UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Transportation

  • Jim McMahon – 2021 Comments on Smart Motorways

    Jim McMahon – 2021 Comments on Smart Motorways

    The comments made by Jim McMahon, the Shadow Transport Secretary, on 20 April 2021.

    The Conservatives had a very straightforward choice to make and an opportunity to protect lives on smart motorways.

    Yet ministers appear to have decided to ignore the pleas of those who have already lost loved ones, and of the coroners who investigated their deaths.

    Labour will continue to press the Transport Secretary to reinstate the hard shoulder immediately while full safety reviews are undertaken and before more lives are lost.

  • Rachel Maclean – 2021 Speech on Hammersmith Bridge

    Rachel Maclean – 2021 Speech on Hammersmith Bridge

    The speech made by Rachel Maclean, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 14 April 2021.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this important debate on funding for the restoration of Hammersmith bridge and on her detailed speech this evening. I agree with her on the issues that she highlighted, setting out the devastating impact on the physical and mental health of residents and local businesses on both sides of the river, due to the long-standing catalogue of failures and lack of action by Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council.

    The hon. Lady led a protest that took place on Easter weekend, and I commend her for doing so. I want to acknowledge her passion for getting the bridge reopened.

    Andy Slaughter

    Will the Minister give way?

    Rachel Maclean

    I will just make some progress.

    I assure Members that the Government wish to see the bridge reopen as soon as is safely possible. [Interruption.] I will take interventions, but I need to correct a number of inaccurate statements before I do.

    We want to make sure that Londoners can move around the capital easily by public transport, through active travel and on our roads and rivers. Therefore we want Hammersmith bridge to be reopened, despite having no statutory responsibilities for the bridge—particularly because it is wholly owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. The Government have stepped in to try to work collaboratively to find a solution. That is why we established a taskforce in September, led by Baroness Vere, bringing together all the relevant organisations to agree the best way forward and unblock any challenges.

    I reiterate that Hammersmith bridge is owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. That means that the responsibility for maintaining the bridge and making decisions on its repairs and funding lies solely with the borough and not the Government. It is a travesty that we have got to a situation where the bridge has to be closed altogether, given that the council could have prevented the serious safety concerns through regular repairs and maintenance.

    I would like to ensure that Members in the House and those watching are clear about what funding has been provided by the Government and what action has been taken. Since the structure was closed to vehicles in 2019, and to pedestrians, cyclists and river vessels in 2020, funding for maintenance and repairs has come from a variety of sources. The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is the highway authority for the section of the A306 that runs over the bridge, so it has funded the acoustic monitoring and temperature control systems to the bridge. Those alert the borough to potential changes and allow it to take informed decisions about the safety of the bridge.

    I will correct the first inaccuracy that has been stated. As part of the TfL deal on 31 October 2020, the Government ensured that £4 million—much more than a penny—was committed to start immediate mitigation works on Hammersmith Bridge during the 2021 financial year. That has funded the blast cleaning and a visual inspection of the western pedestals, giving the borough a better insight into the condition of the bridge. That is a vital step before any other engineering works can be undertaken. Members and residents need to understand that.

    The funding means that risk mitigation works can begin so that the full repair programme is in the best possible position on cost, schedule and technical risk. As well as that, we have made the ferry service a condition of the TfL bridge deal, so that people, prams and bikes can cross the river safely.

    Andy Slaughter

    Will the Minister give way?

    Rachel Maclean

    I want to address one further inaccuracy. If I have time after that, I will take an intervention.

    As with any local infrastructure project, the Government expect the local authority to take the lead in promoting the scheme. We have heard from the leader of the council, who does not believe that the borough has the capital funds available to meet the costs of repairing the bridge. Indeed, on several occasions he has said that his residents are not users of the bridge and should therefore not be liable for the works.

    In discussions with the leader of the council and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, various options for contributions for funding the project have been discussed. Unfortunately, the council seems to look to the national Government with gold-tinted lenses, not understanding that we cannot and will not hand out a blank cheque for the works. How would that be fair to taxpayers up and down the country and to those who have been responsible, such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan)? This is what councils all over the country have to do when they are carrying out major infrastructure works.

    Sarah Olney

    Will the Minister give way?

    Rachel Maclean

    I am afraid I cannot, because I need to clarify a number of inaccuracies.

    It has been reported in the press by the hon. Member for Putney that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has asked the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to contribute 50% of the cost. That option was discussed. All that was requested of the borough was that the leader send a plan for the borough’s funding proposal. So far, the so-called bids that have been sent in amount to nothing more than letters asking for an unsubstantiated amount. It is simply not appropriate to ask for funding from central Government on that basis. The Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham should have taken the time to understand what is required to submit a bid to the Government. We stand ready to help. There is plenty of help available for officials to put these bids together, but that has not been happening.

    When evaluating any temporary crossing solution, the complexity of procurement and requirement of various consents must be considered. Given these challenges, the borough and the taskforce determined that a ferry service would provide an immediately available alternative river crossing for pedestrians and cyclists. That has been provided and we are very grateful to the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames for its support.

    The closure of the bridge has affected not just those who need to cross it, but those who travel along the river beneath it. The taskforce is an essential first step. Contrary to statements earlier, the taskforce has met regularly. It stands ready to meet any Member who would like to meet my noble Friend Baroness Vere in the other place; she is more than happy to discuss in full the detailed complexities that we cannot possibly air in a 30-minute debate in a political environment such as we have here tonight.

    These are serious and complex engineering works. I am afraid that it is completely inaccurate to make the point in this House that there is no action from the Government. I will not stand here and let Opposition Members say that. We have taken on additional responsibilities—well over and above our statutory responsibilities—as Opposition Members know. We have gone out of our way to help.

    Andy Slaughter

    I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. We need £4 million towards investigation work and there is a bill of over £140 million for repairs. Where does the Minister think that money is going to come from? She knows that it cannot come from TfL or from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Her speech will be greeted with absolute dismay by people across London and beyond who use this major arterial route. The issue is simply not being addressed, after two years. It is a wholly irresponsible position for the Government to take. Where is that £140 million going to come from?

    Rachel Maclean

    I suggest to the hon. Member that his comments tonight are wholly irresponsible, because they have not reflected the work on the Government side to engage constructively with the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham in order to understand its funding position and what it can afford. The borough has not come back on any of the engagements and discussions that we have extended to it regarding realistic sums of money. If it cannot afford that amount of money, it should come back and tell us what it can afford. That is how infrastructure projects up and down the country are conducted. The hon. Member knows that very well.

    Sarah Olney

    I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She referred earlier to fairness to taxpayers. Does she think that this is fair to the taxpayers of Richmond upon Thames, who are the most affected by this bridge closure? Their lives are being ruined, their businesses are closing, they cannot get to school or work, they cannot access medical services, and they have no say over what the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham does with its budget, but they understand that £140 million is more than that borough can afford. They are looking to the Government for assistance, and all they ask for is a commitment for the funding. The Minister stands here and talks about all the administrative barriers that are in the way. All we ask for is a commitment.

    Rachel Maclean

    I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. It is not fair to taxpayers in any part of the country that that London borough should think that, due to its lack of a maintenance programme on this bridge over the years, people from outside the borough should be expected to stump up for its failure and incompetence. No, it is not fair to them.

    In summary, as we have heard tonight, the closure of the bridge has affected not just those who need to cross it but those who travel along the river beneath it. The taskforce has enabled an agreement between the Port of London authority and the borough to allow limited and controlled river transits from 12 April when work is not being undertaken on the bridge. That is a very important point. It is welcome news for commercial river users, who can now continue operations as national lockdown restrictions ease.

    Ruth Cadbury

    Will the Minister give way?

    Rachel Maclean

    In a moment. I have given way several times already.

    I reassure Members that the Department continues to work closely with all parties involved to reach a funding solution that is fair to national taxpayers. As I have said many times, there are demands on the public purse from all over the country for all kinds of things.

    We must ensure that this bridge is reopened as soon as is safely possible. In all genuineness, I encourage the Members on the Opposition Benches to work constructively with the local council to get it to engage with the Government, who are going outside their statutory responsibilities to help to get this bridge reopened so that commuters, people listening tonight, residents on both sides of the Thames, users of the river, emergency services and wider businesses can make use of the crossing and ease pressures on Putney and Chiswick bridges.

    We cannot do any more without a detailed funding solution. The buck stops with Hammersmith and Fulham. It needs to present that case to the Government and then we can take action.

  • Fleur Anderson – 2021 Speech on Hammersmith Bridge

    Fleur Anderson – 2021 Speech on Hammersmith Bridge

    The speech made by Fleur Anderson, the Labour MP for Putney, in the House of Commons on 14 April 2021.

    I thank Mr Speaker for granting the debate, because this issue is of such interest to my constituents and to people in many other constituencies surrounding mine throughout south and west London. Hammersmith bridge has been closed for over two years. In that time, we have had a pandemic, moved billions of pounds around the country, and vaccinated half the country, yet we still have not fixed Hammersmith bridge. My constituents are really frustrated by that.

    Hammersmith bridge is an early prototype of the suspension bridge. It has a unique historical value, as well as being a major London artery, and we need a unique funding solution to enable a temporary bridge to open urgently, and for the restoration and the future of the bridge to be secured. Hammersmith bridge is not in my constituency, nor in the constituencies of some Members attending the debate, but that shows the wide-ranging impact of the bridge’s closure on hundreds of thousands of Londoners and why its reopening is so important and so urgent.

    Our health in Putney is being damaged by the increase in pollution on our high street from the additional 4,000 vehicles a day that are being diverted. Journeys to school, to work and to healthcare appointments are very long. Businesses are suffering. This cannot go on. Time and again, we have put the case to Ministers. I have raised the matter in Westminster Hall debates, at Transport questions and business questions, in written questions, through a public petition and in letter after letter, yet here we are again, and the bridge is still not open.

    Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)

    Does the hon. Lady agree that the primary responsibility for the upkeep of the bridge lies with Hammersmith and Fulham Council, which owns the bridge and has responsibility for its maintenance? My borough has two bridges: Albert bridge and Chelsea bridge. It takes full responsibility for those bridges. Over the last 10 years, it has invested £12 million to £13 million in Albert bridge, and it is about to do work on Chelsea bridge.

    Fleur Anderson

    I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. It has been said many times in many places that it is up to Hammersmith and Fulham Council, but that is absolutely not the case. Hammersmith bridge is a unique historical structure with a unique bill—£141 million. No council in London could afford that. Therefore, this issue needs a unique funding solution. I will talk about that and the bid that Hammersmith and Fulham Council has made to the Government, but now is the time for the Government to step up, because Hammersmith and Fulham Council cannot do this on its own.

    I was on Putney embankment on Easter Saturday on what would have been boat race weekend, but the race could not run on the Thames because of the danger to the boats of going under the bridge. I teamed up with local rowing organisations and hundreds of constituents to protest the continuing inaction about Hammersmith bridge and to call on the Government to step up, play their part and fund its restoration. There were boats from the London Rowing Club, Wandsworth Youth River Club and Putney High School Boat Club out on the water, all of which are affected by the closure. Hundreds of local people came by, and it was not necessary for me to persuade anyone to sign the banner and send a clear message to the Secretary of State for Transport to open the bridge.

    Last week, I went out on my first canvass since the start of the pandemic. I knocked on my first door in Roehampton, eager to speak to constituents again, and asked, “What issue is important to you?” The first thing they said was, “Hammersmith bridge.”

    Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)

    The hon. Member is making an excellent speech, and I am extremely grateful to her for bringing the matter back to the Floor of the House for debate once more. I wonder whether she would mind me taking the opportunity to highlight the massive impact that the closure has had on the residents of Barnes in my constituency. She mentioned the difficulties that people have had in getting to work and accessing healthcare. The biggest growing issue that we have had since the reopening of schools at the beginning of March is children getting to school. They have all already suffered massive disruption to their education, but many are finding that, where they could previously walk to school in 10 to 15 minutes, it now takes them upwards of an hour on crowded public transport during the pandemic.

    On top of the pressures those children are already experiencing—some with exam stress, and all the uncertainty and disruption that they have faced—they now have the additional anxiety of how to get to and from school in a way that they have never experienced. I want to highlight the massive impact that the bridge’s closure is having on young people on both sides of the bridge and the really difficult experience they are having, and to urge the Minister to come to the table and find a solution.

    Fleur Anderson

    I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting the impact on young people. I have had an email from a sixth-former in my constituency who said that they formerly left from home at 7.30 am but now have to leave at 6 o’clock in the morning. This is having a really bad impact on students across the constituency.

    Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)

    I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on her excellent speech. My constituents are also impacted, particularly by the additional road traffic that is finding its way through Chiswick as a result of the closure of Hammersmith bridge—2 or 3 miles away.

    May I highlight the concern for the businesses and operators that use the river and have been unable to gain access upstream and downstream of Hammersmith bridge? They may not go under Hammersmith bridge unless the RNLI is on an emergency call, or they have to book in advance for very restricted opening—it has been on Sundays. This has had an impact not only on the RNLI’s training, maintenance needs and refuelling, but on businesses such as boatyards and the commercial tour operators, whose core business is travelling up and down the river. There is effectively a block on that at the moment, and that will continue until Hammersmith bridge is made safe.

    Fleur Anderson

    I agree absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for sharing the impact that the closure is having on so many businesses and organisations, and even on the RNLI, in London.

    As the Minister will know, the bridge, which is one of the oldest suspension bridges in the world, was closed to cars two years ago and then fully closed to all vehicles in August 2020. The impact that is having in my constituency—and, clearly, in neighbouring constituencies —is catastrophic. However, I am not here to make the case for why the bridge needs urgently to reopen. That is so obvious, and I think it is something the Minister and I can agree on. I am here to spell out to the Minister and her Department that the biggest obstacle to progress at the moment is funding, and that only the Government have the funds, resources and legislative ability to make the changes needed to reopen and restore the bridge and to get south-west London moving again.

    I want to make three points: first, about the taskforce; secondly, about Hammersmith and Fulham Council; and finally, about solutions. The taskforce, which was set up in September last year, seems to have morphed into a significant barrier to any sort of progress, instead of making the urgent progress that we need. It is little task and no force. Hammersmith and Fulham Council, Richmond Borough Council and Transport for London have carried out the actions detailed for them in the taskforce meeting, but the Government have not brought the action needed from their side.

    Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)

    My hon. Friend is making an excellent case, but I think she is being slightly too generous towards the taskforce. A letter from the Hammersmith Society, which is a strictly non-political and very civilised body, to the Prime Minister two weeks ago ends by saying that

    “the communities on both sides of the river are unified in their anger, their disappointment and their despair at the failure of their government.”

    I held a debate identical to this a year ago when the Minister was engaging with the issue and looking at bids. We have actually gone backwards in the past year, and silly political games are being played, as typified by the intervention from the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan). What we need is a solution and funding for this major project.

    Fleur Anderson

    I thank my hon. Friend for so eloquently sharing the frustration we are feeling. I think you can understand that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that you are feeling it from all the interventions this evening.

    The taskforce has come up with no workable solutions, although the ferry will be opening in the summer. It has simply trotted out tired statements and has not discussed financing, which is why funding is the focus of the debate.

    My second point concerns the financial role of Hammersmith and Fulham Council. Many people have said to me, “Why can’t the council pay for the bridge?” To expect the council to fund the restoration of the bridge and any temporary measures is unfair and unreasonable—and in fact impossible. Hammersmith bridge is extremely expensive to fix compared with other London bridges, as was mentioned earlier, in part because it is London’s earliest remaining example of a suspension structure over the river, and because of the unusual materials it is built from—cast iron, which can shatter, wrought iron and wood—and its suspension mechanisms are unique. That puts the cost of repair at an eye-watering £141 million, which is unaffordable for Hammersmith and Fulham Council, as for any council.

    Felicity Buchan

    Will the hon. Lady give way?

    Fleur Anderson

    I will continue to explain and address the point the hon. Member made earlier.

    Since 2010, the Government have cut the council’s annual net budget from £180 million to £124 million this year. Even taking a loan would cause significant cuts to local services or huge rises in council tax, so the cost of repairing the bridge would be more than the council’s entire budget.

    Andy Slaughter

    My hon. Friend is being most generous in giving way. In fact, both Hammersmith and Fulham Council and Transport for London have contributed a sum of about £25 million. The Government have not contributed a penny towards the repair of Hammersmith bridge so far. Hammersmith has come up with schemes for a new temporary bridge, and so has TfL, and for stabilisation and repair. It is all there. The only people who will not engage with this are the Government, and they are doing that for deliberate political reasons.

    Fleur Anderson

    I thank my hon. Friend, and I hope that when the Minister has her opportunity to speak she will not ask again for Hammersmith and Fulham Council to fund an unprecedented 50% contribution to the bridge’s repair. That is clearly unreasonable, especially when the precedent for contributions from councils to national infrastructure projects is 15%. That makes me question whether the Government are genuinely interested in resolving the situation, or are just going to leave it.

    Instead, the taskforce suggested in October 2020 that Hammersmith and Fulham Council come up with a financing plan. The council, together with TfL, had made funding applications to the Government in December 2019, February 2020 and June 2020. All three bids were rejected by the Government, and we do not know why. Instead, Hammersmith and Fulham Council went away, talked to experts and came up with a new plan—the “Outline Financial Plan”—which it submitted on 19 February.

    I want to pre-empt any answer that the Minister may be ready to give about waiting for Hammersmith and Fulham Council to do more, or any repetition of the response of Baroness Vere of Norbiton to a joint letter from me, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). The Baroness’s response was:

    “I suggest that it would be most beneficial for you to support the local authority in developing its preferred funding option so that we can progress the business case.”

    The funding option was submitted on 19 February, seven weeks ago, and we are still waiting for a response. This is not the urgent action we need.

    Any response will need the Government to agree to set up a special company or trust fund. It will need Government legislation, financial underwriting and an assurance of future revenue from Government funds or from a toll. The council needs to have that input from the Government to continue. The ball is now firmly in the Government’s court, not that of Hammersmith and Fulham Council. To say that would be to play the type of party politics that local residents are absolutely fed up with.

    That brings me to my third and final point, about solutions. I hope that the Minister will shortly announce how the Government will take responsibility for the Government’s vital role in restoring the bridge. The ferry service is a partial solution—it starts in the summer—but it will not address vehicles going through Putney and it will not stop the long bus journeys for Roehampton residents.

    Sarah Olney

    Briefly, does the hon. Lady agree that one of the significant disadvantages to the ferry service, welcome though it is, is that local residents will have to pay a fare to use it, as opposed to being able to use the bridge perfectly freely?

    Fleur Anderson

    I thank the hon. Member for mentioning a disadvantage of the ferry. I am concerned that that the taskforce will say, “We’ve done the ferry, and now we are not going to fix the bridge.” Putney residents are concerned about that.

    A proposal to build a temporary truss bridge inside the current bridge—so, a double-decker bridge—has been given the green light as feasible, and could be built within a year, as soon as it is funded. We need that funding. The “Outline Financial Plan” was developed by Hammersmith and Fulham Council with a series of sector-leading consultants. That plan would not only see Hammersmith bridge repaired, but offer value for money to national and local taxpayers for the long-term.

    The “Outline Financial Plan” was submitted on 19 February. I would like to hear whether the Government agree with the plan and are going to get on with it, or do not agree with the plan and are going to come up with one of their own. Either way, we need urgent funding solutions. It is important that these plans are engaged with and taken forward.

    To sum up, my asks of the Minister tonight are fivefold. A lot of Putney residents and constituents from across south-west London will be listening tonight. First, the Government must urgently provide up-front funding for the temporary bridge, so that the original bridge can be restored and re-opened as soon as possible and the traffic diverted out of Putney High Street. Secondly, they must drop the requirement for Hammersmith and Fulham Council to provide 50% of the funding—that is not feasible, and the Minister knows it.

    Thirdly, the Government must expedite action on the funding proposals submitted by Hammersmith and Fulham Council on 19 February; they present workable and realistic ways forward and must not be left to simply sit and gather dust. Fourthly, I would like reassurance that the taskforce will start delivering and co-operating, so that Hammersmith and Fulham and Richmond Councils, Transport for London and the Government work together to come up with urgent solutions. Fifthly, I ask that the Secretary of State and the leader of the Government taskforce meet me and other concerned parliamentary colleagues as a matter of urgency.

    Enough talk. Our constituents want action. The Government know what they need to do. It is time they delivered on the funding agreement to finance the temporary bridge urgently and the restoration and re-opening of Hammersmith bridge.

  • Gareth Johnson – 2021 Speech on Road User Charging in Outer London

    Gareth Johnson – 2021 Speech on Road User Charging in Outer London

    The speech made by Gareth Johnson, the Conservative MP for Dartford, in the House of Commons on 13 April 2021.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that the Mayor of London may not impose charges for driving in Outer London; and for connected purposes.

    The Mayor of London’s financial stability plan, published in January, proposes a seven-days-a-week charge of £3.50 for all motorists using a vehicle registered outside Greater London, rising to £5.50 for the more polluting vehicles. Sadiq Khan is looking at building a literal financial wall between London and its neighbours. The proposal would divide communities and set Londoners against all others. It is quite literally a border tax. The Mayor of London’s proposal to charge drivers to enter Greater London would have a catastrophic impact on places like Dartford and all the areas surrounding London. It would also have a detrimental impact on outer London boroughs. Businesses located in outer London would suffer from people being reluctant to travel often the short distance across the border to use those businesses. That would have an impact on dry cleaners, pubs, takeaways, shops, hairdressers and more—exactly the businesses who are suffering the most from the coronavirus epidemic.

    The Mayor of London claims this is necessary to offset the £500 million of road tax Londoners pay out each year and cannot keep, but no other area gets to keep the road tax that they pay, either—Dartford does not even get to keep the revenue from the Dartford crossing. Although it is true that Highways England does not own a great number of roads in London, it does not have many roads in other areas either; London is not alone in that respect. Londoners do drive on motorways and those motorways have to be paid for.

    The Mayor of London claims that Transport for London has not had enough in subsidies. Even if you accept that argument—which I do not—the proposal for a border tax is completely the wrong approach. It is divisive, punitive and aggressive. It is as if the Mayor of London is saying, “Give us more money or look what I can do. I can ruin you. I can hit you financially and make you pay if I don’t get my way.” That is effectively what he is saying. This proposal sends out the clear message that, far from London being open, as the Mayor claims, it will be very much closed for motorists trying to enter the capital.

    Every mayor around the country is trying to raise revenue. That is perfectly understandable but it should not be attempted on the back of blackmail that says, “Give me money or I will charge you to visit your loved ones. Give me money or I will charge you for dropping off relatives to the local railway station. I will charge you for using London’s small businesses. I will charge you just for driving out of your road.” That is not commendable; it is an abuse of power.

    The Mayor said that the proposed charge will reduce pollution in the capital. This proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with pollution. Pollution in London is at its worst around the airports and in central London. It is not concentrated in outer London, so I do not understand why the Mayor of London seems to hate outer London so much.

    The border around London is not neat. It does not run along major routes. Instead, it straddles residential roads. In Dartford, for example, we have residential roads that are based in Kent that people cannot leave without entering the London Borough of Bexley. We have a number of roads just like that, and we have roads where the border literally goes down the middle of them, so people leave the road in Kent and re-enter it in London. Many of my constituents would therefore face having to pay at least £3.50 a day just to drive out of their road. This proposal is for the charge to apply seven days a week, so that hundreds of my constituents and thousands of people around London would pay over £1,200 a year just to be able to drive each day out of the road where they live—£1,200 a year just to get out of their house. For thousands of others, it would mean a £3.50 charge just to visit loved ones, to drop a child off at school, to visit a hospital or to go to work.

    So many frontline workers in London live in neighbouring counties. These are the people who keep London functioning. Over half of London’s police officers live outside the capital and the same applies to London firefighters. These people, whom Londoners rely on most, will be hardest hit by this proposal. They will be hit just for going to work.

    Possibly the worst aspect of this whole proposal is that the Mayor wants to levy a charge on people to whom he is totally unaccountable. The people who would have to pay the daily charge cannot vote for the London Mayor. They cannot vote to remove Sadiq Khan or do anything to stop this charge; he knows it, and that is why he is targeting them. It is taxation without representation, taxation without accountability, and it needs to be stopped.

    Dartford is not part of London. We are proud of our Kentish heritage, yet many people who are now Dartfordians used to live in London. Many Londoners move out to neighbouring counties. Many of us commute into London. There is a good relationship right now between London and the neighbouring counties, yet the Mayor of London wants to change all that. He wants to set London against its neighbours, but in doing so, he damages not just people who live outside London, but people who live inside London. It is no wonder that YouGov recently found that the majority of Londoners oppose this charge.

    It is claimed that opposition to the proposal is timed to marry up with the London mayoral elections. Actually, the timing is completely down to the Mayor of London. He decided when to announce the proposal, he is responsible for the timing and he published the document setting it out just three months ago, so it is hardly surprising that we are having this debate at this time.

    If the proposal goes ahead, it will have the most profound impact on Dartford and the other constituencies bordering London that we have ever seen. The decision will be taken by somebody over whom Dartfordians have absolutely no control. It is the most divisive issue ever conceived by a London Mayor and it needs to be stopped.

  • Jim McMahon – 2021 Comments on Global Travel Taskforce’s Report

    Jim McMahon – 2021 Comments on Global Travel Taskforce’s Report

    The comments made by Jim McMahon, the Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, on 9 April 2021.

    Time and again the UK Government have been devoid of strategy when it comes to protecting our borders against Covid.

    At a time when cases are rising across Europe and the threat of variants remains deeply worrying, we need a comprehensive hotel quarantine system, to help protect the gains of the vaccine. The first priority has to be keeping people safe.

    Labour will look at these proposals, but proper details and clarity about strategy are vital. This must include the criteria by which the ‘traffic lights’ will be decided, as well as clear information for travellers and industry, about what test will be required and resulting costs.

    It will take a long time for international travel to recover from the impact of the virus. The Government must come up with a comprehensive financial support package for the aviation sector and its supply chain which supports almost a quarter of a million jobs and protects the environment and stimulates further decarbonisation of the industry.

  • Chris Heaton-Harris – 2021 Statement on Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy 2

    Chris Heaton-Harris – 2021 Statement on Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy 2

    The statement made by Chris Heaton-Harris, the Minister of State at the Department for Transport, in the House of Commons on 25 March 2021.

    In 2017 the Government published the first statutory cycling and walking infrastructure strategy (CWIS 1) which covered the period 2016-17 to 2020-21. Since it was produced, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have significantly expanded the ambition and funding of the Government’s cycling and walking programme, launching the Gear Change White Paper in summer 2020 with £2 billion of additional funding over this Parliament for active travel, the largest amount of dedicated spending ever committed to increasing cycling and walking in this country. Significant delivery on the ground has already occurred.

    Because of the pandemic, the multi-year spending review planned for autumn 2020 was postponed. Instead, as with most other budgets, a single-year settlement for cycling and walking reflecting the ambitions set out in Gear Change has been set for the year 2021-22. The Government will set out plans for future years, including future funding for cycling and walking beyond 2021-22, at the spending review later this year.

    I am today informing Parliament of my intention to publish as soon as possible thereafter a second four-year statutory cycling and walking investment strategy (CWIS 2), reflecting the new policies in Gear Change and the multi-year funding settlement.

    The Government will consult on CWIS 2, with relevant stakeholders, ahead of its publication, as required by the legislation.

  • Sam Tarry – 2021 Comments on Greater Manchester Bus Services

    Sam Tarry – 2021 Comments on Greater Manchester Bus Services

    The comments made by Sam Tarry, the Shadow Buses Minister, on 25 March 2021.

    The decision to take local public control of Greater Manchester’s buses will benefit all users, after Conservative governments have spent the last 10 years presiding over a toxic mix of cuts to services and ever-rising fares.

    This is a positive step forward from one of the leading Mayors in Britain, who’s not afraid to take bold measures that are in the best interests of all those across Greater Manchester. This clearly shows what Labour can do in power.

  • Andrew Stephenson – 2021 Statement on HS2 Update

    Andrew Stephenson – 2021 Statement on HS2 Update

    The statement made by Andrew Stephenson, the Minister of State at the Department for Transport, on 23 March 2021.

    I wish to make the following statement:

    Overview

    This is the second bi-annual update to Parliament on the progress of High Speed Two (HS2). It marks one year since the Government gave phase 1 of the scheme, between the west midlands and London, the green light to begin civils construction. The report uses data provided by HS2 Ltd to the HS2 ministerial taskforce for phases 1 and 2a and covers the period between September 2020 and January 2021 inclusive. Copies of this report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

    Covid-19 has made this an incredibly challenging year, and the pandemic has had a devastating effect on individuals, our economy and our communities. However, as we look to the future, with the roll-out of the vaccine firmly under way and a road map out of lockdown now in place, this Government are more committed than ever to “build back better”. HS2 remains at the forefront of our long-term investment plan to better connect people and places, boost productivity and create jobs to help rebalance opportunity across the UK.

    Just as importantly, HS2 will play a pivotal role in creating a greener alternative to regional air and road travel. This is essential if we are to meet our commitment to bring greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.

    The key achievements of the HS2 programme in this reporting period include:

    Progressing the remaining enabling works and mobilising main civils construction for phase 1 while employing covid-safe working practices.

    Achieving Royal Assent of the Phase 2a High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill, cementing in law the Government’s commitment to bring the new high-speed railway to the north of England.

    Evolving our approach to community engagement, including an enhanced complaints procedure to address concerns about how HS2’s impact on communities along the line of route is managed.

    Speedy implementation of over a quarter of the proposed reforms recommended by the land and property review of November 2020, improving the experience of property owners most immediately and directly affected by HS2.

    Supporting over 15,000 skilled jobs and creating more than 500 apprenticeships. Over 2,100 companies now have contracts with HS2 Ltd, with 97% of these being UK-based businesses. At its peak the programme will support over 30,000 jobs and create at least 2,000 apprenticeships.

    Establishing HS2 Ltd’s Environmental Sustainability Committee to strengthen oversight and reporting of efforts to limit and mitigate the environmental impacts from the construction of the railway.

    Planting over 430,000 trees so far, with the number expected to rise to over 730,000 trees by spring 2021.

    Programme update on schedule, affordability and delivery

    Schedule

    Some schedule pressures on phase 1 have emerged from delays in completing enabling works including issues with completing utilities diversions, postponed land acquisition and access during the first covid-19 lockdown, and slower than planned development of detailed designs by the main works contractors.

    HS2 Ltd is currently re-planning its schedule for phase 1 in conjunction with its construction suppliers with a view to mitigating these delays. The schedule pressures reported above will not impact the projected delivery into service date range of 2029 to 2033 set last year, but further cost pressures could still emerge if mitigation activity is required. The re-planning exercise is due to conclude in the spring and I will update Parliament on its outcome in my next report. We should continue to remain cautious of the accuracy of long-range estimates this early in a 10-year programme.

    Affordability

    The overall budget for phase 1, including Euston, is £44.6 billion (2019 prices). This is composed of the target cost of £40.3 billion and additional Government-retained contingency of £4.3 billion. The target cost includes contingency delegated to HS2 Ltd of £5.6 billion for managing the risk and uncertainties that are an inherent part of delivering major projects.

    The target cost for phase 1 remains at £40.3 billion. Around £11.0 billion (actual prices) has been spent to date, including land and property provisions. Approximately £12.6 billion (2019 prices) has additionally been contracted, with the remaining amount yet to be contracted.

    To date HS2 Ltd has drawn £0.4 billion of its £5.6 billion delegated contingency to specific additional costs, which represents 4% of the overall contingency for phase 1, and reflects an increase of £0.2 billion since my last report. HS2 Ltd is currently reporting potential cost pressures of around £0.8 billion over and above this. If these, or other costs, come to pass, then they would be managed from within the existing total budget using the remaining HS2 Ltd delegated contingency. In the case of verified cost increases resulting from covid-19, these will be managed from within the Government-retained contingency.

    The cost pressures currently being reported by HS2 Ltd which may require a call on contingent if not mitigated are:

    An estimate of £0.4 billion, predominantly due to slower than expected mobilisation of main works civils contractors, associated with delays to approvals of designs, planning consents, protester action and some covid-19 impacts.

    As already reported in the autumn report to Parliament, an estimate of £0.4 billion that relates to Euston station remains. Work to consider opportunities, efficiencies and scope reductions to address potential pressures is now under way. This may be an underestimate of the unmitigated pressure, so the Department has asked HS2 Ltd to provide a revised estimate once it has concluded its initial design work on the revised design as set out below.

    My last report to Parliament included £0.4 billion from expected increases in the scope and duration of enabling works. These costs are now expected to be incurred and so are not shown as pressures but have instead been taken into the core cost estimate. They will be funded through surplus provision within HS2 Ltd’s core budget rather than from its delegated contingency. Estimates of the impact of covid-19 are set out below.

    Other pressures will arise as the programme progresses, some of which may crystallise into additional costs that will need to be covered from the contingency within the existing budget, and some of which will be mitigated or avoided.

    Over the last six months HS2 Ltd has made progress on a programme of opportunities for efficiencies designed to identify and realise tangible savings in delivering the agreed scope of phase 1. From a deeper pool of potential opportunities, HS2 Ltd has so far identified up to £0.2 billion to pursue to the next stages of development. Going forward I will report on progress towards realisation of these opportunities as well as the identification of others through this efficiency programme.

    Delivery

    On phase 1 the focus has primarily been on progressing the remaining enabling works and preparatory works, and the start of main works. This includes dedicated power at launch sites for the tunnel boring machines (TBMs) by the M25 and Long Itchington in Warwickshire, and moving two huge modular bridges into place at the Birmingham Interchange station site. The first pair of TBMs, Florence and Cecilia, will launch this summer.

    Elsewhere, progress continues to be made on the four new HS2 stations. At Euston, work is under way to develop an optimised design and delivery strategy, alongside work by the Euston Partnership to integrate the HS2 and Network Rail stations and wider placemaking across the Euston campus. The Department has instructed HS2 Ltd to investigate whether building the station in a single construction stage can speed up delivery and address cost pressures. Notwithstanding this, bringing the station fully back within its existing budget presents a significant challenge. The initial stage of this work is expected to conclude in the coming months, at which point the Government will confirm any design changes and set out their intended way forward at Euston.

    The start of main construction of Old Oak Common station has now been approved and excavation work for the HS2 underground platforms can begin. I also note the High Court’s dismissal of Bechtel Ltd’s legal challenge to the Old Oak Common station construction partner award, which found that HS2 Ltd’s procurement process was in accordance with the rules of the tender and procurement law.

    Tender evaluation is under way ahead of the planned award by the summer of a construction partner for Birmingham Curzon Street station and tendering for a construction partner at Birmingham Interchange station is expected to begin this summer. Budget 2021 announced £50 million of funding to develop transport proposals around Birmingham Interchange. This will be matched by £45 million of funding from Arden Cross Ltd and Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council. This will support the goal of the West Midlands Combined Authority, by reconfiguring planned car parking at the regional hub station, releasing 28 hectares of land space for new businesses, homes and jobs in the area.

    Qualification of bidders is under way for the majority of the rail systems packages for phases 1 and 2a ahead of inviting tenders. HS2 Ltd is finalising the procurement of the new HS2 rolling stock for phases 1 and 2a, with the contract to be awarded later this spring.

    I am a very pleased to report that the HS2 Phase 2a Act, for the section of the route between Lichfield and Crewe, was given Royal Assent in February, after its passage through Parliament. This represents a major milestone for the programme and HS2 Ltd can now begin accessing and acquiring land for the necessary construction works as well as taking forward early environmental and enabling works.

    Phase 2a will bring high-speed services to the north, helping to realise the benefits of the whole programme and to underpin future phases of the scheme, while also supporting regional economic growth through the construction stage.

    Local consultation on the scheme was undertaken during February and I will publish the consultation report in April before detailing the response to its findings in June, following the election period.

    With formal agreement on the scope of the phase 2a scheme now set, the funding and schedule ranges will be finalised alongside the delivery model for the construction works. I will provide more information to Parliament once this work has concluded.

    Before the end of spring, the Department will publish the integrated rail plan for the north and midlands (IRP) which will consider how best to deliver and sequence HS2 phase 2b, Northern Powerhouse Rail, and other major rail schemes including schemes within midlands engine rail such as midlands rail hub, to ensure transformational rail improvements are delivered to passengers and communities more quickly.

    Preparations are under way for a Hybrid Bill for the western leg (Crewe to Manchester) and supporting outline business case (OBC) to be deposited in Parliament in early 2022, or sooner if possible. Further updates on cost and schedule will be provided at the time the OBC is published.

    Impacts from covid-19

    Although covid-19 continues to pose a considerable challenge to the programme, HS2 Ltd and its supply chain continues to adapt positively. In the early stages of the pandemic, HS2 Ltd successfully kept a high proportion of its sites open and operating safely and at the time of writing this report 100% of HS2 sites are open, in part due to the collaboration and innovation between HS2 Ltd and its supply chain through initiatives such as rapid testing and the introduction of new social distancing technology. Health and safety guidance at work sites continues to be rigorously followed and remains under constant review. Nothing is more important than the wellbeing of the communities we are working in and the safety of everyone working on HS2.

    HS2 Ltd’s initial estimates suggest that the financial impact of covid-19 on the cost of delivering phase 1 up to December 2020 is between £0.3 billion and £0.4 billion, largely as a consequence of schedule prolongation from access delays and reduced productivity.

    A proportion of this estimate is already captured within the cost pressures that I have set out above. The full impact of covid-19 on cost and schedule will continue to be assessed, including work to disaggregate covid-19 impacts from other cost and schedule impacts on the programme. The Department will be scrutinising these costs very carefully, and only validated and unavoidable costs arising from covid-19 will be funded from the Government-retained contingency, and therefore covered by the existing HS2 budget. I will continue to update Parliament through my reports as this work progresses.

    Local community impact and engagement

    Since my appointment as Minister for HS2 I have been clear that managing the programme’s impact on communities along the line of the route is one of my key priorities. That is why last autumn I commissioned a detailed review of the acquisition and compensation process for land and property affected by HS2. The conclusions of the review, detailing opportunities for change across a wide variety of policies and activities, were published in November and will ensure that there is a renewed focus on those people who are being directly impacted by the new railway.

    The proposals vary in scale and context, but all seek to improve the experience of property owners most immediately and directly affected by HS2 by improving existing processes and interaction with the public. The Department has worked quickly on implementing the proposals, in close conjunction with HS2 Ltd, the residents’ commissioner (Deborah Fazan) and relevant Government Departments, with 25% now in place. I expect to begin a public consultation later this spring to focus on aspects of the proposals that require further engagement. Alongside the land and property review, I am continuing to engage closely with parliamentary colleagues and the communities they represent.

    Due to the scale and nature of the HS2 project, some impacts of construction on line of route communities are unfortunately unavoidable. This January, at the Transport Select Committee, I heard first-hand how HS2 construction is impacting on communities. The testimonies I heard were powerful and strengthened my resolute commitment to ensure that HS2 Ltd properly informs and consults communities and minimises negative impacts wherever possible. I have therefore tasked HS2 Ltd to look again at the way it engages communities to improve the responsiveness, sensitivity and objectivity of its approach.

    In response, HS2 Ltd is deploying a package of measures to strengthen its community handling approach including:

    A unified single management system for community engagement and complaints handling across HS2 Ltd and the supply chain, so there is a single consistent record for all organisations operating in a single location.

    Additional proactive local communications to provide notice and raise awareness of HS2 activity in impacted communities.

    Shortened HS2 Ltd helpdesk response times so that construction issues can be picked up, assessed and mitigated quickly.

    New area-based delivery unit managers with geographical responsibility for joining up construction contractors and communities to prevent and tackle local issues.

    New briefing materials to alert MPs and councillors of the agreed single points of contact along the phase 1 and 2a routes so issues can be escalated if they are not resolved in the first instance.

    Enhanced engagement and assurance from the construction commissioner (Sir Mark Worthington) and the residents’ commissioner to provide independent advice on potential improvements to HS2 Ltd complaint handling and community engagement operations.

    I have furthermore established a small team of construction inspectors reporting to the Department to support the assurance of the delivery of works along the route. An important part of their role will also be to provide a capability to investigate intractable or persistent construction issues working independently of HS2 Ltd and its suppliers where needed.

    I expect these measures to improve engagement and responsiveness in relation to avoidable impacts of construction on local communities. I will continue to review this and remain committed to taking further action if necessary.

    Environmental Impact

    Another of my key pledges as HS2 Minister is to limit the unavoidable impact of HS2 construction on the natural environment both in terms of direct impacts on biodiversity and its carbon impact.

    The first report of the HS2 Ltd Environmental Sustainability Committee will be published in the autumn. The approach and content of the report will be informed by the global reporting initiative methodology, and will also be shaped by seeking input from Natural England, the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission, the HS2 Independent Design Panel and members of HS2 Ltd’s Ecology Review Group. The Government have also given a statutory commitment to provide an impact assessment of construction on ancient woodland within the report, building on previously conducted assessments. The environmental impact data in the report will be verified externally.

    Alongside the new Committee, HS2 Ltd launched its “Green Corridor Prospectus” in December, providing information to the public on projects along the route which are being introduced to mitigate and compensate for the environmental impact of HS2’s construction. This includes over 30 projects funded through the community and environment fund, and the business and local economy fund, which add benefit over and above committed mitigation and statutory compensation.

    Further to the commitments made in my last report to support biodiversity improvements on phase 2a, the Department and HS2 Ltd have initiated a study to investigate options to consider whether and how we might move the HS2 phase 2b western leg scheme from seeking no net loss to aiming to deliver net gains in biodiversity.

    HS2 Ltd has become the first UK transport client organisation to achieve PAS 2080 accreditation a gold standard for carbon management across the globe. It will continue its work to reduce carbon emissions during construction and operation ahead of COP26 later this year.

    Forward look

    As well as continued focus on its construction programme for phase 1, the next six months will see HS2 Ltd award contracts for a construction partner at Birmingham Curzon Street and for the supply of the new HS2 rolling stock. Work to identify affordable design and delivery arrangements for Euston station is also expected to progress.

    On phase 2a we will conclude work on a preferred delivery model for the construction stage as well as finalising the funding and schedule ranges for the project’s schedule and cost. Work on the legislation and business case for the phase 2b western leg will also continue and the integrated rail plan will be published this spring.

    I will continue to engage closely with Members of Parliament and will provide my next report to Parliament in October 2021.

    Financial Annex

    Annex A: Six-monthly financial report
    Phase

    Target Cost

    Total Estimated Costs Ranges

    1

    £40.3 billion

    £35.0-£45.0 billion

    Forecast costs by phase

    2a

    Not set yet

    £5.0-£7.0 billion

    2b

    Not set yet

    £32.0-£46.0 billion*

    *Validation of the Phase 2b cost range is ongoing and will be updated to support the bringing forward of separate legislation for the HS2 route into Manchester, in line with the conclusions of the Oakervee review. The range provided excludes scope intended to be funded by other sources such as Northern Powerhouse Rail.

    Phase

    Spend to date**

    2020-21 Budget

    2020-21 Forecast

    1

    £11.0 billion***

    £3.79 billion

    £3.33 billion

    Historic and forecast expenditure

    2a

    £0.4 billion

    £0.18 billion

    £0.13 billion

    2b

    £1.0 billion

    £0.25 billion

    £0.16 billion

    Total

    £12.4 billion

    £4.22 billion

    £3.62 billion

    All figures in 2019 prices, are exclusive of VAT and correct as of 31 January 2021 and made up of a combination of resource and capital spend.

    **Spend to date is represented in outturn prices.

    ***Spend to date includes a £1 billion liability (provision) representing the Department’s obligation to purchase land and property.

  • Grant Shapps – 2021 Statement on TFL Funding Deal

    Grant Shapps – 2021 Statement on TFL Funding Deal

    The statement made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Transport, on 22 March 2021.

    The government and Mayor of London have agreed to extend the current Transport for London (TfL) funding deal.

    The deal was due to run out on 31 March 2021; however, things have changed since we set the end of March for the next review of support to TfL. The extended deal will continue to support the capital and the transport network until 18 May 2021, when a new funding deal will be put in place.

    The roadmap set out by the Prime Minister to cautiously and safely reopen society and our economy means we can better understand the potential recovery in passenger demand, ensuring we deliver a sensible and appropriate deal in the future. As a result, and given the Mayoral election timetable, we have therefore agreed to roll over the existing funding deal until 18 May on the same terms as now, providing certainty over the pre-election period.

    Together, the government and the newly elected Mayor will agree a new funding deal after the elections in May 2021. By this point, non-essential retail and other parts of the economy should be open and transport demand on the network will be considered when formulating a future settlement.

    The extension comprises 2 additional funding payments totalling £260 million with a top-up grant available based on actual passenger revenues. This will take total government support for TfL to more than £3 billion since March 2020.

    Support to TfL has always been under the condition that the network must make efficiency savings so it can reach financial sustainability as soon as possible. Those conditions will also form a part of the additional funding payments announced today.

    The government is committed to supporting London and the transport network on which it depends, and will commence discussions for a further funding deal as soon as the Mayoral elections are concluded. Support for London needs to be balanced with the national recovery and supporting the national transport network as a whole.

    Since March 2020, the government has spent £11 billion supporting the running of the national transport network apart from that directly provided to TfL, while continuing to spend money on vital infrastructure projects to level up the national transport network outside of London.

  • Sam Tarry – 2021 Comments on TFL Funding Agreement

    Sam Tarry – 2021 Comments on TFL Funding Agreement

    The comments made by Sam Tarry, the Shadow Transport Minister, on 19 March 2021.

    The Government’s offer falls far short of what TfL and Londoners need.

    When ridership numbers are at a record low with the Covid crisis keeping commuters away, yet another piecemeal funding deal only serves to kick the can down the road for a few more weeks.

    The Government needs to get a grip and finally deliver a long-term funding package that secures the future of our urban transport networks.