Ultra Low Emissions Vehicles

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered ultra-low emission vehicles.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I am grateful to have been granted this debate. Before I begin, I should say that in a conversation I had earlier today with the Minister’s colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes)—I understand that this is his policy area—he agreed to have a meeting with me shortly on this issue, and I am grateful for that.

It is nearly five years since I initiated a debate on ultra low emissions vehicles in the Chamber. I have strongly championed the new technology throughout that time. In my debate in May 2011, I said that the issue mattered for four main reasons: first, because it is part of the answer in tackling climate change; secondly, because it is at the heart of creating the new industries of the future; thirdly, because it helps the United Kingdom respond to the challenge of energy security; and fourthly, because it helps our constituents reduce the cost of driving. In that debate, no one, including me, mentioned the important contribution that ultra low emissions vehicles can make in improving air quality, which is an issue that is rapidly rising up the political agenda, not least because 40% of local authorities are currently breaching air quality guidelines. A quarter of children in London are breathing illegally polluted air, meaning that their lung capacity may never recover. The air quality in London last week was worse than that in Beijing.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

One of my local schools is in an area that breaches the limit. In fact, my constituents, particularly those living off the North Circular Road, are breathing some of the worst air in London, if not the country. Does my hon. Friend recognise that the highest cost to the health of Londoners and those across the country is paid by those in our most deprived communities, who on average are exposed to 25% higher levels of air pollution than people elsewhere?

[Andrew Selous]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is often the most disadvantaged communities that suffer the worst air quality. That is another reason why the issue is so important.

In May 2011, there were 57,000 ultra low emissions vehicles on our roads. Nearly five years later, that figure has increased to 87,000. The Government’s central projection of 5% of all cars in the UK being ultra low emissions vehicles by 2020 means that we need to have 1.6 million such vehicles on our roads by then. The Committee on Climate Change recommends that 9% of the cars on our roads should be ultra low emissions by 2020. That equates to 2.8 million cars. Even 9% is unambitious compared with Japan, which has a target for 20% of all its cars to be ultra low emissions vehicles by 2020. While I am very happy to give the Government due and proper credit for what they have done in this area, my purpose in holding the debate is to challenge them to lay out a much clearer road map as to how we are to get to at least 1.6 million ultra low emissions vehicles on our roads by 2020.

In response to a parliamentary question I asked recently, the Department for Transport declined to indicate how many ultra low emissions vehicles it expects to be on our roads by the end of this year, in 2018 or in 2019. I think it would be helpful to have a more detailed road map of how we will achieve the 2020 target.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for bringing forward this debate and for his work championing this issue, which began long before I got to this place. I will split my speech into two parts—first, why we need to encourage more electric and hybrid vehicles on to the road and, secondly, the framework that we need to enable that to happen.

It is really obvious now why we need to make the switch to electric nationally and with all speed. It is because of the shocking air quality statistics that we have all highlighted recently. Only last week, the levels of air pollution in London overtook those in Beijing. One would hardly credit that that could be possible in this nation, but it is true.

I have taken part in two air quality inquiries. The first was as part of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the second as part of the Environmental Audit Committee. The statistics that we were presented with were quite shocking. We have failed our nitrogen oxide and particulate matter targets miserably, and the impact has been a terrible knock-on effect on health. We are told that something like 40,000 to 50,000 people die every year as a result of air pollution. I believe that the statistics could be higher, and that is a shocking indictment of how we are running our society.

[Mr Burrowes]

We should consider the impact on children. Bowes Primary School in my patch is 66% over the legal limit. The issue is whether an ultra low emissions zone, which could be extended by the Mayor, would help on the north and south circular routes. It may lead to further congestion and other problems. Has the hon. Lady looked at ultra low emissions zones to see whether they are a good solution to the problem?

[Rebecca Pow]

I will say a bit about those zones later, but I think all local authorities will have to consider them. I hope the Minister will have some guidance on that later.

Even in Taunton Deane, which people might consider a beautiful rural area with a few urban centres, there are two pollution hotspots. One is on East Street, which is a busy road going right into the centre of Taunton. The other is on the famous A358—I have spoken about getting an upgrade for that road ever since I arrived in this place—where there is a pollution hotspot in a village called Henlade. We need to tackle that and, although I believe local authorities have the powers to tackle such issues—I have questioned Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers about that—they do not have the know-how on how to put measures in place. More particularly, they do not have the funds to tackle the issue even if they would like to.

I welcome the fact that the Government will produce their consultation on air quality fairly soon, and we look forward to seeing what is in it. I urge the Government—this is particularly a point for DEFRA—to adopt World Health Organisation rules on air quality, as they are far more stringent than the European rules that we have nevertheless shockingly contravened.

I come on to the real reason for today’s debate, which is encouraging the use of electric cars to help tackle air quality. As we have heard, the electric car market is growing substantially. There are many models available on the market now. Some are extremely well designed and are built to last. Many could be built not exactly as kit cars but on a much more local basis. Perhaps that might spawn new industries in our constituencies that could manufacture those cars. I would welcome the Minister’s views on whether we should have some sort of incentive to kick-start those industries.

There are already some world leaders in the industry. Formula 1, which is largely based in this country, has already been driving electric racing cars—there is a new league called Formula E, where they are raced at venues around the world. If we increased productivity and innovation in an industry that we already invest in, we could become world leaders. There would be spin-offs for our industrial strategy, and for technology and innovation, as we leave the EU, and it would work to improve our environment and help to build an environment that works for everyone—a point that the Government have to address. There will be spin-offs all round.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

New clause 31 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). It concerns the Government’s intent to devolve more powers to local representatives, but proposes pushing the boat out a little further into terrain that, nationally, we have been a little bit tentative about. Devolved powers are allowed to make a decision on Sunday trading. Whether local areas should be able to decide on Sunday trading, and other such issues, is a debate for another day—or, hopefully, not at all.

New clause 31 concerns the minimum unit pricing of alcohol. At one point, the Government and the Prime Minister took the view that the case had been made back in 2008 by the Department of Health. Such pricing would assist directly in tackling health harms relating to the excessive use of alcohol. At that time, the Government were consulting not on whether, but how much. However, the ups and downs of coalition government and other concerns, not least from those on the Government Benches, led to the measure not seeing the light of day. This is an excellent opportunity to bring it back to the light. We can allow local authorities to have the power to set a minimum unit price for alcohol sold within their areas.

As has been said, local authorities already have some degree of power to set a price under the licensing regime. I understand that in Newcastle two bars have become the first in the United Kingdom to be licensed to sell alcohol at a minimum price in excess of £1 a unit. I am not sure how popular those bars will be, not least because I am now publicising them, but that is part of the licensing regime in Newcastle. The bars have been licensed subject to a condition that alcohol is sold at set prices that equate to a minimum price of £1.25 per unit of alcohol—nearly three times the 45p per unit price that was subject to the Government consultation.

My understanding is that that price was agreed to keep the street as the city’s premier street. This initiative by the city council, with the full co-operation of the applicants, is designed to maintain the quality of the city centre, control crime and disorder, and improve health. It seeks to end the availability of irresponsibly priced alcohol by controlling multi-buy promotions that lead to irresponsible drinking. That is the approach being followed, in a somewhat limited way, by Newcastle. I understand that Ipswich also had a licensing and prices regime to tackle the impact of excessive alcohol, in particular in relation to super-strength ciders and lagers.

The Bill seeks to reduce the bureaucracy that gets in the way of empowering local areas to do what should be reasonable: to help to have a significant impact on the health harms affecting their local area.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I am interested to hear my hon. Friend’s speech. One of the main problems in my constituency is people preloading with alcohol: buying from a supermarket, drinking it at home and then going out for an evening. He talks about premium prices applying to bars. How would his suggestion work if I could drive literally just a couple of miles down the road to a supermarket, buy my alcohol, come back and drink it at home?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I hope he will support me in calling on the Government to set a national minimum unit price to avoid that precise problem.

The argument has been made, in respect of Sunday trading and other issues, that if we let local areas decide, we might get a domino effect, but I would welcome it if areas without minimum unit pricing, for example, quickly realised that they needed to deal with the problem. These sorts of powers inevitably have a domino effect. It must be the intent of devolution to spread these powers around. The Government say they are keen to devolve such powers in a wide variety of areas. Given that there is real evidence—much more evidence, frankly, than on Sunday trading—of health benefits from minimum unit pricing, why not give local areas the power to decide for themselves?

[Kevin Foster]

Might not one slight problem be the potential incentive to do it the other way around, meaning that the one place without a minimum alcohol price ends up with lots of supermarkets looking to locate within it?

[Mr Burrowes]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but the sad reality is that in all our communities we have an increasing problem with excessive alcohol consumption, and it is affecting all our local accident and emergency departments and health services. Evidence shows that minimum unit pricing tackles the problem drinkers on our streets who do not travel far to areas with cheaper alcohol. It has a particular impact on problem drinkers. It is not the only way of dealing with excessive alcohol drinking, but it is a particularly good one.

My proposal would tackle the problem of bureaucracy and red tape facing local areas going through the licensing regime and applying for permission from the Secretary of State to set a minimum alcohol price. This is unnecessary and unwelcome. The Government have said they want to remove red tape and regulation. Why not do so when it comes to setting minimum unit prices? I might be pre-empting the Minister, but he might say, “Sorry, we can’t do this because it’s not lawful. Scotland, which has devolved responsibility in this area, has tried minimum pricing, and it is being challenged in the courts.” I can assure him, however, that we need not worry about the legal issues in Scotland, because, as Aidan Robertson, a leading Queen’s counsel, said in response to the legal challenge, there

“are no valid grounds in EU law for resisting Minimum Unit Pricing”.

He continued:

“It is a matter of considerable regret”—

I agree—

“that implementation of the Scottish legislation has been held up by legal challenges from the drinks industry… The questions referred to the Court of Justice European Union do not…disclose any ground under EU law on which the validity of the legislation may be impugned. Minimum unit pricing for alcohol ought to be permitted as an innovative attempt to tackle a serious health and social problem facing Scotland.”

Scotland should not be alone in benefiting from this; minimum unit pricing is something for England, Wales and other devolved areas. Areas with elected Mayors should also have the power to introduce minimum unit pricing. I would be interested to hear whether the Opposition support the new clause, given that, as I understand it, minimum unit pricing was in their manifesto.

There is evidence, not least from Sheffield University, that setting the minimum price at 50p per unit could save up to 50,000 people from illness in a decade. We cannot ignore the evidence: we are all aware from our constituencies of the impact on individuals of excessive alcohol consumption. This issue is not going away. I implore the Government to seize this matter, to reconsider a national minimum unit price and to reactivate the consultation, which has been kicked into the long grass. In the meantime, perhaps they can look at what happens in local areas and establish a testing ground in areas under the governance of elected Mayors, instead of just relying on Scotland. That makes sense and the time has come. If the Government cannot see that the time has come, let local authorities be set free to get on with it.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

The point is this: once the land is gone, it is gone for ever. Once these luxury flats are built, Islington residents will never have a chance of being able to afford to buy them, and if no social housing or real affordable housing is built in inner London, that will be it. We need to defend very carefully the land available.

The Mayor of London has decided that affordable housing equates to 80% of market rent. That would be a laugh if it were not so tragic. It is like newspeak in “Nineteen Eighty-Four” and someone saying, “Say black is white and say it for long enough, and hopefully some fools will start to believe it.” In Islington, 80% of market rent is not affordable housing.

I read with alarm what was said in the Financial Times about housing. Transport for London is talking about affordable housing in the constituency of the hon. Member for Harrow East in outer London, but not in inner London. There are 21,000 people on the waiting list for housing in Islington. Does this Bill answer any of their problems?

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

We are being distracted from one of the Bill’s main points, which is of concern to the hon. Lady’s constituents and mine. The explanatory notes to clause 4 state that, as fare payers and taxpayers, they are bearing the cost and the risk of the lack of

“capacity to finance projects and functions at the best available interest rate or at the lowest risk.”

If we do not give the Bill a safe passage, our constituents will continue to bear that risk. Is that acceptable?

[Emily Thornberry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. It brings us back to another rumour, which is that £700 million will be taken away from Transport for London in the comprehensive spending review and Transport for London is therefore even more in desperate need of a fire sale of our land to subsidise fares. London is the greatest capital in the world, and we need a proper transport system that is appropriate and helps our city to continue to be the lifeblood of this country. It seems to me to be short-sighted to the greatest extent to take away subsidy from Transport for London, because our city will grind to a halt. Once we have sold off that land and the opportunity for my constituents to live in affordable housing has gone, for the sake of their having cheaper fares for a year or two, what do we do then, having sold off the family silver in the way that is being suggested?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

Many questions need to be asked about the status of the partners that TfL will be able to join in partnership. Will they be offshore? Will they pay taxes here? Will they be able to move the control of the partnerships from one party to another without the public—it is our land—being able to stop it? One hears many scary stories, such as money from Moldova being laundered through Scotland—all sorts of extraordinary things go on under these instruments—and my concern is that the limited partners are liable only for the value of any investment they make and do not need to be involved in the management of the partnership. They put their money in, that is the extent of their liability, and we do not know what sort of profits they will then be able to make and we do not know whether they will pay any tax in this country. Those questions need to be asked before we revive this Bill.

[Mr Burrowes]

My fare-paying, tax-paying constituents— and the hon. Lady’s—will want to know whether future projects offer the best available interest rate at the lowest risk. Everyone wants that to be achieved. Would not clause 4 enable that to happen?

[Emily Thornberry]

I do not know that it would. It is vague in the extreme. In my view, it is inappropriate for a public company to go into partnership with public assets with who knows who—for us to take the risk of putting the assets out there and see who will put up the money. That is not the sort of slippery Joe operation we should deal with. We are talking about public land in my constituency in the centre of London, and frankly I do not want it to be controlled by the Russian mafia, for instance.

First Capital Connect (Hertford Loop)

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Nick de Bois]

My hon. Friend’s point would be well backed up if we added up the number of tweets that are, shall we say, less generous. In fairness—I will come to this later—FCC does at least try to confront some of the issues raised on Twitter during some peak times.

Let me set out for the Minister what the problem is, the responses from FCC and Network Rail, and my analysis and that of some of my constituents. I will not be able to cover all the issues, but I know that colleagues will mention problems common to all of us, and certainly to my constituents. I will conclude by sharing views on how the future franchise should secure commitments from operators, and why public satisfaction should be a consideration when awarding or extending franchises—a measure for which my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) was an early champion.

For clarity, what is the Hertford loop? It is a line that leaves the east coast main line at Langley South junction, just south of Stevenage—why it is called the Langley junction baffles me—and passes through the stations of Watton-at-Stone and Hertford North, represented here by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk); Cuffley, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne; Crews Hill, Gordon Hill and Enfield Chase in my constituency; and Grange Park, Winchmore Hill, Palmers Green and Bowes Park in the constituency of my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). However, what is most significant in this debate and draws wider interest, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage, is the fact that the Hertford loop is also a diversion route for the main line when necessary. Thereby hangs a tale.

Turning to the operational shortcomings, my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, and I have had considerable representations from constituents served by FCC; he will, I am sure, speak for his constituents and their experiences further down the line. There has been a severe and sudden drop in service levels, most noticeably since late August 2013. The situation remains unchanged. In particular, the pre- and post-Christmas periods proved utterly unacceptable. At that point, I pressed FCC for a meeting to represent my constituents’ views and to try to learn what plans were afoot to mitigate the operational failings. Unfortunately, it took until 6 January to get a meeting with FCC, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage and for Enfield, Southgate. I am pleased to say that Network Rail also attended.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a strong case for his constituents. I understand from FCC that during the three-month period leading up to Christmas, on 83% of occasions, it did not meet its target for punctuality. He is someone with great experience in business. What would happen to him if he did not meet his core business target on 83% of occasions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). He is a champion of both his constituents and commuters, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois). Enfield Chase, Winchmore Hill, Palmers Green and Bowes Park stations are all in my constituency. This debate is of particular concern to my constituents who, like me, travel along that line. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North said, our constituents spend thousands of pounds a year for, essentially, a poor service, although there are some exceptions.

I am not sure whether any of my constituents are present—I noticed that some members of the public arrived late—but if any of them had tried to attend this debate, they would have struggled to get here on time had they taken the trains at 11.3 am and 11.31 am. They would have been greeted by the news that there were delays of between 14 and 18 minutes at Enfield. They would have heard not only about delays, but that the train was no longer going to call at Enfield Chase, Grange Park, Winchmore Hill, Palmers Green and Bowes Park, owing to an earlier broken down train. Sadly, that is typical. There are not only delays, but complete cancellations. People’s travel plans are thrown into disarray by the fact that no trains will be stopping at certain times. Commuters in particular must get to work on time. When they pay out thousands of pounds, they have a basic expectation that they will reach their destination in a reasonable time. That does not happen too often.

Sadly, my constituents have had to get used to tolerating the intolerable in many ways—to the overcrowding and overheating of carriages, as well as the delays. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North carefully outlined, the past three months have been totally unacceptable. Passengers have been left literally stranded. They have had to take a bike or find some way to get a bus—when it arrives—to take them to tube stations. That is not straightforward; it is not a good, easy, efficient transfer. First Capital Connect must take much more immediate action to deal with problems when there is a good reason for things going wrong—for example, for reasons of safety.

We heard on Monday, sadly, that somebody had fallen on the line. Such things happen, and then there are delays. It is important that ameliorative action takes place, not least to give people proper transfers, so that they do not have to wait and find ways themselves—through getting a bike or by doing something else—to get a better service.

First Capital Connect, as we have heard, said in a letter that it is ultimately accountable to our constituents. Is it really? It hides behind saying that it is responsible for only about a quarter, or 24%, of delays—yes, some responsibility and accountability lies with Network Rail, particularly, and others—and it hides behind its specific contractual responsibility, saying that it is not responsible for overall performance. I say to the Minister that we must be able to do better than that when we consider the franchise agreement. It cannot simply compartmentalise its responsibilities and rely on its specific contractual delays, as it were.

[Stephen McPartland]

The figure of 24% that I referred to covers the whole of the Great Northern line. We are not aware of the figure for the Hertford loop line; it may be much higher than that.

[Mr Burrowes]

That is a very good point, and it has already been said that there are particular problems on the Hertford loop line. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to look at properly ingraining customer satisfaction in the franchise agreement.

First Capital Connect also relies on the national passenger survey, saying, on the question of how train companies deal with delays—again, this is across the line and not only for the Hertford loop; the figure for that may well be very different—“There is a 43% satisfaction rate; you should be pleased with that.” It boasts that there has been a 10% improvement on the previous year, and that the figure is 5% greater than the average for London and the south-east. I hope the Minister realises that those rates are not acceptable. Whether or not they are the average, and whether or not there has been a 10% improvement, our constituents, who pay thousands of pounds, have to put up with what the majority of passengers say is unsatisfactory. That is not acceptable.

When the franchise agreement is agreed, our expectations must be so much higher. In the private sector and elsewhere, that satisfaction rate would not be accepted. Those sectors would have to bring about serious changes to provide a better service, and we must see that happen. The Which? survey in 2013, based on historical data, found that First Capital Connect had the worst customer ratings of all operators. There is a long way to go to ensure proper customer satisfaction and confidence.

As I and others have said, statistics for the past three months show that 83% of trains did not meet their punctuality targets. First Capital Connect’s core business is to get passengers—our constituents—to their destination on time, and it is failing at that great rate. It talks about issues of accountability, but it is not truly accountable for failing to deliver that core part of its contract. We need to see how we can ensure that it does better. It is not good enough, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North mentioned, to say, “We have improved the Twitter service; we have 50,000 followers.” I could refer to Facebook groups; some parody the name First Capital Connect, which suggests that a whole group of people on social media have different views.

There is an infrastructure issue and a recognition that Network Rail has a lot to answer for, and indeed there is now increased investment in the line. Reference has been made to the trains and tracks being 40 years old—looking at the ages of Members present today, I think we all recognise that when one gets to 40 and beyond, there are issues—and there are problems with leaves, storms and winds, and even when new circuits get burned out. The reality is that progress has been made. There has also been progress from First Capital Connect, with additional trains coming through at peak hours, and that has all been welcome. However, now is an opportune time to ensure that First Capital Connect, or whoever takes over, does a better job.

As First Capital Connect states, decisions about future rolling stock will be made as part of the franchising process. This is a really important opportunity for us to make it crystal clear to the Minister that getting future investment soon is key to delivering a better service to our long-suffering constituents. They are long-suffering, not least because a lot of maintenance has been going on. Every Sunday, ever since I can remember, Winchmore Hill and services to Moorgate have been shut down, with a replacement bus service—a big coach trundling along our roads. People have seen that there is investment, but they are impatient to see it result in actual service improvements. They are also impatient for the franchise agreement to deliver what we are all talking about, which is true and proper accountability, meaning an improved service and improved performance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I am well aware of those issues, and the weather was only one part of it. Coupled with the other problems to which my hon. Friend alludes, weather was probably in some cases the straw that broke the camel’s back and caused annoyance and anger among passengers. When we have such weather situations, safety must remain the highest priority, and it is in no small part due to Network Rail’s performance on safety that the UK now has one of the safest, if not the safest, railways in Europe.

[Mr Burrowes]

Will the Minister respond to the point made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk)? Why did our line seem to perform so much worse as a result of the storms? Yes, storms happened across the line, but the Hertford loop seemed to come off worst.

[Mr Goodwill]

I was involved in conference calls following the St Jude’s day storm, and the main issue was fallen trees. A decision was taken that, before services could commence, proving trains would be put through the routes so that large numbers of commuters were not stranded, possibly with trains backed up on the line behind a number of fallen trees. Where the embankments or the margins of a rail line are wooded, there are likely to be more fallen trees on the line. That was a particular problem north of London and in the south-east during the St Jude’s day storm. From a safety perspective, the right decision was taken. I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Transport stating that, before trains carrying commuters could use a line, proving trains ran to ensure that the lines were clear so that the trains could reach their destination.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

On the Hertford loop, the safety issue was not so much fallen trees as compacted leaves. The equipment necessary to unpack those leaves took a long time to get down the lines. The delays getting to us to ensure the safety of the line was a particular operational issue, and I understand that that problem has been repeated over the years. As we see continued poor weather coming down the line, as it were, we need to ensure that the problem is not repeated.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am aware that “leaves on the line” has become a standing joke, but it is no joke for those affected. I will ensure that Network Rail considers its strategy for ensuring that such situations can be addressed.

Lineside Vegetation (Network Rail Policy)

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have an extra few minutes for this debate, Mr Betts. A number of colleagues have contacted me who wanted to raise local matters, either through interventions or short contributions. I assume that that is in order.

I was very pleased to have secured this debate. I applied for it because I represent Islington North, an inner city constituency that has very little open space and parkland—so we value what we do have very much indeed. Network Rail runs a number of services through the constituency, both on the north London line and the mainline from King’s Cross to Edinburgh; it is that line that I want to speak about.

A couple of weeks ago, Network Rail arrived to do what was basically some lineside vegetation maintenance work. That work, however, turned out to be quite considerable. Network Rail clear-felled and completely cleared a considerable area of lineside vegetation, including cutting down trees that had nesting birds in them. Rather ominously, the workers also had large supplies of cement and concrete with them. It was not clear what they were for.

The area of track is adjacent to the Emirates stadium and very near to one of our prized local possessions, the Gillespie park nature reserve and ecology centre, which was the result of an effective campaign 20 years ago to have the area made into a park. Local residents were annoyed and alarmed about the work for a number of reasons. First, they value their open space, the vegetation and the ecology of the area. Secondly, they were astonished at the pervasive work that was being carried out. They contacted Network Rail, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Islington borough council and me. I have to say, in praise of them, that they all worked very well together. Liberal Democrat, Labour and Green councillors and local activists held a small demonstration outside Network Rail headquarters. Eventually, after an intervention by the local authority—the police were also fully informed—Network Rail ceased doing its work.

The reason why I was concerned about the work is that London, like all major cities, has limited numbers of open spaces. We value our open spaces. We also value the ecological diversity of our city and of the United Kingdom. Railways—and there are 2,000 hectares of railway land in London—represent a very important source of biodiversity. They are a very important means by which migratory birds, animals, foxes and others travel in and out of the city, enhancing the general ecology for all of us.

If we plant a tree, it is a good thing, but a tree on its own has a rather limited benefit. Two trees together have a much greater benefit, and a string of trees form the possibility of a migratory route. Railways form that migratory route. Clearing that piece of land and breaking up that route is damaging to the ecology not just of the immediate neighbourhood but of London as a whole.

I hope that Network Rail understands that. I hope that it will also understand that we are all responsible citizens who use the railways and want them to be run safely. I recognise that leaves on the line, overhanging branches and all such vegetative growth can be damaging to the railway system and must be controlled, but that control is meant for the area immediately adjacent to the lines, not way back on the embankments. In fact, railway embankments are made more stable by the vegetation on them, and less so if they are cleared.

I wrote to Network Rail concerning the local issue. I shall quote from my own letter to the community relations adviser:

“I have today received rather alarming reports of works by Network Rail around the tracks by Ashburton Triangle, close to the Emirates Stadium. I am told that trees and other vegetation have been stripped, displacing insects, small mammals and nesting birds. This operation appears to be similar to the destruction that took place on the Drayton Park sidings last July.

I should not need to remind Network Rail that these strips of land provide a vital wildlife corridor linking the Borough’s few green spaces—

I cite some of them, before continuing:

“Whilst I appreciate that Network Rail has to manage rail sidings and needs access points to the tracks, I consider such wanton devastation without reference to the local community to be quite unforgivable.”

I referred in my letter to an incident that happened last year. After that, there were discussions and meetings between the local authority, local environmental activists and the ecology sector, and an agreement was reached with Network Rail that it would in future inform the council and appropriate local agencies when it planned to do work and that it would plan its work in a way that did not destroy nesting habitats and sites. June is still clearly the bird-nesting season—someone only needs to watch the excellent “Springwatch” on the BBC to know that.

I got a reply—very rapidly, I have to say—from the route managing director for LNE, the London north-eastern line:

“We removed vegetation in the Drayton Park area (consisting of buddleia, brambles, shrubs and young trees) up to 10 metres from the railway line”—

that is a considerable distance.

“In addition, we cleared vegetation from the top of the embankment, including the area surrounding the substation. These works were part of operating a safe and efficient railway. A daily visual check for nesting birds was undertaken”—

it was not undertaken efficiently, because there is photographic evidence of nests being destroyed.

“The work at Holloway involved the removal of vegetation up to 15 metres from the railway”—

that is nearly 50 feet from the line.

“I understand this involved the removal of shrubs and a number of trees”—

I went to visit the site last weekend, and the trees removed were pretty substantial.

“We also cleared some vegetation to the boundary line and behind the overhead line foundations…Clearly there was no intent here to do anything other than manage our railway requirements. Given the concerns expressed, I have postponed all the current vegetation clearance in this area with immediate effect.”

I am pleased that Network Rail has postponed the clearance with immediate effect, and thank it for doing so, but it should never have done such work in the first place. It should have operated in a way that is synonymous with looking after our local environment.

I want an undertaking from Network Rail, and I look forward to the Minister’s being able to get that undertaking. Network Rail should understand the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which protects nesting birds and sites of special environmental and scientific interest, one of which is included in where we are discussing. Network Rail should be fully aware of the need to work with and not against local authorities and local people, because we value such sites.

When I raised the issue, I was surprised at the number of people who contacted me from all over the country who have had similar experiences. Colleagues present today have been told of similar experiences in their own constituencies, and their own experiences were then broadly similar to mine.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining the debate, which could be packed out because, sadly, there is an “A to Z” of victims throughout the country. In my patch, Winchmore Hill was among the first victims. After an experience similar to his, we were assured of notice, but notice was not given, so Grange Park has become one of the most unfortunate victims of what I call Network Rail’s environmental vandalism and neglect of the local environment, with the destruction of a great swathe of trees and natural habitat—way beyond the immediate area concerned with mitigating safety risks.

I understand that there is no legal requirement on Network Rail to consult with residents on maintenance work, because it is just part of the operational licence to mitigate safety risks. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need properly to protect the local environment and to ask the Minister how we can ensure that Network Rail is held properly to account, and is open and honest about its plans? It is a prolific and persistent offender that needs to be brought to account. We must ensure that its responsibilities are, yes, to mitigate safety, but also to protect the wider local environment.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I understand his concern. I have seen the railside areas in Winchmore Hill, which are a fantastic reserve for natural life and should be protected and preserved.

In January, the London Assembly’s environment committee produced an interesting document, “On the right lines? Vegetation Management on London’s Railway Embankments”. It is an all-party document. The chair of the committee was Murad Qureshi, and it included contributions from Green, Conservative and Liberal Democrat members. It made some good and helpful proposals, pointing out:

“Local people…contacted the Committee about the level of information and communication provided by line operators”,

which is an ongoing problem. It also said—it rather surprised me—that

“Both Network Rail and Transport for London seek to give at least one month’s advance warning…but apply two weeks as minimum. However, they don’t monitor complaints specifically relating to prior notification of works.”

I think they should do that. I suspect that what I have picked up from active and responsible people in my constituency has been picked up all over the country by people in a similar situation, such as the constituents of the hon. Gentleman.

The committee is also calling for a

“standardised written engagement processes with local communities”

to be improved to

“give more detail and a clearer rationale to help the general public…understand and accept the operators’ proposals of line-side work.”

Furthermore, it says:

“Several residents and boroughs have reported concern about the level of communication and information offered by the helplines run by Transport for London and Network Rail. Managing line-side land is usually beyond the scope of local authority guidelines or strategies; as a result, boroughs often refer residents with enquiries or complaints to these helplines”.

That is not the case in Islington, because the council engages very much with local residents, Network Rail and Transport for London on those matters.

In summary—I want others to be able to contribute to the debate—I put on the record my thanks to the local people who live in the Drayton Park area of Islington for their assiduous work in ensuring that, in addition to having Gillespie park, we protect the natural environment alongside the railways.

I want Network Rail to understand that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 means something. It is there for a purpose. It is there because, as a nation, we value nesting birds, our biological diversity and the ecology in London that is improved by the natural corridor of linesides. Network Rail must manage the railway, and they must do so safely, but there is no need to clear 10, 15 or 20 metres back from the line to do that. If it is cheaper for it to clear-fell once every five years, that is a wrong policy. It should carry out annual maintenance and annual maintenance checks. That is what I want it to do.

When the Minister responds, I hope that she will acknowledge the work that has been done by many local authorities, including mine. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds drew the matter to our attention, and I hope that she will seek a meeting with Network Rail so that it can be acquainted with the strong views that we in the House hold about the preservation of our natural environment and our belief that railways have a part to play in that.

I say all that as someone who is passionately pro-railway. I am not making a criticism of the railways; my criticism is of a specific management decision and a specific management method that Network Rail has used when it should be doing something much more environmentally sensitive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I want to make just a few comments. This is very much the debate of the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and we want to hear from the Minister.

People up and down the country have been asking that very same thing: how can we properly hold Network Rail to account? In my constituency, vegetation management—a euphemism employed in relation to the Winchmore Hill embankment—was used to fell trees and habitat. Network Rail was only really cajoled into doing any assessment in relation to the bats in one of the trees. That was the only statutory obligation to do any kind of formal environmental assessment. That happened repeatedly.

I got assurances that the company would consult, and notify me of any further works on the lines, and then—lo and behold—Grange Park suffered huge environmental destruction. The area is called Grange Park, but the word “park” might as well be taken away considering what happened. It is extraordinary and desperate how ancient trees were felled, never to be replaced. One can see only the visible destruction of the trees, but natural habitat was also lost. People’s view was completely destroyed by Network Rail’s actions.

After public meetings and a lot of cajoling and hard work on the part of active residents and myself, the new Network Rail chief executive, David Higgins, took his responsibility seriously and met with me for a long time. It is a credit to him that he showed respect and concern, accepted what had happened and apologised. He stated in a letter to me in June 2011:

“Network Rail takes its social responsibilities seriously. Clearly there are lessons we can learn about how we engage with communities when we need to undertake intrusive works. Although consultation in formal terms is not practicable as we will often have little room to digress from the engineering solution being proposed, many misunderstandings can be obviated through early community engagement.”

Those are good words, but sadly we have seen since that lessons have not been learned. That continues up and down the line, in London and beyond. Whitstable is a recent example. There has been great concern about what has happened there.

My concern is that Network Rail is hiding behind its statutory responsibilities—its operational licence responsibility—to mitigate safety risks. In earlier correspondence from the community relationships manager, it stated:

“we have to mitigate safety risks. Therefore most of the work we undertake does not require consultation. However, we consult with local authorities and statutory bodies when working within or near particular sites; such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”

The company can hide behind such words and not accept its duty of care to local residents and the local environment. That is what happened in the case of Grange Park, Winchmore Hill and other places.

We need to do better. Network Rail has responsibilities to the public, the taxpayers and, yes, to rail passengers, as well as to the local environment, but it has not taken those responsibilities seriously. It has mitigated some of the issues in Grange Park and it has helped to plant some native shrubs, but it cannot undo what has happened and it cannot provide true restoration and restitution. It has come grudgingly to the table but it needs to do a whole lot more. We need to see it being held to account.

We also want to see whether Network Rail should be subject to environmental impact assessments, because of what my constituents had to suffer. There was a major infrastructure project, so I ask the Minister the following question: please can we bring it out into the open, to ensure that we have a proper process of consultation, information and care for the environment?