Road User Charging Schemes

Debate between Richard Holden and Elliot Colburn

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Holden and Elliot Colburn

Thursday 24th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Holden]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question; I will certainly meet her. I know how important bus services are, and I will also be meeting, hopefully in the near future, local authorities across the north-east so that we can hopefully deliver that £163 million for them as well.

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

Two thirds of Londoners have said no to the Mayor of London expanding the ultra low emission zone to the whole of Greater London. Will my right hon. Friend join me and Conservative MP colleagues to tell the Mayor of London that it is not for the poorest Londoners to foot the bill for his financial failures?

[Mr Holden]

As I said earlier, how to respond to the consultation and proceed is a matter for the Mayor to consider. I know that my hon. Friend has had a massive campaign on this issue, with over 5,000 people getting in touch with him about ULEZ. If hon. Members really want to see this policy changed, the best thing they can do is replace the Mayor of London at the next election.

Covid-19 Vaccines: Safety

Debate between Richard Holden and Elliot Colburn

Monday 24th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Elliot Colburn]

No, I see nothing to concern me about the independence of the MHRA. Indeed, I saw a group of anti-vax protesters outside the House today, holding up signs saying, “Vaccines kill,” and, “Would you not believe that pharmaceutical companies kill?” It seems a bit of a strange business model for a pharmaceutical company to kill off everyone it is trying to administer a vaccine to. I have seen absolutely nothing to concern me that the MHRA has any problems with independence.

For previous vaccines, we have had to wait for a full package and for each stage to be finished before moving on to the next stage. That is one of the reasons that the covid-19 vaccine was developed at such speed; corners were not cut, but the model was changed.

Pfizer and BioNTech fed the MHRA data to be assessed even before the final clinical submission in November 2020. Once it was submitted, scientific and clinical experts robustly and thoroughly reviewed it with scientific rigour, looking at all aspects, including the laboratory studies, the clinical trials and more. That included assessing the level of protection the product provides and how long that protection is provided for, as well as its safety, stability and how it needs to be stored.

On top of that, the MHRA has a range of experts inspecting the sites used across the whole lifecycle of the vaccine, from its initial development in a lab to its manufacture and distribution once approved. The inspectors work to legislation that incorporates internationally recognised clinical standards. The MHRA seeks advice from the Commission on Human Medicines, the Government’s independent advisory body, which critically assesses the data before advising the UK Government on the safety, quality and effectiveness of any potential vaccine.

I wish I could delve deeper into the specifics of how and why vaccines work, but we would be here all night and I do not want to duplicate the work that has been done in other debates. Nevertheless, I hope I have managed to demonstrate succinctly the rigorous scientific testing that occurs prior to a vaccine being distributed in the UK. However, the main premise of much of the literature that has been distributed about the impact of the covid-19 vaccine and the nationwide roll-out needs to be looked into. As part of its statutory functions, the MHRA continually monitors the use of vaccines to ensure that their benefits continue to outweigh any risks. This monitoring strategy is continuous, proactive and based on a wide range of information sources, with a dedicated team of scientists reviewing information daily to look for safety issues or unexpected events.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a good speech. My constituent Gareth Eve lost his wife Lisa Shaw when she was only 44, as a result of the AstraZeneca vaccine. He is not an anti-vaxxer. Although the debate is on the broad issue, does my hon. Friend agree that matters such as how families get compensation could be dealt with much better, even if he does not agree with a full public inquiry into the entire body of the issue? So many families, including that of my constituent, have been left waiting for that support for a very long time.

Fireworks: Sale and Use

Debate between Richard Holden and Elliot Colburn

Monday 8th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Elliot Colburn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to our attention. Would he pass on the Petitions Committee’s thanks to his constituent for his engagement with the debate? I will touch on that issue later.

I recognise and accept that there are strong views on both sides of the debate. The hon. Gentleman just used the word “killjoy”, and I was called that by a journalist just this morning. I confess that I sometimes find myself very torn, as I am sure many hon. Members are and will discuss later. I admit that I enjoy a good fireworks display. The Minister, who is my constituency neighbour, will know very well the amazing fireworks displays that have been put on in Carshalton Park by Carshalton Round Table over the years. Many people see fireworks as good fun and are not keen to see further bureaucracy come into their lives, preventing them from enjoying themselves. My natural instinct has always been against banning things, and I share concerns, which I know the Government have raised in response to the petition before, that restrictions could lead to a rise in black market sales and illegal usage and create problems with enforcement. I appreciate that a number of measures have also been undertaken, but I will let the Minister touch on those in his reply and not steal all of his material.

On the flip side, the petitioners’ arguments are incredibly persuasive. As I am sure we will hear throughout the debate, my dog Willow, like so many dogs, is absolutely terrified of fireworks. She spent most of Saturday night cowering and hiding in a corner. As we have heard from hon. Members, fireworks can also be incredibly distressing for people living with autism and for veterans suffering from PTSD. That is why many animal and veteran charities and organisations have echoed the petitioners’ calls for restrictions on sale and use.

I have also received a number of emails, as I am sure many colleagues have, with the most dreadful photos showing how letting off fireworks can go badly wrong, where people or animals have suffered horrific injuries or property has been damaged. After all, we must remember that fireworks contain combustible and explosive materials.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a particularly regional nature to the issue? In the north-east, in County Durham, we are one of the top two places in the country for arson and arson of vehicles. The knock-on effects of fireworks are not limited to those on animals, which are very serious, and to road safety and antisocial behaviour, but relate to some of the criminal issues he is highlighting, which can lead to real damage to people and property. Does he understand that that is probably one reason why my constituency was in the top 9% in the country in terms of respondents to this e-petition?

[Elliot Colburn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to my attention; if I did not understand before, I certainly do now. One reason petitioners keep bringing the topic back is the problem with the current enforcement measures, which are either not enforced properly or are insufficient to deal with the issue. After all, fireworks contain combustible and explosive materials. There are alternatives available; there are quiet or silent fireworks and even non-explosive things such as light-up drones.

I know the Minister will want to cover the existing legislation, enforcement and public awareness campaigns, so I will not steal his material. I will draw attention to the work that the Petitions Committee has done in the past in recognition of the strong public interest. This is why, following the three petitions that have been formerly debated in Westminster Hall, the Committee produced a report in 2019. I will admit that the investigation concurred with the Government of the time; introducing a ban or taking “drastic action” on the sale and use of fireworks was not supported by the Committee. However, it did make a number of recommendations to Government. In their response last March, the Government made a number of commitments. These included: instructing the Office for Product Safety and Standards to develop a fact-based evidence base; inviting stakeholders to share information that may not have previously been publicly available; better education and public awareness; engagement with animal welfare groups about proactive steps that pet owners can take; and a number of other points. On the first point, I understand that the OPSS has since published its evidence base. However, it would be useful to get an update from the Government on the commitments they made in response to the report, and the progress that has been made since.

Given the significant interest in this area of policy, as evidenced by the regularity with which we come here to debate this topic in Petitions Committee debates, I wondered whether the Government have considered a larger exercise in gathering public opinion and consultation. I am sure we will hear more from our colleagues in the Scottish National party about the Scottish Government’s two consultations in the area since 2019. That work north of the border has led to the establishment of a firework review group, whose recommendations are being considered by the Scottish Government following a second public consultation. Will the Minister speak to his opposite number in Scotland and consider undertaking a similar public engagement exercise better to understand public opinion and inform policy in this area?

It is clear that the issue is not going to go away any time soon. There is significant public interest and strong views are held on all sides; I would be very surprised if we were not back here next year debating the issue once again. I look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions and the reply from the Minister about the action that has been taken. However, for the reasons I have given, the status quo does not appear to be tenable. I do not think that is fair that we continue to come here year after year, have the same debate and repeat the same arguments. I would argue that that could erode public trust in the Petitions Committee system, which is designed to give people a voice in this House. It is not fair to the petitioners, or to the constituents who contact us year after year, that we just go round in circles without exploring the matter in greater detail. I believe that further work should be undertaken, and that it is to the public that we must look to find the way forward.

Through public consultation, the Government could better understand and engage with the concerns about the impact that fireworks have, particularly on animals, people with autism and those living with PTSD. There are also concerns about losing a source of enjoyment; there is a balance to be struck. I am sure that the significant number of people who took part in my survey—in just a few days and in uncontrolled conditions —demonstrates that if a proper public consultation was to take place there would be a significant amount of public involvement. That would allow the Government to do a full and detailed analysis of responses, which could inform policy going forward. Can the Minister take this suggestion back to his Department and report back to the Petitions Committee about whether such an undertaking would be possible? I appreciate many other colleagues want to speak, so I will bring my remarks to a close. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.