Hammersmith Bridge

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. It has been said many times in many places that it is up to Hammersmith and Fulham Council, but that is absolutely not the case. Hammersmith bridge is a unique historical structure with a unique bill—£141 million. No council in London could afford that. Therefore, this issue needs a unique funding solution. I will talk about that and the bid that Hammersmith and Fulham Council has made to the Government, but now is the time for the Government to step up, because Hammersmith and Fulham Council cannot do this on its own.

I was on Putney embankment on Easter Saturday on what would have been boat race weekend, but the race could not run on the Thames because of the danger to the boats of going under the bridge. I teamed up with local rowing organisations and hundreds of constituents to protest the continuing inaction about Hammersmith bridge and to call on the Government to step up, play their part and fund its restoration. There were boats from the London Rowing Club, Wandsworth Youth River Club and Putney High School Boat Club out on the water, all of which are affected by the closure. Hundreds of local people came by, and it was not necessary for me to persuade anyone to sign the banner and send a clear message to the Secretary of State for Transport to open the bridge.

Last week, I went out on my first canvass since the start of the pandemic. I knocked on my first door in Roehampton, eager to speak to constituents again, and asked, “What issue is important to you?” The first thing they said was, “Hammersmith bridge.”

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech, and I am extremely grateful to her for bringing the matter back to the Floor of the House for debate once more. I wonder whether she would mind me taking the opportunity to highlight the massive impact that the closure has had on the residents of Barnes in my constituency. She mentioned the difficulties that people have had in getting to work and accessing healthcare. The biggest growing issue that we have had since the reopening of schools at the beginning of March is children getting to school. They have all already suffered massive disruption to their education, but many are finding that, where they could previously walk to school in 10 to 15 minutes, it now takes them upwards of an hour on crowded public transport during the pandemic.

On top of the pressures those children are already experiencing—some with exam stress, and all the uncertainty and disruption that they have faced—they now have the additional anxiety of how to get to and from school in a way that they have never experienced. I want to highlight the massive impact that the bridge’s closure is having on young people on both sides of the bridge and the really difficult experience they are having, and to urge the Minister to come to the table and find a solution.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting the impact on young people. I have had an email from a sixth-former in my constituency who said that they formerly left from home at 7.30 am but now have to leave at 6 o’clock in the morning. This is having a really bad impact on students across the constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I hope that when the Minister has her opportunity to speak she will not ask again for Hammersmith and Fulham Council to fund an unprecedented 50% contribution to the bridge’s repair. That is clearly unreasonable, especially when the precedent for contributions from councils to national infrastructure projects is 15%. That makes me question whether the Government are genuinely interested in resolving the situation, or are just going to leave it.

Instead, the taskforce suggested in October 2020 that Hammersmith and Fulham Council come up with a financing plan. The council, together with TfL, had made funding applications to the Government in December 2019, February 2020 and June 2020. All three bids were rejected by the Government, and we do not know why. Instead, Hammersmith and Fulham Council went away, talked to experts and came up with a new plan—the “Outline Financial Plan”—which it submitted on 19 February.

I want to pre-empt any answer that the Minister may be ready to give about waiting for Hammersmith and Fulham Council to do more, or any repetition of the response of Baroness Vere of Norbiton to a joint letter from me, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). The Baroness’s response was:

“I suggest that it would be most beneficial for you to support the local authority in developing its preferred funding option so that we can progress the business case.”

The funding option was submitted on 19 February, seven weeks ago, and we are still waiting for a response. This is not the urgent action we need.

Any response will need the Government to agree to set up a special company or trust fund. It will need Government legislation, financial underwriting and an assurance of future revenue from Government funds or from a toll. The council needs to have that input from the Government to continue. The ball is now firmly in the Government’s court, not that of Hammersmith and Fulham Council. To say that would be to play the type of party politics that local residents are absolutely fed up with.

That brings me to my third and final point, about solutions. I hope that the Minister will shortly announce how the Government will take responsibility for the Government’s vital role in restoring the bridge. The ferry service is a partial solution—it starts in the summer—but it will not address vehicles going through Putney and it will not stop the long bus journeys for Roehampton residents.

[Sarah Olney]

Briefly, does the hon. Lady agree that one of the significant disadvantages to the ferry service, welcome though it is, is that local residents will have to pay a fare to use it, as opposed to being able to use the bridge perfectly freely?

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for mentioning a disadvantage of the ferry. I am concerned that that the taskforce will say, “We’ve done the ferry, and now we are not going to fix the bridge.” Putney residents are concerned about that.

A proposal to build a temporary truss bridge inside the current bridge—so, a double-decker bridge—has been given the green light as feasible, and could be built within a year, as soon as it is funded. We need that funding. The “Outline Financial Plan” was developed by Hammersmith and Fulham Council with a series of sector-leading consultants. That plan would not only see Hammersmith bridge repaired, but offer value for money to national and local taxpayers for the long-term.

The “Outline Financial Plan” was submitted on 19 February. I would like to hear whether the Government agree with the plan and are going to get on with it, or do not agree with the plan and are going to come up with one of their own. Either way, we need urgent funding solutions. It is important that these plans are engaged with and taken forward.

To sum up, my asks of the Minister tonight are fivefold. A lot of Putney residents and constituents from across south-west London will be listening tonight. First, the Government must urgently provide up-front funding for the temporary bridge, so that the original bridge can be restored and re-opened as soon as possible and the traffic diverted out of Putney High Street. Secondly, they must drop the requirement for Hammersmith and Fulham Council to provide 50% of the funding—that is not feasible, and the Minister knows it.

Thirdly, the Government must expedite action on the funding proposals submitted by Hammersmith and Fulham Council on 19 February; they present workable and realistic ways forward and must not be left to simply sit and gather dust. Fourthly, I would like reassurance that the taskforce will start delivering and co-operating, so that Hammersmith and Fulham and Richmond Councils, Transport for London and the Government work together to come up with urgent solutions. Fifthly, I ask that the Secretary of State and the leader of the Government taskforce meet me and other concerned parliamentary colleagues as a matter of urgency.

Enough talk. Our constituents want action. The Government know what they need to do. It is time they delivered on the funding agreement to finance the temporary bridge urgently and the restoration and re-opening of Hammersmith bridge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I want to address one further inaccuracy. If I have time after that, I will take an intervention.

As with any local infrastructure project, the Government expect the local authority to take the lead in promoting the scheme. We have heard from the leader of the council, who does not believe that the borough has the capital funds available to meet the costs of repairing the bridge. Indeed, on several occasions he has said that his residents are not users of the bridge and should therefore not be liable for the works.

In discussions with the leader of the council and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, various options for contributions for funding the project have been discussed. Unfortunately, the council seems to look to the national Government with gold-tinted lenses, not understanding that we cannot and will not hand out a blank cheque for the works. How would that be fair to taxpayers up and down the country and to those who have been responsible, such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan)? This is what councils all over the country have to do when they are carrying out major infrastructure works.

[Sarah Olney]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

I am afraid I cannot, because I need to clarify a number of inaccuracies.

It has been reported in the press by the hon. Member for Putney that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has asked the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to contribute 50% of the cost. That option was discussed. All that was requested of the borough was that the leader send a plan for the borough’s funding proposal. So far, the so-called bids that have been sent in amount to nothing more than letters asking for an unsubstantiated amount. It is simply not appropriate to ask for funding from central Government on that basis. The Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham should have taken the time to understand what is required to submit a bid to the Government. We stand ready to help. There is plenty of help available for officials to put these bids together, but that has not been happening.

When evaluating any temporary crossing solution, the complexity of procurement and requirement of various consents must be considered. Given these challenges, the borough and the taskforce determined that a ferry service would provide an immediately available alternative river crossing for pedestrians and cyclists. That has been provided and we are very grateful to the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames for its support.

The closure of the bridge has affected not just those who need to cross it, but those who travel along the river beneath it. The taskforce is an essential first step. Contrary to statements earlier, the taskforce has met regularly. It stands ready to meet any Member who would like to meet my noble Friend Baroness Vere in the other place; she is more than happy to discuss in full the detailed complexities that we cannot possibly air in a 30-minute debate in a political environment such as we have here tonight.

These are serious and complex engineering works. I am afraid that it is completely inaccurate to make the point in this House that there is no action from the Government. I will not stand here and let Opposition Members say that. We have taken on additional responsibilities—well over and above our statutory responsibilities—as Opposition Members know. We have gone out of our way to help.

[Rachel Maclean]

I suggest to the hon. Member that his comments tonight are wholly irresponsible, because they have not reflected the work on the Government side to engage constructively with the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham in order to understand its funding position and what it can afford. The borough has not come back on any of the engagements and discussions that we have extended to it regarding realistic sums of money. If it cannot afford that amount of money, it should come back and tell us what it can afford. That is how infrastructure projects up and down the country are conducted. The hon. Member knows that very well.

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She referred earlier to fairness to taxpayers. Does she think that this is fair to the taxpayers of Richmond upon Thames, who are the most affected by this bridge closure? Their lives are being ruined, their businesses are closing, they cannot get to school or work, they cannot access medical services, and they have no say over what the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham does with its budget, but they understand that £140 million is more than that borough can afford. They are looking to the Government for assistance, and all they ask for is a commitment for the funding. The Minister stands here and talks about all the administrative barriers that are in the way. All we ask for is a commitment.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. It is not fair to taxpayers in any part of the country that that London borough should think that, due to its lack of a maintenance programme on this bridge over the years, people from outside the borough should be expected to stump up for its failure and incompetence. No, it is not fair to them.

In summary, as we have heard tonight, the closure of the bridge has affected not just those who need to cross it but those who travel along the river beneath it. The taskforce has enabled an agreement between the Port of London authority and the borough to allow limited and controlled river transits from 12 April when work is not being undertaken on the bridge. That is a very important point. It is welcome news for commercial river users, who can now continue operations as national lockdown restrictions ease.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [Lords]

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

The benefits and disbenefits of the proximity to Heathrow airport are two sides of the same coin for my constituency. The issues of air space management and, crucially, noise pollution are of great importance, but this Government —and, I have to say, most previous Governments—have been slow and not done enough. I do not want airspace modernisation being used as an excuse to enable yet more flights into Heathrow, resulting in more hours and days with continuous noise, and yet more traffic congestion and air pollution.

The Civil Aviation Authority is the key statutory authority governing aviation, but it has few powers to control noise, or, for that matter, any other environmental objectives such as the climate crisis and the impact of emissions, all of which are subsumed beneath the objective of safety. I have worked for many years—long before I was elected to this place—with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and I support his amendment to the Bill to include in the CAA’s remit a duty

“to reduce, minimise or mitigate…noise”.

I regret that it has not been accepted by the Government.

There is a growing body of evidence—referred to in the recent report by the Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise—which cites the health and other impacts of aviation noise, from hypertension to cognitive impairment in children. To clarify, in normal times 70% of flights arriving at Heathrow come over my constituency. They are locked into a gradually descending final arrival path. Roughly two thirds of my constituents live within the area of significant noise disturbance, and the other third would do if runway three were to go ahead, or, for that matter, if the CAA approved additional flights by allowing planes to join the final approach late, from the north or south.

In the last 12 months, my constituents and I have noticed a difference to our daily lives, with a 90% cut in arrival flights over our homes. We know that for Heathrow to go back to anything like normal operation, the current noise-free days cannot last, but when it comes to airspace changes, communities affected by aircraft noise should at least be treated with respect, be consulted and have their views treated seriously.

The pandemic has exposed not only how much our noise environment is dominated by aircraft noise, but also how much our local economy has been dependent on the airport. Unemployment in communities around Heathrow has risen by 150% on average, and that is while many people are still furloughed and not yet adding to the unemployment figures. This shows the urgent need for support for our aviation communities, as previous speakers have mentioned. We have been promised an aviation recovery strategy for nine months, but all we have had is silence; yet, aviation is the sector that will take the longest to recover.

To conclude, whether it is on noise or aviation jobs, this Government do not seem willing to listen and act to support airport communities.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]]

It is a pleasure to be here, speaking in the Chamber remotely, at the Report stage of this very important Bill, which the Liberal Democrats have supported all the way through. The provisions it contains are long overdue, particularly those on airspace modernisation.

We welcome the opportunity for the Government to take powers to improve the use of airspace for the benefit, yes, of the aviation industry, but also for the communities who live around airports, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) just spelled out in her excellent speech. I, too, represent one of those communities —Richmond Park. We have long been plagued by excessive noise from aircraft. There has been some welcome respite during the pandemic and the lockdown, but my constituents are fearful of what may happen in the future, especially if the Government go ahead with their stated plans to allow expansion at Heathrow. I impress on them that they have the opportunity to put my constituents’ fears at rest on that matter.

We support the airspace modernisation plans in the Bill. However, I reiterate what the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said: if not through this Bill, then at some time in the future, the CAA ought to be given the power to consider the impact of noise on local communities when designating airspace. It is such an important issue because of the impact that it has on mental health, on physical health, on people’s ability to sleep and on people’s ability to go about their daily lives. That is highlighted to me so often by my constituents. Again, it was discussed very eloquently by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth.

I also support what the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said about the impact that climate change is having and the need to give powers in that regard to the CAA. That is a really important point. The Government are not yet being clear about how they expect the aviation industry to contribute to their drive towards net zero. It is absolutely essential that we get more clarity on how that will be achieved. Aviation obviously has an important role to play in our economy. It has had an exceptionally tough year, and we know from announcements made only today that the future of aviation continues to be very unsettled. We look forward to more direction from the Government about how they plan to build back better in aviation.

The Liberal Democrats support this Bill and will continue to support it through its remaining stages.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will see if we are any luckier with Jim Shannon this time.

National Bus Strategy: England

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as is Matt Robinson. People want to be able to jump on a bus, jump off another one and get on a third one, regardless of which company happens to be running them, and for them to be integrated with rail services and, where relevant, trams as well. That is very much at the heart of our plan. He will be pleased to learn that the bus strategy requires and insists that local authorities come up with a plan that allows people to buy a ticket that they can use many times, with a cap so that they are not overcharged for making many journeys.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]]

Like other Members, I welcome the release of “Bus Back Better” and many of the provisions contained in it, but why does the Secretary of State commit himself to review only the part of the Bus Services Act 2017 that prohibits local authority ownership when the strategy highlights so many great examples of good practice? Why can he not go further and scrap those provisions?

[Grant Shapps]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s welcoming the strategy. She mentions the Bus Services Act 2017 and—we have already had an exchange on this—the extent to which local authorities can run bus services. She should know that I do not mind who runs these services: I just want them to run properly. I want passengers to be able to get the buses when they need them, where they need them, and as efficiently as possible. I will look at all these matters in the context of what delivers the best services, and nothing else.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [Lords]

Sarah Olney Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]]

I am sorry that you cannot see me, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for updating the House with the very sad news about Captain Sir Tom Moore’s death. I extend the Liberal Democrats’ condolences to the family at this very sad news. His positive and energetic response to the lockdown last summer was an inspiration to many people at a time when we really needed it, and a great sadness at the news of his death will extend far beyond his family and friends.

I am speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats on this important piece of legislation. It is fantastic that it is finally making its way through the Houses of Parliament. It is a really important and long overdue airspace modernisation Bill, and I welcome its Second Reading today. The Liberal Democrats will be supporting all parts of the Bill. Obviously, anything at all to do with airspace modernisation will be closely monitored in Richmond Park, especially in the light of changes to the aviation industry resulting from covid-19. We have seen an enormous drop in aviation activity; in terms of the overall noise that my residents are experiencing, that is certainly something that we welcome.

We very much welcome the Government taking powers to implement airspace change in part 1 of the Bill, because we hope that by taking control of such changes, they will enable residents who live under flightpaths or near airports to be listened to. Residents should have the opportunity to respond to consultations, and to have the Government respond to their views when changes are proposed. This should not be driven just by the airline industry, and I believe we can get a better balance so that all different and competing interests are reflected in this airspace change which, as other hon. Members have said, is long overdue.

Hon. Members have been speaking about aircraft noise, and about developments such as noise-saving or quieter aircraft. I hope we will be able to bank any improvements in aircraft noise, as that will improve the quality of life for residents everywhere, and certainly for those who live under flight paths and near airports. I hope that can be about a general improvement in quality of life, rather than the proposal, which I have seen, for such improvements just to mean that we have more aircraft, so that we would maintain current levels of noise, but with more, quieter, aircraft. I want to push back against that, and encourage the Minister to think about a gradual alleviation of the burden of noise on residents everywhere.

We welcome the temporary provisions in part 2 of the Bill on slot allocation, which will provide certainty for an industry that has had the most catastrophic year and is looking very much to the future. Airlines will want to know that their slots are protected, and the change in legislation makes a great deal of sense. As others have highlighted, it is absurd that airlines should feel forced to provide empty or half-empty services just to maintain slots. That is not only a waste of money—a precious cost that the industry can ill afford at this time—but the impact on carbon emissions does not need spelling out. We are all committed to reducing unnecessary carbon emissions, and we need the Bill to stop those unnecessary flights. The Bill will introduce welcome flexibility to slot allocation as we go forward and find our way out of the covid pandemic, and particularly when we start to rebuild the aviation industry after the lockdown. That will enable the industry to respond better to changes in demand, with a corresponding saving in costs and carbon emissions.

I welcome the legislation on drones, which is long overdue. Drones have been a feature of UK life for a considerable time, and until now much of the regulation on their use has been contained in CAA regulations. The use of drones should be governed by criminal law, and as we saw with the Gatwick shutdown at Christmas 2018, proper legislation is long overdue. Drones will have a transformative impact on British life over the next 10 to 15 years, and they have clear and proven benefits to our military, police and emergency services. There are emerging applications for drones in our business and creative sectors. Those advantages have also been exploited by criminals and terrorists, and it is right to introduce powers to clamp down on illegal usage and make the fullest positive use of the new technology. Part of that involves building trust among the British public regarding the use of drones and those who use them, so that they know that drones are properly regulated and licensed and that usage is monitored. That will give us the opportunity fully to exploit their potential.

I am concerned that the Bill does not address the pressing issue of privacy and the threat to it that drones represent. Addressing that properly will encourage the British public in their confidence about drone use. I hope the Government will continue to monitor the development of drone use, and be prepared to update legislation accordingly, as and when new uses appear—including potentially negative uses—so that we maintain the British public’s trust in that emerging and exciting new technology.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Lady for her excellent question. I have been talking to the rail companies and, indeed, the general secretaries of the unions throughout this crisis and we have issued comprehensive guidance to public transport operators, including rail operators. This has been reinforced by officials throughout the pandemic on how to keep staff safe and trains clean, so that passengers and staff are able to maintain good hygiene.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

If he will make it his policy to speed up the installation of tactile paving in all railway stations.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)]

The Department expects the industry to meet current accessibility requirements whenever it installs, renews or replaces station infrastructure. This includes appropriate tactile paving.

[Sarah Olney [V]]

Does the Minister acknowledge that travellers will need extra encouragement to get out of their cars and back on to public transport once the coronavirus restrictions have been lifted? Will he prioritise making railway stations safe and accessible as a means of attracting travellers back?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am fully aware, as is every single person in the industry, that we will need to entice and encourage passengers back when they are allowed to travel on our trains. And yes, the hon. Lady is absolutely right: our stations need to be more friendly, more welcoming, more accessible and spotless—and they will be. To accelerate the programme of tactile paving, we have included it as part of our core scope for accessible routes installed under the Access for All programme, so I hope that she will see some changes when she returns to public transport.

Transport for London: Funding

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. It has been quite amusing to listen to my fellow MPs talking about whether the current or the previous Mayor is more to blame for the current state of TfL’s finances, but there is no doubt at all that whatever decisions have been made by either Mayor in the past, they were made in a pre-pandemic phase. The situation we are in now could not have been anticipated by anybody.

TfL’s income is almost unique in the world for a capital city, in that 80% of it comes from fare income. That is quite unprecedented among capital cities, most of which enjoy a far greater level of Government subsidy. There is no doubt, therefore, that when something such as the pandemic comes along and the instruction is given to Londoners to stay home and not to use public transport, there will be a big impact on finances. Londoners did exactly what they were supposed to do. They stopped using the tube and the buses: the subsequent impact on income has nothing to do with the mayoral policies of either the current Mayor or any previous one. The situation could not have been predicted.

The situation that we are in now is that TfL, not surprisingly, has required a bail-out in order to maintain its services. We need to look forward, not back at which Mayor was responsible for previous finances. What is the plan now for keeping our public transport going in London? In the comprehensive spending review last week, I was disturbed to see that the Government have not budgeted anything in the next financial year for any further bail-outs for TfL.

As I said last week, I am encouraged by the implication that the vaccine roll-out means that we will be back to full capacity on our tubes and buses in May next year, but I am little sceptical about it. I think it is a mistake for the Government not to plan further investment into London’s transport network, because we know that the drivers of the London economy are our cultural industries, our financial services and our retail sector. They have all seen a big hit from coronavirus and, potentially, a big hit from Brexit. They need investment from central Government to get them back up and running, and to get London running again at full speed, as it was before. That investment needs to go into our public transport network.

The point was made by an earlier speaker that the issue is not just about Londoners, but about travellers from abroad. If London is to get back up and running again, it needs to welcome travellers from abroad and it needs the public transport network. I am disappointed to hear from the Government that they plan to finance TfL through tax rises and charges on Londoners. That is what we were told: council tax increases and an increase in the congestion charge.

There was talk of scrapping travel for under-18s to pay for the bail-out. Much has been said about that and there were some excellent contributions from fellow Members. I want to pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) made in his opening remarks about a potential doubling in car usage. In my constituency of Richmond Park, we do not want to see a doubling in car usage. Car usage is already a major scourge on our roads. The congestion and the impact on air pollution is terrible, as is the way it cuts people off from their local town centres.

My particular concern for young people is the impact on their safety. If there is an increase in the number of cars because they are being driven to school instead of catching the bus, then there is a knock-on impact on road safety. I worry for the safety of those who cannot afford to be driven to school and have to walk long distances, potentially in the dark, as well as the knock-on impact that might have on our policing budget. There are many budget implications for local authorities if we take away free travel for under-18s, which need to be considered alongside any potential savings for TfL.

It would be remiss of me not to use this opportunity to talk about Hammersmith bridge. I am talking to the Department for Transport about its long-term plans for travel in London, but please can we get some movement on this? It is imperative, and it has been obvious from the start, that there needs to be a substantial contribution from the Department for Transport. The sooner it can commit to that, the earlier stabilisation works can be undertaken. The sooner we can get pedestrians and cyclists back over the bridge, to connect my Barnes residents to all the services, shops and transport links on the other side of the Thames, the better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

Of course I will address those concerns. I am about to do that, but I am highlighting the facts at the outset.

[Sarah Olney]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

With respect, I do not think I can give way. I want to address the substantive points, but I will be happy to talk to hon. Members on another occasion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington highlighted in his opening speech the shocking extent of the Mayor of London’s financial mismanagement of Transport for London. We all know that coronavirus has cost £1.6 billion in lost fare revenue, but Mayor Sadiq Khan’s mismanagement of Transport for London’s finances has cost £9.56 billion in the round, and we heard many examples from hon. Members during the debate.

We can all agree that the transport network is key in supporting a safe and sustainable recovery for London. That was why, on 31 October, the Government agreed a second extraordinary funding and financing package with TfL for up to £1.7 billion, on top of the £1.6 billion funding package agreed with TfL in May. That is proof of the Government’s commitment to supporting transport services in London while remaining fair to national taxpayers.

The May funding agreement with TfL contained a series of measures to manage demand and to facilitate safe travel, including a temporary suspension of free travel for under-18s. I stress that that was agreed by the Government, the Mayor of London and the deputy mayor for transport. However, the suspension was not operationalised at the time. No one doubts the importance of free travel. It was always the case that children eligible for free home-to-school travel would continue to receive it, with families on low incomes—those most disadvantaged children—continuing to receive that free travel. It is right to say that the rationale was demand management, as before the covid-19 crisis, around a third of journeys were made by young people travelling to school.

[Sarah Olney]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

Very briefly, because I have several points to make.

[Sarah Olney]

I pointed out in my speech that in normal, pre-pandemic times, TfL raised about 80% of its own revenue. It was not primarily subsidised by taxpayers, so it is not by and large taxpayers who pay for free travel for young Londoners—or, indeed, for elderly Londoners.

[Rachel Maclean]

I remind the hon. Lady that central Government have agreed billions of pounds of support for Transport for London.

The initial reason for bringing in the suspension, or discussing it, was because it was seen as necessary to ensure that capacity was available on buses for those who needed to use it, including some schoolchildren, given social distancing requirements. At this point, I would like to refer to the Government’s commitment to support cycling and walking, or active travel. People should walk and cycle wherever possible, and that is why the Government have made £2 billion available to support it. According to TfL’s own statistics, the average journey to school in London is less than 1 km, so it is not unreasonable to suggest that some of those journeys could be made by active travel.

As part of the latest £1.7 billion of extraordinary funding agreed by the Government and TfL on 31 October, national taxpayers will continue to fund free travel concessions to standard English levels, and free travel to school for children who qualify under legislation. If the Mayor wishes to maintain concessions for Londoners above the English level, he will raise the money to pay for that. That represents a fair position for the whole country and brings London in line with the rest of England.

In agreeing the recent extraordinary funding and financing package, the Mayor proposed that he could pay for those concessions by retaining the central London congestion charge at its current level and increasing the existing TfL element of the Greater London Authority’s council tax precept. He must make his final choice by January 2021. It is the Mayor who has decided what the increase to the congestion charge should be and what the coverage is.

Several hon. Members raised the question of Hammersmith bridge. They will know that my noble Friend Baroness Vere of Norbiton is working on that and leading a taskforce. TfL has been given £4 million and a further £2.3 million for immediate mitigation, and a lot of detailed work is ongoing to sort the problem out.

Turning to TfL’s financial situation, the Government did agree a second package that will provide financial support until March 2021. The Government will make up the fare revenue that TfL has lost due to covid-19. The deal runs until 31 March, and the Government will continue to monitor TfL’s financial health and work closely with it to ensure that it continues to operate essential services and supports our recovery from the pandemic.

I would also like to put on record the fact that the Government are not forcing the Mayor of London to raise council tax. If he does so, it will be his decision and his alone. The Department works closely with him and constructive discussions are ongoing. Of course, I remind the Opposition that the Mayor of London is a politician, but nevertheless there are constructive discussions going on, as we have seen from the deals that have been agreed, which benefit Londoners and the transport network on which they rely.

As hon. Members have pointed out, the financial package agreed itself recognises that the Mayor of London has not done enough to find savings. His financial management has not been good enough, and further efficiencies must be found. Opposition Members have highlighted the impact on young people, so I must be clear: it is for the Mayor of London to explain to those young people why he has made the choices that will have those devastating consequences that Members are setting out. The Government have stood behind Transport for London to the tune of £2.3 billion. I suggest it is now time for the Mayor of London to take responsibility and show genuine leadership, instead of seeking to lay all his problems at the door of central Government.

Aviation Sector

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands]

I could not agree more. The Transport Secretary came to the Dispatch Box and said that he had saved Flybe. Furthermore, the Chancellor promised back in March that there would be sector-specific support for the aviation industry. The Secretary of State stood in the same room as me, looked the industry in the eye, and said, “I understand the enormity of what you are facing and this Government will stand by your side.” But where is he? Where are the Government? The loyal workers of British Airways, EasyJet, Menzies Aviation, Swissport and so many others look at their P45s or their shamefully slashed contracts and do not think that the Government have been by their side. What is left of the sector is waiting. As of now we have seen nothing, and, as we have seen, it is the employees who are taking the brunt.

The Committee also recommended that business rates relief should be extended in England and Wales to aviation businesses. The only sector-specific support for the aviation industry has come from the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Executive in giving airports and ancillary firms a rates holiday for a year. The Treasury must step up and do the same.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gavin Newlands]

I will make some progress.

We also looked at problems faced by thousands of customers in their attempts to secure refunds from airlines after cancellations caused by the pandemic. It is unacceptable that airline after airline has decided that the law does not apply to them—although given the example set this week by the Government it is perhaps unsurprising—and tried to evade their legal responsibilities by fobbing customers off with vouchers. While welcoming the recent, belated announcement extending the protections under the ATOL—air travel organisers’ licence—scheme, the reprehensible behaviour by some airlines has shown that we need to look at how the system operates and whether we should be keeping passenger fares in trust.

This PR disaster has been confounded by the actions of airlines such as British Airways/IAG. While making full use of Government finance, BA/IAG and its hatchet man-in-chief, Willie Walsh, who has just skipped off into the sunset with an £800,000 bonus pay-off, have sacked 12,000 staff and fired and rehired 30,000 more, with staff forced to take wage cuts of up to 60% and drastically reduced conditions, under threat of being thrown on the dole in the middle of the biggest economic crisis since the war.

We have also seen ground handler Menzies Aviation follow a similar path—this despite, during a phone call with me, assuring me that it absolutely would not be taking this kind of approach: an approach that we said would swiftly be followed by others if the Government refused to act. So it has proven, with blue chip company Centrica/British Gas making the same threats, along with many other companies across the UK. This sort of disreputable and despicable management tactic should be against the law, but is not. I again repeat my call for the Government to get behind my Bill or introduce their own measure to make these bully-boy tactics illegal. But despite the difficulties they cause for advocates like me, an industry should not and cannot be judged on the behaviour of its worst members.

At the start of this period, aviation supported nearly 1 million direct and indirect jobs. For those of us who represent airport constituencies, there is real danger that the flood of redundancies becomes a tsunami, with a catastrophic impact on our local and regional economies. The effects on the supply chain are even more devastating when it comes to aerospace companies such as Rolls-Royce. At Inchinnan in my constituency, 700 jobs—over 50% of the workforce—are gone. These were high-skilled, high-value jobs, now lost from our economy, perhaps never to return. I fear for the long-term future of high-level manufacturing like Rolls-Royce if the Government continue to lift not a finger to save jobs and save local communities.

Free Travel for Under-18s: London

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury]

Absolutely. We keep hearing in this House how universal credit and the other benefits just do not keep up with the real cost of living in London. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

We have covered the inequality issues, but the decision is also technically complex and costly to administer. As I say, 30% of young Londoners are entitled under national regulations to free travel anyway, and so will continue to have that right. That includes those on free school meals or other benefits, and those with special educational needs and so on. But there is currently no system in place in London for working out which children qualify. Indeed, any such system would be more complex than any in England, with seven fare zones and over a fifth of children crossing borough boundaries to get to school. Will the home council administer the scheme, or the one where the school is based, or will TfL or the schools administer it? We do not know.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The hon. Lady mentions that many children will have to travel quite a distance to school. Does she share my concern that those distances will now be completed by car journeys, particularly in the outer boroughs such as ours, instead of bus journeys? That takes us backwards in our quest to reduce car journeys and emissions in the capital.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I absolutely agree with my other honourable neighbour. She is absolutely right, because while London has the lowest car ownership in the UK, it does not take a lot of additional cars on the road to create extra congestion. That would send all the wrong messages and be completely contrary to the messages the Government are trying to bring in about alternative travel.

The Government expect this new system to be agreed and up and running in a matter of weeks when staff are already under huge pressure. I do not believe the Government have considered the logistics, and with no precedent for changing the concessions, there is also no way of knowing how many under-18s would still pay to use public transport. TfL expects a demand reduction of only 1% to 2% in the morning peak if these proposals were to be implemented from September, reaching only 5% by January, so the proposal is not even going to achieve the Government’s aim of reducing demand significantly.

TfL is willing and able to work with local authorities and schools on a range of measures to address demand, such as staggering start times, capping numbers on buses, and encouraging walking and cycling where possible for those who live near school, whereas this proposal, which might hit the already disadvantaged hardest, might only reduce demand during the morning rush hour by 1% to 2%.

The Minister might say that children should cycle, but even when new segregated cycle routes are in place, I challenge her to find many 2-mile to 5-mile home-to-school journeys that can be done by an 11-year-old, wholly on segregated cycle paths, including crossing major junctions or on quiet streets like in Hackney. Many boroughs are not implementing these schemes anyway. Kensington and Chelsea seems somewhat reluctant.

Furthermore, many low-income families do not own a bike, many homes have nowhere safe to store a bike and not everyone lives in a place where it is safe to walk to school. Those walking longer distances are at risk from those preying on vulnerable children. One mother said to me that the advantage of the bus is the CCTV, so the groomers and the robbers do not tend to use them. Many London children travel long distances to school, beyond the reach of the bike.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point. All these matters are being considered in the work that is going on while this policy is being operationalised by TfL and the Department for Transport.

Walking and cycling will play a vital role in ensuring that pupils are able to attend classes safely and on time. While we do appreciate some of the challenges that have been identified, it is the Government’s preferred approach that pupils should walk and cycle wherever possible.

[Sarah Olney]

Would the Minister concede that it is not just the educational opportunities that we are concerned about in the scrapping of free travel? Our young people are also being denied access to a vast array of sporting, cultural and social opportunities and the opportunity to build confidence and independence in being able to travel around without their parents.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point, but the £1.6 billion bail-out for Transport for London was a temporary measure in response to the covid pandemic. Of course it is right that taxpayers across the country subsidise London travel because of its importance to the economy, but is it right that taxpayers across the rest of the country should be paying for measures that are not available in their own areas?

Covid-19: Aviation

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I agree with my hon. Friend. As I have outlined, businesses get the benefits from being shareholders in the good times, and they should be sharing the burden in the bad times. Ultimately, it is the workers who make—and, really, dictate the success of—any business. I have already outlined that there are opportunities as we work through coronavirus and move to the end of December, and I am quite willing to look at anything that can benefit, open up and increase competition in the aviation sector.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

In the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe), she said that she wanted to make the point to BA that the job retention scheme was not to be used for redundancies. Can she confirm specifically what engagement the Government have had with BA? It is at least three weeks since I was first contacted by constituents who are appalled by the way in which they are being treated after a lifetime of loyal service. What have the Government actually done to engage with BA on this point?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The hon. Lady will accept that I have been engaging regularly throughout the last 10 weeks with the whole aviation sector, including with BA and other organisations that have made similar announcements, and I will continue to do that. Questions such as this will make a clear point to those organisations. As I have said before, the organisations taking these decisions ultimately need customers, and if customers view that their actions are below par, people might start voting with their feet when booking flights.

Hammersmith Bridge

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered a proposal for Government funding for the repair of Hammersmith Bridge.

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. As a fellow London MP, you are no doubt aware of the intricacies of crossing the River Thames.

It is also a great pleasure to see the Minister in her place with her new brief, given how helpful she was at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the many issues I pestered her with there. I look forward to a favourable response today—I am definitely in buttering-up mode, because I am asking for money.

In the short time we have for this debate, I will do a tour d’horizon of the history, the life, the engineering and the strategic importance of Hammersmith bridge. At the end, however, to spoil the denouement, we come down to one fact. We know where we are going with the methodology, the necessary works—complex as they are—and what to do about temporary river crossings, and although with most of those issues, we do not have a final timescale or costing, we know the ballpark figures. What we do not have, to put it crudely, is the money.

We have had £25 million, which has taken us thus far with the works that are necessary to the bridge, but we need a substantial amount more—at least £100 million beyond that. This debate is my pitch, and that of others, so I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) are present. I think they would agree that if this major strategic river crossing and landmark, an important bridge for London, is to be restored, the co-operation will be required of not only the local authorities, Transport for London and the Greater London Authority, but the Department for Transport.

Baroness Vere is the Minister with direct line of responsibility for the matter, but I am pleased that the Minister present is covering it in the Commons. Since the debate was granted, however, I am grateful that Baroness Vere has agreed to meet me, the hon. Member for Richmond Park and the two borough council leaders most affected on 9 March. I would have loved it if the Minister present had a cheque with her to hand over to me—I would promise to pass it on—but I understand that the discussion is ongoing and may continue at that meeting. Nevertheless, it is useful to set up some of the arguments today, and some of the background, which I will do as briefly as I can.

In four years’ time, we will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Act of Parliament that granted consent for the first suspension bridge over the River Thames. That bridge was constructed at the cost of £80,000 and opened in 1827. I had a look at the debate on Second Reading, and it was a hotly contented matter. Mr Serjeant Onslow opposed the motion in favour of the bridge. He called the Bill “perfectly uncalled for” and said that:

“There were already two bridges, Kew-bridge and Putney-bridge, within a mile and a half of the site of the intended bridge, which would lead to a part where there were at present hardly any inhabitants.”

That is slightly insulting to the people of Barnes who, no doubt, were busily constructing their community even then.

Sir F. Ommaney spoke in favour of the Bill. He

“complained strongly of the insecure state of Putney-bridge. Not long since, a friend of his happened to be riding over that bridge, when the fore-feet of his horse sank into a hole, and both horse and rider were placed in a most perilous situation.” —[Official Report, 13 April 1824; Vol. 11, c. 397-98.]

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose, for anyone who has driven or walked over Hammersmith bridge in the past few years.

The bridge we know now, the famous landmark, is the finest of the Thames bridges, although I am obviously prejudiced. It is the work of Joseph Bazalgette, who is perhaps more famous for constructing the London sewer system on which we all still rely today. This bridge was proposed in the 1870s as a consequence of 12,000 people crowding on to the old bridge to watch the boat race, the belief being that it was in danger of collapse. Again, we may have to restrict numbers later this month for the boat race—little seems to change over time. In 1884, a temporary bridge was put up—we are discussing such issues again—until finally the bridge that we all know and love today was erected, on the piers of the original bridge.

The current bridge opened in 1887, but its piers are still those of the original 1827 bridge. That is relevant today because, had there been a renovation scheme to restore or replace the piers, that might have brought the bridge up to a much heavier standard of weight, allowing many more heavy vehicles to go across it. Again, that would have been a huge additional investment, even beyond the large sums being proposed today—so we will still be using the 1827 piers.

Most of the rest of the superstructure of the bridge needs substantial replacement. One of the reasons is that over the years Hammersmith bridge has three times been the target of IRA bombing, the first time in April 1939. Again looking at Hansard, I see that a Mr Childs—Maurice Childs, a hairdresser from Chiswick —found the bomb while walking across the bridge and had the foresight to throw it off. It exploded, causing some damage to the bridge but saving the main structure, for which he was awarded an MBE following the debate in Parliament.

The two more recent examples of bombing were more serious. The 1996 bomb did not detonate—the Semtex did not go off—fortunately, because at the time it was the largest Semtex bomb ever found in Britain and it would have destroyed the bridge had it done so. Four years later, post the Good Friday agreement, the bridge was damaged by a Real IRA bomb planted underneath the Barnes span. That, in part, led to one of the substantial closures of the bridge. Sadly, the post-war history of the bridge has been a succession of closures over time.

Another debate was held on the 1952 closure, when 13,000 vehicles a day were passing over the bridge—that is slightly more than half the current number—and 2,700 pedal cycles, which I add for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, who chairs the all-party group for cycling and walking. In response to the proposed closure, Mr Williams suggested

“half closing the bridge or giving the Royal Engineers some practice in building a Bailey bridge across the river”.—[Official Report, 23 June 1952; Vol. 502, c. 1821.]

Again, we are talking in exactly those same terms now—what the degree of closure needs to be and what temporary bridges need to be put in place. So the 1952 closure was significant. Major refurbishments took place in 1973 and again in 1987. In 1997, an 18-month closure of the bridge was for major works. Following that came the substantial restrictions—down to 7.5 tonnes and a limited number of buses—that have gone on until the present day.

The point of rehearsing all that ancient history is that this is not new to those of us familiar with the bridge. Hammersmith bridge is in a different category from many other bridges over the Thames. It is a largely cast-iron and wooden structure. There is no other example—I think it is unique in the world in how it is constructed. That makes it rather like Hammersmith flyover which we had a similar problem with some years ago—a unique structure that required major closures, and £70 million of expenditure—and the bridge, too, will need a radical solution. One good thing coming out of the current closure is that everybody is agreed on a way forward: we have to do sufficient work to give the bridge a long life into the future. A further patch-up job, or even further substantive repair jobs of the type done previously, clearly will not work.

Where are we in the scheme? Thanks to the £25 million that TfL put up when the closure initially happened last April, there has been no impediment to works going forward: the scoping, the planning and feasibility studies defining what is necessary in terms of both the stabilising works and the major works to the bridge. Within a month or two, we will be in a position to let those contracts and to ensure that the work progresses. Although it is taking a substantial amount of time, there is general understanding that it has to be done properly in that way.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on a matter of utmost importance in my constituency, and I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute. While we are considering Government funding to repair Hammersmith bridge, I urge the Minister to consider the difficulties that the bridge closure is causing my constituents in Barnes and further afield. Residents are unable to get to their hospital appointments and face much longer journeys to work. Should the Minister come to Barnes, East Sheen and Mortlake, she would see the appalling congestion being caused. Local businesses tell me that they are suffering reduced takings as a result of the bridge closure.

TfL is reporting that something in the region of 9,000 daily journeys have now dispersed as a result of the bridge closure. While we welcome fewer cars on the road, we should consider the economic and social opportunity cost of the journeys that are not being made.

[Andy Slaughter]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. One of the ironies is that, while many people are affected by the closure, it is those who need to travel into London from the south, including residents of Barnes and Richmond and those from wider afield—the residents of Brentford and Isleworth, Hammersmith, Fulham and Battersea—who are caused additional congestion because of the build-up of traffic going over Putney, Wandsworth and Chiswick bridges.