Improving Public Transport

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing the debate. I am grateful in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), who showed the depth of her knowledge and understanding of this important matter. I have an observation about the Opposition Benches, however, Madam Deputy Speaker. It appears that you wait all day for a Tory MP to turn up to a debate on public transport—and none do.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Ms Billington]

With the exception, of course, of the shadow Minister—who is obliged to be here.

I am also grateful that the scope of the debate was widened beyond the west country, as I represent the second easternmost constituency in the country: the far eastern corner of the Isle of Thanet. Hundreds of years ago, up to Tudor times, we were cut off from the rest of the country by the River Wantsum. I fear that the legacy of the Conservative party is that they tried their best to effectively reinstate our island status by gutting our public transport and cutting us off from the rest of the country.

Fortunately, however, when it comes to trains, there is a Labour Government legacy, thanks in particular to the support and involvement of my Labour predecessor, Stephen Ladyman—a former MP for South Thanet and Transport Minister—and, of course, of the late, great John Prescott. They made enormous progress on connectivity and public transport, salvaging the high-speed rail project from which my constituency benefits so much as it links us to London and the rest of the UK, with all the economic benefits that follow. I and others, including my constituents and colleagues from across Kent, strongly advocate for the return of international services to Ashford on the high-speed rail line, because of all the economic benefits that would deliver.

It is already on the record that Kent saw a massive reduction in bus services under the previous Government, with 20% fewer bus miles than under the previous Labour Government. The Government’s announcement on bus funding is extremely welcome, especially as Kent has received the highest proportion of funding in the whole of the south-east, at £23 million. That funding, combined with the new powers for local authorities, means that Tory-run Kent county council has the ability to reverse the cut in bus miles, and I implore it to use the powers and money to do so.

There may be Members on the other side of the Chamber—it is difficult to see any—who are entirely unfamiliar with bus timetables as they all stick to their cars. However, in Broadstairs, where huge swathes of the town have no access to bus services at all, an older person would be left to walk, cycle or—much more likely—rely on lifts from friends, family or taxis. The sheer expense of relying on taxis as a primary mode of transport is enormous, unsustainable and fundamentally unfair. This has created a situation where, if someone becomes ill and is in need of NHS services, they are forced to pay for a taxi when they may not be able to afford one, or—as often happens—simply go without medical treatment.

This is particularly challenging, as a lot of NHS services in East Thanet have been moved inland. That is an all-too-common issue in coastal communities such as mine; for example, in east Kent, our orthopaedic centre is located in Canterbury. There is now no direct bus from Broadstairs or Ramsgate to Canterbury, so people with mobility issues face barriers to treatment. For some, making that extended journey means taking time off work. That has ramifications for our economy, as people who need treatment have to take time off work when they otherwise would not. That often forces people to simply go without treatment in the early stages of their illness, which can only make them sicker and place more costs on the NHS further down the line. Not only is this damaging to the sick people themselves, it stunts the economy and puts excess strain on public services.

This is not the only way in which a lack of public transport options hurts our economy; it also impacts the regeneration of our local high streets. I have many constituents who would much prefer to do their shopping in person on our local high streets, contributing to our local economy, but who now feel that they have no option but to switch to online shopping because of the lack of transport options, since they do not drive. Let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that when I have suggested it might be possible to have a bus connecting Ramsgate train station to Ramsgate high street, you would have thought from some people’s faces that I was asking to bend the laws of physics. We have been so used to the idea that this is simply impossible. Reliable, affordable, accessible and safe transport is a matter of social and economic justice. I applaud all the actions that the Government are taking to regenerate our high streets, which is a major issue in East Thanet that the Ramsgate empty shops campaign is seeking to work with the Government on, but if people cannot get to those high streets, I fear we will not make the progress that we rightly want.

Although we have a significant new Secretary of State with responsibility for this area, we also need to think about the legacy of previous Secretaries of State—in particular, Barbara Castle. When she was first appointed by Harold Wilson, she turned around to the Prime Minister and said, “You do know, Harold, that I can’t drive?” In the late ‘60s, this was seen as hampering her ability to be a suitable Transport Secretary, but in his wisdom, Harold Wilson said, “Yes, Barbara—exactly.” That is the point. Think of the changes that she was able to make, not only to public transport but to road safety, giving us a strong legacy that has lasted all my lifetime and, I hope, much further beyond. Good public transport is fundamental to achieving the Government’s missions, in the same way that it is fundamental to us being able to live our own lives and achieve our own ambitions: simply to get up, go to work, access the services we need, get home safely and see the people we love.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) on successfully applying for the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. Public transport is an indispensable part of our national life, playing a vital role in our commercial, social and economic existence.

We have had an interesting debate this afternoon, with noteworthy contributions from the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton, for Horsham (John Milne), for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) as well as just now from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) from the Liberal Democrats. From the Government Benches, the first speech was the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer). It was a thoughtful speech about bus use. I am sure that she will serve her constituents diligently in her time in this place, and I wish her well. She was followed by some capable contributions from the hon. Members for Swindon North (Will Stone), for Stroud (Dr Opher), for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards), for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) and for East Thanet (Ms Billington).

I will begin by commenting on the previous Conservative Government’s time in office. It may have escaped the attention of hon. Members that between 2010 and 2024, the Conservative Government spent more than £100 billion operating and enhancing our railways. This allowed the completion of major projects including Crossrail, Thameslink and major upgrades to the east coast main line, the greater Anglia main line, the midland main line and the great western main line. We committed £36 billion to the Network North programme, which, unless the Labour Government stop it, will deliver long-term transformative transport projects that will benefit a great many people in the north of England. The programme is under review by the Government, with no guarantee that any of it will be taken forward. Obviously, we call on the Government to honour the programme in full.

We electrified over 1,200 miles of track, compared with the mere 63 miles electrified in the 13 years of the previous Labour Government. Some 75% of rail journeys are now taken on electrified tracks. We sought schemes that would reconnect communities to our railways, providing new stations for passengers to use, such as the proposed new station at Edginswell in Torbay, which would complement the delivery of a new station at Marsh Barton near Exeter, and would particularly serve the needs of Torbay hospital. I know that Torbay council is a keen advocate for that, and I hope that the Labour Government will offer the same commitment to it that we did.

To support our bus networks, we invested an unprecedented amount of over £3.5 billion in the bus sector from March 2020 to support its recovery from the pandemic. We provided £525 million of funding to deliver 4,000 new British-built electric or hydrogen buses, and we extended the “get around for £2” scheme until the end of 2024, capping hundreds of single bus fares and helping passengers reliant on buses with the cost of travel—a scheme that we pledged to maintain for the entirety of this Parliament.

I also remind the House of some facts that were curiously missing from the speeches of some hon. Members, particularly those sitting on the Government Benches. Let us turn our gaze to Wales, where Labour has been in power for a quarter of a century. The number of journeys taken on local buses has declined by almost a quarter in the past decade, with a severe impact on those in the most rural areas. The Welsh Labour Administration have spent £40 million on rolling out 20 mph speed limits to try to force motorists on to public transport that the Labour Administration themselves have made less reliable, less regular and less affordable.

Let us look at London, which has been blighted by the leadership of Sadiq Khan for the past eight and a half years. London’s mayor recently spent £6.3 million of public money on yet more virtue signalling, renaming London overground lines—something that I am sure commuters thanked him for last week when the Elizabeth line was suspended and five underground lines faced severe delays. From a man who promised to roll up his sleeves and ensure no more transport strikes, we have seen more than 130 days of strikes during his term of office.

We know what the Labour party promised the voters of this country. In its manifesto, it pledged new infrastructure, an overhaul of Britain’s railways and certainty for car manufacturers. It promised a utopian system of public transport. But the methods by which the Government have set out to achieve that have been depressingly predictable. One of the Labour Government’s first acts was to provide train drivers with inflation-busting pay rises, without securing any productivity improvements for passengers at all. That bribe to the unions has, entirely predictably, failed to prevent repeated threats of further strike action.

Then, as part of the Welsh Government’s ongoing war against rural communities, they cut £1.3 billion-worth of road improvement schemes. The Government then increased the previous Conservative Government’s £2 bus fare cap to £3, increasing fares on hundreds of bus routes across the country. [Interruption.] Totally predictably, I get heckled about it not being paid for. As hon. Members will be aware once they have been in this place for a little longer, Government schemes are funded for particular periods of time, and then the funding is reviewed. The new £3 bus far cap, costing bus users 50% more than the previous cap, is guaranteed only until the end of next year, whereas the Conservative party’s manifesto commitment was to retain the cap at £2 for the whole of the Parliament.

Finally, and perhaps most notably, the Government have introduced and passed the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024. Instead of implementing the measured and sensible reforms set out in the Williams-Shapps review, the Government have passed an Act that will neither improve passenger experience nor make significant savings. Indeed, it may prove to cost the taxpayer significantly more. The Government insist that savings to the taxpayer will amount to £150 million because of the removal of fees paid to train operating companies. Even if that is correct, it will amount to a saving of a mere 0.6% of what is currently spent on the railways, and even that tiny figure is in doubt. Analysis conducted by rail partners suggested that removing the incentive to control costs could lead to annual subsidies being at least £1 billion higher by the end of this Parliament.

From whatever angle one looks at it, it is hard to see this Act as anything other than an ideological move—one that has more to do with attempting to appease the radical elements of the Labour party, hungry for old-fashioned, hard-left policies, than the good of the passenger and the taxpayer.

[Ms Billington]

I just wanted to give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to confirm that the Tory Government were perfectly comfortable with public ownership of train operating companies as long as they belonged to Governments of other countries in Europe.

[Gareth Bacon]

The previous Government were prepared to do what works, rather than follow ideology in spite of evidence to the contrary.

I have been the shadow Transport Secretary for 31 days and I am already on my second Secretary of State. I have known the new Secretary of State for almost two decades, since our time as councillors representing our respective London boroughs on the London Councils transport and environment committee. She is not in her place today—Secretaries of State cannot be everywhere; that is why they have junior Ministers. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), will ably deputise for her this afternoon.

I crossed paths with the new Secretary of State when I was Conservative leader on the London Assembly and she was appointed the deputy Mayor for Transport. Unfortunately, during her time at City Hall, London witnessed 28 strikes on Transport for London services, a 77% increase in complaints about TfL over three years, an extension of the hated ultra low emission zone, and, perhaps most concerning of all, a £4 billion overspend and three-year delay in the opening of the Elizabeth line. In defence of the right hon. Lady, though, the buck for all those failings does not stop with her—it stops with the Mayor of London. The right hon. Lady is, in fact, somebody for whom I have a high personal regard, and I look forward to welcoming her to her place.

It is fair to say that the Conservatives have doubts about the start made by this Government. However, having said all that, I emphasise that His Majesty’s Opposition will not oppose the Government just for the sake of it. I do not believe that a single Member of this House wants a public transport system that fails. As I said at the outset, public transport is an indispensable part of our national life, and a successful transport system is vital to both our present and our future. If the Government get things right, we will acknowledge that. Where they get them wrong, we will continue to hold them to account.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Minister.

Transport

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Written Corrections

The following extract is from Transport Questions on 21 November 2024.

[Gareth Bacon]

… On Monday, in her statement on bus funding, the Secretary of State said that a formula was being used to allocate funding. She said that the formula will allocate funding

“based on local need, population, the distance that buses travel, and levels of deprivation…This formula and the funding allocated is a fair arrangement, ensuring that every area of the country gets the service levels it needs”.—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 43-45.]

The formula, including the weighting given to the various factors by the right hon. Lady, has not been published. When will it be?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question. We are proud of the work that we have done to ensure that every part of the country benefits from additional funding for their buses, and we will publish that later today.

[Official Report, 21 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 352.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood):

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

On behalf of the Opposition Front Bench, I too offer my sincere sympathies to the family of the late Lord Prescott on his passing.

On Monday, in her statement on bus funding, the Secretary of State said that a formula was being used to allocate funding. She said that the formula will allocate funding

“based on local need, population, the distance that buses travel, and levels of deprivation…This formula and the funding allocated is a fair arrangement, ensuring that every area of the country gets the service levels it needs”.—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 43-45.]

The formula, including the weighting given to the various factors by the right hon. Lady, has not been published. When will it be?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question. We are proud of the work that we have done to ensure that every part of the country benefits from additional funding for their buses, and we will publish that later today.

[Gareth Bacon]

The Secretary of State also said in her statement:

“Councils such as Leicester, the Isle of Wight, Torbay and Cambridgeshire will see unprecedented levels of funding for services.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 42.]

What levels of subsidy does she believe that bus services in those areas will require?

[Lilian Greenwood]

It is incredibly important that decisions about local services are taken by those who are operating them. That is why not only have we provided substantial levels of funding—£1 billion announced in the Budget and the allocations set out on Monday—but we are providing local transport authorities with the powers they need to provide the services that local communities want and deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Greater London is the most heavily populated and most economically active area in the whole country. It also has the highest level of bus use. In the last financial year, the level of bus subsidy in London amounted to £646 million. In the Secretary of State’s statement on Monday, of the £1 billion of funding that she indicated, £700 million will be spent on producing bus planning documents, and only £243 million is going to bus services. That will not touch the sides, will it? Is the truth not that, far from it being generational reform, it is publicly funded window dressing?

[Louise Haigh]

The way that the previous Government approached bus service improvement plans was to force local authorities to waste money on developing those plans. This money is going directly to authorities to make sure they are delivering public services. Public transport is a public service and it should always be funded.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I thank the other place for providing these amendments. Although the measures in this Bill are not a surprise—and we have stated our opposition to its fundamentals from the outset—we have made the case that, in effectively nationalising the operation of our passenger railways, we risk going backwards. Its core provisions will mean that the progress made on passenger services since privatisation will not be carried on.

That said, we do agree that there is a need for reform, and we support the reform laid out in the Williams-Shapps review. But the reforms proposed by this Government go too far and will undermine any potential progress. That is why the Lords amendments we are discussing are of central importance. Neither of the two amendments passed in the upper House descend from the Government’s intention to bring the franchises into public ownership, and they are clearly reasonable and measured. As the noble Lord Moylan pointed out, a

“glaring omission from the Bill is, of course, the passenger.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1510.]

This is the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, yet it says nothing about the passenger.

Lords amendment 1 attempts to put that right and put the passenger back at the head of the Bill as the driving force in what the Government are trying to do, and to require Ministers to test their actions under the Bill against the standard of whether it will improve matters for the passenger. It clarifies that the Secretary of State

“must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose”,

which is the

“improvement of passenger railway services”.

It is a simple but deeply important amendment that will ensure that the Bill, which is little more than an ideological undertaking if it lacks the proposed amendments, would be required to act unambiguously in the service of passenger railway improvement. How could anyone oppose that? There is little public appetite for ideological measures that are not based on the improvement of the passenger experience, and to reject this amendment would be a tacit admission that the Government are rejecting the principle that legislation directed at the passenger services should be in line with service improvements. In doing so, they would reject the general public consensus. I urge the Government to support the amendment on those grounds. If they choose to reject it, it is incumbent on them to explain why they have decided to make a significant legislative change to our passengers’ railways that could risk worsening services.

Lords amendment 2 contains a simple measure: to ensure that the Government, when terminating existing franchise agreements, consider operational performance and terminate the worst-performing franchises first, enabling franchises that are currently working well to continue. That would clearly be in the best interests of passengers.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the shadow Minister tell me how much that proposal would cost taxpayers? Given that he supports the amendment, I presume he has a detailed financial breakdown of exactly how much money he is asking the state to commit.

[Gareth Bacon]

The point of the amendment is to put passengers at the heart of the decision making we are asking for. [Hon. Members: “How much?”] The point of the amendment is to put passengers at the heart of the decision making, and the proposed amendment would ensure that this legislation is in the service of improving passenger experience, not purely in the service of fulfilling an ideological undertaking.

Lords amendment 2 would also ensure that the Government, alongside stakeholders, consider carefully what performance data is most relevant to passenger experience, and would ensure that that data is taken into consideration when undertaking the actions facilitated by the legislation. I fail to understand why the Government would be opposed to such a clearly reasonable protective measure, but I can guess. In justifying this ideological legislation, the Government have made clear their intention to utilise selective performance data. Rather than clarifying the relevant performance information for its own administrative use or for passenger understanding, they are obscuring it, allowing the Government to fulfil an ideological project untethered from the public’s wish to see their experiences on the railways improved.

Of course, the Government could choose to put politics aside and support the amendment, and we call on them to do so. If they did, that would signal that while they are undertaking this ideological rail project, they are also seriously considering the need for the legislation to make an actual improvement to passenger experience. This amendment will help the Government’s actions, and it is not founded on selective principles. A failure to accept the proposed amendments will also fail to ensure that the ideological measures being undertaken by this Government take into account the needs and experiences of passengers.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Gareth Bacon]

I am just winding up.

Such a failure will only further the approach—already taken by this Government—of prioritising political convenience over substantive action. We urge the Government to support these amendments and, in doing so, mitigate the negative impacts of their legislation and work to protect and support passengers.

[Andy McDonald]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will perhaps be relieved to know that I will not detain the House particularly long. I rise to support the Government, but also to say something in favour of the motion in the Secretary of State’s name relating to Lords amendment 2.

I read the Lords debate on their amendments 1 and 2, and I sympathise with the notion that passengers receiving the poorest service from a train operating company may wish its franchise to be terminated early. However, the point of this Bill is not simply to take over the worst franchises, but to recognise that the private operation of the passenger rail service has delivered a poorer service for passengers in general, and that the remedy is to return all passenger franchises to public ownership and closer control.

I say to Conservative Members that the British public spoke on this issue at the last election. If we look at any of the research and analysis on the passenger rail service, it is abundantly clear that not only do the vast majority of the British public want to take our railways back into public ownership and control, but the majority of Conservative supporters want the same thing. Perhaps that tells us a great deal about why the party opposite is the party opposite—why Conservative Members no longer sit on the Government Benches.

The hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) made many references to ideology. I do not know how many times he mentioned the word, but I ask him to cast his mind back to the Railways Act 1993: if ever there was an act of ideology, that was it. John Major took a step that even she whose portrait must be removed was not prepared to take—she recognised that it was a ridiculous step to take. I suspect that the mover of the motion in the other place was seeking a device to disrupt the orderly transfer of passenger rail back into public ownership, which is best achieved with the least cost to the taxpayer by doing so as each franchise contract expires.

I am heartened to hear Conservative Members be so evangelical about the issues of performance and punctuality. Where were they for the past 14 years? Why were they not doing anything about those issues?

Bus Funding

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for delivering her statement to the House, and for advance sight of it.

It was, of course, the last Government who provided £4.5 billion of funding to the bus sector since 2020 alone. Some £2 billion of that was allocated to support every single local transport authority in England to deliver their local bus service improvement plans, helping to support buses following the pandemic and ensuring more frequent, more reliable and cheaper bus transport across the country. Conservative Members are familiar with the need to properly fund bus services, but simply spending a bit more money will not necessarily improve outcomes. As such, we would welcome details on whether and how the Secretary of State can assure the House and the taxpayer that the money allocated today will actually go towards the improvement of bus services in the long term. How will she ensure that the money allocated today, and the bus service improvement plans that go with this investment, will remain aligned with any possible future franchising?

If the Secretary of State cannot give assurances on these points, there is a danger that the Government are taking short-term action that avoids facing complex long-term problems. Unfortunately, in the four months that this Government have been in office, that has been their approach to every single major issue they have faced so far. Whether it is the winter fuel allowance, the family farm tax or the increase to the bus fare cap, the Government seem at a loss as to why their policies are so unpopular, and why—only a few months into this Government—they are so deeply distrusted by the British public.

Governing is tough, and it requires taking real responsibility and considering the consequences of decisions before they are taken. For example, the decision to increase the bus fare cap from £2 to £3 will cost users more—[Interruption.] Wait for it. It will cost users more and—perversely—put at risk passenger services on certain routes, because it could counter-productively drive bus ridership down. Between 2022 and 2023, the £2 bus cap cut fares outside London by 7.4%, and the rate was 10.8% in rural and non-metropolitan areas in England. That is an example of a policy that worked, which is why the Government’s decision to increase the cap by 50% is such a disappointment.

The right hon. Lady, in defending her decision to hike bus fares, has been making the argument—she has done so again this afternoon—that the fare cap was to run only until end of the year. But as she knows full well—her Back Benchers can be excused for not knowing this—it is standard Government practice to set funding arrangements until a given date. She has guaranteed the £3 cap only until the end of 2025 and has made no commitment to extend it beyond that. She is also well aware that it was a Conservative party manifesto commitment to extend the cap and maintain it at £2 for the lifetime of this Parliament.

Not extending the £2 cap was not inevitable; it was a decision that the Government chose to make. Why do the right hon. Lady’s Government claim that they cannot afford to retain the £2 bus fare cap, which is making a real difference to the lives of passengers and the viability of public services across the country, and yet she can give hundreds of millions of pounds in additional funding here without any guarantee of success in improving service or delivery?

While I await the right hon. Lady’s answer, I have a theory. She is set on an undertaking—the ideological drive for bus franchising—and, make no mistake, it is ideological. Bus franchising does work in some places, but by no means will it work everywhere. The Government claim that they will not impose franchises everywhere, but there is a danger that her push for bus franchising will force local authorities into feeling that they are expected to undertake this ideological venture—one that they say they may well be unprepared and unequipped for—which would lead to a worse outcome for passengers. I call on the Secretary of State to make clear her answers to those questions and assure the House and the taxpayer that all the money allocated will be held to account in delivering real and lasting service improvement for passengers, whose interests should, of course, be at the centre of all decisions made by the Government.

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his questions, but I have to say that I will take no lessons from those on the Conservative Benches on good government. The approach to funding allocation is based on need, on deprivation, on population and on bus mileage, whereas his Government wasted millions of pounds in forcing areas to compete against each other, picking winners and losers, raising expectations and leaving some Tory-controlled areas such as Essex, where I was this morning, with absolutely nothing from the bus service improvement plan process. This formula and the funding allocated is a fair arrangement, ensuring that every area of the country gets the service levels it needs and can build the improvement plans that it wants.

I have to say that I will also take no lessons on ideology. For four decades, England outside London has experienced the failed deregulation of bus services, leading to a steady decline in passenger numbers. This funding is backed up by a once-in-a-generation reform to our bus policy, ensuring that we can deliver better bus services in every corner of the country, with public control backed up by funding and a Government who believe in buses.

Rail Performance

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Louise Haigh)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement about rail performance. I welcome the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), to his place. I am sure the Opposition will be interested in what we have to update the House about this afternoon.

After 14 years of neglect, our inheritance was a railway that was failing its passengers, with cancellations at a 10-year high and punctuality that is consistently inconsistent across the network. Back in 2015, cancellations represented around 2% of all services, but thanks to our inheritance of extraordinary failure, that doubled to 4% when the last Government left office. The situation is holding back our economy, stifling our businesses and making life miserable for passengers. That is why, as part of this Government’s public service reform agenda, we are pushing ahead with the biggest overhaul of our railways in more than 30 years. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to update the House on the progress we are making.

As Members will be aware, the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill is making its way through the other place. It will allow the Government to give three months’ notice to the first private train operating company to be taken into public ownership, which we will announce as soon as Royal Assent has been achieved. No one has ever pretended that public ownership alone is a silver bullet. The people impacted by delays and cancellations, who can no longer rely on the train to get where they need to, do not care who owns the trains—they care whether they are working or not. Under the model we inherited, no one could argue that they were working, so we will soon launch our consultation setting out plans for unification across the railway.

As part of that, Great British Railways, as the single directing mind, will plan services on a whole-system basis, to better deliver for passengers and freight customers, unlock growth and provide the services a modern, efficient railway should. That will lay the groundwork for the introduction of the railways Bill, later this Session, which will establish Great British Railways and end the fragmentation that has hampered our railways for over 30 years of privatisation.

But we do not want to wait for legislation. The Government are already making improvements and taking steps to deliver reform across the railways. I have appointed Laura Shoaf as chair of shadow Great British Railways, bringing together Network Rail, the publicly owned train operating companies and my Department to drive better integration now. Working with operators already in public ownership, we are seeking to drive savings by eliminating duplication and deliver the improvements that passengers want, such as allowing tickets to be accepted across those TOCs in public ownership during disruption.

Shadow GBR gives us the tools to assess the structure of the timetable, question resource plans and review performance measures and targets. We are using those tools to unlock the punctuality and reliability that passengers deserve across the country. For example, Southeastern is now performing much better. Its cancellations are low, with its punctuality ranking among the top five operators contracted to my Department, and that level of service will increase by 44 additional trains per day when the timetable is updated in December. That is what shadow Great British Railways is delivering now.

We are demonstrating what integration between track and train can deliver for passengers. Take those who rely on Euston station, for example. Indecision on HS2 left passengers with fewer platforms and greater overcrowding, victims of the so-called “Euston dash”. Convening Network Rail and train operators at Euston in the interest of passengers is an excellent example of the benefits that our reform agenda can achieve. Euston now not only has an integrated station management team, but a 100-day plan of rapid improvements that puts the interests of passengers first and individual organisations second. Platform announcements are made earlier, crowding has been reduced and, yes, the advertising screen has been temporarily switched off.

Delays and cancellations were not the only inheritance. For two years, strike followed strike, and disruption followed disruption, in the longest industrial dispute on our railways. I have made it my priority to get around the table, reversing the previous Government’s antagonistic approach by resetting industrial relations and settling the pay disputes that saw the country grinding to a halt. I am working with the sector to speed up training and accelerate the driver recruitment pipeline, which will reduce the railway’s reliance on rest day working agreements and lower the burden on taxpayers. Settling this saga allows us to move forward with long-overdue negotiations on workforce reform, bringing our railways into the 21st century. That is what moving fast and fixing things looks like.

We are putting passengers first and, today, I can inform the House that since the resolution of the LNER driver dispute, we have seen green shoots emerging, with the number of LNER cancellations falling. Not only have cancellations due to a lack of driver resource dropped to near zero as a direct consequence of getting around the table with unions, but revenue is £15 million higher for the recent rail periods this year versus the same periods last year. Overall cancellations are down from 7% to 5%, and LNER has run 100 more train services in the last four weeks than in the comparable period last year.

Elsewhere, passengers will see a tangible impact on reliability on Northern Rail trains. Thanks to our agreement on rest day working, hundreds more driver shifts have been covered this weekend, cutting cancellations now and in the long run. At TransPennine Express, operator-caused, on-the-day cancellations averaged around 2% in the last year, compared to 5% in the year before it was taken into public ownership. On CrossCountry, we took immediate steps to implement a remedial plan to reduce its cancellations and get services back on track. Its reduced timetable has brought greater stability, and I expect even greater reliability in the long term as the full timetable returns today.

Those are early signs of what happens when a Government get a grip and put passengers at the heart of decision making. Resetting industrial relations is already having a direct impact on better services, but it will take time to pass all the benefits on to passengers. We have to be clear-eyed about the problems, but we are committed to full transparency. I can announce today that we will be fully transparent with passengers by displaying performance data at stations to demonstrate how the railway is working and to allow the public to hold us to account as we deliver change. That is important, because the railway is a promise—a promise to passengers from the moment they buy a ticket that the train will arrive on time, as the timetable says.

While there are encouraging signs, I am not naive to the reality that passengers will see only a broken promise so long as the departure board shows trains delayed and services cancelled. That is why I have approached the situation with the urgency it demands, including focusing on performance today; bringing together industry to make it clear that improvements that can be made now must be made now; and using every tool at our disposal to drive improvements as fast as possible.

At the same time, the root of the problem grows deeper. Decades of muddled decision making have left the railway fragmented. We have tolerated an unworkable system of track in one organisation and trains in another for decades too long. This Government will turn the page on that chapter of fragmentation. I have wasted no time in kick-starting the long-term reform that our railway desperately needs. We have wasted no time in bringing train operating companies under public ownership. As today’s figures show, we have wasted no time in getting around the table with unions and making change happen now. That is what moving fast and fixing things looks like, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for sharing an advance copy. I agree that rail performance is a key concern to passengers throughout the country, and it is a fair criticism to say that several operators have consistently underperformed. That is why, when we were in government, we took action to improve performance on our railways, investing more than £100 billion to operate and enhance our railways since 2010, and electrifying more than 1,200 miles of track—compared to just 63 miles under the last Labour Government.

I am glad that the Government are taking forward the framework offered in the previous Conservative Government’s Williams-Shapps review. Having a more joined-up rail network should indeed deliver key improvements. However, it is disappointing that the Government have progressed with their plans for the effective nationalisation of the rail operators by ending private rail operator franchising, despite all the evidence pointing to the fact that that will be contrary to the aim of improving rail performance.

We know that while in some cases it has been necessary in the short term to bring rail operators into public control, it has not made the difference in performance that the Government would have us believe. It takes only a cursory glance at passenger rail performance statistics to see that some of the rail operators operating under public control have done little or nothing to improve cancellations or delays in relation to other operators. For example, the Secretary of State mentioned TransPennine Express and a decrease in cancellations since the operator was taken into public ownership, but she made no reference to delays. Data from the Office for Rail and Road show that in the four years prior to the train operator coming under public control, passengers faced an average of 8,130 delay minutes per month. From period 2 of 2023-24, when the operator was brought into public ownership, up to period 4 of 2024-25, average monthly delays have increased by 1,677 minutes, to 9,807 a month. In addition, for the year ’23-24, data shows that train operators run by private companies in England had an average on time rate of 64.36%. For train operators in public control, by contrast, the average was 57.7%—a difference of just under seven percentage points.

Public ownership is not the panacea that the right hon. Lady claims, so it is disingenuous for the Government to argue that wholesale public control of rail operation will do everything to improve performance, particularly for operators that are already performing well. Under the Government’s plans to end private rail operator franchising, the first contracts set to expire and be picked up by the Government are some of the highest performing franchises. The Government risk making the mistake of taking credit for comparatively strong performance, which will occur not as a result of their measures but as a result of the successes of the previous private franchising. That would mean the Government drawing the wrong conclusions from their actions, and it would have implications for future decision making.

It should be appreciated that the role of open access operators has been one of the greatest success stories within our rail network. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to provide greater clarity to the sector on how their plans for the rail network will impact on open access operators. It is also essential that the Secretary of State finally clarifies the long-term plan for rolling stock under the Government’s measures.

I appreciate that in Labour’s brave new world, all decisions are reflected through the ideological prism of “public good, private bad”, but there is a fundamental risk that the Government are taking ideological action to the long-term detriment of rail performance. Among our counterparts in Europe, it is widely acknowledged that rail privatisation has been successful in increasing passenger numbers, encouraging investment and controlling costs. In Italy, for example, prices have reduced by 31%, and Austria has witnessed a 41% increase in service frequency. There is a serious risk that the Government’s plans will take us backwards on those key areas without offering any promise of improvement on performance, or improved journeys or fares for passengers.

We all fully acknowledge the difficulties facing our railways, and nobody should accept poor performance —we have, unfortunately, seen that in some areas of our network—but merely enacting demonstrative but counterintuitive measures designed to communicate action is no substitute for making measured and pragmatic choices. For example, the Government and the Secretary of State have chosen to offer inflation-busting pay rises with no working practice reform in exchange. Without substantial working practice reform, it is deeply unlikely that the cost of the pay deals will be offset by improved performance, and the failure to introduce working practice reform will mean continued performance difficulties on our railways.

Can the Secretary of State offer a guarantee today that ending private rail franchising without implementing working practice reform will lead to demonstrably improved performance? If she cannot offer that guarantee, the Government should shelve the ideology and take a step back to pause and examine whether their package of measures will truly improve rail performance. It surely makes more sense to learn from the performance statistics; to understand from the experience of the continent and our past the improvements that the private sector can bring; and to prioritise the practical over the ideological.

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for acknowledging that we provided the statement in advance, and I suggest that next time he reads it before he responds. He will have heard me say that public ownership is not a silver bullet, hence why we are setting out a substantial package of reforms. As I also mentioned, that includes substantial workforce reform, including developing training policies—that is one of the ways in which the recruitment of drivers has been really held back—and reducing reliance on rest day working agreements.

The shadow Minister might also want to check the latest statistics on TransPennine Express. It had the largest increase in punctuality of any operator contracted to my Department, including all those in private ownership. We have been clear that open access should continue where it does not abstract revenue from the overall network and where there is capacity. There have been good examples, such as Lumo and Grand Central, and we are very happy to continue working with them. We will publish a long-term rolling stock plan in due course.

Flight Cancellations

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for the excellent work that she does in this field. Cancellations are bad for business, tourism and passengers. The public service obligation arrangements come up for renewal regularly, and I think that flight prices, connectivity and cancellations should be looked at in the round when we come to renew them.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Flight cancellations are a significant issue that we took seriously in government, and worked across the sector to tackle. I am proud that in government we published the aviation passenger charter, which included clearer advice on how passengers can resolve issues to do with cancelled and delayed flights, as well as missing baggage and the rights of disabled passengers. In 2023, we halved air passenger duty for domestic flights. We also made a commitment to strengthen the powers of the Civil Aviation Authority. Does the Minister intend to take that forward? When in government, we also published “Flight path to the future”, which included a substantial framework for increasing the efficiency of the aviation system and supporting passengers as we move further towards the goal of sustainable aviation. What further steps will the Minister take to ensure that the measures that we set out to improve the aviation sector and the passenger experience are taken forward?

Frankly, this Government have failed the public so far. Last week’s Budget was, in large part, an attack on workers, businesses, farmers and the aviation sector. The Government’s decision to increase air passenger duty has led to a worried response from the passenger aviation sector, and Ryanair has already announced its intention of cutting flights to and from UK airports by 10%. The Government have so far shown themselves to be deeply uninterested in the consequences of their actions for workers, farmers and now air passengers. More in hope than expectation, I ask the Minister: what steps will the Government take to improve the relationship with the passenger aviation sector and ensure that passengers are well served?

[Mike Kane]

I say with all candour to the hon. Gentleman that I remember that during covid—I shadowed this brief at the time—there was no specific package for airlines, airports or airport handlers. That meant that we came out of covid in a much worse position than we would have if the Government had implemented their own Treasury’s proposals. We will take no lectures about our support for aviation. On his question about rights for passengers, we will look at strengthening those going forward. APD went up by less than inflation—it had not been increased in a number of years—but I refer him to the Treasury for more detailed answers on tax matters.

Draft Franchising Schemes (Franchising Authorities) (England) Regulations 2024

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 General Committees

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank the Minister for his warm words of welcome at the outset.

We recognise that the expansion of bus franchising was a Labour party manifesto commitment, and we are not going to oppose that mandate. In fact, in principle, we support the idea of local areas having more say over the services they can offer local people. But there are some question marks over these plans—questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) raised back in September in relation to the Minister’s statement to the House, and which, I am afraid, we are not yet fully satisfied we have heard answered. Will the Minister therefore answer them today?

First, how much has been budgeted for the increased cost of this plan to the Department for Transport, to support local authorities to prepare these assessments and then to measure them against the criteria, and also to help local authorities plan their franchises when they do not have the experience to do so, which I believe the Minister has said is part of the plan?

Secondly, how much has been budgeted for the increase in costs to local authorities, both in terms of the additional resources they will require to plan and run bus services, and in a business sense? In many rural areas, and even in Greater London, bus services lose money and often require subsidies. Where will that money come from? And, while we are at it, where will the money to buy the buses come from? The Minister suggested that the coming buses Bill would contain regulations about devolving funding—I would like to hear a bit more about that. If the answer is that we have not budgeted for it, or that it is coming from existing budgets, that can only mean council taxes going up, or cuts to local services such as social care or universal services such as waste collection. There would appear to be no third option.

At the end of the day, passengers do not care who is running their bus; they care about the price, performance and reliability of services. We are yet to hear a convincing case for how these reforms will actually make a difference to passengers’ journeys. Are buses more likely to run on time and, if so, by how much more? Will these reforms help to restore the number of rural services? Will they make journeys cheaper for passengers? That seems unlikely, given the 50% hike in fares.

I do not doubt that bus franchising can, does and will work for some areas, but the insinuation of today’s statutory instrument is that it should be happening everywhere. We have yet to hear anything that convinces us that that will be the case, and that is not to mention the fact that the proposal currently appears to be unfunded. I would be grateful if the Minister could assuage our concerns this afternoon.

Road User Charging Schemes

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Theresa Villiers]

No, the hon. Lady will get her turn in a moment.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Theresa Villiers]

I am going to make some progress.

Constituents stop me in the street to tell me how much they oppose Mayor Khan’s proposal. A protest I organised, which I was expecting to attract about 10 people and be rather low key, attracted a crowd of about 60. Outer London high streets in places such as Barnet are already suffering from the big switch to online retail, accelerated by the pandemic; losing their customers from outside London could be a killer blow.

Our public services in outer London depend heavily on workers who do not live in the capital. Schools, the NHS and the police already struggle to recruit the people they need. Setting up a ULEZ pay wall around London will make that task even harder and place even greater pressure on NHS waiting times.

Many people living in areas around London will find that they cannot avoid driving into the capital to work, to care for relatives or for hospital appointments. They will have to pay, despite never having a vote in an election for the Mayor of London. That is a shocking example of taxation without representation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) pointed out in this Chamber only a few weeks ago.

The issue is made worse by Transport for London’s unhelpful and negative approach to cross-border bus services, such as the 84 service in my constituency. The operator discontinued the route between Potters Bar and Barnet last year after concluding that it was not commercially viable. However, despite many appeals from me and others, TfL and the Mayor have not lifted a finger to get it reinstated. The Mayor promises that the ULEZ expansion will fund transport improvements, but there is no sign of them so far. The one orbital bus route that has been announced will be a wholly inadequate substitute for the millions of journeys that will be hit by the new charging scheme.

The ULEZ proposal comes on top of a host of anti-car measures. Too often, schemes such as low traffic neighbourhoods and segregated cycle lanes have worsened congestion, transferring traffic from leafier, more prosperous areas to main roads that are home to more disadvantaged communities, which may be hotspots for air pollution. When it comes to the radical schemes seen in London over recent years aimed at promoting cycling, we need to balance the interests of the small minority who cycle with those of the majority who do not, including the elderly and people with mobility impairments for whom getting on a bike is just not a viable option.

It is not acceptable that taxies are being caught up in Mayor Khan’s war on the motorist. Nearly half the licensed taxi fleet is now zero-emission capable, and within a decade, all licensed taxis are expected to be electric. Licensed taxis are a crucial part of our public transport system, and the only form of fully accessible door-to-door transport in our city. There is no justification for excluding them from Bank, Bishopsgate or Tottenham Court Road, as is currently the case. That goes against years of cross-party consensus that meant that taxis could go wherever buses could.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for leading the debate.

At the outset, I have to say that I fully support the sentiment of both the petitions we are discussing today, but I will primarily speak to the petition that refers to a desire to amend the GLA Act 1999 to remove the Mayor of London’s power to impose road user charges. The issue has been brought into very sharp focus by the Mayor of London’s decision late last year to move forward with the expansion of the ultra low emission zone to the Greater London boundary, a policy that I have spoken about in the House a number of times.

My Orpington constituents are part of the London Borough of Bromley, which will be impacted by the decision. My constituents are overwhelmingly opposed to the expansion of ULEZ, which they see quite rightly as a tax-grabbing scheme to fill the holes in Transport for London’s finances. Moreover, it is a tax-grabbing scheme misleadingly dressed up as an environmental measure. Despite a growing clamour and loud discontent, the Mayor is continuing with its implementation. Indeed, he has effectively made a mockery of the public consultation on his plans by ignoring the fact that it showed that over 60% of those consulted were against the scheme, including 70% of those living in outer London.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed that TfL began ordering hundreds of the number plate recognition systems required for the expanded ULEZ in April 2022, a full month before the public consultation even started. Documents obtained by the London Assembly Conservative group show that the Mayor’s office, having been briefed that the vast majority of consultation responses coming in were opposed to the expansion, then attempted to influence the outcome by targeting an advertising campaign at particular groups of people who were more likely to respond favourably. There also appears to be a strong indication that City Hall attempted to suppress responses from certain individuals in order to make the outcome appear closer than it was.

It is completely clear that the Mayor was never interested in any opinion that did not concur with his own, including that of my constituents. Time and again, he has shown himself to be entirely unrepentant in his determination to impose prohibitively high extra costs on Londoners. Orpington simply does not have the public transport alternatives that exist in central London. We do not have the tube. We do not have trams. We have a bus network that is far from comprehensive and is unreliable. We have country lanes, farms and hedgerows. It is a vast place, and people need their cars to get around.

My inbox and postbag have been full of messages from people who are desperately worried because they own a non-compliant vehicle and can afford neither the daily charge nor the cost of a replacement vehicle. For some, the expansion will simply mean that they are not able to drive any more. Indeed a TfL-commissioned report by the consultancy firm Jacobs, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), was published in May 2022 and warned of a disproportionate impact on low-income households due to their lesser capacity to switch to a compliant vehicle and/or to change mode.

The Labour party likes to hector everybody about the cost of living, but this scheme is by one of their own Mayors and it will hit people on low incomes the most, because they are more likely to have an older vehicle. Elderly constituents have written to me distraught about how they may no longer be able to go out and do their weekly shop or see family and friends because they cannot afford to drive their cars. They are terrified of isolation. They have survived the pandemic, but they may not survive this.

Single traders have told me that they will no longer be able to operate. Social care workers have told me that they will have to leave the profession. My local higher education college has told me that the impact on large numbers of their staff will be devastating. I must agree with small business owners, who are rightfully complaining that after the pandemic the ULEZ charge is a crippling additional cost they do not need at this time. Restaurants and venues within the ULEZ will see a reduction in footfall. The Mayor clearly fails to grasp that a painter and decorator or a builder or tree surgeon cannot take their tools up and down escalators and compete for space on public transport.

To add insult to injury, the scheme may close businesses in Orpington. One of my constituents recently told me that he will have to give up his business, because if he is forced to buy a new vehicle or pay £12.50 every day, it will no longer be viable. That is the reality of the situation—businesses closed, family visits severely restricted and workers worse off. All of that is about to be imposed by the Mayor of London at a time when the cost of living is increasing. That arrogance and total disregard for the great difficulties that will be imposed on less affluent people are driving my constituents to despair, and the scheme is entirely unnecessary.

[Elliot Colburn]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he share my surprise that, when challenged in the London Assembly on the issue, a Labour member responded to those worried about the cost of living by saying, “Go and buy a new car; it will only cost £3,000.”?

[Gareth Bacon]

I would like to say that I am surprised by that answer, but I am afraid that I am not. It comprehensively shows the lack of grip from some of the people making the decisions that we are talking about. I remind Members present that every single member of the Labour group on the London Assembly voted in favour of this when they had the opportunity to stop it, as did every member of the Liberal Democrats group and every member of the Green group.

The Mayor’s own independently produced “London-wide ULEZ Integrated Impact Assessment” states:

“The Proposed Scheme is estimated to have a minor (NO₂) to negligible (PM_2.5)…impact on exposure to air pollution”.

Asthma UK ranks Bromley and Havering as the second and first boroughs, respectively, in terms of the cleanest air quality in the capital, so why should my constituents have the ULEZ imposed on them in this way? Improving air quality sounds great on paper and might earn the Mayor of London brownie points from rich Labour donors who finance anti-democratic pressure groups such as Just Stop Oil, but the reality is that the scheme will change little in terms of air quality.

Devolution, as personified in the form of elected metro Mayors, has created a form of electoral dictatorship in certain regions of the country. Most metro Mayors have almost no elected scrutiny of their actions and no local checks on their power. The London Assembly has done valuable work in scrutinising the Mayor, but in practice it is a toothless tiger in terms of its ability to check his power. The expanded ULEZ will do little to improve air quality, but it is likely to go ahead because the Mayor and local authorities have the power to create clean air zones even if they are flawed. That power needs urgent review.

Section 143 of the GLA Act 1999 appears to offer hope to my constituents, because on the face of it the section gives the Secretary of State for Transport the power to direct the Mayor of London with regard to his transport strategy under certain conditions. However, I am aware that Department for Transport lawyers apparently see that as a grey area. So let us put the issue beyond doubt and do the right thing: let us agree with the petitioners and seek to remove the power of Mayors and local authorities to unilaterally impose these charges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Johnson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why it has been so good that Kentish MPs have been working with our distant cousins from across the border in the smoky town. These are hon. Friends who, over this issue, would quite like to be in Kent—but we will not let them.

It is important that we make the point about the penalty notices. Income from penalty notices has been factored in by the Mayor of London in the overall budgeting for this. The Mayor relies on people forgetting to pay, or not knowing that they have to pay. That is part of the impact that the Mayor is placing on us.

As has been said a few times in this debate, the charging scheme is not about air quality. That is the façade that has been used. In Dartford we have poor air quality. We suffer from the impacts of westerly winds and the Dartford crossing, and as a consequence we have poor air quality. Therefore, if it was about air quality, I would be one of the first people to be sympathetic, but it is not about that. If it was about air quality, Sadiq Khan would be banning vehicles from London. He does not want to ban them; he just wants to make money out of them—and he needs to make a certain amount.

We know that the London underground is far more polluted than the air on the streets, yet the policy will force more people to use the underground and so suffer a bigger impact because of the quality of the air they will be breathing. The scheme has absolutely nothing to do with air quality. At the moment, the Mayor of London is doing away with our daily travel cards, which again pushes more people on to the London underground, where the air quality is far worse.

[Gareth Bacon]

At recent public meetings, the Mayor of London equated the expansion of the ultra low emission zone to the banning of smoking in pubs. Would my hon. Friend agree that the banning of smoking in pubs was not subject to a £12.50 charge—as if someone paying £12.50 would not be polluting the air in the pub while smoking? The comparison between the two is completely and utterly bonkers.

[Gareth Johnson]

Absolutely. It is also fair to say that in any consultations that took place at the time, the majority of people were in favour of banning smoking in pubs. Even if we accept wholeheartedly what the Mayor of London has said about the consultation process, we know that a majority of people do not support the ULEZ expansion. It was a sham consultation. What is the point in having a consultation and totally ignoring its outcome? There are lots of rumours that the cameras were bought before it took place, and that therefore there was never any chance of Sadiq Khan rolling back on the policy. He was hellbent on expanding the ULEZ no matter what anybody said, and no matter what the outcome.

What we have not heard is Sadiq Khan saying that he will not move the goalposts. I firmly believe that he has in mind the fact that he has to earn a certain amount of money to pay for the infrastructure that he will put in—£250 million, for a start—and to fill the black hole in his finances. If too many people switch to compliant vehicles, he will move the goalposts, so the next category of vehicles will no longer be ULEZ compliant, until all petrol and diesel cars are not compliant and are therefore charged. The Mayor of London has not ruled that out, and I firmly believe that it will happen. This is not the end, but the beginning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elliot Colburn]

I have long been opposed to ULEZ.

[Gareth Bacon]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the inner London ultra low emission zone is contained in the congestion charging zone, which has a massive surplus of public transport alternatives and demonstrably worse and less clean air than outer London? That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) was in favour of it while she was leader of Westminster City Council and why it was supported when it was initially consulted on under the mayoralty of Boris Johnson by the GLA Conservative group.

Outer London is completely different. It does not suffer from the same bad air or have the public transport alternatives. That may help the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) to understand why there is a very big difference between the inner London ultra low emission zone and the outer London ultra low emission zone proposed by the Mayor.

[Elliot Colburn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Characteristically, and as a former member of the London Assembly, he is absolutely right. Indeed, I imagine that our hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) may have been less supportive at the time if she had known that, only a few years later, the Mayor would be looking to cut the historic No. 11 bus route out of central London and her constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

There is absolutely no doubt that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The owner of a small business who literally carries the tools of their trade in the back of their van does not have other options. Even if people are not the owners of small businesses but are just commuting to work in a car or van, the Mayor has now hit them on the other side with a day travel card, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) said. In addition to those extra £50 million of costs, they are being told to use public transport and then told to pay an absolutely huge amount more for it, particularly if they are coming from outside the Greater London area. Again, that is a change that hon. Members have been reflecting on today. It means that the people affected by the change pay more but still do not have any say over the person responsible. That is part of the democratic deficit argument that Members have talked about.

I need to move on to local government powers around air quality. Powers enabling local authorities to introduce road schemes that charge users are of long standing. They can be used by local authorities to deliver what they want in their areas. There are no plans to revoke these powers, which are in the Transport Act 2000. They provide local authorities with an important tool. It is for local authorities to make decisions and to be accountable for those decisions.

We require local authorities to consult on these schemes. The Prime Minister has spoken at the Dispatch Box—I think it was in response to a question from one of the hon. Members here today; it might have been my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon)—on the consultation around the ULEZ scheme. The Prime Minister thought it would be a sensible idea for the Mayor of London to think again and I tend to agree with him. This scheme needs to be thought about again, more broadly.

These powers have been used by some local authorities in various areas, but what I would say to all local authorities across the country is that if they want to take people with them, they should not try to drive people out of using cars; they should provide better quality alternatives. It is particularly sad to see the Mayor of London reducing some bus routes, particularly historical bus routes, and not allowing that alternative when people really need it. I have pledged before to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) that I will speak to the transport commissioner in London about the No. 84 bus. I will see the commissioner in the next few weeks, and I will do so again.

The Government recognise the need to support a range of solutions across the board for individuals and businesses affected by measures to tackle air pollution. That is why we have already awarded £402 million through the clean air fund to some of the local authorities that face some of the most pernicious negative impacts of air quality that are also difficult to mitigate.

Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, transport in London is devolved to the Mayor and Transport for London. It is the Mayor’s responsibility to manage and oversee the transport network. This includes the power to create, or vary, road schemes that charge users, which is why the petitioners drafted their petition in the way that they did. It is up to the Mayor to determine and justify what he is doing.

The mayoralty in London has previously used those powers to introduce the congestion zone, the low emission zone and the current smaller ULEZ in central London. When the Mayor brought forward his transport strategy, which was voted on, it could have been rejected by the members of the GLA, but instead it was supported by every party in the GLA apart from the Conservatives. That is where the Mayor gets his ability to do this from.

[Gareth Bacon]

The GLA Act gives the London Assembly the power to accept or veto mayoral strategies, including the transport strategy, but only on the proviso that two thirds of elected members of the GLA agree on an alternative, which means that of the 25-member GLA, 17 would have to agree on the alternative. The electoral system for the London Assembly guarantees that no one party will be able to achieve that; Labour votes would have been required to achieve that. That is why the Mayor’s budget has never been amended and why no strategies have ever been amended. Does the Minister agree that that is precisely why the petitioners have put forward this petition today? The London Assembly does not have the effective power to veto the Mayor’s transport strategy, which is why the petitioners are calling on the Government to step in and do that.

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. What is particularly interesting today about Labour Members is how few of them are here. In fact, no Labour Back Bencher is here. I would be really interested to know why that is the case. It is clear to me that a few of them, secretly and in the background, would go against their party leader, the Leader of the Opposition, who is fully behind Mayor Khan’s plan for the massive expansion of the ULEZ. I think a few of them would like to speak up in that way.

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes and I will address it directly at the end of my remarks, if I may, but I think it is very important that we also say to people, “If you want change, then rather than trying to change the rules or the legislation in this place, you can change the person in charge of implementing them.” That is the most important message that we can send today, and a really important way of sending that message in the very near future is to deliver it in Uxbridge in the next few weeks—sorry, Mrs Murray, I digressed slightly there.

The mayoralty in London has previously used the GLA Act to introduce various measures, and there has been a significant reduction in nitrous oxide as well as particulates and other pollutants over the last few years, but that is due to improvements in engines as well as to other factors. The Mayor of London needs no agreement from the Government or the London boroughs to pursue his proposed expansion of the ULEZ under the current law, and although the current Mayor notified the Department for Transport of his intention to expand the ULEZ, he is not obliged by the legislation to consult the Department. At the last mayoral election, in 2021, the Mayor stood on a manifesto that included a pledge to expand the ULEZ to the boundary of the North and South Circular Roads; his manifesto did not say that the ULEZ would be expanded to the boundary of Greater London. To implement his preferred option of expanding the ULEZ, the Mayor had to revise his transport strategy, and this was subject to a consultation and a vote in the London Assembly.

The car is an important, and often the only, way for people to get around in their daily lives; the same is true of small vans. These vehicles are particularly needed for people who have limited mobility—another element to this issue that we all need to consider at the moment. People depend on their vehicles for food, for their health, for their livelihoods and to visit friends and family. They should be given a choice of how they travel. Imposing obstacles and doing so during a cost of living crisis is quite a blow to those who need their cars, who have no real alternative and whose choice is being removed. The Mayor could have proposed other, less intrusive measures to improve air quality in the capital, but he did not; instead, he and has chosen to expand the ULEZ. That is his decision, and he has the power to do it under the current law.

Before I conclude my remarks, I want to touch on the rest of the country, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North also raised important points. One area where we do recognise an emerging inconsistency is in the powers of local authorities to look at charging systems where the approach taken in London differs from those outside the capital. The judicial review of the Mayor’s proposal is being heard in July. At the moment, I cannot speak in much greater detail about that, aside from saying that the case will be heard on four grounds—it was two previously, before the recent appeal—including how the Mayor conducted his consultation, and his scrappage scheme. Clearly, it would not be proper to comment on that, but we have seen the difficulty that the inconsistency in local authority powers can create, with four London borough councils, alongside Surrey County Council, challenging the decision. It is important to recognise that. As many hon. Members have said, constituents being impacted without their having the ability to change the Mayor is a real issue.

Outside London, combined authorities have their own locally agreed decision-making processes. For road schemes that charge users, powers are typically held by combined and local authorities, and some degree of local authority agreement is required to introduce schemes. That is separate and different from the situation in Greater London. Two decades on from the re-establishment of the mayoralty of London, it is right that the Government take stock of how London’s devolution settlement is operating in practice, which is why the Government are committed to reviewing the London devolution settlement as part of the English devolution accountability framework more broadly.

I am not in a position today to announce any change to the Government’s position on this issue—it is more proper for Ministers in other Departments to fully reflect on it—but I recognise the strength of feeling not only of hon. Members present but of the petitioners. I commit to raising the concerns expressed during the debate with ministerial colleagues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Holden]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman said that, because through the city regional sustainable transport settlement this Government have provided billions of pounds of long-term funding for greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and other combined authorities right across the country, allowing them to do that long-term investment. Labour might claim credit for it on the ground, but this Government are providing the money to allow it to happen.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with Transport for London on plans to expand the Ultra-Low Emission Zone.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)]

Transport in London is devolved to the Mayor of London, and he is accountable to the electorate for the decisions that he makes, including those regarding road schemes that charge users. We have been clear that Government grant funding, via the longer term funding settlement, cannot be used to cover the cost of implementing the scheme.

[Gareth Bacon]

Several outer London boroughs have refused to enter into section 8 agreements with Transport for London to allow ULEZ cameras to be installed on their roads. Sadiq Khan believes that he can override the boroughs and install his hated ULEZ expansion without their permission. Ministers have previously said that they would get legal advice on that. What advice has been received?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend has been campaigning strongly on behalf of his constituents against the expansion of the ULEZ scheme. Under schedule 23 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Mayor of London and Transport for London have the relevant statutory powers to install the infrastructure required for the expansion without obtaining the London boroughs’ consent. That reinforces my earlier answer that the Mayor of London is accountable. If electors in London do not like what is going on, they have the power to deal with it at the ballot box.