(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. New trains stations must have disabled-friendly access, and also access for those who might have a pram, a pushchair or bags that are hard to carry up the stairs. That is really important. I am conscious that across the rail network, as the Minister will be aware, we have a lot of older train stations and heritage buildings. I know there is a programme to bring those up to speed. Perhaps she will say a little more about that.
I am passionate about a train station for Aldridge because I want to make sure that my constituents have opportunities to go into Walsall, Birmingham and beyond. I want young people to have the opportunity to get the train to go to study, to university, and of course to access employment—so, yes, I am ambitious for Aldridge. When Andy Street was the mayor, part of his ambition was to bring a train station back to Aldridge. In fact, I remember the day he launched the plan and it almost looked like a smaller version of the London Underground map with all the different lines linking together and taking passengers into New Street. Such maps probably get the Department for Transport thinking about a mass transit system and the ability to move people around an area.
A city region such as the West Midlands combined authority needs an integrated transport plan. In Aldridge we have the train line. All we need is a station and then we will be part of that integrated plan. Throughout the intervening period since 2017 a huge amount of work was undertaken by the West Midlands combined authority and Transport for West Midlands. The gamechanger came in February 2021, when Andy Street, on behalf of the combined authority, purchased land from the NHS for car parking. That was a clear demonstration of intent to reopen a station in Aldridge.
Aldridge station is projected to have 40 new car parking spaces, but Twyford station in my constituency is having some resurfacing and relining that will see the number of spots decline. That is despite half a million people now using the station, mainly because of the Elizabeth line, leading to a nightmare for commuters in my constituency. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the Minister should bring Network Rail, Transport for London, Great Western Railway, and the Department together to find a solution that delivers more car park spaces for stations such as Twyford?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. As train users, we all know that the availability of car parking is important, and it is disappointing when a car park is upgraded or resurfaced and the upshot is fewer spaces rather than more. For Aldridge station, the purchase of the land is critical as part of the plans, but I am conscious that that will need to go through planning and so on. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Let us hope that the Minister might have heard his comments, and if she does not respond in this debate, perhaps she will respond to him another time.
Let us return to Aldridge station and the journey to where we are today. By June 2022, the strategic outline business case for the scheme was assessed, and given ministerial approval by the Department for Transport. Further funding was provided from the Restoring Your Railway programme. The outline business case demonstrated that the proposal to reopen a station in Aldridge presented the potential to improve connectivity for the residents of Aldridge, and reduce existing congestion by providing a more convenient public transport route, with greater access to job opportunities. Demand modelling for the proposed station shows the potential for 237,000 passenger journeys per year. That would help to reduce pressure at existing stations nearby, most notably at Blake Street and Four Oaks in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is not here today, as well as at Tame Bridge in the West Bromwich constituency.
On 20 February this year, the green light for the project was given, and the budget of £30 million was secured from the Government. Transport for West Midlands and the West Midlands Rail Executive were working with Network Rail to get the station built and open, with a project end date of 2027. Imagine how excited we all were when we heard the news. For the avoidance of doubt, it was stated on the West Midlands combined authority website that the budget for Aldridge station was secured. Aldridge station would initially offer a half hourly service to Walsall town centre, where passengers would be offered an easy interchange with services to Birmingham, as well as the opportunity to connect to wider regional and national services. In addition, there were active discussions for further opportunities to improve and increase services at Aldridge. Those included the possibility that if the open access request was granted by DFT Ministers for services between Euston and Wrexham, the Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands railway could provide services through Aldridge directly to London five times a day. What a game changer that would be for my constituents.
It therefore came as a big surprise to me and my constituents when, no sooner was the newly elected mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, in place, than he announced in July a review into the future of Aldridge station. Not only that, but having said that he would look into all transport projects, he then singled out only three projects to be reviewed. Those included, of course, our proposed station in Aldridge. The question is: why? Then, having secured the £30 million of funding through the CRSTS, it came as a further shock to learn that, as an outcome of its review, Arup, the independent assessor, was under the misapprehension that there was a budget of only some £3.6 million, and therefore it seemed to believe that it was not a fully funded project. That is of course wrong, but that is the narrative that the mayor now wants people to believe, somehow conjuring up an illusion that the project has no funding and therefore could easily be pulled.
Mayor Parker knows that is completely wrong. In fact, he made an application to the Secretary of State for Transport to move over £26 million of that funding to other areas within the budget. I was informed by the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), in a letter on 21 November that she had agreed to move the ringfence funding for the project on the advice of the mayor. Can the Minister confirm today when Mayor Parker made his application? Where has he sought to direct that funding to? I can only presume that it is to part of his wider transport budget, but which part, and where? My constituents are left wondering whether their funding is now being used to fund an unaffordable bus nationalisation scheme that everyone told Mayor Parker, before the election, could not be delivered on the budget he had planned, which was only £25 million.
On that basis, call me cynical, but an additional £26 million from the Aldridge project would prove to be very handy for the elected mayor to push forward with his pet project. I am not anti-buses at all, but I am against money that was earmarked and ringfenced for Aldridge being moved somewhere else. That is why, given that the Secretary of State gave approval to vire this money, it is important that we fully understand where it has gone. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to tell me today, as the mayor is trying to have his cake and eat it. First, there was a review, and that review then became all about Aldridge station being deferred until future years. Now this week he is saying:
“What is pretty clear is the funding wasn’t in place but more importantly that project has not currently met the business case requirements that it would need for that investment to take place”.
To me and my constituents, this all sounds rather like the whole project is slowly being pulled into the sidings, awaiting derailment by the mayor. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister confirmed what intention Mayor Parker has signalled to the Department for Transport.
I simply cannot, and will not, accept the comments from the mayor on funding. I would like the Minister to confirm: first, this was a fully funded project through the CRSTS and the funding allocation was awarded to the West Midlands combined authority and Transport for West Midlands; secondly, it was also detailed on the West Midlands Rail Executive website; and thirdly, this was a political decision and a political choice by the elected mayor to change his political priorities to move that money, and he sought approval from the Secretary of State to do so. Once and for all, I believe that it is time to call out the elected mayor. My constituents and wider public transport users in the West Midlands deserve better, and it is time to admit that this was not his political inheritance, nor his predecessor’s, and it was not any failure of the previous Government to fund a new station in Aldridge. It is his decision, and his alone, to deny the people of Aldridge their funding for their new station.
Turning to the so-called review, I would like to ask the Minister some questions—sorry about all my questions today. When did the former Secretary of State give her approval to move the money? I am concerned that the basis of the Arup review was seriously flawed, as the independent adviser to the mayor was under the impression either that approval to move the money had been given, or that the project had only a fraction of the budget, when the opposite was true. The residents of Aldridge deserve to be treated with respect, fairly and equitably, yet the manner in which the new mayor has handled the whole matter does a disservice to politics. Now we find that the mayor, having created his own hole, continues to dig himself in by repeating in his statements that the project was not funded and that the case for a station in Aldridge was not properly made, which is simply not the case.
The new Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), said just yesterday that better rail services
“put the needs of local people first”.
I could not agree with her more. Ensuring that transport services are joined up, meet local needs and drive economic growth is exactly what Aldridge station is all about. It is time that the mayor apologised to the people of Aldridge for the whole review. I hope that the Minister will clear up the facts for my constituents today—that she will confirm that the project was fully funded and that by one means or another, the people of Aldridge have been seriously shortchanged, and the mayor has put their proposed new station at risk.
I will conclude by repeating that the residents of Aldridge deserve better than the treatment they have been given, and it is incumbent on the Minister today to be clear with all of them about why the Government have backed the decision. She needs to give them, and me, the answers to those very basic questions. Aldridge deserves its train station, and it expects its train station.
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) for securing the debate.
Wokingham is a semi-rural constituency where it is possible to cycle between villages and towns, and to railway stations, schools and shops. National and local surveys tell us that the majority of people would be willing to do this, but they do not consider it to be safe. It is a difficult issue to resolve on narrow and busy country roads. Reducing speed limits can help, and the council is looking at some of them, but ultimately we need to invest in cycle routes away from the roads. The previous Government were funding such schemes, up until they decided that their electoral interest demanded otherwise, but since 2022 the funding available to local authorities has been wholly inadequate, and it remains so.
Shifting just a small proportion of local rural traffic from car to bike will help to solve many problems, including congestion, parking and air-quality issues in towns. There are mental and physical health benefits for those who cycle. The House of Commons Library has been helpful in pointing out a University of Oxford study that demonstrates the environmental benefits of active travel. Published in 2021, it found that switching just one trip a day from driving a car to cycling can reduce a person’s carbon footprint by 0.5 tonnes a year. As demonstrated by the Elizabeth line, if the infrastructure is there, people will use it. Across Europe, the benefits are being embraced, while the UK fails to recognise the return on investment that is waiting to be realised.
The former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), stated that her Department would deliver “unprecedented levels of funding” for active travel; will the new Secretary of State commit to the same promise? Wokingham borough council has previously bid for an off-road route between Charvil and Twyford station; will the Minister commit to review the business case for investment in such cycling schemes?
(3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I very much concur.
I want to quantify the housing and the scale of what is going on now. Since 2000, the population of Oxfordshire has increased by a quarter. In the 2018 local plan we were signed up for 16,000 homes over the period through to 2031, increasing our housing stock by a quarter in just 10 years. On top of that, as per the new national planning policy framework, there is a 62% increase on our current local plan.
I move on to transport. Our road is under very severe pressure. Some hon. Members might have spent time on the A40; probably more than they would have liked. It is an extremely constrained corridor, which, according to AECOM’s 2021 study, is going to be 30 minutes slower by 2031, which is seven years away—30 minutes slower between Witney and Oxford by 2031. That assumes that the disastrous bus lane project will have been completed, although that is not going to happen because there is not sufficient money. That was something that the previous Conservative Administration signed up for: £180 million for four miles of bus lane, which has turned into two miles of bus lane and a park and ride —not a good investment.
We need a long-term transport policy, which will deliver a number of things: journey times cut by up to 70% and a plan for housing. Many constituencies, including mine, support housing. We all recognise that people need somewhere to live. We want to be grown-ups at the table coming up with a solution, rather than scattering houses willy-nilly around the district with no coherent plan. There is no plan without a transport solution.
We support putting the houses that we will have to take anyway around the railway stations. Just as our Victorian forebears did many decades ago, we will use those houses to fund the railway. That would solve housing; then it would solve the economy. Our economy in West Oxfordshire really suffers. One would think that lots of good employers would come to West Oxfordshire, because we are only 10 miles west of Oxford, but they do not. There are some good employers, but very few now come in, because they know that the transport is completely unsustainable.
The concept is logical: Oxford is at one end with the best universities in the world, and at the other are places such as Witney and Carterton with excellent skills, particularly in the aerospace and aviation sectors because of RAF Brize Norton. Connecting those places with a fast, reliable transport corridor would allow businesses to locate in West Oxfordshire. That would mean less need to commute and jam up our roads. That is a big opportunity.
Railway connectivity is also fundamental to my constituency. Heathrow is a rarity among international airports: large parts of its catchment simply do not have any direct rail access. We need a western rail link to Heathrow. That would reduce carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to 30 million fewer road miles every year. Does my hon. Friend agree that rail is crucial for decarbonisation?
Well said—I very much agree. Following on from that, transport is one of the hardest nuts to crack in that decarbonisation agenda. Without a large-scale mass public transport solution, we are not going to get there. That is at the core of Oxfordshire county council’s strategy and this would help to deliver it, just as my hon. Friend’s project would in his constituency.
I have two more points. Vast numbers of people living in West Oxfordshire have to get to hospitals in Oxford for secondary and tertiary care. The unreliability of the road puts enormous stress on their lives; they—including members of my family, as it happens—often have to go backwards and forwards a number of times a week. People have to leave home for a 10-mile journey sometimes two or three hours in advance, because they are scared about missing their appointment. That is only set to get worse on current plans.
Finally, on defence, RAF Brize Norton is the biggest RAF base both in the country and internationally, with 7,500 people working there. It was built there because it had a railway connection, but that connection was ripped up 50 years ago. We must bring back that railway connection now. In times of peace, the lack of the connection is bad news, but in times of war it is truly terrible. Is that really how we want to run our country? The biggest airbase in the country, which runs all our international transport, does not have even have a railway connection. That is a disaster.
What has been going on to date? I give real thanks to the Witney Oxford Transport Group, which really took the charge on this issue in 2014, before I showed up. I am immensely grateful for its having made me chair in 2020. Since 2020, we have conducted a number of technical studies, particularly on defining a route that goes not only from Oxford to Carterton but through the Salt Cross garden village. Those studies gave the county council enough comfort to commission a feasibility study, which was published last November, and this year Lichfields is carrying out an economic analysis. That is all working towards the new local plan for West Oxfordshire, which is being worked up now. As a district councillor, I am working closely with my district council colleagues, as well as Sasha White—the planning and land use silk of the year; many thanks, Sasha—to work the railway line into our local plan. If the line is in there, we have a real chance of getting this railway built.
I used to work in business and I understand that there is really one thing that counts here: money. A key part of our work has been on the funding, and shaking a tin at the Treasury and waiting 50 years is not what we have in mind. Who have we been working with? It has been E-Rail so far, which has just funded 30% of the Ashington-to-Blyth line by going up to landowners and developers along that track and saying, “If you want to bring back a passenger rail line here, sign some voluntary, legally-binding contribution agreements, which will allow you to build houses around those future railway stations. Bluntly, the reason why you should do so is that you will make more money.” They will make more money for three reasons. First, the local plan will allow them to have houses sited around that railway station that would not otherwise exist. Secondly, they can build at higher density around a railway station. Thirdly, each of those houses is worth more because it is next to a railway station.
That might sound radical, but it is what our Victorian forebears did 150 years ago. It is what Japan, Korea and Hong Kong do, and what much of northern Europe does. That is how they fund their public infrastructure, and I would argue that case. Labour sometimes mentions land value, and I really hope that it looks into the issue because it is a way of using private and public funding to get things moving quickly—as opposed to just sticking it to the taxpayer, which is what we have had to do up to now. I really ask for the Minister’s help in exploring that. That would fund about 50% of the railway line, and the other half would come from Homes England. We would be delivering on our side of the bargain by getting all those houses into West Oxfordshire in a coherent and sensible way. Without a railway line, we will not have that solution and we will have an unsustainable, long-term problem.
(1 month ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my fellow Berkshire MP, the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), because many of the trains that pass through my constituency land in his, so it is something that we need to have regular discussions about. Our constituents want us to get this right.
Wokingham is well served with choices to get to London, and many commuters take the journey every day. To provide a brief tour, residents in Winnersh and Wokingham are slowly taken by South Western Railway through a suburban route via Waterloo to the Reading line. In the north, Twyford is on the Great Western main line into Paddington, carried by the Elizabeth line and Great Western Railway. It is a blessing that all 8.8 million Londoners are merely 33 minutes away from the many beautiful villages in Wokingham.
The Elizabeth line is a great addition to London and its route through Berkshire, helping to promote a shift from private vehicles and in turn reducing carbon emissions and particulate pollution. However, Wokingham has one of the highest levels of car dependency in England, and the quality of our railways likely explains why that is the case. Our railway services are unreliable and they do not work for passengers.
I thank the House of Commons Library for the following data. Only 66.6% of GWR services arrive on time, below the UK average of 67.5%. South Western is marginally better, on 66.8%, but still below the national average. With that perspective, I must give credit to the Elizabeth line, because 81% of its services arrive on time. In addition, 4.8% of all GWR services are cancelled—again, above the national average. That might not sound too bad on the face of it, but if I forgot my house keys 4.8% of the time, I would be locked out of my house 18 days every year.
For someone travelling on a Great Western service on Monday 28 October, 55 services were cancelled and 301 trains were late. How can we expect people to travel by train if passengers are not getting to where they need to be at the right time and for a reasonable price? As the Government begin a process of nationalising the railways, we need to seriously reflect on how we got here in the first place and how we can ensure that we are never here again, because people in Wokingham will continue to use cars if trains are not working for them.
I ask the Minister this: how do the Government intend to increase the reliability of service on the Great Western main line, and will he explain the role better infrastructure plays in that? What particular attention has been given to improving the reliability and speed of the Waterloo to Reading line? When can my constituents expect genuine change from Great British Railways? Finally, I support the proposal to build a western rail link to Heathrow airport. Heathrow airport, the Thames Valley chamber of commerce, local MPs and many other organisations have backed the proposal, so Network Rail should get on and build it. Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State’s infrastructure review will include considering a western link to Heathrow airport, and will the Minister for Rail meet with me to discuss the proposal?
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberThe hon. Lady is absolutely right to suggest that the underfunding of bus services over a decade has led to the cancellation and scrapping of thousands of bus routes across the country, and passenger numbers have fallen over the last 40 years. We are committed to consolidating funding and ending the “Hunger Games” style process that the previous Government oversaw, which pitted authorities against each other and created winners and losers.
This Government recognise the huge benefits of walking and cycling. They support our economic growth, health and net zero missions by helping to revitalise high streets, improve air quality and support people in living longer, healthier lives. This Government will embrace green and healthy transport choices, and we will set out ambitious plans to promote safer, greener and healthier journeys as part of an integrated transport strategy.
Barriers to active travel are many, including old footbridges that are needed for crossing railways. In my constituency of Wokingham, Network Rail is in the process of replacing the footbridge at the Tan House crossing. Despite an offer from the local authority to contribute towards the cost of making the bridge accessible to all, Network Rail has insisted on spending millions of pounds to build a bridge that many people will never be able to use. Can the Minister review with Network Rail why it believes that it is not required to make its estate accessible to all, and take steps to ensure that it is required to do so in future?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I will refer this matter to the Minister with responsibility for rail, and will write to the hon. Gentleman with further information.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s important question. We share her and her constituents’ disappointment in the commercial decision by Eurostar to cease services. We hope to see a reinstatement, either by Eurostar or another operator, in the future, but I will meet with her, other MPs and local stakeholders to continue discussing this matter.
There is no greater sign of the failure of the previous Government than the appalling state of our roads. That is why this Government have already committed to supporting local authorities across England to fix up to 1 million extra potholes every year. We will have more to say on this in due course.