Infrastructure Bill [Lords]
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
I had not intended to speak, although I did sign amendments (d) and (e) tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). I did so because I wanted more clarification. I was encouraged by what I heard from the Minister on Report, and I am slightly disappointed that what we heard then has been slightly watered down. Although I accept in good faith that this will be resolved by 31 July, it will be to my eternal regret that I will not be able to see that as I will not be here. Accepting the good faith of the Government is always the right thing to do, because Ministers always do right for the whole country. However, when the regulations are clarified on 31 July, if they are not as strong as people want, the Government—it will be the same Government—will have a few more questions to answer. I will leave it there.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I shall be brief because I know that others want to speak. I also want to leave as much time as possible in case we get the opportunity to push more of the amendments to a vote.
On the Government amendment on the impact of shale gas on carbon budgets, I hope that the Minister will confirm that, should the advice provided indicate that there is indeed a risk of undermining the UK’s domestic or international climate change commitments, that would categorically result in a halt to exploitation and extraction.
Amendment (b) does not go far enough, particularly on climate change, but I will support it. I am concerned, however, about what I see as collusion between the Front Benches to take away people’s right to say no to fracking under their homes and their land. Asking for people to be notified is very different from asking for their consent. This is a slap in the face for the 99% of the people who responded to the consultation who were absolutely against the removal of the right to object. Given public opposition to changing the rules on trespass, it is regrettable that we shall not have the opportunity to debate and vote on that tonight.
The Government’s attempt to weaken the partial protections in amendment (b) is reprehensible: failing to ban fracking in groundwater source protection zones, failing to require an environmental impact assessment, and failing to rule out fracking underneath as well as in national parks and protected areas. If the wording is somehow insufficient, the Minister should go away and redraft it. The Government should certainly not use that excuse for weakening safeguards. Worse still is the new definition of fracking in Lords amendment 21B, based on a specific volume of fracking fluid. That risks allowing significant fracking with less than the defined volume limit to go ahead, without even the safeguards that are before us today.
What a mockery this is making of legitimate public concerns on fracking, and indeed of the democratic process. The paltry hour scheduled for today’s debate is particularly disgraceful, given the lack of time that we had to debate the issues on Report. These are far-reaching changes that are being discussed here, and our constituents deserve better. Parliament has let them down tonight.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
The one point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) is that we have inadequate time to debate this important issue tonight. We also have inadequate time in which to debunk the many myths that she herself propagates. Indeed, she relies on their not being debunked. We all want our water supplies to be pure in quality and ample in quantity. One of my first successes in the House was to secure the closure of the Friars Wash extraction plant in my constituency following over-abstraction from the aquifer that was damaging the aquifer and threatening the chalk streams in the area. I would therefore support any measures to protect the quality of our water supply if I thought that it was threatened by fracking—but I do not think it is.
A number of those who write to me are genuinely convinced that there is a serious threat and that as a result of fracking their water supplies will be contaminated and their health put at risk. We should be clear, however, that the majority of those who are hyping those fears are not primarily concerned with the quality of the water. Their campaign to prevent the extraction and use of fossil fuels in this country is what motivates them, and that is a perfectly legitimate objective, but it should not be achieved by hiding their real motives behind some grossly overblown, exaggerated fears relating to other matters. They know that they will not succeed on the CO2 thing, because to abandon the use of fossil fuels in this country would be dramatically to undermine our quality of life. In any case, if we did not extract shale gas and oil in this country, we would simply import it from abroad, so all we would be saying is that we should make other people rich while impoverishing ourselves and not creating jobs and opportunities where they are most needed in this country.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords]
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Amber Rudd
I rise to speak to new clause 15 and amendments 98 and 103. Both shale gas and geothermal energy are exciting new energy resources for the UK, with the potential to provide greater energy security, growth and jobs, while also playing an important role in the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Amber Rudd
I will make some progress, but I will give way to the hon. Lady during my speech. The provisions in the Bill provide for a right to use deep-level land for the purposes of exploiting petroleum or deep geothermal energy. That will help us unlock exploration for shale gas and deep geothermal as we move towards a low-carbon economy.
Several hon. Members have brought forward new clause 4, which would place a statutory duty on the Committee on Climate Change to produce reports on the effect of shale on the UK’s net carbon emissions. Amendment 44 states that the right of use, and the carrying out of hydraulic fracturing, are conditional on the finding in the Committee’s reports
“that shale…exploitation leads to a net reduction of UK carbon emissions.”
The Government are committed to reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. To meet our challenging climate targets we will need significant quantities of renewables, nuclear and gas in our energy mix, and we are committed to listening to the experts and their advice on how to reach those targets.
Caroline Lucas
Will the Minister explain how public confidence in fracking is enhanced by the Government’s refusal to let the public see an unredacted copy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report on the impacts of fracking on the rural economy? Will she make a gesture today by saying that that report will be unredacted and put in the public domain?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Lady will know that this matter is included in one of the amendments, which I will come on to discuss more fully later. Although I cannot make the commitment she is asking for, I will speak more fully on it a little later.
Amber Rudd
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I hope he will find that it will be dealt with later on, but if it is not I will certainly write to him on that point.
New clause 19(m) relates to water companies. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that water companies are engaged fully in shale gas development. The existing regulatory framework ensures issues relating to water are addressed robustly. The water industry and shale operators have already agreed a memorandum of understanding to engage early, and share plans for water demand and waste water management. The Government have considered this issue carefully and want to provide further reassurance to the public. Therefore, we are consulting on whether to make water companies statutory consultees in respect of these applications. Subject to the response to the consultation, which closes at the end of this month, we would seek to bring forward any necessary secondary legislation.
New clause 19 has raised some very interesting and critical points in relation to reassuring the public. It is the Government’s view that we will accept new clause 19, but we plan to amend it in the other place to replace provision (g) on depth, with a review to put back the depth at the appropriate level for proper development.
On amendment 61, regarding compulsory purchase of properties in the event of blight, I would like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) that the regulatory regimes for planning, environmental permitting and health and safety already provide a very robust framework that ensures residential amenity is properly protected from any unacceptable effects of development. The protection of amenity is recognised in the core planning principles of the national planning policy framework. In the unlikely event that operations caused any damage, there are various options available. The landowner may be able to bring claims in tort, such as negligence and nuisance, against any operator. I trust my explanation of this issue reassures hon. Members, and that they will withdraw the related amendment.
On new clause 8, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ “Rural Economy Impacts” document was a draft internal document, which was not analytically robust; it was a literature review of existing studies and was not exhaustive. Where policy work is current, draft documents are usually kept within government, because they do not provide a complete and accurate picture of the overall material. This is a highly sensitive and fast-moving policy area. Releasing information that is at the formative stage of being shared between Government Departments risks substantially undermining our ability to deliver effective policy.
DEFRA retains an interest in the implications of shale gas development for rural communities, but the Department of Energy and Climate Change leads on the economic aspects of shale gas policy. It is therefore my view that DEFRA should not have produced a document of this kind. The redactions were made for those broader reasons, not on the basis of sensitivity of materials. In fact, in the interests of providing free access to the information on which the draft paper was based, the Government have provided the full list of references. Following Committee, I consulted with a range of colleagues. Releasing the unredacted draft paper would not help to inform the debate on developing the UK’s shale industry. I ask, therefore, that my hon. Friend withdraws her amendment.
Caroline Lucas
What the Minister has said, essentially, is that DEFRA should not do research that might possibly become embarrassing if it become public. How on earth does she expect people to have any confidence in the Government’s policies on fracking if the Government cannot even put the research in the public domain?
Amber Rudd
I do not think the hon. Lady quite heard my comments. If somebody in another Department has prepared something, a junior member perhaps, and it was not appropriate for them to have done so, which is a comment I have fairly made, I do not think it is appropriate for it to be released. It could mislead the public. It is because I am so concerned about the public that we have taken this view.
Amber Rudd
I am concerned that I still need to cover several amendments. If I may, I shall move swiftly on, and I hope that hon. Members with particular concerns will take the opportunity to speak later.
New clause 9 and amendments 49 and 57 propose a moratorium on the exploitation of onshore unconventional petroleum, subject to an impact assessment, and that the right of use be subject to the precautionary principle. I am surprised by these proposals. It is far more sensible to explore the potential of shale and assess the impacts along the way, while ensuring that development is regulated and risks managed. I hope I outlined my confidence in that process earlier. On the amendment suggesting that the right of use be subject to the precautionary principle, I reassure hon. Members that the right of use is limited to being no greater than access rights granted by landowners under the existing system.
Amendments, 51, 56 and 47 are not necessary. I have already outlined why the underground access provisions are required. Many other industries already access underground land beneath peoples’ homes, in order to lay cables and build infrastructure such as water pipes and tunnels. I ask that hon. Members do not press these amendments.
Amber Rudd
I shall not take any more interventions, as I must finish my comments.
Amendments 50, 68, 69 and 73 touch on the recovery of UK petroleum. Amendment 50 would delete clause 37, which puts into primary legislation a new duty to maximise the economic recovery of oil and gas. The Government feel that oil and gas recovery makes an important contribution to the national economy by supporting jobs and growth. In June 2013, we commissioned Sir Ian Wood to review UK offshore oil and gas recovery and its regulation, and we have been making good progress implementing the recommendations.
The amendments would also place a moratorium on hydraulic fracking for shale gas to reduce the chance of our carbon budgets being breached. As I indicated, UK shale development is compatible with our goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions and does not detract from our support for renewables. I hope hon. Members will find this explanation reassuring and will not press their amendments.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) for tabling new clauses 10 and 11. It is critical for any Government to secure reliable gas supplies, and we keep our gas security under constant review, but let me be clear: the risks to consumers are low. We still have significant levels of domestic gas production, pipelines from Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium, liquefied natural gas terminals and 10 gas storage facilities. Indeed, two new gas storage sites have opened for business in the last six months. This diversity of supply is how our gas needs are met.
Under the Gas Act 1986, the Government and the regulator have a duty to carry out their functions in a way that protects the interests of existing and future gas consumers, including the security of supply. Ofgem also has the ability to launch a significant code review, if it suspects a problem in the gas market. I respect my hon. Friend’s experience on these matters and take his concerns seriously, and on that basis, I will commit to including information about gas storage capacity in our annual statutory security of supply report to Parliament. I hope he will find that reassuring.
Tom Greatrex
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I did indeed have a chance to read her Committee’s report of this morning, and she explained how that was a rapidly produced but important piece of work which touched on the many issues I have raised concerns about. In the summary of the report, her Committee highlighted a number of issues in terms of methane emissions and monitoring and nationally important areas and water protection zones which are addressed in new clause 19, and I think her Committee has done the House a service in bringing those points forward.
Miss McIntosh
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the amendments standing in my name, which were tabled in a personal capacity as the constituency MP for Kirby Misperton, where Third Energy proposes to apply for a licence in six weeks. At a public meeting attended by residents of the three villages affected, Third Energy admitted that there is a minuscule risk of contamination of groundwater. I therefore urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to look extremely carefully at the contents of amendment 59.
My hon. Friend the Minister talked about the amount of monitoring that would be done three months before a licence application for drilling can be started. Is she aware of the worrying fact that at least one insurance company has stated in writing that it will not insure for public liability any landowner who allows the oil and gas industry or fracking companies on to their land? That raises the question whether during the monitoring stage and, in the long term, during the fracking stage, home owners will be able to obtain insurance.
Another point raised is about emissions after the fracking operation has finished. Third Energy seems to think that the land will revert to the landowner at completion of the fracking operations, but I believe that that is a misunderstanding. I shall be grateful if the Minister clarifies that matter.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend says that compensation for blight may indeed be possible, as proposed in my amendment 61.
Caroline Lucas
I am sorry that there is such a lack of time to make a serious response to the amendments still outstanding for debate this afternoon.
I wish we could press amendment 51 to a vote, because that amendment would stop the Government’s proposed change to trespass laws. Some 360,000 people signed a petition opposing that change and 99% of those who responded to the Government consultation opposed it as well. To see the Government just flinging that back in people’s faces, simply not listening to the consultation, raises big questions about what the consultation is for and undermines the credibility of the process, as does the ongoing secrecy about the DEFRA report. I am not reassured by what the Minister said about it.
Caroline Lucas
No—I am sorry, but I am short of time.
Labour’s new clause 19 does not offer the kind of protection it pretends to offer. It certainly does not offer any kind of moratorium, and it will be interesting to see whether Labour supports a moratorium. That is what people are asking for, hence the importance of new clause 9.
In summary, the big point is that it is simply not compatible with our climate change objectives to be exploring for yet more fossil fuels and to start a whole new fossil fuel industry as fracking does. By the time fracking comes on stream in 10 or 15 years, it simply will not be possible to be compatible with our CO2 objectives. For those reasons, we must have a vote on new clause 9.
Mrs Main
I welcome new clause 7 and the Minister’s comments on new clause 19(a), (e) and (m). I have chalk streams in my constituency; they are a valuable water resource. The public need reassurance about contamination or pollution of such special sites, as they are rare resources in our country.
Rail Network (Disruption)
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr McLoughlin
I am not sure that thinking about a previous incarnation would serve me very effectively in my job as Secretary of State for Transport. I would point out to my right hon. Friend that the carrots are there, and that the Office of Rail Regulation might well be providing the sticks. It is right to record our recognition of the tremendous work that was done by many engineers across this period. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) has just said, last Easter most Members were praising Network Rail for the fantastic job it had done in restoring the Dawlish link.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the Secretary of State accept that an underlying problem is the fragmentation of the railways, with no single guiding mind responsible for providing an integrated railway system? Will he look again at my Railways Bill, which precisely would create a coherent railway system and bring it back into public ownership? This is not about nostalgia. We have only to look at the success of the east coast main line. When East Coast was in public ownership, it delivered far greater public satisfaction than any of the other lines.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords]
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hayes
My right hon. Friend has made that point to me previously. Let me tell him, with a candour equal to that of my earlier expressions, that I am absolutely determined that the lines of accountability for the strategy we have in place should be clear and that Ministers’ lines of reporting in this House should be palpable and known. Indeed, I have missioned my Department to make sure that that happens.
I will make available in the Library of the House, not only for my right hon. Friend’s benefit but for that of the whole House, a description of precisely what those lines of accountability will look like. When he sees that clear description of how the House and Ministers are going to exercise their proper authority in the name of the people, I think he will be more than impressed and will feel that this Government and this Minister have gone further than even he expected us to.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; it is good to see that he is on his usual courteous form. He talks about the importance of facing up to the future, but the question is what kind of future it is. Why does this Bill lock us into such a high-carbon future at exactly the time when we need to be shifting towards being able to meet our climate change objectives?
Mr Hayes
As the hon. Lady suggests, the kind of future that I anticipate is very different from the one that she sees, for my kind of future is ambitious for Britain and virtuous in its intent; I am not sure that that is true of hers. I do not mean to be unkind in any way. However, as I said, I will come to invasive species by those that are apparently ornamental when they first arrive but turn out to be nothing but a nuisance.
Hon. Members will see a virtuous pattern that demonstrates my and the Government’s unrelenting commitment to delivering better infrastructure. At the heart of the autumn statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week was the biggest and most far-reaching roads programme in decades, with over 100 improvements to our major roads. As the House knows, that extra capacity will be underpinned by £15 billion of investment. Better infrastructure means more jobs, more opportunities and more growth. Those things will ultimately help to build a better future, drive down the deficit and inspire our people.
On taking office, we produced the first ever national infrastructure plan. We have made big calls on HS2, on Crossrail—the biggest construction project in Europe—and on shale gas exploration. We have got Britain building, with over 500,000 new homes built since April 2010.
Richard Burden
I am sure the hon. Gentleman has been a great advocate for his constituency, as are hon. Members across the House. That does not alter the fact that, as I said, I want to check that these Government announcements are all they are cracked up to be. Even a few examples indicate to me that there are a lot more questions to ask.
Investment in infrastructure needs to be long term. That is key, and that is why Labour is backing the proposal by Sir John Armitt, the man who delivered the Olympics—in practice, not just in theory—for a national infrastructure commission. That looks not just five years ahead, but 20 or 30 years ahead to produce an evidence-based assessment of national infrastructure needs. That should establish a cross-party consensus on priorities, breaking electoral cycles and ending the stop-start announcements we have seen up until now. It can also hold the Government to account for delivery. That would help the Government and it would help Parliament’s decision making. That is why it is backed by more than 89% of businesses surveyed by the CBI. For all that the Minister said about wanting to build a consensus on these things, words have, again, not been matched by actions. The Government had the chance in the other place to accept the idea of a national infrastructure commission, a cross-party body to plan infrastructure for the long term, and what did they do? They voted down such an amendment, and that commission is nowhere in the Bill today.
Let me now deal with some specific parts of the Bill. On highways and transportation, Labour supports long-term roads funding and we want to end stop-start funding. We want to give the supply chain the confidence to invest in skills and equipment, and enable the Highways Agency to negotiate better contracts and make efficiency savings. We want to see those contracts create new apprenticeships to train young engineers, as Britain will need 780,000 to meet demand by 2020. I am very pleased that the Minister has mentioned these matters in his opening remarks, and I am sure that if the Bill gets to Committee we will press him further on them.
There are three problems to discuss. First, Ministers have failed to prove why a top-down institutional reorganisation of the Highways Agency is needed to deliver long-term roads funding. After extensive debate on the rationale for this in the other place, the fact is—this came across clearly there—that the Highways Agency can deliver a five-year roads programme without being turned into a wholly owned Government company. The Alan Cook review showed that it can make £1.2 billion-worth of efficiency savings. That can be delivered through funding certainty, not because it should be a wholly owned Government company or because of institutional change. The cross-party Transport Select Committee has concluded that it is “not convinced” by the need for a new company. It is the roads investment strategy that will enable an efficient and faster delivery of roads, not necessarily an arm’s length body, and we will be looking for clear evidence from the Government of why this move is needed. I do not mean anecdotal evidence or what Benjamin Disraeli might have predicted; we need facts on why this is going to be needed to deliver long-term investment, as all we have seen to date is conjecture and confusion.
The Bill previously included clauses to set up more than one highways company. Fortunately, Ministers have rowed back from that, but the model is still confused. The body is to have a licence but officials recognise that it cannot have a “licence to operate” as it has no income stream or revenue-raising powers. With such a shaky rationale, is it any wonder that the Government proposal to set up a wholly owned Government company has met widespread concern from organisations ranging right the way from the Alliance of British Drivers to unions like the Public and Commercial Services Union and Prospect, who see this as a precursor to privatising an asset worth £111 billion?
Caroline Lucas
I am confused by Labour’s great love of yet more road building. We had a welcome article from Ed Miliband yesterday in which he talked about the importance of climate change. Some 25% of—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady must refer to the Leader of the Opposition as the Leader of the Opposition or by his constituency. This is not a tabloid newspaper; it is the Chamber of the House of Commons.
Caroline Lucas
I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right nomenclature momentarily went from my mind, but I am very happy to refer to the Leader of the Opposition—the honourable Leader of the Opposition. [Hon. Members: “Right honourable.”] The right hon. Leader of the Opposition. The point is that what he wrote about climate change is not in harmony with what we are hearing now, which is the Labour party saying that we need more roads. Roads are responsible for more and more CO2 emissions, which cause climate change.
Richard Burden
The hon. Lady is absolutely right on this point: protecting our planet and our environment has to be centre stage for any serious Government at the moment. It is also absolutely right that in a whole range of areas we need to look for the most effective and environmentally sensitive forms of transport. Does one conclude therefore that all road building is wrong and that congestion does not need to be tackled? No, because all those things must be done as well, but they must be done sensitively and in harmony with our environment. That was said by the Opposition in the other place, and we will be exploring all those areas if this Bill gets as far as Committee stage.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Upgrading the UK’s infrastructure is vital to create jobs and prepare the country for the challenges that it is going to face over the coming decades. The Government stated that the Bill would
“improve how we fund, plan, manage and maintain our national infrastructure”.
I would argue, however, that without some fairly radical amendments—above all, to take account of climate change—they will fail on all those aims. That is why I sought—sadly, unsuccessfully—to amend the Bill. What we need are priorities that will put the UK on the path to a prosperous, zero-carbon, jobs-rich economy and will improve resilience to flooding and other climate impacts coming our way.
At present, sadly, this “business-as-usual” Bill will lock the UK into high-carbon, inefficient, polluting energy and transport systems in particular—and that at precisely the moment when we should be turning around and heading fast in a different direction for the sake of both our economy and our environment.
The crucial, overarching context for this Bill is helpfully illustrated by the new climate economy report launched in September. It builds on a growing consensus on the benefits of low-carbon economic development among leading international economic institutions such as the OECD and the World Bank—about as far from the so-called green blob as one could possibly get.
In an article coinciding with the report’s launch, the head of the OECD as well as the London School of Economics Lord Stern highlighted the choice that the UK and other countries must now make. They explain that if investment in infrastructure over the next 10 to 15 years is high carbon, the world will indeed “lock in” the risk of dangerous climate change. More positively, they write:
“What is now becoming clear is that reducing emissions is not only compatible with economic growth and development; if done well, it can actually generate better growth than the old high-carbon model…But governments must choose. Over recent years many governments have vacillated over climate policy. They have introduced carbon prices but then let them fall until they are near-useless. They have backed renewables but also subsidised fossil fuels. These inconsistent signals have created uncertainty for investors, damaging growth and retarding innovation.”
They go on:
“The prize before us is huge. We can build a strong, inclusive and resilient global economy which can also avoid dangerous climate change. But the time for decision is now.”
They could have been talking about the very Infrastructure Bill before us today, and as we enter the second week of global climate talks in Peru, I think it is clear that this Infrastructure Bill is sadly failing to make the right choice.
It is puzzling, because sometimes Ministers and indeed shadow Ministers go to great efforts to convince the public that they understand the benefits of transforming our economy to radically cut emissions. Last year, for example, the Prime Minister explained that
“we are in a global race and the countries that succeed in that race, the economies in Europe that will prosper, are those that are the greenest and the most energy efficient.”
I could not agree more with him on that. The Leader of the Opposition in The Independent yesterday set out a welcome and impassioned pitch for his ability to offer leadership on climate change, highlighting the increasingly stark science and the economic and social harm caused by dither and delay. Again, I agree. Yet the unswerving support from Labour’s Front-Bench team for the coalition’s new roads, whatever the delivery structure, and for fracking, however well regulated, undermines any such climate credibility. It suggests that they may be a little bit in denial about the inconvenient truth that carbon emissions do not come just from electricity generation. Crucially, for the purposes of this Bill, they come from roads as well.
Transport accounts for 25% of UK emissions and most of that is from roads, but there are many other reasons why building new roads should be at the bottom—not the top—of the UK’s infrastructure priorities. As the Government’s own figures and studies show, road building is bad value for public money, and it does not even cut congestion. More tarmac simply means more cars.
Today, the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member, launched a new report that warns that air pollution from heavy traffic could be killing almost as many people as does smoking in the UK. During that inquiry, we heard that road traffic is the largest source of air pollution in most parts of the UK. To tackle the public health crisis of air pollution, we must redirect spending away from new road infrastructure, and into public transport, walking and cycling. It should be our priority to make those alternatives the cheaper, easier and more attractive options. Of course, we could also do more to improve existing local and national roads. I should like the Government to adopt the Campaign for Better Transport’s “green retrofit” programme for roads, which would be better value for money and good for local job creation, as well as having long-term benefits and undoing daily damage to both public health and our environment. I am also concerned about the setting up of strategic highways companies, a move which has been described as
“the final staging post to privatisation of the strategic road network”,
and which raises serious questions about accountability that have already been mentioned by Members
Let me now say a few words about fracking, because I know that the House would be disappointed were I not to do so. The proposals to allow fracking firms to drill beneath people’s homes and land without their permission is, to put it mildly, clearly hugely controversial and deeply unpopular. Ministers, however, are not listening to the public concern that has been expressed, although they keep talking about how important it is for the public to buy into fracking.
For me, the bottom line is that an effective response to climate change requires a complete shift to a carbon-neutral energy system within a generation in all the major economies, including Britain. We know how to do that: we have the technology and engineering capacity to do it, and we can afford to do it. All that we need is the political will, because we cannot do it while making ourselves more, not less, dependent on any kind of fossil fuel. According to the United Kingdom’s former top energy and climate diplomat, John Ashton,
“You can be in favour of fixing the climate. Or you can be in favour of exploiting shale gas. But you can’t be in favour of both at the same time.”
The Bill also provides for a duty to maximise the economic recovery of UK oil and gas. That flies in the face of the need for us to leave the vast majority of existing fossil fuel reserves unburnt if we are serious about tackling climate change. There was a growing amount of cross-party consensus on that imperative during last week’s debate on fracking. I hope that the Minister of State followed that debate, and I hope that his views on unburnable fossil fuels—and the financial risks of the carbon bubble—have changed since we debated such matters two years ago, when he maintained that my concerns were
“not only outside the mainstream, but, arguably, on the very fringe of the debate.”
That was his normal courtesy. I am only sorry that he is not present to hear me respond to it. He then told me that I should
“think again about the Government’s position.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 828-30.]
Given that the Governor of the Bank of England is now among those who are agreeing that most existing fossil fuel reserves need to be unburnable and need to stay below ground if we are to keep climate change below 2°C of warming, I hope that the Minister himself has had an opportunity to think again.
Meanwhile, the potential of UK renewables is huge. The sector already supports more than 100,000 jobs. Solar PV, which is just one of many diverse technologies that are at our disposal, could alone support nearly 50,000 jobs by 2030, and could power the equivalent of 18 million homes. A thriving home-grown renewable energy sector should be a top priority for the Bill, but, apart from the references to community energy rights, it is entirely absent. I think that we should replace the duty to maximise oil and gas exploitation with a duty to maximise sustainable energy generation from the UK’s wind, wave, solar, tidal and other renewable sources.
As for housing, energy efficiency should be the United Kingdom’s top infrastructure priority, and there should be funding to match. Retrofitting the UK’s leaky housing stock is the only permanent solution to fuel poverty and high energy bills, issues that I know are a high priority for my constituents. It is essential if we are to meet carbon targets, and it is also an economic no-brainer. Research for the Energy Bill Revolution campaign shows that an ambitious energy efficiency programme could create 108,000 new jobs, and would generate £1.27 in tax revenues for every £1 invested.
We need that retrofit programme, but new housing is important as well. The Bill, however, introduces an unforgivable dilution of the zero-carbon homes standard, and an exemption that could mean that up to 80% of new homes in some areas will not have to comply. That might be good news for the profit margins of developers who have been lobbying for it, but it is definitely bad news for carbon emissions, bad for home owners who will face unnecessarily high bills as a result, and bad for British businesses that would otherwise see a stable and growing market for on-site solar power and other renewables.
The Government’s arguments simply do not stack up. The UK Green Building Council and the Royal Institute of British Architects have pointed out that the exemptions will result perversely in higher costs for small-scale developments. They have also pointed to the dire lack of evidence to back up the Government’s claim that the exemptions would bring forward more house building activity from small builders.
Finally, I shall briefly put three areas of remaining concern in headlines, as I know others want to speak. The Bill fails to include measures to strengthen the UK’s resilience to flooding and other climate impacts such as urban heat waves. The provisions on invasive non-native species need to be rethought if they are not to threaten much-loved species such as beavers and barn owls. The changes to the planning system raise serious concerns that the quality of decision making and the rights of local people to have a meaningful say over development in their area are being sacrificed, along with so much else, on the altar of corporate convenience and speed.
Cycling
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He has spoken about safety and about funding. Does he agree that we need funding for revenue as well as capital? We need money to go to cycle groups and local councils so that they can invest in safety as well as in cycle lanes.
Ian Austin
The hon. Lady is right, and I shall discuss that point at some length in a few minutes.
Promoting cycling would be good for our transport systems as a whole, for local economies, for social inclusion, and for public health. People who think that investing in cycling is somehow anti-motorist, or against the car, should ask themselves why the AA has joined the campaign to boost cycling. It has done so because cycling is an obvious way of reducing congestion, which has been estimated to cost the UK economy £4.3 billion a year. Research from Denmark has shown that a nation makes a 13p profit for every kilometre cycled, but an 8p loss for every kilometre driven.
As I said earlier, this is our third debate on cycling in the last three years. The first was triggered by the campaign run by The Times. More than 70 Members took part in that debate; even more, well over 100, took part in the second. Sadly, I think that fewer will take part today. We asked for this debate so that we can discuss the Government’s response to the recommendations in our report. We had been promised that response for months, but the Government kept delaying its publication amid numerous reports of wrangles and disputes between the various Departments involved. Because it was not clear when it would be published, cycling organisations and the media were unable to promote the debate and encourage their members and supporters to lobby MPs to take part in it. It turns out that the document—1 do not think that it could be credibly described as a delivery plan—was published this morning. As a result, we have been left far too little time to subject it to proper scrutiny, although it is already clear that it is a very disappointing piece of work. We waited a year for this report, but it makes no real commitments at all.
Mr Bradshaw
I am sure my hon. Friend is right in what he says, although it has not been my experience in Exeter. Helped by the fantastic success of our professional cycling teams in the Olympics, cycling is now very cool and there has been a big upsurge in cycling among teenagers in my constituency. However, that is mainly because there are safe routes to the schools and facilities for people to lock their bikes and store their stuff when they get there. I am sorry to say that that is not common across the country.
It was in that context, after all the years of hard work by people such as the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire, that the all-party group, supported by The Times, decided to carry out its investigation and report in 2013. We spent days listening to evidence from experts across the field on how to get to the sort of cycling levels enjoyed in most of our neighbouring and similar continental countries. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, this is not rocket science; it comes down to sustainable commitments for funding and sustainable, persistent cross-departmental Government leadership.
What do we get today? A year late, we get a report that has been rushed out in time for this debate. I wanted to try to be kind about the report, which I had time to read before coming into the Chamber, but I cannot help agreeing with CTC, which has described it as “not a delivery plan” but a “derisory plan”. Once again, it is a hotch-potch of aspiration, which puts a lot of the responsibility on hard-pressed local authorities, on local enterprise partnerships—we have already heard that the record of LEPs is feeble at best, and they are also under a lot of pressure—and on business. That is deeply depressing and dispiriting, following all the debates we have had in this House, and the growing support among Members from all parts of this House and among the public for meaningful action to be taken on cycling. Seeing the report was one of the most depressing moments I have had in this House during this Parliament.
Surely we do not need to remind the Government of cycling’s benefits for health, the environment, and tackling congestion and pollution. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) reminded us about the health benefits alone. If we met the targets that our report set for 2025 of 10% of journeys by bike, up from a derisory 2% in England at the moment, we would save £8 billion in health expenditure. If we reached continental levels of 25% of journeys made by cycling by 2050, which was our other target, we would save £25 billion for the health service.
Those are just the health benefits; they do not even take into account the additional benefits of tackling congestion and emissions. I do not understand what is wrong with the economists in the Department for Transport and the Treasury who do not recognise the logic of that. The Secretary of State, who I am pleased to see in his place, is a reasonable man. He was extolling the fantastic rail renaissance that we enjoyed in England in recent years. We could be having exactly the same renaissance in cycling if only there were the political will and a tiny bit of investment. All it would need is a fraction of the Department’s budget that is going on roads or on HS2 to be earmarked for cycling, and we could achieve that £10 per head per year figure, which would begin to deliver the cycling revolution we all want.
Let me be perfectly frank: whatever one thinks of this Government report, the timing of its publication—in the last few months before a general election—probably means that the political parties’ manifestos for next May and who then forms the Government will matter much more. I want to make it clear, including to my own Front-Bench team, that there are a lot of cyclists out there and we should not underestimate the power of the cycling vote. Many towns and cities, from Brighton and Hove to Norwich, Cambridge, Oxford, my own city of Exeter and Bristol, will have hard-fought contests in marginal seats at the next election.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The right hon. Gentleman is very kind to give way, especially as he has just mentioned Brighton and Hove. It gives me the opportunity to say that in Brighton and Hove we have the fastest growing cycle-to-work scheme outside London. Does he agree that what we need in today’s plan is far more focus on cycle-friendly design standards or guidance? We should be sharing such standards, and yet there is nothing in the plan to do or promote that. Therefore, current guidelines are very jumbled up, inconsistent and contradictory.
Mr Bradshaw
Yes, the hon. Lady is absolutely right. There is a good plan on the shelf in Wales, which the Department for Transport could simply use. There are far too many different plans, which need to be brought together in one single plan.
Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(10 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Chope. I add my congratulations to those of everyone else who has congratulated the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing this important debate. As we have heard, taxis and minicabs are an essential part of our transport network, not least for people with disabilities, women, in particular, for getting home safely at night, and people who do not have access to a car.
Regulation of the taxi industry has been around for a long time. A House of Commons Library note says that it could be said to have begun in 1636 under King Charles I. More recently, the issue has come up under successive Governments who, having looked at the evidence, decided to leave regulation of this essential industry in place.
I want to reiterate the question asked by the hon. Gentleman: why now the rush to rip up that regulation? Suddenly, the Government are amending their own Bill to give the market more power over this essential part of our transport network with barely any effort even to pretend to consult about it. The Local Government Association politely said:
“We are disappointed that the LGA was not made aware of these proposed clauses until they were brought before the Deregulation Bill Committee.”
How can the Government possibly justify their failure to discuss this change with councils in advance of the parliamentary process?
In my city of Brighton and Hove we have 1,800 drivers who serve our city well. I share the deep concerns of many of the drivers whom I have met. They are worried that the Government’s attempt to rush through changes to taxi and minicab regulation will be bad for consumers, bad for our city and potentially dangerous.
The changes will allow, as others have said, anyone with an ordinary driving licence to drive a minicab when it is off duty; minicab operators to subcontract to operators licensed in a different district; and fewer licence checks. The measures weaken protection for the public and they should be stopped. The licensed taxi industry has served the public well down the years, but the Government’s desire to shrink the state means that good systems in place for good reasons are under unprecedented attack.
Safety is an integral issue. Taxis are essential for so many people, such as women at night, schools or people with disabilities. They have to have confidence and trust in those with whom they are sharing the vehicle. Deregulation could hit safety standards and cause chaos. It is yet another example of a Government who talk up localism while ripping up local powers in the interests of big business. Our tremendous passenger safety culture, which has been established in the industry over many years, cannot simply be disregarded in such a way. There is real concern that the Government amendments could lead to more women being put at risk of assault or attack when they have to travel late at night by unlicensed and unregulated drivers. The deregulation of the taxi industry could also lead to rogue taxi drivers—criminals posing as drivers—passengers being ripped off and chaos on our streets, with people unsure about whether the taxi that they have just flagged down is legitimate.
We need to ask why such potentially dangerous changes are being rushed through. We know that good money can be made from the taxi and private hire or minicab industry—Addison Lee has made so much that it is giving it away in large quantities to the Conservative party, and are we supposed to believe that Addison Lee has had no influence on the move to push amendments through before the publication of the Law Commission’s in-depth review of taxi and PHV legislation?
John Griffin, the boss of minicab giant Addison Lee, was embroiled in a cash-for-access scandal in 2012, after his firm gave £0.25 million to the Conservative party. At the time, Mr Griffin was quoted at saying:
“Politicians are not running the country. Businessmen are. They are the housewives. We give them the money.”
We can make of that what we will, but we read that last year Mr Griffin kept up his company’s generosity with an individual donation of £500,000 to the Conservative party—reportedly, the third largest donation in the three months to the end of September.
Mr Griffin is clearly a man who has a potential political agenda for the minicab business. For example, he appears to hate cyclists. In comments that beggared belief, he described deaths and serious injuries among inner-city cyclists as “inevitable” and primarily the fault of “untrained riders”. That controversy came less than a week after he had spent several days in the spotlight because he had ordered the drivers of his company’s 3,500 vehicles in London illegally to use bus lanes while promising to indemnify his staff against any fines. Clearly, he thinks he is above the law, and we cannot help but ask ourselves what he might want in return for his large donations.
The Government’s wish to sweep away regulation in the interests of their industry mates represents a systemic and systematic attempt to water down the standards and rules that should have been, and have been, designed to serve and protect the public. The Government should be heavily criticised for showing an extraordinary disrespect for those who rely on taxis and minicabs, for councils and for drivers. I urge Ministers to scrap their rushed and misguided amendments when the Bill returns to the House of Commons on Report. Instead, the Government should be following the 2011 proposals of the experts on the cross-party Transport Committee: listening to users, in particular vulnerable groups, to the trade and to local authorities, and keeping the situation simple and local.
High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Creagh
Yes, absolutely. Freight has been a Cinderella subject; the focus tends to be on passengers, and that is absolutely right. If we are to achieve the modal shift by getting HGVs off our roads and freight on to trains—that is key in the hon. Gentleman’s area—we have to make sure that freight is able to go on the west coast main line.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The hon. Lady said that we need to mitigate the worst effects of the railway. Does she accept that as regards ancient woodlands there is no way of mitigating those effects because we cannot replace ancient woodland? According to the Woodland Trust, the preferred route for phase 1 will see the loss of, or damage to, 83 irreplaceable woodlands.
Mary Creagh
I will come to the environmental part of my speech in a moment. I would say to the hon. Lady, as the sole representative of the Green party in Parliament, that her party is in an extraordinary position in voting against what will be the key plank in moving towards a low-carbon transport infrastructure.
Let me turn to reductions in travel times. High Speed 2 will not just increase capacity; it will use the latest high-speed technology to reduce travel times between Scotland, the north, the midlands and London. It will connect with existing railway lines so that from the end of phase 1 direct high-speed services can be operated from Glasgow, Wigan, Preston and Liverpool. [Interruption.] They will go through Lichfield, without a toll. The full scheme will cut journey times from London to Birmingham Curzon Street to 49 minutes, to Sheffield Meadowhall to 69 minutes, and to Leeds to 82 minutes. When both phases are complete, HS2 will link our northern cities, providing new express commuter services between them, as we have seen with High Speed 1 in Kent. That will drive jobs, regeneration and growth across the midlands, the north, Scotland and Wales.
Mary Creagh
I knew exactly how long that journey took, because I looked at train times during my hon. Friend’s by-election campaign and thought that it was a very slow journey. HS2 will be transformational, because it will bring Manchester and London very close together. It will also create a modal shift away from aeroplanes. For any journey that takes about three and a half hours, passengers will be taken out of aeroplanes and on to high-speed rail. That is obviously of benefit and will help us to meet our climate change emissions targets.
High-speed rail offers some of the lowest carbon emissions per passenger kilometre. The emissions are significantly lower than those from cars and planes. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a green spine that links our great cities and to open up wildlife corridors. I was inspired by the Wildlife Trusts’ vision for Low Speed 2, which is a green network of cycleways and footpaths along the line that would connect communities with nature and each other. We must learn from and build on the excellent biodiversity work that has been done by Crossrail. It has worked with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and others to create new habitats for bird life at Wallasea island, using spoil from Crossrail’s tunnelling that was carried down the Thames on barges.
Caroline Lucas
The carbon benefits that the hon. Lady is talking about will happen only if HS2 is responsible for a modal shift away from high-carbon sources such as cars and aeroplanes. Only 11% of passengers are likely to make that modal shift. HS2 is therefore about new journeys, so it will not cause the carbon reductions that she claims.
Mary Creagh
As our country grows and as people travel more, there will be new journeys. One hundred and fifty years ago, people thought that going at 3 mph on a canal through the Standedge tunnel between Huddersfield and Manchester was a marvellously fast way of getting goods from the port of Hull to the port of Liverpool and vice versa, but today we expect a little more. We built the M62, the nation’s highest motorway, which provides a stunning drive from Leeds to Manchester and Liverpool. That is fantastic, but if we end up with transport links that cut down journey times and that get people out of their cars and on to trains, it will be of huge benefit.
Inter-City Rail Investment
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Swales
I absolutely agree. I look forward to the speeches of other hon. Members who have stayed late on this Thursday to hear more about other regions. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) is likely to talk about the south-west.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. With hon. Members piling in to put their own inter-city and other rail services on the table, may I make a plea for the Brighton main line? We need more capacity, with a second line from Brighton to London so commuters do not get stuck in Brighton, as they do on the many occasions when that line is not operating.
Ian Swales
I thank the hon. Lady. I am sure the Minister is logging the various bids that are being made.
My area of the north-east has good journey times to London, but very poor journey times to other places. Is it right that it takes longer to get from Darlington to Manchester on a single train than it takes to get to London? The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was stunned recently when he discovered how long he had to spend on the train when travelling from Liverpool to Darlington. Ironically, he was making the trip to be present at the inauguration of the new inter-city train factory at Newton Aycliffe, which is hugely welcome in my part of the world.
Rail investment is not just about passengers, but about freight, as the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) mentioned. It was good to see the recent but long-overdue investment by the Government to enable modern-sized containers landing at Teesport to join the east coast main line. However, a large modern port needs good connections to a wide hinterland and, again, the cross-country links are very poor. If such a container was destined for Preston, which is less than 100 miles away, it would have to go via Birmingham, so poor are the trans-Pennine links.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) on securing this important debate. I apologise, as others have, for the fact that I shall discuss a line that connects to London. I accept his broader point that we should not be so southern-centric, but I hope he will forgive me, given that my constituency depends a lot on the line between Brighton and London.
I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby), who is not in his place—I hope this is an area on which we can have cross-party agreement—that the current rail system is failing our constituents in Brighton and Hove. The Brighton-to-London commuters I meet almost every day are, without exception, frustrated and angry about the poor quality of the service that they pay through the nose to use. It is a huge amount of money and, as has been said, the cost just went up again earlier this month. An annual season ticket between Brighton and London Victoria is nearly £4,000; to be fair, there would be £28 change, but that is still a huge amount. What do people get for their £4,000? The main line from Brighton is in dire trouble. It struggles and creaks through inadequate capacity.
Last month I attended a Network Rail event on the future of the Brighton main line to make the case for more capacity between the capital and Brighton. The connection between the two cities is critical to my constituents and we do not want to wait for the crumbs from the table. Many Members have said that this is not a debate about HS2 and it certainly is not, but I think we should remind ourselves of the amount of money that can be found when the political will is there to invest in our rail infrastructure. I would far rather that that money was invested in the general rail systems on which so many of our constituents depend, rather than what I see as pretty much a massively expensive vanity project that will not deliver the gains that we need.
Brighton is a dynamic, internationally successful city and a major tourist destination, but it needs more investment in its rail lines: far too often the city is cut off because of problems at East Croydon or elsewhere on the line. We need some real vision and commitment to invest to get Brighton the second London line that we so desperately need. It is essential to have not only increased capacity, but a fast alternative route for passengers at times of disruption.
In October, Baroness Kramer, the Transport Minister in the other place, said:
“It is anticipated that Network Rail will provide a copy of its Brighton Main Line Pre-Report…to this Department before the end of the year. It will include…the potential role of new line schemes, including Lewes to Uckfield.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2013; Vol. 748, c. WA166.]
Have Ministers received that report, and if so when will it be made public so that we can see it? In the autumn statement, the Chancellor said that he will accelerate the Network Rail study into improvements in the Brighton main line. Is that the same pre-report that was supposed to have been done by December, or is it an additional study? Weary commuters would welcome some clarification. Either way, we need to know the exact official terms of reference of the report and when we will get to see it. It is critical that the study should be a thorough review of capacity between the Sussex coast and London, covering all the options to end the chaos that we so regularly experience on this critical rail artery into London.
As well as talking about the specific needs of Brighton, including for a Brighton main line 2, I will say a few words about this country’s broader rail system. I believe that it is failing us, which is unforgivable in the sense that there is an alternative to the overcrowded, unreliable, overpriced and fragmented private services that we have to put up with. We could have an integrated, publicly owned and run railway that does not waste money on profit, and there is a model for doing that gradually and affordably.
Despite the standard mantra that privatisation saves money, the cost to the public purse of running the railways has risen by a factor of between two and three since they were sold off. The report “Rebuilding Rail” from the Transport for Quality of Life group makes clear the key reasons for that increase, which include high interest payments to keep Network Rail’s debts off the Government balance sheet—the Government have recently been made to put those debts on the books—as well as debt write-offs, costs arising from the fragmentation of the rail system into many organisations, profit margins of complex tiers of contractors and subcontractors, and dividend payments to private investors.
The only way to sort out that mess and waste, as well as the rising fares, overcrowding and the rest is for the state to take back control of the railways. That is why I am actively campaigning for them to be brought back into public ownership through my private Member’s Bill, the Railways Bill. I hope that the official Opposition will make it clear in their response whether they might back that Bill. If we want to improve our inter-city services, we have to nail the myth that buying back assets that have been sold off would be too expensive. The step-by-step approach in my Bill would allow the assets of the railways to be reacquired for the public at minimal cost, with substantial ongoing savings over time as franchises expire or companies break the terms of their franchise agreements. There is strong current evidence that it is better for passengers, railways and taxpayers when franchises are in public hands.
The Minister has been chuntering—if I may use that word—during my speech. I have not picked up what he has said, but I suspect that he is not entirely in agreement with me. I challenge him about the east coast main line. He put some facts and figures to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), but, frankly, they are misleading. The east coast main line was brought back into public hands because of market failure, but it is the UK’s most successful rail franchise. Its passenger satisfaction levels are the highest on record, and it pays millions back to the taxpayer, as opposed to most other train companies, which deliver millions to shareholders.
The Minister mentioned punctuality, so let us look at that. The facts show that the punctuality of the east coast main line is 0.1% different from that of the west coast main line: on the east coast main line, with very little Government investment, it is 82.8%, but on the west coast main line, with massive Government investment, it is 82.9%. That seems to suggest that on overall efficiency, the east coast main line is doing very well.
The Office of Rail Regulation agrees with me. It says clearly that the east coast main line is the most cost-efficient line. Even the Financial Times says that it is
“the most efficiently run rail franchise in terms of its reliance on taxpayer funding”.
It receives the lowest level of Government funding.
However much the Minister chunters, there is plenty of evidence—this Government like to say that they are an evidence-led Government—from the east coast main line that bringing rail back into public hands works. It is precisely the threat of a good example that makes the Government want to sell it off as quickly as possible, so that it is not there as a standing embarrassment to the rest of their rail policy. It really does beggar belief that the Government want to re-privatise the line.
Stephen Hammond
Let us look at the evidence if that is what the hon. Lady wants to do. She should know that the rolling stock costs for the east coast main line came in at £85 million in 2012, whereas the bill for Virgin was £302 million. That is a substantial difference. The access charge costs are substantially lower and are likely to rise. Those are two pieces of evidence that place question marks over her line that it is the most efficient railway line.
Caroline Lucas
It is not just my line. As I have said, it is the line of the Office of Rail Regulation. I would suggest that there is cherry-picking going on in the figures that are being presented. There are questions over what the start time is and over how much of the responsibility for the costs can be laid at the door of Directly Operated Railways and how much at the door of the previous private franchises, given the lack of investment that went in earlier. My position stands strongly and I am backed up by independent regulators and others.
If the Government really want to make savings and to improve our transport network for everyone, they should recognise that privatisation has failed and bring railways back into public ownership as the franchises expire. According to calculations in the “Rebuilding Rail” report, reuniting the railways under public ownership could save more than £1 billion a year of taxpayers’ money. To put that figure in context, if all unnecessary costs were eliminated and the resulting savings were used entirely to reduce fares—I am not saying that that would necessarily be the best thing, but it gives one a sense of what we are talking about—it would equate to across the board cuts of 18%. Fares that are price regulated because of their social importance could be cut substantially more.
Under public ownership, all the public money that is invested in the railways could be used to deliver a better service for passengers, while also achieving wider social and environmental goals, rather than to line the pockets of private shareholders. Train travel could once again be a pleasure and something to be proud of. That is the kind of bright future that I want for our railways. I urge Ministers to wake up to the potential of public investment in our inter-city infrastructure and to look at the evidence clearly and objectively, rather than cherry-picking the figures, as I fear the Minister has done this afternoon.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Lady is talking about Labour’s successes. I welcome the fact that Labour has agreed to keep the east coast main line in public hands. Will she confirm whether it will follow the logic of that position and support my Railways Bill, which would bring all the franchises back into public hands as they expire?
Lilian Greenwood
As the hon. Lady says, we think the east coast main line is providing an important public sector comparator that will help us to evaluate the future of the rail industry. What is clear is that the current structure is not delivering enough for passengers. That is why, unlike the Government parties, we are prepared to review it and to look at alternatives that will deliver the best deal for passengers and taxpayers.
Unfortunately, all of the essential projects that I set out a moment ago were subject to delays after the general election. That caused uncertainty and, in some cases, pushed back completion dates.
Transport Infrastructure
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr McLoughlin
I refer my right hon. Friend to page 202 of the report. I thought that she would raise this issue, so I refer her to paragraph 6.94:
“A high speed rail spur from the main HS2 line to the airport is not included in the cost estimate, but the Commission will consider the case for this as part of its review of surface access options. It will not, however, consider the case for any re-routing of the main HS2 line.”
I believe that it is a vital part of the national infrastructure of the United Kingdom.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Is the Secretary of State aware that some of the UK’s leading companies have cut their flights by an average of 38% over the past three years, and does he not recognise that his reckless enthusiasm for new runways will not only cause huge harm for the local communities involved, but shows this Government lagging far behind progressive companies that understand the urgency of climate change and are reducing their number of flights on economic as well as environmental grounds?
Mr McLoughlin
The hon. Lady needs to look at the passenger numbers through the terminals. At Heathrow in 1992, for example, there were 45 million in comparison with 70 million in 2012. At Gatwick in 1992, passenger numbers were 19.9 million, but 34.2 million in 2012. People still want to travel. I am sure that the hon. Lady has holidays only in the United Kingdom and never travels abroad, but a lot of people like the option to go abroad.
Cycling
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I warmly welcome the recommendations in the “Get Britain Cycling” report, and I want to add my congratulations to the all-party parliamentary cycling group on the work that it has done on it. The benefits of increasing cycling to public health, air quality, congestion, the local economy and people’s overall quality of life are huge and undisputed, and the report provides a comprehensive set of steps towards achieving a bold vision.
A cycling revolution is not just about incremental growth in a few areas of the country. As the report sets out, we should be aiming for
“a dramatic increase in the number and diversity of people who cycle, because they see it as a safe and normal activity.”
So, although the warm words about cycling and the extra funding are important, I have been disappointed by the Government’s rather half-hearted and complacent responses to so many of the other recommendations. It has been striking to hear the breadth of support from all parts of the House for more priority to be given to cycling, and I hope that the Minister will now take another look at the merits of being more proactive in making the cycling revolution a reality.
Sitting here this afternoon, I was impressed to hear so many local examples of good practice, and I would like to add a few of my own from Brighton and Hove. Brighton and Hove is a very cycle-friendly city, so let me highlight a few of its fantastic local initiatives. These powerfully illustrate some of the tremendous benefits that could be unlocked by acting on the report and through meaningful political leadership at national level, too.
For example, Brighton and Hove Albion football club is constantly encouraging, promoting and facilitating cycling to the stadium, which is about five miles from the city centre. “Bike train” rides are organised by experienced volunteers to help cyclists to take up a good amount of road space and benefit from safety in numbers. All that helps cut air pollution, so it is not just those on the bikes who are reaping the health benefits. I have taken part in bike train rides on a number of occasions and have experienced how incredibly helpful such schemes are, particularly for getting less confident people on a bike and ensuring that they enjoy the experience by making it feel normal and safe.
Secondly, there is to be an exciting new cycling hub at Brighton railway station, which was approved in July by the city council. This will increase the number of bike spaces by 420 to a total of 670, and provide shower and changing facilities, a bike shop, a café, a cycle repair outlet and bike hire—with these all in one place right at the station, which is great for new and experienced cyclists alike.
Thirdly, we recently introduced a new 1.8 km cycle lane that separates bikes from motorised traffic along Old Shoreham road. People feel much safer, cycle journeys have rocketed by 30%, and it has been praised by many. Such “Copenhagen-style” improvements are crucial for cyclists to feel safe, especially those who are new to cycling or less confident.
In response to requests from residents, the city council is now consulting on a second phase of a programme to introduce 20 mph speed limits. Again, this is not just about cyclists, but about improving the street environment for all road users, including car drivers, by reducing the number and severity of collisions and casualties, improving traffic flows and making the city a safer and better place to live in. A default speed limit of 20 mph is a key recommendation of the report, which I think Ministers should not dismiss so quickly. Changing speed limits is not expensive, and if we are serious about “cycle proofing” all roads, adequate long-term funding is needed for schemes such as new cycle lanes.
Finally, let me say a few words about the great environmental gains—both for local air quality and cutting carbon pollution—that would follow from the UK becoming a true cycling nation. I end by emphasising that there are also very good economic and social reasons, which would alone provide ample grounds for full implementation of all the report’s recommendations. For example, according to a Sustrans report last year, 1.5 million people are in transport poverty. These people are unable to get to jobs, shops, health care or school because they cannot drive or run a car, while public transport is inaccessible and they cannot use bikes either. More investment in bikes would help them tremendously.