Motoring Services Agencies Business Plans 2021-22
Rachel Maclean Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) has made the following ministerial statement.
I am pleased to announce the publication of the 2021-22 business plans for the Department for Transport’s Motoring Agencies—the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) and the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA).
The business plans set out:
The key business priorities that each agency will deliver and any significant changes they plan to make to their services, and;
the key performance indicators, by which their performance will be assessed.
These plans allow service users and members of the public to understand the agencies’ plans for delivering their key services, progressing their transformation programmes, and managing their finances.
The business plans will be available electronically on www.gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questionsanswers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-06-07/HCWS66/ .
[HCWS66]
Driverless Cars
Rachel Maclean Excerpts(2 years, 11 months 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 (Rachel Maclean)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) on securing this important debate, which has achieved a hugely welcome degree of cross-party consensus —that is very positive. I am delighted to have this opportunity to discuss with hon. Members the numerous potential benefits of self-driving cars. In his capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on connected and automated mobility, my hon. Friend has done an extremely good job of setting out the policy landscape.
I assure all hon. Members, because everyone has raised this point, that the Government are absolutely committed to realising those benefits for the UK, but for that to happen, the public must have confidence that safety and security are at the heart of how the technology is deployed and developed. Our code of practice for trialling automated vehicles on public roads states that there must be a safety driver who is ready to take control if needed. That means that the technology can be tested in a way that ensures safety and responsibility.
When highly automated driving technology is ready for public use, we must have a way to check that the vehicles are safe and secure by design, not only for passengers, but for all road users. That is why my Department is progressing, alongside some of the investments that my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, a programme of work that will adapt our assurance processes for self-driving vehicles.
A number of Members referred to the fact that it is a complex landscape of regulation and legislation, and of manufacturers and Government working together, but I assure everyone listening that as manufacturers bring new self-driving vehicles to the market, they will have been extensively tested by the regulator.
Christian Wakeford
We have talked about the improvement of the economy thanks to driverless vehicles but, with the introduction of the super deduction and freeports, what does the Minister think the impact on manufacturing will be?
Rachel Maclean
That is an extremely fair point, and one that a number of people have raised with me. In fact, in my experience and from my discussions with manufacturers, industry experts, academics and other researchers, all the indications are that the technology and the industry have the potential to create jobs. Of course, those jobs will change because we will shift some of them from one particular skillset to another, but as Members have set out, we see this as a boost to the economy, and that means the creation of new high-skilled jobs. This is a massively exciting opportunity to level up the UK, including my hon. Friend’s Bury South constituency, which I am sure will be eager to take part.
The regulation programme that we have created is called CAV PASS. It is one of the most comprehensive programmes of its kind in the world. More widely, as the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned, we have asked the Law Commission to undertake an extensive review of transport legislation to support the safe deployment of automated vehicles. We expect recommendations by the end of the year, which will inform future regulatory reform.
The work we have undertaken so far has earned us a reputation as a world leader in policy and regulation. It ensures that we are ready for this step change in transport. We are acting to seize the opportunities for the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North will be aware, the Government are supporting a portfolio of exciting self-driving vehicle technology projects, including investing nearly £20 million into autonomous vehicle projects within Milton Keynes alone. Last autumn, I had the great privilege of a comfortable and enjoyable ride through the Milton Keynes countryside in one of the Government-supported self-driving Nissan HumanDrive vehicles.
On that point, the hon. Member for Bristol East talked about being in such a car. I would encourage her to do so. I am sure that Nissan would be happy to give her a ride. It is not only incredible and amazing, but very underwhelming at the same time, because it feels incredibly safe. It feels like going in a normal car. As soon as people experience it, they can definitely see the potential to transform the way we move around.
Government investment in self-driving vehicles spans the country from Cambridge and Milton Keynes to the west midlands, up to Scotland and across to the west of England. We have enabled joint public and private investment of £400 million in vehicle innovation since 2014. A vast number of potential benefits for the UK could help our world-leading automotive industry develop in the future, including safety on our roads—as everybody highlighted—reducing congestion and improving productivity through more efficient use of road space. There is the potential to improve access to transport for everyone, including people with disabilities, as the hon. Lady rightly said.
As we focus on building back better following the pandemic, the potential economic benefits of self-driving vehicles in the UK are vast. It is predicted that, by 2035, 40% of new UK car sales could have self-driving capabilities, with a total self-driving market value of £42 billion and the potential to create 38,000 new highly skilled and well-paid jobs. We have already seen millions of pounds of private investment coming into British small and medium-sized enterprises, which are leading the way on automated vehicles.
On supporting existing jobs, I know how important the automotive industry is to the west midlands and to my constituency of Redditch. Just as we support the UK’s automotive logistics and mobility service companies in their transition to zero emissions, we help those sectors to get ahead in the global race to harness self-driving technology and to ensure that the new jobs of the future come to the UK, rather than go elsewhere. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) mentioned that point, and I hope to reassure him that that is absolutely the UK Government’s objective. In short, I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North that this technology can help to make our journeys safer, greener and more reliable.
To talk a bit about the technology, this futuristic technology is already here. That is why we recently announced that the automated lane keeping system—the ALKS—could be the first legally defined self-driving technology to be allowed on the road.
Christian Wakeford
I thank the Minister for kindly giving way a second time. On the ALKS—apologies for the abbreviations, I think we are all tired of them in this conversation—what assurances will she give that, given the motorway improvements we have seen throughout the country over the past few years, such as smart motorways and concrete central barriers, in trying to address a problem, we are not creating another one and giving more heartache to drivers?
Rachel Maclean
That is a totally accurate and important question. We will not allow any self-driving vehicles on to the roads unless they comply fully with the regulatory regime set out by the UNECE organisation—the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. That includes being able to recognise and respond to any signs, whether smart motorway signs or any other signs that would appear in the domain in which they are legally licensed to operate. To be clear, we will not let anything on the roads that cannot operate safely under any condition that it might find itself in.
The ALKS system is designed to be used in slow-moving motorway traffic, such as a traffic jam. When the traffic speeds up, the vehicle will require the driver to take control again. Crucially, that is a step beyond what is already available, because it will allow the driver legally to disengage while the autonomous system is driving the vehicle. We will list models with ALKS technology as automated on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that they are safe and meet the legal requirements. The vehicle is only half of the story, because all of this means changes for drivers as well, and they must know their role. That is why we are consulting on amendments to the highway code to clarify the responsibilities of drivers of automated vehicles.
Before I conclude, I will refer to the comments that Members have made. I thank everybody for their extremely well-informed contributions and for their interest in the debate. They have all displayed encyclopaedic knowledge of cultural history and vehicles of the past, but I must confess that I am a bit more of a fan of David Hasselhoff than the cars. He was definitely a teenage heart-throb of mine.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), who pointed out the benefits of reducing congestion. We in the Government absolutely agree that it would be a benefit of the technology. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley highlighted some safety concerns. He is right to do so, but I reassure him that we are a full member of UNECE, the international organisation that sets the overarching rules and frameworks, and we contribute to those. We work closely with the organisation, so we are fully aligned with all its safety requirements, which are stringent and rigorous. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) also mentioned safety, and I agree that the perception of safety is equally important as safety itself.
I reassure the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North that we will absolutely not be listing any vehicles that cannot respond to the red X signs on smart motorways or anywhere else. He is right to highlight the opportunities that the technology offers the whole of the United Kingdom, and the investment that we in the Government are putting into Scotland and the rest of the country is a huge benefit of our Union.
The hon. Member for Bristol East obviously has great knowledge of this area, and I thank her for her interest and support. She made some very good points, and I hope to continue constructive discussions with her. She made a good point about the importance of driver education, and we are working closely with the industry on that. At the point of purchase, drivers and purchasers need to be fully informed about the vehicles and their capabilities. She also mentioned the vital role that such vehicles have to play in our decarbonisation agenda. She is right to say that not all of them will be green vehicles, but there is huge potential for vehicles to share data and travel in a way that has much less impact on the planet.
Gavin Newlands
The Minister mentioned decarbonisation, so she will not be surprised to hear me ask this. When may we see the transport decarbonisation plan?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Member for asking that. We intend to publish that plan shortly.
Kerry McCarthy
We were all led to believe that the plan would be published in the spring. When does the Minister think spring officially ends?
Rachel Maclean
That is one of those questions that I am not qualified to answer, but I assure the hon. Lady that we are committed to publishing the plan shortly.
I hope that I have set out the wide range of Government efforts to make the UK the best place in the world to develop and deploy self-driving vehicles safely. The coming years will prove crucial in securing the many benefits of self-driving vehicles for the UK—for our economy, for the environment and for safe and accessible travel for all citizens. I thank everybody for taking part in the debate.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Having led the debate, voted twice and motored back from those two votes, I call Ben Everitt to respond.
Motor Fuel and Biofuel Regulations 2021
Rachel Maclean Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I have today published the draft statutory instrument the Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) and the Biofuel (Labelling) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2021 and accompanying explanatory memorandum. These regulations amend the Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) Regulations 1999 to require the introduction of E10 petrol (petrol with up to 10% ethanol) at filling stations in Great Britain. Current petrol in the UK contains up to 5% ethanol (referred to as E5).
Switching to E10 can reduce the CO2 emissions from a petrol vehicle by around 2%. This, combined with an increase to overall renewable fuel targets (which has been subject to a separate consultation) could cut overall transport CO2 emissions by a further 750,000 tonnes a year—the equivalent of taking around 350,000 cars off the road. E10 introduction will also help support UK farmers and particularly the ethanol industry based in the north-east of England. Producing ethanol also creates the valuable by-products of high-protein animal feed and stored CO2. These reduce reliance on imported products, in line with the Government’s bioeconomy strategy.
The regulations also ensure the ongoing availability of E5 petrol (petrol with 5% or less ethanol) for those with vehicles and equipment unsuitable for use with E10. The amendment to the Biofuel (Labelling) Regulations 2004 changes the consumer message that must be displayed when E10 petrol is sold at filling stations. These regulations also make amendments related to the United Kingdom’s exit from European Union to rectify deficiencies in the regulations and replace references to European directive 98/70/EC with references to domestic legislation.
The regulations are published in accordance with the procedure required by schedule 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and agreed with Parliament. The draft regulations will be available for review for 28 days before they are laid and debates scheduled. They remake the provisions of the Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) and the Biofuel (Labelling) (Amendment) Regulations 2021. Those regulations were treated as if they were subject to the negative procedure, but as they amended provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 using a power conferred before 21 June 2017, paragraph 13(1) of schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 applied meaning that the affirmative procedure should have been used.
These regulations were subject to open consultation. The policy detail, Government response and impact assessment are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/ consultations/introducing-e10-petrol.
[HCWS27]
Licensing of Railway Undertakings: Draft Legislation
Rachel Maclean Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
As part of the Government’s EU transition programme, the Department for Transport, working with colleagues in other Government Departments, has been in discussion with France on bilateral arrangements to support the continuation of cross-border services, which provide significant economic and social benefit to the United Kingdom. While other bilateral agreements remain under discussion in relation to the channel tunnel, the critical agreement relates to the recognition of operator licences, which are needed to operate rail services. Agreement in principle has now been reached with France at a technical level, subject to final legal checks, and the agreement is expected to be concluded in the coming weeks, with ratification through the UK and French Parliaments then to follow.
Through these regulations, which will amend 2005 and 2019 regulations, the Government intend to take the necessary steps to ensure that the above-mentioned bilateral agreement on the rail operator licensing framework for the channel tunnel can be ratified, supporting the continued smooth operation of cross-border rail services. The regulations will enable cross-border operators to continue to operate as they do now and will not introduce any new requirements on them. Without this legislation, there is a real risk that rail freight services, excluding Eurotunnel shuttles, and Eurostar passenger services through the channel tunnel would cease to operate from 30 September, when the current EU contingency legislation applicable to the channel tunnel expires.
The regulations are being published in draft 28 days before they are due to be laid for affirmative debate. This is required under paragraph 14 of schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 because the 2005 and 2019 regulations which are being amended were originally made under the European Communities Act 1972. The draft regulations and accompanying explanatory memorandum can be found on gov.uk.
[HCWS24]
Oral Answers to Questions
Rachel Maclean Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
The Government have made financial support available through the self-employment income support scheme grant, which is set at 80% of three months’ average trading profits. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has provided trainers with guidance on operating safely and on testing restart dates.
Rebecca Long Bailey
My constituent was not self-employed. She worked supporting vaccine research during the pandemic, but with poor public transport connections and limited income, her only option was using a moped to get to work. Sadly, the Government’s failure to sufficiently extend the validity period of compulsory basic training certification during lockdown until test centres could safely reopen has resulted in her being forced to leave her job. What will the Minister do to support essential workers such as my constituent who have suffered because of the closure of training centres and the lack of extensions to their certificates?
Rachel Maclean
I completely agree that our frontline workers have played a vital role in the response to the pandemic—our thanks go to all of them. The hon. Lady will know that it is important that learners have the right skills to drive, because safety on the road is just as important during a lockdown as at any other time. It is vital that up-to-date road safety knowledge is there at the critical point when people drive and supervise for the first time. She will also know that motorcycle training resumed on 29 March, with testing restarting on 12 April in England and Wales. We got that testing up and running, which was possible because it is easier to maintain a covid-safe working environment for motorcyclists than for in-vehicle training and testing.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
In addition to investing £1.7 billion in 2021-22 in local roads, plus an unprecedented £27 billion in the strategic road network through to 2025, we are working towards the creation of a common data standard for the monitoring of road condition. That will aim to drive innovation and flexibility in monitoring local roads, enabling authorities to target defects in their networks more quickly.
Jo Gideon
Fifty of my constituents in Boatman Drive, Etruria, have been unable to access the road to their homes for over a year due to a large sinkhole that has forced Stoke-on-Trent City Council to close the road to all vehicles, including emergency services. Many of the residents have been in contact with me. One, Mr Madadi, was offered a fantastic new employment opportunity but could not accept the offer as it required relocation, and his home could not be sold because of the sinkhole. Will the Minister meet me to help resolve this issue, which I am sure she will agree has been going on for far too long?
Rachel Maclean
I commend my hon. Friend for raising that concern in the House and standing up for her constituents. I fully understand that this is a long- running issue involving several parties, including the water utility company and the housing developer. I completely share her and her constituents’ frustration. I would be delighted to ask my noble Friend the roads Minister, who deals with this, to meet her; she has already undertaken to do so.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I do not know whether the Minister has recently visited Tory-controlled Derbyshire, but I have, and the roads are in a shocking state. Plugging potholes and patching up roads in a piecemeal fashion simply does not work. What we need is a proper road maintenance programme, yet the Government have slashed funding by £375 million and are ploughing £27 billion into road expansion during a climate emergency. Does the Minister not think that it would be better for motorists, cyclists and the planet if we focused on fixing what we have got?
Rachel Maclean
I am delighted that the hon. Lady enjoyed her visit to Derbyshire—long may it continue to be Conservative-controlled. She is wrong to say that we are not investing in local roads. The Government announced £1.7 billion for maintenance and upgrades to tackle potholes, relieve congestion and boost connectivity.
I would like to address this allegation head-on. It is incorrect to say that we are spending £27 billion on road building or that 4,000 miles of new roads are planned. We are actually investing £27 billion in the operation, maintenance and renewal of England’s strategic road network to secure safer and more reliable journeys that have less impact on adjacent communities and places.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
We are working to finalise our bold and ambitious plan to decarbonise transport, and we expect to publish it as soon as possible this spring.
Mick Whitley [V]
The Government’s Brexit deal means that in order to avoid tariffs on electric vehicles, 55% of vehicle parts, including batteries, will need to be locally sourced by the end of 2026. Will the Government back Labour’s call for investments in at least three battery gigafactories by 2025, and can they commit to building one of those factories on Merseyside?
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that a gigafactory will play a critical role in decarbonising our transport sector. We have a world-beating automotive industry in this country, and at the election the Government committed £1 billion to back investment in a gigafactory in this country. Can I remind him that leaving the European Union has provided us with a lot of opportunities to set our own pathways to decarbonise transport? We will be setting out those plans in detail in the transport decarbonisation plan.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
The Department aims to create more free-flowing journeys across the strategic road network, including the A1, through its road investments.
Sir Edward Leigh
The A1—the great north road—is a beautiful road linking Scotland and England, and I think that to honour the upcoming jubilee we should rename it the Queen’s highway. Why not? But it is not an entirely safe road. I have spent hundreds of hours on it, and there are many fatalities on it. I cannot understand why all the roundabouts have been stripped away between Newark and the Black Cat roundabout, but going south from the Black Cat to the north circular there are still roundabouts. There are also many crossing points in Lincolnshire and other places. Will the Minister now commit to really upgrading the A1 to make it entirely safe by getting rid of all the traffic lights, roundabouts and crossing points? Let us make it a true Queen’s highway.
Rachel Maclean
I fully agree with my right hon. Friend’s suggestion for renaming that beautiful road, and I am sure that the Transport Secretary, who is listening carefully, will take that away and consider it. I am happy to say that we are investing significant sums in making the A1 safer and more reliable as a result of our near-£1 billion A428 improvement scheme, and there will be a major reconstruction of the Black Cat junction on the A1 so that north-south traffic will flow freely underneath it. There is potential for further enhancement along the A1, which will be considered in the light of Highways England’s work to update its route strategies, starting this year, and I fully expect my right hon. Friend’s journeys to be very pleasant indeed in the future.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Department for Transport has made it absolutely clear that local authorities must focus on scheme quality. They must demonstrate that they have carried out appropriate consultation, listened to local communities, and considered access for emergency vehicles and traffic impacts. We recognise that poorly designed, temporary cycling and walking schemes can have negative impacts, but we also recognise that they can be very positive when delivered in the right way.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend for her support for this innovative form of transport technology. Trials of rental e-scooters began last July and have been a huge success: over 2 million trips have been taken and 5 million km ridden—the equivalent of six times to the moon and back. But the Department has written to all major retailers of e-scooters in the UK to ask them to make it clear to customers that it is illegal to use e-scooters on public roads. Retailers make this clear online and in their stores, and motoring offences will apply to the private use of e-scooters. The local police are fully engaged and have enforcement powers, and they are expected to use them.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) [V]
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of freight links in our country. Since 2009, more than £200 million has been invested in capacity on the Felixstowe to Nuneaton freight corridor. Through the rail network enhancements pipeline, Network Rail is developing business cases for enhancements at Ely, Hockley and between Ely and Soham to provide additional capacity on this key freight corridor.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Lady will know that the whole House voted for the Heathrow plans, as she stated, but we will shortly be bringing forward our transport decarbonisation plans, which will discuss in full and in detail our ambitious plans to decarbonise the entire transport sector, including the aviation sector. She is right to say that we have increased our ambition on this front, and we are the only major leading nation that will set out such an ambitious set of plans to decarbonise the entire sector.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) [V]
Rachel Maclean
I note your remark, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for her point. I am not a man in a grey suit, so I can reassure her fully, and I thank her for the massively constructive way she has engaged with the national bus strategy since its launch. The way she has stood up for her constituents is absolutely exemplary, and I know from the discussions that she and I have had how important that is. By October, local transport authorities are expected to provide bus service improvement plans, which should be developed in collaboration with local people to ensure that they genuinely reflect the area’s needs.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Rachel Maclean
Morning and evening peak services to Martin Mill, Kingsdown, Deal and Sandwich are currently operating. Passenger volumes are continually monitored, and all-day service provision will be reviewed in the light of passenger demand as lockdown restrictions are eased.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Cutting-edge maritime projects such as the Holyhead hydrogen hub and the proposed Anglesey freeport in my constituency will move forward this Government’s renewable agenda. To take full advantage of these opportunities, excellent transport infrastructure is needed across north Wales. Will the Minister confirm that he will support necessary improvements to the A55, as highlighted in Sir Peter Hendy’s Union connectivity review?
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion of connectivity for her constituency, and as a result, my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary was in north Wales early this week, discussing plans to upgrade the A55 with the Welsh Conservative candidate standing in May’s election. We look forward to the final Union connectivity review recommendations ahead of the spending review, in which we will consider funding plans for delivering improved UK-wide connectivity. However, I must say to the hon. Lady that the fastest way for her constituents to secure upgrades to the A55 is to vote for a Welsh Conservative Government, who have pledged to end Labour’s neglect of north Wales.
Mr Speaker
That brings me on to my final point, which is just to say that I will be pleased when next Thursday is out of the way, but I remind Members who are going into other constituencies, other than for a private, personal visit, to please ensure that they notify the MP. That goes to all sides, because I am getting letters of complaint. Please, I do not need any more letters of complaint: just abide by good practice.
Electric Vehicles: Promotion
Rachel Maclean Excerpts(3 years 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 (Rachel Maclean)
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for securing this important debate on the promotion of electric vehicle usage. Like him, I am a passionate and keen electric vehicle driver and enjoy the peace and quiet and the clean experience it brings me. I very much welcome the opportunity to set out what the Government are doing on this important agenda.
The transition to zero-emission vehicles is critical, as my hon. Friend said, in helping us to meet our climate change obligations and in improving air quality in our towns and cities. That is why we are going further and faster to decarbonise transport by phasing out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030; from 2035, all new cars and vans must be zero-emission at the tailpipe, putting us on course to be the fastest nation in the G7 to decarbonise cars and vans. On the back of the further announcement from the Prime Minister yesterday about our accelerated carbon targets, it is clear that we are playing a world-leading role in the fight against climate change under this Conservative Government.
I thank my hon. Friend for rightly pointing out all the positives of owning an electric vehicle. It is right that, overall, they are cheaper to run than the equivalent petrol and diesel car. He is also correct that range anxiety should be, and in most cases is, a concern of the past: in fact, 99% of car trips are less than 100 miles, and many of the latest electric vehicles can travel more than 200 miles on a single charge. For example, the Volkswagen ID.3 Pro has a 263-mile range, enough to drive from Westminster to my hon. Friend’s constituency, Don Valley, with 100 miles to spare—maybe stopping off in Gainsborough as well, Sir Edward.
My hon. Friend is also right to point to the stumbling blocks. I will start with the lack of rapid chargers. He pointed out that the Government are providing £1.3 billion to accelerate the roll-out of charge points on motorways and major A roads, in homes and businesses and on streets. That is part of an overall package of £2.8 billion to support industry as a whole and consumers to make the switch to electric vehicle motoring.
The UK is already a global front-runner in supporting provision of charging infrastructure. Government and industry have supported the installation of nearly 20,800 public charging devices, including nearly 3,900 rapid devices—one of the largest networks in Europe. In my hon. Friend’s own region of Yorkshire and the Humber, there are more than 1,000 publicly available charging devices, 311 of which are rapid devices. In England, a driver is never more than 25 miles away from a rapid charge point anywhere along England’s motorways and major A roads. However, I totally agree with my hon. Friend that there is much more to do, and we will come forward with a number of plans and announcements on our infrastructure strategy to deliver the charge points that we need to underpin this transition.
I agree furthermore with my hon. Friend that rapid charging is key to increasing the confidence in electric vehicles. Thanks to the Government and private sector working together, there are rapid and ultra-rapid charge points across 97% of motorway service areas in England, but we are ramping up this provision. We expect all motorway service stations to have at least six 150kW chargers by 2023, backed by investment from this Conservative Government, which means that someone should be able to charge their rapid charging-enabled car in the time it takes to get a cup of coffee, just as we would now with an internal-combustion-engine car.
It is important to recognise that slower forms of charging are important as well. Customers value the choice and flexibility to charge their vehicles at different speeds in different locations, such as overnight at home, at work or when they go shopping. I love the fact that I can go to sleep while my vehicle is charging and it is fully charged and ready to go when I wake up in the morning.
We have a comprehensive strategy to support the roll-out of charging. In addition to the £50 million we have made available this year for home and workplace charging schemes, we are proposing a number of important changes. We are refocusing our electric vehicle home charge scheme to support people living in rented and leasehold accommodation, which will level up our infrastructure roll-out. Our workplace charging scheme will be opened up to small and medium-sized enterprises and the charity sector.
We know that charging for people without off-street parking is a massively important issue. I encourage all parliamentary colleagues listening to this debate to speak to their local authorities and encourage them to apply, if they have not done so already, to our £20 million on-street residential charging fund, which was doubled last year by the Transport Secretary.
My information is that no local authority in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley has applied for this funding, so I encourage him to speak to his colleagues and co-workers at his local authority so they can apply for that funding, which could benefit residents. The money has been made available; it is down to local authorities to work with the Government and get the charging infrastructure where it needs to be.
The purpose of that scheme is to increase the availability of on-street charging points in residential streets, where off-street parking is not available. Many people live in homes and streets of this type. Some 75% of the capital cost of procuring and installing charge points is covered by central Government, and the Government provide free, impartial advice through a number of sources; I am happy to direct my hon. Friend to that.
I move on to the valid point that he raised about contactless payments at charge points. We agree with him that the experience needs to improve. We recently held a consultation to make payments easier, charge points more reliable and pricing more transparent, and to ensure that the data is open and accessible. We will come forward with a response to that and lay regulations on those topics in autumn 2021, parliamentary scheduling permitting.
Let me set out the Government’s position on the vehicle grants that my hon. Friend raised. Many of these matters are for the Treasury, as he knows. As we first signalled in 2018, our intention is to move away from grants as the market matures. We have refocused our vehicle grants to target the more affordable end of the market, where we know most consumers will be looking and where taxpayers’ money will make the most difference. In response to that, many manufacturers have reduced the prices of their vehicles. For example, BMW have dropped the price of their i3S by almost £7,500, which is a great win for consumers.
Our grants are working. In 2020, battery electric vehicles made up 6.6% of the new car market. Since 2011, our plug-in grants have supported 300,000 ultra low emission vehicles. We have committed a further £582 million to support vehicle grants, so we do see our grants having a long-term role to play, alongside other support, although we will continue to keep all these policies under review.
I turn now to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young). I thank him for raising the vital subject of hydrogen and the role of fuel cell vehicles in the transition to zero-emission motoring. As he knows, our ambitions for delivering greener transport are technology neutral. We believe that a range of zero-emission transport technologies will be adopted in the future. He highlighted a number of Government plans and projects that have supported hydrogen vehicles of all types already.
I put on the record my grateful thanks to him for the role he has played in securing the first hydrogen for transport hub, which is in his area of Tees Valley. It has come with £3 million worth of funding, to enable exactly the things that he describes and enable hydrogen for transport to develop alongside its application in the industrial, energy and other sectors of the economy. We are pushing ahead with plans for the hub. It is a world-leading project, and we believe it will set out a vision for the role that hydrogen can play in transport. I am very excited to see that progressing.
In the last couple of moments, Sir Edward, I refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar about artificial intelligence and driverless cars. He is right to mention that as we do not get to talk about the subject often enough, so I thank him for bringing it up. He mentions the exciting progress we have made in self-driving vehicles in this country, and the importance of understanding this new technology and its impact on society.
I believe self-driving vehicles have the potential to make journeys greener, safer, easier and more reliable. We have the opportunity to bring vast economic benefits to our country, by creating an industry and building on our existing world-leading expertise in automotive and engineering. The industry could be worth billions of pounds and could generate thousands of well-paid skilled jobs. As my hon. Friend knows very well, this Government’s intention is to build back greener, creating well-paid jobs in the industries of the future, and driving a green industrial recovery.
The introduction of self-driving vehicles to UK roads is closer than many would think. We are currently considering whether vehicles equipped with the new automated lane keeping system technology, which could enter the British market as early as the end of this year, can be legally defined as “self-driving”. [Interruption.] I hope you can hear me, Sir Edward.
Rachel Maclean
Great; I will continue. It is essential that the introduction of self-driving vehicles be supported by appropriate safety and legal frameworks. The UK has published three world-leading consultation papers on a comprehensive safety and regulatory framework for self-driving vehicles, led by the Law Commission. The final recommendations from the Law Commission are due by the end of this year, and I will be discussing them carefully with my colleagues across Government.
That is all part of the Government’s effort to make the UK the best place in the world to deploy and develop self-driving vehicles, which must, of course, be safe. The questions of safety and the role that artificial intelligence can play are at the forefront of my mind as a Minister in the Department for Transport.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley for this excellent opportunity to set out some of the work that we are doing in Government to promote electric vehicle usage across all parts of the UK. I agree that we need to take ambitious steps to scale up this exciting transition, for both electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen in all its forms. I assure him that we are not sitting back and letting this happen; we are actively pushing forward a number of strategies, including the transport decarbonisation plan, which is to be published later this spring and will set out a lot more detail.
With that, Sir Edward, I conclude my remarks and welcome the quiet, which sounds exactly like an electric vehicle driving.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
They are certainly quieter than the House of Commons Division bell.
Question put and agreed to.
Hammersmith Bridge
Rachel Maclean Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this important debate on funding for the restoration of Hammersmith bridge and on her detailed speech this evening. I agree with her on the issues that she highlighted, setting out the devastating impact on the physical and mental health of residents and local businesses on both sides of the river, due to the long-standing catalogue of failures and lack of action by Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council.
The hon. Lady led a protest that took place on Easter weekend, and I commend her for doing so. I want to acknowledge her passion for getting the bridge reopened.
Rachel Maclean
I will just make some progress.
I assure Members that the Government wish to see the bridge reopen as soon as is safely possible. [Interruption.] I will take interventions, but I need to correct a number of inaccurate statements before I do.
We want to make sure that Londoners can move around the capital easily by public transport, through active travel and on our roads and rivers. Therefore we want Hammersmith bridge to be reopened, despite having no statutory responsibilities for the bridge—particularly because it is wholly owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. The Government have stepped in to try to work collaboratively to find a solution. That is why we established a taskforce in September, led by Baroness Vere, bringing together all the relevant organisations to agree the best way forward and unblock any challenges.
I reiterate that Hammersmith bridge is owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. That means that the responsibility for maintaining the bridge and making decisions on its repairs and funding lies solely with the borough and not the Government. It is a travesty that we have got to a situation where the bridge has to be closed altogether, given that the council could have prevented the serious safety concerns through regular repairs and maintenance.
I would like to ensure that Members in the House and those watching are clear about what funding has been provided by the Government and what action has been taken. Since the structure was closed to vehicles in 2019, and to pedestrians, cyclists and river vessels in 2020, funding for maintenance and repairs has come from a variety of sources. The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is the highway authority for the section of the A306 that runs over the bridge, so it has funded the acoustic monitoring and temperature control systems to the bridge. Those alert the borough to potential changes and allow it to take informed decisions about the safety of the bridge.
I will correct the first inaccuracy that has been stated. As part of the TfL deal on 31 October 2020, the Government ensured that £4 million—much more than a penny—was committed to start immediate mitigation works on Hammersmith Bridge during the 2021 financial year. That has funded the blast cleaning and a visual inspection of the western pedestals, giving the borough a better insight into the condition of the bridge. That is a vital step before any other engineering works can be undertaken. Members and residents need to understand that.
The funding means that risk mitigation works can begin so that the full repair programme is in the best possible position on cost, schedule and technical risk. As well as that, we have made the ferry service a condition of the TfL bridge deal, so that people, prams and bikes can cross the river safely.
Rachel Maclean
I want to address one further inaccuracy. If I have time after that, I will take an intervention.
As with any local infrastructure project, the Government expect the local authority to take the lead in promoting the scheme. We have heard from the leader of the council, who does not believe that the borough has the capital funds available to meet the costs of repairing the bridge. Indeed, on several occasions he has said that his residents are not users of the bridge and should therefore not be liable for the works.
In discussions with the leader of the council and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, various options for contributions for funding the project have been discussed. Unfortunately, the council seems to look to the national Government with gold-tinted lenses, not understanding that we cannot and will not hand out a blank cheque for the works. How would that be fair to taxpayers up and down the country and to those who have been responsible, such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan)? This is what councils all over the country have to do when they are carrying out major infrastructure works.
Rachel Maclean
I am afraid I cannot, because I need to clarify a number of inaccuracies.
It has been reported in the press by the hon. Member for Putney that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has asked the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to contribute 50% of the cost. That option was discussed. All that was requested of the borough was that the leader send a plan for the borough’s funding proposal. So far, the so-called bids that have been sent in amount to nothing more than letters asking for an unsubstantiated amount. It is simply not appropriate to ask for funding from central Government on that basis. The Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham should have taken the time to understand what is required to submit a bid to the Government. We stand ready to help. There is plenty of help available for officials to put these bids together, but that has not been happening.
When evaluating any temporary crossing solution, the complexity of procurement and requirement of various consents must be considered. Given these challenges, the borough and the taskforce determined that a ferry service would provide an immediately available alternative river crossing for pedestrians and cyclists. That has been provided and we are very grateful to the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames for its support.
The closure of the bridge has affected not just those who need to cross it, but those who travel along the river beneath it. The taskforce is an essential first step. Contrary to statements earlier, the taskforce has met regularly. It stands ready to meet any Member who would like to meet my noble Friend Baroness Vere in the other place; she is more than happy to discuss in full the detailed complexities that we cannot possibly air in a 30-minute debate in a political environment such as we have here tonight.
These are serious and complex engineering works. I am afraid that it is completely inaccurate to make the point in this House that there is no action from the Government. I will not stand here and let Opposition Members say that. We have taken on additional responsibilities—well over and above our statutory responsibilities—as Opposition Members know. We have gone out of our way to help.
Andy Slaughter
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. We need £4 million towards investigation work and there is a bill of over £140 million for repairs. Where does the Minister think that money is going to come from? She knows that it cannot come from TfL or from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Her speech will be greeted with absolute dismay by people across London and beyond who use this major arterial route. The issue is simply not being addressed, after two years. It is a wholly irresponsible position for the Government to take. Where is that £140 million going to come from?
Rachel Maclean
I suggest to the hon. Member that his comments tonight are wholly irresponsible, because they have not reflected the work on the Government side to engage constructively with the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham in order to understand its funding position and what it can afford. The borough has not come back on any of the engagements and discussions that we have extended to it regarding realistic sums of money. If it cannot afford that amount of money, it should come back and tell us what it can afford. That is how infrastructure projects up and down the country are conducted. The hon. Member knows that very well.
Sarah Olney
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She referred earlier to fairness to taxpayers. Does she think that this is fair to the taxpayers of Richmond upon Thames, who are the most affected by this bridge closure? Their lives are being ruined, their businesses are closing, they cannot get to school or work, they cannot access medical services, and they have no say over what the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham does with its budget, but they understand that £140 million is more than that borough can afford. They are looking to the Government for assistance, and all they ask for is a commitment for the funding. The Minister stands here and talks about all the administrative barriers that are in the way. All we ask for is a commitment.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. It is not fair to taxpayers in any part of the country that that London borough should think that, due to its lack of a maintenance programme on this bridge over the years, people from outside the borough should be expected to stump up for its failure and incompetence. No, it is not fair to them.
In summary, as we have heard tonight, the closure of the bridge has affected not just those who need to cross it but those who travel along the river beneath it. The taskforce has enabled an agreement between the Port of London authority and the borough to allow limited and controlled river transits from 12 April when work is not being undertaken on the bridge. That is a very important point. It is welcome news for commercial river users, who can now continue operations as national lockdown restrictions ease.
Rachel Maclean
In a moment. I have given way several times already.
I reassure Members that the Department continues to work closely with all parties involved to reach a funding solution that is fair to national taxpayers. As I have said many times, there are demands on the public purse from all over the country for all kinds of things.
We must ensure that this bridge is reopened as soon as is safely possible. In all genuineness, I encourage the Members on the Opposition Benches to work constructively with the local council to get it to engage with the Government, who are going outside their statutory responsibilities to help to get this bridge reopened so that commuters, people listening tonight, residents on both sides of the Thames, users of the river, emergency services and wider businesses can make use of the crossing and ease pressures on Putney and Chiswick bridges.
We cannot do any more without a detailed funding solution. The buck stops with Hammersmith and Fulham. It needs to present that case to the Government and then we can take action.
Question put and agreed to.
Bakerloo Line Extension
Rachel Maclean Excerpts(3 years, 1 month 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 (Rachel Maclean)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Miller. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) for securing this debate on Government funding for the Bakerloo line extension. I agree with him—I think the debate is definitely about quality. He has demonstrated that in his remarks, in which he set out his passionate case to represent his constituents. I commend him on that wholeheartedly.
Of the 270 operational London Underground stations, only 29 are in south London. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman already knows, there are more underground stations in Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire than there are in his home borough of Southwark. We agree that transport infrastructure is critical in ensuring that communities can work together to achieve their ambitions of having prosperous, safe and vibrant places to live. Indeed, it has never been more important than in the period of recovery from the covid-19 pandemic.
The proposals for the Bakerloo line would extend the route from Elephant and Castle to Lewisham. Transport for London’s plans include new stations along the A2 Old Kent Road and at New Cross Gate, a new Bakerloo line ticket hall at Elephant and Castle, and an improved interchange at Lewisham station. It is important to note, as I know the hon. Gentleman already understands, that this is a Transport for London project and Transport for London is devolved, so this is the responsibility of the Mayor of London and Transport for London, whose responsibilities include capital projects. Therefore, it is for the Mayor of London and Transport for London to assess the merits of capital projects and make decisions on investment.
As the hon. Gentleman has discussed already, the Secretary of State has recently issued safeguarding directions for the proposed extension route. Safeguarding does not represent a Government commitment to fund the project, but it does ensure that the route is protected for the future, because without safeguarding the project’s costs could become significantly higher over time.
Safeguarding directions have been issued because the Government agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Bakerloo line extension has the potential to unlock housing and economic growth. Therefore, it is key to understanding the opportunities that the Bakerloo line extension, and other projects in London and across the country, present for our goals on housing supply.
The hon. Gentleman will know that Transport for London is yet to secure the funding required to progress this project and Transport for London’s commissioner confirmed to the London Assembly earlier this month that the extension is on hold for the time being. We believe that safeguarding has provided Transport for London with the opportunity to take the extension forward at a future time.
I will use this opportunity to briefly reflect on the broader context in which we are having today’s debate. The hon. Gentleman has referred to some of these matters. Our focus right now remains on responding to the pandemic, and there are significant challenges facing the whole country, including the transport network. In London’s case, the Department for Transport is continuing to work closely with Transport for London to ensure that the transport network can support the restart and recovery of the city. The Government have already shown a significant commitment to supporting London’s transport network and Londoners throughout the pandemic, including more than £3 billion in emergency funding since May 2020. That is a significant amount of money that has been provided to help Transport for London keep the essential networks going. On Monday, the Government agreed an extension to the current Transport for London funding deal, which had been due to expire on 31 March.
Neil Coyle
I am keen to explore the future funding specifically. from the, Point 5 of the letter from October from the Transport Secretary to the Mayor of London says:
“In relation to any long-term plans, HMG define financial sustainability as TfL’s ability to cover, from sources available to it (including, the consideration of potential new sources of income but excluding government grant): operating expenditure; capital renewals; servicing and repaying debt; and capital enhancements. For major capital enhancements and major renewals (i.e. replacement of life expired rolling stock and signalling), TfL would not be expected to solely finance these from operating incomes; as is consistent with other transport authorities.”
It is about that next step, rather than the immediate temporary measures to carry the capital through the covid crisis. I am keen for the Minister to move on to that agenda, if possible.
Rachel Maclean
I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to move on to the future of the project. What I wish to say on that point is that, obviously, the Government will be working very closely with Transport for London on the future funding settlement, so that we can continue to ensure the sustainability of the transport network. I very much encourage him to continue his work and his communications with my noble Friend in the other place, Baroness Vere, who is intimately involved in the discussions, and with the Secretary of State for Transport, because the Government absolutely wish to ensure that there is a sustainable transport network for London and the whole country.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate on this topic; it is a very important matter. The issuing of safeguarding directions has protected the proposed route for the future, which is a very positive step. It provides Transport for London with more time to put together a funding package without the cost of the project significantly escalating. That is a very important step in the right direction. I also encourage the hon. Gentleman to aim his questions about funding at the Mayor of London and Transport for London following May’s election.
Question put and agreed to.
Outer London Congestion Charge
Rachel Maclean Excerpts(3 years, 1 month 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 (Rachel Maclean)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing this important debate. He and many other hon. Friends have put on the record their concerns at the Mayor of London’s plans to introduce a border tax for people and businesses travelling into the capital. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and for Hendon (Dr Offord), so we have a very good sense of the widespread impact of the concerns about this proposal.
The debate, rightly, has focused on the Mayor’s border tax. I will come to that in a moment, but behind this question lies a deeper concern that has been highlighted by many contributors, about the state of TfL’s finances, which brought us to this predicament. Let me say straight away that I do not doubt the impact that the coronavirus pandemic has had on TfL’s finances over the last year. I doubt any transport system in the world has emerged from the last 12 months unscathed, as people rightly heeded the Government’s calls to stay at home and the capital’s streets emptied. That is precisely why the Government have stepped in to help.
In May 2020, the Government agreed to support TfL with a funding settlement worth up to £1.6 billion. Following that, we agreed another settlement in October 2020, bringing the total value of financial support for TfL to more than £3 billion since the pandemic began.
It is worth pausing on that figure of £3 billion. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) bemoaned the lack of a sustainable, long-term strategy. Three billion pounds has been provided to support TfL. It was confirmed in a statement to the House on Monday that this support would, once again, be extended, until May. I remind the hon. Gentleman that discussions are ongoing, to meet the exact call that he made—to put TfL’s finances on a sustainable footing for the long term. When we know how passengers are responding to the Prime Minister’s road map to safely unlock our economy, we can continue to work with TfL, as we have been doing throughout the pandemic, to once again explore what support it needs.
The issue, however, is that even before the pandemic, TfL’s finances were in a perilous state. As many of my hon. Friends have rightly said, years of mismanagement under the current Mayor left TfL completely unable to cope when the pandemic hit. By April this year, TfL expects its debt to reach £13.1 billion. The Mayor pursued ill-conceived policies designed to re-elect him, not to do what was right by Londoners. His fare freeze, which he was warned would have a devastating impact, has cost at least £640 million. The Mayor has failed to get a grip on pensions or excessive salaries. In short, TfL’s finances are out of control and we must tackle that, because people living outside the capital cannot be expected to keep picking up the tab for Sadiq Khan’s mistakes.
Unfortunately, rather than facing up to some of the difficult choices that need to be made to get TfL back on the path to financial sustainability, the Mayor has responded with politicking and measures that will punish working Londoners and their closest neighbours alike. Mayor Khan is increasing council tax by almost 10%. That means that the average band D property is now facing a council tax bill that is £31 more expensive than a year ago.
The other deeply concerning suggestion from the Mayor is that he might seek to introduce the so-called border tax that we have heard about today, which is a charge of at least £3.50 for every single vehicle that crosses into London. The Mayor seems to believe that London exists as an island, disconnected from the rest of the country. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. Just as London is critical to the success of the country, so the success of London is fed by countless thousands of individuals who commute to London from outside its boundaries.
An estimated 1.3 million vehicle journeys are made into London every weekday. Critical workers travel into the capital from the constituencies mentioned today, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, to work in London’s hospitals, supermarkets and schools. These are the people who the Mayor proposes to punish for his financial ineptitude during his time in office. It is important not to underestimate the impact that such a border tax could have. A driver who travels into London every weekday could face a bill of almost £1,000 a year—devastating at a time when people and businesses are trying to recover from one of the worst economic downturns of the past century.
This would be a border tax levied on people outside London by a Mayor they were not able to vote for or, indeed, vote out. I am a firm believer that there should be no taxation without representation, as such a move would fly in the face of the Mayor’s supposed mantra that London is open. For that reason, I put it on the record that this is an idea that the Government do not support.
Under Sadiq Khan’s leadership, TfL’s debt has risen, projects have been delayed and income has been thrown away on pet projects. It is unacceptable that the Mayor will now seek to recover the money that these failures have lost by introducing a deeply damaging border tax on families and businesses surrounding London. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford for securing this debate and giving his constituents a voice in this House. As families and businesses rebuild, we need a Mayor of London who will support them by getting London’s finances back on the path of sustainability and who will stop threatening measures that could set London and, indeed, the rest of the UK back by decades.
ANPR and Width Restrictions
Rachel Maclean Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) on securing this end-of-day debate. May I take this opportunity to commend him and councillor candidate Carly Bishop for their tireless efforts in representing so well the views of the residents and motorists of Woodmere Avenue and the wider Tudor ward to find a solution to the issues that he has outlined? I hope that Carly and the residents of Woodmere Avenue are watching. We in the Government totally understand the desire for that common-sense pavement politics approach. Of course I will do everything in my power to help my hon. Friend advance the case, but I do not think he needs much assistance; he is doing it very well at the moment on his own.
I will start by setting out some background on where responsibilities for traffic management issues such as this lie. Managing traffic on local roads is a matter for local traffic authorities. They have a range of duties, powers and responsibilities on them in doing so. Local councils have a wide range of powers and tools available to help them manage their roads, including the ability to restrict access to roads to certain types of vehicles through width restrictions.
It is a matter for local authorities to decide whether a width restriction is the right solution for a particular road, taking into account local circumstances, and to design such restrictions appropriately. Traffic signs for width restrictions are prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The Department has provided advice to local authorities on using these signs in chapter 3 of the “Traffic Signs Manual”, which is available free online. The Department advises that the width shown on the sign should be at least 6 inches less than the actual available width. If the signed width is, for example, 7 feet, the actual width between the bollards should be between 7 foot 6 inches and 7 foot 11 inches.
Last year the Government announced that they would implement the moving traffic enforcement powers in part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. That will enable those local authorities outside London with civil parking enforcement powers to apply to the Secretary of State to take responsibility for enforcement of a number of moving traffic offences. Work is under way on drafting regulations and statutory guidance, but it is not possible at this stage to say exactly when in 2021 the powers will be commenced.
I must also explain that part 6 powers would not help resolve the situation in Woodmere Avenue in the way that my hon. Friend has set out. Width restrictions are not included in the list of offences that part 6 powers would be used to enforce. Along with other safety-critical restrictions, such as height and weight limits, they will remain the responsibility of the police, and the Government have no plans to change the legislation to include width restrictions.
By design, width restrictions of this type are self-enforcing, as traffic over the specified width cannot continue down the route. It is therefore not clear what benefit CCTV enforcement would provide at this point. The restriction in question is alongside a bus lane. Local authorities have powers to enforce bus lane infringements using CCTV, which might be something that the local authority could consider. Drivers should also be properly informed of width restrictions in advance, in time to take an alternative route and avoid them altogether. The local authority could review whether the signing on the approaches to this junction is clear enough to drivers.
As my hon. Friend knows and has set out, local councillors have a vital role in representing the concerns of their constituents to the local authority and to their Member of Parliament and in securing change. They also have a role in determining what schemes are prioritised and how funding is allocated locally. We are clear that authorities should take into account the needs of all road users in designing their schemes. They must engage properly with local communities when considering changes to local roads to ensure that they reflect their concerns and priorities.
In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend for continuing to be such a vocal local champion and continuing to seek a suitable solution for the residents in the affected area. I am very happy to continue working with him, and I am sure that my noble Friend in the other place, Baroness Vere, who is responsible for roads specifically and some of the regulation that my hon. Friend has referred to, will also be very happy to continue working with him. I am certain that the local authority and the local councillors who are concerned with these matters are watching tonight, and they will have heard his advocacy on behalf of the residents. I am confident, therefore, that these continued efforts will lead to an appropriate solution being found.
Question put and agreed to.