Bus Franchising

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

With Permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement. Today marks the first stop on this Government’s journey to deliver better buses. Day in, day out, buses shoulder the needs of millions of working people across the country, whether they are getting to work or school, or seeing the doctor or friends. A reliable bus service is the difference between aspiration and isolation, between getting on and being forced to give up—a lifeline, plain and simple. But over the past four decades of deregulation, that lifeline has been on life support. Communities have suffered cuts to thousands of services, with 1.5 billion fewer journeys taking place in 2019 than in 1985, when deregulation began. Since 2010, a staggering 300 million fewer miles have been driven by buses per year. That is the legacy the previous Government left behind: a shocking decline in this country’s bus services, which has done untold harm to communities across the country.

Behind those stats lie human stories—of the poorest groups, who catch 10 times as many buses as trains, regularly let down; of people denied access to work or education, because they cannot depend on the journey there; or women and girls denied access to a safe journey home. They represent a steady cycle of decline that reverberates beyond buses to our economy as a whole, and of public services not working for working people.

Enough is enough. This mission-focused Government were elected to repair what is broken, and to reform what does not work. We are clear about the fact that better buses are essential to a better Britain, and that buses are a route not just to connection but to economic growth, cleaner air, and a fairer chance in life for everyone. That is why my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary has made fixing this country’s broken bus network one of her top priorities in her Department, and it is why, just two months into office, we are kick-starting a bus revolution that will put services back into the hands of local leaders, achieving in just 10 weeks what the last Government failed to achieve in more than 14 years.

The statutory instrument that we laid this morning opens up bus franchising for all local transport authorities in England. It gives local leaders more flexibility to adopt a model that works for their areas, and because we are streamlining the current two-step process, authorities will now only need to obtain the Transport Secretary’s consent before preparing a franchise scheme. This is a transformative change, one that will give every community the same powers that mayoral combined authorities across the country are currently using to deliver better services, along with the power to match them to local needs. We know that the franchising model works: we need only look at the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, where buses were brought under public control just one year ago and where reliability has already improved, passenger numbers have already grown and a new 24/7 service has just been introduced; or at Greater London, where public control has meant that more bus journeys are now taken in our capital than in the rest of England combined.

We are taking aim at the current postcode lottery of bus services to ensure that our most popular form of public transport starts running in the public interest. Local authorities know best how to deliver for their communities, which is why today we are empowering them to follow in the footsteps of Greater Manchester and London, to ensure that they have buses in the right place at the right time, truly serving local needs. Our plan will help to turn the tide after decades of decline. The statutory instrument will be backed by a public consultation, which my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary also launched today. It seeks views on breaking down the barriers to franchising, and on how we can support safer and more accessible services. By delivering simpler guidance, it will support and speed up the franchising process, meaning that councils will spend less time and money filling in forms, and more time planning routes and prioritising the interests of the communities that they serve.

However, this is just the start of our journey. Today’s steps pave the way for a new bus Bill later in the current parliamentary session—a Bill intended to reform funding, to allow franchises to be rolled out to more places more quickly and cheaply, and to support councils that choose not to franchise but still want the flexibility to deliver on local transport priorities. The Bill will also allow us to remove the ideological ban on municipal bus companies that was imposed by the last Government despite the huge success of those companies, which can be seen across the country where they are still in place—for instance, the award-winning publicly owned services in Nottingham and Reading. This, rightly, is not a one-size-fits-all approach, and, crucially, it places no additional burden on taxpayers. It simply acknowledges a truth with which many in the House will agree: that the best decisions are not always made by Whitehall, but are made in town and city halls throughout the country by those who are accountable to local communities, and by those who, day in day out, use the very services that we are talking about.

It has been said before, and I will say it again: under this new Government, the Department for Transport is moving fast and fixing things. Today’s steps place better buses at the heart of this Government’s plan for change. Four decades after buses were deregulated, and after 14 years of decline, we are now empowering communities to take back control of the services on which they depend—to get Britain moving, to get our economy growing and to get more passengers, wherever they live, back on board. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the shadow Minister.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement.

We on this side of the House are in full agreement that good local transport is something that everyone deserves access to, both for helping people to live their lives and for fulfilling the economic potential of all parts of the country. At the heart of our local transport services are buses. They are some of the most convenient, well-connected and accessible forms of public transport out there—crucially, not just in urban areas, but very often in under-connected rural areas. That is why, in government, we invested billions of pounds in the bus sector, including the vital support provided to maintain services during the pandemic. We rolled out thousands of new zero-emissions buses and introduced the “Get around for £2” scheme, saving millions of people money on their fares and helping to get passengers back on buses.

Those interventions worked. Bus passenger journeys in England increased by nearly a fifth in the year ending March 2023, and we welcome this Government’s desire to build on our progress in order to improve services further, to get more routes running at better frequency, and to make sure that as many people as possible have reliable services that get them where they need to go. I am genuinely interested in understanding how the Government feel that this set of measures will achieve that. We are worried about some of the significant risks, which the Government do not seem to have considered.

This legislation places greater responsibility in the hands of local authorities. We know that a number of local authorities face financial and organisational challenges, and although I do not doubt that there will be enthusiasm for making use of the new powers, running any form of public transport brings real challenges. Of course, as the Minister said in opposition, gaps in experience could be filled by support from the Department for Transport, but depending on the number of local authorities that choose to take up franchising, this could mean that significant central Government resources are required. Unless I have missed something, today’s announcement includes absolutely no funding to pay for increased capacity at the Department. What projections have the Government made of the costs, and how exactly do they expect them to be paid?

It is the same story with local government finances. Make no mistake about it: this is going to cost money. Many bus routes, especially rural services, are loss making, even before we account for the additional resources that local authorities will presumably need to operate them. In his statement, the Minister did not recognise the enormous challenges that have been created by changing travel patterns post covid. If this Government are committed to providing services at 1985 levels, as he seemed to imply, they will need to commit to enormous levels of subsidy.

I welcome the success stories in metropolitan areas that the Minister talked about, but such services operate in a fundamentally different space, because of the density of those areas’ populations. It means that if passenger numbers fall next year, the financial risk will be taken on not by a private company, but by the local council and, by definition, taxpayers. Again, given that there appears to be no funding attached to the policy, surely it can be funded only by increases to council tax or cuts to other local services.

It is the same story when it comes to responsibility for capital expenditure. Will this now be the responsibility of local authorities? How exactly are they expected to fund it? As we recently made clear when debating the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, it might be the Labour party’s priority to undertake ideological reforms to bring the transport sector further into the control of the state, but passengers’ priorities are the price, performance and reliability of services, not who is running them. We want to hear how the reforms will make a difference to passengers’ journeys and their accessibility, frequency and cost, and how they will help to restore the number of rural services and make journeys cheaper for passengers—and not just through the generic pledges we have heard today, but through concrete commitments on which the public can hold the Government to account. The Minister made absolutely no commitment to increase levels of services or miles travelled as part of the Government’s “revolution”.

There are some simple things that the Government could do for passengers, such as extending our “Get around for £2” scheme, which has been hugely positive for passengers and for the viability of services up and down the country. I am aware that the Chancellor is not Labour Members’ favourite person at the moment, but I encourage them to make the case for the cost-of-living benefits of the £2 scheme, as well as for the benefits of the winter fuel payment, in any hurriedly organised meetings today and tomorrow.

The Government have got the wrong priorities yet again. At the end of the day, passengers care about the preservation of existing services, the extension of routes, improvements in frequency and reliability, and cost. We on this side of the House are all ears when it comes to what difference this policy will make for them and—not to be forgotten—who is going to pay for it.

[Simon Lightwood]

Modernising our transport infrastructure and delivering better buses are at the heart of our plan to kick-start economic growth in every part of the country to get our country moving. This statutory instrument is just the start of a package of measures; the buses Bill will deliver further measures on issues such as funding. Despite the challenging financial circumstances we find ourselves in—inherited from the previous Government—we are determined to deliver better bus services, growing passenger numbers and driving opportunity to underserved regions. All funding is rightly being considered as part of the spending review.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach for buses within local transport authorities. Franchising is just one way that this can be explored; there are also enhanced partnerships and municipal ownership. We firmly believe that our priorities to deliver better buses across the country are the right priorities, and we have the mandate from the British people following the general election to do just that.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

Last week and this week have been the best two weeks for public transport for many decades, righting the wrongs of the privatisation of the rail service and the deregulation of buses. I did not hear an apology from the Conservative spokesperson for laying waste to local government finance over the last 14 years and destroying public bus services by handing them over to be run by profiteers, pirates and other completely unsuitable people—not in all, but in many cases. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be a massive apology from the Conservatives for the damage they have done to public transport?

[Simon Lightwood]

I believe there should be a massive apology from the Opposition for the mess they have left this country in and for the mess they have left our bus services in. Following the previous Government, almost 300 million fewer miles are now driven a year compared with 2010. That is an appalling statistic. This Government will turn the tide for communities across the country by giving them the opportunity to control local bus services and to have a real say in developing the local transit systems that serve them. The Secretary of State said—I will say it again—that we will move fast and fix things. Here is the proof.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

We Liberal Democrats welcome today’s statement to give local authorities, not just metro Mayors, more powers and the potential to run their bus services. We Liberal Democrats have campaigned for exactly that for a very long time.

The previous Conservative Government completely decimated local transport systems, but the rot set in a long time ago. Almost a quarter of bus routes have been cut in the past 10 years outside London. Whoever wants to apologise for that, we need to see some change. Bus services should be the most affordable and accessible of all forms of public transport. Good, well-used bus services would significantly contribute to getting to net zero and to improving our air quality. The previous Government, again, completely failed to make a positive case for that.

Not only are public buses crucial in urban areas such as Bath, which suffers from more and more congestion, because people can continue to increase their use of motorised individual travel, and is also still struggling with cutting air pollution; bus services are also important specifically for rural areas. What we currently have is completely inadequate, so will the Minister set out how today’s announcement will improve rural bus services, not just in the long term, but in the short term?

[Simon Lightwood]

The ability of local areas and local transport authorities to take back control of their bus services is crucial for rural areas, because they know their communities best. Those decisions should not be made from places in Westminster or Whitehall. Again, local transport authorities understand the specific needs of their local communities, be they rural or urban, and are best placed to make those decisions and design the network around those needs.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement and draw to the Minister’s attention the Transport Committee report, “Bus services in England outside London”, which was produced under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who is now Under-Secretary of State for Transport. There are some excellent recommendations in there. In regions such as Greater Manchester, the process of introducing bus franchising has been quite lengthy. Granting combined authorities the ability to directly award contracts would significantly shorten that timeline, allowing areas such as the north-east to bring about faster improvements. Will the Minister confirm that the better buses Bill will include provisions for direct award powers?

[Simon Lightwood]

I can confirm that my officials are investigating the means to do just that, and I will update the House accordingly as progress continues.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. He and the House know that local government finance is under pressure, and that the delivery of services in rural areas is much more costly than it is in Manchester, Nottingham or London. That is just a geographical fact, which I think we all accept. May I urge the Minister, if he has not already done so, to engage the good offices of the County Councils Network, as the lead body for county councils and the unitaries, to find their views and suggestions? I also say to him politely that if this is to work in rural areas, for all the good reasons that he sets out about social mobility and access to work and education, rural councils will require some extra money to deliver what we all want to see achieved.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and for his constructive engagement. I will certainly take up his recommendation to meet that grouping. Of course, all funding is being considered in the round as part of the spending review, but I take his points on board.

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

I very much welcome the Minister’s statement. Deregulation has been an absolute disaster in South Yorkshire. Since 2010, bus passenger miles have fallen by 50%. That means lots of people are not getting the services they previously had. The Minister has referred to Greater London, which gets more than 10 times as much Government finance per head for transport as South Yorkshire. He also mentioned Greater Manchester. Manchester got a very good bus service improvement plan—BSIP—settlement last time round. South Yorkshire got nothing in the BSIP settlement. Does he recognise the need to review some of these settlements? Otherwise, Mayor Oliver Coppard, who is committed to franchising, might see that the only responsibility they have is to make the cuts to bus services in a different way from what would have been the case without franchising.

[Simon Lightwood]

There was a host—a plethora—of different funding pots relating to buses, and we are keen to amalgamate and consolidate them, but also, importantly, to devolve them to local areas so that they have the funding flexibility they need to deliver better buses across their areas.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

It is great to hear of the success the previous Government’s £1.1 billion investment into Greater Manchester’s Bee Network is helping to deliver. I was delighted to launch it with the Mayor of Greater Manchester. As the Minister mentioned, one of the key things about the postcode lottery is the cost of using the bus. It can really put people off, particularly in rural areas where bus costs have traditionally been a lot higher. Is the Minister going to look at extending the Get Around for £2 scheme, which has been a real success, particularly for access to education opportunities and for those in lower paid work in rural areas? It has really helped to drive bus passenger numbers upwards since the end of the pandemic.

[Simon Lightwood]

Delivering reliable and affordable public transport services for passengers is one of the Government’s top priorities, and we know how important it is for passengers and for local growth. We are looking at the future of the £2 fare cap as a matter of urgency. We are considering the most appropriate and affordable approach, and we will update the House in due course.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

For as long as I have been a Member of this House, my constituents have looked upon London with envy for one reason, and one reason only—its cheaper and more reliable bus services with real-time bus information. Too often, my constituents do not even know if a bus is coming to the bus stop, never mind when. Kim McGuinness, our regional mayor, has committed to taking back control of buses. Can the Minister set out how he will work with her and support her to deliver the bus services that my constituents need and deserve after 14 years of Tory failure?

[Simon Lightwood]

I have already met the Mayor of the North-East on a number of occasions, and I am working closely with combined authorities and mayors across the country to make bus franchising simpler and easier. We will, of course, make sure that the Department for Transport provides support to local transport authorities, with a centralised resource to ensure that we spread best practice across the country.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. The town of Bordon in my constituency is extraordinarily poorly served by bus routes, and it is crying out for a rail link bus service to the neighbouring town of Liphook. Will the Minister and his officials meet me to discuss how we can get a rail link bus service from Bordon to Liphook?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am more than happy to meet any hon. Member.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement, as will my constituents in Scarborough, Whitby and the villages who have seen the vital bus services on which they rely slashed over recent years. For example, cuts to the 95 Sleights to Whitby service have severely restricted my constituents’ ability to go about their daily lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to move at pace to improve such routes in rural and coastal communities?

[Simon Lightwood]

I completely agree. This is fundamental to the work we have been pursuing to make franchising quicker and simpler, and to avoid the need for local transport authorities to spend their time filling in forms at great expense. Britain is one of the few places in the developed world that hands operators power to slash bus services and set fares with very little say for the communities that depend on those services. Decades of failed regulation have left communities with little say on the essential services on which they rely, and we are determined to change that.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said, the Lib Dems broadly welcome the principle of this statement, as I think will the Somerset Bus Partnership. The volunteers of this fantastic organisation in my constituency work tirelessly to encourage people to use buses. Somerset council is facing an historic funding crisis and has narrowly avoided bankruptcy, so I am keen to understand how the Government will provide long-term funding so that such authorities can do the franchising that has been promised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

As I said, we are looking to consolidate and simplify the funding pots for bus services, and we hope to deliver more multi-year funding settlements.

[Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement. The Minister is genuinely taking control of our buses after years of the wheels on the bus not going round and round. I look forward to seeing the return of a direct service from Runcorn to Liverpool. Will the Minister meet me and leaders in Cheshire to discuss taking control of bus service arrangements through a new devolution deal?

[Simon Lightwood]

I would welcome the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for a progressive, positive statement that will encourage many. I welcome the steps towards a more personalised approach to bus franchising. However, I believe it is essential, as I think the Minister does, that any changes should be rural-proofed to ensure that bus services allow our rural communities to commute to work, to access medical appointments and even to go shopping, by protecting services over profit through an iron-clad guarantee. Will he confirm that this is the Government’s position?

[Simon Lightwood]

I absolutely agree that rural bus routes and rural communities must be carefully considered. The best people to take that consideration are local leaders, which is why we are determined to allow local leaders to take back control of their bus services.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. Villages in my constituency, such as Eccles, Burham and Wouldham, have suffered from 14 years of Conservative cuts and a reduction to the 155 bus service, which many elderly people rely on. Will the Minister assure councils such as Medway council and Kent county council that they can now join forces and collaborate on bus routes, so that we see an improvement to bus services for all our residents, including those in rural, isolated communities?

[Simon Lightwood]

The plan makes it possible for all local transport authorities to take back control of their buses. There is also the option of enhanced partnerships and municipal ownership. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to achieve his objectives.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

Buses are the most used form of public transport and a lifeline for those on lower incomes. The inadequacy of bus services across Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme is an issue that comes up regularly on the doorstep. Hatfield Woodhouse only recently had its bus reinstated after many months of having nothing at all. Does my hon. Friend agree that delivering better buses will be essential to the Government’s missions, from growing our economy to breaking down barriers of opportunity and accelerating to net zero?

[Simon Lightwood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Effective public transport, including bus services, is fundamental to delivering many of our missions in government.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

At the weekend, I had the pleasure of attending the unveiling of two brand new community-owned green buses in the village of Middle Barton in my constituency. After 14 years of devastation to public bus services in Oxfordshire, such community-led schemes can go a long way to filling the gap. Does the Minister agree that a decade of renewal promised by this Labour Government must see an improvement and regeneration in rural bus services?

[Simon Lightwood]

Absolutely. We want to give local transport authorities and leaders the power to take back control of bus services, to shape the future of those services to accurately reflect the needs of individual communities.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement—we should speak about buses much more often in this place. Edinburgh has an award-winning bus service, which carries 2 million passengers per week. Its highly unionised workforce—I think over 90%—works in collaboration with the directors of the company. We already get around for £2 inside Edinburgh because that is the price people pay no matter how far they travel inside Edinburgh. That is a fantastic example of what public ownership in public transport can do. Does the Minister agree that more ownership and control of bus services are key to driving down costs for passengers, increasing patronage and hitting our net zero goals?

[Simon Lightwood]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I was pleased to visit a municipal bus company in Nottingham; the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), represents that area. I was blown away by the company’s knowledge of and commitment to the local area, and its having received numerous awards, with a satisfaction rating of something like 89%. Municipal bus companies are also a fantastic option for local authorities to consider.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

It was interesting to hear the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson talk about the importance of preserving existing bus routes, when their party had presided over 14 years when thousands of bus services were lost to communities across the country, including in my constituency, where we still do not have a direct bus route from Nantwich to our local hospital. It has taken this Government just 10 weeks to present a plan to fix local bus services. Does that not epitomise how underserved our communities and local economies have been by 14 long years of Conservative government?

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

It was great to visit the First Bus all-electric depot in York the other week, but I was saddened to hear just days later that First had withdrawn children’s monthly bus passes. After meeting representatives of the company, they are reviewing that decision, but does my hon. Friend agree that travel to and from school should be affordable? Will he meet me to discuss the future of buses in York?

[Simon Lightwood]

Of course I want to make sure that bus fares are affordable. I will meet my hon. Friend to discuss his particular circumstances.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

As has been said, the past 14 years of Conservative Government have left local bus services, especially those in coastal communities, in a shocking state. In East Thanet, the 33, 34, 9 and 8A bus services have all been drastically cut, meaning that in certain areas of Broadstairs and Ramsgate there is no bus service at all within easy reach, and no one in either town has access to a bus to Canterbury outside commuter times. Conservative-run Kent county council must take up the powers that are being offered by this Government to serve disadvantaged communities such as that in East Thanet.

[Simon Lightwood]

Buses matter to millions of people, but 14 years of the Tories’ broken bus system have led to countless communities being failed and a spiral of decline in bus services. I hope all local transport authorities consider the range of options available to them to take back control of their buses and shape services for the communities that they serve.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

After the deregulation and decline of buses under the previous Administration, I imagine that local authorities are somewhat shocked and surprised at being given the opportunity to shape services genuinely in the public interest. What additional support is my hon. Friend considering to empower local authorities, especially smaller district authorities such as Rugby borough council, so that they can move fast and fix things locally?

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are increasing the capacity of the Department for Transport to assist smaller authorities, so that all local transport authorities can consider franchising and other means of improving bus services in their communities.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I am pleased to see him driving forward this policy to improve our bus services, which are a vital lifeline for my constituents in Burton and Uttoxeter. Does he agree that this plan puts us on the right route by expanding franchising powers so that local voices can finally steer bus services in the right direction?

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He has already been a fierce advocate for public transport and bus services in his constituency. Local leaders, not private operators as is currently the case, will have the power to set routes, fares and services, putting passengers first after decades of regulation. That is the option available through franchising. Municipal ownership is also an option, as well as partnerships with operators and local authorities.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

As the Minister has already pointed out, and others in this Chamber have said, bus franchising has clearly delivered fantastic results where it is already in operation in Greater Manchester and London, but it will not be right for all communities. In my constituency, there are often only two buses a day connecting the outlying villages to Dartford and other population centres. Does he agree with me that the upcoming bus Bill will be a fantastic opportunity to end the postcode lottery of bus services across the country, providing maximum flexibility to local leaders, such as those in Kent if they are prepared to use it, to choose the right system for their populations?

[Simon Lightwood]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We must turn the page on years of Conservative failure in local transport, which is why the forthcoming bus Bill, in conjunction with our announcements today, will help end the country’s transport postcode lottery.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

I want to finish my first speech in Parliament by thanking the people of North Warwickshire and Bedworth for sending me to this place to do this very special job. The people of my constituency are down to earth, straightforward, direct, honest, hard-working people. Those are the values that I was raised with, and those are the values that will continue to guide me in my role. I am so very proud to be representing North Warwickshire and Bedworth and all its towns and villages—my home—and I have not underestimated the challenges ahead. I promise I will work hard and do my very best for all my constituents, and stay true to my values, for as long as I have the honour of representing them in this place.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Chair. I thank hon. Members of all parties for their amendments, and for their considered contributions. I commend those Members who have delivered some fabulous maiden speeches today, with such quality, passion and dedication to serve, and a love for their communities. It makes me really proud to be a Member of this House, and I am certain that the memory of delivering their maiden speeches will live with them forever.

I will begin with amendments 18 and 8 to 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). These relate to monitoring, reporting and scrutinising the impacts of public ownership and the effectiveness of train operators. Amendment 18 would require the publication of two reports. The first would outline the anticipated impact of public ownership. That would simply duplicate the impact assessment published earlier this year, and therefore would be redundant. The second report would assess the actual impact of public ownership, some years after implementation. A wide variety of data is already routinely published about both public and private sector train operators’ performance. That includes reliability, punctuality, service quality, customer complaints and financial performance among other measures. The Bill does not change any of that and there is no need to wait five years to consider whether train operators’ performance is improving.

Amendment 9 would require the Secretary of State to procure independent reports about the costs of the contracts awarded to public sector operators. The Department already publishes information on payments made to operators, whether private or public. There is therefore no need for the taxpayer to fund a separate body to report the same data. Nevertheless, the hon. Lady is entirely right to take an interest in the cost of these contracts. In that spirit, I would gently remind her that ending the taxpayer funding of private profits will result in an immediate and enduring reduction in these costs.

Amendment 9 also raises the specific question of whether public ownership will expose the Government to liabilities that have previously sat with private operators. Under the current national rail contracts, the Government fund the costs legitimately incurred by train operating companies. That includes, for example, the net operational cost of running services and the cost of meeting pension liabilities. Prior to the pandemic, franchised operators bore some cost risk, but were protected by the taxpayer against, among other things, inflation and, in more recent contracts, risk on movements in pension deficit recovery payments. The franchising system meant that bidders simply priced any change in liabilities into their bids, meaning that the taxpayer was exposed to liabilities in the long term. Public ownership therefore does not materially change the Government’s exposure to liabilities in the long run.

Amendment 10 would require the annual reporting to Parliament on various aspects of the performance of public sector operators, and amendment 12 would require an independent report on the impact of public ownership on the performance and efficiency of the UK rail network. Again, data is already published on a wide variety of aspects of train operator performance, including by the Office of Rail and Road in its role as a regulator. The Bill does not change that. The Office of Rail and Road also provides independent scrutiny of the performance and effectiveness of Network Rail, enforcing compliance with its licences and conducting five-yearly reviews that set its funding and what must be delivered with that funding.

Amendments 8 and 11 look to require independent monitoring of the financial and operational performance of public sector train operators. The Department holds train operating companies to account for their financial management through regular reviews of their management accounts and business plans. That applies to both public and privately owned operators. In addition, in England publicly owned operators are overseen by DFT OLR Holdings Ltd, known as DOHL. As a holding company owned by the Secretary of State, DOHL is experienced in reviewing and monitoring the financial arrangements of the companies it manages, and contrary to what the hon. Lady said, it is building its capacity in readiness to take over more services. At the same time, public ownership will reduce the other contract management costs, because there will no longer be the same commercial tension of the taxpayer interacting with private profit. Amendment 8 refers specifically to the auditing of publicly owned train operating companies’ accounts. It is already the case that DOHL and the operators it oversees must publish their audited accounts annually.

Turning to amendment 11, train operators are already monitored under their existing contracts against targets for punctuality, reliability and service quality. They are also held to account for managing within pre-set cost budget limits each financial year. Driving up operators’ performance in those areas is vital, and the Government will continue to review train operator performance regularly in those and other areas. This has been an early priority for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. For example, in her first weeks in office, Ministers held meetings with the managing directors of Avanti West Coast, TransPennine Express and their Network Rail counterparts to set clear expectations for immediate improvement. In parallel with these arrangements, the Government are developing detailed proposals for holding the future Great British Railways to account for performance. This will form part of the broader package of reform that we will set out in the forthcoming railways Bill. We expect these arrangements will be in place long before the five-year reviews proposed in a number of amendments tabled.

Amendment 11 also refers to performance improvement plans. Mechanisms to require improvement plans are already a feature of the Government’s contracts with both public and private sector operators. The Secretary of State has recently put in place formal remedial plans with CrossCountry in view of its unacceptable levels of cancellations and service reductions. Finally, amendment 11 raises the question of senior management remuneration when performance is poor. This matter can be considered when remedial plans are being put in place, taking account of the circumstances in each case.

Amendment 19, also tabled by the hon. Lady, and amendment 20, from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), both propose additional procedural steps to be followed before a contract is awarded to a public sector operator. Amendment 19 would require the Office of Rail and Road to publish an opinion on the practicability of transferring services to each public sector operator. Clearly it is vital that services are transferred to public ownership smoothly, without detriment to the quality of service during the transition. For that reason, the transfer of services will take place using a well-established arrangement and process. DOHL has significant experience of managing the transition of services from private to public operation in recent years.

[Helen Whately]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will not give way to the hon. Lady, as she has had plenty of time to put her case.

Those transfers of services have been completed successfully and smoothly despite the challenging timescales and circumstances, which have included financial failure and poor operator performance. We have also made it clear that we will transfer services on a phased basis as existing contracts expire over the next few years. This is a measured, responsible approach that will further de-risk the process. The Bill does not alter the ORR’s role in granting operators’ licences and issuing their safety certificates; in that role the ORR already independently assesses the suitability and readiness of any operator, public or private, to take over services and operate them safely. In light of those safeguards the Government do not see the need to commission further analysis from the ORR, as amendment 19 proposes.

On amendment 20, the Department for Transport has already awarded multiple contracts to publicly owned operators and has considerable experience of managing them in practice, taking legal, financial and technical advice as needed. We consider a new independent advisory body to be an unnecessary additional step that would add cost and risk delaying progress. I can assure the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent that the Department for Transport is conducting a full review of the standard terms of service contracts entered into with public sector operators, reflecting the fact that public sector operation is to be the Government’s long-term approach, not just a temporary measure of last resort.

On amendments 13 and 14, the Government do not consider it appropriate to spell out such specific contractual requirements in primary legislation, which would risk constraining future flexibility to adapt operators’ contractual obligations to suit changing circumstances. On amendment 13 specifically, it would not be efficient for the taxpayer to require up to 14 different operators in England, plus those in Scotland and Wales, to each pursue its own separate wide-ranging innovation strategy. Indeed, a key purpose of our wider reform plans is to drive a much more coherent cross-industry approach in such areas. On amendment 14, I question why the four groups identified, while clearly of course very important, should be singled out for a specific mention when there are many other relevant considerations to take into account in service design, including the interests of the taxpayer, freight users, people with disabilities and residents of urban areas to name just a few. The list could be endless, and the important point is that decisions about future service levels should take into account all relevant considerations.

Amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), would remove the power of the Secretary of State to continue existing franchises. I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that this provision is included in the Bill as a contingency measure only. It exists in case a short continuation is needed to ensure that services transfer to public ownership smoothly and without disruption to passengers. It is intended to be used only in exceptional circumstances and only for so long as necessary to ensure the smooth transfer. It will be available to the Secretary of State only when

“it will not be reasonably practicable”

for a transfer to proceed. Any continuation would be limited by procurement regulations to a maximum of two years in duration, but in practice we would expect the period to be much shorter. The power is clearly transitional in nature; once services are transferred to the public sector it will no longer be relevant, and clause 2 therefore gives us the power to repeal it in its entirety. This is a sensible, pragmatic precaution that exists simply to smooth the transition to public ownership and protect the travelling public from disruption. I hope that explanation offers my hon. Friend some reassurance.

I move now to amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter). The Bill does not affect the provision of rolling stock. It would not be responsible or affordable for the Government to take on the cost of renationalising billions of pounds-worth of rolling stock when there are so many other urgent pressures on the public purse. However, public ownership will open the door for a much more coherent approach to planning the longer-term rolling stock needs of the whole industry. Once Great British Railways is established, planning the provision of rolling stock across the network will be one of many areas where a single directing mind for the railway will add real value.

We will develop a long-term industrial strategy for rolling stock that supports manufacturing, innovation and interoperability and aligns with the wider objectives of the industry. It will look to end the boom and bust cycle of rolling stock procurement, ensure sustainable pipelines for future work and consider the best financing structures for future orders in partnership with private capital. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) that we will consider the points he has raised as we undertake work on this matter. My officials are engaging with Eurofima to consider the potential of UK membership and the role that could play in the UK market. We will set out more plans on that in due course. A report mandating that in primary legislation is therefore not necessary in the Government’s view.

Amendment 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), seeks details of the Government’s proposed approach to procurement and the impact of public ownership on the procurement process and the supply chain. She is absolutely right to highlight the crucial role of the broad and diverse private sector supply chain in helping to deliver high-quality rail services, and I very much welcome the contribution made by businesses in her constituency and right across the country. I can assure her and those businesses that innovation and technical progress will remain as fundamental as they have ever been in delivering improvements for passengers, cost efficiency for taxpayers and benefits for the environment.

I can confirm that there will be no immediate impact on the approach to procurement when services transfer to public ownership. Existing private sector operators are already required to follow the same procurement rules as public sector operators. Under the governance reforms, Great British Railways will provide much clearer long-term direction across the whole railway system, giving businesses and the supply chain the certainty and confidence they need to plan, invest and innovate for the future.

Amendment 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent, considers the Bill’s potential effects on open access operators. The Bill is specifically about the ownership of services currently operated under the contract with the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Public ownership of those services will not prevent open access services from running as they do now. The report proposed by her amendment is therefore unnecessary. However, I take this opportunity to reassure her about the role of open access in the future in the context of the Government’s wider reforms. How we make use of network capacity and grant access is fundamental to the performance of the railway and what it delivers for all its users. Open access operators such as Hull Trains, Lumo and Grand Central are a valuable part of our railway. We are keen for such services to continue to operate alongside publicly owned services, where they add value and capacity to the network.

The hon. Lady’s amendment 16, along with amendment 22 from the hon. Member for Bath and amendments 2 to 5 from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), touches on the role of devolved and local authorities in the planning and delivery of rail services. Amendments 16 and 22 each refer to exemptions granted under section 24 of the Railways Act 1993. Those exemptions allow services in London and the Liverpool city region to be procured by the relevant authorities in those areas, outside the franchising system. The Bill makes no change to those existing arrangements and it will remain for those authorities to decide how best to deliver the services for which they are responsible.

Amendments 2 to 5 would allow the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to award contracts to companies owned by certain elected public bodies. While the Government are committed to strengthening local involvement in the planning and delivery of rail services, it will be important to ensure that does not undermine the plan for Great British Railways to act as a directing mind that provides coherence, consistency and clarity for the whole railway. To support that, the Government intend to award contracts specifically to public sector companies owned by the Secretary of State via DOHL.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Our amendment 22 is not just about the current arrangement with Merseyrail and Transport for London; it is much more about having the discussion about how local authorities and local areas can enter into franchising agreements in future if they so wish.

[Simon Lightwood]

I do not think that the Bill stops them doing that now, though we have no plans to extend the scope of that.

Looking ahead to the railways Bill, the Government have already said that there will be a statutory role for devolved leaders in Scotland, Wales and mayoral combined authorities in governing, managing and planning and developing the railway network. That will ensure that decision making is brought as close as possible to local communities.

I turn to amendment 17, tabled by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent, which proposes an independent body to advise the Government on employment terms and pay for rail staff under public ownership. That is an important issue, and one that the Government are determined to get right. My officials are at the early stages of exploring a number of options—including a pay review body—so that we can consider the most appropriate approach to meet the needs of a transformed industry.

Last but by no means least, I come to amendment 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Bath, which deals with fares, ticketing and passenger compensation. Naturally, we are keen to see rapid progress in those areas. We are committed to reviewing the overly complicated fare system. Change is already being delivered by extending pay-as-you-go in the south-east and through fares reform on LNER. We will explore the options for expanding ticketing innovations such as digital pay-as-you-go and digital season tickets across the network, and we will hold operators—and, in due course, Great British Railways—accountable for progress on these vital reforms. We also intend that a powerful new passenger watchdog—the passenger standards authority—will independently monitor standards and champion improvement in service performance against a range of measures.

I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their contributions to the debate. I hope that my responses will have provided the explanations and reassurances that colleagues were seeking, and that that will enable them not to press their amendments and to support the Bill on Third Reading.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

May I first congratulate you on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is a pleasure to close the debate with you in the Chair.

It may have escaped the notice of Opposition Members, but there was a general election, and there is a reason for the fact that they are sitting on that side and we are sitting on this side. However, I have enjoyed listening to the many maiden speeches that have been made today. It has been just over two years since I made my own maiden speech, and I found it extremely nerve-racking, so I am greatly impressed and, I have to say, somewhat intimidated, by the quality of the speeches made today. I am also grateful to colleagues for their considered contributions, and I will attempt to respond to as many questions and concerns as possible. Where I have not been able to do so, I will follow those up with a letter.

Let me begin by dealing with the issue of public ownership. According to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), we have no proof that it will improve outcomes for passengers, but that is clearly not the case. We know for a fact that this Bill will save tens of millions of pounds in fees, and if that is not a good start, I do not know what is.

Furthermore, as the Secretary of State explained earlier, this reform is based on solid evidence. In fact, the public sector has an incredibly strong record of successful delivery, including increased reliability—even when dealing with operators that were previously failing financially, or otherwise failing to deliver for passengers.

I am confident that public ownership will provide the right foundations to drive forward improvements for passengers—be it simplifying the arcane fares system, integrating rail with other transport or improving accessibility. First and foremost, it will deliver the standards of reliability that the travelling public have every right to expect. I remind the House that this is one of two Bills, and that the second will deliver the Government’s wider plans for rail. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) says, those wider plans are absolutely designed to put passengers back at the heart of the railways and will introduce new measures to protect their interests.

Let me assure the shadow Secretary of State that the wider railways Bill is absolutely a priority for this Government, unlike the previous Government, who had years to bring forward legislation to reform the railways and only got as far as a draft Bill. We are not delaying; rather, we are taking the time to develop the much larger Bill properly, so that it delivers the benefits that we have promised. I look forward to bringing it before the House later in this Session when parliamentary time allows. Under that Bill, the Secretary of State will be the passenger-in-chief and hold Great British Railways to account for delivering for passengers and freight. We will also create a powerful passenger-focused watchdog, the Passenger Standards Authority, to independently monitor standards and champion improvement in service performance against a range of measures.

I am glad that the issue of freight has been raised today. Alongside the overall growth targets set by the Secretary of State, the wider railways Bill will include a statutory duty on Great British Rail to promote the use of rail freight, to ensure that freight remains a key priority.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) is absolutely right to say that it is shameful that the previous Government’s approach to industrial relations was a failure, which inflicted two years of disruption and misery on millions of passengers. By contrast, this Government will work with unions to mediate disputes. In her first weeks in office, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met representatives of the relevant unions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean), in an excellent maiden speech, raised a very important point about staff shortages on our railways. That is a result of the previous Government’s failure to plan properly for the future, leading to skills and recruitment gaps. It is, of course, important that the right staff with the right skills are in the right place at the right time to provide the level of service that passengers expect and deserve. My ministerial colleagues and I look forward to working with train operators and trade unions on this issue. I wish my hon. Friend well in his endeavours to bring more young people into politics—something we should all be passionate about.

On ticket fares, I share the shadow Secretary of State’s ambition for lower fares for all passengers. We are taking pragmatic steps towards that and are committed to reviewing the overly complicated fares system, with a view to simplifying it and introducing digital innovations. We will explore the options for expanding ticket innovations such as digital pay-as-you-go and digital season tickets across the network. We are aware that increasing passenger numbers is critical to this plan, and that is what our simplified system will aim to do.

The shadow Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) raised concerns about the ideology of our approach. I can assure them that our plans are not a return to the days of British Rail and that our approach is not ideological; it is pragmatic. We will take the best lessons from the public and private operation of railways. It is about making sure that the system is right, with checks and balances, growth incentives and proper accountability. We have been clear that our approach means a relentless focus on the interests of passengers and the taxpayer above all else. The same applies to the shadow Secretary of State’s claim that the Government’s plans are about putting politicians in charge, which could not be further from the truth. The point of Great British Railways is to get day-to-day decisions out of the hands of politicians and into the hands of those who are best placed to make such decisions, with the needs of the passenger and the freight user at the heart of the whole system.

The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the Chancellor’s statement. The Chancellor has made some very hard decisions on the basis of the dire financial situation that we have inherited from the previous Government, but this does not change the fact that providing better transport for our citizens is an absolute priority, and we will not waver in our pursuit of better rail services for all.

I also thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for her comments and share her view that intervention is needed. However, let me assure her that we are well aware that this cannot come at the expense of other vital services. I assure her that our plan to fix Britain’s railways is fully costed and will be delivered within our fiscal rules. It will improve services and reduce costs to the public purse.

The hon. Members for Bath and for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) also highlighted the role of the rolling stock leasing companies. This is another area where the Government’s approach is pragmatic, delivering value for the taxpayer and not driven by ideology. It would not be responsible to spend billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money buying up existing rolling stock, especially when, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set out this afternoon, we face a £22 billion black hole in the public finances created by the Conservatives.

I completely agree with the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on the importance of rail links to local communities, and I welcome her constructive attitude to this debate. I deeply sympathise with the points she made, and those made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and others, about the Avanti West Coast service. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out, she has already met with Avanti to make her expectations clear. However, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills will appreciate the need to bring services into public ownership as existing contracts expire, to avoid the need to pay a penny in compensation to the operators for earlier termination. That does not change the fact that the Government care deeply about performance and will hold private operating companies to account for the remainder of their contracts.

To reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), I will also highlight that contracts can be terminated early if the relevant contractual conditions are met, and we will not hesitate to do so if needed. She also raised the important issue of ticket office closures, as did the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Mr Amos) in his excellent maiden speech. I confirm that this Government have no plans to close ticket offices.

The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle also asked about open access services. We have been clear that there will remain a role for open access services, with existing operators continuing to operate on the network alongside publicly owned services, where they add value and capacity to the network.

Finally, the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) highlighted the role of Transport for London and Merseytravel. How to secure the delivery of services in those areas will remain a matter for local leaders. The wider railways Bill will give local leaders a statutory role in governing, managing, planning and developing the rail network. This, along with our plans to give local authorities more control over bus services through our better buses Bill, will make it more straightforward to integrate the railways with other forms of transport.

I would like to thank hon. Members again for an excellent and considered debate on this “Cinderella topic”, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage called it, and I welcome further engagement from both sides of the House as the Bill progresses. With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

E-scooters: Deaths and Serious Injuries

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to respond to this debate on behalf of the official Opposition with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) for securing this afternoon’s important debate. He is a dedicated advocate for road and pedestrian safety. On behalf of the Front-Bench team, I would like to thank him for his tireless work and leadership as president of the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety. If this was indeed his last speech in this place—his swansong after 45 years—let me say that I am proud to have served with him and to have been here for his final contribution.

I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), whose concern about the use of quad bikes is one that I share. I echo the praise for your work to improve road safety and get justice for victims, Mr Dowd. I also share the concerns raised about the potential under-reporting of accidents involving e-scooters. To respond to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), we have all been waiting for this long-awaited comprehensive transport Bill that has never materialised.

As Labour’s shadow Minister for local transport, I have met dozens of stakeholders to discuss the issue of e-scooter safety and micromobility more widely. Virtually all those stakeholders, who have all raised different challenges in the micromobility sector, tell me of the desperate need for clarity, certainty and a clear indication of the way forward from the Government. Ambiguity and confusion over the current and future legal status of e-scooters, both rental and privately owned, are an enormous source of frustration. From disability campaigners, local councils, digital mobility platforms, and scooter rental firms themselves, I hear the same thing time and again. We desperately need the Government to end this damaging uncertainty.

Labour supports the principle of greater mobility choice and the importance of embracing new technologies as they emerge. The ability to hire a small, lightweight, easy-to-use and zero emissions scooter on the street to complete a journey would have felt far-fetched in the UK even 10 years ago, but they have now become a regular feature of many towns and cities. The rental e-scooter sector would certainly not have emerged were it not for the advent of the modern smartphone, which has enabled new modes of sustainable transport that take cars off the road and encourage the use of active travel infrastructure.

The advent of all these is welcome, but it is plain as day that the sector desperately needs the Government to show some leadership, to stop those positives being outnumbered and outbalanced. Since e-scooters first hit Britain’s streets, and with the infamous introduction of the first e-scooter trial zones in 2020, what has emerged is a confused patchwork of inconsistent standards and contradictory positions from the Government.

The Government’s first set of trial zones were due to expire at the end of November 2021. The Government assured us that the trial would last 12 months and would be closely monitored, so that the Government could assess the benefits and impacts. The trial period was extended to March 2022, because they needed more time to gather evidence. That was then extended once again to November 2022 because the Government failed to properly issue safety guidance the first time. The trials were extended a third time to the end of May 2024 because the Government said they needed “more time to reflect”.

Most recently, the Government extended for a fourth time to May 2026. Across the sector and for the multitude of organisations campaigning on the issue, patience has not just run thin; it has completely run out. What was clearly intended to be a temporary study period has been extended and extended so many times that it has become an utter farce. After four years of constant extensions—six, if the trials run their course—we still have no clarity on what the Government intend to do next, despite repeated promises that e-scooter regulation would be included in a transport Bill that never materialised. The Government must not underestimate the impact of such indecision.

Even rental e-scooter operators tell me that the lack of certainty from the Government is undermining their ability to invest in the UK for the long term. The Government are therefore holding back potentially tens of millions of pounds of investment into our economy and the micromobility trade because they cannot make up their mind. The Government have provided guidance on e-scooter trial safety, but that is a far cry from the strong action that the sector and campaigners desperately need. While the Government dither, the reality on the ground is stark.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield was completely right to draw attention to the deeply worrying levels of serious injuries and fatalities that have been reported since e-scooters first emerged. He was also right that the Government’s refusal to take the steps that they promised to regulate on safety has led to the chaos, and he was right to highlight the potential under-reporting of casualties, as shown in the research by PACTS.

I am extremely keen to hear the Minister’s response to PACTS’ recommendation that the DFT must urgently improve data collection to address the issue. Without firm data collection on the impact of safety, how can the Government honestly believe that they will be able to enact regulations—if they ever do—that put pedestrian and rider safety first?

Many colleagues will be aware of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. I had the privilege of visiting its offices and meeting its dogs earlier this week. They truly do incredible work, but what was clear from watching them in action was the scale of the impact that unregulated e-scooters are having on people with sight loss. According to research by Guide Dogs, 12% of people with sight loss reported that their guide dog had been disturbed and another 12% said that their mobility aid or cane had been hit by an e-scooter. In fact, half of people with sight loss who encountered an e-scooter reported changing their behaviour as a result. Some even said that they have had to avoid parts of towns and cities altogether.

Another huge impact on people with sight loss is the blight of e-scooters carelessly discarded on the pavement, which causes havoc for people with sight loss. It confuses their guide dogs or makes navigating with a cane incredibly challenging and stressful. As far as I can tell, e-scooters strewn across the pavement absolutely constitutes an obstruction—a criminal offence. Under a properly regulated system, with more stringent and enforced requirements on returning e-scooters to docks, those obstructions might be less of an issue. This is an immensely important problem, so I urge the Minister to assure those with sight loss that he is actually listening. Will he clarify in his response whether he intends to take action?

[Mr Sheerman]

I mentioned PACTS. We have always believed in evidence-based policy and what works in other countries. Is it not time that the Government and all of us woke up to what is good practice across Scandinavia and other leading nations that have tackled the issue before us?

[Simon Lightwood]

I think it is really important that we always consider evidence from all over the place to make sure that we have the legislation and guidance that befits our situation.

Before I finish, I want to touch on privately owned e-scooters, as the majority of e-scooters that we see used day to day are not part of the rental schemes, but are among the estimated 1 million privately owned e-scooters used in the UK, as my hon. Friend said. Indeed, over half of e-scooter casualties are outside trial areas. There are 1 million privately owned e-scooters, despite their being completely illegal to operate on public highways and despite the Government promising to crack down on them in 2022. Their widespread use is entirely because of the confusion the Government have caused about their legal status.

A huge issue that I have heard about from stakeholders, particularly the fantastic team at Electrical Safety First, is the deadly risk of chemical fires when people put their private e-scooters on charge at home. In 2023, there was an e-bike or e-scooter fire once every two days in London, a trend that is reflected across the UK. Often, those are caused by inexpensive e-scooters bought online, often imported from abroad, which completely fail to meet UK plug safety standards. These are not just regular fires; they involve what is known as thermal runaway, which causes 600-degree fires and releases toxic gases such as hydrogen fluoride, which strips the lining from the lungs. With proper regulation from the Government, those incidents would be completely preventable, so I urge the Minister to clarify what he is doing to tackle that. Does he intend to protect UK consumers from products that do not meet our safety standards?

Labour knows that there are enormous social, economic and environmental benefits from a thriving e-scooter industry but, from consumer safety in the home to insufficiently regulated rental schemes, it is clear that the Government’s current wild west approach to e-scooters is immensely dangerous. With the right policies, e-scooters can play an integral role as a last-mile solution in a joined-up urban transport system, and I encourage people to take more sustainable journeys. However, the Government’s current approach is letting down pedestrians, whether they are disabled or non-disabled. It is putting homeowners at risk from faulty products and is frustrating the efforts of e-scooter hire companies that want to play their part as responsible transport services. I implore the Government to regulate these vehicles urgently.

We have had five Prime Ministers, seven Chancellors, seven Transport Secretaries and 11 failed plans for growth. People across the country have had enough of Conservative chaos and decline. The nation is desperate to turn the page and move on. People have had enough of 14 years of decline that has cost them, their families and their communities. In transport, the Tories have failed to deliver a comprehensive transport Bill, they have failed to act on e-scooters, they have failed to act on taxi safety standards, they have presided over a shocking decline in our bus services, and our railways are broken. Only Labour can bring the country together and deliver, from infrastructure to our public services.

Transport

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the Westminster Hall debate on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods on 20 May 2024.

[Simon Lightwood]

I will be brief. In my reading of the Department for Transport website and the “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” research report, at no point is it mentioned that it is an interim or draft report. Will the hon. Member elaborate on that and explain, if it is an interim report, when the final report is expected?

[Guy Opperman]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted that. The final report will be this summer.

[Official Report, 20 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 272WH.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman):

Zero-emission Buses

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, and to respond to this debate on behalf of the official Opposition. I extend my sincere thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating this debate, and to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) for securing it. The hon. Member is a vociferous and passionate advocate for UK manufacturing—not just for Wrightbus in Ballymena, which is in his constituency, but for all bus manufacturers across the United Kingdom; for that I thank him.

This is a vital issue, and it is right that we have had the opportunity today for such robust discussion. I place on record my thanks to the excellent, insightful contributions that we have heard from colleagues throughout this debate, including the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), Chair of the Transport Committee. I share his desire for a vibrant zero-emission bus fleet in the UK, with the majority manufactured on these islands, and I agree on the need for fair competition and that the true cost must be highlighted. I also thank him for his mention of the end-of-life processes for those buses and how those should also be taken into consideration.

I am afraid the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) had me at lemon drizzle cake—I would love to sample that—but he also made the important point about the significant capacity for UK manufacturers to expand their capabilities, given the right conditions and the certainty that they need. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) raised the real importance of recognising social and environmental benefits when awarding those grants. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

Labour knows that decarbonising the transport sector is essential to achieving net zero. Decarbonising what is now the single largest source of the UK’s carbon emissions will be no easy feat, but Labour is crystal clear that with those challenges come enormous social and economic opportunities. Across road, rail and bus there are immense opportunities for secure, high-skilled green jobs to power our next industrial revolution. With bus being by far the most utilised mode of public transport, zero-emission buses are central to that.

Across the UK, operators and local transport authorities are already taking great strides to decarbonise their fleets, meaning that demand for zero-emission buses will only continue to rise. However, it is clear that the flagship decarbonisation scheme known as ZEBRA, which was announced with much fanfare two Transport Secretaries ago as part of bus back better, continues to be woefully off-target.

Bus back better promised 4,000 new zero-emission buses on the road, but it also promised to set a date for ending the sale of new diesel buses in the UK. Neither of those promises have been met. The Government continue to dither on the phasing-out date, leaving both manufacturers and operators in the dark. In July 2023, the previous Transport Minister—the right hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden)—promised that a response to the DFT’s consultation would be forthcoming “within months”. Well, almost 12 months later, it is still the case that no Transport Minister is able to tell us on what date they will mandate the end of new diesel bus sales. The current Minister with responsibility for roads and local transport, who is here today, told the House in response to a written parliamentary question in January this year that more information would be provided “in due course”. Almost five months on, we are none the wiser.

In the absence of leadership on this issue from the Government, large operators have resorted to setting their own targets. National Express has committed to operating only zero-emission buses by 2030, and Go-Ahead, First Bus and Stagecoach aim to have fully decarbonised fleets by 2035. Although that is commendable, the continued silence from the Government on the end date for diesel bus sales will doubtless have the biggest impact on smaller and more rural bus operators.

The parameters of the Government’s consultation, which was launched back in 2022, could see a date for phase-out set “between 2025 and 2032”. Operators and manufacturers alike need certainty from this Government. It feels like a profoundly short-sighted, anti-business stance for the Government to refuse to grant that certainty, leaving it up to the sector to guess whether the phase-out could be as soon as next year or in eight years’ time.

As I mentioned, bus back better also pledged 4,000 zero-emission buses. I regularly quiz the DFT on the latest statistics about the roll-out of zero-emission buses funded by ZEBRA. The most recent statistics, which I was able to obtain last month, show that just 313 are on the road and 1,053 have been ordered using ZEBRA 1. That means that to date the Government have achieved barely a quarter of ZEBRA’s potential. The successful bidders in the next phase of ZEBRA—ZEBRA 2—were announced back in March, funding a further 955 zero-emission buses. But even if every single one of those buses is somehow on the road by the end of this Parliament, the Government will still fall considerably short of their target. Even the Chair of the Transport Committee said last year that “it seems increasingly unlikely” that the Government will meet their target.

Despite bold steps by operators, local transport authorities and manufacturers, it is clear that we have a long way to go before we decarbonise our bus sector. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me exactly how many zero-emission buses he thinks he will be able to deliver on the road by the end of this Parliament. For the UK’s leading bus manufacturers—Alexander Dennis, Wrightbus and Optare, or Switch—the ambition and appetite for zero-emission buses is an enormous opportunity. Our bus manufacturing sector directly employs 3,500 staff across the UK and supports a further 10,000 across the supply chain.

Those companies are world-class, trailblazing manufacturers producing some of the most advanced zero-emission and ultra low emission buses anywhere on the globe. Not only are their products world-class, but they are vital employers, contributing millions to the UK economy. I regularly meet them and they frequently tell me about their fantastic apprenticeship schemes and training and upskilling programmes. But under the Government’s approach to decarbonising the bus sector, those companies are at risk.

Research undertaken by Labour and—commendably—by the office of the hon. Member for North Antrim shows that 46% of the money spent by the Government on funding ZEBRA 1 has been used to purchase buses built outside the UK. The Minister will be aware that in addition to recent reports of more Chinese buses being procured, funding from ZEBRA has already been used to procure hundreds of Chinese Yutong buses. In last week’s Transport questions, I told the Secretary of State that it had emerged that a major UK operator was preparing to procure tens of millions of pounds-worth of buses, not from Wrightbus, ADL or Optare, but from China.

Labour is realistic about the fact that, as demand for zero-emission buses increases globally, competitive manufacturers will be involved in the supply chain. However, we are at a crossroads. Britain under the Tories risks losing the global race for the clean industries of the future, losing jobs overseas and betraying communities across the country. The hon. Member for North Antrim is right to question whether taxpayer-funded schemes to support the introduction of zero-emission buses should be delivered in a manner that helps UK bus manufacturing industries more. We must remember that the Government have refused to adopt a full-scale industrial strategy since 2017. We should make no mistake: the lack of a strategy from the Government is putting home-grown bus manufacturers at risk. Alexander Dennis tells me that, with enough joined-up thinking from the Government, the company could spool up production to meet demand, but, in the absence of certainty, it may have to reconsider its future in the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)]

I am listening to the hon. Member’s speech with interest. I want to clarify one point before I address the Chamber. Is the Labour party’s approach to continue to be part of the World Trade Organisation agreement on Government procurement rules made in 2012? Surely that goes to the heart of the debate.

[Simon Lightwood]

I do not agree with the Minister’s assertion. As others have said, the debate is about highlighting and acknowledging the important social and environmental benefits that UK manufacturing brings to these shores.

UK bus manufacturers are in a profoundly frustrating position when they should be leading our green transition. Support for them has not been sufficiently integrated into the national bus strategy from the start. It is a damning metaphor for the Government’s attitude that the front cover of the “Bus Back Better” document shows an image of a bus manufactured by BYD, a Chinese company.

Labour will always back British industry. A Labour Government will act as a strategic industrial partner, setting out clear priorities to provide the certainty that businesses and investors need to solidify the UK’s position as a leader in clean industry. That extends across the EV supply chain. Labour will accelerate domestic battery-making capacity with a national wealth fund to part-finance the new gigafactory capacity that we will need to support the green transition. Not only will that create thousands of good, green jobs in the supply chain and add billions to the UK economy, but it will provide the certainty that UK bus manufacturers desperately need to continue to play a leading role in the UK’s decarbonisation.

I will finish with a few questions for the Minister. On the battery supply chain, what is he doing to ensure that, as demand for electric bus batteries rises, so too does our battery manufacturing capacity? There are billions of pounds-worth of growth to be unlocked if Ministers get this right. The Government’s battery strategy is a welcome first step, but we are already behind the curve, and the scale of ambition in the strategy does not currently match the scale of the challenge we face to reach 100 GWh of capacity by 2030.

What steps will the Minister take to support UK bus manufacturers, in respect of everything that has been discussed today? In a similar Westminster Hall debate in 2022, the then Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), was asked the same question. She said that she would look into going

“further to understand how we can support British-built buses.”

She went on to say she would explore the factors

“that may help to encourage competitive bids from UK firms”.—[Official Report, 5 July 2022; Vol. 717, c. 290WH.]

I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on whether that work has progressed, and whether he considers the current procurement regime sufficient to back British industry when it comes to bus manufacturing.

Labour stands ready to embrace the green transport revolution and knows that zero-emission buses are essential to that. The UK has a world-class bus manufacturing sector that can, with the right policies from the Government, deliver millions of pounds-worth of economic growth by leading the transition. We need more action from the Government to ensure that our home-grown bus manufacturers can continue to thrive.

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to respond to this debate on behalf of the official Opposition with you in the Chair, Ms Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for sponsoring the debate and all those who have added their names to these two important petitions: a petition calling for an independent review of low-traffic neighbourhoods and a petition calling for the exemption of blue badge drivers from low-traffic neighbourhoods.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions this evening—I have been getting better at learning the names of Members’ individual constituencies, but bear with me if I get any of them wrong, Ms Harris. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) is quite right that we must continue to work hard to reduce the impact of air pollution on our constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said that we need a joined-up approach—I quite agree with that—and that everyone should be able to travel from A to B in a green way.

I heard a lot from the right hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) about the so-called war on motorists and how there were alternatives to it. I have to say, I did not hear many mentioned, but I thank them for their advocacy on behalf of their constituents. I think this shows the importance of proper consultation and considerate planning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea said that low-traffic neighbourhoods can work when they are supported by the residents they affect, but that that must include consultation and co-production with disabled people. I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) that effective consultation is important and that the views of all the different kinds of road users should be taken into account. Crucially, I agree that the debate must be based on evidence. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) was right to draw attention to the ongoing consultation about LTNs. Where there is a clear need for change, action should be taken. Her recognition of the positive impact on school zones was also important.

Low-traffic neighbourhoods have become a common part of many communities across the country in recent years. They play an important part in delivering safer streets and cleaner air and in helping encourage people to use active travel to get around. We know that benefits local economies, improves physical and mental health and brings down carbon emissions.

In many areas, LTNs have become a core part of life for the communities who live in them, with many enjoying the reductions in noise and air pollution thanks to the reduction in congestion as a result of roads being closed to through traffic. Obviously, there often need to be exemptions: emergency services, public transport, permit holders, and sometimes taxis. However, the overall reduction in most through traffic from LTNs is still significant.

Studies have shown that in areas where LTNs have been introduced, traffic has been reduced by 32% on average, with only a 4.5% increase in traffic on boundary roads. Nitrogen dioxide pollution has fallen by up to 9% in some areas with those schemes. Inside LTNs in Waltham Forest, road injuries have fallen by up to half compared to before the schemes were introduced. Data shows that 61% of people living in low-traffic neighbourhoods support the schemes. It is important to talk about the benefits of the schemes, because, despite what the Government try to say, the evidence shows that for the most part they are popular with local people and effective at achieving the desired reduction in levels of pollution and road injuries.

However, not everybody who lives in low-traffic neighbourhoods supports the schemes. Some have legitimate criticisms of how the schemes have been designed and implemented. In some individual cases there has arguably been a failure to consider the needs of particular groups, including—as is the subject of one of the petitions—those with limited mobility and blue badge holders. We can all agree that local authorities that introduce the schemes should ensure that accessibility needs are carefully considered and prioritised as proposals are designed and consulted on.

Many low-traffic neighbourhoods already exempt blue badge holders, but many do not. The Government’s own review on low-traffic neighbourhoods has found that of the LTNs surveyed, 38 exempted blue badge holders and 34 did not. It is clear that more can be done to ensure that LTNs consider the needs of those with limited mobility. I am interested to hear the Minister’s views on how the needs of disabled people, and those with limited mobility, can be considered from the start of the process when it comes to designing and implementing low-traffic neighbourhoods.

There is a balance to be struck between ensuring that the needs of all constituents are properly considered, and supporting the right of local communities to make the right decisions for their areas. That point—that this is a decision for local communities—is extremely important. Measures to improve road safety around schools and in residential streets are vital for the safety of children, are often demanded by local communities themselves, are essential to meeting legally binding objectives set by central Government on, for instance, air pollution, and are ultimately decisions to be made by those who know their local areas best.

Labour’s position on low-traffic neighbourhoods is clear: they are decisions that should continue to be made by local authorities, not be decided by diktat from Whitehall or Westminster. Of course, these decisions must be made with proper consultation, and the concerns of each community must be taken on board. Central Government have a role to play in ensuring that is the case, but if we go too far we risk undermining the independence and autonomy of the elected local decision makers who know their areas best.

Although I appreciate the strength of views in the petition that calls for a review of LTNs, as colleagues have noted the Government recently commissioned a review and published it just weeks ago. It came after the Prime Minister claimed that he wanted to stop “hare-brained” safety schemes and the so-called “war on motorists”, so let us look at some of its findings. Some 58% were unaware that they lived in low-traffic neighbourhoods altogether. Of those who were aware, more people were positive than negative. A clear majority of people were concerned about the number of vehicles travelling through their areas, and they were equally concerned about the pollution that they caused. That is not exactly the outcome it appears the Prime Minister was looking for when he commissioned the review. Perhaps that is why it was reported that the Government tried to permanently shelve it.

It would be remiss of me not to point out the pure hypocrisy behind the Government’s apparent about-turn on low-traffic neighbourhoods. Despite decrying these schemes, which their own review have found to be largely unobtrusive and popular, as part of the so-called “war on motorists” senior Conservatives themselves championed the schemes from the start. In July 2021, a prominent politician described low-traffic neighbourhoods as “transformational”, and warned:

“if you are going to oppose these schemes, you must tell us what your alternative is”.

Who was that? It was the disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

In November 2022, another distinguished colleague of ours in this House said that decisions on low-traffic neighbourhoods are

“entirely a matter for local authorities…to make.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c.493.]

Who was that? Why, it was the right hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), the Chair of the Conservative party. Would the Minister like to tell us what the current Prime Minister thinks the alternative to these schemes is? Does he agree with the right hon. Member for North West Durham that they are best left to local authorities themselves to decide on?

It is increasingly clear that the Prime Minister’s desperate attempts to deflect on to this so-called “war on motorists” are just hollow soundbites with no substance behind them. Just a quick look at his record confirms that. The cost of driving is soaring: car insurance costs are up 80% in just two years. The charge point roll-out for electric vehicles remains off track. The Government are set to miss their own 2030 target of 300,000 public charge points by several years. The state of our local roads today is just shocking: there are more potholes on British roads than craters on the moon.

Despite the Prime Minister’s and the Transport Secretary’s desperate attempts to politicise local transport issues such as road safety, school streets and reducing local air pollution, the evidence tells us that these schemes remain largely popular, and that they are effective and inobtrusive for most people. Although the Prime Minister may be keen to airbrush history, not too long ago these very schemes were championed by the most senior figures in his own party.

Many LTN schemes are far from perfect, and there are perfectly legitimate questions about how to design them with sensitivity to the needs of constituents—especially disabled people and those with limited mobility. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on how we can best support local authorities to do just that, but we should not forget the basic principle that decisions about local roads and local neighbourhoods are best made by those who live in those neighbourhoods and those who have been directly elected to represent them. These powers and responsibilities have been devolved to local government for many years. We should not let a desperate quest for political relevance from those at the top of Government to lead us to put our lives at risk, fail to tackle harmful air pollution and backslide on the basic principles of local democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

I am sorry but I will not. I have taken multiple interventions and am going to try to make some progress. I am only on page 6 of my speech, which was meant to take only 10 minutes.

The review that has taken place has flagged particular concerns over the impact on disabled residents, the high number of penalty charge notices, the cost of the LTN schemes, and even concerns from individual emergency services that delays to crews caught up in LTNs could potentially risk lives. Those are not concerns that should be under-managed in any way.

Many disabled residents, as well as groups representing the views of disabled transport users, felt that inadequate consideration had been given to their needs and the impacts of LTN schemes on disabled people. In addition, several LTN schemes reported by local authorities to the DFT had not carried out equality impact assessments. We believe we have tackled these issues through the draft guidance, which sets out clear expectations for comprehensive and in-depth local engagement and full consideration of the needs of all road users in such a scheme.

We are clear that we will not support LTNs in future unless they are designed and delivered having had regard to the new statutory guidance, which will apply to new and existing schemes. Although it is guidance, we reserve the right to take further action if local authorities do not follow it. Local authorities are expected to consider the guidance. As with the new guidance on 20 mph limits, those that do not follow it could find implications for the future award of funding. As I have set out, I will pass that message on.

On the key accessibility point, the Government are committed to improving transport accessibility and supporting disabled people to have the same access to transport as everyone else. The LTN review found that too many schemes had not fully considered the impact of the changes on disabled people. I make the point that local authorities are bound by the public sector equality duty, and it is for them to ensure that they fully consider the impact of any proposed scheme in such a way. Any infrastructure they install should be delivered in a way that enables them to comply with equalities legislation.

The second petition we are debating requested that a flag be added to DVLA records to identify vehicles that belong to blue badge holders, so that they can be automatically exempted from any restriction and not attract enforcement activity. Although I understand the concern, I am afraid that currently that is not a viable solution. I will try to address in detail why that is the case. Clearly, blue badges are linked to the individual and not the vehicle. A badge holder may travel as a driver or a passenger in any vehicle, including a taxi or minicab, allowing them to access more easily the goods and services that they need to use. Therefore it is not possible to flag with the DVLA every vehicle in which a blue badge holder may travel. Likewise, although local authorities have access to a record of blue badge holders in their area, badges are registered to the individual and not the vehicle in which they travel.

Notwithstanding that, our draft LTN guidance makes it clear that local authorities should always consider exemption from restrictions for blue badge holders, as well as for deliveries and other essential services. It also addresses things such as emergency services. Again, I do not want to read out the entirety of it, but I encourage anyone who is passionately interested or who is contemplating this matter to look at the sections on exemptions and exceptions and how the individual situation for disabled people can be improved. The guidance sets that out in quite a lot of detail.

To answer the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) when she identified particular problems, I make the strong point that there should be considered, ongoing, good-practice principles of monitoring and evaluation, in line with the active travel fund monitoring guidance, but, where local authorities detect hotspots, where a disproportionate number of PCNs are issued or where representations or appeals are being made, that should alert them to a possible need to review the cause. The monitoring of PCNs and challenge levels should be carried out from the outset. That clearly includes monitoring the impact on local communities, the impact on the disabled, the impact on individual businesses, and the way in which the fines are being taken.

I cannot address much more, given the nature of the guidance being an unfinished document that the Government have to respond to.

[Simon Lightwood]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Guy Opperman]

Very well.

[Simon Lightwood]

I will be brief. In my reading of the Department for Transport website and the “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” research report, at no point is it mentioned that it is an interim or draft report. Will the hon. Member elaborate on that and explain, if it is an interim report, when the final report is expected?

[Guy Opperman]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted that. The final report will be this summer.

The situation in terms of the way ahead is that we need to find a way in which our local communities can use a process that has been around for a considerable time and managed in local communities in, by and large, a satisfactory way, but has clearly been expanded substantially over the last few years. We need to find a way in which the Government can provide the guidance and then local authorities can implement the schemes in an appropriate way. If they are not implemented in an appropriate way, clearly there have to be consequences.

I assure the petitioners, who are the most important people here, that we are working to ensure that local authorities give proper consideration to the needs of all users and gain buy-in across the local community, in all shapes and forms, when discussing and then implementing any local authority LTN schemes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The UK has a proud bus manufacturing history, from London’s iconic original Routemasters to Alexander Dennis’ next generation of hydrogen double-deckers used today in the Liverpool city region. As operators and local authorities decarbonise their fleets, UK manufacturers are ready to power that green revolution, but our bus makers are at risk from cheap models imported from overseas. This week, a major UK operator is preparing to procure Chinese-built buses for tens of millions of pounds due to cost pressures and because this Government have not set out a full industrial strategy since 2017. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what he will do to back British bus manufacturers and secure their role in this green revolution?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman will know that it is not possible, given our international commitments under the World Trade Organisation, to specify that people have to buy British buses. He will also know that British bus manufacturers are very competitive. The Government have made support available to businesses through our Advanced Propulsion Centre and UK Export Finance. As I said to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), if the shadow Minister thinks that there is any unfair competition with subsidised imports, the Trade Remedies Authority has all the tools at its disposal to deal with that.

We back British buses. We have fantastic manufacturers, and I have confidence in them. In a fair competition, our bus manufacturers can take on the world. Wrightbus has had £76 million of support from UK Export Finance to support its ambitious exports. It is a shame that he does not have the same faith in British industry that we do.

Draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2024

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank the Minister for introducing this delegated legislation. As we all know, transport has the highest carbon emissions of any sector, so decarbonisation should be a key priority. The Government first consulted on the amendment in this order in 2021, so why has it taken until today for us to consider it? Nevertheless, Labour supports this legislation.

The RTFO order is a key policy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in transport—and, might I add, it was introduced by a Labour Government. The extension of the order to include recycled carbon fuels is welcome; after all, RCFs can be as much as 50% less polluting compared with fossil fuels. By 2033, the change is projected to result in the supply of more than 1 billion litres of additional low-carbon fuel, resulting in a saving of more than 15 million tonnes of greenhouse carbon dioxide equivalents. Crucially, the increase in the number of qualifying fuels in the RTFO order will contribute to lower costs for general road fuel consumers.

I welcome the caveats for RCFs in the order; thankfully, the Government recognise that they are not renewable. I am glad that RCFs will receive only rate 1 certificates per litre of fuel, rather than full credits, and to see the publication of the technical guidance on the specifics of how fuel suppliers can fulfil their obligations.

The exemption of small businesses that employ fewer than 50 people is welcome, but it raises a number of questions on which I seek the Minister’s clarification. Are the Government confident that recycled carbon fuels can perform the same action as ethanol, or are they to be diverted exclusively to sustainable aviation fuel? If the latter, what are the Government’s intentions for the RTFO-supported fuels that currently go into petrol? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the change on UK fuel products that trade internationally?

More widely, why is there a nuanced understanding of the necessity to decarbonise here, but not in the recently published national networks national policy statement, which allows the inclusion of residual emissions in new projects? Why has the Prime Minister rowed back on the Government’s commitment to vehicle electrification by moving the petrol and diesel vehicle ban back to 2035? Where is the Government’s commitment to rail freight, hydrogen and biogas?

Overall, Labour supports this delegated legislation and the necessary wider decarbonisation of our public transport, but we must ensure that the Government have assessed the impact on the UK’s wider fuel sector.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords]

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If no one else wishes to speak, we will come to the Front Benchers. I call the shadow Minister.

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

It is a pleasure to speak in my inaugural Committee of the whole House on behalf of the official Opposition. As we set out on Second Reading, Labour is clear that the Bill can help to sustain a thriving London pedicab industry that is also safe and trusted by its customers, and we support its progress. However, there are two areas in which Labour believes that the Bill can be improved: pedicab infrastructure, and the crucial safeguard of requiring enhanced disclosure and barring service checks for pedicab drivers.

Amendment 8, which was tabled in my name and those of my Front-Bench colleagues, would enable Transport for London to use pedicab licence fees for investment in pedicab infrastructure in London. Alongside passenger safety and unregulated fare charging, one of the biggest issues presented by unregulated pedicabs is the nuisance of operators blocking pavements and roads as they ply for trade. The Heart of London Business Alliance, which represents over 600 businesses across London’s west end, is clear that pedicabs frequently block pavements and roads outside many of its members’ premises. That can cause chaos at busy periods, such as when many hundreds of people are filing out into the street after a west end show.

The amendment would enable Transport for London to use fees levied from pedicab licences to invest in infrastructure that supports the industry. That infrastructure could include designated pedicab ranks in certain areas, designed to relieve the nuisance of blocked pavements by giving operators a specific area in which to pick up customers. TfL has already set out in its potential licensing framework that it will consult stakeholders on the provision of pedicab stands. I hope that the Heart of London Business Alliance, along with other associations and bodies, including the London Pedicab Operators Association, can feed into those discussions.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a good closing speech on why regulation is important. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and I share the view that the Bill strikes the right balance between allowing a sustainable and supported pedicab industry to develop, and giving Transport for London the powers that it needs to ensure that the sector runs safely. Does he agree?

[Simon Lightwood]

I agree, but there could be enhanced DBS checks, which our new clause 3 would provide for.

As I have said, TfL has already set out in its potential licensing framework that it will consult stakeholders, and I hope that that will include the London Pedicab Operators Association. Of course, although it is vital that fees are set at a level that enables investment, they must remain proportionate. We are trying to provide for a prosperous pedicab industry, after all, so we must ensure that fees are not prohibitive. Clause 2(4) already provides for TfL to set fees at a level that enables the recovery of costs incurred for administering the licensing scheme. Licensing fees being set on a cost recovery basis is fair and proportionate. Amendment 8 to clause 2(4) would simply grant TfL a degree of flexibility while acknowledging the benefits that investment in pedicabs infrastructure can have.

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech clearly setting out the importance of having the right balance. Does he agree that, from this work in London, lessons could be learned for other towns and cities around the country, and that encouraging the pedicab industry and other delivery by bicycle in a sensitive way around the country could generate a great number of local jobs and remove fumes and other menaces from the public realm?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point; hopefully, during TfL’s consultation, it will engage with those other organisations to ensure maximum benefit. Labour’s priority, after all, is to grant TfL the flexibility it needs to implement a regulatory regime that promotes safety while also allowing the regulated pedicab industry in London to flourish. Naturally, infrastructure such as pedicab stands would be competing against many different demands for the use of central London’s kerbsides, and it will remain TfL’s responsibility to work with local authorities on where infrastructure can be viably located.

Some hon. Members may not agree that this Bill is an appropriate place to discuss pedicab infrastructure. Labour believes that on the contrary, the conduct of pedicab drivers and the safety of the public are undeniably linked to TfL’s ability to fund and make provision for infrastructure that supports a regulated pedicab industry. Amendment 8 clarifies one potential revenue stream for the provision of that infrastructure, and I hope the Government will consider its merits carefully.

I now turn to new clauses 1 to 3, which stand in my name and those of my Front-Bench colleagues. All three new clauses concern the safety of children and vulnerable adults using pedicabs. As we heard on Second Reading, and as has been reported widely in the media and by numerous stakeholders, misconduct by pedicab operators arguably provides the strongest case for the desperate need to regulate the industry. Blocking streets and pavements, reckless driving and noise nuisance are all important areas that regulation will address, but they pale in comparison with the vital responsibility we have to ensure that TfL has the power to ensure public safety effectively. As TfL’s proposed licensing framework sets out, that emphasis on safety will be its guiding principle for pedicab regulations.

At the front and centre are eligibility requirements for operators and drivers. TfL has set out a raft of proposed licensing requirements, including alignment of visa status requirements with taxi and private hire licensing, English proficiency, and highway code and hazard perception awareness. That is of course welcome, but TfL is also clear that it would like to see compulsory enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks for pedicab drivers, again in line with the taxi and private hire requirements. That should be a vital component of ensuring the safety of pedicab customers, but TfL has explicitly stated on page 5 of its draft licensing framework that it would require changes in legislation, because while clause 2(6)(a) of the Bill empowers TfL to regulate licensing eligibility, enhanced DBS checks may not form part of those requirements if TfL does not have the right powers. Those difficulties were raised in the other place and were acknowledged by the Lords Minister himself.

The draft licensing framework also makes a clear distinction between basic and enhanced DBS checks, and explicitly states that enhanced DBS checks for pedicab drivers would be TfL’s preference. I say for the benefit of colleagues that an enhanced DBS check may show information held by local police forces on individuals. That intelligence may prove vital when deciding whether to award a licence to a pedicab driver, and it is absolutely right that TfL should be able to require enhanced checks. While enhanced DBS checks are not a panacea, they are clearly an important component of thorough eligibility requirements. Labour recognises the need to balance getting the Bill swiftly on to the statute books with the need to ensure that it conveys sufficient powers to TfL to truly make pedicabs a trusted and safe mode of transport in London. If TfL does not have the right powers to vet pedicab drivers through enhanced DBS checks, that will threaten its ability to truly implement a watershed regulatory framework.

Labour’s new clause 1 would add this Bill, upon Royal Assent, to the list of existing taxi and private hire vehicle legislation under section 177 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017. As colleagues may be aware, section 177 empowers the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance on how licensing authorities can ensure the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults. Including pedicabs in the list of licensed activities covered by the statutory guidance would be a crucial step towards a safer pedicab industry.

Labour’s new clause 2 is designed to build on new clause 1 by turning the Secretary of State’s power to issue statutory guidance to TfL into a duty. Crucially, under subsection (2), this guidance would also include a requirement for enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks to be a condition of a licence. In concert with new clause 1, this new clause would equip TfL with the powers it needs to properly regulate in the name of safety by including enhanced DBS checks as a baseline standard for driver eligibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I will keep my remarks brief, as this is the penultimate main business before the Easter recess, and far be it for me to delay colleagues returning to their constituencies. I am grateful for all hon. Members who have participated in the Bill’s progress, particularly the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). I am grateful for the hard work of colleagues in the other place, which meant that the Bill came to us in a much improved state, specifically by adding the provision for the regulation of noise nuisance. Their efforts to pressure the Government into changing their approach on requiring parliamentary approval ensured that the powers are fully devolved to Transport for London. That is commendable.

As I set out on Second Reading and again in Committee, Labour supports the Bill. For years there have been calls on the Government to grant Transport for London the powers it needs to regulate this industry. Labour welcomes the Bill as that will finally become law, and a regulated pedicab industry in London will soon emerge, but it has taken far too long to get here.

I must repeat what I emphasised on Second Reading: there is no doubt that the Bill is hugely welcome to London’s west end and a handful of other London areas, but these measures should have been introduced as part of a far wider transport Bill. Elsewhere in transport policy there remains desperate need for major transport reform, particularly on e-bikes and e-scooters, but the Government continue to duck that responsibility and have refused to use this opportunity to bring forward a long-promised and long-delayed transport Bill.

I have been listening carefully to the Minister’s arguments, and I welcome the Government being content that TfL can mandate enhanced DBS checks for pedicabs under current private hire vehicle legislation. It is regrettable that proposed new clauses 1 to 3, all pertaining to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and children, were not accepted. TfL itself has indicated throughout its draft licensing framework that passenger safety will be its guiding principle, and it is keen to incorporate enhanced DBS checks into licensing conditions under clause 2(6)(a), but believes that it currently does not have the powers to do so. Each of Labour’s new clauses offered a different way forward to incorporating enhanced DBS checks into TfL’s regulations.

It is disappointing that the Government have not taken the new clauses forward, but Labour welcomes the opportunity that tabling them has presented to facilitate a discussion on the importance of TfL having the powers to integrate enhanced DBS checks into its licensing regime. I welcome the exploration of alternative means, as the Minister described, to achieve the same objectives. In the light of that, I gently ask the Minister to meet me at his earliest convenience to discuss this issue further, and to identify ways that we can work together on a cross-party basis to grant TfL the powers it needs to keep customers safe.

Overall, this Bill is welcome, if not long overdue. It is a great addition to the statute book. Once again, I thank all hon. Members and Lords in the other place for their involvement, in addition to the Clerks and stakeholders who have helped us scrutinise the Bill effectively.