Road Safety and Active Travel to School

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend gives an excellent example of the benefits of Bikeability. Since 2007, Bikeability cycle training has been delivered to over 5 million children in England. In my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, 61% of year 6 pupils were booked on a Bikeability level 2 course in 2023-24; we aim for three quarters by 2026. In Oxfordshire, uniquely, Bikeability training is delivered by the fire service, for some very interesting historical reasons.

Following Bikeability training, the proportion of children reporting an intention to cycle one to three times per week for school travel increases, from 5% pre training to 24% post training. However, historical delays in funding and an annual funding model have meant that there has been no increase in Bikeability instructor numbers. That needs to change because there is an ongoing need to train more than 300 instructors a year to maintain numbers lost through retirement.

Another theme is culture and leadership. Pavement parking—

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way with almost perfect timing. Bikeability is not the only non-infrastructure approach. Every school in my constituency benefits from a 20 mph scheme that covers most of Edinburgh and—I think he is about to touch on this—a pavement parking ban. Those non-infrastructure approaches can be delivered cheaply and quickly. Does he agree that we need more of those in the UK?

Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Members with lengthy questions are just preventing their colleagues from getting in, so please keep your questions short.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and the leadership she is showing in delivering our manifesto commitments in partnership with industry. The contrast is clear with the Opposition, who are bringing along uncosted ideas for grants, subsidies and tax cuts. I welcome the reaffirmation of the plan to roll out EV charging, but is she sure that that will be able to meet EV demand, and are there any plans for a battery health check to help reassure people buying used vehicles in the second-hand market?

[Heidi Alexander]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We are working with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on the battery health check issue that he raises. I assure him that we are working closely with the private sector on the roll-out of charge point infrastructure. As I said in my statement, a new EV charger is currently installed every 29 minutes, or at a rate of 50 a day. Only a couple of weeks ago, I visited the new InstaVolt charging super-hub in Winchester, which, when one sees it, really is a glimpse into the future. It is imperative that the Government continue to work with the private sector to make sure that the charging infrastructure is there for everyone in the places where they need it when they need it.

Road Maintenance

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont]

I do agree, and I will develop that point. My concern is that policymakers, whether here in Westminster or in Edinburgh, have an urban outlook to transport. They assume that people have access to buses and trains, but those of us living in rural communities do not, so roads and cars become much more important.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I have to point out that Edinburgh is Scotland’s lowest funded local authority, looking at the block grant allocation. In preparing for this debate, I checked what the Scottish Government have been saying about the pothole crisis in Scotland, and I found that they have said absolutely nothing. Has the hon. Gentleman been able to find anything from them on this issue?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Scottish Borders council would be very grateful to receive the level of funding that Edinburgh council receives. Notwithstanding that, it is a problem that the Scottish Government do not invest in roads in the way we would expect.

The hon. Member will be fully aware of the scandal surrounding the A9, which does not affect my constituency or, indeed, his, but the delays and the broken promises that the SNP has made to upgrade that vital road linking the north of Scotland with the rest of Scotland—and the rest of the UK, for that matter—have caused huge frustrations to the rural communities it serves.

My criticism is not only directed at the SNP Government. As Labour Members will realise, the Labour Government are not immune from criticism either. The previous Conservative Government promised to invest in upgrading the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham, and this Government’s decision to cancel that upgrade has caused great upset not just in my constituency but in Northumberland.

The A1 is a vital road for the local economy in the Scottish Borders, and it is also a vital road in Northumberland. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) is no longer in his place, but that road supports local jobs and the local economy. Savagely cutting that funding and scrapping the investment to improve that road will undoubtedly cause economic hardship for the communities that rely on that road.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for opening the debate. I think it is the most interesting debate we have had since we debated buses—it is fantastic.

I am proud to call Edinburgh my home, and I love the fact that tourists come from all over the world to see the city. However, I am often ashamed of what they encounter on arrival, particularly the potholes that litter the city—especially, it feels like, in Edinburgh South West. It is not just in Edinburgh, however; Scotland’s roads are in a horrendous state, with more than 400,000 potholes reported to local authorities since 2021. The state of our roads, as we heard earlier, is a great visual way of understanding local Government finances. What we see on our roads is replicated in our schools and our social care.

There are particular issues in Edinburgh. As I mentioned earlier, Edinburgh receives the lowest per capita funding of any council in Scotland. It is absolutely shameful for a capital city to be treated in that way. Since Labour took control of the city in 2022, we have made real efforts to improve our roads. I spoke to the transport convenor, Councillor Stephen Jenkinson, who happened to be my election agent last year—thanks to him—and he informed me that Edinburgh’s independently assessed road condition indicator has improved by 4.5% in the past year. That is the highest ever improvement in a single year. Of course, that is just a start, and what really matters is what people see when they step out of their house.

The maintenance list for this year was published just last week—pulled together by an excellent council officer called Sean Gilchrist, if we are praising council officers this evening. Among the 500,000 square metres of roads and footpaths that have been resurfaced, I was pleased to see that many had been raised by my Edinburgh South West constituents. We have a pothole probe machine; in Edinburgh, we call it a pothole killer, and I think it tops the league table. It has filled 22,000 square metres of potholes, so it has been busy.

The UK Government have created a dedicated pothole repair fund for councils south of the border. It stands at £1.6 billion, including £500 million of new money, so tens of millions of pounds have made their way to Scotland via the Barnett consequentials to fill potholes. That money was handed to Scottish Government Ministers, but they have set up no similar fund. Instead, they just blame councils for potholes. John Swinney, the First Minister, says that councils already have enough money to fix our roads, despite the fact that, as we heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), the national backlog is somewhere between £2.5 billion and £3 billion.

It is not just about the cost of filling the potholes; Cycling UK estimates that across the UK, one cyclist dies every week because of a pothole, so the cost is immeasurable. Enough is enough. Scotland’s pothole crisis cannot continue. The SNP Government must show some level of ambition—the same level of ambition as the UK Government—when it comes to potholes. I am disappointed that no SNP Members are here this evening to answer that.

Before I conclude, I will address something even more important than the state of our roads. It is not buses; it is the state of our pavements. In many cases, pavement conditions are worse than those on our roads. I was really pleased that the Secretary of State for Transport mentioned pavements, and I hope that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), will do so in his summing up, because I did not hear him speak about them. If we are serious about creating a more active and equal nation, we must discuss pavement conditions every time we talk about road conditions. There is an easy and low-cost way in which the Government could improve our footpaths, and that is by giving local authorities the power to introduce a pavement parking ban. A complete ban in Edinburgh last year has transformed the city and will lead to better quality pavements over time. I hope that towns and cities across England will soon have the same powers.

Driving Licences: Zero Emission Vehicles

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point, which I have been making for many years. I certainly did so during my time on the Transport Committee in the previous Parliament, and outside this place, as I have engaged with the classic car sector and all parts of the industry. He is right that there is a big innovative drive for sustainable fuels, if I can call them that. Some of them derive from feedstocks, others from waste matter, and they work in the internal combustion engines that we already have—in jet engines as well as motor vehicle engines.

There are also entirely man-made synthetic fuels that require no such feedstocks. They do not require food to be grown in order to be burned. There are innovators on that in this country and all over the world. For example, Zero Petroleum, just next door to my constituency—just over the Oxfordshire border at Bicester Heritage—has developed a fuel that works in every jet engine and every internal combustion engine that we enjoy today. It is entirely man-made; it is literally made out of air and water. It is a mixture of green hydrogen with atmospheric carbon capture. However, the ZEV mandate and the approach that the Government are taking in this statutory instrument rule that technology out of order, because there is still carbon at the tailpipe. The regulations ignore the fact that the carbon at the tailpipe is the same volume of carbon that is captured out of the atmosphere to make the next lot of fuel. In fact, a whole-system analysis shows that technology to be carbon-neutral—one volume of carbon is in a perpetual cycle. However, no matter how much Ministers and the Government claim to be technologically neutral, the test at the tailpipe, and the test in this statutory instrument, which explicitly refers to zero emission vehicles, rather than alternatively fuelled vehicles, do in fact mean that the Government pick a technological winner at every step, rather than letting our great innovators innovate.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I am interested to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge and experience of alternative fuels. He perhaps understands this statutory instrument better than I do, but I understood that it was about the weight of vehicles, and that an alternative fuel going through the internal combustion engine does not result in additional weight. Will any of the technologies that he is describing result in additional weight, and might they therefore fall foul of the limits in the regulations?

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is right that this is fundamentally about weight, but on the point about synthetic fuel, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) drew me on to a moment ago—I rarely need asking twice, given the number of years I have spent talking about this—it is true that there would not be an addition of weight. However, there would be for some alternatively fuelled systems. For example, in the case of hydrogen, the fuel tanks have to be much more robust. They certainly are in a hydrogen combustion vehicle, of which there are very few. As far as I understand it, it is only JCB that has developed the technology for a construction plant, but there could be an application to road vehicles in the future. Hydrogen runs at about 700 bar in the fuel tank, so we obviously would not put it in an existing car’s fuel tank; it simply could not take the pressure. There would be weight implications for such a system.

Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It may be of interest to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Bradford, part of which you represent, contains a centre of space expertise, namely the University of Bradford. I will return to that later.

I am privileged to introduce a Bill that will help to push forward investment in the UK’s critical space sector. It will amend two sections of the Space Industry Act 2018 to provide legal certainty that all space flight operator licences must include a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability to the Government under section 36 of the Act. What are space flight activities, one may ask? They cover launching spacecraft, such as satellites, into space, operating spacecraft in space—for example, allowing a spacecraft to orbit Earth—and bringing spacecraft back down to Earth.

Under the international law applicable to space, Governments, including ours in the UK, are liable for damage to property, death or personal injury caused by their space activities or by their nationals. That is a key reason why section 36 of the 2018 Act requires people carrying out spaceflight activities to indemnify the Government against such claims. The Bill provides legal certainty over the need to limit liability because that will encourage desperately needed investment in the sector.

The space sector and satellites are central to almost everyone’s day-to-day life. Let us take something simple like a trip to a football match. Middlesbrough fans—I’m afraid I am not among them—have a famous fanzine called “Fly Me To The Moon”. That is not a reference to Sinatra, but they might buy it using contactless. People will make their way to the match with the use of maps and travel updates on their phones and use Google Pay or Apple Wallet to store tickets and get into the stadium. All this depends on satellite technology. One may ask why the Boro fanzine is called “Fly Me To The Moon”. It is because Bruce Rioch, a great Scottish manager, then manager of Middlesbrough, said of his captain:

“If I had to fly to the moon I’d take Tony Mowbray, my captain, with me. He’s a magnificent man.”

Both men played a significant role in saving that magnificent football club.

Suppose, Madam Deputy Speaker, you wanted to read on your device “The First Men in the Moon” by H.G. Wells. That requires satellites. The protagonist in that novel is a Mr Bedford. I was brought up in Bedford, a wonderful town in Bedfordshire, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) is a fine friend. Suppose you wanted to stream “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”, famous for Audrey Hepburn singing “Moon River”. Streaming music depends on satellites. I confess that “Moon River” was one of my lullabies of choice when my children were younger and I was desperately trying to get them to sleep. I did not think that “Subterranean Homesick Alien” by Radiohead would be an apposite choice or, for that matter, Lou Reed’s great song “Satellite of Love”, so I stuck with “Moon River”. The House will be pleased to know that I do not propose to sing “Moon River”, because I am appalling at singing.

The critical point is that satellites and related technology are critical to modern life, and they will become even more so. There is a significant economic opportunity for the United Kingdom here. European demand for satellites up to 2033 is forecast to be worth $50 billion. Even 2% of that would bring around $1 billion in revenues for the UK economy alone. This provides a serious economic opportunity to the United Kingdom, and we must seize it with both hands, because we must get growth back into the British economy, and that is what our Government are determined to do.

Space is an industry of the future—a future of hundreds of years—and it is critical that we invest in and support industries that can bring our family of nations prosperity for decades to come. As President John F. Kennedy said,

“man and his quest for knowledge and progress is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not. And it is one of the great adventures of all time.”

President Kennedy said that in 1961, and in 2025 I say it is high time that the United Kingdom got stuck into this adventure and seized the opportunities it will provide.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this Bill—he is reaching for the stars with it, quite literally. I am proud to have a company in my constituency called Alpha Data, which is just 50 metres from my constituency office, but the products it designs are 250 miles above us. It has a sensor outside the International Space Station that measures atmospheric heating and cooling. Alpha Data employs 30 people in its office, but its supply chain stretches from inside the city to Kilsyth, the Scottish Borders and nearby Livingston. Does my hon. Friend agree that this company is evidence that the space sector is thriving in Scotland, and that this Bill should help it to go “To infinity and beyond”?

[John Grady]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. Edinburgh has a thriving space sector, as does Scotland. My hon. Friend has for many years been heavily involved in work to grow the economy in Edinburgh and the Borders, and I pay tribute to him for that.

I must, however, take this opportunity to pick a minor bone with my hon. Friend. He mentioned that Glasgow does not have a castle, and I wish to correct the record. We have a fine ruined castle called Crookston castle. It is the second-oldest building in Glasgow. The first-oldest building in Glasgow is the beautiful cathedral. I will not indulge in a dispute about whether Edinburgh or Glasgow is the better city. They are both beautiful, great cities. Glasgow is slightly better, but there you are. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I am also glad to be able to correct that point.

There is another reason why it is important that we have a thriving space and satellite industry. Space is critical to defence, and we must have a thriving space sector to protect our country. The United Kingdom works with allies to ensure that our interests are defended in space. However, the world is becoming more unstable, and it is essential that we have our own capabilities to launch and operate satellites from the United Kingdom, and this Bill is important in that regard, too. It will help to secure a vibrant end-to-end space industry in the United Kingdom, and that is important for defence. To take one example, having our own domestic launch capability is important, and a vibrant civilian sector will help to cover the costs of that launch capability. This Bill also has a national security theme.

Owing to much hard work, including by the last Government, the UK Space Agency and many others, the United Kingdom also has a firm foundation for a thriving space industry. In the time available, I cannot provide a complete survey of the vibrant and growing space industry, but here are some key points. One key task we have had is to develop our own launch capability to put satellites up in space, and then to get them back down. That is why there is so much chat about spaceports—in my life, at least.

SaxaVord, the UK spaceport in the Shetland Islands, is one of only two licensed vertical launch spaceports in Europe. That is at the far end of the north of the map of our family of nations. Down in the far south-west, we also have an operational spaceport in Cornwall. That illustrates that space is an opportunity for our family of nations from the very top to the very bottom—I mean that only in a cartographic sense; I am not looking to offend any Members from Cornwall.

There are also spaceports under construction and planned in: Sutherland, on the far north of the coast of Scotland, to the west of Thurso; North Uist, a wonderful place, which I commend as I spent much of my honeymoon there; Glasgow Prestwick; Spaceport Machrihanish, on the southern tip of the Argyll peninsula, which I would also recommend for a visit to Scotland; and, Snowdonia. Some may wonder where those places are. They are all wonderful places, and they illustrate that space is an opportunity across the United Kingdom.

Let us turn to the satellite or, as Lou Reed sang, “Satellite of Love”. The UK has incredible talents in manufacturing satellites and satellite technology. As a Scottish MP, I focus on Scotland, and as a Glasgow MP, I focus on Glasgow, but let us start in the Moray firth, where my mother came from. It has a fine tradition of engineering. For those who follow highland league football—I suspect I am in a minority of one in the House today—the fact that Forres Mechanics is one of the oldest football clubs in the north of Scotland points to a tradition of engineering there. The Jones shipyard in Buckie is another great engineering industry in the north of Scotland.

Of significantly more relevance to this debate is that Forres is home to Orbex, which is developing a rocket called Prime. It will be the first UK-manufactured and UK-launched orbital rocket. Prime is set to take off from SaxaVord in 2025. Prime is set to take off from SaxaVord in 2025. The UK Government have recently announced a £20 million investment in Orbex—an important investment that demonstrates the opportunities being brought to the north of Scotland, for which we need to redouble our efforts to secure economic growth and prosperity.

My home city of Glasgow has a rich history of innovation and an incredibly promising cluster of space expertise. As a Glasgow MP, I am determined that it should have a bright future in space. Glasgow is building more satellites than any other city in Europe. There are fantastic companies in the area including, Alba Orbital, which specialises in PocketQube satellites, AAC Clyde Space, which has expertise in small satellite technology, and Spire Global, which is a leading provider of space-based data analytics and space services. This year is Glasgow’s 850th birthday. The Bill will help secure the prosperity of Glasgow for the next 850 years, creating jobs and economic growth in my great city of hard work, innovation and enterprise.

There is clear economic analysis that shows that the space industry is an important opportunity area for growth and jobs. The latest “Size and Health of the UK Space Industry” report estimates that 228 organisations in Scotland generated a combined income of £298 million in 2021-22—almost double that of 2018-19 in real terms. About 6,500 people work in space in Scotland, and the figure for the UK is between 48,000 and 52,000. Income amounts to between £17.5 billion and £20 billion. There are more than 100,000 jobs in the supply chain as well.

Let us pause for a moment on that: we have only just got going on this and we have 48,000 or more jobs. There is much potential here for many more good, high-paid jobs of the future, which is what Britain needs.

Airport Expansion

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

I could not agree more with the right hon. Member, though it pains me to say it. We have five great northern runways stretching from John Lennon to Manchester, Leeds Bradford and Newcastle, and we should be focusing on regional connectivity in particular. On Leeds Bradford, my recollection is that because of the lack of decision making by the last Government, confidence was lost in its development. Let us see if we can get a framework for improving connectivity at Leeds Bradford, including for those in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood).

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I came to London yesterday by rail, as usual, and I must say that both Lumo and London North Eastern Railway are doing a fantastic job of getting people out of planes and on to trains between Edinburgh and London. [Interruption.] I always like to talk about trains. I am concerned that any increase in air capacity will take people off trains and help them make less sustainable transport choices. Will the Minister commit to speaking with the Rail Minister to understand any impacts of airport expansion on that service?

[Mike Kane]

My hon. Friend is exactly right: we have to join up the modes of transport. We have had a broken transport system as a result of 14 years of complete under-investment. Whether we are talking about rail connectivity to Glasgow, what will happen if a Heathrow development consent order comes forward, or just getting Northern trains working across the north of England, linking up Leeds Bradford, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle will be a key start to improving jobs and growth at those airports.

Road Safety: Young Drivers

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair today, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) on securing the time for this debate today and also for reading Crystal’s testimony, which was incredibly moving.

This is a timely debate, because the road safety strategy is currently under development. Like this debate, I hope that strategy takes the approach that we should never see deaths or serious accidents on our roads as an acceptable consequence of the perceived freedoms that car ownership can bring. For young drivers in particular—although this applies to all drivers when learning—there is a focus on passing the test rather than learning how to drive. That is why the graduated approach to learning to drive is so important, because it slows things down and forces those who want to drive to focus on learning.

Globally, the graduated driving licences work. In New Zealand, they have reduced accidents for people between the ages of 15 and 19 by 23% and for those between 20 and 24 by 20%. That is quite incredible and is within the context, as has been repeated here today, that one in five new drivers will crash in their first year—an absolutely incredible statistic, if we are honest with ourselves. There will be arguments against this approach, but it should never be the case that the implementation of a graduated driver's license is framed within that argument about restricting young people’s liberty, because poor public transport should never be an excuse for exposing our young people to danger. I know action in this area will be difficult, but I really hope that the road safety strategy presents us with an opportunity to do something.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

In a few moments, I will come on to the measures that I think would protect the freedom to drive far better, as well as the safety of those who do so. There will perhaps not be agreement with every single point that hon. Members have made in the debate, but I repeat the point. Central to how I would like to look at this issue is not how we can restrict people more, but how we can make people safer in the first place by ensuring that they have the skills required to drive safely, be it in our cities and towns, on our rural roads and motorways, or indeed abroad, where often the rules can be very different. We all know the example of the German autobahns, many of which have no speed limit. It is vital to equip any British citizen going to Germany with the ability to handle a car at very great speed and be safe on those roads.

The challenge before us is how to make everybody—young people, for sure, but also old people, for whom the statistics are just as stark, as the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned—safer and able to handle a vehicle in all conditions on our roads.

[Dr Arthur]

Back in 2020, an older driver caused a fatality in Edinburgh, killing a three-year-old boy. The fatal accident inquiry found that drivers over 80 should perhaps be subject to cognitive tests if they want to continue driving. That inquiry is currently with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Will the shadow Minister support action in that area?

[Greg Smith]

It is important that we look at all evidence suggesting a problem and explore the basis for solving it, but I am no fan of knee-jerk legislation. This House is at its worst when we jump to knee-jerk solutions to any problem presented. It is important to look at all the evidence, practical outcomes and potential unintended consequences. The case that the hon. Gentleman raises and the point that he makes are important and should be looked at—as he referenced, it is being looked at by the DVLA at the moment. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that point.

I double-underline that we should bear in mind that every death on our roads is a tragedy, but there has been significant improvement in road safety over recent years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Pavement parking is a massive issue in many of our towns and cities, particularly for people faced with sight loss and for parents trying to push buggies. All of us here benefit from the pavement parking ban in London, but given that it is over four years since the consultation closed, is it time to give towns and cities across England the power to enforce a pavement parking ban if they so wish?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this problem. We will publish a formal response to the consultation, which the previous Government shamefully failed to act on. We will announce next steps for pavement parking policy in England in due course.

Road Safety

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andy MacNae]

My hon. Friend makes that vital point extremely well. I will touch on it again later, but young drivers are an important topic that merits a debate in its own right.

On feeling safe or unsafe on roads and the impact of that, we can take the example of active travel. The biggest reason why people do not walk or cycle to work or school is concern over road safety. This forces people to travel by car, with all the impacts that brings and accentuating all the issues we are talking about.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I rise at the point when the Deputy Speaker is changing; it feels like something from “Dr Who”—[Laughter.] Apologies, I was thinking out loud there.

This debate is on an extremely important subject for my hon. Friend’s constituents. On active travel, good habits start early in life, and that is particularly true of walking and cycling. In Edinburgh South West, parents and residents are keen to work with the council to make it easier and safer for children to walk to Nether Currie primary school, and they are really open to collaboration. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are serious about tackling road safety issues in rural areas and our towns and cities, we have to work with our school communities to make sure it is absolutely embedded in them?

[Andy MacNae]

Absolutely. This is a hugely important issue and, as in many other areas, we know the solutions. Fantastic work is done by organisations such as Active Travel England that detail the solutions, yet our current or past funding structures make it incredibly difficult. I am campaigning in our constituency for a safe path to a school, yet I find there are essentially no dedicated funding opportunities to meet that very obvious and stark need. This is an absolutely crucial area.

I mentioned active travel, but there is also the question of older people. Residents in social housing along Newchurch Road in Rossendale feel trapped in their estate because there is literally nowhere safe to cross the road near them to reach the amenities they need.

In 2023, there were 1,624 road deaths in Great Britain and 132,977 casualties in total. Pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists still make up a disproportionate share of those killed or seriously injured on UK roads. Department for Transport estimates suggest that the annual cost of reported road collisions is around £43 billion. We cannot afford any of these costs, so what do we do about it? We know the basic principles, and we have touched on them in the debate, with many Members raising them brilliantly.

Many local authorities have adopted strategies based around vision zero, which is an approach originally adopted in countries such as Sweden and the Netherlands. It emphasises that no level of death or serious injury is acceptable on the roads, and it is focused on prevention, protection and post-collision response, coupled with evidence-based targets and robust safety performance indicators. We know that such approaches can be effective and save a great deal of money over the long term, but as we have seen and heard, there seems to be a huge gap between strategy and practical implementation.

If we want to be serious about tackling this issue, we must move towards a truly proactive, community-led approach to road safety that is informed by statistics and not led by them. In such a model, rather than claiming that a centrally held database knows better, we trust the instincts, experiences and wishes of those who use the roads every day. Instead of waiting around until enough people have been hurt to merit an intervention, we proactively identify high-risk areas, and we act.

An excellent example of that approach in action can be seen in the Netherlands. Over the past decade, both Rotterdam and the Hague have been using an algorithm to determine the likelihood of crashes on their roads. The model considers a range of factors, including past crashes, traffic flow, the features of the road, and the presence of on-road parking. From that, it creates a risk rating for each road. Crucially, this rating informs, rather than leads, the local authorities’ decisions. Community experience and input are a key factor in the decision-making process. The ratings are combined with an analysis of the volumes and severity of complaints the authorities receive regarding specific roads. Out of this community-led, data-informed model, the local authorities choose to proactively intervene to protect their citizens.

Improving Public Transport

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) on securing this debate. She has created a safe space where all us tram, bus and train nerds can come together without fear of persecution, and we should be grateful for that.

It is great to share this debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer). She has already proven herself to be a very diligent member of the Transport Committee. I congratulate her on her maiden speech today—well done.

This is a welcome debate. In the few years running up to the general election, the public discourse around transport felt like we were stuck in a narrative about cyclists versus drivers—as if they are not the same people a lot of the time—and also about low-traffic neighbourhoods. What we should have been speaking about was public transport. If we are serious about growing the economy, cutting congestion, reducing climate emissions and creating a more equal society, we should be talking about public transport generally, and buses specifically.

So far, the speeches today have focused on the things that are not working, so I want to talk about something that is working: the bus service in Edinburgh. Hopefully, we can draw some lessons from that. The service is not without its challenges, and it could be better, but it is, none the less, pretty good. People who arrive in London for the first time say that one of the things that defines London for them is the tube. It is the memory they take away and what they speak to people about. They buy T-shirts and all the rest of it. In Edinburgh, it is the buses that define us. I always say that our excellent bus service defines the city just as much as the castle does.

So what is this bus service like? People can travel on any route in the city as far as they like for £2—so, we have that £2 cap. The drivers are among the best paid drivers in the country. The workforce is heavily unionised. I think union membership is well over 90%. That is not a challenge, because the unions work in complete partnership with the managing director and the management team. It is a really good example. I have the Lothian Buses Longstone garage in my constituency. The staff there were key to Lothian Buses becoming the bus operator of the year in the UK. I invite the Minister to come along and visit the garage and meet the staff and the management team at his convenience.

What I always say is that if people get on the bus, they will see all of Edinburgh. There are of course the fantastic views. The castle is not quite in my constituency, but it can be seen from a bus in my constituency, so I will claim it. The people who use the bus service in Edinburgh are a complete cross-section of the population. Young, old, rich and less affluent people are all there together on the bus, which is fantastic. Not every city can claim that. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) pointed out that the views from the top deck of his buses are fantastic. I want to put it on the record that the best seat in a bus is on the top deck, right at the front, above the driver. I see that there is broad agreement. It is not very controversial, which is excellent.

The bus service in Edinburgh receives no real subsidy from the local authority or the Government, apart from for older people and younger people. It actually provides a dividend to the council, which owns the service. Last year, it gave a £3 million dividend back to the city. It is a fantastic service that is cheap, has well paid staff, and pays a dividend back to its owner. What is the secret to its success? I would say that it is public ownership. I do not think that all these things are a coincidence—that the service just happens to be publicly owned. Public ownership is at the heart of it.

There is an unwritten social contract between Lothian Buses and the city. It provides a network that supports the city as a whole. It does not focus, as a private operator would, just on the routes that make it lots of money and forget about the rest of the city; it provides the network, and there is a kind of cross-subsidy within it, whereby less viable routes are supported by the more well used routes. That is really important, particularly if we want to create more equal cities using transport.

Since the election, the discussion about franchising in England has been really powerful. We already have those powers in Scotland, but it has taken time for them to be fully used, and there are funding issues. Right across England, there is real excitement about the use of franchising powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard made the case for getting the balance of those powers absolutely right so that we can move these schemes forward at pace. That is really important.

It is not just about giving local authorities franchising powers, or even the funding to deliver the services quickly. The other thing that we have to think about is ensuring that our local authorities and local leaders are able to put priority measures in place on the ground for our buses to move around the city quickly. That means bus lanes and priority measures at junctions so that we can keep people moving. In Edinburgh, there is much more that we need to do. We repeatedly ask the Scottish Government for more funding to make that happen faster. In Edinburgh, around 40% of trips inside the city are on a bus, but the percentage of the road space that is allocated just to buses is absolutely tiny, and every square metre of it is hard fought for.

Franchising alone will not solve this issue; we have to support the deployment of these schemes right across the UK. When it comes to bus lanes and priority measures at junctions, we need to think about the economy, congestion and climate, and creating more equal cities. We must not be too reactionary, but think about the benefits that a better bus service can bring to us all and engage in consultation with the community on that basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) on her maiden speech. I wish I could share her frustration about three buses turning up at once; in Somerset, we would be delighted should one turn up at any time.

I thank all the hon. Members across the House—well, parts of the House—for their attendance today. The wide interests shared in their contributions highlight the importance of the debate. As I said in my opening remarks, the poor quality of rural transport, particularly bus services, has been evidenced by all the hon. Members from rural areas who have spoken.

The environmental and economic importance of public transport cannot be overstated. It is crucial to helping the Government hit two of their five missions, so they should grasp the opportunity to fix public transport in rural areas. I welcome the Minister’s comments, but residents who travel from the south-west must know that construction at Old Oak Common will impact them. We need to give them assurances that the impact of the work will be mitigated as far as possible. I would welcome a conversation with the Rail Minister on behalf of my constituents.

We also desperately need more information about the renationalisation of South Western Railway. Many of my constituents rely on that operator and they must have the confidence that the service will improve.

My constituents in Somerton and Langport desperately want a train station to connect them to the railway, and they need information about that as soon as possible. The lack of correspondence across successive Governments is very disappointing. If a train station is still some time away, although I hope it is not, then the need to improve bus services and integrate them with the railway is vital. Liberal Democrat and Labour Members recognised that point, and I hope we can make progress on it. I thank the Minister for recognising it as well.

I look forward to seeing the models for franchising, as the Minister set out. We need funding to improve rural bus services and a real focus to provide rural residents with a working public transport system. I eagerly await finding out how the Government will approach that over the coming weeks and months. Will the Minister set out guidance for social and economic outcomes? I believe the Government’s better buses Bill will provide the perfect opportunity to do that.

[Dr Arthur]

The hon. Lady is summing up the debate well and I know that time is tight. She will know that the Transport Committee has just launched an inquiry into rural bus services that will focus on the social and economic aspect of those services, among other things. Will she encourage people in her network to respond to the call for evidence?

[Sarah Dyke]

Absolutely I will, and I encourage all hon. Members to do exactly that.

To summarise, I thank the Minister for his assurances. He knows that the Liberal Democrats will hold him to account.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of improving public transport.