Transport for London Funding

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you presiding over our business, Mr Hollobone. I am not sure where the three finest are, but my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), for Eltham (Clive Efford) and for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) are here, as am I, and I hope that we can make a contribution to the debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) on an excellent opening speech. He comprehensively covered issues such as funding, resourcing and staff cuts, which saves us having to raise them, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

It is good to see that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), is here to represent Her Majesty’s Opposition. It is also good to see the Minister in the Chamber. I congratulate him on his recent promotion, which will hopefully make him more benevolent towards London. I intend to speak briefly—certainly for no more than 10 minutes—and to raise parochial issues, given that the opening speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West covered all the major funding issues.

I start by thanking Transport for London for its briefing, and its staff for all they do to keep this great city moving, ensuring that my constituents and I can get about. Their work is highly regarded and they do a fantastic job.

I was not going to mention the Silvertown crossing, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham raised it, it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s comments about what support the DFT will give TfL for east London river crossings. Half of London’s population now lives east of Tower bridge, yet we only have two crossings there, while there are 23 crossings west of Tower bridge. As tolling will be an issue, I would expect at least the same arrangements to apply to local residents in east London as those for residents around the Queen Elizabeth II bridge. Any tolling should be discounted, but I would be quite happy to put up with tolling to ensure that we get the crossing.

East London’s air quality is poor, and it is made poorer because of standing traffic and congestion from the Blackwall tunnel. We need to get that traffic moving. When the Blackwall tunnel has difficulties, as it regularly does because of collisions or oversized vehicles, there is gridlock in east London. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s comments about the Silvertown crossing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West talked about VED and support from licensing revenue in London. My understanding—this may be entirely wrong, so the Minister might correct me—is that the vast majority of local authorities across the country get road support grants to deal with potholes, repairs and the like, but London does not receive such grant. That gives the impression that dealing with potholes in London is paid for by tube and bus passengers, who are subsidising the missing grant.

If one thinks about financial pressures, one can draw conclusions that may be entirely erroneous. We have a new franchisee running the docklands light railway: KeolisAmey. When I started in the Commons, the DLR was carrying some 20 million passengers a year. It now carries 100 million passengers a year, including many colleagues from the Scottish National party when they travel to London City airport to fly back to Scotland on a Thursday night or Friday morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West set out the massive increase in journeys on the DLR. That fantastic railway is, of course, a driverless operation, which makes it separate from most of TfL’s other rail operations.

The new DLR franchise is only six months old, but its staff have already gone on strike for the first time in 23 years. One has to ask whether the resourcing of the DLR and pressure on the contract led the new franchisee to put pressure on staff’s conditions and wages. That is total speculation on my part, but the fact that we have had the first DLR strike in 23 years is not a good sign. It is certainly a concern for my constituents and a very worrying development indeed.

The final point I want to cover is another parochial one. I see that the Minister is wearing his red ensign badge proudly as shipping Minister—there is nothing wrong with that at all, and I applaud him for it. Yesterday, I attended a Port of London authority presentation at Tower pier at which it outlined its vision for the River Thames for the next 20 to 50 years. The most striking thing about the presentation was that whereas most people think that the Thames’s heyday is behind it—we have the visuals of riggers in the past 200 years and merchant vessels in the 20th century being unloaded in the docks—and that it is now much quieter, with Thames Gateway and the port of Tilbury, as the Minister will know, London is now dealing with more tonnage than ever in its history.

With new commuter routes being opened up all the time, there is more commuter traffic than ever. Construction projects such as the Thames Tideway tunnel and, to a certain extent, Crossrail, which require the Thames to be used and that get HGVs off London’s roads and traffic on to the Thames, are welcome. The PLA’s vision is that the Thames’s best days are ahead of it, so it is really disappointing that the proposed cruise terminal at Enderby Wharf, which has been approved by the Royal Borough of Greenwich and the Mayor of London, does not have a ship-to-shore energy supply. That means that when cruise ships start arriving in London, they will have to run their diesel engines 24/7 to power them while they are berthed in the middle of the Thames, which is the equivalent of putting hundreds of lorries’ emissions back into London’s air. If we provided a ship-to-shore energy supply, which I believe would cost only up to a few million pounds, we could deal a big blow to London’s emissions.

Given that background, what funding does the Department for Transport provide for TfL to study air quality? Transport emissions play a big part in air quality, as they account for between 25% and 30% of all emissions. The shipping industry is growing, and we want to ensure as much as possible that its growth is environmentally sustainable and clean. Does the Minister have anything to add to the debate about the cruise terminal at Enderby Wharf? Can he say whether, even at this late stage, ship-to-shore energy supply could be introduced into the plan, given that the situation is a negative dark spot on what ought to be a positive clean bill of health for the Thames?

I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West on securing this important debate. I have raised much more parochial points than him, and we will be interested to hear the speeches from the three Front-Bench spokesmen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) on securing the debate. I also congratulate the Minister of State on his recent promotion, and I know that he will enjoy the additional challenges it brings.

I have been asked to sum up for the third party, and I will try something quite unusual, which is to do so in a third-party way, and to be as apolitical and as helpful as I can. I want to refer to Scotland and what the Scottish Government are doing, because I believe in their approach, and I think it would be helpful to bring it into this discussion.

The hon. Member for Harrow West talked about Transport for London services being crucial to business and to people. He talked about London’s urban growth being the fastest in the European Union. I have something in common with him, because Inverness is the fastest-growing city overall in Europe. I know exactly what he is talking about, but perhaps on a different scale.

People coming into London have an interest in this issue as well as those already in London. People need to make internal connections, but external connections cannot be ignored. It is every bit as important to make sure that links such as the Gatwick Express operate properly. I hear again that it is a disaster this morning, incidentally, with two trains cancelled and another stuck for many minutes on the line. The hon. Gentleman talked about roads being under pressure, and the knock-on impact of a failure to invest. That came through in all hon. Members’ contributions, as did the point that what may have been missing is a longer-term vision and an overall view of how things should be developed.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) made an important intervention in which she talked about the absolute need to engage people in major decisions. That brings me to my first point about the approach in Scotland, which I feel passionate about. I think there is agreement across parties on an outcomes-based approach to development, where we take things forward towards a longer-term outcome with people in mind, rather than as an afterthought. That came through time and again.

The Minister spoke in an intervention about smart ticketing, and I compliment him on doing so. We have to make it easier for people to use different modes of transport, but it is important—we must mention this early—that smart ticketing be fair. It should be carried forward in such a way as to enable everybody to interact with it. A point was made about fairness later on, and adopting an outcomes-based approach makes a big difference to that.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) rightly mentioned the hard-working staff on the network. Too often, we forget that when we ask people to take charge of new developments and bigger challenges, those involved in their delivery will be put under pressure. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to mention those people. We should reflect in the same way on the people who work in the transport system across the nations of the UK. He made the telling point that the DLR recently had its first strike for 23 years, and that tells us something about the communication that is needed. He also made an important point about the growing need to take shipping into account.

One thing missing from the debate—I am not trying to score points, but I want to take in the context—was any discussion of possible airport expansion. Hon. Members do not know where the pressure will be in London, because the decision has not been made yet, but that must be taken into account in future planning.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Some of us, like the hon. Gentleman, listened in the Chamber yesterday afternoon to the statement from the Government, in which they delayed the decision yet again. That was most frustrating for most colleagues right across the Chamber.

[Drew Hendry]

I agree about that frustration. As I have said, I will not try to use this debate to score points, but we must look at making decisions that are connected to others that we make. Other hon. Members brought that out in spades today.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) talked about Transport for London as a property developer. He asked what kind of developer it would be, and what it would do in future. The point about outcomes for people shone through in his questions, and it is important to look at what kind of outcomes there will be. If property development will be a vehicle for investment, he is quite right to say that we should know what kind of investment will be made. He asked what the point was of TfL investments if not to improve transport for people.

The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) talked about air pollution, having the correct infrastructure requirements, and the need to see what people want to do in the future, which goes back to my point about outcomes. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is unfortunately not in his place, mentioned buses in an intervention. I want to mention Britain’s largest bus manufacturer, Alexander Dennis, in Falkirk. It would, I am sure, be delighted to supply vehicles. What is needed is an outcomes-based approach with a longer-term view. People should not, as the hon. Member for Eltham pointed out, be made to pay more just because of where they live. That should be taken into account when deciding how to take things forward.

I said I would talk about Scotland. Since 2007, more than £15 billion has been invested in transport, and the Scottish Government have adopted an outcomes-based approach to policy, through which they look for a healthier, wealthier, greener approach to development. I believe that that is now considered to be the right approach by those from across the different parties in Scotland. We have looked at sustainable transport options that will encourage people out of their cars, and made sure that we made the investments necessary to connect people.

Our conversation this morning contains a contradictory message, and I will fire back a bit of a warning to hon. Members. They cannot say, “Let’s not invest in cycling and walking” while moaning about emissions and congestion. There has to be a balance between those things. In Scotland, since 2011, we have invested in 190 km of cycling and walking routes. We have also made the largest single investment in Scotland’s transport history with the £3 billion upgrade of the A9, because it is a vital part of the transport mix, and it is what people asked for and required. I am delighted to say that it connects my constituency with Perth, and that connection is ongoing. That development was vital to the highlands economy, and it was part of our work on a mix of transport options, which included simultaneous investment in the rail links between Aberdeen and Inverness, and Inverness and Perth. Investment is not limited to those lines, however; hon. Members will be aware of the recently opened borders railway link, with which we threw off the ghost of the railway cutback and built the first new railway in Scotland since the Beeching cuts. In our rounded approach, we take an outcomes-based look at how transport has to be put together.

I will not take much more time. In summary, people’s absolute need and right to be connected fluidly to all the different transport options available came through clearly this morning. That is a substantial challenge for an organisation as big as Transport for London, but if it takes an outcomes-based approach—I fundamentally believe that all hon. Members’ contributions this morning indicated the need for such an approach—it will start to get somewhere with looking at the wider picture and the longer-term view.

Of course, if greater public investment is to be made, the public need to be involved and feel involved. It would be a good move for Transport for London to look at how it engages with people and how it will take forward conversations with the relevant communities, so that it can ensure that it carries forward in its planning the points made by hon. Members this morning. I hope that it will heed my warning and take an outcomes-based approach to such development.

Airports Capacity

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will make a number of points. I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend thinks that the fact that there was no action from a previous Government is completely irrelevant to the situation we find ourselves in. I do not accept that. The simple fact is that the Davies commission has identified, in a thorough report, that extra capacity is needed. It has said that three options can be considered, and we are right to consider those three options. I hope very much that, by the summer, we will be able to tell the House which one carries the most favour with the Government.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State knows that I hold him in high regard, even when I heckle him, but it took the Conservatives 18 months to get past the Liberal Democrats’ red line on increases in aviation capacity, they used the Davies commission to buy three more years to get them beyond the general election and they have bought another six months by avoiding making a statement until today. Why does the Secretary of State not just admit that this is a political fix to get us past the mayoral election in London? Given his integrity and honesty, why does he not own up to the fact that this has nothing to do with the national interest?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not mind the occasional heckle from the hon. Gentleman—indeed, I am quite used to that by now. He says that this is just a fix to move past the mayoral elections, but we have always known when those elections were, and if it had been a fix we would have simply said when the Davies report was published that we were not going to respond for 12 months. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) has been perfectly clear about where he stands on this matter, unlike the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) who, when he was Minister of State and attending Cabinet in 2009, said that he was firmly in favour of Heathrow expansion.

Davies Commission Report

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I realise that my right hon. Friend has not had time to read the whole report—as I have said, I have not managed to read it all yet either—but I draw his attention to page 34, where it says:

“If new capacity was found to be necessary and feasible, a wide range of options should be considered. This could include airports previously assessed as part of the Commission process, for example Stansted and Gatwick, and airports outside London and the South East, such as at Birmingham or Manchester.”

I have been very keen to ensure that airports outside London such as Birmingham and Manchester play a full role in the aviation availability for the country.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

When the right hon. Gentleman was appointed, it was taken as a signal that the Government—certainly the Conservative part of the coalition—were having a fresh look at aviation capacity, because his predecessor, who does a great job as International Development Secretary, had campaigned against any capacity increase. Will he assure the House that as Transport Secretary he will act as an advocate for the Davies recommendations within Government?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Many interpretations were put on why I might have got the job in 2012, so I will leave the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation to his own imagination.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend has been very consistent in her opposition to any third or fourth runway at Heathrow, and I know she supports the expansion of other airports. I look forward to receiving the commission’s recommendations and report this summer and to my hon. Friend’s comments on it.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Have we not just wasted another five years? The coalition has delayed building new runway capacity for the south-east because the Liberal Democrats are in denial about aviation being a very important economic instrument. I think the Conservative party now gets it. Why have we had to wait another five years?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will not take any lessons from a party that wasted 13 years in not doing anything about extra capacity. It is a bit rich of the hon. Gentleman to accuse the Government of not taking action. The truth is that all the options that are being discussed by the commission are very different from the proposals considered by the previous Government.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to respond in a minute.

Planning regulations currently require persons submitting planning applications for shale gas to serve notice on individual owners and tenants of land where surface works are required.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Amber Rudd]

I am going to make some progress.

Persons submitting such planning applications must publish a notice in a local newspaper and put up site notices. We believe this is proportionate and fair to residents. In addition, the industry has agreed, as part of a voluntary package, to notify the public when exercising the right of use to access underground land. We have taken a reserve power in the Bill to enforce this if the notice scheme relating to the right of use is not honoured appropriately.

Amendment (c) stipulates that no hydraulic fracturing, as defined in the amendment, can take place until the regulations defining water source protection areas and other protected areas have been approved by Parliament. It is worth noting that, at the moment, no operator in the UK has well consent where hydraulic fracturing for shale gas is intended. I can confirm that the Government will not grant any consent for associated hydraulic fracturing operations until all the conditions are clearly defined.

Amendments (b), (d) and (e) insert wording into the clauses about associated hydraulic fracturing not taking place “within or under” protected areas. Amendment (b) also asks that we insert the environmental regulator’s definition of groundwater protection zones into the clauses. I would like to stress that we are talking here about how to define these things in law. It is absolutely crucial to get these legal definitions right. The Government amendment does not refer to “within or under” protected areas because the meaning of this term needs to be flexible to allow proper provisions to be made in secondary legislation.

There is a strong case that sites such as World Heritage sites and the Norfolk Broads should be protected from fracking taking place under them. In other cases, that would not be so sensible. For example, in the case of areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks, given their size and dispersion, it might not be practical to guarantee that fracking will not take place under them in all cases without unduly constraining the industry. However, that is something we need to consider in more detail, and we will do that in due course.

We will look at the evidence to ensure we get this right when setting out the details in secondary legislation. The regulations will be subject to the approval of both Houses, so now is not the time for this. Our clauses put a duty on the Secretary of State to lay draft regulations containing a definition of “protected areas” by 31 July 2015. We must not rush this now, because we would risk putting in place restrictions in areas in a way that does not achieve the intended aim of the condition, or that goes beyond it and needlessly damages the potential development of the shale industry.

We have been working tirelessly over the past week to come up with a set of clauses specific to the shale industry that, in keeping with the spirit of each of the points in amendment 21, will provide the public with confidence that it is being taken forward in a balanced way. Officials and Ministers have worked hard on this, and I would like to thank the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), for working so hard with us in Committee, together with our excellent cross-departmental team of officials.

I hope the points I have made address hon. Members’ concerns. Shale gas is an exciting new energy resource for the UK, with huge potential that we can deliver safely. Now is the time to seize, not squander, the opportunity to develop the United Kingdom’s shale industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lilley]

I am sorry but my hon. Friend misheard me. I said that we have drilled 2,000 onshore wells—I was not talking about fracking wells. As for the risks of escape of gas, it does not matter whether it is fracked or not. We have drilled 2,000 such wells, only 200 of which have been fracked, and they tend to be shallow and small pressure. I will move on to the issue of fracking, but if people are worried about methane or liquids permeating to the surface, that is an issue about well casing. We have very adequate and strong controls on that, and, as far as I know, there is not a single case among those 2,000 wells where a problem has resulted.

The second issue is whether fracking—the use of high pressures, at depth, as my hon. Friend says—will lead to those fractures reaching up to the water table. The useful report produced by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, which is studiously ignored by those who wish to raise fears and concerns, makes it absolutely clear that that is extremely unlikely. For fractures to permeate requires immense energy and for them to remain open proppants have to be put in; sand is injected to try to keep them open. The idea that they will be able to be kept open for several hundred if not thousands of feet, extending up to the aquifer, is almost laughable. Even this well-measured report states:

“Sufficiently high upward pressures would be required during the fracturing process and then sustained afterwards over the long term once the fracturing process had ceased. It is very difficult to conceive of how this might occur given the UK’s shale gas hydrogeological environments.”

Even if that did occur, an upward flow of fluids would not result unless

“the permeability of the fractures”

was

“similar to that of the overlying aquifer for any significant quantity of fluid to flow. In reality, the permeability of the aquifer is likely to be several orders of magnitude greater than the permeability of the fractures. Upward flow of fluids from the zone of shale gas extraction to overlying aquifers via fractures in the intervening strata is highly unlikely.”

That is an understatement.

Concerns have also been raised about the process resulting in excessive abstraction of water—too much water being used—putting our water supplies under threat. The report states that the amount of water

“needed to operate a hydraulically fractured shale gas well for a decade may be equivalent to the amount needed to water a golf course for a month”.

It states that

“the amount lost to leaks in United Utilities’ region in north west England every hour”

exceeds the water required by one shale gas well for a decade, so there is no danger of excessive water abstraction and use as a result of this process.

Then we hear the frequent assertion, “We just can’t take the risk. This is a new, untried, untested process. We don’t know what dangers could result.” In fact, 2.5 million wells have been fracked worldwide and not a single person has been injured or harmed as a result of contaminated water. Not a single building has been damaged by the resultant seismic events that are so small that they would probably be less than if we dropped one of the Dispatch Boxes on the floor.

We are dealing with a well-tried and tested procedure worldwide. In this country, we have drilled 2,000 wells well below the aquifer and had no problems of contamination. We know from very respected bodies such as the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society that the risks are negligible, certainly if we continue with the sort of processes and environmental protection that they say already exist, although they do recommend that they could be strengthened in certain ways.

I urge the House not to be frightened by those who are trying to scare us into failing to exploit a resource that is potentially of immense value to this country and, not least, to those areas where shale is most prolific.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), and I agree with much of what he said. I too support the recovery of shale gas within the UK. I also agree with the comments of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) who gives the Government the benefit of the doubt, but says that some questions might have to be asked in due course. However, as a former deputy Chief Whip, he would give the Government the benefit of the doubt. I cannot say that I am quite so generous, because I am disappointed that the Government risk jeopardising the support across the Chamber from those of us who believe in shale, shale recovery, fracking and the energy resource that we have underneath our shores.

I say with no disrespect to the Minister that this is disappointing. The Government accepted the Labour amendment when we debated the matter two weeks ago, partly because they felt that they might lose the vote because of rebellions and other things and partly because they thought the approach was correct. I do not think that fracking is dangerous. I think that with the appropriate regulatory regime, it will be safe. I much prefer the idea of sourcing our energy from within the United Kingdom than importing it from Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Russia, with all the associated problems. We should also consider the jobs, the manufacturing, the side products and the rest of it.

I am disappointed that the Government are not accepting the amendments that we put down originally and are rejecting those refined by the Lords. I am equally disappointed that the Minister was not prepared to engage in a debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), who sits on the Labour Front Bench, and accept his intervention. We should exploit shale and use it as a national resource, but to do that, and to be able to defeat those who are scaremongering, as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden put it, we need the strongest consensus possible, and the Government’s approach tonight jeopardises that.

[Dr Huppert]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) even when I do not quite agree with everything he said, although I do agree with much of it.

The frustration here is that we are discussing the small details, the minor issues. It is a shame that we do not have the chance to discuss and vote on the principles. We were denied that chance last time. There was not an opportunity to vote on the duty to maximise extraction or on trespass. There was a chance to vote on a moratorium, but, unfortunately, the Opposition abstained in large numbers. It is frustrating that we do not get the chance again this time. The two amendments on trespass which I co-sponsored with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) were not selected, and it looks as though we will not get a chance to vote on very much today.

Let me be positive to the Government and start with Commons amendment 20. I am pleased that the Minister has delivered on the promise she made when she intervened on me in our last debate, which was to give a key role to the Committee on Climate Change. I am pleased that the Committee on Climate Change will have to make reports. I hope the Minister can assure me that “from time to time” means every few years rather than every few generations. I am pleased that the Minister has gone further and given what I think will be a crucial power, which is that if the Committee on Climate Change does say that fracking is increasing UK emissions, this new Lords amendment gives the power to a Secretary of State in the future to stop fracking. That will become quite an important measure, particularly when the balance changes as we become much better at energy efficiency—the issue that the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden did not want to think about. As we change that balance, where we get our fuel from will change substantially.

The proposal goes slightly further in that any Secretary of State who gets a report saying that fracking is increasing emissions and does not take steps to stop it will be required at least to report formally to Parliament to say why they are flying in the face of expert advice. I welcome that.

National Policy Statement (National Networks)

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

It is important to note that we have all agreed those EU standards at a European level. They are not being dictated to us by Europe; we agreed to them. It is important that we look at the reasons why air quality is deteriorating in some areas. The work that has been done on cleaning up buses has certainly helped in urban areas.

It is disappointing that, because of the economic problems under the previous Government, the car fleet was not renewed as quickly as we had predicted. Therefore, the older cars that produced more nitrogen oxides and other pollutants were not replaced as rapidly as they should have been. As we return to economic growth, with near record levels of vehicle registrations, more old dirty cars are going to the scrap heap and more new cars are getting on our roads, which will help. We can also use a number of mitigating factors on the strategic road network. For example, we are considering trialling barriers to try to channel pollution away from communities that are close to roads.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am very disappointed to hear the Minister blame the economic woes of the world economy, which affected the previous Government, for air pollution and the deterioration of air quality. Does he not agree that his first answer, which was, “We’re not quite sure what’s causing it, but we’re going to look at it”, was a much better answer?

[Mr Goodwill]

I was very careful not to blame the previous Government, but to state the fact that, because people were not buying as many new cars—for a variety of reasons, which I will not go into because we have just had a debate on that—we were not getting as many clean vehicles on to our roads. Moreover, it is always disappointing to see how the published fuel consumption figures at the bottom of an advert compare with use in practice. I have had discussions with the motor industry to see how we can make the test cycle, which is meant to give a clear indication of a car’s performance, more relevant to normal operating conditions.

Although we have made tremendous progress in reducing sulphur dioxide emissions by cleaning up fuel—we have taken lead out of petrol—we still have the problem of “knocks”. That is due not to the fuel but to the atmosphere, and is produced in the engine by the combustion process. However, it is linked to fuel consumption, so as we have more fuel-efficient cars, we will have fewer nitrogen oxides, which cause air pollution and health problems.

Rail Network (Disruption)

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend loves Derbyshire. That may be a feeling the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and I share with him. I would point out that, as he rightly says, the major bottleneck at Stafford and Norton Bridge has now been unblocked, enabling faster, more frequent and reliable services for passengers. Engineers carried out essential bridge and track work at Norton Bridge and renewed the signals and overhead wires at Stafford, forming a key part of an overall project costing some £250 million. Although my hon. Friend did suffer some inconvenience, I hope the benefits of the overall project will be longer lasting.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is a man of integrity. He has apologised and he has accepted that both the contingency arrangements and communications were not adequate. Has he had a chance to assess whether the vast amount of work that Network Rail undertook to do at King’s Cross was in fact too much within the time available?

[Mr McLoughlin]

That is one of the questions I want the report to address. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Transport Committee and I will be interested to see its report, knowing that Mark Carne and Robin Gisby will be giving evidence to the Committee next week.

Cycling

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Austin]

The hon. Lady is right, and I shall discuss that point at some length in a few minutes.

Promoting cycling would be good for our transport systems as a whole, for local economies, for social inclusion, and for public health. People who think that investing in cycling is somehow anti-motorist, or against the car, should ask themselves why the AA has joined the campaign to boost cycling. It has done so because cycling is an obvious way of reducing congestion, which has been estimated to cost the UK economy £4.3 billion a year. Research from Denmark has shown that a nation makes a 13p profit for every kilometre cycled, but an 8p loss for every kilometre driven.

As I said earlier, this is our third debate on cycling in the last three years. The first was triggered by the campaign run by The Times. More than 70 Members took part in that debate; even more, well over 100, took part in the second. Sadly, I think that fewer will take part today. We asked for this debate so that we can discuss the Government’s response to the recommendations in our report. We had been promised that response for months, but the Government kept delaying its publication amid numerous reports of wrangles and disputes between the various Departments involved. Because it was not clear when it would be published, cycling organisations and the media were unable to promote the debate and encourage their members and supporters to lobby MPs to take part in it. It turns out that the document—1 do not think that it could be credibly described as a delivery plan—was published this morning. As a result, we have been left far too little time to subject it to proper scrutiny, although it is already clear that it is a very disappointing piece of work. We waited a year for this report, but it makes no real commitments at all.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Is it not clear from the cycling delivery plan that this was a rushed, botched job, and that the Government rushed it out just to have something on the table so that they could respond to the debate?

[Ian Austin]

Given the delay, I am not sure that we can say that it was rushed, but it was certainly botched. I do not think that many people will take the report very seriously, and I think that they will be very disappointed by its contents. The Prime Minister promised a cycling revolution, and the report talks of achieving Scandinavian or Dutch levels of cycling, but that is impossible without real commitments to increase funding levels.

The Government have promised that

“cycling will be at the heart of future road developments”,

and say that they are

“committed to turning Britain into a cycling nation to rival our European neighbours."

If the Minister answers just one question in this debate, I hope that he will tell us how those two promises can be taken seriously when the Netherlands spends £25 per head on cycling while the UK spends about £2, and when the highways budget in the UK is £15 billion while the funds announced for cycling are about £150 million, with no dedicated funding stream that allows local authorities to plan for more than two years.

Despite all the promises, today’s report speaks only of an “aspiration” to “explore” the possibility of investment. The Government are spending £64 billion on road building and HS2, but they cannot commit the funds that are needed to boost cycling in Britain. In the Netherlands 27% of journeys are made by bike, and at least £25 per head is spent on cycling. That is followed by Denmark, with 19% of journeys made by bike and spending of at least £20 per head. At the current rate, we shall not reach Dutch levels of cycling until the 23rd century. England languishes towards the lower end of the European league table, with less than £5 per head spent on cycling, and even that is set to decrease.

No budget was set for cycling in the Government’s 2010 spending review. All that we have seen are stop-start injections of cash, and the announcement of competitive bids when the Department for Transport underspends its budget. Such a fragmented approach is no way to “Get Britain Cycling”. Spending on cycling, it has been said, is smoke and mirrors: Ministers have top-sliced Bikeability funding from the local sustainable transport fund, claimed credit for funding allocated by the last Government, and counted Cycling England’s budget in its figures although they abolished it. The LSTF has provided £600 million for sustainable travel, but there is no way to determine how much of that has been spent on specific cycling schemes. The Government claim spending has doubled, but half of all local authorities have been forced to reduce their spending on cycling and over a third have had to cut staff. For a cycling and walking delivery plan to be meaningful, it must contain a commitment to long-term consistent funding.

As we heard a moment ago, there also needs to be a real commitment to consistent revenue funding. A key element of the LSTF has been inclusion of both capital and revenue elements to enable streets and routes to be transformed, alongside programmes to support and encourage people to walk or cycle. Further commitment to both types of funding for active travel is urgently needed, particularly given the scarcity of revenue funding for transport in local authority budgets, but the local growth fund, which replaces the LSTF and which is overseen by local enterprise partnerships, is purely capital funding.

In response to a recent parliamentary question, the Government calculated that the spend on cycling in England is equivalent to £5 per person per year. Of this, 80% is directly or indirectly attributable to dedicated funding from Government, the largest component of which is the LSTF, but with the LSTF coming to an end in 2016, bringing to a close six years of dedicated funding for cycling and walking, there is now no guarantee that money will be spent on cycling and walking, and in fact no budget line for cycling and walking at all.

Analysis of major scheme bids to the local growth fund shows that less than half of local enterprise partnerships have put forward any projects for walking, cycling or public transport, with road building making up three quarters of the bids from some LEPs. Without sustained and substantial committed investment from Government, total spend on cycling and walking will fall sharply after 2015-16, to a fraction of current levels and far below the £10 per head per year target. Commitment is the vital ingredient missing from this plan that has simply an aspiration to explore funding opportunities.

The Government have also failed when it comes to taking cross-departmental action, especially in getting the Department of Health to commit to revenue funding which, as I said earlier, would produce such huge health benefits. There is also no mention whatsoever of the role the Department for Communities and Local Government has to play, which is absolutely unbelievable given that so much of the work to improve facilities and safety for cyclists has to be done by local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), who made powerful points about not only her constituency, but general cycling matters. As I look around the Chamber, it is apparent that we are talking to the converted. I think that I have seen almost every Member in the Chamber riding their bike into Parliament, so I do not think that there will be a lot of controversy in the debate. Those watching our proceedings—many from the cycling community may well be—might be a bit disappointed that this is one-way traffic, but we need to be able to argue the case for cycling, so perhaps that is not a bad thing.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate to take place and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the co-chairs of the all-party group, on their work. They and the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who has also signed the motion, have shown great leadership on promoting cycling, and the cross-party group is ably supported by Adam Coffman. Many Members are in the Chamber to support the debate. I also welcome support from right across the media, especially from The Times. There was a great fact sheet by Kaya Burgess in this morning’s drop-in briefing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North mentioned Mary Bowers, who was knocked down in my constituency. Sadly, she still has not recovered, and I know that the whole House will want to wish her and her family well.

[Dr Huppert]

I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says about The Times and Mary Bowers. He might be amused to know that The Daily Telegraph recently published a list of the seven most absurd Liberal Democrat policies, one of which was supporting funding for cycling, so there is clearly some way to go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

As a buyer as well as a reader of The Daily Telegraph, I am disappointed to hear that, although perhaps not entirely surprised, as there have to be some differences among people. Despite the hon. Gentleman’s qualification of what I said about media support, there is now generally a much more welcoming attitude in the country to cycling, and I hope that the debate will help to nurture people’s interest.

[Sir Nicholas Soames]

The hon. Gentleman has never seen me arrive at the Palace of Westminster on a bicycle, although I shall try to repair that. I agree with him about the support that is given, but does he accept that the trouble in a constituency such as mine, which has three small to medium-sized towns, is that there simply is not the money to provide the facilities for bicyclists that should be in place, because it all tends to go to the big towns? We need to devise a formula that will enable that to be fixed.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about the key issue of funding, which I think has cropped up in every speech that we have heard. When I said that I thought that I had seen almost everyone in the Chamber on a bike, I did not want to point to the right hon. Gentleman that he was the one exception who occurred to me. However, I am encouraged that he has not given up on this, so in the six months between now and the general election, perhaps we can encourage him to join us on two wheels. I am sure that the all-party group would welcome that.

The delivery plan is disappointing. The all-party group’s report was well received by the Department for Transport. It is a shame that the Secretary of State has just left the Chamber, but the fact that he has listened to part of our debate demonstrates his interest in the matter. We know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), are great champions of cycling and no criticism is levelled directly at the Department, although I shall return to the big question of funding later in my speech. However, given that the Prime Minister promised us a cycling revolution and that the Department for Transport is clearly supportive of cycling, as has been the case for almost 20 years, the fact that there is no commitment on funding, which the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) mentioned, is hugely disappointing. While the Minister and the shadow Minister are great champions, we need a nominated person to give leadership from the front. The all-party group’s report was well received by the Transport Committee and all the main cycling groups, but I am sure that the Minister acknowledges that the responses of CTC, Sustrans and British Cycling to this morning’s Government report are not so welcoming.

Safety and the perception of it are key to getting more people involved in cycling, but before I speak about that, I want to spend a couple of minutes on parochial matters by talking about London. There have been huge changes in London, with an explosion in the number of people cycling, Boris bikes and cycle super-highways. It is welcome that Transport for London is consulting on upgrading the cycle super-highways because some of them are pretty basic, being no more than a lick of paint in the road.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman welcome TfL’s recent call for a London-wide ban on heavy goods vehicles that drive without side guards and mirrors? Does he agree that that recommendation should apply nationwide, not just to London, and that the Government should take it up?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. TfL has led on promoting cycling in many ways, and anything that enhances cyclists’ safety must be welcomed.

I received an e-mail this morning from Owen Pearson of Tower Hamlets Wheelers. He said that his local cycle campaign supports

“the proposals put forward by Transport for London to upgrade Cycle Superhighway 2 between Aldgate and Bow”,

which is a dangerous stretch of road. The e-mail acknowledged the local concerns of the council and others, especially with regard to Whitechapel market, but said that the group believed that

“with adjustments to the TfL plan these issues can be overcome.”

I have some concerns about what I call the Mayor’s plans, although they are probably primarily the tsar’s plans—Andrew Gilligan’s plans—especially with regard to the stretch from Tower Hill to Westminster. The key criteria for cycle lanes is to get people out of cars and to improve the environment by reducing congestion. However, the proportion of cars on that stretch of road is already less than 9%, and many of those 9% are private hire vehicles or minicabs. There are few people to be taken out of cars as the vast majority of the traffic on that main artery through London is made up of public transport, taxis, coaches and commercial traffic, such as white vans delivering to businesses and HGVs. TfL plans to prevent 80% of that traffic using the road. I do not know where it will go. For the 20% that will be allowed to use it, there will be a 16-minute delay. That simply does not seem workable, and it will give the cycling community a bad reputation, because it is just bad planning.

My understanding is that the Mayor’s plans will be subject to an extensive consultation, which would be very welcome, as would publication of all the background data, including environmental impact assessments, the economic assessment, alternative routes and alternative designs.

There is also a problem with the waiting times for pedestrians, because in some areas they will have to wait up to two minutes before getting a green light, and in London people will simply not wait that long to cross the road. Also, having to cross three lanes of traffic and four lanes of cyclists, with a fast lane for the Lycra brigade—we know that they take no prisoners—will be pretty difficult. Another observation about the plan that the Department for Transport published this morning is that its title makes no mention of walking, which is a big element of the promotion, so there are questions to be answered about the route from Tower Hill to Westminster.

We all want to see cycling become mainstream. As a cyclist myself, I know that we are not above criticism. The tiny minority who cycle without lights at night, ignore pedestrian crossings, ride on pavements or cruise through red lights greatly annoy the rest of us, because they give us a bad reputation and irritate the rest of the public. The Transport Committee heard in evidence that when the Metropolitan police blitzed London’s roads earlier this year, following the spate of five deaths in November 2013, they issued 14,000 fixed penalty notices for transgressions at major junctions in London—10,000 to vehicle drivers and 4,000 to cyclists. That demonstrates that there are drivers and cyclists who break the law.

However, what we need is enforcement. CTC makes the point that the reduction in the number of traffic officers in all constabularies across the country is moving in the wrong direction. As I mentioned earlier, cyclists are the most vulnerable. The Transport Committee’s third report of the Session, entitled “Cycling Safety”, makes recommendations for improving safety for cyclists.

Right hon. and hon. Members have made the case well for cycling and cycling safety. The Minister is very much pro-cycling. It is even more disappointing, therefore, that we have not heard a commitment on funding. The Prime Minister promised a cycling revolution and the Department for Transport is promising to support cycling, so No. 11 is the roadblock. Somehow we have to get underneath No. 11, turn the Chancellor around and then use the autumn statement and the Budget to commit to that funding. All parties can use their manifestos next year to commit funding for cycling, because without funding it simply will not happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right in what he says. He will have seen that consultation and the fact that we have invited initiatives from operators and franchise bidders in that regard. The possibility of extra services is being opened up by this Government’s commitment to electrification; by 2019 we will have put in place more than 870 miles of electrification whereas Labour managed less than 8 miles.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Will the Minister with responsibility for shipping support the Mission to Seafarers, the Apostleship of the Sea and Seafarers UK and the excellent work those important charities do? Will he look at what support the Department gives and whether it can be increased for those very important charities?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I support those charities, and I am delighted to have attended a number of their events with him. I will look at that and see whether there is any more that the Department can do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

As a North Yorkshire Member myself, I am aware of some of the changes to rural bus services that are affecting my constituents as well as my hon. Friend’s. The fact remains that, outside London, 44% of the fare box that goes to bus operators is provided through various subsidies. We need to be more intelligent in targeting the services that people, particularly pensioners, use in rural areas.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Earlier this morning in Westminster, the Freight Transport Association launched its excellent 2014 logistics report. One policy area success that has eluded successive Governments is in the promotion of coastal shipping. What are the Government doing in this regard?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I have not yet had time to read the report as it was published only this morning. The way in which coastal shipping works and links with the rail network is very important, and we need to develop it even further. I had a very interesting meeting yesterday with one operator who is drawing directly from ports into Drax power station.