Integrated Rail Plan: Northern Powerhouse Area

Debate between Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen and Lord Berkeley
Thursday 16th December 2021

(2 years, 5 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen Portrait Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, this is only a one-hour debate and we are quite short on time.

Lord Berkeley Portrait Lord Berkeley (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Briefly, Great Western electrification finished about five years ago and Network Rail has improved things as a result. That was true at that time but things have got a lot better.

What is missing from this document is a real acceptance by the Department for Transport that the decision-making on strategies and routes, priorities and deliveries should rest with the northern powerhouse/Transport for the North members—the local authorities which know their areas. That is devolution. I am afraid that the document has demonstrated the department’s inability to plan and deliver to time and budget. It should give TfN a chance.

If the Government were honest in wanting to improve the rail network in the north and Midlands, they would cancel the bits of HS2 that they are funding and put all the remaining funds included in the IPR into not only giving much-improved capacity and speed on the two east-west axes—Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds and Hull, and Sheffield, Birmingham, Derby and Nottingham—but improving the many secondary lines in each area. So many people rely on those for their daily commuting to school, colleges, work, levelling-up and everything else.

I fear that this Department for Transport will result only in nothing happening for the next few years and I hope that it not the case. I hope that the Minister, when she replies, will say that I have got it completely wrong that it does not matter that Bradford is only connected to the south and not east-west. I hope she will sit down with her colleagues in the department and northern powerhouse people and come up with a solution that is acceptable to all.

HGV Driving Tests

Debate between Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen and Lord Berkeley
Wednesday 1st December 2021

(2 years, 5 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen Portrait Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
- Hansard - -

The noble Lord makes a good point. The Government are determined that the planning system should play its part in meeting the needs of hauliers and addressing current deficiencies. Planning plays a critical part in the allocation of land for lorry parking. On 8 November, the Secretary of State for Transport published a Written Ministerial Statement addressing the strategic national need for more lorry parking and better services and lorry parks in England, and we will be investing £32.5 million in roadside facilities. We have published planning practice guidance setting out how local planning authorities can assess the need for, and allocate land to, logistical site users, and we are accelerating work recommended by the National Infrastructure Commission to consider the appropriateness of current planning practice guidance. This includes taking forward a review of how the freight sector is currently represented in guidance.

Lord Berkeley Portrait Lord Berkeley (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, has the Minister ever tried to reverse a caravan, a trailer or a boat or heavy goods vehicle trailer? Would she not agree that it needs quite a lot of training? It is very nice for those who cannot be bothered to take a test to hear the Government say that we do not need a test any more, but that cannot contribute to road safety.

Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen Portrait Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
- Hansard - -

The noble Lord will be pleased to hear that I can reverse a trailer; I have been doing so from quite a young age, and quite successfully. At the moment, I have to reverse a trailer into a tiny space by our carport, and I can do it.