HS2 Reset

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for advance sight of it. What we have heard today is clearly a damning indictment of Conservative mismanagement. Connecting our largest cities with high-speed rail was meant to help boost economic growth and spread opportunity. The original idea—a high-speed rail network connecting London to Manchester and Leeds—was clearly the right one, but what we have ended up with is years of delay and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being poured down the drain, with no end in sight. The litany of errors that the Secretary of State has outlined is truly shocking and shows that the Conservatives were comatose at the wheel. A lack of oversight, trust and planning has left us with a high-speed railway drastically reduced in scale and inflated in price. The shocking allegations of fraud by a subcontractor are emblematic of the Tories’ lack of oversight and interest in properly safeguarding the public interest and public money, as we saw with the scandal of personal protective equipment procurement during covid. We must now make sure that any money lost to fraud is clawed back as soon as possible.

May I ask the Secretary of State three things? First, can she guarantee that, if any fraud has taken place, any money lost will be returned to the Government and her Department as soon as possible, and that the police will be provided with the necessary resources to investigate the matter fully? Secondly, the Secretary of State has said that the ministerial taskforce set up to provide oversight on HS2 had inconsistent attendance from the then Transport Secretary and Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Does the Secretary of State agree that those right hon. Members should apologise for those particularly damning lapses? Thirdly, we share the Secretary of State’s confidence in Mark Wild and Mike Brown, but can she say when she expects to be able to give the House an accurate assessment of the scheme’s full costs and of when HS2 will finally be up and running?

[Heidi Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman raises three fair issues, and I agree with his assessment that the previous Government were not just asleep but comatose at the wheel. He asks whether the alleged fraud in the supply chain will be fully investigated, and whether moneys will be returned to the taxpayer. I can assure him that no stone will be left unturned in getting to the bottom of this matter. He is also right to highlight the question of poor and inconsistent attendance by individuals who held my role, the Rail Minister’s role and Treasury roles. It is imperative that politicians who have oversight of these infrastructure schemes stay close to the detail of what is happening, both through their own officials and directly with the executive and non-executive leadership of the project. That is certainly what I intend to do. I know the Rail Minister has a monthly meeting with the new chief executive. We have already held a meeting of the ministerial taskforce, and there is another one due soon. I have had multiple one-to-one conversations with the leadership team at HS2.

The hon. Gentleman asks when I will be in a position to provide a full update on costs and schedule. Mark Wild has told me that he will require until the end of this year to do that full piece of work. I am not prepared to get ahead of that, because that is how we have got into problems previously. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that as soon as I have more information, in addition to the six-monthly report that I provide to Parliament, I will come back to this House.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Paul Kohler Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her speech, and congratulate the Aviation Minister on the Bill.

The challenge facing the aviation sector—as with our entire economy—is decarbonisation. Reaching net zero by 2050 is essential, and given the scale of the scientific and technical challenge, it is clear that decarbonising aviation will not be easy. Sustainable aviation fuels have an important role to play in this effort. We consequently welcome the establishment of a SAF revenue certainty mechanism, which has long been called for by many in the aviation industry and which, as we have heard, is vital to ensuring that the SAF mandate is both feasible and achievable for airlines. Providing SAF producers with a guaranteed level of revenue will be key to unlocking investment in the sector—which, I think, answers some of the questions posed by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). It will help to stimulate private capital at this early stage, and will support the UK’s ambition to become a global leader in SAF development and production. The growth of the industry also has the potential to generate jobs and economic activity across the country.

However, while my party supports the Bill, there remain important questions, regarding in particular the scrutiny of the mechanism, international alignment, and the wider strategy for aviation decarbonisation. The Bill sets out the broad principles for the revenue mechanism, but leaves much of the detail to secondary legislation and ministerial discretion. That is, to a degree, understandable—the early stage of SAF technology and the uncertainty in market development mean that flexibility is crucial and necessary—but the Government must ensure that Parliament has an adequate opportunity to scrutinise the development of the mechanism, and the SAF sector more broadly. Given the importance of SAF to achieving net zero in aviation, it is vital that the House is updated regularly on progress in the industry, and on whether any adjustments to the mechanism are necessary. That is especially important in the light of previous Government promises to kick-start the domestic SAF industry—promises that have yet to materialise. In 2022 the Conservatives promised to have five commercial SAF plants up and running by 2025, but, as so often, they failed to deliver. I will therefore be pushing in Committee for the Bill to increase the level of ongoing scrutiny.

It is also crucial for the UK to work collaboratively with international partners on net-zero aviation technologies. Currently, the criteria for both what qualifies as SAF and what levels of different technologies should be used differ between the UK and the EU, with each jurisdiction prioritising different fuel types at different times. Given the inherently international nature of the aviation sector, closer regulatory alignment with the EU and other key partners is essential to fostering growth in the industry and ensuring that there are sufficient levels of SAF production internationally to support the transition. The Government must therefore work more closely with the EU and others to ensure that our frameworks dovetail.

Finally, while we welcome this Bill, it is important to acknowledge that SAF alone will not be enough to decarbonise aviation, as the Chair of the Transport Committee made clear. Although SAF can significantly reduce the carbon intensity of air travel, flights using SAF will not be carbon neutral, so many of the necessary emission reductions to reach net zero will need to come from other areas. By the Government’s own estimates, SAF could cut emissions by 6.3 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent by 2040. That is not insignificant, but given the projected growth in passenger numbers, it would represent only a 0.8% reduction in overall aviation emissions compared with today.

While the Lib Dems support the Bill, we continue to urge the Government to take more ambitious action to decarbonise the aviation industry. With plans for airport expansion still on the table, the Government must clearly articulate how net zero aviation will be achieved by 2050.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Paul Kohler Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

As other Members have noted, buses are the most used form of public transport, and in much of the country they are the only option available. Outside London, however, bus use is in sharp decline, with more than 1 billion fewer passenger journeys in 2023 than in 2015. That is not because of insufficient demand, but because of the Conservative policy of deregulation that put profit before people, allowing private operators to cream off the valuable routes with scant regard for the needs of the wider community, resulting in increased fares and reduced or completely abandoned services for many—unless, of course, the local authority, starved of access to the profitable routes, met the costs of the unprofitable ones.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

That is exactly what has happened in Cornwall. The No. 11 and No. 12 bus served lots of rural towns and villages to Derriford hospital, but it has been salami-sliced—I have just got off the phone to Go Cornwall Bus—after years of underfunding. My constituent Mary in Padstow relies on that service to get her breast cancer treatment at Derriford, and she can no longer afford to get to the hospital, which would involve spending hundreds of pounds on taxis. Does my hon. Friend agree that in rural areas like mine, we need ringfenced funding to protect those key healthcare routes?

[Mr Kohler]

Those are exactly the kinds of issues that must be addressed, and this Bill does not do enough to achieve that. I will come back to that in a moment.

In rural areas, the story is often one of total disconnection, with communities cut off and people unable to get to work or hospital appointments, or to visit friends or relations.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in rural constituencies like mine, bus routes are an absolute lifeline and a route out of poverty? When the 84 and 85 bus route was cut last year, it meant not only that people could not get to medical appointments or to work, but that students had to drop out of the college courses that would have enabled them to escape from poverty. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to make sure that this Bill enables an affordable, joined-up and genuinely useful rural transport network?

[Mr Kohler]

I completely agree. The point is that this is about not only getting people out of poverty but growing the economy. People need access to bus routes; otherwise they are left with expensive and much more environmentally damaging private transport.

Put simply, a poor or non-existent bus service is not just an inconvenience. It is a barrier to opportunity, a brake on economic growth, and an obstacle to achieving net zero. Given the decline in local bus services under the Conservatives, my party and I warmly welcome the Government’s renewed focus on this issue. The Bill includes measures that are long overdue and that my party will support.

[Anna Dixon]

Much has been made about the decline in bus usage. The pattern is similar in West Yorkshire, where between 2011 and 2022 there was a reduction of some 60 million journeys. There has been lots of mention of Greater Manchester, but West Yorkshire Mayor Tracy Brabin’s bus service improvement plan has already seen a 4% increase in bus usage. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that approaches that devolve responsibility and make it easier for mayors and local authorities to take over public control through franchising are the route to improved usage and, ultimately, the delivery of better buses?

[Mr Kohler]

I do agree. It is also about funding, which we must explore; but, yes, my party believes in localism—bringing things down to the local level is crucial.

It needs to be stated from the off that the Bill does not go far enough. It falls short of delivering the comprehensive, transformative change that our bus network desperately needs—and thus, I urge the Minister, even at this late hour, to be even more ambitious.

I will now outline the measures in the Bill that my party supports. Local government, not Whitehall, know what is best for their area. That is why my party has long championed localism, which is all about providing communities with the necessary tools to realise their potential. The Bill’s provisions to improve, streamline and extend franchising rights to all local transport authorities is consequently long overdue and supported on the Liberal Democrat Benches.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the community in north Taunton on getting the first No. 1 bus of the morning—the 6.22 am service—restored? I had the joy of experiencing it this morning, tinged only with the tiredness that results from having got the 6.22. Does he agree that we need specific funding so that bus services can properly connect with hospitals, such as Taunton’s Musgrove Park hospital and many others?

[Mr Kohler]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the community on its success, and I agree that we need funding for these critical services.

The placing of socially necessary services on a statutory footing is a beneficial change to the enhanced partnership model, as it ensures that local authorities assess the impact of service changes and consider alternatives. The Bill also rightly lifts the outdated, ideologically-driven ban on municipally-owned bus companies, empowering local authorities who wish to use it, rather than infantilising them. Taken as a whole, the measures create an improved set of options from which local authorities can choose the approach that works best for them.

As the Secretary of State noted, it is important to realise that this is not, and must not become, a one-size-fits-all approach. Not every local authority will wish to pursue franchising, establish a bus company or abandon the partnership model. What works for Greater Manchester or London may not work for Oxfordshire or Cornwall. It must be up to local leaders and, ultimately, local communities to decide what works best for them. I welcome the fact that the Government are not mandating a certain approach.

Therein lies the challenge: empowering local authorities in law is one thing, but enabling them in practice is quite another. Although the Bill hands councils a set of keys to a new bus network, it does not ensure that there is fuel in the tank. Franchising is complex, resource-intensive and unfamiliar to the vast majority of local authorities. It requires legal expertise, commercial understanding, operational planning and, above all, funding. The Department for Transport has acknowledged those difficulties, yet this legislation provides little to help overcome them.

The Government’s laudable desire to increase their own capacity to advise councils is welcome, but I am not convinced that they are doing enough. The recently established Bus Centre of Excellence, which we will no doubt hear much about during the passage of the Bill, is a positive development, but does it really have the necessary capacity and resources to provide meaningful support to all those who might need it? If we are to see franchising become a viable option beyond a handful of combined authorities, we must take bolder steps to offer councils without either the expertise or the finances more than just a helpline or homilies on best practice.

Every hon. Member in this House knows how overstretched their local authorities are—with the exception of our colleagues from Reform, of course, who are sadly absent from today’s debate, no doubt too busy frantically searching for the untapped resources and savings they confidently promised they would discover in their new fiefdoms. As for the rest of us, we know that most local authorities lack the finances, expertise and bandwidth to use the tools the Bill provides. As a result, only the local authorities that already have the capacity to do so will use them, which will exacerbate regional disparities, not reduce them.

Even if we overcome such problems, that will not remove the continuing role of central Government in securing access and affordability. That is why the Government’s reckless decision to raise the national bus fare cap from £2 to £3 casts a dark shadow over the Bill. The original £2 cap was not only popular but effective. It reduced costs for passengers and helped to bring people back on to the bus network. It was precisely the kind of policy of which we need more, not less. Increasing fares by £1 per trip may not sound prohibitive, but for those on low incomes or families making multiple journeys, the change represents a significant cost increase, adding £20 to the cost of a weekly commute to anyone who has to take two buses to work while only saving the Government £150 million.

Let us be clear: this increase is regressive. It will hit the poorest hardest, particularly at a time of a cost of living crisis. Surely the Government should commit to preserving affordability, not undermining it, as raising fares in the absence of service improvements risks entrenching decline, not reversing it. Even more worryingly, rumours are now doing the rounds that the fare cap may be removed altogether. That would be a catastrophic mistake. We must not allow the progress of recent years to unravel in a Treasury-pleasing piece of virtue signalling that will only save the Exchequer a further £150 million.

A thriving, affordable bus network is not a luxury but an essential public service. This Bill must ensure that that is the case. Nowhere is that more true than in our rural areas. As we have seen for years, the current unregulated bus market is failing small villages and remote hamlets, serving them neither efficiently nor sufficiently.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do more to protect section 22 community bus services such as West Oxfordshire Community Transport, which are now facing a mountain of bureaucracy to re-tender for routes that it built up from scratch against commercial bus operators that have all the abilities to pitch and win, leaving community bus operators high and dry?

[Mr Kohler]

I do agree. We must do all we can to reduce bureaucracy. The Bill goes some way towards that, but it needs to do more.

The Bill as it stands provides nothing specific for rural areas—no dedicated rural funding stream and no obligation to maintain coverage. It is clear that if we are to be ambitious and achieve the economic growth that rural areas need, we must ensure that local authorities have the ambition and financial means to improve public transport. The Bill is missing an opportunity in failing to do so.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

One of the consequences for my constituents of losing services like the 84/85, the T2 and the 622 is that they are cut off from health services. Does my hon. Friend agree that such access should be a priority for investment, and that a focus on the increase in passenger numbers when judging investment choices disadvantages rural areas?

[Mr Kohler]

I agree. We must not focus only on passenger numbers. It is also about connectivity, and about making sure that rural areas thrive.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

I would like to concentrate not just on purely rural areas, but on places like Surrey. In my constituency, the 514 bus connects Esher and Molesey, two important centres of our community, but it runs only twice on weekdays and once on a Saturday. On Sundays it is never to be seen. The service was severely cut back in 2016. To travel a distance of a mile and a half, people have to get a bus more than five miles into London and out again, which takes 40 minutes—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I have made this point before, but interventions really must be shorter than that. There are many hon. Members who wish to get in.

[Mr Kohler]

I will simply say that I agree with my hon. Friend.

Hon. Members have spoken about rural areas suffering. From 2015 to 2023, Shropshire lost 63% of its bus miles, the largest decline in any part of England. No doubt that was one reason among many that Shropshire voters decided that they had had enough of the Conservatives. In May, they voted a majority Liberal Democrat administration in for the first time.

Although the bus service in Shropshire is one of the worst in the country, it is by no means an isolated case. I have heard from colleagues and residents across the country, just as the House has heard today, that in rural areas such as Norfolk, Somerset and Hampshire, having no buses—or one bus a day, if residents are lucky—has sadly become the norm for many villages. This is not just inconvenient; it is holding back our rural economies and stifling growth. I fear that the measures in the Bill will not be sufficient to reverse that decline.

Lastly, I want to address accessibility, an issue on which my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place and other noble Lords have made good progress and have secured a number of improvements. As originally drafted, the Bill included positive provision on the mandatory training of staff, both in supporting disabled passengers and in tackling antisocial behaviour on board. We support those measures, but the Liberal Democrats believe that true accessibility means more than awareness training; it means fully accessible vehicles, clear signage and announcements, and accessible journey planning tools. Critically, it means accessible infrastructure, from bus stops to ticket machines.

The excellent amendment to ensure accessibility guidance on the provision of floating bus stops, which if badly designed can prove a real hazard to disabled people, was inserted after representations from the Lib Dem transport lead in the Lords, Baroness Pidgeon. The inclusion of bus network accessibility plans, after pressure from Baroness Brinton among others, is an important amendment that will go some way towards helping us to understand the barriers that disabled residents face in accessing a vital lifeline. We must not be complacent, however. I anticipate that more work will need to be done in Committee, as the Secretary of State has intimated, to probe the Bill’s provisions and ensure that they are as effective as they can be.

I will conclude where I began. My party and I welcome many aspects of the Bill. After years of Tory neglect, provisions to give local authorities more control of and input into their local bus networks are long overdue and clearly sensible, but we cannot give local authorities tantalising new powers without a practical means of using them. That will require sustained investment and reform of the funding models. I acknowledge that the Government have promised to include longer-term funding settlements in the spring spending review, but noises off suggest that those are unlikely to address the shortfall in local government funding.

The Bill will provide the necessary tools, but if councils are to build something effective with them, they will need not just legislation, but the finance, expertise and flexibility required to give effect to their vision and address their communities’ needs. I urge the Secretary of State to go back to the Treasury and ask for more, because financing a viable bus network is key to growing our economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her answers and for all she did on this issue in her previous role as Chair of the Transport Committee. Regulations prohibiting pavement parking already exist in London, but that alone will not solve the problem. At All Saints’ primary school in south Wimbledon, for example, pavement parking is a long-running issue, forcing parents and children into the road and obvious danger, and it is proving very difficult to solve. Has the Minister considered how the public can be better educated and restrictions enforced? Are the Government planning to create a new offence of obstructive parking, as the Minister recommended in her previous role?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, and he is right to raise the impact that pavement parking has on the ability of children to walk safely to school, which we want to encourage. There are many things we can do, and he is right to say that part of the mix is communication and publicity to explain the dangers that pavement parking poses to pedestrians.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Following the fire at North Hyde substation that closed Heathrow a few weeks ago, various lines on the London Underground were brought to a standstill by another power outage this week. It is clear that we need to do more to improve the resilience of our transport energy infrastructure, so will the Secretary of State commit to a full review to ensure that these incidents do not keep happening?

[Heidi Alexander]

A review is being conducted by the National Energy System Operator on the Heathrow substation fire. The interim report has been published, and we expect the full report in June. The Heathrow report is expected to go to its board in May. My Department and I work very closely with all transport operators to ensure that they have robust resilience plans in place. The Government are conducting a review of critical national infrastructure to address the broader question.

Road Safety and Active Travel to School

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing the debate. His opening speech was thoughtful, and the speeches of so many Members from across the House were heartfelt and often heart-rending.

As Members from across the House have made clear, children across the country should feel safe when attending school, and parents, teachers and children should feel confident in cycling or walking to school. In many cases, however, that is very difficult. We know that walking and cycling to school brings huge benefits to children’s health—both physical and mental—and to the environment and the wider community, yet fewer children are doing it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage made clear, in 1975 around two thirds of children walked or cycled to school, but today that figure is under 50%, with just 3% cycling.

The decline is not inevitable. In fact, many studies have shown that schools, parents and children themselves would like the ability to walk or cycle to school, but many barriers remain. Road safety around schools remains a key issue. Last year, 64 children under 16 were killed on our roads and more than 12,000 were injured—34 every single day.

It is concerning that the danger is greatest in the places where children should be the safest: near their schools. I have sadly seen the tragic consequences of that in my constituency. In July 2023, there was a tragic road incident at The Study school in Wimbledon, which took the lives of two beautiful young children. The matter is still under investigation by the police, so I will be circumspect in my comments. Suffice it to say that when I met school staff recently, they made it clear that further steps must be taken to improve road safety around the school to prevent such an incident from happening again. Many schools, especially in rural areas, sit on or near roads with 40 mph or even 50 mph speed limits. That is simply unacceptable.

We know that children are more at risk between 3 pm and 6 pm, on their way home from school, and yet Government action remains piecemeal, reactive and underfunded. The UK once led the world in cutting road deaths. Bold steps such as drink-driving laws, seatbelt rules, safer infrastructure and education campaigns massively reduced incidents in Great Britain, but we are falling behind. Countries across Europe have made active travel safer and more accessible, while our progress has stalled. The Liberal Democrats are consequently calling on the Government to publish the long-overdue road safety strategy without delay.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I add my voice to my hon. Friend’s call for the Government to get on with updating the road safety strategy. At the moment, they are suggesting that local communities must wait for three serious accidents or deaths for a fixed speed camera to be installed. Does he agree that we should shift the thinking, look at fixed speed cameras more as a preventive than a punitive tool, and update the guidance accordingly?

[Mr Kohler]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must be proactive, and not reactive to death. We must anticipate accidents and do something before they happen.

The strategy must prioritise children and active travel, and draw lessons from past successes, including the road safety plan of the year 2000, which had a transformative impact and helped halve fatalities in just a decade. The lack of specific active travel infrastructure is linked to that. We must continue to improve the provision of safe cycling and walking routes across our communities. We must improve parents’ and schools’ confidence in children using active travel to get to school.

Research from Cycling UK shows that the appetite is there. In rural areas such as Devon, 84% of people support more walking and cycling, but more than 80% feel that their local roads are unsafe. When the Department for Transport asked families what would help children walk to school, the most common answers were safer roads and safe crossing points. Improving the provision of designated routes, safer crossings and better lighting is vital to improving active travel.

The Government must also properly invest in cycling and walking infrastructure, and put a new comprehensive active travel strategy in place. Their increase in funding for active travel is welcome, but they must ensure that the money is spent effectively and targeted at where it is needed.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that schemes such as the Great Northern Railway trail, which provides a secure, segregated green cycleway and walkway linking towns, villages and local schools, are where active travel investment should be prioritised? As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) mentioned, we must ensure that planning regulations make greenways much easier to install.

[Mr Kohler]

I totally agree: that is exactly the type of thing that we must prioritise. Yes, money is tight, but we must spend it where it will be most effective.

We must integrate active travel infrastructure with public transport and key community sites, including schools. As my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage and others made clear, it is key that we improve cycle training for everyone, including young people. We must give all children access to cycle training, which will teach them the skills they need to be confident at cycling. That will not only get them into habits that will last a lifetime, but will save lives. As we have heard repeatedly, Bikeability training is shown to lower fatalities and serious injuries on the road.

Those improvements must also come from working with communities and parents. Although there are parents who drive their children to school—

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman bring his remarks quickly to a close?

[Mr Kohler]

I will. In conclusion, this is about more than roads; it is about the kind of communities that we want to build. Let us work together to improve active travel for our children and our adults.

Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for advance sight of it. Let me also congratulate the shadow Secretary of State on his birthday, and note that he is much younger than the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

It is clear that the Government must take urgent steps to help the car industry make the switch to electric vehicles. Although increasing flexibility in the mandate is welcome, voices across the industry have made it clear that we also need to bolster demand by lowering the barriers for individuals and businesses to purchase electric vehicles. As the Secretary of State knows, the recent surge in demand to which she referred was a result of significant discounting to promote sales. It is crucial that, as well as improving the charging network, we end the inequality between public and private charging by bringing the VAT rate for public charging into line with that for home charging, at 5% rather than 20%. Not only is the present system damaging demand, but it is wrong to penalise those who have no access to private charging. Ministers should also postpone the increase in vehicle tax on electric cars, and explore the possibility of reintroducing the plug-in car grant.

As the Secretary of State made clear on the media round this morning, the spectre of Trump’s tariffs also looms large over the industry. If the Government are serious about protecting car manufacturing in the UK, the Prime Minister must continue to work with our allies in Europe and around the world on a co-ordinated response. The only way to tackle Trump is to negotiate from a position of strength, and to show that the UK is not alone and will not be bullied.

May I ask the Secretary of State three questions? First, what conversations has she had with the Chancellor about lowering the public charging rate to 5%, and what other measures are the Government considering to strengthen EV demand? Secondly, can she confirm that the measures announced today are a response to the ZEV consultation that ended in February, and tell us what, if any, additional measures are being considered in respect of the tariffs that have since been announced? Thirdly, will the Government start negotiations with the EU about the formation of a UK-EU custom union, to cut red tape not only for vehicle manufacturers but for all UK industries?

[Heidi Alexander]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government keep the VAT variation between public and private charging under review. The 20% standard rate to which public charge points are subject applies to most goods and services, with very few exemptions. We are trying to give people low-cost and affordable options for public charging by investing £380 million to roll out overnight chargers, which are cheaper and will be installed to help those without a driveway. Today, Brighton & Hove City Council confirmed that it had signed the contracts to deliver 6,000 of those chargers, and in February Midlands Connect announced that it was rolling out more than 16,000 across the midlands, helping drivers to charge their vehicles for less.

The hon. Gentleman asked me whether today’s announcement was a response to the consultation that we launched at the end of December, which closed in February. It is indeed a Government response to that consultation. As for the discussions that we will have with European colleagues, we will continue those discussions. Although the hon. Gentleman tried to tempt me into giving him a commitment to rejoin an EU customs union, I am afraid that that is not a commitment I can give.

Road Maintenance

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Government for holding this debate, and I assure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), that us Lib Dems are wonderfully bilingual and can travel in both kilometres and miles.

As a Liberal Democrat, this issue is of course close to my heart. Pothole photos are a staple of Lib Dem literature across the country. Although other parties may dismiss our focus on pothole politics, we understand that for millions, the state of our roads is no laughing matter. So I welcome this debate; it is vital that we bring renewed focus to an issue that was desperately neglected by the Conservatives for years.

This is not just a matter for drivers. Whether someone commutes by car, relies on public transport or cycles, their journey begins on local roads. The condition of those roads directly impacts the daily lives of countless individuals, and the truth is that we are facing a crisis. Despite the previous Government’s rhetoric about standing up for motorists, their actions fell woefully short.

The road condition index reveals that almost 25,000 miles—one in 10 miles of the road network in England and Wales—require urgent maintenance within the next year, while less than half our roads are reported to be in good structural condition. These are not abstract figures; they represent tangible burdens on everyday lives.

Data from the RAC shows that for anything more than a tyre puncture, drivers can expect to pay almost £500 for a pothole-related car repair. The number of pothole-related breakdowns attended by RAC patrols rose by nearly a fifth in the last three months of 2024, compared with the previous quarter.

While the debate about roads often centres on potholes, as the most visible symptom of neglect, the real issue is the underlying condition of our road network. Instead of talking about fixing potholes here and there, we must shift our focus to prevention, and not merely focus on reactive repairs. Although the Government’s recent injection of funds is a welcome acknowledgment of the problem, it fails to address the fact that our current road maintenance funding mechanism is simply not fit for purpose, and the backlog of repairs is simply too long to be fixed by short-term injections of cash. If the Government are serious about tackling this crisis, they must urgently reform the system and give councils the support they need to get on top of the crisis.

Local councils are responsible for managing 98% of our national road network and bear the brunt of the challenge. However, they are underfunded and face huge financial pressures. Analysis from the Local Government Association has confirmed that due to continuing inflation and wage pressures, English councils face a £6.2 billion shortfall in funding across the next two years. Given the challenges that councils face, from ballooning social care costs to the special educational needs and disabilities crisis, highway maintenance is often seen as something that can be postponed until finances improve, as we heard from the hon. Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan).

Roads require resurfacing roughly every 15 years. However, years of chronic underfunding have forced councils to defer that crucial maintenance, leading to the current pothole plague. That has led to a situation where the average frequency of resurfacing for all classes of road is now an appalling 93 years. When I recently spoke to a council’s highway lead, he put it aptly:

“Roads are like trousers. You can fix a hole here and there with a patch, but it reaches a point where this just simply won’t work. Roads in this country are at such a point where we don’t just need new trousers—we need a whole new wardrobe.”

Although local councils are responsible for most of their roads, much of the funding for road maintenance comes from central Government. However, the Department for Transport has acknowledged that the current funding model is inefficient and does not deliver good value for money. The annual funding cycle forces councils into reactive, short-term fixes, hindering long-term planning. A longer-term funding settlement would allow councils to plan ahead and move away from that reactive model.

Furthermore, the current funding formula, based solely on each local authority’s total road mileage, is woefully inadequate. It fails to account for the diverse needs and road usage in different regions, which demands a more nuanced approach. For example, Department for Transport data indicates that Merton, in which most of my constituency lies, has the second worst uncategorised and B and C roads in the country. Merton, however, received less funding than other areas with more, but better roads.

In a recent meeting with the Secretary of State, it was suggested by officials that Merton’s poor standing may be due to a data error in the figures submitted by the council. Regardless of the cause, that paints a troubling picture. Either Merton is failing to maintain our roads, or it is failing to accurately report their condition, neither of which is acceptable. Will the Minister write to me to clarify the situation?

The current formula also neglects active travel infrastructure. Although the Government have increased active travel funding, there is no provision for the maintenance of new cycle lanes. Similarly, on the doorstep in Wimbledon, I regularly hear complaints about the quality of pavements, which particularly affects those with mobility issues. If we are serious about promoting cycling and walking, we must ensure that cycle paths and pavements are properly maintained. Without dedicated funding, however, they will deteriorate, discouraging their use and the willingness of councils to provide more such infrastructure.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the Eastbourne seniors forum that the state of the pavement outside the Halifax—which is like the moon, causing lots of trips and falls—is a disgrace, and that East Sussex county council needs to get on top of that straightaway to give people confidence in using roads and pavements again?

[Mr Kohler]

How could I disagree with the Eastbourne seniors forum? Indeed, Eastbourne, Wimbledon and many other constituencies have the same problem with pavements; they are in a shocking condition.

Despite lofty talk about fixing the issues, the Government have cut the highways maintenance budget by 5% for the forthcoming year. The Government claim that that is a temporary measure, as it is a one-year funding settlement to cover National Highways until its next five-year funding period commences in 2026. Can the Minister please confirm today that the Government will make up for the shortfall in the funding settlement next year? Our motorways are key to keeping our country and economy moving. We cannot afford to cut costs on such a critical aspect of our infrastructure.

The Conservatives have led us down the fast lane to decay. There is no doubt that our roads are crumbling, and motorists, cyclists and bus passengers are paying the price. It is now up to the new Government to face up to the challenge. With more short-term injections of cash and a cut to the National Highways budget, their current approach is akin to pulling into a service station for a brief respite. It may delay the journey for a bit, but we remain en route to continuing deterioration.

If Labour are serious about fixing our roads, they must sort out the backlog in work that is needed to allow them to be proactively, not just reactively, managed. That requires the Government to relieve the pressure on local councils by sorting out social care and the SEND crisis, as well as implementing a long-term, needs-based funding model for road maintenance. Without meaningful action to support local councils properly, we will continue on our journey of managed decline.

Driving Licences: Zero Emission Vehicles

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

We are pleased that the provision maintains the ability of those with category B driving licences to drive zero emission vehicles up to certain weight thresholds. As has been noted, the SI also reduces the scope of eligible vehicles, from alternatively fuelled to zero emission. Alternatively fuelled vehicles produce less carbon dioxide than petrol and diesel vehicles, but they still produce CO₂. As the vehicles do not, therefore, meet the cross-party consensus that all new cars and vans should be zero emission by 2035, we support the restriction to zero emission vehicles.

However, we again remind the Government that more needs to be done to ensure that EV charging infrastructure is in place. It is no good for people to be able to drive electric vehicles if they are unable to charge them. In addition to improving our EV charging infrastructure, we support other incentives such as restoring the plug-in grant. However, at this point we need convincing—not that we might not be convinced—that removing the five-hour training requirement, which is also contained within the SI, is a good idea. Incentives should not come at the cost of reduced safety and if a five-hour training requirement was thought necessary in 1999, I would like the Minister to explain why it is no longer required.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

In 2017, South Western Railway ordered 90 new Arterio trains to increase capacity on its rail network. They were meant to enter service in 2019. However, six years later, only five are in service—presumably not counting the empty one that sailed by a teeming and seething platform at Wimbledon this morning. With SWR set to be in Government hands in two months, what steps will be taken to ensure that those trains are finally brought into service?

[Heidi Alexander]

I know that the Rail Minister is seized of this issue. He has spoken to me about it, and I understand that it relates to issues with lighting on platforms, what can be seen from the CCTV cameras and the role of the guard. We are across the detail, and it is important that those issues are resolved before the trains are brought into public ownership on 25 May.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Yesterday, the Chancellor spoke about the importance of getting individuals back to work in order to grow our economy, but the uneven coverage, unreliability and inaccessibility of our transport network are key barriers that prevent many from doing so. Furthermore, the Chancellor maintained the decision she took in October to cut the Department for Transport’s budget. Does the Secretary of State believe that cutting the transport budget is a good way of increasing economic growth?

[Heidi Alexander]

I know that the Chancellor and her colleagues in the Treasury understand completely the importance of investing in our transport infrastructure to unlock the jobs, homes and opportunities of the future.

Disruption at Heathrow

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I echo her words and those of others in expressing my gratitude to the firefighters and other emergency workers who fought the fire and to the airport, airline and other staff for all their hard work in the face of this catastrophic systems failure.

What has happened is clearly a rare occurrence, but it raises a number of significant questions about the security and management of our critical national infrastructure. While I am pleased to hear that no foul play is currently suspected, the event has revealed vulnerabilities in our national security that may be exploited in future by terrorists and hostile state actors. It is consequently vital that lessons are learned to ensure that an incident like this does not happen again, and I welcome the announcement of a full investigation.

It is deeply concerning that the failure of a single piece of infrastructure has taken down the entire airport. Heathrow is connected to three substations, and while two were impacted, the third was running and had enough capacity—thought to be around 72 MW—to power the whole of Heathrow, which requires a little more than 40 MW. It is evident that Heathrow’s power set-up could not be swiftly reconfigured to allow the third substation to be used. We need to understand why that was, and whether it could be remedied in future. While Heathrow claims that it is normal for airports not to have sufficient back-up capacity to power all of their needs, other industries that require even more power than Heathrow—such as data centres—take more robust steps to ensure they have sufficient back-up systems to counter such failures. Should our key international transport hub not have the same safeguards?

We must also not forget those whose journeys were disrupted. It is estimated that over 200,000 passengers have been impacted by the event. However, under current regulations, most of those passengers will not be eligible for compensation. As such, I have three questions for the Secretary of State. First, what impact, if any, will this incident have on the Government’s plans for expansion at Heathrow? Can the national grid infrastructure cope with a third runway, or will the airport become more prone to failure? Secondly, does the Secretary of State believe that UK airports should be taking steps to increase their back-up capacity, in order to ensure that an incident like this does not happen again? Thirdly, does she believe that the current regulations around passenger compensation are sufficient?

[Heidi Alexander]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. The question of Heathrow expansion and this very rare—unprecedented—event are two entirely separate issues. He will be aware that the Government have invited Heathrow to bring forward proposals for a third runway, and we will review the airports national policy statement after that.

With regard to back-up capacity at airports, I am told that the back-up power systems at Heathrow operated as they should have done during this incident—they did not fail. I do not want to come to knee-jerk conclusions as a result of this unprecedented incident, but we will be looking very closely at the two reviews I mentioned in my statement. I have also worked with the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that passengers who have been affected by this disruption are aware of their rights.