Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) How nice it is to see
you come back to the Chair, Mr Speaker, when your instincts must
have suggested that you go elsewhere. I want to raise with the
House a bizarre issue. For some reason, the Order Paper seems to
have been misprinted. For example, it has given me an “s” on the
end of my name. Also bizarrely, the presentation of the Fixed-term
Parliaments Bill seems to have disappeared. I cannot understand
what happened to the...Request free
trial
Sir (North Herefordshire) (Con)
How nice it is to see you come back to the Chair, Mr Speaker,
when your instincts must have suggested that you go elsewhere. I
want to raise with the House a bizarre issue. For some reason,
the Order Paper seems to have been misprinted. For example, it
has given me an “s” on the end of my name. Also bizarrely, the
presentation of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill seems to have
disappeared. I cannot understand what happened to the leader of
the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and
Surbiton (), and why he would not want to be here—
Mr Speaker
Order. Just to help, that might be the case, but it is not a
matter for the Adjournment, as you well know, so get on with your
Adjournment debate instead.
Sir
I was clearly far too nice to you, Mr Speaker.
Let us start with the fact that 21.3% of the English population
live in a predominately rural area. That is 12 million people who
can contribute even more towards economic growth. Yet without
greater thought about investment in infrastructure and innovation
for transport in rural regions, that untapped potential is not
being maximised. The Government have done much to support
transport links with the north and in the devolved nations,
despite the vibrant though poorly connected local economies in
areas such as North Herefordshire. To maximise our growth and
ensure that we meet our climate ambitions, as a nation we cannot
afford to leave anyone behind.
Rural residents are distinctive because they are absolutely
reliant on roads. Some 96% of journeys are made on local highways
in the UK, and local roads make up 98% of the highway network in
England. Road improvements can, unsurprisingly, have a
significant impact on rural areas. In Herefordshire, the town of
Leominster would benefit immensely from a northern link road—a
brilliant £12 million investment that I raised some time ago. Of
course, nobody should ever forget the tragedy and vandalism of
the famous and now much-missed Hereford bypass. It would have
made a phenomenal improvement to the city’s air quality and
congestion. Everybody should remember that the opportunity for
funding our bypass was idiotically thrown away by Herefordshire’s
previous Green and independent council—a phenomenal failure for
which they must never be forgiven.
Today, in trying to rectify that, we are limited by the cyclical
nature of Government funding cycles. I live in hope that a
funding window for the future Hereford bypass will open before
2030. The long cycles benefit civil servants, but leave vital
short-term developments at the mercy of local authorities, which
may themselves face funding constraints. Local projects are of
course dependent on local planning rules; however, central
Government can do much more to facilitate those projects by
providing capital for roads to local authorities at shorter
notice periods. I was delighted to learn that Herefordshire
Council will receive an additional £1.8 million to help to repair
the county’s roads. I praise the Government for redirecting funds
from HS2 in that way. The importance of such funding cannot be
overestimated in rural regions where car dependence is so
high.
(Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is right about rural roads and transport. At
my advice centre, just this Saturday past, one issue that local
people brought to my attention was the contact between villages
and local towns, and the rural transport reduction there has
been. As the hon. Gentleman and I know, it is so important for
people who live out in the rural community to have connectivity
with villages and towns such as Newtownards in my constituency.
Does he agree that there needs to be more rural transport on the
roads to help people get to big towns and have a normal life?
Sir
I believe the hon. Gentleman was named as one of the busiest
parliamentarians, so I am very pleased that my Adjournment debate
has not missed his attention. Of course, I agree with him.
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this Adjournment
debate on such an important topic. Like his Herefordshire
constituency, my East Devon constituency has running through it
an A-road that is potted with dangerous potholes. I was pleased
to hear that we might soon receive additional money for dealing
with those potholes, but does he agree that levelling up is not
just for villages in rural areas such as ours but also a concept
that needs to be applied to the road surface?
Sir
I noticed that the hon. Gentleman kept looking at notes. That is
how it is in the countryside: we have to keep looking for the
potholes all around us. I absolutely agree.
(Aberconwy) (Con)
It strikes me, as my hon. Friend describes the situation in
Herefordshire, that he could be talking about Wales. I know that
some three quarters of the population there lives within 90
minutes of Cardiff, but the reality of life for many across Wales
is that it is a rural country. Does he agree that the policies
being pursued by the Labour Government in Wales—the curtailing of
road development, the constant attacks on drivers, and now the 20
mph speed limit imposed across pretty much most parts of the
country—are hindering economic growth and hurting rural economies
and communities that depend on road transport?
Sir
I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the roads in Wales are
worse—in fact, I will talk about that in a moment—but I do agree
about the 20 mph speed limit. The people of north Wales are lucky
to have Members such as him looking out for their interests when
their efforts to get to work, see their families and go shopping
are completely sabotaged by the lunacy of the Welsh Government,
who seem to think that people should be going even slower than
they already are. There is an image of a wonderful scene in
“Pretty Woman” where Julia Roberts is leaning into the car, and
the caption says: “No, I’m not looking for a good time. I’m just
following the 20 mph speed limit.” I think that says it all about
the madness of the Welsh Government. Members will remember that
image later.
Safer roads mean less congestion and therefore fewer emissions.
That is really important. Drivers can save up to an estimated
£440 on their vehicle repair bills when roads are properly
maintained. I hope to see continuous Government support for road
maintenance in rural communities. I am not usually keen to ask
Ministers to spend a single penny of taxpayers’ money, but as a
road tax payer I believe that car drivers have every right to
expect that their hard-earned money will be used to maintain the
infrastructure for which it was levied. The misspending of that
funding means that hypothecation is justified for road tax.
The Treasury takes money from car drivers to fund overpaid train
drivers and an inefficient Network Rail that could have been
privatised years ago. More money is wasted on bus lanes, cycle
paths and not-very-smart motorways, yet the wretched potholes
escape unrepaired. In Herefordshire, we have more roads per
capita than any other county. Our rural roads are so neglected
that the need to fill potholes has been superseded by the need to
resurface the entire road as the damage is beyond patching.
Drivers can tell when driving over the border into Wales, because
the noise they hear while bouncing and lurching disappears as the
Barnett-funded highways allow them to glide along the Heads of
the Valleys road. Of course, we do not want Wales’s 20 mph speed
limits or NHS waiting lists, but its roads are a source of great
envy. There is room for much more innovation in rural
communities.
I rise briefly to make the point that my hon. Friend describes
the roads in south Wales.
Sir
The Heads of the Valleys road is indeed south Wales.
(Penrith and The Border)
(Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing such an important
debate on such an important issue. He is talking about the roads
as vital capillaries that keep people connected. I am sure he
will be well aware of the report by the Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs Committee last year on rural mental health. One of
the key findings was that connectivity is pivotal to people’s
health and wellbeing in rural communities, and part of that is
our rural bus network. Often, that is run by volunteers, such as
the Fellrunner and Border Rambler services in my constituency.
Does my hon. Friend agree that our rural bus network must be
supported to keep people connected and well in our rural
communities?
Sir
I will come to buses in a moment. I am not convinced that the
very fat buses that we have nowadays that hardly fit down rural
lanes and are usually empty are necessarily the best way to
transport people around our rural communities. However, my hon.
Friend’s point about mental health is fundamental to the
wellbeing of our constituents, so more innovation, better
delivery and better transport will be at the heart of that
issue.
(Sedgefield) (Con)
Just to expand on the importance of the bus solution, I have
villagers in Trimdon, Fishburn and Sedgefield who want to get to
employment. It is not just about mental health; it is about
employment and the whole gamut for people living in those places.
The roads need to be flat so that the buses can run on them, and
we must find solutions, whether it is little buses, thin buses,
big buses or whatever. They need to be in place and use the
funding that is available from the Government.
Sir
I will get on to the subject of buses, but my hon. Friend is
right and his constituents are truly blessed to have such a
diligent Member of Parliament.
Let me come on to the Government’s “Future of Transport: rural
strategy”, which I hope will contain some of the answers for my
hon. Friends. In this instance, it highlights the opportunity for
rural residents to move to electric and self-driving vehicles.
The latter might be one of the solutions for people. I am always
astonished whenever I see a picture of a self-driving vehicle—why
do they have wing mirrors? It is extraordinary. A constituent
once asked what happens if a self-driving vehicle is stolen, and
I said that it would probably come back by itself.
The transition requires reliable charging point infrastructure.
To match demand, 300,000 charging points will be required by
2030. Currently, rural areas have only one sixth of the public
charging points for electric vehicles that are available. In
Herefordshire, there are only 12 public charging points, despite
the fact that rural areas constitute 90% of England. The limited
range of electric vehicles is also problematic for rural
residents who may need to travel longer distances. That is not to
mention the need for four-wheel drive, which is essential when
the roads are covered in snow and are not cleared, as they are in
London.
The real solution for rural communities for the future is
hydrogen. We have plenty of water, and we need and use heavy
machinery. There will never be an electric digger that is even
half as good as the hydrogen-powered JCB backhoe. Brilliantly,
JCB has developed its direct-burn hydrogen fleet, which
substitutes hydrogen for diesel and means that already heavy
plant does not need giant batteries. With machines such as the
JCB Loadall telehandler, we can continue to fight climate change
from the farmyard—something we do best.
But help is needed so that farmers can move to hydrogen-powered
JCB-manufactured machinery. At the moment, hydrogen is not a
recognised road fuel. We need to license it for road use, and
that means that regulation 94 of the Road Vehicles (Construction
and Use) Regulations 1986 needs to be amended so that that
barrier to hydrogen is removed. I hope the Minister will tell us
that he will make that happen immediately, in conjunction of
course with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
We also need to recognise that farm machinery is getting larger
as we have more people to feed. Some common sense is required by
the Department for Transport, which should allow the police to
fight rural crime rather than escorting combine harvesters over
3.5 metres wide. And that is if the police have been given five
days’ notice, which is especially difficult during harvest time
when rain is beckoning. We need uniform rules so that combines
can cross police force borders without needing to go through
these applications again and again. The current system of
dispensation orders is a good first step, but we really should
catch up with the times and deliver a better way to cut corn.
Meanwhile, heavy goods vehicles pose a challenge for the winding
roads in rural regions. Although the use of drones is a possible
solution in some cities, that is unlikely to be true in the
countryside. Such problems mean that it is important that the
Government provide some sort of oversight and policing so that
green activists do not try to disrupt or destroy national
infrastructure in the way they did in Hereford.
To increase productivity, we should ensure that people get to
work around the country more quickly. Increasing speed limits on
motorways would help to do that but, as told me many years ago,
there is no evidence available about the safety implications.
That means that we need to test and trial increased speed limits
along with safer cars and better brakes. An excellent place to
test these things would be the M50, which is the perfect motorway
on which to try to increase the speed limit. It is short and
safe, and is a truly excellent motorway, where we could easily
monitor the safety of a higher speed limit.
Road maintenance is also vital from a safety perspective,
particularly for cyclists and motorcyclists. That is often
forgotten by those who advocate cycling, but it is especially
important that this safety angle is not forgotten as people
consider the potential uptake of electric bikes and micromobility
solutions such as e-scooters in rural areas, although I would not
recommend that particular form of transport, because a
small-wheeled scooter is ill-equipped to cope with the muddy and
mucky roads.
Rural roads pose significant dangers for all motorists. There are
overhanging trees, and there is green plant growth on the road
signs. Worst of all is the gravel that is washed into the road by
rainstorms, which is an absolute nightmare for motorcycles, and
the hazards can of course be fatal. Rural roads were the site of
over half the cyclist deaths that occurred between 2016 and 2021,
and between 2018 and 2022 rural roads were the site of an average
of 66% of motorcyclist deaths. Cycling is also not a solution for
the 25.5% of the rural population who are over 65.
The Government could also look at the advice from IAM RoadSmart,
which is campaigning for VAT-free status for air vests.
Motorcycling airbag vests and jackets can prevent certain types
of injury in the event of a collision. Although there is a stated
maximum intervention time of 200 milliseconds to achieve British
standard EN 1621-4:2013, there is currently no requirement to
comply with that standard. Helite, a manufacturer, confirms that
air vests provide injury mitigation, saying that they
maintain
“the cervical vertebrae and the head”
and the
“Rigidification of the trunk to stabilise the vital organs:
thorax, lungs, pancreas, abdomen, stomach, liver.”
They also offer
“Complete protection of the spinal column”
and
“Kidney and hip protection. The trunk is maintained to…resist
hyper-flexing.”
Separate research by IAM RoadSmart discovered that nearly two
thirds of motorcyclists believe that the cost of safety wear has
prevented them from purchasing items that would enhance their
safety while on a motorcycle.
Turning to public transport, rural residents are heavily
dependent on their cars because public transport is not widely
available to them. Limited travel options may restrict residents’
ability to find a job. Businesses also rely on transport
infrastructure for access to rural talent pools and customers.
When I spoke to the Minister—then the employment Minister—and
branch managers at Leominster Jobcentre Plus last March, the need
for improved transport links to the largest employers in
Herefordshire was a particularly useful point that was
raised.
I must commend the Government for the progress they are making
with the pilot schemes for demand-responsive transport, which has
seen 17 local authorities being granted £20 million to pilot
schemes in rural and suburban regions for on-demand buses. An
interim report found that the use of the schemes in the areas
analysed was increasing, and that in respect of those that began
before October 2022, the average number of monthly passengers had
been between 282 and 1,725. It is important for public transport
to be affordable as well as convenient, and the Government’s
capping of bus fares was generous, but traditional buses are
themselves facing decline. Between 2022 and 2023 nearly 20% of
bus routes were reduced, and, according to the County Councils
Network, bus services are now at a “historic low” in rural
regions.
(Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Sir
I should be delighted. I could do with a breather.
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate.
In my constituency, I have been campaigning to keep vital rural
bus routes in service for those who cannot or do not wish to
drive. Somerset Council is awaiting the outcome of its bid for
the Department for Transport’s zero emission bus regional areas
scheme, which, if successful, would bring crucial and
environmentally friendly transport to our communities. Does the
hon. Member agree that these funds must be released as a matter
of urgency to improve the lives of our constituents, so that they
can have access to services, jobs and education?
Sir
The Government are being very generous—the hon. Lady may have
forgotten to mention that—but the important point is that buses
are not the success story that I wish they were. I am very lucky
in that Bromyard has Dave Morris’s fantastic DRM transport
business, but I think we need to think carefully about how we can
make public transport affordable, reliable and efficient. Simply
throwing money at the challenges has failed so far to deliver a
sustainable long-term solution, although “buses on demand” is
certainly a good idea. I therefore hope that the national bus
strategy will help bus companies to compete with trains and
continue to deliver better public transport.
And now for trains: oh, dear!
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir
I will, before I steam on to trains.
I just wanted to make a final point about the bus agenda, and the
importance of those buses. When people are evaluating a bus
service, if the service is poor and becomes worse and worse, they
will abandon it. Durham has seen the biggest drop in bus use in
the country. We need not only a good road but a good service,
whether it is demand-responsive or not. Does my hon. Friend agree
that we need to take a long-term view and ensure that there is a
service offer that encourages people to use buses until we get
the best service out of our bus routes?
Sir
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend: he is quite right. People
do “wise up” to inefficient public services—and there is no
better example than the train service.
(Ludlow) (Con)
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I
apologise for arriving having missed his opening remarks. Does he
agree that community bus services, which are demand-responsive
and help to supply services to remote rural communities that are
not served by regular buses, may well be the solution that he
seeks, as they provide access for people who cannot travel on
their own account?
Sir
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend—a friend, neighbour,
and brilliant Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee. Not
only is he right, but that is particularly true in Herefordshire
and Shropshire, where the most vulnerable people, the children
and the elderly, need public services more than anyone. They are
the ones who are missing out. So bus by demand is definitely
where the future lies because, turning to the railways, the train
service has a lemming-like determination to kill itself off. The
number of trains in service is reducing and that is particularly
problematic for rural residents who rely on train lines to access
their workplaces.
Many of my constituents have highlighted issues concerning the
train line between London and Ledbury. It is difficult to leave
Ledbury at a time when normal people would hope to travel to
work. Returning to Ledbury is also a random experience as the
last train leaves at about teatime from London, and then it is
fingers-crossed that the driver does not give up in
Worcester.
So while the Government are aiming to increase rail freight by
75%, for residents to utilise such a boost to service frequency
the road network needs to be in place to facilitate access to the
stations. That is important because the midlands offers a unique
opportunity to enhance connectivity through the heart of the
country. Midlands Connect has called for the midlands rail hub to
improve connectivity in the region. This hub would mean that the
largest urban centres in the midlands would no longer be more
than an hour’s reach through public transport to an extra 1.6
million people.
(Blyth Valley) (Con)
On that point, in Northumberland we have the Northumberland line
which is going to connect Ashington through Blyth and Seaton
Valley into Newcastle, and that will go two ways: it will take
people into Newcastle and it will also bring people into the area
so that they can use the beach and the park. It is a fantastic
way to use those train services and that has been delivered by
this Conservative Government.
Sir
I am delighted, and all I can say is that the people of Blyth
Valley are lucky to have such a marvellous MP, such a marvellous
rail service and such a positive step forward, and, as
potentially I suppose that is funded by the HS2 decision, a
marvellous Prime Minister as well. So all good, but let us hope
that they are not getting the same train service that my poor
constituents get between Paddington and Hereford, which is
woeful.
I have campaigned for many years on the issue of accessibility to
the train stations in my constituency and was pleased when
improvements for people with disabilities were made to the
station in Leominster, but accessibility continues to be
problematic at Ledbury. The station has a B3 accessibility rating
and an eastbound platform that is not accessible to those with
limited mobility. The station is also difficult to navigate for
those carrying luggage and those with prams. All of these issues
contribute to an unpleasant travelling experience, which
discourages rural residents from making use of public
transport.
As I said, the railway seems determined to put off the travellers
who most need trains to get about. I hoped that common sense had
finally trickled through when my right hon. Friend the Member for
Maidenhead (Mrs May) told me at Prime Minister’s questions that
Ledbury was in line for disabled access, but, alas, that dream
was shattered shortly afterwards by a junior Minister in the
Department for Transport.
In October I brought this problem to the attention of the
Secretary of State for Transport, who informed me that Ledbury
station has been nominated for the Access for All scheme. While
that is welcome news, we have been there before. I am concerned
that I had to raise this issue at all given that disabled users
of public transport should be protected by the Equality Act 2010.
Unfortunately, it appears there are many stations like Ledbury in
the UK; I was appalled to learn that step-free access is in fact
not available in three quarters of the UK’s train stations. A
2019 study found that the only disability measure in
approximately 190 stations was a hearing induction loop.
Accessibility is also relevant to the building of new rural
homes. In November the Government announced that £2.5 million
will be made available to support affordable housing developments
in rural areas, yet without efficient transport connections the
successful uptake of these new properties is also likely to be
limited. I therefore ask the Government to do all they can to
insist that local authorities ensure that public transport is
accessible for all rural residents.
In conclusion, I want to praise the Government for doing
something I would not normally approve of. The Air Balloon pub
has been completely destroyed. There is nothing left of it.
Normally that would be a tragedy, but not when the A417 is being
improved. It is so long overdue and so welcome that the loss of
the pub is a small sacrifice to pay, and I must thank and
encourage the Government for that vital progress.
The advantages of better rural transport are not limited to rural
communities. By unlocking the productivity and connectivity of
rural residents, we can enhance our efforts towards prolonged
sustainable growth as a country. For far too long there has been
an unfair divide between our rural and urban communities. It is
time we closed that gap, and the way to do that is by delivering
rural transport, just as we would expect to see in urban
areas.
9.45pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport ()
That was a tour de force, by any interpretation, from my gallant
and hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir ). It is a pleasure to respond
on behalf of the Government on the vital issue of rural transport
and to his thought-provoking speech this evening. I know his
constituency well; I rode my first winner as a jockey there at
Garnons point-to-point, back in the 1840s, and he understands
that, as a Member for a rural constituency myself, I share his
concerns and his desire to have better transport in rural
areas.
It is a measure of the importance of this debate not only that my
hon. Friend took a very considerable time to make his case, but
that many parliamentary colleagues came in for an Adjournment
debate in circumstances where there is much to answer. Rural
transport is an issue that has been transformed by the Prime
Minister’s decision to cancel the second leg of HS2 and attribute
significantly larger amounts of funding, which I will go through,
to transport infrastructure across the country, and in particular
to support rural communities.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the points made by several hon.
Friends are utterly right. As part of Network North, we have
announced £8.3 billion of funding to fix potholes and maintain
our roads. We have already commenced paying that money, and I
will go through the Herefordshire funding, because it matters to
see the transformation in funding that has taken place.
We should bear in mind that in 2008-09 and 2009-10 less than £10
million in funding was allocated to Herefordshire Council. That,
in reality, has now doubled to £18.76 million this year, up 31%,
by reason of the announcements that I will go through. There is
the baseline funding of £14 million, on top of which there was an
increase of £2.56 million as part of the 2023 budget. On top of
that there was a further £106 million in additional funding as
part of the Network North 11-year period of funding up to
2033-34. Finally, Herefordshire has already received the first
instalment of £1.8 million, in December 2023.
I think I am achieving a parliamentary hat-trick by responding to
the Adjournment debates on the second-to-last day of the winter
term, on the last day of the winter term and on the first day of
this term. I commenced with a robust No. 10 in my hon. Friend the
Member for Stoke-on-Trent North () on 18 December, an
interesting but genuine No. 11 on 19 December, and then an
opening bat in the Graveney mould on the first day of this
term.
The particular relevance of this is that the hon. Member for
Tiverton and Honiton () stated in this and previous
debates that Devon was not getting any funding. He will be aware
that it received in excess of £6.6 million over the next two
years to combat potholes in his constituency, over and above the
baseline funding and the 2023 budget. For context, in this year
alone that equates to a 16.6% uplift in his county council’s
pothole budget.
Will the Minister give way?
I will move on. The—
Mr Speaker
Order. One of us is going to sit down, and it will certainly not
be me. Minister, it is a bit naughty to mention the Member while
he is here but then not allow him to come back. You take him
personally to task, which is not a problem, but then when he
stands up you want to move on, which I think is a bit unfair.
Minister, it is up to you.
Mr Speaker, with respect, I was going to allow the hon. Member
for Tiverton and Honiton to intervene. I have a lot of Members to
deal with and I was going to address pothole funding first, but I
will of course allow him to respond.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I appreciate his
point about the money being released to places such as Devon, but
I speak to constituents who think that one reason why speed
restrictions are being imposed on rural roads is because of
potholes. That is clearly not the Government’s intention, so is
this a form of speed restriction?
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the copious answer I made on those
points on 19 December.
The reality of the situation is that, in addition to the
Herefordshire funding, there is a further £4.7 billion for local
authorities in the north and midlands through the new local
integrated transport settlement, which will allow authorities to
deliver a range of new transport schemes to help reduce
congestion and upgrade junctions, as well as to invest in active
travel and zero-emission buses.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire specifically
raised the Hereford bypass, which did not proceed under a
previous local authority. I am happy to meet him and the present
local authority, because clearly there are opportunities through
the local integrated transport settlement, and other forms of
funding, for local authorities to bring forward proposals in
relation to potential bypasses. It is for the county council to
make that case, and I look forward to hearing from it.
As the House has debated in detail tonight, buses have a key role
to play in improving connectivity and supporting rural areas to
develop and grow the economy. That is why the Government have
invested so heavily in buses over the past few years. Following
the introduction of the national bus strategy, the Government are
providing over £1 billion of support to help local authorities to
deliver their bus service improvement plans, and this support
will remain in place until at least April 2025. It is up to local
authorities to determine how this bus funding should be spent,
including by assessing the needs of local communities.
In addition, Herefordshire, like many rural areas of the north
and midlands, will benefit from hundreds of millions of pounds
that the Government have allocated from the HS2 moneys, through
Network North, to help level up bus services. That includes £1.9
million of bus service improvement plan funding, and it will
receive further money through Network North funding.
As part of our regular funding, we also support buses through the
bus service operators grant, which is worth over £259 million a
year to bus and community transport operators. My hon. Friend
spoke about particular bus services, and the demand-responsive
services mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow
() are a good example. I totally
agree, and I strongly believe that it is up to local authorities
to drive forward successful operators.
I am aware of the Border Rambler and Fellrunner bus services
mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border
(Dr Hudson). And my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield () rightly made the case that it
is up to his local authority to ensure that bus services,
particularly in the southern part of his constituency, are made
available to his constituents.
I deprecate those individual providers that have not taken up the
£2 bus fare, which is a key change we have made. With great
respect, the introduction of the £2 bus fare has been
transformational in my Northumberland community and across the
country. I am delighted that, following the launch of Network
North, the £2 bus fare will continue to run for a considerable
time.
We know that rural bus fares can be expensive, for obvious
reasons. Before the introduction of the £2 cap, many users of
rural bus services found themselves having to pay more than £5 a
trip. I am particularly pleased that we have extended the cap,
which clearly supports local communities and local economies by
making travel to employment, health and leisure services in our
beautiful rural regions more affordable and more accessible. On a
local level, it has been utterly transformational in places such
as Haltwhistle in Northumberland.
I share the disappointment that some bus operators, including
some in Herefordshire, have not signed up to the £2 bus fare, and
I would urge them to do so. Over £600 million has been made
available for the scheme to reduce the cost of bus travel.
Although participation is voluntary, the Department for Transport
has encouraged as many operators as possible across the whole
region to continue to participate.
The hon. Member for Strangford () made a similar point in respect of his rural
community, which I know very well, having been to Newtownards and
around his parts and having lived in Northern Ireland, just
outside Moy, for the best part of a year. I accept his point,
which he makes as eloquently as ever—it would not be a proper
Adjournment debate without his outstanding contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy () rightly made the point that
the Welsh Government have got themselves into a bizarre
situation. The petition against the 20 mph limit, which is
clearly an attack on drivers, is probably the most successful
petition in the history of this country on any particular issue.
I fear that the Welsh Government will rue the day that they went
down that particular route on something so extremely
unpopular.
On speed limits, my hon. Friend the Member for North
Herefordshire raised the issue of the M50 and whether there is
the potential to introduce a change of speed limit. I accept that
he makes the point for an increase. The point I would make to him
is that it is a matter for him, and more particularly his local
authority, to sit down and discuss that with National Highways,
which governs the strategic network, and then set speed limits on
individual roads. They have the local knowledge and are best
placed to do so, but it is for the local authority to drive that
forward with National Highways in the first instance.
Sir
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s excellent speech, but the
motorway does not seem to be a local authority issue because it
will travel through a great number of local authority areas. Is
there anything the Government can do to assist that discussion,
because he knows very well that most public servants, of all
sorts, are risk averse?
I do not think it is for me to comment on the nature of public
servants and their willingness to embrace risk or otherwise,
whether on a motorway or off a motorway, at speed or not at
speed. What I would say is this: all major roads are part of the
strategic road network run by National Highways. However, local
authorities—there are not many that cover the M50; I think it is
just Herefordshire and Worcestershire—
Sir
And Gloucestershire.
And Gloucestershire. Local authorities can come together and sit
down with National Highways and potentially drive forward change
if that is what they wish to do, but it starts, fundamentally,
with the local authorities.
My hon. Friend rightly raised, and has been an ardent campaigner
for, rail station accessibility. I know, because I have discussed
it with him, that he has made a considerable effort over many
years to make Ledbury station much more accessible. That point
has been heard very loudly and very clearly. He met my boss, the
Secretary of State for Transport, and made that point to him in
October. He will be aware—I am not the Minister in charge of
disabled access to trains, but I will go away and try to get
detail on this point—that the Access for All budget is presently
being considered. The bids are in and considerations are being
made. Ledbury is one. He is right to make the point that, slowly
but surely across the country, we are upgrading and improving
railway stations. We are going as fast as we possibly can. We
would like to go faster and we would like to include Ledbury. I
promise him that it is on the list to be addressed and I totally
accept his point.
Dr Hudson
Having worked with me on an area shared by both of us, the
Minister will know Gilsland station. I urge him to really make
the case from within, as part of his ministerial portfolio, for
the reopening of Gilsland station.
I wondered when the issue of restoring a railway would feature in
tonight’s debate, and I was not disappointed. As my hon. Friend
the Member for Blyth Valley () made clear, we have the amazing
example of the best line in the country: the Northumberland line.
It is seeing multiple stations being restored as we take a
massive step forward in restoring transport connectivity in
Northumberland.
I have campaigned on Gilsland for only 14 years; in
Herefordshire, there is Pontrilas and there are other
stations—whether they were killed by Dr Beeching or others down
the years—that are sought as an opportunity for a reopening of
our railway infrastructure. As we have seen with the Waverley
line in Scotland, there is a definite desire for such railways to
be reinvigorated and for new stations to return. Without a shadow
of a doubt, I will personally take the issue up with the trains
Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
|
