A50/A500 Corridor

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on securing this debate and for speaking so passionately about transport in his constituency and the implications for the wider region. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss transport in the region today. I assure my hon. Friend that this Government understand the significance and importance of transport to the people, communities and businesses that power local economies across the country. I have been interested to engage with the ambitious proposals for development along the A50 and A500. These roads link Stoke-on-Trent, Uttoxeter, Burton upon Trent and Derby—all areas with rich histories of industry and manufacturing, but also home to exciting innovation.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I gently point out to the Minister that there is not just a rich history of manufacturing and industry, but potentially a rich future, too. We are still an area of the country that makes many things, whether that is high-tech agricultural machinery at JCB or fine porcelain ceramics in the city of Stoke-on-Trent. The roads and infrastructure that come with that could be the growth point for north Staffordshire, which would help deliver on the Government’s economic agenda and allow the infrastructure to develop to build the homes that we need. It is win, win, win, if the Minister can confirm that we can have the upgrades we need.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The area is also home to exciting innovation, new technologies and advanced manufacturing. This Government absolutely understand the importance of such routes to our daily lives, and they are core to key Government priorities such as kick-starting the economy, delivering housing growth and tackling regional inequality. In that context, while the A50 near Uttoxeter remains the specific focus of today’s debate, it would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to highlight how the quality of journeys and transport across Staffordshire have been and are being improved.

This Government are committed to restoring pride and trust in our transport system, which works day in, day out for those who rely on it. June’s spending review confirmed £2.3 billion of investment in local transport through the local transport grant. Staffordshire county council will receive a total local transport grant capital allocation of £92.98 million between 2026-27 and 2029-30. In addition, Staffordshire will also receive £3.39 million in local transport grant resource funding. That vital funding will help build local capability and capacity to develop and update local transport plans, to effectively deliver local transport infrastructure priorities, and to work with regional partners to progress regional priorities.

England’s roads are a vital part of our transport system. Cars remain by far the most popular form of transport. This Government are dedicated to maintaining and renewing our road network to ensure it continues to serve all road users. It is why we are committed to long-term programmes of investment to improve road links throughout the region and to facilitate the growth and development that this nation needs, and it is why local areas such as Staffordshire have benefited from the £1.6 billion record investment in road maintenance funding for the 2025-26 financial year. This marks a £500 million increase in funding, and Staffordshire will be eligible to receive £39.4 million. Building on that, we will provide £24 billion of capital funding between 2026-27 and 2029-30 to maintain and improve our motorways and local roads across the country. This funding increase will allow National Highways and local authorities, like Staffordshire, to invest in significantly improving the long-term condition of England’s road network, delivering faster, safer and more reliable journeys.

As for the specific issue of the proposal for development on the central section of the A50 near Uttoxeter, I acknowledge the difficult challenges that congestion and uncertain journey times on key routes may cause for businesses and commuters, as well as the potential impact that this may have on growth, investment and employment. We recognise that the strategic road network plays a vital role in daily lives. Through our growth mission we will rebuild Britain, delivering new homes and the critical infrastructure that underpins economic growth.

In August the Department for Transport published its draft road investment strategy, which set out the Government’s strategic objectives and included just under £25 billion of indicative funding for the operation, maintenance and renewal of our strategic road network and for the RIS3 period covering the period from 2026 to 2031. As part of the road investment strategy, the Department continues to consider improvements to the central section of the A50 near Uttoxeter, as well as junction 15 of the M6, as part of the pipeline of projects being developed for possible delivery in a future road investment strategy. I know that my hon. Friend has engaged extensively with officials from my Department, and with National Highways, on these matters for some time, passionately outlining the case for investment. National Highways is committed to continuing to develop these proposals, and, subject to a supportive business case, they will be considered for delivery within RIS4, beyond 2031—or late in RIS3, if funding becomes available.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the Minister for being so generous in giving way. Thirteen years ago, when I was leader of the local authority in Newcastle, I joined the Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire local enterprise partnership board. This project was on the books then. The sclerotic nature of the last Government meant that it had not progressed at all, and I hate to think what investment has been lost. While I welcome the commitment that the Minister is making to future potential, will he at least recognise that we could be talking about 20 years after this was first raised by Members who are in the House today? We need a relatively swift conclusion of effort so that we at least know which projects we can green-light around the area for the jobs, the growth and the homes that we need.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. National Highways will work closely with regional partners to consider the opportunities along the corridor as part of this process.

Let me end by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter for securing the debate. As I know he appreciates, transport plays a central role in lives and livelihoods across the country, including his constituency and the wider midlands. Today he has highlighted several important issues relating to Uttoxeter in particular. I want to reassure the House that the Government are providing record levels of investment in roads, rail, buses and active travel projects across the country to connect people with jobs, education and opportunities. I also want to reassure my hon. Friend that the Government have heard the case clearly, and will continue to take action to address the issues debated today.

Question put and agreed to.

Accessibility of Railway Stations: Dulwich and West Norwood

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the figures cannot account for passengers who cannot access a station, and I welcome her campaign for the station in her constituency. This is a national issue. The high number of stations in Dulwich and West Norwood makes it an acute issue in my constituency, but this is a problem everywhere.

When I have inquired about how best to make the case for stations in my constituency, I am told to make representations to the Government and through the Access for All process. I have done so, but there is no process outside of public pressure and political lobbying prior to Access for All applications being submitted to support local communities with a more strategic approach. We need an approach that enables us to join up community views and aspirations with transport feasibility work to understand how to prioritise in a realistic way which of our stations are most likely to secure funding because of their footfall.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

If one of my hon. Friend’s constituents in Dulwich or West Norwood were to get a train to my constituency in Longton—there is a tenuous connection—they would also find that station to be entirely inaccessible. Unlike her case, funding was allocated to Longton train station through the transforming cities fund, but the local authority then decided to reallocate that funding to block paving outside one of the town halls for public realm improvements. Perhaps when she is successful in getting the funding that her station deserves, she will support a campaign to ringfence that funding and protect it so that it cannot be siphoned off for other local projects that often do not support the accessibility for which the funding was designed.

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I will come on to some of the points about the better co-ordination needed to solve some of these problems.

We need an approach that enables us to join things up to understand which of our stations are most likely to secure funding because of their footfall, because they link up with particular bus routes or because they are relatively lower cost and therefore easier to deliver. The process, as it stands, is not transparent, and there is no support available for communities to prepare for it. As an example, I have been approached by residents in Dulwich in recent weeks who would like my support in moving forward a proposal for step-free access at North Dulwich station. A feasibility study would be helpful so we can all understand where lifts could be installed and the broad costs of doing so. But Southwark council has no land interest in North Dulwich station, and there are no major development sites in the local area. At a time when local authority funding is constrained, it would be helpful to have the Minister’s advice on how to move such a proposal forward.

Another example of the urgent need for more joined-up preparatory support is Loughborough Junction station, currently being supported by a local community campaign called “Lift Up Loughborough Junction”. A tiny station occupying just half a railway arch, Loughborough Junction has a particularly long, steep flight of stairs up to its two platforms. It has seen an increase in passenger use compared with pre-covid levels, likely as a consequence of new nearby housing development. Through that development, some funding has been allocated towards improvements at the station, but there is at present no mechanism to decide how that is to be spent or to deliver the improvements.

Delivering step-free access at Loughborough Junction station is complicated. It cannot be done within the current station’s curtilage due to insufficient space, so the station would need to expand either into adjacent arches or on to a site to the rear of the current station. The ownership of those sites is complex, with the Arch Company responsible for neighbouring arches, Network Rail responsible for the structural integrity of the arches, the train operating company Southern responsible for the station, and private land ownership to the rear. If we are to solve the problem of accessibility at the station, there must be a way of joining up those interests, undertaking feasibility work, creating partnerships that can bid for funding together and moving the project forward. As residential development in the area continues to expand, a station that already feels unsafe at peak times due to the large number of passengers will become more and more dangerously overcrowded, and disabled residents, families with young children, and frail and elderly people will continue to be locked out of rail travel.

In 2018, the then Government’s inclusive transport strategy set out the aim of achieving equal access to the rail network by 2030. That is just a few years away, and we are very far away from realising that goal. In the meantime, Government policy has continued, quite rightly, to seek to deliver continued modal shift from private cars to public transport where possible, but modal shift does not happen by encouragement alone. It requires meaningful levels of Government investment to make public transport an accessible, convenient and attractive option, and accessibility is the basic minimum requirement. The Government can encourage people all they like, but if they are literally locked out of using public transport, it will not make a difference for residents with disabilities, parents who need to travel with young children, the less mobile and the elderly.

I secured this debate to seek help from my hon. Friend the Minister. Is he considering the criteria for future rounds of Access for All funding so that areas such as mine, with many inaccessible stations, will not continue to be overlooked by that funding stream because we do not have the highest levels of footfall, major transport interchanges or nearby development sites. What representations is he making to the Chancellor in relation to the Budget about the overall quantum of Access for All funding, so that future rounds of the scheme can start to deliver the step change in railway station accessibility that is needed across the whole country? Is he underlining to the Chancellor that Access for All funding should be part of the strategy to support disabled people who want to work to get to work?

Will the Minister consider a better approach to pre-bidding support for Access for All, on a locality basis, to help local communities and councils to understand how best to prioritise their stations for Access for All bids, and to create strong local partnerships in which multiple agencies need to be involved? May I ask for his support in relation specifically to the complex situation at Loughborough Junction station, and to the need for a feasibility study for North Dulwich station and feasibility work at Gipsy Hill station, which requires accessibility works to one platform only? Finally, can he tell disabled people in Dulwich and West Norwood, and across the country, when they can expect the equal access to the rail network that is their right?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I have made a note of that particular station and will be speaking to the Rail Minister about it as a priority, as I am sure Members will understand.

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing the debate. She is right to raise the important topic of accessibility at stations in her constituency. I assure her and all Members of this House that the Government understand the enormous emotional, social and economic benefits that accessible transport delivers not just for the 16 million disabled people in the UK, but for families, communities and our economy as a whole.

A railway that works for everyone is not a luxury, but a necessity. Whether someone is using a wheelchair or has a visual impairment, or is pushing a pram, carrying heavy luggage or recovering from injury, their needs matter. That is why the Access for All programme is such a vital part of our strategy for improving accessibility. Since its launch in 2006, that programme has made tangible improvements to accessibility at stations across the country, and I am pleased to report that progress continues.

To date, we have delivered step-free access at over 260 stations across Great Britain. That means properly installed lifts, ramps, tactile paving, improved signage and wayfinding changes that make a real difference to the everyday lives of passengers. In addition to those major upgrades, we have completed over 1,500 smaller-scale improvements, which include everything from accessible ticket machines and better lighting to handrails and help points. Those might seem like small things, but for someone with limited mobility or visual impairments, they can make all the difference between a journey that is possible and one that previously has not been.

Although I am pleased with that progress, it is not just about numbers; it is also about impact. Behind every accessible station there is a person who can now get to work, visit friends and family, attend school or simply enjoy a day out without relying on others or facing barriers that others do not even have to think about. However, we know that this work is not finished; we know that we must go further and that the pace of change is not always fast enough.

Earlier this year Network Rail completed feasibility work on 50 stations identified as strong candidates for future Access for All investment. Those stations were chosen carefully, based on criteria that reflect demand, need and opportunity for improvement. My hon. Friend raised the issue of criteria. As she mentioned, stations are nominated by the industry in consultation with local authorities and others, including TFL, to ensure that the funding benefits as many passengers as possible. Stations are then assessed by annual footfall, and weighted by the incidence of disability in the area, using census data. Local factors, including, as she said, whether a station is near a hospital, the availability of third-party funding and the deliverability of the station, are also considered. Additionally, we aim to ensure a fair geographical spread of projects across the country.

I would be happy to facilitate a sit-down meeting with the Rail Minister, so that my hon. Friend can discuss the issues in her constituency, and the opportunities for future rounds of Access for All funding.

[Gareth Snell]

While the Minister has his diary out, I wonder whether he could facilitate a similar meeting for me with the Rail Minister regarding Longton train station.

[Simon Lightwood]

I particularly enjoy offering meetings to my colleagues, and I am sure that the Rail Minister will have heard that request. We will soon be announcing which of those 50 stations will move into the next design phase. That is a sign of our ongoing commitment to make the railway more accessible, more inclusive and more modern.

Accessibility is, rightly, a “golden thread” embedded in everything the Department does, and that extends to how we design, build and maintain our railways. Every time we install, renew or upgrade station infrastructure, whether that is a new platform, a concourse, a footbridge or a ticketing system, those works must meet modern accessibility standards. Infrastructure managers, station operators and service providers are legally required to ensure that those facilities comply with accessibility requirements, as laid out in the relevant legislation and guidance. Where those obligations are not met, enforcement action can be taken by the Office of Rail and Road, the independent regulator.

That approach is absolutely right, because although progress is encouraging, it must be sustained and consistent. Accessibility standards across the rail network cannot depend on geography or luck. Whether someone lives in a city centre or a rural town, and whether their station is a major interchange or a small local stop, the right to access the railway should be universal. That does not stop at stations, of course; it includes improvements to rolling stock, including audio and visual announcements, priority seating, wheelchair spaces and on-board assistance. It also includes training staff to help change cultures and to provide appropriate support to disabled passengers, and not just in terms of procedures but also with empathy, understanding and respect.

I would like to touch on the Government’s wider commitment to deliver an accessibility charter, recognising the importance of consistency across all modes of transport. The charter will bring together in one place the guiding principles that underpin the rights and responsibilities of disabled passengers, regulators, enforcement bodies and operators. Research suggests that disabled people are less confident travelling across modes than non-disabled people. We are determined, working together with stakeholders, to change that. We want to empower disabled people to travel easily, confidently and with dignity for their entire journey. A truly accessible transport system cannot rely on a single mode being accessible; it must be focused on the entire journey. That is why later this year we will be setting out our plans to improve accessible travel across all modes, as part of our integrated national transport strategy.

Although we have made progress, we know that for too many people travel on our public transport system and our railways is still not as easy or reliable as it should be. A broken lift, an unexpected platform change or a lack of staff support can turn what should be a straightforward journey into an ordeal. For some, the barriers remain so great that they do not even try. I want to make it clear that that is not acceptable. That is why the Department for Transport will continue to seek every opportunity—through targeted investment, improved infrastructure, policy reform, and partnership with industry and communities—to improve access across the network. Whether it is through the Access for All programme, major station redevelopments or ongoing commitments to accessibility compliance, we will not stop pushing for railways that are fully inclusive.

Road Safety Powers: Parish and Town Councils

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth]

That is an excellent point about local knowledge. I think back to High Grange, which I talked about, where only the local people understand the importance of the allotments and the park and the difficulty of crossing the road. Both those places are just outside the village, on the other side of the main road.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a testament to my hon. Friend’s popularity that we are all here this evening supporting him on a really important issue. Whether it is Bambury Street in Sandford Hill, Newcastle Lane in Penkhull or Whieldon Road in Fenton, the local knowledge that he so rightly points to has come to me not via a parish council, because I have a very urban constituency, but through diligent and hard-working residents’ associations. In urban constituencies, those often provide the very same function that my hon. Friend points out. When the Minister gets up and answers, perhaps we can encourage her to give proper consideration to the views of not only parish councils, but residents’ associations in urban communities, which do so much for where they live.

[Sam Rushworth]

That is a fair point. Again, I pay tribute to all the people who serve at that level of government, particularly people who give their time freely to serve in residents’ associations just to make life better for their neighbours and the people who live around them.

I will mention two more places before I move on. There is Chapel Lane in Evenwood, where residents often complain about speeding, as well as High Etherley. We have a bypass running through Bishop Auckland. A year ago, we had a new shopping area built on one side of it, and for a year people have been dangerously crossing the bypass from one side to the other. It is in the section 106 agreement that there is supposed to be a safe crossing point, but it seems to be the last thing on the developer’s mind, with everything else coming first. Every week, people are taking risks as they cross over at that bypass; we have a petition out about that. Further up the bypass, lots of children cross the road at Bracks Farm.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Before I begin, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, with respect to a donation from P1 Fuels. Although it does not make aviation fuel, it was in the synthetics business, and—as the Minister well knows—I ran a classic Land Rover on that fuel last summer to prove the point that this stuff works.

The test that net zero must meet is that all our constituents must still be able to do everything they do today—be it fly on holiday, drive, or get a ferry or anything else that runs on a liquid hydrocarbon—and that businesses must still be able to move goods around the world and trade at the same price as today, or for an equivalent price, just greener. In that, technology is our friend, as is the innovation we see—particularly on these shores, but also innovation that is happening abroad. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), the shadow Secretary of State, said earlier in the debate, the Opposition do not seek to divide the House on Second Reading. This Bill is an extension of the previous Government’s agenda in this regard, and we fully recognise the need to replace fossil fuels over time and, in this instance, to replace aviation fuel with a cleaner, greener alternative. However, there will be key questions that the House should look at as this Bill goes through Committee and its later stages, which do need answers. We have heard some of those questions throughout this afternoon’s debate.

We have had a good and wide-ranging debate, with very little deviation from the core consensus that sits underneath the Bill. On the Conservative Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) made the important point that aviation will be critical to get the tourists into the new Universal theme park in Bedfordshire when it eventually opens. He also focused on the important role that Cranfield University and industry in his constituency are playing—they are providing part of the solution to the problem that this Bill seeks to support and deliver. Equally, he asked the legitimate question of how the United Kingdom mechanism and mandate compare with those overseas, which I hope the Minister will reflect on in his winding-up speech.

On the Government Benches, the chairman of the Transport Select Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), spoke well and in an informed way on this subject. She and I both served on the Transport Committee in the previous Parliament, and we both worked on the inquiry and report on the fuels of the future that the Committee produced during that Parliament. She rightly made good points about the supply of waste for SAF technology and the trade-off with energy from waste facilities, for example. There will have to be some conversations within Government, particularly with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, about the way in which so many councils, including my own in Buckinghamshire, now send all general waste to an energy from waste facility. Those incinerators and facilities have been financed through multi-decade deals, and if we are to get that waste into SAF production, some of those deals will inevitably have to be undone or renegotiated. Who will bear the cost of that?

The hon. Lady equally raised an important point about bioethanol—I do not know whether it was just shadow Ministers who received an email from Vivergo Fuels this week, or whether it was all Members of the House. That email gave a pretty stark warning, particularly about the impact of the US trade deal that the Government have done on the bioethanol space. Essentially, it warned that that deal could completely undermine the UK bioethanol industry. That is a serious concern that the Department for Transport and the Department for Business and Trade will have to work out if we are to have domestic bioethanol production, as much for sustainable aviation fuel as for petrol. We largely all fill up—unless we have classic cars—with E10 at the pump. E5 is still 5% bioethanol. As this Bill passes through the House and as the petrol debate for road cars moves on, that serious question will have to be answered. When we get a warning from industry as stark as the one from Vivergo Fuels, it needs to be addressed.

The hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) mentioned the role of hydrogen in the mix, and I look forward to debating that with him when he has a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall next week, I think. He is absolutely right that there are other technologies and other fuels out there. The hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) correctly pointed out that there can be no net zero without many of the elements of this Bill. The hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) spoke passionately about Doncaster airport and the sustainable future that the Bill will help bring about.

The hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) spoke in support of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones) spoke in an informed way about SAF production, which forms such an important part of the Bill. The hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) rightly spoke of the innovative landscape, although the drone taxis did worry me a little bit—I am not sure we have completely got goods being delivered properly by drones yet, so we should do that before we start putting people in them. Equally, she rightly spoke about the world-leading engineering jobs that will be created.

The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) slightly broke the consensus, but he was entirely right to speak up for his constituents and his constituency interests so passionately. I think there is a legitimate debate about the refineries that we have lost, the refineries that we still have and how this debate intersects with them.

I will not dwell too much on the puns of the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). I thought he was a teacher before he entered this House, but perhaps he also wrote for Bobby Davro, given some of the puns he came up with.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

For the benefit of younger Members, Bobby Davro was a comedian.

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman shows my age, and no doubt his own, with that sedentary interjection.

The hon. Member for Harlow was right to focus on the skills agenda that underpins this legislation, on which I do not think we have heard so much from the Government. Likewise, the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) rightly pointed out the lived experience of Jet2 and the impact on cargo. We have heard a lot in this debate about moving people around the country and the world using aviation, but not so much about cargo, which is an equally important part of our role as a global trading nation. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), putting aside his little geek-off with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), was right to focus on that agenda of moving goods as well as people.

We also heard from Teesside, with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) and the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald). In fact, I am a little worried. This morning I was in Westminster Hall with the hon. Member for Stockton North, for a debate on the space industry, in which I agreed with every word he said, and I am a bit nervous to say that I agreed with him this afternoon, too. That does not often happen in this House, but he was absolutely right that all our constituents work hard and save hard. They want that family holiday or that weekend away or whatever it is every single year, and it would be a gross dereliction of duty for any of us to lumber them with higher airfares or to try to make their holidays more expensive. That is not what any of them send any of us here to do; they want us to ensure that they can still live their lives in the way they wish.

Briefly, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam warned us that he might be boring but, uncharacteristically for a Liberal Democrat, he actually was not. [Laughter.] I very much enjoyed his speech and the knowledge that he brought from his 16 years of work in the aviation sector. The hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) was equally right to focus on another matter that a few Members have raised in the debate: the use of SAF by our armed forces, particular the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy.

The use of technology, from fuels derived from waste and feedstock to pure synthetics, is where I think much of the debate will go in the coming years. In fact, the technology to enable us to move on from those feedstock and waste-derived fuels already exists. In 2021 the RAF flew a plane not on a blend of SAF, but on 100% synthetic fuel made right here in the United Kingdom by a company called Zero Petroleum, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis).

Let me now turn to a part of the agenda on which I think we will need to have a conversation when the Bill goes into Committee. The Bill gives no detail on the approach to be taken regarding the specifics of the contracting between the producer and the counterparty, the Government contractor for the strike price. In the background material, especially that which can be found in the Government’s response to the consultation on the SAF revenue certainty mechanism, the ambitions are largely there, and we are not critical of the ambitions that sit within that document, but it might be beneficial to be sure that the contracting will follow those ambitions.

Given that the SAF mandate already in force includes a ringfenced mandate for an electro-sustainable aviation fuel quota, it is critical that eSAF projects are supported equally within the revenue certainty mechanism. It is important both to develop a UK market for SAF and eSAF, and local production as created by the Bill and the mandate, and to support and encourage the use of home-grown technology for the manufacture of SAF and eSAF, as that not only retains revenue within the United Kingdom but leverages a huge amount of revenue for future exports through technology licensing. Sadly, a great many projects supported by grants from the Advanced Fuels Fund are using foreign technology.

Perhaps I could suggest that the Government reflect, ahead of the Committee stage, on the possibility of adding another ambition to those that they have already set out: namely, to reward or incentivise the use of UK technology in projects supported by the revenue support mechanism. The House may be surprised to know that, despite the various programmes of UK Government support for SAF and eSAF, AFF grants, SAF mandates and the SAF revenue certainty mechanism, no UK Government bodies are mandated to support the development of the core technologies of fuel synthesis.

We have a great tradition of research and development in this country. Companies such as Zero Petroleum have been funded entirely by private capital—which is largely a good thing—and also through some of their RAF and Ministry of Defence contracts, for different reasons. Notably, however, the Aerospace Technology Institute is the Government-funded body that should be supporting SAF and eSAF manufacturing technology. It supports everything else, including hydrogen and electric aircraft, but, bizarrely, it is not permitted to fund SAF and eSAF technology programmes. That is a huge misalignment in the strategy, which I hope the Minister can address.

I have a few key questions for the Minister, and he is showing great enthusiasm about answering them. We will be spending three days in Committee, so there will be many more to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

How could I not agree with my hon. Friend. We are proud of our airports—I am proud of mine in my constituency—which provide jobs and services. As everybody has said, they have a great history and provide great innovation, and we should celebrate them.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Stoke-on-Trent does not have an airport, but we do use Manchester airport quite a lot, so while the Minister is sitting next to the Transport Secretary on the Front Bench, could he put in a word for a direct train link from Stoke to Manchester airport, so we can all enjoy his airport as much as he does?

Crewe Railway Station

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the need for more capacity. The west coast main line is particularly constrained. What we know from the previous Government’s approach is that constantly chopping and changing on a project is precisely the way to lead to an escalation in costs and delays to delivery. We do not want to repeat those mistakes.

There is little that I can share with the House at this stage about the future, but I can assure all hon. Members that we will continue to take their views and those of local leaders into consideration as we develop our plans. While we recognise the uncertainty that this period of review is causing local residents, it is important that we take the necessary time not only to get this right, but to learn lessons and ensure that there is no possibility of this Government’s repeating the mistakes that characterised the last Government’s plans for major rail investment. Where they failed so miserably, we are determined finally to deliver the benefits that local communities expect. I assure all hon. Members that this Government will not tolerate poor performance on our railways and that we will hold operators to account.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is making an excellent speech. While she is looking at the future connectivity plans, may I make a pitch that she should consider connectivity between Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester airport? We do not currently have a direct service, but business leaders in Staffordshire tell me that it would be huge for our growth potential.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I am sure that the Rail Minister will have heard him loud and clear and will consider the matter.

In the meantime, while we consider the range of proposals that have been drawn to my attention this evening, there is a clear need for interventions at Crewe station to address ageing assets. The Government have provided Network Rail with £44.1 billion for renewals, operations and maintenance in England and Wales for the period between 2024 and 2029. In turn, Network Rail has developed a programme of interventions to deliver essential renewals in the Crewe area.

I am pleased to assure hon. Members that this work will include replacement of the station’s roof and renewal of power systems, signalling and track assets such as switches and crossings. This is a significant programme amounting to over £270 million, which needed to be re-scoped and re-planned at pace to follow the last Government’s decision to cancel phase 2 of HS2. As the scope of the work develops, we will collaborate with Network Rail to identify any opportunities for investment above and beyond essential renewals. In parallel, officials in the Department for Transport are already working with Cheshire East council on better integration between transport modes at Crewe, including road and rail.

I reiterate that transport is an essential part of the Government’s mission to rebuild Britain. Crewe has played and will continue to play a central role in our railway network. We will continue to work with hon. Members, local leaders and the communities that they represent to ensure that we get the delivery of infrastructure projects right. As I have said, I welcome this debate, because it is vital that we continue to discuss our transport projects openly and transparently. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions this evening and for their continued contributions as we work to deliver the railway network that our country requires.

Question put and agreed to.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I thank the other place for providing these amendments. Although the measures in this Bill are not a surprise—and we have stated our opposition to its fundamentals from the outset—we have made the case that, in effectively nationalising the operation of our passenger railways, we risk going backwards. Its core provisions will mean that the progress made on passenger services since privatisation will not be carried on.

That said, we do agree that there is a need for reform, and we support the reform laid out in the Williams-Shapps review. But the reforms proposed by this Government go too far and will undermine any potential progress. That is why the Lords amendments we are discussing are of central importance. Neither of the two amendments passed in the upper House descend from the Government’s intention to bring the franchises into public ownership, and they are clearly reasonable and measured. As the noble Lord Moylan pointed out, a

“glaring omission from the Bill is, of course, the passenger.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1510.]

This is the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, yet it says nothing about the passenger.

Lords amendment 1 attempts to put that right and put the passenger back at the head of the Bill as the driving force in what the Government are trying to do, and to require Ministers to test their actions under the Bill against the standard of whether it will improve matters for the passenger. It clarifies that the Secretary of State

“must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose”,

which is the

“improvement of passenger railway services”.

It is a simple but deeply important amendment that will ensure that the Bill, which is little more than an ideological undertaking if it lacks the proposed amendments, would be required to act unambiguously in the service of passenger railway improvement. How could anyone oppose that? There is little public appetite for ideological measures that are not based on the improvement of the passenger experience, and to reject this amendment would be a tacit admission that the Government are rejecting the principle that legislation directed at the passenger services should be in line with service improvements. In doing so, they would reject the general public consensus. I urge the Government to support the amendment on those grounds. If they choose to reject it, it is incumbent on them to explain why they have decided to make a significant legislative change to our passengers’ railways that could risk worsening services.

Lords amendment 2 contains a simple measure: to ensure that the Government, when terminating existing franchise agreements, consider operational performance and terminate the worst-performing franchises first, enabling franchises that are currently working well to continue. That would clearly be in the best interests of passengers.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the shadow Minister tell me how much that proposal would cost taxpayers? Given that he supports the amendment, I presume he has a detailed financial breakdown of exactly how much money he is asking the state to commit.

[Gareth Bacon]

The point of the amendment is to put passengers at the heart of the decision making we are asking for. [Hon. Members: “How much?”] The point of the amendment is to put passengers at the heart of the decision making, and the proposed amendment would ensure that this legislation is in the service of improving passenger experience, not purely in the service of fulfilling an ideological undertaking.

Lords amendment 2 would also ensure that the Government, alongside stakeholders, consider carefully what performance data is most relevant to passenger experience, and would ensure that that data is taken into consideration when undertaking the actions facilitated by the legislation. I fail to understand why the Government would be opposed to such a clearly reasonable protective measure, but I can guess. In justifying this ideological legislation, the Government have made clear their intention to utilise selective performance data. Rather than clarifying the relevant performance information for its own administrative use or for passenger understanding, they are obscuring it, allowing the Government to fulfil an ideological project untethered from the public’s wish to see their experiences on the railways improved.

Of course, the Government could choose to put politics aside and support the amendment, and we call on them to do so. If they did, that would signal that while they are undertaking this ideological rail project, they are also seriously considering the need for the legislation to make an actual improvement to passenger experience. This amendment will help the Government’s actions, and it is not founded on selective principles. A failure to accept the proposed amendments will also fail to ensure that the ideological measures being undertaken by this Government take into account the needs and experiences of passengers.

East Midlands Rail Franchise

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

I received a letter last week from the rail industry on that matter. That is still being considered and we will respond in due course, but that is not part of this award. The franchise has been awarded on merit to the strongest bidder, and we should be looking forward to the passenger benefits that will flow from that award.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will know that Abellio runs part of the London Northwestern Railway, which replaced London Midland. It is now reducing its timetable arrangements, so what comfort can my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent have that the east midlands train franchise, whose services run all the way from Nottingham to Crewe through the great towns and cities of Staffordshire, will not later be subject to the same reduction in services because Abellio was the only bidder and there is no alternative?

[Andrew Jones]

I will look in detail at the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, but our objective is to run more services. That is the key thing that is happening right across our network. We are running more services and carrying more passengers, and with a record level of safety, than at any point in British history, so to suggest that franchising has been a failure is a complete misunderstanding. I will of course look at his points and get back to him to discuss them further.

Rail Services: North Staffordshire

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. In view of the time, I shall try to run through my comments at relatively high speed. Without wishing to repeat comments made by my hon. Friends and colleagues this afternoon, I want to reiterate three points of particular interest. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), on securing this debate on matters of infrastructure and transport. I think that we speak with one voice about our city, as we all recognise the importance of such investment and what it can unlock for the economics of both the city and the wider North Staffordshire area.

Every Monday morning, my journey to Parliament starts at Stoke-on-Trent railway station. I can get on the 10.12 train and pretty much be in Portcullis House just after midday. That is a two-hour door-to-door journey. It is a fabulous journey time, considering the distance. However, some mornings it takes me 45 minutes to get from my home to the railway station in Stoke-on-Trent—a journey of not more than four miles—if I hit peak traffic. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, and other colleagues who mentioned it, about the wider infrastructure around Stoke-on-Trent that allows people access to the rail network.

Stoke-on-Trent railway station deals with more than 3 million journeys a year. If Kidsgrove, Longport and Stafford and the stations that immediately serve the conurbation are included, we are easily talking about 4 million or 5 million journeys a year. That is not an insignificant number, but getting to a station at peak travel time can be the most arduous part of the journey, irrespective of where someone is going on the rail network. I would welcome comments from the Minister about what plan the Government have to deliver the integrated transport system that we need, which would serve North Staffordshire well. I am talking not only about driving a car, but about local bus routes. Bus services in North Staffordshire serve the places they need to serve, but they do not necessarily go to the places passengers want to go to. For someone who lives in Staffordshire Moorlands, trying to get to Stoke-on-Trent railway station—which is the one that serves the community—from Leek, Werrington or Cheadle would be a struggle on public transport at the key times when people seek to travel. Likewise, moving around the city becomes difficult.

I want to focus particularly on the Crewe-Stoke-Derby line. I think that the theme for today’s debate has been hinted at. It is not necessarily the greatest service in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) was right when he called it a single-carriage bone-shaker. It is a single carriage that trundles through Stoke-on-Trent—an embarrassment to a rather impressive railway station. People going to Derby or Uttoxeter can often be seen squeezing on to a single carriage. The only other time I see that is when I try to get on to the Northern line at busy times when I come to this place. At least then there is another train coming in two minutes, rather than an hour.

We know—and it is what Midlands Connect has done with its services—that with an increase in frequency and a doubling of carriage size there could be a 72% increase in use of the line from Crewe to Derby. That would result in new passengers using the line for access to the services available in Derby and Crewe. It would also, for Stoke-on-Trent’s purposes, mean more people coming to the city to take on the new jobs that will be coming as part of the local growth programme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) mentioned, we are missing a trick by not having services that work on race days. The A50 may now be resurfaced, but it can still only take as many cars as it could before. The roundabout halfway along, with the hotel that JCB uses, remains a snagging point. Regardless of how smooth the roads to it and around it are, more cars cannot go through that neck than will fit. We are therefore missing a trick in the matter of alleviating pressure on the A50 as well as boosting the economic activity of one of the county’s largest employers, and one of the largest contributors to the economy.

I can get from Stoke-on-Trent to London in about an hour and 25 minutes. That is without stopping at Milton Keynes; with that stop, it takes about 1 hour and 35 minutes. However, when people come from London to Stoke-on-Trent they often say to me “I didn’t realise it was this close.” They mean they did not realise they could get there so quickly. Sometimes we forget that Stoke-on-Trent’s position on the rail network and its proximity to London make for good timing, which businesses can make use of. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I mention that the issue was pushed to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), when she was talking about High Speed 2. There are still things we are unsure about, with respect to HS2 provision in Stoke-on-Trent. We know we should be served by the compatible work, and that there will be a train stopping at our station. We do not know what the cumulative impact will be on our existing fast services and our existing commuter service to the rest of the county. The hon. Lady gave us as much information as she could at the time, I think, but there is still a question, on which we should like some guarantee, as to whether the additional HS2 service will in fact be additional—that it will not be in place of our existing fast train service. That could be cost-prohibitive, and there are issues as to whether it will serve intervening stations, and as to how sustainable it is.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South mentioned the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley)—and we have discussed the matter. Lovely as Macclesfield is, if the train is going north it should go from Macclesfield to Manchester, and, ideally, to Manchester airport. If that cannot happen by way of high-speed rail, a local service that can take people from Stoke-on-Trent to Manchester airport would be a huge boost to the local economy. We already have the direct link through Birmingham International station to Birmingham International airport, but we do not have a similar link going north.

I want to touch on freight, as we have talked quite a lot today about passenger services. Stoke-on-Trent relies heavily on freight, particularly for the ceramics industry. Clay coming from Cornwall travels up the west coast main line to be deposited at a repository just south of the city, from where it can be taken to the various wonderful potbanks we still have in the city. There is an opportunity, through the ceramic valley enterprise zone and the Blue Planet site with JCB, to consider spur lines that could allow the direct delivery of a rail service to those areas where economic growth and new jobs will be delivered in the city. When JCB took on the Blue Planet site, it said that the spur line that exists on a map is still technically a registered railway. There was even an opportunity for it to consider moving additional work there, so that it could compile its well-identified brand of diggers, put them on a train, and send them straight out—that would alleviate some of the stress and strains placed on the local road network when big loads move through.

Finally, what can we do with existing railway lines that are not used? As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South said, many of the trackways used by the Knotty, the old North Staffordshire loop line, still exist. They would not be usable or functional for reopening a railway in their current state, but there are examples—not least the line that runs from Silverdale to Newcastle and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme—of lines that have been turned into cycle routes or pedestrian-friendly routes away from the main line, and where alternative forms of transport can use the infrastructure that was once laid down to allow people to cycle or walk. If we could consider those issues, we could take some of the history and heritage of our railway infrastructure in North Staffordshire and put it to better use for pedestrians.

Finally, those Members who, having heard this debate, are on their way to Stoke-on-Trent and cannot wait to get on a train, will now find when they get to the station a wonderful new establishment called the bod.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Gareth Snell]

I was concluding my remarks by inviting anybody who is on their way to Stoke-on-Trent on a train to stop at the new bod, the establishment that has been put together on the station by Titanic Brewery, replacing the first-class lounge. They have made the station safer by doing that, because the traditional cafés that were there closed around 5.30 pm or 6 pm. That meant that if people were catching a train after 6 pm, they sat in a cold, wet station with no access even to a cup of tea, and with very few people around. That new provision is open until quite late, meaning that there are people keeping an eye on what is going on there. There is a safe place to sit and, importantly, it is showcasing one of the best employers and businesses in Stoke-on-Trent—according to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, it is based in Burslem. I congratulate once again the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South on securing the debate.

[Sir David Amess (in the Chair)]

Owing to the Division, this session will now finish at 4.16 pm—colleagues should bear that in mind. I call Rachael Maskell.

National Policy Statement: Airports

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

There are grave misgivings on the whole issue of regional connectivity, which I will address, but first I will deal with the tests.

Can the airport actually be built? It is not clear that it can. Heathrow’s borrowing costs depend on whether it can increase landing charges at what is already the most expensive airport in the world. The Government have provided no guarantees that landing charges will be held flat. Astonishingly, there are no details or costings on the upgrades to the M25 and the wider transport system in London and around the airport that are required for expansion. That uncertainty risks yet more transport infrastructure investment being sucked into the south-east of England at the expense of the rest of the country. It is simply staggering that this information has not been provided.

The cost-recovery clause that the Government signed with Heathrow, as highlighted by the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), is an enormous liability for future Governments and represents a significant risk to taxpayers. For those reasons, Labour has concluded that the third runway is not in fact deliverable.

Ensuring the health and safety of our country for our children and grandchildren should be the most important priority for each and every Member of this House. Some 40,000 people die prematurely each year because of poor air quality. Despite the superficial public relations initiatives from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, this Government have dithered and delayed on dealing with air quality and carbon emissions.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying. He makes a good case for why he will not be able to support Heathrow, but what would his alternative be, given that growth in the sector will happen whether we have Heathrow or not? We will simply be handing business to other airports.

[Andy McDonald]

We should consider which airports they may be, because—

Points of Order

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

If I may say so—it may not please everybody—that seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, because what the hon. Lady really wants is to meet the Secretary of State. She may be interested in what the Secretary of State has to say to her, but I think she is, in particular, extremely interested in what she has to say to him. If they get a meeting, it does not matter that it is not in Dewsbury or a neighbouring constituency; it is a meeting about the matters of substance, and that should be the source of much merriment for all concerned.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not having given you prior notice, but pursuant to the comments that have just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), you will recall that I raised a similar point of order last week about the Secretary of State attending my constituency, not giving me prior notice and then meeting Conservative colleagues. If it becomes a pattern of regular behaviour that a Minister on ministerial duties seeks to meet only Conservative councillors and fails to give proper notice, how might we remedy that in the House to prevent embarrassment for the Minister should he accidentally do that in the future?

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I suppose Members can keep raising tedious points of order about the matter, which may disincentivise Ministers from behaving in this way. I say to the hon. Gentleman that I am not defending it or saying that I think it particularly desirable, but I think this phenomenon of Ministers meeting only with members of their own party on a visit is what I would call “seasonal”. It tends to apply in the run-up to local and by-elections, so it may be that a meeting at another time of the year would be easier to arrange.

I think that we will probably have to leave it there. We seem to have excited a member of the public, who is standing in the Gallery. We normally discourage that, but I am very grateful to him. On the whole it is best not to stand in the Gallery, but nevertheless, sir, thank you for attending our proceedings. [Interruption.] Yes, maybe he was going to raise a point of order—I do not know. If we have exhausted the appetite for points of order at least for today, we shall proceed. I thank the Secretary of State and other colleagues.