UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Transportation

  • Louie French – 2022 Speech on the Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

    Louie French – 2022 Speech on the Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

    The speech made by Louie French, the Conservative MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 20 December 2022.

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), who is also my constituency neighbour, for securing the debate.

    It has been said:

    “As Sadiq Khan shows in London, Labour in power delivers.”

    Those are not my words; they are the words of the Leader of the Opposition from April this year. They feel very appropriate, given today’s debate on ULEZ—and because it is pantomime season, after all. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) just pointed out some highlights from the Mayor’s time in power; he mentioned Crossrail, and the Mayor’s record on the Metropolitan police and the London Fire Brigade.

    I will stick to the subject of ULEZ, Mr Hosie, as you have asked. It is the last outrageous tax raid on drivers in outer London. We have had the Mayor’s share of council tax increase by 43% since he entered office, and it is expected to rise to above £400 next year. The ULEZ rise—a tax rise—on drivers in outer London and the neighbouring counties will hammer families, small businesses and emergency service workers with bills of around £4,500 a year to drive. I am not sure that even the champagne socialists of north London could afford that bill. If that shows what Labour in power delivers, then this really is the nightmare before Christmas for the British public.

    As we have heard from hon. Members already, the ULEZ expansion was overwhelmingly opposed by the public, despite the consultation clearly being skewed to try to give TfL and the Mayor the answers they were looking for. It has also raised a number of serious issues and questions, including the process and powers being used by the Mayor to push it through, which I hope the Minister will look closely at. First, there are questions about whether the Mayor has the mandate to do this, given that it was not in his manifesto, and the impact of the expansion will also be felt outside the Greater London boundaries. That is alongside the fact that local authorities have a statutory duty over air quality, and several boroughs are opposed to the policy. Secondly, as highlighted already, the proposals were overwhelmingly rejected in the consultation by around 70% to 80% of people in outer London.

    It is clear to see why people are so furious about the decision, especially with the current cost of living challenges. In Bexley alone, the area I am proud to serve, around 30,000 vehicles will be directly impacted, hammering businesses, families and key workers with the bill of £12.50 a day, or £4,500 a year. By introducing the charge in August, it gives people hardly any time to switch vehicles. Barely a day goes by without a constituent stopping me in the street and highlighting how ULEZ will impact them. They include pensioners who rarely drive, but need their car to go shopping or to hospital appointments, families who need to drop off their kids to different schools each morning before going to work, tradesman who need their vans for their tools and to get to jobs, and shops on the boundary, which fear that customers will stop coming into Greater London from the likes of Dartford because of the ULEZ charge.

    Geraint Davies

    Does the hon. Gentleman support the investment in the extra 1 million km of bus network in outer London and the investment of £110 million in scrappage to get rid of 15% of more polluting cars, or not?

    Mr French

    I will happily answer the hon. Member’s question, because our buses in outer London have actually been cut—if he checks Bexley’s record, he will see that our bus routes have been cut. I will come on to the scrappage scheme later, to cover the exact point that the hon. Member is trying to make.

    Alongside the clearly negative impact of the ULEZ expansion on businesses and hard-working families in my area, it is also important to highlight that over 50% of blue light workers in London live outside the capital, and 90% of care workers nationally use their own cars for work. That expansion will create many knock-on issues for the emergency services in the likes of Bexley, including—as we have heard—the doubling of charges for those working nights, an issue that was also highlighted in The Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago. It will also negatively impact patients, with my local hospital, Queen Mary’s Hospital Sidcup, sharing a number of services and nurses with the likes of Dartford. These are all issues that I do not believe have been properly thought through, as the Mayor desperately seeks to fill the black hole in TfL’s finances that he has created.

    Bexley does not have the underground, and like many other London boroughs it does not have the same transport options and connectivity as central London, so it is extremely unfair that the Mayor of London is proposing plans for ULEZ expansion. In recent years, as I have said, we have also seen our bus and other services cut by the Mayor of London, and there is nothing in his so-called reinvestment plans that will help areas such as Bexley and in the south-east. The scrappage scheme announced by the Mayor does not even come close to matching demand, or addressing the costs and practical issues associated with buying a new vehicle, and the fact that he is forecast to spend double that amount—roughly £250 million of taxpayers’ money—to install cameras to fine people again highlights how this policy is designed to raise money, rather than improve air quality.

    That point is supported by the fact that the Mayor’s own independent impact report on the policy highlighted a negligible impact on improving air quality in outer London areas such as mine, which are very different from central London and have already seen an improvement in air quality. For example, in its consultation response to the Mayor, Bexley council highlighted that air quality has been improving already, and that Bexley was one of 11 boroughs that recorded no population exceeding air quality thresholds. The Government have also brought forward their plans and investment to improve air quality, with £880 million of support for local authorities to take immediate steps to reduce nitrogen dioxide, and £2 billion of investment in cycling and walking over the course of this Parliament—the largest ever boost for active travel.

    If the Mayor of London wants to help tackle air pollution rather than raise money, further investment should be made to support people with the transition to electric vehicles, including the installation of more electric vehicle charging points and leading by example with TfL’s own bus fleet. With traffic having been highlighted as one of the main causes of air pollution, there also needs to be a review of the impact of the Mayor’s road closures on increasing traffic and, potentially, emissions across London, closures that have again—by coincidence, I am sure—raised millions in fines for Labour councils in the capital. Dare I even mention the Silvertown tunnel, which will likely encourage more vehicles to drive through south-east and east London, and appears to be completely inconsistent with the Mayor’s so-called championing of air quality?

    I again urge the Minister to do everything in his and the Government’s power to stop this disastrous ULEZ policy, which will hammer families, businesses and the emergency services in Bexley, Greater London and neighbouring counties. As I and other colleagues have highlighted today, the impact of ULEZ will go much further than the boundaries of London, and—once the cameras are installed—will likely lead to further taxes on drivers that I believe will be inconsistent with national transport policy. As such, I ask the Minister and the Government to please review the situation urgently, and if the Mayor of London is listening, I call on him to stop the virtue signalling and worrying about his book sales and to put hard-working Londoners first by U-turning on this tax raid on drivers in Greater London. If he does not, it is clearly time for this failing son of a bus driver to get off at the next stop, before calls for the Mayor to get scrapped get even louder.

  • Gareth Bacon – 2022 Speech on the Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

    Gareth Bacon – 2022 Speech on the Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

    The speech made by Gareth Bacon, the Conservative MP for Orpington, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 20 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) for securing this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who was right that I have taken a deep interest in the ultra low emission zone expansion for some time, and that is because there are a number of big problems with the policy.

    The first problem is that Sadiq Khan does not have a mandate for this policy. He claims that ULEZ expansion is essential to tackle air pollution, and we heard his briefing being faithfully read out by the hon. Members for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson). Given that the Mayor was re-elected to City Hall only last year, we would imagine that this policy featured prominently in his manifesto, but it did not. He went to the polls on a 100-page manifesto, and one paragraph on page 55 mentioned the ultra low emission zone, but it pertained specifically to the extension to the north and south circular in October 2021, which he had already announced. There was no mention whatever of expanding the boundary to the outer part of Greater London.

    When the Mayor decided in May this year to push ahead with that expansion, the Evening Standard article that covered the announcement said:

    “On Friday morning, Sadiq Khan insisted that he would not press ahead with the plans if the public overwhelmingly rejected them during the public consultation.

    He said: ‘It’s a genuine consultation—as were the previous two consultations in relation to the central London Ultra-Low Emission Zone and the expansion. I hope Londoners who care about the health of their families will respond.’”

    They did, in large numbers, but the Mayor initially refused to release the results of that consultation. Eventually, after public pressure, the results were released on 25 November. They revealed that 60% of respondents opposed Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ expansion to outer London. That figure increases to 68% when we include the organised responses that the hon. Member for Swansea West mentioned; 70% of outer London residents oppose the expansion and 80% of those who work in outer London were also opposed.

    This policy has no mandate and no public support. It turns out that it is not about air quality, either, contrary to the propaganda read out by Opposition Members, which comes directly from the briefing sent by the Mayor of London. The document I quoted earlier is not a hatchet job, but the Mayor’s own integrated impact assessment. I gave one example, but there are many, of where it uses phrases like “negligible to minor” in terms of the impact that the expansion would have on air quality.

    There is no mandate, there is no public support and it is not really about air quality, because the impact is negligible. So why is the Mayor of London so interested in ULEZ expansion, and why is he rushing it? The answer is as old as time: it is about money. This is a cash grab, pure and simple. According to Transport for London’s own figures, it expects the £12.50 charge to hit 160,000 cars and 42,000 vans per day. In monetary terms, that is about £2.5 million per day—a big cash injection into the Mayor’s coffers.

    There is a question about timing. When the inner and outer ULEZs were introduced, people had years to prepare. In this case, we have nine months. The average family cannot save up to buy a car that quickly, especially when household bills are rising, and we know that they are. Small businesses and charities may be forced to replace one vehicle or even a fleet that they had banked on being able to use for many years to come.

    Who will be hit? The Mayor of London does not seem to understand who will pick up the bill for his policies. It is not wealthy Londoners—it is ordinary working people, on the poorer end of the socioeconomic spectrum, who are less likely to be able to upgrade their car, and more likely to own an older vehicle. There is a myth that Mayor Khan attempts to spread around that low-income Londoners do not own cars, or drive in Greater London. That is categorically false. What is more, he knows it. The “Travel in London” report produced by TfL in 2019 shows that, by its own analysis, 50% of outer London households earning as little as £10,000 own a car. Car ownership rockets to in excess of 70% for those earning upwards of £20,000. According to TfL’s impact assessment, low-income Londoners are more likely to own non-compliant vehicles. The ULEZ expansion is not a tax on wealthy drivers, but on poorer people who simply cannot afford to buy a new vehicle.

    In my constituency, we do not have tubes or trams. We have trains that go into central London and we have private vehicles. Some 83% of Orpington households own a car, meaning that a great number of my constituents could be liable to pay the charge. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), many of my constituents use their car every day to go to work, to the shops and to visit family and friends. Under the Mayor’s plan, they face a potentially disastrous annual bill of £4,500.

    Other Members have spoken about the impact on public services. More than half of Greater London’s police officers and firefighters and around a fifth of the workers in my local NHS trust come into Greater London from outside. Those who work in outer London and those who work in shift work are especially reliant on their cars. Someone on a night shift faces a double whammy of a £12.50 charge driving to work, and a £12.50 charge after midnight when they drive home. It could cost them £25 per shift to go and do their work.

    The ULEZ expansion will also impact on businesses in outer London. Many people drive in from Kent to shop in Petts Wood in my constituency. TfL estimates that 8% have non-compliant vehicles. Rather than paying £12.50 a time, many will simply choose to shop and visit elsewhere, depriving London’s high streets of customers.

    Many drivers, both in London and those who travel from outside to work, shop or visit outer boroughs, are unaware that they may face an even higher bill. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford about the increase in the level of fines—up to £180. The Mayor has just hiked the fine from £130 to £160, and will go further from January next year, raising it to £180. If a driver crosses into Greater London, perhaps unaware of the boundary or unaware of the existence of the charge or that their vehicle is not compliant, they will unknowingly rack up a cripplingly high bill. Potentially as many as 12,000 cars and vans a day may be hit by a fine.

    The RAC estimates that Transport for London could raise £260 million a year by imposing those penalties. To put that into context, Churchill Insurance estimated that the total parking fines raised by every council in the country combined would come to £250 million—£10 million lower than Transport for London would make with those penalties in the first year. TfL could in fact earn significantly more than that, because if not all drivers pay within 14 days—reducing the penalty from £180 to £90—that could raise £390 million every year.

    The Mayor of London has not been a success in office. The Metropolitan police and the London Fire Brigade are both in special measures. Violent crime has reached record highs, and it has not abated. He is not on target to deliver enough affordable homes, despite what he boasted about as being the largest settlement from central Government on record. Crossrail was years late and billions of pounds over budget, with billions more lost in fares that were never raised.

    Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)

    Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to get back on to low emission zones.

    Gareth Bacon

    Indeed I am. The point I am trying to make is that Sadiq Khan is looking for something he can point to and claim as his. Leaving aside the fact that the ultra low emission zone was not even his idea—it was conceived and the preparatory work was done under my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)—the Mayor has adopted it as his big idea. The expansion of the ultra low emission zone to outer London has no mandate or popular support. It will do almost nothing for air quality, it will be economically damaging and it will hit the poorest hardest—damaging not just those who live in outer London but millions who live outside Greater London. It is an appalling and unjust policy and it should be scrapped.

  • David Simmonds – 2022 Speech on the Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

    David Simmonds – 2022 Speech on the Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

    The speech made by David Simmonds, the Conservative MP for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, in the House of Commons on 20 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hosie. I join colleagues in commending my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing this debate.

    Like most Conservative Members of Parliament in Westminster Hall today, my surgery has been inundated with constituents who tell a very consistent story: that they are dependent on their vehicles, mainly due to ill health or the need to support disabled family members in accessing medical care. They have older vehicles, which have often been extremely well maintained, and which they have had for many years, but the prohibitive cost of change now means that face a really serious negative impact on their quality of life and that of their dependants. As my constituency has the highest per capita vehicle ownership in London, we might expect to see many people like that coming forward.

    Around 70% of Londoners do not own a car so, understandably, the Mayor of London has seen the ULEZ expansion as something that will not negatively impact on a great many constituents of his in central London. However, for those of us in the suburbs—my constituency essentially consists of eight villages, one of which has no access to a tube or train station and only very limited access to buses—dependency on cars and other private vehicles is much higher.

    When we look at a map of London, and particularly at the north-west, we see routes such as Hill End Road in Harefield, which is barely the width of a car, but which is one of the routes that takes people out of our capital and into the surrounding counties, as well as Park Lane, Dene Road and Eastbury Road in Northwood, and the A4008 in Hatch End. All of these roads change from being in Greater London to being outside Greater London partway along, so people who depend on a car— particularly if they are disabled or in ill health—to come and shop in their local high street, access their GP practice or get to their local public transport network will have to pay £12.50 every time they do any of those things, simply to go about their daily lives. What is iniquitous about this is that they do not have a choice.

    My wife lived in Westminster when I first knew her, so I completely understand that, in many parts of central London, there is a very high density of access to the bus network and other kinds of public transport, such as trains and tubes, but out in the suburbs that is simply not the case.

    Dr Cameron

    I thank the hon. Member for speaking about the most vulnerable people. Does he agree that it is particularly difficult for people with disabilities because not all rates of disability living allowance, child disability payment or personal independence payment are exempt from the scheme? Many people will still be adversely impacted, even from 2023. They are contacting me, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, and asking that more be done to support their particular needs.

    David Simmonds

    That is an incredibly important point, which my constituents have made to me. There are those who may have a blue badge because they have a serious health condition that requires them to attend regular medical treatment, but who are not registered disabled or covered by the exemptions that the scheme envisages.

    Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)

    I will mention this in my speech, so I hope you will forgive the duplication, Mr Hosie, but I was contacted by a charity that transports emergency blood, breast milk for premature babies, and urgent medical samples. It contacted the Mayor of London about whether it would be able to get an exemption, or even a discount, and it was told no. Does my hon. Friend agree that that seems morally wrong?

    David Simmonds

    That is characteristic of the Mayor’s response to the representations he has received: he simply does not want to take them into account.

    Some constituents may be temporarily resident in my constituency—for example, because they are awaiting heart and lung transplants at Harefield Hospital. They are required to attend the hospital at short notice when a donor’s heart and lungs, or one or the other of those things, becomes available. That also has a significant impact. Again, the Mayor of London seems to have very little interest in that.

    Those of us who have been interested in air quality for a long time recognise that, particularly in outer west London, the big source of pollution is Heathrow airport. This measure does nothing whatever to address the single biggest source of air pollution. It is very much a case of a Mayor pursuing the thing that makes money for the mayoral budget, rather than the thing that would actually improve air quality. There are no measures to improve local authority powers to tackle engine idling. There is nothing that addresses the impact of pollution coming from the M25 or from Heathrow airport, which are the things causing the significant air pollution that affects my constituents.

    As this policy makes progress, we need to recognise that local authority powers under the Environment Act 1995, through which the Mayor is seeking to introduce this measure, should require there to be consent from local authorities. In that way, we can ensure that the people who are legally responsible—the local authorities—have a say on whether such measures will tackle the actual sources of air pollution in their area, as opposed to simply talking about them and raising money for an inner London zone 1 Mayor who clearly does not pay attention to the needs of his suburban constituents.

  • Fleur Anderson – 2022 Speech on the Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

    Fleur Anderson – 2022 Speech on the Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

    The speech made by Fleur Anderson, the Labour MP for Putney, in the House of Commons on 20 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie, and to speak in this debate secured by the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson).

    I very much welcome the debate, because air quality is one of the biggest issues faced by my residents in Putney. They hope that the extended ULEZ policy will have a significant impact on children’s lives and on small businesses, which complain to me about pollution on Putney High Street—one of the most polluted high streets in the country. However, that pollution is coming down as a result of the Mayor’s policies.

    I thank the Putney Society, Putney Pollution Busters, Mums for Lungs, the London Sustainability Exchange, King’s College London and Clean Air in London for all their campaigning and for speaking up for residents in Putney, in Dartford, and across and outside London, who know that air quality is a silent killer. The hon. Member for Dartford, too, called it a silent killer, with air blowing pollution from London to his constituency, so I am surprised he does not welcome the Mayor’s actions to reduce that pollution and to instead have cleaner air for us all, especially our children.

    Yesterday, the Government finally brought out their air quality targets under the Environment Act 2021. I have been calling for those targets for years, but they are not good enough. First, they just aim not to have toxic air by 2040, which is a whole 18 years away. Someone born now will potentially not see the results until they become an adult. Secondly, we cannot start to meet the Government’s targets without the ULEZ. It is needed, so I hope to hear support from the Minister for actions that will meet the Government’s air quality targets.

    Outer London is disproportionately affected by this issue, because there are more older people, who are particularly affected by the damaging effects of air pollution. The UK has the worst death rate for lung conditions, and that simply cannot be ignored—we cannot hope that it will all go away in any other way than by us taking action. Recent analysis by Asthma + Lung UK has shown that the UK has the worst death rate for lung conditions—higher than anywhere else in western Europe. In total, around 600,000 people have a lung condition in Greater London, and 60% of them live in outer London and do not currently live inside the ULEZ. I hear again and again of people who say that they or their children did not used to have asthma but that they do now. We can see the effects. If we could see the air pollution on our streets, we would know it for the killer that it is.

    Toxic air is shortening the lives of our constituents. Every year, up to 36,000 people in the UK die prematurely as a result of toxic air, and 4,000 of those deaths occur in London alone. In Dartford, the equivalent of 66 deaths per year are attributable to long-term exposure to particulate air pollution. But it is not only about deaths; it is also about people who are hospitalised or who live with debilitating conditions.

    Gareth Johnson

    If the hon. Lady feels that the Mayor of London is expanding the ULEZ to tackle pollution across the south-east, does she think it is simply a coincidence that he is due to make hundreds of millions of pounds out of it, or does she think it is actually motivated by money?

    Fleur Anderson

    I thank the hon. Member for his question. What is the Mayor spending the money on? He is spending it on local transport. Every single penny raised by the ULEZ is being spent on local transport, which is exactly what we need. That is the way we are going to overcome the toxic air that is killing our constituents.

    Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)

    Could the hon. Lady outline where the new public transport infrastructure is? What exactly are the improvements that the Mayor is apparently giving us?

    Fleur Anderson

    I am not here to talk about local infrastructure, but we have to invest in the local public transport infrastructure so that we can overcome this problem. I had to give up my car—it was a diesel car— when the first ULEZ came in, and I do not have a car now. I rely entirely on public transport, but it has to be improved. How will we get the money to do that? The expansion of the ULEZ is one way to get that money. I hope to hear from the Government how they will fund public transport in London, if that is the key factor that we need.

    Nearly 10 years after Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah became the first person to have air pollution recorded as a cause of death, people in Dartford and London are still breathing toxic air. Poor communities and black, Asian and minority ethnic communities—those who are least likely to have a car—are the worst affected by air pollution. We have to take action.

    In Wandsworth, the borough where my constituents live, 129 deaths a year are attributable to the effects of toxic air. That is such a shocking figure. Knowing that I was taking my children to school and exposing them to toxic air every day really worries me, and it worries all my constituents too. Currently the ULEZ goes through Putney, but it is not a wall—the world has not ended, life has carried on and travel has continued. It is not the hard-and-fast border it is being portrayed as.

    Expanding the ULEZ will reduce NOx emissions by 10%, and PM2.5 exhaust emissions by nearly 16%, and prevent 27,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions from being released. It will lead to a nearly 10% reduction in NOx emissions from cars in outer London, on top of the 30% reduction in road transport NOx emissions that is already expected from the current ULEZ and the tighter low-emission zone standards. It works, and it should continue. We need to have this action.

    I welcome the news from the Mayor of London that, as part of the ULEZ expansion, he is introducing a scrappage scheme to support residents on lower incomes, as well as businesses and charities. It is the biggest scrappage scheme yet, at £110 million, and it will help those in Putney and every other area who are on low incomes and who need support to replace or retrofit their cars. I am pleased that the Mayor has also introduced new grace periods for disabled people, allowing them more time to adapt to change.

    Dr Cameron

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Fleur Anderson

    I do not have enough time to give way— sorry.

    I understand the concerns raised about the impact on small and microbusinesses. I met the Federation of Small Businesses this week to discuss its concerns about the ULEZ. It welcomes the move towards greening businesses and a more sustainable future, because it makes clear business sense. We cannot simply do nothing. However, the FSB is concerned about the impact of the ULEZ on microbusinesses—those businesses with under 10 employees. I have two brothers-in-law who are plumbers, so I have heard their concerns as well. [Interruption.] They are very useful.

    I know that this is a tough time for small businesses, so I join the FSB in urging the Government to support the ULEZ and to provide additional funding, on top of the Mayor’s £110 million scrappage scheme, so that it can support microbusinesses to change their vans, instead of stopping them coming into London. I also join the FSB in calling for small businesses to be given extra time to comply—up to September 2024—and for us to consider a way for small businesses to pay their charge into a special fund that they can put towards purchasing a ULEZ-compliant vehicle.

    This announcement will ensure that the most vulnerable in our communities are looked after and give them the support they need as the ULEZ expands. So I will end by asking whether the Minister supports the Government’s air quality targets, the ULEZ itself and small businesses. If so, will he support them further by topping up the Mayor’s scrappage scheme? Also, does he support a new clean air Act, because the time has surely come for one. Are there plans to introduce one?

    In conclusion, I welcome the ULEZ and this action to clean up our air for our planet, our health and especially our children’s health.

  • Ben Spencer – 2022 Speech on the Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

    Ben Spencer – 2022 Speech on the Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

    The speech made by Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP for Runnymede and Weybridge, in the House of Commons on 20 December 2022.

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) for securing this important debate. Conservative Members have been campaigning assiduously on this issue, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who has been leading on it for some time. The ULEZ will have a profoundly negative impact on many of our constituents. Hon. Members should be under no illusion: the ULEZ is about revenue generation on the back of poor financial management. This is a London tax, put forward by the Labour Mayor of London, and it hits the poorest, who cannot afford to update their vehicles. In Runnymede and Weybridge, families and businesses will suffer the most.

    I put out a local petition, and there was an overwhelming response against the ULEZ. That is interesting in itself, but what perhaps gives more power to the arguments against it is the individual comments that people made in response to the petition. People explained that they cannot afford to update their car, because they do not have enough money. Public sector workers, who need to go into London to work, said that the ULEZ will have a serious impact on their ability to continue to do that sort of job. Businesses felt that it would make them go under. People living with disabilities need to use their cars to travel around, and that is a particularly substantial issue at the moment because, yet again, the lift at Weybridge station is broken—sadly, I have had to campaign too often to get it repaired. People are therefore forced into using cars to get to and from London.

    Sadiq Khan says that the ULEZ is about air quality. If it really was about air quality, why does he use such a blunt tool to deal with the issue, as opposed to focusing on the areas with the most acute air quality problems, which are along trunk roads? Why the blanket approach rather than a targeted approach? If he really wants to improve air quality, why does he not push even faster car scrappage? Why does he not invest more in the bus fleet conversion to electricity and hydrogen vehicles? Why does he not listen to industry?

    Earlier this year, I was at an event hosted by Octopus Electric Vehicles in Weybridge, which was looking at the transition to electric vehicles. There were lots of representatives from all sorts of businesses and innovators, and they said that the key policy to drive forward the uptake of electric vehicles is the zero emission vehicle mandate. They welcomed the Government’s incredible position in terms of bringing it forward, but they said that if we want to really push things, we need a more ambitious ZEV mandate. Why is Sadiq Khan not talking about practical, proper solutions to air quality, rather than pressing his attack on, in essence, the poorest?

    I will finish with this: the ULEZ is a London tax to prop up a failing administration. My constituents should not have to pay the price for Sadiq Khan’s failings.

  • Geraint Davies – 2022 Speech on the Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

    Geraint Davies – 2022 Speech on the Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

    The speech made by Geraint Davies, the Labour MP for Swansea West, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 20 December 2022.

    I rise as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution —I am of course the Member of Parliament for Swansea West, but I was formerly the leader of Croydon Council and an MP for Croydon—to support the ultra low emission zone. I am horrified to see so many outer London Conservatives gambling with people’s lives for their own political survival. We are 70 years on from the great London smog, yet 4,000 people in London are dying prematurely, 11 every day, from air pollution. As leader of Croydon Council, I introduced the Tramlink, 26 km of light rail. When I was in Croydon, I had to regularly take my oldest daughter to Mayday Hospital with asthma attacks because of air pollution. Now, in Swansea, my children have not had to go to hospital.

    Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)

    Is the hon. Gentleman familiar with the report produced by Jacobs entitled “ULEZ Scheme Integrated Impact Assessment”? If he is, how does he square his comments about Conservative Members from outer London not caring about people dying of air pollution with statements in that report such as this?

    “The Proposed Scheme is estimated to have a minor (NO2) to negligible (PM2.5) beneficial impact on exposure to air pollution and achieving WHO Interim Targets across Greater London.”

    Geraint Davies

    I am glad the hon. Gentleman mentioned that, because the expectation is that the expansion of the ULEZ will reduce PM2.5 in outer London by 16%. He should know, but I am sure he does not, that studies at Harvard University and a Max Planck Institute found that covid deaths increased by between 8% and 12% when there was a marginal increase in air pollution from PM2.5—an increase much less significant than the fall that I mentioned. That is particularly relevant to poorer, more polluted areas and more diverse communities. We are talking here about life and death.

    We know from studies done that there will be a massive reduction in PM2.5 and Nox as a result of the expansion. Indeed, there will be a major contribution towards mitigating climate change. The scheme already reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 12,300 tonnes; an expanded one will reduce it by 27,000 tonnes. We will be saving lives and saving the planet. The truth is that if we do not act, we will end up with 550,000 more people unnecessarily getting pollution-related diseases in the next 30 years, at an estimated cost of £10.4 billion. We should move forward on this. People who are neutral, such as the chief medical officer Chris Whitty, who has just released a report on air pollution, very much commend what Sadiq Khan is doing to save lives, as does the United Nations.

    As a result of the ULEZ, there are 21,000 fewer vehicles in inner London and 67,000 fewer non-compliant ones—the latter figure is three times the former—so there are fewer vehicles overall. The scheme affects only 15% of vehicles—the most polluting—and £110 million has been set aside for scrappage schemes to enable conversion. The other thing to bear in mind is that the Government a year ago passed the Environment Act 2021. I wanted them to use COP26 to enforce World Health Organisation air quality standards, but instead, a year on, the Government are saying, “Why do we not try to get PM2.5 at 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2040?”, as opposed to 2030, which was the previous deadline. The limit prescribed by the World Health Organisation is 5 micrograms, which Europe will achieve by 2030. We could achieve that here—this is a condition of doing so—with ultra low emission zones. Instead, the Conservative position is, “No, we will not bother with that. We will play politics with this, and continue to have 3,600 children every year in London going into hospital with asthma”, as my daughter did. That is unnecessary—and despicable, because it is avoidable.

    Paul Scully

    The hon. Gentleman talks about playing politics, but it is the Mayor who has gone against his consultation. He says that Londoners are in favour of the ULEZ because they talk about air quality. Every Londoner would be concerned about air quality, but this is about the consultation that he refused to accept. The hon. Gentleman talked about trams in Croydon. It would be far better to pay for the tram extension in Sutton; that would be cheaper than what the Mayor is doing, and it would improve air quality by ensuring that people made fewer car journeys—and he would be taking residents with him.

    Geraint Davies

    I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman supports trams. I very much agree that we should move forward with trams across London and elsewhere. As an aside, the tram system cost us £200 million at the time. It was a public-private scheme with £100 million of private money and £100 million of public. We could get 1,000 of those schemes and integrated transport across Britain for the cost of HS2, but that is controversial and off the point.

    We should certainly take people with us; the YouGov poll shows that people support the extension of the ULEZ by a ratio of 2:1. It is very easy to go round knocking on people’s doors and saying, “Do you agree with Sadiq Khan’s attempt to tax you more in this despicable way?”, but if we do a neutral, objective study through YouGov, we find that people support it by 2:1.

    Gareth Bacon

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Geraint Davies

    Yes, I will. The hon. Gentleman can carry on with more of his science.

    Gareth Bacon

    Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figures quoted by Conservative Members come from the Mayor’s own consultation, in which 66% of people said, “No, don’t do this”? That was despite being asked a load of leading questions about air quality. Despite that, it delivered a two-thirds opposition. That was not people knocking on doors; that was the Mayor’s own consultation.

    Geraint Davies

    So that we are clear about how these consultations work, the Mayor, a devolved Administration or whatever puts out a consultation that says, “Tell us what you think”, and then groups of people campaign around it. They put in their submission and await the outcome. YouGov takes a representative sample; it found that people are in favour by 2:1. That is the answer. The hon. Gentleman should read up on how these things work, rather than spouting off about how they do not.

    In a nutshell, we are talking about ensuring better public health, and ensuring that we reach World Health Organisation standards in time. This is a critical part of moving forward, because London is a sort of death spot in terms of pollution. If we do not get London right, we cannot move together as a nation. We will end up with these ridiculously unambitious targets of 10 micrograms by 2040, instead of 5 micrograms by 2030. I very much agree with what the Mayor has done; best of luck to him.

  • Gareth Johnson – 2022 Speech on the Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

    Gareth Johnson – 2022 Speech on the Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

    The speech made by Gareth Johnson, the Conservative MP for Dartford, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 20 December 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered the expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone.

    I am pleased to have secured this debate on one of the biggest issues affecting my constituency right now. It affects not just Dartford, but areas right across London and the neighbouring counties. It is, of course, Sadiq Khan’s extension of the ultra low emission zone. The decision by the Labour Mayor of London to extend that scheme to cover the whole of London will be catastrophic for my constituency, which neighbours London. The border is not neat; it straddles roads such as Maiden Lane and sits at the end of roads such as The Coppice, Bowmans Road and Stonehill Woods Park. Although their residents are in Kent, they have to enter London just to get out of their road—just to live. They have no choice but to enter London.

    Currently, the border with London is fairly frictionless. Thousands of times a day, people drive across that border, often without even knowing it. That is good for London, and good for Kent and other counties bordering London, but now Sadiq Khan is building a financial wall between London and the rest of the country. A small business, particularly in outer London, that relies on customers travelling to it will be crucified by this form of taxation. The line that has been used by those desperately trying to defend the Mayor is that the scheme will not affect many people, but one in seven cars is already affected. Given that the Mayor ignored his own consultation on this scheme and did not include the expansion in his manifesto, as sure as night follows day, he will increase the number of vehicles that will have to pay—all to sort out the financial mess he has got his administration into.

    Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)

    The Mayor’s own consultation shows that 28,000 vehicles will be affected in the London Borough of Sutton alone. As my hon. Friend rightly says, it is small business people—those who can least afford to replace their car—who will be affected.

    Gareth Johnson

    My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. I think I am right in saying that almost two thirds of the respondents to that consultation, and an even higher proportion of those who responded from outer London and the home counties, opposed the expansion. That consultation, frankly, was a sham; the Mayor’s decision does not reflect what people have told him.

    As I say, this is all about trying to sort out Sadiq Khan’s financial mess. Well, Dartfordians should not have to pick up the bill for his financial incompetence. Everyone will be impacted by the expansion of ULEZ, whether directly as a motorist or business, or indirectly by the damaging impact that scheme will have on the local economy.

    Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)

    I thank the hon. Member for bringing this important debate to the House. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, I have been contacted by a number of people who have mobility cars who do not have to pay, but also by those who do have to pay. They are extremely concerned about the financial impact of this decision, given the cost of living crisis. Does he agree that there should be some kind of overall exemption for people who have disabilities, and who require mobility cars to access the public services that we all should be able to access?

    Gareth Johnson

    The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important and good point. Of course, people rely on their motor vehicles; some have no choice whatsoever. If public transport does not go the way that they are going, they have to use their motor vehicle, and she is absolutely right to highlight the impact that this decision will have on disabled people.

    As far as exemptions are concerned, I would argue that everybody should be exempt. I do not think anybody should have to pay this charge, because of its nature and the impact it will have on so many people—on everybody around London. It is not just those who own vehicles that breach the ULEZ guidelines who will be affected; it is everybody.

    Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)

    I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. I have also had representations, and heard my constituents’ concerns, about costs and the transition to green vehicles, but there is another side to this. I am sure he will agree that this is also about air quality, which we need to tackle in London. Has he read that the Mayor has decided to introduce two new temporary exemptions, from January 2023 to October 2027? Those grace periods will apply for those on disabled benefits and with wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Any way we move forward must be inclusive. There are still questions to be answered, including from my constituents.

    Gareth Johnson

    The hon. Lady raises an important point about the impact on disabled people. I would reiterate what I said to the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron).

    I believe that the constituency of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) covers Heathrow airport. This will have a big impact on her constituency; it will stop people accessing that airport and make them go to other airports instead, so I would argue that the expansion has a big impact, and has unintended consequences for many people and businesses.

    The Mayor is relying on not just the £12.50 per day charge, but the penalty charges for non-compliance, which make him even more money. The RAC believes that in the first eight months after the expansion of the ULEZ to the south circular, 1.6 million penalty notices were issued. This expansion will be to the whole of London; I shudder to think how many penalty notices will be issued.

    We can see why the expansion is so financially and politically attractive to the Mayor of London. Those who must pay his seven-days-a-week charge to enter London cannot and do not vote for him. We are not Londoners in Kent; this is quite literally taxation without representation or accountability. The two areas hit hardest by the expansion are the counties bordering London, which cannot vote for the Mayor, and outer London, which the Mayor does not care about because it is not where the bulk of his votes come from.

    The Mayor says that he will bring in a scrappage scheme for the poorest people, so that they can change their car. He is not doing that for those living in Dartford or anywhere else outside London, so the poorest will be hit the hardest. They will be unable to change their car or enter London to go to work, shop or pick up the kids from school. How will key workers get to London to support the health service, the police or other emergency workers there? Many of those key workers own cars that will be charged if they enter London, yet they keep vital services in London going. The supermarket ASDA has contacted me because it is concerned about the impact that the extension would have on its depot workers. It estimates that over half of those workers have vehicles that would be subject to the charge.

    The scheme currently goes out to the south circular. We already see people parking just outside the ULEZ before continuing their journey using another form of transport. That is an understandable way of avoiding the charge, yet this practice could turn large parts of west Dartford and Joyden’s Wood—and areas all around London—into a car park. What justification does the Mayor give for his decision? He says that it is to reduce pollution. If he really wanted to reduce pollution in London he would ban the vehicles, but he does not want to ban them; he wants to make money out of them.

    The expansion of the ULEZ has nothing to do with pollution. The worst pollution in London is in central London, not outer London. Of course, the expansion could not take place without the Mayor changing his transport strategy. He has changed it—with the votes of the Labour and Liberal Democrat Assembly members, and with only the Conservatives opposing. He held a consultation, which we have spoken about, on the ULEZ expansion and more than 60% of respondents opposed the idea, so what did he do? He just ignored them. What was the point of that consultation exercise?

    His Majesty’s Government have stated on numerous occasions that they do not have the power to stop this expansion. Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm, when he responds to this debate, whether that is the case? What advice has he sought on it? It seems that outer London boroughs can refuse to allow their land to be used for the camera infrastructure needed. Can he give his view on whether councils can refuse to allow their land to be used in that way, as it seems to me that that may be possible?

    The ULEZ expansion will have a significant impact on the poorest in society. It will price people out of going to work, going shopping or otherwise going about their daily life. It will place a financial wall around London and take away people’s freedom of movement. It is aimed at those who cannot vote the Mayor out of office and those who do not vote for him. It is the most debilitating, unfair, undemocratic form of taxation this country has ever seen, and it is a window on the soul of the Mayor of London.

  • Richard Holden – 2022 Speech on Bus Route Consultation

    Richard Holden – 2022 Speech on Bus Route Consultation

    The speech made by Richard Holden, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 20 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to take the last Adjournment debate before Christmas. In addition to thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), I would like to thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for their contributions today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford on securing another opportunity to speak on the behalf of his constituents in Watford. I know he works relentlessly to champion the issues that matter to them, and local bus services are part of the suite of issues that he regularly brings to the House and to Ministers.

    I was fortunate enough to be able to visit Hertfordshire a couple of weeks ago, when I met Councillor Phil Bibby, the executive member for highways and transport, and experienced at first hand some of the great work that is going on within the county to improve bus services. I was delighted to see Arriva’s new depot in Stevenage, which will house its new zero-emission bus fleet just up the road, and to learn more about the HertsLynx demand-responsive transport service, providing vital connectivity for rural villages in the north of the county, although those are admittedly not so close to my hon. Friend’s constituency. These are things that could make a huge and positive difference in Hertfordshire and elsewhere.

    The Government are clear that bus services are vital to ensuring that people can access work and education, as well as crucial services such as healthcare, as my hon. Friend said. We also recognise the fundamental importance of ensuring that people can stay connected to their local communities. I would like to address one of the issues around late cancellations and poor communications from bus companies. I am supportive of the general public being better informed about changes to local bus services, and my Department is working with local authorities and operators to seek improvements in that area. We recognise that the sector is facing challenges at the moment, but we expect operators to provide the services that they have advertised. It is unacceptable when they do not do so, especially when they do not give proper notice of those changes. That is one reason why I am so keen to welcome this debate. Ensuring that passengers who rely solely on local bus services are easily able to provide their views to bus operators and local transport authorities when changes to services are due to be made is a key aspect of the reforms to bus services in England that we set out in the national bus strategy, one of a plethora of measures we are bringing forward.

    Crucially, we want local authorities to have greater oversight of bus service provision so that they can work more closely with bus operators to ensure the provision of bus networks that meet the needs of local people. That includes having an element of flexibility in respect of bus service plans. When things change, we need the operators to be able to change with them.

    My Department is ready and willing to work with local transport authorities and operators as they work together as part of their bus service improvement plans. I know that Hertfordshire County Council is looking forward to establishing an enhanced partnership with local operators. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford mentioned the £29.7 million that has already been allocated to the council.

    The issue of consultation is particularly important. I really do hope that through the enhanced partnership we will see the operators working more closely with the service providers. That will really help provision. I urge my hon. Friend to keep pressing the council and his local operators on that.

    In its guidance on enhanced partnerships and BSIPs, the Department has highlighted the importance of councils and operators working with bus-user groups and local groups when they consider how to improve services and make sure that passengers are well informed about changes to local bus routes. There will always be changes and, hopefully, improvements—that is what the plans are there to deliver.

    We have provided a capacity support grant to all local transport authorities to develop and deliver their enhanced partnerships. In addition, we are providing capacity funding to those areas that did not receive funding through the BSIP process, to ensure that they have better enhanced partnerships. Whether or not they have received the full large grant or have that working relationship, we are there for them in my hon. Friend’s constituency and in the constituencies of other Members. The Department will also provide guidance and training for teams through the planned new bus centre of excellence.

    The national bus strategy sets out a requirement for local transport authorities to create a new passenger charter—I think my hon. Friend will be interested in this —as part of developing their BSIPs. The charters are intended to give bus users the rights to receive certain standards of service, including in respect of punctuality, the proportion of services operated, information and, crucially, redress, an issue that many Members from all parties have raised with me since I took over this brief. I hope that other councils, as well as my hon. Friend’s, hear the call for better communication.

    One of the issues we face is the recovery from covid. In August, we confirmed that we would continue providing funding under the bus services recovery grant to help to protect bus services until the end of March 2023. We have also taken additional steps to prevent significant reductions to bus services. As a condition of receiving funding, bus operators are required to maintain a minimum service floor of 80% compared with pre-covid service levels. We are also working to get services and, crucially, ridership back up to provide the longer-term stability that people need.

    We know that driver shortages have been a major issue and we are working with transport industry bodies such as the Confederation of Passenger Transport. We recently held a summit on the issue that I was delighted to attend. Things like that are important. We must work to really drive home things such as the “Thank You Driver” campaign. We must encourage people to take up really important opportunities. I am really keen to continue to support such work. My hon. Friend mentioned the DVSA; I have already prioritised tests for bus drivers to help to speed up the process and provide us with valuable assistance in tackling some of the serious issues around driver shortages. I continue to ensure that that is prioritised, even as we face difficulties and strike action.

    I know that in Hertfordshire more broadly the enhanced partnership process is slightly different. The council has responsibility for the registration of bus services rather than the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. However, the statutory 42-day notice period is particularly important. I hope that those involved can look into more enhanced ways to communicate with local people.

    In closing, I congratulate my hon. Friend again. The BSIP is a major step forward, as is the £2 single fare that we are set to introduce throughout the country before the House returns in January. I look forward to that. There are undoubtedly challenges facing the sector, but we are committed to working with it to address them. I look forward to engaging with colleagues from all parties going forward.

    Finally, ahead of the Christmas break I thank my team in the Department, my team in Parliament, my team in North West Durham, the House staff, Members from all sides and you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish all Members a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

  • Dean Russell – 2022 Speech on Bus Route Consultation

    Dean Russell – 2022 Speech on Bus Route Consultation

    The speech made by Dean Russell, the Conservative MP for Watford, in the House of Commons on 20 December 2022.

    Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)

    I rise today for the final Adjournment debate of the year. The topic I am discussing is buses, specifically cancellations and timetables. I am very conscious that I am keeping everyone late, just like some buses for my constituents. More specifically, recent changes to timetables in Watford have caused serious issues for my constituents in their daily lives, whether they are trying to get to work, hospital appointments, GP appointments, or visiting friends and family. My request for a debate follows engagement and correspondence with my local community, including two bus community meetings with constituents. They were held with Arriva, the prominent bus service provider I will be talking about today, but there are other providers and the issues are not limited to Arriva.

    Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this extremely important and timely debate. Does he agree that bus services are perhaps even more vital in rural areas? I think about my own constituency and Lesmahagow, which has an extremely poor service. One of the new estates in East Kilbride does not have a regular service at all. Surely it is incumbent on us all to work together, across party and across Governments, to ensure that people have vital services, particularly the most vulnerable?

    Dean Russell

    I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. That is absolutely true in rural areas, but also in urban areas. Bus services provide a really important role for our communities. That role is not political. We do not catch a blue bus or a red bus or a yellow bus—we catch a bus. The reality is that we must all work together. We must find ways to ensure we serve our community in the best way we can.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. I did text him before he came in to ask if it would be okay to make an intervention. When I saw the title of the debate I immediately thought of my constituency of Strangford, which is similar to his constituency of Watford. Speaking as an active representative of the rural constituency of Strangford, I have attempted to fight many battles for those who are the victims of reduced services, often without prior warning. They are often cancelled without any consultation. Does he not agree that the duty of care to isolated communities should demand at least some consultation and that if bus companies are not prepared to do that voluntarily, then this place must be the place to take action legally?

    Dean Russell

    I thank the hon. Member for his comments. To be fair, he did not need to text me. I was hoping he would join the Adjournment debate—it would be very odd if he did not. I appreciate his comments and agree wholeheartedly. Surely the point of a timetable is to ensure that people know what time buses are coming. If that timetable changes, the people who use the bus should be consulted and asked about how it will impact them, not just seen as numbers on a spreadsheet. Having spoken to local residents, I was surprised to learn that there is not a Government or local government edict that bus users must be consulted before a change to the timetable, which would seem an obvious thing to do, so I wholeheartedly agree with his comments.

    I have been actively engaging, talking and corresponding with organisations, whether Arriva or local government, so none of them will be surprised about the concerns I raise today in the Chamber. This is a constructive opportunity to say that I will not give up on raising these issues, but will work with them to ensure they are resolved in the best way possible for my constituents.

    Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)

    I am delighted that my hon. Friend has secured this debate today. Warrington has recently seen about £42 million investment in its bus services. When I post on social media and talk about these issues, the overwhelming response is that it is all very well investing in the future, but if buses are cancelled and do not run that causes significant problems. Does he agree that there is a fundamental need to ensure local consultation is in place? People make decisions on where they buy their houses based on bus routes and timings for getting into work. If that all falls down, people’s lives are significantly impacted by decisions taken in a bus company office somewhere. Is consultation not fundamental when things change?

    Dean Russell

    I truly thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he allowed me to intervene in his debate about buses in Warrington. I recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you were in the Chair at the time and commented on the clear similarities between Warrington and Watford. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that timetables cannot just be looked at on a spreadsheet or on Google Maps, as they can have a detrimental impact on individuals. Bus routes can also have a really positive impact on opportunities to travel, whether for work or for leisure.

    I want to raise three key points. First, there are the timetable challenges, which are the common thread throughout this debate. Secondly, there is poor service—a real challenge—with timetable problems and buses not turning up making things infinitely worse for local residents. Thirdly, there are poor communications.

    It is worth noting that buses are used for twice as many journeys as trains, and stop at thousands of places across the country. Often, the transport debate is dominated by trains. My very first Prime Minister’s question after being elected was about the trains in Watford. Thankfully, those issues were resolved at the time but, unfortunately, the pandemic hit and the service changed again. The reality is that buses are used more. They have much more of an impact and are very important in rural and urban areas for what might be seen as shorter journeys but are harder when just walking, especially for those who might be infirm.

    Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)

    In my area of south-east London, the buses are a godsend. More than that, the system allows us to check on the internet when buses are coming, with very accurate times at some bus stops. The more that happens, the more effective buses will be. I thank the local buses in my area because they hardly ever go on strike—I cannot remember a strike of the buses—but the trains do. We rely on the buses when the trains do not work.

    Dean Russell

    I thank my hon. Friend for his point on communications, which is one that I will raise near the end of my speech. Technology allows us to see where Ubers, taxis or online orders are, but that is not common across the board for buses, which makes it even harder if the timetables change and the service is not running on time.

    I have gained an understanding of the challenges with timetables by chatting to local residents. When I asked them how long they had known about the changes, they said no one had got on the bus and told them or left a leaflet. Bus users—the people who get on the bus and rely on the buses every day—are not being directly engaged when timetables are changed, but they should be asked whether the changes will have an impact on them.

    At the heart of this issue are people, not just numbers. People have the stresses of their daily lives: finishing a shift at work and needing to travel home; getting up in the morning to go to a hospital appointment; there are knock-on effects on all those things. As I will mention a bit later, I have had constituents almost in tears, telling me, “I can’t ask my boss again if I can come in late.” They say, “I’m having to cancel GP or hospital appointments or let them know that I’m going to be late, which might mean that it moves back a week or longer.”

    Bus timetables are not just about numbers; we need not just a quantitative review, but a qualitative review that asks people about the potential impact, the challenges and the importance of the route. Even if only a few people use the bus, there might be another way to support them. There are new services such as ArrivaClick that people can order for short journeys, but how can they plan for that if they do not know what sort of journeys they need to take?

    For registrations, variations and cancellations of community bus services in England, bus operators are required to give statutory notice of 70 days—28 days’ notice to the local authority and 42 days’ notice to the traffic commissioner—but there is no legal requirement for bus operators to inform passengers of the changes until the cancellation registration has been processed. That is absurd. How on earth can a service be cancelled without asking people? How can they be told only after the decision is made, even though other organisations in the process will have been told weeks or potentially months earlier? It seems very strange.

    I have made a request for the county council to review the cancelled service according to value for money criteria when it looks at bus services; I have asked it to look at how that can be supported through its own funding. However, it is not just about the funding of services, but about communications. I am aware that Hertfordshire has a website called Intalink that people can visit to see changes, but that is available after the services have been changed.

    As I understand it, Arriva reorganised its network in Hemel and Watford in April, which has resulted in a number of routes being combined. Again, it did not tell bus users or my constituents that that was happening. The Abbots Langley to Watford services were changed: they no longer service St Albans Road and now go via Newhouse Crescent on Woodside. That has meant a loss of access to St Albans Road, with longer journey times. From April, Arriva abandoned the northern section of the 8 service from Watford to Mount Vernon Hospital, meaning a loss of service for the Harebreaks and Maude Crescent areas of Watford. It was replaced and funded at a lower frequency by Hertfordshire County Council’s contract route 9 from Watford town centre to Leavesden Park. Leavesden Park also lost its daytime services into Watford on the 10 and 20 route, which were replaced by the 9 service. Those were major changes for people in my constituency, and they have been a challenge.

    I turn to poor service. A big issue in Watford has been the punctuality and reliability of bus services, which have been disappointing for the past year. The Minister may raise the fact that driver shortages have been a major issue; I will have some questions about that subject later. I believe that in this instance the services are about 20 drivers short. Such a large shortage has led to regular cancellations, with resultant overcrowding on the buses that do run.

    In my engagement with Hertfordshire County Council, it has been made aware that the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has contacted Arriva about its services and is working with it to improve punctuality and reliability. Following community engagement, I have written to the council and to Arriva about the matter. I understand that Arriva has given several contracted services outside Watford back to Hertfordshire County Council to free up some bus drivers for the west, which will benefit my constituents. I welcome that measure, which I understand should happen in January, helping the reliability of the services: I believe that it will free up 12 drivers.

    I appreciate that Arriva recognises the issues that have been caused by unreliable service and has been engaging with Hertfordshire County Council, but we need to ensure that we keep up the pressure on bus companies. We have had many debates in this Chamber about train services that have caused major issues for local residents. Issues with buses may not be as prominent in people’s minds, because they are very local, but when we are looking at the bigger picture across the country we have to ensure that they are addressed.

    Poor communication, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) raised, is an issue that needs to be fixed much sooner.

    Sadly, as I said earlier, I have seen bus users at community meetings almost in tears because they simply cannot fathom how a service could be so bad—a service on which they rely so much just to get to work, or to get home at night. They may know that their kids, on the way home from school, are stuck at some bus stop in the dark, in poor weather, and may not be sure whether they will get home on time or whether they should try to leave work early and find a way of going to fetch them.

    This is an awful experience, and I have to say that it is not alien to me. I grew up not in Watford but in the west midlands, and many years ago I worked at Birmingham airport. I worked all sorts of shifts: 6 am to 2 pm, 2 pm to 10 pm, and, often, the night shift. This probably would not be allowed now, but back in the 1990s I worked 24-hour shifts. I have stood at bus stops at 9 pm, or 10 pm, or when a shift has finished early, in the dark, waiting for a bus that does not come, not knowing when the next one will arrive, and not knowing what decision to make. Have all the buses been cancelled, or will the bus arrive but drive on past the stop because it is too full to let any more people on?

    Anyone who has been a bus user understands that this is not a simple issue. It affects how people feel, it affects their trust in the system and the network, and it leads them to ask themselves, “Should I continue using the bus?” Every time there is an issue, bus use declines, which is why buses are not popular and why routes are not changed. This, as I have said, is not an isolated data-related point; it is about the people who are actually involved.

    In the modern era, by means of technology such as apps, websites and indicator screens at bus stops, it is possible to have much better information, via GPS, about where vehicles are. We see it all the time with taxis nowadays: we can physically see where a taxi is after it has been ordered. If we are at a bus stop and we know that there will not be a bus for an hour, at least we can plan around that, but standing for minute after minute wondering whether the bus is going to come and what is going to happen is a massive issue. The bus companies have an excellent opportunity to look at how they use their apps and other technology, and how they can ensure that timetables are better indicated.

    Dr Cameron

    This reminds me of a point that was raised with me just the other week by representatives of East Kilbride Visually Impaired Bowling Club, which relies on communications on buses as well as indications of when buses will arrive. They described the progress being made on “talking buses”, enabling visually impaired people to know which stop to get off at and where they are in their journey. Does the hon. Gentleman, who is making a fantastic point about communications, agree that progress on these vital issues is extremely important to inclusion in public transport?

    Dean Russell

    Absolutely, and it is important for accessibility as well. People with disabilities have spoken to me about their own concerns. All the buses are accessible, but if a bus does not turn up or stops in a place that is not itself accessible, the problems are exacerbated.

    I am conscious of the time and I want to hear the Minister’s response, so I will try to speed up and make sure that we arrive at our destination—the end of the Adjournment debate—before Christmas. I know that the Government are investing a lot in transport, and I am not trying to be political or to do nothing but criticise.

    Hertfordshire County Council has been given £29.7 million for the bus service improvement plan as part of the £3 billion bus back better strategy, which is great news. The allocation of funding has been broken up for the next three years across five towns including Watford, and I am very grateful for that. Half of it is capital to invest in the buses themselves, and the other half is revenue to invest in ticketing. I understand that funding can also be used for new services or to enhance current successful services, but I think we should look at the less successful services, and ask why they are less successful and whether we need to support them further. I realise that funding cannot be used to subsidise services that are non-commercially viable or withdrawn, but, again, if we know the reasons why they are not working, perhaps we can find ways to support them.

    We have had some other recent successes. The W19 bus route, which is mostly run commercially by Red Rose Buses, was set to be withdrawn on 26 December. but that was opposed by Carpenders Park’s Conservative county councillors Reena Ranger and Chris Alley and district councillors Rue Grewal, Shanti Mara and David Coltman, working with me. After listening to the views of residents, they submitted some great evidence to Hertfordshire County Council, asking it to save the W19 bus. I am pleased to say that they agreed to increase the funding fivefold to save the W19. The revised timetable is to be registered imminently and the details will appear as soon as possible on the Intalink website. For any residents who might be listening, the service will be renumbered as the 346 and 346A to denote the clockwise and anti-clockwise routings. The key point is that when we have engagement, we can have successes, and it is important that people are listened to.

    I will start to round up, as I am conscious of giving the Minister time to respond. When organisations change timetables, it has a major impact on bus users. What might be low user numbers on a spreadsheet could mean the loss of important routes for working people, hospital visits being missed, people being late, careers being impacted and people not being able to pick up their kids on time. There are so many impacts.

    I have several asks for the Minister. Will he consider implementing a legal requirement for all companies, commercial or public, that provide a public transport service to ensure local engagement before services are changed or cancelled? Will he highlight the importance of communication and reliability of service? Overall, residents would be happy in some instances with a reduced but reliable service rather than regular cancellations and unannounced diversions. Will he consider supporting the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency to increase the availability of testing appointments for essential services such as the bus service and ambulance drivers, to address the driver shortages, as we saw with the HGV driver shortages? I know about that because my father was an HGV driver, and it is a noble profession.

    I am conscious that this is a debate for all areas, even though there can be local issues. I am grateful to the Minister staying late for this final Adjournment debate before Christmas. As I am the last Back-Bench MP to speak before Christmas, may I also take a moment to say thank you to all the staff, to all Members across the House, to the Speaker’s team, to my own team—Victoria, Abigail, Michelle and Jayne—to all the activists who work all year round to help to put us in this place, to my amazing constituents for putting me into this place and finally to my family and friends in what has been a challenging year for many. Hopefully we will have a much more successful new year.

  • Dan Jarvis – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Funding for Northern Powerhouse Rail

    Dan Jarvis – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Funding for Northern Powerhouse Rail

    The parliamentary question asked by Dan Jarvis, the Labour MP for Barnsley Central, in the House of Commons on 20 December 2022.

    Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)

    What recent estimate he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the level of public funding that will be required to build core Northern Powerhouse Rail.

    The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge)

    May I begin, Mr Speaker, by wishing you and all of your brilliant House of Commons staff a very merry Christmas?

    The integrated rail plan, published last November, set out an estimate of £17.2 billion at 2019 prices for the core Northern Powerhouse Rail network, with a further £5.4 billion for the TransPennine route upgrade. That includes building 40 miles of new, high-speed line between Warrington, Manchester and Yorkshire, as well as upgrading and electrifying the rest of the route between Liverpool and York, and the existing line between Leeds and Bradford.

    Dan Jarvis

    I am grateful to the Minister for that response. The Chancellor has rightly spoken about the importance of capital investment to the long-term growth of the economy but, at the same time, he has downgraded the £40 billion vision of Northern Powerhouse Rail, which was agreed on a cross-party basis with northern leaders, to the much-reduced £17 billion core scheme. Decisions on Northern Powerhouse Rail will shape the future of the railways in the north of England for generations to come and unlock massive economic benefits. Will the Minister look at refocusing Treasury appraisal of NPR on its long-term transformative benefits and whole-life value, rather than on short-term factors? Otherwise, a massive opportunity, not just for the north, but for the whole of the country, will be missed.

    James Cartlidge

    I commend the hon. Gentleman, who speaks with great passion on these issues. He is right that the Chancellor is absolutely committed to the long-term benefit to the economy of capital investment and infrastructure schemes like these. Just to be clear, the IRP set out the Government’s view that the core NPR network is the most effective way to deliver rail connectivity benefiting the north. Our plans would deliver substantial journey-time saving and capacity benefits all the way from Liverpool to York. It will do so far more quickly and cost-effectively than alternatives.