Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange.

I will call Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange the HNRFI from now on.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I begin by welcoming the Minister to her place and I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate on what is an incredibly important matter, not just for Leicestershire but indeed for our country.

I also thank colleagues who have joined me in Westminster Hall for this important debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who has worked alongside me on this important matter, because, as we will hear, the proposal would have as great an impact in his constituency as it would in mine.

I start by informing the Minister that I cautiously welcome the news today that the Secretary of State is minded to follow the Planning Inspectorate’s recommendation that she should withhold consent for the proposed HNRFI. The Planning Inspectorate has carefully considered the views of local stakeholders about the HNRFI and recommended against its proposal. I hope the Minister can explain why the Government chose, just a few hours ago, to delay making the final decision until March 2025.

What we really want to ascertain is this: what do the Government hope to achieve by pausing or extending the time available to make this decision? At the outset, I will say that one of my principal asks will be to meet the Minister or any of her colleagues, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, to discuss the process of the matter. I appreciate that she cannot in a meeting discuss the specifics of the case, because she has a quasi-judicial role, but we would appreciate a follow-up meeting after this debate to discuss process.

The Planning Inspectorate’s recommendation gives this new Labour Government the opportunity to respond to local people’s concerns and frankly, if I may put things colloquially, calm the nerves of literally thousands of people in and around Leicestershire who will continue to anxiously await confirmation that this wholly inappropriate development will be rejected.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I, too, have constituents who are grossly concerned about this matter. Although it is, I say cautiously, good news that the decision has been delayed, part of what the Secretary of State seems to be saying is that the impact locally outweighs the benefit to the nation. That is what I myself and all the organisations and local people involved have been saying. Therefore, the question remains as to why a delay will change that position. Does my hon. Friend have any thoughts as to what the reason might be, and on what we can do to get an answer before the end of March?

[Alberto Costa]

My hon. Friend has worked assiduously on this matter over the months—in fact, years—during which this unwelcome proposal has been introduced. In answer to his question, what we can do is say, as I put it to the Minister, Labour are now in charge and I should be very grateful if she would meet both of us, to explain why there has been this decision, which is not the normal decision in these processes. When the Planning Inspectorate makes a recommendation, more often than not the recommendation is approved. And for the Planning Inspectorate to reject a proposal, or consider withholding consent for it, is very rare in such cases; usually the Minister does that. So, a meeting with the Minister might help to answer my hon. Friend’s questions.

The proposed 440-acre site for this development sits between the M69 and the Leicester to Birmingham railway line at the heart of a cluster of rural communities, all of which are within two miles of the site and in some cases less than a mile from its boundary. It is important to mention the communities, which include Aston Flamville, Barwell, Elmesthorpe, Earl Shilton, Sapcote, Stoney Stanton, Sharnford, Burbage, part of Hinckley and the long-established Traveller settlement of Aston Firs. Those communities are within both my South Leicestershire constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth. So, too, is Burbage common and woods, which is a site of special scientific interest and a beautiful 200-acre area of woodland and grassland that lies in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Many people have their home in this area and would be affected by this development were it to be given consent—of course, we are hoping that it will not be. According to the Stoney Stanton Action Group, over 92,000 people stand to be directly impacted by this development: an enormous number of people.

Under the current system, Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth borough, Conservative-run Blaby district council and Conservative-run Leicestershire county council are statutory consultees in the process. All the stakeholders voiced serious concerns about the HNRFI, as did Labour-led Rugby council, Warwickshire county council and National Highways, which raised concerns over

“missing or deficient transport documents and statements of common ground.”

[Dr Evans]

For me, that was the key deficit when we made our appeal to the inspectorate. It seems like that has been upheld because, although there are the environmental and infrastructure impacts that will hurt our communities, the fundamental premise of what was being put forward was faulty because the information simply was not there and there was a hostile approach from some of those statutory bodies that made getting information out really difficult. Does my hon. Friend believe that that is the reason why this should not go ahead? We cannot even make a judgment call on that basis, and that fits with what the Planning Inspectorate has come out to say—that this should not go ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alberto Costa]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and there is no surprise in that—both of us have worked so assiduously over the years on this matter, particularly behind the scenes when we have highlighted to previous Government Ministers the very issues that my hon. Friend has raised. I pay tribute to the many individuals and stakeholders—there are too many to name—who have closely considered this application, raised legitimate concerns on behalf of their communities and meaningfully contributed to the six-month Planning Inspectorate hearing process. I am glad that the Planning Inspectorate has taken on board their views.

I am pleased to name just a couple of local Blaby district councillors who are observing this debate closely —Ben Taylor and Mike Shirley. I put on the record that they have worked tirelessly for their constituents to voice concerns over this proposed development, as has the leadership of Blaby district council. There are many local groups too, such as the Friends of Narborough Station, the Stoney Stanton Action Group, the Save Burbage Common group and Elmesthorpe Stands Together—to name just a few. They have brought their unique expertise and local knowledge to help illustrate why the proposal is wholly inappropriate.

This development was unpopular from the outset; I issued a survey to constituents living within the vicinity. Of nearly 6,000 surveys sent, I had a very high response rate of 27%, and an overwhelming 94.5% of respondents opposed the proposals. Many of the villages closest to the proposed site are rural in nature and there are widespread and legitimate concerns that local country roads will become too busy with traffic, leading to gridlock in village centres and causing a safety concern, as has been correctly highlighted by the Planning Inspectorate. The applicant did not give enough consideration to that issue, in part because of poorly conducted traffic assessments, incorrect modelling and inadequate mitigations.

While the proposed location of HNRFI is in the so-called golden triangle, constituents in Hinckley and Bosworth and in South Leicestershire frequently write to their respective MPs to raise concerns about what is frankly gross overdevelopment of commercial areas. This is not a question of nimbyism. If she looks at the map of this part of Leicestershire, the Minister will see an enormous amount of housing and commercial development. Indeed Magna Park, a huge logistics park —at one time the largest in Europe—is only a few miles away from this proposed development, and it is shortly to regain the title of one of Europe’s largest logistics parks. It is currently doubling in size, with 13.1 million square feet of floor space across 47 enormous warehouses.

Would the Minister agree that over-development, not nimbyism, has gone too far in constituencies such as South Leicestershire and the adjoining area? I politely ask whether the Minister can expand on why the Secretary of State requires an extension when there is overwhelming evidence, as the Planning Inspectorate report seems to suggest, that the development should not go ahead.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made some fantastic points. One of the key points is the Planning Inspectorate report. Many members of the public felt that the development was a done deal and something being done to them. Can I thank the Planning Inspectorate, which is now minded to refuse consent? Our communities have been heard. We know the deficits, have seen the deficits and have now proved those deficits. I hope that that will go some way towards the Secretary of State making the right decision. But there is anxiety now, given the very unusual delay of several months. Minister, how can we allay fears that this will all be ridden roughshod over, given the unusual nature of what we have in place?

[Alberto Costa]

I entirely agree, which is why it was important to put on the record at the outset that there is still anxiety among thousands of Leicestershire residents, who are asking why consent has not been withheld when the Planning Inspectorate have said it should be.

I would like to assist the Government. The draft national policy statement for national networks states:

“Whilst there is likely to be a natural clustering of SRFI proposals in the distribution heartland of the nation…consideration should be given to proposals for SRFIs in areas where there is currently lesser provision.”

Developers argue that purportedly tens of thousands of jobs can come with SRFIs. Why not put these in areas where there is less provision? Will the Minister outline what consideration the Secretary of State might give to putting SRFIs in areas with less provision?

My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth and I generally support appropriate commercial developments in our constituencies. However, as we have said, South Leicestershire and that part of Leicestershire as a whole already take a fair share of large scale commercial developments. Indeed there is another unwelcome proposal, put on the table just a few weeks ago, for enormous warehousing to the east of Lutterworth, under what is called Lutterworth East Commercial Area. It is not just the rail freight interchange; I appreciate the Minister does not have responsibility for that which I have just mentioned, but the point I wish to highlight is that there is ongoing gross overdevelopment in that area.

We already have Daventry international rail freight terminal just 18 miles away from the HNRFI site, four national rail hubs within 45 miles and Northampton gateway rail freight interchange just 31 miles away. Having looked at the record, I think it is important to analyse the damage that having a cluster can actually do.

Local planning is one of the most contentious issues that any MP deals with in their casework, as the Minister will understand. It is also the one in which we as MPs have the least power or authority. We have no formal role in the planning decision making—rightly so, because most planning decisions are made by locally elected and locally accountable councillors. However because the Hinckley national rail freight interchange is categorised as a nationally significant infrastructure project, these matters are ultimately decided by the Minister and her team. In other words, unlike most planning decisions, which are approved or rejected at local authority level, these matters ultimately go to senior Ministers to decide.

One of the key national objectives of rail freight interchanges is to get freight off the roads and on to rail tracks, and reap the environmental and cost-saving benefits of doing so. I am sure the Minister and I would agree that that is something to welcome, but it is very important that we do not have the wool pulled over our eyes, and see rail freight interchange proposals as a fig leaf for just another excuse for enormous warehousing.

I want to quote Dame Andrea Leadsom, the former MP for South Northamptonshire. She stood in this Chamber less than a year ago and said:

“SEGRO took over the development of the site and—lo and behold—as the site neared completion last year, it applied for a development consent order waiver, asking the Department for Transport to overturn the condition requiring the rail link to be completed so it could start to fill up its warehouses and flood local roads with HGVs even before the rail link was established.”

She added:

“It seems clear to me that this project was always about forcing more warehousing into the heart of England to take advantage of motorway access from south Northamptonshire and never about making it easier to move freight off the road and on to the rail network.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 22WH.]

I say to the Minister that the case of the HNRFI is the same.

What would I suggest that the new Labour Government could proactively look at? The issue is the lack of a proper framework policy, which colleagues and I have raised many times before. Such a policy would help the Labour Government to identify appropriate sites where these forms of logistics parks should be located.

The first area that a national framework should address is site selection. The current nationally significant infrastructure project regime is developer-led, with developers responsible for justifying their site choices. At present, there is only general guidance in the national networks national policy statement, with no formal national level framework guiding the Government or local authorities on where SRFIs should be located.

A national framework could assist the Government by helping them to prescribe specific location criteria for SRFIs, such as proximity to major freight corridors and alignment with regional logistics hubs. Such proactive planning could avoid unsuitable locations and, importantly, minimise planning disputes from the outset. That could help ensure that SRFI proposals are not only appropriately located but are also in line with whatever the Labour Government’s policy would be.

I would also welcome measures that ensure that SRFIs actually serve their purpose and handle sufficient rail traffic, rather than just becoming another excuse for gargantuan logistics parks. That would ensure that freight really does end up off the road and on rail, while providing clear expectations for developers, which would, in turn, promote confidence from stakeholders.

The most critical point I want to address is strategic co-ordination. As it stands, the nationally significant infrastructure projects process is largely reactive, led by individual developer proposals, and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. While there are broad goals to shift freight from road to rail, which I support, there is no comprehensive national strategy that specifically addresses the planning of SRFIs. That results in inefficiencies, regional imbalances and in our particular case, not nimbyism, but the grotesque—I choose the word carefully —overconcentration of SRFIs and enormous logistics housing in our region. With a national framework drafted by the Labour Government, we could ensure that logistics facilities are distributed more evenly across the country, balancing the benefits and impacts across the nation.

In summary, while the UK’s current NSIP regime provides a structured process for approving SRFIs, it remains reactive, fragmented and developer-driven. A national framework would change that by introducing greater consistency, strategic oversight and national level co-ordination. I think that is exactly what the Labour party said during the recent general election campaign that it wants to do when it comes to planning. That is the future I propose that this Government pursue.

I hope that the Minister, along with her ministerial colleagues, takes the opportunity in her new role to come up with a national freight strategy, so that the whole country can share the burden and benefit of these developments and so that local communities can buy into these developments and not have them forced upon them. I urge the Minister and her team to speak carefully with the Secretary of State to follow the Planning Inspectorate’s recommendation to withhold consent to the Hinckley national rail freight interchange, and to make the decision in a timely manner.

Only by doing so will the Labour Government show the people of Leicestershire and the surrounding area that they really do listen on planning and that they do have a plan to share these nationally significant projects across the country. At a local level, that would help alleviate any anxiety that my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth have over this proposal.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Alberto Costa Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Louise Haigh)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

At the general election, when millions of people called time on years of dysfunction, disruption and decline, they demanded change, not only in how the country is governed but in how it works, because for too many, from our economy to our public services, the country simply does not work any more. The things on which we rely are letting us down too often. Lifelines have turned into liabilities. That is why this Government have already started the work of rebuilding Britain, brick by brick, Bill by Bill. Five transport Bills in this year’s King’s Speech show not just the scale of our ambition, but how transport is at the heart of our plans for change. Growing the economy, becoming a clean energy superpower, making our streets safer, spreading opportunity, rebuilding our NHS—whatever this Government’s mission, transport is now mission critical.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Transport Secretary for giving way so early in her comments. There is a very controversial planning proposal for South Leicestershire, which is sitting on her desk as we speak—it is for the Hinckley national rail freight interchange. I am for rail freight interchanges, but the issue that has united Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative politicians in and around the area is that there are about five other rail freight interchanges within a 30-mile radius. Can she give a commitment from the Dispatch Box that whatever she says today will not ride roughshod over the views of Labour-led Rugby council and Conservative-led Blaby district council? Both have very serious concerns about this matter.

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for putting his views on the record. He will know that I have a quasi-judicial role in determining the development consent order for that project. He is right to say that it is on my desk now, and I am considering it carefully. Nothing in today’s Bill will influence that decision.

National renewal requires nothing less than the biggest overhaul of our public transport in a generation. That starts with improving performance on our railways and kick-starting reform, which brings us to today’s Bill. It should surprise no one in this House when I say that our railways are not fit for purpose. For two and a half years, I said as much from the Opposition Benches to no fewer than three Tory Transport Secretaries. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), to her place. I should note that my three predecessors, who sat on this side of the House, are no longer Members—I am not sure whether it is her job or mine that is cursed, but I wish her luck in the role.

Under three Tory Transport Secretaries, we were promised reform, yet, three years after Keith Williams’s review, little has changed. We were promised better services, yet some of the worst-performing operators were rewarded with new, lengthy contracts and handed performance bonuses.

Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered plans for the Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I would like to thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate and to welcome the Minister to her place. I also thank colleagues for joining me in this important debate, which touches on issues that affect all our constituents.

In South Leicestershire, we have a proposal—not unlike proposals in other constituencies—for a railway interchange. Let me first add some context. The plans for the Hinckley national rail freight interchange include the construction of an 850,000 square foot logistics hub to the south of the village of Elmesthorpe in my constituency. As a rail freight interchange, it will have the means to be serviced by freight trains as well as heavy goods vehicles. It will be built with access to the existing two-way railway line between Birmingham and Leicester, allowing for freight train entry, and with local road access for HGVs.

The planned site for the Hinckley rail hub would, in its totality, encompass 440 acres of land—for scale, that is about a quarter of the size of Gatwick airport. That area is currently beautiful, rolling south Leicestershire countryside. The site will neighbour the historic and picturesque county villages of Elmesthorpe, Stoney Stanton, Sapcote, Sharnford, Aston Flamville, Potters Marston, Croft, Huncote, Thurlaston and Wigston Parva—collectively and colloquially referred to as the Fosse villages.

My constituents in the Fosse villages contend with overburdened infrastructure at the best of times. There are already heavily congested roads in the area, many of which are narrow and winding and therefore quite unsuited to the levels of traffic that would be seen should this awful proposal be approved, given the HGV traffic entering the site and the alleged approximately 8,000 employees who would be trying to enter it for work.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will be aware, because we have discussed this before, that a strategic rail freight interchange is under construction in my constituency of South Northamptonshire. Just as he has outlined, however, it covers an enormous area, including a greenfield site, and it borders beautiful villages and residential areas. In fact, now that it is starting to be built, it turns out that Network Rail cannot find the promised rail links that were part of the plan, and my constituents are saying to me, “We told you so. We said it would never be a rail freight interchange; it is just about yet more logistics warehousing.” I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to put that on the record, and I encourage him to fight against this until there is a proper national framework in place that can stop this type of development-led abuse of local communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alberto Costa]

I thank my right hon. Friend. She brings a great deal of experience to this debate and is an enormous champion for South Northamptonshire. I welcome her contribution, which will certainly help other colleagues understand what the future of this proposal might hold.

I want to touch on some of the areas that might be affected. First, there is the environmental impact that such a site will have on the local area. I am very pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) in the Chamber today, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), whose constituency borders mine. The application proposed directly borders the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth. Undoubtedly many colleagues and many of his constituents in Bosworth will be acutely aware of his vigorous and steadfast campaign to oppose the development. The nearby Burbage Common and Woods, a site of special scientific interest, which is based in his constituency, is a beautiful 200-acre area of woodland and grassland, and a place enjoyed and frequented by our constituents. It is also home to rare wild flowers, over 20 species of butterflies, over 100 different species of fungi and 25 different species of mammal. The rail freight interchange proposal for construction is right next to that important common, and without doubt the development would have a hugely detrimental effect on that area of natural beauty.

I have already mentioned the importance of the applications’ impact on other Members’ constituencies, particularly with regard to the issue of infrastructure such as that around Fosse villages. However, with little information available as to how HGVs will service the site or how the 8,000 alleged new employees will make their way there at all hours of the day, there is a very real and pressing concern among my constituents that their local area, villages and streets are at a real risk of being overburdened.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a strong case in respect of a very substantial development of warehousing. It is obvious which route many of the HGVs will take: one junction on the M69 and then on to the A5, which we know is a strategic road. We had a debate in this Chamber only a few weeks ago to consider the entire upgrade of the A5 in the midlands. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the proposal should not be permitted to proceed without the complete dualling of the A5?

[Alberto Costa]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely correct. We have been debating the importance of that particular road in this Chamber, in the Commons Chamber and elsewhere among the parliamentary community and with Government for years now. It would be risible if the Government approved the rail freight interchange without dualling the A5, as has been requested by hon. Members over many years.

Europe’s largest logistics park, Magna Park, is in very close proximity to where it is proposed the Hinckley rail freight interchange will be developed. Also, there are already a number of rail freight interchanges within relatively close proximity to the planned site. We have the Birmingham intermodal freight terminal, which is a mere 16 miles from the village of Elmesthorpe. The Daventry international rail freight terminal or DIRFT is located a mere 20 miles away, the Hams Hall rail freight terminal is 24 miles away, the Burton rail terminal is 26 miles away, East Midlands Gateway is 29 miles away and Northampton Gateway is only 36 miles away. However, as we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), with her wealth of experience, we are seeing that that is perhaps a fig leaf and not quite a rail freight interchange, but more an excuse for a large-scale logistics park. We also have the Birmingham Freightliner terminal, which is only 36 miles away. It cannot be right to burden another part of the midlands with another very large rail freight interchange. The Government must develop a strategy this year on where the location of these rail freight interchanges will best service our country.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Is that not the exact point? This is not about nimbyism; it is about having a national strategy so we can achieve our net-zero goals while protecting our communities. Up and down the land, rail freight exchanges will be going in higgledy-piggledy with no true thought as to how we should tesselate this all together.

[Alberto Costa]

I absolutely share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) and he reemphasises the need for having a national framework policy for the location of the sites. I am not the only one making the point. Other hon. Members have made the case for siting these big infrastructure projects in their logical place, near the ports and airports that import into the United Kingdom the freight that is then distributed across our country. It is frankly bordering on ludicrous to site so many of these rail freight interchanges in the geographic centre of our country. It makes no sense other than to the developers. I urge Government to think very carefully about their future strategy on where rail freight interchanges should be sited.

I want to emphasise the point that some developers purport that they are applying for a railway freight interchange, when in fact it is a fig leaf for just another enormous logistics park. While I appreciate that the Minister is not responsible for the siting of general logistics parks, she must bear in mind the experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. The danger is that on application they may appear to be rail freight interchanges, but they might turn out in practice to be simply another large-scale logistics park. Given that my constituency already has the doubling of Magna Park Lutterworth, making it Europe’s largest logistics park, at what point do we say that enough is enough? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth correctly said, this is not about nimbyism, it is about fairness and justice and about ensuring that the Government’s priority of protecting our beautiful country is met in practice. It is not a decision that will be led by local Government; it is a decision that will be taken by central Government and by the Minister.

I want to give time to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth to make a few points as well—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. There are no other speeches in this half-hour debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alberto Costa]

I thought there was the potential for my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth to make a speech, if that were permitted.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

It is most unusual. He can make an intervention.

[Alberto Costa]

In that case, let me carry on and say that the level crossing at Narborough is already viewed by many residents as something of an inconvenience. It is currently closed for 20 minutes per hour at peak time. If the rail freight interchange goes through, the closure is expected to double to 40 minutes every hour. The people of Narborough and the surrounding villages cannot accept that. That would be a burden too far. It is tolerated at the moment because the railway station at Narborough is an important transport hub for local people, but to have the level crossing down for 40 minutes of every hour is simply unacceptable. It would be a considerable source of disruption for local people.

I mention gently to the Minister, who does a good job overall in her Department, that my team and I have tried and failed to get a meeting with the Secretary of State on this big issue. To hide behind the cloak that this is a quasi-judicial decision and therefore we cannot meet is nonsense. The Department meets the developers, and the developers are able to meet civil servants. Why are MPs and other stakeholders objecting to the proposal prohibited from meeting civil servants?

[Dr Evans]

My hon. Friend continues to make a fantastic speech. Does he agree that this needs a joined-up approach from the bottom-up? Our constituents, the parish councils, the borough councils, the county council and the MPs are all saying exactly the same thing. In my survey when we sent out 12,000 leaflets, 96% of the responses were against the proposal. That surely must count for something.

[Alberto Costa]

My hon. Friend makes another excellent intervention. All the stakeholders are putting forward very reasonable reasons why it would be a dreadful error for the Minister and her team to approve the Hinckley rail freight interchange. They must be listened to. The points being made by local government, charitable groups and parish councils are not nimbyism; they are about fairness and practicality. The rail freight interchanges should be located in different parts of the country where the freight comes into the United Kingdom.

As I said, I have asked for several meetings; I appreciate the Minister has not been in post for long, but I would appreciate if she would confirm that she will meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth and the stakeholders to discuss the application. If she does not meet me, will she explain why? Will she follow up with a letter so that I can take that up directly with the Prime Minister? Half an hour ago, I had a meeting with the Prime Minister’s No. 10 team in which I raised this issue and was promised that it would be looked into. I ask kindly that the Minister gives a clear response on whether she will meet me and the stakeholders to discuss the concerns about the rail freight interchange.

I entirely share the very understandable concerns of my constituents about the plans for the Hinckley national rail freight interchange. The fantastic district councillors for the Fosse villages have been working tirelessly on behalf of local residents to oppose the proposals. They have attended every public meeting and engagement event. I pay tribute to the brilliant work of councillors Maggie Wright, Iain Hewson and Mike Shirley, as well as excellent Conservative-led Blaby District Council and its leader Councillor Terry Richardson, who have been vociferous in doing their utmost to stand up for local people and voice their very reasonable collective concerns.

I also pay tribute to the Friends of Narborough Station group, the Save Burbage Common group and the Elmsthorpe Stands Together group—all collections of local people who have volunteered and devoted much of their free time to opposing the plans, and who have been terrific and tireless in doing so. I thank, in particular, my hon. Friend for Bosworth and his team, alongside my team, for the excellent work that we continue to do together to represent our constituents on this issue.

It goes without saying that the reasons against the proposal are varied and multiple but are all of equal importance. With little or no legislation in place for the provision and placement of these logistics hubs, I fear for rural areas like South Leicestershire, which already carry their fair share and do their part. They are at a significant risk of being overburdened with gross overdevelopment. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Department to look into this matter urgently, to take the concerns of my constituents seriously and to see that the plans for the Hinckley national rail freight interchange are given, at the very least, the necessary scrutiny that they both require and deserve.

A5 in the Midlands: Improvements

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pawsey]

My hon. Friend is right. The environmental benefits are important, but I want to focus on the one that we would achieve by having less congestion, with car engines running for less time, and on the efficiencies and economies that can be provided to our local area as a consequence of a more efficient and effective A5.

Let me turn to the growth that is forecast for the area around the A5. Local councils within the corridor anticipate that, over the next 15 to 20 years, their local plans will bring forward 103,00 new homes, 16,000 new jobs and a further 524 hectares of employment land, which need a road. By investing in the A5 and improving its performance and resilience, we believe that the central Government have the opportunity to unlock the growth aspirations and priorities of the region.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbouring MP on securing this important debate on the A5. He makes some salient points about the level of economic growth along the A5 by comparison with other parts of the country. Does he agree, however, that without sufficient investment, such as the long-awaited dualling of the A5, we risk missing out on a huge amount of economic growth?

[Mark Pawsey]

My hon. Friend anticipates my point. He is exactly right: we need to have an efficient road that enables growth to take place. One of the challenges of the A5 is that it is dualled in parts, but single carriageway in others. There currently appears to be no consistent approach to an upgrade, and we need that upgrade in order to achieve our local councils’ ambitious objectives for the area.

As part of the wider strategic road network, the A5 currently carries 23,000 vehicles a day on its busiest section, so it is a pretty hefty road. Sadly, however, and despite its increasing importance and usage, the A5 in the midlands has not seen a proportionate increase in funding to provide resilience and capacity. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) points out, if that is provided, it will enable the A5 to spearhead and safeguard sustained growth in the region.

The fear is that, if neglected, the A5 will act as a barrier to growth rather than an instrument of it. With investment, we believe the A5 can become a significant corridor for growth by enabling greater east-west connectivity, providing access to the M6 toll road, and supporting north-south movements through its strategic interchanges with other regionally important motorways, as I have already mentioned.

In its November 2018 A5 strategy document, the A5 Transport Partnership outlined three key strategic interventions that it argued would be required to unlock the potential of the area served by the A5, and they are relevant today. The first priority is to make improvements between the M42 and M69—a combination of online and offline dualling to deliver the first phase of the A5 expressway, providing expansion of the MIRA site, which sits between Nuneaton and Hinckley, and works associated with the construction of HS2 at junction 10 of the M42. That is the first priority.

The second priority is the part between the M69 to M1 and M42 to M6. Again, it would be a combination of online and offline dualling, but this time to deliver the second and third phases of the A5 expressway. A third objective is to make better use of the M6 toll road. Those of us who have used the M6 toll road will know that it is not to capacity. If we can improve the size, we can get more traffic off the M6 and on to the toll road. In addition to those key priorities, improvements are needed to enhance the A5’s connectivity to the wider strategic road network. I know there are proposals for a new junction 20A on the M1, to bring relief to junction 20 at Leicester, which is the junction between the M1 and M69. That will provide additional growth opportunities.

Ministers are aware of the need for investment, given that one of the third road investment strategy pipeline projects is the upgrade between junction 1 on the M69 and junction 10 on the M42, and I hope that the debate will further press the case to bring that scheme forward. By securing this much-needed upgrade of the A5, we can help deliver growth around the corridor route, support network resilience, ensure greater sustainability and safety, and manage the impact of freight on the road.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire made some remarks about the economics, which I want to focus on. The 53-mile section between the M1 and the M6 plays a significant role in supporting the sub-regional economies of Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Coventry, Staffordshire and west Northamptonshire, and the economic performance of the A5 is strong when looked at in the light of the broader west midlands economy. As I mentioned, a number of important economic centres along that corridor will be subject to further expansion in coming years.

The MIRA enterprise zone is expanding; Magna Park in Leicestershire, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, is expanding; DIRFT 3 in Northamptonshire, which sits on the border of my constituency, is currently the subject of substantial construction; and Kingswood Lakeside Employment Park in Staffordshire—which I believe is close to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke)’s constituency—is coming forward. In my constituency, we have a substantial residential development at Houlton and the Rugby Gateway mixed-use development. I hope I am building a case for why it is imperative that the A5 is upgraded, to ensure that its present constraints do not curtail this planned growth or act as a barrier to continuing inward investment.

It is worth pointing out that unemployment levels along this corridor of the A5 are currently lower than the UK average, and with the expansion of the economic hubs I have just referred to and the further employment opportunities that will bring, that situation will only improve. As well as supporting local economies, the road has a wider role in providing connectivity to other economic centres, such as the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge growth corridor. When we combine the housing growth with the economic growth and the increased employment opportunities, it is clear that the A5 will come under significant further pressure over the coming years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alberto Costa]

My hon. Friend makes some excellent points about the importance of this trunk road, which provides an alternative route to already congested motorways, for example. Does he agree that the A5 must also have improved capacity to ensure that overflow traffic is taken out of the many rural villages around it?

[Mark Pawsey]

My hon. Friend no doubt has constituents who will have experience of that overflow traffic in exactly the same way that I do. I will talk a little later on about how the A5 acts as a relief valve for the M6, but if people cannot move along the A5 in the way that they need to, the danger is that they will seek alternative routes that take them off the trunk road network.

I have already mentioned that the local councils are coming together, demonstrating their desire to grow and develop their employment and housing offer. By investing in this road, central Government can help those councils to meet their growth needs by facilitating a safe, reliable, efficient and resilient A5.

With that bit of resilience in mind, I will talk about the importance of keeping the traffic moving, to which my hon. Friend just referred. We know that there are often many planned and unplanned incidents on the M6, and that when the M6 comes to a halt many vehicles turn to the A5. Indeed, over the last 36 hours, there have been a dozen or so different lane closures on the M6 due to either maintenance work or incidents on the road.

In those circumstances, when traffic migrates from the M6, the A5 struggles to cope in certain situations and creaks under the weight of the additional traffic. That is often compounded by operational issues on the A5 itself, which in turn creates significant problems on local roads, as my hon. Friend has just referred to, with traffic dispersing because drivers seek alternative local routes.

One of the reasons for the lack of resilience, and it is the core of our call to the Minister today, is the variation in the standard of the road along the corridor. It is, in parts, recently constructed dual carriageway, with a great road surface that enables the road to work well. However, in other parts it is a windy A road, a single carriageway with double yellow lines, where the traffic really slows down. It is that variability that is at the heart of the challenge facing the road’s users. That situation is aggravated, as the Minister may know, because the road is constrained by old canal and railway bridges. That creates congestion and slows down journey speeds, impacting businesses and commuters, and even impeding emergency vehicles. Along with my colleagues here today, I am arguing that what we really need is the complete dualling of the road between the M1 junction 18 and the M6. That is our long-term objective.

On safety, one of the key objectives of National Highways is to reduce casualties on our roads. Sadly, the pressures on the A5, along with the development I mentioned, mean that the road has become a barrier to road users safely accessing economic hubs and other parts of the road network. I spoke about how that has impacted on congestion when incidents occur on other strategic roads but the safety of the road itself is impacted. Many of the junctions—be they roundabouts or road turnings—were not designed to cope with the levels of traffic that they are experiencing. We know that as congestion increases, so does the risk of collision. It can be caused by driver frustration or the limited safety provisions on the single carriageway sections of the road.

Along the corridor, that is, the 53 miles between the M1 and the M6, about a quarter of collisions occur during evening peak hours. Significantly, data demonstrates that the nature of the road, which is of a mixed standard, moving from dual to single carriageway sections with a large number of roundabouts, contributes to the number of collisions. Indeed, across all sections of the road, approximately 40% of the accidents that lead to personal injuries occur at roundabouts, compared with a national average of 10%. That is based on data provided by the police.

The historically fragmented nature of the A5, both through its construction and its inconsistency, can be seen as the heart of the issues with the road. Further or full dualling of the A5 will improve the overall capacity and resilience of the road while improving its safety and performance.

[Alberto Costa]

My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. Given what he has said, does he agree that we need safety improvements on the A5 for the road to cope with greater capacity? In my constituency, for instance, High Cross and Smockington Hollow junctions are notorious accident blackspots, so I am grateful that he has mentioned the safety issues on the A5.

[Mark Pawsey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. We do want to make the road safer as it is a horrible road for drivers to negotiate.

I also want to talk about sustainability. As part of the wider picture, improving the highways infrastructure should involving cycling and pedestrian routes and the use of public transport. In my constituency, both Rugby Borough Council and Warwickshire County Council are committed to investing in and further developing sustainable transport infrastructure with a view to reducing the congestion on our roads, encouraging healthy living and improving air quality. Those ambitions are shared by both central Government and local councils.

Public transport along the A5 by bus remains extremely limited. I have spoken about the new housing and commercial developments on the road and they are not accessible by public transport. I cycle, and I certainly would not want to ride my bike along the A5. At no point along the part of the road that I am particularly concerned about are there any cycleways, creating further issues around access. All in all, that drives people to use their cars to access sites along the A5, adding to levels of traffic and congestion on the road. By looking at sustainability, we can move traffic from the road. We really ought to consider sustainability when the new developments take place.

To conclude, I hope the debate has reinforced the message that I and my colleagues have been sending to Ministers over many years. Without an upgrade of the A5 in the midlands, economic growth will be restricted in our area. I hope that I have been able to show that in many ways the corridor has become a victim of the growth near it, with piecemeal improvements and developments made along it. It has not been considered in its entirety, which is what we would like to see. It should be treated as the strategic road that it is. Historically, any improvements have been fragmented in delivery and we now need an upgrade that looks at the A5 in its entirety—at the whole picture—and acts to unlock the potential throughout the corridor.

Our role as midlands MPs is to make certain that the funding to upgrade the A5 provides us with a consistent standard of dual carriageway between the M1 and M6. I hope that I have shown that the road experiences significant peak-hour congestion and will support major growth over the next decades, based on plans that have already been adopted and are emerging from the local councils along the corridor route. Without that action, growth in the midlands will be inhibited and lost.

The Minister will be aware that the midlands engine is revving up and is more than ready to play its part, but it needs the transport infrastructure to match that ambition and drive. I hope that in response to the debate the Minister will be able to reassure residents and businesses that the Government understand and recognise the necessity of an upgrade of the 53-mile corridor from the M1 junction 18 in Warwickshire to the M5 at junction 12 in Staffordshire, and that they are listening and will be ready to act.

National Policy Statement: Airports

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

We have 9,000 people a year in London dying from air pollution, yet there is nothing in the Government proposals that goes anywhere near even thinking about tackling these issues. Those are the consequences for my community, despite all the promises they have been given that their homes would be secure. These are villages that have been there for 1,000 years, to be wiped off the face of the earth—and for what? To ensure that a company maximises its profits. This is a company owned by Ferrovial, which was founded by Franco contracts, by the Chinese state and by Qatar. It is shipping profits abroad, rather than reinvesting in this country. That is what this vote is about tonight.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

I will finish on this point, because other Members want to speak.

This decision tonight will likely go through, but there will inevitably be legal challenges from a cross-party group and the London boroughs, as well as the Mayor of London. I believe, like last time, that those legal challenges will win. We will be left, yet again, with not tackling the real problem of developing a real aviation strategy that builds on the five airports around London, develops the regional airports we need, and connects them up with the rail and road infrastructure we desperately need. We will be back here yet again, having failed. I tell Members this as well: if the courts do not decide this, there will be a campaign. This will be the iconic, totemic battleground of climate change, which will attract protesters and campaigners from across Europe. This issue will not go away.

Before Members vote, I want to leave them with one thing in their mind: remember the name Armelle Thomas, resident of Harmsworth. Her husband, my friend, died a short while back. Tommy Thomas came to this country during the second world war to fight for this country against fascism. He flew airplanes for the RAF on some of the most dangerous secret missions into France. Armelle is his widow. His home that he built up with Armelle is in the centre of what will be the runway itself. There are human costs to this decision that Members need to recognise and contemplate before they vote tonight to worry and blight my community once again on a project that will never—pardon the pun—take off.

A5 Upgrade

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) on securing this hugely important debate and on his thoughtful speech, which was excellent in covering the sensible and reasonable A5 improvements that are much-needed. Watling Street and Fosse Way cross in my constituency. I often wonder what my ethnic ancestors would think if they were to look at that stretch of the road today, with its high level of traffic. When the Romans first built that junction, it was busy, but it was never heavily congested. Perhaps we have something to learn from my ethnic-Roman ancestry.

Many Members will no doubt be aware of the huge strategic importance of the midlands to Britain’s thriving industry. Whether it is logistics parks, rail freight terminals or international airports, the midlands is a beacon for British industry and innovation. I am proud that much of that industry can be found in my constituency of South Leicestershire. As my hon. Friend said, the area is known colloquially as the golden triangle. That refers to the intersection of major motorway networks in the local area, which provide crucial links for commercial and residential traffic.

The A5 shares that commercial and residential importance. As my hon. Friends will be aware, the A5 is a major road in my constituency and theirs. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), I have experienced the long queues of traffic on the A5 at various times of the day. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth correctly stated, unless the Minister takes into account the strategic needs of the road, the problems will only be exacerbated by the further planned industrial and housing developments.

Further consideration should be given to the villages in the vicinity of the A5, particularly those in and around my constituency. I am thinking of the Claybrookes, Ullesthorpe, Wigston Parva, Sharnford, Cotesbach and Shawell, to name but a few. Having listened to the chairman of the Leicestershire Fosse villages neighbourhood plan group—a voluntary organisation that speaks for constituents in the south Leicestershire villages of Sharnford, Stoney Stanton and Sapcote—I think we need to take account of the ever increasing traffic demands in and around those areas. These rural, idyllic villages already suffer from a swathe of large HGVs and other commercial traffic. While I have been working closely with constituents in Sharnford, for example, to help to remedy the problems, I fear that the issues will only get worse if we see the increase in development outlined by my hon. Friends without any significant increase in the associated infrastructure, in particular the improvements on the A5 that we seek.

[Mark Pawsey]

My hon. Friend is making an important point about ensuring we get infrastructure before development takes place. The A5 acts as a boundary between his constituency and mine. In the same way that his villages are affected, people from Pailton, Monks Kirby, Churchover, Clifton and Newton are in many cases reluctant to go on to the A5 because of the large number of HGVs using it as a consequence of the industrial development that has taken place. That will only get worse if development continues.

[Alberto Costa]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. My family use a dentist in Pailton, so we are familiar with travelling along the A5 to get to that wonderful village.

The Magna Park logistics park is one of the largest in Europe and is located in my constituency. Given its proximity to the market town of Lutterworth, my constituents are often subject to unreasonable amounts of commercial traffic clogging up the area. However, as we heard from my hon. Friends, the A5 does not have an impact only in my constituency. I am glad to say that it is also important and significant for my hon. Friends here today. My hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth, for Nuneaton, for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) have been instrumental in pushing the matter to the very top of the Department for Transport’s agenda, and I pay tribute to their excellent efforts. Like me, they recognise the plight of their constituents and are cognisant of the A5’s huge importance. For that matter, I thank Conservative-led Blaby District Council and Conservative-led Harborough District Council, which have also been pushing efforts to help to improve infrastructure on the A5 and surrounding areas.

In closing, it is important to note that the concerns I have expressed about the A5 are not simply local concerns; they are regional and national. The A5’s strategic importance should not be underestimated, but to keep up with economic growth and our nation’s industry, vital infrastructure improvements such as those proposed to the A5 must be prioritised. The road stretches through four counties and multiple constituencies and encompasses hundreds of thousands of our constituents, so the A5’s inclusion in the road investment strategy 2 is not only a must for my constituents and those of my hon. Friends; it is a must for the people of the midlands. It is very much a big picture project, and the road needs big improvements right away.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

It is a delight, possibly an honour, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) for this useful, important and timely debate, which ties into a wider pattern of effective and successful lobbying from Members and colleagues from the same area.

My hon. Friend will know that this is an important area not merely for its road transport connections but for its history. He referenced the battle of Watling Street in AD 60-61, tragically not referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling), at the opposite end of whose constituency one would hope the road would ultimately end, but referring to the great Roman victory. Of course, the day after celebrating the suffragettes and the suffragists, I note the tragedy of our greatest suffragette, Boudicca, suffering her untimely defeat at such a moment. I thank him for the historical reference.

In order to respond to the comments from the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) about RIS 1, I will start by laying out the Government’s overall approach. The debate has been interesting in the way that it has blended national and regional concerns relating to the road investment strategy’s second phase and the question whether this project should be a candidate for an expressway, with specifically local concerns, such as Mancetter island and so on, which Highways England might be invited to consider as part of its local responsibilities. It is important to keep those two balanced.

As hon. Members will know, in recent years, the Government have taken a much more long-term, phased and planned approach to investment in the strategic road network, including our motorways and main A roads. That has been a very important development over the last five to seven years. We do so for a specific reason, which is that when there is more longevity in the system and greater visibility of funding in the overall envelopes, there can be better planning, costs can be driven down in relative terms and productivity can be improved; overall, there should be greater certainty of delivery.

[Alberto Costa]

I thank the Minister for outlining the reasonable position of the Government in taking a long-term view when it comes to financing, but my South Leicestershire constituency has one of the largest logistics parks in Europe, Magna Park, and there is a proposal to double its size. That is not a long-term proposal—it is an immediate one. Given the problems we have expressed about congestion, noise, air pollution and so on, would the Minister look sympathetically at how the Government’s policy can be linked with the infrastructure proposals outlined by my hon. Friends and others from my constituency?

[Jesse Norman]

I am rather regretting giving way to my hon. Friend, because his intervention was of such a length and repeats information he already put on the record through his speech. I have very little time to make a quite a lot of points that I know he and other colleagues will want to respond to. Needless to say, of course the Government are sensitive to great and fast-breaking developments. We have schemes, including the large local major transport scheme, that are designed precisely to assist local government to petition where there are important local developments that can require new infrastructure on shorter term notice.

Highways England is making good progress according to the investment strategy launched in 2015, which brought with it a very large increase in funding for the strategic road network—more than £15 billion in the five years between 2015 and 2020. Highways England has already delivered something like 18 schemes that are open for traffic. Work on the £1.5 billion A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon scheme is advancing well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) mentioned the interaction between the M6 junction work and the work at Dodworth. He is of course right about that. What it shows—I use this to respond to the hon. Member for York Central—is that work has got to be phased, and sometimes the acceptance of bids is not consistent with the intelligent structuring of investment. As a result, Highways England routinely and quite properly slightly overprogrammes the amount of investment it is making, knowing that some of those schemes will not hit the correct benefit-cost ratios, some local authorities in some cases will not have their bids and other work ready on time, and there will be local opposition in some cases that may delay a scheme. Therefore, it is important to understand that some balancing out will be required, and that is what has happened in RIS 1. There has been some delay for all of those reasons. That does not, unfortunately, mean that the money that has not been spent can be redeployed, because it is overprogramming within an overall envelope that has been used for purposes of investment.

This represents significant progress, but we recognise that there is more to do, and it is in that context that it is important to think about the second phase of the road investment strategy, which has been highlighted by colleagues today, and the Government’s investment in the strategic road network between 2020 and 2025. It will be funded by the new national roads fund, an important development that is designed to assist planning, remove the potential for disruption and ensure that all money spent by taxpayers on vehicle excise duty in England will be reinvested back into the roads network. There will be a much closer link between the money people pay and the investment that is made, which will allow us and Highways England to take a co-ordinated, long-term approach to investment in the network.

It is vital that the strategy’s potential is realised, and that we use RIS 2 to unlock wide-ranging benefits for the whole nation. The RIS 2 system deploys and relies on proper input from local authorities, and we are very pleased with the work that has been done by those who have submitted bids and expressed interest in RIS 2 schemes across the country. That crucial feedback will help us to make and Highways England to implement the right investment decisions for our strategic roads.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey), for Nuneaton, for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), and for Bosworth for their co-ordinated approach to considering this road, which is entirely appropriate for a regional bid. I also thank them for the letter they jointly signed supporting the proposed upgrade between the M42 and the M1 near Rugby. I note that the scheme is backed by 18 local authorities and has been endorsed by the Midlands Connect strategy.

It is important to understand that Highways England is taking careful note of the bid—I want to put that on the record clearly. We are grateful for that. Highways England has proposed the conversion of the country’s busiest A roads to what it calls an expressway standard. It has provided evidence to suggest that that could provide users of those roads with improved performance and safety benefits, and a motorway-standard experience. As hon. Members know, the Department is consulting on the proposals, and the consultation closes, as luck would have it, today, having been open for two months—again, serendipity for my hon. Friend’s debate.

I assure colleagues that the case Highways England made for investment in the A5 has been recorded as a formal response to the consultation, and I have noted it in this debate. The Department will publish its response to the consultation in the spring. Officials—those present and those in the Department—will have been noting all the advice given today, which will be taken into account as part of the consultation.

The hon. Member for York Central was right to raise a quizzical eyebrow about the £10 million that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth said would be the total cost of the scheme. If I understand it right, that £10 million will be required for the next phase of work into a study of the options. We are not quite in the world of Linda Evangelista, but £10 million does not go far when we are building roads. The research phase concludes after the Department’s response to the public consultation, after which decisions will be made about the content of RIS 2.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton rightly identified the importance of avoiding accidents and pollution wherever possible, and of getting the full benefit from investments. I share that view. The reason for treating this as a route is so that a holistic view can be taken across all those issues—

Large Logistics Parks (Transport Infrastructure)

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered transport infrastructure for proposed development of large logistics parks.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank hon. Members for attending the debate.

The need to transport essential supplies and other consumer goods around the United Kingdom has spurred the demand for large distribution parks, especially in my constituency of South Leicestershire and around the midlands. Property developers have responded by lodging an increasing volume of applications with local planning authorities, many of which are small and insufficiently resourced to deal with such large-scale proposals and the infrastructure required to support them. Often, the applications comprise large land-takes—many of greenfield sites and rural areas where there is little culture of planning across different authority boundaries, even between neighbouring authorities. As a result, there is a need for a co-ordinating national policy specifically governing the development of these large logistics parks.

The logistics industry has expanded over the past 20 years —not only to supply retail outlets, but to satisfy the boom in internet shopping, with which most hon. Members are well familiar. This year, online retailers such as Amazon and others account for one third of the warehousing property development market, with supermarkets accounting for one quarter. Currently, 80% of costs of all goods are transport costs, even before taking into account on-costs of infrastructure maintenance, the environmental costs of traffic congestion or, indeed, the health-related costs of air pollution. A recent World Bank report stated that congestion on UK roads is the worst in Europe, and the UK has the highest percentage of premature deaths owing to poor quality and polluted air.

The Government have defined a national policy, preferring the development of rail-based freight terminals and seeking to minimise fossil fuel-based road transport. For example, the Daventry International Railfreight Terminal close to the M1 in Northamptonshire, and near Rugby in Warwickshire and Lutterworth in my constituency, is a major development entering its third planned phase. Further planned developments are taking place at East Midlands Gateway with airport and rail connections, and near Hinckley, with a planned rail depot. Despite all that, there has been a proliferation of distribution centres reliant on road transport, notably in my South Leicestershire constituency and in adjacent constituencies. As the infrastructure rarely aligns with the speculative development of land-based centres, roads and highways are frequently under strain owing to the volume of traffic they now carry.

As there is no national policy of locating distribution centres to match essential regional needs for longer-term economic development, there continues to be what I call the piecemeal development of many road-based sites. At a local level, there is little integration of inter-authority planning for optimum locations. Such unplanned development leads to increased volumes of traffic on local roads. The resulting traffic congestion leads to delays and queues at key junctions, disrupting citizens’ day-to-day travel to work, school and health facilities. As a constituency MP, I experience this congestion when I take my daughter to school. I see hundreds of heavy goods vehicles every week and I have witnessed accidents involving HGVs in and around the Magna Park area.

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He makes an important point about traffic congestion. There is an Amazon fulfilment centre in Rugeley in my constituency, and HGV fly-parking is a real problem for local residents. Does he consider that to be an issue as well?

[Alberto Costa]

Yes, that is another issue that should be taken into account.

The Government must now take the whole matter into account, and I ask them to consider developing a national policy on the location of these large logistics parks.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

In my area, there is a proposed development on green-belt land near a one-way motorway junction. The Greater Manchester spatial strategy includes plans for the motorway junction to become two-way in 40 years, but the development may take place within the next two years if that very important land is taken out of the green belt. There are also developments with no consultation in St Helens, in the neighbouring borough, which will increase the traffic again on that junction. Does the hon. Gentleman agree we need some national infrastructure in place to develop the proposals for logistics sites on these important pieces of land?

[Alberto Costa]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s points. I want to give others the opportunity to speak in this important debate, but my point is that it is now time for the Government to set out their proposals for a national policy on the location of these large logistics parks.

[Amanda Milling]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Milling]

I completely agree with a couple of my hon. Friend’s points. We must not get in the way of economic development, which I will touch on shortly. The A5 goes all the way up to Cannock, and the road is permanently clogged. I support anything that will lead to the A5 being dualled as quickly as possible, which would alleviate many of the problems we are talking about today.

Consideration of transport infrastructure is particularly important when we consider the redevelopment of the Rugeley B power station site, which is opposite the Amazon fulfilment site. These are early days, but the infrastructure cannot cope now, so I have concerns about the plans for developing the site. The infrastructure we have now will not support further logistics centres.

[Alberto Costa]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister and the Government should require neighbouring local planning authorities to consult jointly on planning development for such large logistics sites and other infrastructure? Proposals for the development of logistics sites, such as Magna Park, should be accompanied by adequate pre-planned development of road and rail infrastructure.

[Amanda Milling]

I completely agree. I get complaints about sites in neighbouring constituencies. We are so close to the M6 toll road and the M6 that other developments are in the pipeline. The Rugeley B redevelopment crosses the boundary between Cannock Chase District Council and Lichfield District Council, which need to work together. I am pleased that a taskforce is pulling together the two district councils, the county council and the local enterprise partnership. I have been calling on them to consider the strategic vision for the site so that we ultimately have highly skilled jobs for the future residents of Rugeley.

The situation in which we find ourselves in Rugeley with Amazon, and the situation in which we could find ourselves as we look to the redevelopment of the Rugeley B site, clearly demonstrate the need to consider infrastructure and the surrounding policy, and the need to work collaboratively at all levels.

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that we must seriously consider introducing policy to ensure that consideration is given to the local infrastructure that such large parks require. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

In representing people in this House, and in serving in Government, we draw on our personal and constituency experiences. My uncle was a long-distance lorry driver, and my cousin followed him into that job. I represent many hauliers in South Holland and The Deepings, and I have regular dialogue with them. As Members would expect, I have discussions with the industry as a Minister.

I am equally anxious and concerned about the effects on traffic in local communities, particularly from developments around logistics sites, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire has mentioned. We need to, and can, strike a balance between the interests of the industry and the interests of local people. We often have to do that as Members of Parliament, and the Government perpetually do it. These things are never entirely straightforward, but I hope, in the short time I have available, to be able to set out how we can strike that balance.

[Alberto Costa]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), and I agree with the Minister, but in my constituency I already have one of Europe’s largest logistics parks, which presently has between 9 million and 10 million square feet of warehousing. The proposal to double its size would unacceptably lower the quality of life of my South Leicestershire constituents. At what point do we say enough is enough? How large do these logistics parks need to get before we say that?

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend has many virtues, and two that stand proud are the determination and rigour with which he defends his constituents’ interests—a well-known aspect of his work in this House—and, secondly, his insight. That insight will have allowed him to determine, from my opening remarks in which I quoted Schumacher, where I intuitively stand on these matters. I will say more about that later in my speech, but my hon. Friend draws to our attention the important subject of scale. It would be easy for central and local government to assume that there should be no limits on scale, but I am not sure that that is the right approach. I look at these matters in a holistic way.

Exiting the EU and Transport

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

Having sat through this debate, it has to be said that, once again, we are not much further forward. That applies to transport as it does to every portfolio area. To be fair, it was good to hear the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) providing an all too rare progressive view from the Conservative Benches on maintaining membership of the single market. After all, that is critical for Scotland’s economy and for the UK’s economy, just as the four freedoms are critical for future success. These areas are vital for growth when this reckless gamble is putting our country at risk.

I give credit where credit is due, and it has been good to see in his place the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) standing up for his beliefs as usual. Seeing him in his place is all too rare these days, as it is for others who backed the campaign to leave. It is very much a tale of two Governments in these islands. North of the border we have had a Government making clear their plans on membership of the single market, freedom of movement and the status of European nationals who contribute so much to our economy. That compares with the continued nothing that we have seen from the United Kingdom Government.

The Secretary of State, who is not in his place—I apologise, he seems to have returned—has to bear some responsibility. He was a member of a Government who campaigned to leave the European Union, yet did absolutely no preparation for the decision that was eventually taken. That was an act of gross irresponsibility during the campaign, and it continues because he has nothing to say five months on.

I have in my hand an example of what preparation looks like—670 pages of a White Paper prepared during the independence referendum.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

rose—

[Stephen Gethins]

I knew the hon. Gentleman would not be able to resist.

[Alberto Costa]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to tell the Secretary of State and other Members what currency Scotland would have used had it voted for independence?

[Stephen Gethins]

Here we go! We were so well prepared that that is not just in the White Paper—I know the hon. Gentleman has read it—but we even had a fiscal commission working group. We had 670 pages of the White Paper and a fiscal commission working group setting out three options, including sharing the currency, which one Minister said that we would, of course, be able to do—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said, that compares to tumbleweed—absolutely nothing—from the Government.

The Secretary of State might want to take notes, because there were 15 pages on transport alone in our White Paper. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) will be pleased to hear, it set out the areas for high-speed rail. It makes much more sense if high-speed rail goes through to Edinburgh and Glasgow, rather than just to Birmingham. The benefits of specialist transport organisations were mentioned, too.

Midland Main Line Electrification

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. As I understand it, the east midlands has the largest cluster of companies that rely on the railways and rolling stock, and other businesses that form part of the supply chain, anywhere in the world. The point is that the debate is not just about one railway line. As she says, it is about economic growth, and the impact on local companies and local jobs.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing the debate to the House. Does she agree with the east midlands chamber of commerce that electrification is vital to the long-term economic needs of constituencies such as Loughborough and South Leicestershire, and those throughout the east midlands? Does she also agree that any further delay will only increase the costs of electrification and reduce the confidence that businesses in Loughborough, South Leicestershire and elsewhere have in Government projects?

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that this is about driving economic growth and reflecting the fact that the midlands is an engine for that growth. He is right that the costs of the project go up the longer it takes, which is why Members are so keen for the Government to give the project the full green light so that we can get on with it.