Grant Shapps
Main Page: Grant Shapps (Conservative - Welwyn Hatfield)Department Debates - View all Grant Shapps's debates with the Department for Transport
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberThe global travel taskforce report clearly sets out how, when the time is right, we will be able to restart international travel, without putting our hard-won progress against the virus at risk. We will confirm by early May whether non-essential international travel can resume from 17 May.
Comprehensive covid testing will be critical for the safe reopening of wider international travel. We already know that countries with very low rates of covid infection will be placed on a green list. Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether there are plans to allow individuals travelling from those countries at least to meet baseline testing requirements using lateral flow devices rather than the costly Polymerase chain reaction tests?
I know my hon. Friend will agree that it is very important to ensure that, whatever we do, we keep the British people safe. It is a question very much for the scientists to let us know whether PCR or lateral flow tests would be the appropriate test for a day, too. However, it is the case that I am very anxious to get the cost of those tests down. I can bring some good news to the House: there are now test providers providing tests for £60 and, indeed, one now for £44.90.
Constituents have come to me raising the issue of queues at airports. There are long waits, no food and drinks, and nowhere to sit, in some cases for five hours. There is totally inadequate social distancing, and arrivals from safe destinations and from red list countries are forced into the same queues all mixed together. Heathrow Airport has been clear that Border Force is the problem. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with his counterpart in the Home Office about fixing this fiasco?
I should remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that people should not be travelling right now. In fact, they cannot travel right now without a very exceptional reason indeed, because people have to stay at home—stay domestically. However, it is the case that Border Force is checking every single person who enters the country to make sure that they have completed the pre-departure test and the locator form to say where they will be. I am afraid that, at the moment, that inevitably creates some queues. As we move towards the unlocking of international travel, we will be addressing this issue not least through beginning to automate the e-gates with the pre-departure form.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that Leeds-based Jet2 has recently announced the cancellation of all flights until 23 June, citing continued uncertainty about Government restrictions. With the wider travel industry braced for many European holiday destinations being off limits for some time, will the Secretary of State commit to publishing detailed assessments of the categorisation of specific countries in the traffic light system so that the industry bodies can see whether there is an immediate prospect of improvements? Furthermore, will he take into account the economic value of certain European destinations to the UK travel industry?
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we will be having the Joint Biosecurity Centre look at four principal factors: the level of coronavirus in any given country; the number of vaccines that has been dispensed in that country; the concern over any particular variants; and the quality of the data. Those are the facts and figures that it will be looking at. None the less, I do share his concerns about when a country jumps from one category to another, and we saw that last year. We are taking a couple of different steps to try to help with that. One is to have a green watch list where we are able to flag up, perhaps a couple of weeks in advance, to say that we are looking at a variation of interest, which could turn into a variation of concern, in order to help provide a bit more forward guidance this year.
I am somewhat confused. The hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the shadow Transport Secretary—the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon)—wants 100% mandatory quarantine for those coming from all countries everywhere in the world, which surely could only lead to even more problems and delays at airports. So which is it to be: 100% quarantine and therefore much longer queues, or a practical and rational approach that has red list countries but also recognises that there are people who can quarantine at home? As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), we are working with Border Force on electronic gates, but it is not quite as straight- forward as the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) makes out, not least because it requires both hardware and software in order to make those e-gates.
I very much hope that in 18 days’ time people in this country will be able to enjoy international travel once again. Could I just press the Secretary of State with regard to the need for a PCR test for those coming in from green list countries? Currently, those coming in from amber countries take the lateral flow test, yet those who come back from green countries will have to have a more expensive PCR test. I recognise the need to detect mutant strains, so may I suggest that we require green country travellers to take a lateral flow test and, if they are positive, then take a PCR test so that we could detect the strain? That may be a good balance to strike.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his Select Committee for the excellent work that they do on this subject and many others. Of course, like him, I look to the scientists to provide the evidence as to what should be the appropriate level of testing at any stage. Just to reassure him, while we will most likely need to start off with PCR tests, I have incorporated three separate checkpoints during this process, the first of which is on 28 June, when we will look at the rules guiding this in order to make them as low as they can possibly be while at the same time making sure that we maintain the hard-won gains of the British people in this lockdown.
Responsibility for bus services is a devolved matter. My Department engages with the devolved Administrations, including in Scotland, on issues with bus services all the time.
I live near an Asda store. Many of the people who work there, who are friends of mine, would like to use the local bus services to get to work, but the timetables do not work. Equally, I have people living in Caithness who are disabled, who would like to use the buses to Inverness more, but the disabled facilities are not what they should be. I have made representations to the Scottish Government and to the bus company, Stagecoach, but to no avail. I realise, of course, that transport is devolved, but what advice can the Secretary of State offer me to try to sort this wretched problem out?
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that this is a devolved matter, but there are Barnett consequentials, so there is quite a lot of money coming through, particularly from the “Bus Back Better” plan. He is also right to be concerned, as I have been, about the level of bus services and threatened cuts across Scotland, including by First Bus in Glasgow and Stagecoach in Stirling. I encourage him to work hard to highlight these issues and remind the Scottish Government that they have a lot of money for buses coming through as a result of Barnett consequentials.
The transport decarbonisation plan will set out transport contributions to net zero, and we continue to work with our international partners ahead of COP26.
Promoting and investing in cycling and active travel is essential if we are to reduce car journeys. The Scottish Government already spend over £15 per person, compared with just over £7 in England—more than twice as much. The SNP has pledged to increase that investment to over 10% of the transport capital budget. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is the sort of ambition required to drive real change, and will his Government commit to replicating it in England?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to talk about our active travel plans. With £2 billion-worth of spending, the Barnett consequentials from that will no doubt give him something to boast about in the future—but invented in Downing Street and, I hope, delivered in Scotland.
Shipping is a significant contributor to carbon emissions and pollution around the world. We all know that change is coming, but investment and incentives are required now, so what support will the Secretary of State’s Department provide to those in our maritime and shipping sectors as part of the Government’s commitment to moving towards net zero shipping?
That is absolutely right. The shipping industry is one of the harder to decarbonise areas of the economy. However, technologies such as hydrogen have a big part to play, so this Government are putting a lot of research and development investment behind hydrogen in particular with a view to shipping. We have just announced the Teesside hydrogen hub, the country’s first, to help develop more of those technologies, and the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed by our ambition through our transport decarbonisation plan.
As we have heard, the Government are finally, finally inching forward with a fraction of their 4,000 green bus plan, but in Scotland orders have already been placed for the equivalent of 2,720 battery electric buses, with many more to come. At the Transport Committee, Baroness Vere called this investment “brilliant”. Graham Vidler of the Confederation of Passenger Transport also welcomed it, plus the £5 billion equivalent on bus infrastructure, and called the Scottish Government’s commitment to reducing car journeys by 20% by decade’s end a
“big, bold and ambitious target that we would like to see matched in the UK Government’s decarbonisation plan”.
Will you match it, Secretary of State?
Once again, I am very pleased that the Barnett consequentials ensure that money is available to spend in Scotland. We should welcome the fact that £3 billion is going to buses. The hon. Gentleman mentions the £120 million we have announced for zero-emission buses in 2021-22, which will give many hundreds of buses a start on the production line. We are on target to deliver all 4,000 that we have promised to start building in this Parliament.
That is not what the industry says. The gap in ambition is simply startling. The SNP plans to have the majority of fossil fuel buses removed from service by 2023. This Government’s plans represent just one tenth of the English fleet. When we consider that, along with commitments and action on rail decarbonisation with a nationalised ScotRail, increasing the active travel budget to 10% of transport capital, free bikes for children who cannot afford them, interest-free loans for electric cars and free bus travel for under-22s, does the Secretary of State agree that if Scots want that progressive and decarbonised future it has to be both votes SNP next Thursday?
Funnily enough, I do not agree. It is worth the hon. Gentleman’s Scottish voters understanding that that money is available through the Barnett consequentials. If bus services were as good as is claimed, then it would not be the case that in Dundee bus users were being warned just last November to expect big changes to services, the worst since the 1950s, which would have negative impacts for older people and those dependent on bus services. I do not think it is quite as rosy as he likes to make it sound. This Government in Westminster are committed to decarbonising the whole of the United Kingdom.
Let’s get beyond next Thursday. Then it will be easier for all of us. [Laughter.]
The Government do not support a boundary charge. The Mayor of London cannot expect non-Londoners to clean up his mismanagement of Transport for London finances.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is precisely not the fresh start that TfL or London as a whole needs to see? The cost of the Mayor’s financial mismanagement should not be passed on to my constituents and other Londoners at precisely the time when we are trying to kickstart our economy after covid. Does he agree that this measure, if implemented, would be damaging particularly for high streets in outer London boroughs, and especially for the disabled and those who rely on their cars for personal reasons?
That is absolutely right. Let us be fair to the Mayor of London. No one could have predicted the coronavirus. This Government have generously backed TfL with more than £3 billion of support so far, but it is because of the Mayor’s mismanagement of that organisation, with years of being woefully unprepared, that he was not ready when this economic shock came. If London wants a real fresh start for TfL and does not want this boundary tax, it should consider voting for Shaun Bailey on 6 May.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed charge is a result of the London Labour Mayor’s poor financial management, and that this reckless charge would have severe detrimental effects on businesses, employees, families, shoppers and visitors in outer London boroughs like mine in Bexley?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the threat. I wonder whether everybody realises that the Mayor of London would like to introduce this border tax, so that non-Londoners end up having to pay for his financial mismanagement of London. It is not on. It is called taxation without representation and, as our American cousins used to point out, that is tyranny.
I know that the House is interested in the updates with regard to travel returning internationally over the coming months, and I want to provide a quick update to say that, although polymerase chain reaction—PCR—tests may be required from the medical and scientific point of view, we have been working with private laboratories, pharmacies, supermarkets and other companies to encourage them to deliver on their logistical expertise, enter the market and drive down the costs. We have seen some success, because, as I mentioned earlier, the cost of a single PCR day-two test from one of the large providers on the Government link site has now come down to £60 and a new entrant at £44.90 is now enabling more people to access PCR tests as international travel returns.
I understand that work on the strategic outline business case for the redevelopment of Chester station, which has been submitted to the Department, has produced a highly positive cost-benefit ratio, and that it is also being proposed as a priority project for the DFT acceleration unit supported by Transport for the North, so can the Secretary of State confirm when Chester station will be included in the rail network enhancement programme and when further development funding will be allocated to take this project forward?
We are continuing to work closely with Cheshire West and Chester Council on its preparation of the strategic outline business case for enhancements at and around Chester station. Having received an initial strategic outline business case from the council last summer, DFT officials undertook to carry out a detailed review of the requested further information for the SOBC, and it is being considered for inclusion in RNEP, which is the—well, the hon. Gentleman knows what RNEP is, so I will not explain.
After much delay, the Transport Secretary has finally published Highways England’s review into smart motorways. The stocktake has revealed that over the last five years 63 people lost their lives, which is a significant increase on the figure given just over a year ago—38. Victims’ families and campaigners are crying out for common sense—and for action from the Secretary of State—recognising that the radar technology does not even capture broken down vehicles 35% of the time. As the legal challenges mount, will he publish the specific data comparing deaths on the hard shoulder of existing motorways with deaths on the lane that was previously a hard shoulder and is now used as a live running lane?
The hon. Gentleman and I, and the whole House, share similar concerns about the safety of our motorways. One of the first things I did as Secretary of State was to introduce the smart motorways stocktake. One factor we have to look at is the level of fatalities on both smart motorways and regular motorways. As I mentioned to the hon. Gentleman previously, from 2015 to 2019 there were 39 fatalities on smart motorways, but there were also 368 fatalities on regular motorways. It is very important that we look at all the questions he asked with regard to the data, which is why I have asked the Office of Rail and Road to analyse the data and provide reassurance that it can be trusted. When those figures are provided we can compare them to make sure we are producing the safest possible roads in the world.
The victims’ families will want to know that action will be taken on lives that are avoidably lost and I am afraid that answer will not satisfy those families at all.
Moving on to our regional economies, the Secretary of State knows how important our regional airports are in providing tens of thousands of important, well-paid, decent jobs in our regions. Will he make sure the Government do far more than the standard schemes on business rates and furlough support to make sure that our regional airports not only survive but can thrive in the future—or does he believe the market will decide their fate?
First, on smart motorways I understand that it is the hon. Gentleman’s and Labour’s policy to close all-running lanes, which would create more traffic. The current estimate is that it would create 25% more traffic on other roads; that in itself would, we think, produce about 25 more fatalities per year. So I urge the hon. Gentleman to follow the work of the Office of Rail and Road to make sure that we do not create more fatalities, rather than fewer.
With regard to regional airports, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to support them. We have put £7 billion into protecting and supporting our aviation sector. I am slightly mystified, however, because if I understand it correctly, the hon. Gentleman’s current policy is to quarantine all traffic so that nobody could quarantine at home, which would do further damage to our regional airports.
I actually agree with the right hon. Gentleman; it probably would have been sensible to start the entire project from the north to the south in the first place, but having looked at this in great detail, not least through the Oakervee review, I also know that chopping and changing those plans partway through is the most expensive possible outcome and does not work out. None the less, we are committed to ensuring that the integrated rail plan answers all these questions, and his point has been clearly heard.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to stand up for her constituents, particularly those who may have special circumstances. There is a process in place for special circumstances to be considered. I would be interested to understand why in the case of her constituent, from her question, it does not look like that was effective. We would be very happy to investigate that particular case, although I understand that would of course be retrospective.
May I say on behalf of everybody how fantastic it is to see my hon. Friend back in the House in her rightful place? She is absolutely right about the changes in how people will commute going forward, because the world has of course changed. I am sure that people will come back to the railway, but perhaps in a more flexible way, and I can reassure her that we will be setting out more details of our view about how ticketing should work, not least through the Williams-Shapps review.
Yes, that is absolutely right. I have been working with Transport for the North and many others in consultation to sort out that fundamental problem, which is the bottleneck around the Castlefield corridor in and out of Manchester, which impacts on the entire northern rail service and beyond. The hon. Lady is absolutely right; we will be taking all those representations into account, and very carefully. Indeed, the rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), would gladly meet her to discuss it further.
Yes, I absolutely recognise the concerns. As I mentioned a moment ago, there is a problem with congestion on rail services around Manchester, which needs to be resolved. I am working with all the local partners in order to do that. I have set up a special meeting of the Northern Transport Acceleration Council after the elections, in order to work with the Manchester recovery taskforce and resolve exactly that issue.
Given that we have £2 billion of funding for walking and cycling—the biggest sum ever invested in active travel, as far as we can work out—the idea that there is a lack of investment is, of course, entirely untrue. The hon. Lady will have noticed that last year the coronavirus occupied almost everything we were doing, but it did not prevent us issuing a new cycling strategy, published by the Prime Minister and backed by me. We will be saying a lot more about that, and I welcome the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm.
I will answer my hon. Friend. East West Rail, the company behind the new line, is aiming to deliver an entirely zero-carbon railway. It will be considering conventional and emerging technology solutions for powering trains, which could be part-electric and part-hydrogen or battery in the future, for example, so that services that operate along the whole length of the route are zero carbon.
Sometimes I forget that I am wearing the mask, Mr Speaker, but I thank you very much for calling me.
Airlines have had a difficult past 12 months. Belfast City airport, Belfast International airport and Londonderry airport are important Northern Ireland regional airports. Can the Minister confirm the Government’s support for them, which I know has been there, and that every effort will be taken to ensure that they can and will be part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s strategy for the future?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the importance of those links with our Northern Ireland airports. I made sure that we put public service obligations in place during the height of the crisis last year, and we will always look to do everything we can to make sure that connectivity across our great Union continues to exist.
Cutting-edge maritime projects such as the Holyhead hydrogen hub and the proposed Anglesey freeport in my constituency will move forward this Government’s renewable agenda. To take full advantage of these opportunities, excellent transport infrastructure is needed across north Wales. Will the Minister confirm that he will support necessary improvements to the A55, as highlighted in Sir Peter Hendy’s Union connectivity review?