Transport
Guy Opperman Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend raised this issue with the Prime Minister only yesterday; she is a fantastic campaigner on issues relating to the Tamar bridge. I accept entirely that the Tamar Bridge and Torpoint Ferry joint committee has recently looked at the situation. An application is being considered by the Transport Secretary, and I am happy to meet her again to discuss it further.
[Official Report, 21 March 2024, Vol. 747, c. 1047.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman):
An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray). The correct response is:
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend raised this issue with the Prime Minister only yesterday; she is a fantastic campaigner on issues relating to the Tamar bridge. I accept entirely that the Tamar Bridge and Torpoint Ferry joint committee has recently looked at the situation. Any application for a toll revision will be considered by the Transport Secretary, and I am happy to meet her again to discuss this further.
Public Transport: Carshalton and Wallington
Guy Opperman Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
There is a sense of déjà vu for you and me, Mr Deputy Speaker, because the last debate before the House rose for Christmas featured yourself as the Deputy Speaker; the Transport Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), honourably fighting the fight on behalf of the Department for Transport; and my good self, making the case at the Dispatch Box on an Adjournment debate. It is a privilege and honour to be the last Minister to speak at the Dispatch Box before Easter.
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), who said at the outset that we need to wish everybody in the House who works so hard to keep us safe in this place that we cherish, love and adore a very happy Easter and a gentle rest over the Easter holidays, so that we all emerge recharged, rebooted and ready to keep the flavour of democracy alive on an ongoing basis, because that really matters. Having the opportunity to address the House, make the case for democracy and for individual constituents, and bring their concerns, hopes, fears and aspirations to this place is something we should all cherish and adore.
It is a great honour and privilege to respond to my hon. Friend. I have visited his constituency in the past; I would be delighted to visit it again, and I look forward to doing so in the next few weeks. To answer his three points at the outset before I get into the nuts and bolts of the issue, I would be delighted to work with him on the causes he has set out and delighted to visit soon.
I am also delighted to make the case that ULEZ is a blunt instrument, and we will discuss that in a bit more detail, although I assure the House that we will not spend the next two hours and seven minutes discussing it. ULEZ is a blunt instrument that needs to be taken in the context of the individual circumstances of the Londoners and outer Londoners whom it affects. It needs to take into account the impact it has on low-income and public sector workers, because the stats on that are genuinely horrifying. It is not something—with great respect—that is being dealt with sensitivity. It is not being done under the Mayor’s manifesto. I was the Minister who responded to the Bill last Friday on behalf of the Government, and I will touch on that in some detail.
My hon. Friend raised a number of issues, which I want to address. The first is the issue of the Mayor and his finances because, as my hon. Friend will be aware and as the Secretary of State has put on the record in writing, the Mayor had to be bailed out by a multibillion-pound settlement due to his mismanagement of his funds. Clearly, that has had an impact on the provision of bus services, which are key. As the Minister for buses, I am passionate about buses and the growth in bus services post covid. I am alarmed and concerned to hear about the litany of bus services that have been lost in my hon. Friend’s constituency due to the actions of the Mayor.
I regret to say that I have no power whatsoever to intervene in the mayoral zone to address any of the bus losses or to nudge individual operators to make changes. I will come to rail in a second, because we have some power there. I know that my hon. Friend has worked with the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), in copious detail to address those issues. That is the reality of the mayoral situation on buses, and it is of great concern.
Only yesterday, I met my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) to have an hour-long discussion with bus operators to thrash out difficulties and try to find a way for the bus service improvement plan and bus service operators grant to address particular issues. That ability does not exist, unless the Mayor provides the right sort of assistance and prioritises the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington. On buses, regretfully I am powerless to intervene, but his constituents have the ultimate power to do so, and I urge them to do that for the reasons that he set out and that I utterly endorse. I put my backing behind Susan Hall.
I know that my hon. Friend has worked with the Rail Minister over a period of time to try to improve and enhance the rail service that his constituents sometimes have enjoyed and sometimes have not. As someone who commutes in from south London when I am here in Westminster, I have experienced some of that pain. I accept that there are ongoing difficulties, some of which have been addressed—he rightly identified the companies that have assisted him and played ball. We are at about 85% of pre-covid numbers. I assure him that the Rail Minister is happy to meet him, operators and particular cohorts of constituents and councillors to discuss potential improvements and further ongoing work that can be done.
My hon. Friend raised the important issue of the Croydon area remodelling scheme. I agree that it is clearly a massive improvement and enhancement that we should get behind. Such an investment will be a massive improvement and be of wider benefit to his constituents. On the other rail and infrastructure projects, he talked about Govia Thameslink Railway—GTR. He has worked closely with that operator on the services that it provides, particularly the busy weekend services between Carshalton and London Victoria, which are vital. He rightly made the point that timetable changes will take effect from June 2024, and services will run with eight to 10 carriages, rather than five as some did previously. I am sure that he will welcome the additional capacity for passengers using those services. We require all train operators to continually review the services they provide so that their timetables reflect changing passenger demand, carefully balancing cost, capacity and performance.
My hon. Friend raised Access for All, which he has championed repeatedly. He would love me to triumphantly pull out the Oscar-winning envelope from this Dispatch Box and confirm the campaign that he has fought for so assiduously for so long. I regret that I cannot do that today, but in time-honoured tradition I can confirm that the next announcement on extending Access for All and improving rail accessibility will be made very shortly. He has made his case repeatedly. If he has not again met the Rail Minister who oversees that issue, I will personally communicate that to him, so that he fully understands how much it matters to my hon. Friend’s constituents and how brilliantly he has made the case.
On ULEZ, there are a number of myths I want to address. We need a genuine discussion on this issue. My hon. Friend spent about five minutes of his speech on it, and I want to spend some time on it in response. The principle of having a clean air zone in the centre of a city is, I think, utterly without dispute. The Government legislated for that, and local authorities and mayors agree with it. For those of us who are right in the heart of the city in Westminster, the original congestion zone makes total sense and is fully understandable. There is an argument —it is a hard argument to make, but there is an argument—that there was authority to extend it out to the south circular and the north circular, and that that would be a wider congestion zone. But it is patently clear from reading the present Mayor of London’s manifesto—I spent rather too long reading it; an hour and a bit of my life I will never get back—that there is no argument whatever for the extension that has taken place. My hon. Friend rightly talked about the consultation and the responses to it. The best I can do is make two points.
First, take the congestion zone in Bristol, which is clearly relatively successful. It was introduced with due consideration of businesses and people living in the heart of the city, trying to keep a vibrant city going. That congestion zone is one mile by two—basically, two square miles. The London congestion zone has now gone up to approximately 600 square miles. It is 50 miles by 50 miles. The impact on the wider economy of London —park for a moment the air quality, because he rightly addressed that—is obviously massive. Everybody who lives and works in London can see that. It has had a tremendous impact on the businesses that we all want to support.
Secondly, there is a democratic deficit. When the ULEZ is extended so far out to those on the outer limits of London and those who live beyond the London boundary, they are clearly penalised in a very significant way. More particularly, the penalty falls on two groups. I take this from its own impact assessment, as I and others set out in the House on Friday. It falls on the low-income group and on public sector workers—surely the worst groups to be trying to penalise with an extra tax. Anybody who knows anything about the public sector knows it is really hard to get NHS workers, care workers and police officers in central London. I could go on.
Elliot Colburn
The Minister is absolutely right about public sector workers. I mentioned that the Royal Marsden Hospital is having to refund ULEZ charges to cancer patients. One other point we must surely consider is that something like half of all Metropolitan police officers live outside the geographical area of Greater London. No wonder people do not feel that they can come and work in the city if they have to pay £12.50 a day. Does the Minister agree that ULEZ will surely have an adverse effect on crime in London if the majority of our officers have to travel in and pay £12.50 a day to police our streets?
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend has brilliant eyesight, because he can see the highlighted passage I was about to read out, showing that 50% of police officers in the Metropolitan police area live outside the London boundary and commute in. The percentage for all emergency workers is probably not far off that. There is no doubt that there will be a recruitment issue in all those sectors. I have spent three and a half weeks of my life in St Thomas’ Hospital, requiring intensive care—and on not one but two occasions, because I am so accident prone. Someone may require overnight nursing care, for example, and a nurse coming into London from outside will be penalised on the day she comes in, and when she leaves her night shift she will be penalised again. She will be landed with a double whammy of a ULEZ charge—and then we are surprised that London hospitals are struggling to retain staff.
Is there evidence that ULEZ is making a dramatic difference to air quality? The evidence that has been set out in a variety of ways suggests that improvement is minimal in some respects, especially in the outer reaches. Is there an impact on the economy? Definitely: there is a negative impact. Is there an impact on public services, public sector workers and the low-income people who, according to the impact assessment, will be more affected by ULEZ expansion? There is not a shadow of a doubt that that is the case. I do not want to get too political on the last day before the Easter recess, but my hon. Friend asked what would happen in the future, and the idea that the present Mayor will not expand the impact of the ULEZ is for the birds. It is a bit like asking, “Are there moustaches in Mexico?” or “Do bears go to the toilet in the woods?” We both know that what the Mayor is proposing to do is to extend the present proposal in a variety of ways.
The key point that was made on Friday by my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), my right hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) and for Ashford (Damian Green), my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon)—from a sedentary position—and various colleagues from Watford was that great thought should be given to the benefits of this public policy as against the massive burdens that are being imposed. We must clearly consider why we are doing this on an ongoing basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington remains a massive champion of this issue, and I should be delighted to see the changes that he seeks. Of course, the Rail Minister will continue to work with him, and good work is being done. We want to continue to support him and his constituents. I commend him for bringing the debate to the House before Easter, and I commend his efforts on behalf of his constituents.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
On behalf of Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers, I echo the words of the Minister and Elliot Colburn in wishing a very happy Easter to everyone who works here to ensure that our democracy progresses. I hope that they will get together with their families and friends, and to those who sadly cannot do that because they are providing services to the rest of us, I say a great thank you on behalf of the nation.
Question put and agreed to.
Transport
Guy Opperman Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
Good morning, Mr Speaker. Passenger watchdog Transport Focus published a report last week, which found huge regional variation in bus passenger satisfaction across the country, with large numbers of passengers “being let down”. Under the Tories’ deregulation of the bus sector, passenger satisfaction with some of our operators is miles below the average of 80%, with some as low as a dismal 66%. In places such as West Yorkshire, Labour Mayors are not standing for it any longer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) said, Tracy Brabin has announced her intention to pursue franchising to reverse decades of Tory decline. But the vast majority of local authorities do not have those powers, so will the Minister adopt Labour’s plan to give every local transport authority the same powers to take back control of their bus services?
Guy Opperman
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I was at the launch of the said report and have read it. He will be aware that, for example, one reason for the complications is that the number of people working from home has increased by 40%. We have a plan to tackle that with the record investment that is being made to Mayors.
[Official Report, 21 March 2024, Vol. 747, c. 1032.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood).
The correct response is:
Guy Opperman
I have read the report. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, for example, one reason for the complications is that the number of people working from home has increased by 40%. We have a plan to tackle that with the record investment that is being made to Mayors.
Chi Onwurah
Walking and cycling prevent 1,500 serious long-term health conditions on Tyneside every year, according to the walking and cycling index, and they bring in £400 million in economic benefits, so it is no wonder that half of Tynesiders want to walk or wheel more, and that two fifths want to cycle more, but if they are to do that, the streets need to be made safer. What is the Minister doing, apart from undermining low traffic neighbourhoods, to make our streets safer for walking, wheeling and cycling?
Guy Opperman
With great respect to the hon. Lady, she knows full well that her council attempted to have an active travel scheme in Jesmond, and it so messed it up that it had to scrap the scheme. The LTN was scrapped, and there were 23,000 objections and a considerable waste of money. With due respect, active travel is doing a great job, and we support it, but councils have to take local communities with them.
[Official Report, 21 March 2024, Vol. 747, c. 1038.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah).
The correct response is:
Guy Opperman
With great respect to the hon. Lady, she knows full well that her council attempted to have an active travel scheme in Jesmond, and it so messed it up that it had to scrap the scheme. The LTN was scrapped, and there were 23,000 responses and a considerable waste of money. With due respect, active travel is doing a great job, and we support it, but councils have to take local communities with them.
Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging (Amendment) Bill
Guy Opperman Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head.
Progress is being achieved. The vast majority of cars —19 out of 20 in Greater London—are compliant with ULEZ. Labour Members are pleased that Transport for London and the Mayor of London have decided to expand the scrappage scheme to support those who are struggling as a result of the Tory cost of living crisis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
I am listening with interest to the hon. Lady’s speech. The Government obviously support the Bill in the circumstances applied. Will she address the point that is fairly made about people outside a mayoral zone being affected and penalised by entering a mayoral zone, when they did not vote for that?
Lilian Greenwood
Unusual as it is for the Minister to intervene, I think the point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). When people from outside London drive into London, the costs of that in terms of health, and wear and tear on the roads, is borne by constituents here in London. It is not unreasonable for them to expect that those who benefit from everything that London has to offer, who travel into the centre causing congestion and poor air quality, should abide by the well-established principle that the polluter pays.
Kerry McCarthy
I suffer from hay fever virtually all the year round. I would have thought it would be worse in the countryside, but it is terrible when I am in London. I was in Paris in January and the hay fever took off suddenly because of the air pollution levels. Hay fever is not lethal in the way that asthma attacks can be, but it is a pretty grim condition to have to live with. It affects people’s ability to do their work and to study, for instance.
As I said earlier, the Government were forced to act on air pollution after being taken to court by ClientEarth, to which I pay tribute for its continuing efforts through the legal system to hold the Government to account in respect of their environmental targets. As a result of that court case, Bristol was asked to act. I have already made the point about the irony, perhaps, of demanding local autonomy in some cases and demanding not to be told what to do by the Mayor of London, but in Bristol the Secretary of State told us we had to do that.
Guy Opperman
The hon. Lady is making a fair point, but we have to recognise the issue of scale. In Bristol, the clean air zone is barely 2 square miles—it is about 1 mile by 2 miles—and specifically took into account individuals and businesses. The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford does not seek to get rid of the congestion zone or the first ULEZ expansion, yet the second expansion of ULEZ, in contrast to Bristol’s 2 square miles, is approximately 600 square miles, at 50 miles by 50 miles. That is so monumentally bigger than anything contemplated in Bristol or other cities.
Kerry McCarthy
London has the Greater London Assembly, a Mayor with devolved powers and Transport for London, so this issue is looked at on a London-wide basis. There is an issue in Bristol with people coming into the city centre from places like Bath, but the boroughs are not so interwoven that we cannot see the borders between them, and we do not have the interconnectivity that London has. In Bristol, we were told that we had to bring air pollution levels within legal limits as quickly as possible. We went to great lengths with the modelling to deal with concerns about the economic and social impact. As the Minister said, making the zone as small as possible was one of the factors in that.
It is relevant to talk about the Bristol scheme because it shows what can be achieved by similar measures in London. The scheme came into effect in November 2022, and in January this year we had the first annual report on its effectiveness. It was judged to have been highly successful. The headline figure was that air pollution across all measured sites had declined by 9.7%. The success of the CAZ is measured by whether it lowers nitrogen dioxide levels below the legal limit of 40 micrograms per cubic metre. In November 2022, when the scheme was introduced, there were 18 sites across Bristol above the legal limit. Just 12 months later, that was down to just six zones. The scheme was particularly effective outside the Bristol Royal Infirmary and the Bristol Children’s Hospital, which are bang in the middle of the city centre. Air pollution was down by an incredible 26.9%. I defy anyone to tell me that such big improvements in air quality in areas where there are very sick and vulnerable people, including sick children, is a bad thing. It has been really successful.
Kerry McCarthy
Exactly—there is very complicated modelling involved. Also, if we can use measures such as these to take some cars off the road, that increases the attractiveness of public transport, because the buses can get to where they are meant to be without being stuck in traffic.
Guy Opperman
Surely the hon. Lady is making an argument in support of the Bill—for having small congestion zones in the centre of cities, allowing the public transport to get to where it is meant to be, but not massive 600 square mile congestion zones such as the present expanded ULEZ?
Kerry McCarthy
I was thinking in the context of the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) saying that he does not have a tube station in his part of Greater London, as though the only alternative to the tube is driving. London has a pretty decent bus system, but we need to make sure that people have that alternative.
Again, I am going to say something nice: we have had confirmation today that First Bus has received funding under the next wave of the zero-emission bus regional areas scheme to turn all of our buses into electric vehicles. We have been experimenting with biogas, but that funding will do an awful lot. We do have some clean biogas buses, and my right hon. and learned Friend the leader of the Labour party got to drive one on one of his previous visits to the city. He was like a little boy with a new toy, it has to be said—I think he greatly enjoyed it.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I rise to speak in opposition to the Bill. It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Steve Tuckwell). On the day that he was elected to this place, I remember campaigning and talking to residents, who said, “We are not going to vote Labour, as we have always done before, because we’ll have to pay £12.50 every day to drive on our local roads.” My colleague said, “How will it affect you? What car do you drive?” and the guy at this one house said, “Well, there it is—it’s a Toyota Prius.” On the day of that election, thousands of people were told, and some still believe, that every single person driving a vehicle in Greater London has to pay £12.50 a day. That is not true, and that myth is still going around.
I do not want to undermine the fact that about 5% of vehicles in London are non-compliant. I accept that the expansion forced people who drive non-compliant vehicles, for work or for personal use, to make decisions, as others had to when the original ULEZ boundary was introduced. I will come on to that aspect of the scrappage scheme later.
Guy Opperman
The hon. Lady will be aware that Transport for London’s impact assessment states that there is likely to be a disproportionate negative impact
“for people on low incomes who travel by a non-compliant private vehicle in outer London to access employment…or opportunities”.
It is those organisations and individuals who are being affected by the policy.
Mr French
No, the hon. Gentleman has only just come in.
The public do not need me to tell them that London devolution is broken, with TfL requiring Government bail-out after Government bail-out, London now being the slowest city in the world to drive in, and the Metropolitan police and London Fire Brigade in special measures.
Guy Opperman
I credit my hon. Friend for the speech he is giving. Is not the key issue here the democratic deficit for those outside the mayoral zone? A decision was made by the Mayor, which we know was not backed by a manifesto, and it is now impacting the wider communities my hon. and right hon. Friends represent, from Harlow to Bexley and Crayford. Surely the issue is how we navigate the desire to comply with the legislation—that is why the Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) does not say that we are scrapping it entirely—and the ability of individuals to have their say on whether this is the appropriate measure.
Mr French
I thank the Roads Minister for his intervention. I agree completely; there is a huge democratic deficit at play here. As he correctly points out, the charge affects people outside the zone who need to come into London, and it is having a significant negative impact on the likes of Crayford and Bexley village in my constituency, which are hundreds of meters away from the so-called London boundary and whose businesses are losing customers every single day because of the expansion.
The people of Bexley, who quite clearly rejected this policy in the sham of a public consultation we had, have been completely ignored. That is why I have no doubt that in a few weeks’ time they will be voting, like I will, to sack Sadiq Khan after eight years of failure. The public out there do not need me to tell them that London and the surrounding counties cannot afford another four years of Sadiq Khan and Labour running London. The plans to toll the Blackwall tunnel and install cameras on small residential closes and roads shows that ULEZ is not the end of the Mayor’s desire to hammer motorists in Bexley and outer London—people can look up Project Detroit themselves.
On 2 May, Londoners will be able to vote for Susan Hall and vote for change, to make London better and safer for everybody. People in Greater London do not need me to tell them who is on their side; they will see it with their own eyes as the Labour party desperately tries to block this Bill.
Fleur Anderson
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend is right that a fair amount of the vehicle excise duty is not being spent in London. Despite being hamstrung in many ways, the Mayor of London has been world-leading—he is going around the world to talk about the action he is taking on clean air. What we really need is the Mayor of London being able to pull in the same direction as the Government. We need a national strategy that goes as far and as fast on clean air as the Mayor has done in London. That is why it would be good if there was not only a Labour Mayor, but a London Government, because they would be able to work hand in hand to achieve that. That would be good for all of us wherever we go, and not just in London, but across the country.
Guy Opperman
The hon. Lady criticised the funding in answer to her hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), but surely she is aware that the Department for Transport has given £6.4 billion in funding to the Mayor of London. That is not insignificant by any stretch.
Fleur Anderson
I thank the Minister for raising that, but that is not equivalent to the amount actually raised by Londoners and that goes to the rest of the country, which we understand, but that should be a factor when talking about how the ULEZ money, for example, is paid. Further to the Minister’s point, there are the concerns about those areas outside ULEZ that do not receive the same amount of funding. They are represented by their local representatives, who should have a strategy for responding to ULEZ being expanded to those areas of London as well.
The Putney Society in my constituency is a local amenity group of fantastic local people. They have chosen to concentrate on clean air because it is one of the issues of most concern. As a result of concern over the levels of atmospheric pollution in Putney, especially on the high street, the society has carried out a series of citizen science exercises over the past 10 years or so to measure the levels of nitrogen dioxide. Those have been one-off exercises measuring pollution for a month at a time. With the generous help and support of the local environmental health team, they have been able to mount a series of monthly tests, enabling them to see what the levels look like in the longer term. The highest level they found was—not surprisingly—at the northern end of Putney High Street, where it was 62.9 micrograms and 57.6 micrograms per cubic metre of air. In Putney Bridge Road, it was almost as high at 50.7 micrograms. Putney Cross and Upper Richmond Road were both in the mid-40s.
To put those results in context, we need to bear in mind that, although the agreed statutory maximum level is 40 micrograms per cubic metre of air, that is essentially an interim target level, whereas the agreed World Health Organisation safe level is 10 micrograms per cubic metre. Consequently, the levels that Putney Society recorded are still disturbingly high. I went into that detail because I do not think the high levels we have on our London roads are properly acknowledged in the Bill. Reining back the good results of ULEZ to a smaller area would mean leaving those larger areas outside the South Circular, which cuts through my constituency, and people in the whole of that area with those high levels of air pollution. That is simply not acceptable.
I support the implementation of ULEZ because we have a public health emergency. I am concerned about the impact on the health of children and vulnerable adults, so action is needed. I do not want to die earlier, and I do not want any of my constituents to die earlier, but that is what is happening. The existing ULEZ has been proven to change behaviour, and we need that change in behaviour to clean our air so that more Londoners will benefit. I welcome the extension of the scrappage scheme, which happened after consultation, for low-income and disabled Londoners and for charities to have their minibuses exempted. I welcome the additional time given to charities and small businesses to comply with ULEZ. I support and wish to see in the Bill no more bus route reductions, improvements in public transport and 100% green buses. I welcome investment in better public services as a result of the fines charged by ULEZ and the introduction of the Superloop. We also need to invest in more safe cycle routes, safe cycle storage and local cycle delivery bikes. We are proud in Putney to have an e-bike delivery scheme for our local businesses, which picks up waste and gets rid of it. We also have more local bus delivery routes available.
We need to make clear what is being funded by the ULEZ fund so that Londoners see the benefit of investment in local services and cycle provision as well as knowing that the air is healthier and that their lives will be healthier. I have been inspired by parents campaigning for change, including Mums for Lungs, which is based locally, and Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, the mother of Ella Kissi-Debrah, who died of asthma 11 years ago. If I had a daughter die in such tragic circumstances, I do not know what I would have done, but she has been so brave, courageous and inspirational in finding out and exposing the reasons for Ella’s death—the high levels of pollution—and in taking so much action to counter that issue. I also thank the Putney Society, Putney Pollution Busters, the London Sustainability Exchange, King’s College London, Clean Air in London and the Healthy Air Coalition for all the work that they do exposing pollution and taking action together for local people.
This is a huge issue for people across my constituency and across London. We cannot start to meet clean air targets without ULEZ. People in outer London are disproportionately affected, as more older people live in outer London. Recent analysis by Asthma and Lung UK has shown that the UK has the worst death rate for lung conditions in western Europe. Surely that demands urgent action, not reining in our action.
Toxic air is also shortening lives. Every year, 36,000 people in the UK die a premature death as a result of toxic air, and 4,000 of them are in London. We can see that we need action in London, but we also need it across the country. Let us look at outer London. In Dartford, for example, the equivalent of 66 deaths a year are attributable to long-term exposure to particulate air pollution. This is not just an inner-London issue; we need ULEZ expansion to the outer London boroughs.
Air pollution is killing us, and children are particularly vulnerable, but poor communities and black, Asian and minority ethnic communities are the worst affected. Eleven Londoners a day die prematurely because of air pollution. In Wandsworth—my constituents’ borough —129 deaths every year are attributable to the effects of toxic air. Before the ULEZ expansion, which the Bill would undo, only a small part of my constituency was covered by the ultra low emission zone, because the south circular cuts through my constituency. My constituents faced a postcode lottery, with only those on one side of the road covered by the clean air zone. Why should only some of my constituents, who live on the right side of an arbitrary boundary, be able to breathe cleaner air? It is far better to have a larger area covered that is much more consistent with where the polluted air is. If we sit back and do nothing to reduce air pollution, about 550,000 Londoners will develop diseases.
I have talked about the impact on small businesses. It is an issue that I have raised with small businesses on Putney High Street, who have said that the dirty air is holding back their businesses. We want Hammersmith bridge reopened—I cannot resist saying that and will do so whenever I can—but we also need the continuation of the ULEZ.
A report commissioned by the Clean Air Fund concluded that improving air quality could bring an annual boost of £1.6 billion to the UK economy through 3 million additional working days and a reduction in early retirement. The evidence shows us that ULEZ works, and that it has been hugely successful, with 5 million more people expected to breathe clean air.
I end with the words of a constituent—a doctor—who wrote to me and said:
“This Bill will send the capital backwards and is counter to the devolutionary system of our politics. Just as we are beginning to see the benefits of ULEZ, I am dismayed…that this Private Member’s Bill will make already poor air quality worse, harming Londoners’ health—particularly that of children. To make matters worse, the Bill takes the important decision about the air we breathe away from us as Londoners, and undermines our democratically elected mayor—who is accountable to us and will shortly be tested in the May elections.”
That is where such a decision should be made. I urge all hon. Members to put our health first, to support Mayor Sadiq Khan’s action to clean up our air, and to oppose the Bill.
Trailer and Towing Safety
Guy Opperman Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
It is an honour and a privilege to respond to the hon. Lady’s thoughtful, heartfelt and impressive speech on an issue that she clearly cares passionately about. She has done herself great credit not just tonight but throughout the long campaign she has waged. I pay massive tribute to her. There is much criticism in this place of all-party groups, but she has provided an example of one that has championed a cause and brought about significant change. It also ensures that its importance to both the families concerned and the wider industry is heard, championed and hopefully acted upon. I wanted to put that first point on the record.
It is patently clear from the hon. Lady’s speech that she cares passionately about this issue. Like many constituency MPs, she is motivated, sadly, by the learned experience of a constituent. I, too, pay due tribute to the Hussey family, who clearly have been through a terrible ordeal and have resolved that good should come out of the tragedy that sadly they have undergone. I pass on my condolences. The hon. Lady’s last comment is entirely right. It is important that in this House, in whatever position, we remember the lived experience of the people who suffer injuries and difficulties, in relation to road safety and all other accidents, up and down the country. Whatever the circumstance, whether it was their fault or otherwise, we must be sensitive to that. None of us has been unaffected by tragedy in our lives. We should remember and be empathetic to that at all stages.
I want to put some points on the record, but I want to cut to the chase on one particular point. I will go through the journey of how we got to where we are in a bit of detail. There will be a three-year review, following the passage of the legislation on 8 November 2021. It is important to understand that, normally, a Government do not review legislation before five years. She knows because she spoke in the debate—I read her comments in the debate on the regulations, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) responded, fairly late at night on 8 November—that the legislation arose out of covid. It was a decision made in the circumstances to address the HGV driver shortage. It is accepted that there is a need for a review—that was written in.
The reason that this debate is particularly apposite is simply that the process has begun. This debate and the hon. Lady’s comments bring force to the particular points. I want to assure her that she, her APPG, the individual families and the very worthy organisations that have assisted her will have an opportunity to make representations. They can be made in two ways. They can be written representations to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. With all matters government, the Government are responsible for everything. However, in this particular case, she knows that it is an arm’s length body, the DVSA, which runs the process. I have two officials in the Box today who are in charge of that process and I spoke to them beforehand. We most definitely can assure her and interested parties that evidence can be submitted in writing or in person. We are very happy for the DVSA to sit down with her APPG in the summer months, when we return to the House, and listen and take on representations by any individual in any way. If that needs to be done by way of a personal visit, we will do our best to accommodate that in the usual way without necessarily going all over the country, as she will understand.
My point is that we acknowledge and accept that a review needs to be done. I want to stress that all options are available to that review. Often, Ministers respond to that by saying, “Well, I can’t comment on the process of the review.” To a certain extent, I am a bit limited in how I can approach it. Self-evidently, a Minister, whether before or after the general election, will have to make a decision on the recommendation of the DVSA, but a review will unquestionably take place. I have made it very clear to the DVSA that that will need to be published within three years of the date of the passage of the legislation, which as I understand it is 8 November. That is the timeframe. This is the evidence-gathering period. With respect, I hope that is the key point that arises.
Turning to a few particular points arising from the debate, it is not always that case that APPGs have such a close relationship with an arm’s length body which is not part of the Government but also slightly part of Government. What is very clear is that the DVSA and the hon. Lady’s APPG have a very close relationship. I read its submission on 27 February, by way of a written update, to the APPG. It is pretty detailed. I know that they met last year. I would like to think that that will continue apace.
The hon. Lady went through the history in quite a lot of detail. It is obviously the case that in 2018 we made it an offence to tow an unroadworthy trailer and strengthened the penalties. There are roadside vehicle checks to monitor compliance. I attempted to find out exactly how many people are doing the checks on an ongoing basis. I cannot give a definitive day-by-day figure, but it is clearly a significant number of people. I will ensure that, as part of the review, that is set out in detail, because it is right and proper that the public know that a taxpayer-funded, arm’s length body is spending an appropriate amount of time doing those checks. I have read the submission made in detail to the APPG in February. I stand by every part of that, and I do not think that there is any point I would wish to amplify. On the most recent statistics, the timing is not brilliant because the 2023-24 trailer safety survey, with the enforcement stats, effectively concludes on 31 March. We will know the annual figure at the end of this month, but it will be available and appropriate for the review.
On the reasons behind the removal of the B test, it is unquestionably the case that that was one of the 33 measures put in place to address the heavy goods vehicle driver shortage. The Department for Transport and the arm’s length body are considering a number of different actions as a result of what was, quite clearly, a fairly speedy piece of legislation to address a moment of great critical importance.
The hon. Lady is clearly aware of the change and what it allowed, and of the industry-led accredited training scheme, so I will not repeat what she has already said in her speech. As she rightly pointed out, the take-up of the training has not been as we would have liked it to be, and that obviously needs to be addressed. The DVSA is committed to supporting the scheme by seeking further opportunities to promote the accredited training route—increasing awareness of the benefits of doing so, sending clear messages about the importance of safety, and generally doing everything possible in a host of ways, ranging from social media to instructions to organisations —in order to enhance and increase both training uptake and safe towing practices.
The hon. Lady is also aware of the two surveys that have been conducted, the first in February 2023 and the second in June of that year. The DVSA engaged in extensive work with the Trailer Training Advisory Group to devise the questions and topics for the second survey, and to consider the results. It received 1,000 responses—a significant number—and promoted its findings during the National Trailer and Towing Association’s Trailer Safety Week in June 2023.
The hon. Lady rightly spoke of the efforts that will be necessary in the future. Following the accumulation of evidence, the DVSA has identified target groups for the purpose of its communications, with leisure users the main target audience for the current year. As we approach the towing season, it will engage the caravan and leisure industry; indeed, that process has already begun, because Easter is not far away.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the Minister for his diligence and his respect for this issue, and for examining the history behind it. I look forward to working with him further and taking up his offer to follow it through with his officials. I am glad that that is in train, and that a bit more light is being shone on the issue. I think that this will give some reassurance to people following the debate, and I look forward to being part of it.
Guy Opperman
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I want to emphasise that this is a constructive process. It is in all our interests to ensure that it has the assurance and understanding of the House, and that the appropriate balance is struck between legislation and any freedoms that may or may not be enjoyed.
Let me say a little about the extent of the instruction and advice. The DVSA will explore ways of targeting people at various points in the towing journey—I do not think that that is quite how it should have been phrased—including the point of sale of a trailer or caravan, whether it is new or second-hand; obviously acquisition is a key factor. There will be interventions at various stages of journeys and at destinations. The purpose is to ensure that safety considerations are at the forefront of drivers’ minds at crucial points in their journeys.
We have the opportunity this year to address these issues and to reach a view on what is the appropriate way forward, but I believe that the appropriate way forward is for the independent arm’s length body to go away and do its work, taking on as much evidence as it sees fit but starting with an open mind, looking at all aspects of the process. That will include safety, and all the benefits and burdens stemming from the legislation that I mentioned earlier. I commit myself to building on the progress that has been made, but also to continuing to examine the policy closely, gathering the data and ensuring that messages are communicated effectively to reach the right audience.
I thank the hon. Lady again for initiating the debate. I endorse her comments on previous occupants of my post who have worked constructively with her and with the all-party parliamentary group, and I commend this debate to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Guy Opperman Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
The Government continue to provide unprecedented investment into buses. Since the pandemic, we have announced more than £4.5 billion of support for bus services in England outside London, including £1 billion recently reallocated from HS2 to improve services in the north and the midlands through Network North. Bus passenger journeys in England increased by 19% to 3.4 billion in the year ending March 2023, and we are seeing patronage increase in some areas.
Kerry McCarthy
It has been three years since the Government published their national bus strategy, but we are still waiting for the promised guidance on what constitutes “socially and economically necessary” bus services for which local authorities can provide subsidies. While we wait, people in Stapleton, in my constituency, are having to walk a mile to get to a bus stop to catch a bus to the city centre, because First Bus says it is not commercially profitable to run a service through Stapleton and there is no money to subsidise it. Last July, a Minister told me that guidance would be issued in this Parliament, which is clearly close to coming to an end. When will we see that guidance?
Guy Opperman
We particularly want to try to assist the hon. Lady and her local authority with the finances. The West of England combined authority receives £1.1 million every year through the bus service operators grant to subsidise socially necessary bus services. It has also been allocated in excess of £1.2 billion in city region sustainable transport settlements 1 and 2 to deliver transport infrastructure, which includes the bus infrastructure the hon. Lady requires.
Richard Foord
As a regular bus user myself, I recognise it when people in rural Devon tell me that some buses fail to appear, meaning they miss connections with trains as a result. The services are well used by college students. Unreliable bus services not only affect the productivity of the college students, but of their parents who are then called upon to help the students make the journey to college, curtailing their working day. What can the Government do to encourage better co-ordination between rail and buses to get students to college on time?
Guy Opperman
That depends on funding, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware because I raised it with him in his Adjournment debate on 19 December. Devon County Council has been awarded £17.4 million to deliver its bus service improvement plan, but there should be better integration between the providers, the local authority and the rail companies.
Fabian Hamilton
Our bus services in Leeds have been unreliable for years, and yet the Leeds City Council Conservative group wanted more of the same and hoped the problem would just go away. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Labour’s West Yorkshire Mayor, Tracy Brabin, on taking the significant decision to bring our buses back into public control, so they can once again be run for people and not for profit?
Guy Opperman
I had the dubious honour of being praised as the hon. Gentleman’s favourite MP earlier this week—damned by faint praise. I would gently push back that the West Yorkshire Mayor is able to do that only because this Government have provided unprecedented funding of in excess of £2.1 billion in the devolved settlement under the city region sustainable transport settlement.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Southend welcomes the £1 million of bus service improvement plan funding that has already enabled Conservative cabinet member Kevin Buck to reinstate the much-loved 25A route, but we need more. Will the Minister commit to come to my high-level bus summit on Monday, to listen to residents and see what more we can do?
Guy Opperman
In the time-honoured tradition, I can only say yes to my hon. Friend. She is a doughty champion for Southend. I would be delighted to attend her bus summit, to speak to the relevant councillors and to explain how the bus service improvement plan and the bus service operators’ grant funding is transforming local bus provision.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Never mess with busy mums and dads, not least because I am one and I know that the Minister is as well. Parents in Arlingham, Frampton, Elmore and Longney are really struggling with rural school bus transport. This is not all about money; it is about reliability, safety and fairness. Indeed, they feel that their children are discriminated against versus what children in towns and cities receive. Gloucestershire County Council is doing a lot. It is stretching itself, but we are really struggling to find solutions. Will the Minister meet me and Councillor Stephen Davies to see whether we can find solutions for our parents in the communities?
Guy Opperman
I would be delighted to do so. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend is standing up for her local community in this way. Clearly, it is a question of integrating the particular services, whether they are local or school provision, but it is definitely something that we can sort.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
It was good to meet my hon. Friend the Minister and the residents of Fishburn in the Sedgefield constituency recently; and he then followed up with Arriva. Will he endorse my campaign to reconnect Fishburn, Trimdon and Sedgefield back with Newton Aycliffe and Darlington, which were cut off by the removal of the X21? Does he also agree that rural services to places such as these are the critical platform to enable opportunity to be spread and a key reason for the BSIP funding?
Guy Opperman
It was a pleasure to attend the meeting at Fishburn Community Hall, meet the local residents and councillors, be offered a pancake on Shrove Tuesday and discuss bus services and bus funding. I have to say that there is no doubt whatever that the improvement of the X21, in particular taking residents and workers into Newton Aycliffe and Darlington, seems to be utterly sensible, and I will continue to support my hon. Friend’s campaign and meet again with Arriva to ensure that it happens for the people of Fishburn and Trimdon.
Guy Opperman
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I was at the launch of the said report and have read it. He will be aware that, for example, one reason for the complications is that the number of people working from home has increased by 40%. We have a plan to tackle that with the record investment that is being made to Mayors. He talks about franchising, but it is also the case, without a shadow of a doubt, that he does not have a plan to finance it, particularly for rural local authorities. What is the case is that, when Labour organisations are challenged on this, they struggle to find out how they will deal with the funding. The truth is that there is no plan and they are not putting forward any funding. Individual people who attended that event were genuinely in shock at the shadow Secretary of State’s suggestion that Labour was going to do this, but was unsure about how it would fund it.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
This Government are investing more than any other in active travel. Around £15 million has been provided to Newcastle upon Tyne since 2020-21 to deliver high-quality infrastructure. That is supported by over £2 million of funding to Transport North East to improve capability across the region. Active Travel England supports local authorities in delivering maximum value for money by ensuring that schemes comply with the relevant guidance, and councils receive tailored support from the Government.
Chi Onwurah
Walking and cycling prevent 1,500 serious long-term health conditions on Tyneside every year, according to the walking and cycling index, and they bring in £400 million in economic benefits, so it is no wonder that half of Tynesiders want to walk or wheel more, and that two fifths want to cycle more, but if they are to do that, the streets need to be made safer. What is the Minister doing, apart from undermining low traffic neighbourhoods, to make our streets safer for walking, wheeling and cycling?
Guy Opperman
With great respect to the hon. Lady, she knows full well that her council attempted to have an active travel scheme in Jesmond, and it so messed it up that it had to scrap the scheme. The LTN was scrapped, and there were 23,000 objections and a considerable waste of money. With due respect, active travel is doing a great job, and we support it, but councils have to take local communities with them.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
That is a matter for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. I will take it up with the Department and make sure that it writes to the hon. Lady.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend is right in his estimation of the dates. A decision will be made in a matter of months, and certainly by the summer. I am very happy to sit down and have a discussion. I will be visiting the site very shortly.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
People across Chesterfield were delighted when the long-standing campaign for the Staveley regeneration route was given the thumbs up by the Government, but were then sent into despair when Derbyshire County Council said it did not have the funds to provide its small contribution towards it. Will the Secretary of State update us on whether it will be delivered? What concerns does he have about the fact that the poverty of local government sometimes gets in the way of money that his Department has allocated?
Guy Opperman
I have looked into this particular scheme and met other colleagues in the House about it. I will write to the hon. Gentleman in detail. I am sure we can continue with the project.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
My constituents and businesses face an additional tax to cross the River Tamar to our main city and beyond. Taking over such key pieces of infrastructure and funding them through tax measures which they already pay would create a level economic playing field and help level up my part of the country. Will the Minister at least give a contribution towards the maintenance of these facilities, so this tax does not go up again?
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend raised this issue with the Prime Minister only yesterday; she is a fantastic campaigner on issues relating to the Tamar bridge. I accept entirely that the Tamar Bridge and Torpoint Ferry joint committee has recently looked at the situation. An application is being considered by the Transport Secretary, and I am happy to meet her again to discuss it further.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Secretary of State aware that the UK used to be one of the safest countries in the world, along with Sweden, in terms of road accidents? He has campaigned with the Prime Minister to help the driver, but drivers are killing more vulnerable road users and passengers than for a very long time. Is it not time that this Government took road safety and the health and welfare of pedestrians and vulnerable road users more seriously?
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
The A338/A346, which runs north-south through Marlborough, is regularly choked nose to tail with heavy goods traffic. The villages of the Ogbournes and the Collingbournes are particularly affected, including Collingbourne Ducis, where a little girl was killed three years ago by a heavy goods vehicle. That traffic should really be on the A34 and the A36 to the east and the west. We have been waiting many months now for the results of the north-south connectivity review. Will the Minister tell us when that will happen, so that we can have a better system for managing heavy goods traffic through Wiltshire?
Guy Opperman
As my hon. Friend knows, I grew up in Wexcombe and I know that particular area of Collingbourne very well. I pass on my condolences to the individual family. He knows that there are powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I will write to him in detail with the powers that local authorities have to address that particular point. On the specifics of the review, that will be contained in road investment strategy 3, which will be published very shortly.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I listened to the Minister’s response earlier, on why Avanti should continue to provide rail services. It sounded like he was reading from one of its press releases. The litany of excuses was very long, blaming everyone but itself. When will he listen to the leaders of the north? When will he listen to the people of the north and get rid of Avanti?
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
My Highways Act 1980 (Amendment) Bill, which is due to have its Second Reading tomorrow, would make it easier for motorists to make claims against local authorities for damage caused to their cars by neglect of road maintenance and by potholes. Why are the Government not supporting my Bill?
Guy Opperman
I shall be the duty Minister tomorrow, and I look forward to dealing with this matter.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Government have been promising action on pavement parking for a decade, but despite a consultation in 2020, we are still no further forward. Will the Minister finally listen to disabled people, parents, children and local councils who overwhelmingly support a ban, and act to curb this dangerous problem?
Guy Opperman
That particular issue is on my desk, and we are considering it at present. I can assure the hon. Lady that the results of the consultation will be published in the summer.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
For nearly half a century the people of Romford, and those of wider Essex and east London, have been waiting for the Gallows Corner A12/A127 junction to be reconstructed. Is it not time we had some investment for the people of Romford? It seems to go everywhere else; let us have some in the London borough of Havering, please.
Guy Opperman
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are passionately committed to improving the A12. Only recently it was the subject of litigation brought by one individual. I will happily sit down with my hon. Friend, who for many a year has been a doughty campaigner for Romford. I entirely agree with him that this needs to be addressed.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
Sadly, Marks & Spencer announced yesterday that it would be closing its store in Doncaster, but would be expanding its operation to a retail outlet where there is free parking. Will the Secretary of State come to Doncaster to see how poor planning in connection with pedestrianisation, cycle lanes and expensive parking is driving customers out of Doncaster and turning my city into a ghost town? Hopefully, with his help we can reverse this trend.
Guy Opperman
I was delighted to visit my hon. Friend recently, engage with him and deal with the individual points that he raised, but I would be happy to sit down and talk to him again. It seems to me that there is a way forward with buses and other forms of transport to help local residents to travel to the shopping centre that he has mentioned: surely the integrated, multimodal approach is the way ahead.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Following many conversations and much engagement, the Secretary of State and the Ministers are well aware that companies in the railway rolling stock supply chain, such as Hitachi Newton Aycliffe, face significant short-term challenges. Next year we will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the first passenger railway in the world, which runs past a Hitachi factory. Can the Secretary of State update me on what he is doing to ensure that companies such as Hitachi have a long-term future in the UK to build the next generation of north-east trains?
Pavement Parking
Guy Opperman Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who is my constituency neighbour, on securing this Adjournment debate on what is genuinely a very important issue—I do not diminish it in any way whatsoever. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) has also previously raised this matter in the House. I have had my brief for about 100 days, and have taken the trouble to read transcripts of the previous debates.
I am also acutely conscious that a vast amount of evidence has been provided by a large number of organisations. Like the hon. Lady, I have met Guide Dogs UK, and I know that this is a very serious issue that affects individuals up and down the country in a genuine and serious way, including people who are disabled, those who have children, those with prams and buggies, those who are walking their dog and those who are engaging in active travel, for which I am also the Minister. We have increased the budget for encouraging active travel by 10, and we are trying to persuade people to get behind it, so I do not want to diminish the importance of this issue in any way. I acknowledge that it is very serious.
As the hon. Member for Blaydon knows and has previously outlined, there has been a total ban on pavement parking in London since 1974. However, to be fair, successive Governments of different political persuasions have decided since 1974 that there should not be a nationwide ban. That is partly because London is clearly a different environment from other parts of the country, particularly in terms of rurality. However, she will also be aware—I am repeating things that both she and the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton know—that there are traffic regulation orders, as well as prescribed traffic signs and bay markings.
To give some context, the Transport Select Committee’s report in September 2019 was highly detailed and took huge amounts of evidence, and to a certain extent triggered the Government to respond. That Committee sought reform of the TRO process, a change in the legislation governing the enforceable offences of obstructive pavement parking—as I will deal with later, that legislation is not simple by any stretch of the imagination—and consideration of a nationwide ban in some shape or form.
As a result, and following consideration and, rightly, extensive debate in the House on an ongoing basis, there was the consultation. As the hon. Member for Blaydon says, 15,000 people responding to a Government consultation is probably more than any other that I am aware of—certainly in the transport space. When I was the Employment Minister, I was not aware of such detailed consultations. Clearly, there are some that do generate more than that, but this was not just on the three main points, because bear in mind that there were 15,000 responses on 15 different issues. That produced, as she rightly outlined, thousands of pieces of individual feedback, all of which need to be read and analysed. An awful lot of different Departments need to consider different matters, and local authorities are utterly key to that, as is the Department for Transport and the like.
I want to make the point that we understand the issues, and if we did not understand them before the consultation, we most definitely do now. There are obviously inherent dangers for all pedestrians, and the hon. Lady rightly identified the particular situations for her constituents, for whom I have genuine sympathy. However, it must be recognised that many towns and cities—as was clearly set out in the Transport Committee report and the consultation the Government undertook—are not designed to accommodate today’s traffic levels, and in some locations the pavement is the only place to park without obstructing the carriageway, not least because there needs to be a free flow of traffic for the emergency services, which is a factor that the Government have to consider.
Liz Twist
I understand that issue, and I understand that one of the proposals is to have a blanket ban, but allow opt-outs in particular circumstances. That is clearly necessary, and I do not think anyone is arguing that there are not circumstances in which that would be the case. However, this is sounding as though we are not getting to a conclusion and that we are not going to have a decision on this issue, because it is too difficult. Is that right?
Guy Opperman
No, I think that is a slightly unfair, with great respect. I endorse entirely the comments of my noble Friend Lord Davies of Gower, who responded to that specific point in the House of Lords very recently. He specifically said that the Government were coming to a conclusion very soon. I have unquestionably become aware of that since having taken up this post, and it will unquestionably be decided in the very near future. I do not want the hon. Lady to walk away from this debate thinking that this is not under consideration.
As the hon. Lady knows, existing legislation allows local authorities to introduce traffic regulation orders to manage traffic. Examples are one-way streets or banned turns, and the TROs also allow local authorities the freedom to decide if and how they wish to restrict pavement parking in their local area. However, we acknowledge—and the consultation clearly shows—that the process of making a TRO can be time-consuming and burdensome for local authorities, and it is clear that that requires reform. What reform looks like is not simple, but we unquestionably feel there is a capability to do that. There is also scope to reduce the cost of this process, because there is undoubtedly a lot bureaucracy and time that goes with it. If one could introduce a digitised, non-paper-based system, that would speed up applications and clearly make communication better. There is a clause to make that change in the Automated Vehicles Bill, which is going through the House and had its Second Reading earlier this week, and that will make it quicker and cheaper for local authorities to implement TROs.
The second recommendation was about unnecessary obstruction of the road. There are already some criminal offences in this space, and we are looking at how we amend the regulations to make unnecessary obstruction of the pavement enforceable by local authorities, while leaving obstruction of the carriageway, rightly, as a criminal matter. This would label civil enforcement officers to address instances of unnecessarily obstructive pavement parking, as and when they find it. The enforcement of these offences would be more targeted than for a general prohibition of pavement parking.
Afzal Khan
The Minister has accepted that we have laws in London but not in the rest of the country. Would it not be consistent to have the same law across the board? After all, London is not the only important city. Cities such as Manchester or Birmingham are also important.
Guy Opperman
This option has challenges. Parking offences currently subject to local authority civil enforcement are violations of clearly defined restrictions indicated by traffic signs and road markings. By contrast, unnecessary obstruction that could not be indicated by traffic signs or bay marking as an obstruction is a general offence, which may occur anywhere. That is difficult to define and will require case-by-case assessment. The Department will likely need to issue very specific guidance to steer local authorities on what might be deemed unnecessary obstruction in order to prevent inappropriate and inconsistent enforcement.
The third option is a national prohibition. That is being considered, but there was considerable pushback against it in certain circumstances. As the hon. Member for Blaydon outlined, one would have to assess how it would possible in circumstances where there are significant and large local authorities, particularly rural ones, which would struggle to make the specific decisions on exemptions. However, we are looking at that particular situation to make a decision on where pavement parking would be necessary. A local authority would have to limit the necessary exemptions, and install traffic signs and bay marking to indicate all the places where pavement parking was to be permitted. That would be extremely difficult, particularly in rural areas. However, it is not by any stretch impossible.
Consideration also needs to be given to whether a ban would be disproportionate. I mentioned the rurality issue, but I want to finish on one key point. One can talk about the relative merits or otherwise of local government, and whether the London approach is the panacea that we all seek to say it is, but this is ultimately about the personal responsibility of the vehicle owner. I really want to ram home the point that, as is set out in the gospel, “do unto others as you would have done to yourself.”
Guy Opperman
I will not take a further intervention. It is unquestionably the case that we need to send a strong message to the drivers of this country that it is incumbent upon them to park responsibly, to look after their neighbour, and to be conscious of the wider impacts of their decision to own a car, so that in their street and community, they are accommodating the people who are struggling.
Question put and agreed to.
A379 Slapton Line
Guy Opperman Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Mr Paisley, and it is an honour and privilege to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), to discuss part of the heritage of south Devon and of this great country. He rightly set out the long and illustrious career of that community and surrounding area, which is particularly noted for its role in the preparation for D-day, 6 June 1944. As is set out on the memorial, without the actions of that community and countryside, we would have been impeded in our ability to invade France and take forward the changes we managed to achieve in 1945.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter forward, and I hope I can address some of the important points he raised. It is clear to everybody who has read up on this issue that he has fought assiduously—in the footsteps of our good friend Sarah Wollaston—to drive forward progress in difficult circumstances, and I give him due credit for that.
The debate not only matters to constituents in Slapton or Torcross but has a wider impact on Stokenham, Frittiscombe, Strete, visitors to Slapton Ley, and all the communities up and down the coast that use this road. I accept and understand that the issue has a wider importance than simply the stretch of road we are talking about, given the geography and the ongoing difficulties involved. I express my sympathy for those affected, given the ongoing concern and worry that this issue causes. As any Member of Parliament knows, such an ongoing worry—whether about flood risk, complications for development or the potential loss of a road—is a serious and legitimate thing. People get very exercised about such things, and we should in no way underestimate that—I certainly do not.
I have been lucky enough to read the Slapton Line Partnership November 2023 strategy, which goes to 25 pages and is a credit to everybody who brought it forward. I have also tried to look at the considerations, and there is a relevant factor with which I want to try to assist my hon. Friend and the local community. That document was created on 3 November 2023 after many months of work. Subsequently, on 27 November 2023, Devon County Council received £6.63 million of further funding after the HS2 decision taken by the Prime Minister in early October 2023—the cancellation of the second leg allowed extra funding to go to local authorities up and down the country. That has consequences when one assesses the financial capability of the local authority, and I will come to that in a bit. Clearly, the Slapton Line Partnership wrote the strategy before it knew that further funding was coming to Devon County Council. Given that further funding, I respectfully suggest that the document should be refreshed.
My hon. Friend kindly asked me to visit, and I would be delighted to accept. It is legitimate for a Minister to sit down with the local authority and the interested parties—there has been support from arm’s length bodies, whether that is the EA or Natural England—and drive forward a compromise solution that gives security and peace of mind to the local communities my hon. Friend so ably represents. Surely, that is in everybody’s interests. We are not talking about what the policy will be in 100 years, but people do need to know what it will be in the next two, five and 10 years. That is totally legitimate and understandable.
Different Administrations have made serious interventions dating back to 2018, when the then Transport Secretary gave £2.5 million to support the local authority’s works after Storm Emma. There was an adaptation manager, and other work was done, ultimately producing the Slapton Line Partnership strategy. However, that strategy has to take into account local people, and I would be concerned if local communities felt in any way that the impact on them was not considered over and above the statutory and arm’s length bodies—that would be of concern to any Member of Parliament, let alone any Minister. This issue is a classic example of the difficulties of combatting climate change and coastal erosion, and of addressing people’s modern-day needs to get their children to school and to get out and about across the rural community, but I have no doubt that there is a middle ground where the situation can be to the satisfaction of all.
It is right that I set out the statutory position. Under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980, the local authority has a duty to maintain the highways network in its area. Importantly, the Act does not set out specific standards of maintenance, as it is for each highways authority to assess which parts of its network need repair and what standards should be applied, based on its local knowledge and the circumstances that apply.
Clearly, a key matter in all of that is funding. Devon County Council receives significant funding—in fact, more highway maintenance funding per capita than any local authority—to reflect the fact that it is responsible for more miles of local roads than any other authority, including my own in Northumberland. There is a variety of ways in which that funding is provided. There is the original highways maintenance block grant. Budget 2023—we are now on Budget day 2024—announced a further £9.39 million. And there is the £6.63 million, which was announced in the late autumn, or early winter, last year. That means that the total budget from the Department for Transport for highways maintenance was £68.88 million in 2023-24.
That matters, because it is a 30% increase on the sums from last year. That is a massive increase in any business or local authority funding, and it clearly makes a difference. By way of context, if I go back to 2009-10, total funding was £27 million; we are now up £68 million. That is a massive increase in budget, and it has come about under this Government. That allows funding to be spent on the local highways maintenance priorities that matter most to local people.
Clearly, the views of arm’s length bodies matter—they are very important—but it is also about what local people want, as personified by their local parish council, their county council and their individual Members of Parliament. That unquestionably includes potential roads that are under threat, such as the Slapton line. I genuinely hope that Devon County Council, my hon. Friend, the local community and the partnership will go away and reflect on the increase in funding. I hope they will have a proper sit-down—I am very happy to facilitate as a Minister, if I am able to find the time in the diary—and a genuine discussion about what the local community wants, how there can be ongoing preservation of the Slapton line and how we can have a long-term, practical policy that everyone can get behind and that provides peace of mind over the next two, five and 10 years, with an acceptance that things may be different over a much longer period. That is surely a practical and pragmatic approach that we can all get behind, and I hope it will provide assistance and comfort to my hon. Friend and his constituents.
Clearly, it is for Devon county councillors to spend the money as they see fit once it is given to them, because they are the elected representatives. In relation to the HS2 money, I want to be utterly clear that the £6.63 million is not ringfenced—it is not prescribed solely for potholes or whatever. It can be spent on any capital project or programme, but highways maintenance is particularly prayed in aid in support of that announcement.
To conclude, it is an honour and a privilege to respond to my hon. Friend and to address a part of the nation’s heritage, and I will be looking forward to visiting when diaries permit. I am certain that there is a way forward that will maintain and continue this line in the near future.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
Thank you, Minister. I am sure the hon. Member for Totnes appreciates the opportunity for a meeting and a collective visit to the area by the entire Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords]
Guy Opperman ExcerptsWednesday 28th February 2024
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Pedicabs (London) Act 2024 View all Pedicabs (London) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 35-I Marshalled list for Report - (26 Jan 2024)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a pleasure and a privilege to move the motion on Second Reading for this Bill, which tackles an issue that has plagued London’s roads for far too long. Without a shadow of a doubt, the Bill has a long and chequered history in getting to this stage, and legislators have been calling for legislation on the issue for over 20 years. It is unquestionably the case that in 2011 the Law Commission commenced its 11th programme of law reform, which included a review of the legal framework relating to this space. That was published on 23 May 2014, and it recommended bringing pedicabs within the scope of taxi and private hire regulation.
Successive Mayors, including the present Mayor, have supported regulation in this space. The previous Mayor of London, Mr Boris Johnson, called in 2012 for Transport for London to have the power to remove pedicabs that do not meet rigorous safety and licensing standards. An independent task and finish group on taxi and private hire vehicle licensing was subsequently commissioned by the Government in September 2017.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The Minister is making a very good point about the cross-party support from both a Labour Mayor and a Conservative Mayor. Does he agree that it is important to recognise that the pedicab industry has also called for proper regulation? The London Pedicab Operators Association wrote to me to say that it is
“in accord with the universal view that pedicabs must be fairly and appropriately regulated fast.”
Does the Minister agree that it is important to do it now?
Guy Opperman
Anyone who has seen this particular problem on the streets of London will accept that there is clear public demand for pedicabs and that there are organisations that want to have regulated, safe pedicabs on the streets of London. My hon. Friend is right to say that the industry wishes to be regulated so that the good actors can be supported, so that people can have trust in this industry, although it is small, and so that the rogue actors—I will come on to them in a bit more detail—are not only discouraged but prevented from operating in this way.
We have to be blunt about some of the particular examples, and this has a significant and real impact on the tourist industry in this country, on women’s health in particular—but also that of general members of the public—and on the potential commission of crime. Some of the worst examples include a tourist charged more than £450 for a seven-minute, 1.3 mile journey with their two children, another charged £500 for a 10-minute journey between Mayfair and Soho, and one hit with a £180 bill for a three-minute journey—fortunately on that occasion the driver was ordered to return the money by local police and Westminster City Council.
The truth is that the task and finish group has been seeking a space for a safe and responsible pedicab trade. The quote that is set out in the House of Commons guidance says that
“there has been much justified criticism in recent years of rogue pedicab operators taking advantage of tourists with excessive charges and absence of safety checks”,
and it goes on:
“It is not acceptable that Transport for London is unable to regulate pedicabs to ensure a safe service; the Government announced in 2016 that it would rectify this, and the legislation should be brought forward as soon as possible.”
That was said in 2018. Subsequently, in 2019, the Government made it crystal clear that they supported the Bill.
There have been various attempts to bring this matter forward and—let us be blunt—this is a thin Bill dealing with a niche issue, but it is something that genuinely does matter. Such issues are traditionally often handled by way of a private Member’s Bill, and various colleagues have tried to bring this matter forward by way of a private Member’s Bill, starting with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully).
Paul Scully
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and he is, as ever, making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the Mayor, the councils, residents, businesses, Parliament—largely—and the pedicab industry itself agree with simply changing a 19th-century legislative anomaly in order for the only form of public transport in London that is not regulated to come under that banner? Does he agree that this could and should have been done years ago, and that it should be done easily now?
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend will know that pedicabs are effectively stage carriages under the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869—with which we are all deeply familiar, I am quite sure. That means they are the only unregulated form of public transport operating on London’s roads. He is right to highlight that this has cross-party support across London, as well as support from a variety of Mayors and local authorities. It has the support of the business industry and those who want to be part of a regulated pedicab industry. Tourists visiting London who step into a pedicab should not, I believe, face the risk of an inappropriate fare, an unlicensed driver who has had no background checks, and a vehicle with potentially no safety standards—sadly, that is fairly regularly the case.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Would we not have had a regulatory regime had the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association not been campaigning openly and publicly for banning pedicabs altogether, rather than regulating them?
Guy Opperman
I say with real, genuine respect for my hon. Friend—I was his Whip for a while—who clearly has strong views on these matters, that although the London taxi drivers may have a view, having unregulated providers on the streets of London who are clearly, in some sad cases, abusing tourists and having a very bad reputation—ripping people off to the tune of £500 for a couple of minutes’ journey—does not give a good image of London. There have been attempts under successive Governments to tackle this issue by way of private Members’ Bills, which is often how small legislation is often dealt with in this place. The taxi drivers do not have anything fundamentally to fear from a regulated pedicab industry, because regulated pedicabs exist in other cities, and it is not the case that anybody is trying to take away unfair competition. The taxi drivers have been regulated in a perfectly appropriate way by successive Governments on a cross-party basis, and we want them to thrive and exist and provide the services they do to Londoners and tourists alike.
Sir Christopher Chope
Is the Minister aware that at a meeting with licensed taxi drivers at City Hall on 17 January 2004 Bob Oddy referred to a video produced by the LTDA, “Ban Don’t License”, and the LTDA was campaigning not for registration of pedicabs but for a complete ban? Will the Government commit to ensuring pedicabs are not regulated out of existence?
Guy Opperman
There is quite a lot to unpick from that question on events of 20 years ago, but I will do my best.
First, the Government do not want to regulate any particular part of the sector out of existence, and, in fact, pedicabs exist elsewhere. Secondly, I am absolutely confident that we can have a situation in which people are charged an appropriate fee for what is a physical activity—charging for cycling someone around the flattish streets of London is fairly simple stuff—and pedicab operators get a proper return for their endeavours while making sure the cost is not £500 for five minutes. It is perfectly possible for us to create a proper market where there are safety checks in the usual way without pedicabs no longer being in existence.
The point is answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken): as she rightly points out, a number of pedicab operators want to get rid of the bad actors so they can thrive. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that—there really is not. There is space in the great city of London for the black cab industry, the private motor vehicle industry in the form of private hire, and pedicabs; all three can and should co-exist, along with all the buses, the tube and the like.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with the Minister about the mixture of transport modes we enjoy in London—and people should also be able to enjoy that across the rest of the nation. Bringing us forward to the last few years as opposed to 2004, when I chaired a transport committee on the London Assembly in 2017 we looked at accessibility and ensuring access to different transport modes in the capital. Does the Minister agree that by bringing forward this legislation and helping Transport for London to set the regulation, we will have licensed pedicabs with clear operators, allowing for a licence duration, fees, suspension and clear charging, which will help pedicabs add to the mix of transport modes in London?
Guy Opperman
It is hard to disagree with those points, but I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has concerns and I want to try to try to address some of his points. This is not something that just one side of the House is seeking; all parts of the House are seeking it, as have successive Mayors, including Mr Boris Johnson, late of this parish, who enthusiastically supported it.
I accept entirely that some may have concerns about Transport for London not being part of the Government as such, but successive Mayors of different political persuasions have been happy for TfL to run this appropriate regulation. The hon. Lady touches on a variety of points, but clearly there are other issues, such as noise, the persistent and ongoing blocking of footpaths—which unquestionably has significant issues for accessibility—and the general causing of nuisance. Without a shadow of a doubt, there are plentiful examples to show why this measure has been called for on a repeat basis and why the Government should act in this space.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am not against this Bill, but I would like some general reassurance from the Minister. I am not the sort of Conservative who believes in more regulation, particularly when it comes to young entrepreneurs providing a fairly simple service for tourists. Can he assure me that, when this regulation comes into force, it will be light touch and not onerous, so that we do not kill this young and perfectly acceptable industry? I am perfectly happy to be reassured; I just want the Minister to do that for me.
Guy Opperman
The answer is yes and yes. The key point is that, as this is a totally unregulated market, it is hard to be precise as to how many people are providing this service on a daily or weekly basis. In London, it is in the several hundreds, rather than the thousands. Those who wish to take this industry seriously and do things properly unquestionably feel that they can run a young entrepreneurial business with a proper reputation and the right amount of enthusiasm and aspiration in a truly Conservative way, and also provide a safe service in which tourists can have confidence. I genuinely believe that that is the case. If it matters that there is a strong recommendation that the measures will be appropriate, but light touch, I am happy to provide that from this Dispatch Box.
I have gone on for longer than I intended, but I genuinely believe that the Bill will ensure that the pedicab industry is respectable, safe and regulated in an appropriate fashion, and that it brings the same accountability to this industry that we rightly expect in a great capital city that is, rightly, a tourist hotspot, and we wish to continue to support that. The Bill is supported by Londoners, councillors and Members of Parliament, and there is no question but that I am happy to commend it to the House.
Sir Christopher Chope
I will not be drawn into the Lambeth-Wandsworth comparison. When I was the leader of Wandsworth council, we helped secure the lowest council taxes in London, while Lambeth had among the highest. The hon. Lady would be well advised to keep away from the efficiency or otherwise of Lambeth Council.
Let me revert to the subject matter this afternoon. Roger Geffen’s briefing has drawn attention to the definition of pedicab in clause 1(2), which is:
‘“pedicab” means a pedal cycle, or a pedal cycle in combination with a trailer, that is constructed or adapted for carrying one or more passengers and is made available with a driver for hire or reward’.
The point made by Cycling UK is that a pedal cycle may be used for the delivery of goods, so why should it be controlled under the provisions in the Bill? It may be used by somebody not plying for hire, but taking a passenger in a pedicab as a result of a hire agreement entered into not from a public highway but as a private agreement. For example, hotels and hospitality centres in London may wish to use the services of pedicabs as a privilege for their customers, so they can visit the west end and not have to struggle on public transport, while, at the same time, enjoying the fun of travelling by pedicab. Why should pedicabs in that situation be outlawed under the definition in the Bill? That is a concern. Coupled with that is the concern expressed that the plying for hire of pedicabs is too broadly drafted, because it excludes private hire but would not exclude private hire, on a definition in the Bill, relating to pedicabs exclusively. That is the detail relating to clause 5.
I hope my hon. Friend the Minister has looked at the briefing from Cycling UK, because it is very balanced and well argued. It reinforces the point made at the beginning of the debate:
“Cycling UK and the London Pedicab Operators’ Association (LPOA) has been calling for such a framework for over 20 years. Had it been put in place, the ‘wild west’ situation which now exists in London could have been averted. However, it needs to be clear that the regulatory framework’s objectives are to support a safe and responsible pedicab sector, and not potentially to kill it off... The Bill as drafted contains no safeguards to assure us on this point.”
If my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster can provide the safeguards that will be contained in the Bill but are not in it at the moment, I am happy to give way. [Interruption.] I thought she wanted to intervene, but obviously she does not want to draw attention to the safeguards that Cycling UK, which she prayed in aid as a supporter earlier on, says are missing from the Bill. My hon. Friend seems to be asserting that they are in the current Bill. If that is the situation, I would like to see where they are. I would not have thought that that was an unreasonable request.
Guy Opperman
I hesitate to intervene, but the position that used to exist was that the Government were going to do the secondary regulation. It was decided in the other place that it would be quicker and better to do it through Transport for London. To criticise TfL, when this was produced only in the last few weeks in the other place, is a little harsh given that that was not intended when the Bill was originally published. It is clearly the case, though, that we continue to support the industry. We can argue the toss on the briefing my hon. Friend refers to, but I can assure him that it is not our intention to, as he put it, regulate this particular industry out of existence.
Sir Christopher Chope
I accept what my hon. Friend says, but if that is not the intention but it happens in practice that it is regulated out of existence, what will the Government do about it? Perhaps he will intervene and answer that question. At the moment, there is nothing in the Bill to enable the situation to be rectified. If TfL behaves in the irresponsible way it has in relation to the ultra low emission zone, and appeases the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association and effectively outlaws pedicabs in London, what is going to be done about it? I hear no response, but that is why proper safeguards must be written into the Bill. As for the Minister’s point that Transport for London has only just found out about its responsibilities, TfL proposed its own legislation in 2005, and I imagine that it had in mind exactly what it wanted to do.
When my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) and for Cities of London and Westminster produced their private Members’ Bills on this subject, it was already clear that the regulations would be introduced by TfL. When we asked TfL what would be in them, we were told, “We have not the time or the inclination to start drafting the regulations now.” Even as we speak, we do not know what the timescale is for the production of the regulations and the introduction of this regime.
I am not sure whether the Minister said that he had read Roger Geffen’s four-page briefing, but if he has not, I will happily share it with him after the debate. In the briefing, concern is expressed—and I certainly share that concern—about the Bill’s requirement for TfL to consult “whoever it considers appropriate”. What is the point of that? Why not say something specific, such as “Transport for London must consult organisations representing pedicab operators, cyclists and pedestrians—and others, but including those”? At present, the Bill places no obligation on TfL to consult pedicab operators, cyclists, people involved in the hospitality industries, and so on.
Guy Opperman
With the leave of the House, having opened this debate, I shall now bring it to a close. We have had a short, occasionally feisty, and certainly interesting journey down memory lane. I would like to mention all those colleagues who have endeavoured to bring this legislation before this House and to pass it on previous occasions. I congratulate all colleagues who have attempted to bring in this legislation through private Members’ Bills.
Clearly, we have learned an awful lot about certain individual Members. I enjoyed hearing from the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) who probably has a T-shirt—obviously created in Soho—that says, “I was louche in my youth”. The long and the short of it is that he makes good and fair points. I genuinely believe that, even though we are all economically liberal and want to see a thriving, bustling, entrepreneurial London, there has to be some degree of order and a fair playing field across all forms of transport. There is a legitimate issue to address in terms of crime and the way in which this city is perceived if we do not take action. It is right that, on a cross-party basis, we are taking action.
I thank all colleagues for their contributions, although I will not go through them in detail. A fair point was made about noise. I say that having spent the best part of a month of my life in St Thomas’ Hospital, where I experienced the impact of the noise outside, and having met many representatives of hotels, businesses, restaurants and theatres, who are genuinely concerned at the unregulated noise being provided by some of these operators. The fair point was also made that people need a living, breathing residential city of London and that that is simply not possible if we have unregulated noise. People are literally moving out because of this problem and that is not acceptable. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) rightly made legitimate and genuine points, starting with the fundamental principle of asking, “What is the end objective here?” That is a totally legitimate thing to do and we should not in any way decry his robust attempt to get to the heart and soul of these points—I welcome his doing so. I very much take on board the efforts he wishes me to make to allay his concerns prior to Committee stage.
I wish to put a couple of other points on the record. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire made clear in his brief remarks, TfL produced an outline, in January 2022, of a potential licensing framework, which is in excess of 10 pages. Clearly, it would have to be refreshed, because this legislation is coming forward and, for example, noise regulations were added in the other place barely weeks ago. We must also take into account that clause 7 sets out the requirement for guidance, which is a matter for the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State gave updated best practice guidance for licensing authorities outside London in November last year. It specifically states that where there is a “local interest” in providing pedicab services, licensing authorities should make “adjustments” to licensing requirements to “accommodate” such services. The whole point and purpose of that is to make it easier to bring those things in. Clearly, clause 7 provides a capability for the Secretary of State to bring in such guidance. I endorse the point that has been made about e-bikes and e-scooters: enforcement is the key issue on an ongoing basis.
I make the final point that we will debate the Bill in Committee, and I propose to write to all Members who have contributed today to set out some of those points in a bit more detail. I genuinely commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Joy Morrissey.)
Question agreed to.
Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords] (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Joy Morrissey.)
Question agreed to.
Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords] (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees under the Act.—(Joy Morrissey.)
Question agreed to.
Cycle Trails
Guy Opperman Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), a fellow ardent cyclist, on securing this important debate. Although I have a very good speech written by the Department, I will try to respond to the individual points that she made.
I will start with the origin of the debate, which is Harrison. My hon. Friend told the tale of a young man getting in contact with a Member of Parliament in the probably slightly sceptical hope that he could make a difference—both locally and by getting through to the MP. Clearly, that is why we have this debate. I hope that I will be able to give some good long-term news to both Harrison and the wider Medway community of which my hon. Friend is part. That is a great story—it really is—and I for one want to put on record my personal thanks as, frankly, this is what Parliament and representative democracy are all about. I sincerely hope that Harrison not only wins various future cycling competitions, but contemplates running for the local council and being a Member of Parliament. I look forward to welcoming him to the green Benches and, ultimately, to him becoming Prime Minister in about 25 years.
That is my first point. The second is that I must also make a declaration as an ardent but slightly fat cyclist, who has done everything from the Rye 100 to the Dunwich Dynamo as well as a variety of interesting cycle routes, including through most parts of Kent. I took the train down to Margate and cycled all the way back to London along the coast on the amazing trails that Kent has. As my hon. Friend rightly says, it is a fantastic opportunity to get out and about, get into the fresh air, try to fight the flab, get fitter and do all the things that we want to do. She is right to highlight the interesting differences in Bikeability stats in Medway and Kent, and we would like to work on them. I will come on to that in more detail. The figures for year 6 pupils of 13% in Kent and 47% in Medway are not too bad, but we would like to make that bigger. I encourage local authorities to get behind that supportive scheme, and we have to ask why they are not fully behind such things.
We should put on record our thanks to Luke, Stewart and the PCC for getting behind the individual cycle trails and then putting forward the money for the initiative locally, which sounds eminently sensible to me.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the Minister that he is supposed to be addressing the subject.
Guy Opperman
That is a good point. I apologise unreservedly for not addressing the House and for speaking too much to one individual colleague. As I say, we put on record our thanks to the individuals involved.
I will now return to the cycling and walking investment strategies of 2017 and 2022 and the establishment of Active Travel England. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) led a debate on active travel in the main Chamber, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford spoke, and, as we said, we are on a journey in this country, without a shadow of a doubt. Countries such as Holland have a whole host of state-of-the-art cycling infrastructure that has transformed their cities, yet decades ago they looked exactly the same as the UK. Those countries had the same problems and difficulties of trying to build infrastructure, segregated lanes and so on.
First and foremost, we have committed more than £3 billion that will be invested across Government in active travel up to 2025. That includes money from the city region sustainable transport settlements and the levelling-up fund. I should declare that I have a £9 million project in my constituency of Hexham. There are also other opportunities through the local transport fund, which was the money announced for northern and midland regions through the termination of the second leg of High Speed 2. It was announced on Monday, and many billions will go to local authorities up and down the country to ensure they can drive forward infrastructure, which can include cycle trails and all manners of road improvements.
On delivery, Active Travel England has been providing capital funding to local authorities for active travel infrastructure through the active travel fund. Since then, £515 million has been provided to local authorities for the development and construction of almost 1,000 permanent schemes, of which 299 have been delivered. In May of last year, we announced £200 million of capital funding for walking and cycling schemes to improve road safety, ease congestion and ultimately improve the health and wellbeing of the millions of people we want to choose active travel.
To turn specifically to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, that funding included £138,976 of dedicated capital funding from the fourth tranche of the active travel fund that is being used to fund two school streets in the area, among other projects. Since 2020, over four tranches of the active travel fund, more than £12 million of dedicated capital funding has been provided for active travel within Kent and Medway. Indeed, Kent and Medway have also received £1.3 million of revenue funding through the capability fund and I am pleased to say that both are in the process of developing authority-wide local cycling and walking infrastructure plans.
On the Aylesford river path, it is fair to say that my hon. Friend has been extremely assiduous—that is how I think they describe it in the House of Commons—in standing up for her local community as a Member of Parliament, as we all should do. I am aware that Kent County Council has been working with Active Travel England to undertake further design and assurance work to put the scheme forward under the active travel fund 4 extension programme. I can confirm that I have approved ATE’s recommendations for allocating funding through the programme. Although I cannot announce the funding for the scheme today, we expect to announce further capital and revenue funding allocations very shortly. I sincerely hope that I will be jumping on my bike and coming down to Aylesford to meet my hon. Friend, Harrison and anyone else so that we can formally announce the Aylesford river path and the work that my hon. Friend has so assiduously sought.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
When the Minister makes that visit to Aylesford, will he also come to the west of the county of Kent and visit the Bedgebury forest, where there is a much-used network of cycle trails? It is used by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) as well as by me. The Minister will enjoy that, but he will also see that it is quite isolated from public transport and towns such as Tunbridge Wells. It may give him pause for thought about how we can make cycle trails accessible for people who live in towns and may not have access to cars.
Guy Opperman
My right hon. Friend makes a very serious point. I have the great honour and privilege of being asked to visit a whole host of cycle trails, whether they are in Tunbridge Wells, Batley and Spen, or Strangford, all of which possess amazing countryside that I would be very happy to visit. However, getting to and from these locations, particularly for children and those on a low income—with all those complications—is not easy, bluntly. We must take that on board.
This and future Governments need to wrestle with a whole host of challenges, as do local authorities. Some of that is funding, but we also need to have a different sort of vision about the community we are looking after. There are examples of train companies that will not allow bicycles on trains, and of bus companies that are reluctant to have bicycles on their buses—I could go on. Frankly, that sort of stuff must stop.
When I took this brief on, I specifically made the strong point that although, yes, I would be looking after roads and buses, there was relatively little point for the active travel aspect not to be integrated with other parts of the portfolio. The beauty of that is that if we are having a conversation with local authorities or bus companies about trying to do things in a different way, we are also trying to integrate active travel and accessible travel so that the system is joined up. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford know the great joy of being a Minister—it is amazing—but any Minister knows that joined-up Government is a holy grail that we all aspire to and cannot always achieve. Getting different Departments and parts of an individual portfolio to talk to and integrate with each other is utterly key.
Richard Foord
There are places where we have public transport links and good rail services, such as in my Tiverton and Honiton constituency. Does that suggest that perhaps the Department would be more welcoming of constructing cycle trails around places such as Tiverton Parkway, the new railway station at Cullompton, and Feniton, Axminster, Honiton and Whimple?
Guy Opperman
As the hon. Gentleman knows, this amazing Government brought forward the new railway station at Cullompton.
It is clear that I want to see more people on a bike, and more accessible and active travel. The best bit of that is Bikeability. I will just talk about that very briefly, because it really matters. The Government have given £21 million for Bikeability, which has delivered almost 500,000 places and reached 51% of year 6 children in 60% of primary schools. I genuinely believe, however, that we can do a lot more. Local authorities really need to step up to the plate, because this matters. Learning to cycle from a young age is a life skill. Aside from all the health benefits and independence that it provides, and aside from the fact that it is so much cheaper in the long term, cycling gives individuals great confidence in their capabilities and develops our children in a game-changing way.
Over the coming years, we will invest a further £50 million in Bikeability to deliver training for over 1 million more children. We believe that, by 2025, 80% of year 6 children will be taking part in on-road cycle training before leaving primary school. Turning to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, although teaching kids in school how to ride a bike is great, we also need local authorities to use their local cycling and walking infrastructure plans and development funding to ensure that it is easy for kids to cycle to school, as we discussed in the debate on active travel in the House last week. That is the holy grail. With no disrespect to individual parents, we want kids to walk or cycle to the local school. That is why so many of us support 20 mph zones outside schools, which make total sense and support ongoing cycling.
I echo the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford for the national cycle network and the work of Sustrans. The network is clearly a national asset; it provides more than 12,000 miles of signed paths and routes for walking, wheeling, cycling and exploring the outdoors. The Department has supported the upkeep of this national asset to the tune of £75 million. I take my hon. Friend’s point about cycle trails, and note her example of cycle trails funded by the police and crime commissioner. Without a shadow of a doubt, we want to do more, and I am keen to look at that. I will engage with Danny Williams and the Active Travel England team in York to see what more we can do.
Kim Leadbeater
The Minister is making fantastic points about the amazing work of Sustrans, but will he commit to looking at its funding? It is a charity, and unfortunately the lack of funding means that we have lost the warden for the Spen valley greenway, which is in my constituency. The warden did a fantastic job of making people on the greenway feel safe and ensuring it was a clean and tidy space for people to work.
Guy Opperman
I am not going to get into the question of funding decisions for charities, but this Government have backed active travelling and cycling to a degree that no other Government ever have, and are continuing to do so. My respectful view is that this House should welcome the journey that we are on.
I look forward to visiting Aylesford in the near future. We are here only because Harrison stuck his hand up and had the courage to do something that we wish everybody would do: write to their MP, in a respectful, kind and constructive way. I put on record the due thanks of the House to him. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford for securing the debate, and look forward to driving forward greater cycling infrastructure in her part of the world.
Question put and agreed to.