National Highways: M49 Severnside Junction

Claire Young Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

Just off the M49 in Severnside is a junction that has never carried a single vehicle. It was built six years ago and cost the taxpayer £40 million, but in those six years not a car, van or lorry has used it. The national press has dubbed it the “ghost junction”. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this matter before the House today, because the future of the M49 Severnside junction is one of real consequence for my constituents in Thornbury and Yate. I am here because I want the junction to be fixed and so do my constituents. I hope the Minister listens and acts: doing something about this kind of issue is exactly how he can show people he is here to serve them and not himself. We are all quite fed up with ineptitude.

First, some housekeeping. In a response to my letter, the Department referred to this as the Avonmouth junction. It is not in Avonmouth. The Avonmouth spur lies some three miles down the motorway. This junction sits in Severnside. I raise that because a botched junction whose supposed name is three miles adrift from where it stands tells us something about how far the responsible authorities are from the reality on the ground. I would be grateful if the Minister adopted the correct description in his own dealings, so that there is no confusion in the future. I would not want the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) to think that I am in any way moving the boundaries of our constituencies.

Let me set out the background briefly. National Highways built this junction in 2020, at a cost of £40 million to the taxpayer. It was designed to connect the motorway to the Severnside enterprise area, one of the largest concentrations of industry and logistics in the west of England, and it was forecast to support some 14,000 jobs. Yet in the six years since, not a single vehicle has used it. There is a reason for that. Ever since it was built, the junction has stood unconnected to the local network, because the short stretch of road linking it to the estate had not been built, and no one would agree who was responsible for building it.

In a letter to me, the Minister blamed a private developer for this. Questions could be raised around whether National Highways and the previous council Administration could have secured an enforceable agreement, but I will not rehearse that whole saga tonight. It is at last being resolved. South Gloucestershire council has taken the work on itself, with funding from the Department. Construction is under way. The council expects it to be finished by the end of this year. I want to put on record my recognition of the councillors and council officers who stepped in to deliver what others would not. They have done their part.

However, that issue is not the reason I have sought this debate. We have now learned that the junction itself is defective. National Highways has admitted that it has identified defects at the junction that must be repaired before it can safely open to traffic. A junction built by National Highways, completed six years ago and signed off as finished, cannot safely carry traffic until National Highways repairs it—is the Minister as baffled as I am? National Highways has set out no programme for those repairs and no timetable for opening. The council has been told that there will be no further update until later this autumn, and the Roads Minister echoed that to me personally in response to my recent letter.

To enlighten the Government, the traffic that the junction would have carried has not simply vanished. Instead, it runs through my constituency’s small country lanes—heavy goods vehicles, day and night, on roads that were never built to carry them. Residents in villages and isolated homes live with the noise and the lights of lorries passing at all hours. How can residents feel safe crossing their own roads? A parent with a pushchair should not have to weigh up whether it is safe to step out of their front door. Cyclists and runners have to tread carefully through what should be peaceful country lanes. When National Highways told me about the problem, it saw businesses as stakeholders, but not local residents. My constituents vehemently disagree.

It is not just the smallest roads that are affected. Councillors and constituents alike tell me that the A403, the B4461 and others are facing misuse by HGVs. Horse riders, agricultural vehicles and families are finding it difficult to access those roads—if the Minister is looking for a way to apologise to my constituents for this debacle once it is fixed, he could do worse than providing permanent safety improvements on roads such as the A403. One constituent has told me that, over just 15 minutes, he recorded multiple HGVs seemingly over 7.5 tonnes using the B4461 despite environmental weight restrictions. This is a regular issue in Hallen, too. My constituents tell me that it is difficult to report those vehicles, because the short time they get to see them is not enough to grab the registration and other necessary details. They feel that the companies using the roads pay lip service, but never take concrete action. I am totally against those vehicles breaching the weight limit in this way, but I understand the motivation: they have no direct access to the motorway.

The businesses of Severnside continue to wait. This is a major logistics centre, and its operators depend on efficient access to the motorway and the docks. Every year the junction stays shut is a year of longer routes and higher costs. The economic case for this junction was made years ago and accepted by the then Government, but the delivery has lagged behind. I need not explain to the Minister why getting this junction functional is so important to the economic aims of this Government.

Further costs are falling on the council and local people. The council spent scarce funds on repairing the very roads that this delay will now be damaging. HGVs continue to blitz through country lanes, and newly repaired roads will only be subject to the same continuous pressure for longer. The council expected the roads to be used by local people, which is why they repaired them now. From the perspective of both local people and the public purse, it is utterly farcical just how much money and effort is being wasted due to the delays in opening the junction. The council will now have to find the money to mend those roads once again after traffic finally arrives on the junction—I need not explain why the funds are not there. This is public money spent once, and needed again, to repair damage caused by a failure that was not of the local authority’s making. This Government’s devolution agenda will be undermined if situations like this are not put right for local communities.

National Highways is not a private developer the Minister can gesture towards; it is an organisation answerable to the Minister’s Department. When it builds a junction that does not work and then declines to say when it will put that right, I must ask the Minister to justify its approach. My constituents and I find that approach unacceptable. I understand that there may be legal issues and investigations that the Minister cannot reveal, but the lack of communication from the Department has been shocking.

I want to raise one further concern, which I raise as a question, not as a claim. I understand that this junction used a novel construction technique, and that one other location where that technique has been used has been identified as defective. The House deserves to know whether these are isolated faults, or two instances of something more systemic in how these structures were built and signed off. If it is the latter, that is a far graver matter than one junction in Severnside, and the Minister would be wise to get ahead of it. He may recall that National Highways already has something of a record in my area, because we have a large amount of motorway infrastructure that was built in the 1960s, and we recently endured a three-year road closure when a bridge over the M4 had to be closed for safety reasons and completely replaced. We already have an ageing infrastructure; if we are adding new problems, that is worrying.

I will close with a few questions, and I ask the Minister to answer each of them directly. First, will he require National Highways to publish a clear timetable for the repairs, rather than the open-ended promise of an update at some point this autumn? Secondly, will he tell the House what the defects actually are and when they were first identified, given that the junction was declared complete in 2019? Thirdly, will he commit to a firm date by which this junction will finally open to traffic? Fourthly, will he establish how a newly built junction came to need structural repair before carrying a single vehicle, and whether the same fault affects other National Highways structures? Fifthly, who is responsible? Will this Government do what is right and launch an investigation so that the public and all stakeholders can properly scrutinise those responsible? Sixthly, will he provide additional funding for the council to repair the roads again, once the junction is finally open?

My constituents have waited six years. They have watched a £40 million junction sit empty above a motorway that they cannot access using the junction, and they have carried the traffic and the disturbance in the meantime. They are not asking for much; they are asking for a date and for someone, at last, to take responsibility. I hope the Minister can give both tonight.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)]

May I echo the many happy returns to you for yesterday, Madam Deputy Speaker? I recall that in a previous life you gave many happy returns to me across the Dispatch Box on a very special birthday, of which we do not need to remind ourselves.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) on securing this debate and on highlighting an issue of real importance to her constituents and the wider Avonmouth and Severnside area. I welcome this opportunity to update the House on junction 1 of the M49. I apologise for the Department wrongly describing the junction in previous correspondence. It is correct to say that we are talking about junction 1 of the M49.

I recognise the strength of local feeling articulated by the hon. Member. Residents, businesses, local representatives and road users understandably want the junction brought into use as soon as possible. The Government share that ambition. The purpose of the junction has always been clear: to improve access between the Avonmouth and Severnside enterprise area and the motorway network to support economic growth and reduce pressure on local roads. The Government want local communities, businesses and road users to realise the full benefits of this infrastructure.

The Severnside enterprise area is one of the most significant employment and logistics locations in the south-west region. It is home to major industrial, warehousing, distribution, energy and port-related activity. Better access to the strategic road network has long been recognised as important for the area’s continued growth and for reducing the impact of traffic on surrounding local communities, as the hon. Member has mentioned.

While I understand the frustration that the junction is not yet operational, the House should be clear about the complexity of the position. It reflects complex issues involving strategic road infrastructure, a local road connection needed to make the junction operational, developer arrangements and technical matters requiring further investigation and remediation before the junction can safely open to traffic. It is worth recalling that this scheme was delivered as part of a wider programme intended to unlock economic development in the Severnside area through direct connection with the junction at the Western Approach distribution park. That is essential if the benefits of the junction are to be realised.

The strategic road junction and local link road to connect to the existing network were being progressed through different delivery arrangements. The link road connecting the junction to the existing road network was originally the responsibility of a private developer, but with planning permission sought by South Gloucestershire council. National Highways was consulted as a statutory consultee, but had no legal power to compel the developer to deliver the link road. Despite continued engagement, the developer was not willing to meet its commitment.

When it became clear that the original developer arrangements for the link road would not deliver the necessary local connection, the Department, National Highways and South Gloucestershire council worked together to identify an alternative way forward. That work led to the current link road scheme being progressed by South Gloucestershire council. Rather than allowing the project to stall indefinitely, the Government have therefore engaged with our partners to enable the local link road to be constructed and to establish a practical, long-term solution that will bring the junction into use. That has included £10 million of Government funding.

Of course, as we heard and the House will appreciate, completing the local road link road is not the only issue that must now be resolved. As part of monitoring and, more recently, detailed engineering investigations, National Highways has identified technical issues at the junction that require further assessment and remedial work before the junction can be safely opened to traffic. I recognise that that is disappointing for local communities and businesses. A junction visible from the motorway but not yet available for use is, of course, understandably frustrating.

Local representatives, as the hon. Member has done, are right to seek clear answers about what has happened, what is being done and when the junction will open. Some may argue that the junction should simply be opened and any problems dealt with later, but that is not an approach the Government are prepared to take. Where technical concerns have been identified, they must be understood, addressed and assured, and the public would rightly expect Ministers and National Highways to act prudently and responsibly where engineering concerns have been raised. The House would expect no less in any constituency in the country.

However, the hon. Member raises important questions, and I would like to take each in turn. First, she asks whether National Highways will publish a clear timetable for the repairs. I will continue to press National Highways for a clear remediation plan, including the technical solution, delivery route and a clear timetable. However, the technical matters do require careful assessment. Engagement is taking place with the contractor, and an appropriate solution is dependent on the shared understanding of the engineering evidence, and clarity on where responsibility and liability lie. Therefore, we can only confirm timescales once the ongoing technical and commercial discussions have concluded. It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge those discussions from the Dispatch Box, but I have asked National Highways to update key stakeholders monthly and to publish the plans as soon as possible.

Secondly, the hon. Member asks what the defects are and when they were first identified. Defects were visible on the junction in 2021, including loss of topsoil and surface cracking. Those came to light as part of the standard inspections that take place across the network. At that stage, they were not deemed significant and so National Highways put standard operating arrangements in place to monitor the structure. However, that ongoing monitoring identified the need to undertake detailed investigations, which were commissioned in 2025, resulting in the identification of geotechnical issues. The later investigations will allow the root cause of the defects to be better understood. This is ongoing and can only be confirmed once the engagement with the contractor has concluded. I have now discussed the matter with National Highways, and I have formed the view that the hon. Member should have been informed when the decision was taken to undertake detailed investigations, rather than have to wait for the outcome of the work.

Thirdly, the hon. Member inquires whether I will commit to a firm date by which the junction will finally open to traffic. As she will probably appreciate from what I have said so far, it is not possible to provide a definitive timeline for remedial works. Responsibility, liability and funding matters remain subject to ongoing technical and commercial discussions. Once those are concluded, National Highways will be able to develop detailed designs for the necessary remedial works and establish a delivery programme. It would not be possible or appropriate to announce arbitrary dates before those assessments are complete or before a deliverable programme has been confirmed.

However, I recognise it is particularly frustrating that, after a long wait, the junction still sits empty. That is why I have emphasised to National Highways the importance of it looking at options to open the junction as soon as possible. Safety is of the utmost importance, but I also recognise that given the remediation will take some time, we need clarity on whether the junction can be opened in any capacity in the interim. I expect National Highways to provide a timely update on that review.

[Claire Young]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I would just like to clarify one point. He said that it would have been appropriate for me to be notified earlier. Probably more importantly, it would have been helpful for South Gloucestershire council, which is proceeding with the work, to have been aware of the work earlier. Will he take that point back to National Highways?

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for the intervention, and I absolutely will take that point. All stakeholders ought to be informed at the appropriate point, particularly when there are, as I say, connected works to do with that particular junction.

The hon. Member asked how a newly built junction came to need structural repair before carrying a single vehicle, and whether the same fault affects other National Highways structures. I have been assured that National Highways is undertaking a significant quality incident investigation process to look at lessons learnt, and, once it has concluded, will embed those lessons to ensure that the same thing does not happen on other structures. I should emphasise that such occurrences are not frequent, and I believe that this is not a systemic issue, but of course we need to look into it to be assured of that, so I have asked National Highways to update the hon. Member and other key stakeholders on the outcomes of the lessons-learnt process as part of their regular ongoing engagement.

The hon. Member’s fifth question was: who is responsible? Will the Government do what is right, and launch an investigation so that the public can scrutinise those responsible? Questions have understandably been raised about responsibility, liability and the funding of remedial works, and National Highways is continuing confidential commercial discussions with its principal contractor. As I have said, I will not prejudge the outcome of these discussions from the Dispatch Box, but I want to reassure the hon. Member that National Highways is pursuing the matter with the seriousness it requires. I know that as soon as these processes conclude, National Highways will provide a clear remediation plan setting out the technical solution, delivery route and programme, as well as, I hope, a clear answer on where responsibility lies. As I have said, National Highways is conducting a significant quality incident investigation to establish what went wrong, to identify lessons and to prevent recurrence, and I have asked it to share the lessons learnt following the conclusion of the investigation.

Finally, there was the question of funding. As I have explained, the Government have already provided about £10 million to support the development of the link road, recognising its importance. I am sure the hon. Member will understand that there are limits to the funding we can provide, but we will commit ourselves to prioritising the technical issues that have been discussed this evening.

The Government’s approach is clear. National Highways must identify the right engineering solution, agree an appropriate delivery route, protect taxpayers’ interests, and provide stakeholders with realistic, deliverable timescales. The public deserve certainty, but that certainty must be grounded in technical evidence, not speculation. Stakeholder engagement, which we have touched on this evening, is also important. Local communities and businesses need to understand why the junction has not opened, what is being done to resolve the issue, and how progress will be communicated.

As I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate, there will of course be limits to what I can say publicly while commercial discussions are ongoing, but commercial sensitivity must not become a reason for avoidable silence. I have asked National Highways to keep the hon. Member and key local representatives informed monthly, and updates should be provided when there is reliable information to share. If the hon. Member does not feel that she is being kept up to date, I ask her to let me know.

There are also wider lessons to learn. The public do not distinguish between a motorway junction, a local link road, a developer obligation, a council-led connection, and a National Highways asset; they see one road, one promise, and one delayed outcome. We as a Government, and delivery bodies, must be clear about the need to manage infrastructure coherently, with clear accountabilities, dependencies and communications. The Department will therefore continue to work with National Highways and South Gloucestershire Council as a delivery partnership. South Gloucestershire Council is progressing the local link road, National Highways is responsible for the strategic road asset, and the Department’s role is to support the overall objective of bringing the infrastructure into beneficial use, while of course ensuring safety, value for money and effective governance.

Let me return to the central point. Everyone involved in this matter wants the same outcome. Local communities want the junction open, businesses want better access to the strategic road network, local authorities want the economic and transport benefits to be realised, and, of course, the Government want all those things to happen. We remain committed to seeing the junction brought into operation and to ensuring that its benefits are realised for local communities, businesses and the wider regional economy, but we will do so in a way that protects road users, maintains public confidence, and reflects proper stewardship of public investment.

Let me again thank the hon. Member for securing the debate, for the important points that she has raised, and for her continued campaign on behalf of her constituents. I assure her that I will continue to engage with her as we work to ensure that the junction is opened safely, and that the intended benefits are delivered for the communities and businesses that it was designed to serve.

Question put and agreed to.

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

Claire Young Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing this debate.

Dozens of my constituents have come to me with stories of DVLA failure, each carrying a variation of the same theme: a system that has let them down, often involving delays in licence renewals or restorations related to medical conditions. Let me take the case of one self-employed constituent who, due to delays with restoring their licence, has lost more than £60,000-worth of work. For months, their livelihood, security and mental health were left hanging by a thread. Only after pressure from my office was the matter resolved. It was a medical case and the DVLA failed to justify the delay. Another constituent, who must renew every three years owing to a medical condition, had their licence rejected because the DVLA incorrectly claimed that they had changed their name. That single administrative error cost them six months of their licence.

A third constituent appealed against the decision on their medical fitness. In response, the DVLA sent them the full medical records of another person, then spent three months arguing with the GP practice over the medical fee. The DVLA was prepared to pay only a fraction of what the GP wanted. My constituent offered to pay the difference to end the argument, but that was refused, and they had to make an inconvenient journey to a distant, DVLA-approved GP. When the licence eventually came, it was granted for one year only. The case has been ongoing for over three years—it was originally with my predecessor. Those are just some of the cases affecting my constituents. The common denominator is not the medical condition itself; it is the fact that every one of them involves a medical issue, and every one of them has been delayed for reasons that the DVLA has never made clear.

The DVLA does not operate in isolation. It depends on GPs, consultants and the wider NHS to provide the evidence it needs to make decisions. When those channels fail, the DVLA fails with them, and my constituents are the ones who pay the price. Through a freedom of information request, a constituent discovered that the backlog for medical renewals alone stands in excess of 260,000 cases. As has been mentioned, the 2023 Public Accounts Committee report found that nearly 3 million people who had notified the DVLA of medical conditions had experienced long delays, with some losing employment and income as a direct consequence.

Of the Committee’s 11 recommendations, the then Government accepted 10. The one they declined was a strategic review of how cases involving medical conditions were handled, bringing together the DVLA, the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS. My casework suggests that the rejection of that recommendation was short-sighted. One of my constituents waited five months simply for a consultant to be asked to review their records, never mind all the steps that had to happen after that. The DVLA knows the problem. The Department of Health knows the problem. My constituents certainly know the problem. The only question left is whether this Government do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Claire Young Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

9. What steps she is taking to help improve local bus services.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

18. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of bus services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

Bus services are vital for connecting communities to jobs, education and essential services. We have confirmed over £3 billion for buses over the next three years, including providing multi-year, long-term funding to give local authorities the certainty to invest in local services, and our Bus Services Act 2025 is giving local leaders the tools to ensure that services meet the needs of local people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

It is for local authorities, who have been given both the funding and the tools, to decide what works for their local area. Obviously they can have bus enhanced partnerships with local operators, but they can also consider franchising when they feel that that is necessary in order to provide the services that local people need. I know that Hertfordshire is one of the places that is piloting franchising appropriate for rural areas.

[Claire Young]

Those transport authorities that delayed tendering for post-July bus services because of the lack of Government criteria for using finding are now going out to tender, but market information suggests that costs are shooting up due to the war in the middle east. Will the Secretary of State meet me and local representatives to discuss how the Government can support bus services during this crisis?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Member raises an important point. We recognise that the increased costs for bus operators, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, can have an impact on services. My officials are in contact with operators to understand better the impact of increased fuel costs as a result of the crisis in the middle east. I am sure that the Minister responsible for roads and buses, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), will be considering that issue further and will be happy to hear from her.

Oral Answers to Questions

Claire Young Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

It takes real brass neck for the right hon. Gentleman to pipe up on this issue. It was his party that oversaw 300 million miles of bus cuts. In one year alone in which he was a Transport Minister, 2,000 routes were cut across England. This Government have introduced legislation to protect the lifeline routes that were cut on his party’s watch, preserved cheap bus travel for passengers, and legislated to bring back better buses.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

3. What steps she is taking to improve railway services for passengers.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

5. What steps she is taking to improve railway services for passengers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

Good morning, Mr Speaker. Following a decade of decline, we are starting to see train reliability stabilise. We are working with the rail industry on a performance restoration framework, with five clear areas of focus, in order to return performance to acceptable levels. More broadly, we are nationalising the railways to put passengers first. Great British Railways will have a statutory duty to promote the interests of passengers in decision making to improve performance, reliability and passenger experience.

[Claire Young]

The west of England growth strategy identifies the Severn estuary growth zone as having the potential to create more than 15,000 jobs. It is important that the half-hourly rail services on the Severn Beach line are maintained to support them. Similarly, the half-hourly trains serving Yate support both jobs and access to college, and will enable hourly services at the new Charfield station, when it opens. Will the Minister give an early commitment to extending those half-hourly rail services to support growth and remove uncertainty for students before the exam season?

Hydrogen-powered Aviation

Claire Young Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) for securing this debate, which is particularly important for the west of England.

Hydrogen-powered flights have real potential to cut carbon emissions in a notoriously difficult to decarbonise industry, while still allowing people to enjoy flying around the world, as the aircraft would emit only water vapour. The industry needs support now, however, which means thinking about the technology, infrastructure and regulation.

Airbus, where many of my constituents work, is aiming for hydrogen-powered airliners by 2035. Its studies suggest that UK hydrogen aviation could support up to 110,000 jobs in this country, and we absolutely have the potential to show global leadership. When I discussed the ZEROe project on a visit to Airbus last year, it was trying to decide between hydrogen combustion and hydrogen fuel cells. It has now plumped for the latter, although it does not rule out direct combustion in the future. It and other manufacturers are working in collaboration with academia, and there is some excellent knowledge in this area in our local universities. We need to back investment in research, development and manufacturing infrastructure. Other companies such as GKN, which has a base in my constituency, are also looking at hydrogen.

The west of England has a long history of innovation in aviation, going back to the days of Sir George White; it has many things that co-ordinate to make it a place to invest. For example, just outside my constituency, we have the Bristol and Bath science park, and we have the national composites centre. Hydrogen molecules are very small, so containing it is a challenge, but that is where the national composites centre’s expertise can help. In the science park, the institute for advanced automotive propulsion systems is also looking at hydrogen.

Obviously, it is no good having hydrogen-fuelled aeroplanes if we do not have the hydrogen, so we need large-scale investment in green hydrogen. It is all very well having zero emissions on our flights, but if the electricity is being generated from non-low carbon power in the first place, there will still be associated emissions. As the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has heard a number of times in its inquiries, it is really important that the Government make a decision about the future use of hydrogen. Given that we will only ever be able to produce a finite amount of green hydrogen, I think we need to prioritise it for industries where there are no realistic alternatives, including aviation.

We need to be thinking about how we produce that energy, and again our area has something to offer the country, because we have the potential for new nuclear at Oldbury and we have the River Severn, where there was a recent commission on tidal power. We therefore have the means of producing green energy. We have expertise in all those areas, with excellent nuclear specialism in our local universities, the aviation expertise to develop its use in aviation, and the facilities that I described in the Bristol and Bath science park to help to tackle some of the problems associated with deploying the technology.

On infrastructure, we obviously need to think about not just how we are producing that energy, but how we are delivering it to airports and how we are storing it. Again, that comes back to the question about the future of the gas grid in this country—will it be repurposed for hydrogen at some point? Regulation and having the right regulatory environment are important. People are very aware that hydrogen is highly flammable, but we can make it safe by putting the right protocols in place.

Our 2024 manifesto set out taxation reform that would help to redirect people away from frequent high carbon flights. It is important that we give people a means of judging the carbon emissions from their flights. Many companies will be looking at their own net zero aims, and it is important that people understand the implications of their choices when flying.

Hydrogen-powered aviation has the potential to cut transport emissions and boost our economy through new jobs. The west of England is particularly well placed to support the industry. It is time to make sure that the regulatory environment is right and that limited public money is invested effectively.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Claire Young Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kohler]

I do agree. We must do all we can to reduce bureaucracy. The Bill goes some way towards that, but it needs to do more.

The Bill as it stands provides nothing specific for rural areas—no dedicated rural funding stream and no obligation to maintain coverage. It is clear that if we are to be ambitious and achieve the economic growth that rural areas need, we must ensure that local authorities have the ambition and financial means to improve public transport. The Bill is missing an opportunity in failing to do so.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

One of the consequences for my constituents of losing services like the 84/85, the T2 and the 622 is that they are cut off from health services. Does my hon. Friend agree that such access should be a priority for investment, and that a focus on the increase in passenger numbers when judging investment choices disadvantages rural areas?

[Mr Kohler]

I agree. We must not focus only on passenger numbers. It is also about connectivity, and about making sure that rural areas thrive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Claire Young Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I will be providing updates to the House on the emerging cost position and opening window. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, this Government have appointed a new chief executive of HS2, Mark Wild, who is conducting an ongoing review. We have also reintroduced ministerial oversight, which was sorely lacking under the Conservative party’s leadership. I recognise that this is an important issue, and we are doing all we can to deliver the rest of this railway at the lowest reasonable cost to the taxpayer, so that people can enjoy excellent rail services in the future.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

The Transport Secretary recently refused to commit to keeping the £3 cap on bus fares outside London beyond the end of this year, leaving many in rural areas worried about how much more they will end up having to pay to get to work. Residents across my constituency have already seen vital routes scrapped or scaled back, holding back economic growth. Can the Transport Secretary explain what support will be made available to not only keep rural fares down but restore lost services?

[Heidi Alexander]

The hon. Lady will know that this Government stepped in to prevent soaring bus fare increases, given the last Government’s decision to only fund a bus fare cap until the end of last year. [Interruption.] Opposition Members can chunter, but the truth of the matter is that it was fantasy money, and the money was not allocated to fund that bus fare cap. We are in an ongoing process, through the spending review. I appreciate the importance of affordable, reliable bus services, and we will do all we can to ensure that people can continue to enjoy the bus network that they need.

A432 Badminton Road Bridge

Claire Young Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

I want to start by setting the scene. The A432 M4 overbridge forms part of a key route from my constituency into Bristol. It was erected in 1966 when the M4 was built and is a post-tensioned concrete bridge. That is, it has high-strength steel tendons in ducts within concrete to which tension was applied after the concrete set, before they were anchored in concrete and the ducts filled in with grouting. I will come back to the problems of such bridges later, but for now the key point to note is that it usually takes around 16,000 vehicles a day over the motorway to the Wick Wick roundabout, where drivers can continue on the A432 into Bristol or take the A4174 ring road.

I say usually, because in June 2023 National Highways closed the bridge, having given 48 hours’ notice to South Gloucestershire council, of which I was leader at the time. In December 2023, after six months of investigations, National Highways announced that the bridge would have to be replaced and could not reopen in the meantime, and that the work would take between two and three years, backdated to June. At one point, an end date of 2025 was mentioned, but that has now become the spring of 2026.

The closure is having a massive impact on local residents. The official diversion is long, so many of the 16,000 vehicles are ending up on local country lanes such as Henfield Road, Ram Hill and Down Road. Even part of the official diversion route is only a C road. The council has put in extensive measures to improve traffic flow, but roads are taking loads that they were never designed to take. That is resulting in long queues, residents being unable to get out of their properties safely or at all, and more potholes and the edges of roads breaking up. Heavy goods vehicles are using roads with weight limits and there is no enforcement to stop them. Henfield Road and Ram Hill are in a quiet lanes scheme, where walkers, cyclists, horse riders and drivers are supposed to share the roads respectfully, but that is not happening.

The situation has also exacerbated flooding on Henfield Road, and high levels of traffic are pushing water on to people’s properties. That has left villagers feeling cut off, especially when flooding has taken other routes out of action. Further, when the bridge is demolished, which we are told is due to happen in March, pedestrians and cyclists will also be forced to divert.

Above all, people question the length of time that it is taking to replace the bridge. One wrote:

“For the past 16 months, we have had just one route to exit Yate to reach the city centre, which has been plagued by continuous temporary traffic lights—often two sets on Bristol Road. Why is it taking so long?”

Another said:

“When the bridge is eventually replaced, it’s likely to be the best part of 3 years to fix the issue. This is an utter embarrassment and quite frankly an absolute disgrace. The inconvenience this is causing to businesses, commuters and homeowners to name but a few is immeasurable. Those responsible for this debacle should hang their heads in shame.”

The closure has left the usually busy stretch of Badminton Road between Coalpit Heath and the bridge practically deserted, which has had a huge impact on local businesses. Kevin at the Bigger Eater burger van has been trading in that lay-by for 30 years. He provided a great service to local people during the pandemic, but the loss of passing trade because of the closure could be the final straw. There is also a kebab van in the lay-by in the evenings. Viaduct Café has lost 60% of its turnover since the bridge closed, resulting in its losing half of its staff. The premises where it is located have lost two business tenants. PM Autos, which services cars and has an agreement to take vehicles for their MOT to a garage in Downend on the other side of the closure, has to take a round-about route that adds significantly to the time taken and cuts into their takings. The Golden Heart pub has lost the passing trade of people deciding to stop for a meal on their way home from work. Heritage Sheds and Fencing has complained that potential customers are not sure whether it is still open; again, it is losing trade.

The impact on the local economy does not seem to be fully recognised. This is not something that businesses can reasonably insure against, yet when I wrote to the Minister I was told simply that there is no right to passing trade. In the same way that viable businesses needed help to see them through covid, these businesses need support to ensure that they survive this closure.

Although the bridge is the responsibility of National Highways, it has fallen to South Gloucestershire council to deal with the impacts that I have described on the local road network. I wish to put on record my thanks to the many officers involved for their efforts in responding to such an unexpected event. After initial monitoring, they put in place temporary measures, including traffic lights, road closures and temporary signage, and when it was confirmed that the road would remain closed for two to three years, they reviewed the existing measures and implemented more. Although some were funded by National Highways, others were deemed to be an “existing problem”—overlooking the fact that the closure is exacerbating those existing problems—or too far away to be related to the bridge, despite the fact that closing such a major route has ripple effects across the local road network.

Unfortunately, the measures that the council put in place are not enough, for example, to stop the HGVs using unsuitable roads, because any physical measures that stop lorries also stop buses, and the police do not have the resources to enforce the restrictions. For a long-term issue such as this, it is vital that the police have the resources to manage it. I also highlight the impacts on other council services: carers, waste lorries and so on all have to take longer routes

The council has been dealing with extensive communication from the public and liaising with National Highways, the police and bus operators, which has been a significant drain on resources in itself. One thing that I was determined to do when I became leader of South Gloucestershire council was improve communication with our residents. In the case of the bridge closure, that meant doing video updates in which we put residents’ questions to National Highways officers. At the beginning, it felt that getting information out of National Highways to share with the public would be a challenge, but I am pleased to say that it got on board with the updates, so much so that I understand it was considering rolling them out elsewhere in the country. Not only have the video updates continued with my successor, but National Highways has attended public-engagement sessions alongside councillors and council officers. Although communication cannot remove all the frustration and disruption, it is vital that people know what is going on and can get answers to their questions.

Why am I bringing what could appear to be a hyper-local issue to the House? I believe that there is a significant wider risk. National Highways manages 169 post- tensioned concrete bridges on the strategic road network in the south-west alone, and 1,195 nationwide. In addition, there are an estimated 675 that are the responsibility of 105 local highway authorities. Of those 675, research by the RAC Foundation in 2021 reported that a whopping 293 required intrusive inspections that could cost £100,000.

“CS 465 Management of post-tensioned concrete bridges”, a document I am sure we are all familiar with, says in its introduction that

“tendons can be vulnerable to corrosion and severe deterioration where internal grouting of tendon ducts is incomplete and moist air, water and contaminants can enter the ducting system.”

It goes on to say that

“construction practices and a lack of maintenance”

are the key factors affecting deterioration. In the case of the A432 bridge, workers discovered when they drilled through to the tendons that the grouting was missing.

CS 465 also explains that the problem with post-tensioned concrete bridges is that “safety critical defects in post-tensioned concrete are typically hidden, very difficult to detect and may result in a brittle mode of failure.”

Unfortunately, visual inspections alone will not give warning of imminent collapse, and intrusive investigations can be expensive and potentially damaging. If a problem is identified, these bridges have to be removed very carefully, as the tendons are under tension—if we think about what happens when we release a taut elastic band, we can see why that would be dangerous. With many bridges having been built during the height of motorway building in the ‘60s and ‘70s, it is entirely possible that this sort of major disruption is coming to many other communities across the country.

I come now to my asks of the Minister. Given the high level of disruption and the local dismay about the length of time the work is taking, will the Minister work with National Highways to try to bring forward the reopening of the road? Turning to the wider issue, what reassurance can the public have that all the thousands of post-tension concrete bridges in the UK are safe? What is the plan to ensure that that is the case, and has it been reviewed in the 19 months since this bridge was discovered to be failing? How will lessons be learned from this experience to reduce the time needed to replace other bridges that are identified as failing?

Will the Minister review how residents and businesses are supported and compensated when National Highways inflict significant disruption on them for an extended period? Will he also look at how the local highway authority is helped to manage its road network when impacted by a National Highways closure, and at how the police are resourced to help it to do that? Will he review how the assessment is made of which measures should fall within the costs ascribed to National Highways, whether an existing problem is being worsened by the closure, and how widely the impact is recognised, so that local highway authorities are not left with huge bills? Will the Minister consider the approach taken to communications in this case, and work with National Highways so that initiatives such as the video updates are rolled out to other incidents, to ensure timely communication with the public?

I have previously spoken in this House about the financial challenges facing local authorities in simply trying to maintain basic infrastructure, even without additional problems such as this road closure. Will the Minister commit to giving South Gloucestershire council the money that it needs to restore the damaged roads when the bridge has reopened?

Old Oak Common Station

Claire Young Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Max Wilkinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The impact on tourism is felt by all our constituencies in the west, many of which are tourism hotspots. The point about connectivity is important. If we can have 5G on the Elizabeth line in London, which is already well served by public transport, why can I not have 5G in the countryside between Swindon and Stroud when I travel back to my constituency? It makes no sense. The benefits to business users would surely justify the investment.

I have already asked the rail industry whether progress might be made on the frustrating turnaround times at Gloucester, which delay Cheltenham passengers every day. I accept that it is unlikely that any progress will made soon, but what chance is there of improving rail infrastructure around Gloucester, to remove the need for the driver to switch from one end of the train to the other—a very 20th-century solution?

Finally, I come to the trains themselves. The current rolling stock is functional, but what plans do Ministers have to make the carriages more pleasant? Older constituents recall the days of comfortable seats and a buffet carriage with snacks. In other European nations, inter-city trains even have carriages with special family-friendly areas where children can play. A civilised and family-friendly nation should surely consider that.

It is no exaggeration to say that weekends are a nightmare. What are Ministers doing in the short term and during the period of disruption to ensure that a Sunday timetable actually runs between London and the west country?

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

My hon. Friend raises the need for improvements. The key issue for commuters in my constituency is that the existing GWR mainline is not fit for purpose. In recent weeks, we have seen significant delays and diversions caused by flooding and signalling failures, which has created even more pressure on other parts of the already overstretched network. Does he agree that work at Old Oak Common needs to be accompanied by immediate investment in existing infrastructure to improve the reliability of services for people from the west?

[Max Wilkinson]

I absolutely do. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) made the point that, compared with HS2, the amount of money that needs to be invested for improvement in the west country is relatively small.

By way of compensation to Cheltenham for the disruption, can the Minister please ask Network Rail to stop blocking the long-awaited extension to the cycle path that links Cheltenham town centre to the station? Network Rail has been getting in the way of that development for years. It just needs to get out of the way to improve connectivity in my constituency.

I have asked a number of questions, which are intended as helpful contributions. I am sure that other hon. Members will have pertinent points about the impact on their constituencies. Before I finish, I would like to pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), the new Minister for the Armed Forces. Having researched this issue in the previous Parliament, he played a leadership role by passing on information to new hon. Members, helping to bring about today’s debate, for which we thank him.

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and Local Road Networks

Claire Young Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate. I thank the Minister for attending and for the engagement that we have had prior to the debate. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a county councillor in Oxfordshire.

In Bicester in my constituency, the delivery of East West Rail will lead to the closure of London Road. That is the only road joining the south-east with the centre of town. Closing it without providing a replacement will cut the town in two. I have secured this debate to highlight the problem and to seek the Minister’s support in finding a suitable solution for our town that will keep London Road open to pedestrians, cyclists and car users. Given that the frequency of rail services is set to double from 2025, I hope that she will recognise the urgency of the issue.

The general point, which I suspect may be of relevance to other Members, is that when there are projects that bring national benefit, local communities should be directly compensated for the impact on them.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

The emergency closure of the A432 motorway overbridge has had a massive impact on the local road network in my constituency. It is a good example of how national infrastructure projects can have damaging impacts on local residents and businesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need investment in national infrastructure so that we do not get these damaging, multi-year closures, which have such an impact on local people?

[Calum Miller]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes her point extremely well. Too often, the decision-making process on national strategic infrastructure projects takes decisions away from local communities, and local people feel that things are done to them rather than with them.