is a special case, both historically and financially, and it needs a different funding package from the Government.

Overall, there needs to be a change in bridge policy in London. Lambeth Council has five bridges, but is responsible for none of them. Southwark bridge and London bridge are managed by a trust. Two railway bridges are managed by Network Rail, but Hungerford railway bridge is managed by Westminster. The policy is all over the place. I think it might be time to look at the inequity of bridge responsibilities in London, because it is clear that the system is failing us over Hammersmith bridge. But we are where we are, and there is currently an agreement that the Government, Transport for London and Hammersmith and Fulham Council will fund it.

The Mayor of London has repeatedly sought to meet the Transport Secretary to discuss this and a range of London transport funding issues, but these requests have all been refused. Twenty meetings with Transport for London have been cancelled by the Department for Transport or the Treasury since the last TfL funding deal was agreed. The last time the Transport Secretary and the Mayor of London spoke and discussed Transport for London funding was on 30 May 2021. That is shocking to hear, as Londoners are being let down by this Government. We need them to work with the Mayor, and I hope to hear more of that from the Minister later. We are talking about a national transport route, and the Government must lead the way in funding and reopening it. If a toll is going to be made necessary because the Government will not fund the bridge, has the impact on Putney residents been factored into that business case?

What has Hammersmith and Fulham Council done? Can we say that the buck stops with it? Last November, the council submitted a full business case to the Department for Transport for the stabilisation works, at a cost of £8.9 million, which was £21 million less than the TfL stabilisation plan, so this is a major saving to the taxpayer. To speed up the repair programme, the council decided in December to make the cash available up front, rather than wait for the DFT and TfL governance processes to sign off their shares, as that process is simply too cumbersome. That enabled works to begin several months early. The DFT did not sign off on its one-third share until 22 March this year, many months later, showing that the Government are dragging their feet. The phase 1 stabilisation programme was able to get under way on site in February. It will stop the risk of collapse and prevent future closures to pedestrians, cyclists and river traffic, which I, of course, welcome. On 7 March, Hammersmith and Fulham Council signed off a further £3.5 million investment so that it could crack on with all the essential expert studies required to obtain Government and TfL funding through the full business case. That includes essential concept design work, geotechnical studies, crowd loading assessments and traffic modelling. I understand that the council and the DFT officials are working together on completing the business case, but when will that be done? Will funding be ready to go as soon as that is completed and approved, so that we do not have any more delays?

The latest investment of £3.5 million by the council to deliver those essential studies has again been paid for by the council up front, rather than having to wait for the DFT and TfL governance processes to kick in. This signing off of money, at its own risk for the council, in order to expedite bridge works is a situation that the council says cannot continue. I understand that the impasse is now the memorandum of understanding, which would confirm the one shares payable for the council, the DFT and TfL, but that it has not been signed. The latest draft version was sent by the council to the DFT on 14 September 2021, but it has not yet received a response from Ministers or their officials. So I hope that I will not hear, “The buck stops with Hammersmith and Fulham Council” from the Minister again. The Government need to recognise the huge impact of this closure on people in Putney and beyond, and they need to take far more proactive and urgent action.

I shall finish with some questions for the Minister. When is the next meeting of the taskforce? When will Secretary of State sign the memorandum of understanding to enable the next phase of the works to continue as fast as possible? What is the hold-up on that? Has an assessment of the impact of a proposed toll, or of any other financial proposals, on routes through Putney been carried out? Would the Government consider underwriting the full works? When will the building of the temporary bridge start? How long will it take? Is there a deadline from Ministers for the completion of this project, as we would certainly like to see that there is and that it is as soon as possible? I ask again, and I will keep asking, what have the Government done, what will they do and when will Hammersmith bridge reopen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

I will now set out exactly what is happening. Much good progress is being made. Following the complete closure of the bridge in 2020, the Department for Transport provided £4 million of taxpayers’ money, which enabled a comprehensive investigation of the overall structure and condition of the bridge. Through that investment, we had pretty much world-leading engineers working to develop a complete picture of the issues facing the bridge. Those works determined that the bridge was in a better condition, thankfully, than first thought, and that led directly to the bridge reopening, albeit on a temporary and controlled basis to pedestrians, cyclists and river traffic.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am in a state of despair, listening to the Minister. The cost of reopening this bridge could be £160 million. Hopefully, it will be less, but it is of that order. It is about the same as building a whole new Thames bridge, and it is fantasy for the Minister to say, “The Government are providing £4 million,” and “The Government have done this or that.” All the initiative so far has been taken by Hammersmith and Fulham Council—whether that is on the memorandum of understanding, on the proposals for the cheaper Foster COWI bridge, or on the stabilisation work—to get the bridge open permanently again to pedestrians. This is a strategic route through London. The Government must step up to the plate. I know that this is not in the Minister’s brief, but please could she take this issue seriously? It is affecting hundreds of thousands of people all across London and the south-east.

[Trudy Harrison]

I reject the characterisation of my Department as not taking this seriously. The hon. Gentleman will know that when one is potentially spending more than £100 million on a new bridge, much consideration and engineering knowledge will need to go into things such as a review by the Case for Continued Safe Operation Board. The board monitors the condition of the bridge, and has enabled it to stay open to pedestrians, cyclists and river traffic. I am relieved to say that since that reopening, no further closures on safety grounds have been necessary.

The commitment to this project did not stop at the initial £4 million investment—not at all. In the TfL extraordinary funding and financing settlement of June 2021, we committed to sharing the cost of reopening the bridge. We have committed to that funding with the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and TfL. We reiterated that commitment in a subsequent settlement, agreed in February 2022. That commitment ensures that the Government will fund up to one third of the cost of opening the bridge to pedestrians, cyclists, river traffic and—depending on those costs—buses and motor vehicles as well.

The first part of that commitment has already been delivered. Earlier this year, the Department approved the full business case from LBHF for the stabilisation works on the bridge. Those works will ensure that the bridge will remain open to pedestrians, cyclists, and river traffic permanently, with no risk of further temporary closures due to unsafe conditions.

The approval of the business case was a condition of the Government’s releasing their third of the funding for stabilisation. I am pleased to say that in May this year, my Department provided the borough with almost £3 million to allow the works to progress unimpeded by financial concerns. That brings the total investment to date to nearly £7 million.

It is thanks to the excellent work and diligence of my Department, TfL and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham that the works are already well under way. At long last, the residents of this part of London can see tangible progress being made. The borough is now managing the works, and will be providing my Department with regular updates on progress.

The next stage is to strengthen the core and renovate other structurally significant parts of the bridge. The strengthening phase of engineering works will build on stabilisation works; on its completion, the bridge can open to all users, including buses and motor vehicles. LBHF is required to submit a further business case to my Department and to TfL; in that business case, we would expect to see that the proposed method of strengthening is viable, offers value for money and minimises disruption to current users of the bridge. That is essential. The business case will also set out the final cost estimate for strengthening the bridge and, once approved, will allow my Department to release its third of the funding.

Hammersmith Bridge

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson]

I agree absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for sharing the impact that the closure is having on so many businesses and organisations, and even on the RNLI, in London.

As the Minister will know, the bridge, which is one of the oldest suspension bridges in the world, was closed to cars two years ago and then fully closed to all vehicles in August 2020. The impact that is having in my constituency—and, clearly, in neighbouring constituencies —is catastrophic. However, I am not here to make the case for why the bridge needs urgently to reopen. That is so obvious, and I think it is something the Minister and I can agree on. I am here to spell out to the Minister and her Department that the biggest obstacle to progress at the moment is funding, and that only the Government have the funds, resources and legislative ability to make the changes needed to reopen and restore the bridge and to get south-west London moving again.

I want to make three points: first, about the taskforce; secondly, about Hammersmith and Fulham Council; and finally, about solutions. The taskforce, which was set up in September last year, seems to have morphed into a significant barrier to any sort of progress, instead of making the urgent progress that we need. It is little task and no force. Hammersmith and Fulham Council, Richmond Borough Council and Transport for London have carried out the actions detailed for them in the taskforce meeting, but the Government have not brought the action needed from their side.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case, but I think she is being slightly too generous towards the taskforce. A letter from the Hammersmith Society, which is a strictly non-political and very civilised body, to the Prime Minister two weeks ago ends by saying that

“the communities on both sides of the river are unified in their anger, their disappointment and their despair at the failure of their government.”

I held a debate identical to this a year ago when the Minister was engaging with the issue and looking at bids. We have actually gone backwards in the past year, and silly political games are being played, as typified by the intervention from the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan). What we need is a solution and funding for this major project.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for so eloquently sharing the frustration we are feeling. I think you can understand that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that you are feeling it from all the interventions this evening.

The taskforce has come up with no workable solutions, although the ferry will be opening in the summer. It has simply trotted out tired statements and has not discussed financing, which is why funding is the focus of the debate.

My second point concerns the financial role of Hammersmith and Fulham Council. Many people have said to me, “Why can’t the council pay for the bridge?” To expect the council to fund the restoration of the bridge and any temporary measures is unfair and unreasonable—and in fact impossible. Hammersmith bridge is extremely expensive to fix compared with other London bridges, as was mentioned earlier, in part because it is London’s earliest remaining example of a suspension structure over the river, and because of the unusual materials it is built from—cast iron, which can shatter, wrought iron and wood—and its suspension mechanisms are unique. That puts the cost of repair at an eye-watering £141 million, which is unaffordable for Hammersmith and Fulham Council, as for any council.

[Fleur Anderson]

I will continue to explain and address the point the hon. Member made earlier.

Since 2010, the Government have cut the council’s annual net budget from £180 million to £124 million this year. Even taking a loan would cause significant cuts to local services or huge rises in council tax, so the cost of repairing the bridge would be more than the council’s entire budget.

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is being most generous in giving way. In fact, both Hammersmith and Fulham Council and Transport for London have contributed a sum of about £25 million. The Government have not contributed a penny towards the repair of Hammersmith bridge so far. Hammersmith has come up with schemes for a new temporary bridge, and so has TfL, and for stabilisation and repair. It is all there. The only people who will not engage with this are the Government, and they are doing that for deliberate political reasons.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I hope that when the Minister has her opportunity to speak she will not ask again for Hammersmith and Fulham Council to fund an unprecedented 50% contribution to the bridge’s repair. That is clearly unreasonable, especially when the precedent for contributions from councils to national infrastructure projects is 15%. That makes me question whether the Government are genuinely interested in resolving the situation, or are just going to leave it.

Instead, the taskforce suggested in October 2020 that Hammersmith and Fulham Council come up with a financing plan. The council, together with TfL, had made funding applications to the Government in December 2019, February 2020 and June 2020. All three bids were rejected by the Government, and we do not know why. Instead, Hammersmith and Fulham Council went away, talked to experts and came up with a new plan—the “Outline Financial Plan”—which it submitted on 19 February.

I want to pre-empt any answer that the Minister may be ready to give about waiting for Hammersmith and Fulham Council to do more, or any repetition of the response of Baroness Vere of Norbiton to a joint letter from me, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). The Baroness’s response was:

“I suggest that it would be most beneficial for you to support the local authority in developing its preferred funding option so that we can progress the business case.”

The funding option was submitted on 19 February, seven weeks ago, and we are still waiting for a response. This is not the urgent action we need.

Any response will need the Government to agree to set up a special company or trust fund. It will need Government legislation, financial underwriting and an assurance of future revenue from Government funds or from a toll. The council needs to have that input from the Government to continue. The ball is now firmly in the Government’s court, not that of Hammersmith and Fulham Council. To say that would be to play the type of party politics that local residents are absolutely fed up with.

That brings me to my third and final point, about solutions. I hope that the Minister will shortly announce how the Government will take responsibility for the Government’s vital role in restoring the bridge. The ferry service is a partial solution—it starts in the summer—but it will not address vehicles going through Putney and it will not stop the long bus journeys for Roehampton residents.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this important debate on funding for the restoration of Hammersmith bridge and on her detailed speech this evening. I agree with her on the issues that she highlighted, setting out the devastating impact on the physical and mental health of residents and local businesses on both sides of the river, due to the long-standing catalogue of failures and lack of action by Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council.

The hon. Lady led a protest that took place on Easter weekend, and I commend her for doing so. I want to acknowledge her passion for getting the bridge reopened.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

I will just make some progress.

I assure Members that the Government wish to see the bridge reopen as soon as is safely possible. [Interruption.] I will take interventions, but I need to correct a number of inaccurate statements before I do.

We want to make sure that Londoners can move around the capital easily by public transport, through active travel and on our roads and rivers. Therefore we want Hammersmith bridge to be reopened, despite having no statutory responsibilities for the bridge—particularly because it is wholly owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. The Government have stepped in to try to work collaboratively to find a solution. That is why we established a taskforce in September, led by Baroness Vere, bringing together all the relevant organisations to agree the best way forward and unblock any challenges.

I reiterate that Hammersmith bridge is owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. That means that the responsibility for maintaining the bridge and making decisions on its repairs and funding lies solely with the borough and not the Government. It is a travesty that we have got to a situation where the bridge has to be closed altogether, given that the council could have prevented the serious safety concerns through regular repairs and maintenance.

I would like to ensure that Members in the House and those watching are clear about what funding has been provided by the Government and what action has been taken. Since the structure was closed to vehicles in 2019, and to pedestrians, cyclists and river vessels in 2020, funding for maintenance and repairs has come from a variety of sources. The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is the highway authority for the section of the A306 that runs over the bridge, so it has funded the acoustic monitoring and temperature control systems to the bridge. Those alert the borough to potential changes and allow it to take informed decisions about the safety of the bridge.

I will correct the first inaccuracy that has been stated. As part of the TfL deal on 31 October 2020, the Government ensured that £4 million—much more than a penny—was committed to start immediate mitigation works on Hammersmith Bridge during the 2021 financial year. That has funded the blast cleaning and a visual inspection of the western pedestals, giving the borough a better insight into the condition of the bridge. That is a vital step before any other engineering works can be undertaken. Members and residents need to understand that.

The funding means that risk mitigation works can begin so that the full repair programme is in the best possible position on cost, schedule and technical risk. As well as that, we have made the ferry service a condition of the TfL bridge deal, so that people, prams and bikes can cross the river safely.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

I want to address one further inaccuracy. If I have time after that, I will take an intervention.

As with any local infrastructure project, the Government expect the local authority to take the lead in promoting the scheme. We have heard from the leader of the council, who does not believe that the borough has the capital funds available to meet the costs of repairing the bridge. Indeed, on several occasions he has said that his residents are not users of the bridge and should therefore not be liable for the works.

In discussions with the leader of the council and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, various options for contributions for funding the project have been discussed. Unfortunately, the council seems to look to the national Government with gold-tinted lenses, not understanding that we cannot and will not hand out a blank cheque for the works. How would that be fair to taxpayers up and down the country and to those who have been responsible, such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan)? This is what councils all over the country have to do when they are carrying out major infrastructure works.

[Rachel Maclean]

I am afraid I cannot, because I need to clarify a number of inaccuracies.

It has been reported in the press by the hon. Member for Putney that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has asked the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to contribute 50% of the cost. That option was discussed. All that was requested of the borough was that the leader send a plan for the borough’s funding proposal. So far, the so-called bids that have been sent in amount to nothing more than letters asking for an unsubstantiated amount. It is simply not appropriate to ask for funding from central Government on that basis. The Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham should have taken the time to understand what is required to submit a bid to the Government. We stand ready to help. There is plenty of help available for officials to put these bids together, but that has not been happening.

When evaluating any temporary crossing solution, the complexity of procurement and requirement of various consents must be considered. Given these challenges, the borough and the taskforce determined that a ferry service would provide an immediately available alternative river crossing for pedestrians and cyclists. That has been provided and we are very grateful to the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames for its support.

The closure of the bridge has affected not just those who need to cross it, but those who travel along the river beneath it. The taskforce is an essential first step. Contrary to statements earlier, the taskforce has met regularly. It stands ready to meet any Member who would like to meet my noble Friend Baroness Vere in the other place; she is more than happy to discuss in full the detailed complexities that we cannot possibly air in a 30-minute debate in a political environment such as we have here tonight.

These are serious and complex engineering works. I am afraid that it is completely inaccurate to make the point in this House that there is no action from the Government. I will not stand here and let Opposition Members say that. We have taken on additional responsibilities—well over and above our statutory responsibilities—as Opposition Members know. We have gone out of our way to help.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. We need £4 million towards investigation work and there is a bill of over £140 million for repairs. Where does the Minister think that money is going to come from? She knows that it cannot come from TfL or from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Her speech will be greeted with absolute dismay by people across London and beyond who use this major arterial route. The issue is simply not being addressed, after two years. It is a wholly irresponsible position for the Government to take. Where is that £140 million going to come from?

[Rachel Maclean]

I suggest to the hon. Member that his comments tonight are wholly irresponsible, because they have not reflected the work on the Government side to engage constructively with the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham in order to understand its funding position and what it can afford. The borough has not come back on any of the engagements and discussions that we have extended to it regarding realistic sums of money. If it cannot afford that amount of money, it should come back and tell us what it can afford. That is how infrastructure projects up and down the country are conducted. The hon. Member knows that very well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I know just how difficult the traffic is at the Thrasher’s roundabout on Nacton Road and how hard my hon. Friend has campaigned on this. The pinch point fund or, more likely, the levelling-up fund, would be the way to proceed with this. That is the new £4 billion fund to resolve problems exactly like the Thrasher’s roundabout.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Three months ago, the Secretary of State said that he would take control of the repairs to Hammersmith bridge, and he set up a taskforce chaired by the Roads Minister. Yesterday, she boasted that the Government would commit £4 million, which is less than 3% of the total cost and a fifth of what Transport for London and Hammersmith and Fulham Council have already spent. The Secretary of State knows that only the Government can fund the reopening of what he calls this “key artery”, and anywhere else in the country they would have already done so. Why not in London?

[Grant Shapps]

This bridge belongs to Hammersmith and Fulham Council. It is the council’s responsibility. Secondly, it is TfL’s responsibility. But the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: I had become fed up waiting for something to happen between the council and TfL, and when nothing was happening I wrote into the agreement with TfL for funding the other week that it must spend money both getting the ferry service going and starting the actual work. I am pleased to say that, despite the inactivity of his local authority, something is now happening thanks to our taskforce.

Transport for London: Funding

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. Five minutes is quite a generous allocation compared with many other occasions, so I thank you very much for that, and I thank the Petitions Committee for facilitating this debate.

I also thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for opening the debate, but I must say that his speech was disappointing. It crudely politicised the issue, and we know why—because there is a mayoral election next year and the Conservative party has a pretty duff candidate. I know as much because he ran against me in Hammersmith in 2010. He is 20% behind in the polls, so there we have it. And now I am making a political speech, but that is what happens. These issues, whether they affect our individual constituencies or London as a whole, are ones on which we should be able to reach agreement. TfL’s revenue fell by 90% as a consequence of covid, so to go around pretending that it is something to do with this or that decision by the Mayor is, frankly, ridiculous, and makes the public think we are ridiculous. When such points are made in a debate in this place, we have to rebut them, meaning that we then go around in ever-decreasing circles and end up where we are. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chose to take that position.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend accept an intervention on that point?

[Andy Slaughter]

I will accept one intervention; I can never refuse my hon. Friend.

[Catherine West]

Does my hon. Friend find it curious that the introductory speech failed to mention the expenditure on the garden bridge?

[Andy Slaughter]

Again, this is where we are going: I hope the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is now shamefacedly regretting making his opening speech in that way.

If I may be indulged, I will speak for a couple of minutes on the general issue and then a couple of minutes on something very dear to my heart and to those of many other hon. Members in south-west London—namely, Hammersmith bridge.

The figures show that the current Mayor managed TfL’s finances immeasurably better than his predecessor, and indeed in a very efficient way. The operating deficit was reduced by more than 70%, the cash balance increased by 30%, and the fares freeze was wonderful for London, as opposed to the 42% rise in fares overseen by the previous Mayor. If we had not had the fares freeze, there would be a bigger gap to fill now, so even basic maths seems to escape Government Members when they talk about these issues.

A bail-out was necessary—does any hon. Member present deny that a bail-out was necessary or appropriate? —but we have to have six-month bail-outs. We cannot have a longer-term one to allow better planning, because of course the Government want to keep this story running and have another artificial row, with a 17 minutes to midnight, last-minute piece of blackmail just when the election is coming up. It really is that transparent, and the way in which the Government are dealing with this issue is, frankly, not worthy. I wish they would stop politicking in this obvious way, because the only people who suffer are our constituents.

The Government have targeted TfL’s progressive policies, such as the under-18s travel card, the over-60s travelcard—perhaps I should declare an interest as of about a month ago—and the congestion charge. I remember the huge fuss about the congestion charge extension and the calls to withdraw it, but suddenly the Government want it to be extended to the north and south circular roads— which, by the way, would virtually bring London to a halt.

Please can we just have a little bit of common sense? Nowhere is that needed more than on the issue of Hammersmith bridge—a major strategic river crossing. It is a concern not just to me as the Member for Hammersmith, but to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson)—we will hear from her later—and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who will be here, if possible. It affects a whole swathe of London and the south-east. I had a debate on that subject in March and I thought that we were making some progress, but it is always groundhog day.

TfL and Hammersmith and Fulham Council were making progress in drawing up a full schedule of repairs for the bridge, but the taskforce set up by the Government has brought everything shuddering to a halt, as taskforces so often do. It is a national, if not international, embarrassment that we cannot repair a major river crossing. It will cost a lot of money—more than £150 million—but every day I look at the bridges Minister’s Twitter feed, she announces another £100 million here and there for road and bridge schemes around the country. On average, about 85% to 90% of that is paid by central Government, but apparently that does not go for Hammersmith bridge. I hope all London Members will support me in saying that it is about time that the Government set an example on a major piece of London infrastructure, which can be funded only through central Government. TfL, Hammersmith and Fulham Council, and Richmond Council do not have the means to do it. It needs to be funded now.

Last week, the leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council announced a proposal by Sir John Ritblat and Norman Foster for a very innovative scheme to put a temporary crossing in place that would, in a relatively short period, allow traffic to go over and under the river at that point. That work was done by the local authority, working with the private sector. It still needs funding, and unless we have that funding quickly, my constituents and many others across London will continue to suffer not for weeks or months but years without the basic facility that that provides.

This is an extraordinary dereliction of duty by the Government, for patently party political reasons. The Secretary of State and the Conservative mayoral candidate announce every five minutes, “Don’t worry. Just vote for us and you can have the money.” I am afraid that does not cut any ice. My constituents and others want the bridge repaired. They do not want silly party political squabbles and game-playing. Let us have a response to that. If we can get it from the Minister today, that would be most helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and to respond to the debate. Before I get into the substance of the debate, I want to echo the tributes that have been paid to Transport for London workers who have kept services running throughout the pandemic. I travel on the tube regularly, so I have seen the great way in which they provide those services.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing the debate and all Members who have contributed. We have heard contributions from the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson), and from my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). It sounds like a tube map, but everyone made excellent points, and it is a pleasure to respond to them all.

First, it must be recognised that free travel for under-18s is unique to London compared with the rest of England. This should not be a debate about the merits of free travel. The Government recognise the merits of free travel for the most disadvantaged under-18s, which is why it is enshrined in the Education Act 1996 and children will continue to receive it.

Today, we are talking about those benefits that are different in London, and are not available to people in the rest of the country, no matter how disadvantaged they may be. It is important to get that point on record at the outset. Taxpayers all over the rest of the country—in Birmingham, Manchester, my Redditch constituency and other places where the need is just as great—do not enjoy this special benefit. They will rightly ask, “Why does London receive this?”

[Andy Slaughter]

So much for levelling up.

It is dispiriting to hear a Government Minister, particularly when addressing a group of London MPs, once again using divide-and-rule tactics, trying to set other parts of the country against London. Will the Minister address the issues that have come up in this debate and Members’ serious concerns about our constituents?

[Rachel Maclean]

Of course I will address those concerns. I am about to do that, but I am highlighting the facts at the outset.