Public Transport: Carshalton and Wallington

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, as we approach the recess, may I wish you and all colleagues a very happy Easter?

Today, I would like to address the adequacy of public transport in my Carshalton and Wallington constituency, which is one of the worst boroughs for public transport connectivity in Greater London. Being able to move around quickly and conveniently, as well as easily to commute to jobs and businesses across London, is vital for a vibrant economy and community, and my constituents living on the edges of London and Surrey deserve the same levels of connectivity that the rest of our capital enjoys.

I would like to mention a variety of areas of public transport from trains to buses, the Overground and, of course, our roads. There are also areas where transport provision could be much strengthened, and I will no doubt touch on some of those a little later. My constituents in Carshalton and Wallington have been deprived of consistent and reliable public transport by the Mayor of London, backed up by a Liberal Democrat council. Rather than help improve our connectivity, the Mayor and the council have overseen the shelving of the tram extension; the scrapping entirely of the Go Sutton bus; the possibility of reducing bus services such as the 410; the scrapping of the 455, and replacing it with an inconvenient existing route; and all this while bringing in the so-called Superloop, which is just the rebranding of an existing bus route.

Before the pandemic, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) were keen to begin discussions on an extension to the London Overground from West Croydon to Sutton, but the sheer mismanagement of TfL’s finances by the Mayor means that is now unlikely. To almost no one’s surprise, the Mayor is asleep at the wheel, otherwise occupied with his vanity projects, and too busy imposing the ultra low emission zone on my constituents. He seems content to leave my constituency stranded without a public transport system that it can be proud of.

Since the pandemic, rail services to stations at Carshalton, Wallington, Hackbridge and Carshalton Beeches have been running at a reduced level. Regular, consistent services are vital to connect my constituents with employment, education and essential services in other parts of London, and of course Surrey. That reduced service means fewer trains from Carshalton to London Victoria. Indeed, something like half the existing services are running, which has meant a significant reduction in accessibility and convenience. Off-peak services from Carshalton Beeches and Wallington to West Croydon and beyond have been reduced from six to four trains per hour. Fortunately, Thameslink services to Blackfriars have remained unchanged, which offers some semblance of stability, but the overall picture paints a concerning narrative of dwindling connectivity and accessibility for my constituents.

I have long campaigned for, and been successful in convincing rail operators to restore, some of the peak-time services post covid, as well as extending the number of carriages on some peak-time services. However, those services are still too far from what they used to be, and my mailbag is often filled with correspondence from constituents who have been unable to board extremely busy weekend rail services made up of just four or five carriages. I would appreciate any support the Minister can provide to help convince rail operators to restore more peak-time rail services, as well as adequate numbers of carriages on trains and adequate weekend services.

Staying on the topic of rail, I wish to thank Network Rail and Govia Thameslink Rail, which operates Southern and Thameslink, for their continued engagement with me in a number of different areas. One of those is the southbound platform at Hackbridge station, and we have now secured funding to fix what I call the Hackbridge gap problem. That gap is a huge step down from train to platform. It is extremely dangerous, and many people have fallen down. The issue has become so serious that some people have had to travel on to the next stop at Carshalton, and come back to Hackbridge via the northbound line because they simply did not feel safe disembarking from Hackbridge station. I am glad that we have secured funding to do that, and I look forward to seeing the project get under way.

I have also been campaigning hard for step-free access to the southbound platform at Carshalton Beeches station. We have put in several Access for All applications over the years, and I hope that the Minister will give some indication as to when the next round might be available for comment. I sincerely hope that we will be successful this time round, so that once again people do not have to travel on to Sutton, the next station, and come back to Carshalton Beeches the other way in order to disembark safely.

Moving slightly outside my constituency, if I may, another area that would greatly improve transport for my constituents—indeed, this is probably the major sticking point when it comes to increasing rail capacity for my constituency and most of suburban London—is the Croydon area remodelling scheme, which is the major junction on the Brighton main line and the suburban rail network in south London and the home counties. The project does a number of things. It would upgrade East Croydon station and the surrounding rail infrastructure to enhance capacity and efficiency, and it encompasses several pivotal elements, including the revitalisation and renovation of the station itself, the remodelling of Selhurst junction, which is where trains are becoming congested, and the expansion of railway tracks north of East Croydon.

The capacity issues that that project would resolve are often the sticking point for running more rail services in the region. Indeed, GTR and Network Rail have spoken regularly about their ambitions to make suburban rail services a lot more like the metro system that we have on the London underground—a sort of turn-up-and-go system, rather than the strict and limited timetable we currently have.

By delivering on the Croydon area remodelling scheme, or the Croydon bottleneck, we would help alleviate the congestion, which would be good not just for my constituents, but for the majority of London and the south-east. It would unlock rail capacity all the way down to Brighton and parts of the south coast, as well as in the capital. In the words of the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman):

“In the current economic context, it is more important than ever for the enhancement schemes we take forward to be affordable and respond to changes in demand for travel”.

That is exactly what the Croydon area remodelling scheme would deliver.

Moreover, as we await updates to the rail network enhancements pipeline, it is essential to acknowledge the broader context in which the Croydon area remodelling scheme operates. The Government’s commitment to rail enhancements, shown through the Network North announcements, reflects an effort to modernise and expand railway infrastructure across the country, and they should be commended for that. The Croydon area remodelling scheme would bring a more efficient, sustainable and interconnected transport network to London and the south-east, and show clear improvements, not least to rail capacity, for my constituents in Carshalton and Wallington.

Finally, I want to talk about connectivity by road, which is still the most common form of transport in my constituency. The one thing that is attacking my constituents the most and causing them the most grief is the dreaded expansion of the ultra low emission zone. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), who brought in a Bill to overturn ULEZ. It was incredibly welcome that the Government gave it their backing, but very disappointing that Labour and the Liberal Democrats tried to prevent the Bill from progressing. In fact, Labour Members talked out the Bill to prevent its passage through this House.

As the Secretary of State has rightly said, ULEZ is a cruel form of taxation affecting the poorest in society and hitting heavily those who have older motor vehicles that they simply cannot afford to upgrade, with or without a scrappage scheme. My constituents regularly raise their concerns about ULEZ with me, and I completely agree with them. As I have stressed, the Mayor fails to acknowledge the poor connectivity of Carshalton and Wallington. On top of that, he has decided to tax the most hard-working, poorest Londoners. It is time that the pollution argument that is often made when it comes to ULEZ was eradicated. Genuine concern for the environment would involve a complete ban of non-compliant vehicles, not a charge to use them. Provided that Khan finds himself with an additional £12.50 per car in the TfL coffers, people can drive as they please.

The evidence is clear from the Mayor’s own impact assessment and assessments that have been done since that this is not about air quality, but about the Mayor’s inability to manage TfL’s finances. The expansion scheme was roundly rejected by the people of London, as can be evidenced through his consultation, yet the Mayor, backed by the Lib Dems and the Greens in City Hall, all gleefully voted in favour of it. In fact, the Lib Dems boasted that it was their idea in the first place. The Mayor went ahead with this tax on motorists, and he did not even mention it in his manifesto to get elected.

I urge caution to those voters who are now being told by the Mayor that he will not bring in any more charges if he gets re-elected—do not believe it. We know that the Mayor of London is currently looking, and has employed people in TfL to look, at a pay-per-mile scheme, which means that every single car driver in Greater London will be charged not only for using their car, no matter whether it is compliant, but for how long and how far they drive it. We must reject that. We must get rid of the Mayor of London on 2 May and replace him with someone who will not charge car drivers, and that is Susan Hall.

Between 26 September and 6 November, in the early stages of the expanded ULEZ, something like 2,700 fines were issued in Sutton, and nearly 100,000 in London as a whole, once again proving that ULEZ is simply a money-making scheme. I have heard from many of my constituents that they have not been accepted for the scrappage scheme. Only about a third of applications in my borough have been accepted so far, yet these people simply cannot afford to upgrade their vehicles. That places a huge burden on people and is a threat to their livelihoods.

The ULEZ charge means that elderly people are isolated in their homes because they cannot afford to get in the car and leave, and people are not coming to visit them. Small businesses either have to pass the £12.50 charge on to their customers or absorb it, at a time when they are struggling as well. It means the Royal Marsden cancer hospital has to refund cancer patients £12.50 a day to come to Sutton to receive treatment for cancer. The NHS should not be having to reimburse ULEZ charges to cancer patients. There should not be ULEZ charges on cancer patients, and yet that is the reality we live with in Sutton. Nurses, doctors, teachers, parents, charities and businesses are all being affected by the ULEZ charge, and hard-working Londoners deserve better.

To conclude, I ask the Minister whether he will continue to work with me to see what we can do to improve public transport connectivity at a time when the Mayor is clearly not interested in doing so, and when the Lib Dems gave up on my area a long time ago. I very much welcome the Minister. He has been a great friend to Carshalton and Wallington. He has visited before in other Government roles, so I would be delighted to welcome him back to see the transport opportunities in Carshalton and Wallington.

Will the Minister reiterate from the Dispatch Box that the Mayor’s unwanted ULEZ charge on Londoners does not help my constituents? Labour should have backed the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford last week. The ULEZ charge places a burden on people at a time when they can least afford it. We should be looking to increase the public transport connectivity of London, rather than attacking those who cannot change to an alternative.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the ever-present Minister, Guy Opperman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

My hon. Friend has brilliant eyesight, because he can see the highlighted passage I was about to read out, showing that 50% of police officers in the Metropolitan police area live outside the London boundary and commute in. The percentage for all emergency workers is probably not far off that. There is no doubt that there will be a recruitment issue in all those sectors. I have spent three and a half weeks of my life in St Thomas’ Hospital, requiring intensive care—and on not one but two occasions, because I am so accident prone. Someone may require overnight nursing care, for example, and a nurse coming into London from outside will be penalised on the day she comes in, and when she leaves her night shift she will be penalised again. She will be landed with a double whammy of a ULEZ charge—and then we are surprised that London hospitals are struggling to retain staff.

Is there evidence that ULEZ is making a dramatic difference to air quality? The evidence that has been set out in a variety of ways suggests that improvement is minimal in some respects, especially in the outer reaches. Is there an impact on the economy? Definitely: there is a negative impact. Is there an impact on public services, public sector workers and the low-income people who, according to the impact assessment, will be more affected by ULEZ expansion? There is not a shadow of a doubt that that is the case. I do not want to get too political on the last day before the Easter recess, but my hon. Friend asked what would happen in the future, and the idea that the present Mayor will not expand the impact of the ULEZ is for the birds. It is a bit like asking, “Are there moustaches in Mexico?” or “Do bears go to the toilet in the woods?” We both know that what the Mayor is proposing to do is to extend the present proposal in a variety of ways.

The key point that was made on Friday by my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), my right hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) and for Ashford (Damian Green), my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon)—from a sedentary position—and various colleagues from Watford was that great thought should be given to the benefits of this public policy as against the massive burdens that are being imposed. We must clearly consider why we are doing this on an ongoing basis.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington remains a massive champion of this issue, and I should be delighted to see the changes that he seeks. Of course, the Rail Minister will continue to work with him, and good work is being done. We want to continue to support him and his constituents. I commend him for bringing the debate to the House before Easter, and I commend his efforts on behalf of his constituents.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

On behalf of Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers, I echo the words of the Minister and Elliot Colburn in wishing a very happy Easter to everyone who works here to ensure that our democracy progresses. I hope that they will get together with their families and friends, and to those who sadly cannot do that because they are providing services to the rest of us, I say a great thank you on behalf of the nation.

Question put and agreed to.

National Networks National Policy Statement

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson]

It is a shame that the Minister did not stand up to announce that the Government had found some miraculous way of returning to the consensus. We know that the Conservatives have taken a wrecking ball to the HS2 project, and that they blew the budget, which is why they cancelled it, so we are not going to be able to revive it. After the rushing through of the fire sale of the land, the downgrading of ambition on major stations such as Euston and the reallocation of funding originally meant for HS2, which I think he referred to in his speech, there is no way we would be able to revive it.

Is it any wonder that the Transport Committee has warned us that there is still a lot of catching up to do when it comes to our climate change commitments and to ensuring that we deliver major infrastructure projects on time and to budget? The Transport Committee’s members made their concerns crystal clear when they said that

“the Government should have been proactive and reviewed the NPS upon the introduction of Net Zero targets, and should do when any changes are made to net zero target policies”.

Yet the latest national networks national policy statement still leaves gaps, notably in its admission that

“residual carbon emissions as an impact of NSIP”—

nationally significant infrastructure project—

“schemes are acceptable”.

There is a further lack of clarity over what “residual carbon emissions” means in practice, and the policy statement does not offer a process to distinguish between acceptable residual emissions and emissions that would mean carbon targets would not be met. The Transport Planning Society has even warned that the contradiction between the NNNPS and the transport decarbonisation plans is “potentially incredibly dangerous”.

We all know that our planning system is broken, with too many projects bogged down in development limbo for years on end as they wait for a decision, but the Transport Committee has warned that the gaps in this policy statement that I have just identified could lead to even more costly and time-consuming legal challenges to major projects on climate grounds. This would slow down our snail’s-pace planning system even further, and it is the taxpayer that would pay the price for the delays.

The flaws in the statement do not stop there. The Government have failed to take into account local authority-level targets and carbon budgets, to ensure that the local level impact of major development projects is taken into account. Meanwhile, Midlands Connect warns that sub-national transport bodies have also been snubbed. Many of these bodies have already developed strategic transport plans at regional level to support economic growth and reduce carbon emissions. They should not be ignored.

The National Infrastructure Planning Association has highlighted a lack of clarity in a number of areas, such as the frequency with which policy is reviewed, and the need for further detail to be published. The organisation warned that “weak links” ultimately result in

“delays to decisions on DCO applications”.

It warns that those delays to development consent orders could

“slow down the delivery of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects”.

So will the Minister tell us whether the Government are going to take the action that is needed so that Britain does not fall even further behind in the development of vital national infrastructure?

On the subject of existing delays to planning, the planning process has already become cumbersome and slow under this Government, with the time taken to grant development consent orders increasing by 65% since 2012, to more than four years. In response to the Transport Committee’s report, which flagged the planning system as a key source of delay in delivering infrastructure projects, the Government themselves even admitted that they recognised

“the need for modernisation and reform to the planning system”.

I have covered the shambolic approach to HS2, but a whole range of other major infrastructure projects that the Minister’s Department is supposedly committed to delivering have seen soaring costs and repeated delays. Years of failure to deliver rail infrastructure upgrades such as the midland main line have robbed communities of the benefits of better transport services.

The Minister mentioned his so-called Network North proposal, but I remind him that 85% of its projects are reannouncements. Much of the investment is not even in the north. In fact, some of it includes filling potholes in London—I do not think it is just north London, either.

Although the headline figure masks the fact that the money is spread over 11 years, as we established at Transport questions on Thursday, the average annual funding is equivalent to only a third of last year’s increase in the backlog of local road repairs. The consequences of these failures are not theoretical but all too real. Communities are being denied the huge economic opportunities that transport infrastructure projects can deliver, and they are currently stuck relying on creaking Victorian infrastructure.

The reality is that this Government’s track record on delivering nationally significant infrastructure projects is woeful. Today’s debate should be an opportunity to review and to learn from what has gone wrong after 14 years of delays, failures to deliver, constant policy changes and contradictions. Unlike this Government, Labour is committed to meeting our climate obligations and to getting Britain building again.

We recognise the need to address the bottlenecks on our rail network to cut congestion and emissions, which is why we have committed to a credible and transformative programme of transport infrastructure investment to link our towns and cities, particularly across the north and midlands. We also recognise the need to deliver for drivers by cutting congestion, improving the state of public transport and removing the barriers that are blocking the electric vehicle charging infrastructure roll-out.

Labour will do what this Government have failed to do by reforming the broken planning system to ensure that upgrades and progress on our transport infrastructure are actually delivered. Labour’s plan for government will accelerate infrastructure delivery, extend the reforms in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and ensure that the action plan for the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime covers the Transport and Works Act 1992, the Highways Act 1980 and the hybrid Bill process. We will encourage active travel, support public transport and give local authorities the power to better integrate their local transport networks.

We have launched an independent review of transport infrastructure. Driven by industry experts, the review will explore how transport infrastructure can be delivered on time and on budget, learning lessons from the mess that this Government have made of major projects such as HS2. We will update all national policy statements within six months of taking office to ensure they help, not hinder, the construction of important transport infrastructure projects.

Labour is serious about learning the lessons from the staggering failure of the last 14 years. We accept that this national policy statement improves on what came before in some areas, which is why we will not oppose it today, but the Minister really should set out why he believes that the policy statement’s lack of clarity on crucial points, particularly on climate change commitments, will not worsen the delays that are already slowing our planning system to a crawl.

If the Minister cannot or will not provide those answers today, Labour will look again at the provisions when we embark on our own review of the national policy statements. As we seek to ensure that we both respect our climate change commitments and deliver on our mission to get Britain building again, Labour does not accept the managed decline of our vital infrastructure. We will not accept barriers and blockages to the upgrades we need for smoother, greener transport and to enable everyone to benefit from the enhanced economic opportunities that will follow from better transport connections.

Britain is the country that gave the world the railways. We can and should be leading the world on delivering better, greener transport infrastructure. In government, Labour will make that a reality.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords]

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

This issue has been going on for more than 20 years. As I mentioned on Second Reading, it could have been dealt with in the 2005 private legislation, which was brought forward by London authorities. It has never been implemented because there has always been a conflict between those in London who want to legislate pedicabs out of existence and those who wish to have a properly licensed regime with good, effective and proportionate regulation. On that basis, I commend my amendments to the Committee.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If no one else wishes to speak, we will come to the Front Benchers. I call the shadow Minister.

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak in my inaugural Committee of the whole House on behalf of the official Opposition. As we set out on Second Reading, Labour is clear that the Bill can help to sustain a thriving London pedicab industry that is also safe and trusted by its customers, and we support its progress. However, there are two areas in which Labour believes that the Bill can be improved: pedicab infrastructure, and the crucial safeguard of requiring enhanced disclosure and barring service checks for pedicab drivers.

Amendment 8, which was tabled in my name and those of my Front-Bench colleagues, would enable Transport for London to use pedicab licence fees for investment in pedicab infrastructure in London. Alongside passenger safety and unregulated fare charging, one of the biggest issues presented by unregulated pedicabs is the nuisance of operators blocking pavements and roads as they ply for trade. The Heart of London Business Alliance, which represents over 600 businesses across London’s west end, is clear that pedicabs frequently block pavements and roads outside many of its members’ premises. That can cause chaos at busy periods, such as when many hundreds of people are filing out into the street after a west end show.

The amendment would enable Transport for London to use fees levied from pedicab licences to invest in infrastructure that supports the industry. That infrastructure could include designated pedicab ranks in certain areas, designed to relieve the nuisance of blocked pavements by giving operators a specific area in which to pick up customers. TfL has already set out in its potential licensing framework that it will consult stakeholders on the provision of pedicab stands. I hope that the Heart of London Business Alliance, along with other associations and bodies, including the London Pedicab Operators Association, can feed into those discussions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I thank the Minister and everybody who has participated in the debate. On the last point about plying for hire, it seems as though Transport for London is actively contemplating a situation in which no pedicabs will be able to ply for hire. Page 8 of the consultation states, “If, following consultation, pedicabs are allowed to continue to ply for hire”. That envisages a situation in which they might not be allowed to ply for hire. Unless they can ply for hire, that is the end of pedicabs as we know them.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating on this matter. I have seen over the years in London how we had a Greater London Council that interfered and acted against the wishes of the people. We now see Transport for London alienating a lot of people over the ultra low emission zone extension and its proliferation of 20 mph limits. I suppose we must trust Transport for London to ensure that it actually does what it says it will do, but I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that he and I are ad idem in our determination to ensure that there is a vibrant, lively and continuing pedicab industry in London. In those circumstances, I will withdraw my amendments because there is no need to take the matter any further, but I look forward to the consultations that will flow on those regulations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Just for the record, Sir Roger told me that you were gloriously within order throughout speaking to the amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Short title

Amendment made: 20, page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (2).—(Guy Opperman.)

This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.

Third Reading

[Guy Opperman]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I would like to place on the record my gratitude to colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who has fought nobly to bring forward this vital legislation to the good burghers of London on an ongoing basis, through thick and thin, through private Member’s Bill, through fair winds and foul. She has done a phenomenal job.

It is rightly said that this is a cross-party Bill. I thank Transport for London for its work with the Department for Transport and my officials, who have done a fantastic job to take it forward. It is right that I mention my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who tried to introduce this legislation previously. Fundamentally, this legislation has been overdue for well over 20 years. It is an important but discrete piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

I will be brief, because I had not intended to speak, but having followed the debate, particularly in Committee and on Third Reading, I want to thank my hon. Friend—I say that with such heartfelt meaning—the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who has demonstrated the power of this place. We talk about coming here and making tangible change, but what has happened today—in addition to the commendable work that my hon. Friend has done, along with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), in producing this legislation—just goes to show that despite the bandying around and argy-bargy that sometimes happens, we can make truly bring about real change.

I must also put on the record how sad I am to lose my hon. Friend from this place, and how much of a loss it will be. She represents, without doubt, the best of this place and, if I may say so, the best of our party. I want to say how proud I am to have watched her take the Bill forward over the last four years in the way that she has. The fact that she has been able to do this for her constituents constitutes a monument to her and a legacy. I simply say to her—and I think we would all agree, across the House—that she should be very proud of what she has done today, because she has followed this through and won it for her constituents. She has done what all of us in this place set out to do, and I think that her constituents will be proud of her and grateful as well.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We are all going to miss you, Nickie—although obviously I will be going out to Dubai to stay for a few weeks.

[Nickie Aiken]

I will have a room ready for you.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Here we go!

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging (Amendment) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Friday 22nd March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It has been good to be in the Chamber to discuss the Bill. I have listened intently to Members on both sides of the debate. I must begin by emphasising that Labour Front Benchers do not support the Bill—as must be obvious—and reject it in its entirety. There are a number of reasons for that, but I shall focus on the two main reasons.

First, the Bill represents nothing other than a poor attempt at political point-scoring from a Government who are running out of ideas and, ironically, running out of road. As for the second reason, you may be wondering, Mr Deputy Speaker, why a Welsh Member is speaking out on a Bill relating to Greater London. I am a proud Unionist—I believe in our Union—but I am also proud to represent a devolved nation. I believe wholeheartedly in devolution and the benefit that it brings to the United Kingdom, and that is why I have felt so compelled to speak out today. In my view, the most worrying aspect of the Bill is the fact that it represents yet another—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I just want to clarify that the hon. Lady is speaking not in an official capacity, but on behalf of her constituents.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Yes, absolutely. I am speaking on behalf of all the people in Pontypridd.

As I was saying, the Bill represents yet another devastating attack on devolution. This Government repeatedly attack devolution. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 rode roughshod over the devolved Governments, and the Bill seems to do the same. It also attacks the ability of the democratically elected Mayor of London to meet legally binding air pollution targets.

Let me explain my first point in more detail. The UK Government’s approach to clean air zones has been completely inconsistent. They clearly do not feel strongly about this issue. They view this as an opportunity to politicise a deeply important issue with life-threatening implications—an issue that should have cross-party support, and one about which the vast majority of the United Kingdom feels strongly. I am referring, of course, to our environment, our environmental commitments, and the health and safety of all our citizens. This is either an instance of the Government turning their back on those vital matters, or pure political point-scoring. Which is it? Perhaps it is both.

Let me highlight the hypocrisy of this Government, in case I have not been clear enough so far. They have required and indeed encouraged the introduction of many other clean air zones across the country. They have supported and continue to support those zones, and provided cash for scrappage in Bristol, Bath, Sheffield, Birmingham, Portsmouth and other areas. Given that they have encouraged and required the introduction of clean air zones across the country, why not in London? Why is London the outlier? Of course, Labour Members know exactly why. They also understand that improving and investing in other areas of transport might remove the need for clean air zones. For example, investing in our public transport and ensuring a better, more reliable and more affordable service would reduce the number of people on the roads.

There are other ways to help us reach our environmental goals, and Labour knows that the Bill is not the answer. Labour is completely committed to protecting our environment and tackling the climate crisis to give our children the future and opportunities that they deserve. A Labour Government would decarbonise the economy and ensure that we all had safe air to breathe. If the Government will not listen to the overwhelming evidence, and the environmental facts—if that is not enough for them to understand all this—they must at least attempt to empathise with the health case, because let us be clear: toxic air pollution is a public health crisis. Air pollution is linked to about 4,000 premature deaths a year in London, as we have heard repeatedly this afternoon. It leads to children growing up with stunted lungs, and is linked to the development of diseases, ranging from asthma to heart disease and dementia. Surely that alone is enough reason to support clean air zones. As for the practicalities, the vast majority of London cars—19 in every 20 cars seen driving in Greater London—are now ULEZ compliant.

If the public understand the importance of our environmental commitments and are willing to comply with the scheme, why are the Government trying to change it now? What possible motive could they have for doing so? Labour welcomes the decision of Transport for London and the Mayor of London to expand the scrappage scheme. Since 21 August 2023, every Londoner with a non-compliant vehicle has been eligible for a £2,000 grant to replace their vehicle, although central Government provide no financial support to the Mayor of London.

It is important that tackling air pollution does not place an undue burden on those already struggling with the Tory cost of living crisis. Families enduring that crisis are sick with anxiety, and their local services are under immense pressure. I see that in my community, and I hear directly from my constituents about the devastating hardships that the Tory cost of living crisis continues to place on them and their family, whether it is because of mortgage payments going up, the cost of food, fuel and energy prices continuing to rise, or being unable to afford that much-longed-for family holiday. All those things are pushing families to the brink. Let us be frank: we know where the blame firmly lies—

Trailer and Towing Safety

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am afraid we have to go through the technical nicety of the Whip moving the Adjournment again.

Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 23rd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow Jean-Luc Picard—sorry, I mean the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson). That was pun-central. I may have a few of my own in this speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Lord) on bringing the Bill this far. It has been brought before us for Second Reading. The aim of the Bill is to help support our space sector, as he eloquently said.

I was born in 1969, as it happens—the same year we took

“one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,”

as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) said. It feels with recent technological advances that we could be on the threshold of another such leap. We woke up to the news today that Odysseus had landed on the lunar plains, on the face of the moon—the first private mission by the Americans since 1972. We have always as a species looked to the stars and hoped one day to dwell among them, and I felt the enthusiasm in the House for that mission today. The hon. Member also mentioned the Artemis mission, which will be the first staffed space mission that will orbit the moon, hopefully next year. Artemis was the goddess of the wilderness, so the mission has been aptly named as we begin our new era of exploration of the stars.

The Bill amends the Space Industry Act 2018, which was written with the purpose of regulating space activity, sub-orbital activities and associated activities carried out in the United Kingdom. The space industry and its trade body, UKspace, welcome the Bill, as we do. The Space Industry Act enabled spaceflight activities from the UK, such as operating a satellite in orbit and enabling launches to orbit from UK spaceports for the first time. Companies that conduct spaceflight activities from the UK must hold insurance and indemnify the Government against possible third-party claims for damages. Currently, the Space Industry Act says that there is no limit to the amount of compensation that must be paid if anything goes wrong with UK-owned satellites in space. Industry believes that addressing this will prevent satellite operators from registering satellites in other countries to get a better liability deal. Space is becoming more congested. It is right that we amend legislation as the industry develops.

We are now at a key point in developing a thriving and dynamic space industry—an industry that we now know is worth £17.5 billion to the UK, employing up to 50,000 people. I was speaking recently to Airbus, which the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton also mentioned. As I am sure Members are aware, Airbus is the second biggest global space company and the largest in the UK. Its representatives told me that they operate over seven key sites in the UK, principally Stevenage and Portsmouth. From Stevenage to Saturn has quite a ring to it—pardon the pun, I was just following the puns of the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton. As he says, why should this industry not feature in every sector and in every constituency. We are developing the new Atom Valley in Greater Manchester, to the north of the conurbation. The supply chain is vast. There are almost 2,900 space suppliers, half of which are small and medium-sized enterprises, and it is vital that we support the industry here in the UK. I happen to know that in 2022 in my constituency £1 million was spent with space suppliers. It is good to see procurement in the sector that benefits the bottom 10% of the most deprived areas of the land.

There are so many good reasons to support the sector. We want to remove barriers to new businesses setting up here in the UK. We want companies to be incentivised to set up in the UK, rather than taking their business elsewhere, whereupon they are likely to use suppliers geographically local to themselves. We do not want to lose out on these jobs; we want these jobs of the future to be here in the UK.

Interestingly, one of the other main sites that is strong in the space sector is Newport. As we heard from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), jobs have been at risk in that area because of the Tata Steel plant. Unite the Union and my own union, Community, tell me that well-paid, highly skilled, unionised steel jobs are at risk in the area, so we must ensure that these areas are not de-industrialised so that there are opportunities available for our workers and for our young people. We also want our own SMEs to be part of the supply chain. Encouraging businesses is what we should be all about.

The Bill addresses what happens if anything were to go wrong, from launch failure to satellite crashes. However, this is not just about UK launches, but UK ownership, as the Government have the final liability on any space item that is owned by the UK Government.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Woking on bringing his Bill to the House today. I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for his work with the all-party parliamentary group for space. He quoted the “The Wealth of Nations”, which is much-favoured by Conservative Members. I remind him of Smith’s treatise “The Invisible Hand”, in which he said that economic activity should enrich the whole community. We know that space can do that.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth. I was intrigued by what she said. Our nation contains a number of left-behind areas, including—I am not trying to make a party political point—some of our coastal areas, market towns and suburbs. Through an agglomeration of the maritime, aviation and space sectors, we can really begin to think about how we can regenerate those areas by giving people opportunities, just as, when I was a young councillor in Manchester in the 1990s, we created a legal sector, a banking sector and a media sector. People will not have to leave their communities when they turn 18, or turn 22 and get their degrees, because those technological jobs of the future will be in the areas in which they grew up, and that, I think, is one of the greatest hopes that we politicians can give our young people. This is what the space sector provides through the supply chain across the country, but particularly in the south-west and the Shetland Islands: a diverse geographical spread.

To the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton I say thanks for all the puns, and I wish him good luck with his career as a space lawyer after—well, whatever happens at the general election! I wish him well.

Industrialists tell us that the Bill will give them confidence and will encourage investment in the UK, providing highly paid, highly skilled and yes, unionised jobs throughout the nation, and on that basis, we support it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

May I say how privileged I am to be chairing this debate? I once hosted the astronaut Nicole Stott and the crew of Discovery in the Public Gallery and then took them over to No. 10 Downing Street. I am also honoured and privileged to have met Eugene Cernan, the last man to walk on the moon, on two occasions—once here and once at Cape Canaveral—and I have seen a few launches. So space is very important to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lord]

I thank honourable Members on both sides of the House for attending the debate and for their support. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) , who so ably and knowledgeably chairs the all-party parliamentary group for space. In his wise and interesting speech, he touched on many things, but in particular how important the growing space industry is and can be to our financial and insurance sectors. I thought that was a very interesting point to bring out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) made a passionate and eloquent speech, particularly pertaining to how the space industry is already changing Cornwall for the better, adding to the Cornish economy and with huge amounts of scope for future growth and engagement. I was particularly taken by her points about how schoolchildren and students are being enthused by the space industry. I thank her for her support.

My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), in a very witty and engaging speech, alighted on a number of interesting and important points, but particularly how our legal services industry—the legal sector—can and will benefit from a growing space industry. I am also extremely grateful to the shadow Minister and the Minister for their support for the Bill. As we would expect, they were masters of their brief and spoke with great insight, but also enthusiasm, about this growing industry and the help that the Bill will give it. For that dynamic, innovative and growing future for our space industry, I urge the House to support the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I do not know if that makes you a space lord now, Mr Lord, but congratulations.

Transport Infrastructure: Cullompton

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Simon Jupp]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek an apology, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) did not name my constituency correctly in response to my intervention. He referred to me as the MP for Exmouth, but my constituency also includes Sidmouth and I should be referred to as the MP for East Devon. He has done this politically in local newspapers and leaflets. I wish also to clarify that Devon was successful, to the tune of nearly £40 million, in the most recent round of levelling-up funding, just to correct the researcher or whoever wrote the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I seek an apology for my constituency being named incorrectly, and a promise from the hon. Gentleman that he will not do so again.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) is not indicating that he wishes to say anything further to that point of order, in which case it stands on the record.

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

I thank both the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) for their contributions to this debate on transport infrastructure in Cullompton. It is an honour and a privilege to address this issue on behalf of the Department for Transport. I have a sense of déjà vu all over again, as I responded to yesterday’s Adjournment debate—and I will be responding to the first Adjournment debate in the new year on Monday 8 January.

As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton eloquently said, it is important to stress that transport infrastructure matters to everybody. I assure the House that I will not be using my full two hours and three minutes either, but, much as you did, Mr Deputy Speaker, I start by wishing everybody in the Chamber, all parliamentary staff, the Department for Transport team, those working in transport over the holiday period and my private office team of Juliette, Tessa, Aleena, Beth, Laura, Jack and Tom a happy Christmas.

As the last Minister to address the House in 2023, I want to say that democracy requires work and sacrifice. Our thanks, in particular, go to His Majesty’s constabulary, who keep us safe. We wish them a happy Christmas. We remember, sadly, the loss of PC Keith Palmer, who was killed in March 2017, and we understand very clearly that these men and women keep us and democracy safe. That should not be forgotten in any way.

As a Transport Minister, it is not for me to comment on the quality of councils’ bids to the levelling-up fund and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, but I will attempt to address the points that relate to this debate. I will try my hardest to address the widespread gentle criticism that there has not been investment in the south-west, and in Devon in particular. I will address Cullompton, but it would be remiss of me not to highlight the important work the Government are doing to improve journeys right across the south-west, and particularly in Devon.

Clearly, we remain committed to a long-term, multi-road programme of investment to improve road links to the region. By 2025, we will have completed a 3-mile upgrade between Sparkford and Ilchester. A combination of Government and local funding has enabled the delivery of £5.7 million of support for the Tiverton eastern urban extension, providing access to a site of more than 1,500 dwellings and associated employment. Additional transport infrastructure has been delivered at junction 27 of the M5 and at the A30 Honiton junction. The A361 north Devon link road scheme, which passes through the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, will also provide benefits to the area by improving connectivity to northern Devon. The £60 million provided by the Government will see full delivery of the scheme in 2024. Obviously, those projects will deliver significant benefits for the travelling public, but they will also boost the wider economy and support wider plans for growth.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of rail. Clearly, we have unlocked further prosperity for the region. That includes more than £50 million for the Dartmoor line, which has provided hourly services between Okehampton and Exeter since reopening in 2021. It is the first restoring your railway scheme to be delivered, and local people have enjoyed rail access to employment, education and leisure opportunities for the first time in almost 50 years.

The Secretary of State opened the new accessible station at Marsh Barton in Devon earlier this year, which came about with the help of £3.5 million of new stations funding. That is another great example of a locally led but nationally supported rail project, and one that clearly gives an economic boost to not only Devon, but the wider region. The Government have also invested more than £150 million to make the vital coastal rail link through Dawlish more resilient, helping to deliver the reliable service that communities deserve.

As part of Network North, we have made funding available for the final phase of the south-west rail resilience programme. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Network North, and Devon will receive more than £208 million through the roads resurfacing fund over the next 11 years, including an additional £6.66 million for the next two years, to combat potholes, which cause misery for drivers. For context, in this year alone that equates to a 16.6% uplift to the county council’s 2023 pothole budget.

I could go on about that in more detail, but I will move on to buses. Clearly, the £2 bus fare that the Government have rolled out across the country is exceptionally popular, and the bus fare cap has been extended until the end of December 2024. The national bus strategy asked that all English local transport authorities outside London publish a bus service improvement plan, setting out local visions for the future of bus services, driven by what passengers and would-be passengers want. That is backed by more than £1 billion of funding and the investment can be used to support and protect existing bus services that would otherwise be at risk. To support Devon County Council, we have allocated £17.4 million to deliver its BSIP, which will support service improvements such as increased frequency between Cullompton and Tiverton Parkway, a new service from Cullompton to Honiton railway station, and improvements to services 4 and 380.

In addition, we have provided support for active travel, with investment for drivers and public transport users being assisted by local cycling and walking infrastructure plans—LCWIPs. They allow local authorities to take a long-term approach when developing cycling and walking networks, helping to identify improvements that can be made over a 10-year period. Devon County Council is developing its Cullompton and Tiverton LCWIP. Obviously, we await the plan for consideration. That joint project with Mid Devon District Council focuses on a core area of Cullompton and considers strategic links south to Killerton and north-west to Willand, Tiverton Parkway and Tiverton. As I understand it, a consultation will be held shortly to seek the community’s views on the proposed plans. Identifying improvements through an LCWIP will support Devon County Council to include Cullompton within its pipeline of schemes for future funding rounds and to build on the £7 million-worth of funding the council has been awarded in recent years to both develop active travel and promote its use.

On multi-modal projects, for transport infrastructure to make a real difference to people who choose to live, work and do business in the south-west, we cannot operate in silos. We therefore take a holistic approach to connectivity. Clearly, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon will be aware of the £15.7 million Destination Exmouth levelling-up scheme that delivers benefits for drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and public transport users alike. The West Devon transport hub has also received funding from a levelling-up fund scheme.

The hon. Gentleman raised specific matters relating to Cullompton. I accept entirely that the town has grown. I know the area well, as I represented individuals in a case at Taunton Crown court back in the distant dark ages before the turn of the century and spent some time there. I accept entirely that it has grown considerably and that there are plans to grow it more. It has developed into a commuter town, particularly to Exeter, and with its close proximity to the M5, I accept that there is high dependency on travel by car. However, it is also connected to Exeter by a bus service every 20 minutes, the frequency of which, I understand, will be increased to every 15 minutes in 2024.

The Government have a history of investing in the area. When the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor, who he rightly lauded as a strong constituency MP, was championing Tiverton and Honiton, a £1.8 million funding package between 2013 and 2016 delivered improvements to junction 28 of the M5, which included widening and signal upgrading. I am also aware that a project is being undertaken by Devon County Council to enhance the look and feel of the heritage town centre, including some minor transport-related improvements, which is on track to be completed in 2024.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the Cullompton relief road. With respect, it is not for the Government to do the job of the local council in the making of such an application. The Government are not the local planning authority in respect of any particular garden village. The council needs to make the case and plan the infrastructure. I cannot comment on the nature of the levelling-up bid or its ongoing progress, but clearly there is work being done on junction 28. Some £900,000 has been secured from Homes England to support the development of a strategic outline business case.

Although I am not the Rail Minister, I will address the issue of rail, which the hon. Gentleman raised. As I understand it, the railway station closed in 1964 and the town will be potentially seven times the size it was then in the next couple of decades. Through Network North—the Government’s decision to cancel parts of the HS2 project and redistribute funds across the country—I was delighted that £5 million was secured to reopen the station. Fast trains to London and Exeter will unlock great opportunities for the community, and I look forward to seeing the station in operation as early as 2025.

The hon. Gentleman made many other points. With respect, I cannot answer for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, but he seeks support for various other matters. I would only make the point that it is for him and his local council to make the case for the infrastructure that he seeks and to put that in an appropriate form, so that any funding can follow. I am not aware that he sought any specific meetings with my predecessor, but I am happy to take away the points he raised today.

It is right and proper that the hon. Gentleman raises issues that matter to his local community on its behalf. I reassure the House that the Government are continuing to provide record levels of investment for road, rail, buses and active travel projects. It is our mission to level up transport infrastructure and to unlock further growth for all corners of the UK, and I thank him for bringing this matter to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

For the last time in 2023, I will put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Bridges in London: Maintenance Funding

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady, and I want to add my support for her request. On Monday this week, the Quoile bridge in my constituency developed a crack right down it and it is now closed. It is a major thoroughfare that carries lots of traffic, which will now be unable to go through Downpatrick on that road for a period of time. I understand the pain that the hon. Lady feels for her constituents and I offer my support to her.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I was intrigued as to how there could be a Northern Ireland aspect to Hammersmith bridge, and now we all know. Well done, Jim!

[Fleur Anderson]

It is a huge honour to be intervened on by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I just hope that his constituents will not have to go through the same enormous pain, the long wait and the despair about funding as our constituents in south-west London. I also hope that the Minister heard that and will look into funding for the hon. Gentleman’s bridge as well. The closure of a bridge is a dreadful thing.

At every advice surgery I hold, at every visit to businesses, at every local event I go to and every time I go knocking on doors, everyone wants to know when Hammersmith bridge will be reopened. It is a grade 2 listed heritage suspension bridge. It was built in 1887 but closed to motor vehicles in April 2019 when fissures were found, making it dangerous. Boris Johnson said at Prime Minister’s questions here in this place on 21 October 2020 that it would be reopened, but it is still closed. I held an Adjournment debate on the issue in June last year, with a very disappointing Government response. The restoration has still not had its funding agreed, let alone being started or finished, so I am back here again.

This is a London issue but it needs a national solution and actions that can be taken only by the Government to fund the restoration. It is a disgrace that Transport Ministers have not sorted this out. My constituents are worried that it has become a plaything of Conservative party politicking, with Conservative mayoral and parliamentary candidates and MPs standing next to the bridge saying that something will be done, and then quickly forgetting about it altogether.

The Hammersmith bridge saga has revealed systemic failures in the way that bridge maintenance is funded that need to be urgently addressed by the Minister. While the Government have dragged their feet, the estimated cost of the bridge has been hit by Conservative-fuelled inflation and the war in Ukraine, where the steel was going to be sourced, rising from the initial £140 million to an estimated £250 million. The longer the Government wait, the more the costs will rise.

The closure of Hammersmith bridge since 2019 has had a huge impact on my constituents, especially in Putney and Roehampton. An estimated 22,000 vehicles used to cross the bridge every day, as well as seven vital bus services. Those vehicles are now diverted through Putney, which causes high levels of pollution and congestion and long journey times.

So that the Minister can fully understand what this closure has meant for my constituents, I will tell him some of the results of my recent survey of local residents and businesses. Over 75% of business owners said that the closure has negatively impacted their business because of pollution, difficulties with deliveries, employee commutes and low morale. Some 90% of people said that the bridge closure has been “extremely disruptive” and that they feel more isolated and disconnected.

Putney suffers severe traffic jams every day, with children inhaling toxic fumes. Asthma levels are rising. Patients needing to get to a hospital in an emergency are stuck in traffic that is barely moving. It is also making cyclists and would-be cyclists less likely to cycle because of the danger and pollution on the very congested roads. People who commute through, live or work on Putney High Street, Upper Richmond Road and Lower Richmond Road know how bad things are, and they need their voices to be heard.

The Government should have stepped up back in April 2019, worked with Hammersmith and Fulham Council on the business plan and funded it, and then they should have begun the restoration works. We might then have had the bridge reopened by now. Instead, they palmed off responsibility and have played political games.

Engineering works costing £8 million started in February 2022 and will be finished in a few months—the carriageway will then be cleared for pedestrians and cyclists, which is very welcome—but the full restoration is still unfunded architects’ plans.

The Hammersmith Bridge taskforce chaired by Baroness Vere agreed a settlement of Hammersmith and Fulham Council paying a third, Transport for London paying a third and the Government paying a third, but the taskforce then did nothing else. The taskforce has not met since November 2021. No task and no force. This third-third-third structure is a very poor settlement, as neither the council nor TfL can afford a third and the Government have not yet agreed to their third. The estimated cost is £250 million, but the council’s entire annual budget is just £132 million.

A business plan was submitted by Hammersmith and Fulham Council in December 2022, proposing a toll to pay for its third but, nearly a year on, it has still not been agreed and funded by the Government. I hope the Minister can tell us what will happen. These sums are way beyond the means of an individual council. How can a council with a budget of only £132 million a year for libraries, adult social care and children’s services afford to pay for this? Where could the money come from?

When it was announced that over £4 billion had been carved out from the cancellation of HS2 for road infrastructure in the south-east of England, it was an opportunity to fund the bridge. My constituents deserve to know why Hammersmith bridge is not receiving any support from this fund, or from which fund it will receive support. If just 5% of the £4 billion budget for the south-east—that is just 6% of the overall budget—were used, Hammersmith bridge could be fixed and reopened after all these years of closure.

My constituents and people across south-west London need answers, so I hope the Minister can answer these questions today. Why is it taking so long to fund the bridge? Has a funding source been identified? When will we know that it has been funded? When will the bridge be reopened for buses and vehicles? What is being done to stop another London council having to foot such a large bill again in future?

The closure of Hammersmith bridge should be a wake-up call for the Government to reassess the state of our bridges and the broken funding settlements. I hope that the Minister will commit to looking at the ownership and funding of all London bridges, so that this Hammersmith bridge fiasco is never repeated. But why does Hammersmith and Fulham Council have responsibility for this enormously expensive bridge? The arrangements for responsibility for London bridges were established by the Local Government Act 1985, when the Greater London Council was dissolved, and we have a disorganised and messy hotchpotch of responsibilities. Some were assigned simply because of the names, and so Hammersmith and Fulham Council is responsible because the bridge is called “Hammersmith bridge”. That is a ludicrous way of assigning responsibility for a national, heritage, landmark bridge and a vital connection in our city’s transport infrastructure. It is an embarrassment that as a country we are unable to find a political solution to this crisis. Hammersmith bridge is a national infrastructure project in the greatest city in the world, and the abstention from responsibility by the Conservative Government is shocking. Would Brooklyn bridge, or any other bridge in any other capital, be allowed to remain closed to all vehicles for years and years on end? We urgently need a futureproof, reliable and sufficient stream of funding so that all our bridges are maintained for all who use them. I urge the Minister to look into reforming the funding formula for London’s bridges and river crossings, so that another council is not burdened with a bill of £250 million that it cannot afford.

London boroughs were previously able to access support for bridge maintenance from TfL’s local implementation plan, but the Government’s restrictive cuts imposed on TfL mean that that support is no longer available. That will inevitably lead to more and more bridges needlessly falling into disrepair, meaning bigger and bigger bills in the long term. So what needs to happen? TfL needs new, long-term funding certainty through a multi-year funding arrangement, which would make sure that councils can access the support they need when bridges fall into disrepair. Without this investment, costs will continue to soar, with the Conservatives kicking the can down the road for a future Government to clean up. If the Minister is still convinced that this is not his problem, I hope that the £500 million paid by Londoners in vehicle excise duty every year which is spent on roads in other parts of the country, convinces him of the need to make sure that London’s roads and bridges are maintained when they need it.

I invite the Minister to visit the bridge and I request a meeting to discuss the funding. My main ask is very straightforward—it is for the Government to do everything in their power to urgently fund the restoration and reopening of Hammersmith bridge at the earliest opportunity. I hope he will not tell me that the Government have done everything they can and that it is all up to Hammersmith and Fulham Council to step up, because all the leadership so far has come from the council. That applies in respect of discovering the fissures in the first place; taking action to close the bridge and make it safe; the memorandum of understanding; the proposals for a cheaper bridge replacement and the first project; the business plan; and the stabilisation work. The Government must now step up to shoulder their responsibility to push this through, respond to the business plan, work with Hammersmith and Fulham Council and TfL and ensure that the restoration is finally fully funded. I also ask the Minister to review the entire funding settlement for London bridges, which has led us here, and why this most expensive of heritage bridge projects is being left to a cash-strapped local council because of a historical whim. We clearly need a new approach that safeguards our London bridges for generations to come.

Zero-emission Vehicles, Drivers and HS2

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

Oh dear. I do not know whether the hon. Lady noticed, but this is the first day that the House has been back after the conference break, and I am here at the Dispatch Box making a statement at the first—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) will allow me to answer the questions that her hon. Friend has just asked without shouting from the Opposition Front Bench, I shall be delighted to do so. This is our first day back, and I have made a statement at the first opportunity I have had.

The hon. Lady made a point about the cost of living. I drew attention to the fact that the £2 bus fare cap was being extended; that will kick in as early as next month, and it is an important cost of living measure for the many millions of people who use buses. Buses are the most popular form of public transport, which is why the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), is such a massive champion of them.

The hon. Lady referred to HS2. We are still delivering phase 1 from Euston to the west midlands, which is very significant transport investment and delivery, in terms of the supply chain and all the companies that depend on it. Moreover, it delivers a massive increase in capacity to the west coast main line, taking the number of seats a day from 134,000 to 250,000. As for the details in the “Network North” document, let me point out that a third of the savings we are making that are being reinvested—£12 billion—are increases in funding for various Mayors across the country. The ultimate decisions about what is to be invested are for those Mayors, and I have had productive conversations with a number of them. They will be working with us on the details of these plans, so that they are right for the areas that they represent. As for the hon. Lady’s point about decision making, I have said this publicly before: I took the formal decision on the day before the Prime Minister’s speech. There was a meeting of the Cabinet on the morning of his speech, which approved that decision, and the Prime Minister announced it shortly afterwards.

I noticed that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) rowed in very quickly, and has not disavowed this decision. He, of course, has long campaigned against HS2, and I suspect that the fact he rowed in so quickly behind it reflects that. I note that, on this decision, where the Prime Minister leads, the Leader of the Opposition follows.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement. My Committee colleagues and I will want to scrutinise a number of the measures in depth when he appears before us in a few weeks—it will be a bumper session. Today, however, let me focus on one issue regarding HS2. One advantage of the project was that it would release capacity on the west coast main line, not just between London and Birmingham, but right up the line. As it is stopping at Handsacre junction, there will be a severe capacity constraint on that part of the line; there will not be space for extra inter-regional services and freight services. The high-speed trains will be in a very congested part of the network, unless further upgrade work is done. I urge him to look at that capacity constraint; if HS2 is not happening on that part of the project, what additional measures might be put in place?

West Coast Main Line Franchise

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his flurry of questions, and I shall address what he said. He asked for the release of the criteria of the contract awarded; that is a commercial matter and we are not going to discuss that, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Minister of State my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle has met very regularly with the entire industry and has been working on a weekly basis with officials and with Avanti, and therefore has had the matter very much in hand.

On the performance the hon. Gentleman describes, I am astounded that he is not agreeing with the Secretary of State and celebrating the improvement over the last nine months, and six months in particular: cancellations were as low as 1.1% in July; 90% of trains arrive within 15 minutes; over 100 additional drivers have been trained and brought on since April 2022. Each of those is a significant achievement.

It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to talk about engagement, but the hon. Gentleman has not exactly been shy in writing to the Department, so I asked my officials to scan the letters we have received and I do not think there was a single one from him in the last year mentioning Avanti. If that is an indication of how content he is with the service, I am delighted to hear it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Select Committee Chair.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

As a regular user of Avanti services, I agree that the performance has improved markedly and I pay tribute to the new managing director, Andy Mellors, and his team for turning around what was an abysmal service. I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to talk in detail about the contract, but will he say a bit about the extent to which this new contract moves away from the micromanaged national rail contracts that have been in place since covid? They were right at the time, but are now stifling innovation in the sector and I hope that this is just the first of the revisions of these national rail contracts.

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question; he brings not just personal experience of this service as an MP for Milton Keynes but also his considerable expertise as Chairman of the Transport Committee. He is right to pick up on the point of micromanagement, and that is one reason why, having been in a period of relatively short contracts—a number of two-month and three-month contracts—in order to monitor progress, the Government have now seen fit to move to a much longer framework: a three-year contract but with the potential capacity to terminate thereafter if performance is not sustained. That strikes the right balance between giving the certainty Avanti needs to continue to invest in improving the service and the accountability that the Government rightly demand.

I would add that there is some awareness that in relation to services to Milton Keynes, west midlands and north Wales there is progress to be made, and I think I am right in saying that the new chief executive is very much focused on that issue as well.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

For the second time in two days, the Government have been dragged to the House to explain the state of our crumbling rail network, and for the second time in two days, the rail Minister has failed to turn up. Surely things cannot get any worse for passengers in the north, we thought, but today, the Minister has proved us all wrong by confirming that passengers could have to suffer up to nine more years of Avanti West Coast and up to eight more years of CrossCountry.

The Minister claims that there has been enough improvement to justify up to a decade more of the utter chaos that is consuming our railways thanks to those two failing operators, yet the latest statistics show that Avanti was the second worst operator in the country for punctuality last month, with only 46% of its trains running on time. CrossCountry was the fourth worst, with only 49% of its trains on time. What is the Government’s response to that? More lucrative contracts and millions of pounds paid out in performance bonuses. These decisions have left glaring questions for the Minister to answer. What performance metrics were considered when the Government made these decisions? Have performance payments been restructured in the new contracts, or will they continue to reward failure? Did the Government consider the operator of last resort, which has driven improvements on other lines?

The country is tired of this cycle of failure, with cancellations and delays, and any prospect of reform kicked into the long grass. It is clear that this Government are determined to run our rail network into the ground. Is their plan really to allow for rail services to have another decade of failure under the Tories, with hundreds of millions handed over to shareholders in performance bonuses and fees? If so, it is clear that they are out of ideas and out of time. If they cannot put passengers first, is it not time for them to step aside and let us deliver the change our passengers so desperately need?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

What I recall from that hearing is that Mr Mellors said 1% of the tickets at Glasgow were sold through the ticket office, that there would be a full staff in front of the ticket office, that those staff would work from the first train in the morning until the last train at the end of the day and that they would continue to accept cash. That sounds like quite a good service offer to me.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question.