M6: Junction 38

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Gentleman is a world-standard crowbar applier in this place, but that was not a crowbar—that was very relevant. England’s connectivity with Ireland via Stranraer is utterly affected by what is happening at junction 38. He is absolutely on the money, and I am very grateful for his point.

We must avoid the closures of these junctions. Let us start with one group who are mentioned regularly and helped rarely: at a time when they are already facing so many threats and pressures, the closures will be a logistical nightmare for our farmers, who will face rising fuel costs, some land being made inaccessible to them, and threats to animal welfare as they have to make more arduous journeys throughout this three-year period.

Secondly, given the Government’s priority of seeking economic growth, the junction closures are also a huge risk to our multibillion-pound tourism economy. Tailbacks north and south and the junction closures will mean that some of the 20 million visitors we have each year will vote with their feet, putting many of the 60,000 hospitality and tourism jobs in our county at risk, and further damaging the UK’s fiscal position.

Local businesses will be hit by the closures, including—I do not think this is parochial hyperbole either—Britain’s finest service station, Westmorland services at Tebay—

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Hear, hear.

[Tim Farron]

Thank you. There will be an estimated cost to the service station alone of £1 million in damage if the junction is closed. Dozens of other businesses will also be affected, with millions of pounds of lost revenue, increased costs and the potential loss of hundreds of jobs.

As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, there will be a huge national impact on the haulage industry. Most lorry companies use junction 38 as their halfway point on the route to Scotland and the ferry ports serving Ireland. With the closure this coming January of the M6 at Clifton—at the top end of my constituency near junction 40—heavy goods vehicle drivers coming from Scotland and the ports connecting us to Ireland will be diverted from Penrith, across the A66 to Scotch Corner, down the A1(M), and across the M62 to rejoin the M6 near Warrington. That is a colossal detour, with horrendous costs in fuel and journey times—and that is only for a few weekends at the beginning of next year. The Lune gorge plan is to run for four to six years, not a few weekends. The work will have an enormous negative economic impact for the whole country. The consequences have clearly not been fully thought through.

Given that we know some of the impacts of the closures, we have asked National Highways for sight of its impact assessment. To my utter astonishment, it has not conducted one. The Minister can blame previous Conservative Ministers for that failure if he wishes, but he only gets to do that if he puts it right immediately this evening. Where is the economic impact assessment? Where is a credible traffic management plan?

With help from local residents, businesses and farmer groups, we did our own survey of the impact and calculated that the damage just to that relatively small section of the local community who live in the villages closest to junction 38 would be upwards of £10 million over three years. The real impact would be much wider, of course, and therefore the cost would be much, much higher.

The closure of junction 38 would also mean greater pressures on junction 37 to the south and junction 39 to the north, both of which are dangerous hammerhead junctions. Junction 37 has seen three tragic fatalities and many other accidents in the last 18 months alone, yet National Highways’ current plan—such as it is—is to send tens of thousands of vehicles down to junction 37, or up to the similarly designed junction 39. Those junctions are to be used as crude roundabouts by extremely heavy vehicles in utterly unreasonable volumes. Again, this underlines the failure to conduct a meaningful impact assessment or present any kind of credible traffic management plan.

The crucial problem that I want the Minister to focus on is the closure of junction 38 southbound for 18 months and then northbound for 18 months. It is completely unacceptable. Let’s face it—National Highways would have never even considered it in a more urban part of the network. I reiterate that we are not against the works taking place. We know that the bridges need to be replaced, but there are clearly alternatives to lengthy closures of junction 38, yet those alternatives have not been seriously considered or properly investigated.

I have a high regard for so many of the people I work with from National Highways, but from the beginning of this project there has been a failure to consider the community and the Cumbrian economy. Now that National Highways is being called to account and asked serious questions, it seems as though excuses are being made rather than solutions being explored.

Local businesses commissioned the well-respected motorway highways consultants BWB, which produced a detailed feasibility study confirming that temporary slip roads are absolutely possible—indeed, they are straightforward if the order of bridge removals is slightly rearranged. National Highways rejected this proposal with, at best, a cursory assessment, and it has provided no credible reasons for doing so.

On behalf of my communities in Westmorland, my first ask is that the Minister looks at the proposals himself, takes independent expert advice from his officials, and at the same time instructs National Highways to properly, formally consider the temporary slip roads—to make certain that these very credible plans are properly evaluated. Meanwhile, as the works proceed, many full motorway closures are planned, and the apparent plan is to route the entire M6 load through the narrow streets of Kendal and Kirkby Stephen. This is ludicrous and unsustainable, and it will take ministerial intervention to put right.

The second ask therefore relates to the Kendal relief road, otherwise known as the northern access route. In 2023 the previous Government pledged £460 million for 21 “smaller road schemes” across the north, including potentially a short new road linking the A591 Windermere Road to the A6 Shap Road just north of our thriving but often congested main town of Kendal, but in July the Department for Transport announced that the scheme’s future had been placed under review, with a final decision set to be announced by the end of the year. Given the disruption from the M6 closures already this year, the case for that road is stronger than ever. Can that project be brought forward so that it can be done before the M6 Lune gorge project happens?

The third ask is for help to be provided to solve the congestion that M6 and A66 closures have on the beautiful town of Kirkby Stephen. The provision of new, additional off-road parking for residents on South Road in Kirkby Stephen, along with sensible highways modifications, would mostly solve the problems there too. Will the Minister please instruct his officials to take action on that point before the work on the Lune gorge bridges causes repeated chaos to the town?

Fourthly, earlier this year the Government gave the green light for the A66 dualling after our lengthy campaign, and I am grateful to them for that. The plan includes an underpass close to the M6 junction 40 underneath the notoriously busy Kemplay Bank roundabout at Penrith. It is vital that the work is sequenced before the M6 closures so as to avoid crippling congestion around Penrith and to alleviate the devastating impact of running those projects at the same time. The solutions are here—experts have done the work and local businesses have provided the evidence—yet National Highways has not meaningfully considered the very options that would prevent economic and social disaster for our communities.

My final ask of the Minister tonight is this: will he meet me, along with representatives of the local community, local businesses and their skilled highways consultants, to discuss the temporary slip road proposals and the wider sequencing of these works? If he can visit the Westmorland site in person, we would welcome that hugely, and that would help him to see at first hand the issues that our local communities are facing. But time is of the essence, so we will gladly meet him in London if that can happen more speedily. It is essential that he understands for himself the profound and unnecessary impact that the project will have on Kendal, Burneside, Grayrigg, Tebay, Orton, Ravenstonedale and Kirkby Stephen, and on the wider economy of the Lake district, the dales, Cumbria as a whole and the UK’s haulage industry. The M6 bridge work must be done to keep us safe for generations to come, but it is wrong for it to be done in ways that ignore the catastrophic impact on our residents, communities and businesses in Westmorland.

Road Safety Powers: Parish and Town Councils

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth]

I agree 100% with that assessment. It seems that it does not really matter who is in power; councillors do not seem to be listened to either. I think it is a problem for democracy that so many people are saying the same thing, only to be ignored over and over again, so I welcome that intervention. I am grateful that so many colleagues have attended this debate, which is testament to the frustrations we all feel. The experience that my hon. Friend expressed is probably one that we will hear several times. Indeed, I have deliberately kept my speech short so that I can take as many interventions—[Interruption.] I will give way.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for inviting an intervention. In my constituency, road safety is a huge concern of local people, despite the fact that London boroughs have the power to set speed limits—indeed, most of Ealing Southall is a 20 mph zone. However, the council does not have the power to enforce the speed limit; only the Metropolitan police has that power. Does my hon. Friend agree it is important that we consider whether councils that already have the right to set speed limits should also have the power to enforce them?

[Sam Rushworth]

That is an excellent point that I had not considered, so I will tack it on to the end of my speech. I welcome that intervention. There will be a lot of interventions tonight, but I say to the Minister that perhaps we could have some sort of deal whereby if she gives in to my demands 30 minutes in, we will not take the debate to the full two and half hours that we could have.

Department for Transport

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Whether they are walking or cycling, riding on buses, trams or trains, or planes, transport plays a huge role in the daily lives of our constituents, and for the businesses and public services on which we all depend. I welcome the fact that the Government are investing properly in transport, particularly local transport. I also welcome the Chancellor’s announcement of £15.6 billion to connect our cities and towns, as well as the fourfold increase in local transport grants by the end of this Parliament. This Government’s ambition on transport is way ahead of the last Government’s.

The Transport Committee is tasked with holding the Department to account on its programme, in respect of both delivery and the use of resources, so I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and to discuss the estimated departmental spend for the coming financial year. It is inevitable that Members will also want to consider the wider transport issues that affect their constituencies, but I will try to keep my remarks mainly to the estimates.

As our scrutiny role means seeking assurance that the departmental estimates link to the Department’s strategic objectives, this debate is important. Following the publication of the supplementary estimates for 2024-25, I wrote to the Department in March seeking clarity on how the spending aligned with the Department’s strategic objectives. The Transport Secretary replied saying that officials would

“work with the House of Commons Scrutiny Unit and HM Treasury to consider any changes to the presentation of the Department’s Estimates.”

I have not received more detail directly, and the Department’s main estimate memorandum provides no additional information to explain how spending is aligned with the Department’s strategic objectives. That memorandum and correspondence is linked to on the Order Paper.

Furthermore, the Department’s main estimate memorandum was not received on time, making it harder for my Committee and others to undertake effective and timely scrutiny. The Department for Transport was one of only three Departments, along with the Cabinet Office and the Home Office, whose memorandums were not provided alongside the publication of the main estimate.

Under the previous Government, outcome delivery plans were produced that listed the outcomes that Departments hoped to achieve through their spending, alongside specific metrics by which progress could be measured. The Department for Transport’s most recent outcome delivery plan was published in 2021. In the 2025-26 main estimates memorandum, the Department said:

“DfT’s Outcome Delivery Plan for 2025-26 outlines the ambition to build a modern, efficient, and sustainable transport network that raises living standards for communities. It details how resources are allocated between DfT’s three Priority Outcomes”,

which are given as growth; greener, safer and healthier transport, and improving transport for people. The memorandum later states that the

“DfT’s ODP includes delivery strategies, delivery plans and a suite of core metrics to articulate progress against each Priority Outcome.”

But the outcome delivery plan for 2025-26 has not been published, and the estimates memorandum does not explain how spending in the estimates relates to core metrics and so on.

The Cabinet Secretary recently promised to share the next set of ODPs with the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, subject to ministerial approval. Without the ODPs, how can our Committee, and therefore the House, be assured that the Department’s policy objectives are clear, and that its spending aligns with those objectives and with the Government’s really important and very welcome missions? I accept that the Minister may want to write to me after the debate to answer some of my questions. Will the Department for Transport follow the Cabinet Office in planning to publish its outcome delivery plan for 2025-26?

To move on to devolution and accountability, there have been increases in funding in the main estimates, with £100 million allocated to the mayoral combined authorities. Subsequently, at the spending review, there were increases to devolved institutions in England, with just over £15 billion for city region sustainable transport settlements and local transport grants.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

The previous Government forced Transport for London to come with a begging bowl every year to get the money needed to keep the tube and the buses going in the capital. Does my hon. Friend welcome this Government’s multi-year funding deal for TfL, which is the largest settlement for over a decade, and does she agree that it will bring stability to TfL’s finances and the ability to plan ahead?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I welcome the intervention from my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. As a London MP, I know that stability in transport provision in London will be of huge benefit to my constituents, Londoners, visitors and commuters to London. We did not get everything we wanted in the spending review—in our case, the west London orbital—but we certainly got a lot more than we got from the previous Government, and for that we are very grateful.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I start by thanking the Secretary of State for Transport for her speech. I also thank her and the Aviation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for coming to speak to the Transport Committee earlier this year about aviation and, of course, wider matters.

I welcome the introduction of the Bill, and I was pleased to hear the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). The Bill will play an important role in our work to decarbonise our aviation sector. Some 7% of domestic greenhouse gas emissions come from domestic and international flights, and it is estimated that this figure will increase to 11% by 2030 and 16% by 2035. We all know the huge challenges involved in decarbonising aviation, and this Bill is a much-needed step towards addressing them. I am glad that the Government are taking action, and I know that many in the industry want to ensure that the Bill is operational as soon as possible.

As I am sure the Transport Secretary will appreciate, I have a few questions about the Bill, which I am sure will also be raised at later stages of its progress. However, I start by saying that it is rare to find a Bill on which there is so much agreement; every major airline I have met has mentioned its support for SAF, and there is widespread agreement that we need a price certainty mechanism. That is a sign that the Government have been pragmatic, working with business and—in the case of SAF—working to ensure that we have domestic capacity here in the UK.

I am glad that the Bill will start to move us away from our dependency on imported fossil fuels, particularly for aviation. This House may forget that our reliance on foreign fossil fuels meant that in 2022, we had to spend more than £35 billion bailing out our energy market. That reliance leaves us reliant on the whims of autocratic regimes across the world. We need to move away from that costly model and, in turn, bring investment into our regions, growth to our economy and much-needed tax revenue to our Treasury.

I am glad that the UK Government are working to make sure that we continue to lead on decarbonisation and to reduce our carbon emissions in line with the Paris agreement. I want to touch on the nature of the SAF we will be using. First and second generation SAFs are made from waste—the first from used cooking oils predominantly, and the second from waste such as household black bin bag waste. Where do the Government see that waste coming from in the future? How does that tie in with our efforts to reduce our residual waste, particularly black bin bag waste, and wider efforts to reduce the non-recyclable waste that we produce? Is a large part of our household waste not already going to waste-to-energy plants, providing electricity that we depend on?

There is a lot of support for SAF in America and, as with ethanol, it offers a huge chance for large-scale agricultural businesses to profit from the sale of their waste and their oil. Ethanol is often produced in the same plants as SAF. In seeking to secure UK domestic production of SAF, what could the challenges of the US-UK trade agreement mean for our biofuel industry and its ability to transition to producing SAF? Has the Department modelled the economic and environmental impact of providing resources for second generation SAF? What is the timescale to bring on third generation SAF?

One issue that has been raised with me is whether companies looking at producing SAF will be able to enter negotiations with the Government before the Bill reaches the statute book. I understand that that has been the case for the mechanism for renewable energy projects, where negotiations began early to ensure that the investment is locked in.

We need to see changes in aviation to meet our ambitious climate goals. Now that aviation and shipping are included in our carbon budget, those changes are even more important, and I hope that the Government will also look beyond SAF when thinking about decarbonising aviation. SAF is not and will not be the silver bullet solution to the sector’s responsibility to this country’s decarbonisation strategy.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend, like me, represents a west London constituency. Brentford and Isleworth is very close to my constituency of Ealing Southall. She will know that while our constituents support the work towards a more sustainable air industry, they also want to see work to reduce the noise we hear in west London from the airline industry. Does she agree that the airline industry must also look at new, quieter planes and airspace modernisation for those communities?

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right, and I know that the plane and engine manufacturers are continuing to work—as they have done for decades, to be fair—on quieter and less polluting aircraft. Sometimes there is a tension between those two. Airspace modernisation will not make a lot of difference to my constituency in terms of landing aircraft, but overall airspace modernisation will play a part in reducing emissions and flight times for passengers.

As I have said, SAF is not and will not be the silver-bullet solution to the problem of aviation’s responsibility for decarbonisation. The Climate Change Committee warned Parliament in 2023 that relying on SAF alone was “high risk”. For example, Heathrow airport is already the single greatest source of carbon emissions in the UK, and the current plans for expansion would add an extra 8 to 9 megatonnes of carbon dioxide a year. If the Government do expand Heathrow, other airports across the UK will have to make cuts to ensure that aviation does not breach its carbon targets. Furthermore, continuing increases in aviation emissions will have to be offset against significant cuts in emissions in other sectors. I should like to hear from the Transport Secretary what the Government are doing to address that particular challenge.

When the Transport Committee considered SAF during the last Parliament, we found that it had “significant potential”, and I know that there is support throughout the House for us to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions from aviation. As Chair of the Committee, I also know how widespread support across the sector is for decarbonisation, and that many private companies are already way ahead in preparing for the future. This country needs to stay ahead of the game internationally, and I am glad that by introducing the Bill the Government are showing their commitment, investing in UK industry, and showing that the UK can be a leader on sustainability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

We heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) how proud the people of Doncaster are of their airport, but I challenge her to a “pride in your local airport” competition, because nowhere is more proud of its local airport than Teesside—to the extent that whether politicians promise the continuation of flights from Teesside to Alicante is the most important issue in local politics. Quite right, too, because working people in Teesside save all year round for their seven days in the sun, and that is important to me and to everybody else who lives there. People who say that we need to reduce flights and the opportunity for working people to go on holiday are not living in the real world —they are certainly not talking to the people I talk to and live with.

[Deirdre Costigan]

I support the right of my hon. Friend’s Stockton North constituents to go on holiday to Alicante. Equally, in my Ealing, Southall constituency, 53% of people—including me—were born in a different country. Does he agree that they have the right to go home and visit family and friends, so it is important that we accept the reality of air travel and focus our time and energy on realistic plans, such as the one before us, to invest in sustainable air fuels?

[Chris McDonald]

I could not agree more. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) said, we are indeed an island nation, if anyone had not spotted that, and the quickest way to get about is to go by air. What everyone wants is to wake up on a morning in Stockton and then be sat on a beach in Benidorm by lunch time, and of course they can do that at Teesside airport.

The people of Teesside know that our future is about decarbonising. This Government have invested £4 billion in carbon capture and storage. We have the largest offshore wind monopile factory in our area, and we are producing green hydrogen in Billingham in my constituency—in fact, Billingham produces 50% of the UK’s hydrogen, and Billingham and Teesside more generally is set to become Europe’s main centre for sustainable aviation fuel.

I am sure that sustainable aviation fuel will be produced in Grangemouth, Humberside, the north-west and south Wales, but the market is enormous and, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), Teesside and Billingham in my constituency is best placed in the whole of Europe to deal with this. The biggest threat to that at the moment is not the fantastic plans of this Government, but the ideological adherence of members of Reform to anti-net zero. As usual, I find myself in this House standing up for new jobs for industrial communities in my area, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. Where are the Reform Members? They are not here—they are never here.

Road Safety and Active Travel to School

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing this debate and on his compelling arguments for more active travel and for improving road safety. We heard from 23 hon. Members—probably more, if we include the recent interventions—and I value their contributions to the debate. I cannot possibly answer all the issues raised, but I welcome the support for further action on these issues. I am responding as the Minister responsible for road safety.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s ambitions for active travel. Whether it is walking, wheeling or cycling, it is positive to see more of it. I am sure we have all seen how much quieter the roads are during the school holidays. That is a visible reminder of how many children are being driven to school and how much less congestion there could be if more people felt able to walk or cycle their children to school—or to let their children walk or cycle to school themselves, as perhaps some of us did when we were young.

Transport is at the heart of our mission-driven Government, and active travel is one of the strongest interventions that we can make to boost the health of the nation. Building safe, accessible and high-quality active travel infrastructure gives people the choice to walk and cycle. It can also improve the safety of our roads, reduce the number of collisions and, very importantly, cut the number of people who are killed and seriously injured. I assure hon. Members that we are keen to support local authorities to develop the infrastructure that works for their local area, whether that is introducing lower speed limits, segregated infrastructure or improved or new crossings, as a number of Members mentioned.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Labour-run Ealing council has introduced 41 school streets across the borough, which has caused a 29% increase in children walking and cycling to school and taken one in five cars off the road in terms of school runs. Will the Minister look at that sort of evidence when she is coming to her road safety strategy, and will she consider visiting constituencies such as mine to see the success of Ealing Labour’s programme?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend highlights the fantastic work that many local authorities are doing, and I welcome the evidence that she shared.

Since Active Travel England was created, we have seen a fivefold improvement in schemes meeting minimum quality standards, ensuring that what is being built is of a higher quality, enhancing safety and increasing uptake while reducing collisions. That represents a significant improvement, considering that 70% of people cite safety as the main barrier preventing them from walking, wheeling or cycling. The work of Active Travel England is key to delivering high quality and value for money improvements to our roads and the public realm. That includes rural areas.

As a number of hon. Members rightly highlighted, this is about not only safety, but extending opportunities for young people and others who cannot or do not want to drive. As part of its role, Active Travel England is improving connections with new housing developments. That is vital for places experiencing housing growth, as a number of hon. Members mentioned. Where roads and public services, including new schools or health centres, are being built, it should be the perfect opportunity to build in active travel infrastructure from the start, which is much cheaper and easier than trying to retrofit it later.

Airport Expansion

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

I support the Chancellor’s pursuit of growth. For too long, we have been stagnant, and we know that this area can provide growth. I have seen that in my constituency, as I have pointed out. Where was the hon. Member when we talked about sustainable aviation fuels? Where was she when we committed £63 million to the advanced fuels fund to help the SAF industry grow in this country? We have announced £1 billion for the Aerospace Technology Institute to look at zero emission flights. Would it not be great if, one day, a Minister could stand here and say that all internal flights will be zero-emission? I want to leave my successor, whoever they are, the opportunity to say that within the next decade.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents in Ealing Southall work at Heathrow or in its supply chain, and they will welcome the good-quality, well-paid jobs that airport expansion will bring. However, I have other constituents who worry about the environmental impact of any expansion. In taking any decision on this matter, will the Minister ensure that he balances the need for growth and for good-quality local jobs against the need to minimise air pollution and noise pollution?

[Mike Kane]

What a terrific question. [Interruption.] Well, it is. It hits the mark, in that there is a trade-off between noise, carbon and growing our economy for our people. Airports create high-paid, trade-unionised jobs, not just because of the aircraft that come in and out, but because of the ground handling services. We know that aviation communities are much better off because of the jobs that are created, and we have to balance the trade-off in the years ahead as we make tough decisions to grow our economy.

Transport Infrastructure Projects: Elizabeth Line

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered future transport infrastructure projects and the Elizabeth line.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I declare an interest as a local MP who has received donations from two rail unions, ASLEF and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Also, I am a season ticket holder and in the past was involved in the Paddington rail crash. I secured this debate to celebrate the great success of the Elizabeth line, which I travel on almost every day. I was moved by the Royal Institute of British Architects’s tribute, and its award of the Stirling prize, to the Elizabeth line—nominated for its outstanding architecture.

In today’s debate I hope we can discuss the importance of rail investment and the need for long-term planning. I hope to highlight the Elizabeth line as a national achievement and possibly a model for further investments around the country. I also hope the Minister will be able to provide further details of future investments in other parts of England. I am conscious that I am likely to talk a lot about Berkshire, my own county, and the nearby parts of London that it is so intimately connected with. Two years on is an excellent point at which to reflect on the Elizabeth line and its wonderful benefits to our community.

I hope Members will indulge me this morning, because I have to say my family banned me from going on about the Elizabeth line. I was told by my wife to stop talking about it. I am very lucky to live near London and can travel home to Reading every day —apologies to colleagues who are not able to get home in the evening—but I was admonished by my wife, who told me, “Stop going on about the Elizabeth line. I don’t want to hear any more about it.” However, she and my son and daughter all changed their tune as soon as they had benefited from it; Sarah was able to get back from a show in the west end to a cup of tea in our kitchen in Reading in 50 minutes one evening, and that stopped her ever criticising it again. Now she is as big a convert as I am to that wonderful piece of engineering.

I have my “Matt Rodda’s pub quiz” section of this speech, in which I want to mention a few fun facts about the Elizabeth line. To sum up the scale of what the country has achieved, £19 billion has been invested in this piece of railway, but it has already, in just two years, generated £42 billion of benefits to the economy. There are some 700,000 journeys a day. Every day, the equivalent of the whole population of Berkshire, a reasonably large English county, travels on the line. To put it another way, 4.8 million people travel on it every week—more than half the population of London travel on that one railway line every week. It has generated 8,000 jobs and about 55,000 homes have been built along the line. I want to mention that later in my speech, because the connection between investment in rail, the economy, jobs, housing and growth and the clustering of new industries near railway stations is a really important topic in this debate.

The Mayor of London described the line as a “game changer” for London and the surrounding area, where we have seen 8% growth year on year in passenger numbers. The best way to understand this amazing piece of railway is to ride on it and look out of the window, or to get out of the station underground and soak up what we are passing through. Getting off the mainline train at Paddington—I do not travel on the Elizabeth line all the way to Reading every day—and going on to the Elizabeth line is quite a stunning change of scene. I go into a huge box station, down two sets of escalators and into an enormous modern station, rather like being inside an airport building. It is absolutely huge, several times greater than any normal tube station, with enormous capacity built in for extra passenger numbers. Already, even on the busiest days, the line is soaking up huge numbers of people. The crowds above ground are suddenly distributed below ground and there is a train every 2.5 minutes.

I travel to Bond Street, where, wonderfully, there is a little sign that says “Trains to Reading”—something that seems completely incongruous to anybody who lives outside London. I then move swiftly on to another tube. Looking at the view coming into Reading station the other way, there is now an equally stunning sight that we would not see in many medium-sized English cities or large towns. We are starting to see a significant number of tall buildings, and all those buildings represent a rise in land values, an increase in jobs and new businesses locating near the station, creating jobs, wealth and growth through investment and infrastructure. That is driving the economy of the area and leading to significant migration into Reading from around the UK and around the world, with businesses also relocating.

I saw one example of why that relocation is taking place with my visit to the Ericsson office, in Thames Tower next to the station. This illustrates the employer’s point of view, which is important. Senior managers at Ericsson explained that they moved from a business estate in Surrey to Reading because they wanted access to a much wider pool of workers. The transport connectivity meant they could get much better access to a much wider range of people with qualifications in telecoms, electronic engineering and other related skills they needed in their business by being in Reading. Staff can connect more easily to the midlands, east to London, west to Bristol and south too. I stress that rail connectivity, and the benefits it brings to employers, as an important part of this debate.

At a local level, PepsiCo, whose office is in Green Park near the M4 motorway, is moving to Reading town centre. That movement of businesses into Reading from out-of-town industrial estates could also apply to other areas where there is due to be a significant amount of rail investment—for example on the Oxford to Cambridge line or in the north of England. I hope that is the story when investment and infrastructure are brought together.

It is also worth mentioning the huge environmental benefit. We do not have much capacity in our major towns and cities to build extra roads and getting extra road space is incredibly difficult. There are more people and more vehicles in the country, and all those vehicles on the road at the same time can cause gridlock. Rail offers the ability to generate large numbers of journeys and move huge numbers of people quickly and effectively from one place to another. That can be seen in Berkshire and west London; in fact, the section of the Elizabeth line between Reading and Hayes shows the fastest growth in passenger numbers. Interestingly, it straddles two regional boundaries, where there was previously a stopping service that was nowhere near as effective at getting people from A to B—it was not as fast or as regular—as the Elizabeth line.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. The Elizabeth line has been a game changer for my constituency of Ealing Southall, and Southall station in particular is very well used. However, two other stations, West Ealing and Hanwell, suffer from a less frequent service than Southall, and that is in the context of increasing development, particularly in West Ealing. There are also more delays and cancellations on the line than would be expected with new rail infrastructure. Does my hon. Friend agree that not only is it important that the Elizabeth line is extended to constituencies such as his, but that the reliability and frequency of the line is improved?

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about further enhancements and improvements to the line. I will discuss that later in my speech and I hope the Minister will also have a word to say on that.

On the wider context of the British economy and national achievements in recent years, it is fair to say that we are all proud of Great British sporting achievements, such as securing the Olympics and the performance of Team GB or our achievements in football and other major sports. I believe that the building and the growing success of the Elizabeth line are also an achievement in line with our achievements in sport or science and technology, and we ought to pay heed to that, learn from it and use it to fuel other investments, whether by learning the lessons on planning and infrastructure development or in other ways.

I also want to comment on some of the political lessons learned, on a cross-party basis: once again, it is important to focus on the crucial number of £42 billion of economic growth in just two years. That is a significant number, and we want to see more of that, not just in my region of the south-east of England, but across the country, in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England.

To reflect on what went well and learn some lessons, I would like to go back a bit—you will be pleased to know, Mr Vickers, that I do not want to go right back to 1840, when the Regent’s Canal company, which was very far sighted, first talked about a cross-London route, but I will go back to the 1990s to reflect, in simple outline terms, on the things we got right and the themes that come up when we talk to the people involved. For example, I spoke to the former Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, Nick Raynsford, who was a Transport Minister. The lessons seem to be that it is important that the Government have a vision, and plan and invest for the long term. They must listen to businesses and work closely with them in deep partnership, and they must do the same with local and regional government. Both the Mayor of London and local government across the south-east were crucial to this project—the Minister may want to comment on that later.

I must thank several people, or I will never live it down. In particular, I thank MPs from Berkshire: I want to single out the former Member for Maidenhead, now Baroness May of Maidenhead, who played a very important role in this project and was an incredibly important constituency neighbour when she was in this place. I also thank Lord Sharma and other MPs from the Thames valley, including the former Labour MPs for Reading West and Slough, among others. I thank the lead members for transport on Reading Borough council, including Councillor Tony Page and Councillor John Howarth, and leaders of Reading Borough council Liz Terry, Jo Lovelock and David Sutton.

I thank the local business community, including investors from outside our immediate area who have done so much to regenerate areas near the station—for example, the team investing in Station Hill are playing a really important role—and many others, such as the two corporates that are moving into the area near the station. I would particularly like to mention Nigel Horton-Baker, who brought the business community together, and I thank the various local enterprise partnerships and chambers of commerce that cover the Thames valley.

I also highlight the importance of the business and civic community in the wider region. When the Elizabeth line was envisaged—this is a bit of a detour down a branch line, but it is very important for Berkshire—there was no guarantee that it would come to Reading. The original plan was for it to go as far west as Maidenhead, but Reading borough council built a coalition of local authorities across the three counties of Berks, Bucks and Oxon. I see that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) is here, and I am sure he agrees; he may want to speak about the importance of local government collegiality across the Thames valley. That cross-party group of local authorities, led by all three main UK parties, wanted Reading to be the western terminus. It was so important that they agreed and worked together. I obviously have a vested interest as the MP for Reading Central, but the idea of Reading’s being the western terminus made complete transport sense, as it is a major transport hub and a point at which the railway divides north and south, to the south coast and the midlands, and a key point at which it splays out westwards, to the far south-west, Wales and the midlands.

I am proud to be the MP for Reading Central, and it is wonderful to be able to commend the work that has been done locally. In the time that I have left, I have some questions for the Minister from me, our local business community and other stakeholders. I particularly want to explore the notion of further electrification. One of the benefits of the Elizabeth line is that it is fully electric, which saves huge amounts of money in the long run, although there is obviously an up-front cost. Under the previous Government, there was a reduction in the amount of electrification from what was originally planned. I have had requests for more north-south improvements in electrification in our area, between the south coast and Oxford. There has also been some interest in introducing more semi-fast services on the Elizabeth line—in other words, trains that do not stop at every station but move more quickly between the major stations. Some people have raised further station development.

A western rail link is an important adjunct to the arguments about the Elizabeth line. The line has created a lot of connectivity and an east-west corridor between Berkshire, Essex and Kent, but people going to Heathrow have to approach London and go out again. Many colleagues from Wales and the west country—particularly south Wales, Bristol and further west—have, with me and other colleagues, lobbied for extra connectivity that would allow people to get on a train at Cardiff or Bristol and go straight to Heathrow, reducing surface transport and pollution near the airport, and freeing up local roads. It would also bring huge flexibility for commuters working at the airport, particularly residents of Slough and west London, where many airport staff live, although some live as far away as Reading.

The other point I would like the Minister to comment on—I realise it is an ongoing discussion—is the work to smooth the transition relating to the development of Old Oak Common. I am pleased the Government are committed to investing in the link between Old Oak Common and Euston; that is an important milestone and a national priority for all of us. However, in my area, and particularly to the west of London, in Wales and the west country, there is a great deal of concern about the blockading of Paddington to allow work to take place at Old Oak Common. That starts at Christmas time, and I hope the Minister can say some reassuring words about it. I know he is interested in those matters and wants that work carried out in the smoothest way possible.

It has been a pleasure to speak this morning; I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr Vickers, in allowing me to commend some of my local government colleagues and others in the business community. I hope the Minister will be able to answer some of my questions. I also thank colleagues for attending in such large numbers and from such a wide range of political parties, and I look forward to hearing everybody’s speeches.