Rail Performance

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

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

The Transport Secretary’s statement is hugely welcome. Bringing privately owned train operating companies into public ownership as well as setting up GBR will inevitably add to her Department’s workload, so what preparations is she making to manage that additional workload?

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful that my hon. Friend is concerned about my work-life balance—so am I. We are staffing up the operator of last resort, as it is currently known—we will shortly change its name, as it will no longer be the operator of last resort—and the Department has significantly increased its capability. Under the previous Administration, no one in government took responsibility for the running of the railways. We are taking a very deliberately different approach and, as passengers-in-chief, we will ensure that both the operator of last resort and the Department are sufficiently staffed up to manage the quick and successful transition of franchises into public ownership.

Flight Cancellations

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

Last month, 18 flights between Belfast City and Heathrow were cancelled, and I can only imagine how difficult that must be for Members from Northern Ireland and their constituents. The previous Transport Committee, in its aviation reform inquiry, recommended that the Government revise the public service obligation routes and the subsidies to improve domestic air connectivity. Does the Minister agree that that is important to connecting Northern Ireland with the rest of the UK, and will he bring forward work on that?

[Mike Kane]

I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for the excellent work that she does in this field. Cancellations are bad for business, tourism and passengers. The public service obligation arrangements come up for renewal regularly, and I think that flight prices, connectivity and cancellations should be looked at in the round when we come to renew them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

The Government’s bus reforms are welcome, but rural areas such as Cornwall have perhaps the poorest bus services in England, as well as less well developed partnerships than, say, urban Greater Manchester. What plans do the Government have to ensure that rural areas in England can benefit from better bus services, as cities certainly will following the Government’s reforms?

[Mike Kane]

My hon. Friend is an incredible campaigner on transport matters, not just in her constituency but across the country. It is true that rural communities face different challenges, but the Government’s better buses Bill will enable local authorities to take back control of our buses and improve services, where they wish to do so.

Road Safety on the A1

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will turn to a potential solution that I plan to put to the Government on that exact point, but is it not horrifying that my local BBC went out to film on the A1 and, within minutes, they filmed an accident?

I want to see the review of central reservations conducted quickly and a commitment from the Government to invest in whatever recommendations are brought forward. I was pleased that, last year, I secured five safety upgrades to the A1 in my stretch, that we have seen those put in place and that they have made a difference, but I wrote again to the new Secretary of State requesting a meeting to discuss the A1 on the first day back. I am still awaiting her response, but I hope that the Government will, in turn, get used to replying to Back Benchers when we write to them.

I appreciate that the Government are in their infancy. Therefore, I have some complex but in some ways straightforward recommendations to make to them on the road networks. The first relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford made about population indexes. The communities I represent are overwhelmingly rural—I represent hundreds and hundreds of villages. Currently, the National Highways criteria for safety upgrades are based on the total number of fatalities that occur in the area, which results in these awful statements from residents such as “How many people have to die before something happens?”, or “Does someone have to die before there is action?”

The problem with that system is that it ignores the lower population densities of rural communities, such as yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. If an area has a dangerous junction or a junction where there is a high number of accidents, in a highly populated area, the number of accidents will be higher. Therefore, we need to take into account lower population densities, so that when we understand the number of fatalities and accidents that take place, the rurality does not play against the area and reduce the amount of support received. We need a new funding formula. I would like to ask for a rural population road index, where, essentially, the fatalities are considered per head of population and rurality to allow a fairness to come into systems, rather than urban areas always getting investment because they have a higher overall number of fatalities.

We also need improvements to specific junctions in the long term. Colsterworth, Great Ponton and the many Stamford junctions all need remedial works, but I know that that is difficult. National Highways has said that if the A1 were built now, the slip roads we have in our area would never be given permission to go ahead because they are that short.

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

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate and on the excellent work she has been doing in her constituency to successfully get modifications made on her stretch of the A1. She has referred rightly to the importance of physical changes to make these roads safe, and there are more people killed and seriously injured on rural roads than in urban areas such as my constituency. Does she not agree that the work that some local authorities have been doing over the years to address driver behaviour has also been important in addressing dangerous driving and changing driving behaviours, particularly at night and among young people? That is another way of addressing some of these issues, as well as looking at physical changes to the road layout.

[Alicia Kearns]

Yes, there is no doubt that unfortunately, driver behaviour is normally at the heart of accidents. It is very difficult to identify a genuinely dangerous road. I have sat down and looked at the data with the police, and unfortunately, even though we have some genuinely dangerous roads—my team will not drive on bits of the A1 because they believe them to be that dangerous—the majority of accidents in my constituency involve someone on their phone, eating food, doing their make-up or being distracted in some other way. We absolutely need to continue addressing driver behaviour.

One of the simpler measures that I ask the Government to bring forward would be low-cost and immediate, and would benefit our communities across the country. There is currently no bespoke sign to warn of short slip roads ahead anywhere in our country, and it would be transformational for communities such as mine if we were to introduce a new dedicated sign. While doing the school run with my son, I have to stop on slip roads every single day—it is not possible to continue driving because of the heavy goods vehicles and because of how short those slip roads are—so I ask the Minister to consider creating such a sign. Of course, I would ask for it to be trialled in Rutland and Stamford, but I think that trial would prove that such a sign would make a big difference.

I hope the Minister can understand my frustration that when I put in a written question on improvements to the A1, the Department for Transport responded that

“National Highways has completed a number of safety improvements to the A1…in recent years”.

Obviously I was aware of those upgrades, having secured them. The question was more about what was planned for the years to come, but I know that new Governments need time to get into place and come up with those plans. While those safety improvements have made a difference, we need more plans for what we could do going forward, because the A1 is such a key route between London and Edinburgh—a conduit for commerce, freight and people. Short slip roads, dangerous central reservations and poorly designed junctions put my communities at risk every single day. Therefore, I will briefly reiterate my requests, and sincerely hope the Minister will work with me to achieve them.

As I mentioned, the first is a new road sign to warn of short slip roads ahead and encourage traffic to move briefly into the right-hand lane. I also ask the Government to commit to deliver the conclusions of National Highways’ central reservation review when that work is completed, which will benefit hundreds of constituencies up and down the country. In the long term, I ask them to commit to safety upgrades to junctions of particular concern along the A1, and to change the formula for how National Highways directs safety investments to consider fatalities per capita, rather than in total, to reflect lower population density areas. Of course, the Minister is very welcome—although, having heard all of this, I doubt she will take up this offer—to come and drive the slip roads and central reservation crossings with me herself. Great Ponton is really quite something.

Not a week goes by when I do not receive a news alert about a serious accident on the A1. Every time, my heart pauses, and I have to hope it is not a fatality—that is how severe the accidents are. With my son’s school there, of course, I also first question who it is and whether I know the person involved. I genuinely believe the measures I have described could make a big difference to saving lives. Solving the problems of the A1 is the No. 1 ask of my residents. I hope I have given a mix of low-cost, immediate solutions that could be brought in—of course, the long-term solutions would make a tangible difference, but those immediate solutions would also make a difference. They would save lives, and I would be very grateful if the Minister would consider working with me on this issue over the long term.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I add my congratulations on your election. It is a pleasure to respond to the important points raised by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) during this evening’s debate. I congratulate her on securing the debate, and thank her for the opportunity to discuss the safety of road users on the A1. As a fellow east midlands MP, I have driven on many occasions on the section of the A1 she refers to, and I have some understanding and appreciation of the issues she raises.

Safety on our roads is of the utmost importance, which is why the Government have announced that they intend to publish a new road safety strategy, the first in over a decade. That work is already under way, and I look forward to sharing further details with the House in due course and engaging with Members from across the House as we develop that strategy. This is the second debate that the hon. Member has secured on this subject: she is undoubtedly a strong advocate for her constituents and for road users, campaigning extensively for improvements to this vital section of national infrastructure and to protect the safety of everyone who uses it.

Our strategic road network is the backbone of the country’s economy, with 4,500 miles of motorways and major A roads. It connects people, builds communities, creates opportunities and is a catalyst for the UK economy. Although it makes up only 2.4% of England’s overall road network, it is the most heavily used and carries one third of all traffic and two thirds of all freight.

Investment in our strategic road network is through the road investment strategy process, which has led to £17.6 billion being invested between 2015 and 2020 and more than £23 billion being invested between 2020 and 2025. The road investment strategy focuses on creating a road network that is safe, accessible and reliable for all road users, and that addresses its impact on all those who use it. We are committed to putting transport at the heart of mission-driven Government by transforming infrastructure to work for the whole country to unlock growth, promote social mobility, tackle regional inequality and support the transition to a net zero economy.

As the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford set out, at 410 miles, the A1 is the longest trunk road in the UK. It connects the two capitals of London and Edinburgh and all the communities along its length. It is one of the most recognisable routes on the network and plays a vital role in supporting our nation’s economy. With that integral role for businesses and motorists comes the challenge of balancing the strategic role of the road with local journeys and the impact of the road on local communities such as those that she represents.

The 72-mile section of the A1 between Peterborough and Blyth carries 20,000 to 25,000 vehicles every single day, as the hon. Member said, and nearly a quarter of those are heavy goods vehicles, which is well above the average for a similar-sized road. Much has already been done to improve performance, including modernising junctions and improving road alignment, but I recognise that the route still has its challenges. The number of collisions, particularly fatal collisions, is higher than the national average for an equivalent road, as she said, which demands examination and action.

That is why National Highways continues to invest significant sums into that section of the A1 to improve its safety performance. That investment has seen a number of immediate safety focused improvements at key sections and junctions, such as enhanced lighting and improved road markings and signage at specific locations along the route.

I was pleased to hear that the hon. Member recently met representatives from National Highways to discuss the key issues on this route. I am aware they will be arranging a visit soon to discuss the issues in more detail. I will ensure that my officials are informed of the specific outcomes of that meeting, and I look forward to receiving that feedback.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I congratulate the Minister on her appointment; it is a great pleasure to see her at the Dispatch Box. She talked about bringing in the road safety strategy—I am not sure whether that is the same as the long-awaited strategic framework for road safety that I was asking about previously.

National Highways had a commitment to think about active travel—people walking and cycling—for new junctions, particularly across junctions but also along some stretches. Given the way that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) described the A1, I can see that nobody would want to cycle along it, but I ask the Minister to consider incorporating active travel into the thinking for the new road safety strategy on major highways.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is an absolutely marvellous advocate for the benefits of active travel and the things we need to do to make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists. I recognise her point completely. I recently had to make a hasty dash, while out walking, across a major trunk road, and the point she makes is really important. We do need to look at how we ensure that pedestrians, cyclists and, indeed, horse riders are able to cross our major trunk road network safely.

I will also seek further information on the potential for signage relating to short slip roads, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford asked. Improving the safety of all road users will always be one of my highest priorities. As I have said, this Government are committed to reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. They ruin the lives of too many people and their wider families, but as road users, we all have a vital role to play.

I would like to take this opportunity at the Dispatch Box to remind everyone who is watching or listening of the fatal four. Tragically, most deaths and serious injuries on our roads are not the result of accidents. The causes are well known: speeding, using a mobile phone behind the wheel, not wearing a seatbelt, and driving under the influence of drink or drugs. Everyone taking to our roads should remember this before getting behind the wheel.

England’s motorways and major A roads are some of the safest in the world, but the longer-term ambition of National Highways remains that no one should be harmed while travelling or working on its network. Road safety is a shared responsibility, and it is important that we all recognise the part we can play as it cannot be achieved in isolation. National Highways is continuing its work with key partners, organisations and road users to help us collectively reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on our strategic roads.

I want to thank the hon. Lady once again not only for securing this debate and for the important points she raises, which I look forward to discussing further, but for her extensive work to bring together regional partners to push for improvements. I want to reassure her that I take this matter seriously and intend to continue this conversation to see what we can achieve to provide a positive outcome for road users in the short and long term.

Question put and agreed to.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

I marvel, as always, at the hon. Gentleman’s ability to find something of interest and relevance to the debate at hand. He is absolutely right to say that accessibility is far too often overlooked, and we made it clear in the plans we set out ahead of the general election that accessibility would be one of the key measures against which we would eventually hold Great British Railways to account. The way in which people with accessibility needs are treated by our public transport system is undignified.

The broken model that our railways rely on is holding back talent, holding back opportunity and holding back Britain. It must be fixed, and we are wasting no time in doing so. By amending the Railways Act 1993, today’s Bill will fulfil one of our central manifesto commitments: to bring rail passenger services into public ownership. It overturns the privatisation by the John Major Government and allows us to take action as soon as contracts expire, or earlier if operators default on their contracts. It is a sensible approach, ensuring that taxpayers do not fork out huge sums to compensate operating companies for ending contracts early. Public ownership will become the default option for delivering passenger services, instead of the last resort.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment as Secretary of State and thank her for bringing in this excellent Bill. Since coming under the operator of last resort, TransPennine Express, which had been one of the worst-performing rail companies, became the most improved operator, so will this Bill mean that passengers on South Western Railway will see the same level of improvement, and how long will it take?

[Louise Haigh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we have seen immediate improvements on bringing previously privately run operators into public ownership, but we can go further still, and that is the benefit of taking the two-pronged approach that I will set out later in my speech. She should be in no doubt that South Western will be brought into public ownership, as will all remaining contracts within the first term of this Government, and ideally within the first three years of this Bill receiving Royal Assent. We will act swiftly. I have no doubt that we will hear plenty of voices from the Opposition Benches labelling this an ideological move. Those accusations are way off the mark. There is nothing ideological about fixing what is broken and reforming what does not work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

The point I will come to is that the Opposition and I, as shadow Secretary of State for Transport, do not choose to take an ideological approach. The important thing is what works. If the hon. Gentleman will hold on for a moment and listen to what I am coming to, he will understand my argument.

I confess I may be a little jealous if the Secretary of State is too young to remember life under British Rail: the dusty carriages, the worn seats, the clonk and rattle of the carriage doors, and hours spent waiting on deserted platforms wondering if, let alone when, the trains would ever arrive, without any information available. Even the sandwiches were tired. It is no wonder that in British Rail’s nearly 50-year history, passenger numbers across the network actually went down. There was a reason why private provision was introduced into the rail network and why the previous Labour Government stuck with it throughout the 13 years they were in power: it worked.

Today’s railway is unrecognisable from that under British Rail, not despite privatisation but because of it. In the first 20 years, passenger numbers doubled, a point that Labour’s own Rail Minister, who now sits in the other place, made in his 2015 report as the head of Network Rail. The majority of that growth is attributable to the private sector’s involvement, and it was achieved while operating one of the safest railways in Europe. Billions of pounds of private capital has been invested in rolling stock; there is now live real-time information on services; and, instead of British Rail catering, passengers can now choose between the likes of M&S and Greggs.

The railway went from costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds a year to generating an operating surplus for much of the 2010s. It was not just taxpayers and passengers that benefited. To quote the general secretary of ASLEF, Lew Adams, back in 2004:

“All the time it was in the public sector, all we got were cuts, cuts, cuts. And today there are more members in the trade union, more train drivers, and more trains running. The reality is that it worked”.

We often hear it said in this country that our rail system should be more like those in Europe, where under a utopian system of public ownership, the trains always run on time and every journey costs less than a pint of beer. However, that is not how the European see it. In fact, in terms of the growth in passenger numbers and the controls on costs that privatisation delivered, our network is envied by Europe. [Laughter.] I knew Government Members would laugh, so listen to what I have to say.

[Ruth Cadbury]

On that point, will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[Helen Whately]

I will give way but not right now because I heard the reaction.

Right now, many European countries are in the process of unravelling their public models. They are introducing private provision and competition into their networks. The Dutch, the Czechs and members of the European Union will all be very confused to see us hurtling past them in the other direction.

Of course, free enterprise does not always succeed. That is why we already have a system in place for times when state intervention would—or, at least, should—benefit passengers. As I am sure the Secretary of State knows, the Department for Transport is already running several train operating companies, such as Northern Trains, which was taken into public ownership back in 2020. Four years ago, when the state took it over, a measly 61% of its trains arrived on time. Today, free from the greedy profit vultures who previously feasted on its carcase, that figure remains at 61%.

Compare that with Greater Anglia, whose contract comes up for renewal in September. By the way, Greater Anglia is the first train operating company in the Secretary of State’s crosshairs, and why the Government are choosing to rush this Second Reading through before recess. All of Greater Anglia’s services are running new trains. Some 94% of those trains arrive within three minutes of the scheduled time. The company manages to deliver that while paying a premium back to the Treasury. It is not failing.

In fact, every single one of the top five performers across the network is a private provider. By contrast, are hon. Members aware which company accounts for more delays than anyone else? Network Rail—some 60% of delays are caused by a single public sector organisation.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I am old enough to remember British Rail. On quite a lot of measures, British Rail was improving before it was privatised. While the hon. Lady wants to make an ideological attack on a state-owned railway, British Rail was 40% more efficient than eight comparable rail systems in Europe used as benchmarks in 1989. Does the hon. Lady agree with the former Secretary of State, Grant Shapps, when he admitted that the franchise system was no longer sustainable? What is her idea?

[Helen Whately]

I was perfectly clear at the beginning of my speech that we agree that reform is needed. That is why we commissioned a review and set out ambitious plans for reform, including the Great British Railways. I welcome that the new Government intend to introduce that.

I am not here to make an ideological argument. To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Mike Amesbury), sometimes, like with our plan for Great British Railways, the public sector is the right vehicle to solve a problem. At other times, a competitive, private model will lead to better results. The point is, if the Government are going to change things in the first piece of legislation they bring before this House, they need some pretty clear evidence as to why, so I have some questions for the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), who will be summing up.

How exactly will bringing train operating companies into public ownership benefit passengers? Unfortunately, the Government’s impact assessment does not tell us, for sure. What improvements can passengers expect? Who is the Secretary of State going to get to run these companies? Where are all these different, better train operating experts going to come from? If they are out there, twiddling their thumbs in the hope that this day would arrive, would the Department for Transport not have brought them on board already to help with the running of Northern Trains or Southeastern?

It is the same question across the network. Will she be sacking everyone currently working for the train operating companies and replacing them with a horde of superior, yet currently out-of-work, staff? Or, as I suspect, will passengers simply encounter the same group of people in a different colour shirt? What we need to hear is what tangible difference this going to make for passengers, because if the answer is nil, then there are lots of other things she could be doing with her time, such as prioritising the railways Bill.

The railways Bill is the legislation that will actually make a difference to how passengers experience our railways, with simpler tickets, joined-up decision making and efficiency savings that can be passed on to passengers. She could be modernising working practices, instead of bending over backwards to the unions, as reports suggest she has already done. How does she think that creating a single employer and, in the process, uplifting every rail worker’s terms and conditions to the least favourable for passengers, will benefit the network?

She could start by saving the train manufacturer, Hitachi—something that, when in Opposition, she said she could do with the stroke of a pen. I notice that it has been three weeks and that pen is yet to materialise. Perhaps she no longer takes for granted the work her predecessor did saving the Alstom factory in Derby. Or she could prioritise investment in the network, like the £100 billion we spent improving the railways since 2010.

On that point, I feel for her because I know what it is like to argue with a Chancellor for investment in something and not win that argument. It is clear from the Chancellor’s statement earlier that the Secretary of State for Transport lost the argument pretty catastrophically. Rather than setting out to reform welfare or control public spending, the Chancellor opted to slash a host of transport infrastructure projects. She will now review all transport infrastructure plans, putting the entire transport pipeline into chaos, letting down communities across the country and letting down a fair few of her new colleagues, too. Those new colleagues will be dismayed to find that they campaigned on false promises to the electorate, and that their pledges to invest in economic growth and not to raise taxes were not even worth the glossy paper on which their leaflets were written.

Although I know what it is like to lose an argument with the Chancellor, I do not share the experience that the Secretary of State and many of her colleagues will now be going through: of changing their tune just three weeks after they were given a mandate by the electorate and less than two weeks after their party leader had said that trust was the new battleground of politics. It seems as if he has given up on that battle already.

All the same, I welcome the right hon. Lady to her post, and I do genuinely wish her well. I will gladly offer my support to anything that she does to make our railways more reliable and more affordable. This Bill will not do that. It is a rushed piece of left-wing ideology. The evidence, both here in the UK and across Europe, shows that an effective public/private model, where the incentives are properly aligned, delivers more choice, more passengers and greater efficiency.

Over the next few weeks of recess, the Secretary of State and her team will have some time to reflect and reconsider. I hope that they will return in the autumn with a Bill that jettisons the baggage of ideology and takes up the mantle of evidence—a Bill that will have more prospect of improving the rail service for passengers, because, as I said, I have no interest in opposing for opposition’s sake, but this Bill as it stands will not be receiving the support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Marsha De Cordova]

I will make some progress.

Common complaints about LTNs have included the shifting of traffic to boundary or sacrificial roads, increased congestion, barriers for emergency services, worsening pollution and a negative knock-on effect on public transport. Many communities that have been impacted by traffic moving to densely populated areas are from poorer and black, Asian and ethnic minority backgrounds. One survey respondent described the impact, saying:

“The traffic was pushed out of [an] extremely wealthy [area] and onto the roads of the poor…The result was complete GRIDLOCK. The arterial roads remain highly congested to this day and it is horrible and stressful to be stuck in polluted traffic for hours on a journey that should take mere minutes.”

The introduction of LTNs has in some cases had a greater impact on disabled people, with 86% of those who responded to the survey saying that LTNs had a “negative” or “very negative” impact on them. Some of the concerns included the installation of bollards and planters, locked dropped kerbs, excessively longer journeys, which are not only inconvenient but lead to higher costs, and the failure to exempt blue badge holders from LTN schemes.

Increased travel times are not just mild inconveniences. Many disabled people often find commuting far more exhausting. In the most extreme cases, the added hassle caused by the longer journey time makes travel difficult, robbing them of the energy they need for when they arrive at their destination. Worryingly, travel times were also linked to the increased cost of petrol and taxi fares, adding to the financial burden borne by disabled people. That has the potential to prevent them from travelling or, worse, to keep them trapped in their homes. Someone living with multiple conditions said:

“The LTN has added to my journey times and costs and also my fatigue levels are increased due to the extra stress and travelling, added to this I suffer with anxiety as MS means I sometimes need access to a toilet quickly, with my journey time now increased threefold it makes it very difficult.”

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent speech she is making. The LTN she describes sounds as if it has physical barriers. Does she agree that where an LTN is enforced through camera technology and residents can enter or leave their homes by the route that suits them best, they do not suffer from the problems she has described so well?

[Marsha De Cordova]

Making sure that routes are accessible is crucial, and using technology such as cameras can be a way forward. I will come to that shortly.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Sorry.

[Marsha De Cordova]

That’s fine—no need to apologise!

Moreover, not all LTNs have blue badge exemptions; that is the focus of one of the petitions we are debating. Although LTN schemes are different everywhere and councils have different policies for blue badge holders, disability is not a geographical issue. The lack of exemptions has led to there being a postcode lottery. One respondent to the Petitions Committee survey said:

“I cannot take my mother who has a blue badge to medical appointments as it would result in going through an LTN and getting a fine.”

Southwark Council in London recently had to scrap its plans for a low-traffic neighbourhood after a backlash from residents, including local disability groups, as blue badge holders and disabled motorists would not be exempt. Many of the benefits of LTNs do not help disabled people. For instance, active travel measures such as cycling infrastructure are not always accessibly designed. Narrow cycle lanes, designed with a standard two-wheel bike in mind, cannot be used by trikes or other non-standard vehicles. This really is about creating an inclusive public realm.

The accessibility issues around LTNs show that society is rarely designed with the needs and interests of disabled people in mind, and that often leads to their exclusion. In fact, many of the issues predate the introduction of the schemes and stem instead from the existing barriers. LTNs are inaccessible because street spaces themselves are not inclusive, so simply removing them is not a solution, as the status quo ante was not always inclusive and accessible.

A basic principle of the disability rights movement has always been, “Nothing about us without us”, which signals the importance of consultation and co-production in any policymaking that impacts our lives. Given the sometimes routine exclusion of disabled people from decision making, the existing approach to policy development has had and will have a wide impact. Poor consultation on low-traffic neighbourhoods and their imposition in a time of national crisis has allowed controversy to arise.

At first glance, the Department for Transport’s review in March this year shows support for LTNs, but the responses were based on a limited set of data. The surveys featured were limited to residents of only four geographical areas, and they had a low response rate. The review also failed to consult public health professionals, older and disabled people’s groups, and those representing black, Asian and ethnic minority communities.

The Government have issued guidance on the implementation and monitoring of LTNs, which could help to ensure that future schemes are more inclusive and have community buy-in and support, but given some of the concerns about the Government’s review, there is a case, outlined in petition 632748, for an independent review that has a specific focus on the impact on disabled people and consults all the relevant people and stakeholders. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will agree to that? In the short term, LTNs must permit access to blue badge holders, as Mike Spenser called for in his petition.

A more sophisticated LTN design might include cameras, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) mentioned, to permit other vehicles and allow disabled people to access areas via any vehicle they choose, including taxis. Not all disabled people are blue badge holders, and many of them rely on public transport, including taxis.

Another recommendation could be for the temporary suspension of LTNs introduced during the pandemic until legal obligations are met and assessments and proper traffic baselines have been carried out. Although LTNs are the responsibility of local authorities, will the Government consider updating the guidance so that such an approach can be adopted? The current guidance is based on legislation that can lead to statutory requirements to consult, but if a traffic regulation order is made, key stakeholders such as the police and ambulance service must always be consulted.

There is also a requirement in the regulations to consult other organisations that represent people likely to be affected by the provisions of the order, as the local authorities see fit, but have the Government considered amending the legislation to put in place a mandatory requirement to consult other groups and stakeholders, such as those representing disabled people? LTNs can work in certain areas if they are supported by the community, which includes those who live on boundary and sacrificial roads. To enable that, will the Minister agree to develop a national framework for local authorities to use when planning new LTNs and monitoring existing and new schemes?

Successful and sustainable improvements to our transport system and public realm must always consider the interests of all who will be affected. Disabled people know this all too well; however, the interests of all communities everywhere can benefit from this simple lesson, and we can avoid the problems that we see today. I think all of us present can take that point. I am sure the House will agree that for a system or a scheme to work, it is important that we bring our communities together behind us so that all schemes can be successful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Theresa Villiers]

Of course, I am a strong supporter of measures that have a positive impact on cycling safety, and we must ensure that the rules of the road strike the proper balance to protect vulnerable road users. However, I do not believe that LTNs are the way to deliver that.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Like me, the right hon. Lady represents an outer London suburban borough. In her constituency, are there really no residential roads that are a continuous traffic jam as rat-runners queue to get to the main road by missing the main junctions? Before LTNs were implemented, the residents of those roads, such as Wellesley Road in Chiswick or the Teesdales in Isleworth, did not have the freedom to go home or leave home in their own cars because of the continuous traffic jams outside their homes.

[Theresa Villiers]

Of course, I accept that rat-running takes place, but again, I do not believe that LTNs are the right way to deal with that; there are much better alternative ways to manage traffic that should be considered first. I am especially concerned that older people, who perhaps do not find it as easy to get around as they used to, are particularly disadvantaged by LTN schemes, as that generation might be dependent on their cars or on taxi transport. It would certainly help if blue badge holders were exempted from the schemes, but that does not cover the millions of people with very real mobility impairments that are not serious enough to qualify for those badges.

On the rationale for the schemes, we are told that it is to get us out of our cars and make us walk and cycle, but what about the parents of young families who cannot simply load their young family on to a bicycle, as blithely advocated by the Mayor of London and Transport for London?

We also live in an era of increased awareness and concern regarding crimes against women, so we must also listen to the women who feel real fear and insecurity because an LTN means they can no longer be dropped off right outside their home by a taxi when they come home at night. They might find it more difficult to get taxi transport because they live in an LTN. The equalities impact of LTNs and a range of anti-car measures were not properly taken into account before the schemes were introduced.

As I have said before, I am a strong supporter of measures to improve cycling safety, but dogmatic measures forcing cars out of more and more road space are not the right answer and the air-quality benefits of LTNs are heavily contested. The additional congestion that they cause on main roads might worsen emissions in those locations, which are often places where people on lower incomes live, including many people from minority ethnic communities. Again, the equalities impact of the schemes is severe.

Traffic does not evaporate when we close roads, much as TfL would wish it to. It just moves to a different road. An area can be told to put up with increased emissions because a more affluent nearby street has demanded an LTN. Such projects can be extremely socially divisive, as has been clearly illustrated by the debate in places like Tower Hamlets.

Roads policy from the Mayor of London and London Labour boroughs has too often seemed to reflect the views of a limited number of vocal pressure groups, rather than the broader consensus of opinion and rather than embracing the views of women, minority ethnic communities, the elderly and the disabled. Consultation has far too often been inadequate, not least because it tends to focus only on the people who live in the street to be included in the LTN and ignores those who travel through those streets or the roads on to which traffic is displaced.

--- Later in debate ---

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

May I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris, and by thanking you for understanding that I will not be able to stay till the end? I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on her fine introduction to this important discussion and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on her speech, which I agreed with almost in its entirety.

It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). My seat is a doughnut seat: the hon. Lady is the jam in the centre of the doughnut, and I am the heavy, leavened dough that surrounds the hon. Lady’s jam.

I wish to speak in the debate because of the effect that LTNs are having on my constituents. The anti-car policies that are being introduced have a big effect on people living in rural areas. They affect them as they try to go about their business without the concomitant benefits. An LTN being introduced in a city does not help someone living in a rural area who needs to go through, or do business in, that city. The fact that it also has effects on the businesses in the city is perhaps more a matter for the hon. Lady than for me, although many of my constituents own and have interests in businesses in Bath.

We have touched on consultation. As I understand it, opposition to the Sydney Place scheme has been 100:1 and more than 4,000 people have signed a petition against it—it is about not just the 57 who may have written to the hon. Lady, but the thousands of people living nearby who will be affected. We have to remember that, in 2022, 78% of journeys were taken by car and that, however much we wish to pretend otherwise, we are a society, a nation and an economy based on the internal combustion engine. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, that is where our economic activity comes from. It is how people get to their jobs and take their children to school. We have to make a choice, as a Government and as local councils, about what approach we take to politics. Do we really think that we should be telling people how to lead their lives? Should we tell them what is good for them and make them do it?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I do not know his seat well, but he has described it as a doughnut of the countryside around Bath. Would he not agree that, if everybody who can drive who lives in the centre of Bath or London drove everywhere, the whole road system would be gridlocked, and that providing safe alternatives—decent public transport, and safe routes to walk and cycle—takes up a lot less space than everybody driving their own vehicle?

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on her excellent introduction to the debate. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to a review of low-traffic neighbourhoods, but I certainly hope that they are not stopped, as the right hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) have suggested they should be.

In my constituency, measures to create what we might now call low-traffic neighbourhoods have been in place for decades. On Chiswick Lane, a barrier that keeps traffic from cutting through from Chiswick High Road to the A4 via Airedale Avenue, Netheravon Road and Beverley Road has been there for more than 40 years. Worple Road in Isleworth is closed to through traffic trying to take a shortcut from the A316 over to Old Isleworth. Pears Road in Hounslow used to be a back road avoiding Hounslow High Street and Hanworth Road. Chiswick Common Road has long since been cut off as a vehicle route from Chiswick High Road to Turnham Green Terrace. Those have been in place for a long time. They use physical barriers such as bollards and planters, and no one—no one—has contacted me or their local councillors demanding their removal. Furthermore, if those barriers were to be removed, there would be many objections.

Such measures to prevent rat-running were implemented because there was an issue for residents on those roads. The number of drivers avoiding traffic jams on main roads by using residential side roads grew over the past 10 or so years, in particular, following the mass use of real-time sat-navs.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Lady agree that a council does not pick issues out of thin air, but responds to residents writing to the council in large numbers to say that they want change? The council does not just decide to do something to annoy people.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. My experience is with Hounslow. I cannot say whether each local authority implemented change that was needed—or whether they plucked ideas out of thin air in 2020—but that is certainly the case in Hounslow.

The nightmare for residents who live on roads that are rat runs, particularly since the mass use of sat-navs, is that it varies; at some times of the day there is speeding, and at others there are continuous traffic jams, with vehicles spewing fumes and preventing residents from driving into or out of their own road. That environment takes away the freedom of children and older people to feel safe walking around their neighbourhood, particularly at junctions and crossroads. National figures show that more people cycle where they feel safe. Many of us own bikes but are not brave enough to cycle when roads are busy.

All the low-traffic neighbourhood measures that were implemented in Hounslow in 2020 were introduced in neighbourhoods or on roads where residents had long been angry about the impact of rat-running and had been calling on their councillors—I was one of them—for action for years. The measures introduced by the Government in 2020, during covid, which are probably the one thing I can compliment former Prime Minister Boris Johnson on, provided regulatory change and the funding to make implementation by local authorities happen quickly.

Local authorities, including Hounslow, used temporary measures to try out what worked. Some roads are now low-traffic neighbourhoods as a result of that work, including the whole south Chiswick area, which I will come to shortly; Green Dragon Lane, a road with almost all social rent housing where only a minority of people have use of a private vehicle; Occupation Lane in Brentford, at the top end of a council estate; and the Teesdales near West Middlesex University Hospital, where there were continuous battles between drivers trying to pass each other on a narrow road with resident parking.

Since they were implemented on those roads and others in Hounslow, the LTN measures have been achieving exactly what residents had asked of the council. They are stopping through traffic using the road as a shortcut while allowing residents to pass freely. Residents can drive into and out of their roads, and walk to and from their homes safely, especially when crossing and at corners. No longer are there long traffic jams with vehicles spewing out fumes and drivers getting angry when trying to pass.

Some of the schemes were revised. One was tried that removed through traffic from Turnham Green Terrace in Chiswick, a popular shopping street with very narrow pavements. The idea was to make it more business friendly, but local councillors asked for it to be removed, so it was. The schemes can be modified. Another popular shopping street, Devonshire Road, was closed completely. Concerns were expressed by the shop owners, but not by the restaurant and bar owners, so Devonshire Road is now open to through traffic during the day so that people can access the shops, but in the evening it reverts to a traffic-free road with tables and chairs outside on the carriageway, which benefits the restaurants and bars.

Physical barriers are not the only tool. In many cases there are often far better tools to create a low-traffic neighbourhood. Hounslow has made extensive use of camera technology and enforcement so that any vehicle can enter and leave a neighbourhood or road whichever way suits its driver, so long as it enters and leaves by the same way it came in, or arrives, stays and then leaves later.

I want briefly to address school streets, which are a subset of liveable neighbourhoods. There have been over 30 in Hounslow, and headteachers have told me of their benefits. They have cut out a lot of the conflict between the tiny minority of parents who insist on driving their children to school and the much larger number of parents who walk their children to school and get very angry at the behaviour of some selfish drivers. Those drivers are no longer able have close access to the school. One headteacher told me that an awful lot of families are now walking to and from school rather than making a trip of a couple of hundred yards in a vehicle every day.

Hounslow’s largest low-traffic neighbourhood started life before covid and was known as the south Chiswick liveable neighbourhood. Rat-running drivers seeking to avoid the Hogarth roundabout when travelling from the A3 or A316 to head west on the M4 or A4, or travelling either way between Chiswick bridge and Kew bridge parallel to the River Thames, had long been an issue. Thousands of vehicles a day were travelling straight through that neighbourhood without stopping, and most of them were long-distance; they were not local Chiswick vehicles.

In 2019, after full consultation, residents supported in principle the implementation of the liveable neighbourhood for south Chiswick. It was actually implemented in 2020 using the covid emergency measures, because funding had not been available prior to that. The impact has been significant: a 50% drop in through traffic, more people walking and cycling, and a drop in average vehicle speeds. On the boundary roads, there were not greater traffic jams and higher volumes, but a reduction in traffic of between 2.8% and 9.3%, despite the closure of Hammersmith bridge. That suggests that low-traffic neighbourhoods encourage a modal shift away from private vehicle use and towards public transport, walking and cycling.

The most remarkable impact we have seen in Chiswick is the loss of a council seat in the 2022 elections by the party that campaigned vigorously against the low-traffic neighbourhood that had been implemented two years earlier. For the first time in 48 years, a Labour councillor was elected to represent the Chiswick Riverside ward—hardly evidence that local people hate the LTN.

Following concerns raised locally, Hounslow has made improvements to the LTN scheme, and could perhaps make some more. I would like to see improved signage warning drivers that they are entering an LTN. Another suggestion is the use of a “one strike and then you’re fined” rule to warn people not to drive through the area again. I have been fined for not being able to see a sign in an area I did not know very well. I was a bit annoyed with myself. It was a school street and I was driving through at the very end of the school street restrictions. That annoys people, and does not help their ability to support what I believe overall are very good policies.

There is no doubt that restricting through traffic in an area achieves its purpose if it is done well and there is a need, with less pollution directly outside people’s homes, safer roads and easy access for residents. There is national evidence that there is more walking and cycling in quiet areas, and that more walking and cycling in retail areas—Walthamstow town in Waltham Forest being the best example—has strong economic benefits for local businesses and high streets. We know the benefits to tourism areas of easy, safe, segregated cycling infrastructure or quiet areas to cycle. I do not know how many other people look for cycling opportunities when they are going on holiday, but good cycling measures are a draw to tourists.

Low-traffic neighbourhoods, if they are implemented where they are needed, are properly consulted on and use clear signage and appropriate technology—camera enforcement or bollards and planters, as appropriate—can work.

[Marsha De Cordova]

I thank my hon. Friend for her speech. As she is drawing it to a close, and as she has said that low-traffic neighbourhoods can work, I want to pick up again on the barriers that disabled people face. Does she agree that it is important to co-produce the design of any low-traffic neighbourhood with disabled people and their organisations to ensure that they are inclusive? Does she also agree that those who have a blue badge should be exempt from such schemes?

[Ruth Cadbury]

As Front Bencher myself, I will defer to my colleague on the Front Bench today, although it seems to me that exemptions for blue badge holders would make sense, for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave in her speech.

Let us remember that disability is not one thing. Some disabled people rely on a private vehicle to get about. Many disabled people cannot drive, for all sorts of reasons. Many, particularly frail elderly people, can walk short distances, but need to feel safe. They want to know that they can be seen at the corners of roads when trying to cross, so pedestrian build-outs and clear crossings, and so on, are essential. Good design is important, as is segregation between pedestrians and cyclists, where appropriate, so that no one fears being mown down by somebody cycling too fast in an area that should be for pedestrians. That is particularly true of one form of low-traffic neighbourhood: pedestrianised retail areas or town centres—although I am not sure whether we are talking about those in this context.

Nobody likes getting a fine for driving a route that they have always driven, but there is no reason why councils cannot use a first strike and then a fine the second time for those who did not notice the changed signage. I agree that we should consider exempting blue badge holders, particularly for a barrier-based LTN where the alternative journey is a long way round. However, if the proposals are not working and not delivering the improved environment that residents said they wanted, they can be reversed and something else can be tried.

The majority of my constituents do not have sole use of a private car and, being in London, do have alternative travel choices. Those who live on roads in LTNs should have the choice, so that, should they want to restrict their road, they can. They should not have the choice to use their road as a shortcut imposed on them by other drivers, particularly those who are not even local, such as—in our case—those driving between Surrey and Heathrow airport. Why should our residents have to put up with those drivers using their small residential roads as a shortcut?

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

Yes. It is a brilliant £30 million project, with 40 car parking spaces, which my right hon. Friend has been instrumental in making happen. I will, I hope, meet the new Mayor, whom I congratulate, to ensure that he delivers the project for 2027, as the fantastic Andy Street promised.

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

More people are killed by cows and lightning than by dangerous cyclists, whereas around five people a day are killed on our roads by motor vehicles—a level that has flatlined under this Government. When will the Transport Secretary publish the long-overdue strategic framework for road safety?

[Guy Opperman]

The Secretary of State took a decision on road safety yesterday, so clearly we are addressing all these matters on an ongoing basis. I addressed the issue in a Westminster Hall debate recently, but I will write to the hon. Member with more detail.

Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging (Amendment) Bill

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Friday 22nd March 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to speak in opposition to the Bill. It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Steve Tuckwell). On the day that he was elected to this place, I remember campaigning and talking to residents, who said, “We are not going to vote Labour, as we have always done before, because we’ll have to pay £12.50 every day to drive on our local roads.” My colleague said, “How will it affect you? What car do you drive?” and the guy at this one house said, “Well, there it is—it’s a Toyota Prius.” On the day of that election, thousands of people were told, and some still believe, that every single person driving a vehicle in Greater London has to pay £12.50 a day. That is not true, and that myth is still going around.

I do not want to undermine the fact that about 5% of vehicles in London are non-compliant. I accept that the expansion forced people who drive non-compliant vehicles, for work or for personal use, to make decisions, as others had to when the original ULEZ boundary was introduced. I will come on to that aspect of the scrappage scheme later.

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Lady will be aware that Transport for London’s impact assessment states that there is likely to be a disproportionate negative impact

“for people on low incomes who travel by a non-compliant private vehicle in outer London to access employment…or opportunities”.

It is those organisations and individuals who are being affected by the policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

As I have said, I will come on to the detail of the scrappage scheme later. I can address that point, because my constituency is crossed by the north and south circulars, so we have already been there.

As we know, the Bill proposes to amend

“the boundaries of the Greater London Low Emission Zone and Ultra Low Emission Zone”,

and provides that Transport for London—in other words, the London Mayor—

“may not make an order amending those boundaries without the consent of the Secretary of State”.

Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, transport in London is a devolved matter and the responsibility of the Mayor and TfL. As such, Parliament granted the power to make decisions on London-wide road-charging schemes to the Mayor. The proposed changes pose a threat to the powers of the Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority, and devolved places around the country. I am disappointed that the Minister has announced that the Government will support this Bill, given their long-standing position that local road-charging powers are the responsibility of the Mayor and TfL. Any support for such a Bill is regressive and anti-devolution.

The previous Mayor of London, before becoming Conservative Prime Minister, introduced the ULEZ, which came into operation in April 2019. In October 2021, he ensured its extension to the north and south circular roads. The current Mayor of London, as we know, then extended it to all of Greater London in August 2023. The Bill seeks to revert us to having the boundary at the north and south circular roads. I cannot see the logic in that.

Devolution is one of the key issues here, along with tackling air pollution. The ULEZ stems from Government legislation, which local government is required to abide by, and which was first championed in London by a Conservative Mayor of London. Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999—

[John McDonnell]

I served on the Bill Committee for that Act. At first, the Conservative party opposed the restoration of a Mayor for London and a Greater London Authority, but as we went through the legislation, an element of consensus built up, particularly in the local government community and among London MPs, about the sort of powers that the Mayor and the GLA should have, including around these sorts of issues. There was consensus that if we established these structures, they would need to be properly empowered, and then there was a debate about resourcing. The Bill before us flies in the face of the debate on that Act. As I say, I was on that Committee, and if I remember rightly, Glenda Jackson was the Minister.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who was a member of the Greater London Council, which was abolished by a Conservative Government who did not like what the Labour London government was doing —so much for respect for local politicians.

Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, transport and air quality in London are devolved matters that are the responsibility of the Mayor and Transport for London. The Bill is an affront to the principle of devolution, and the principle of allowing local leaders to make the decisions needed to deliver local priorities and meet objectives set by national Government. Air pollution is a health crisis. There is a national air crisis. Targets to tackle that are rightly set by central Government. Across the country, the Government have required and encouraged the introduction of clean air zones. The Bill is plainly party political point scoring, given that the Government have required and encouraged many other clean air zones across the country.

The Bill seeks to:

“Amend the boundaries of the Greater London Low Emission Zone and Ultra Low Emission Zone; to provide that Transport for London may not make an order amending those boundaries without the consent of the Secretary of State”.

The boundaries of the zone would be amended, so that the new boundary would be the edge of the inner zone —that is, the new boundary would be the boundary that was put in place in October 2021, before the zone was expanded up to, but not including, the north and south circulars. Given the concerns of drivers coming from Dartford and other places into London, what is the logic of removing ULEZ from outer London but not inner London? Surely the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) represents residents and businesses who drive into central London. Either oppose ULEZ or support ULEZ; this Bill is neither one thing nor the other.

The Bill will prevent TfL from amending the boundaries without the express consent of the Secretary of State. It would restrict the ability of the Mayor of London and TfL to make amendments to the charging area by forcing the Greater London Authority to request permission from the Secretary of State first, and would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consider London election manifesto commitments. It is very bizarre. The Bill means that there will be contradictory decisions made in different parts of the country. The Bill strikes me as being part of a historical antipathy on the part of Conservative Governments to Labour leaders in Greater London.

As others have said eloquently, this Government could do so much more to address air pollution. They could support the Mayor of London’s making the scrappage scheme more generous, so that nobody has any reason not to get rid of their non-compliant vehicle. If the costs for non-polluting vehicles came down, there would be no non-compliant vehicles polluting London. That is important because of the impact that pollution has on our communities and the people of this country.

Air pollution is the No. 1 environmental threat to public health in the UK. It contributes to up to 43,000 premature deaths every year in England. In his 2022 annual report, chief medical officer Professor Sir Chris Whitty outlined that outdoor air pollution in England

“still poses significant health threats”

to adults and children. An increasing body of evidence links air pollution to various cancers, lung and heart disease, dementia and stroke. It puts us all at greater risk of disease and shortens lives.

Furthermore, toxic air is holding back our public services and making it harder to treat other conditions. Public Health England estimates that air pollution will cost the NHS and the social care system £1.6 billion between 2017 and 2025. That rises to £5.56 billion when we include the impact of diseases for which the evidence of an association is less developed and still emerging. By 2035, that figure will reach almost £19 billion unless stronger action is taken. In addition, a report commissioned by the Clean Air Fund concluded that improving air quality could boost the UK economy by £1.6 billion each year, as a result of 3 million additional working days being worked, and a reduction in the rate of early retirement.

In 2019 in London, toxic air contributed to around 4,000 premature deaths. The greatest number of deaths attributable to air pollution were in outer London boroughs, mainly due to the higher proportion in those areas of elderly people, who are more vulnerable to the impact of air pollution. I hardly see her now, but I worked with a wonderful tenant activist in Brentford when I was a councillor. She has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and was confined to bed about 15 years ago; she has not been able to leave her bedroom because of COPD. She has lived all her life in Brentford, which has always had very high air pollution from the coke works and the proximity to the A4 and the M4. She is just one example, but we all know people who suffer from COPD, emphysema and a whole range of other life-limiting and life-damaging conditions.

If no further action is taken to reduce air pollution, around 550,000 Londoners will develop diseases relating to poor air quality in the next 30 years. The cost of that for the NHS and social care system in London alone is estimated to be £10.4 billion by 2050. More than half a million Londoners suffer from asthma and are more vulnerable to the effects of toxic air, and more than half of those people live in outer London. Toxic air is a social justice issue. The poorest Londoners, and Londoners from ethnic minority backgrounds, who are least likely to own a car, are worst affected by toxic air. Only 5% of the lowest-income Londoners own a car, yet they are more likely to suffer from toxic air.

Half of all the children admitted to hospital due to asthma in London are from minority ethnic backgrounds. How can we ever forget the case of Ella Kissi-Debrah, the first person in the world to have air pollution listed as a cause of death on her death certificate? She was a child who grew up in a flat overlooking a busy road in south-east London. I have met Ella’s mother. I have also worked with campaign groups such as Mums for Lungs. Parents are campaigning for us to do the right thing. They support the ULEZ and they ask us—I have had two or three emails on this already this week—to oppose this Bill.

I want to say a little about my constituency and why this issue matters there. From one end of my constituency to the other, we are affected by heavy traffic and, therefore, high air pollution. That can be seen from the maps. We have the A4, the M4 above, and the A316, which comes in from the M3. The north and south circular meet at their westerly point in my constituency. All those roads are all hugely congested and have very polluted air. The last ULEZ boundary went through the middle of my constituency, just inside the north and south circular. There, we have St. Mary’s Catholic Primary School and William Hogarth School next door to each other, alongside the A4 in Chiswick. The pollution at those schools is incredibly high. Parents there, led by one of the fathers, Andrea Carnevali, have campaigned for years to address the issue. Their campaign has meant that the issue of air pollution has got into the public domain locally.

Through their campaigning, those parents managed to get support from the Mayor of London for a green wall along the playground side of the wall to try to catch some of the pollution. They have also worked with paint manufacturers. Remarkably, air pollution levels inside a classroom can be reduced with a particular paint. The school was donated the paint to do measurements and assessments so that everybody could see its efficacy. Sadly, it is too expensive for schools to buy, because it is so specialist, but that is the sort of thing the Government should be supporting.

Until air pollution levels drop—they are starting to drop, and I will come on to that—children who go to St Mary’s, William Hogarth and other schools in my constituency and across London will be going into classrooms, playing in playgrounds, and walking and cycling to and from school in environments that are limiting their life expectancy.

I want to pick up on two letters I received from parents this week. This is from a mother who told me about her son. He used to attend a school situated just one block from the A4 as it goes into London through Chiswick and Hammersmith. She wrote that he

“used to suffer from asthma and he used to tell us how he could breathe so much better when we were away from London.”

He has died from cancer. His mother said:

“Although his primary tumour was in his left humerus, he died from the bone cancer which had spread to his lungs and we now suspect that it had been in his lungs for quite some time.”

That is why she has asked me to oppose the Bill today. She added another thing in her note:

“When I took my son to hospital once for something unrelated, I was on a ward with him with three other children who all had breathing difficulties. When I asked the nurse about this she said they consistently have children admitted for breathing problems.”

That reminded me of my visits to schools over the years, from when I was a councillor and subsequently as an MP. A growing number of schools have to have an asthma strategy and a growing bank of drawers full of asthma inhalers, just in case. Those inhalers are used. More and more children are using asthma inhalers day in, day out so that they are able to make the most of school.

The second email is in a way more general, but it still explains from a constituent’s point of view why I will oppose the Bill today. My constituent wrote:

“As the dad of two young boys who has to expose them to pollution every single day on the school run—particularly over Kew bridge”—

over the river, but highly polluted—

“I support any and all efforts to clean up London’s air.”

The ULEZ is a strategy to protect public health. In lieu of alternative policies that could address this horrific health challenge, the ULEZ is the most effective strategy we have for London, and that is why the Mayor for London is using it. The ULEZ is highly targeted. It helps to take the most polluting vehicles off London’s roads. Vehicles that do not meet certain emissions standards and are not otherwise subject to a grace period, discount or exemption must pay the charge to travel within the city. The charge is set to disincentivise frequent trips in non-compliant vehicles that would otherwise contribute more to air pollution. It incentivises people to change their travel behaviour—for example, to use public transport more or to replace their vehicle—while allowing occasional visitors and infrequent drivers an alternative.

The London-wide expansion has already been highly effective in reducing the proportion and number of older, more polluting vehicles on London’s roads. Data from the London-wide ULEZ first month report shows a 10 percentage point increase in vehicle compliance in outer London, with 95% of vehicles seen driving in London on an average day now meeting ULEZ standards. That is up from 85% when the consultation was launched in May 2022, and means that compliance rates in outer London have nearly caught up with inner London. As has been said, any net revenue raised from ULEZ will be re-invested back into public transport, including the expansion of bus services in outer London. I am not aware of bus services that have been cut, but there is no doubt that we could always do with more bus services—more frequent services, and more night and weekend services—so that fewer people are forced to get their car out in order to get to work, visit friends and relatives, and so on.

The ULEZ has been hugely successful in central and inner London, and has led to significant benefits. Harmful NO₂ concentrations alongside roads, such as the A4 and the A316 in my constituency, are estimated to be 46% lower in central London and 21% lower in inner London than they would have been without the ULEZ. The number of schools in areas exceeding legal limits for NO₂ fell by an amazing 96%, from 455 in 2016 to just 20 in 2019.

Mums for Lungs is keen to remind us of those figures. It says that on an average day, there are 77,000 fewer unique non-compliant vehicles compared with June 2023, as well as an overall reduction of 48,000 fewer non-compliant vehicles per day within the ULEZ zone. The ULEZ has helped to reduce all harmful NOx by 46% in central London, and by 21% in inner London. Monitors in the capital showed that London enjoyed the cleanest air on record in 2023 as a result of ULEZ.

There is still a long way to go for London to meet World Health Organisation air quality guidelines, and forecasts show that all of London will continue to exceed those guidelines in 2025 and 2030 without further action. That goes back to what the Government are doing. Beyond London, it is the UK Government’s view that clean air and low-emission zones are the preferred option for improving air quality in the shortest possible time, but more must be done to incentivise the use of low and zero-emission vehicles than what the Government are doing.

We are already beginning to see the expected benefits of expanding the ULEZ, and it is estimated that 5 million more people, including the constituents of some Conservative Members, are expected to breathe cleaner air as a result of expanding ULEZ to outer London. Modelling suggests that the current ULEZ is expected to reduce PM_2.5 exhaust emissions in outer London by nearly 16%, leading to a 1.5% overall reduction in PM_2.5 emissions—those are the ones that cause severe lung disease. It will lead to a reduction of nearly 10% in nitrogen oxide emissions in outer London, and to 146,000 fewer car trips overall, which is an almost 2% reduction. As one of my colleagues said earlier, the worst place to be in terms of air pollution is inside a car, so if fewer car trips are made that should mean that fewer people are exposed to emissions inside a car as well as externally. The ULEZ is expected to save 27,000 tonnes of CO₂ emissions in outer London, so this is about not just air pollution, but climate change.

[John McDonnell]

The issue we have focused on today is respiratory conditions, but, like me, my hon. Friend has been working on air pollution issues around our airport. I do not know whether she will remember this, but when we looked at the matter perhaps 15 years ago, the issue we raised was the incidence of cancer—she has mentioned cancer itself. We then discovered the Chicago airport study, which linked cancer to air pollution and highlighted the significance of that for airports and the surrounding areas. We should not underestimate the impact that ULEZ could have, not only on overcoming respiratory problems, but on reducing cancer incidence in areas such as ours. A number of our key campaigners in the area have suffered from cancer and we consider that it is linked to the air pollution around the airport.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. I have worked with him for many years on issues relating to Heathrow. We cannot separate the issues of vehicle congestion and air pollution from the issues around Heathrow airport, which does not do enough to incentivise its staff and its passengers to come to the airport by means other than car.

I said that I would cover the issue of scrappage. Having continued to listen to the concerns of Londoners, the Mayor and TfL expanded the scrappage scheme to provide support for more Londoners. The Mayor is providing a £210 million funding pot for the scrappage scheme to support all Londoners with an eligible car or motorcycle, as well as charities, sole traders and small businesses. It is the most generous scrappage scheme ever seen in the UK. As part of the scheme, any London resident with an eligible non-compliant car can apply for a grant of up to £2,000 to scrap it. Neighbours of mine have a nice little runaround car that cost £2,000 and is compliant, so anyone who says that it is not possible to buy a compliant car for that kind of money has not tried to do it.

Other more extended benefits are available. For example, disabled people who need to scrap or retrofit a non-compliant wheelchair-accessible car can apply for grants of up to £10,000 to scrap or £6,000 to retrofit. Charities, sole traders and businesses with fewer than 50 employees that are registered in London can apply for a grant of £7,000 to scrap a van, £9,000 to scrap a minibus, or £6,000 to retrofit certain vans or minibuses. They can also apply to scrap and replace a van or minibus with a fully electric vehicle, for which the grants are £9,500 and £11,500 respectively. Eligible organisations can scrap or retrofit up to three vehicles. As of 15 March 2024, applicants to the ULEZ scrappage scheme can donate their non-ULEZ compliant vehicle to support humanitarian and medical needs in Ukraine, in return for the same level of grant payment that is available to those who choose to scrap their vehicle.

The Government have provided scrappage funding for other cities, including Birmingham, Bristol, Sheffield and Portsmouth, but they have not provided similar arrangements for specific ringfenced funding for London. That is yet another sectarian attack by the Conservative Government on a Labour Mayor.

Air pollution is a health crisis, and targets to tackle it are rightfully set by central Government. Across the country, the Government have required and encouraged the introduction of clean air zones. The Bill is plainly party political point scoring, given that the Government have required and encouraged many other clean air zones across the country. This Bill is a challenge to the powers of the Mayor of London to make decisions that improve the health of Londoners—all Londoners. If successful, the Bill has the potential to do significant damage, reinforce inequities in public health and undermine the office of the Mayor of London. The Bill is an attack on devolution. The Mayor has a right to introduce measures within his powers to meet statutory targets set by central Government, but they are dictating how a democratically elected Mayor of London should run the city and that is counter to the principles of devolution. Labour is a party of devolution: we created the mayoral model in London, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and promoted local and regional decision making and funding across England. This Bill is an attack not only on devolution, but on measures to improve our environment and the health of our children and our children’s children.

We have to have solutions to the air quality crisis and the cost of living crisis, both nationally and locally. Labour is clear that the Government have a direct responsibility to work with local authorities to enable clean air zones and alternatives to them, and there needs to be a range of alternative air quality improvement methods, including re-routing traffic, land management, speed limits, better public transport and making it easier to acquire non-polluting vehicles. That responsibility should extend to helping to mitigate the impacts of any proposal that clears the strong thresholds set by the Government for a clean air zone. I do not hear about any alternatives from those on the Government Benches, so whose side are the supporters of the Bill on—continuing pollution or finding a solution to stop our children dying? I want to read out the end of the email that I received from the father I mentioned earlier:

“Pollution is too high in London, it makes us sick and long-term exposure can reduce cognitive ability.”

I am proud that London has the world’s largest clean air zone. The ULEZ is a brave and important policy which will be a historic legacy for the London Mayor.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Imposing blanket 20 mph zones without local support—which is what Labour has done across Wales and in London—is bad for drivers, but it also risks reducing the specific protection for vulnerable road users which operates, for example, near schools. As our policy paper “Plan for drivers” explains, we will be providing stronger guidance to ensure that blanket 20 mph zones are restricted, and we will consider further action against councils that do not comply with it.

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

On one hand the Secretary of State acknowledges the ability of local authorities to deliver their own local transport strategies such as low-traffic neighbourhoods and 20 mph zones where they fit, but on the other hand this “Plan for drivers” weaponises such policies. Will he stop weaponising them, and consider those who are not in vehicles but are using our roads and the safety measures from their local authorities? Will he recognise that we are all road users, whether or not we are in a vehicle?

[Mr Harper]

I think that question had the disadvantage of being written before the hon. Lady had listened to my answer. I said very clearly that I supported 20 mph zones in areas where they make sense. Outside a school, for instance, they make perfect sense. What does not make sense is imposing blanket policies that bear no relation to the circumstances, which, as I have said, is what Labour has done in Wales. It has implemented blanket policies that are very unpopular, do not carry public support, and damage the acceptance of 20 mph zones in places where they do make sense—

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that scheme again. I know it is an important issue for colleagues in the east of England and I am delighted that we are able to make progress as a result of the decision on Network North. I have discussed it with Network Rail and the next steps involve the development of the full business case. Network Rail has what it needs to make progress, and I know my hon. Friend will be wishing it every speed.

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

T7. Over the past year, yet more people have been killed or seriously injured on our roads, and the UK’s record on that has plateaued. While we have accident investigation organisations for air, maritime and rail, we do not have one for roads. The Government promised to set up a road safety investigation branch last year. When will that become a reality?

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the important issue of road safety. I notice that the statistics she set out are inconsistent with those set out by her hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). She recognises that our road safety record is not going backwards, as he suggested. When there is a fatality, road accidents are investigated by the relevant authorities, and that remains the position. We learn lessons from accidents, so that when we build new road infrastructure it has safety at its heart.