Transport

Richard Holden Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2023 Ministerial Corrections

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

The huge importance of local bus services to communities such as mine in Blaydon has been emphasised by a dispute between Go North East and its employees. I very much hope that a negotiated settlement can be reached quickly. Is not the reality that we need better, more streamlined franchising models to give communities a greater say on their transport offer?

[Mr Holden]

I am sure the hon. Lady, my neighbour, welcomed the news yesterday evening that Go North East and Unite the union have managed to reach a settlement in the north-east. That is quite good news. I am sure she will also welcome the £163.5 million that we have put into bus service improvement plans, which include the option to do bus franchising. This Government have been happy to make that available to all local authorities.

[Official Report, 26 October 2023, Vol. 738, c. 968.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden):

An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) in Transport questions. The correct response should have been:

[Mr Holden]

I am sure the hon. Lady, my neighbour, will, like me, welcome the details of the new offer from Go North East to Unite. It is good news and I hope that it will lead to a settlement. I am sure she will also welcome the £163.5 million that we have put into bus service improvement plans, which include the option to do bus franchising. This Government have been happy to make that available to all local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

1. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the cost of bus fares.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

The Government are investing nearly £600 million to introduce a £2 fare cap on single bus fares in England outside London. We had introduced it on 1 January 2023 to help passengers to save on their regular travel costs, but the Prime Minister announced recently that it would be extended until the end of 2024. Just this week, the Government also announced an indicative additional bus service improvement plan worth more than £13 million for West Yorkshire.

[Robbie Moore]

I warmly welcome the Government’s support, which is making bus journeys across Keighley and our wider area much more affordable. As a result of the bus service improvement plan, as from last month we have a new £1 zone in Keighley, making travel around the town much more affordable, with the K3 and K7 services becoming more frequent. Moreover, a single ticket for other journeys costs just £2, thanks to the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that this demonstrates that our Conservative Government recognise the importance of local, affordable travel links that help to support our communities?

[Mr Holden]

This Government certainly do. I thank my hon. Friend for raising our commitment to supporting bus services, not just in his constituency but right across the country. This is just a small part of the £3.5 billion we have invested in bus services, with much more to come, including our recent announcement of another £150 million for the bus service improvement plan from the money for Network North, starting next year.

The Department’s data shows that, between June 2022 and June 2023, bus fares dropped by 7.4% in England, outside London. Whereas in London, Wales and Scotland, where buses are devolved, fares have increased by 6%, 6.3% and 10.3% respectively.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Let me put this in context. In South Yorkshire, since 2010, bus passenger miles have dropped by 50%, which is a catastrophic fall in the use of our bus services. The cuts to services mean that many communities are now cut off completely.

When the Government came to allocate the recent funding, which is welcome, did they take account of the fact that South Yorkshire had previously had no BSIP funding whatsoever? Adding the current funding to the previous funding, South Yorkshire has had far less per passenger head than other parts of the country. Why have the Government so discriminated against South Yorkshire and my constituents?

[Mr Speaker]

I think you need an Adjournment debate.

[Mr Holden]

I would welcome an Adjournment debate on South Yorkshire buses, if the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) were to put in for one.

I spoke to the Mayor of South Yorkshire just this week, and he said that the authority will need around £8 million next year to put back all the services that have been removed over the past few years. In our Network North allocation, it is getting £67.8 million next year. On top of that, he is getting another £3 million in BSIP funding next year. With all the extra cash this Government are providing, he should be able to provide exactly what the hon. Gentleman suggests. That is in addition to the “Get Around for £2” fare scheme, which will benefit any of his constituents who can use a bus.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

2. What comparative assessment he has made of the economic impact of Network North and the second phase of High Speed 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to support bus services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

Using the savings from HS2, we will extend the £2 bus fare right across England until the end of December 2024. This means that the Government have committed over £600 million to cap bus fares. We have also announced that the Government will continue to provide increased financial support to community transport operators, to help them protect key services by uplifting their bus service operator grant by 60%.

[Anna Firth]

I thank the Minister for that reply, and for his recent visit to Southend West. He is very aware that last year, elderly residents were left stranded, literally overnight, when First Bus withdrew the No. 21 service, cutting them off from Southend Hospital, from Leigh Broadway and from many community groups. Despite successfully working with First Bus to reroute the No. 3 bus, this is not good enough; it only runs once every two hours. Will he meet me and First Bus to make sure that Southend City gets the best bus services possible?

[Mr Holden]

I was delighted to visit my hon. Friend, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge). I would be very happy to meet her and representatives from First Bus. Her work to champion her constituents’ local transport needs is second to none. I was delighted to see that that additional piece of bus funding of almost £1 million from central Government to Southend to help protect and enhance local bus services is going through, but I will happily meet her to see how we can best ensure that it is spent in a way that protects her residents.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

It is not possible for people in Tamworth to reach Burton hospital by bus if they need to do so. Will the Government commit to supporting Labour’s take back control Bill, which will devolve the running of bus services to local authorities, so that bus routes that communities need can be delivered by the people who know where they are needed most?

[Mr Holden]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. This Government have put in unprecedented amounts of support for bus services, including £150 million for the midlands and the north in the past week alone. The Bus Services Act 2017, which we passed, allowed franchising to be expanded across the country. It is this Government who are delivering on that greater reach for local authorities, whether it is via franchising or enhanced partnerships. I urge her to speak to the county council in her region and try to get it to allocate some of that money to support local services. This Government are putting in the money, but it is up to the local authorities to deliver.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

On Monday, the Government pledged to deliver 25 million more bus miles, but what they failed to tell the public was that this was just a drop in the ocean, compared with the 175 million bus miles that they have slashed over the past five years. In fact, never before on record have bus routes fallen by as much as they have over the past year, and this from the same party that promised buses so frequent that we would not need a timetable. Does this not show that, while the Tories and their broken bus system remain in place, communities will continue to see this record-breaking decline in the bus services on which they depend?

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Member does not seem to recognise the facts of the situation. There have been huge amounts of extra cash going in, whether that is through the City Region Sustainable Transport Settlement that we are seeing right across the country—in some cases, that funding is being tripled for some local authorities—or the bus service improvement plan. On the statistics that those on the Labour Front Bench trot out, the one they seem to forget is that, in Wales, bus services have declined by more than twice as much in terms of mileage than the rest of the country, and it does not have the “Get Around for £2” fare scheme or any of the other support that the Government in England are putting into services, because it is making the wrong decisions.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

6. If he will take steps to establish a mass transit system in Leeds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

9. What recent discussions his Department has had with the Home Office on tackling speeding in rural areas.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

My Department takes road safety for all road users, including those using rural routes, extremely seriously. We are currently considering how best to address the specific safety issues that may arise on parts of the local rural network. As part of our work on road safety, my officials regularly meet Home Office officials to discuss issues of mutual interest. I also recently met my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire to discuss these and other matters relating to road safety, including more ways to tackle drink and drug driving.

[Duncan Baker]

On the subject of speeding and rural safety, the entry into one of my primary towns in North Norfolk—Sheringham, a tourist town on the Norfolk coast—has a fast-flowing road that is becoming more and more congested year after year. What it really needs is a roundabout, which the Minister knows all about. All in my community support it. Unfortunately, the county council does not have the money—not as much as the Minister now has, certainly. Could he please find me a funding pot to bid into to build the Sheringham roundabout?

[Mr Speaker]

Come on, Minister!

[Mr Holden]

My hon. Friend is a real champion for a Sheringham roundabout; in fact, he has dragged me there to visit the A148 junction with Holway Road. I was delighted to do it, and I will be happy to go down and see it again. I understand that Norfolk County Council is continuing preliminary design work and confirming costs and planning requirements, which should put Norfolk in a strong position to make a bid. Although there are no immediate sources for this specific scheme, I encourage the council to continue to work with the safer roads fund, because a new opportunity will arise next year.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

10. What steps he is taking to support motorists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

T4.   Some 75% of visitors to Bournemouth travel by car. They are most welcome, particularly when they do not park on double yellow lines, but some are choosing to do so for a great day by the sea. They are willing to pay the £35 charge, which obstructs local traffic and, indeed, the emergency services. If someone parks on a double yellow in London, the charge is £65. That is a real deterrent, so can the London charging rates for parking on yellow lines please be extended to Bournemouth?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I recently met with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Sir Conor Burns) and some members of the local council, and this issue is something I would be happy to discuss further with him.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Imran Hussain—not here.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T3. By the time we next meet for Transport orals, it will have been more than three years since the Government consultation on pavement parking closed. Are we ever going to see a Government response, or is it time that the Government came clean with disability groups and admitted that they have put this issue in the “too hard to do” pile?

[Mr Holden]

It is certainly not in the “too hard to do” pile—it is something we are looking at. It is one of the biggest responses we have had on any issue, with tens of thousands of responses, so it is only right that the Government take our time to ensure we get the position right. In the meantime, any local authority across the country can put in place a traffic regulation order and ensure those changes happen on a local level.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

T5.   Potholes and road repairs are a key concern for many of my fellow Gedling residents so I warmly welcome the recent announcement of over £8 billion of spend on potholes. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that money will be spent where it is needed most and outline how much of it is coming to the east midlands?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I certainly am delighted to praise Dudley Council for its new approach, spending that money wisely but also implementing preventative measures for the future. Well planned road maintenance is essential, and on 4 October the Prime Minister announced that Network North would include £8.3 billion for local highway maintenance right across the country. The allocations of that cash will be announced very soon to help Dudley, but also every other council right across the country, to ensure it has the highest quality roads.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not quite sure that answer was as linked as it should have been.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Heavy goods vehicles cause a disproportionate number of cycling deaths. To cut the number of deaths of cyclists by illegal freight operators in other places, will the Department look at the successful London scheme and encourage partnerships between local authorities, the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency and police forces to address this problem?

[Mr Holden]

I am always happy to look at measures to improve road safety, including the measure the hon. Lady has suggested. I regularly meet the head of the National Police Chiefs’ Council on this, as well as the police and crime commissioners’ lead. We have already updated the highway code to put that priority of road users there, but I am happy to look at any measures we can implement to further this.

[Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Nottinghamshire submitted a levelling-up fund bid for a new Toton link road, but narrowly missed out. The project is desperately needed to ease congestion and unlock the huge potential in my constituency of Broxtowe and our wider county. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss this £40 million, ready-to-go project, especially as the east midlands has the lowest amount per head spent per year on transport?

[Mr Holden]

With the extra £1.5 billion in the CRSTS announcement coming to my hon. Friend’s new mayoral combined authority, I am sure there will be plenty of opportunities to look at really important road schemes, but I would also be delighted to meet him as soon as possible.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

When a memorandum of understanding on HS2 to Scotland was agreed by the then Transport Secretary, Philip Hammond, HS2 planners claimed that reducing journey times between Scotland and London to three hours could boost passenger numbers by 4 million and increase rail’s share of passengers making that journey from 29% to 75%, reducing air travel emissions. What is the Secretary of State’s new prediction for rail passenger numbers making that journey?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

The huge importance of local bus services to communities such as mine in Blaydon has been emphasised by a dispute between Go North East and its employees. I very much hope that a negotiated settlement can be reached quickly. Is not the reality that we need better, more streamlined franchising models to give communities a greater say on their transport offer?

[Mr Holden]

I am sure the hon. Lady, my neighbour, welcomed the news yesterday evening that Go North East and Unite the union have managed to reach a settlement in the north-east. That is quite good news. I am sure she will also welcome the £163.5 million that we have put into bus service improvement plans, which include the option to do bus franchising. This Government have been happy to make that available to all local authorities.

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)]

The reopening of the Skipton to Colne railway line, which is about 11 miles of missing track, will be fundamental in linking Lancashire and Yorkshire back up. Will the Minister consider progressing this line to the next phase of the rail network enhancements pipeline, which includes drawing up a full business case for reinstatement? Will he meet me and Members including our right hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) and our hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) to discuss it further?

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

In answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the bus Minister, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) said that the Mayor of South Yorkshire had asked for £8 million to restore bus services. In fact, the Mayor asked for £8 million to restore bus services to 2022 levels—so just restoring those cut in the past year. Will the Minister take this opportunity to look again at the level of funding that South Yorkshire requires?

[Mr Holden]

That is exactly what they said, and that is exactly what I said, too. As I said, we are seeing not only £1.6 million this year, but £1.6 million next year, and almost £8 million on top of that, but that is to ignore the huge amount—half a billion pounds—of city region sustainable transport settlement funding going to South Yorkshire for this period, which will almost triple for the next period, too. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady can shout at me from a sedentary position, but the truth is that she is just adopting our new position. It is not really opposition anymore; it is just “adopt the Government’s position”, including on HS2.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

When do Ministers anticipate being able to give LNER the go-ahead to extend the King’s Cross-Lincoln services through to Cleethorpes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. While the Tories get excited about “Get around for £2”, under 22s in Scotland get around for free, because their fares are funded by the Scottish Government in a strategic paradigm shift to get people modal-shifting over to public transport. Will the English Government provide that same support to commuters in England, or are they too proud to follow Scotland’s lead?

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Gentleman could do well to recognise that fares in Scotland are up by over 10 % on an annualised basis, whereas in areas of England they are falling. There is also no fare cap in Scotland for those over the age of 25, whereas my constituents—many of them in low-paid work or looking to go to work and get jobs—can get a £2 bus fare. On a recent visit to Scotland, I saw people paying £8 or £9 to travel between some major towns. Actually, the Scottish Government would do well to follow the English Government’s example.

Motoring Executive Agency: Business Plans 2023-24

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2023 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

I am pleased to announce that shortly following Prorogation we will publish the 2023-24 business plans for the Department for Transport’s motoring agencies—the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) and the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA). This has been delayed by up to a month for data clarification.

[HCWS1100]

Merchant Shipping: International Obligations

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2023 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my noble Friend Baroness Vere of Norbiton, has made the following ministerial statement:

I am making this statement to fulfil obligations relating to the implementation of amendments to international merchant shipping requirements into UK domestic law. Where amendments to international instruments are being implemented in UK domestic legislation by way of ambulatory reference, the Secretary of State has undertaken to publish information on those amendments by way of a parliamentary statement to both Houses of Parliament in advance of those amendments taking effect in the UK.

Provision for ambulatory reference is included in certain domestic secondary legislation to enable amendments to international obligations which are referenced in the legislation to be given direct effect in UK domestic law. This has the effect that where the legislation refers to an international instrument, such as a provision in a convention or a code forming part of that convention, this reference will be ambulatory—i.e. it is a reference to the most up-to-date version of that provision or code in the international instrument. This use of ambulatory reference means that agreed amendments to international conventions and codes can be automatically implemented through the application of such an ambulatory reference provision in secondary legislation.

The development of an ambulatory reference approach in relation to international maritime instruments is a key step in ensuring that the UK keeps up to date with its international maritime obligations. Amendments to international maritime instruments, for which the power is used, generally relate to technical requirement. Implementation in this way is only possible where those amendments have been made in accordance with the amendment procedure set out in the international instrument to which the UK is a party.

This statement details three sets of amendments to international instruments which will enter into force in the UK by way of the ambulatory reference provisions in the relevant domestic regulations.

The first amendment relates to damage stability in cargo ships—specifically, the requirements for watertight doors. The International Maritime Organization (IMO), having noted inconsistencies in provisions for watertight doors in the mandatory requirements for cargo ship construction, agreed amendments to the relevant international instruments to align these requirements. The international convention for the safety of life at sea, 1974 (SOLAS), the main international instrument governing maritime safety, remains unchanged and all other relevant instruments are amended to better align with SOLAS. These amendments harmonise existing requirements rather than introduce new requirements.

To achieve this harmonisation, annex I of the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, 1973 (MARPOL) is amended to better align the requirements for watertight doors on oil tankers with the requirements of SOLAS. IMO Resolution MEPC.343(78) makes this amendment. This will enter into force in the UK on 1 January 2024 by way of the ambulatory reference provision in the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 2019.

Resolutions MEPC.345(78) and MSC.526(106) amend the international code for the construction and equipment of ships carrying dangerous chemicals in bulk (IBC code) to better align the requirements for watertight doors on chemical tankers with the requirements of SOLAS. The IBC code is a mandatory code under both SOLAS and MARPOL. This amendment, as made mandatory by MARPOL, will enter into force in the UK on 1 July 2024 by way of the ambulatory reference provision in the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk) Regulations 2018. The amendment as made mandatory by SOLAS will be implemented when new regulations—the draft Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Harmful Substances) Regulations 2024—are made but will not take effect until the international coming into force date of 1 July 2024.

Resolution MSC.492(104) amends the international code for the construction and equipment of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk (IGC code) to better align the requirements for watertight doors on gas carriers with the requirements of SOLAS. The IGC code is a mandatory code under SOLAS. This amendment comes into force on 1 January 2024 and will be implemented when new regulations—the draft Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Harmful Substances) Regulations 2024—are made, making the requirement to comply with the IGC code ambulatory.

Resolution MSC.491(104) amends chapter III of annex I to the 1988 load line protocol in order to better align the requirements for watertight doors on all ships with the requirements of SOLAS. This amendment comes into force in the UK on 1 January 2024 by way of the ambulatory reference provision in the Merchant Shipping (International Load Line Convention) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.

The second amendment is also made by Resolution MSC.491(104) and makes a minor editorial correction to regulation 22(1 )(g) of chapter III of annex I of the 1988 load line protocol to remove an erroneous reference to “inlets” in a table setting out acceptable arrangements for scuppers and discharges. This amendment will enter into force on 1 January 2024 by way of the ambulatory reference provision in the Merchant Shipping (International Load Line Convention) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.

Thirdly, amendment is made to annex II of MARPOL, which makes provision for the prevention of pollution by noxious liquid substances carried in bulk by sea. Resolution MEPC.344(78) amends appendix I of annex II to update guidance used in the categorisation of liquid chemicals. This amendment subdivides the rating for inhalation toxicity to make it more relevant for shipboard operations, deletes an outdated rating for seafood tainting and reassigns the column to rate flammability flashpoint. This does not change current pollution categorisation of noxious liquid substances nor impact on any substances already classified in the IBC code. The amendment will enter into force in the UK on 1 November 2023 by way of the ambulatory reference provision in the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution from Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk) Regulations 2018.

Further information and guidance on all amendments referred to in this statement will be available on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS1098]

High Speed 2

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the planned route and delivery of High Speed Rail 2.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

Before I begin, I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) for her service in government, and to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Jacob Young) and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) on their elevation.

Spades are already in the ground for HS2 and we remain focused on its delivery. The Minister for rail and HS2, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), is in the Czech Republic today to sign a memorandum of understanding with the Czech Government and tomorrow he will be in Poland to attend TRAKO, supporting UK rail supply chain companies at a major European rail trade fair. For that reason, I am responding on behalf of the Government. Construction continues in earnest, with about 350 active construction sites, and we are getting on with delivery, with high-speed rail services between London and Birmingham Curzon Street due to commence in 2033, with the re-scoped stages following. This will specifically drive the regeneration of 1,600 acres, delivering 40,000 homes and supporting 65,000 jobs in outer London. The benefits of HS2 for Birmingham are already being realised; the area around Curzon Street station is already becoming a focal point for transformation, development and economic growth. The Government provide regular six-monthly reports on HS2 to the House, and we will continue to keep the House updated on the project.

[Louise Haigh]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question, but if the rail Minister is not available, you would think that the Secretary of State would be bothered to turn up to the House on an issue of this importance.

Here we are yet again: 13 years of gross mismanagement and chaos coming home to roost. First, the Government slashed Northern Powerhouse Rail; then they binned HS2 to Leeds; then they announced that the line would terminate at Old Oak Common for years to come; and now it looks as though they are considering cutting the north of England out in its entirety. If that is true, what are we left with? We are left with the Tories’ flagship levelling-up project that reaches neither the north of England, nor central London: the most expensive railway track in the world, which, thanks to terminating in Acton, will mean a longer journey between Birmingham and central London than the one passengers currently enjoy. What started out as a modern infrastructure plan, left by the last Labour Government, linking our largest northern cities will, after 13 years of Tory incompetence, waste and broken promises, have turned into a humiliating Conservative failure; a great rail betrayal—£45 billion and the least possible economic impact from the original plan, £45 billion and the north left with nothing. But frankly, what else would we expect from a Prime Minister who does not travel through the north of England on rail? He only ever flies over it. Today, communities and businesses do not need yet more speculation and rumour from the heart of this broken Government—they need answers.

Will the Minister urgently explain if the photograph leaked last Friday reflects his Government’s position to slash phase 2 altogether? Will he confirm the commitment his boss made in this House just a few months ago that high-speed trains will reach Manchester by 2014? Are his Government planning for trains to terminate at Old Oak Common for good, detonating the business case and overwhelming the Elizabeth line? Having run our economy, our public services and our railways into the ground, will the country not now conclude that this is proof, once and for all, that the Tories can never be trusted to run our country again?

[Mr Holden]

In response to the hon. Lady’s question, the Secretary of State is on urgent ministerial business with other Government Departments.

At the Department for Transport, we were delighted to see the hon. Lady survive the recent shadow Cabinet reshuffle, albeit she appears to be shadow Secretary of State for Transport in name only, as that job now appears to be covered by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). Even the Liberal Democrats caught the hon. Lady napping this morning by putting in their urgent question request before she did.

Only yesterday, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East said on “Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg”:

“I want to see what this costs and we’ll make those decisions when it comes to the manifesto.”

That came only two days after a leaked Labour party policy document said that the Opposition are committed to

“deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail and High Speed 2 in full”.

There was no mention of how they will pay for that combined £140 billion spending commitment—same old Labour. While the shadow Chancellor tries to talk up Labour’s “ironclad discipline”, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) goes around the country, promising hundreds of billions of pounds of unfunded spending on rail alone.

We cannot trust a word they say on transport spending, immigration or housing. All have unravelled over the last week, as the Labour party says one thing and does another: on immigration, an open door for Europe’s illegal immigration; on housing, backing the blockers not the builders. [Interruption.] This House will remember the report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies back in May—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I granted the urgent question so we could hear the answer, so less shouting. Carry on, Minister.

[Mr Holden]

The House will remember the report by the IFS in May, when its director said that it was hard to see how the Labour party could bring forward any further policy without tax rises, and that Labour’s plans would increase inflation and drive up interest rates. But this Government, under this Prime Minister, have made it a priority to halve inflation by the end of the year. That is why I am proud that buses have introduced a £2 fare to help hard-working families with the cost of living, which the Labour party has not done during the 25 years it has been in charge in Wales.

This Government are getting on with delivering on rail. We have delivered 1,200 miles of electrification over the last 13 years, compared to a pathetic 63 miles under the 13 years of the last Labour Government.

There is more to public transport than trains. Over the last 10 months, I have been around the country supporting new road schemes funded by this Government, from the A303 to the Preston western distributor road. Some £500 million has been invested to protect bus services across the country, while we have delivered on our commitment for 4,000 zero-emission buses. Last week, I announced new funding for HGV truck stops; meanwhile, Labour has expanded ULEZ in London and banned road building in Wales, as well as putting a 20-mile-an-hour speed limit right across that place. [Interruption.] I am proud that this Government are—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister could have made a statement. I did not have to grant the urgent question, so please bring statements forward—I will always support you.

[Mr Holden]

I am proud that this Government are unashamedly on the side of the taxpayer, checking the impact on the motorist, HGV drivers and bus passengers of every single policy that is put forward. Ministers will continue to keep the House updated regularly on HS2, as we have done today.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

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

While one should always take with a pinch of salt newspaper speculation in advance of budgets as to what may or may not be in them, may I put on record that if what has been reported is true, it would be an enormous false economy? Whether people support or oppose HS2 in principle, starting at Old Oak Common and finishing at Birmingham would not realise the full benefits of the line and communities will have been enormously impacted for no great benefit. Old Oak Common does not have the capacity to handle all the services and just a couple of weeks ago Network Rail, in its West Coast South strategic advice, noted that even with HS2 to Manchester, the west coast mainline will not have the capacity in the decades to come. Will my hon. Friend take the message to the Treasury to either do it properly or not to do it at all?

[Mr Holden]

I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for his comments. I shall certainly take that message away with me.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I hope the Minister has had time to calm down and perhaps take a breath after that astonishing performance. In attacking Labour on costs, he seems to be admitting what we all know, which is that phase 2 is an utter shambles—financially, operationally and politically. First, it was the north-east and Yorkshire that were let down by this Government on HS2. Now it seems to be the turn of the north-west, let alone Scotland and Wales. In a similar timeframe to that of HS2, Spain has managed to install 624 km of high speed rail for a fraction of the cost. This includes tunnels and bridges through far rougher terrain than that which HS2 passes through. Since June 2018, 233 kilometres of this track has come into operational use. What we have is a gold-plated commuter line of just 100 miles between two cities on the south of this island costing nearly £50 billion, while the rest of the country is expected to fight for scraps from the table. When Philip Hammond was Transport Secretary he gave commitments on HS2 infrastructure reaching Scotland, but that infrastructure is barely getting to the midlands. Can the Minister tell me in which decade HS2 infrastructure will actually get anywhere near Scotland? How does any further cancellation, postponement or watering down of HS2 commitments fit with the so-called levelling-up strategy and when will Wales receive its rightful share of Barnett consequentials?

[Mr Holden]

I thank the Member for his question. As he will know, this Government have delivered more than 1,200 miles of electrification—over 20 times the amount delivered in the 13 years of the last Labour Government. I would also say to him that, just last week, I met my third Scottish Transport Minister in 10 months and they did not mention HS2 at all.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the High Speed Rail Bill Committee.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It should not surprise people that building a high-speed railway line on a very small island through large, populated areas with lots of infrastructure was always going to be complex and expensive—that should be a surprise to nobody. If these decisions are taking place, may I ask my hon. Friend to remind his colleagues in the Treasury that HS2 also delivers important connectivity infrastructure for Northern Powerhouse Rail, connecting Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, and, perhaps the greatest city of the north, Hull. I urge him to remind his colleagues who may be looking at this of that important fact.

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend and other colleagues for the work that they did on the Select Committee. I will, of course, take that message back to Treasury colleagues.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give an unambiguous answer to this question: is this Government still committed to building HS2 to Manchester from Euston? People in the north need to know whether they are being abandoned, because it looks like that to me from press reports, which have not been made up by journalists. Is it not the case that the Minister is fronting a Government who will not dare tell the electorate that they are abandoning the north?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

There is no question of this Government abandoning the north. We have put in huge amounts of funding, including on buses and new roads. I was in Preston a few weeks ago to open the new Preston Western Distributor road. The Government are hugely investing in the north of England—on rail, on roads, and indeed on our important bus network. As I said earlier, Ministers will continue to update the House regularly on HS2, as we have done throughout.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

Even when this project had arms and legs and eyebrows going across the whole country, it was always accepted that the business case was very weak and that, as a nation, we cannot really afford it. I hope the Government do scrap HS2 north of Birmingham and save many more communities from the human misery that my constituents endure every day of the week from the construction. If they do scrap it, it would leave the quite literally legless stump from outside central London to outside central Birmingham. Will my hon. Friend take the message back to his colleagues and to the Treasury that we cannot afford it and that what is left of phase 1 should be scrapped as well.

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Spades are already in the ground for HS2, with over 350 active construction sites, and with high-speed services between London and Birmingham Curzon Street due to start between 2029 and 2033. However, I will pass on his comments to Treasury colleagues, as always.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Frankly, it is a real shame that we have to put up with an ill-prepared office junior instead of the boss, because these are really significant decisions. Let us be clear: the case for HS2 was always flawed, but ballooning construction costs and changing business travel patterns post covid now make it unsustainable. I understand that it would be hugely embarrassing for the Government, and for the Minister’s Department, to write off somewhere between 10 billion and 15 billion quid, but surely that is better than spending £100 billion on this ill-fated project.

[Mr Holden]

I thank the right hon. Member for his thoughts; I will take them back to Government.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

My constituents have been through absolute misery for 13 years now, ever since the hybrid Bill first started and they tried to defend their own area. Unfortunately, HS2 has not provided continuity of support, has not provided good customer liaison and has not provided proper compensation. People have been made miserable, and their mental health has been severely damaged by this project. They deserve the right answer: is this project going ahead or is it not? My constituency looks like an industrial site right now.

[Mr Holden]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. Spades are already in the ground for HS2, as she well knows, and we are focusing on its delivery. There are already over 350 active construction sites right across the country, including in her constituency. It is going ahead.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

HS2 faces death by a thousand cuts. We Liberal Democrats are firmly behind HS2, but the Government’s catastrophic handling of the project’s delivery has meant that the Infrastructure and Projects Authority now rates it as “unachievable”. What will the Government do to fix this mess?

[Mr Holden]

I find it very interesting that the hon. Lady says that the Liberal Democrats are firmly behind HS2, because that is not what their candidate for Mid Bedfordshire said earlier today, or what the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) said just a few months ago.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

We had a meeting about HS2 with the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), a few weeks ago. It was a very good meeting, led by myself and other Members of Parliament, and various options were put forward. I pay tribute to Trevor Parkin in my constituency for all his work on the matter.

Can we have a straight answer about this white elephant? Will there be a continuation of the line from Birmingham to Manchester, or not? Will the Minister be good enough to let us have a proper analysis, in line with all the reports that have come out showing that, unless the entire project is radically changed or scrapped, it will continue to be a white elephant? People in my constituency have been suffering for far too long, to no good purpose.

[Mr Holden]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has had great engagement on the issue from the Department and from the rail Minister. As I have said, Ministers will continue to keep the House updated regarding HS2, as they have been doing. I am sure that when the rail Minister returns he will be happy to have further such conversations with my hon. Friend.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

When will High Speed 2 arrive in Manchester?

[Mr Holden]

Ministers will continue to keep the House updated regularly regarding HS2, as they have done to date. As we all know, the first stages are set to be completed by 2033, linking London with Birmingham.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

As a member of the Bill Committee, I have had the good fortune to visit a number of sites involved in the construction of HS2, so I appreciate what a major project it is and how many people are involved. Companies up and down the country are reliant on the project for the continuation of their business. The future of hundreds of jobs and businesses depends on it. Can the Minister give an assurance that that will be taken into full consideration in discussions with the Treasury?

[Mr Holden]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. There are thousands of people working on site at the moment, with more than 350 construction sites up and down the country, and companies will be updated. Even from today this project will last well into the 2030s, if not beyond, so those construction jobs will be secure for a long time.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Minister said that the Government are hugely investing in the north. For Hull, the decade of northern powerhouse saw a privately financed scheme to electrify our railways blocked by Ministers in 2016 and, in the Government’s 2021 integrated rail plan, blocked for the next 30 years. Funding apparently was needed for Northern Powerhouse Rail and HS2, which are now being cut. Levelling up is not just about being nice to northerners; it is about boosting an essential part of the UK economy. Am I right in thinking that in these ever-shrinking plans we are just seeing the economics of mismanaged decline and an inbuilt vicious circle of stagnation under this Government that is affecting the north?

[Mr Holden]

I remember using Northern Rail under the last Labour Government, which had a zero investment strategy for the railway network in the entire north of England. This Government have already delivered more than 1,200 miles of electrification, 20 times what the right hon. Lady’s party did when they were in government. She should also look at the huge amount of investment we have put into bus networks right across the country, including in Yorkshire, over the past few months.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

May I remind the House, journalists and the Chairman of the Transport Committee that the area under discussion is beyond phase 1? It does not end in Birmingham—it goes beyond Birmingham and then joins the west coast main line at a place called Handsacre, just by Lichfield. If HS2 is abandoned at that point, high-speed trains can still run down from Manchester and join the high-speed line at Handsacre. Does that not make good economic sense? Will the Minister please pass that on to the Treasury?

[Mr Holden]

My hon. Friend is quite right; that is exactly what would happen in that scenario. I will pass on the point he makes to the Treasury.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

HS2 has just applied for planning permission for works to enable Old Oak Common station to serve as a temporary terminus. “Temporary” previously meant the 2040s, but now it means forever. The works proposed block the eastern access to the station—just one example of a total lack of coordination. Will the Minister commission a report on the implications for HS2 of Old Oak Common’s being the London terminus?

[Mr Holden]

Old Oak Common itself will deliver regeneration of 1,600 acres of London, delivering more than 40,000 homes and supporting 65,000 jobs in outer London. The Government will continue to update the House if anything else changes with HS2.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

In order to unlock economic growth and power up northern productivity, our region must have improved connectivity, both to our capital and through a Northern Powerhouse Rail connecting our cities across the North. Our country will only be truly levelled up with our connected northern region reaching its full potential. Uncertainty around phase 2 is unhelpful. I urge my hon. Friend to consider the importance of northern infrastructure commitments to businesses across the region.

[Mr Holden]

As a northerner myself, I certainly take note of my hon. Friend’s comments and I am sure they will have been heard across Government as we reflect on the future.

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell my constituents when they will be able to board a high-speed train from Manchester to London?

[Mr Holden]

As I have outlined, the Government will update the House, as we have done consistently, on HS2. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on what is already being delivered, with 350 construction sites already across the country and thousands of jobs. There is a huge amount of transport investment going on, and it is not all about rail. Greater Manchester has received more than £1 billion of city region sustainable transport settlement, which includes potential rail investment.

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

HS2 is behaving outrageously by not paying my Stafford constituents on time. It is unacceptable that affected residents are paying outstanding bills on behalf of HS2—for their agents’ fees, for example—in order to have representation. Will the Secretary of State for Transport please write to me to clarify that HS2 will treat all my residents fairly, and that we expect compensation claims to be paid in a timely manner?

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I will certainly pass on her request to the rail Minister and the Secretary of State, and I will raise it personally with HS2 Ltd.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The Government’s excuse for denying Wales our fair share of HS2 funding is that the phase 2 connection at Crewe would cut journey times between north Wales and London. We can now only conclude that the Government are planning to scrap the phase 2 connection altogether. Welsh taxpayers are funding this fiasco and getting nothing back. Will the Minister admit that HS2 is an England-only railway project and that his Government owe Wales money?

[Mr Holden]

I do not think the right hon. Lady is reflecting on what the Plaid-Labour Government are currently doing in Wales: costing taxpayers billions with their ridiculous across-the-board 20 mph scheme, and not delivering for the people of Wales. They are even banning any form of new road programme across all Wales.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

It is sometimes right to ask our constituents to take local pain for national gain, but does my hon. Friend agree that the national gain of HS2 has always been argued to result from its being a network of high-speed rail lines, not a single line? If it is a single line, are we not in danger of the national gain being extraordinarily limited, and the local pain, including to my constituents, being extraordinarily extensive and long lasting?

[Mr Holden]

A huge amount of work is already going on with HS2 at the moment, creating tens of thousands of jobs and supporting more than 1,700 apprenticeships. There is a huge amount of benefit, right across the country, to the investment going into HS2. I will pass on my right hon. and learned Friend’s broader comments to Ministers in both my Department and the Treasury.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Is this not an example of a very bad national planning process? HS2 does not link up with HS1; all the pain and disruption around Euston will have been for naught; and if it is completed as far as Birmingham, all it will do is join an already overcrowded rail network. Surely we have either a high-speed network or nothing at all. The Minister seems unable to answer any questions at all.

[Mr Holden]

I say to the right hon. Member that a huge amount of investment is already going into HS1, which will deliver transformation, particularly at Old Oak Common, as I have mentioned, where there will be a huge boost to economic growth in quite a deprived area of London as well as that massive investment. I do not know whether he has been down to Curzon Street and seen the transformation happening in central Birmingham. I would have thought that jobs, housing and general prosperity were outcomes that he would welcome.

[Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)]

Let me start by correcting the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who said that the Prime Minister only flies over the north. He does not; he is a regular user of the Hitachi Azuma on the east coast main line.

For rail and for HS2, it is all about capacity: we need to get capacity into the rail industry. Certainly, in my Sedgefield constituency there was no investment in rail by my predecessors. Whether it is HS2 or regional rail—as with the Leamside line and Ferryhill station—delivery and certainty are necessary for supply-chain businesses. This constant change is not helpful. Will the Minister go back to his Department and encourage certainty and clarity, whether about HS2 or Northern Powerhouse Rail? We need certainty for everybody.

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his question. He is absolutely right: the Prime Minister uses those trains regularly—in fact, I think they are made in my hon. Friend’s constituency, or very nearby—to travel right across the country. I welcome my hon. Friend’s continued fighting for his constituents on rail and transport projects not just in his area but across the wider north and north-east of England. I shall take his comments back to colleagues.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

We have seen the Government give up on the eastern leg; we have seen them give up on connecting to central London; and we have seen the downgrading of Northern Powerhouse Rail. We are now seeing the Government give up on connecting to the north-west and Britain’s second city of Manchester. Why are the Government giving up on the north?

[Mr Holden]

As I have said in answer to other hon. Members, this Government have put unprecedented investment into our transport infrastructure right across the country. I have no idea at all what Labour’s policy in this area is: it seems to flip-flop from one thing to another daily, making hundreds of billions of pounds’ worth of unfunded spending commitments. We are a responsible Government who are going to make the right decisions in the long-term interests of the country, just as we have in supporting Greater Manchester and the Mayor’s new upgraded bus network, which we have been delighted to invest in over the past few months.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Having chaired the Select Committee on the first phase for 20 months, I always privately had the view that Old Oak Common was a more sensible place to stop, because the Elizabeth line runs straight through Old Oak Common and can deposit people from Heathrow into the city. As for anything to do with Euston, it is a very small site and horrendously expensive. However, the logic of the railway is that it does have to go to Manchester and beyond, otherwise it was not worth starting.

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I am sure that the Treasury, No. 10 and the Department will be listening to those wise words from somebody who served on the Select Committee.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Huddersfield is a proud railway town. Is the Minister telling my constituents and the rest of the country that this is an abysmal failure of the country—the country of Brunel and Stephenson, the pioneers of railway building? Is he telling us that the £100 billion was for nothing? Is that what he is saying today?

[Mr Holden]

No, I am not saying that.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, I am proud to host the UK’s fastest-growing ports in my constituency, and one of the things that those ports are investing in is more freight connections to transport more containers by rail, rather than road. Achieving the full potential of those connections absolutely requires HS2 to free up capacity elsewhere on the rail network, so will the Minister assure me that all the implications of any changes to the timetable for HS2 will be considered? It impacts on net zero, the demand on our road infrastructure, and where things will arrive.

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point—I was delighted to visit some of those freight services in her constituency with her just last week. Getting freight on to rail is obviously an important objective of the Government, as is supporting those on the road network, and I will ensure that that is taken into consideration in any future decisions that the Government take.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

What estimate has been made of the cost in contract litigation alone if the Chancellor were to conceive of scrapping phase 2 of HS2?

[Mr Holden]

What I would say is that the Government are putting a huge amount of money into stage 1 of the scheme. Thousands of jobs have already been created, as well as hundreds of apprenticeships, and it is going to deliver transformation to central Birmingham and to a deprived community in outer London. That is investment very well made in those areas.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

For the record, the roads Minister is a very good one, who has had to swap lanes today at short notice. How many of the HS2 stations will have ticket offices? Last Thursday in Westminster Hall, there was a train crash of a debate in which not a single Back Bencher from any political party backed the Government’s proposals. As many people have asked the Minister to pass on messages today, could I add one more, in all good faith? “You are under enough pressure on HS2 as it is. Do yourselves a favour and drop the bonkers proposals to get rid of our ticket offices.”

[Mr Holden]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments—he has always been a champion of our road network, and now he is a champion of our rail network as well. I will certainly take his thoughts back to the Department.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I used to live in Wigan in the north-west of England, and I am very disappointed for my family and friends who are still there that this project is not going ahead—disappointed, like the people in Swansea are disappointed that the electrification never got to Swansea. HS2 is an England-only project, so will the Minister stop talking down the Welsh Labour Government and give us what we are due?

[Mr Holden]

I do not need to talk down the Welsh Labour Government; they do it themselves. They talk down Wales constantly. They have introduced 20 mph speed limits costing tens of millions of pounds a year to the local economy. They are doing no road building—no M4, no Llanymynech bypass, nothing invested in the road network. The Welsh Labour Government have been in office for 25 years. They are not even delivering a “get around for £2” bus fare like we are doing in England.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

HS2 is already being built in Buckinghamshire, unfortunately, and it is no exaggeration to say that it is a blight on the lives of my constituents in Aylesbury. Just last Saturday, residents in Walton Court told me that HS2’s contractors are now working well outside their contracted hours. Normally, we would think that was a good thing, but it is causing massive disruption, especially from noise. Will the Minister make it abundantly clear to HS2 Ltd and its contractors that they must comply with the agreements they have made and minimise the harm and distress they are causing?

[Mr Holden]

My hon. Friend is a real champion for his constituents. I will certainly take the message back to HS2 Ltd and, if necessary, arrange a further meeting between him and the rail Minister to discuss the matter.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

For over a decade, I have been highlighting in this House how the Welsh taxpayer is being fleeced as a result of HS2. The spurious response I receive from Ministers is that north Wales will be linked via Crewe. Considering that it is highly unlikely that the line will make it north of Birmingham, is it not time for the British Government to ensure that Wales receives its fair funding for phase 1 of HS2?

[Mr Holden]

I just point out to the hon. Member that I think Welsh taxpayers will feel fleeced by the Welsh Labour Government, with the longest waiting lists in the country, no new road schemes and falling school standards right across the board. When it comes to it, the UK Government deliver better value for the Welsh taxpayer than the Plaid/Labour Welsh Government.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

Of course it is right that we discuss investment in our rail network in the north and the midlands, but we also have to have a discussion about East Anglia. Time and again, Ely North junction and Haughley junction have been deprioritised. Both those projects would cost a fraction of the cost of HS2 but deliver transformative benefits to the east of England. Will the Minister have discussions with his colleagues and the Treasury to see how we can get those two key projects back at the top of the agenda?

[Mr Holden]

I certainly will. I was delighted to be in East Anglia just last week at the opening of the new A11 road, where there has been £65 million of investment, and I have been delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency on multiple occasions, including to see the investment that is going into his local bus network. I will certainly pass on his representations on behalf of his constituents regarding Ely junction.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

We had great news a while ago when the Government said they would scrap the 2b arm of HS2, which would have devastated hundreds of homes across Rother Valley in Bramley, Wales and Aston, but many of those homes are still under safeguarding measures, meaning their owners are stuck in limbo. I know that the Government still want high-speed trains through the area, but the only financially viable way of HS2 getting to Leeds is by using existing track. Why is it taking so long to release the land when everyone knows and accepts that we will not be building a new track through Rother Valley to Leeds? Will the Minister release the safeguarding and release people’s homes?

[Mr Holden]

I know that my hon. Friend has raised this issue multiple times with the rail Minister. I will certainly take it back to the Department and discuss what can be done.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has received a number of challenging questions from Opposition Members about Barnett consequentials for HS2. Is he aware that the Leader of the Opposition does not support Barnett consequentials for HS2?

[Mr Holden]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. It is sometimes difficult to know what the Leader of the Opposition supports or does not support. We have had a three-way flip-flop in just the last few days. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), from the Opposition Front Bench, raised the fact that I am here today rather than the Secretary of State, given that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster seems to have a very different opinion from the hon. Lady about what is going on with Labour policy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.

Transport Infrastructure: Warrington

Richard Holden Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

It is always a delight to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter). He is a persistent campaigner on behalf of the people of Warrington South and the broader local community. I congratulate him on again securing an Adjournment debate and on speaking so passionately about the issues that affect his constituents in Warrington. Without doubt, he is an absolute local champion for the area. It is great to hear him acknowledge the championing of his community by my Department and the huge amounts of investment that we have made. I might even put him in touch with my communications team at the Department for Transport to see whether he can give us some pointers on how we can ensure that this Conservative Government get the credit for the tens of millions of pounds of investment that have been ploughed into his area.

I am particularly grateful for the opportunity to discuss transport in Warrington today. This Government understand the importance of transport to people and businesses, as it powers local economies across our country. Our levelling up White Paper, published last year, set out our plan to transform the UK by spreading opportunity and prosperity across the country, and bringing left-behind communities up to the level of more prosperous places. Transport is vital to achieve that end. It improves access to jobs and services, changes business location decisions, and helps to restore pride across our country. That is why we are investing in both local transport and major infrastructure projects to improve connections across our country.

I will touch on some of the investment in Warrington that my hon. Friend mentioned. This is one of the largest investments in any town by this Conservative Government. We have committed more than £16 million in the bus service improvement plan to supercharge the local bus network; £21.4 million in zero emission bus regional area funding to transition local operator Warrington’s Own Buses entire bus fleet to zero emission—I was delighted to visit the area in February to highlight some of that investment; and £10 million to develop the full business case for the Warrington western link road scheme—overall, we have made a conditional commitment of up to £142.5 million to deliver that scheme, subject to final approval. There has also been an allocation this financial year of £5.5 million to help Warrington support highways maintenance, pothole repairs and local transport measures; an additional £709,000 was announced this year at the spring Budget for pothole repairs.

Warrington has benefited more broadly from many different transport schemes, including the big plans that we have to transform rail across the north. In November 2021, we committed in our integrated rail plan to a £96 billion programme that will transform rail services across the north and the midlands. It is the single biggest rail investment ever made by a UK Government. This includes a Northern Powerhouse Rail network running from Liverpool to York and Newcastle, via Warrington; a commitment to a new high-speed line between Warrington, Manchester and Yorkshire; reinstatement of the Warrington Bank Quay station as a low-level station; and upgrading and electrifying existing lines between Warrington and Liverpool. Warrington Bank Quay station, in my hon Friend’s constituency, will also get direct benefits from the HS2-NPR connection there, including better regional services and better services into London. In addition, development opportunities in Warrington, including sites close to Warrington Bank Quay station, will be an attractive draw for local investment when combined with the connectivity improvements that we are planning. That builds on an over £1 billion investment, completed in 2019, that upgraded and electrified many railway lines across the north-west.

Let me turn to some of my hon. Friend’s specific points, particularly in relation to the Manchester ship canal and, importantly, the three swing bridges that serve the town centre. Warrington is a nexus of road, rail and waterways—historic waterways and crossings that echo the glorious industrial heritage of the region, which we both hail from. By its nature, it is an intricate network, and I understand just how disruptive it can be to communities when key arteries are out of action. The three bridges in question, owned and operated by Peel Ports, have served the town for over 130 years and, as my hon. Friend stated, are clearly in need of complete refurbishment. Recognising the dual purpose that the bridges serve—access for the local community and access along the Manchester ship canal for shipping—there will inevitably and regrettably be disruption that needs to be planned for and managed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his efforts to date.

On the matter of managing the impact of that disruption to the local highway network, it is for the local highway authority, Warrington Borough Council, to assess the needs of the local community, including residents, visitors and businesses, and to weigh up the options. I recognise that the bridges are outwith the local authority’s direct control. It is therefore vital that the local authority and Peel Ports work together as closely as possible to manage any disruption caused by the works. I understand that discussions between the local authority and Peel are ongoing, and I hope that a reasonable solution can be found so that the whole local community can benefit. I hope that they hear my hon. Friend’s plea today. I know that he will continue to campaign hard for something that both Peel and his local authority can come together on.

In order to help local authorities to plan effectively for managing their roads and to improve asset management, the Government have moved to a three-year funding settlement for local highway maintenance, amounting to approximately £915 million of capital funding per year. That funding covers us all the way through to 2024-25, and is some of the money that I hope the local authority might be able to use locally. Warrington Borough Council is receiving around £5.5 million of it this year, on top of the £709,000 in the Budget. It will be for Warrington to determine which aspects of its highways maintenance programme it wishes to prioritise. The council may want to look at how it can use some of its money, potentially working with Peel Ports, to look at the issues that my hon. Friend raises.

Turning to the support for local bus services, Warrington is rightly proud of its bus network, and the Government recognise the importance of local bus networks to ensure that communities can stay fully connected. We have provided over £2 billion across the country since the pandemic to help mitigate the impacts of the coronavirus, most recently through the bus recovery grant, which Warrington, along with most local transport authorities, benefited from. In May we announced a long-term approach to support and improve bus services, with an additional £300 million to support services right up until April 2025. That will be made up of two elements: £160 million provided to local transport authorities, including Warrington, through a bus service improvement plan plus mechanism; and £140 million provided to operators through the bus service operators grant plus. Given that Warrington operates its own buses, that BSOG will come directly to it. The flexibility for Warrington around the £16.2 million of BSIP funding that it received has, I think, been welcomed by all.

I must be clear that responsibility for the maintenance and care of bridge and road—particularly in a case such as this, where a road crosses a waterway and has commercial implications, and implications for local businesses and commuters—must fall to local parties to manage. I commend my hon. Friend on his efforts to resolve this locally. I will say a little more on that at the end.

On the Warburton toll bridge crossing, I am very much aware of the issues that he mentioned. The inspector’s report into the proposed Rixton and Warburton toll increase was received by the Department for Transport on 13 July. The report and all the documentation pertaining to the proposals will be assessed, with a decision issued in due course. I assure my hon. Friend, in answer to his question, that the inspector will look very carefully at its implications for local people.

As my hon. Friend knows, Warrington has been progressing the Warrington western link road scheme for potential Government funding as a large local major scheme. This scheme would provide a new 3.2 km link road in west Warrington, including a new high-level bridge over the Manchester ship canal, which people have been campaigning for, as my hon. Friend says, for a very long time. It would also look at other bridges, including over the Mersey, to better connect north and south Warrington and help to reduce the reliance on the swing bridges that were the focus of his speech.

In 2019 the Government made a conditional commitment of up to £142.5 million towards delivery of the scheme, bringing it into the large local majors programme, subject of course to an outline business case. That approval would come after the approval by my Department of a full business case for the scheme.

At the time, as my hon. Friend said, the total scheme costs were estimated at £210 million, with the council contributing £68 million and the Department for Transport £142.5 million. As I have already mentioned, £10 million has already been provided directly by the Department towards the development of that final business case. The council has informed my officials of the challenges that the scheme now faces from cost increases as a result of inflation—I understand that the potential funding gap has now reached about £57 million.

I am of course sympathetic to the challenges that local authorities face. I understand that my officials have asked the council for information from recent business case development for the scheme, to better understand the position and whether the strategic case for the scheme has been strengthened, including perhaps by some of the issues my hon. Friend raised in relation to the swing bridges.

However, I need to be clear that my Department’s policy for any scheme on the MRN/LLM programme—major roads network and large local majors—is that the potential funding contribution is capped at the point of the outline business case. However, we are continually willing to look at that, and I look forward to further conversations between my Department and the council to see whether the business case can be strengthened.

In answer to my hon. Friend’s question about the Manchester ship canal, we are always willing to look at historical issues and legislation. I urge him to write to me about it in detail so that I can give him a properly detailed response. Given that it is a piece of Victorian legislation, it would need to be looked at it in depth, due to the intricacies that it will involve and the many other pieces of legislation that will interact with it across Government.

In closing, I thank my hon. Friend again for securing this debate. I hope that I have reassured him and the House of the Government’s commitment to transport infrastructure in Warrington—not in words, but in the tens of millions of pounds that have already been provided, the more than £140 million that has already been ringfenced for the western link road and the huge investment in the rail network. I look forward to working with him on future plans and developments for Warrington, and I am sure that both Peel Ports and the local authority have heard his voice strongly, calling for them to come together and find a solution for his constituents and for Warrington. I congratulate him, as ever, on speaking up on behalf of Warrington in this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Transport

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2023 Ministerial Corrections

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Can I ask the roads Minister about the lower Thames crossing project? In particular, what steps is the DFT taking to ensure that companies such as Murphy Group respect basic workers’ rights to join a trade union when bidding for major transport contracts?

[Mr Holden]

The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who is the Minister for the future of transport, met Murphy Group this week.

[Official Report, 13 July 2023, Vol. 736, c. 491.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden).

An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris).

The correct response should have been:

[Mr Holden]

The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who is the Minister for the future of transport, met with Matt Palmer, executive director of lower Thames crossing, to discuss LTC this week.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

10. What recent steps he has taken with Cabinet colleagues to reduce disruption caused by roadworks.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

Roadworks are essential to ensure the safety and integrity of England’s highway network, and it is also essential that utility companies can install and repair the equipment on which we all rely. Some disruption is inevitable, but the Government have introduced several initiatives, such as Street Manager, to reduce that. Another tool, lane rental schemes, allows local highway authorities to charge works promoters for the time that street works and roadworks occupy the highway. Charges are focused on the very busiest streets at the busiest times, with the aim of reducing congestion.

[Nicola Richards]

The west midlands has great transport connectivity, but we are particularly vulnerable to congestion caused by roadworks. The works to replace the central barrier on a 7.5-mile stretch of the M42 are causing delays to my constituents and many others across the region. That work is clearly important, but it is vital that we minimise disruption. Please can the Minister outline what steps have been taken to ensure that these works are completed as soon as possible?

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I was in the west midlands just a couple of weeks ago visiting the RAC just off the M42. The scheme between junctions 3 and 4 to replace the barrier will provide increased safety to drivers, which remains our top priority. Once completed, the new barrier will require significantly less maintenance and repair after incidents, which will further reduce disruption for her constituents. To minimise disruption, National Highways has endeavoured to keep all lanes open to traffic and is utilising the longer daytime hours and good weather to complete the works as quickly as possible for her constituents.

[Mr Francois]

I thank the Minister for personally endorsing my “Can the cones” campaign and my associated Roadworks (Regulation) Bill, which has its Second Reading in November. One great frustration of modern life is spending ages crawling through a set of traffic lights at a contraflow to finally drive past a large hole in the road, immaculately coned off with no one doing any work on it. The Bill is designed to make it much more difficult for that to happen. Does the Minister have any good news at all that might help all of us in our constituencies to can the cones?

[Mr Holden]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent and continued work in this area, alongside his colleagues in Chelmsford, Southend and elsewhere in Essex. I am particularly pleased to see that he has already managed to persuade Essex County Council to move ahead with a lane rental scheme, and his regulatory reform suggestions are being considered by the Department. I hope to be able to update the House later in the year, because the progress that he has suggested is directly feeding into the Government’s general policy.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

4. What steps he has taken to improve infrastructure for cycling and walking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

6. What steps his Department is taking to support local authorities to transition to low-emission buses.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

Our policy has been to support the introduction of zero-emission buses, which will reduce emissions, support manufacturing and improve the passenger experience. The Government are committed to supporting the introduction of 4,000 zero-emission buses and achieving an all zero-emission bus fleet across the UK. I am pleased to inform the House that since February 2020, an estimated 4,200 zero-emission buses have been funded across the UK, including Scotland, of which 1,600 are on the road.

[Christine Jardine]

Lothian Buses, which covers my constituency, has removed 15,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide from its footprint, including by introducing several electric buses. Together with the tram and the low-emission zone, that is helping to reduce pollution, particularly in Corstorphine, which has one of the worst air pollution records in the country. Would the Government consider giving all local authorities greater powers and resources to franchise bus services and simplify the application system, to reverse the ban on local services setting up their own companies? How will the Government improve the measures already mentioned and introduced, as we fight to tackle what is still 25% of the pollution that we face every day?

[Mr Holden]

I thank the hon. Lady for her multiple questions. The Government have committed to look into municipal buses by the end of the Parliament. On devolution, we are happy to work with local authorities right across England and Wales on devolution settlements and what more can be done. I was delighted to visit Lothian Buses to see its fantastic red, white and gold livery right across the streets of Edinburgh and the wider region. I saw the excellent work it is doing on the ground, not just on local bus service provision but being a responsive service to the local community she represents.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

Low-emission bus rollout in Cambridgeshire is going good guns but, sadly, all in Cambridge. At the same time, the 36 bus, which connects the village of Thorney with Eye and Peterborough, will be axed by Stagecoach at the end of the month. So many people rely on that service in Thorney to go to doctor’s appointments, see family and friends and go shopping. Shockingly, the combined authority Mayor has known about the axing since May and has done nothing—squat. Can the Minister think of a better way to spend the millions given to the Mayor for bus rollout and to save the 36 bus for all those people who rely on it?

[Mr Holden]

My hon. Friend is a massive champion for his constituents across Peterborough. The 36 bus is clearly a vital local link. I encourage him to have those conversations with the combined authority Mayor. We have made the bus service improvement plan flexible to protect services. I will make representations to that end on his behalf. Hopefully, he and the Mayor can come to an arrangement to ensure that all the funding we have put into that combined authority area really benefits the people of Peterborough.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Government’s commitment to deliver 4,000 zero-emission buses by the end of the Parliament lies in tatters and is in the realms of fantasy. No creative counting can hide the fact that there are still only six buses funded through the zero emission bus regional areas scheme on the roads. Will the Minister come clean with Parliament and passengers, and admit that the Government will fail in spectacular style in their promise to deliver those 4,000 zero-emission buses on the road? Will the Minister also take the opportunity to exercise a little humility and tell us how many buses have been ordered—not funding allocated, as that does not mean anything to anyone? How many will be manufactured in the UK? How many will realistically be on the road by the end of the Parliament?

[Mr Holden]

If the hon. Gentleman had waited for a response to his written parliamentary question, which is coming later day, he would have noticed that 68 buses from the ZEBRA—zero emission bus regional areas—scheme are now on the road. He seems to have failed to realise that that is out of a total of 1,604 that are on the road, from out of the 4,233 that have been funded across the UK. He might want to ignore previous schemes, but it is very important that we look at schemes right across the country. On top of that, he asked how many had been ordered across the country: 2,464 have been ordered. We are making great progress towards the over 4,000 by the end of the Parliament. If he would like to provide some extra cash or outline a Labour policy that will do anything for bus users in this area, I would really love to hear it.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

7. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of ticket office closures on rail users.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

11. What progress his Department has made on delivering improvements to the Black Cat roundabout on the A1 in Bedfordshire.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

Following the dismissal of the recent judicial review, the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet scheme is due to begin construction later this year, with the open-for-traffic date planned for 2027.

[Richard Fuller]

I thank the Minister for that update. As he will know, with the closure today of the consultation on suggestions for the next phase of road infrastructure—RIS3, or the third road investment strategy—it makes a lot of sense for the Department to continue the momentum by now looking at alternatives to the three remaining roundabouts on the A1 in my constituency: Sandy, Biggleswade North and Biggleswade South.

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and it was a delight to visit some of his constituents not that long ago in Sandy to discuss this and Biggleswade roundabout on a route I use regularly. We will continue to keep all these schemes for the long-term improvement of our strategic road network under review. They are very important, particularly when it comes to road safety, and I look forward to having further discussions with him in future.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

12. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of changed patterns of rail travel on the planning assumptions for HS2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

What can the Government do about the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the police chasing drivers who have correctly sent in their forms after they have disposed of a vehicle and who then get notices of intended prosecution for a vehicle that they no longer own when they have done the right thing? It seems to turn on its head the principle of innocence.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. When a person disposing of their vehicle notifies the DVLA that they no longer have the vehicle, they are removed from the record and the DVLA writes to them. If the customer continues to receive correspondence relating to motor vehicle offences, they should contact the DVLA as soon as possible confirming that they are no longer the keeper of the vehicle in question. If he has any constituents with any particular issues, I would be delighted to take them up and look at them as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

Despite billions being invested in buses across the country and £31.7 million going specifically into Stoke-on-Trent, First Bus continues to cut routes, harming 21-year-old carers such as Charlie Preston in Chell who may now have to quit her job. This Government have done their bit—is it not time that First Bus does its bit?

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I was delighted to visit Stoke with him and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) to see what is going on. I urge the council to use that flexibility to work with First Bus to deliver a solution for all his constituents. We have put that flexibility in there and I hope that it uses it to protect his constituents.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

T4. The Government’s response to the Transport Committee’s report on the integrated rail plan was published at midnight, and the terms of reference for the study on the high-speed rail link to Leeds are expected imminently. Will the rail Minister tell us what this will mean for the railways in Yorkshire?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

T5. Now that social distancing is over, will the Secretary of State look into restarting the pilot of demand responsive buses that Ealing and one other London borough—a Conservative-run borough—were undertaking before covid pulled the plug on them, as his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), said he would do before being shuffled off?

[Mr Holden]

I would be delighted to discuss these matters with TfL at our regular meetings. All the decisions in this space are devolved to Transport for London as part of a £6 billion package, and I would be delighted to discuss the matter with the Mayor or the commissioner for transport at my next meeting with them.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)]

A passing loop on the South Fylde rail line would double the number of trains coming into my constituency every hour, facilitating the millions of people who come to Blackpool every year. Following the award of feasibility moneys to look at the project, will the Minister meet me to appraise the options?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

Yesterday, I chaired a roundtable with the freight sector, looking at the growing problem of theft from lorries in overnight lorry parks and service stations, which is costing the economy hundreds of millions of pounds a year. What is my hon. Friend doing with the sector to ensure that for the extortionate fees freight companies are charged, they get secure parking overnight?

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work in this area and across a number of areas in transport. We are looking in depth at driver welfare, including providing extra lorry parks and more secure facilities, and grants are due to be announced in the summer.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

T7. Can I ask the roads Minister about the lower Thames crossing project? In particular, what steps is the DFT taking to ensure that companies such as Murphy Group respect basic workers’ rights to join a trade union when bidding for major transport contracts?

[Mr Holden]

The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who is the Minister for the future of transport, met Murphy Group this week. The Government remain committed to the lower Thames crossing as part of the responsible decisions taken to help meet inflationary pressures and balance the nation’s books. We will be rephasing construction on the LTC by two years, as this will allow more time to take into account stakeholder views and to ensure that there remains an effective and deliverable plan that is in the best interests of taxpayers.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The roads Minister will know that the proposed £40-million junction 10A on the A14 at Kettering is crucial for the future prosperity of the town. Can he assure me that National Highways is working expeditiously with the Hanwood Park developer and North Northamptonshire Council to ensure that the project is delivered as soon as possible after 2025?

[Mr Holden]

I can provide my hon. Friend with that assurance. Having visited his constituency and met him near the project, I know how important it is to him. National Highways is working to do everything possible to see the project come to delivery.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T8. The buses Minister assured me a couple of months ago that he was prepared to work with the West of England Combined Authority to ensure “maximum flexibility” in how bus funding could be spent, but I am still struggling to find out how we can get the funding to reinstate commercially non-profitable but essential buses. Will he meet me so that we can try to get to the bottom of it?

[Mr Holden]

I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady. I met recently with the West of England metro Mayor, who has had £21 million in BSIP funding, which we have made more flexible. To date, he has looked at schemes including the birthday month travel scheme. I can see that she might not be as interested in that as some of her hon. Friends, but I would be delighted to meet her to discuss what more flexibility we could introduce to preserve buses in her constituency.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Following his recent meeting with Transport for London about its finances, can my hon. Friend update me on what financial modelling it has done on the impact of extending the ultra low emission zone and what account it has taken of the impact should that not go ahead?

[Mr Holden]

I met the acting chief financial officer and Seb Dance, the deputy Mayor for transport, yesterday. They informed me that the Mayor of London, in anticipation of falling revenues from ULEZ in the next few years, had asked them to investigate the technicalities of introducing road charging across London in the future.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

Last year, Shropshire missed out on bus back better funding, despite having some of the worst services in the country. That funding was hugely scaled back on a national level. Will the Minister commit to reinstating some kind of funding to give rural places the bus services they need?

[Mr Holden]

I have been looking into all bus funding across the country. The hon. Lady will know that Shropshire Council has had around £1.5 million of BSIP plus funding. On cross-border services, I have been working closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), who is doing a huge amount of work in this area, particularly between Shropshire and Wales.

A5036 Park Lane Footbridge Replacement

Richard Holden Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I thank the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for securing this debate on the replacement of the A5036 Park Lane footbridge. He is absolutely right that if it were in my constituency, I would be doing exactly the same as him. I have been doing this with the A689 in my constituency; we are looking at road safety measures at Crook and various other places where we have speeding issues. He is obviously doing his job as a constituency MP absolutely to the letter.

I will make a couple of general points before I address the issues the hon. Gentleman raised. Good transport connections are key to ensuring that road users use our transport network safely. They play a crucial role in supporting productivity, innovation and economic growth across the country. We have provided a series of devolution deals to mayoral combined authorities to ensure that transport connectivity maximises economic growth and supports thriving communities. The Government are fully committed to delivering our vision of levelling up the British economy, strengthening the bonds of our cities and unlocking England’s economic potential, particularly through the northern powerhouse, while ensuring that the Liverpool city region and the north of England play a key role in a resurgent economy.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the A5036 is an urban two-lane dual carriageway that widens out into three lanes at the current signal control junction at Park Lane and Park Lane West. It is the main access road to the port of Liverpool. We have had many discussions and debates about its potential. To the west of the junction, there was a pedestrian footbridge, which was the only crossing facility over the A5036 in the vicinity of the junction. As he said, it was at the heart of the community. National Highways was considering options for its removal as part of a broader look at structures that have been on our roads for decades and perhaps need upgrading or replacing. As he knows, the bridge was struck in October 2022 by an HGV, which resulted in its demolition, as it was deemed unsafe to try to patch it up.

Following that incident, the first priority of National Highways was to ensure that crossings could still be maintained on the road, so it installed a temporary, signal-controlled crossing for access to the west of the junction, next to the existing bus stops. National Highways has now completed the replacement of this initial crossing solution, with a signal-controlled toucan crossing for cyclists and pedestrians that has enabled the removal of the traffic management measures and temporary speed limits. That is a temporary solution, but because of the volume of traffic on the road, including the number of HGVs, it has been constructed to a permanent standard. However, National Highways accepts that the current arrangements have resulted in most pedestrians taking a detour from their usual routes in order to use the new crossing.

As I said, prior to the incident, National Highways had been considering options for replacing the bridge, which was far from ideal as it was accessed by a stepped ramp that provided really poor accessibility for vulnerable users, wheelchair users, motorised wheelchair users, mums with buggies taking the kids to school and other users. In considering the permanent options, National Highways has a duty to ensure that it invests money to deliver schemes that are safe and offer value for money. However, I can assure everyone that across all its activities, National Highways’ top priority, which it takes very seriously, is ensuring public safety.

As the scale of the works to replace the bridge has become clearer, the cost estimates have increased substantially, particularly when we reflect on the modern standards for access. National Highways is completing a review to assess the various options for providing a crossing point that will ensure that users can cross the road at this location safely. Junction improvements that provide signalised crossing points or a bridge are under consideration, but the full cost for those and the difference between the two will be outlined in the near future. I have had a word with National Highways and it will communicate the outcome of the review to local stakeholders within the next few months—I hope that it will be well before the end of the year—and it will also confirm timescales for the construction of any permanent solution.

Following that review, when the options with the costings have been put forward, I will be very happy to meet the hon. Member and National Highways, after they have had a preliminary meeting, to talk about any issues—if he is not happy with the solutions that National Highways comes forward with. I recognise that the outcome of the review will affect the community in Bootle, but it is right that we strive to reach a proper, long-term solution that is safe and delivers value for money. We will continue to work with National Highways to reach a solution and as it looks to communicate that in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Road User Charging Schemes

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Elliot Colburn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Characteristically, and as a former member of the London Assembly, he is absolutely right. Indeed, I imagine that our hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) may have been less supportive at the time if she had known that, only a few years later, the Mayor would be looking to cut the historic No. 11 bus route out of central London and her constituency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

I am sorry to intervene on my hon. Friend. I just thought it would be worth reflecting on the quote given by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson. Back in 2020, there was no proposal from the Mayor of London to expand ULEZ to the Greater London boundary, so whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who is not present, was saying in 2020—I am sure the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) let her know that she was going to mention her in Westminster Hall—was not in support of whatever Mayor Khan has put forward. It was not anything about what is being debated today because that was not the ULEZ proposal of Mayor Khan at the time. That is largely the point of some of the petitioners who have been in touch about today’s debate.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. We are not under any real time pressure, but can I remind right hon. and hon. Members that interventions should be short and to the point? They are gradually getting longer and longer.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, and that of Mr Stringer earlier. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for fulfilling his role on behalf of the Petitions Committee so eloquently and for opening the debate on road-charging schemes.

I wanted to pick up on a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South—

[James Daly]

North.

[Mr Holden]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly)—he is adopting part of Bury South in the boundary changes, which is what confused me slightly.

This area crosses multiple Departments: the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs leads on environmental legislation overall; the Department for Transport owns the enabling powers in multiple different spaces; and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities owns the powers related to the devolution settlements. Road charging cuts across many areas.

Before I get into my speech, I will pick up on a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), who spoke for the Opposition. She said that she did not put words into other people’s mouths, but I can categorically state that I have been in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and that she has never supported the expansion of ULEZ to the borders of Greater London. Given how the Labour party has criticised potential misrepresentations by Members on the Government Benches in recent months, it might be a nice idea for the hon. Lady, at some point in the very near future, to apologise for misrepresenting the views of my hon. Friend. The hon. Lady did not do her the courtesy of telling her that she would mention her in the House today.

I also want to pick up on a couple of points made by my hon. Friends from across the Conservative Benches. Kent, Essex, London, Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire are all represented in the Chamber, and all spoke with a united voice, reflecting on what is being done across the country. It was particularly interesting to see that no Labour Members are present. People going to by-election polls across the country will be interested to see that if they vote Labour, they will get absolutely no voice in this place, whereas with the voice of Steve Tuckwell, the Conservative candidate in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, who has opposed ULEZ consistently, people will know exactly what they get if they vote for him in the upcoming by-election.

Aside from party politics, it is important to talk about the petition. Devolving powers to local authorities is an important tenet of a democratic Government, giving power to those who are closest to and most knowledgeable about the local issues that they face. Devolution helps to drive local and national economic growth, better and more integrated public services, and enhanced public engagement and accountability—at least, that is the theory. Our existing Mayors already play an important role across the country, and the Government are committed to deepening those devolution settlements over time and building on the existing framework.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, the GLA Act 1999 was brought in after a referendum on the proposal for a Greater London Authority made up of an elected Mayor and Assembly, with 72% voting in support. In 2015, the first of the Government’s devolution deals was agreed and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority came into being. In 2022, we announced six further devolution deals, bringing devolution to people right across the country, with elected Mayors at their head. The deals mark a new chapter in English devolution. It is important to reflect on what that devolution means. It does not just mean devolving power and money; it also means accountability at a local level. That is what hon. Members have been talking about: people need to be accountable for the decisions that they make in local government.

One of the petitions proposes changing the GLA Act to remove a power from a directly elected Mayor. It is interesting that the petitioners know where the power lies but do not trust the person who is currently in the position to stand up for them. It is quite something when, rather than campaigning to change the person at the top, the petitioners are so concerned—as my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Bury North, and for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) said—about the impact that the policy will have on their lives, and those of their families and communities, that they want to remove a power, because they do not trust the people in those positions to represent them.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the Minister that he should be speaking through the Chair.

[Mr Holden]

Thank you for reminding me, Mrs Murray. I apologise for being discourteous to you.

Hon. Members across the House mentioned tackling air pollution—one of the biggest environmental threats that we face. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley highlighted Ella’s case. There is evidence of a link between very high, problematic air pollution and high mortality, but those living in our country can see what the Government are trying to do. We have already introduced the phasing in of electric cars and the phasing out of the internal combustion engine. We are doing the same for heavy goods vehicles and for our coach sector. Before the end of this Parliament, it will be very clear what we will do on the phasing out of the internal combustion engine in our bus network. We have invested in more than 3,400 zero-emission buses across the United Kingdom—very close to our target of 4,000 before the end of the Parliament.

That is what we are doing across the piece to deliver on our environmental objectives. We recently introduced two new targets beyond that for fine particulate matter in the Environment Act 2021. We have invested another £883 million to tackle air pollution in 64 local authorities where nitrogen dioxide levels were too high. Since 2010, we have awarded a further £53 million to English local authorities to support more than 500 local projects. As recently as 9 February, we announced the latest round of funding under the air quality grant scheme. London gets its own package, as my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) said, through the £6 billion that we have delivered to the Mayor of London for him to deliver on air quality locally. So we are not just talking about action; we are actually delivering it.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough talked about the Labour Government in Wales as a pioneer. They are pioneering in so many different ways. They have the highest waiting lists in the entire United Kingdom. They have the lowest employment across the United Kingdom as well. If they are the pioneers of the Labour revolution, we can all see what they actually stand for. They are not delivering in the same way as we are in England on multiple environmental policies. We are monitoring rivers up and down the country—something that Labour is not even looking at in Wales at the moment.

[Gill Furniss]

The Minister spoke a minute or two ago about investing in bus and rail services. I wonder why we have so much discontent throughout communities all over the country about the lack of bus services and the trains being unreliable. [Hon. Members: “Strikes and unions!”] Strikes, yes. In the end, what is the Government’s money doing? Does the Minister recognise that the cuts to local authorities have had a massive impact already? Whatever money the Government are putting in is nowhere near as much as the money they have taken out of local authorities.

[Mr Holden]

Before the pandemic, the Government were paying, through concessionary travel schemes and support through the bus service operators grant, around 40% of all the cash going into bus services in this country. At the moment, because we are supporting bus services as they recover from the pandemic, it is around 60%; £3.5 billion has gone into the bus network across the country.

[Gill Furniss]

It is not working.

[Mr Holden]

There have been no recent proposals from the Opposition Front Bench when it comes to actual cash. We have just approved a new plan of £500 million supporting bus services across the country, and a £2 fare cap. That is money that we have put in to support fare schemes in the combined authority areas, which I know Labour mayors up and down the country like to take credit for. That is money that the Government have been investing right across the country, whether in Greater Manchester or Greater London.

[Elliot Colburn]

Does the Minister share my confusion that Labour’s argument for ULEZ, advanced in this place and in our local areas, is that local authorities have been forced to do this, and that they do not want to? That is not what the Mayor of London is saying. The Mayor of London has written a whole book about how proud he is of the ultra low emission zone. Does my hon. Friend think that is really the best that Labour can come up with?

[Mr Holden]

I tend to agree with my hon. Friend. The Mayor put the idea of an expanded ULEZ in his manifesto, but it was not the expanded zone that we see today, which was only delivered by the votes of the Labour party, the Lib Dems and the Greens in the London Assembly. They voted to extend it right to the outer borders of Greater London, rather than what the Mayor of London had proposed in his manifesto.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough shouted at me from a sedentary position that whatever we are providing for the bus sector is still not enough. I would love her to tell me how much more we should put in. When I speak to Labour politicians at the moment, none of them can tell me. They have no plan. They are just an opportunistic Opposition. This Government have put more than ever before into the bus network. We have capped prices for working people, which is something the Labour party never did when it was in office. Right up and down the country we have put in the new bus service operators grant of 22p per kilometre, which now includes electric buses—something that was not the case just a few years ago. We remain committed to an end date for non-zero emission buses, and that consultation will be reported on soon.

[Mr Francois]

We have concentrated mainly on roads in this debate, but as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) introduced the topic, does the Minister agree with the simple proposition that our rail network would run much more efficiently if the rail unions stopped going on strike?

[Mr Holden]

I have to agree with my right hon. Friend. I was attacking on so many different fronts that I forgot to mention the elephant in the room, which is the continuing rail strikes by people who have been incredibly financially supportive of the Labour party over the years.

Although there is a huge amount more to be done, we can be proud that air pollution has reduced significantly since 2010. Emissions of fine particulate matter have fallen by 10%; transport emissions of nitrous oxide have fallen by 32%, overall nitrogen oxide by 45% and sulphur dioxide by 73%. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough might criticise a reduction of three quarters in the amount of sulphur dioxide and wish that we could go further. I want to go further too, which is why we are phasing out internal combustion engine vehicles. If she wants to go further, would she outline exactly how far and fast she would like to go?

The only statutory air quality limit that the UK is currently not hitting as fast as we would like is for nitrogen dioxide around our road network, but we are making massive progress there. Around 72% of the road transport emissions of nitrogen oxides comes from diesel cars and vans, which we are phasing out. If we are going to introduce a ULEZ across Greater London requiring £250 million of capital cost, which is going to be phased out anyway because of the fact that we will be moving, in pretty short order, towards electric vehicles, particularly in smaller areas, it seems to be particularly targeted—I think the Conservative speakers really picked this up—on those who use second-hand cars and who, because they cannot afford to buy new vehicles, will be running those cars for a long time. It is particularly pernicious to put those people at the front of the list.

[James Daly]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this scheme is targeted, like every single Labour policy, at the self-employed? This scheme unduly impacts self-employed people, who require transport to go out to work, so it is grossly unfair.

[Mr Holden]

There is absolutely no doubt that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The owner of a small business who literally carries the tools of their trade in the back of their van does not have other options. Even if people are not the owners of small businesses but are just commuting to work in a car or van, the Mayor has now hit them on the other side with a day travel card, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) said. In addition to those extra £50 million of costs, they are being told to use public transport and then told to pay an absolutely huge amount more for it, particularly if they are coming from outside the Greater London area. Again, that is a change that hon. Members have been reflecting on today. It means that the people affected by the change pay more but still do not have any say over the person responsible. That is part of the democratic deficit argument that Members have talked about.

I need to move on to local government powers around air quality. Powers enabling local authorities to introduce road schemes that charge users are of long standing. They can be used by local authorities to deliver what they want in their areas. There are no plans to revoke these powers, which are in the Transport Act 2000. They provide local authorities with an important tool. It is for local authorities to make decisions and to be accountable for those decisions.

We require local authorities to consult on these schemes. The Prime Minister has spoken at the Dispatch Box—I think it was in response to a question from one of the hon. Members here today; it might have been my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon)—on the consultation around the ULEZ scheme. The Prime Minister thought it would be a sensible idea for the Mayor of London to think again and I tend to agree with him. This scheme needs to be thought about again, more broadly.

These powers have been used by some local authorities in various areas, but what I would say to all local authorities across the country is that if they want to take people with them, they should not try to drive people out of using cars; they should provide better quality alternatives. It is particularly sad to see the Mayor of London reducing some bus routes, particularly historical bus routes, and not allowing that alternative when people really need it. I have pledged before to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) that I will speak to the transport commissioner in London about the No. 84 bus. I will see the commissioner in the next few weeks, and I will do so again.

The Government recognise the need to support a range of solutions across the board for individuals and businesses affected by measures to tackle air pollution. That is why we have already awarded £402 million through the clean air fund to some of the local authorities that face some of the most pernicious negative impacts of air quality that are also difficult to mitigate.

Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, transport in London is devolved to the Mayor and Transport for London. It is the Mayor’s responsibility to manage and oversee the transport network. This includes the power to create, or vary, road schemes that charge users, which is why the petitioners drafted their petition in the way that they did. It is up to the Mayor to determine and justify what he is doing.

The mayoralty in London has previously used those powers to introduce the congestion zone, the low emission zone and the current smaller ULEZ in central London. When the Mayor brought forward his transport strategy, which was voted on, it could have been rejected by the members of the GLA, but instead it was supported by every party in the GLA apart from the Conservatives. That is where the Mayor gets his ability to do this from.

[Gareth Bacon]

The GLA Act gives the London Assembly the power to accept or veto mayoral strategies, including the transport strategy, but only on the proviso that two thirds of elected members of the GLA agree on an alternative, which means that of the 25-member GLA, 17 would have to agree on the alternative. The electoral system for the London Assembly guarantees that no one party will be able to achieve that; Labour votes would have been required to achieve that. That is why the Mayor’s budget has never been amended and why no strategies have ever been amended. Does the Minister agree that that is precisely why the petitioners have put forward this petition today? The London Assembly does not have the effective power to veto the Mayor’s transport strategy, which is why the petitioners are calling on the Government to step in and do that.

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. What is particularly interesting today about Labour Members is how few of them are here. In fact, no Labour Back Bencher is here. I would be really interested to know why that is the case. It is clear to me that a few of them, secretly and in the background, would go against their party leader, the Leader of the Opposition, who is fully behind Mayor Khan’s plan for the massive expansion of the ULEZ. I think a few of them would like to speak up in that way.

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes and I will address it directly at the end of my remarks, if I may, but I think it is very important that we also say to people, “If you want change, then rather than trying to change the rules or the legislation in this place, you can change the person in charge of implementing them.” That is the most important message that we can send today, and a really important way of sending that message in the very near future is to deliver it in Uxbridge in the next few weeks—sorry, Mrs Murray, I digressed slightly there.

The mayoralty in London has previously used the GLA Act to introduce various measures, and there has been a significant reduction in nitrous oxide as well as particulates and other pollutants over the last few years, but that is due to improvements in engines as well as to other factors. The Mayor of London needs no agreement from the Government or the London boroughs to pursue his proposed expansion of the ULEZ under the current law, and although the current Mayor notified the Department for Transport of his intention to expand the ULEZ, he is not obliged by the legislation to consult the Department. At the last mayoral election, in 2021, the Mayor stood on a manifesto that included a pledge to expand the ULEZ to the boundary of the North and South Circular Roads; his manifesto did not say that the ULEZ would be expanded to the boundary of Greater London. To implement his preferred option of expanding the ULEZ, the Mayor had to revise his transport strategy, and this was subject to a consultation and a vote in the London Assembly.

The car is an important, and often the only, way for people to get around in their daily lives; the same is true of small vans. These vehicles are particularly needed for people who have limited mobility—another element to this issue that we all need to consider at the moment. People depend on their vehicles for food, for their health, for their livelihoods and to visit friends and family. They should be given a choice of how they travel. Imposing obstacles and doing so during a cost of living crisis is quite a blow to those who need their cars, who have no real alternative and whose choice is being removed. The Mayor could have proposed other, less intrusive measures to improve air quality in the capital, but he did not; instead, he and has chosen to expand the ULEZ. That is his decision, and he has the power to do it under the current law.

Before I conclude my remarks, I want to touch on the rest of the country, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North also raised important points. One area where we do recognise an emerging inconsistency is in the powers of local authorities to look at charging systems where the approach taken in London differs from those outside the capital. The judicial review of the Mayor’s proposal is being heard in July. At the moment, I cannot speak in much greater detail about that, aside from saying that the case will be heard on four grounds—it was two previously, before the recent appeal—including how the Mayor conducted his consultation, and his scrappage scheme. Clearly, it would not be proper to comment on that, but we have seen the difficulty that the inconsistency in local authority powers can create, with four London borough councils, alongside Surrey County Council, challenging the decision. It is important to recognise that. As many hon. Members have said, constituents being impacted without their having the ability to change the Mayor is a real issue.

Outside London, combined authorities have their own locally agreed decision-making processes. For road schemes that charge users, powers are typically held by combined and local authorities, and some degree of local authority agreement is required to introduce schemes. That is separate and different from the situation in Greater London. Two decades on from the re-establishment of the mayoralty of London, it is right that the Government take stock of how London’s devolution settlement is operating in practice, which is why the Government are committed to reviewing the London devolution settlement as part of the English devolution accountability framework more broadly.

I am not in a position today to announce any change to the Government’s position on this issue—it is more proper for Ministers in other Departments to fully reflect on it—but I recognise the strength of feeling not only of hon. Members present but of the petitioners. I commit to raising the concerns expressed during the debate with ministerial colleagues.