Rail Performance

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

I was absolutely horrified, on entering the Department, to learn that there had been no routine ministerial oversight, in any sense of the word, of HS2 for some time. We immediately established a cross-ministerial taskforce, comprising me and the Treasury, to oversee HS2’s costs. I have written to the chair to make it clear that, beyond safety, his first and abiding priority is to bring down costs. I have commissioned a governance review, led by James Stewart. We will look at the structure of HS2 Ltd, which has been too much at arm’s length, and too free to spend taxpayers’ money for too long.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

GWR, which serves my Bath constituency, has been performing in the most disappointing way, to say the least. Especially on Sundays, cancellations and delays are the new norm. Engineering works are among the problems, but the train driver shortage is the biggest problem. What exactly will resolving what the Secretary of State calls the rest day working issue mean for my constituents? When does she expect them to see tangible change?

[Louise Haigh]

The problem across the entire railway is that we do not have sufficient drivers or staff, so too many parts of the railways are reliant on rest day working agreements. We should not have to rely on people volunteering to come on shift in order to run a Sunday service, but unfortunately that is the case at Great Western Railway. We will not be harmonising contracts or terms and conditions at Great British Railways, as we have established, but we need to get drivers and conductors on modern terms and conditions that reflect the railway that we need. We are attempting to address the specific issue at Great Western Railway; as I say, we will come back to the House soon with an update on progress.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

I fear I may be filling up the diary of my hon. Friend the Roads Minister, but I am sure she would be happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) to discuss the road in question.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Road safety is one of the main reasons why young people do not cycle, and that is particularly true in cities such as Bath, where the historic infrastructure makes it difficult. What will the Government do to help young cyclists in particular by making roads safer in Bath?

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point, and it sits at the heart of our ambition to develop the new road safety strategy. The previous Government pursued poisonous culture wars against road users of all descriptions. We are determined to take back streets for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, and that will be at the heart of our new ambition for the road safety strategy.

Transport

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I sense that there is a great deal of consensus across the House on this statutory instrument. There is consensus that the aviation sector is one of the hardest to decarbonise, and probably also that the new technology that is being proposed—SAF, in its different iterations—needs a great deal of technological knowledge. However, the principle of taking the first steps towards creating the SAF mandate—of the requirement for SAF to meet 2% of total jet fuel demand from 1 January, and of increasing that on a linear basis, to 10% by 2030 and to 22% by 2040—has no opposition, and we will absolutely support the Government in that effort.

Virgin Atlantic has already demonstrated that a plane can fly across the Atlantic on 100% SAF, but that was just one flight, and there are hundreds of flights every day. That is the challenge. I congratulate Virgin Atlantic on this groundbreaking achievement but we really need to see how industry, the Government and indeed everybody who is developing new technologies can produce sustainable aircraft fuels at the scale that is needed. This needs a great deal of investment.

We know that biofuels are not a long-term solution, as they compete with food production. SAF from waste, the next generation of SAF, is not a long-term solution either. It is obviously part of the solution, but as the shadow Minister has pointed out, the real challenge is to get to the third generation SAFs—that is, synthetic fuels. We need to develop them as soon as possible, and they need a great deal of electricity. Whatever we say about this, direct air capture needs a great deal of electricity. Producing hydrogen in a sustainable way—that is, getting to green hydrogen—will also need a great deal of electricity. The crunch in all this is: where is all that renewable energy coming from, unless we are ultimately overproducing renewable energy? I believe that GB Energy will have a big say in this and will be crucial in developing all the renewable energy that will ultimately help us to decarbonise the aviation sector. This is really the challenge.

While I welcome the kick-start of a journey to net zero in aviation, the 10% to 22% mandate between 2030 and 2040 is a concern for the Liberal Democrats. We want to get to net zero by 2045, but having planes still running on 78% fossil fuels is just not good enough. The UK has the third largest aviation network in the world and the second largest aerospace manufacturing sector. Almost 1 million UK jobs are directly or indirectly supported by the aviation sector. The future of the aviation industry with SAF is obviously a wonderful opportunity and challenge. Making the right choices on SAF will ensure that the UK can continue to be a global leader, and I think that we are as one across the House in wanting this to happen in order to make the UK the global leader in this area.

It is only right that we take these steps, which support decarbonisation and also create the jobs that we need in the future. What is important is that the Government collaborate with the aviation fuel suppliers to ensure that this initiative really succeeds. I would like to hear a little more detail from the Minister about how the Government will work alongside suppliers to make this a long-term success.

As I have said, we welcome this, but there are other examples of what we can do in the meantime to decarbonise the sector. For example, we could ban short-haul domestic flights on journeys that can be done by rail in less than 2.5 hours. Such a ban already exists in France, so it would be good if the Government at least looked at this. The cost of flying must be linked to the environmental cost. It is ridiculous that I can, at least on some journeys, fly 100 miles to a European city for less than it costs me to go by train from Bath to London. The Liberal Democrats would focus on those who fly the most to reduce the unfair burden on households who fly only once or twice a year. Plus, we would impose a new super-tax on private jet flights and remove VAT exemptions for private, first-class and business-class flights.

To conclude, while we welcome today’s introduction of the SAF mandate on 1 January, I urge the Government to review the targets set from 2030 to 2040 and to be more ambitious than what they are proposing today, so that by 2040 a much higher percentage of aviation fuel comes from sustainable aircraft fuel than the 22% that is currently proposed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Steve Race to make his maiden speech.

Bus Franchising

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

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

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats’ first principle is to put the rail user at the heart of any new arrangements for rail passenger services. We are ultimately agnostic about public or private ownership so long as what the Government propose clearly delivers the improvements on our railways that are so desperately needed. I thank Ministers for their prior engagement and for today’s debate. I am aware that the Bill is only a step towards more comprehensive legislation later in this Parliament. We Liberal Democrats have tabled three amendments to address three core issues that are relevant to the Bill but might become even more relevant to any future Government plans.

Amendment 21 is aimed at keeping passenger experience under review. Public confidence in our rail system has been falling year on year. Greater scrutiny is needed of how nationalisation will impact day-to-day travel. Our amendment will ensure that getting a fair deal for passengers is the guiding principle of the Bill.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that an essential part of that is addressing the problems that the railways face now? Although the Liberal Democrats are agnostic on nationalisation, as my hon. Friend says, the problems that customers face now are about pricing and timetabling, and this Bill will not address them.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and repeat that it remains to be seen how quickly that can be addressed. That is really our main point—we will scrutinise the Government on how quickly these changes can be delivered, because that is what all our constituents are really asking for.

Our amendment would ensure that an annual report was published on the effects of public sector contracts, particularly on the ticketing system. Fare hikes, delays and cancellations all contribute to a loss of confidence. Despite that, passenger numbers are up; people want to use our railway as a clean, green way to travel. We agree with the Government that competition is not working as intended, but we cannot expect nationalisation to be a silver bullet that solves all the issues with our rail services. It is therefore vital that the Government get a clear picture and are fully transparent about the public experience throughout the change.

The current ticketing system is simply not fit for purpose. Complicated and inconsistent ticketing is a barrier to rail travel. If we are to meet our climate commitments, green travel must be encouraged. I often hear from my constituents that they find it hard to understand when a ticket is best value for money, which highlights the need to simplify the entire system. When people buy a ticket, the best value fare should be clear and should be displayed first. There have been cases where operator-owned ticket machines have had an in-built bias to sell their own company’s tickets even if they are not the best value. Commuters should not have to jump through hoops to find the most effective price.

Amendment 21 would also require a look at the effects of nationalisation on digital season tickets and compensation for delays and cancellations. Delay repay is another big issue on our rail network. In the last reporting year, train operators closed 7.6 million delay compensation claims. That figure was 30% higher than the previous year even though passenger journeys were only 16% higher. However, current operators treat delay repay claims differently: while some passengers can get automatic compensation if their journey is delayed, others have to fill in complicated forms and have to wait. A unified approach to delay repay is clearly needed to improve passenger experiences, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) that it is absolutely vital that passengers see such changes very quickly, rather than having to wait for a whole-system change.

The same is also the case with season tickets. Annual passes for similar-length rail journeys differ immensely across the country depending on the operator. An annual report scrutinising how nationalisation affects those inconsistencies is essential to reducing them. To ensure that passengers get a fair deal from nationalisation, I urge Members to support our amendment 21.

Amendment 20 aims to bring people further confidence as rail companies are brought into public ownership. The amendment would establish an independent body to review contracts made by the Transport Secretary and public companies. That body would put the customer at the heart of services, as well as delivering, putting commuters first and holding operators to account. The amendment would ensure that if the independent body did not agree with a proposed contract, the Secretary of State must explain to Parliament why they were going ahead. To give the public confidence in our railways, the process of contract allocation must be kept under scrutiny and be fully transparent.

Our third amendment is amendment 22, which would require the Government to review how the transition to public ownership affects services such as Merseyrail and Transport for London. Those services are already under public control, but in those cases the control is local, not national. The amendment would allow more services to be operated by local public bodies in the future—we have discussed that in our pre-meeting. The review would not simply look at direct impacts, but engage with the local public bodies themselves on their capacity and their wish to deliver such services.

If the new Government are serious about devolution, the option for combined authorities to deliver services must be on the table. We have already seen how devolved authorities can deliver rail services effectively. Transport for London and Merseyrail are two such examples. If devolved authorities wish to deliver rail services, there must be a way for them to have discussions with central Government. I understand that such a proposal might be for the future, but it is important we put a marker down here. Amendment 22 provides a mechanism for that process.

Nationalisation must be a means to an end. The public at large do not care who is running the trains as long as there are good services and travel is affordable. Our Liberal Democrat amendments would ensure that the legislation has the passenger at the heart of any changes and that the public get value for money.

[Andy McDonald]

rose—

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am coming to the end of my remarks.

The Liberal Democrats want to work with the new Government to improve our railways and deliver a fair deal for passengers. I call on all colleagues to support our amendments.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I will address my remarks to my amendment 7. It is a probing amendment, whose main purpose is to raise and discuss procurement reform.

I start with good news: 100 new jobs at Alstom Derby, refurbishing CrossCountry’s Voyager fleet, in an upgrade worth £60 million. Train manufacturing in Derby was at death’s door some months ago, and now it has a heartbeat, with 10 trains for the Elizabeth line in the pipeline. I thank the Transport Secretary and many other hon. Members for their extraordinary support in the dark days some months ago, when hundreds of jobs at Alstom—thousands when we consider the supply chain and agency workers—were being lost. The city came together to demand action. No one wants to see their city or their workplace go through that, so we need to see an end to boom and bust, replaced with consistency and certainty. We need crisis and sticking plasters to be replaced with long-term funding and stable projects.

We saw a failure to act in that way when privatisation happened. When British Rail was split up, there was real concern that the upheaval would crush the world-renowned expertise in the supply chain in Derbyshire. According to Hansard on 20 December 1994, in that year alone, 5,000 jobs were lost nationally. That was one of the first unnecessary tragedies of privatisation. In spite of that setback, more than 10,000 workers are employed today in Europe’s largest and most diverse rail cluster, centred around Derby. It covers every aspect of the railway supply chain.

Since the Bill’s Second Reading, I have been pleased to visit and meet with rail forum members, including Hübner, Serco, DB ESG, Resonate and Millennium Site Services, which are all enthusiastic about working with this Government to deliver improvements to rail. The Transport Secretary said on Second Reading:

“As private operators are brought in, their contracts and supply chains will be considered, to ensure that they are delivering the best possible service for passengers.”—[Official Report, 29 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1074.]

My amendment seeks to establish what details publications related to that consideration should include. Specifically, the amendment suggests that details should include the approach towards

“technological development…the management of demand and supply…the supply chain…future sectoral planning.”

Through better procurement we can also speed up delivery, reduce costs and create social value. That point was made in the Maier rail and urban transport review, which was recently published—I commend the Transport Secretary on commissioning it. One of its valuable recommendations is that the Rail Minister should be given responsibility for working in partnership with business to support the establishment of local supply chain capability. It makes the point that as supply chain capability goes up, costs and skills shortages come down.

I started with the good news of 100 jobs at Alstom, but there is no complacency in Derby, because we are looking five and 10 years ahead, and I know there is no complacency from the Transport Secretary. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) reminded the House that to meet decarbonisation goals, the UK needs to upgrade up to 4,000 rolling stock units. With management of contracts and sectoral planning, there is enough domestic work to create a stable base for train builders and their suppliers, who can then top that up with exports. I therefore look forward to hearing from the Minister how we can get the structure right now for delivery in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

Ensuring that the best-quality public sector arrangements are in place will make it easier for the Government to focus on the investment that our railway needs, so that it can play its full part in the economic transformation that our country deserves. Examples of proposed beneficial projects in Oxfordshire include a new station at Grove, a new Oxford to Witney railway, the completion of East West Rail to Cambridge, Didcot to Oxford electrification, passenger trains on Oxford’s Cowley branch, and—this was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller)—an effective solution for the impact on local traffic of the Bicester London Road level crossing.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend is saying, and I thank him for giving way. I just wanted to congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on her maiden speech. We should not forget that there are so many new Members. It was such a wonderful speech, and I wish the hon. Lady, and her daughter, all the best on her journey. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to mention her speech at the end of his own.

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I am sorry I omitted to do that earlier. The passion expressed by the hon. Member for Thurrock and her tribute to her constituency were very clear, and it was touching and moving to hear about her child and her family. I know that she will be a great champion for special educational needs and disabilities provision.

Let me end by saying that I hope the Government will extend their passion for public ownership to the investment in rail infrastructure that we in Oxfordshire need, and from which, as many other Members have said, the rest of the country will benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think that I have yet had the opportunity to express my pleasure in seeing you in your new role. May I also congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing her new role as Secretary of State?

Our railways are in dire need of improvement. Under the last Conservative Government, passengers were repeatedly failed. Services are poor and the ticketing system is in shambles. All the while the public keep paying more and more, year on year. Rail fares in the UK are already some of the highest in Europe and are set to rise again. I am sure that all Members of this House have heard about, or experienced, cancellations, delays and a ticketing system not fit for purpose. People are crying out for a functioning rail network that they can rely on.

Too often, my Bath constituents would rather travel by train, but take the car instead because a train ticket is far too expensive. If we are serious about meeting our net zero target and reducing emissions, rail must be not just a green option, but an affordable one. Since privatisation, passenger journeys have more than doubled to 1.71 billion per year. However, satisfaction is at its lowest level in over 10 years. We agree with the Government that competition is not working as intended. Fewer and fewer companies are bidding for new franchises as the costs have ballooned. Meanwhile, Government subsidies have increased and intervention is desperately needed.

The UK needs a world-class rail network to support growth and reach net zero. For too many years, it has been held back by under-investment and lack of ambition, particularly in the north and south-west. However, may I ask what will happen to investment after nationalisation, when Great British Rail will have to compete for funding with the NHS and schools? I am sure this Government will agree with us that they must guarantee that funding for a nationalised rail network will not come at the expense of other public services.

We Liberal Democrats want the fairest deal for passengers. Anything that brings down fares is welcome and I look forward to the Government setting out how services will improve when in public hands. Nationalisation is an interesting idea, but Liberal Democrats want an approach that benefits passengers right away. We would freeze fares immediately and then get on with reforms to the broken system. Passengers might not be that interested in who is running the trains, but they are interested in whether they are running on time and at a fair price.

There is inconsistency within the proposed policy: just as private companies do now, Great British Rail will continue to lease rolling stock. Rolling stock leasing companies benefit from a monopoly out of the 1994 privatisation and make excess profits. One quarter of operators’ costs go to those companies and I hope the Government will urgently look into that.

The Liberal Democrat approach is pragmatic. We will scrutinise the legislation according to what is best for passengers. We want one nationwide body with proper powers to put investment in the right place and hold train companies to account. Our proposal is for a railway agency to act as a guiding mind for the railways, putting commuters first, holding train companies to account and bringing in wholesale reform of the broken fare system.

It is currently unclear what the financial impact of nationalisation will be. There are potential savings due to management and performance fees no longer being payable. However, subsidies might increase after nationalisation. Private operators are already subsidised to run unprofitable services, and public sector companies would similarly need financial support, which might increase over time. We are putting down these concerns to make sure that we are properly holding the Government to account on their proposals. Can the Government really ensure that funding will be adequate without fares increasing further?

There is no reason for nationalising companies purely based on their contract expiry date; the Government should start by focusing attention on operators that are demonstrably failing passengers. GBR could then focus on turning those services around to deliver tangible improvement for the public. The Government should at least look at that, and operators that are performing well should be deprioritised. That would be better for travellers and reduce the cost to taxpayers.

There are other questions that we need clarity on. When the contract is up, will train operating companies go straight to Great British Rail or to the operator of last resort? If it is to the operator of last resort, what incentives will there be for operators to grow rail revenues, which are still at 70% of pre-pandemic levels? A larger OLR team will be necessary to manage the increased number of rail journeys while GBR is being set up. The explanatory notes to the Bill do not consider that increased cost.

All that must be part of a wider, long-term rail strategy. Instead of fixating on the issue of ownership, our railways need a rapid and significant change to put passengers first with a focus on the quality of service. We are interested in looking at what benefits nationalisation will bring, but we urge the Government to be pragmatic.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Josh Dean to make his maiden speech.

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill (Instruction) (No. 3)

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stringer]

Indeed, but we are talking about major national infrastructure. I always hoped that HS2 would not just go to Manchester and Leeds but, for both political and transport reasons, would go to Scotland. As someone who believes in the Union between England and Scotland, I think that would help, and it would be very good transport policy, too.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking another intervention. Does he agree that cancelling the northern leg of HS2 has taken away capacity that is now ending up on the roads, and that we therefore have more congestion, more pollution and more environmental damage?

[Graham Stringer]

I agree with the hon. Lady, and I hope I have already made that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I guess I agree with a lot of what the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) says. We are talking about a programme that will deliver something for some people in the mid-2040s, which does not seem to be much of a dynamic, outcome-driven process. The hon. Gentleman wants to drive the programme through so that his constituents, and all of our constituents, can get to node 3 in the middle of the Pennines. That is not necessarily the best form of process. He is right that we should be concerned about outcomes and how we deliver the best outcomes for people across the country, but we are shuffling the matter upstairs without having a proper debate. We are effectively abdicating democratic accountability and responsibility over a budget and moneys of over £16 billion. I think we should be interested in that.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should ultimately draw a line under the mess they got themselves into with HS2, start again and allow us all to start with a completely new process?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I warn those who want to get in later that I will have to limit speeches to five minutes.

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for introducing this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and every one of those members of the public who chose to add their names to the petitions and take part in this debate.

I represent a constituency that has thankfully not had low-traffic neighbourhoods inflicted on it, and I am here to argue that we do not want them. We have seen how they operate next door in Enfield, and we do not want that kind of traffic mayhem transported into our borough. I want my constituents to be able to get where they want to go without too much unnecessary hassle.

A successful economy depends on movement and mobility, and schemes that deliberately cause traffic delays by restricting access to our road network cause economic damage. Ultimately, such schemes make the economy grow less vigorously than it would otherwise have done, and make everyone worse off than they would otherwise have been.

As we heard from the hon. Member for Battersea, this is not just an issue that impacts people who drive cars; it affects people in buses, taxis and vans, all of which are hit by the congestion caused by LTNs. We all know that local businesses suffer when their customers and suppliers find it harder to get to them, which is another consequence of the schemes. However, people’s simple freedom to live their lives in the way they want is also restricted by this kind of anti-car measure, which inflicts unnecessary delay and headaches on them.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The right hon. Lady makes a powerful point that people should live their lives as freely as possible, without too many interventions, and should therefore be free to use their car. Does she not recognise that other road users, such as people who walk or cycle or young people who try to walk to school, but who feel that cars are endangering them or making them less free to use the road, are on the other side of the argument?

[Theresa Villiers]

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

[Theresa Villiers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wera Hobhouse]

The right hon. Lady is being generous in accepting interventions, and I thank her for that. I used to be a councillor—not in my constituency but in another local authority—and the problem was always one of consultation, which I fully agree with. More people should be consulted on planning applications, but the argument is always about what is mandatory and what a councillor must do to consult, which is quite narrow. We know that councils are all cash-strapped and do not have the ability to consult more widely. Does she agree that we need a mandate to consult more widely, as well as the funds for that?

[Theresa Villiers]

If councils are not able to consult adequately, they should not introduce the schemes in the first place. Over the past 24 hours I have received emails from many people, particularly in London but beyond as well, which seem to me to be cries for help from people who are frustrated that their lives have been turned upside down by the schemes.

LTNs are an experiment that have failed. They harm our economy and our capital city, and they punish people just for trying to get around in a bus, a car or a taxi. It is time to halt the introduction of new LTNs and time for the Government and the Minister to intervene to start removing existing LTNs. The madness must stop.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris, and thank you for upgrading me to Sir Wera. We are having a good debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on introducing it so thoroughly. I also congratulate the people who signed the petition so that we could have the debate. Of course, the whole point of these debates is that they come to the House because people want us to debate certain issues, and I am always in favour of doing so; it is important that we do.

In many of our local council areas, low-traffic neighbourhoods have become very contentious, with both opposition and support. The term LTN is new, but the concept is not: the planning principles of LTNs have been used in street design since at least the 1960s. The concept has suddenly become controversial because of the motives behind LTNs, such as reducing traffic and encouraging active travel, and because they are at odds with the Government’s new-found pro-driver policy.

Most of us are all sorts of things: we are motorists, we are pedestrians, and we are cyclists; we use the road in all sorts of ways. It is important to look at the issue in the round and to understand the different uses of the road by different users. It is particularly important, as has been mentioned, to ensure that vulnerable road users are not excluded from our streets. That is an important principle to which all local councils need to adhere.

In Bath, my local council has been very brave in introducing a wide range of LTNs—12 in total. That has created a lot of reasons for people to write to me. I have had 57 people write to me about LTNs, but there are 70,000 people in my constituency, so although 57 is a relatively large number, we have to think about the number of people as a proportion. We are usually written to by people who do not agree with what is being done, rather than by those who agree with what is being done. Among the 57 are people who agree with LTNs. One wrote recently:

“Dear Wera, I just wanted to write in support of these zones. As a cyclist (walker and motorist) they are wonderful for those neighbourhoods. I live on the…estate and there have been moans about the LTZ at Sidney place—I have not noticed a change in the congestion myself and fully support the trial.”

I congratulate my local council on having been brave, as well as on making the LTNs a trial. Councils have to be careful to support what they introduce with data, and I have challenged my own council to provide such data to local communities and to those who oppose LTNs. I have facilitated access between local groups who are opposed to a particular LTN and councillors and council officers, so that we have discussions and so that people understand what LTNs are for, what is being measured, what the council wants to achieve and how LTNs can improve our neighbourhoods. It is important that each council is transparent about what it wants to achieve, provides the data, and communicates and engages, as we have heard. The council must ensure that it includes as many people as possible in the debate about how it wants to move forward.

An official study commissioned by the Prime Minister, which was intended to show that LTNs are unwanted, concluded that they are genuinely popular, particularly once they are implemented. The Department for Transport surveyed residents in LTN trial areas in London, Birmingham, Wigan and York: 45% of respondents supported the schemes, 21% opposed them, and 58% were unaware that they lived in a low-traffic neighbourhood.

It is no wonder that the Government delayed the publication of the study, because ultimately it produced the opposite of what the Government thought it would produce. Despite the results of its own report, the Department for Transport has said that it will no longer provide central funding for LTNs, and there are also plans to cut councils off from Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency databases.

This debate must be evidence-led. As I have said, it should be about the evidence, not about what people fear. Change is always difficult; managing change is one of the most difficult things that we have to do as politicians, as I remember well from my time as a councillor. People are afraid of change, and the most important thing that we need to do as political leaders is respond to and communicate on people’s fears about change.

The debate has to be evidence-based, and there are some legitimate concerns, as we have already heard. For example, disabled people worry about their mobility. In most cases, proper consultation, comprehensive exemptions and more accessible transport options are solutions that widely dispel those fears. LTNs themselves must be fully accessible, with dropped kerbs and no street clutter, otherwise disabled people feel penalised for driving without access to alternatives. As I have already said, whenever there are concerns, people can write to me, and usually those fears are dispelled once they fully understand how the schemes are implemented.

LTNs have clear benefits: they improve air quality, increase the number of journeys made by walking and cycling, and show reductions in street crime. A study found that after three years, street crime decreased by 18%, with an even larger reduction found for violent crimes, and the most significant reduction for sexual assaults. One study found a 50% reduction in road casualties within LTNs with no increase on neighbouring roads. I know the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) is going to speak because what is being done in Bath city centre will affect neighbourhoods in his constituency. People fear the possible result in neighbouring wards or boundary streets, but clear evidence from the surveys shows that there is no such result. If there is evidence of it, of course we need to look at that.

Early findings indicate that LTNs make neighbourhoods a lot safer after they have been introduced. Air pollution is an invisible killer. A claim often made by opponents of LTNs is that emissions increase outside the designated LTN, but there is little evidence to suggest that that is the case. Researchers at Imperial College London found that NO₂ declined by 5.7% within liveable neighbourhoods, and 8.9% on boundary roads. The Government’s own report acknowledges:

“By reducing traffic and emissions, LTNs can contribute to a cleaner, safer environment”.

Improvements to air quality, coupled with increases in active travel, contribute to healthier lifestyles, with long-term benefits through reducing demand on the NHS.

It is unfortunate that an unhelpful argument has broken out between central Government and local authorities. Local authorities want to work with Government to reduce emissions and make our roads safer, but this Government are intent on reducing councils’ abilities to do so. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) said that councils should consult more widely, and I agree with that. It is the best way of increasing democracy and allowing people to be part of the decisions made in their neighbourhoods. However, councils do not have the money or resources to do that, so the mandatory requirement is very limited, and although money is being put towards wider consultation, councils are being hampered. I absolutely agree that councils must consult more widely in order to include a wider group of people, but they also need the money to do so, which they currently do not have.

That consultation would be great for democracy, except that we then have to think about how widely we consult. Is it the whole of the city? Is it the whole of the city and North East Somerset? Should it go beyond North East Somerset? Councils often end up consulting just the neighbours who are directly affected. As I have said, I am sad that this issue has ended up in debate, when we could have had an agreement across our communities, local government and central Government.

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

I will speak at greater length later, but the main thrust of the petition is to seek a review. That is what the Government have done, and that is what we are debating today. The debate is about a review of LTNs, and she is characterising it as a “them or us” situation. With respect, I am not sure that is a fair approximation of the review sought by the petitioners, which is exactly what the Government have provided.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Absolutely; I agree. It is meant to be about a review, but I find the argument is often skewed towards the people who simply object. I am happy to listen to what the Government have to say in response and to what the review process is producing. In my constituency of Bath, we are in the middle of a big discussion about LTNs and their principles, and I speak as a constituency MP.

Implementing LTNs must be bottom up and not top down. Councils must work closely with residents when they intend to implement LTNs. I look forward to the wider discussion, but, as I said, there are many proven benefits to the principles of LTNs, and I hope those principles are not neglected in the Government’s review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady says that, but the self-same council that is keen on these low-traffic neighbourhoods has cut the number of buses in my constituency. It has kept most of them in Bath, but the ones in the rural areas it has cut like Billy-o.

[Wera Hobhouse]

It was the West of England Combined Authority Mayor who cut the number of buses in Bath, and my councillors have made many representations about that. Traffic has been one of the biggest issues ever since I turned up in Bath over 10 years ago, and traffic has doubled in the past 15 years. How does the right hon. Gentleman propose that we deal with that?

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am glad the hon. Lady asked me that question because, before the Lib Dems took charge of the Bath and North East Somerset Council, I was working with the previous council on the Bath bypass. That would have joined the A36 and the A46 and been the most sensible thing to do, but in accordance with this whole LTN, anti-motorist approach, as soon as the Lib Dems got in, they did not want the bypass. Why? Because they hate the motorist. They do not like people taking charge of their own lives; they think they know best and they want to tell people what to do. That is why this approach is so bad.

I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to take away the funding from the schemes, to apply the rules and guidance that came out, I think, on 17 March, to make them into firm law and to implement them on the schemes that are already in place. We should be on the side of freedom and of liberty, of people going about the lives that they choose to lead, rather than thinking that we know best.

The thing that has reduced pollution has been not LTNs, but improvements in the internal combustion engine and, most crucially, the move away from diesel engines. Bear in mind, it was not that long ago that the know-all Government were telling people it was such a good thing to have diesel engines. People were pushed into having them and the percentage of diesel engines in this country shot up. Why? Because the Government of the day wanted to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and ignored the emissions from particulates and oxides of nitrogen, and that led to a decline in the air quality where cars were, which is being improved now, as people have gone back to petrol engines or diesel engines have been improved.

That is the way to do things, to maintain liberty, freedom and choice, and to recognise that the overwhelming majority of journeys are taken by car and that the free flow of traffic is essential to our economy. The Government made a decision in the emergency of the pandemic to do something that seemed to be a solution at the time. Many decisions were taken during the pandemic that, with hindsight, turned out to be wrong. This is one of them. It is time to reverse it. It is time to back freedom and the motorist.

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

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

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

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

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

[Wera Hobhouse]

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

[Ruth Cadbury]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

With great respect, I am going to push back slightly because, clearly, one of the key purposes of this review, which I am going to set out in quite a lot of detail, is an assessment of issues in relation to what are called exemptions and exceptions. Included as part of that are vehicles exempted from restriction—generally indicated on the traffic signs; those can include permit holders, buses, taxis and disabled badge holders. There is a detailed section on exactly that point, and there are further sections about how implementation should take place for that. More particularly, we are, on an ongoing basis, engaging with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—or DPTAC—via the Local Government Association and individual local-government organisations. With respect, I will return to that in a little more detail later.

Low-traffic neighbourhoods clearly expanded during the early stages of the covid-19 pandemic. The rapid roll-out led to concerns that they were being imposed, and that communities had not been fully involved in their development. There were also concerns that the roll-out did not properly take into account the needs of many organisations, including disabled people, and representations were made in a whole host of ways, leading up to the actual review itself.

We have to accept that low-traffic neighbourhoods can work where they are well designed and where there is, crucially, local support for them. But they can also do harm where they are poorly thought through and introduced with insufficient public engagement and support.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

I am not going to give way to the hon. Lady yet; I want to try to make some progress. I will, of course, let her come in at a later stage.

The Government have been clear that effective traffic management is not about dictating travel choices, but about enabling more choice in how people make their journeys. Local traffic measures must work for residents, businesses and emergency services. We can bandy about examples of successes and failures—there is no doubt whatever that there have been both—but it is clear that some communities have been upset and antagonised by low-traffic neighbourhoods. That is particularly true in London, and one could give examples from Tower Hamlets and, I believe, Ealing and Streatham. Certainly, as a cyclist in London, I have experienced and seen some, and I did a further visit to the Wandsworth Bridge Road last week. Some of those communities have introduced low-traffic neighbourhoods and then abandoned them.

Similarly, where I live in the north-east, a low-traffic neighbourhood was introduced in Jesmond. It has subsequently been abandoned, in circumstances where there has clearly been an impact on the local community, which was upset about how it was implemented, and a massive effect on businesses. There must be due consideration of the impact on local communities, which we all like to represent in our constituencies, and of the consequences of channelling all traffic, for example, on to one major road, while massively reducing traffic on side roads and impacting on parking. Businesses will unquestionably suffer as a result of a downturn in the local economy, and they have done so.

[Guy Opperman]

I will not give way yet, so let me make some progress. We need to ensure that changes to local roads properly take account of communities’ views and are implemented in a way that does not fundamentally dictate how people should travel.

I want to keep returning to the petitioners, because they are the people we are addressing today. The first petition asks that the Government carry out an independent review of LTNs. After the initial reply was sent in April last year, the Prime Minister announced in July that he was commissioning just such a review. He also set out—a fair point has been made—the plan for drivers, and a fundamental effort was made to look at all aspects of how transport was being undertaken.

The review of LTNs commenced in September last year, and set out to ensure that schemes work for residents, businesses and emergency services, the last of which have not, with respect, been mentioned as much as I thought they would be in the debate. This additional project was separate from the work already under way to review schemes funded through the second tranche of active travel funding, including a deep dive into the impact of segregated cycle lanes and low-traffic neighbourhoods. It included a literature review, a survey of local authorities in England, an in-depth study of four schemes, and interviews with key stakeholder groups.

The LTN review completed in January this year and concluded that there are some significant key issues with the implementation of LTN schemes in England. That was based on externally commissioned, independent research and analysis carried out by an independent contractor. I will not go into the details of the particular points that can be found upon reading. There has not been much reference today to the document of 17 March, but I strongly urge all colleagues to read it in detail. However, I have a little time, so I will set out the opening couple of paragraphs:

“Last year, the Department for Transport commissioned a review of low traffic neighbourhoods… The research shows that, while they can work, in the right place, and, crucially, where they are supported, too often local people don’t know enough about them and haven’t been able to have a say. Increasingly and frustratingly, we see larger and larger low traffic schemes being proposed by some councils despite concerted opposition by local residents and by local businesses, and in some cases”

—as I have outlined—

“being removed again. This guidance makes it clear that should not happen.

It also sets out that, even if they are introduced, councils should continue to regularly review low traffic neighbourhoods, ensuring they keep meeting their objectives, aren’t adversely affecting other areas, and are locally supported. This guidance makes clear our expectations, and…will carefully consider how councils follow it, alongside other appropriate factors, when looking at funding decisions.”

I do not propose to read out a substantial review document, but it goes on to say:

“Ultimately government can make changes to the legal framework if advice is overlooked—although working cooperatively with local councils is by far preferred. We need a fair approach, where local support is paramount, and this guidance sets out how that can be achieved.”

[Wera Hobhouse]

I do not think anybody in this room would disagree with anything the Minister has read out, because it is about the engagement that local councils have. For that reason, does he not agree that Bath and North East Somerset Council is taking exactly the right approach? It is having a trial period of LTNs, with proper success criteria that can be evidenced. If an LTN does not work against the success criteria, it will be removed. Is that not the right approach?

[Guy Opperman]

I do not propose to sit in judgment on an individual local authority’s approach in trying to persuade local communities, which is the purpose of this process, that there should be restrictions on one cohort and that there might be difficulties for other cohorts—I include bus travel, emergency services and problems for the disabled—and to make an assessment of whether that individual local authority is doing a good or a bad thing. What I will say, however, is that, self-evidently, the things we have talked about are not happening up and down the country at present; that is patently clear. We can say that very clearly because a large number of local authorities are abandoning their LTNs.

Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 1st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Consultation with the Information Commissioner’s Office in relation to personal data—

“Before making regulations under section 42 of this Act (Protection of information), or any other regulations or requirements in relation to the provision of personal data in automated vehicles, the Secretary of State must consult the Information Commissioner’s Office.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult the ICO before making regulations in relation to the provision of personal data relevant to automated vehicles.

New clause 3—Establishment of an Advisory Council—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, establish a council to advise on the implementation of this Act, with a focus on learning lessons from any accidents involving automated vehicles.

(2) The Advisory Council must include representatives from—

(a) consumer groups;

(b) organisations representing drivers;

(c) road safety experts;

(d) relevant businesses such as automobile manufacturers, vehicle insurance providers and providers of delivery and public transport services;

(e) trade unions;

(f) the police and other emergency services, including Scottish and Welsh emergency services;

(g) highway authorities, including Scottish and Welsh highway authorities;

(h) groups representing people with disabilities;

(i) groups representing other road users, including pedestrians and cyclists; and

(j) groups representing the interests of relevant employees including delivery providers, those involved of likely to be involved in the manufacture of automated vehicles, emergency service workers, and public transport workers.

(3) The Secretary of State must designate a relevant officer of the Department to send reports to the Advisory Council on the roll out of self driving vehicles and any issues of public policy that arise.

(4) The Advisory Council must include nominated representatives of the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government.

(5) The Advisory Council must report regularly to—

(a) Parliament,

(b) the Scottish Parliament,

(c) Senedd Cymru

on the advice it has provided, and any related matters relevant to the roll out of self driving vehicles and associated public policy.”

New clause 4—Accessibility information for passengers in automated vehicles—

“After section 181D of the Equality Act 2010, insert—

‘Chapter 2B

Automated vehicles providing automated passenger services

181E Information for passengers in automated passenger services

(1) The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of facilitating travel by disabled persons, make regulations requiring providers or operators of automated passenger services to make available information about a service to persons travelling on the service.

(2) The regulations may make provision about—

(a) the descriptions of information that are to be made available;

(b) how information is to be made available.

(3) The regulations may, in particular, require a provider or operator of an automated passenger service to make available information of a prescribed description about—

(a) the name or other designation of the service;

(b) the direction of travel;

(c) stopping places;

(d) diversions;

(e) connecting local services.

(4) The regulations may, in particular—

(a) specify when information of a prescribed description is to be made available;

(b) specify how information of a prescribed description is to be made available, including requiring information to be both announced and displayed;

(c) specify standards for the provision of information, including standards based on an announcement being audible or a display being visible to a person of a prescribed description in a prescribed location;

(d) specify forms of communication that are not to be regarded as satisfying a requirement to make information available.

(5) Regulations under this section may make different provision—

(a) as respects different descriptions of vehicle;

(b) as respects the same description of vehicle in different circumstances.

(6) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Welsh Ministers;

(b) the Scottish Ministers.’”

This new clause mirrors existing provisions in the Equality Act 2010 relating to the provision of information in accessible formats to bus passengers and applies them to automated passenger services.

New clause 5—Publication of list of information to be provided—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for the publication of a list detailing—

(a) the information related to the data for authorisation of automated vehicles which must be provided;

(b) the parties by whom such information must be provided;

(c) the parties to whom such information must be provided; and

(d) the purposes for which the information must be provided.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide for the content of the list to be subject to public consultation.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a list of information which is to be provided to and by certain parties on the operation of authorised automated vehicles, and to hold a public consultation on the list.

New clause 6—Liability of insurers—

“Section 2 of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 (liability of insurers etc where accident caused by automated vehicle) is amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (1)(a), leave out “when driving itself”;

(b) in subsection (2)(a), leave out “when driving itself”.”

This new clause would remove the need for people to have to prove that an automated vehicle was “driving itself” if they make a legal claim for compensation under Section 2 of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018.

Amendment 8, in clause 6, page 5, line 10, at end insert—

“(6) A person may not be an authorised self-driving entity unless they meet the following requirements—

(a) they have obtained a certificate of compliance with data protection legislation from the Information Commissioner’s Office for their policy in regard to the handling of personal data,

(b) their policy in regard to the handling of personal data clearly outlines who has ownership of any personal data collected, including after the ownership of a vehicle has ended, and

(c) they are a signatory to an industry code of conduct under the UK General Data Protection Regulation.”

This amendment seeks to probe a number of concerns around data protection and ownership and seeks to prevent authorisation of companies as self-driving entities unless robust personal data practices are in place.

Government amendments 1 and 2.

Amendment 6, in clause 50, page 33, line 22, at end insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State must obtain and lay before Parliament the written consent of the Scottish Government to make regulations under this section which amend—

(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,

(b) any instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament.

(5) The Secretary of State must obtain and lay before Parliament the written consent of the Welsh Government to make regulations under this section which amend—

(a) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru,

(b) any instrument made under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of devolved governments before exercising the Clause 50 power in relation to devolved legislation.

Amendment 7, page 33, line 22, at end insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Government before making regulations under this section which amend—

(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,

(b) any instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament.

(5) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Government before making regulations under this section which amend—

(a) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru,

(b) any instrument made under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the devolved governments before exercising the Clause 50 power in relation to devolved legislation.

Government amendments 3 to 5.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I have tabled three amendments that seek to strengthen the provisions made for data protection in the Bill. New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the collection of personal data from automated vehicles within one year of the day on which the Act is passed and every year thereafter. This report must cover

“levels of compliance with data protection legislation within the automated motor industry,…instances where the Secretary of State has made regulations under section 42(3) of this Act…and the impact of those regulations on personal data protection, and…any significant trends in the collection of personal data and whether further action is needed to regulate the collection of personal data.”

For sustained public confidence in automated vehicles and the data protection issues that arise, it is important that we have this continued monitoring and reporting. With a new technology, it is inevitable that new issues will arise over time, particularly as automated vehicles learn and change their behaviour accordingly. The reporting is necessary to keep the regulations on data protection under review as the technology develops. The Government must give further assurances in the Bill that people’s personal data will be protected before this Bill becomes law and commit to the annual reporting set out in this new clause.

This Bill would also be strengthened by new clause 2, which would require the Secretary of State to consult the Information Commissioner’s Office before making regulations in relation to the provision of personal data relevant to automated vehicles. As I have mentioned, new clause 1 would maintain monitoring of the provisions made for data protection, and new clause 2 would make this monitoring and reporting process easier, as advice can be taken from the ICO rather than using parliamentary time. Again, this will instil public confidence in the legislation as the advice will come from an independent body.

In order to operate, automated vehicles must be able to collect data, and much of this data will be personal. The information collected will help to make AVs safer as the system learns more about the road and those using it. Strengthening the process of how any changes to future protections are made will again assure the public that their personal data will be secure. Further assurances would be given by amendment 8, which seeks to probe a number of concerns about data protection and ownership, and seeks to prevent the authorisation of companies as self-driving entities unless robust data practices are in place. This amendment would ensure that a person may not be an authorised self-driving entity unless they meet the following requirements:

“they have obtained a certificate of compliance with data protection legislation from the Information Commissioner’s Office for their policy in regard to the handling of personal data,…their policy in regard to the handling of personal data clearly outlines who has ownership of any personal data collected, including after the ownership of a vehicle has ended, and…they are a signatory to an industry code of conduct under the UK General Data Protection Regulation.”

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I would be very interested, with regard to the latter new clause, if the hon. Lady could explain why she feels—or what feedback or evidence she has to think—that the safety regulation system that is put in place will be inadequate to handle the concerns she raises.

[Wera Hobhouse]

On Second Reading, I think I was very positive about the Bill’s introduction, and I see it as the bright new future, but we should be careful to ensure we are taking people with us. As I have said, this is basically about making sure that people feel confident that their personal data is really handled in the most secure way possible. I have tabled the amendments to provide assurance for the public that the Government and everybody involved in this bright new future will really take a very careful look at all data protection measures.

[Jesse Norman]

If I may quickly respond, given that this Bill has had a remarkably untroubled passage through both Houses to date and that both Houses are informed by enormous amounts of information from relevant parties and Members’ constituents, has she any such reason? I think what she is saying is that she has no reason, apart from a general worry about consent, to think that what she is talking about will be necessary, because she has no reason to think that the regulator will not be able to take this stuff into account when it comes to a review?

[Wera Hobhouse]

We will not push new clause 1 to a vote, but I want the Government to ensure that all necessary and possible protections are being put in place. This issue has been debated several times, but we are looking into the future and who knows what the future holds? We know that people are increasingly worried about their personal data, and that sometimes regulations are not as robust as possible. This is basically a plea to the Government to ensure that all possible assurances are in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I understand that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) wishes to withdraw new clause 1. Is that correct?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43

Fees

Amendments made: 1, page 29, line 19, after “State” insert “or by a traffic commissioner”.

This amendment corrects a drafting omission, by allowing no-user-in-charge operator licensing functions conferred on traffic commissioners to be taken into account in setting fees under Part 1.

Amendment 2, page 29, line 22, at end insert—

“(3) Money received by a traffic commissioner as a result of regulations under section 13 must be paid into the Consolidated Fund in such manner as the Treasury may direct.”—(Anthony Browne.)

This amendment is one of two that clarify what happens to fees, penalties or costs under Part 1 if they are made payable to traffic commissioners by regulations.

Clause 89

Procedural and administrative matters

Amendment made: 3, page 63, line 18, at end insert—

“(8) Regulations under subsection (7) made by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers—

(a) if they apply to a function in respect of which a fee is payable, must also apply to the function of charging and receiving that fee;

(b) if they apply to the function of issuing a notice under paragraph 1 or 2 of Schedule 6 (compliance notices and monetary penalty notices), must also apply to the functions under paragraph 4 of that Schedule (costs notices) so far as exercisable in connection with the first function.

(9) Money received by a traffic commissioner as a result of regulations under subsection (7) must, unless subsection (10) applies, be paid into the Consolidated Fund in such manner as the Treasury may direct.

(10) Money received by a traffic commissioner under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 6 (monetary penalties) as a result of regulations under subsection (7) made by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers must be paid to those Ministers.”—(Anthony Browne.)

This amendment makes provision about fees, penalties and costs made payable to traffic commissioners by regulations under Part 5.

Schedule 1

Enforcement action under Part 1: procedure

Amendments made: 4, page 78, line 7, after “Part” insert “(other than section 43(1))”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 1.

Amendment 5, page 78, line 14, at end insert—

“(5) Money received by a traffic commissioner as a result of regulations under this paragraph must be paid into the Consolidated Fund in such manner as the Treasury may direct.”—(Anthony Browne.)

This amendment is one of two that clarify what happens to fees, penalties or costs under Part 1 if they are made payable to traffic commissioners by regulations.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

I add my thanks to everybody who worked so hard to bring the Bill forward. As I have said before, the Liberal Democrats have been very supportive. This is a brave new world and I assume that, as we go along exploring the new technology, we will keep a very close eye on the data protection issues that I raised. This is not the end of the road; it is the beginning, but it is an exciting beginning.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Heathrow Airport: Western Rail Link

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has eloquently put on record how the Welsh Government themselves have strongly supported the link. I know that he is a strong champion for his constituents, and he has been doing that work on a plethora of issues, but in particular within our all-party group. Importantly, greater connectivity to Heathrow would bolster jobs, growth, trade, tourism, education and regeneration.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I have been a member of the all-party group since 2018. Does the hon. Member also recognise that the rail link would benefit everybody from Bath to beyond? It would also have many environmental benefits, as people could choose the public transport option rather than travelling by car, which is what many of my constituents do.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the hon. Member not just for her support and her membership of the APPG, but for her alliteration—as she said, the project will be of huge significance for Bath and beyond. I also want to outline the cross-party composition of our all-party parliamentary group. Whether we are members of the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative party, the Labour party or other parties, we realise the collective benefits to our constituents and the environmental benefits, which I will elaborate on shortly.