Bus Services: North-east England

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when not speaking in the debate, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the Chamber.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered provision of bus services in the North East.

It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair in this important debate, Mr Dowd. Bus services keep our local communities moving. They provide connections between our homes and communities and our place of work. They allow us to travel, to do our shopping and to attend health and other appointments, and they form an essential link to mainline train services for onward travel. They allow us to socialise safely. For those without cars, they are essential. For those of us with cars, they offer an opportunity to reduce car journeys and so reduce our carbon emissions.

Some 160 million bus journeys were made across the north-east immediately pre covid, and I would hazard a guess that most Members of Parliament will know the high level of concern from constituents when local bus services are changed. Earlier this year many constituents contacted me and their local councillors about changes to the No. 47 bus services from Chopwell to Consett, telling me how the changes had disrupted their journeys to work and other services. Of course, our bus services have faced a huge impact from driver shortages and, like the rest of us, from staff catching covid or facing isolation, causing short-notice cancellations, which all add to the problems.

Speaking of covid, our bus services, and in much of Tyne and Wear our Metro services, have been dramatically affected by covid-19. Those services continued to run throughout lockdown to keep key workers moving. They continued to run as we opened up, then closed down again, and as restrictions changed, to keep us moving, but at a huge cost and with a huge drop in usage. I am a regular bus user myself, as I travel to and from Westminster, around London and at home, and I have seen the fluctuation in bus usage. I say a huge thank you to all the staff who kept our buses, Metro and trains going for those of us who needed to travel, often exposing themselves to greater risk of infection. Their work is appreciated.

Those services, running economically due to low usage, could keep going only through the financial support from Government. The covid-19 bus service support grant ran to August 2021, and local transport authorities paid additional moneys for concessionary travel payments to bus operators, although concessionary usage had in fact dropped very significantly. On the Metro system, the same effect can be seen, with less usage of the system, meaning less income and increased financial pressure.

Why have this debate about buses in the north-east now? Bus services across my constituency face a very real threat. Still suffering from a reduced number of passengers, suffering again from driver shortages and now experiencing increased congestion on our roads, as many of us, even previous bus users, use our cars to avoid the risk of catching covid—

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I am going to call the Minister at 5.18 pm. I would like to give the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) a couple of minutes to wind up the debate, so I ask colleagues to please bear that in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist]

The key thing is this: we share those objectives to try to improve buses—that is good for everyone—but we need the financial commitment to be able to do that, both to tackle the problems that we face locally and for investment in the improvement plans.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that I will want to put the Question, so I exhort them not to intervene too much at this stage or I will not get to do that and it will affect the ability of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) to wind up.

[Trudy Harrison]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. Hopefully, I can set the hon. Member’s mind at rest. There are already examples of great bus services across England, where we have really seen passenger growth, with local authorities and bus operators working together to put passengers first, which is critical. Strong local plans are being delivered through enhanced partnerships between authorities and bus operators or franchising arrangements; those are crucial to achieving the goals that we have set out in the strategy. All local transport authorities in England, including the North East Joint Transport Committee, have confirmed that they will pursue one of these approaches—as the strategy asks. They have all published bus service improvement plans, setting out how the goals of our strategy can be delivered in their local areas and be driven by what passengers—and would-be passengers—want.

We set out in our guidance on bus service improvement plans our high expectations of what those plans should include. We have heard what priorities Members from across the House would want to see, as well—it is tackling congestion; it is speeding up services; it is reducing fares; it is simplifying ticketing, and it is decarbonising bus fleets. At the Budget we announced £1.2 billion of dedicated funding for bus transformation deals, which is part of an over £3 billion fund of new spend on buses over this Parliament. This level of investment represents more than a doubling of dedicated bus funding when compared with the previous Parliament. The hon. Member for Blaydon asked for clarity on the funding allocation; we shall be announcing more details on how that funding will be announced very shortly. She also asked for a meeting with the Minister responsible, Baroness Vere, in the other place. The Baroness would be delighted to confirm that meeting between Nexus, Transport North East and herself.

The spending review and the Budget also confirmed that the Government will be investing £5.7 billion in the transport networks of eight city regions in England, including in the north-east, through the city region sustainable transport settlements. It represents an unprecedented investment in the local transport networks, and will play a key role in driving forward the country’s national infrastructure strategy, as well as delivering transformational socioeconomic and environmental change in those areas. The north-east will be able to submit a programme of schemes that it intends to fund using its prospective settlement, which could include improvements to bus provision. The Government look forward to working with the region to unlock and deliver the many transport benefits that the CRSTS will provide.

The new funding comes on top of the support that Government already provide for buses. Each year, the Government provide £250 million in direct revenue support for bus services in England, via the bus service operators grant. Without that support, fares would increase and marginal services would disappear. Around £43 million of the bus service operators grant is paid directly to local authorities, rather than bus operators, to support socially necessary bus services in their area that are not commercially viable. The funding also supports the approximately £1 billion spent by local authorities on concessionary bus passes every year. The Government are committed to protecting the national bus travel concession, which is of huge benefit to around 9 million older and disabled people, allowing free off-peak local travel anywhere in England.

The national bus strategy is the biggest shake-up of the industry in a generation. It sets out what we want for passengers and how we will achieve it. I am sure that everybody would agree that only by working together can we provide the bus services that people want and need. The hon. Member for Blaydon asked a question on driver shortages; I wanted to reassure her that we now have a further 50,000 test slots annually, thanks to the changes that the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency have recently made.

There is, of course, our commitment to 4,000 zero-emission buses, which was set out by the Prime Minister and is very much part of the Department for Transport’s transport decarbonisation plan. It was raised that nobody has seen these buses; well, I certainly have. I have had the joy of riding on those buses during COP26—both hydrogen and battery-electric. I have also had the pleasure of visiting Wrightbus, near Ballymena in Northern Ireland, to see the buses being manufactured.

Road Traffic Offences: Fatal Collisions

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 323926 and 575620, relating to road traffic offences for fatal collisions.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. E-petition 323926, started by Louise Smyth and Helen Wood, with the title “Tougher sentences for hit and run drivers who cause death”, opened on 20 July 2020 and closed on 20 January 2021, and received 104,324 signatures. It states:

“The maximum penalty for failure to stop after an incident is points and a 6-month custodial sentence. Causing death by careless/dangerous driving is between 5-14 yrs. The sentence for failing to stop after a fatal collision must be increased.

Our sons, Matt aged 25 & Paul aged 23, were both killed on their motorbikes just 9 months apart. Both drivers fled the scene. We are not the only families to have suffered this tragedy or endure unjust sentencing. We at the Roads Injustice Project want the laws changed as we feel they are both outdated and unfair. Tougher sentences are needed for the life sentence we have to deal with every single day from the loss of our son’s due to the actions of somebody else.”

On 28 August 2020, the Ministry of Justice responded to the petition, saying:

“It is wholly irresponsible for drivers to fail to stop and report an incident. However, the offence of failing to stop should not be used to punish an offender for a serious, but not proven, offence.

We were very sorry to read of the deaths of Matt and Paul; our sympathies are with their families and friends.

Failure to stop and report offences are often referred to as ‘hit and run’ but this is not an accurate reflection of the offence. The offence is designed to deal with the behaviour relating to the failure to stop, not to provide an alternative route to punish an offender for a more serious, but not proven, offence.”

E-petition 575620, started by Leanne Saltern, with the title “Ryan’s Law: Widen definition of ‘death by dangerous driving’”, opened on 2 March 2021 and closed on 2 September 2021, and received 167,470 signatures. It said:

“The offence of causing ‘death by dangerous driving’ should be widened to include: failure to stop, call 999 and render aid on scene until further help arrives.

A hit & run driver left my brother Ryan in the road & he died. Hiding for 36 hours, charged with failure to stop, the driver received a suspended sentence/fine. Failure to stop/careless driving offers lighter custodial sentences & focuses on fines/suspensions. Drivers should STOP, ring 999 & render AID until help arrives. If they do not they should face charges for death by dangerous driving. The Law should require this & aim to reduce the number of hit & runs & roadside deaths. With this definition, a minimum 10 years-max life sentence, citizens would be better protected.”

On 24 March 2021, the Department for Transport provided a response identical to that given by the Ministry of Justice, apart from this sentence:

“Ministers are aware of the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Ryan Saltern and extend their sympathy to family and friends.”

The DFT added:

“The Government takes this issue seriously. The Department for Transport is looking into the issue of such incidents of failure to stop resulting in death or serious injury, and exploring whether there are further options that can be pursued.”

It is no surprise that those in favour of a change in the law say that there is a perverse incentive for a driver who is under the influence of drink or drugs to leave the scene of a traffic collision, thereby avoiding a drink and drugs test by the police. If they hand themselves in to the police later, they cannot be tested because of the time that has elapsed and are likely to avoid a more serious offence or penalty.

I met the petitioners virtually last week and listened to their heartbreaking stories, which reduced me to tears. I cannot image the pain they have gone through and are still going through. They have come to Parliament today. I met them again this afternoon and they are in the Public Gallery this evening. I cannot pretend to understand the depth of their grief, but I commend their courage and tenacity in wanting something good to come out of their grief.

On 29 August 2018, 25-year-old Matt Smyth left his girlfriend’s house at about 3 am. He was heading home on his motorbike on the A1307 when he was hit by a delivery van that pulled out of a side junction into his path. The driver stopped briefly at the scene but then drove off, leaving Matt lying in the road. A passing HGV driver found Matt about 25 minutes later. The driver who had collided with Matt came to a stop a few miles up the road and telephoned his employer. He told his company that he had hit a deer and his van was damaged, so it could not be driven. The company arranged for him to be sent a new van and he continued on his delivery round before going home to bed.

The police caught up with the driver, Mr Ricardas Taraska, later that day when he was still asleep in his bed. Mr Taraska was charged with causing death by careless driving and failing to stop after a collision. The prosecutor said that it was inconceivable that the driver did not realise that he had hit a motorcycle, because Matt was thrown on to the van’s bonnet and the driver had to manoeuvre around Matt’s body and motorcycle.

Mr Taraska was sentenced to 14 months, of which he served only five months, and he was disqualified from driving for 31 months. The judge said that it was a “grossly irresponsible act” not to stop, and that driving around Mr Smyth’s body and the wreckage of a motorcycle was inexcusable. On the morning that Matt was killed, he had been due to attend his first midwife’s appointment as a father-to-be. Matt never lived to see his daughter, who is now two and a half years old. Matt’s father was also tragically killed in similar circumstances 18 years ago while he was driving his motorcycle.

Matt’s best friend, Paul, was 23 years of age when he was killed nine months later. Paul left for work on 24 May 2019 at 6.45 am on his daily motorbike drive to work. He was hit by a Range Rover that pulled out in front of him. The driver, Mr Cooksey, got out of his vehicle and lit a cigarette. A witness at the scene spoke to Mr Cooksey and noticed the smell of alcohol on his breath, but he ran away and hid behind some trees before walking to Cambridge train station. There, he got into a taxi to go to a pub in Romford, where he lived. He drank eight pints of lager before handing himself in to the local police station that evening, and he could not be breathalysed because he was intoxicated. Paul was pronounced dead at the scene.

Mr Cooksey had been disqualified from driving the previous month, and had previous convictions for drink driving and driving while disqualified. He admitted drinking heavily the evening before until about midnight and said that he was driving his car at about 5 am, but that could not be proved because he had left the scene, and he continued to drink until he handed himself in to the police. The judge said that the driver was “devious and untrustworthy”, with

“a bad record for driving offences that have resulted in disqualification and even prison sentences”,

and:

“No sentence…will ever reflect the loss of a human life”.

Mr Cooksey admitted failing to stop at the scene of the collision and was found guilty of causing death by careless driving, causing death while disqualified from driving and causing death while driving uninsured. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment—he will serve half, or less—and banned from driving for four and a half years. Paul’s family told me that they have not been the same since he was killed. His family are living a life sentence, but the criminals on our roads are not punished in accordance with their crimes.

Our loved ones need to be recognised as human beings, not wing mirrors or bits of metal damaged in a road traffic collision. The hit and run, or leaving the scene, sentencing guidelines were put in place many years ago. They need updating to encourage drivers who have caused a collision to stay and get the help needed for the victim, potentially saving the lives of hundreds of victims on our roads every year.

Ryan Saltern, a postman, husband, and father of young children, was killed in the early hours of 28 July 2019 while walking along the single-track B3267 to a party. He was hit by a driver who did not stop. Ryan’s body was dragged beneath the car and he died of catastrophic injuries. The driver made no attempt to stop, and Ryan was subsequently left in the road to be discovered by the next passing vehicle. The forensic investigation proved it was the failure to stop that caused the injuries relating to Ryan’s death.

The driver, Mr Wayne Shilling, was identified some 36 hours later after being reported to the police by his own father. A blood test proved negative for alcohol because of the time that had elapsed, and it was too late to conduct a toxicology test. Mr Shilling admitted to failing to stop and failing to report an accident while he was driving home from a carnival, at which witnesses said he had been drinking. Mr Shilling told the police that he felt a slight bang and did not realise that he had hit anyone, but the collision was found to have punctured his car’s radiator.

Mr Shilling received a sentence of four months—suspended for 12 months—and he was disqualified from driving for 12 months, given an evening curfew for four months and ordered to pay a £207 victim surcharge and prosecution costs. Ryan’s family believe that the law protects not the victim of crime, but the criminal, and that it is a total injustice to Ryan. Although Mr Shilling chose not to answer questions leading up to and at the trial, he admitted at the coroner’s inquest to drinking four cans of alcohol before hitting Ryan. He has never displayed any remorse whatsoever to Ryan’s family, and he taunts them.

Ryan’s family believe that when a driver hits a person, they should stop, ring for help and remain on the scene, rendering aid when possible, appropriate, and necessary, and as instructed by emergency services. When a driver does not to do this, they should be considered a dangerous driver and a minimum sentence should be set, ultimately encouraging drivers to stop after a collision. Stopping at the scene will help to save lives and identify those who have genuine accidents, as opposed to those who leave the scene to protect themselves. There are many more cases like Ryan’s, with drivers escaping justice by not stopping at the scene.

I also met virtually with Alison Hernandez, who is the police and crime commissioner for Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and the road safety lead for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. Alison launched a strategy in 2018 to create the safest roads in the UK. A 2020 APCC road survey received 66,266 responses from across England and Wales, and 81% of respondents believed that road offences required more enforcement.

This is not the first time that these life and death issues have been debated in Parliament. On 8 July 2019, the former Member for Warrington North introduced a debate on e-petition 236952, “Violet-Grace’s Law – Life sentences for Death by Dangerous Driving”, in memory of four-year-old Violet, who was tragically killed when a stolen car was driven at 83 mph in a 30 mph zone. Violet’s nan was with her and suffered life-changing injuries. The driver and his passenger did not attempt to help Violet and her nan; they fled from the scene. There is evidence that they had to step over the bodies of Violet and her nan, lying in the road, when they got out of the stolen car. The driver not only fled the scene, but fled the country and went to Amsterdam. When he eventually returned, he and his passenger were sentenced but served less time in prison than Violet was alive. For people to have confidence in the law, it has to protect the innocent, punish the guilty and deter further offences. However, families believe they have not had justice with the imposition of unduly lenient sentences.

The offence of causing death by dangerous driving was not introduced until the Road Traffic Act 1999, but even then there were widespread complaints that the Crown Prosecution Service often charged people with the lesser offence of careless driving, because it was felt that doing so was more likely to lead to a conviction. In 2003, the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving was increased from 10 to 14 years. The Road Safety Act 2006 introduced the offence of causing death by careless driving, and of causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified, or uninsured. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 introduced the offence of causing serious injury by careless driving, which is punishable with a sentence of up to five years. The Criminal Courts Act 2015 introduced the offence of causing serious injury by driving while disqualified, which is punishable by four years’ imprisonment and a fine.

In October 2017, following a consultation in which 70% of respondents thought that the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving should be increased from 14 years to life imprisonment, the Government announced that they would do so when parliamentary time allowed. A one-clause Bill would have had widespread support across the House and from the public, but the Government failed to find any parliamentary time. Nearly three years later, on Tuesday 21 July 2020, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), introduced a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 to increase the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving to life imprisonment, and for connected purposes. She said that

“dangerous driving is an all too familiar phrase”

that does not reflect

“the tragedy and devastation of lives that lies behind it.”

She told the House about her constituents, saying that

“19-year-old…Bryony Hollands died at the hands of a dangerous driver—a driver under the influence of drink and drugs. He was sentenced to eight years and served just four years in jail…Ciara Lee’s husband Eddy was killed on the M4. The driver responsible was sentenced to just 22 months”.—[Official Report, 21 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 2039.]

She also spoke of 13-year-old Max Simmonds, who was hit and killed by a driver who was under the influence of drugs. The Bill was short, specific, and targeted. It would have allowed judges to retain the discretion to decide the appropriate length of sentence, as well as providing greater scope and enabling more severe sentences. It would have done the Government’s work for them.

The latest statistics provided by the House of Commons Library show that the current law does not cope with these offences. In 2020, there were 2,467 prosecutions and 1,889 convictions for failing to stop or report a road traffic accident; the most common sentence was an average fine of £289. A small number of people received custodial sentences, the average being 3.6 months. In 2020, there were 184 prosecutions and 154 convictions for causing death by dangerous driving; the most common sentence was immediate custody, with an average sentence of four years and seven months.

In September 2020, the Government produced a White Paper. Clauses 65 and 66 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill propose increasing the maximum penalties for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, and for causing death by dangerous driving, from 14 years’ to life imprisonment, and they create a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving. That Bill is currently going through Parliament.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) moved new clause 20 in the House of Commons on 5 July 2021. It proposed a maximum sentence of 14 years where a driver fails to stop and exchange details or to report the accident to the police in cases where they knew or ought reasonably to have known that a serious or fatal injury had occurred or might have occurred. The then Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice said that

“more work needs to be done to identify that class of driver who manipulates the system and evades responsibility in a way that clearly outrages the community and offends the wider public.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2021; Vol. 698, c. 675.]

On 8 November, at Committee stage in the House of Lords, the right hon. Lord Paddick moved amendment 161, which had wording very similar to that of new clause 20. Lord Paddick stated that six months may be appropriate when someone drives off after scraping the paintwork of someone’s parked car, but not when someone is left dead by the roadside.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

My 31-year-old daughter, Jennie, was hit by a car just over 100 yards from my house 13 months ago. The driver drove off, came back to look at the scene, and drove off again. My daughter died nine days later. The driver received a 12-month custodial sentence for careless driving but is now appealing that sentence, as it is, I think she believes, disproportionately hard. Does my hon. Friend agree that at the very least —the very least—sentencing guidelines need a full, thorough and substantial review, to assure families left bereft that justice is done?

[Christina Rees]

I thank my hon. Friend—my dear friend—for his intervention. Sometimes words are not enough to express what you must be going through and what you have been through. I completely agree—completely agree.

Lord Paddick moved provisions including a new subsection of section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, to cover hit-and-run collisions, and mentioned the petitions that we are debating this evening. He said that they highlight the inadequacy of the existing legislation. Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb spoke in support, calling hit-and-runs a menace and saying that judges should have available a range of sentences to reflect the severity of the offence and that there should be a lifetime driving ban for a hit-and-run driver fleeing the scene—a cowardly thing—and trying to escape justice. As she said, it is a life-and-death situation for the person who has been hit.

Responding for the Government, Baroness Williams of Trafford gave the standard response that we have heard so many times this evening. She said that her

“ministerial colleagues at the Department for Transport understand the concerns that have been raised”

and are “exploring options”, including

“the available penalties and how the offence operates as part of long-term and wider work on road safety.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 2021; Vol. 815, c. 1557.]

It was on that basis that Lord Paddick withdrew his amendment.

The petitioners, and many more families who have lost loved ones in road traffic collisions, do not want any more warm words and empty rhetoric from the Government. They want the law to be changed. I have read a portfolio compiled by Leanne Saltern that features hundreds of families who have contacted her after losing a loved one in circumstances similar to those of the petitioners. It made me cry. No sentence will ever make up for the tragic loss of a loved one, and families have been constantly told that reform will be introduced when parliamentary time allows.

The time is now. Will the Minister urge his Government to change the law, as set out in the petitions, and will he meet the petitioners and other families in order to give them the opportunity to be heard? They must be heard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The Government are committed to providing an unprecedented £2 billion of dedicated funding for cycling and walking over the rest of this Parliament. There are a whole host of ways in which that can be spent. Conversations are going on across Government about how to support cycling and walking infrastructure in various areas, including potentially on disused railway lines. I have seen the benefits of how they can be used in my own constituency when cycling down the wonderful Brampton Valley Way.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) [V]]

I appreciate the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), my constituency neighbour, but I think he may have missed the substantive point my hon. Friend was making. There is a proposal to rip up Rimrose Valley Park, which is the only substantive green lung in my very small urban constituency, and plough a major road through it. Before he puts his signature to the £300 million-plus cheque to build the road, will he agree to meet me, my hon. Friend, council colleagues and very worried friends of Rimrose Valley Park to listen to our fears about the irreparable and long-term damage to our environment, leisure opportunities, and the health and safety of our community, and hear about alternatives to this road, which does not meet the spirit or aims of the Prime Minister’s 10-point decarbonisation plan?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Unbelievably, I have actually campaigned politically for my party in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency in the past; I say unbelievably because it is one of the safest Labour seats in the country. I actually think he represents a wonderful part of the world, with wonderful people, and he represents it well. I will sort out the meeting with the appropriate Minister on his behalf.

Income tax (charge)

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Let me begin by welcoming the Chief Secretary to his position. As the former Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, he may be spending a bit more time with his family now. I am sure that he is happy about that. I am not sure that his family are happy about it, but that is a different kettle of fish.

I do not have time to recap on what Members on both sides of the House have said today—except to say that we heard fantastic maiden speeches from the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), who made a generous tribute to David Gauke, and the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy), who talked about the building of the Ark Royal in his constituency. I have a fantastic picture of the Ark Royal in my office, and if he is ever in Bootle, he can come and have a look at it. I will secure a secure passage out of Bootle for him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) was doing well until he mentioned Liverpool football club. He brought things back by mentioning that great socialist Bill Shanklin, and went on to talk about justice for Hillsborough. The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) made an interesting speech. A teacher once said, “We are not just teaching kids, we are backing Bolton”, and I think that that sums it up. It was an excellent comment. Finally, the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) described very well the beautiful landscape and historic architecture of her constituency.

The substance of the announcements made by the Chancellor last week has had a very short life. In the light of the coronavirus emergency, I am glad that the Government have had a serious rethink about their economic and financial support response to the challenges facing the country. I will take advice on this, but they appear to be getting their act together, and we welcome that. However, at the time—last week—the package of measures did not go far enough. For example, while President Macron has announced €547 billion of support for French businesses, we have got £330 billion, apparently, although I am pleased that the Chancellor has followed the suit of the French President.

The Financial Times reported that Peter Altmaier, Germany’s Economy Minister—

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

Just a moment. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.

The Financial Times reported:

“The German budget currently guarantees KfW”—

that is the credit institute for reconstruction—

“a financial framework of €460bn, but officials said this could now be raised by €93bn, giving the bank more than €550bn in available firepower.”

Mr Altmaier said:

“And that is just the start”.

I am glad that the Chancellor has followed the line—the model—that the Germans are taking as well.

In the meantime, notwithstanding the Government’s apparent announcement, significant parts of the economy are in freefall, as well as, more immediately, places, organisations, agencies within the hospitality sector both large and small, the travel industry and retail. So, okay, a bit late, but, nevertheless, moving in the right direction. But what this does not indicate yet, as far as we are concerned, is what support will be given to employees—the people working in those industries. The industries themselves might get support, but we have to be clear about what actually is happening. People in here will have constituents losing their jobs.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

In a moment.

It has to be said that the Government simply underestimated the challenge facing the country, but better late than never. However, many millions of people still have no financial certainty from the Government. People are worried about their livelihoods. The Government are responsible for our decaying social and physical infrastructure. They bear a huge responsibility for the parlous state of our public realm. While we will support measures to aid our economy, we will not settle for half measures, so we will look carefully at the Chancellor’s statement and at what he says later on.

The Government’s mantra of “levelling up” also completely misjudged the serious issues facing the country. The Government are not a new Government. They have been in power for 10 years. The 12 December election was not the start of year zero. They have spent 10 years systematically and consciously levelling down the country. For example, one of the Government’s fiscal rules identified 3% of GDP as an appropriate level of public sector net investment, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you were to look back at the last 10 years, the Government have underspent on infrastructure—far less than 3% of GDP—every single year. That was alluded to by Conservative Members.

The gap between what the Government spent and the 3% level over 10 years in office is £192 billion. That is the size of the hole the Government have spent 10 years digging, and if you were to sift through the hype, Madam Deputy Speaker, and note the fact that the Government’s headline figures on infrastructure double-count existing spending—one estimate has put the Government’s new capital spending at £143 billion, excluding depreciation—you would see that what the Government announced last week would not even fill the big hole they dug in the first place. Now, they appear to want to be congratulated on a pathetic attempt to rebuild what they spent 10 years destroying and dismantling.

The Resolution Foundation has pointed out that the UK has a very low level of Government capital stock at about 46% of GDP. That is three quarters of the advanced economy average of 63%, so the Government are levelling up from a very low base—a low base of their own creation.

Another problem with the Government’s levelling up agenda is that there is a series of one-off announcements without any coherent plan. For a start, the Government postponed their national infrastructure strategy. Again, they have cut skills funding in recent years. By the end of the last decade, spending on apprenticeships and work-based learning had fallen by a quarter since 2009-10 in real terms. That is according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

The Budget was disappointing in relation to climate action. The environmental justice commission set up by the Institute for Public Policy Research said that £33 billion of green investment was needed a year to get to the Government’s weak target of net zero emissions by 2050. But there is £27 billion for road building, although nothing for renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. We have heard excuses over the years that they inherited a poor economy, but they have been in power for 10 years and the responsibility for the poor performance of our economy in the past 10 years lies squarely at the Government’s door. They did not believe that public investment could boost the economy. In a speech in 2009, George Osborne said that

“fiscal policy is more or less powerless to affect output”.

He was wrong about that. Let us consider the statement that a

“large planned increase in public investment should boost potential output”.—[Official Report, 11 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 282.]

Who said those words? It was the Chancellor, when citing the Office for Budget Responsibility. Other countries took a different approach from us and did invest, and they have recovered more quickly. We have had the slowest recovery for a century in this country, and we have had the Bank of England’s chief economist Andy Haldane describing a pay “disaster”.

On that point, let me deal with the issue of the so-called “jobs miracle”, so beloved of Conservative Members. What they fail to mention is that low pay, zero-hours contracts and insecure working conditions bankroll that act of God, meaning that 8 million people in working households are living in poverty. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s annual poverty report, seven in 10 children in poverty are now in a working family. I am not sure that God would like his name associated with that outcome.

The Office for National Statistics is reporting falling manufacturing output and zero growth in the three months to January because of “widespread weakness”—and that was before the outbreak of the coronavirus. The Government could have started in the Budget to invest in our public services, as well as our infrastructure, but they chose not to do so. As the IFS said last week, after this Budget spending on day-to-day services will still be well below what it was in 2010-11 per head—so much for levelling up. What we have is the Government putting off tackling areas in our economy where bold decisions are needed. The economic crisis facing the country as a result of the coronavirus simply proves their lack of foresight and planning. They have left our public services so depleted of capacity that many fear they will struggle to cope.

We have before us the so-called “Get it done” Chancellor, but he is more like the put-it-off Chancellor. He even put off his announcement today. What about social care—is he getting that done? No, he is having another review. He has put it off. What about the Green Book—is he getting that done? No, he is having another review. He is putting that off. What about the fiscal rules framework—is he getting it done? No, he is having another review. He is putting it off. What about the national investment plan—is he getting it done? No, he is having another review. He is putting it off. He cannot even decide when he is going to have a comprehensive spending review. In a footnote on page 30 of the Red Book, which I know all Conservative Members will have assiduously read, he says that he will

“keep the timing of the CSR under review”.

I hope you will bear with me here, Madam Deputy Speaker. In other words, he is even putting off the timing of the review of the review of the comprehensive review. So much for getting things done.

There is a great deal of not getting things done going on in No. 10 at the moment, contrary to the belief of the backslappers opposite. The word “review” is mentioned no fewer than 117 times in the Red Book, which has only 120 pages in it, including the blank ones. The Chancellor reminds me of the character in one of the less well-known Monty Python sketches: the self-satisfied president of the royal society for putting things on top of other things; we have a meaningless body of men gathered together for no good reason—that is the Cabinet. No wonder we have the lowest productivity levels of our G7 partners, and this is getting worse because the man in charge of getting things done is far too busy putting things off.

Let me give the Chancellor a word of advice. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The House is being unfair to the hon. Gentleman. There is too much noise going on, and we must hear him.

[Peter Dowd]

Well, they are Tories.

Let me give the Chancellor a word of advice: I suggest that, for the sake of the country, he stops putting things off and gets things done by pulling his finger out.

HGV Fly-parking: Kent

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) for securing this debate. From what colleagues have said, it seems that the problem of fly-parking does not only affect particular areas; my area is pretty badly affected, too. In my constituency I have the port of Liverpool, so colleagues can imagine the amount of traffic that goes along the A5036: about 40,000 movements a day. Not all of them are for the port, but about 10% or 15% are. There is a huge amount of traffic, and lorries make up a huge amount of that figure. We have the problem of fly-parking on that route and on surrounding roads. I do not think we can get to the point where we finesse this so much that we have a counsel of perfection of what we want to do, but we certainly have to have a clear, much more co-ordinated idea of what we can do to resolve the problem.

All the enforcement in the world will not make much difference unless, as hon. Members have said, we make provision for lorry parks. Even lorry parks will not necessarily be the solution for everyone. There may be different solutions for different areas, and Government policy should reflect the diversity across the country and address the impact that fly-parking has on particular areas. In reality, I do not know the effect that fly-parking is having in Kent any more than colleagues know what is happening in Merseyside, Bootle or Liverpool. However, we recognise that the problem exists and it needs to be dealt with.

On the grand issue of infrastructure, the Government need to recognise that lorry parks should be part of the transport infrastructure. They should not be something that somebody else provides, whether that be local authorities, hauliers or the Highways Agency, or Highways England as it is now known. There has to be a combined and co-ordinated effort by us all to try to find a solution to the problem—a solution that may be different in different areas. We have to recognise that across the piece. There is also, in the grand sense, the issue of thousands upon thousands of lorry movements up and down the country, and it is important to put into the mix the question of trying to move freight off roads and on to rail. We have a multi-modal transport system, and the ability to move freight from roads to rail may be part of the solution. I do not say it would be the whole solution, but a theme is beginning to develop. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and we have to recognise that.

In my area we have a consultation going on at the moment about upgrading the A5036 or having another road going through a country park. The cost ranges from £120 million to £300 million, depending on which solution is arrived at. To the best of my knowledge, although I am willing to stand corrected, as part of the consultation on that potential development, nobody has talked about a lorry park in that huge expenditure. I do not know where the lorry park might be. It is for others to try to determine the best fit and the best solution, but a lorry park should be considered.

We therefore have a consultation being undertaken about a very expensive road to a port that, thankfully, is expanding, but there is no really co-ordinated discussion about lorry access and where lorries may or may not park. If I may say so, this is a good opportunity for the Minister to put my plea into the mix of the consultation. I think that would go some way to helping to solve the problem—not tomorrow, not next year, but perhaps in five or 10 years’ time, because in five or 10 years’ time we could still be talking about this matter and going around the houses.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issues that affect my area. Notwithstanding the points made in graphic detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), it is important that we have everything on the table to get the matter going. Finally, I am really pleased that I had a very light lunch before I came here today.

Garden Bridge

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Christian Matheson]

My spirits soar every time I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). My point is simply that there seems to be a reason why £30 million of public money is being given to this project despite the immense lack of clarity that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall has exposed, despite no clear end to the project, and despite very little financial and accounting responsibility and oversight.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I completely take on board my hon. Friend’s point. Does he agree that, by all means let us have vanity projects, but let us have them when we have done the bread-and-butter stuff? In my constituency, we have got £10 million for a major link to the port and railway, but meanwhile tens of millions of pounds are being spent on these vanity projects.

[Christian Matheson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall’s excellent exposé has revealed, we are not even sure how much this vanity project will cost. I simply ask the Minister for some clarity: does he believe that this £30 million is—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on securing the debate on this important topic. I am sorry that I am not my noble Friend Lord Ahmad, whose responsibility this is in the Department for Transport, but I understand that a meeting has been arranged and that she will be seeing him shortly.

I recognise, as do the Secretary of State and all my ministerial colleagues in the Department, that the garden bridge is a subject that divides public opinion—it is dividing opinion tonight on Benches just a few feet away from each other. Its supporters argue passionately that it will be an iconic and beautiful addition to the London cityscape, while its opponents argue that it is an unnecessary eyesore and that no public money should ever have been put into it.

Let me start by explaining why the Government decided to support this iconic and novel project in the first place. The previous Mayor of London was approached some years ago with an idea for a completely new type of bridge: a footbridge that was also a park, and a place where people could cross the river as part of their journey or stop and enjoy the surroundings and wonderful views of London and the river. The Mayor and Ministers at the time considered that this could be an innovative and iconic project for our city, but they did not—they still do not—consider that the project should be wholly funded by the taxpayer. However, they agreed to help with some funding to kick-start the project and stimulate private sector funding. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore announced in the 2013 autumn statement that the Government would provide £30 million towards the project as long as the Mayor contributed a similar amount, and as long as there was a satisfactory business case to show that the project would deliver value for money for the taxpayer.

The Garden Bridge Trust and Transport for London produced a business case in early 2014, which the Department for Transport analysed carefully in exactly the same way as it does for any transport project. The analysis showed that while it was a highly unusual project and one with a wide range of possible benefit-cost ratios, there was a reasonable chance that it would offer value for money for the taxpayer. We therefore agreed to release the £30 million of funding that had been pledged by the Chancellor, but importantly we attached several conditions to our funding, including a cap of around £8 million on the amount of Government money that could be spent on pre-construction activities, which was designed to limit taxpayer exposure in the event that the project did not proceed. A requirement was also included for TfL to draw up a detailed funding agreement with the trust governing how the money would be used.

Over time and in response to requests from the trust, the cap on the Government’s exposure was increased in stages to £13.5 million as circumstances changed and as it became clear that more money was needed to get the project to the point at which construction could start. The trust then asked the Government earlier this year to underwrite the project’s potential cancellation costs. Let me be clear that that was not a request for additional funding; instead, it was a request to be able to use some of the £30 million that we had already committed to pay the project’s cancellation costs should that be necessary. Without such an underwriting guarantee, the trust said that the project could not continue. After careful consideration, the Department agreed in late May to provide a time-limited underwriting guarantee but, again, with various conditions attached, including a requirement for the trust to provide more regular reports to the Department on the status of the project and the steps that it was taking to address the risks.

Over the summer of this year, as a result of further delays to the construction timetable, the trust asked whether the underwriting guarantee could be extended beyond the September deadline. The Department agreed last month that it could, but in such a way that the risks are more fairly shared between the Government and the bridge’s private sector backers. To be precise, the Government will now underwrite £9 million of the cancellation costs, should they arise, with the private sector required to underwrite any such costs above that level. The Government therefore continue to support the project and wish it well, but we have made it clear to the trust that not only public money should be at risk should the project fail.

The challenge now for the trust is to focus its efforts on getting private sector backers to take on some of the risk. We have also reiterated that the Government have no intention of putting more than the £30 million originally pledged into the project—that is a cap.

[Peter Dowd]

Will the Minister tell us whether the first tranche of the cancellation costs will be picked up by the taxpayer or by the private sector?

[Andrew Jones]

My understanding is that it would be a joint undertaking, but I will check the detail of any financial arrangements and report back to the hon. Gentleman.

As I was saying, the bridge must be predominantly funded by the private sector. As things stand, at least two thirds of the funding will come from private donations.

I understand that there are many concerns about the project, some of which I will talk about. The hon. Member for Vauxhall has already articulated a number clearly and in detail. The Garden Bridge Trust was set up in 2014 to manage the construction of the bridge. This experienced group of trustees has complete control over development and fund raising. The Department for Transport and TfL speak to the trust regularly to discuss progress and concerns. A significant amount of work has already been achieved on this complex project, which involves many different interested parties, and a huge amount of progress has been made. The land must be secured, permission to use the river obtained, and all necessary land planning conditions secured. A large ship, HQS Wellington, will also need to be moved. Those are all complex tasks that will take some time to achieve. There is still much work to be done before construction can start, but most issues are expected to be resolved soon.

Port of Liverpool: Road and Rail Access

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered road and rail access to the Port of Liverpool.

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate under your stewardship, Mr Chope. The port of Liverpool, which is primarily situated in my constituency and falls within Bootle and Seaforth, has a long history of serving this country in times of peace and war. Many buildings around the port hinterland still bear the marks and shadows of the bombing of the port in the May blitz of 1941. As we approach the 75th anniversary of the bombing, I pay tribute to everyone who served on or near the port in those dark days and to the people who were killed or injured, of whom there were many.

The port became a lifeline to these islands during the war in general, and during the battle of the Atlantic in particular. Between 1 and 8 May 1941, over seven consecutive nights, German planes dropped 870 tonnes of high-explosive bombs and more than 112,000 incendiary bombs around the Bootle, Litherland and Seaforth environs. Lord Haw Haw addressed the people of Bootle with the words,

“the kisses on your windows won’t help you”,

referring to the tape supposed to prevent flying glass. Unbelievably, only 10% to 15% of the properties in the town were left unscathed.

Thankfully, those days are gone, and we have much better, friendlier and more peaceful relationships with our European neighbours. During the dim recessionary days of the 1980s and for most of the 1990s, our connection with the European Union was a lifeline when the Government turned their back on us and talked of the managed decline of the city. I am pleased that those days are over, and I look forward to devolution gaining pace, which will enable us to run many of our own affairs rather than be run from this place.

That sets the context for what I want to say about rail and road access to the port of Liverpool. I am afraid that the degree of synergy, co-operation and collaboration among the various agencies responsible for transport has been woeful. I believe that the devolution process will help to address that lacuna. While Highways England pushes on with its assessment of the road links—new constructions or reconstructions—Network Rail appears to be taking a “mañana” approach to the need for significant investment in the rail links to the port. It seems to have put the rail freight connection in the “too difficult to do” box. Highways England is talking of anything between £120 million for a new road and £300 million for a realigned road being needed. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Network Rail has decided that £10 million in total over three financial years will do the trick. That is the sum of investment in the port rail infrastructure. To use a phrase much used in Merseyside, are they having a laugh?

Highways England has not covered itself in glory. It has shown a pretty grim attitude over many years to the people who have to live along the Dunnings Bridge corridor. The local authority and my councillor colleagues have had to fight tooth and nail, through their contractors, to keep the Dunnings Bridge corridor cleaned, to get its street lights sorted out, to get its gullies unblocked, to have the grass cut and to enforce standards on lorry drivers who feel free to use the lay-bys as toilets, among other things.

Highways England seems incapable of providing soundproofing to just half a dozen semi-detached houses that have no acoustic protection from the thousands of cars and lorries that pass through night and day. It spent huge sums on glossy leaflets and several million pounds on decommissioning a traffic island on the route to the docks, but it seems incapable of sorting out triple glazing or some other acoustic amelioration. I am afraid that the Government’s recent response to me on that matter does not instil confidence that this long-standing issue will be sorted any time soon.

For those and other reasons, many people in my constituency and beyond have little confidence in Highways England’s ability to get the road link from the M57 and M58 right. Will it listen to calls for significant tunnelling along either route—in the Rimrose Valley country park or the Dunnings Bridge-Church Road corridor? What other more or less radical plans will it consider? Have the decisions already been made? The devil is in the detail. The agency’s history of dealing with local concerns sets the scene for local communities’ levels of confidence in future plans and proposals.

At the mention of the building or reconstruction of major highways, Highways England’s lethargy dissipates and its energy levels grow, because they are sexy, big projects. Why would it bother with the routine things that affect people’s daily lives when it can pore over road plans and spend hundreds of millions of pounds to boot?

Many people in the area surrounding the port—or the docks, as it is better known—are suspicious of the local benefits that the expansion will bring. That will not come as a big surprise to most people in the area. People understand the regional, national and even international benefits, but they ask themselves what the local benefits for jobs and growth will be. They are sceptical. I do not share that level of scepticism. I believe that the port expansion will bring benefits to our community.

I have discussed the issue with many of my local councillor colleagues, including Councillor Gordon Friel, who is a councillor in that area. However, it is difficult to break through the scepticism when people believe the vast majority of port-related traffic will simply move in and out of the port along one or other road, and when the rail option, which most believe to be the most appropriate, languishes on a shelf somewhere, if indeed it has even been produced. The rail line I refer to is the Bootle branch line. It is about 7 miles long and runs from the west coast main line to the port. I use word “runs” loosely, because it is in a dreadful state. I will not take up Members’ time by setting out how dreadful it actually is—suffice it to say that it is.

We can compare that with the activity of professional rail aficionados, civil servants and the Government on High Speed 2 or Crossrail 1 and 2. We can compare the £16 billion spent on Crossrail’s 73 miles of track and 26 miles of tunnels, and the £30 billion projected for Crossrail 2, with the £10 million over three years that is to be spent on the Bootle branch line, which serves a port that is one of the largest in the country and expanding. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced £80 million just to start the planning for Crossrail 2—a staggering eight times the amount that will be spent on the actual works on the Bootle branch line. Crossrail 1 cost £210 million per mile of track, so recent announcements of £340 million for rail services across my region equate to only 1.5 miles of Crossrail 1 track. The figure for Crossrail 2 will be double that for Crossrail 1.

Before anyone suggests that Liverpool city region should be grateful, don’t bother. The Government need to reprioritise capital spending, of which the south-east, and London, in particular get the lion’s share, to other areas—then we might be grateful. I agree with Mayor Joe Anderson of Liverpool and my colleague Councillor Ian Maher of Sefton Council that we now need transformational funding. I have a cunning plan: to rename the Bootle branch Crossrail 3. By that measure we would get money thrown at it, and the Minister would be falling over himself to accommodate us—but perhaps the plan is not cunning enough.

All stakeholders agree that a multi-modal solution is required. The requirement to improve rail access has been talked about for decades. The last study before the recent Highways England assessment was in 2011. It concluded that there was spare rail capacity, but that the port facilities were a major barrier. Five years later, that issue has still not been addressed. In 2011, it was estimated that a modal shift to rail could increase the amount of freight carried by rail from 2% to 11%. In the 2015 study, it was considered too “ambitious” to use a 15% rail share, due to funding constraints and the ability to persuade freight hauliers of the advantages of rail. The study concluded:

“It is clear that any increase in rail freight beyond 24 trains per day will most likely require a new rail line to be constructed to the port and there are expected to be a number of significant issues associated with this”.

By the way, Crossrail 1 will have 24 trains per hour each way. I accept that we are not comparing like with like, but the point is well made for illustrative purposes. So there is a surprise: evidence of a mentality that, as I suggested earlier, wants to put the issue in the “too difficult” box, because no one will care, and in any event it is not London.

Network Rail therefore has no such plans in its programme. If the Government were serious about rail freight, other than getting to grips with Network Rail, they would increase the investment in rail network in and out of the port of Liverpool to ensure the maximum modal shift to rail, and provide incentives for freight hauliers to shift to rail and so avoid overly congested roads.

The Government gave the port operators a significant regional growth fund grant to expand the port, even though a feasible strategy to ensure that goods could be moved in a variety of ways was not in place. I am afraid that the chaotic, unplanned, uncosted, piecemeal approach to the port’s transport needs is creating tension and irritation in local communities and uncertainty across the board, with a perception, at the very least, that Governments—not just this one—have not simply taken their eye off the ball but never had it on the ball in the first place.

I am sure the Minister can see that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that economic development and growth is seen as being just as important in the Liverpool city region as anywhere else. Given that, a crumbs-from-the-table approach to the infrastructure needs of the port of Liverpool is just not good enough. It is disrespectful to social, economic and business communities alike. I therefore exhort the Minister to take a fresh look at the plans, or rather the lack of plans, that Network Rail has for non-road port traffic ingress and egress. He should also ensure that Highways England stops acting like a robber baron and treats my community with the respect that it deserves.

If you detect an air of irritation in my voice, Mr Chope, you would be correct. The Luftwaffe could not push Bootle, Litherland or Seaforth around, so Highways England and Network Rail have little chance, and they would be well advised to take that into account in their deliberations.