Great British Railways

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

Presumably it would be more like putting an electrified Michael on the case as well. Demands have changed, particularly in London and the south-east. We are seeing the results of investment, particularly that which my right hon. Friend was instrumental in helping to secure during his time in the Cabinet, for example, with the opening of Bond Street station to passengers this morning. People are starting to see major improvements in London and the south-east, but I accept that they will also look to what is happening on their local line and I will be happy to discuss with him what could be done on the one he cites.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The setting up of Great British Railways was meant to include ticketing and pricing, and the cost of commuting continues to weigh heavily on my constituents, particularly during the cost of living crisis. Furthermore, if we want to encourage people on to the trains and out of their cars, it is key that we make trains affordable. The Department for Transport has said that it will not put up regulated rail fares by 12.3%, in line with July’s retail prices index, but will the Minister commit to freezing rail fares next January, to help with the cost of living crisis and the fight against climate change?

[Kevin Foster]

It is worth saying that there are a range of fares available on our railways, particularly in London and the south-east, where people use pay as you go and contactless bank cards. We have said that we will not take the normal approach—which also existed during the coalition—of using the RPI figure to set fares next year, and a fair rise has been delayed. We look forward to introducing plans that strike a balance between a railway that is affordable for not only the taxpayer but customers and communities.

Hammersmith Bridge: Restoration Funding

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing this debate and I thank the Minister and you for allowing me to contribute briefly to it. As I am sure everybody knows, the closure of Hammersmith bridge has had an enormous impact on my constituents. I wish to raise two issues, following on from the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Putney outlining the situation. The first is that on 25 May 2022, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham issued a prior information notice, announcing its intention to seek external funding for its third of the cost of strengthening Hammersmith bridge. As the hon. Lady asked, does that mean tolls? We are desperately seeking further information on that important point from the Department. I am not against tolls. If they are required to get the bridge open, there may be public support for that in Richmond Park, but it needs detailed consideration by all parties, including the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. Any tolls would weigh heavily on my residents, and we need a full exploration of all the factors. For instance, would tolls mean that people continue to use Putney and Chiswick bridges and avoid Hammersmith bridge and the tolls? Tolls are not unknown on London bridges, but not within the lifetime of anyone here.

My residents would also want to know who will have to pay the tolls. Might there be exceptions for Richmond residents, or will the exceptions just be for buses and emergency vehicles? We need more information. I urge Baroness Vere, the Minister responsible, to reconvene the taskforce so that the issues can be urgently discussed by local stakeholders, including the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) made the point about the strategic issue involved. In Richmond, planning permission for housing developments, school place planning and healthcare planning are being affected. Will my residents have access in the long term to services, including schools and healthcare, on the north side of the Thames? It is really urgent. We know that jointly Transport for London, the Department for Transport and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham are committed to reopening the bridge, but without the funding to do so, their commitment is not worth very much. When it comes to five and 10-year planning for education and healthcare, we do not know whether services on the north side of the Thames will be accessible to people in Barnes. That is a real issue for parents who are thinking about schooling for their children. Will they be able to cross the bridge and access schools in Hammersmith and further afield? I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the debate to the House, and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on championing Hammersmith bridge once again, and on securing the debate. I also note the contributions by the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). I have listened carefully to them, and I appreciate that the subject is of keen interest to their constituents. I understand the impact of the bridge’s closure to motor vehicles on many of the people in constituencies around Putney, and throughout south and west London.

As the hon. Member for Putney is aware, the bridge is owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and, as such, the borough has the responsibility for maintaining the bridge. The decisions on its repair lie with the borough. The bridge is a unique wrought iron structure, and has served generations of Londoners for nearly 200 years. It is deeply concerning that the bridge has had to close, first to motor vehicles in 2019 and then to all users in 2020. Of course the safety of those using the bridge was and remains the greatest priority. That is why my Department has done everything in its power to assist the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and Transport for London with the project, and to facilitate the full reopening of the bridge to all users, including motor vehicles.

I turn to the progress that has been made and some of ways that we have assisted. In 2019, we established the Hammersmith bridge taskforce, led by Baroness Vere of Norbiton, and it has met several times. The taskforce brings together all the key stakeholders whose input is required to deliver successful outcomes for pedestrians, cyclists, river traffic, and, eventually, motorists. The taskforce has been instrumental in organising stakeholders to work together in developing a clear course of action to enable the bridge to open.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) asked about the prior information notice that was issued by Hammersmith and Fulham. That PIN was issued on 25 May, with a deadline of 10 June. It was then extended to 15 June. Meetings with interested parties are taking place over the next few weeks to gauge interest and to seek feedback on the proposals. This is a crucial step in the process, and in developing an understanding of the market’s appetite and of the options being considered by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

On the timelines, since the establishment of the Hammersmith bridge taskforce, the project has made significant progress. Thanks to Government funding—some £4 million was provided on 31 October 2020—the bridge was able to reopen on 17 July 2021, albeit on a limited and controlled basis, to pedestrians, cyclists and river traffic. The next stage of the project—reopening the bridge to motor vehicles—is under development by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Providing a schedule for full reopening is part of the development process. Whether to impose tolls is a decision for the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. We expect the borough to engage with residents as it deems appropriate, so that it can understand any implications, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park set out.

[Sarah Olney]

Can the Minister bring any influence to bear on her colleague in the other place, Baroness Vere, so that she reconvenes a taskforce that will enable the whole issue of tolls to be properly, widely and publicly discussed with the relevant stakeholders?

[Trudy Harrison]

I will now set out exactly what is happening. Much good progress is being made. Following the complete closure of the bridge in 2020, the Department for Transport provided £4 million of taxpayers’ money, which enabled a comprehensive investigation of the overall structure and condition of the bridge. Through that investment, we had pretty much world-leading engineers working to develop a complete picture of the issues facing the bridge. Those works determined that the bridge was in a better condition, thankfully, than first thought, and that led directly to the bridge reopening, albeit on a temporary and controlled basis to pedestrians, cyclists and river traffic.

Industrial Action on the Railway

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend is right. These strikes will cost the railways a lot. They will particularly cost people who are unable to travel—particularly the lowest paid, because they often have jobs to which people still have to physically turn up. There is probably not a sector that will suffer more than the hospitality sector. Just as this country is recovering from covid, it is completely unforgiveable of the unions to call their members out on strike when they are doing so artificially and without good cause, while negotiations are still continuing, and on the false prospectus of there not being pay rises when there were always going to be pay rises.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Secretary of State has mentioned on a number of occasions the various different people who will be seriously impacted by the strike: the exam students; those with medical appointments; and many, many others. Given that he insists that there was nothing that he could possibly have done to avert this strike, can he tell us instead what conversations he has had with the NHS, with education leaders and with others to understand what his Department can do to help health and education staff get to work for the rest of this week to support their critical industry?

[Grant Shapps]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question and, indeed, for her vote as well. When this House voted last week with a 278 majority condemning the strikes, I believe that she and her party were in the Lobby putting their position clearly on the record, unlike the Official Opposition.

On those discussions with the NHS, with teachers and the rest, I am engaged with the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, which is the part of Government that co-ordinates with me and fellow Secretaries of State across Government to try, as far as possible, to ease some of the strains and stresses that will come. For example, in the case of exams where people may turn up late, we have been working with the exam authorities. However, there is no magic solution. There are 2,500 stations in this country and more than 20,000 miles of track. The fact is that, if they are closed down as the unions are doing, many people will suffer.

Transport

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a real pleasure to contribute to this transport debate, because transport is so central to so many of the challenges facing us as a country, from net zero to levelling up. It is even central to the cost of living crisis, because the Prime Minister seems to want us to use our bus services as a refuge from unaffordable fuel bills.

For me, the most important issue that transport needs to tackle is decarbonisation. Local communities right across the country need better transport options that are not only greener, but more accessible, reliable and affordable. We need more and cleaner buses. I am delighted that two of our main bus routes in Richmond Park, the 65 and the 371, are now electric, which will have a positive impact on the air quality in both Kingston and Richmond—not only that, passengers can plug in their phone, which is a real win.

The Government need to go a lot further with their transport decarbonisation strategy. They have pledged £27 billion on new or upgraded roads, and a raft of ambitious goals and targets for phasing our carbon-emitting vehicles, but there is a distinct lack of detail in how those targets will be delivered.

I echo the comments of the hon. Members for Newbury (Laura Farris) and for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) about the Elizabeth line and how marvellous it is that it has been opened, but there have been delays and extra costs. We need to leverage not just the opportunity that that extra connectivity offers to London and the south-east, but the opportunity to learn lessons from what went wrong on the Crossrail project and apply them to some of the other big transport infrastructure projects across the country. HS2, for example, has huge potential as an engine for economic growth across the north and the midlands, but it is so disappointing to see the scrapping of the Leeds leg, because that diminishes the opportunity to deliver on the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

As we are investing in new rail across the country, the Government should focus on accessibility and step-free access for passengers of reduced mobility. It is such an important issue. While we are building those railways and investing in new track and carriages, we should build in that accessibility at the very start. I also want to renew my call for more tactile paving across the network for the partially sighted. We have seen some horrific cases in London of blind people falling off the platform, leading to a number of deaths, because there was no tactile paving.

I am really pleased to see that the planning application has gone in for lifts at Barnes station under the Access for All programme. That will make a huge difference to the ability of people with limited mobility to use the station, but it must be said that more than 40% of stations across the UK do not offer that step-free access, and that needs to be addressed.

Following on from what the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) said, may I just mention Hammersmith bridge for my constituents living in Barnes? I want to see the Department engaging with Hammersmith and Fulham on the funding for the strengthening of the bridge. I know the business case is in preparation, but I urge the Department to do everything it possibly can to support that work, because my constituents really, really need it. The Government also need to think about a strategic plan for bridges right across the country. When there is the sort of catastrophic failure that we have seen in Hammersmith, it is too much for a single local authority to fund.

Quickly on rickshaws, I would welcome an opportunity to meet the Minister to talk about legislation for the regulation of rickshaws. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) brought forward legislation in the last Session on this matter. It could be a real game changer for those in my constituency and elsewhere in London and other cities who cannot access active travel in the same way. It could be an interesting opportunity and I would welcome the chance to take that forward. Transport for London needs a sustainable funding package, so that it can invest for the long term in projects such as those on Hammersmith bridge and on rickshaws.

I do not want to forget rural areas. We talk a lot about urban areas and solutions for urban areas, but too many rural areas are still very dependent on cars. In the south-west, for example, the cost of diesel is 0.5% higher than the national average, which really disadvantages people in places such as Devon when using their cars.

Finally, may I mention electric vehicles? We need to expand opportunities for charging and to think about a temporary reduction of VAT on electric vehicles to encourage take-up. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead made a great case for investing in electric vehicle charging points, but if we want to accelerate the uptake of electric vehicles, we urgently need to consider making the price more attractive.

Smart Road Pricing

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I welcome this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing it. He will be interested to know that the Liberal Democrat leader of Sutton Borough Council would agree with many of the points he has raised. She wrote to the Mayor recently about this issue, highlighting the points raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington about the lack of public transport in Sutton and how that needs to be addressed before further plans for road pricing can be progressed.

The hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine face many of the same issues. My constituency also lies in the suburban outskirts of London and has relatively high car usage. I certainly sympathise with some of his remarks and concerns about taxes imposed on car users. My constituents also have reservations about the ultra low emission zone, which has been in place since late October and cuts right through the middle of my constituency. I welcome any move to improve air quality, but it has created issues by cutting people off from essential services such as Mortlake crematorium and Townmead recycling centre.

Despite my reservations about the arbitrary boundary divisions of the ULEZ, I firmly believe that action needs to be taken to dissuade car usage. I am strong advocate for the implementation of a simpler, fairer and more sustainable road pricing solution. London is extremely congested, our air quality is poor, and current levels of car usage cannot be maintained if we are to achieve our net zero goals. A report published by the Greater London Authority earlier this year found that car traffic must reduce by at least 27% across the capital, in order to achieve net zero by 2030.

There is a cross-party consensus that some kind of road pricing scheme that charges motorists on a per-mile basis would be beneficial, especially in London. It now seems inevitable that such a scheme will be implemented in due course. Current taxes on fuel and vehicle ownership will raise nearly £37 billion this year, but those revenues will dwindle as fossil fuels are replaced by zero-emission alternatives. The need for change is pressing if the Government are to retain current levels of tax revenue while also reducing toxic air pollution and cutting congestion.

The majority of road users would be set to benefit financially from smart road pricing. Those who are not high mileage users would bear only a small cost if other road charges and vehicle excise duty were removed.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making some good points about London, but I urge her to think about the solution recommended by the Transport Committee that this should be at national level. Certainly, those people who live in rural communities and counties outside metropolitan areas could be very adversely affected by per-mile road pricing. It could, in fact, put people out of work; it could affect the ability of families to take their children to school and all sorts of other issues. I urge her to look at that and consider it in the suggestions and remarks she makes to the Minister.

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Member raises an important point. What we are trying to achieve is a certain amount of equity. He is absolutely right about the contrast between rural and urban car usage and ownership. Although my remarks focus on what might be best for my constituents, I accept that it would be an entirely different matter in his part of the country. Per-mile road usage charging may not be the most equitable solution across the country. Certainly, for my constituents, a per-mile scheme would mean less cost than now in terms of the taxes they pay on petrol and vehicle excise duty.

Polling undertaken by YouGov for the Institution of Civil Engineers in 2019 suggested that a pay-as-you-go model of road pricing has popular support—47% of British adults stated that they would support a pay-as-you-go model if it replaced both vehicle excise duty and fuel duty, and just 23% opposed. For those living in urban areas, the first means of transport should automatically be public transport but, presently, in constituencies such as Richmond Park, and Carshalton and Wallington, public transport is both underfunded and unreliable.

It is not right that those who use cars simply because they have no other practical way of getting around should face large increases in taxes. Any new road pricing scheme must also be matched with adequate investment in public transport. In London, that begins with a long-term funding settlement for Transport for London. Constituencies on the outskirts of London require a central London-style public transport system that allows my constituents and others to travel across the borough and between neighbouring boroughs easily and quickly, in order to decrease car usage.

In addition to public transport options being made available, they must also be accessible and affordable. This month, the Government have increased rail fares by 3.8%, with another increase set for July. The Liberal Democrats have proposed to scrap this rail fare increase and to further implement a five-year freeze on fares to encourage people in urban areas out of cars and on to trains. If residents in urban areas are properly supported to reduce car usage through increased availability of affordable public transport, a smart road pricing scheme can offer a fair alternative to current vehicle and fuel duties. Such a scheme will be coming in some form. In principle, I think we can all agree it is necessary.

The conversation must now focus on how we can best support our constituents to reduce car usage and to ensure that the design of any road pricing scheme is given adequate consideration. Consultation must be undertaken with key stakeholders to avoid unfairly disadvantaging car users with no other practical means of transportation.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing this important and increasingly topical debate.

Finding new ways to justify charging motorists to drive their cars is becoming increasingly fashionable among certain politicians in this country, especially in London. Just last week, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, announced a consultation on expanding the ultra low emission zone to the Greater London boundary. He claims, of course, that it is to do with air quality and congestion, but it is not.

I am holding up a map taken from Transport for London’s website at the time when it was investigating setting up the ultra low emission zone. There is a colour code. Yellow is the legal limit for air pollution in London. The worse the air gets, the redder or more orange the map gets; the better the air gets, the bluer or greener it gets. As hon. Members can see, bad air quality is located in central London, around Heathrow airport and on some of the trunk roads into and out of those areas. There is not bad air quality outside the North and South Circulars or in outer London.

The expansion of the zone is actually about raising revenue—not surprising, given the financial mess that Transport for London is in. It is true, of course, that the pandemic hurt Transport for London grievously, and it would not be sensible to deny that. However, a catalogue of blunders preceded the pandemic, such as the unaffordable fares freeze, which, by its own calculation, cost Transport for London at least £640 million although likely much more. There was the failure to maximise the commercial revenue for Transport for London and of course the complete mess that Sadiq Khan made on the oversight of Crossrail. The Mayor’s TfL business plan was predicated and extremely reliant on the revenue that Crossrail was going to deliver if it was on time and on budget. But thanks to the Mayor’s failure to adequately scrutinise Crossrail despite his role as chairman of Transport for London, which is the overseeing body, TfL is now short of billions of pounds of fares revenue that it would otherwise have raised.

Expanding the ultra low emission zone to the Greater London boundary will have shattering consequences for people living in outer London. It will cost the owner of an older vehicle who uses it every day £4,500, even before they have paid for fuel or road tax. That will hit everybody, of course, but the poorest Londoners—those less able to replace their vehicles—will be hit hardest.

[Sarah Olney]

I just want to challenge the hon. Gentleman on the point that the charge will hit everybody. Obviously, I have experience of ULEZ coming into my constituency. It applies only to diesel vehicles and petrol vehicles over a certain age. I was worried about the impact, but I have to say that the number of people actually affected has been much less than I thought.

[Gareth Bacon]

The hon. Lady is correct. The charge will hit petrol vehicles registered in 2006 or before; as I just said, poorer Londoners will own those. It will hit diesel vehicles registered in 2014 or before. A car registered in 2014 is not particularly old. I had a diesel vehicle that was registered in 2012, which I got rid of the minute Sadiq Khan was elected Mayor of London. I knew that the charge was coming, that it would be unaffordable and that there would soon be no second-hand market for the vehicle. I was fortunate enough to be able to afford a newer car, but many people in London will not be able to, and the charge will hit them. The point that I have made using the map in my hand is that the charge will be hitting them completely unnecessarily.

There will be a devastating hit on an economy struggling to recover from the pandemic—for no reason. This is the thin end of the wedge. We know that Sadiq Khan’s ultimate ambition is to introduce road pricing in London. He has not hidden that. The letter to every London MP accompanying the announcement of the ultra low emission zone actually said that his ultimate objective was to replace all forms of charge in London with a road pricing scheme. The Mayor’s transport strategy of 2018 says that he will give consideration to the development of

“the next generation of road user charging systems. These could replace schemes such as the Congestion Charge, Low Emission Zone and Ultra Low Emission Zone. More sophisticated road user charging…could be used to contribute to the achievement of the policies and proposals in this strategy…to help reduce congestion on the road network and support efficient traffic movement. In doing so, the Mayor will consider the appropriate technology for any future schemes, and the potential for a future scheme that reflects distance, time, emissions, road danger and other factors in an integrated way.”

In the same document, which is revealing of the Mayor’s thinking, he says that people need to address

“the fundamentally inadequate and unfair way in which road use is paid for in London, with motorists paying too little, and in effect being subsidised by public transport fare payers. Measures such as road user charging (where appropriate), land value capture and the devolution of financial powers to local level are essential to delivering an efficient and fair funding system.”

I want to concentrate on the claim that motorists are subsidised by public transport users. That claim simply does not stack up. Setting aside the fact that most Londoners use a mixture of travel modes and cannot easily be categorised as motorist, pedestrian or cyclist, it is notable that at the time at which the strategy was launched, the Transport for London annual bus subsidy amounted to £722 million and, in addition, Transport for London provided in excess of £318 million for concessionary travel across its network, taking the level of publicly funded subsidy to well over £1 billion per annum. By contrast, London’s 2.6 million drivers were collectively paying £1.9 billion in motoring taxes, so I do not see how the Mayor can make the claim that motorists are being subsidised by public transport users. It is actually very much the reverse.

For many people, driving represents freedom. We should not be sanguine about the state seeking to undermine people’s ability to get into their own car and drive directly to wherever they want to go. Owning or having access to a car can significantly increase an individual’s travel opportunities, but road pricing is a policy that seeks to curb, undermine or remove that.

I would like to make a further point regarding freedom and it touches on a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington made in his introductory remarks. The technology required to make this form of road pricing work would almost inevitably have to include some form of global navigation satellite system technology. In other words, there would have to be in every vehicle a black box that would be capable of identifying exactly where each car had been located at any given time. That creates both practical and civil liberties considerations.

In practical terms, there is the question of how the technology would be imposed on those driving in London—if indeed we are talking about road pricing solely in London. Currently, some British motorists choose to install a black box in order to get cheaper car insurance, but a situation in which the technology was mandatory would be very different. How would the Mayor ensure that anyone who wished to drive in London had a black box in their car? Londoners drive around London, but people from outside London also drive across the Greater London boundary, so how would that work? Trying to introduce road pricing in Greater London alone, rather than in the whole of the UK, would be, as has been touched on by colleagues, fraught with difficulties for that very reason. In terms of civil liberties, many people would be very uncomfortable with the idea that the state might be able to track their every move via their car. As yet, that issue has not been addressed by anyone advocating any form of road pricing.

Therefore there are significant economic, practical and civil liberties problems with this idea, but it is the impact on people’s everyday lives that merits the highest consideration. If Sadiq Khan tries to force Londoners out of their cars by increasing the cost of driving, he will inevitably catch those who have little choice but to drive. Even if there are exemptions for specific individuals —for example, blue badge holders—there will still be ordinary Londoners who need to drive but can no longer afford to do so. For a great many of my constituents, in common with those of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, a car is an essential feature of their everyday lives, not least because there are few genuine alternatives for many journeys. In much of outer London and particularly in south London, the choice for those using public transport is the train or the bus. Trains are mostly a radial option; they are very useful for travelling into central London, but they are of little use if people want to make an orbital journey. Buses are much more useful for orbital journeys, but by their very nature, they are both relatively slow and often indirect. Many Londoners feel that their car is their best option for journeying outside London. That is particularly the case when the public transport alternative would involve travelling into central London and then out again. Road pricing, even if applied only to the London-based section of a journey, would increase the cost of those journeys without doing anything to improve them.

In conclusion, it is not a surprise that the current Mayor of London would prefer to squeeze more money out of Londoners and, ideally, outer Londoners, who are less likely to vote for him. Nor is it a surprise that he should seek to dress this cash grab up with high-minded justifications about air quality and emissions. Such a policy is fraught with difficulties and has so many downsides that it should be a non-starter, but if the Mayor of London decides to proceed with expanding the ultra low emission zone or, worse, introduce per-mile road charging, the Government should step in and stop him.

Electric Vehicles: Transition by 2030

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of support for the UK’s transition to electric vehicles by 2030.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate and all those colleagues across the House who supported the application for it. The topic has attracted a lot of interest, as demonstrated by the many emails I have received from a wide range of organisations, including the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, Imperial College London, UKHospitality, Energy UK and the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association. I also place on the record the report of the Select Committee on Transport, “Zero emission vehicles”, from July this year, and the Government’s response to it.

I welcome the Government’s deadline for the end of selling new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and she is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that, since battery production is limited by the availability of lithium, the switch to electric vehicles will not be accessible or affordable to everyone who owns a petrol or diesel car, and that consequently the Government need to invest much more in alternatives to private car use? Does she further agree that, as a start, the Department for Transport should swiftly agree terms with Transport for London for a medium to long-term funding solution that will allow it to be financially self-sufficient?

[Wera Hobhouse]

Today, we are talking about electric vehicles as part of the transition to net zero, but I totally agree that modal shift to other and alternative forms of transport is required, including for public health reasons. During lockdown, many people found that walking or cycling, if they could, was a far more pleasant experience than sitting in a car, yet the large number of cars on our roads makes such modes of transport unsafe and keeps many people from looking into alternatives.

Imperial College got in touch with me, as I mentioned, to tell me that it is leading research into alternatives to lithium use in batteries. I cannot remember what it was—perhaps something like sodium. I encourage my hon. Friend and any Member interested in the subject to get in touch with the research team at Imperial College to find out more.

The cut-off point of 2030 in the UK and countries across Europe sends an unambiguous signal of change. Petrol and diesel, made from fossil fuel, are on the way out, for the simple reason that we must limit global warming to 1.5° C as soon as possible and by 2050 at the latest. There is no plan B. The transition from petrol and diesel-powered vehicles to vehicles powered by electricity is already happening. We are here today to raise the main issues we need to deal with to ensure the success of the transition. We have nine years from today to complete the transition—only a short time.

Like other Members present in the Chamber, I have made that leap and got my first EV. Like others, I believe that I am in a good place to contribute to the debate and to steer Government into making good policy choices for the next nine years, rather than not so good ones. To get the transition right, parliamentarians and Ministers must make informed choices, anticipating the consequences of our choices and welcoming scrutiny from outside and inside Parliament.

In the big debate on how to get to net zero, the Government have too often defended their inaction by saying that it is for the markets to make the transition work. I agree that Government do not have to deliver all the changes and investment, but they do have a crucial role to play in setting the right policy frameworks, from which the market and the private sector will take their cues.

While there is progress in EV uptake, substantial barriers remain, many of which have already been raised in Parliament. They include the high purchase price of EVs, the lack of charging points, and the fear of being caught short while travelling. They all act as a constraint and delay on the transition, with many people continuing with petrol and diesel vehicles. However, time is short, so today I want to dig down to address the structural problems that result in those barriers and delays.

The UK is actually in a good place to make the transition to net zero, and the transition to EVs makes sense only if they use zero-carbon electricity. As long as half of our electricity is made by burning gas, why should consumers switch to something that, from their point of view, is expensive, complicated and full of uncertainties? The consumer association Which? has found that just two in five drivers currently signal some intent to buy an EV. That must change. The first principle must be that all our electric power is made from renewables. That would be a big incentive to consumers to make the switch and take on the inconvenience, because they want to know that they are doing the right thing. It would be a terrible failing of Government if the people who commit to going electric find that their carbon footprint is nearly as bad as it was with their petrol or diesel vehicle.

Compared with many EU countries, Britain is wonderfully placed to produce power from wind and waves, but we need to upscale those technologies considerably. In 20 years, all our power—in fact, more than we need—could and should come from renewable energy. The Government must make that their first priority—no ifs, no buts. Renewable energy, and wind power in particular, needs to be 10 times larger by 2030. Will we be able to power all our EVs from renewables in 2030? The answer is a resounding yes.

Let me move to the challenges. Upscaling renewables has challenges, not least in upskilling the workforce to take up the new net zero jobs while those in the fossil fuel industries are going. That needs forward planning and co-operation with our higher and further education sectors. The upskilling of the workforce will include new jobs in the automotive industry and battery gigafactories. Further education colleges are open to and ready for the challenge, but the Government need to invest in vocational training courses at all levels.

The next challenge—it is a big one—is the national electricity grid. Increased production of electricity—probably at least threefold—will require power cables big enough to take the increased load. Our national grid was built decades ago for much lower electricity usage. Obviously, that problem is now owned by a private company. I leave solving that problem to the governing party that privatised it.

The national grid is a strategic network of cables bringing enough electricity to the edges of cities and towns, and then to the array of substations that feed streets in each community. A threefold increase in electricity usage is anticipated, with domestic demand increasing as gas is replaced by electric heating and cooking as well as EV charging, if that is done from home. In most cases, the existing 63 amps and 100 amps ratings should be sufficient; the real problem is in the grid. Every home will be using more electricity, but the grid will overload if too many homes are taking close to the maximum power. There is no hiding from the reality of the big investment needed in our national grid for the laying of big, new cables, building new substations and upgrading existing substations for the increased load.

The wait for grid investment is the single biggest delay factor in rolling out EV charging. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has undertaken analysis showing that between 689,000 and 2.3 million public chargers are required. I will go further. The Transport Committee has recommended that the planning Bill should

“make public charge point provision a requirement of local plans”

and that the electricity network must be assessed for weak spots. In 10 years, most vehicles on the roads will be EVs, and in 20 years nearly all of them will be, so when we put in new grid infrastructure, it needs to be enough for every car in the future, not just for those that are on the road now. It is disappointing that the Government have only partially accepted the recommendations of the Transport Committee, meaning that we will have to fight for every penny, that investment in the grid will come later rather than sooner, and that we are always going to be behind the curve. We need to plan ahead.

The biggest concern for current EV owners, some of whom are in this room, and future owners is how to charge their vehicles. Let me deal with home or near-home charging first. Imagine two different homes: the first is a home with its own off-street parking, and the second is a home with a pavement or more between it and its parking space, especially terraced housing or flats. In the first example, the charging can be done by the owner from their own electric supply; in the second example, the owner needs to use a supply offered by the local council, which in most cases owns the pavement and the road. We need a complete solution for both. It is obvious that for the home with its own off-street parking, the charging solution is in the hands of the owner: the Government do not need to get involved unless they want to subsidise the equipment. However, homes without off-street parking require Government and especially local government to play a key role.

As has been said by the Transport Committee and many others, the variation in EV charging prices is a problem. The price of electricity is about 20p per kilowatt for charging from the home. I believe that the price for the second group of owners who need on-street charging should be almost the same, but the current prices usually range from 30p to 40p per kilowatt. That is not acceptable: it is discriminatory against many of the people who need the most help and encouragement to move to electric vehicles. For us to achieve 20p per kilowatt for street or car parking charging, it will need to be run as a not-for-profit public service. That is the role of the local authority, but it will need funding, investment, and the full co-operation of National Grid.

On a positive note, providing that service will bring out the best in local government through decisions and actions taken in close consultation with, and with the assent of, the local communities that they serve. Councils up and down the country have declared a climate emergency and have committed to net zero by 2030. My own council of Bath and North East Somerset is fully committed to deliver a big roll-out of EV charging, but it cannot because the grid capacity is not there. I am delighted that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders agrees that we need

“A national strategic plan delivered locally to uplift the number of chargepoints and ensure the right type of chargers are in the right places.”

In my own city of Bath, there are cars parked bumper to bumper on residential streets. In 10 years, every single parking space should have a charge point, a little bit like the old car parking meters we once had. There should still be some connections there. Let us put in this infrastructure all at the same time, at much better value for the taxpayer, rather than doing it piecemeal.

The final piece of the jigsaw for EV charging is away-from-home charging. How easy could it be to convert the current network of petrol stations to fast-charging hubs? Yes, it takes an hour or even a bit more to charge fast, but combined with a meal or a snack, it could be perfect. Once again, there will be the need for substantial investment in the grid, as fast charging uses a lot of electricity very quickly. I had a meeting with representatives of the Highways Agency a couple of years ago when they were planning for a new highways network. I asked them about planning for the laying of big cables, but they said that that was not the Highways Agency’s responsibility. I could not believe it: if we are planning to build new roads, we should surely bear in mind the fact that the cars on those roads will be electric and will need charging. If everyone knew that they could pull up into what used to be a petrol station and is now a fast EV charging station, the fear of being on the side of the motorway with a dead battery would disappear.

The Transport Committee has already begun scrutiny of the Government’s Project Rapid, their £950 million charging fund for strategic sites. It is clear that the levels of ambition and funding are well below what is needed. To use a driving metaphor, we need to be driving this transition at 70 mph and not going along at a pedestrian pace. The Liberal Democrats pledged a financial investment of £100 billion during this Parliament for the transition to net zero. We are way off that mark.

In conclusion, by 2030 we can become a country where fossil fuels are no longer used for private transport. To do that requires political leadership. That we need alternatives to car use, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) points out, and to bring in modal shifts and societal change away from our dependency on cars in addition to the EV transition, goes without saying. There is no planet B. Let us speed up and deliver the change.

Transport for the North

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Can I make it clear to those who are gesturing while sitting down that I have called to ask questions several people who were not here at the very beginning of the Minister’s response to the urgent question? I should explain to the Chamber that I have been very lenient today because I am aware that the Annunciator was not changed until several—[Interruption.] No, the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) must not dissent from what I am saying. It is a very simple explanation of why I am being kind and considerate to the Chamber.

I could stop and say that the moment the Minister gets to his feet, anyone who is not in the Chamber at that moment is not allowed to utter a word, but in my judgment that would mean that neither the Minister was properly questioned nor the Government held to account on this important matter. On this occasion, the monitor was not changed, this part of business started early and several people were taking part in an important event with Mr Speaker downstairs. I have therefore been lenient, because I think it is more important, when there is a matter of judgment, to come down on the side of giving colleagues the opportunity to ask their questions and to hold the Government to account. That is my judgment and why I have done this, and it ought not to be questioned.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Both today and last week when Ministers talked about the scrapping of the eastern leg of HS2, they have talked a lot about improving journey times, but we all know that one of the reasons for doing HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail was, above all, to improve connectivity and capacity. Can the Minister explain how the new integrated rail plan and today’s announcement about Transport for the North are going to increase capacity and connectivity, and will this reduce fares to encourage more people to stop using their cars and get on to trains?

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As set out in the integrated rail plan, on many of these key routes we are doubling or trebling capacity. I also want to be clear, on the eastern leg, that we have committed and funded through the integrated rail plan to build a first phase from the west midlands to the east midlands, and there is now £100 million for further work to look at the best way to get HS2 trains from there through to Leeds. For the time being, therefore, the plans to build the full eastern leg remain as they are. No safeguarding has been lifted, and that is something that will be changed only after we have the outcome of the study.

Integrated Rail Plan: North and Midlands

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

You never know in politics. My hon. Friend makes the good point that electrification can be a real game changer on our railways. I think I am right in saying that he has already experienced it up to his constituency but not further north. This plan completes it and brings electrification of the midland main line up to Sheffield, which will make a dramatic difference to him and his constituents. I thank him for welcoming it.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The announcement scraps much-needed plans to improve rail capacity and connections in communities in the midlands and the north, where economic prosperity should have been boosted. Just a few weeks ago, the Chancellor announced plans to make it cheaper to take domestic flights. Can the Secretary of State explain how those plans together deliver against either of the Government’s stated objectives of levelling up and tackling climate change?

[Grant Shapps]

I thought that the hon. Lady was going to ask about how the plan benefits Richmond specifically—I suppose it does for those who want to travel to anywhere in the midlands or north. She is right that it is important that people can travel affordably by rail. It is also right to remind the House that, in all these decisions, we have to consider the wider purse and taxpayers’ money. We have spent £15 billion keeping our rail service going during coronavirus outside of all the other expenditure and we come to the House today with a £96 billion investment package. Of course, we will always try to balance the direct costs to the individual passenger making a journey with those to the wider taxpayer who is supporting the infrastructure. It is always my goal to get more people travelling on the trains and public transport—that is, I think, a worthy goal—and I think these plans will help that in the future.

HGV Driving Licences

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a privilege to follow the powerful speech of the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth).

Like every other Member, I am obviously concerned about the HGV driver shortage and the very visible impact that it has been having in every community over recent months. We have seen the petrol shortages and empty shelves. One thing that concerns my constituents is that we are not entirely sure what the next impact will be. Is this a short-term issue, or will it continue for longer? I support the Government’s measures to attempt to resolve it, and I give them credit for what they have been able to do so far.

We know that the HGV shortage has arisen from a number of sources. We know, for example, that terms and conditions in the haulage industry have been declining relative to the general employment market over the last couple of decades. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) highlighted the issue of facilities, but this is also very much an issue of how our labour market has changed, partly as a result of the pandemic but also as a result of our leaving the European Union. I urge the Government to do more about making HGV driving an attractive occupation, certainly for new entrants to the market here in the UK—the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) made some interesting remarks about training, and I think that the Government should take that on board—but in the immediate term we need to make more visas available for HGV drivers from abroad to ensure that we no longer see the disrupted supply chains that we have seen over the last few months.

The Government are hoping to increase capacity for testing. I am concerned about that, because obviously we should not be attempting to resolve the HGV shortage at the expense of road safety for everyone—motorists, pedestrians and all our communities. As we all know, the impact of poorly driven HGVs can be devastating. I am anxious about all these proposals on road safety grounds, but while I have my anxieties about the proposed changes in the way in which tests are taken by drivers of articulated and rigid lorries, they are mitigated by the fact that those changes are targeted at a specific group of people who are already professional, experienced and have been driving lorries for a living.

However, I have a real problem with the abolition of the trailer towing test. I cannot say much more about this issue than has already been said so eloquently by the hon. Member for Bristol South, but my specific concern is that if we were to allow this change, and if that were to result in a significant increase in collisions or indeed deaths—as was also eloquently described by the constituent of the hon. Member for Bristol South—we would have just let these regulations through without any opposition or anyone standing up to say that it was wrong.

We are talking about drivers of motor cars, which is obviously the majority of licence holders in this country, suddenly being able to drive trailers weighing 3,500 kg. That is a significant skill that takes time to acquire, and it requires proper instruction. I am very concerned by what the hon. Member for Bristol South has been saying about the need to increase the safety of trailers. That is well recognised, and it is something that she has campaigned on for a long time, so the proposal to abolish the measure feels like a move in the wrong direction. I am extremely anxious about the implications of that. Also, now that the barrier of the requirement to take a test is being removed, will we see a big expansion in the number of people wanting to tow trailers without proper instruction? What will that mean for road safety? I am extremely anxious about that, and I will oppose the statutory instruments this evening.

Rail Service Reductions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Friday 22nd October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady has to be heard, so please leave quietly. It is the first time I have had to say that in nearly two years. I think we have achieved that.

[Sarah Olney]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting me the opportunity to have a debate on this issue and also for ensuring that I can be heard.

This is an issue of specific importance to my constituents, but it also has broader implications for our country’s approach to climate change, infrastructure and the recovery from the covid pandemic. I asked for this debate in response to South Western Railway’s recent consultation on the future of its services. Like all our rail operating companies, SWR has run a reduced service during the period of the pandemic, and has been supported by considerable public funding. That has been essential for keeping our public services going and to supporting the economy, both through the lockdown and as we move forward.

SWR is, understandably, looking ahead to its post-pandemic operation, and has put forward a revised timetable for consultation. The revised timetable proposes to cut services from many of the stations in my constituency. It will be cutting trains from North Sheen and Mortlake stations from once every fifteen minutes to once every half hour, and removing peak hour services from Kingston and Norbiton. The proposals have been strongly resisted by me and by my neighbouring MPs in Kingston and Twickenham, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), and by many, many residents across my constituency and beyond.

SWR has justified the proposals by asserting that commuter travel is likely to recover to just 60% of pre-covid demand. That seems extremely unlikely. In April to June this year, passenger numbers on SWR, according to the Office of Rail and Road, were 45% of the level that they had been before lockdown restrictions began. This was a period where there were still many restrictions in place and workers were being asked to work from home if possible. It is ridiculous that SWR thinks that it can make long-term forecasts of commuter demand when it does not have any post-lockdown demand figures to look at.

Transport for London figures for Overground journeys on their network were already showing 55% of pre-lockdown demand by August, and anecdotal evidence—from me and from many other commuters who are using the train services more regularly now—shows continued growth in rail journeys both in the centre of London and on suburban services since that time. I suspect that somebody in SWR has just assumed that all commuters will make a choice to work in their offices on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays in future and have extrapolated a post-covid demand of 60% from that assumption. However, it is ignoring the large numbers of schoolchildren, for example, who depend on suburban services to get to and from school, not to mention their teachers and other school staff, and the large number of workers across many industries and the public sector who will need to be in their workplace five days a week.

The Government have been most insistent in recent weeks that they expect to see civil servants back at their desks on a full-time permanent basis, for example, and we know that many younger workers prefer to be in the office than stuck in their bedrooms at home. It is much too soon to be making assumptions about how people will carry out their working lives once the fear of covid and contracting covid has disappeared. For example, in the past few weeks—as we know, covid numbers are on the rise—we have started to see a slight tailing off in the growth of rail users, perhaps in response to the understanding that we are not yet out of the woods in the pandemic, that people still need to take care and that we still need to be cautious. I do not think it is possible to make any forecasts of post-pandemic railway usage until such a time as we can be confident that we are completely out of the pandemic.

The assumption that demand for services will reduce highlights the great challenge facing commuter services. For many decades, rail operators have assumed that commuters are a captive customer and, because they are forced to make the same journey five days a week, that demand for rail services will continue and grow and be inelastic to price increases. They have assumed that ever-increasing fares will continue to be paid by commuters who have no alternative other than to use the rail services that they are offered by their local rail operator.

However, the pandemic has revealed to us that we can continue to work successfully from our homes and other locations, and that we therefore have a choice. We have a much greater range of commuting options to choose from. If we want, we can stay at home and work just as successfully, in many industries and sectors, as we could if we were in the office. We may need to go into the office only for a few hours. We may choose to travel later. We may choose to come home later. We may choose to adopt any kind of working pattern and to be based somewhere between home and the office. There is one assumption that we might be able to make with some confidence: it will no longer hold true, particularly for people living in the suburbs, such as in my constituency, that there is a huge number of people who will require train services to get them to their offices before 9 o’clock in the morning and who will therefore be captive to price rises on the trains.

I think that South Western Railway’s mistake is to assume that the increased range of options will necessarily mean that fewer people will choose to travel at peak time and to plan accordingly. It betrays an extraordinary lack of confidence in its service to assume that once people have more options, they will not willingly choose to use trains. Instead of seeking to persuade people to use trains, South Western Railway has decided to cut supply. That is not the entrepreneurial spirit that railway privatisation sought to inspire.

The challenge that the country faces now is not just from covid. We also face the far greater challenge of cutting our carbon emissions, and much of that reduction needs to come from changing the way we travel. Government have made a clear commitment to modal shift as part of their strategy to reduce transport-related emissions and that means encouraging travellers to use trains, buses and active travel instead of motor cars. There is no doubt that people have continued to use their motor cars. We see motor car journeys now at similar and even greater levels than before the pandemic. If we are to meet our carbon emission goals, we need to redouble our efforts to encourage people to travel by train.

How would a free market in rail travel respond to the challenge presented by home working and car use? It would cut prices to stimulate demand, and yet, we can see that the cost of rail tickets has increased by 36% over the past 10 years compared with just a 9% increase in the costs of motoring. What would be the impact of cutting services on rail operator income? It would decrease demand for rail services and cut fare income. Rail operators would then be forced to increase fares on remaining services to cover their costs. With a greater choice of how and when to travel—indeed, of whether to travel at all—more and more commuters will choose not to use a train service that offers ever-increasing prices for fewer and fewer services. That will have a knock-on impact on our rail network as a whole. We will see underused stations gradually closed and fewer and fewer services. Rail operators will find it harder and harder to cover routine maintenance costs. Even if we do not think that we can yet forecast user numbers, I confidently forecast that reduced rail services and reduced income will result in a spiral of fewer and fewer services, eventually cutting off those services entirely. The Rail Minister and I are both united in very much wanting to avoid that.

It is clear that now is not the time to be thinking about cutting services. While commuters are thinking about how to structure their working lives, we need to incentivise rail travel and encourage commuters and other travellers to use it. The rail industry has already identified that there are great opportunities for growth in leisure travel. Let us improve the offering—more comfortable seats, better catering options, more space for luggage, and more reliable wifi—and offer competitive pricing to make it a more economical option than travelling by car.

I love trains. They are, by far, my preferred way to travel and, although there are many advantages to working from home, I was surprised to discover how much I missed my commute during lockdown. The growth of our suburban train network during the 20th century created new towns and neighbourhoods, and enabled many more people to enjoy life away from the cramped housing of the city, but our city centres depend on being accessible to a large number of people. We cannot maintain the unique economic, cultural and social life of central London if we discourage people from travelling into the city. We cannot tackle the challenge of climate change if we do not invest in affordable and accessible alternatives to the motor car. I call on the Minister to act to stop these proposed cuts in railway services and instead encourage people to use them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this important Adjournment debate, and I thank her hon. Friend the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for contributing. Lots of hon. and right hon. Members have made me aware of their interest in this subject, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). I would not say he is constantly talking to me about it, but every time I see him he does mention this particular subject. I do know how important it is to Members affected by the consultation.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for keeping us to time today, which is an excellent reminder that Parliament, much like the railway, functions at its best only when things run smoothly and efficiently. That is really the crux of the matter today—the need to make sure that our railways do actually run smoothly and efficiently, and put passengers first.

Let me put try to put this debate into some sort of context. In February 2020, before the pandemic, our railways had one of their busiest months on record, and the commuter services in the morning from the constituency of the hon. Member for Richmond Park were busier than ever, too. It was standing room only on nearly all—or, in fact, on all—early commuter, morning peak services into London, and indeed on the vast majority of morning peak services around the country.

However, there were issues, too. The lines into Waterloo, for example, were at capacity, and any delay in the morning would cascade through the services for the rest of the day, often creating delays on other services, as well as having staff and trains in the wrong place at the wrong time, or where they crossed lines and all things got excited. Huge amounts of delay minutes, which is how the industry measures these things, were created by those issues.

Indeed, in May 2018, the whole system nearly keeled over. Unachievable timetables bid for in very complicated franchise competitions combined with infrastructure not being delivered on time and industrial action created a toxic mix and delays up and down the country, where millions of journeys were disrupted. Action was called for in this Chamber very loudly, and indeed by consumers, punters, passengers up and down the land, and a comprehensive review was started, led by a gentleman called Keith Williams.



Going back to my story, the pandemic followed that very busy February on our railways. In April 2020 passenger numbers were down to 4% or 5% of what they had been a year earlier—almost Victorian levels of carriage. When Keith Williams’s work came to fruition in the “Great British Railways: Williams-Shapps plan for rail” White Paper this May, we not only had to take account of the issues that were there pre-pandemic but obviously had to have an eye on what had happened over the previous 15 months. I am very pleased to say that the White Paper received cross-party support, and I thank the hon. Lady and her party for being so positive about the need for reform.

Everyone in politics and across the rail industry realises that, with passenger numbers still stuttering, these reforms were required more than ever, and we needed to ensure that our national timetable is reliable and fit for the future. It had to be an integral part of those reforms to ensure that passengers get the reliable, clean trains they deserve—that is a key reform.

Ensuring we have a timetable that allows freight operators to take lorries off our roads, helping to decarbonise journeys and get goods to places in a much more environmentally friendly way, is also part of those reforms. That is why this debate is so timely and so important.

The challenge for the railways is not an easy one. The industry must rethink its offer to passengers and to freight while carefully balancing the need to preserve the excellent performance that the hon. Member for Twickenham talked about. It must deliver reliable passenger services and provide good value for money for the hard-working taxpayers who use it, and for those who do not. The industry needs to ensure that timetables are attractive, efficient, reliable and fit for purpose.

South Western Railway routes have historically seen very high patronage. I used to commute on those lines, and this House will be aware that SWR and Network Rail have historically responded to ever-growing customer demand by increasing the number of trains on the network, often at the expense of the performance and reliability of the services and the infrastructure on which they run. I am sure the hon. Member for Richmond Park would agree that it is no use having frequent services if they do not run reliably because the network is too busy, and it is no use advertising trains if they have to be cancelled to recover time in the timetable. It is infuriating when something is promised to passengers that cannot be delivered. I am keen to ensure that any future timetables do what they say they will do and can be completely relied upon.

As we all know, passengers are slowly returning to the railways, but behaviours have changed. The morning peak hours are back to being the busier trains of the day. I was shown data earlier this week demonstrating that only one train coming into Waterloo on a new normal midweek day was at or over capacity.

[Sarah Olney]

Will the Minister reflect on what I said about how we are not yet over the pandemic and how we cannot start measuring what post-pandemic behaviour will be like? As I said, we are starting to see another quite large increase in cases, which will have made people nervous about coming back to work and coming back into their offices. It is therefore too soon to start measuring how many people are on the trains and whether we can expect the number to be constant in the future.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I agree with the hon. Lady, but we need to have timetables on which to base things. We also need the flexibility to respond to demand.

As the hon. Lady describes, the pandemic has changed how people use our railways, and the railways need to respond. As I have said to industry audiences many times, the rail industry has never had to compete for its market, which has always come to it. Lots of commuters in her constituency and mine will have stories about having to stand for long distances on journeys because there was no alternative. Now, however, trains are having to compete to win their market back for the first time ever. We need to get it right, but it is a time of flex. We need the certainty of timetables so that people come back to rail as and when they feel comfortable, which I hope and expect they will in big numbers.

SWR and Network Rail have started to plan for a baseline timetable that can balance three important considerations: the performance of service, the attractiveness of offer, and the efficiency of cost. It is right and proper that they should have consulted stakeholders when embarking on such an ambitious endeavour.