Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging (Amendment) Bill
Ruth Cadbury Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Ruth Cadbury
As I have said, I will come on to the detail of the scrappage scheme later. I can address that point, because my constituency is crossed by the north and south circulars, so we have already been there.
As we know, the Bill proposes to amend
“the boundaries of the Greater London Low Emission Zone and Ultra Low Emission Zone”,
and provides that Transport for London—in other words, the London Mayor—
“may not make an order amending those boundaries without the consent of the Secretary of State”.
Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, transport in London is a devolved matter and the responsibility of the Mayor and TfL. As such, Parliament granted the power to make decisions on London-wide road-charging schemes to the Mayor. The proposed changes pose a threat to the powers of the Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority, and devolved places around the country. I am disappointed that the Minister has announced that the Government will support this Bill, given their long-standing position that local road-charging powers are the responsibility of the Mayor and TfL. Any support for such a Bill is regressive and anti-devolution.
The previous Mayor of London, before becoming Conservative Prime Minister, introduced the ULEZ, which came into operation in April 2019. In October 2021, he ensured its extension to the north and south circular roads. The current Mayor of London, as we know, then extended it to all of Greater London in August 2023. The Bill seeks to revert us to having the boundary at the north and south circular roads. I cannot see the logic in that.
Devolution is one of the key issues here, along with tackling air pollution. The ULEZ stems from Government legislation, which local government is required to abide by, and which was first championed in London by a Conservative Mayor of London. Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999—
John McDonnell
I served on the Bill Committee for that Act. At first, the Conservative party opposed the restoration of a Mayor for London and a Greater London Authority, but as we went through the legislation, an element of consensus built up, particularly in the local government community and among London MPs, about the sort of powers that the Mayor and the GLA should have, including around these sorts of issues. There was consensus that if we established these structures, they would need to be properly empowered, and then there was a debate about resourcing. The Bill before us flies in the face of the debate on that Act. As I say, I was on that Committee, and if I remember rightly, Glenda Jackson was the Minister.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank my right hon. Friend, who was a member of the Greater London Council, which was abolished by a Conservative Government who did not like what the Labour London government was doing —so much for respect for local politicians.
Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, transport and air quality in London are devolved matters that are the responsibility of the Mayor and Transport for London. The Bill is an affront to the principle of devolution, and the principle of allowing local leaders to make the decisions needed to deliver local priorities and meet objectives set by national Government. Air pollution is a health crisis. There is a national air crisis. Targets to tackle that are rightly set by central Government. Across the country, the Government have required and encouraged the introduction of clean air zones. The Bill is plainly party political point scoring, given that the Government have required and encouraged many other clean air zones across the country.
The Bill seeks to:
“Amend the boundaries of the Greater London Low Emission Zone and Ultra Low Emission Zone; to provide that Transport for London may not make an order amending those boundaries without the consent of the Secretary of State”.
The boundaries of the zone would be amended, so that the new boundary would be the edge of the inner zone —that is, the new boundary would be the boundary that was put in place in October 2021, before the zone was expanded up to, but not including, the north and south circulars. Given the concerns of drivers coming from Dartford and other places into London, what is the logic of removing ULEZ from outer London but not inner London? Surely the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) represents residents and businesses who drive into central London. Either oppose ULEZ or support ULEZ; this Bill is neither one thing nor the other.
The Bill will prevent TfL from amending the boundaries without the express consent of the Secretary of State. It would restrict the ability of the Mayor of London and TfL to make amendments to the charging area by forcing the Greater London Authority to request permission from the Secretary of State first, and would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consider London election manifesto commitments. It is very bizarre. The Bill means that there will be contradictory decisions made in different parts of the country. The Bill strikes me as being part of a historical antipathy on the part of Conservative Governments to Labour leaders in Greater London.
As others have said eloquently, this Government could do so much more to address air pollution. They could support the Mayor of London’s making the scrappage scheme more generous, so that nobody has any reason not to get rid of their non-compliant vehicle. If the costs for non-polluting vehicles came down, there would be no non-compliant vehicles polluting London. That is important because of the impact that pollution has on our communities and the people of this country.
Air pollution is the No. 1 environmental threat to public health in the UK. It contributes to up to 43,000 premature deaths every year in England. In his 2022 annual report, chief medical officer Professor Sir Chris Whitty outlined that outdoor air pollution in England
“still poses significant health threats”
to adults and children. An increasing body of evidence links air pollution to various cancers, lung and heart disease, dementia and stroke. It puts us all at greater risk of disease and shortens lives.
Furthermore, toxic air is holding back our public services and making it harder to treat other conditions. Public Health England estimates that air pollution will cost the NHS and the social care system £1.6 billion between 2017 and 2025. That rises to £5.56 billion when we include the impact of diseases for which the evidence of an association is less developed and still emerging. By 2035, that figure will reach almost £19 billion unless stronger action is taken. In addition, a report commissioned by the Clean Air Fund concluded that improving air quality could boost the UK economy by £1.6 billion each year, as a result of 3 million additional working days being worked, and a reduction in the rate of early retirement.
In 2019 in London, toxic air contributed to around 4,000 premature deaths. The greatest number of deaths attributable to air pollution were in outer London boroughs, mainly due to the higher proportion in those areas of elderly people, who are more vulnerable to the impact of air pollution. I hardly see her now, but I worked with a wonderful tenant activist in Brentford when I was a councillor. She has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and was confined to bed about 15 years ago; she has not been able to leave her bedroom because of COPD. She has lived all her life in Brentford, which has always had very high air pollution from the coke works and the proximity to the A4 and the M4. She is just one example, but we all know people who suffer from COPD, emphysema and a whole range of other life-limiting and life-damaging conditions.
If no further action is taken to reduce air pollution, around 550,000 Londoners will develop diseases relating to poor air quality in the next 30 years. The cost of that for the NHS and social care system in London alone is estimated to be £10.4 billion by 2050. More than half a million Londoners suffer from asthma and are more vulnerable to the effects of toxic air, and more than half of those people live in outer London. Toxic air is a social justice issue. The poorest Londoners, and Londoners from ethnic minority backgrounds, who are least likely to own a car, are worst affected by toxic air. Only 5% of the lowest-income Londoners own a car, yet they are more likely to suffer from toxic air.
Half of all the children admitted to hospital due to asthma in London are from minority ethnic backgrounds. How can we ever forget the case of Ella Kissi-Debrah, the first person in the world to have air pollution listed as a cause of death on her death certificate? She was a child who grew up in a flat overlooking a busy road in south-east London. I have met Ella’s mother. I have also worked with campaign groups such as Mums for Lungs. Parents are campaigning for us to do the right thing. They support the ULEZ and they ask us—I have had two or three emails on this already this week—to oppose this Bill.
I want to say a little about my constituency and why this issue matters there. From one end of my constituency to the other, we are affected by heavy traffic and, therefore, high air pollution. That can be seen from the maps. We have the A4, the M4 above, and the A316, which comes in from the M3. The north and south circular meet at their westerly point in my constituency. All those roads are all hugely congested and have very polluted air. The last ULEZ boundary went through the middle of my constituency, just inside the north and south circular. There, we have St. Mary’s Catholic Primary School and William Hogarth School next door to each other, alongside the A4 in Chiswick. The pollution at those schools is incredibly high. Parents there, led by one of the fathers, Andrea Carnevali, have campaigned for years to address the issue. Their campaign has meant that the issue of air pollution has got into the public domain locally.
Through their campaigning, those parents managed to get support from the Mayor of London for a green wall along the playground side of the wall to try to catch some of the pollution. They have also worked with paint manufacturers. Remarkably, air pollution levels inside a classroom can be reduced with a particular paint. The school was donated the paint to do measurements and assessments so that everybody could see its efficacy. Sadly, it is too expensive for schools to buy, because it is so specialist, but that is the sort of thing the Government should be supporting.
Until air pollution levels drop—they are starting to drop, and I will come on to that—children who go to St Mary’s, William Hogarth and other schools in my constituency and across London will be going into classrooms, playing in playgrounds, and walking and cycling to and from school in environments that are limiting their life expectancy.
I want to pick up on two letters I received from parents this week. This is from a mother who told me about her son. He used to attend a school situated just one block from the A4 as it goes into London through Chiswick and Hammersmith. She wrote that he
“used to suffer from asthma and he used to tell us how he could breathe so much better when we were away from London.”
He has died from cancer. His mother said:
“Although his primary tumour was in his left humerus, he died from the bone cancer which had spread to his lungs and we now suspect that it had been in his lungs for quite some time.”
That is why she has asked me to oppose the Bill today. She added another thing in her note:
“When I took my son to hospital once for something unrelated, I was on a ward with him with three other children who all had breathing difficulties. When I asked the nurse about this she said they consistently have children admitted for breathing problems.”
That reminded me of my visits to schools over the years, from when I was a councillor and subsequently as an MP. A growing number of schools have to have an asthma strategy and a growing bank of drawers full of asthma inhalers, just in case. Those inhalers are used. More and more children are using asthma inhalers day in, day out so that they are able to make the most of school.
The second email is in a way more general, but it still explains from a constituent’s point of view why I will oppose the Bill today. My constituent wrote:
“As the dad of two young boys who has to expose them to pollution every single day on the school run—particularly over Kew bridge”—
over the river, but highly polluted—
“I support any and all efforts to clean up London’s air.”
The ULEZ is a strategy to protect public health. In lieu of alternative policies that could address this horrific health challenge, the ULEZ is the most effective strategy we have for London, and that is why the Mayor for London is using it. The ULEZ is highly targeted. It helps to take the most polluting vehicles off London’s roads. Vehicles that do not meet certain emissions standards and are not otherwise subject to a grace period, discount or exemption must pay the charge to travel within the city. The charge is set to disincentivise frequent trips in non-compliant vehicles that would otherwise contribute more to air pollution. It incentivises people to change their travel behaviour—for example, to use public transport more or to replace their vehicle—while allowing occasional visitors and infrequent drivers an alternative.
The London-wide expansion has already been highly effective in reducing the proportion and number of older, more polluting vehicles on London’s roads. Data from the London-wide ULEZ first month report shows a 10 percentage point increase in vehicle compliance in outer London, with 95% of vehicles seen driving in London on an average day now meeting ULEZ standards. That is up from 85% when the consultation was launched in May 2022, and means that compliance rates in outer London have nearly caught up with inner London. As has been said, any net revenue raised from ULEZ will be re-invested back into public transport, including the expansion of bus services in outer London. I am not aware of bus services that have been cut, but there is no doubt that we could always do with more bus services—more frequent services, and more night and weekend services—so that fewer people are forced to get their car out in order to get to work, visit friends and relatives, and so on.
The ULEZ has been hugely successful in central and inner London, and has led to significant benefits. Harmful NO2 concentrations alongside roads, such as the A4 and the A316 in my constituency, are estimated to be 46% lower in central London and 21% lower in inner London than they would have been without the ULEZ. The number of schools in areas exceeding legal limits for NO2 fell by an amazing 96%, from 455 in 2016 to just 20 in 2019.
Mums for Lungs is keen to remind us of those figures. It says that on an average day, there are 77,000 fewer unique non-compliant vehicles compared with June 2023, as well as an overall reduction of 48,000 fewer non-compliant vehicles per day within the ULEZ zone. The ULEZ has helped to reduce all harmful NOx by 46% in central London, and by 21% in inner London. Monitors in the capital showed that London enjoyed the cleanest air on record in 2023 as a result of ULEZ.
There is still a long way to go for London to meet World Health Organisation air quality guidelines, and forecasts show that all of London will continue to exceed those guidelines in 2025 and 2030 without further action. That goes back to what the Government are doing. Beyond London, it is the UK Government’s view that clean air and low-emission zones are the preferred option for improving air quality in the shortest possible time, but more must be done to incentivise the use of low and zero-emission vehicles than what the Government are doing.
We are already beginning to see the expected benefits of expanding the ULEZ, and it is estimated that 5 million more people, including the constituents of some Conservative Members, are expected to breathe cleaner air as a result of expanding ULEZ to outer London. Modelling suggests that the current ULEZ is expected to reduce PM2.5 exhaust emissions in outer London by nearly 16%, leading to a 1.5% overall reduction in PM2.5 emissions—those are the ones that cause severe lung disease. It will lead to a reduction of nearly 10% in nitrogen oxide emissions in outer London, and to 146,000 fewer car trips overall, which is an almost 2% reduction. As one of my colleagues said earlier, the worst place to be in terms of air pollution is inside a car, so if fewer car trips are made that should mean that fewer people are exposed to emissions inside a car as well as externally. The ULEZ is expected to save 27,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions in outer London, so this is about not just air pollution, but climate change.
John McDonnell
The issue we have focused on today is respiratory conditions, but, like me, my hon. Friend has been working on air pollution issues around our airport. I do not know whether she will remember this, but when we looked at the matter perhaps 15 years ago, the issue we raised was the incidence of cancer—she has mentioned cancer itself. We then discovered the Chicago airport study, which linked cancer to air pollution and highlighted the significance of that for airports and the surrounding areas. We should not underestimate the impact that ULEZ could have, not only on overcoming respiratory problems, but on reducing cancer incidence in areas such as ours. A number of our key campaigners in the area have suffered from cancer and we consider that it is linked to the air pollution around the airport.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank my right hon. Friend for that. I have worked with him for many years on issues relating to Heathrow. We cannot separate the issues of vehicle congestion and air pollution from the issues around Heathrow airport, which does not do enough to incentivise its staff and its passengers to come to the airport by means other than car.
I said that I would cover the issue of scrappage. Having continued to listen to the concerns of Londoners, the Mayor and TfL expanded the scrappage scheme to provide support for more Londoners. The Mayor is providing a £210 million funding pot for the scrappage scheme to support all Londoners with an eligible car or motorcycle, as well as charities, sole traders and small businesses. It is the most generous scrappage scheme ever seen in the UK. As part of the scheme, any London resident with an eligible non-compliant car can apply for a grant of up to £2,000 to scrap it. Neighbours of mine have a nice little runaround car that cost £2,000 and is compliant, so anyone who says that it is not possible to buy a compliant car for that kind of money has not tried to do it.
Other more extended benefits are available. For example, disabled people who need to scrap or retrofit a non-compliant wheelchair-accessible car can apply for grants of up to £10,000 to scrap or £6,000 to retrofit. Charities, sole traders and businesses with fewer than 50 employees that are registered in London can apply for a grant of £7,000 to scrap a van, £9,000 to scrap a minibus, or £6,000 to retrofit certain vans or minibuses. They can also apply to scrap and replace a van or minibus with a fully electric vehicle, for which the grants are £9,500 and £11,500 respectively. Eligible organisations can scrap or retrofit up to three vehicles. As of 15 March 2024, applicants to the ULEZ scrappage scheme can donate their non-ULEZ compliant vehicle to support humanitarian and medical needs in Ukraine, in return for the same level of grant payment that is available to those who choose to scrap their vehicle.
The Government have provided scrappage funding for other cities, including Birmingham, Bristol, Sheffield and Portsmouth, but they have not provided similar arrangements for specific ringfenced funding for London. That is yet another sectarian attack by the Conservative Government on a Labour Mayor.
Air pollution is a health crisis, and targets to tackle it are rightfully set by central Government. Across the country, the Government have required and encouraged the introduction of clean air zones. The Bill is plainly party political point scoring, given that the Government have required and encouraged many other clean air zones across the country. This Bill is a challenge to the powers of the Mayor of London to make decisions that improve the health of Londoners—all Londoners. If successful, the Bill has the potential to do significant damage, reinforce inequities in public health and undermine the office of the Mayor of London. The Bill is an attack on devolution. The Mayor has a right to introduce measures within his powers to meet statutory targets set by central Government, but they are dictating how a democratically elected Mayor of London should run the city and that is counter to the principles of devolution. Labour is a party of devolution: we created the mayoral model in London, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and promoted local and regional decision making and funding across England. This Bill is an attack not only on devolution, but on measures to improve our environment and the health of our children and our children’s children.
We have to have solutions to the air quality crisis and the cost of living crisis, both nationally and locally. Labour is clear that the Government have a direct responsibility to work with local authorities to enable clean air zones and alternatives to them, and there needs to be a range of alternative air quality improvement methods, including re-routing traffic, land management, speed limits, better public transport and making it easier to acquire non-polluting vehicles. That responsibility should extend to helping to mitigate the impacts of any proposal that clears the strong thresholds set by the Government for a clean air zone. I do not hear about any alternatives from those on the Government Benches, so whose side are the supporters of the Bill on—continuing pollution or finding a solution to stop our children dying? I want to read out the end of the email that I received from the father I mentioned earlier:
“Pollution is too high in London, it makes us sick and long-term exposure can reduce cognitive ability.”
I am proud that London has the world’s largest clean air zone. The ULEZ is a brave and important policy which will be a historic legacy for the London Mayor.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ruth Cadbury Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harper
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Imposing blanket 20 mph zones without local support—which is what Labour has done across Wales and in London—is bad for drivers, but it also risks reducing the specific protection for vulnerable road users which operates, for example, near schools. As our policy paper “Plan for drivers” explains, we will be providing stronger guidance to ensure that blanket 20 mph zones are restricted, and we will consider further action against councils that do not comply with it.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
On one hand the Secretary of State acknowledges the ability of local authorities to deliver their own local transport strategies such as low-traffic neighbourhoods and 20 mph zones where they fit, but on the other hand this “Plan for drivers” weaponises such policies. Will he stop weaponising them, and consider those who are not in vehicles but are using our roads and the safety measures from their local authorities? Will he recognise that we are all road users, whether or not we are in a vehicle?
Mr Harper
I think that question had the disadvantage of being written before the hon. Lady had listened to my answer. I said very clearly that I supported 20 mph zones in areas where they make sense. Outside a school, for instance, they make perfect sense. What does not make sense is imposing blanket policies that bear no relation to the circumstances, which, as I have said, is what Labour has done in Wales. It has implemented blanket policies that are very unpopular, do not carry public support, and damage the acceptance of 20 mph zones in places where they do make sense—
Oral Answers to Questions
Ruth Cadbury Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that scheme again. I know it is an important issue for colleagues in the east of England and I am delighted that we are able to make progress as a result of the decision on Network North. I have discussed it with Network Rail and the next steps involve the development of the full business case. Network Rail has what it needs to make progress, and I know my hon. Friend will be wishing it every speed.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Mr Harper
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the important issue of road safety. I notice that the statistics she set out are inconsistent with those set out by her hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). She recognises that our road safety record is not going backwards, as he suggested. When there is a fatality, road accidents are investigated by the relevant authorities, and that remains the position. We learn lessons from accidents, so that when we build new road infrastructure it has safety at its heart.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ruth Cadbury Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman
Of course, I have visited the technology that my hon. Friend is describing and seen it in action. We must balance the safety of patients and vulnerable road users with the potential benefits of this new technology, but I am very pleased to confirm that the Department will be funding research to advance our understanding of the impacts of this technology. The results will be published once the research has concluded.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Heavy goods vehicles cause a disproportionate number of cycling deaths. To cut the number of deaths of cyclists by illegal freight operators in other places, will the Department look at the successful London scheme and encourage partnerships between local authorities, the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency and police forces to address this problem?
Mr Holden
I am always happy to look at measures to improve road safety, including the measure the hon. Lady has suggested. I regularly meet the head of the National Police Chiefs’ Council on this, as well as the police and crime commissioners’ lead. We have already updated the highway code to put that priority of road users there, but I am happy to look at any measures we can implement to further this.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ruth Cadbury Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Holden
I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent and continued work in this area, alongside his colleagues in Chelmsford, Southend and elsewhere in Essex. I am particularly pleased to see that he has already managed to persuade Essex County Council to move ahead with a lane rental scheme, and his regulatory reform suggestions are being considered by the Department. I hope to be able to update the House later in the year, because the progress that he has suggested is directly feeding into the Government’s general policy.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
The Government, as the House will be aware, are investing more than any other in active travel, with more than £3 billion in investment over this Parliament, which enables the delivery of high-quality schemes across the country. Active Travel England is helping local authorities to deliver the greatest possible value for money in that investment by ensuring that relevant schemes comply with the guidance. It is also ensuring that any active travel schemes funded by the Department are of the highest quality.
Ruth Cadbury
In 2022, the Minister’s Department said:
“Increasing walking and cycling can make life easier and more convenient for people, whilst helping to tackle some of the most challenging issues we face as a society—improving health and wellbeing, improving air quality, combatting climate change and tackling congestion on our roads.”
His Department’s data confirms all that, including the role that low-traffic neighbourhoods play in all this. Now the Secretary of State has boasted that he has stopped funding for future LTNs as part of the two-thirds cut in active travel, which the local authorities do not have the money to build back up, due to the cuts they have had. Why are the Government pandering to the Twitter warriors and not the data and those in their own party who support investment in active travel?
Jesse Norman
I find that surprising, if I may say so, because this Government are not only investing, but seeking to reduce any possibility of conflict between drivers of cars and cyclists. I do not think the hon. Lady should disagree with policies that are designed to reduce that conflict. What we want to see is more choice for people in how they travel. Inevitably, many and increasing numbers of people want to use active travel, because of all its health and environmental advantages.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ruth Cadbury Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman
The Government are committed to ensuring that roads are safe for drivers. I have no doubt that the roads Minister would be absolutely delighted to visit my hon. Friend in his constituency, and to talk to those community groups and other interested parties about this important issue.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Since 2010, the rate of road deaths has plateaued. Is the Minister proud of that record, and when will he finally publish the long-awaited road safety strategic framework?
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Lady knows, when I was roads Minister, we did a lot of work on safety reviews for walking and cycling. I do not think anyone who looks at the statistics, which of course are not controlled by Government or any single force, will be proud of where they are. One reason why I am excited about the potential for new automated, driver-assistive and other technologies is that in principle, they have the capacity to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries very significantly. That is something we should all welcome.
Heathrow Airport Expansion
Ruth Cadbury Excerpts(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
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing the debate.
As many people here know, my constituency is a long, thin constituency that lies between central London and Heathrow airport. It does not touch the airport, but we have a large amount of the impact. For most of my political life, since before the terminal 5 inquiry, I have opposed not Heathrow’s existence but its expansion, and particularly a third runway. Many of the people working in and around Heathrow in the 70,000 direct jobs, and the many more in associated businesses and services, are my constituents, so Heathrow is a massive driver of the local economy. But my constituency also has all the negative impact: the noise day in, day out; the air pollution; the congestion on our roads; and the airport’s distorting impact on our local economy.
In 2018, Labour’s then Front-Bench spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), said:
“Heathrow expansion is incompatible with our environmental and climate change obligations and cannot be achieved without unacceptable impacts on local residents. The improved connectivity to the regions of the UK cannot be guaranteed and there are unanswered questions on the costs to the public purse and the deliverability of the project.”
That case is even stronger five years later. My fear around expansion is not about runway 3, however. As others have said today, that is getting increasingly unlikely. My concern is that there could be pressure for more flights on the existing two runways. We are told that that is technically possible and could generate 60,000 more flights per annum—the current cap is 240,000. The main barrier to that expansion is the planning condition on terminal 5. It would require the ending of runway alternation, which gives our constituents at least an element of certainty about peaceful periods. That would give way to mixed-mode landing or taking off from both runways simultaneously.
Rather than seeking to be bigger, Heathrow should seek to be better—specifically, a better neighbour to the 2 million-plus residents in London and beyond who are impacted by the UK’s premier airport. I welcome the simplified residential noise insulation schemes, which make life at least marginally more bearable for those nearby and which are funded by the airport, but I still have some questions about them for the airport. Historically, it has been slow and awkward about giving away or spending any money to make life bearable.
Apart from insulation, much more needs to be done to make Heathrow better. We need better public transport. For those who do not know, Heathrow tried to delay or even stop what we now call the Elizabeth line, because it would have had an impact on its company Heathrow Express. We have long had concerns about Heathrow’s lack of support for decent public transport to and from the airport for workers, passengers and so on, and our constituents want a better passenger experience. Heathrow is the entrance to the UK for many people from around the world. We must remove polluting vehicles from airside because our constituents—Heathrow workers—are inhaling those emissions every day.
Heathrow must become a better employer. On things such as the living wage and fire and rehire, it has consistently been a bad exemplar of what should be one of our best products.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ruth Cadbury Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend has been campaigning strongly on behalf of his constituents against the expansion of the ULEZ scheme. Under schedule 23 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Mayor of London and Transport for London have the relevant statutory powers to install the infrastructure required for the expansion without obtaining the London boroughs’ consent. That reinforces my earlier answer that the Mayor of London is accountable. If electors in London do not like what is going on, they have the power to deal with it at the ballot box.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Properly funded scrappage schemes make a massive difference to ensuring that people transition to low-emission vehicles. This Government have provided funding for clean air zones and scrappage schemes in Bristol, Bath, Sheffield, Birmingham, Portsmouth and other areas around the country. The previous Conservative Mayor of London supported the London clean air zone, and it is recognised in the Government’s air quality strategy, so why have the Government not provided a single penny of scrappage funding for London since the introduction of the ULEZ in 2019?
Mr Harper
Frankly, it is a bit rich for the hon. Lady to talk about this Government’s support for Transport for London. The latest TfL settlement supports almost £3.6 billion-worth of projects. This Government’s total funding to TfL has been more than £6 billion since the start of the pandemic. There are significant resources. The Mayor of London is expanding his ULEZ scheme—that is his decision, and it is therefore for him to fund the necessary scrappage scheme. If he does not want to fund a proper scrappage scheme, he should not be expanding the ULEZ.
Small Businesses in Railway Arches
Ruth Cadbury Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I have sought this debate to bring to this House a number of serious issues affecting small business based in railway arches.
There are more than 5,200 railway arches across the country. They have historically provided affordable workspace for a wide range of businesses. They were sold by Network Rail on a 150-year lease in 2019 to Telereal Trillion and Blackstone Property Partners, which established the Arch Company to manage them. Sixty per cent. of those arches are in London, and they are typically clustered around key urban centres and near major transport hubs. There are 324 arches in my Dulwich and West Norwood constituency.
The Arch Company reported a £45 million profit in the 2021-22 financial year. I would be grateful if the Minister could reflect on that figure as I set out some of the issues that railway arch-based businesses in my constituency are currently facing. The issues are twofold. First, I will raise the impact of a recent rent review process on a number of car mechanic businesses based in my constituency. Secondly, I will raise a number of wider issues arising from the Arch Company’s lettings policy in the Brixton and Herne Hill areas of my constituency.
Turning first to the impact of the recent rent review on small businesses, I have been contacted by several car mechanics who run businesses based in railway arches in the Loughborough Junction and Camberwell parts of my constituency. Those are long-standing small businesses that typically employ two or three staff and usually take on apprentices. This sector is under pressure at present as a consequence of changes in the market for vehicles and the increase in electric vehicles on our roads. There has been a drop in traditional business, and there is a need to learn new skills, which comes at a cost. The customers of those businesses are also under financial pressure. Many have older vehicles, which are essential for their work, and they are facing a cost of living crisis—they cannot afford to pay more for vehicle maintenance.
The car mechanics—several of whom I know were hoping to be in the Public Gallery but have been caught out by the business concluding early—all tell of the same experience: the Arch Company has sought to double their rent. I know that the Arch Company has argued that the level of rent those companies have been paying is low—below market level—but the market rent for car mechanic businesses based in railway arches has been established for a long time, and the business model of those businesses is based on it. If a proposal for a rent increase effectively smashes the business model of a whole sector, that cannot be allowed to pass without challenge.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is describing the experience of businesses in her constituency that are tenants of Network Rail. She might be interested to know that Transport for London provides quite a different kind of service and relationship with its tenants. It is estimated that 99% of tenants in railway arches under tube lines are small and medium-sized enterprises. TfL paused rents when businesses were no longer trading during the pandemic. Laura Sevenus Swimming Tuition and W6 Gym are two examples of small businesses in my constituency that benefited and are now thriving thanks to a positive partnership approach by TfL. Does she agree that that is the right way to go and that maybe Network Rail can learn lessons from TfL?
Helen Hayes
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention because she highlights very clearly the contrasting approach Transport for London takes to businesses in exactly the same physical circumstances, and how it is possible to run a different model that both benefits businesses and secures rental income for the landlord.
The car mechanics in my constituency have described the Arch Company as being difficult to negotiate with. They try to call the office, but the telephone is not answered. They receive an unexpected visit to their premises, and feel intimidated. The Arch Company will not engage with them as a group of businesses, despite their often being co-located on the same street of railway arches.
What car mechanics in my constituency have experienced has all the hallmarks of a rent maximisation approach, which has little regard for the individual small businesses it affects and which risks traditional light industrial uses being squeezed out in favour of gentrifying businesses that can pay a higher rent, regardless of the importance of the existing businesses in terms of the livelihoods they provide and to the customers they serve.
The National Audit Office investigated Network Rail’s disposal of its railway arches to the Arch Company. It found that, although the sale itself achieved value for money and the achievement of Network Rail’s own objectives, it was
“concerning that tenants as stakeholders did not form part of the aims of the sale and that they were only fully considered late in the process.”
The sale places no residual obligations on the Arch Company with regard to existing tenants or rental levels. The Arch Company does have a tenants charter, but this is a voluntary document that is not enforceable. The NAO further concluded that, in the future, there should be much more engagement with stakeholders affected by such a sale, and that any Government Department engaged in a sale should consider whether to place explicit customer protections in the contract of sale.
I understand that, following my interventions, the Arch Company has stepped up its engagement with some of the car mechanic businesses, and has agreed a new lease with a zero rent increase for one of them. I will take the opportunity afforded by this debate to urge the Arch Company to do the same for all of these businesses, so that they are protected in the medium term, have the time and space they need to recover from the impacts of the pandemic and to reskill where needed for the age of electric vehicles, and can continue to afford to offer highly valued apprenticeships.
The second issue I am raising with the Minister today is the impact of Network Rail and the Arch Company’s policies on two town centre areas in my constituency, Brixton and Herne Hill. In both cases, the difficulties began prior to Network Rail’s sale of the arches. Back in 2015, Network Rail announced that it needed to complete major works to two lengths of viaduct and planned to terminate the tenancies of businesses occupying the arches and evict them. A very effective community-led campaign, which I supported, ultimately secured the right to return for these businesses and protection from a cliff-edge rent increase, stepped over seven years.
The works dragged on and on. What was supposed to be a year turned into two years, and then five, creating enormous “dead zones” in both town centres, reducing footfall and making it very hard for businesses neighbouring the arches to trade. The works started to come to an end just as the pandemic took hold, meaning that the trading environment for returning businesses was very challenging. The situation was then made even worse in Brixton by the failure of Network Rail to notice during the preceding four years of major works that there was a significant structural problem with the northbound platform at Brixton station, which overhangs Atlantic Road, where many of the arches are located. This resulted in a further year or more of scaffolding and vacancy.
Once all the scaffolding was removed, the viaduct along Atlantic Road and Brixton Station Road looked—well, exactly the same as it did before. Almost seven years of appalling damage done to the economy of Brixton town centre, and Network Rail had not bothered to remove the buddleia growth, fix the brickwork or improve the lighting. It had even created a new problem: in wet weather, dirty rainwater now drips down from the northbound platform on to shoppers on Atlantic Road. It has felt as if Network Rail has been treating Brixton with total contempt. Following my intervention, it has agreed to do some additional works to improve environmental quality in the area, but frankly that is too little, too late after years of damage to our local economy and community.
Many of the refurbished arches in Brixton and Herne Hill still stand empty: by the Arch Company’s own figures, 25% of the arches in my constituency are currently vacant. The Arch Company says that it is open to approaches from start-up businesses and organisations that cannot afford to pay full market rent, but whenever I or the local ward councillors have approached the company on behalf of a business willing to rent an arch, no lease has been forthcoming. I know of two organisations, both of which would make a brilliant contribution to Brixton town centre, that would like to rent an arch, but both have only been offered levels of rent far above what they can afford.
I bring these issues before the House today because railway arch-based businesses make a significant contribution to local economies and local communities, providing goods and services and creating local jobs. The very nature of this estate has been that it provides affordable space, but in disposing of the arches to the Arch Company, Network Rail essentially cut those businesses adrift, placing them outside of Government regulation and at the mercy of the lettings policy of an entirely private organisation.
We should be doing all we can to protect and nurture small businesses during difficult economic times. As such, I ask the Minister the following questions. First, what representations has he made to the Arch Company in relation to the rent increases being faced by its tenants? Does he think the doubling of business rents in a single step during a cost of living crisis is an acceptable way to treat small businesses? Will he consider what protections can be given to long-standing railway arch-based businesses from unmanageable rent increases? What support is available for car mechanic businesses to gear up to maintain electric vehicles? Finally, will he work to strengthen the duties of Network Rail to consider and mitigate the economic impact of its operations and to maintain its estate properly? We owe it to the thousands of business owners, employees and customers to ensure that railway arch-based businesses are treated fairly and supported to thrive.
Pavement Parking
Ruth Cadbury Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Afzal Khan
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and will expand on some of those points.
I know that local councillors across my constituency have worked hard to tackle the issue, despite not having the right tools to do the job. For example, they have joined efforts to leave notes on parked cars to remind drivers to think about the impact of their parking on other road users.
Most streets in my constituency were constructed before car ownership became common. There are many narrow terrace streets and houses without drives or garages. There needs to be a much wider debate about how a reduction can be achieved in car use in cities, but I want to focus on this one specific issue today. Our starting point must be that footpaths and pavements are for people walking or wheeling, not for vehicles.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on an issue that has united Members of all parties across the House. Does he agree that the best solution already exists in London, where we have had a default ban on pavement parking for decades, and where local authorities can work with residents on exemptions where there is no choice? It is about time the Government responded to the consultations that took place more than two years ago and brought something in across the country similar to what we already have in London.
Afzal Khan
I agree. That is exactly the point I will make: we need to move forward, because we should not be still waiting. What is good enough for London is surely good enough for the rest of the UK.
In 2020, the Government held a consultation called “Pavement parking: options for change”. There have been written questions on when we can expect the outcome of the consultation; the response every time is “As soon as possible.” We are now on our fifth responsible Minister since the consultation closed. Government instability aside, surely the Minister agrees that two years, three months and 19 days is more than enough time to prepare a response. I hope he will be able to make “as soon as possible” mean sooner rather than later.
PATROL, a joint committee of local authorities—the name stands for Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London—points out that it is a misconception that all pavement parking is currently legal outside London. The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 make it clear that causing “unnecessary obstruction” of the highway by a stationary vehicle is a criminal offence. However, because it is a criminal offence, only the police have the power to issue penalty notices. The truth is that this is not a priority for the police and, to be honest, I do not blame them for that. After all, since 2011, Greater Manchester police have seen real-terms cuts of more than £215 million, with 2,000 fewer officers. They simply do not have the capacity. The current law is also ambiguous. The word “unnecessary” is subjective and leads to significant confusion among drivers: a study by YouGov found that 46% of them were confused by current laws.
The real difference between London and the rest of England lies in the fact that the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 created an unambiguous offence which authorities are confident to enforce and which, moreover, is also enforceable by local councils, rather than just the police. There is widespread agreement that we must bring the rest of England into line with London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) on his speech today and on bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I have a constituency similar to his with a lot of 19th century terraced housing, which is also similar to the constituencies of the hon. Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater). I also thank the hon. Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for contributing to the debate.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton mentioned his constituents Barbara, Carolyn, Hafsa, Jack and Antony. I also have several constituents who regularly contact me about this matter, so I know that there is concern across the House about it and we all want to see positive change. I would like to make it clear that the Government are determined to ensure that disabled people have the same access to transport as everyone else and that they can travel easily, with confidence and without extra cost. That is why the Government’s inclusive transport strategy aims to create a transport system that provides equal access for disabled people by 2030, with assistance if physical infrastructure remains a barrier. I am delighted also to be the accessibility champion for the Department.
We also want to make walking and cycling the natural first choice for shorter journeys wherever possible. We have set an ambitious vision that by 2030 half of all journeys in towns and cities will be either cycled or walked. To help to deliver that, Active Travel England was launched in August 2020 to work with local authorities to develop and deliver new high-quality walking and cycling infrastructure schemes.
Ruth Cadbury
We all welcome the words about active travel that the Minister has just read out, so why is the budget for Active Travel England, which was launched only last year, being cut by two thirds?
Mr Holden
I cannot speculate on what is going to be in the Budget, and I would urge hon. Members to wait and see what is going to happen later in the week. What I would say is that we have placed huge emphasis on this area already, with major investment going on across the country, and we expect to spend around £850 million by the end of this year, which is a record amount of funding. That represents a step change from previous Governments and Administrations of all colours in this space, and I expect to see that continue.
Recently in Parliament, I met Matthew Campbell-Hill, the new Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee chairman, and Cameron Wood, a constituent of the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who are both actively campaigning on this issue. They highlighted to me, as has happened in other recent meetings I have had in Parliament, the real issues that pavement parking can cause for pedestrians and people with buggies and prams, but particularly for disabled people with sight or mobility impairments. This is an issue I have been campaigning on in my own constituency as well, where the blind community is particularly prominent in the town of Dipton.
Pavement parking has been prohibited in London since 1974, except where councils choose to permit it by implementing exemptions and erecting the necessary traffic signs. There is no specific ban outside London, but councils can implement local pavement parking prohibitions through traffic regulation orders, as well as prescribed traffic signs and bay markings. It is also the case that waiting restrictions such as yellow lines can apply to pavements as well as to the carriageway.
The Transport Committee reported on pavement parking in September 2019, with the key recommendation that the Government bring forward proposals to reform the TRO process to make it cheaper and easier for local authorities to use. Having seen it myself, I know that the process clearly needs reform. The Committee also recommended that the Government consult on a new civilly enforceable offence of obstructive pavement parking, and that we legislate across England, outside London, to address this issue more broadly.
Although successive Governments have recognised that there is no perfect solution to this difficult problem, the Government believed in 2020 that it was time to look again at the issue in detail. I am delighted to say that we had over 15,000 responses to the consultation, and each respondent was given the chance to answer up to 15 questions, providing tens of thousands of pieces of feedback and information, all of which needed to be read and analysed. Although I do not think I can please the hon. Gentleman as much as I would like by saying that we will imminently publish our formal response to the consultation, it is a very real and complex problem that we are looking to address at the earliest opportunity. I am actively working on this inside the Department.
At the moment, there are inherent dangers for all pedestrians from pavement parking, including being forced on to the carriageway. This is an issue faced by many disabled people, particularly those using motorised chairs when there are no dropped kerbs, resulting in further damage to pavements, which is a trip hazard. Maintenance is also a burden for local authorities and local taxpayers.
It also needs to be recognised that many towns and cities like ours were not designed to accommodate today’s traffic levels, or indeed cars per se. In some locations, particularly our narrower terraced streets, the pavement is the only place to park without obstructing the carriageway and so allow the free flow of traffic, including for emergency services.
All the measures on which we consulted have challenges in respect of efficacy and deliverability, and we want to take the right steps for future policy. Existing legislation allows local authorities to introduce TROs to manage traffic, and it allows them the freedom to decide what they wish to do at a local level. As the hon. Gentleman said, however, the process is time-consuming and burdensome. We recognise that it has to be reformed, as it is hugely important, and the Department is committed to doing that.
Removing bureaucracy and digitalising a costly, paper-based system is desperately needed to help speed up applications and the process more broadly. This will make it quicker and cheaper for local authorities to implement TROs. We need to reduce the average wait time of six months, which is far too burdensome and bureaucratic. At the moment it takes 12 weeks even for temporary TROs. We estimate that this could easily be reduced by a third, with resultant savings in both administrative costs and time. Digitalised TROs will also provide accurate digital data on how our roads operate, which will be needed to support autonomous vehicles in the longer term, and they will help to provide accurate information to road users in the shorter term. We are actively looking at this at the moment.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton also mentioned the second recommendation on the offence of unnecessary obstruction of the road. I agree with him and other hon. Members that this is a broad and not well understood area of law. The offence includes the carriageway, verges and pavement, and it already exists as a criminal offence. We could amend the regulations to make unnecessary obstruction of the pavement enforceable by local authorities, while leaving obstruction of the carriageway as a criminal matter. That would enable civil enforcement officers to address instances of unnecessarily obstructive pavement parking, as and when they find it. Enforcement against this offence would be more targeted than a general prohibition of pavement parking. This would allow egregious cases to be addressed while not penalising motorists where pavement parking is the only option, and where it is safe for pedestrians and other road users. This could be implemented relatively quickly, as it would require only secondary legislation. Through this approach, pavement parking would not become a general offence, so local authorities would not need to conduct costly and time-consuming audits of their road networks, nor would it be necessary to place traffic signs and bay markings to indicate where pavement parking was still permitted.
However, there is a challenge with this option. Parking offences currently subject to local authority civil enforcement are violations of clearly defined restrictions indicated by traffic signs and road markings, such as yellow lines or white bay markings. By contrast, unnecessary obstruction could not be indicated by traffic signs or bay markings, as “obstruction” is a general offence that may occur anywhere. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, “unnecessary obstruction” is also difficult to define. It would require case-by-case assessment and the Department would likely need to issue properly extensive guidance to steer local authorities in the right way as to what might be deemed unnecessary obstruction, in order to prevent inappropriate and inconsistent enforcement. Any such inconsistency would also ensure that our mailbags were overflowing with correspondence from people rightly concerned about that issue.
The third option, which we have also consulted on, is a national prohibition, extending the London arrangements to the rest of the country or making local authorities able to implement this as they see fit. That option would establish a general rule against pavement parking except where there is a specific permission of a local authority, or vice versa. I think we would all agree that motorists would also benefit from a consistent rule in this space. That option would need a significant implementation period. Furthermore, it would require primary legislation, as the hon. Gentleman noted. Local authorities would need to audit their road networks to decide where pavement parking remained necessary, implement the necessary exemptions, and place traffic signs and bay markings to indicate all the places where pavement parking was to be permitted—or vice-versa, depending on which route we went down.
Consideration also needs to be given to whether it would be disproportionate to ban pavement parking across the whole country. For example, in rural areas the scale of the road network would mean that the costs of implementing a national ban in this way would be higher, while the issues caused by pavement parking are often likely to be lower, especially on verges in some rural communities. This is a complex area and it is only right that we are thorough in taking our time to consider it.