Oswestry to Gobowen Railway Line

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing today’s debate on the Oswestry to Gobowen project, and I thank her for the thoughtful and important points that she made both today and in her previous campaigning work on the issue. I have read her correspondence with my noble Friend the Minister for Rail and with previous Ministers in the Department.

I understand the hon. Lady’s argument about the problems with connectivity between Oswestry and Gobowen, particularly for those who have no access to private vehicles or do not wish to drive. I appreciate the importance of good public transport connections in the area, including for patients, staff and visitors travelling to the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital, whether from the local area or from further afield. We want to ensure that people can access the public services they need, and they should not need private transport to do so.

My Department is committed to putting transport at the heart of mission-driven government. We aim to support economic growth by transforming infrastructure so that it works for the whole country, and we aim to improve connectivity to promote social mobility, as the hon. Lady said, and tackle regional inequality, particularly in terms of access to healthcare, jobs and homes. She described the difficulties that her constituents face in reaching the places where they can obtain opportunities for work, wider opportunities for study and education, and, indeed, enjoy leisure and culture activities. That is why transport is so important—because of the opportunities that it opens up for people, including to improve their wellbeing.

However, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in her speech to the House on 29 July, the Government have been forced to address the economic inheritance that we have been left by the last Government, which includes that £22 billion black hole in the country’s finances this year alone. That includes £2.9 billion of transport projects that were committed to despite the last Government knowing, full well, that they were unaffordable. I completely understand that the announcement of the difficult decision to close the restoring your railway programme has caused disappointment. I assure the hon. Member that that decision was not taken lightly.

As the Chancellor set out, individual restoring your railway projects will be considered as part of preparations for the spending review and wider spending decisions for the Department. But as the hon. Member will know from her correspondence with my noble Friend the Minister for Rail, it will not be possible for all transport projects, particularly those not yet in delivery, to continue. I am afraid that that is the difficult reality of the position that we find ourselves in, and I wish that it was not so.

The restoring your railway programme attracted considerable interest when it was launched by the last Government in January 2020, and the Department for Transport received more than 140 individual applications for funding to help to support the development of early-stage business cases. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) that new services can be very popular and successful; there is a real appetite in communities up and down the country for new public transport services, in order to better connect people to the places that they want and need to go to. At the close of the final funding round in September 2021, the programme was heavily oversubscribed.

In the case of the Oswestry to Gobowen project, the previous Government announced, under their Network North initiative, that the project would proceed to delivery, subject to successful business cases. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has previously set out, there was a clear gap between promised projects and the money available to deliver them. The previous Government should have been up-front and frank about this, and they absolutely were not.

I want, of course, to thank all hon. Members who sponsored and campaigned for individual former restoring your railway projects for their patience and efforts over the years. I completely appreciate the frustration expressed about the lack of news on next steps—and that is reflected in the hon. Member for North Shropshire’s previous correspondence with the Department under the previous Government—because, undoubtedly, it felt incredibly slow at times. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ordered a review of the Department’s capital spend portfolio. That will move quickly to produce recommendations about current and future schemes and end the uncertainty that the previous Government created.

We also need to be clear that this Government’s approach to how transport projects can be funded is based on local leaders and local transport authorities knowing best what projects to pursue in order to further the needs of their constituents. It is absolutely crucial that local stakeholders work together to provide affordable and reliable services for the communities they serve, and that should include better integration between different modes of transport. The hon. Member highlighted the potential of an integrated transport hub and the desire for better walking and cycling provision, which of course would provide not only transport benefits but health and wellbeing benefits. I hope that her local authority can explore those options further.

The hon. Member made strong points about the quality—or rather, the lack of quality—of bus service provision in her area. As we both know, under the last Government thousands of bus services saw reduced frequency or were cut altogether, leaving many towns and villages without adequate, reliable and affordable public transport. We recognise that situation and are determined to do something about it.

I was really pleased to hear the hon. Member’s welcome for the Government’s pledge to deliver better bus services for passengers, which includes making franchising easier and quicker, removing the ideological ban on new municipal bus companies, and reforming funding for bus services to give more control and flexibility to local leaders to deliver their local priorities. I understand what she said about the Conservative-led county council and its appetite for such change, but I am sure that she and her constituents will make their point very clearly to those who seek to represent them at that level.

[Helen Morgan]

Bearing in mind that local councils are a hair’s breadth away from issuing section 114 notices and are only likely to deliver statutory services in their area, what kind of additional funding will be available from the Government for them to be able to franchise their own bus services? I ask that because it seems to me that it is all very well councils having the power to deliver such services, but unless they have the funding to do so, it will not bring about the results that we would like to see.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Member for her question and of course she is absolutely right to highlight the very difficult position that many local authorities find themselves in after 14 years of Conservative Governments. That is precisely why growing the economy and the ability to improve our public services is one of this Government’s key missions. To achieve that, we need to make sure that the foundations are strong, and setting our economy on the right track is the first part of that process.

However, we will of course say more about support for transport as part of the spending review and we will work with local authorities to understand what is needed to improve and grow their bus networks, learning from their experiences and building on their successes to ensure that local networks can meet the needs of the communities who rely on them.

As we undertake vital reforms to the sector, including through the introduction of the Buses Bill, we will ensure that stakeholders are properly engaged with the proposals, and I look forward to the hon. Member participating in the debates about how we can do that as we go forward.

I thank the hon. Member again for securing this debate and offer her my support and that of my ministerial colleagues to work with her to improve the transport network in her constituency, and right across the country. As she recognised, transport is a vital enabler of jobs, opportunities and growth, and I am sure that we share the desire to see that for North Shropshire and indeed the whole country.

Question put and agreed to.

Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on securing today’s debate. I would also like to thank him and others for their engagement on this matter. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is temporarily not in the room. I am aware that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire wrote to my Department and has previously tabled other debates to express concerns about this scheme, which is a nationally significant rail freight interchange infrastructure project, located partly in his constituency in Leicestershire.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I should let the Minister know that the Member concerned did apologise that he had to leave urgently.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Absolutely. I have also noted the relevant contributions made by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire in the King’s Speech debate on planning, the green belt and rural affairs on 19 July this year and on the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill debate on 29 July. I am also aware that the hon. Member participated in the examination of the application as an interested party. I thank him for the contributions he has made in that respect.

The concerns that the hon. Member has raised include the impact due to the proximity of the application site on the local Fosse villages of Elmesthorpe, Stoney Stanton, Sapcote, Sharnford, Aston Flamville, Potters Marston, Croft, Huncote, Thurlaston and Wigston Parva; impacts from an increase in heavy goods vehicles on the local road network; the lack of a national strategy for the location of logistics parks; the proximity of other rail freight interchanges; public engagement on the application; the impact and delays at Narborough railway station and level crossing; impacts on Burbage common and woods nature reserve, located in the neighbouring Hinckley and Bosworth constituency; and the impact on local amenities as a result of increased job opportunities. I am also aware of the petition which the hon. Member presented to Parliament in October last year on behalf of local residents of the constituency of South Leicestershire. Both he and the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth have again represented their constituents’ concerns very effectively today.

The application for the Hinckley national rail freight interchange development consent order was made under the Planning Act 2008. Under that Act, the Secretary of State for Transport has a quasi-judicial role in issuing decisions of applications for development consent orders for strategic rail freight interchanges, provided that they meet certain threshold conditions set out in the Act. Following the examination of the application by the Planning Inspectorate’s examining authority, the Secretary of State received the report containing its recommendation on 10 June this year. As the hon. Member for South Leicestershire acknowledged, the Secretary of State issued a “minded to refuse” letter this morning, having carefully considered the examining authority’s report. Her letter sets out that, while she is minded to agree with the examining authority’s recommendation to refuse the application, she first wishes to gather further information on certain matters. The Secretary of State requires further information on the safety concerns raised in respect of M1 junction 21 and M69 junction 3, and the lack of adequate transport modelling at that junction; the increased highway safety risk at Sapcote identified by the examining authority; the concerns raised by the examining authority on the impact on Narborough level crossing, particularly on people who might find using a stepped footbridge difficult; and any measures that might avoid or mitigate the potential harm identified by the examining authority to the occupiers of the Aston Firs Travellers’ site.

The Secretary of State’s letter also invites comments on the revised sustainable transport strategy, the suggested amendments to the heavy goods vehicles route and the management plan strategy, and specific submissions in respect of noise impacts referred to in her letter. As the hon. Member for South Leicestershire said, a written ministerial statement was laid in Parliament this morning to extend the statutory deadline for a decision on this application to 10 March 2025. I appreciate that the extension is unwelcome to him and his constituents, but my understanding is that this is not particularly unusual.

The extension to the deadline is required to allow for the submission of further information on the issues I have just mentioned before the Secretary of State takes a final decision on the application. The extension will also allow time for all interested parties to comment on that further information. The final decision will be taken as soon as possible, but it is important to allow time for those issues to be properly considered by all parties. The extension of the deadline means that the application remains a live planning application. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire understands that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits or otherwise of the application while it remains live.

It would also not be appropriate at this time for me to elaborate on or add to the reasons set out by the Secretary of State in her letter. That is because, as the hon. Member for South Leicestershire acknowledged, the decisions by the Secretary of State on applications for development consent orders are quasi-judicial, and the decision is a matter for the Secretary of State alone. It would not be appropriate for me to take part in any discussion of the pros and cons of the proposal. I know the hon. Member understands that we must ensure that the process is correctly followed and remains fair to all parties.

The examining authority’s recommendation report, which was published today alongside the letter from the Secretary of State, covers many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, and I encourage him and his constituents to read the report alongside the letter from the Secretary of State—I am sure he has already done so. Should he or his constituents have any further issues they would like to raise, I encourage them to write formally to the Department when invited, as part of the next-steps process for the application. The process going forward is outlined in the letter from the Secretary of State. I am loth to decline a meeting with hon. Members, but it could be perceived as bias if the Department meets objectors, but not the applicant and supporters. I understand that we have declined requests for other meetings.

I highlight the need for nationally significant strategic rail freight projects more generally. The Government’s view is that the economic and environmental potential of rail freight is significant, and they are fully committed to supporting its growth. Under its plans to deliver the biggest overhaul of the railways in a generation, Great British Railways will have a duty and target to grow the movement of freight on our railways. I am sure it will be interested in the comments that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire made on ways that might be done.

The Government support the development of an expanded network of SRFIs to facilitate the modal shift of freight from road to rail. Rail freight offers substantial economic and environmental benefits, as well as helping to reduce congestion on our roads and cost to industry. Strategic rail freight interchange projects are a key element in reducing the costs of moving more freight by rail, enabling goods to be efficiently transferred between transport modes, which is important because many rail freight movements cannot provide a full end-to-end journey.

The sector also delivers economic and social benefits through cost savings to industry, creating employment and reducing congestion. Industry estimates that a single rail freight service can remove up to 129 heavy goods vehicle movements from our roads. Moving goods by rail results in about 7 million fewer lorry journeys each year. In 2018-19, it is estimated that rail freight contributed £2.45 billion in economic and social benefits to the country, 90% of which were likely to accrue to freight customers and wider society outside London and the south-east.

Rail freight also offers benefits to the environment. A diesel-hauled rail freight service produces 76% less carbon dioxide per tonne of kilometre moved compared with road. Recent improvements using longer, heavier trains and alternative low-carbon fuels such as hydrotreated vegetable oil are reducing rail freight’s carbon footprint even further, making it one of the most carbon-efficient ways to move goods over long distances.

Having said all that, it is of course important that every application for a new strategic rail freight interchange is carefully assessed to ensure that its benefits outweigh its impacts, including those on the local environment that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire described. I know, however, from his contributions to the debates on the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill that he does not oppose rail freight interchanges per se. He made that point again today in calling for a national strategy.

Finally, I take the opportunity to reassure the hon. Member that the Secretary of State, in making a decision, will take into consideration the content of the examining authority’s report, the relevant policies, responses to her consultations and any representations received after the close of the examination. I assure the hon. Member that she will listen to the views of him and his constituents. I thank him and the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth for the opportunity to debate this matter today.

Question put and agreed to.

Rail and Road Connectivity: Northern Lincolnshire

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on securing today’s debate and on returning to these Benches. I know she will represent her constituents wonderfully well, as she always did, and speak passionately, as we have just heard, about issues in her constituency and across northern Lincolnshire—an area she is rightly proud of and ambitious for. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss transport in this region today.

There were certainly some attempts to broaden out the debate beyond north Lincolnshire. I understand the desire to talk about Lincolnshire, but I will perhaps stay clear of Northern Ireland, where transport is a devolved matter. Nevertheless, I am impressed with the determination of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) to speak for his constituents. Let me assure hon. Members that the Government understand the importance of transport to the people, communities and businesses powering local economies across the country, including on the south bank of the Humber.

I will begin with the A180. I am very aware that my hon. Friend and her Labour predecessor have previously raised the issue of road noise on this vital road for those travelling to and from her constituency. Assessments of road noise on the A180 have been undertaken by National Highways. Those assessments were carried out near Stallingborough—I hope I have pronounced that correctly—in May 2024, ahead of proposed concrete repairs. The noise levels recorded were between 65.9 and 82 dB, which I understand is reasonably loud for a driver over a sustained journey. However, I am afraid that they are also consistent with the expected amount of noise to be generated, given the volume of traffic the A180 supports. The age of the road is also an important consideration here, as wear and tear increases the level of noise generated. That being said, I fully understand the frustration that can be caused by sustained road noise for both drivers and those living near the road.

In the last year, National Highways has carried out three road surface improvements on the A180, with a fourth planned to commence this October—in just a few weeks’ time. Those works have and will reduce noise and improve road safety. Subject to confirmation of funding, additional surface treatment work is planned for the third roads investment strategy period and, when finished, it should substantially reduce noise levels along the route. The works will be of significant benefit to the lives of my hon. Friend’s constituents, and those of other hon. Members, both those living close to the A180 and those who regularly drive along the road. I completely understand my hon. Friend’s desire to make the journey to her coastal community as smooth and pleasant as possible, both for her constituents and for those making the important business journeys that she described.

Let me turn to the introduction of a direct train to London from Cleethorpes and Grimsby. The benefits of having direct links to the capital are clear: that is why we are working with industry to address the timetabling, financial, operational and infrastructure issues that need to be resolved before a service to Cleethorpes can be introduced—all of that once the east coast main line timetable change has been implemented. Assessments made by LNER and Network Rail have confirmed that LNER services can call at Cleethorpes and Grimsby, but in order for LNER trains to serve Market Rasen station, significant changes to platform length and height are required, as well as a new foot crossing to allow safe access to platforms.

My noble Friend Lord Hendy, the Minister for Rail, will consider the proposals that have been made, with final approval subject to funding and a thorough business case process. That was the case before the general election, and it is still the case now. The previous Rail Minister talked of an ambition to introduce the service, but I am sure that my hon. Friend and other Members understand that an ambition is not the same as a promise. In the meantime, addressing the performance of rail services in the region in advance of any decision on direct services between London and Cleethorpes and Grimsby will significantly improve journeys and reduce delays. My hon. Friend painted a picture, very effectively, of the impact on rail travellers when the integration between services is not working properly.

I am pleased that TransPennine has improved its service significantly over the last year, but it is clear that there is still room for improvement, and, as my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has wasted no time in holding train operators to account for poor performance. In her first month in the job, she met the managing director of TransPennine Express and Network Rail representatives to demand action. Between 21 July and 17 August, only about 50% of all trains on the route ran to time, with fewer than 80% arriving within three minutes of timetable. During that period cancellations stood at 3.4%, with an increase attributed to problems with the Keadby swing bridge on 1 and 5 August, along with several Network Rail incidents. I will say more in a moment about how bringing track and train together under Great British Railways can help to drive improvements, because they are very much needed.

Northern’s performance over the last few months has been unacceptable. Between 17 July and 21 August, trains on the Doncaster-Scunthorpe route arrived on time only 78% of the time. The proportion of total cancellations was about 4%, although, depending on the day and conditions of travel, passengers may have experienced a better or worse service than that. In July, the Rail North Partnership, through which my Department and Transport for the North jointly manage Northern’s contract, served it with a breach notice which compels it to produce a formal recovery plan. It will be required to explain how it will tackle the underlying issues that are holding back performance, resulting in the current unreliable service. The plan will be scrutinised by my Department and by Northern leaders through Transport for the North’s Rail North Committee. We will ensure that the needs and expectations of passengers, including those in north and north-east Lincolnshire, are put at the heart of Northern’s recovery and development.

Let me now address the daily—well, five days a week—Sheffield-Cleethorpes service. I remember when the Brigg line service ran only on Saturdays, and I am probably among a select group who have actually travelled on the service; but the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) already knows that, because we took the trip together and stopped for a cuppa in Cleethorpes. The service is primarily intended to maintain route knowledge on the Brigg line in case of diversions. Although I appreciate the appetite for services to spend more time in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, Northern’s turnaround at Cleethorpes is necessitated by other demands on the network, including from freight services, and by crew rostering. Adding an additional service on the route could create clashes and would cost between £400,000 and £900,000 a year, depending on staff and rolling stock demands.

Naturally, the Department requires operators to match their services to demand. Demand remains low on the existing services from Sheffield to Cleethorpes, which reach only about 30% of their capacity even during the busiest times. Most of the demand on the service is driven by passengers joining at Worksop and Retford for Sheffield, or by Northern’s competitive leisure pricing between Sheffield and Cleethorpes, although TransPennine trains also offer services over a similar route. Demand on the route is also very seasonal; I know from my Nottingham constituency how much city residents enjoy a trip to the east coast in the heights of summer, but they find it less appealing on wet and windy days in the winter.

[Martin Vickers]

I take the Minister’s point about the small number of passengers on the route, but that is partly because there is only one service a day. If there were a regular service that people knew was there—even every three hours, shall we say—they could spend the day in Cleethorpes. It would encourage more passengers on to the route.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Member makes an important point that we will certainly look at, but I am sure he understands that, given the capacity and given the other ways in which people can travel, it is challenging.

Indicative modelling of an additional service suggests an industry revenue uplift of approximately £35,000 a year, although most of that is achieved by improving the service between Worksop and Retford and Sheffield. It would increase Northern’s subsidy requirement and would therefore raise costs significantly. This money is not available in Northern’s current budget.

This Government have been clear that performance on the railways must improve, and we are committed to delivering a unified and simplified rail system that focuses on improved services for passengers and better value for taxpayers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes knows, just this week the House of Commons passed a Bill to bring passenger services back into public ownership. By ending years of fragmentation and waste, we will ensure that the railway serves the needs of passengers and the taxpayer, rather than lining the pockets of private sector operators.

Bringing train operations into public ownership is just the first step in the Government’s plan to improve the railways for passengers and taxpayers. We will bring forward further legislation to create Great British Railways, a new arm’s length body that will act as a directing mind for the railways. This will ensure the highest standards of customer service and operational performance, with a relentless focus on delivering for passengers and freight customers. To achieve our goals, rail must become part of a reliable and efficient integrated transport network, including in the region that hon. Members here represent.

Improving bus services is also a top priority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been clear that buses are the lifeblood of our communities. We have not discussed them much today, but they can improve access to education, jobs and leisure opportunities, as well as connect us with our friends and family. As the Government strive to kick-start the economy, buses will be central in addressing regional inequalities and delivering growth. That is why we have set out an action plan to deliver better bus services, grow passenger numbers and drive opportunity to underserved regions. A core part of the plan is passing the better buses Bill, which will be introduced in this Session.

Am I running short of time?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

indicated assent.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will cut to the chase. The Bill will give local leaders the tools to deliver better bus services and will ensure that networks meet the needs of the communities who rely on them. However, I need to say that this Government, as the Chancellor has clearly set out, have inherited an extremely challenging financial situation, with a £22 billion public spending gap left by the previous Administration in this year alone. The gap between promised schemes and the money available to deliver them has been abundantly clear.

I know that this is not the first time that these issues have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes has made a strong argument on behalf of her constituents. I reassure her that this Government have heard clearly the case that she and other hon. Members have made, and that we will continue taking action to address the issues that have been debated today.

Question put and agreed to.

Road Safety on the A1

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I add my congratulations on your election. It is a pleasure to respond to the important points raised by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) during this evening’s debate. I congratulate her on securing the debate, and thank her for the opportunity to discuss the safety of road users on the A1. As a fellow east midlands MP, I have driven on many occasions on the section of the A1 she refers to, and I have some understanding and appreciation of the issues she raises.

Safety on our roads is of the utmost importance, which is why the Government have announced that they intend to publish a new road safety strategy, the first in over a decade. That work is already under way, and I look forward to sharing further details with the House in due course and engaging with Members from across the House as we develop that strategy. This is the second debate that the hon. Member has secured on this subject: she is undoubtedly a strong advocate for her constituents and for road users, campaigning extensively for improvements to this vital section of national infrastructure and to protect the safety of everyone who uses it.

Our strategic road network is the backbone of the country’s economy, with 4,500 miles of motorways and major A roads. It connects people, builds communities, creates opportunities and is a catalyst for the UK economy. Although it makes up only 2.4% of England’s overall road network, it is the most heavily used and carries one third of all traffic and two thirds of all freight.

Investment in our strategic road network is through the road investment strategy process, which has led to £17.6 billion being invested between 2015 and 2020 and more than £23 billion being invested between 2020 and 2025. The road investment strategy focuses on creating a road network that is safe, accessible and reliable for all road users, and that addresses its impact on all those who use it. We are committed to putting transport at the heart of mission-driven Government by transforming infrastructure to work for the whole country to unlock growth, promote social mobility, tackle regional inequality and support the transition to a net zero economy.

As the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford set out, at 410 miles, the A1 is the longest trunk road in the UK. It connects the two capitals of London and Edinburgh and all the communities along its length. It is one of the most recognisable routes on the network and plays a vital role in supporting our nation’s economy. With that integral role for businesses and motorists comes the challenge of balancing the strategic role of the road with local journeys and the impact of the road on local communities such as those that she represents.

The 72-mile section of the A1 between Peterborough and Blyth carries 20,000 to 25,000 vehicles every single day, as the hon. Member said, and nearly a quarter of those are heavy goods vehicles, which is well above the average for a similar-sized road. Much has already been done to improve performance, including modernising junctions and improving road alignment, but I recognise that the route still has its challenges. The number of collisions, particularly fatal collisions, is higher than the national average for an equivalent road, as she said, which demands examination and action.

That is why National Highways continues to invest significant sums into that section of the A1 to improve its safety performance. That investment has seen a number of immediate safety focused improvements at key sections and junctions, such as enhanced lighting and improved road markings and signage at specific locations along the route.

I was pleased to hear that the hon. Member recently met representatives from National Highways to discuss the key issues on this route. I am aware they will be arranging a visit soon to discuss the issues in more detail. I will ensure that my officials are informed of the specific outcomes of that meeting, and I look forward to receiving that feedback.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I congratulate the Minister on her appointment; it is a great pleasure to see her at the Dispatch Box. She talked about bringing in the road safety strategy—I am not sure whether that is the same as the long-awaited strategic framework for road safety that I was asking about previously.

National Highways had a commitment to think about active travel—people walking and cycling—for new junctions, particularly across junctions but also along some stretches. Given the way that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) described the A1, I can see that nobody would want to cycle along it, but I ask the Minister to consider incorporating active travel into the thinking for the new road safety strategy on major highways.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is an absolutely marvellous advocate for the benefits of active travel and the things we need to do to make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists. I recognise her point completely. I recently had to make a hasty dash, while out walking, across a major trunk road, and the point she makes is really important. We do need to look at how we ensure that pedestrians, cyclists and, indeed, horse riders are able to cross our major trunk road network safely.

I will also seek further information on the potential for signage relating to short slip roads, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford asked. Improving the safety of all road users will always be one of my highest priorities. As I have said, this Government are committed to reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. They ruin the lives of too many people and their wider families, but as road users, we all have a vital role to play.

I would like to take this opportunity at the Dispatch Box to remind everyone who is watching or listening of the fatal four. Tragically, most deaths and serious injuries on our roads are not the result of accidents. The causes are well known: speeding, using a mobile phone behind the wheel, not wearing a seatbelt, and driving under the influence of drink or drugs. Everyone taking to our roads should remember this before getting behind the wheel.

England’s motorways and major A roads are some of the safest in the world, but the longer-term ambition of National Highways remains that no one should be harmed while travelling or working on its network. Road safety is a shared responsibility, and it is important that we all recognise the part we can play as it cannot be achieved in isolation. National Highways is continuing its work with key partners, organisations and road users to help us collectively reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on our strategic roads.

I want to thank the hon. Lady once again not only for securing this debate and for the important points she raises, which I look forward to discussing further, but for her extensive work to bring together regional partners to push for improvements. I want to reassure her that I take this matter seriously and intend to continue this conversation to see what we can achieve to provide a positive outcome for road users in the short and long term.

Question put and agreed to.

Rail Manufacturing: Job Losses

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

That is correct—good. I am glad I have got that on the record.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) is absolutely right. This matter is complex and challenging, but I can tell you, Mr Speaker, and the House that the Secretary of State is working at full pelt on this matter with Alstom. I am hopeful that a solution will be found that will demonstrate all of that hard work.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Derby’s Litchurch Lane is unique—the only site in the UK that designs, develops, builds and tests trains. As has already been acknowledged, the Alstom factory is a very significant employer, but it also supports thousands of good supply-chain jobs, particularly in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Frankly, this Government will never be forgiven if that factory is allowed to close due to an entirely avoidable gap in orders. The Minister says that this matter is complex, but my question is simple: when does the Department for Transport intend to issue the invitations to tender for the promised new train fleets for Chiltern, Northern and Southeastern?

[Huw Merriman]

The answer is over the course of this year and next year for all of the train manufacturers that the hon. Lady has mentioned. I well remember the visit that both she and I made to the Alstom site with the Transport Committee. As she rightly says, it is a fantastic site, which is why we are working to find a solution. I am certainly encouraged by the conversations that have taken place. We know that everyone wants to find that solution—the Government certainly do—but the hon. Lady will know from all her work on the Transport Committee that legal challenges have to be dealt with in the correct manner. This matter is very sensitive, and it is market sensitive as well, so finding a way through which provides certainty and does not get unpicked is absolutely the right thing for us to do, and that is what we are doing right now.

Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging (Amendment) Bill

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Friday 22nd March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in opposition to the Bill for three key reasons. First, it represents an attack on devolution. Secondly, it ignores the urgent and important need to tackle poor air quality, not just here in London but in towns and cities across our country. We would be forgiven for forgetting about this urgent public health issue, because the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) barely mentioned it in his introduction, yet it goes to the very heart of having the ultra low emission zone. It is about trying to tackle something that is a significant problem here in London and in towns and cities across the country, and it is not just a problem in city centres. The heat map for my city shows that poor air quality is not restricted to the city centre, and that the ring road has particular issues. Poor air quality is an issue in outer London just as it is in inner London. Thirdly, the Bill uses a serious public health issue for purely party political point scoring.

I begin with devolution. [Interruption.] It would be nice if I could hear myself speak. It is worth remembering that the ultra low emission zone and, indeed, emission charging zones are Tory policy that was pushed on to local government by a Tory Government and first championed here in London by a Tory Mayor. We would not know that from listening to the interventions of Conservative Members.

The Mayor of London has statutory obligations in relation to air quality across the Greater London area. He has a right, indeed a duty, to introduce measures to meet the national air quality targets set by central Government. The whole purpose of devolution is for local people to determine the policies that are needed for their area. The Government have set the targets for air quality, and it is for democratically elected Mayors and local authorities to run their cities or counties in a way that works best for their area, which I know can be controversial.

My city is unique in this country in having a workplace parking levy. I would not say for one moment that it has not been controversial. It was incredibly controversial when it was first introduced more than 10 years ago when, under a previous Conservative-led Government, there was a huge problem with austerity. People were feeling the impact of that austerity, so the levy’s introduction was delayed by a year, but it was about both discouraging people from driving into the city and providing an income stream that could be used to improve alternatives to driving by investing in public transport. It has been incredibly successful. Nottingham is one of the cities that have not been forced to introduce a clean air zone, because its work to improve public transport, in part funded by the workplace parking levy, has led to that situation.

The Mayor of London expanded the ULEZ in August 2023 because toxic air pollution is a public health crisis. He is acting to tackle the crisis of poor air quality. I remind hon. Members that poor air quality is linked to around 4,000 premature deaths per year in London. It leads to children growing up with stunted lungs, and contributes to people developing serious health problems, including asthma, heart disease and dementia. I understand that the hon. Member for Dartford might not agree with the Mayor about the best way to tackle air pollution, but that is democracy.

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend is developing a powerful argument, and this is what the Conservatives have no answer to. What would they put in place to deal with the health aspects of poor air quality, such as damage to children’s development, and people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other respiratory and coronary illnesses who are adversely affected by this issue? The Conservatives are desperate because they have nothing to offer the people of London they seek to scaremonger about this charge. There is no concern whatsoever for the health of Londoners, or those people in outer London who are suffering most from air pollution.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was really telling when the hon. Member for Dartford began to talk about his mayoral candidate that he said nothing about her plans to tackle the serious issue of air pollution.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend hits on a blunter truth about the Bill. In six weeks’ time, our constituents, whether they agree or not with the argument made by the hon. Member for Dartford or with arguments on the importance of tackling air pollution, will have the opportunity to express an opinion at the ballot box when choosing who the London Mayor overseeing this policy should be. Is the message of the Bill that Conservative MPs have no confidence in their mayoral candidate winning that argument, or indeed doing anything in support of their policies? They clearly feel the need to intervene and usurp devolution, so should nobody in London even bother with the Conservative campaign, because their candidate’s own colleagues think she is incompetent?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head.

Progress is being achieved. The vast majority of cars —19 out of 20 in Greater London—are compliant with ULEZ. Labour Members are pleased that Transport for London and the Mayor of London have decided to expand the scrappage scheme to support those who are struggling as a result of the Tory cost of living crisis.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)]

I am listening with interest to the hon. Lady’s speech. The Government obviously support the Bill in the circumstances applied. Will she address the point that is fairly made about people outside a mayoral zone being affected and penalised by entering a mayoral zone, when they did not vote for that?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Unusual as it is for the Minister to intervene, I think the point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). When people from outside London drive into London, the costs of that in terms of health, and wear and tear on the roads, is borne by constituents here in London. It is not unreasonable for them to expect that those who benefit from everything that London has to offer, who travel into the centre causing congestion and poor air quality, should abide by the well-established principle that the polluter pays.

[Kerry McCarthy]

This goes back to what I was saying about the fact that the Government insisted that Bristol had a clean air zone. Obviously that will have a significant impact on people from Bath, for example, who drive down the A4 into my constituency, causing a huge amount of congestion and air pollution, but that is basically how politics works. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend just said: the duty of politicians is to look after people in the patch they represent.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. I will come on to address how we best tackle the issue of air pollution and, at the same time, protect those who are impacted by this charge.

From 21 August last year, every Londoner with a non-compliant vehicle became eligible for a £2,000 grant to assist them in replacing their vehicle. I understand why people have said that £2,000 is not enough, but that has been provided despite central Government giving no financial support to the Mayor of London for it. Of course, if the Government are concerned about the impact—[Interruption.] If they are concerned about the impact of their clean air charging zones, they could have provided additional assistance—

[Sir David Evennett]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

No, I am not giving way at the moment.

As I was saying, the Government could have provided additional financial support to the Mayor of London so that that grant could have been increased, but they chose not to so.

I am proud that Labour is the party of devolution. [Interruption.] It was Labour that created the mayoral model in London, and created the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as always having—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Lady is trying to make a speech. We have a conversation going on between the two Front-Bench teams and rather a lot of shouting at the hon. Lady herself. We need to listen to her speech with respect.

[Lilian Greenwood]

As I was saying, that devolution is as well as always having regional and local decision making and funding across England. I am pleased that the next Labour Government will build on that record. Indeed, Labour Mayors across England are already showing how it is done—whether that is in Manchester, Liverpool, South Yorkshire or West Yorkshire—taking back control of buses, supporting new homes, and reforming employment and skills. I am very much looking forward to seeing Claire Ward elected as the first Mayor of the East Midlands on 2 May. Sadly, while Labour is committed to more devolution, this Bill shows that the Tories are simply trying to roll it back.

I wish to say a little more about air pollution, which is at the heart of this Bill, and the strategies to tackle it. As I have already said, we know the problems that poor air causes. It affects our health and our environment; as many as 40,000 people die prematurely each year as a result of poor air quality. The elderly, the unwell and the economically deprived are those most likely to be affected. The Government’s own estimates say that poor air quality costs the UK economy billions of pounds each year. I think about my own constituency and the arguments that we had about the workplace parking levy. Lots of people in the city do not pay the levy, because they simply cannot afford to run a car at all; they are reliant on public transport.

We also know where the problem occurs. Key pollutants, including nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter —known as PM_2.5—are found in many places, and too many air quality zones in the UK exceed legal limits. The World Health Organisation tells us that there is no safe level of exposure to fine particulate matter. We know what causes poor air quality. It comes from several sources—industry, agriculture, homes, businesses, and, yes, transport. Road transport is responsible for the vast majority of nitrogen oxide concentrations at places in the UK that exceed the legal limits, with diesel engines a significant contributor.

The number of cars and vans on our roads continues to rise and congestion has worsened, which increases pollution in itself. Transport also generates a significant proportion of particulate matter, which can come from both combustion and wear of tyres and brake pads. Cleaner vehicles help to solve the problem, and we have made some progress on that, but not enough.

There are examples from across the country of the action that can be taken to tackle emissions. Low emission zones are only one tool in the toolbox, and it could be said that they should be a last resort. As I have said, in my city, there has been considerable investment in public transport, paid for in part by proceeds from the workplace parking levy. We have had major extensions to our tram network. Nottingham’s municipal bus company introduced new biogas buses years ago, and I am really pleased to see that it has just started to roll out new electric vehicles. I do not deny that there has been support from central Government for some of that investment. For some years, the city council has had an anti-idling campaign. That multi-pronged approach mirrors similar action in towns and cities across the UK, with not one but multiple tools being used to tackle this serious public health issue.

The Department for Transport has supported the development of low emission buses and taxis. That is a good thing, because tackling poor air quality should be about central Government working with local councils and Mayors, rather than dictating to them, as the Bill does. Central Government should support and collaborate with them. In preparing for the debate, I went back to a 2018 report, produced by four cross-party Select Committees, that looked at improving air quality. One thing that the Committees came together to recommend was collaboration and partnership between central Government, local authorities and Mayors, because air pollution is a problem that cannot be fixed by central or local government alone; they need to work together.

Like the Mayor of London, local authorities are already responsible for meeting air quality targets, but they find it difficult to make changes, partly due to a lack of resources and partly because the changes needed are politically unpalatable; I guess that in part is what has caused the debate. It was a while ago, but that joint report from 2018 called for ambitious, co-ordinated cross-departmental action. I am sorry that in some respects the Government have failed on that, as they have prevaricated on removing the most polluting vehicles from our roads. At the time of the report, we called on them to have a more ambitious target for the removal of petrol and diesel cars; I think they were only committed to removing them by 2040. They did at first commit to a more ambitious target of ending the sale of petrol and diesel cars, but more recently, they have rowed back from that, which makes it more difficult for us to achieve the improvements that we know are needed.

There was also a decision to row back on the electrifi-cation of our railways, in favour of bi-mode trains, which have worrying implications for air quality, carbon emissions and noise. Every time I go to St Pancras station to catch my train home to Nottingham, I stand on the platform among diesel trains because the railway is not electrified all the way to Nottingham. Frankly, I am looking forward to seeing new trains on the midland main line next year, but they will be bi-mode trains, and while they will leave St Pancras under electric power, which will improve air quality in central London, by the time they get to Nottingham, they will be operating under diesel power, doing far less to improve air quality in our city. That is the result of a decade of broken promises from successive Tory Prime Ministers, who have paused and cancelled the electrification of the midland mainline. We now know that electric trains will not reach Nottingham until at least the early 2030s. I have sometimes joked that I will be retired by the time we get there, and I am afraid that might be the case.

There is a danger of the Government relying too heavily on new technologies to solve our air quality challenges, and placing too much emphasis on cleaning up road vehicles and not enough on reducing the number of vehicles on our roads. Improving public transport and encouraging active travel should lie at the heart of any clean air strategy. Getting freight off our roads and on to our railways would be welcome, taking many heavy goods vehicles, which are often the most polluting, off our roads.

Back in 2018, the four Select Committees concluded that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport should work closely with local authorities to ensure that councils introducing clean air zones received the support that they needed to implement complementary measures that encourage car drivers to switch to public transport and active travel, and increase the take-up of electric vehicles. I understand that not every journey can be made by public transport or bicycle, or on foot, but if we can change a proportion of those journeys, we can make a real difference. For a while, the Conservative party seemed really interested in walking and cycling —I see the Minister with responsibility for walking and cycling, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), sitting on the Front Bench, but he has not been terribly busy. Yesterday at transport questions, not a single Conservative MP asked a question about active travel. It is disappointing that they have scaled back their investment in that.

Investment in low-emission buses is great, but the value of that investment is magnified if local authorities also take steps to encourage motorists to opt for buses, rather than make journeys by car. I understand the argument made by the hon. Member for Dartford that people can continue to drive, but of course a charge is a disincentive; that is partly how the scheme operates. The pandemic had a huge impact on public transport usage, both in London and across the country. I pay tribute to the Government for their £2 bus fare, which has been a welcome initiative. In London, the Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan has also taken action, both to protect Londoners from the Tory cost of living crisis and to encourage more people to travel by public transport; he has introduced the hopper fare on buses, and has frozen fares in five out of eight years.

Without action or a modal shift, efforts to tackle congestion or improve air quality are less likely to succeed. Many of the policies needed to tackle urban congestion could also help to improve air quality. Tackling both issues could have a positive effect on both the local and the national economy. A significant increase in active travel could make a difference not just to air quality policies but to tackling obesity, improving mental health and building better communities.

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful case for why air quality should be a priority for us all. Ultimately, it is a social justice issue. However rich or poor we are, we all breathe the same air. I suggest to anyone who lives in London that they will see the need to tackle low air quality if they leave London for a couple of days and then blow their nose. They will realise what they have been breathing in. This issue affects everyone. She is right that we must tackle it nationally as well as locally. Does she agree that unless the Conservatives comes up with an alternative plan, they are condemning the poorest in our communities to the worst health outcomes?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I would be surprised if many people decided that they wanted to go in the direction of having a Conservative Mayor in the absence of proper information about how a Conservative Mayor would tackle air pollution.

Finally, this Bill is about party political point scoring. The Government support clean air zones. Indeed, they provided cash for scrappage schemes in Bristol, Bath, Sheffield, Birmingham, Portsmouth and other areas of the country, but not London. I wonder why. In towns and cities across England—not just in London—our constituents have faced 14 years of Tory economic failure. They cannot afford another week, let alone more months or, heaven forbid, years of Tory Government. Families are sick with anxiety as they endure this cost of living crisis, while their local services are under immense pressure.

When times are tough due to the Conservatives’ economic failure, it is essential that we look at options for achieving clean air without disproportionately impacting people. We must secure our economy and make it stronger by getting growth back on course, as the last Labour Government did, whereas we have had an anaemic situation under 14 years of the Tories. [Interruption.] They do not want to hear it, do they? They do not want to hear that growth was faster under a Labour Government than under 14 years of the Tories. Fourteen years of Tory economic failure have left us in this position, where everything is worse and everything is broken. It is by growing our economy that we will provide sustainable, long-term funding for councils, and give local areas the tools and stability that they need for growth, as we push power, wealth and opportunity out from Westminster.

[Gareth Johnson]

The hon. Lady has been speaking for nearly half an hour, and it is obvious that she and the Labour party wish to talk out my Bill to overturn the expansion of the ULEZ scheme. Can I ask what her message is to a lady I spoke to recently in my constituency? She said that she could not visit her sister in Bexley, just a few miles away. As she was a disabled person, she could not use public transport, could not afford to upgrade her car, and could not afford a taxi. That may not affect people in Nottingham South, but it does affect people in Dartford.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I understand that people face a cost of living crisis. What the hon. Member should have explained to that lady is why she feels so much worse off after 14 years of Conservative Government. He should not try to pin it on a single issue; it is down to his Government’s failure, and he should take some responsibility for that.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent speech in support of clean air, which is what this debate is all about. What would she say to the many parents I meet in my constituency who introduce me to children who have asthma on a scale never seen before? Through ULEZ and other measures, they will see their children’s health improve.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that could be lost in this debate, which is that the issue is about health—the health of children and older people. It is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said, about the health of some of the poorest in society; they are most impacted by poor air quality. That is what we should be talking about.

[Clive Efford]

If, as the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), claims, the issue is not health, why are the Government supporting charge zones in other cities?

[Lilian Greenwood]

We will have to listen to the Minister’s answer on that. However, it was clear that the Government wanted clean air charging zones—in fact, they were a requirement on cities that had not succeeded in meeting air quality targets through other measures. I am not going to apologise for speaking in this debate because, as I say, I have long had an interest in air quality. The experience in my city means we have something to offer and share.

Finally, let me turn to the alternative, because the hon. Member for Dartford did not say much about alternatives. I want to talk about that because Labour does have a plan to support drivers. We will support them by focusing on the cost of living and on the infrastructure challenges, which are real priorities for households that have and use a car—that probably includes most of us some of the time, even if we walk, cycle or use a bus most of the time. Our plan includes working with the Competition and Markets Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority and industry on addressing the soaring costs of car insurance. We plan to bring railways back into public hands and to allow all local authorities to take back control of their bus services. London never had to put up with the deregulation of its bus services as the rest of the country did. Those things have the capability to relieve congestion by improving the state of our public transport network, and I imagine other local authorities might like to follow Nottingham’s lead by having a municipal bus company, which, once again, has been shown to provide one of the best bus services in the entire country. I would say that we have the best bus service, thanks to Nottingham City Transport.

A Labour Government would be committed to protecting our environment, helping to decarbonise the economy, and ensuring that we all have safe air to breathe. Labour would work with local authorities and mayoral combined authorities to support them to meet air quality targets in the ways that work best for their areas. We appreciate that emissions levels in different areas vary as a result of the kind of industry and economic activity in those areas, and we will work in partnership with local and regional governments, empowering them to protect and improve air quality, while fostering economic innovation and productivity.

Labour would make it clear that the Government have a direct responsibility to work with our local authorities to avoid the need for charging clean air zones through the adoption of alternative air quality improvement methods, such as those I have talked about: re-routing traffic, land management, speed limits, better public transport, and better options to get freight off our roads and on to our railways. That responsibility should also extend to helping to mitigate the impact of any proposals that clear the strong thresholds set by the Government for a clean air zone.

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I hope that hon. Members will focus on the issue of air pollution and the need to take action in a variety of ways to tackle it.

[Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

Let me begin by congratulating my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), on his Bill, which I was delighted to sponsor. I am delighted to participate in this debate and to congratulate him also on his excellent, informative and constructive speech.

I was rather disappointed in the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for whom I have a lot of respect, because she did not say much about ULEZ. She took us on a tour of Nottingham and told us about other parts of Labour party policy, but she showed a total misunderstanding of—or no understanding of—outer London. [Interruption.] She can barrack me all she likes, but she never had a view on outer London. She also made a statement that was fundamentally untrue, in saying that this Government had not bailed out the Mayor of London. Transport for London has been bailed out so many times in the past few years, but she did not say that. She glossed over the management of TfL. She also did not come up with any facts or figures to show that ULEZ has reduced the level of pollution in inner London. We are still seeing huge levels of pollution in inner London, even on the underground, which came to our attention last year—

[Lilian Greenwood]

rose—

[Sir David Evennett]

The hon. Lady would not give way to me, so I am certainly not going to give way to her. I have also not had the opportunity to start my speech. I know that Opposition Members just want to delay everybody and everything, but I want to speak for my borough of Bexley. We had a long tour about Nottingham, but ULEZ affects my borough and my constituency, not hers in Nottingham, so I think I should have a few minutes to speak. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) did not get up and ask to intervene, but the others did.

The expansion of ULEZ affects my area and the surrounding areas very badly. It blindly copies the approach taken in central and inner London without properly assessing the implications for outer London or the neighbouring areas. The expansion has caused a range of negative social, financial and economic impacts for those who can least afford it. Perhaps this is not the case for the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), for whom I have a lot of respect, but we are inundated with people in my borough, some of whom support his party, who think it is unfair for ULEZ to come to Bexley when Bexley has good air quality, as does Bromley. I am surprised at what he says; I have no doubt that it is correct, as he as a good friend of mine and an honourable man, but I do not believe that there have not been people in Eltham who have said that this is unfair to those who are less well off.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

London has the Greater London Assembly, a Mayor with devolved powers and Transport for London, so this issue is looked at on a London-wide basis. There is an issue in Bristol with people coming into the city centre from places like Bath, but the boroughs are not so interwoven that we cannot see the borders between them, and we do not have the interconnectivity that London has. In Bristol, we were told that we had to bring air pollution levels within legal limits as quickly as possible. We went to great lengths with the modelling to deal with concerns about the economic and social impact. As the Minister said, making the zone as small as possible was one of the factors in that.

It is relevant to talk about the Bristol scheme because it shows what can be achieved by similar measures in London. The scheme came into effect in November 2022, and in January this year we had the first annual report on its effectiveness. It was judged to have been highly successful. The headline figure was that air pollution across all measured sites had declined by 9.7%. The success of the CAZ is measured by whether it lowers nitrogen dioxide levels below the legal limit of 40 micrograms per cubic metre. In November 2022, when the scheme was introduced, there were 18 sites across Bristol above the legal limit. Just 12 months later, that was down to just six zones. The scheme was particularly effective outside the Bristol Royal Infirmary and the Bristol Children’s Hospital, which are bang in the middle of the city centre. Air pollution was down by an incredible 26.9%. I defy anyone to tell me that such big improvements in air quality in areas where there are very sick and vulnerable people, including sick children, is a bad thing. It has been really successful.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this is sometimes presented as a binary choice between motorists and everybody else, such as the children in the hospital, when these improvements are actually beneficial for everyone? One thing that came out of the 2018 report is that some of the worst air quality is inside vehicles, so motorists directly benefit from improvements in air quality.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I was on the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee at the time, both of which took part in that inquiry. It was difficult to bring those Committees together, but the inquiry produced a really good, significant report, which we should still pay heed to when we as House think about what to do on this issue going forward.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I did have an e-bike; it was stolen from inside the Houses of Parliament. One would think that there would be nowhere more secure, but when the Queen was lying in state, whoever was acting as her security removed all the bikes and took off a £130 lock—presumably with an angle grinder or something—and my bike was not seen again. Try explaining to the insurance company that it was people from Buckingham Palace or from the Queen’s lying in state who took the lock off! That is another story, though.

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. I used to hold the shadow green transport brief, and e-bikes are hugely important in allowing people to do those longer journeys. I could not make it up the hills in Bristol without a bit of extra help from an e-bike, but when it comes to delivery vehicles, one of the issues is deliveries inside the areas covered by zones. If we can have hubs outside the city centres and electric vans or e-cargo bikes making those deliveries, that could have a huge impact. Obviously, everybody making food deliveries and similar things really ought to be using clean modes of transport.

I am conscious of time, so I will finish my point about the Bristol scheme. There were concerns that it would lead people to take diversions and increase pollution outside the clean air zone, but air pollution outside the zone has also been measured as down: it has reduced by 7.8%, because the CAZ has encouraged a modal shift among people. I appreciate that people cannot always afford to make that shift in vehicles, but it has happened.

Another concern raised by opponents was that the CAZ would harm the local economy and communities by discouraging people from coming into the city centre. In fact, the opposite happened: retail footfall across four major retail hotspots in central Bristol actually rose from the previous year. There was also an argument that people would become isolated and stuck at home because they could not afford to pay the £9 charge, but again, that was not the case: the number of journeys into or through the CAZ per month was higher at the end of the year than at the start of the scheme, and the percentage of compliant journeys rose every single month. That is what we want to achieve.

It is the same with the landfill tax, for example. That tax is not about raising money because lots of people are sending stuff to landfill. If a landfill tax is effective, the revenues go down and down, year on year. There is actually an issue with the fact that the tax is not keeping pace with inflation at the moment, but assuming it is effective, the revenues will dwindle—it is the behaviour change that we want to make happen. As I said, ideally we would not have introduced a clean air zone, but we have made it work. It is also worth noting that the Government take £2 from every £9 CAZ charge, which we would very much like to be able to spend in Bristol instead.

[Lilian Greenwood]

It is quite difficult to assess the effectiveness of a clean air zone, because it is not about whether vehicle numbers go down, but about whether those numbers are higher or lower than they would have been if we had done nothing. When thinking about the effectiveness of ULEZ in central London, for example, we need to model what would have happened if we had not had ULEZ, rather than just look at whether the numbers have gone up or down.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Exactly—there is very complicated modelling involved. Also, if we can use measures such as these to take some cars off the road, that increases the attractiveness of public transport, because the buses can get to where they are meant to be without being stuck in traffic.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is an absolute champion of that project, and he makes his point clear. Upgrades made in the Gatwick area are already delivering significant improvements to the Brighton main line, and the industry continually reviews how best to respond to changes in demand. I understand that my hon. Friend has been in discussions with the operator on the options for increasing capacity on busy weekend services between Carshalton and London Victoria, and that Govia Thameslink Railway will shortly respond to him directly. I will continue to work with him on the enhancement project that he champions.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The leader of Nottinghamshire County Council, who has a nice side hustle as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), once said:

“The full delivery of HS2’s Eastern Leg is what the East Midlands needs to support and create highly skilled jobs, link communities to opportunities and decarbonise our transport network.”

As he failed to persuade the Prime Minister, who cancelled that vital investment in our region’s rail services, can the Minister tell me how we will now deliver the transformative change to our connectivity, sustainability, job creation, productivity and social mobility that HS2 promised? Filling a few potholes will not cut it.

[Huw Merriman]

I certainly look forward to the day when my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) is also an excellent East Midlands Mayor, and we are devolving more powers to the east midlands to help him with that task. The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) references HS2 moneys, from which more than a £1 billion will be allocated to the Mayor of the East Midlands to spend on the transport projects that he and, indeed, the hon. Lady may want. That allows us to devolve more projects to the local area, and we have been absolutely clear that all the moneys that have been saved as a result of the HS2 cancellation will be reinvested primarily in the north and the midlands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I shall be the duty Minister tomorrow, and I look forward to dealing with this matter.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The Government have been promising action on pavement parking for a decade, but despite a consultation in 2020, we are still no further forward. Will the Minister finally listen to disabled people, parents, children and local councils who overwhelmingly support a ban, and act to curb this dangerous problem?

[Guy Opperman]

That particular issue is on my desk, and we are considering it at present. I can assure the hon. Lady that the results of the consultation will be published in the summer.

Trailer and Towing Safety

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

It has been a decade since a child was killed in my constituency by a runaway trailer. Freddie was just three years old. A 2-tonne trailer came loose from a nearby car as he walked down the street near his home. The consequences of the unsecured tow hitch were fatal. Shortly after I became an MP, I met Freddie’s parents, in 2016. Since then I have campaigned to improve towing safety standards. I am grateful tonight to have the chance to focus the mind of the current Minister on this important topic, and I thank him for talking with me.

Sadly, not enough has been done over the past three years to ensure that our roads are safe for trailers. Back in 2016, when I first met the family, they had researched previous cases and learned that there were other families like theirs. This was not a one-off, and it could have been prevented if better safety checks had been in place. One example that came to light was the death of a four-year-old boy killed by a trailer that had broken free from a car in the Amber Valley constituency in 2007. The then Minister, the former Member for Poplar and Limehouse, commented at that time:

“Introducing MOT-style tests for such trailers is a possibility that we have considered before, and it is a matter that we keep under review. There have been several such accidents in recent months, and I will certainly consider the matter with officials in the Department to see whether we need to move on that”.—[Official Report, 22 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 1354.]

The Road Traffic Act 1988 states that it is an offence to drive an unroadworthy vehicle, and we know that there are many trailers on our roads that are dangerous and in need of repair. We need to do so much more to stop further tragedies from happening.

Since 2015, I have met many road safety Ministers, and I put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) for their time and support in looking at this issue and working with me and the family. I also thank the current Minister’s predecessors, Baroness Vere of Norbiton and the right hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), who have reported to the all-party parliamentary group on trailer and towing safety, which I chair.

In those years there have been many successes in the campaign. I held two trailer safety summits—in March 2017 and April 2018—in Bedminster, where the accident happened, involving Freddie’s family and key stakeholders. In July 2017 the National Trailer and Towing Association introduced the free safety checks initiative—the first of its kind in the UK—which meant that, through its network of accredited members, any light trailer could be given a free 10 to 15-minute visual inspection of key points, and a written report completed. The campaign has also worked with the Department for Transport and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency on a campaign on driver behaviour and the creation of the hashtag #towsafe4freddie. That brings together vital information about towing safely and has hugely increased awareness of the issue among drivers.

Following my amendments to the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill in 2018, the Government had to undertake a statutory report into trailer safety, which was published in July 2019. That was a huge milestone in the campaign. The findings of the Government’s report reinforced the urgency of the issue. As part of the actions of the report, the DVSA conducted roadside checks of light trailers between 2019 and 2021. I was able to join such a roadside check near Bristol.

From the report, we know the horrifying fact that half of all light trailers are non-compliant with safety standards. I was deeply shocked and concerned to learn that 40% of those vehicles were so dangerous that they needed immediate repairs. When people think of towing, they often think of caravans, but we know from the data that caravans and responsible commercial companies are not the issue; it is personal light trailers that contribute to these shocking statistics.

The Government know that a disgraceful number of vehicles on our roads are deeply unsafe—their own statutory report tells them that—so why have they failed to act on that information or to progress the work from the report that they said they would do? Following the statutory report in 2019, the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North, then Minister of State at the Department for Transport, said that a “focus must be maintained on driving up the safety of these trailers.”—[Official Report, 18 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 62WS.]

That is absolutely imperative.

My ask of the Minister is that trailer safety be put at the forefront of the agenda once more. That is because trailer safety is a key part of safety on our roads. The potentially deadly consequences of unsecure trailers demonstrate the need for mandatory safety checks on trailers and formal testing for those using them. The statutory report made the case for that clearly: it recommended considering “revisions and improvements” to the test that drivers use to undertake in order to hold a licence to tow light vehicles—the so-called B+E test. With one in two light vehicles on our roads unroadworthy, that knowledge and training is paramount.

As the former Minister stated in 2019, in his response to the report

“there is further work in this area which the Government will take forward.”—[Official Report, 18 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 62WS.]

That was set out in a work programme from the statutory report. Those were actions that I and the APPG, working closely with industry, officials in the Department and Ministers, were happy to see progress. I thank all those officials for the work they did.

Yet following the 2019 election, we have had a complete U-turn. I was appalled and horrified when in 2021 the Government introduced a statutory instrument that scrapped the towing test altogether, meaning that any driver with a standard B driving licence could tow without further instruction on how to do so safely. This was a reckless decision with potentially dangerous consequences. According to Department for Transport data, 30% of people who have been trained and tested fail, yet we are now unleashing thousands of untrained, unsafe and unqualified drivers of trailers on to our roads.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her dogged pursuit of this issue. I wonder whether, knowing the appalling state of many of our roads in this country—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Suzanne Webb.)

[Lilian Greenwood]

That took me by surprise. I was wondering whether the state of our roads, which many people are aware of, adds to the danger posed by the issues with trailers and driver awareness that she has set out.

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Yes, if the trailer is not towed safely, any damage in the roads—road bumps, potholes and so on—will add to the stress on trailers. That could have more lethal consequences.

The Government’s own impact assessment, which was not released until after the statutory instrument had passed, stated that this legislation could

“have implications for competence of drivers to tow trailers safely”

and

“may potentially increase the road safety risk”.

That was deeply worrying not only for those who have lost loved ones through unsafe towing, but for those in the wider industry, many of whom contacted me to share their anxieties. The public have no idea that so many defective vehicles are on our roads, and now the Government have scrapped the mandatory training that would have helped drivers to understand the importance of safety checks on their vehicles. We have evidence that trailer safety is a serious problem, yet the legislation was deemed “fit for purpose”. The only consolation was that it would be reviewed after three years, which will be at the end of this year.

Two-and-a-half years into this outrageous piece of legislation, I hope that the Minister has a good understanding now of its impact on road safety, and I would welcome an update from him. Between 2019 and 2021, 50% of light trailers were defective. Can the Minister confirm whether that statistic has changed? What recent data does he hold on defective vehicles? He needs to explain what data will be used to assess the impact of the instrument as part of the review and how this data is being collected.

The impact assessment stated that the overall accident rate would have to rise by an average of 14% per year to negate all the benefits of the legislation. I wonder whether the Minister thinks that a 14% increase in accidents is acceptable. How many people could lose their lives or be seriously injured because of this legislation? Surely we should be trying to make our roads safer, with drivers supported and informed to take all the safety measures they need.

There are some who point to the voluntary accreditation scheme for drivers wishing to tow. That information is available to the proactive, responsible drivers who seek it, but the clue is in the name: it is voluntary. The number of drivers undergoing training has fallen through the floor. Department for Transport data shows that from over 29,000 people in one year taking the mandatory B+E test, we now have fewer than 500 taking up the voluntary scheme in the 18 months since it was introduced —a drop of 98%. That is an astonishing percentage. The very real consequence of that is more unsafe trailers on our roads.

What measures is the Minister taking to increase the number of people accessing the voluntary training? What is the Minister doing to ensure that those who use our roads are trained to tow and understand the dangers of unsafe towing? We need a coherent plan for our roads that recognises the importance of trailer safety. I welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we can re-embed the findings and actions of the 2019 statutory report on trailer safety into the current roads strategy.

I have very much enjoyed working collaboratively with Ministers to improve trailer safety. Over the past five years, the all-party parliamentary group on trailer and towing safety has worked steadfastly with the Department for Transport to gather data and information. I hope we can take this moment to refresh that relationship and work together to ensure the safety of all who use our roads. Gathering more and better information on the safety of trailers and the skills of those towing them is crucial. It is through the data that we uncovered the scale of the problem in the first place, and it will be through gathering new data that we can pave the way for improvements in the future. Does the Minister agree that this is of the utmost importance? If so, when and how is he planning to collect that new data?

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on trailer and towing safety, I thank all of my colleagues who have supported and publicised the issue in this place over the past six years. I thank those stakeholders in the towing industry who have done all they can to improve trailer safety—in particular, the contributions of the National Caravan Council and the work of Alicia Dunne at the council have been hugely valuable. Those working in the industry know how important it is to improve trailer safety. Their work in raising awareness and improving driver behaviour and knowledge has been crucial.

Finally, I pay tribute to the incredible bravery of Freddie’s family. I thank them for all they have done to shine a light on this issue and to educate me. If the Minister takes away one thing from today’s debate, I hope that he will remember the lives behind the statistics. Families across the country have been impacted by poor and ill-thought-out legislation—I know that the Minister did not bring the legislation to the House. Improving trailer safety saves lives, and I hope he agrees that we must do all we can to enable drivers to tow safely.

HS2: Revised Timetable and Budget

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

I have the greatest sympathy for my hon. Friend’s constituents. They have been ably represented by him, because he has spoken to me on a number of occasions. I have already set out the steps that will be taken with regard to the decision on HS2 trains to Leeds. That will remain the case, but I am already looking into the case for his constituents. A 30% to 38% increase in rents seems like an incredibly high jump in one go. I need to find out the background to that, but he will be meeting me again, so I can give him the detail that he can then give back to his constituents. I will do everything I can to minimise the impact.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I was 45 when the Tory-led Government gave HS2 the go ahead. Since then, as the Minister knows, it has been repeatedly chopped, changed and delayed. I will be 57 next week. How old will I be when it gets to Nottingham?

[Mr Speaker]

That is a trap.

Rail Strikes

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These discussions were under way when, suddenly, the union decided to ballot its members, incorrectly telling them that a strike would get them off the pay freeze. Nearly every part of the public sector experienced a pay freeze and, in any case, it is coming to an end. These pointless, counterproductive strikes should never have been called, and the Labour party should recognise that fact.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Precisely because of the potential disruption, and instead of calling today’s debate, should the Secretary of State not be taking action to try to resolve these disputes? When did he last meet industry leaders and trade unions to try to get that resolution? Has he had a discussion about bringing in ACAS to resolve this dispute? If he has not, will he commit to doing so now?

[Grant Shapps]

I hear what the hon. Lady says. The Leader of the Opposition claims to care deeply about this issue, yet he is not with us today. [Hon. Members: “Where is the Prime Minister?”] The Prime Minister has already said exactly where he is on this issue, but the Leader of the Opposition cannot find his way to the Front Bench when it really matters and when it comes to standing up for working people, Where is he?

The leader of the RMT, Mick Lynch, said only last month, “I do not negotiate with a Tory Government.” He does not want to meet us. That is the reality of the situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

Following your lead, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will just give one example: cracks to rail. Technology now allows a sensor camera underneath a train to click 70,000 images per minute. That replaces an individual’s eyes or teams of men tracking. I would maintain that that not only makes it more likely that the cracks will be spotted, but means it is not necessary to put people on the asset, which is dangerous to them and means closures that we do not need when the train is operating.

This is not rocket science related specifically to the rail industry. Every single industry innovates, moves forward and develops. This Chamber may seem a funny place to stand and say that working practices are rooted in the past, when this very place is all about that, but the way we speak and operate here does not necessarily impact the lives or enhance the passenger services that I believe we could do in rail, if the industry as a whole, working with the workforce, developed and innovated in the manner I advocate.

I come back to the point about collaboratively working together. It is essential. I saw to my cost, as an MP in the region that includes Southern Railway, damaging strikes that went on for far too long. Passengers could not get to work; it had a huge impact on the economic community and on the workforce. The crazy thing about that strike, which was about who opened the doors, the guard or the driver, was that it ended up being settled with a pay rise for drivers. Ironically, that was on the ASLEF side; the RMT side, which started this, did not get that pay rise. The ASLEF drivers got a pay rise of 25% over three years.

I would say to those on the Front Bench: “Of course take leadership, make that noise, but you have to ensure that you see this through.” There is nothing worse than starting this action, causing industrial relations to decline, and then finding out that we withdraw; it would be better not to do it at all.

[Lilian Greenwood]

rose—

[Huw Merriman]

I will give way one more time because the hon. Lady is my predecessor on the Select Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a great deal of respect for the work that he does, but what conclusion does he draw from the fact that there are no rail strikes going ahead next week in Wales, where there has been an active, responsible Government seeking to bring people together and resolve issues? Is it not precisely the point that active government can get the two sides together and attempt to resolve the issues?

[Huw Merriman]

I certainly take that point, but just I heard from another member of our Committee that Network Rail is still striking in Wales, and when it is about Network Rail members of the RMT, that tends to shut the railway down. In my example of when the RMT was striking in the Southern region, that did not shut the system down because that only happened when ASLEF drivers were involved. We will both check the record on that, no doubt, but that is how I am informed.