TfL (Funding and Station Staffing)

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend has made a valuable point. What happens in London is usually the example that is then rolled out to the rest of the country. This issue is critical not just for London but nationally. Ministers have a role in this matter, which should not just be left to the Mayor of London.

There are already issues with station staffing as there have been cuts in the past. In outer London, many stations are already neglected and are not well staffed. Transport for London responded to questions from members of the Greater London assembly on this matter by saying that on average stations have to be closed on 120 occasions a year due to staff shortages.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I apologise for arriving only recently and missing the first part of my hon. Friend’s contribution. Is he aware of the situation facing Finsbury Park station? It is almost unique on the network in having no barriers because of its size, and it is grossly overcrowded, with no step-free access. Without staff, the station would turn from being dangerous into being positively lethal because of the number of people crowding on to the platforms every morning trying to get on to very overcrowded trains. The policy is disastrous.

[John McDonnell]

I know the station concerned. My hon. Friend has campaigned on the matter on a number of occasions, and he has liaised with the staff there. Trade unions have raised the issue as well. It is lunacy to start removing staff from stations such as that one.

We have been here before. Some hon. Members might remember previous debates on the issue, because London Underground management in particular do not have a good track record in anticipating passenger need. Members might remember that after axing 800 staff the previous year, in 2010, London Underground was forced to recruit an additional 300 staff as a result of passenger complaints about safety and security and the campaign that a number of Members who are here today waged alongside the trade unions.

My worry is about safety in all its aspects. I am worried about both preventing and tackling terrorist attacks. Adequate staff numbers are absolutely essential both in preventing terror attacks and dealing with the aftermath when they happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I repeat my apology for missing the beginning of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I have a brief time to speak, and want to express my admiration for the people who work for London Underground. It carried 4 million passengers in a day during the Olympics, and despite the best advice of the Evening Standard in the run-up to the games the staff performed brilliantly. The service was delivered throughout the Olympic games, as it is every day, by willing staff at all the stations. We should think about that—as should the Mayor.

It is extraordinary for someone to have been the Mayor of a great city such as London for six years but still never to have met the representatives of the people who provide the services for which he is responsible. He has time to meet every banker in the City and to travel to every city in the world, but does not, apparently, have time to invite the union representatives of the people providing TfL services to his office to tell him their views about it. He needs to get a grip on what democratic accountability is about.

I drew attention to Finsbury Park station in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington because it is the one I use the most. Indeed, some of my colleagues in the Chamber today use it too. It is old, busy and getting much busier, and is an interchange between Network Rail and the Piccadilly and Victoria lines. It is not well laid out and was never well designed, and it has no ticket barriers; there is nowhere to put them. There are plans to change the station, but the changes are some years away. That means the station becomes very overcrowded, and frequently in the morning rush hour staff must stand in the street and ask the public not to come in until the numbers on the platform can be reduced. There is no physical way to stop them because of the lack of barriers.

There is a First Capital Connect ticket office and another for London Underground. For reasons that are beyond me, each seems to deal only with its own business. It should be possible for them to deal with each other’s business. The ticket office is very busy, with people making inquiries about Oyster cards, lost Oyster cards, or student travel; there are people using the freedom pass, who may have mislaid it or have a problem using it, and people simply trying to buy tickets or find where to go. They get a good response and good help from the very hard-working staff in that station. If the ticket office is closed, what are they supposed to do? The hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) gaily told us that only a small percentage of the total number of travellers will be affected, but as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said, that is 100,000 people a year, or the equivalent of a bit more than a full Wembley stadium. Would we really have Wembley stadium operating with only ticket machines and no staff? Think about the numbers and the potential for problems by not having fully staffed ticket offices.

When we make this plea, we do so to retain jobs, obviously, and to ensure that the public are properly represented and dealt with in ticket offices. We also do it from the point of view of station safety, because, in the days when not enough staff were at the stations and there were only, quite often, inoperative CCTV cameras inadequately guaranteeing the safety of passengers, the number of assaults went up and the number of passengers at night went down, and the number of people trying to drive in and out of London went up while the number of public transport users went down. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) pointed out, if we run a good public transport system that is well staffed and well run, more people use it, our city is less congested, and it has a much better sense of community.

Through the medium of this debate, I make an appeal to the Mayor: think again. Meet the staff representatives, understand what the ticket offices are there for and what they do, and reverse this crazy policy and retain staffed ticket offices on every station, as we have now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

I understand the fixation on the Mayor, because he is the leader of London. However, Mr Brown, who runs London Underground, meets the unions, and I understand that Sir Peter Hendy has done the same.

I was asked several questions, and I will try to answer some of them in the short time that I have. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington asked me about the response to a parliamentary question about the planned changes. The response stated that according to the equality impact assessment, the changes would be

“positive or neutral for all equality target groups”.—[Official Report, 6 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 121W.]

That information was provided to us by TfL, which has also guaranteed that it will run an engagement exercise throughout this year with disabled and older people to ensure that they understand exactly how services will continue to be accessible.

The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) spoke about the great achievements of the previous Mayor, but it is important to recognise that under the current Mayor, platform staffing levels have risen by 12% and demand by 23%. The Government recognise that transport is the key to unlocking growth and jobs, and they provide the financial settlement that allows the Mayor to fulfil his responsibilities for transport and operational matters. The Government are providing more than £10 billion to TfL over the current Parliament, which includes more than £4.5 billion to support the tube upgrade. The Jubilee line upgrade has been completed. The Victoria line upgrade features new trains, tracks and signalling and a 21% increase in capacity. The Metropolitan line has a new fleet of air-conditioned trains. The Government have provided the Mayor with a guarantee that enables him to move ahead with the proposed Northern line extension to Battersea. The upgrade of the sub-surface lines, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster and I take a particular interest, will increase overall capacity by 33%. The spending round announcement last summer included a huge commitment of £5.8 billion in capital grant and a further £3.8 billion of borrowing power for TfL to 2021, which will be absolutely crucial to the delivery of Crossrail and the Thameslink project.

The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) challenged the Mayor on trust. Memories are short on so many things; I remember the previous Mayor telling us in 2004 that there would be no increase in fare levels if he were re-elected, but the following January fares went up by a minimum of 4%. One must be careful when talking about trust, because that contention applies as much to Mayor Livingstone as to Mayor Johnson. The hon. Lady questioned me about fares, and the Mayor has said clearly that the extra accommodation that is needed can be found from TfL’s budget by a combination of efficiencies and increased commercial revenue. In the huge budget provided by the Government, there is scope for TfL to find the relatively small amount that the hon. Lady mentioned. The Mayor has decided, quite rightly in my opinion, to hold London fares down to RPI plus zero. I think it will be possible to find the amount required to do that, and it will be sustainable if he continues to deliver efficiencies and value for money and ensures that the money that the Government give to TfL is best spent.

Everybody has pointed out that London continues to grow. We are set to see a further 1.8 million people by the 2030s, which is enough to fill an extra tube train per week. It is quite right therefore that TfL set out its vision for the future of the tube on 21 November. The core commitment at the front of that vision is that all stations will be staffed and controlled when trains are running and there will be more staff visible on platforms and in ticket halls to help customers.

However we look at it, the way in which passengers choose to pay for their travel is changing. That is an incontrovertible fact, even though we may not like the 3% figure. Over the past five years, demand for travel has risen by 23%, but ticket office sales have fallen by 43%. At the same time, to meet customers’ expectations, station staffing needs to increase. The ticket office is not the heart of the station; it is simply a room. The staff are at the heart of a station’s operation. TfL’s vision for London will allow them to be better equipped with technology and information in the ticket halls and at the barriers, so that they can step out of the ticket office and improve customers’ journey experience.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will the Minister assure me that the closure of ticket offices will not be accompanied by yet more retail opportunities at tube stations?

[Stephen Hammond]

That is an operational matter for TfL. The hon. Gentleman should recognise the key points in TfL’s vision. A 24-hour tube service will run at weekends; the reliability and capacity of the tube will be further improved with new, more frequent trains; there will be enhanced signalling at stations; all tube stations will be controlled and staffed while services are operating; and staff will be more visible. TfL aims to deliver improvements and secure the best value for money.

In addition, the vision contains a commitment to the staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster was absolutely right; although some 950 staff work in lightly used ticket offices, the overall decrease in station staff will be less than that, because TfL proposes to create 200 new jobs in ticket halls and on stations. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, TfL has made a commitment to provide a job at London Underground for anyone who wants to continue working there, and the changes will be made with no compulsory redundancies.

Despite the comments about the Mayor, London Underground continues to speak to staff and involve them at various stages of the change. The transformation will create 200 new jobs on top of the significant increase in numbers of staff available in ticket halls, at barriers and on platforms to provide reassurance about safety and to give advice. Those are not the figures portrayed by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. The numbers are available, and I am sure that he will want to look at them.

I am aware that RMT has announced two 48-hour strikes, and I urge the RMT and TSSA leadership to work with TfL to shape the plans. Customers want hassle-free journeys, and they expect customer service that is fit for the 21st century and beyond. With Government investment, the vision for London ensures that the tube will continue to be fit for purpose, safe, affordable and reliable, and that it will meet the expectations of passengers throughout the 21st century.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend is right that the Access for All programme provided a footbridge and two lifts at Gloucester station, costing £1.7 million. That is a small but important way in which we can help some of the older stations to be maintained and to be available for all people to access. We are seeing a major regeneration of our stations. Some of our major stations are now destinations in their own right. St Pancras station, for example, used to be a place where people did not want to spend more than five minutes, but it is now a destination in its own right.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am due to meet the Secretary of State’s colleagues in the new year to discuss Finsbury Park station. Can he assure me that his Department is intervening to ensure that both Network Rail and Transport for London invest enough money in that dangerously overcrowded station to ensure that it is fit for purpose and good for the future, rather than overcrowded and out of date, which it is at the moment?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will obviously ask for a report on the points the hon. Gentleman has made. I am in regular contact with Transport for London and the Mayor of London, who continually make the case for greater investment in London. I have to try to balance that with the requests for station improvements from the rest of the country. The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point about the station he has referred to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

I am delighted to confirm that commuters on the trans-Pennine express are in line to benefit from increased capacity provided by the extra 40 carriages to be introduced on the Manchester to Scotland route and the reallocation of diesel trains. The new electric trains are scheduled to enter passenger service between December 2013 and May 2014. I have no doubt that this will bring benefit to my hon. Friend’s constituents and others along the line of route.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

T7. Will the rail Minister look seriously and urgently at the situation at Finsbury Park station, which is jointly run by Transport for London, London Underground and Network Rail? There are welcome new platforms for the overground but there is no step-free access for the underground. The station is the busiest outside central London and it is dangerously overcrowded at many times. The Mayor is proposing changes from 2017. That is too late; we need them now.

[Mr Burns]

I will certainly look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman has said. I will consult the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), and Transport for London. I hope that we can deal with this as successfully as we did when the hon. Gentleman and I last had a meeting in the Department for Transport, when we resolved another issue extremely satisfactorily.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is trying to contribute or to make a 100-metre sprint.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

(Islington North) (Lab): I will sprint later.

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful. I call Angela Smith.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. The short answer is that I am never satisfied and we can do a great deal more. I think that our efforts to collect waste centrally and separate it into the different recycling streams will make quite a difference. I look forward to being able to report improvements in the future.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I welcome any improvements in recycling, as I am sure does everybody else. Will the hon. Gentleman consider the use of plastic by the building as a whole? We have removed much of it from the catering department, but not all of it. However, Members’ offices are still supplied with plastic envelopes that are not recyclable or biodegradable. I could be wrong about that, but I believe it to be the case. Will he ensure that we use only paper and cardboard, which are completely recyclable?

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. Some of the matters that he has raised are outwith our control, but we seek to pursue the strategy that he advocates wherever it is within our control.

Transport

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Ministerial Corrections

London, Tilbury and Southend Railway Line

[Jeremy Corbyn]

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the estimated level of (a) public subsidy, (b) premium payments and (c) revenue support will be during the contract extension to September 2014 agreed between his Department and c2c Rail Ltd for rail passenger services on the Essex Thameside line.

[Official Report, 3 June 2013, Vol. 563, c. 975W.]

Letter of correction from Simon Burns:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on 3 June 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Simon Burns]

Contracted subsidy for the interim franchise agreement is c.£2.4 million. A profit share mechanism in place, which will capture any outperformance in revenue, thereby lowering subsidy requirement. Subsidy and premium payments are published regularly on the Office of Rail Regulation website.

The correct answer should have been:

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Simon Burns]

Contracted subsidy for the interim franchise agreement is c.£1.7 million. A profit share mechanism in place, which will capture any outperformance in revenue, thereby lowering subsidy requirement. Subsidy and premium payments are published regularly on the Office of Rail Regulation website.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total value is of the contract extension to September 2014 agreed between his Department and c2c Rail Ltd for rail passenger services on the Essex Thameside line.

[Official Report, 5 June 2013, Vol. 563, c. 1198W.]

Letter of correction from Simon Burns:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on 5 June 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Simon Burns]

Contracted subsidy for the interim franchise agreement is c.£2.4 million. A profit share mechanism is in place, which will capture any outperformance in revenue, thereby lowering subsidy requirement. Subsidy and premium payments are published regularly on the Office of Rail Regulation website.

The correct answer should have been:

Railways

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 5855/13, a Commission Communication: The Fourth Railway Package-completing the single European railway area to foster European competitiveness and growth, No. 6012/13 and Addenda 1 and 2, a Draft Regulation on the European Union Agency for Railways and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 881/2004, No. 6013/13 and Addenda 1 and 2, a Draft Directive on the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union (Recast), No. 6014/13 and Addenda 1 and 2, a Draft Directive on railway safety (Recast), No. 6017/13, a Commission Report on the progress made towards achieving interoperability of the rail system, No 6019/13, a Commission Report on the profile and tasks of other train crew members, No. 5960/13 and Addenda 1 to 5, a Draft Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007 concerning the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail, No. 5985/13 and Addenda 1 to 7, a Draft Directive amending Directive 2012/34/EU establishing a single European railway area, as regards the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail and the governance of the railway infrastructure, and No. 6020/13, a Commission report on the implementation of the provisions of Directive 2007/58/EC on the opening of the market of international rail passenger transport accompanying the Communication on the fourth railway package; supports the Government’s aim of ensuring any resulting measures are appropriate, encourage competition and help to deliver a level playing field across the EU; and further supports the Government’s view that any such measures should be evidence-based, proportionate and reduce or at least minimise the regulatory, administrative and cost burden for industry.

I welcome the fact that the European Scrutiny Committee has referred this subject to the House for debate. I also thank and pay tribute to the Transport Committee for its report on the fourth railway package, a number of whose conclusions and recommendations the Government support.

The fourth railway package is a major European Union legislative proposal involving three directives and three regulations. As Members will appreciate, we are still considering the implications of the proposals in consultation with other Departments, so all I can give the House this afternoon is our initial position.

The United Kingdom has one of the most liberalised rail networks in the EU, which is why the Government support further opening of the domestic EU public passenger transport markets. However, we want to ensure that the proposals that are implemented as part of the package are flexible enough to work within the UK’s public passenger transport structure, and are compatible with our plans for rail reform. The Transport Committee made that point in its report.

Evidence garnered by the European Commission indicates that about 40% of passenger routes in the EU are accessible to new operators. That implies that significant market opportunities could arise both for UK rail firms and for those in the rest of the EU if the proposals pass into European law. There would also be potential for expansion of the rolling stock leasing sector. The new infrastructure manager separation provisions could give freight operators benefits as well if they further open up access in practice, reducing the chances of discriminatory behaviour in some member states. In any event, I can assure the House that the proposals will be the subject of consultation with stakeholders and considerable negotiation within the European Union. We will continue to engage with the Commission, the European Parliament and other member states to ensure that any concerns are addressed in the final texts.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am listening to the Minister’s comments with interest. Would these proposals force the publicly owned railway systems that exist in some parts of Europe to be handed over to the private sector, or would they allow the public sector to participate on a level playing field?

[Mr Burns]

I hope I can give the hon. Gentleman reassurance on that, if that is what he is seeking. It is not a question of forcing any railways in any country in the EU to move from one position to another, although the main thrust of the package is to create a greater liberalisation of the market for the benefit of both taxpayers in the EU and passengers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will make a little progress.

Countries should be free to choose the models that best suit national and local needs. We had just such a need in 2009, after two franchisees walked away from the east coast main line. As a not-for-dividend operator, East Coast has gone from strength to strength. Overall passenger satisfaction has risen and the operator has won a national award for how it manages disruptions to services, with a 12% improvement in satisfaction ratings in the past year. It has provided a public sector comparator at a time when the Government’s franchising policy has collapsed, at a cost to the taxpayer of more than £55 million. By the end of this year, it will have returned £800 million to the taxpayer and invested profits in the service.

The not-for-dividend east coast main line is working, and with a five-year business plan in place the operator could deliver more, if it had the Government’s backing. However, by prioritising the privatisation of the east coast main line, the Government seem to be saying that the service works in practice, but not in theory. We need to proceed on the basis of the best evidence available and build on success stories such as the east coast main line, Merseyrail and London Overground.

I am sure that the Minister will have listened closely to Transport for London’s concerns about the fourth railway package, particularly the definition of a competent authority. Interpreted literally, the definition of an authority that serves

“the transport needs of an urban agglomeration or a rural district”

could force TfL to divest itself of some services at a time when it is looking to take on additional responsibilities. Perhaps the Minister could offer reassurances on this issue, which may impact on other bodies, including the proposed rail in the north executive. The devolution agenda must not be put at risk by these proposals.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the current consultation on changing the rail network in London by extending the London Overground network to take in some of the suburban services run by other agencies. I am unclear about the effect that this European proposal will have on that. London Overground, after all, is one of the most popular and successful rail networks in the country and its expansion would certainly be welcomed by many people in London.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend, and that is the precise concern that I am raising on behalf of TfL. As he says, London Overground is a successful operation and we would not want to see this package stand in the way of TfL continuing to develop services for the benefit of passengers and taxpayers.

There are a number of concerns, therefore, about a number of points in the fourth railway package. We need to reach a deal that works for the British railway industry—a deal that removes the uncertainty over safety and devolution, while allowing us the option of replicating the success of the east coast main line, which should not be re-privatised, as the Government plan. The fourth railway package is not there yet, and that is why we cannot support this motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I should like to make a few points in the very few moments left to me. As a member of the RMT group, I commend its important evidence to the Transport Committee.

The Minister can never miss an opportunity to have a go at British Rail—[Interruption.] There is no need for him to intervene yet. He should recall a couple of things. British Rail ran the system from 1948 until privatisation in the 1990s. During that time, there was a great deal of electrification, innovative engineering and scientific research. At the same time, the system was grossly underfunded. British Rail was always denied the funds it needed for infrastructure investment—it was always short of what it needed.

We privatised the railway system, and now spend more on subsidising train operating companies, which make considerable profits out of the system. We are spending more on the system so that we do not control it. Fares are among the highest in Europe, and we have the most expensive and diverse railway system.

I agree with the Minister that, for example, Virgin Trains runs a very good service on the west coast main line. I have travelled on Virgin trains and all the services at various times. The service is very good. I pay tribute to those who work on the trains and run the system—they do it very well with great difficulty. However, the Minister should not run away with the idea that Virgin Trains or any other company has done well because of its investment in the system. Who paid for the west coast electrification? We did. Who is paying for the electrification of the western region? We are.

The system is that we pump public money in for private companies to cream off very large profits. I am a strong supporter of the principle of the railway system and what it can achieve. Railways are the thing of the future. They are efficient and more environmentally sustainable than road traffic. The construction of railways has much less environmental impact. I understand the complaints about the route HS2 will take and the impact it will have in various places. I urge those who are concerned, next time they go on the west coast main line, to look at the section of the line that runs parallel to the M1 just south of Rugby. They should look at the land space taken up by the railways, and the number of people and freight travelling on that section of track, and compare it with the environmental impact of the M1, and of the widening of the M1 or any other motorway. The argument for railways is overwhelming.

The document is not a short, easy read, and these are just some of the papers associated with this subject, which is a proposal for the privatisation of the whole railway system across Europe. We do not need that. As many colleagues have said, integration can work within the existing framework. Yes, we need common safety standards. Yes, we need trains running directly from Spain bringing agricultural produce to this country, just as we need trains running directly from Russia and many other countries. That can all be achieved. Switzerland, which is not a member of the EU, has no problems integrating its services with Germany, France and Italy, and I do not think that any other country should have any problems either.

What we have is the worst of all worlds. The public are expected to pay for infrastructure and Network Rail has massive debts because of its investment in the system. I do not complain—

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made a statement dealing with the Bellwin formula and some of the flooding. I will look at the suggestion my hon. Friend has made.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State revisit the issue of electrifying the Barking to Gospel Oak section of the North London line? Electrification would make freight transport much more efficient and cheaper and enable much greater integrated working of the whole London overground system with the same trains, rather than having to switch to diesel on one section. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) should not be chuntering from a sedentary position about who came into the Chamber when. I know perfectly well what I am doing. The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has been here for some time. He has been legitimately called and that is all there is to it. It is very straightforward. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire should keep schtum; he might learn something.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Member representing the House of Commons Commission also look into the question of the non-recyclable items that are produced and used by the House, such as plastic wrappings and envelopes, with a view to ensuring that paper, which can be recycled more easily and cheaply, is used wherever possible?

[John Thurso]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful suggestion, and we will certainly do that. I can tell him that a new collection process for office waste has recently been agreed, which will allow recyclables such as cans, plastic, paper and cardboard to be collected in one bin, with the segregation of materials taking place in a municipal recycling facility once the waste has left the estate. Clearly, development of that stream would lead us to the objective that he is seeking.

Rail Investment

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

Ultimately that will be a decision for Network Rail. Let me be clear, though, that it was the meetings I had with my hon. Friend and her local councillors that brought home to me the fact that money needed to be set aside to make sure that new stations can be opened for the communities that need them where growth is happening. I very much hope that her Ilkeston station plan will go forward to the competition bid, and I will look with real interest to see it come through.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Does the electrification programme include the electrification of the Barking to Gospel Oak section of London overground? I had a meeting with one of her colleagues about this some months ago. It would make freight transportation from the east of England easier, improve passenger services, save a lot of money, and be environmentally sensible. Will she go for it?

[Justine Greening]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. That is not part of the electrification plans that we have announced today. Ultimately it is for Transport for London to fund it if it wants to do so, but I am sure that it will take on board the points that the hon. Gentleman has made and, if the business case stacks up, might consider it.

Lineside Vegetation (Network Rail Policy)

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I cite some of them, before continuing:

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

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

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

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

that is a considerable distance.

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

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

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

that is nearly 50 feet from the line.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jeremy Corbyn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The committee is also calling for a

“standardised written engagement processes with local communities”

to be improved to

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

Furthermore, it says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

It is unusual for a half-hour Westminster Hall debate to get trailed on the “Today” programme, but the media interest does not surprise me because this is an issue of real importance for our railways and our environment. Therefore I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing this debate. He asked me to pay tribute to the residents and the organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, that have fought campaigns on this issue. I am happy to do so. It is very important that we get this issue right.

I must start by acknowledging that Network Rail, as a private sector company, is not owned by the Government and therefore Ministers have no power to instruct or direct it. Consequently, although I am happy to respond to the points that have been made in this debate, I should emphasise that tree and vegetation management policy is an operational matter for Network Rail, over which we—as Ministers—do not have any power. Nevertheless, I fully appreciate how important this issue is and the concern that communities feel about Network Rail’s treatment of lineside vegetation.

I have raised this issue on a number of occasions with Network Rail, including with those at the very top of the company; I have raised it with Network Rail’s chief executive, Sir David Higgins, and its director of operations, Robin Gisby. I have raised the specific case of Grange Park; I fully acknowledge the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) in that regard. The pictures on the internet of Grange Park are more like the pictures that one would associate with rain forests being devastated by illegal logging than pictures of a leafy suburb. I therefore fully understand the concerns of local residents. In response to the points made by all hon. Members in Westminster Hall today, I am happy to raise this matter again with Network Rail and I will keep up the pressure in relation to it, as I do on a regular basis. I should also point out that some of my constituents have had similar concerns about lineside tree clearance by London Underground. That is a different organisation, but the concerns of the people affected are similar to those of the people affected by Network Rail.

To be honest, I always face a dilemma in this regard, since I care very much about both the provision of safe, reliable and affordable railways, and trees and the conservation of the natural environment. Of course, that is a dilemma that Network Rail faces on a daily basis. I fully agree with everything that has been said today about how important it is that Network Rail exercises care and good judgment when balancing those competing concerns. Efficiency and cost are a consideration, but environmental concerns also have to be taken seriously too. It is also very important that Network Rail engages effectively with the communities and local authorities that are affected by vegetation management, and of course it is essential that it complies with the relevant regulations relating to conservation and wildlife habitats.

Regarding the specific points that were made about the works adjacent to lines in north Islington, near the Arsenal stadium and the Gillespie park nature reserve, I am concerned to hear that the hon. Member for Islington North felt that Network Rail’s actions were so disproportionate and destructive in that area. Department for Transport officials have raised this case with Network Rail. As we have heard, in response to the concerns expressed by residents, Network Rail’s route director, Mr Phil Verster, suspended vegetation clearance in the area. I gather that he has asked a senior member of his team to contact Islington council to discuss what has happened and what went wrong. The aim is to agree a mutually acceptable method for sharing Network Rail’s work plans in the future.

As regards work during the bird nesting season, I can confirm that the company is bound by the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended. Network Rail must ensure that it does not contravene the legislation put in place to protect birds while they are nesting. It should be noted that the legislation allows work to be undertaken where needed for safety reasons.

Turning to the more general issues raised today, Network Rail is tasked with managing over 30,000 hectares of lineside vegetation along 20,000 miles of track. That makes the railway a major natural resource, which needs to be managed at all times of the year to keep it safe. Trees growing within the railway corridor between the railway boundary fences are the responsibility of Network Rail. I am afraid that there is no escaping the fact that trees next to the railway, especially if they are relatively tall, can be a potential risk to train operations and public safety. If they fall over the track or into the overhead wires and cables on electrified railway lines, it can lead to severe train disruption, with major delays and service cancellations. There is also the risk that falling trees could cause accidents.

Factors, such as the steepness of cutting slopes, soil conditions and the nature of the vegetation, can all be relevant to the degree of risk at particular locations. In certain circumstances, trees and bushes need to be cut back in certain areas, because low branches and foliage can impair train drivers’ views of signals. For safety reasons, track workers need to be able to see and be seen by trains, to be able to move to a safe place when a train approaches.

Reliability issues are not confined to instances of falling trees, of course. Delays caused by leaves on the line lead to understandable annoyance and frustration for the commuters and passengers affected, not to mention the economic damage of transport delays. Leaf fall can have a significant effect on train performance and is a significant cause of delay in the autumn, generating public pressure for preventive action. The rail regulator highlighted the contribution of vegetation management to the industry’s successful management of train delays last autumn.

In developing its vegetation management policy, Network Rail tells me that it has worked with organisations such as the RSPB, English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage. Its priority is to operate a safe and reliable railway, and tree clearance must be a part of that. It has a duty to provide, as far as is reasonably practical, a railway free from danger and obstruction from falling trees.

Recognising public concern on the issue, I have emphasised to Network Rail how important it is that it strikes the right balance between providing a safe, reliable and affordable network and addressing local community and environmental concerns. Although the majority of work is carried out responsibly, the company acknowledged again today that in some instances it has fallen short of the standards it sets itself. It accepts that there are lessons to be learned.

In particular, the Government urge Network Rail to engage proactively and effectively with local residents, local authorities and MPs in advance of carrying out works. It has recently revised its consultation process—no doubt seeking to learn lessons from the experiences that hon. Members mentioned—to enable key stakeholders to be informed of intended maintenance operations in good time.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am pleased with the Minister’s response and I am grateful that she will raise our issues with Network Rail. We had exactly those undertakings from it less than a year ago in Islington, and we assumed that it was acting in good faith and would mend its ways in future, because it did similar things on the North London line. Will she tell it in clear terms to please be straight with communities and tell them what is going on? That way, they will understand what is happening, without the kind of double dealing that we had before.

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It has been raised with Network Rail on various occasions over a period of years. I was trying to remember the first time that I raised it—it was certainly over a year ago. It is important that Network Rail focuses and that we see real change.

There is progress. Network Rail has advised that the number of complaints about vegetation management has fallen. The hon. Gentleman thought that it did not collect that information; I think that it does, but I will check. I was given to understand that it did. Requests to cut back overgrown trees and vegetation now exceed complaints about vegetation management.

However, there are undoubtedly remaining instances in which Network Rail has failed to provide anything like comprehensive advance notice of the nature and timing of its intended work programmes. Network Rail acknowledges the shortcomings that have occurred. For example, it accepts the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that when it does communicate with residents, it sometimes fails to convey the scale of the works that will be undertaken. It is reviewing its communications strategy and working with the Tree Council to improve its lineside vegetation management, and with a view to developing more sustainable solutions to the challenges that it faces in reconciling environmental concerns with keeping the railways running safely. Network Rail has acknowledged that it needs to do better, and I will be urging it to do so.

As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, there are important ecological issues to be considered. Network Rail needs to take care to avoid unnecessary tree felling. I recognise fully the concern that people feel when they see trees being cut down next to railway tracks. Network Rail’s first duty is to ensure the safe running of the railway, but it must also have regard to the environmental, social and quality-of-life importance of the conservation of trees and wildlife corridors. This debate will provide a timely reminder of the importance of engaging with MPs, local communities affected by vegetation management and local authorities. I will ensure that all the points made in this debate are conveyed to Network Rail at the earliest possible opportunity. I have enjoyed the chance to debate an important issue with hon. Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Cycling

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and has saved me making it.

As to the training of cyclists and drivers, Michael Bolton is delighted that the Government have pledged to continue the support of Bikeability training in schools. I welcome their pledge of £11 million for that, and their commitment to improve the driving test and driver training.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

On cycling safety, does the hon. Lady think we should do something to improve the safety of cycles and cyclists, by requiring all new bikes to be sold fitted with lights, all new cyclists to be given a high-visibility vest and offered a low-price helmet, and schools to do far more on cycling safety and training? Should not cyclists be trained to behave responsibly, in addition to all the road safety measures that she has outlined?

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman makes excellent points and he is right that we need to consider a compendium of solutions to the problem.

On training, my constituent points out that it will help if we train young people,

“to redress the years and lost generations where cycling has been side-lined.”

He adds:

“Not only does it benefit the children now with greater independence, less obesity and much greater road awareness but will also mean that the next generation of learner drivers should have a greater understanding of road etiquette and the place of cyclists.”

Incidentally, he feels that that should be extended to

“include funded cycle training for adults and greater cycle awareness within the instruction given to drivers in general and professional drivers in particular”.

Mr Bolton says that wider implementation of a 20 mph speed limit would not only make things safer and more pleasant for cyclists and pedestrians, particularly in residential areas, but reduce the differential between the time taken for journeys made by car or by bike, thus

“making journeys by bicycle that bit more enticing.”

He supports appointing cycling commissioners. I suggest that we might consider the appointment of voluntary local champions in that regard, in these times of local funding austerity.

Bob Norton, the chair of the Congleton cycling club, raises two innovative points. He suggests that in most of the EU, national legislation adopts the position that the less vulnerable road user causing harm is deemed to be responsible or culpable, unless evidence is produced to show the contrary. Secondly, he says that the UK should legislate for a minimum passing distance, along the lines of those in force in other European countries.

Other residents, Nick Harwood and Paul Fradley, point out that the poor state of road maintenance is a serious concern, as other hon. Members have mentioned. Often

“a cyclist may have to move out from a line close to the left hand edge of the thoroughfare into the path of fast moving cars, lorries and vans.”

They comment that

“secure bike storage at railway stations and in town centres could all work together to enable more people to leave the car at home”.

My constituent David Ball supports the campaign to raise driver awareness of the vulnerability of cyclists, and reminds us that, whereas some people say that cyclists do not pay road tax, neither do cycles emit CO₂, or damage roads, as cars do.

Finally, I want to quote from the letter I received from Keith Austin, whose son was killed when he was hit from behind by an HGV. He is disappointed—to say the least—to find that the CPS

“have ensured that the driver is to be sentenced in a magistrates court, not the Crown Court”.

He writes that

“it does seem to highlight the unwillingness of the…CPS to bring adequate prosecution against drivers who kill cyclists. Perhaps you can use something from my letter in the debate in Parliament, if you are called.”

Mr Austin writes that Karl, who was a very well-known racing cyclist and had competed for 35 years all over England, was very safety conscious on the roads, and on the day he died was wearing bright clothing. He adds:

“he had attached to the rear of his bike a very small but super-efficient “Exposure Flare” rear light. This emits a very bright pulsating red light, which on a wide, straight road such as the A50 should have been visible for hundreds of yards. A fellow competitor on that evening saw Karl’s bright light and had Karl not been killed later was going to ask him where he could buy one, as it was so powerful.”

Just a few days ago, a report was published in which the head of the Scotland Yard’s road death investigation unit, Detective Chief Inspector Oldham, stated that motorists who cause death on the roads should face stiffer penalties. Mr Austin says that he is now left with the fact that his son’s case will be dealt with in a magistrates court, rather than in a Crown court with a judge presiding. He will be dealt with in a court where petty criminals are dealt with. He says:

“Is killing a man through carelessness on a par with minor offences? Under similar circumstances”—

that is, killing a man—

“where no vehicle was involved, would that qualify for a magistrates court?...To lose a child under any circumstances is utterly devastating. But to have that death…treated in such a…trivialising manner, just deepens the wounds further. My wife and I have suffered all this before, in 1986, when our only daughter was killed in a car crash; her killer charged with ‘driving without due care and attention’ and fined about £200.”

With great grace, however, Mr Austin says that he is not vengeful towards the HGV driver, who himself has to live with the consequences of the incident. He ends his letter to me by saying:

“Whatever sentence he would have faced would be as nothing compared to ours”,

even if the case had been dealt with in a Crown court. Is Mr Austin’s letter alone not sufficient reason for us all to consider the issue of road safety for the benefit of everyone: cyclists, pedestrians and drivers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Seabeck]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I will touch on safety around lorries and larger vehicles later in my remarks.

Apart from the hills, one reason that people in Plymouth do not cycle much concerns the way they interact with traffic. The national campaign will no doubt help mobilise ideas about better safety and help raise awareness. Let me describe briefly what is happening in my constituency. Plymouth city council has produced a cycling leaflet which is both myth busting and promotes the health benefits of cycling. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and I will continue to maintain pressure on the council on issues such as potholes close to the kerb, which is a problem that affected one of my 70-year-old constituents. I knocked on her door and when she opened it I saw that she was badly bruised. She told me that she had been out on her racing bike and hit a pothole. People of all ages cycle, but if someone like my constituent takes a tumble, it can be more serious.

We are all, of course, aware of the health benefits of cycling, but we must ensure that those benefits outweigh the dangers and hazards and mean that people like me can go out and cycle with confidence. We have to do more to develop safe cycle routes in Plymouth, and the local Labour party is keen to be more proactive in that area. Plymouth has a good history of road safety—Leslie Hore-Belisha, one of my predecessors, was responsible for the Belisha beacon on pedestrian crossings.

I have also been impressed by the local Plymouth cycling campaign run by my constituents. They are aware of the bad press that cyclists can receive for inconsiderate riding in and around the city centre, and they have suggested a city centre cycling code. They strongly promote helmets, high visibility jackets, lights and a better awareness of riding in traffic. I was extremely interested to hear about the training for adults that was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Do the police and the community in Plymouth also enforce no cycling on pavements and no jumping of red lights as part of the city centre cycling code?

[Alison Seabeck]

The city centre cycling code is not yet in place, but there are definite problems about cyclists jumping red lights. It irritates me no end and I often shout at cyclists who do it. That is perhaps not very responsible, but it is something that irritates me. The Plymouth cycling campaign has been working in the city centre, and as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will confirm, action has been taken there regarding both cyclists and skateboarders.

The Plymouth cycling campaign also has an effective “give me space” T-shirt—that returns to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who said we need to treat cyclists, and motorcyclists, as though they are cars and give them road space. That is a good idea, but it is a small local initiative that hopes to continue raising awareness and safety. I hope that the Government will look at supporting local authorities and schemes that opt to give greater priority to cycling safety. Yet again, that is a plea for cross-departmental working, together with the Department for Communities and Local Government.

As we have heard, The Times has made several proposals, including the identification of the 500 most dangerous junctions—I have no doubt that cyclists will be queuing up to identify them. One needs to go only a short distance from my flat in London to see two ghost cycles, which are a telling reminder of the tragedies that can happen. The installation of sensors and extra mirrors on trucks is one measure that can be taken. That may involve costs for haulage companies, but when weighed against the loss of a life or a life-threatening injury, it seems a price worth paying. The campaign for safety will enhance people’s enjoyment in cycling and bring obvious health benefits. I urge hon. Members to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Bayley. You are an excellent cyclist yourself, so you are totally unbiased in the Chair. I always appreciate your wearing a badge saying, “I stop at red”—that is a message to many other cyclists. I will say only a few things and very quickly, so that everyone who wants to can speak.

First, I thank The Times for its campaign and the all-party cycling group for its work. That campaign and the work that has been done have made a big difference. The fact that various newspapers have taken up the issue in a good way has meant that we have got this debate, that there is a greater emphasis on it and that cycling will be treated as a normal part of transport and not something else.

I pay tribute to many local groups in my constituency. The Islington cyclists action group has for many years been badgering the council and everyone else about cycle safety, junctions and everything else. It is part of the development of cycling in London. I do not know about other hon. Members, but I received several hundred e-mails in advance of the debate. I thank every single person for writing and particularly those who wrote to ask me why I had not signed my own early-day motion. [Laughter.] It is okay if people are not reading too carefully what they are supposed to be writing about.

I imagine that London is now seen as the most pro-cycling city in the country. Certainly, as someone who has cycled in London for more than 20 years, I have noticed the increase in the number of cyclists and, to be fair, an increased awareness by many car, lorry, bus and taxi drivers of the needs of cyclists. That is very welcome indeed.

The cycle hire scheme in London is very successful. Large numbers of people use it, and it has introduced a whole new generation of people to cycling. I am particularly pleased that we have it. I am also pleased with the pledge from Ken Livingstone that it will be made free for older people, because as he rightly points out, the majority of people using the cycle hire scheme in London earn more than £50,000 a year. He wishes to make cycling a slightly more egalitarian form of transport, which all Labour Members will support completely. [Interruption.] I do not want to bring a class element into the debate.

There are serious issues of cycle safety. We should be realistic about that, but not in a way that puts people off cycling. It is important to keep a balance.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I agree with my hon. Friend that London is perhaps the best city in the UK for cycling, but does he agree with me that the gold standard for cycling is in Holland? It is not in Leeds, I am sorry to say; Leeds is pretty poor. York is good. But the gold standard is in Holland and especially the city of Amsterdam. Would he like the standards that apply there to be introduced in London and other places in the UK?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Absolutely. I have cycled many times in the Netherlands, and the cycle routes there are incredible; there is no question about that. It is possible to get off a boat at the Hook of Holland and get all the way to Copenhagen almost without touching a main road. The system and the facilities in the Netherlands are superb. A Dutch railway station is a bit like Cambridge: there will be hundreds of cycles outside the station. Cambridge is probably the only station in this country—perhaps this applies to Oxford as well—with that number of cycles parked outside it. That indicates the transport integration there.

There is a question about getting through to road planners about cyclists and the need to incorporate cycling in designs. Coming back from my one and only visit to Beijing, I met an engineer, a Chinese gentleman, on the plane. I have never forgotten this. He said, “How did you find Beijing?” I said that I thought that it was a lovely city and very interesting, but I was very concerned about the pollution and the traffic. He said, “Don’t worry. We are going to sort out the traffic problem.” I said, “How are you going to do that?” He replied, “We’re going to get rid of all these damn cycle rides so that we can get more cars on the road.” Unfortunately, it was a very long flight home, because he then proceeded to give me a long and totally incoherent explanation about how cars took up less road space than bicycles. I still have not fully grasped his logic. Perhaps there was not any there.

In road planning, the question is not just of having cycle lanes, important as they are, but what happens at the junction. Too often, a cyclist gets to a junction and they are exposed to a great deal of danger. Some junctions are well organised. Hyde Park corner, for example, has cycle routes through the middle, but the traffic light phasing is not particularly good and I suspect that that leads to danger. We also have to give a message to cyclists. I say this as someone who has spent their lifetime cycling, and I have cycled in many countries and I feel very passionately in favour of cycling. I calculate on a daily basis the average number of cyclists coming into central London who jump red lights. It is reducing: it is down from 50% to about 25% of the peloton that arrives at the average bunch of traffic lights. It is dangerous and unnecessary and, by and large, the police make no effort to enforce traffic rules any more than they do to stop cyclists riding on pavements in an extremely dangerous way; a very small number do it, but it is dangerous. I wish the cyclists’ campaign well. This debate is a real achievement for those of us who spend our lives cycling and who demand better facilities.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

In reference to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said, I have never been on a tandem with my predecessor.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It is early days.

[Steve Brine]

The hon. Gentleman has taken the words right out of my mouth.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing the debate. It is a pleasure to work on the all-party parliamentary group with him and the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin). There are not many all-party groups where MPs can meet, we hope, future Olympians and get police outriders to cycle them through the centre of this, the greatest city on earth. That is what happens in our all-party group, and it is a pleasure to be part of it and this debate today, which our all-party group has been instrumental in securing. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate.

Over half term, I was cycling in Cornwall. I went on a 15-mile ride on the famous Camel trail on a beautiful Friday afternoon last week. My pleasure was only dampened by the fact that I was pulling two small children in a pod behind the bike. I can recommend that to Members only if they want to build their thighs, and for no other reason.

Having just popped out for a couple of votes, I was struck by what an amazing day it is out there and what a day it would be for cycling. For me, this debate is a bit like watching “Ski Sunday”; I really want to get out there and do it. As I live in Winchester, it is a lot easier to get out there on a bike than it is to get on some skis.

I pay tribute to The Times for its campaign. It has really struck a chord with many of my constituents, a large number of whom e-mailed me ahead of today’s debate, and I thank them all for that. Obviously, I wish Mary Bowers all the best.

We have heard today about the benefits of cycling for individuals, the economy, the transport system and the environment. Many people have started to realise the benefits, and I hope that many more will. I pay tribute to the current Mayor of London for the work that he has done in the city. He is a controversial figure in many ways, but he will be remembered for Boris bikes long after he has gone.

In my constituency of Winchester, which likes to challenge Cambridge as cycle city—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cambridge shakes his head. In Winchester, so much good work is being done to encourage cycling and to improve road safety for the residents. Whenever I am in the constituency, I cycle around the city; it is far easier and cheaper than finding a parking space in Winchester. It is the start of the South Downs way; it has national cycle network tracks that go all the way from Southampton, across the Isle of Wight, from Alresford to Alton and beyond.

I mentioned in my intervention the infamous junction 9 above the M3 and national cycle route 23 and the problems that we have there. Sitting listening to this debate, it seems that there is a recurring theme—a cycle route that is all but complete but for one little bit where something or someone is getting in the way. I gently suggest to the Minister that he might like to ask officials to review the national cycle routes and where we have our problems and see whether he can unblock them.

I pay tribute to the CTC in Winchester and Sue Coles in particular. I worked very closely with her on the M3 problem. She puts together a full calendar of cycling events in the city. We already have a cycling champion in the city: Councillor Jacey Jackson, who has done a brilliant job over the years in helping so many children get their cycling proficiency badges, and I pay tribute to her.

I wish The Times campaign well. Yes, we want to make our cities less dangerous places in which to cycle, but I want to be more ambitious than that. We want to make cities not just less dangerous but a pleasure to cycle in; many of them are, but let us go further.

Public Transport (Disabled Access)

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing the debate and on the excellent way in which she introduced the subject for us. The background is that 60% of people with disabilities have no access to a car and are therefore totally reliant on public transport, whether bus, train, tube or taxi. For them, public transport is of even greater importance than for the rest of the population, and that fundamental point should underlie the debate.

In London, the treatment of passengers with disabilities is probably, although it does not always feel like it, rather better than it is in many other parts of the country. That is not an accident; it has happened because we have a regulated bus service and a unitary transport authority. It has also happened because of the hands-on approach taken by the former Greater London council and, for most of the period since their introduction, by the Greater London authority and the Mayor in pushing the whole disability agenda. The Mayor’s office also has a very effective advisory network that can ensure that it delivers on those issues. Under the previous Mayor, Ken Livingstone, there was an ambitious programme to convert a large number of tube stations to disability access, for which he should be commended. That is the issue that I want to refer to in a local context.

There are 11 stations—Network Rail and underground— that serve my constituency. Of the Network Rail ones, on the North London line, Upper Holloway, Crouch Hill and Canonbury have proper disability access, with ramps and so on, and all are staffed at present. With the stations that are mixed London Underground and Network Rail, there is an utterly ridiculous situation. In the case of Highbury and Islington, for example, the London overground station has disability access—it has recently been refurbished to bring in the East London line—but the underground station does not, so it is impossible to get off an overground train and on to an underground train there, because there is not proper access to enable people to do so.

Finsbury Park is a very old, busy and crowded underground station, and Network Rail, the underground and buses converge there. After a lot of argument, Network Rail has agreed to put in a lift between street level and the mainline platforms, which are well above street level. At the same time, Transport for London has cancelled its plans to put in a lift to the underground platforms underneath. Thus we have a ludicrous situation in which someone in a wheelchair, arriving at Finsbury Park station by the overground, will be able to get from the mainline platforms to the street, but will not be able to get to the underground.

I use that station frequently and every day passengers carry people with wheelchairs, and carry buggies, up and down. The overcrowding and lack of accessibility, and the danger that goes with that, are ridiculous. I hope that the Minister will pass on to his friend the Mayor of London what I have to say to him: please think again about the cancellation of the conversion scheme for a large number of London stations. It is making the lives of many people a misery and something should be done about it. The conversion needs to happen much more widely, across the network.

At other stations there is no access for people with disabilities. Those include Archway, which was also the subject of a plan from Ken Livingstone. Three stations that were due to be converted have had their plans cancelled. Highbury and Islington is the other, and only one station—Tufnell Park—has accessibility to the tube, which is by means of a lift. The situation is ridiculous, but I do not plead that case just for my constituency. I am using it as an example that could be repeated across London; it is not exclusive to my area.

My second general point is about buses and accessibility. After a lot of campaigning, London buses have ramps, and drivers are supposed to stop in such a way that the ramp can be used, enabling wheelchair users to get on the bus. Many drivers are good, reasonable, responsible and decent, and they stop in the proper place, giving people time to get on. That is fine, but unfortunately some drivers do not do it. Buses are often crowded, so often people with a wheelchair have to wait for many buses to go by before they can get on. On a cold winter’s morning, it is no joke when a person in a wheelchair is stuck for a long time simply trying to get on a bus. Space is lacking, because it is taken up with buggies and other things, so while I obviously accept the point that awareness is needed, we need training to go with it.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will dwell on that point for a moment. He referred to gaps in his constituency, but in the past 15 or 20 years there has been movement on the issue of infrastructure across the UK. However, there appears still to be a gap in staff training and awareness of problems. Although there has been some progress on that in the past 10 years, more needs to be done, particularly as some people do not seem to be aware of the crucial issues that affect partially-sighted and disabled people.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I absolutely accept that attitudes, awareness and training have improved, but we need only look at the building we are in to see that we still have very far to go in achieving proper accessibility. I realise that those things are not simple, but nevertheless they must be achieved.

Outside London, where the bus service is largely less regulated, facilities tend to be much worse, and we need a much tougher approach from central Government to ensure that bus companies do as they should, bus stops are appropriate, and buses are sufficiently regulated and regular to enable people to get around. It is no fun to be waiting in a wheelchair in the cold, unable to move around to get warm, as other people who are not in wheelchairs can.

As to Network Rail, the McNulty review stated:

“The Study recommends that the default position for all services on the GB rail network should be DOO”—

driver-only operations—

“with a second member of train crew only being provided where there is a commercial, technical or other imperative.”

How many times have we seen people trying to get on or off trains at remote or suburban stations at night, when there are no staff on the station or the train—only a driver, who cannot see everything or be everywhere? It is then a great struggle simply to get on or off a train. The McNulty proposal to go to a largely driver-only-operated service means that many suburban and rural services will have no member of staff on them, and in addition there will be unstaffed stations. That is obviously a huge deterrent to anyone who has special needs getting into the station and on to the train. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that he does not want that aspect of the McNulty proposals to be introduced.

Additionally, it is often difficult for people, particularly those with sight difficulties, when there are no staff on the station and only ticket vending machines are used. The machines are often the wrong height or badly placed. Getting a ticket and getting on the train when there are no staff becomes a nightmare. It is unnecessary and wrong to have such arrangements; they are uncivilised and we should put a stop to them.

As many as 10,000 ticket staff across the country could lose their jobs between now and 2013 if McNulty is implemented. Those people are there to help, bring security and support people. Surely we need to give a lot of thought to that, and quickly. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan on obtaining the debate, and I hope that the Minister understands that the role of the Government is to regulate and to ensure that services are provided: because 60% of people with disabilities have no access to a car, public transport is the only option for them. Buses and trains must be accessible, stations must be staffed and the staff must be trained to assist people as necessary. That is the only right and proper thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

Such organisations do a fantastic job, but we need to ensure that there is access to this place. The all-party parliamentary groups, of which my hon. Friend is a member—I was chairman of several all party groups when I was a Back Bencher—are about access. They are not just talking shops. They are there to say that people have the right to come forward.

It is a requirement of rail employers to ensure that their front-line staff have the right sort of training.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been generous with his time. I am interested in his point about writing letters. If I forward a letter to him from Disability Action in Islington concerning the cancellation of the step-free access programme to the London underground, I am sure that he will be straight on the phone to Boris Johnson who will make sure that these programmes are reinstated. Have I got a deal there? Is that okay?

[Mike Penning]

I will do a deal with the hon. Gentleman. If he writes to me, I will pass on his letter to the Minister responsible who will then be in contact with Boris. I am trying to think of the station that has had the lift installed.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Green Park.

[Mike Penning]

That is right. The lift cost £25 million. One issue that has been raised is the age of our network. I do not know whether that applies to our buses. Actually, the situation in London has dramatically improved because all buses have disabled access now. Although we have more modern trains, our stations and platforms are a massive issue for all constituency MPs.