Rural Cycling Infrastructure

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Freddie van Mierlo]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I agree that we could make better use of the significant infrastructure that is already in place, whether that is canal towpaths or former railways and other such infrastructure.

I am calling on the Government today to commit to investing in safe, off-road cycling routes and segregated cycle lanes in rural areas. In Oxfordshire, I am pleased to share with this Chamber that the Liberal Democrat-led administration is taking steps to link up towns and villages that are characteristic of the stunning Chilterns national landscape, Oxford green belt and wider open countryside. The county has adopted Vision Zero, the ambition to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on our roads by 2030. It has already developed a strategic active travel network that draws lines on the map of prioritised cycle routes that would connect towns and villages to one another and to Oxford and cities of the surrounding counties. Yet for now, they remain just lines on a map, unfunded. The county adopted a new model to replace the old car-centric “predict and provide” methodology for deciding infrastructure and replaced it with “decide and provide”. Oxfordshire has decided, but it lacks the central Government funding needed to provide.

Even getting a simple project off the ground is a challenge. The Thame to Haddenham greenway is a project that has been mooted for more than 20 years. It would connect the market town of Thame, the largest settlement in the Henley and Thame constituency, to the nearby village of Haddenham in Buckinghamshire, just two miles away. Crucially, Haddenham is host to the Thame and Haddenham Parkway rail station that links the town to London. Cycling from Thame to Haddenham currently requires a high degree of confidence and a tolerance for risk to mix in alongside the heavy traffic of the A418.

The wildly popular Phoenix trail from Thame to Princes Risborough already proves high demand for off-road rural cycle infrastructure, but it is not just funding that is stifling the rural cycling revolution. Compulsory purchase powers are often wielded to make progress on road projects but are not used to deliver cycle infrastructure. This means that most projects barely get beyond the idea phase.

A cycleway that links Chinnor to Watlington via the village of Lewknor in my constituency, which sits just next to the M40, would transform the lives of thousands of people by providing an active travel link to London and Oxford via the Oxford tube. However, ideas never make it beyond a general agreement that it would be quite nice, because local landowners oppose it. I urge the Government to break free from the visionless Conservative legacy and take on these barriers to change. The Government must stop the lip service of the past.

In 2017, a walking and cycling strategy aimed to make active travel a natural choice. The Department for Transport active travel fund was set up to reallocate road space to cyclists and pedestrians and create an environment that is safer for walking and cycling. But words are cheap and here we are, seven years later. In rural areas, active travel is far from the natural choice.

In 2023, the Conservative Government, in a fit of reactionary culture wars, slashed the already paltry active travel budget from £200 million to just £50 million. Under this Government, I therefore welcome the increase in that budget to £150 million. However, let us not pretend that that will create a step change. The Conservatives had the budget at £200 million just three years ago. The Government should deliver on their promise to invest at unprecedented levels in active travel.

I hope that as a result of this debate, the Minister will consider increasing funding levels further for the 2025-26 period during the Department’s current planning discussion. I ask that because cycling in rural areas as a mode of transport will deliver concrete benefits for the economy, the environment, health and wellbeing. For every pound spent on cycling and walking schemes, £5.62-worth of wider benefits is achieved. In 2022, active travel contributed £36 billion to the economy. Cycling networks give rise to tourism and flourishing local businesses, encouraging institutions and services to set up in or return to areas.

It is a privilege and a joy to live surrounded by nature in the villages and towns of my constituency, but it can also be isolating. Many villages lack places to exercise and few have regular buses to the places that do. The latest data for Oxfordshire shows that 58% of people in the county are overweight, and one in three year 6 children are overweight or abuse. Cycling is an obvious means to increase physical activity in areas where small populations can make commercial or council-supported leisure centres unviable.

If we truly believe that there is a climate emergency, and I do, rural Britain must be part of the transformation, too. Reduced motor traffic limits carbon dioxide emissions and reduces nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter, with both gases linked to respiratory failure, stroke, heart disease, dementia and premature death. Do not think that just because rural areas are surrounded by fields that the risk is not present in the countryside, too. Historic towns can create choke points, quite literally, as vehicles move through them. Watlington’s Couching Street has been an air quality management area since 2009, as traffic passes through in search of the M40. Again, cycling must be part of the picture, and that is before we talk about the mental health benefits, which I will perhaps leave others to touch on.

We have a golden opportunity over the next five years to see the transformation needed. I am willing to work cross-party with anyone in Government, and MPs and councillors across Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire, to seize it. I hope others will join me.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I expect to call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson at 5.46 pm, so given the number of Members wishing to speak, there will be an informal time limit of between four and five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary]

Not being the Minister, I do not know, but I am sure that he will respond accordingly, and I hope that the answer will be yes, because that would be a fantastic thing to do. I know that county councils and other authorities have really struggled to find the funding for active travel undertakings across the country. We have certainly seen that in East Sussex, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) has in his area.

Cycling is more than a recreational activity. It is an essential mode of transport that can improve public health, reduce carbon emissions and ease the financial burden of transport for households. Nationally, cycling directly contributes an estimated £5.4 billion annually to the economy, including £4.1 billion from reduced mortality, air pollution, and congestion. Every pound invested in walking and cycling infrastructure generates more than £5 in benefits. Cycling also promotes land-use efficiency, requiring far less space than roads or car parks—a critical consideration for creating greener, more liveable communities. For predominantly rural areas like mine, that represents an opportunity to create healthier, greener and more connected communities. Without serious investment, rural residents will continue to face unsafe roads, insufficient cycling facilities and limited transport options.

In communities like mine, the reality is stark. Public transport options are patchy and many depend on cars for short journeys. Safe and accessible cycling infrastructure could provide an alternative that is not only affordable, but sustainable. Where we have dedicated cycle routes, such as the outstanding separated cycling routes alongside the A27 between Lewes and Polegate in my constituency, they are often unconnected to any ongoing routes, which limits the number of people that can use them.

Better road maintenance is required. We need to create conditions in which cycling is a realistic option for commuting, shopping and even leisure—not just for the young, pale and male but for everybody. Inclusivity must be central to our approach. Whether it is for children cycling to school, older residents using e-bikes or families making short trips, cycling infrastructure should cater to a diverse range of needs. It is about ensuring that everybody can benefit from the independence, affordability and health benefits that cycling offers.

The Liberal Democrats have been clear in our commitment to reverse funding cuts and in pushing for a nationwide active travel strategy. In rural areas, that includes prioritising safe cycling routes, linking active travel to public transport and ensuring that local councils have the resources to tackle potholes and maintain pavements and cycleways, as well as to invest in active travel infrastructure. I urge the Government to recognise that cycling is not just a solution for urban areas, but a vital tool for rural communities. By investing in cycling infrastructure, we can reduce transport poverty, improve public health and build a greener future for areas like Sussex. Let us not miss this opportunity to make cycling safe, accessible and inclusive for all.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

It is customary to wait to hear what the Minister says—you might be delighted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) for securing this debate, and the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) for his excellent pun.

My home constituency of Tewkesbury is a patchwork of rural towns and villages. Public transport is either scarce or entirely absent, so cycling is an oft relied-upon mode of transport. Safe, managed cycle routes are vital for many of my constituents as a means to connect with our cathedral city of Gloucester to our south, the cultural centre of Cheltenham to our east, and the medieval town of Tewkesbury to our west. Only in those larger population centres can many of my constituents access their hospitals, schools, stores or social clubs.

Cycling in our rural communities comes at significant risk. As has already been stated, according to at least one study, cyclists involved in collisions on rural roads are more than twice as likely to suffer mortality than those on urban roads. There are several factors for that, including the time it takes for emergency services to arrive from major hospitals to our rural villages. Another factor seems to be that cycling infrastructure and roads in rural areas are poorly funded or neglected. Apparently, cycling routes are rarely considered alongside major highways infrastructure projects. There must be joined-up thinking to such projects to improve the viability of cycling as an environmentally friendly and healthy alternative to driving.

The Gloucestershire cycle spine is an ambitious plan to link Gloucestershire’s major population centres with some of our emerging population centres. The plan was initially met with significant public support, but several shortcomings with it have since caused outcry. Issues cited by residents in Longlevens including the fact that the camber of the cycleway draws water away from drainage and floods their properties with rainwater. In Churchdown, the road has been so narrowed to accommodate the cycleway that larger vehicles can now barely pass each other in places. A clear opportunity to link a cycleway to our heritage railway was missed.

This is not a pitch against such schemes; it is a call to keep the public engaged and ensure the projects are implemented not piecemeal but as a joined-up infrastructure plan so that the “so whats” are asked and answered ahead of the works. I am disappointed to learn that a shortfall in the central Government funding for Gloucestershire county council could mean a significant drop in the allocation for the Gloucestershire cycle spine. Consequently, the 14,000 residents of Bishop’s Cleeve will remain cut off from it.

Like other transport networks, cycling needs to be treated as a vital part of our infrastructure. It must be planned strategically and funded sustainably for the long term.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

If no other Members wish to speak, I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, Steff Aquarone.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) on securing this debate on such an important issue. He is a great champion of this cause. I know that he and his Liberal Democrat colleagues across Oxfordshire will continue to push for progress in their area.

I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Norfolk county council, but I must declare an even more important interest, which is that I am a rural cyclist. It is for that reason that I am so pleased to respond to today’s debate for the Liberal Democrats.

In my area, we have some fantastic cycling routes. In Wells and Holkham, people can join national cycle network route 1 and travel through the north of the constituency as part of the Norfolk-wide rebellion way. Towards North Walsham, we have the Weavers way, which takes in much of the track bed of the former Midland and Great Northern joint railway.

The Liberal Democrats and I are ambitious for the future of rural cycling across the country. We want to see new cycle networks, and locally Liberal Democrats are working with communities to deliver on new cycling schemes in their local areas. It is a great shame that the previous Conservative Government did not match our ambition or enthusiasm for the future of cycling. They ruthlessly cut £200 million from the active transport budget, just after so many of us rediscovered our love for walking and cycling during lockdown.

That neglect for walking and cycling seems endemic within the Conservatives. Our Conservative-led county council has sunk £50 million into the white elephant that is the 6 km western link road. The legal and exploratory costs alone could have instead funded high-quality cycle super-highways six times the eventual proposed distance of that road. With attitudes like that, it is easy to see how our rural cycling infrastructure has deteriorated so badly over the previous decade, with Norfolk losing many of its routes from the national cycle network in 2020 after years of neglect and lack of upkeep.

Cycling will play a key part in the rural transport revolution, which so many parts of our country desperately need. We must make sure that cycling routes join up with public transport networks, so that people can safely and easily cycle to their nearest train or bus station. In my rural area, we have one of the highest levels of road per person in the country, and we cannot afford to maintain them all. Is it not time that we looked to convert underused and under-classified roads into access-only roads that prioritise walking and cycling? I am sure that many people would far rather hear the dinging of bike bells nearby than large lorries clattering through small country lanes.

I am passionate about seeing an improvement in rural cycling infrastructure across Norfolk and the rest of the country. Making cycling more accessible and attractive has only benefits. It keeps us healthier, it reduces carbon emissions and it gives us greater opportunity to explore and enjoy our natural environment. I very much hope that we hear from the Minister that the Government will match the passion and ambition of Liberal Democrats across the country to deliver better cycling infrastructure for us all.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

Oswestry to Gobowen Railway Line

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I will call Helen Morgan to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Oswestry to Gobowen railway line.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. This is an important subject for my constituents in the lovely town of Oswestry and the nearby village of Gobowen. Oswestry has a population of approximately 17,000 people. It is the second largest town in Shropshire and is of huge importance to the border region, but economic potential there is being stunted by poor public transport, which plagues the whole of Shropshire.

People who live in Oswestry are forced to rely on a bus or car to get to Gobowen railway station just up the road to access connections to larger economic centres, such as Shrewsbury, Liverpool or Manchester. What about someone who does not have a car and works in Chester? They will need to leave home by 7 am to get to the office for 9 o’clock—a journey that takes about 45 minutes in a car. Someone travelling further afield and returning late would need to get a taxi back from the station because the buses do not run outside regular hours, and that is if they can track down a taxi, which is another problem for another debate.

Oswestry was once a proud railway town. The railway station was on the main line of the Cambrian railway and, at one stage, it housed the headquarters of the Cambrian Railways Company. Unfortunately, it was a victim of the Beeching cuts, and there has been no connection to the main line from Oswestry since 1966. That is why the news that the restoring your railway fund would be used to reopen the line between Gobowen and Oswestry was so well received locally; and why the news that the Government wanted to scrap the funding, without even examining the new business case, has been such a huge disappointment. From healthcare and high streets to the environment and the economy, I cannot overstate what a transformational impact reopening the line would have on our area.

Poor public transport removes opportunity. It hinders young people, limiting their options for further and higher education and restricting their access to culture and leisure. In short, barriers to mobility are barriers to social mobility. During a recent visit to the jobcentre in Oswestry, the brilliant staff there told me that the No. 1 barrier to people accessing work is poor public transport. Meanwhile, I have spoken to businesses in Oswestry that have reported real difficulties in recruiting. They need to be able to attract people to work from a much wider area than Oswestry and not just those who have access to a private car. That means we are in the ridiculous situation where employers cannot recruit and jobseekers cannot find jobs to match their skills because of the same problem of poor public transport.

Let us take the outstanding Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital near Gobowen: it has such a fine reputation that it has no trouble attracting high-quality staff, but the problem is that it cannot get people to and from their shifts early and late because there is no public transport, so if they do not have a car, the job will not work for them. Reopening the line would include a halt at the hospital. That would help to swell staff numbers and ease access for patients, many of whom are elderly, do not have access to a car and have to rely on the good will of friends to get to appointments on time. The hospital is a national resource: people come from across the country to access the excellent care there, including from the veterans’ centre, and railway access for them would be a huge bonus.

It is not just me who thinks that this is a great project. Feedback from the Department for Transport on the strategic outline business case acknowledged the importance of all of this:

“Oswestry is the second largest employment area in Shropshire, and unemployment in Oswestry is higher than the average in Shropshire. Productivity—the ability to match jobs with labour across North Shropshire—is a particularly pertinent issue. The growth in vacancies has been significant in Oswestry and Gobowen in recent years, which is exacerbated by the low population density and ageing populations of these areas.”

Bus Services: England

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered bus services in England.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. Connecting communities through better public transport has been one of my top priorities since I was elected in December 2019 by the fine people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. I am therefore delighted to have secured funding—with my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon)—for the return of the Stoke-Leek line, millions more to fix the potholes that drive us potty in the Potteries, and upgrades to Stoke-on-Trent railway station and Station Road. However, like other Members from across the House, I know that buses remain the most important and valued form of public transport.

Stoke-on-Trent’s road network harks back to the Victorian era. The city is made up of six towns in an unconventional layout, and fewer residents than the national average own or have access to a motor vehicle. Other major cities benefit from underground networks, and in some cases trams, but our city relies solely on its good-quality bus network. Buses are vital in connecting our communities across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. They enable people to shop, eat and drink, see loved ones, get to school or college, attend a local GP appointment or enjoy one of the many great tourist attractions our city has to offer, such as the Spitfire gallery in the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery.

Despite the large number of people who require or would like to use the bus, the local bus network across Britain shrunk by an estimated 14% between 2016-17 and 2021-22. The BBC reported in early 2023 that about 13% of bus services across England are supported by councils. That places heavier pressure on local authority budgets, which are more stretched than ever since covid and the cost of living pressures that resulted in large part from the post-covid global recovery and Putin’s illegal and immoral war in Ukraine, which spiked energy costs and fuelled inflation.

Bus demand plummeted during the global covid-19 pandemic, and is still recovering; reports show that passenger numbers across Britain, excluding London, remain about 20% below pre-pandemic levels. In Stoke-on-Trent, we have felt that more than most other areas. Across the city, bus services shrank by an estimated 50% between 2013-14 and 2021-22. However, it is important to caveat that: to a large extent, the reductions came not from the closure of entire routes, but from repeated timetable changes that, by sleight of hand, reduced how frequently buses arrive or how late into the evening they run.

In summer 2022, I hosted two well-attended meetings in Chell Heath and Smallthorne, at which local residents and I held First Potteries and D&G to account. We were determined to ensure that the operators stop slashing routes, which is making it harder for local people to get around. Residents told me that they need better and more straightforward routes to places such as Leek—passengers are currently required to change buses—and a direct link to Wolstanton retail park to do their shopping. Elderly passengers told me that the lack of routes made them isolated. Parents told me that their children could not get to their college or apprenticeship easily. Businesses told me that the lack of routes was a challenge for recruitment and retention, as many employers still work on shift patterns that do not work within existing timetables. Shops on our high streets felt that the poor quality of service meant that people were shopping outside Stoke-on-Trent.

That argument was reinforced by a survey I conducted of more than 1,000 local residents across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. Some 76% said they would use the bus to go shopping, and 57% said they would undertake more leisure activities, if better bus services were available. In addition, 64% said bus services could be improved by having better routes to get them to different parts of the city so that they can get out and about. Residents also expressed their desire for better services in the evening, with 49.6% saying bus services could be improved if they ran later. That is especially the case for women and girls, who might be concerned about getting home safely.

I have outlined the challenges we face nationally and in Stoke-on-Trent, but it would be unfair not to mention the unprecedented support and subsidy that bus operators have received since I was elected in 2019, particularly during the pandemic, when passenger numbers plummeted because people were staying at home to protect loved ones. Since 2020 the Government have announced more than £4.5 billion of funding for buses in England, outside of London. Between March 2020 and June 2023, over £2 billion of taxpayers’ hard-earned money was used in emergency and recovery funding to mitigate the impact of the covid pandemic on the bus sector. The Department for Transport also makes up to £259 million available every year for bus operators and local authorities to help operators keep fares down and run services that might otherwise be unprofitable and could be cancelled. Without that support, we would simply have seen services cease entirely, and bus operators go out of business. I therefore pass on my thanks to the Government for intervening. I also thank the many bus drivers who kept going into work, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic, when we had no vaccine. Simply by turning up to work, they were putting themselves in harm’s way.

In addition to the covid recovery grant, Councillors Abi Brown and Daniel Jellyman, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South and I successfully campaigned for and received over £31 million for Stoke-on-Trent to improve our bus services through the bus service improvement plan, enabling us to start busing back better. We bid for new bus routes across the city, based on concerns we had heard from residents and businesses across Stoke-on-Trent. Our goal was to help thousands more people get around the city, while reducing congestion on our road network. We also campaigned for better bus stops and shelters across the city. I was recently on Chell Heath Road, where we can see investment to improve boarding kerbs, which will be particularly helpful for elderly and disabled residents. We want to improve the quality of bus shelters to encourage people on to the buses in bad weather and to have electronic boards to ensure that people can keep on track of the new and improved services.

To improve existing routes in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, the 8 and 36/36A services have been extended. The improved 36/36A service means the bus routes start earlier and finish much later, better connecting the three towns in Stoke-on-Trent North—Kidsgrove, Tunstall and Burslem. That means people can enjoy a day out at Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire’s award-winning indoor market in Tunstall, enjoy a pint or two at the Bull’s Head in Burslem, see the mighty Port Vale on match day at Vale Park, and visit the mother town of Stoke-on-Trent—Burslem—to enjoy the historic Middleport Pottery and a tour around Titanic Brewery.

The extension of the No. 8 route means that the people of Ball Green, Norton and Smallthorne will benefit from a weekend service, enabling them to get to and from the city centre, which needs to see increased footfall. It will also enable elderly relatives to see their family and friends more easily. For too long communities, particularly in wards such as Baddeley, Milton and Norton, have felt disconnected from the city and all it has to offer. Councillors Dave Evans and Carl Edwards have lobbied relentlessly with me to improve connectivity. There is still more to be done on the location of bus stops in the ward, but this is a good first step to better connecting communities.

It is not just Stoke-on-Trent that is reaping the benefits of bus funding. Bus funding for Staffordshire County Council has been used to introduce, for the first time in years, a bus service that connects Mow Cop and Harriseahead with the rest of Newchapel, Kidsgrove, Whitehill, Talke and Butt Lane. The brand-new 95 route enables residents to get down to Clough Hall Park or Kidsgrove Sports Centre to keep fit and active, or to enjoy a coffee or some shopping at the Affinity shopping centre. The conversations I have had on doorsteps indicate that the route, run by D&G, has been warmly received by local residents. I have been a passenger myself, and by hopping on at one of our nearest bus stops—the Butt Lane Co-op on Cedar Avenue—my family and I can enjoy a day out, such as seeing Jodrell Bank from Mow Cop castle.

This landmark investment also creates fairer fares for passengers. We have been able to cut bus fares by a third with a new £3.50-a-day flat fare, which has massively helped to drive up footfall and consumer confidence in our local bus service. On a recent visit to the First Potteries depot in Stoke-on-Trent, I spoke with staff about the impact of the Government’s £31.7 million investment in Stoke-on-Trent’s bus services. Staff told me that there has been an improvement since the funding came in, and that is backed up by research from Transport Focus, which reveals that Stoke-on-Trent is now ranked fourth for most satisfied bus users and second for value for money. Believe me, those are figures I did not think I would see when I was first elected.

I was also told of the positive impact of the £3.50-a-day fare cap and the £2 fare on single journeys, which supports over 5,000 routes across England, including those in Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke. Transport Focus’s research has revealed that 11% of respondents are using the bus more thanks to the capped fare, with 80% agreeing that the £2 ticket has helped with the cost of living. That research is supported by Department for Transport statistics, which show that, following the introduction of the cap, bus fares in England, outside of London, dropped by 6.2% between December 2022 and December 2023, and by over 11% in rural and non-metropolitan areas. However, in Scotland, Wales and London—where buses are devolved—fares increased by 9.8%, 8.1% and 6% respectively.

In addition to the landmark £31 million to bus back better, communities across England such as Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire are benefiting from the Prime Minister’s bold new vision for the midlands and north, with a huge uplift in funding as a result of the cancellation of the northern leg of High Speed 2. The reallocation of £36 billion from HS2 will mean that Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire cumulatively benefit from over £200 million in additional funding for our roads and pavements, while Stoke-on-Trent will receive £19 million a year over the next seven years for transport from the local government transport fund. That unprecedented investment will help us compete with London and the south-east, which typically have better roads and transport links, in part because they generate more revenue from council tax and parking fees in comparison to northern towns and cities such as Stoke-on-Trent.

I am campaigning to support elderly and disabled residents to use their concessionary bus passes before 9.30 am. Research from the House of Commons Library shows that in 2020 almost a quarter of older persons across the country and just over a third of disabled people were allowed to use their bus passes before 9.30 am by local authorities. Not every concessionary bus pass user will need to travel early every day, but it gives vulnerable people security to know that, when they do, they will not be charged. We cannot put a price on giving those who need support the confidence to travel around Stoke-on-Trent and the surrounding area.

At Prime Minister’s questions on 29 November 2023, I was delighted that the Prime Minister supported my campaign to scrap the cap, saying that he “wholeheartedly” backed it. However, Labour-led Stoke-on-Trent City Council has so far failed to back it. In misleading comments given to the BBC, cabinet member Councillor Chris Robinson said Stoke-on-Trent City Council was not responsible for setting the timings for concessionary fares. I have therefore written to Councillor Robinson to make it clear that Department for Transport guidance states that free travel is at the discretion of local authorities, with the guidance stating:

“The national bus concession in England is available at any time on a Saturday, Sunday or bank holiday, and from 9.30 am to 11 pm on any other day.”

It goes on to say that travel concession authorities

“are able to offer concessionary travel outside these hours on a discretionary basis.”

Despite having written over 100 days ago, I am yet to hear back from any of the Labour councillors in the cabinet of Stoke-on-Trent City Council. However, with the backing of over 1,600 local people via my “Scrap the Cap” petition, I am determined to keep going and ensure that no excuse is used, particularly now that there has been such a substantial increase in Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s transport budget.

Lots of residents have written to me to say why they back the campaign. Pamela from Tunstall says:

“Many pensioners can’t afford to own a car and need buses to get to appointments. The older we become the more important it is to have access to the bus.”

Roland from Talke Pits asks:

“What is the point in having a free bus travel pass when it restricts people at a time when it is most needed not only for convenience, but to save money which in most cases these people can ill afford to lose.”

Roderick from Milton says:

“Being able to use the buses before 9.30 would mean that it would be a lot easier to make connections to other buses and to be able to get to Stoke Station to catch earlier trains.”

It is therefore vital that Stoke-on-Trent Labour listens and delivers for residents by backing my campaign. I hope the Minister will use today to join myself and the Prime Minister in calling on Stoke-on-Trent City Council to scrap the cap.

When visiting the First Potteries depot a few weeks ago, I spoke to Zoe Hands from First Bus about the exciting opportunity for a new electric bus fleet to come to Stoke-on-Trent. First Bus is ready and willing to invest £37 million in a brand-new electric bus fleet for our great city, but this ambition must be met with an around £11 million investment from Stoke-on-Trent City Council. These brand-new buses would not only encourage travel because they would be more modern and exciting but make a huge difference to improving air quality in Stoke-on-Trent. The fleet we currently have roaming around our city is old, and a more reliable, modern fleet would reduce the number of costly repairs, keeping buses on our roads and out of workshops.

I am therefore working with First Potteries and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South to make sure Stoke-on-Trent City Council plays its part in facilitating this exciting plan and invests that £11 million to support a new, sustainable bus fleet. First Bus has made it clear that if the council can deliver the necessary investment and infrastructure, these new buses could begin carrying passengers in early 2025. The Government have already shown their ambition by allocating over £460 million in dedicated funding for zero-emission buses in this Parliament, of which Staffordshire County Council has already been a recipient. I have now written to Stoke-on-Trent City Council about these exciting plans, and I hope the council will deliver for people in Stoke-on-Trent and make this sensible investment to enhance the city’s bus network.

In conclusion, as I have laid out, good local bus services are so important for local communities. They help to drive people on to our high streets, to encourage growth and investment and to liberate the elderly and disabled, giving them more freedom to get out and about. They provide health benefits by reducing congestion and improving air quality, and they help people get to work or college, which they would otherwise have been unable to do. In short, buses are pivotal to achieving levelling up, which matters hugely. If we really want to transform communities such as Stoke-on-Trent, we must ensure that the infrastructure exists to empower and embolden their people and businesses. To do that, there has to be a reliable public transport network to help people get around. Buses are the most popular form of transport and serve as great liberators for millions of people. It is vital that we get them right.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that there is the possibility of a Division in the House during the course of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

The Front-Bench spokespeople have 10 minutes each. I call the Opposition spokesperson, Bill Esterson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I am coming to the end of my speech. The Conservatives have presided—[Interruption.] Okay, I will give way.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that he has almost come to the end of his 10 minutes, but it is his choice.

[Bill Esterson]

Thank you, Ms Vaz.

[Bill Esterson]

The Chair has told me not—[Interruption.] May I seek your guidance, Ms Vaz?

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Carry on. Jack Brereton is intervening.

[Jack Brereton]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, but I am slightly perplexed, as to what it is we are hearing that is different from what the Government are doing. On franchising, very few to no Labour authorities have taken up those powers, despite the fact that they exist. Actually, those other authorities that are not mayoral areas can apply to the Secretary of State for authority to do franchising if they so choose. We have heard—

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. We are shortly coming up to a vote and we have not heard from the Minister.

[Jack Brereton]

I would like to know what Labour would do differently.

Great Western Main Line

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to start the new year by talking about something that this Parliament helped to create and establish all those years ago. We approved the legislation that enabled private railways such as Brunel’s Great Western to exist and to flourish. However, we have not had much debate recently about what has effectively been a creeping nationalisation since the pandemic. Recent rhetoric has not really recognised the success of the private railways that were created, or indeed the success of the privatisation of those railways more recently, which led to a 107% increase in passenger journeys, a 32% increase in passenger services, and a 145% increase in passenger revenue. At the moment, the situation is that the Department for Transport is really in control of the railway operators, including Great Western, and His Majesty’s Treasury takes the risk, with passenger frustration over the last few months increasing during a long period of train driver strikes.

But let me start at the beginning. All of us here share being part of the Great Western geography; we are linked by our constituencies to Paddington station, that railway cathedral graced by statues of the founding genius, Isambard Kingdom Brunel—what a name—Paddington bear, and a soldier in the trenches, symbolic of the 3,312 employees of Great Western who died in two world wars. We surely all recognise the engineering achievements of the Box tunnel, or even Kemble tunnel, the architecture of Bristol Temple Meads, and the social vision of the Great Western Railway’s village in Swindon, which led to the opening of the main line from Paddington to Bristol in 1841, and the fastest trains, such as the Flying Truro, which reached 100 miles an hour 30 years before the Flying Scotsman—

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes for a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Member touches on one of the themes of this debate: the importance of Members of Parliament working very closely with their railway operator, the Department for Transport and Network Rail to try to achieve the services that their constituents most value. I will not comment on the business of commuter traffic from Slough to Paddington—it is not my specialist area. On his second point, constituents all over Gloucestershire and Wiltshire would relish the opportunity provided by opening Great Western Railway services to Heathrow. I am sure the Minister will want to touch on that, and I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.

Of course, there have been constant improvements to the network in recent times, although there have also been some real difficulties—as The Sunday Times focused on at Theale over the weekend—and colleagues will no doubt highlight those successes or failures. Since he cannot be with us, I highlight for my neighbour, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), the improved forecourt, interchange cycle hub and 70 additional car park spaces in his constituency that he and Great Western Railway have worked successfully on together. There is also the fourth platform at Bristol Parkway, the delivery of the MetroWest network, the new Portway park-and-ride station, and the new Ashley Down station coming soon. All of those are helpful in the west country. In all this, the Department has played its part, as have successive Ministers, including this one, who is a great supporter and champion of railways, which is important.

Inevitably, I would like to highlight what has been achieved in Gloucester since 2010. Gloucester railway station is an extraordinary animal. It has the longest platform in the country, but it is on a spur off the main line between Birmingham and Bristol, and therefore there has always been a lot to do. Since 2010, we have managed a significant number of improvements, including a covered walkway between platforms 2 and 1, the new waiting rooms, and a new accessible station footbridge with the lifts and eventually the canopy. That also led to a remodelled station booking office, and we have introduced additional car parking on the south side of the station, which was a major business. It is difficult to transfer an asset from the Ministry of Justice to the city council—that took about three years, but we got there eventually.

The new hourly direct services between Gloucester and Paddington also benefit all my colleagues in Gloucester. The new pay-as-you-go smartcard has been helpful in a number of ways not originally anticipated, particularly when the station underpass has been closed to access. Work is going on as we speak to deliver further improvements, particularly on the underpass, which is a sensitive bit of infrastructure that links the hospital to the city centre and which Great Western has gallantly taken on. There will also be a big improvement in the electric vehicle charging stations, the forecourts, bus services and so on.

I want to highlight for the Minister that although the journey time to Paddington has been reduced by 15 minutes since electrification, there is an opportunity to increase the speed of the services simply by renegotiating how long the trains stop at Gloucester. That time is currently 10 minutes, to allow the driver to walk from one end of the train to the other, but even at a slow amble that journey could not possibly take more than a minute and a half.

It is also important to recognise some of GWR’s community contribution and community projects, such as the Getaway project for independent rail travel. Its biggest contribution to community, however, comes from station staff, who are coping, calming and carrying on. When strikes happen, no one shouts at a train driver, because they are not there. It is Steve, Mike, Alan, Naomi and all their colleagues who cop it at Gloucester and all the other stations along the line. They deal with the drunks, the drugs and even the MP who left his bag on the train. I salute them all.

This debate has to touch on problems as well. I will highlight four. The first is the continuing strikes by train drivers, which damage trust and confidence, and put a lot of strain on other Great Western Railway employees. The second is the extraordinary feature that train drivers do not have to work on a Sunday. I cannot think of any other transport system—I was an airline manager once—where the driver or pilot would be allowed to decide whether they rock up on a Sunday. That ruins many weekends for families.

The third problem is the business of Network Rail’s infrastructure, particularly the failures in the Thames valley. It is easy to criticise Network Rail, but there are some real problems and anything the Department can do to improve the infrastructure in the Thames valley will make a huge difference to all of us. The last problem is the taxpayer subsidy. We must let managers manage and civil servants hold them to account. That is the only way in which we will get the railway operators to innovate and to continue to improve with better rolling stock and low-carbon operations that support travellers and help families and growth.

All those things matter. There are opportunities for big projects ahead. The Filton Bank electrification promoted by the western gateway to electrify and speed up journeys between Bristol and Birmingham in particular would be a very good project for the DFT to support. Just before coming into this Chamber, I heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) that Great Western Railway has decided to open the line from Swindon to Oxford, which will have a lot of advantages for many travellers.

I see the opportunities and the improvements at Gloucester station that have happened and are happening. I will certainly continue to work closely on all those, because ultimately, railway stations and railway operations are in danger of being an orphan. They are not well managed by county councils. It is up to us here both to hold them to account and to encourage them to innovate. I hope that I and all my colleagues in Gloucestershire and elsewhere will continue to work closely with Great Western Railway to achieve the necessary improvements.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I expect to call the Opposition spokesperson at 5.31 pm, the Minister at 5.36 pm and Richard Graham to wind up at 5.46 pm, and that the debate will end at 5.48 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Members have roughly five minutes. If they stick to that, everyone should get in.

Draft Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection) Regulations 2023

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 General Committees

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The Minister is making an interesting speech. I am looking at regulation 5(2)(d), which refers to fishing vessels. Does that include every size of fishing vessel? Obviously, the other regulations refer to ships. Does that include small fishing vessels as well as the larger ones?

[Mr Holden]

My understanding is that the regulations are for all cargo ships, but I will write to the right hon. Lady on the specifics if that is not the case for all fishing vessels.

Amendments in 20 resolutions have been agreed at the IMO since 2003 to further improve the safety standards of fire protection, but they have not yet been implemented into UK law. The UK supported those amendments during the IMO discussions, and as a party to SOLAS, the UK now has an obligation to implement those further updates.

The Department held an eight-week public consultation on the draft regulations. None of the five responses received were contentious, and no changes to the regulations were made as a result. Responses were issued, as well as a post-consultation report, which was published on gov.uk. We have 440 ships on the UK flag, 324 of which are partially owned in the UK. They are expected to be already compliant with the requirements of the draft regulations. Making the regulations will enable the UK to enforce the same fire protection requirements as other states.

Draft Merchant Shipping (Additional Safety Measures for Bulk Carriers) Regulations 2022 Draft Merchant Shipping (High Speed Craft) Regulations 2022

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 General Committees

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I see that Bolton Wanderers are lying seventh in the championship, but they have a game in hand, so there is hope yet of promotion at the end of the season. I know that I am allowed to digress for one time under your chairmanship of any Committee to discuss such matters.

I can see from the expression on the faces of Conservative Members that they came into politics to talk about bulk carriers and high speed craft regulations. I can see that they are all on their mobile phones checking the current update on them or perhaps—

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

They are tracking ships.

[Mike Kane]

Are they tracking ships that sail in the night? Indeed. Enough of the nautical puns.

I genuinely welcome the Minister to her place; I have had to do that a few times now over the past few years. I thank the civil servants for their hard work in bringing Ministers up to speed so quickly, as is apparent today. It would have been nice if the Secretary of State, who directly answers for maritime matters, had been here, but the Minister is not a second preference and her presence is most welcome.

Let us get down to business. We are here to discuss the additional safety measures for bulk carriers. Of course we would never object to anything that improves safety and conditions for seafarers. We welcome the draft regulations to replace the Merchant Shipping Regulations of 1999. That will ensure that the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea 1974 is fully implemented.

As we all know, bulk carriers are vital in the world of commerce, as they carry unpackaged cargo such as coal and cement. Without those carriers and the brave work of those seafarers during covid we would not have kept our country stocked and supplied. The prime hazards associated with the shipment of solid bulk cargoes are those relating to structural damage due to improper cargo distribution, loss or reduction of stability during a voyage and chemical reactions of those cargoes. I note the updates relate to bulk carriers with empty holds and set standards to protect the watertight integrity of the ship, so ensuring that when loading there is an instrument that assesses the ships design and how its stability might be compromised during the process. That instrument was previously only required in bulk carriers over 150 metres in length. The updates bring in improved and updated standards on the maintenance and inspection of hatch covers, ensuring their integrity, and of single and double skinned carriers.

The primary aim of the bulk carrier statutory instrument is to facilitate the safe stowage and shipment of bulk cargoes by providing information on the dangers associated with said shipments. Those regulations will improve safety requirements and enable the UK to enforce them not just on UK ships wherever they set sail to, but to any non-UK ship when they are in our territorial waters.

Industry compliance is already high; all 29 UK flagged bulk carriers are already compliant with the standards outlined by the Minister. Given the size and nature of bulk carriers, it is vital they are safe, not only for seafarers but also for the environment. One only has to recall the bulk carrier that ran aground on a reef in Mauritius in July 2020, which then leaked oil, and caused an ecological disaster in the seas around the Indian Ocean islands. Four seafarers died while attempting to retrieve oil, and 1,000 tons of oil were eventually spilled into the ocean. More recently in waters off Gibraltar a bulk carrier ran aground and leaked oil into the oceans. Those accidents do happen but one must ask whether they would have been prevented had the additional safety measures been introduced sooner.

On enforcement, 10 regulations relate to enforcement and with one exception, they all apply to the owner and to the master. Will the burden on reporting failure to comply with the regulations under the merchant shipping legislation be placed upon the ports and harbours? Can the Minister confirm which agency will be responsible for carrying out any necessary enforcement? What are the penalties for failing to comply? If fines are to be imposed, what level of fines would be applicable? If the Minister cannot provide those answers now, I am happy to receive them in writing. Continuing with the theme of enforcement, can she confirm whether our international counterparts are aware of the forthcoming changes? In addition, were trade union representatives consulted while the regulations were developed?

The high speed craft regulations seek to make amendments to chapter 10 of the IMO’s International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea in relation to high speed craft. Those craft are typically rapid passenger craft but can also be cargo craft. Primarily, they operate domestically in UK waters, although some are known to operate between the UK and France. An example of a high-speed craft as defined in this SI is a Thames clipper. We can look out of our windows here on some days and see one. That category of vessel also covers hydrofoils and air-cushioned vessels such as hovercraft. I learned so much about pollution and hovercraft when we recently discussed a SI on the subject in this room.

We have many SIs to pass on account of a backlog, and I look forward to attending another one next Tuesday morning, and I am sure the Minister does as well.

The proposed regulations on high speed craft will further improve safety standards on those craft and will give powers to the UK to enforce those requirements against UK high speed craft, wherever they may be in the world, and also to use the same powers over non-UK high speed craft when in UK waters. Am I correct in assuming that theh international enforcement body is aware of the regulations, as I note there were only three responses to the consultation? Or perhaps it, too, was unable to distil the definition of the vessels affected because the formula was impenetrable to many. Indeed, in the explanatory memorandum the Law Society of Scotland asked whether the formula to determine whether a vessel is a high speed craft could be simplified. I share its concern.

I am assured that high speed craft know what they are, and are registered as such, and already compliant. Do the proposed regulations represent an international standard of which all high speed craft are aware? Is the criteria to determine high speed craft the same the world over? Are international high speed crafts aware they are in that category for enforcement purposes? If a high speed craft is found to be in breach of the regulations, I notice that the first option is a fine. There is no mention of the amount of the fine, so perhaps the Minister can apprise the Committee of that.

I welcome the opening up of the satellite service provider market that could drive down prices, but we would not want to see a reduction of standards. I raise the issue of standards because my attention was drawn to a line in the consultation that says that the risk-based assessment outlined in the legislation

“enables more flexibility for both industry and government in the application of safety standards.”

How and by whom will this be monitored ongoing? With that solely in mind, again were unions consulted? I have to say that the words “flexibility…in…safety standards” should send a shudder down all our spines.

We would never oppose anything that sought to improve safety standards on vessels, and for that reason, assuming we receive assurances from the Minister on the points I have raised, we will not oppose the measures.

As I have said in previous Committees, we have a backlog of a large number of SIs to get through. We are trying to clear that delegated legislation, and I would be interested to learn whether the Minister has any update on how and when we will clear the current backlog.

Draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) and Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) (Law of the Sea Convention) Amendment Order 2022

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 General Committees

[Robert Courts]

Yes, I can answer that question. I was alarmed at the intervention—I wondered whether my explanation thus far had not been clear. The only hovercraft that are operational in the UK at the moment are those that operate from Southsea, near my hon. Friend’s constituency, to the Isle of Wight. Those are not covered by the order because they operate only in internal waters. The order applies to external waters, and there are not currently any hovercraft operating in the UK that would be caught by it. None the less, it is important that we make the order so that future hovercraft would be covered by pollution regulations, for reasons we all understand.

The 1996 order provides powers to give effect in secondary legislation to the pollution prevention obligations in the UN convention on the law of the sea, or UNCLOS, with which we should all be familiar. Those obligations are often found in other international conventions, including the STCW convention, which sets out the standards that must be met for seafarers to obtain the internationally recognised certificates that are required if they are to work on vessels that operate internationally. The Hovercraft Act 1968 confers power on Her Majesty to make an Order in Council that applies any enactment relating to ships to hovercraft. The 1989 order serves that purpose, but it needs to be updated to include provision relating to the prevention of pollution.

The 1989 order, which is best thought of as an enabling order, contains some provision for the application of pollution prevention measures made under the Merchant Shipping Act, but it does not include the 1996 order, which is the relevant one for the purposes of pollution prevention. This order will fix that. It will ensure that the pollution prevention obligations in UNCLOS can be applied in full to hovercraft in the way that they already apply to ships. It will also bring some other measures up to date and apply them to hovercraft.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The explanatory note states:

“A full impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.”

Is this really necessary, and would he define “significant”?

[Robert Courts]

That is a very good question, and I entirely understand why the right hon. Member asks it, but the reality is that at present there are no hovercraft operating that will be impacted by the order. That is why there is no impact assessment: it is impossible to find an impact when there is no one on whom the measure impacts.

I think the real thrust of the right hon. Member’s question is, “Why are the Government doing it?”. We have introduced the order because doing so is, in any event, part of our international obligations as a country. There may come a time when operators wish to operate hovercraft in this area. Were that to happen, our legal system would be out of date; we would not have the relevant measures in place to guard against pollution, which we would all think was a mistake on our part. However, she raises a very good point.

The order will fix the gap to which I referred, and UK regulations governing hovercraft will then include provision for pollution prevention that derives from UNCLOS, of which the UK is proud to be leading member. The order also amends the 1989 order to enable the manning requirements in section 47 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which apply to ships, to apply to hovercraft. Finally, the order makes discrete amendments to the 1996 order, which needs to be updated so that regulations made under it can prescribe custodial sentences in respect of offences for breaches of the requirements of those regulations. That is the offence to which I referred at the beginning, which the draft order will keep up to date.

To answer the question from the right hon. Member for Walsall South, the Government are introducing the order now because the STCW convention has been subject to a number of recent amendments that affect seafarer training. Those are being implemented in regulations that replace the existing regulations that implement the STCW convention. The criminal sanctions will apply to ship owners, operators and masters who fail to ensure that their seafarers are qualified, are certified and discharge their obligations in accordance with the convention requirements, including the latest amendments. Again, that will apply, as required, to hovercraft.

A number of other provisions, such as those on manning, watchkeeping and the requirements to ensure that seafarers are trained in accordance with the convention, will continue to be applied to hovercraft and will be contained in the same instrument. The repeal of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act has left a gap in the powers that we otherwise would have used to do that. That would have meant that there was a disparity between the requirements as they apply to manning and training, and the requirements as they apply to pollution, which would not have carried custodial penalties. We need those penalties to be included to ensure that the criminal sanctions apply across the board. We need to have the same provision available for the contravention of the pollution requirements as we have for the contravention of safety requirements, for reasons that the Committee will understand: pollution is just as important as safety in other areas. Without those powers, we would be unable to enforce the convention adequately in UK law, for the reasons that I have given.

I hope that my speech has been helpful in telling hon. Members what the order is all about. We need to be able to apply pollution prevention requirements in the STCW convention to hovercraft, and to remake and apply the existing enforcement legislation in so far as it relates to the prevention of pollution. I hope that I have everyone’s support for the order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

8. What plans he has to expand airport capacity.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

10. When he plans to make a decision on the construction of an additional runway in south-east England.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

I had hoped that we would be able to announce a decision on airport capacity this summer. Clearly, any announcement on airport capacity would have to be made when the House was in session. Being realistic, given recent events, I cannot now foresee that there will be an announcement until at least October. We aim to publish the further analysis on air quality soon. Separately, promoters have announced undertakings that would increase the compensation available for residents living near the airports and the connectivity between other UK airports. The Government are fully committed to delivering the important infrastructure projects that they have set out, including the delivery of runway capacity on the timetable set out by the Davies report.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I would have liked to be in the position of asking the House to make a decision, and endorsing a decision. We are not going to be in that position, and we have to be realistic. My hon. Friend may regard it as a boring day in the House of Commons, but it is certainly not a boring day in Westminster.

[Valerie Vaz]

The Secretary of State will know that I am going to make the case for Birmingham airport. Is there still time, whenever the report comes out, for Birmingham airport to make the case for the 250,000 jobs that could flow from a second runway there?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Looking at the hon. Lady’s question, I did not realise that she was going to mention Birmingham, because her question specifically talks about south-east England. To the best of my knowledge, Birmingham has not moved since I knew it as a boy, 20 miles away from where I lived. Birmingham airport is a fantastic airport, which serves an important role as far as Birmingham and the midlands are concerned, and it has just had a runway extension.

Regional Airports

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Quite a number of hon. Members are present and wish to speak. I am sure that at some stage I will have to impose a limit of approximately four to five minutes.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regional airports and UK airports capacity.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I am delighted to have secured this debate, which could not be more timely in a year when I hope that the Government will face up to some of the most significant decisions in the aviation sector for decades. That could not be more important for regional airports, such as Newcastle international airport in my constituency and countless others around the UK, which are the backbone of regional economies and, therefore, the economy as a whole. The interest in and concern about the issue is demonstrated by the number of hon. Members present.

Newcastle international airport celebrated its 80th anniversary last year. As the Minister knows because he came to visit, it is the largest airport in the north-east and the 10th largest in the UK. It also happens to be the single largest employer in my constituency and is proud of its public-private partnership model, with ownership between the seven local authorities and AMP Capital. Indeed, it served a record 4.56 million passengers in 2014 and supported 3,200 jobs directly on site and 12,200 indirectly. It contributes over £581 million in gross value added to the north-east economy, including £181 million in tourism impact and 1,750 tourism jobs.

Newcastle airport exports well over £300 million of goods every year. The vast majority are carried by Emirates on its long-haul service to Dubai and last year saw the first ever trans-Atlantic service from Newcastle by United Airlines to Newark, which is set to return this summer. Newcastle international airport makes an invaluable contribution to the north-east’s proud claim to be the only consistently net exporting region in the UK, just as other regional airports make an invaluable contribution to their local economies.

This is when we come to the purpose of today’s debate. The Government are facing critical decisions that will determine the future of the UK’s aviation sector, which in turn will have a major impact on regional economies. Those decisions are not new and include where to build the new runway to provide the capacity we need for the future and how properly to support regional airports during a time of considerable upheaval with devolution.

Time and again, the Prime Minister has kicked the can down the road rather than face up to the challenges. It is not just Heathrow or Gatwick that loses out from this chronic indecision. The future growth and sustainability of the UK’s regional airports and, by extension, the growth of our regional economies, are equally put at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

It is almost a year and a half since the Smith commission’s proposals were published and accepted by the Government, yet we are still no closer to understanding how the Government intend to protect regional airports that are set to be adversely affected by the changes. In last summer’s Budget, the Treasury belatedly published a discussion paper on options for supporting regional airports through the changes. The document outlined three options: devolving APD in England; varying APD rates in England; and providing aid to regional airports in England. Unsurprisingly, those proposals begged more questions than they answered.

For instance, which bodies in England would APD be devolved to—local authorities, combined authorities or local enterprise partnerships? If APD was left as it is, and the Government provided financial support instead, how would they ensure that adequate aid reached airports acutely affected by lower APD rates across the border in Scotland or Wales? There are stringent EU guidelines on state aid support, particularly in the aviation sector, and we have previously heard the Government promise compensation to sectors impacted by one policy or another, but they have often under-delivered. How will this be any different? Will airports such as Newcastle be left to plug the gap?

Those and many more questions remain regarding the Government’s proposals, yet, six months on from the publication of the paper, there is near total silence from Ministers. I hope that the Minister will break that silence and provide us with some much-needed detail. When will the Government publish a response to the discussion paper that they published last summer? Are all three options still on the table or have some been ruled out? Most importantly, will the Minister tell airports such as Newcastle, Bristol and others how they will be supported by the Government when APD rates are devolved to Scotland and, potentially, to Wales? At the very least, will he tell us when airports can expect to hear about the plans?

The Airport Operators Association has made clear its very strong preference for any future reduction in APD in Scotland to be

“matched, immediately, by a cut everywhere”

so that no part of the UK is “disadvantaged in any way.” It is clear that the continued uncertainty on the issue is very damaging, and it is already having an impact on regional airports when it comes to airlines planning future routes and commitments. It is not good enough to wait and see what happens in Scotland. Action and certainty are required for England’s regional airports now.

A further concern I want to raise briefly this morning is the effect of regulatory charges—including, for example, the cost of a 24-hour police presence and all the security borne by airports—on regional airports such as Newcastle International. I understand that very large airports, with airlines queuing up to use their runways, are easily able to pass on those costs on to airline operators. However, it is much less easy for regional airports to do so, and the impact of the shift in costs is therefore having a disproportionately adverse effect on them. Regional airports are understandably extremely concerned about proposals that they should bear the costs of Border Force operating on their sites. Given that the agency is responsible for national security, I would have thought that responsibility lay squarely with the Government.

The decision on airport capacity and expansion has been kicked into the long grass far too many times, even after a £20 million independent commission made the decision on the Government’s behalf, as it was asked to do. The Government must make a decision in the national interest, but it should be a decision that respects our international commitments and the concerns of local communities. The Airports Commission has set out a plan that can achieve those twin aims, but the Government do not seem to accept it.

It is time to end the dither, delay and prevarication that has prevailed for far too long under this Prime Minister and Chancellor because it is not just London and the south-east but Newcastle, the north-east and many other regions will lose out most. Heathrow is, after all, not a London airport; it is the national hub. Airports across the country are looking for answers and long-term certainty from the Government, whether it is on airport capacity or the tax regime for aviation in the UK. I really hope that the Minister will be able to provide that certainty for them today.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

The wind-ups will begin at 10.30 am, so it would be helpful if Members would stick to a four-minute time limit. We will see how it goes from there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

If Members reduce their interventions, everyone will be able to get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitford]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

We tend to talk about the business flyer coming into London, and there are certainly plenty of business flyers in my region who would welcome a flight from Prestwick into London, but we also need to start thinking the other way around, as a previous speaker said, about tourism coming in. I would like us to think about the smaller regional airports, which are often in areas of great attractiveness and beauty that are tourism hotspots. For someone sitting in the middle of Europe deciding whether to go for their holidays to southern Ireland, Northern Ireland or Scotland, it is a no-brainer. With 9% VAT and no air passenger duty in the Republic of Ireland, the difference in the cost of a fortnight’s holiday is vast. Unless people are coming to visit family, they will always go to southern Ireland instead of any of us. It is not just Northern Ireland that loses; it is other picturesque areas such as the lakes, Scotland and the mountains in Wales.

It is important that we have some kind of strategy for developing the smaller regional airports. APD is one of the biggest barriers; that is what all the smaller regional airports feed back. Instead of just saying, “It’s not fair if Scotland gets to change it,” we must campaign to cut or remove APD across the country. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report suggested that the growth in GDP would compensate. I know that there would be a time lag, but it would bring jobs into areas where there are often no other jobs.

Although we suffer from the 60-minute rule for being close to Glasgow, being on the south-west coast of Scotland, we can sell ourselves as a golf area—we have the Open this year—and a coastal area. Sailing is one of our biggest tourist industries. People can fly straight into the area that they want to visit. I am sure that there are other small airports in the UK that would like to offer the same.

While we discuss Heathrow versus Gatwick and business coming into and out of London, it is important that the Government have a strategy to support the development of tourism and the smaller regional airports. Another block to that is our 20% VAT rate on hospitality and tourism, versus 9% in southern Ireland. The areas that are strongest in tourism often do not have other industries; that applies right across the UK. There are Members from all parties who live in more rural areas where tourism is being held back by VAT and APD. They are taxes to raise funds, but they are stultifying the local economy. I call for a tourism strategy for the United Kingdom, and it should include smaller and larger regional airports.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

In order to accommodate all Members, I must reduce the time limit to three minutes. Bear in mind that for every intervention, a minute is added to the speaker’s time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Ms Vaz, to be involved in this debate; I have learned a lot.

The west of England economy is growing—it is worth about £26 billion annually— and we are a net contributor to the Treasury. Aviation has long been a part of that success story. The British and Colonial Aeroplane Company opened in Filton in 1910, which was the beginning of 100 years of continuous development, design and manufacture, with all the job opportunities and wealth that that development has created. Of course, Filton was later famously home to Concorde and it is currently home to Airbus, GKN Aerospace and Rolls-Royce, among other leading players in the global aerospace industry.

Airport capacity is central to that local growth. Our first airport opened in Whitchurch in 1930, which is now located in my constituency of Bristol South. After the war, a new site was finally opened at the current airport site, outside the city boundaries in Lulsgate. By 1988, 100,000 passengers were being served and in 2000 a new terminal and other infrastructure improvement led to more than 2 million passengers being served.

Last year, Bristol Airport handled nearly 7 million passengers, making it the ninth busiest airport in the UK and a major regional resource for Bristol, the west of England, the south-west and indeed south Wales. It has generated more than 11,000 jobs, many of which are located in my constituency of Bristol South.

Bristol airport’s performance is good; despite being the ninth largest airport in the UK, it has been the most punctual airport in the UK two years running and it is the 10th most punctual airport in the world, which we are very proud of. In 2011, planning permission was given for it to handle 10 million passengers. There is an ambition not only to bring more business travel but to open up tourism to the west of England and the whole of the south-west, which includes the fantastic city of Bristol, neighbouring Bath, which is a unique world heritage site, and traditional seaside and rural areas across the whole of the south-west, including Devon and Cornwall, and Wales.

However, as many Members have already said, two things are crucial to the continued success of Bristol airport and its contribution to the wider economy. First, a decision about Heathrow is needed as soon as possible. Secondly, the devolution of airport passenger duty to Wales, which would effectively result in a redistribution of traffic away from Bristol and into south Wales, has been raised by many hon. Members. Even limited devolution of the duty for long-haul flights would have a detrimental impact. Bristol airport wants to continue to invest in facilities and create jobs, but APD would remove the level playing field on which we currently operate. I am keen to see a western powerhouse built on our tremendous industrial past and our current and future business and leisure offer, and the continued success of Bristol airport is key to that. The Government should better acknowledge and support our regional airports, and provide them with greater certainty about the rules under which they now operate.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

The Minister has kindly indicated that he will reduce his speaking time, and if the other Front-Bench spokespersons reduce theirs, to about six minutes, we can get the final three Members in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

The hon. Lady is entirely correct. We have as much transport among all our planes in Northern Ireland as we do in the capital, and regional aviation links are crucial for exports.

When something is going wrong or when someone is suffering an injustice or is unwell, we often say, “You would not wish it on your friends, never mind your enemies.” I am quite pleased that there is a threat for the north of England. I am quite pleased that there could be a disparity between APD in Scotland and APD in the north of England, because that would focus minds and attention on the issue. I do not wish to see that disparity, but I do wish to see greater recognition in the United Kingdom of the issues that for many years have been constraining us with the foreign border in Northern Ireland. If the danger that we have faced over decades is now facing those in the north-east of England and across the United Kingdom, that can only be a good thing, because there will be recognition of the dangers, damage and constraints of this pernicious tax on aviation. I hope we find a solution.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

If the two Front-Bench spokespersons on the Opposition side take five minutes each, the Minister can have between seven and eight minutes, and I can then allow Catherine McKinnell to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on securing this important debate on regional airports and UK airports’ capacity. She has set out a strong case that regional airports are essential, not only for maintaining the UK’s air connectivity, but for jobs and economic regeneration across the country. I understand her frustration that the Government are having to take time to make important decisions, but it is vital that the process is robust, and that all environmental and economic factors are fully considered. I welcome the broad agreement that exists across the political spectrum on the importance of maintaining the UK’s position as a leading global aviation nation, which is vital to the UK economy. This is a timely debate, given the Government’s announcement last December on airport expansion in the south-east.

The Airports Commission set out a convincing case for new runway capacity in the south-east by 2030, which the Government have accepted. The Government also accepted the commission’s final shortlist of three schemes. It is important to get the decision right, so that it will benefit generations to come. That is why we will further consider the environmental impacts and continue to develop the best possible package of measures to mitigate the impacts on local people and the environment. We expect the package of further work to be concluded by summer 2016. Importantly, the timetable set out by the Airports Commission for delivering additional capacity in the south-east by 2030 will not alter.

It is important to remember that the UK continues to have excellent aviation connectivity, both on a point-to-point basis and through the London hub. After all, we have the third largest aviation network in the world after the United States and China. The Civil Aviation Authority’s statistics show that the UK’s regional airports handled around 39% of the UK’s air passenger total in 2014: around 92 million passengers. Services from UK regional airports operated to more than 100 domestic and international destinations, providing convenience and travel opportunities, and helping to reduce the need for air passengers and freight to travel long distances to reach larger airports.

It is heartening to see that many of the airports that were impacted by the economic downturn a few years ago are now, like the economy, seeing real growth again. Manchester airport, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), is now the UK’s third largest, handling more than 20 million passengers a year. It has the only regular A380 service from a UK airport outside London and its routes are expanding further—Cathay Pacific is operating direct flights to Hong Kong and, starting this June, Hainan Airlines will operate four flights a week to Beijing. Those are the first direct scheduled flights between mainland China and a UK airport outside of London, worth at least £250 million in economic benefits to the UK. Indeed, my big new shiny railway will be coming to Manchester as well as Birmingham airports.

My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) mentioned Birmingham airport, which completed its runway extension in 2014, enabling larger aircraft to fly to more long-haul destinations. That has allowed greater capacity to destinations such as Dubai, Delhi and Amritsar, and some successful charter operations to Beijing. The airport celebrated its most successful year in 2015, handling more than 10 million passengers for the first time. That is not all. Ongoing investment programmes are also under way at other airports such as Edinburgh; Belfast City, which saw 2.7 million passengers last year, an increase of 5.4%; and Belfast International airport, which saw 4.4 million passengers, an increase of 8.9%.

I welcome last month’s announcement that Ryanair is to begin operating a new base at Belfast International from March with flights to Gatwick, and five other routes will follow. In December, I was very happy to announce successful routes under the regional air connectivity fund that allow routes between Carlisle and Belfast City and Londonderry and Dublin.

Like me, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North was able to see at first hand the newly completed redevelopment at Newcastle International airport’s departure lounge when I had the honour to open it formally shortly before Christmas. It is worth mentioning two more bits of good news for the airport: United Airlines has announced it will repeat its non-stop Newcastle to New York Newark service next summer; and Newcastle has been named the UK’s top large airport in a nationwide poll of Which? magazine readers for the third year running.

Within the UK, airlines operate in a competitive commercial environment, and we consider that they are best placed to determine which routes they operate, and from which airports. We know that the commercial aviation market brings many benefits to air passengers. However, the Government also recognise that, because aviation plays an important role in connecting regions, there may be occasions when aid is necessary to protect certain existing air services that may be discontinued or to develop other services to airports where local economic conditions prove unattractive to airlines.

We are conscious of the possible risk of distortion to competition that could be created by Government intervention in the commercial airline market. That is why we have been careful in balancing the commercial imperative with the need to provide support for existing services and for new air routes from some of our smaller airports. Last November, the Chancellor announced that 11 new air routes from smaller UK airports would be supported with around £7 million of start-up aid over the next three financial years. Those routes, one of which will be operated by Links Air between Newcastle and Norwich, will begin operating this spring and will provide domestic links between England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as international connectivity to France, Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland.

The Government have been asked why we cannot acquire or reserve slots at busy UK airports such as Heathrow for domestic services from regional airports, such as those in Northern Ireland. The allocation of slots at EU airports is governed by regulations agreed at European Union level and by associated UK slot regulations. Under the regulations, the process of slot allocation at Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester and other slot co-ordinated airports in the UK is undertaken by an independent slot co-ordinator independently of the Government, the Civil Aviation Authority or other interested parties. The UK Government therefore play no part in the slot allocation process at Heathrow or other co-ordinated airports, and under EU regulations we are legally prevented from intervening in that process.

Unfortunately, time is pressing. I wanted to say a few words about air passenger duty, but no doubt there will be an opportunity in future. Indeed, it is a matter for the Chancellor, so I will come to a conclusion and allow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North a chance to get the final word.

The Government believe that maintaining the UK’s status as a leading global aviation hub is fundamental to our long-term international competitiveness. We are clear about the economic and connectivity benefits that our regional airports bring to regions, communities and businesses. We have established the right foundations to move forward, gain consensus and secure the benefits that aviation brings for the whole nation.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I thank Front Benchers for their timely speeches.

Davies Commission Report

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am sorry that my hon. Friend so easily dismisses page 34, which I would have thought gives him and the people who run Birmingham airport, which he has spoken about in the House on occasion, some encouragement. Those airports—Birmingham, Manchester, and Tees, just to ensure I get them all right and do not upset anybody—are all incredibly important for people around those areas and we want more flights from them.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) says, but Birmingham international stands ready for expansion with international flights to JFK in New York and Beijing that are cheaper than from Heathrow. Will the Secretary of State seriously take into account the fact that Birmingham has a strategic position in the UK and its connectivity to HS2?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Yes, I will certainly take that seriously. The hon. Lady will know that the recent runway expansion at Birmingham has been very important in trying to attract more business and offer more opportunities to fly to other destinations. She is absolutely right about how important HS2 will be for that airport.