(4 days, 11 hours ago)
Commons ChamberWith permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on how we are reconnecting Britain.
Today, I am announcing one of the most transformative investments in our transport network for a generation. We are greenlighting over 50 rail and road projects, touching every corner of the country, from more rail capacity in Oxford and better roads in Newcastle to new stations in Devon. This is what delivering on our plan for change looks like. We said we would raise living standards, so today’s announcement is about taking the brakes off growth, supporting 42,000 new jobs and slashing journey times. We said we would build 1.5 million new homes, so we are directly supporting the construction of 39,000 new properties, showing how transport can lift up communities and improve lives. We said that we would accelerate to net zero, so not only will we make our roads safer and less congested and continue the transition to electric vehicles in a sensible way; we will get more people on public transport, backing our railways with new links and more electrified track. More jobs, new housing and better journeys are the people’s priorities, and they are my priorities too.
None of this was inevitable. We are here because this Government are restoring stability to our finances and honesty to our politics. Thanks to the 10-year infrastructure strategy, we are committing at least £725 billion for infrastructure over the next decade, restoring confidence, driving growth and transforming how projects are delivered. Through phase 2 of the spending review, £92 billion will be spent on getting Britain moving. We have already confirmed where some of that money is going, including billions of pounds for upgrades on the trans-Pennine route, which is the backbone of our northern cities; a commitment to build the East West railway line to Cambridge; the biggest ever investment in local transport across the midlands and the north; and over £2 billion to enable Transport for London to continue with the purchase of new Piccadilly, Bakerloo and Docklands Light Railway trains. As the Chancellor said last month, we will also be confirming plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail soon.
Today, though, I can provide more detail on how we will use our wider spending review settlement. Let me start with our main highways. It should come as no surprise when I say that the strategic road network is one of our most important national assets. Carrying one third of all traffic and two thirds of our freight and generating £400 billion for our economy, those essential arteries sustain our businesses, our trade, and our very way of life. However, with much of the network built in the ’70s and ’80s, not only are many routes in need of renewal; there are pinch points where nothing short of new infrastructure will do.
As such, after careful consideration, I can announce that we will fund five more strategic road enhancement projects. That starts with linking up the M54 and the M6 and expanding capacity on the A38, which means better links for thousands of workers in the midlands and supports over 15,000 new homes across Derby. We will also start work on a continuous dual carriageway on the A66 across the Pennines, which will strengthen road safety, cut journey times by 12 minutes and get more people to the region’s stunning national parks. We have set aside funding for the A46 Newark bypass scheme and the Simister Island interchange in Greater Manchester, with both schemes now awaiting the outcome of the live planning process.
Some 97% of trips directly depend on our road network. Whether it is cycling, buses, walking or cars—you name it, our roads carry it. That is why we are investing record funding, with enough to fill an extra 7 million potholes this year, and why we extended the temporary cut in fuel duty at the last Budget. This Government will always be on the side of the British people, who depend on our roads day in, day out.
Today we are going even further. I have approved full business cases on the Middlewich eastern bypass and the A382 from Drumbridges to Newton Abbot, meaning that they can now enter construction. I can also announce that we have secured funding to continue to take forward 28 schemes, from Somerset to Skipton and from Newcastle to North Hykeham. I have spoken about the dozens of schemes that will transform road journeys across the country. The decisions we have made prioritise those essential trips to work, to the shops and to see loved ones, and keep our vital freight sector moving.
Let me turn to the projects that will deliver more reliable journeys for passengers on our railways. We know that rail investment outside London is well overdue. The spending review ramped up funding for the trans-Pennine route upgrade, for new stations and capacity improvements in Wales and for East West Rail. The new midlands rail hub will see the region’s most ambitious rail improvement scheme to date. Thanks to Government funding, huge numbers of additional trains and 20 million extra seats could be added to services in and out of Birmingham each year.
But it is not just about delivering big-ticket projects. I can today announce new rail stations at Wellington and Cullompton in the south-west, which will bring significant benefits to local communities. Following representations from Mayor David Skaith and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), I have also decided to fund the reopening of Haxby station on the York to Scarborough line. We will replace the aged signalling system on the Tyne and Wear metro, securing the benefits of that service for the next generation. I have listened carefully to Mayor Helen Godwin and my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) about the need to reopen the Portishead line, and today I can confirm that we will do just that, connecting 50,000 additional people to the rail network.
Make no mistake: these and other projects will not just improve the passenger experience; they are down payments on future economic growth, better connectivity, and the new jobs and homes that this Government have promised. I know that some hon. Members will have specific schemes in their constituencies that are at the early stages or have not been funded in this spending review period, or that were cancelled but not announced as such by the previous Government. Let me reassure colleagues that many are worthy projects, and we will keep them under review. The soon-to-be-published infrastructure pipeline will set out our longer-term outlook and give colleagues the transparency that for years they have sorely lacked.
It is important to set the context. We know that critical infrastructure projects were promised. We know that expectations were raised. Sadly, we know that there was no plan to pay for them. Indeed, schemes that formed part of the previous Government’s major road network programme, all of which were meant to be in construction by now, have not progressed as expected. Almost half are yet to reach the outline business case stage, despite being in the programme for six years. Years of dither and delay wasted everyone’s time and left communities in limbo. That, I must say, is the tragic legacy of the farcical Network North announcement made by the previous Prime Minister. It therefore falls to this Government to make the difficult but necessary choices about future transport projects. We have to level with the British public, provide much-needed certainty and govern with integrity.
Only those projects that are fully costed, affordable and deliver a return on taxpayers’ money will be given the green light under my watch. That means no more black holes, no more busted budgets, and no more promising the moon on a stick—those days are over. I have therefore taken the difficult decision on the strategic road network not to progress the A12 widening scheme. That and dualling the A66 were two of the most expensive strategic schemes on the table, and it was impossible to continue with both. We have also decided not to progress the A47 Wansford to Sutton scheme. We are already investing more than £500 million on improvements to the A47 corridor, with work to dual sections in Norfolk already under way, but it is just not feasible to support further investment at this time.
I understand that some communities will feel frustrated, but by taking this decision we are rebalancing funds towards those areas that for too long have not had the infrastructure investment they deserve. The north and midlands will now get a higher proportion of strategic road spend than we have seen in the past five years. I believe that is the right and fair thing to do.
Finally, the previous Government spent many years and a lot of money developing plans for large local schemes and major road network projects that were never going to be affordable and therefore never got off the ground. We cannot go on like that. Although I have today written to colleagues and councils about 28 schemes that we will fund, many others now need to be reviewed. My officials will work with councils on which schemes to prioritise, and I will update the House on next steps once those discussions have taken place.
We are making a once-in-a-generation commitment to get Britain moving. Better roads and new rail links will raise living standards, increase opportunity and deliver on our plan for change. Throughout, we will always put the British people first. That means being honest about the inevitable trade-offs, understanding that financial stability remains the bedrock of economic growth, and ensuring that we always deliver the best value for taxpayers’ money. I truly believe that talent exists across this country, yet poor connectivity is a drag on opportunity and places a ceiling on people’s aspiration. That changes now. We will reconnect Britain, and we will deliver the world-class transport infrastructure that this country needs. That is my mission. I commend this statement to the House.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for advance sight of it. Make no mistake: infrastructure is the connective tissue that binds our economy together. Our railways and strategic roads are the veins and arteries of our economy, connecting businesses up and down the country. That is why these announcements are to be welcomed, just as they were when they were previously announced by the last Conservative Government. For example, the M54 to M6 link road and the Portishead branch line were both announced and granted permission under the last Conservative Government. The new stations at Wellington and Cullompton and the midlands rail hub were all approved under the previous Conservative Government. The development consent order for the A66 northern trans-Pennine project was signed in March last year under the last Conservative Government. [Interruption.]
The Secretary of State calls from a sedentary position, “Where was the money?” As she well knows, that was in the last spending period, and the forthcoming spending review was always going to be after the general election. I could go on and on, because every single scheme announced by the Government today is the result of the work of the previous Conservative Government. I therefore cannot muster the same enthusiasm as her when it comes to today’s announcement.
The truth, whether they know it or not, is that the Secretary of State and her Ministers have been sent to this House today to stage a distraction, because in recent weeks we have seen the economic credibility and political unity of this Government implode. We have seen the Chancellor, who promised to maintain an “iron grip” on the public finances, forced to contend with unfunded U-turn after unfunded U-turn, all because the Prime Minister has lost control of their Back Benchers. We know what it means: more taxes for families and for businesses—the Chancellor has admitted it herself.
We also know the impact that this will have on the economy. In the last few months the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Bank of England and the OECD have all downgraded the UK’s growth forecasts—by as much as half, in the case of the OBR—so I am afraid that the Government are kidding themselves if they believe that reannouncing transport infrastructure projects that are already in the pipeline will revive an economy that is faltering after a disastrous first year in office. With the tax burden reaching an historic high, inflation almost double the Bank of England’s target and inactivity rising because the Government are seemingly incapable of implementing any kind of meaningful welfare reform, far from fixing the foundations, they are actively undermining them.
Quite aside from the fact that these reannouncements on their own will not revive our faltering economy, no deadline has been set for the completion of the projects, and in the light of that I must question whether the funding for them is as secure as the right hon. Lady claims. Given that the OBR is expected to downgrade growth and productivity forecasts—not to mention Labour’s U-turns—we know that the Government have created a black hole of billions of pounds in the public finances, so I must ask the right hon. Lady how confident she is that funds will not be cut from these projects to fill the Chancellor’s economic black hole. Does she recognise that these projects alone will not revive an economy that is faltering under the Government’s economic mismanagement, and will she give a timeframe for them not just to be started, but to be completed?
What we have seen in recent weeks is the following: a Prime Minister whose unpopularity with the public is apparently exceeded only by his unpopularity with his own Back Benchers and who is now clearly at their mercy; a Chancellor who is wilting under the strain; and a Government with no new ideas, out of steam after only one year in office and forced to rely on ideas thought up by other people. It is no surprise that Ministers would like to speak about anything other than their own record in office, but Britain deserves better than this.
Sometimes I wonder what alternative reality the hon. Gentleman is living in. Network North may have promised everything to everyone, but not a penny of it was funded, and promising local areas schemes that the Conservatives knew would never materialise was no way to run a Government and no way to run a country. This Government are now providing certainty to those areas, giving the green light to important road and rail schemes and being honest about what we cannot afford.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman caught what was said by the former Rail Minister Huw Merriman to the Transport Committee last week, but he had this to say about the record of the last Government:
“A lot of promises were made to MPs and others as to the ambition, but it did not match the amount that was actually being set down. By the time I came into post I ended up with a list that was much longer than could be funded.”
I rest my case.
The hon. Gentleman talked of nothing being new. Let me give him some examples of new projects that we are announcing today. We are upgrading the Tyne and Wear metro, replacing a signalling system that dates back to the 1970s and enabling the extension of the metro to Washington. We are providing new railway stations: Wellington and Cullompton in Devon, Portishead and Pill with connections to Bristol, and Haxby in North Yorkshire, which will connect tens of thousands of people to the rail network. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me which Conservative Transport Secretary committed funds to those schemes? He cannot, because none of them did.
Let me also give one of the new roads as an example: the Middlewich bypass in Cheshire. The previous Government rejected the business case for that scheme, but this Government are funding it. New infrastructure, new railway stations and new roads connecting every part of our country—that is the difference that a Labour Government make.
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
I welcome the statement, and I am sure that the Roads Minister will ensure that the various road projects deliver for local residents walking along and across the new junctions, and benefit them as much as they benefit drivers. The strategic road network projects are clearly important to dealing with congestion, but can I assume that each one has been subject to robust appraisal and business case development, and may I ask when we will see the equivalent work being done to address the chronic capacity crisis on the west coast main line?
I can assure my hon. Friend that the schemes that are going ahead have been subject to a very robust business case appraisal. We believe that they offer the taxpayer value for money, and can unlock the connectivity that is so critical to driving economic growth across the country. My hon. Friend also asked—I think I understood her question correctly—about capacity on the west coast main line. We are aware of capacity constraints between Birmingham and Manchester, which are predicted to last into the next decade, and although we have made it clear that we will not reverse the decision to cancel phase 2 of HS2, we are reviewing options for addressing those capacity issues in the future.
People around the country have been plagued and let down by a transport system that was completely neglected by the last Conservative Government. The problems have ranged from potholes to cancelled bus services, along with entirely fictional budgets for rail and other transport projects.
Given that a safe, reliable transport system is vital to economic growth, this capital investment is of course welcome news. We are pleased to see the Government answering the calls of Liberal Democrats and other campaigners for vital upgrades such as new rail investment and improvements on the northern trans-Pennine route. Given the hard-fought campaign by local people in my constituency, I particularly welcome the confirmation of new stations at Wellington—first proposed in the House by my predecessor Jeremy Browne—and Cullompton. I cannot go quite as far as the Secretary of State in agreeing to relocate Wellington in Devon—it remains in Somerset—but both those rail projects are long overdue, and I thank the Secretary of State for engaging with not just me but my hon. Friends the Members for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and others on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race), who I see is present, on the vital importance of those stations to the regional economy. The long overdue funding for the west midlands rail hub is also welcome.
Let me now turn to the road infrastructure projects. Many of the schemes announced today have been sought for many years. We are pleased to see investment in the A66, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has consistently campaigned, as well as investment in infrastructure in Manchester, Derby and Nottingham. However, we still need clarity on exactly how the funds for these projects will be spent. After years of delays, broken promises and mismanagement—not least on HS2—public confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver major infrastructure is understandably low.
Given the effects of inflation during the 12-month delay of the Wellington and Cullompton stations project, among others, can the Secretary of State confirm that that project will be fully funded and completed in the two years that it will take to construct the stations? When will the Government finally publish detailed plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail? Can the Government give the country a firm assurance that all these projects will be delivered on time and on budget, in a cost-effective manner?
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will do everything in my power to ensure that future transport projects are delivered on time and on budget. He asked about Northern Powerhouse Rail. As I said in my statement, we will provide further details about that in the coming weeks. He was right to mention the two new stations, Wellington in—forgive me—Somerset and Cullompton, which, being located between Exeter and Taunton, will provide vital new connections for those regional centres, supporting economic growth and planned housing in the area. As the hon. Gentleman has put the case to me directly before, I know that both towns have significant expansion plans, so those stations will be critical to giving local people access to jobs at major employment centres such as the one in Exeter.
I welcome the statement, and thank the Transport Secretary for all the positive engagement that she and other Ministers have had with the midlands rail project. At the heart of those works is the upgrade of Kings Norton station in my constituency, which is critically important for the cross-city line, and is also the birthplace of Thomas the Tank Engine. The Secretary of State will understand that we, as local MPs, are pressing for that next level of detail, so will she help to keep up the head of steam around this project, and leave commuters in my constituency feeling chuffed to bits?
I cannot possibly compete with those railway puns, but I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituents have such a strong advocate for public transport and investment in the rail network. He is right to say that the midlands rail hub can have transformative impacts, and I thank him for all that he has done in championing the scheme over the months. He has been such a positive Member of this House.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, but I am really disappointed that the TavyRail scheme has received a red light. We have heard quite a lot about the investment in Devon and Somerset. The Government are delivering a huge amount of investment in Plymouth, which is welcome, but without a rail link between Tavistock and Plymouth that can continue further into my constituency at Ivybridge, I struggle to see how the investment in defence and housing will be fulfilled. Given that the Secretary of State is committing at least £725 billion for infrastructure over the next decade, I would be interested to know why she could not find £1.5 million to fund the business case for TavyRail.
We are keeping a number of schemes under review, and we will set out a pipeline of future infrastructure schemes that we believe are worthy, but which have not been funded in this spending review. I am happy to receive more detail about the particular scheme that the hon. Lady raises.
The announcement of upgrades to the northbound M54-M6 junction is hugely welcome. It will make getting to Stafford from Telford much easier, and have a really positive impact on our economic development. When does the Secretary of State anticipate that that work will start, so that my county can keep benefiting from this Government?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. We will set out the timetable for the delivery of these schemes as we produce the next road investment strategy—RIS3—which we will have done by the end of March next year.
For 30 long and weary years, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and I have campaigned for a through-train from Grimsby, which would stop at Market Rasen and end up in London. We have been made numerous promises by Network Rail, which is now saying that the platform is too short, that a bridge needs to be built, and that it will cost £25 million—the usual negativity. The Secretary of State is a feisty Minister. I promise her that if she gets us our train, I will campaign for it to be renamed the “Heidi Alexander, Heroine of Lincolnshire”.
I feel that I am making progress, because the last time the right hon. Gentleman asked me a question, I believe he suggested that I name a train after Margaret Thatcher. I politely declined. He will get everywhere with flattery. Of course, the digital signalling on the east coast main line will have a positive impact on services, but I am afraid I cannot make a commitment on the particular service that he wants at this time.
Transport is the backbone of our economy, so the record £92 billion investment in rail and road projects is hugely welcome. The Secretary of State is right to say that we need more people on public transport. Although Luton station will finally see works start on its much-needed lifts, we need to tackle the poor state of the station in order to encourage more people to use the railway. Will the Secretary of State or one of her Ministers meet me to discuss how we can do so?
My hon. Friend makes a fair point: stations need to be welcoming and attractive places. I am pleased that the accessibility improvements are happening at Luton station, and I would be very happy to meet her, as she requests.
However the Secretary of State dresses this up, her Labour Government, aided by Mayor Parker, are still leaving communities such as Aldridge behind by pushing our train station project into the sidings. Given her announcement—or reannouncement—of the midlands rail hub, can she confirm whether she is committed to fully funding the whole project, including all the chords, and when will it be delivered ?
We will set out more detail on the midlands rail hub in due course. I simply observe that when the right hon. Lady was a Rail Minister, she was unfortunately unable to deliver the station for which she now advocates.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement, and welcome the investments in transport. Let me take her back to the proposed Liverpool-Manchester railway line, because it is important that this delivers for my constituents in Widnes and Halewood. In her discussions with the Mayor of the Liverpool city region and other leaders in the area, will she bear in mind that one of the proposals is for a Liverpool Gateway station? Ditton in my constituency, which is the site of an oil station and has good links to both the west coast main line and the freight line, is ideally placed. Will she bear that in mind in any future discussions that she has with the Liverpool city region?
Let me assure my hon. Friend that I am in frequent discussions with the Mayor for the Liverpool city region, Steve Rotheram, as well as the Mayor for Greater Manchester. I am aware of the proposed Liverpool Gateway station in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I hope to be able to say more on Northern Powerhouse Rail in the coming weeks.
A few weeks ago I was in Eamont Bridge and met a retired police officer, who shared with me his experiences of visiting road traffic accidents and, indeed, of having to break the news of the death of loved ones to countless people over his career. He begged me to carry on campaigning for the upgrade to the A66. On his behalf, and on behalf of the thousands of people who are part of the campaign to see that upgrade happen, I thank the Secretary of State for committing the money to do that today. However, we have wasted a year while this has been under deliberation. Will she now give an updated timescale, so that we can get on with the work as soon as possible in order to keep my constituents safe and to boost the economy of the north of England?
As I said in response to a previous question, we will set out the delivery timetable for all the schemes that we are announcing today when we produce the next roads investment strategy. We will produce a draft of that later this year, and the final version will be published by March.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I particularly thank her for the announcement just a few days ago of £2.5 billion for the public transport network in Greater Manchester. That is very welcome news. I have been campaigning for a long time for the extension of Manchester’s Metrolink tram network into my constituency, and I thank the Secretary of State and the Chancellor for funding the extension to Stockport town centre.
I have one ask. Reddish South train station in my constituency is one of the quietest railway stations in the UK, with just one service per week. The Friends of Reddish South Station group are very active, and I was with them on Sunday. Will the Secretary of State restore proper passenger services at Reddish South train station?
I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend welcomes the record investment in city regions that the Chancellor announced shortly before the spending review. It is worth nearly £16 billion across the country, and the extension of the tram network in Greater Manchester is a key part of that funding. I am aware of the campaign for a full service to Reddish South, and I encourage my hon. Friend to keep working with the Mayor of Greater Manchester and Transport for Greater Manchester to build the case for it.
The Secretary of State has made reference to those areas of the country that wanted transport infrastructure projects and have not got them. May I ask her to spare a thought for those places that have got transport infrastructure projects that they do not want? She knows that High Speed 2 passes through my constituency but delivers no benefit to the people I represent. In future rounds of consideration for rail and road projects, will she consider giving priority to those places that are suffering in that way, but which have a real need for other types of transport infrastructure that perhaps they deserve as compensation?
With respect to HS2, one of the benefits is that when the high-speed trains move on to new lines, we will be able to improve other regional services on the existing line. Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman may feel that the HS2 line has limited value to his constituents at the moment, getting it up and running will open up other options for rail travel moving forward.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for the significant investment in transport across the UK. The confirmation of funding for the A511 corridor in the east midlands is extremely welcome. For far too long, communities such as mine have been overlooked by the previous Government for infrastructure investment where we have had lots of housing growth. This funding marks a turning point, accelerating opportunity and connecting our community. Can the Secretary of State assure me that every part of my constituency will see and feel the full economic benefits of this vital investment?
Our local roads have a key role to play in driving growth across the UK and across the area my hon. Friend represents. They will allow people to access new opportunities and a higher quality of life wherever they choose. I am pleased to confirm that the scheme in her constituency is one of 28 that the Government have secured funding for and will be going ahead.
Just one large storm could sever the rail network at Dawlish, so will the Secretary of State commit to stage 5 of Network Rail’s resilience programme? In my constituency there is a need for a railway station at Edginswell, which would equally unlock regeneration. I would welcome the Secretary of State’s comments.
We have had to prioritise our funding on the schemes that will make the greatest difference for passengers and economic growth as soon as possible. Having already invested in securing the cliffs and making the coastline more resilient in the south-west, the final phase of work will be kept under review as part of our pipeline of future funding. This will be determined by the output of the cliff monitoring and drainage works that we are continuing to fund.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on an ambitious but fully funded and deliverable plan to reconnect Britain. I welcome the commitment made to me by the Roads Minister last week that National Highways will review the safety of the dangerous slip roads at East Ilsley and Beedon on the A34, following my campaign. Does the Secretary of State agree that road safety must be at the heart of our plans for Britain’s roads?
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, which is why, for the first time in years, this Government will be producing a new road safety strategy. I look forward to talking more with her and other colleagues about its contents.
The Secretary of State is a Wiltshire MP, so she will be very familiar with the town of Westbury, which has waited for decades for its bypass. Will she assure me that she is actively looking at proposals to bypass Westbury to the west of the town, including Yarnbrook, and does she agree that the north-south strategic study provides an opportunity to get the bypass that Westbury so desperately needs?
I will need to write to the right hon. Gentleman about the Westbury scheme. I will make sure that I look into the details of it and I will come back to him.
I welcome the ramped up spending that the Secretary of State has announced today and the £445 million for Wales that was promised at the spending review. The new station at Magor and Undy could take cars off the M4 and open doors for local people who do not have a car and currently cannot get a job because of a lack of transport. Does she agree that the Magor and Undy walkway station would be an excellent candidate for starting the five Burns stations, given the track and infrastructure that already exist at Magor and Undy?
My hon. Friend has been a fearsome advocate for the station at Magor and Undy. She will know that we have allocated £445 million over the next 10 years to right the historic wrongs of rail investment in Wales. I am looking forward to working with the Wales Rail Board to determine appropriate priorities and ensure that the communities she represents in Wales get the infrastructure they need.
Spiralling costs mean that Wales is owed at least £4 billion from HS2, yet, as the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) said, we are set to receive just £445 million over a 10-year period, which will be used for five stations, with nothing west of Cardiff. St Clears in my constituency has been promised a station for years. Can the Secretary of State say if there will be any additional money for this vital project, or are we expected to be grateful for the continued underfunding of Welsh railways?
We are seeing a step change in the amount of funding that this Government are putting into the Welsh rail network. The £445 million will fund development projects as well as the delivery of some new infrastructure, and that is in south Wales and also in north Wales. I would be happy to speak further to the hon. Member about the scheme in her constituency that she has mentioned.
Much of what is in today’s statement is of course welcome, but for places such as Bradford that have been left behind for a generation, we need to go much further. So I again make the case for a connection for Bradford to the trans-Pennine route as part of Northern Powerhouse Rail. This, along with a new rail station and a bus station, will unlock £4.5 billion in economic output, which is growth not just for Bradford, but for the whole region. While I appreciate that the Secretary of State is saying the decision on Northern Powerhouse Rail will be announced in due course, Bradford cannot wait for that growth. Can she give a specific time when that will be announced, and can she confirm that Bradford will be included as part of the trans-Pennine route?
I am very aware of the case that my hon. Friend and the leader of Bradford council have put forward for a new station. As he notes, we will be setting out our plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail in the coming weeks.
The largest road programme in the UK is the lower Thames crossing from Tilbury to Gravesend. It is now scheduled to cost about £10 billion, and the Government say that 90% or more of that will be funded from the private sector. I asked the Secretary of State last month on the Floor of the House which institutions exactly are going to finance that, and she replied, in essence, “I’ll get back to you.” So can I ask her again, because the longer the Government refuse to answer this question, the more sceptical people in Essex and Kent will become about whether that much-needed, vital strategic link is ever going to get built at all?
One of the first things I did when I came into this post was to agree with the Treasury that we would explore private finance options for the lower Thames crossing. We are working at the moment on securing a suitable private sector partner to finance the scheme. However, I think the right hon. Member has a bit of a brass neck, if I am honest. His Government sat on a planning application for years and years. This Government, within a year of coming into office, had granted planning consent and had decided to take forward the scheme with private finance, because we know how critical that crossing will be for people living in Kent and Essex, and also for the freight and logistics companies that will use it.
I thank the Secretary of State for the statement, and I welcome the long-overdue and funded commitment to the new Cullompton train station, which will benefit Exeter. I commend the activists across the area for their successful campaign, and I also welcome the work done by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). Does the Secretary of State agree with me that continuing to invest in public transport infrastructure and accessibility at stations such as Exeter St Thomas will help cities such as Exeter to grow their economies sustainably, delivering jobs and better living standards for everyone in those cities?
I agree that accessibility at railway stations is critical. Obviously, it is key for disabled members of our community, but it is also vital for young parents travelling with prams and buggies, or people going on holiday with heavy suitcases. My hon. Friend has been a real champion for a new lift at Exeter St Thomas station, and while it is not currently on the list of 50 feasibility schemes that we are doing, I am sure he will continue to make the case to me for its worth.
The M54-M6 link road in my constituency is something that my constituents and I have long campaigned for, because many residents in the villages of Featherstone, Hilton and Shareshill are currently affected by traffic trying to link on to the M6, which has an impact on people’s lives. Can the Secretary of State assure us that everything will be done to ensure that the scheme moves quickly and is built as swiftly as possible?
I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. I want to see spades in the ground as soon as possible, so that people can benefit from that vital new piece of road infrastructure.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for her pragmatic approach to government, rather than the previous “pie in the sky” approach. It would be remiss of me not to mention Broadmead Road bridge in Redbridge, which has been closed to vehicle traffic since 2023. After 14 years of austerity, Redbridge council does not have the funds to reopen it, and I am sure she knows from her previous role that the Mayor of London also does not have any money. Given that the bridge affects five constituencies, runs over the Central line and connects to the M11, the A406 and the M25, can she please include its restoration in her plans to upgrade roads and railways across the country?
I had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) recently, who made a similar case about Broadmead Road bridge. In the spending review, we secured funding to set up a structures fund to ensure that the Government can make money available to local authorities with failing assets where the cost of the asset is so great that it would be prohibitive for the local authority to address it on its own. We will be issuing a call for evidence to ask for feedback on how best to structure that fund, and I hope to be able to say more about its design before the end of the year.
Improved rail links are vital to support the planned developments around Ashchurch and Northway in my constituency, including a garden community and an outlet centre that opens next week. Current services to Ashchurch for Tewkesbury station are limited and unreliable, with the nearest arterial road routinely gridlocked. I welcome the funding for the midlands rail hub, but my constituents will be eager to learn whether funding for improvements at Ashchurch for Tewkesbury will be incorporated in that funding.
If I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the details he requests.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and, more importantly, for her commitment to the midlands rail hub. That is not just warm words and empty promises, but a breakthrough moment for the west midlands, especially towns such as Redditch. The scheme will deliver extra services and millions more train seats a year for my businesses and constituents. Would she therefore like to visit Redditch to see what that improvement will mean for our town and, perhaps, to get the spades in the ground as quickly as possible to deliver the project?
I would be delighted to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend, who is a great champion for Redditch. I know what a transformative project the midlands rail hub could be for his constituents by improving capacity into Moor Street station in Birmingham. I look forward to discussing it more when I visit.
Obviously, the Secretary of State has an open invitation to visit Crowborough and Wadhurst stations.
I will follow on from the Secretary of State’s reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) about the service between Grimsby, Cleethorpes and King’s Cross. The Secretary of State rightly mentioned digital signalling on the east coast main line, which will improve capacity, but five trains a day already run between King’s Cross and Lincoln. All that we are asking is for them to continue the last 40 miles through Market Rasen and Grimsby to Cleethorpes. There would be minimal expenditure apart from, I think, a safer crossing at Market Rasen station, and it would help the economic growth of the north Lincolnshire area.
The hon. Gentleman makes a compelling case. As I said, we prioritised the schemes that we have announced today on the basis of the ones that will deliver the greatest improvement to passengers most quickly. I know that there will be other schemes worthy of investment, but that is why we have not announced the particular service and scheme that he wants today.
In the year of the 200th anniversary of the railways, my rail city of York will greatly welcome the announcement about Haxby station. The line in question will address congestion issues and provide economic opportunity in my constituency. The trains will arrive at York station, but the rear of that station is not yet accessible. Will the Secretary of State ensure that as we develop our network, we have real access for all disabled people and others, so that we can gain the benefits from these new announcements?
If my hon. Friend writes to me with further details of the access issues at the rear of York station, I will be happy to speak to the Rail Minister and relevant organisations to see whether there are improvements that we can make. I appreciate that we need accessible stations if everyone is to benefit.
Residents in Somerton and Langport are isolated from the railway line that runs right through the area. Some 50,000 residents could benefit from a new station, but hopes for that station took a massive hit when the Chancellor cancelled the restoring your railway fund. What steps will the Secretary of State take to introduce train links for communities such as Somerton and Langport? In the shorter term, will she commit to expanding integrated bus routes, so that my constituents can get to the nearest railway station?
We will publish an integrated national transport strategy later this year to address precisely the sort of issues that the hon. Member raises about the criticality of bus links to stations in the absence of a new station. My predecessor and the Chancellor took the decision to cancel the restoring your railway programme because it was unaffordable in its entirety, but where schemes offer good value for money and really transformative benefits for the local economy—such as the Wellington and Cullompton schemes, and the Portishead scheme that we have announced today—I hope that we have shown that we are prepared to look at them and take them forward.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I welcome the announcements about the A46 bypass, given that the A46 goes through my constituency, and about the midlands rail hub that will connect Nottingham to Birmingham. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the east midlands, however, I must mention the electrification of the midland main line. I believe that the Department has received representations from more than 30 east midlands MPs, the mayor’s office and the APPG about the project. This feels like a missed opportunity. What steps are being taken to make sure that the project is not missed, but continues to be debated and discussed by the Department?
I believe that my hon. Friend and some of his east midlands colleagues are meeting the Rail Minister later this week to discuss the midland main line electrification phase 3. The costs of the scheme were substantial, and we had to prioritise other schemes that deliver more tangible benefits to passengers sooner. However, we will keep the electrification scheme under review as part of our pipeline of projects for future funding.
How can I possibly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement when, by her own admission, she has cancelled the A12 widening scheme and said nothing about the dualling of the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey? How does she intend Braintree, Colchester and Tendring to deliver the massive new housing targets imposed by the Government with no new road or rail infrastructure at all?
The simple truth is that we inherited a series of commitments that could not be afforded, so we had to take the difficult decision not to progress some projects. National Highways will now work to bring those projects to a close. I will say that on the A12, if there are individual, small-scale interventions that could unlock or address particular problems, we would be happy to look at those.
I welcome the improvements to the A38 and the midlands rail hub, which will mean 300 extra trains through Burton every week. The Secretary of State will know that I have been campaigning for the A50/A500 corridor, which is essential for local people and businesses; the Roads Minister will remember the time when she visited my constituency and got stuck in traffic on the A50. What progress might we hear on this vital corridor upgrade?
I can assure my hon. Friend that we will look carefully at the A50 scheme as part of our planning for the next road investment strategy. He will have heard me say that we plan to publish a draft of that later this year, and to have that finalised by the end of March.
We in Northern Ireland had a salutary experience recently when a major road project on our A5 was struck down by the High Court because of a failure to comply with net zero expectations under the Climate Change Act 2008. Given that the legislation is very similar in Great Britain, is the Secretary of State satisfied that all these new road projects will not also fall foul of the net zero campaign?
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the environmental impacts of all road schemes are considered carefully before business cases are approved and planning approval is given. In fact, in many cases, schemes tackling congestion hotspots will deliver environmental benefits—in particular, air quality and noise benefits. I am not concerned about the possibility of what the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I am grateful to him for highlighting that case in Northern Ireland.
When Heathrow airport sets out its growth plans, a key component of them will be the plans for improved access by public transport. Will the Secretary of State urge it to look at the southern rail link, which should run through my constituency specifically, of course? It could have huge benefits across the south-east and would connect us to the airport.
We expect any promoter of an expanded Heathrow to consider how people will get to and from the airport; neither my hon. Friend nor I want to see the M25 or M4 turned into Europe’s largest car park. I expect any scheme promoter to ensure that ease of access by public transport is taken into account when putting together any proposals.
I welcome the commitment to deliver East West Rail. Sticking with the railways, will the Secretary of State provide assurance to my constituents that she is committed to delivering step-free access—in particular, at Harlington and Flitwick stations? On roads, junction 13 of the M1 is desperately in need of remodelling to cope with a growing population and to ease traffic flows. What assessment has been made of the benefits of remodelling that junction?
I would need to write to the hon. Gentleman with the details on junction 13 of the M1. I hear the case that he makes for improved accessibility at Harlington and Flitwick stations, and would be happy to correspond with him further on whether they are covered by the 50 feasibility studies that we are doing. We have funding available in this spending review to construct some of those schemes, and I would be happy to provide a written update on that.
In my four years as shadow Transport Secretary, the issue of electrification was never far from the top of the agenda, and I very much welcome Secretary of State’s announcement around the trans-Pennine route upgrade. However, may I point out that the north of England is not confined to the conurbations in that immediate area? There is more to it than that. In 2015, the electrification taskforce established that the line from Northallerton through to Thornaby and Middlesbrough in my constituency, and indeed onwards to Redcar—the heart of Net Zero Teesside—was right at the top of the tier. When the infrastructure pipeline comes forward, I urge the Secretary of State to take into consideration the gross value added that the extension would bring, because Teesside and the Tees Valley are ready to make their contribution to growing this economy, and the extension would ensure that they could.
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. That case is why, even if we are not committing funding in this spending review to electrification projects, we will keep them under review as we move forward. We are also considering and developing our strategy on rail decarbonisation more broadly. Most of our existing arterial routes are now electrified. There is also rapidly evolving technology; there are bi-mode and even tri-mode trains now. We need to consider our strategy in the round.
I welcome the Minister’s statement, and it is good that Devon made it on to the map—just. Many on the Liberal Democrat Benches and others across the House travel from Paddington down to the far south-west, and we have spoken with your Department about the effects of the Old Oak Common works on that line. Can the Minister confirm that the Department is considering mitigations for the effects of the Old Oak Common development—namely, ensuring more capacity and reliability, potentially electrifying the main line to the west, and improving 4G connectivity on those trains?
“Your Department”—anyone would assume that I was running Transport. I was a Minister in that Department once, but not any more. I call the Secretary of State.
In the past couple of weeks, we announced Project Reach, which will improve mobile connectivity in a number of tunnels and sidings, and some of those improvements will take place over the Great Western Railway network. On the works at Old Oak Common, the Rail Minister is very alive to the question of how we minimise disruption for users of the GWR service, both in the construction phase and once HS2 is in operation, and is looking in detail at that. Of course, when it is finally open, the station will offer a valuable interchange for GWR customers, who will be able to go to Birmingham without going into central London.
Boosting growth and prosperity across the country, and especially in rural and coastal areas, is vital. What is the Secretary of State delivering for Cornwall, to help towns and villages in my area, including Saltash, Liskeard and Polperro, particularly as we work to find a long-term, sustainable and fair solution to the issue of the Tamar crossings?
My hon. Friend was in contact with me directly a couple of days ago about mobile connectivity improvements on GWR that improve services in her constituency. I know that an integrated bus network in Cornwall is absolutely vital to her constituents, and through our Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, we want to give local leaders more powers to shape the bus networks that communities like hers need and deserve.
As the Secretary of State knows, the biggest connectivity issue for the Isle of Wight is its ferry services. I welcome her engagement on that issue. Might she consider cross-Solent ferry services to be part of the UK’s road and rail network? The Isle of Wight’s roads and rail are connected to the rest of the UK only via entirely privatised, very expensive and completely unregulated ferry companies.
I understand the importance of a reliable and affordable ferry service. The Isle of Wight’s ferry services are obviously provided privately, and our road network, and our rail network especially, will increasingly be in public ownership in the future. While I cannot commit to doing what he asks, I can commit to working with the hon. Gentleman and his colleague on the Isle of Wight, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), to try to improve this situation for their residents.
Today’s announcement is great news for people across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages. To the north, we have improvements on the A38, making access to the University of Derby easier; to the west, we have improvements to the M4 and M6 link road, which will be great for access to the i54, and to Telford and Wales. To the south, we have the midlands rail hub, which will be excellent for the cross-city line. All we need is for Reform-controlled Staffordshire county council to the east to sort out Chetwynd bridge; then we will have the entire compass covered.
Turning to the south, the cross-city line is the busiest commuter line outside of London, but since covid, we have had just two trains an hour from Lichfield Trent Valley to Birmingham. The midlands rail hub will get us back up to four. Will the Secretary of State come to Lichfield to meet me—potentially on her way to Redditch—and ensure that we can deliver more trains on the cross-city line as quickly as possible?
My hon. Friend is clearly at the heart of all the action today. Having accepted an invitation to visit Redditch, how can I refuse a visit to Lichfield? I would be happy to talk to him more about the challenges of and opportunities for midlands transport when I visit.
The Secretary of State said that she was reconnecting Britain, and then proceeded to mention Wales only once. These plans will not give us the boost that we need in Wales. We are the poorest nation in the UK. Investing in infrastructure delivers economic growth and boosts productivity—that is true—so why has she given up on Wales? Will we ever see the full electrification of the north and south main lines?
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government have not given up on Wales—in fact, it is the precise opposite. It is why, during the spending review, the Chancellor stood at this Dispatch Box and announced £445 million of investment into rail projects—righting the wrongs of that historic under-investment.
The fight for the Middlewich eastern bypass started more than 40 years ago, and after all these years of false starts, dashed hopes and frustrated residents, I could not be prouder that this Labour Government are finally delivering on that project. After 14 years of under-investment in areas such as mine, it is really encouraging to see the Government delivering the funding that is needed to make such a vital infrastructure project a reality. The recent reforms to the Treasury’s Green Book, championed by my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), have clearly played a crucial role in enabling projects such as this to move forward, better reflecting the needs and potential of towns like Middlewich. How does my hon. Friend see the Middlewich eastern bypass, along with the 50 other road schemes that she has greenlit, contributing to the long term economic growth and supporting more balanced and inclusive development across all parts of the country?
I am really pleased to be able to announce today the green light for the Middlewich bypass. I know that that new 2.5 km of single carriageway bypass to the east of Middlewich will make a big difference to my hon. Friend’s constituency, unlocking swifter, easier journeys and more routes to employment and opportunities for his constituents for which he so powerfully advocates.
I thank the Secretary of State for greenlighting the work on the A382 into Newton Abbot. That will be a massive improvement when it is completed. May I congratulate the successful teams at Teignbridge and at Devon county council, who have been working on the project for some while? However, I am disappointed to hear that Dawlish is not on the list and will be put back. Indeed, although I am pleased that the Government will be continuing to fund the monitoring of the cliffs, may I draw it to the Secretary of State’s attention that it was a single catastrophic shift, rather than a gradual increase of the situation, that caused the collapse of the cliff at Dawlish that shut the railway for eight weeks, causing approximately £1.2 billion of damage to the south-west economy?
As I said in response to the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), we have already heavily invested in securing the cliffs and making the coastline more resilient in Dawlish. We are keeping that final phase of work under review, and it will be possible to determine the next course of action only once that further cliff monitoring and drainage works have taken place. None the less, I can assure him that we will keep it within the pipeline of schemes that we are considering for future investment.
The previous Government dodged vital infrastructure decisions for 14 years, so I am glad that this Government are stepping up with projects such as the east coast main line upgrade, which has been announced today, strengthening connections to Leeds and West Yorkshire. However, although connections to London are important, anyone crossing the Pennines from Leeds to Manchester via towns in my constituency will know that this route is in vital need of investment. Will the Secretary of State assure my constituents that this will not be the last of the projects that she announces, and that the Calder Valley line upgrade is still very much on the table?
As I have said, there is a number of very worthy rail schemes which, although funding may not have been allocated during this spending review period, are important to the travelling public. My hon. Friend makes a strong case for the scheme that will benefit his constituents, and I can assure him that when we have any updates on future funding availability I will come back and update the House.
The Northern Ireland Minister for Infrastructure informed me this morning that her Department is working with the Department for Transport and the European Investment Bank on the recommendations in the all-island strategic rail review. One of those recommendations is the opening of the Antrim to Lisburn line, which includes the opening of three previously closed stations at Crumlin, Ballinderry, and Glenavy, with a new hall at the Belfast international airport. Can the Secretary of State provide any further update on what support the Government can provide or what engagement she has had with the Department of Infrastructure in Northern Ireland or the European Investment Bank on what will be a critical piece of investment in my constituency of South Antrim?
Although I have not personally had any direct engagement, it may be that the Rail Minister or my officials have, and so I would be happy to write back to the hon. Gentleman to update him on any collaboration that is taking place in this respect.
People across Cumbria will warmly welcome the decision made by the Secretary of State about the dualling of the Pennine section of the A66, which will benefit the whole county. However, I wonder whether she might also say something about another scheme that is not yet at the same level of development, which is the Cumbria coastal line, running from Carlisle through my constituency to Barrow and then on to Lancaster. Other Cumbrian colleagues and I had a very productive meeting with the Rail Minister last week, and I wondered whether the Secretary of State will help to push for the final business case to be invested in, so that we can make some progress on the upgrade to that all-important line?
My hon. Friend has spoken to me directly about this in the past couple of days. I know that the Rail Minister found that meeting very helpful. I appreciate that there is some strategic crossover with Defence and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but I will be sure to stay in touch with my hon. Friend as the business case develops.
The A483 that runs between Welshpool and Oswestry is a key economic artery for the Marches region, but like the rest of North Shropshire’s transport infrastructure, it has been seriously neglected over many years. That has left the crossroad at Llynclys in my constituency as one of the west midlands’ worst accident blackspots. Highways England has a great plan to redesign it and make it safer for all concerned. Will the Secretary of State meet me to see how we can progress that critical improvement?
I would be very happy to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for the Future of Roads to take that meeting as I suspect that she will be closer to some of the detail of the work that National Highways is doing.
I welcome today’s announcements that will see improvements in the performance on the west coast main line, particularly as they come during the week where, in my constituency and in many others, we celebrated Crewe Day, which commemorates the anniversary almost 200 years ago when the first rail service passed through the now strategic rail hub of Crewe. But can the Secretary of State outline how this funding will be used to ensure that freight growth targets can be met on the west coast corridor, and tell us whether new routes, such as the midlands north-west rail link are being considered to support this ambition?
I shall write to my hon. Friend about the detail of the midlands north-west rail link. As we establish Great British Railways, we will be placing a duty on the new organisation, which will be the publicly owned organisation to bring together the management of track and train, to increase the amount of freight that we transport on the railways. We do need to get lorries off the road and move more goods on the rail network. It is a strategic objective for me and my Department to make sure that we are maximising the amount of freight that we can transport on the rail network, while also delivering excellent passenger services.
The Secretary of State and the Minister for the Future of Roads will be surprised that I am going to break the habit of a lifetime and not talk about the Gateshead flyover for a change. But I am very interested in the structures fund, and I look forward to engaging further with the Department on how we can deliver this vital infrastructure for Gateshead. Instead of the flyover, I want to talk about the delivery of the signalling system for the metro—slightly less exciting for some perhaps, but it is incredibly important. That comes on top of new trains and £1.85 billion of investment, including in a new metro line. Does the Secretary of State agree that investment in the north-east is being delivered because we have a Labour mayor in Kim McGuinness working with Labour MPs and a Labour Government?
I agree 100%. Mayor Kim McGuinness is a fearsome advocate for her region. The first day I met her, she managed to mention to me the Tyne bridge, Nexus signalling and extending the metro out to Washington all in about 30 seconds. I am really pleased that we are delivering these vital improvements to transport infrastructure for his constituents and the wider region.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and the Minister for the Future of Roads for her generous engagement with me regarding the expansion of the A38 in Derby, which has been greenlit today. Many residents and businesses will welcome the expansion of the A38, which is a significant bottleneck. It also means we now have the opportunity to unlock economic growth around that stretch of road. However, some residents are rightly concerned about the impact of the road on established woodland and Markeaton Park. How much biodiversity net gain will be delivered through the project, and will it be used to drive improvements in public transport, walking and cycling? Finally, can she ensure that this development has no effect whatsoever on the UNESCO world heritage status of the Derwent valley?
I would expect all road schemes that we are announcing today to contribute to our public transport objectives and improve the walking and cycling environment. As I said in my statement, roads are used by everyone and for many different modes of transport. On my hon. Friend’s point about biodiversity net gain, I am assured that all schemes have gone through a very thorough environmental assessment. I will write to him on the other issue he raises.
I call Markus Campbell-Savours to ask the final question.
Last but not least, Madam Deputy Speaker. The A66 is a vital scheme that will not only reduce journey times but improve safety, unlock the delivery of new homes in some locations and open up access to the region’s beautiful national parks. The work never stops in this job, so I note what my hon. Friend says about his campaign for a new roundabout, and I look forward to discussing that with him in the future.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my 33 years in this House it has always been the practice that a statement of this nature would be made alongside a White Paper, which would be available in the Vote Office to Members as soon as the Secretary of State sits down. There is no White Paper in the Vote Office to explain the detail of the Government’s decision making. Is there anything you can do to elucidate from the Secretary of State whether a White Paper will be forthcoming and when that will be?
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberEconomic growth is this Government’s top priority, and the Chancellor put growth right at the heart of her spending review, announcing more than £92 billion of capital investment in transport infrastructure to give people access to jobs and opportunities. This includes long-term funding for our largest city regions, billions of pounds of investment in roads, hundreds of millions of pounds for walking and cycling, and delivering transformative projects such as the trans-Pennine route upgrade and East West Rail. This will make a real difference to people’s lives up and down the country, now and in the future, showing the difference a Labour Government make.
Every French city with a population of more than 150,000 has a mass rapid transport system, yet over 30 UK cities or towns of that size still lack it. Research from Centre for Cities shows that poor connectivity holds back growth and productivity by limiting mobility. A key reason why we have so few is cost, because building a kilometre of track in the UK is twice as expensive as the European average. Can the Secretary of State set out what her Department is doing to bring down costs and help kickstart a tram-building revolution?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter with me in person a few days ago and for sending me further information on the report and the research. Trams do have the potential to support growth at much lower cost than heavy rail, but he is right that the cost per kilometre of new tramline is much more expensive in the UK than elsewhere in Europe. I have asked my officials to look into what we can do in this area as we look to unlock growth across the UK.
We have a proud community in St Athan in the Vale of Glamorgan that is both growing and thriving thanks to the economic opportunity provided by the Bro Tathan enterprise zone. Will the Secretary of State work with Welsh colleagues to progress funding for a new railway station in St Athan to support that growth and provide dignity for the residents?
As we have seen in so many areas, the previous Government may have made promises about this station, but they allocated no feasibility or development funding to get the project moving. Through the spending review and infrastructure strategy, this Government will provide at least £445 million of rail enhancements over the next 10 years to deliver long-term infrastructure needs in Wales, including new stations. Details of how this funding will be allocated will be announced in due course.
My local economy on the Isle of Wight is entirely reliant on ferry services for the movement of people, the delivery of products and, in the case of tourism, for customers. Will the Minister acknowledge just how important unregulated ferry services are for the entire economic wellbeing of the Isle of Wight?
I do recognise that issue. The hon. Member and his colleague on the Isle of Wight have raised this matter with me previously, and I am meeting his colleague directly after this question time to talk further. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), hosted a meeting recently and we are considering what further we can do as a Department to support local leaders in finding a satisfactory resolution for his constituents.
A number of immediate airport expansions are now planned around the London area, which is fair enough, but there is some concern about the protection that is required for vital links to airports in the regions and nations of the rest of the UK. Will the Minister provide an assurance that work will be done to protect those links and the local economies that rely on them?
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have invited Heathrow to bring forward proposals for a third runway and we are expecting further information on that this summer. We are clear that part of the expansion of Heathrow is about improving regional connectivity. He will also be aware that we have provided airports such as Doncaster with Government money to support that reopening.
To achieve growth, businesses rely on our world-class logistics and haulage sector. Given that Logistics UK said that it was “disappointed” that the logistics sector had not been identified as one of the foundational industries in the industrial strategy this week, what happened? Did the Department for Transport go into bat for our logistics sector? Did it lose the row? Or did it not bother? What will the Secretary of State be doing to ensure that our logistics sector is seen across Government as foundational to any growth mission?
It is my understanding that the logistics sector was pleased to be recognised as a case study in the industrial strategy. I know that it welcomed the announcement in the spending review of £590 million to progress the lower Thames crossing, which is a key strategic freight route. For many years the sector has been talking to us about improving the route from the south-east to the midlands and the north. Unlike the previous Government, this Government are finally getting on with the job. We have taken the planning decision to grant consent to the crossing and are making money available through the spending review to improve the country’s critical freight routes.
The Secretary of State clearly has not listened to Logistics UK—I hope that at least she knows where the lower Thames crossing starts and ends. Let us turn to another foundational industry to transport and growth: fuel. Elizabeth de Jong, chief executive of Fuels Industry UK said about this week’s industrial strategy:
“we are disappointed not to be named explicitly as a ‘foundational industry’ today, given the vital role of the fuels sector in enabling growth”.
Why has our transport-critical fuels sector also been left behind by the Government?
This Government’s industrial strategy sets out the sectors that have the potential to deliver economic growth and for which are competing internationally for mobile capital investment. My colleague the Minister for the Future of Roads and I meet repeatedly with the industry, be that to discuss fuels or freight and logistics. We are determined to get our economy firing on all cylinders, and we know what critical role the sectors he talks about play in that.
My party and I were pleased when the Chancellor recently announced funding for Northern Powerhouse Rail to improve connectivity. However, we still do not know on what the money will be spent. Any plan to boost the northern powerhouse must surely include a new main line between Manchester and Liverpool—a vital link that would not only drive economic growth across the north-west but strengthen connections between two of our greatest cities. When will we finally see the detail behind the Chancellor’s announcement, and will she meet with me and my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) to discuss proposals for the better linking of Manchester and Liverpool?
The mayors of Greater Manchester and Liverpool—Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram—have made a strong case for improving rail connectivity between their two great cities. The hon. Member is right to say that this Government are committed to improving the country’s rail network. I hope to say more on schemes for the north in the weeks and months ahead. I assure all hon. Members that I will come back to the House swiftly when I have more information so that they can question me further.
I am all too aware that rail performance has been sub-par for many years in this country, but following a decade of decline, we are now starting to see train performance stabilise, with passengers returning to the railway. We are working with the rail industry on a performance restoration framework, with five clear focus areas to recover performance, including timetable resilience, staffing and keeping trains safely moving during disruptive events.
The energy coast rail line in Cumbria is in desperate need of upgrading. It has Victorian-era signalling, and parts of the track suffer from coastal erosion. Upgrading the line would be of huge benefit to passengers, improving the reliability and speed of journeys, and to critical freight for the nuclear decommissioning work and for the shipyard work at Barrow. Businesses, other Members and I will meet the Minister for Rail next week to push for funding to get the final business case over the line. Will the Secretary of State confirm that her Department will work with me and others to ensure that the project is in the Government’s infrastructure pipeline when it is published?
My hon. Friend has been a great advocate for his constituents on this topic and makes a strong case for the scheme. My officials are working with Cumberland council and across Whitehall to refine the business case he refers to. I know the Rail Minister looks forward to meeting him next week to discuss it.
In 1911, Blackpool was home to the busiest railway station in the world—a testament to our town’s rich transport heritage. Today, the Blackpool South line urgently needs a passing loop to enable trains to pass each other and deliver the reliable, frequent rail service that our community in South Shore deserves. The Government’s recent £4 million investment in Blackpool’s local bus services was welcome. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the long-overdue need for investment in the Blackpool South line to finally deliver that passing loop?
This Government are committed to investing in local transport around the UK. I am pleased that we have been able to make such a substantial investment in bus services in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Fylde council’s business case found that there was potential to increase frequency on the south Fylde line. I know the Rail Minister would be happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.
The lead question is on Cumbria. We are putting general questions into what is a lead question, and I do not think it is good to join them up. We are now going round the country on what should have been a Cumbrian question, which is something we could think about for the future.
Rail services are important in Cumbria, but they are also important in Sleaford. For some time, I have been campaigning for lifts at Sleaford railway station for those who have difficulty with stairs. I was pleased when the previous Government included Sleaford in the Access for All scheme, and having raised it at previous Transport questions, I was delighted when the Rail Minister wrote to me to confirm that the feasibility studies will go ahead. When I met Network Rail yesterday, I found that it is stuck. Network Rail has done as much as it can, but the money ready for it has not been officially unlocked. Could the Secretary of State look into that and ensure that the work goes ahead as soon as possible so that people can access the second platform even if they have trouble with stairs?
I understand the importance of accessibility at rail stations, such as Sleaford in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and she is right that feasibility work has been done on 50 schemes across the country. That feasibility work shows that the cost of those individual schemes will vary from place to place. We are reviewing that work and looking at the overall quantum of funding we have available. I must say to her and other Members of this House that it is unlikely that we will be able to fund all 50 schemes, but I will provide an update in due course on which ones will go forward.
Much like Cumbria, my constituents and rail users in Chichester share a part of the Brighton mainline when commuting into London. Unfortunately for them, the journey time into London Victoria—on the rare occasion when everything is running on time—is nearly 100 minutes, which is above average for cities of a similar distance from London. The complaint I hear most often about the journey is the lack of a fast service. Will the Secretary of State work with me to encourage Southern rail to implement such a service for the benefit of my constituents?
The hon. Lady will know that these matters are constantly kept under review. We have constrained capacity on the rail network and need to balance the number of fast services we have with local stopping services, but I am happy to discuss the matter further, both with the train operating company and Network Rail.
Earlier this month, the Chancellor’s spending review made it clear that national renewal must be felt everywhere, in every place and in every journey, and that is what this Government are delivering, starting with the biggest ever regional transport investment outside London: over £15 billion towards metro extensions in Newcastle and Birmingham, mass transit in West Yorkshire, and a new bus fleet in Liverpool.
But that is not all. We are putting billions towards the trans-Pennine route upgrade, as well as East West Rail, and we are protecting the £3 bus fare cap until at least March 2027. Today, we are going further: we are proud to announce that we are improving mobile connectivity in over 50 rail tunnels, and using satellite technology to strengthen wi-fi on all mainline trains to transform rail travel for passengers.
Finally, last week I revealed our shocking HS2 inheritance. Make no mistake: we will fix that appalling mess and get the project back on track. Our plan for change is under way, with better journeys for passengers and value for money for taxpayers.
The transport sector generates Britain’s highest emissions. Through collaboration with France, we have the opportunity to transform the world’s busiest ferry route, across the strait of Dover between Britain and France, into the world’s first high-volume green shipping corridor. Will the Minister commit to championing this great initiative in the UK and at the upcoming COP30?
The hon. Lady is entirely right to highlight the importance of decarbonising our maritime industry and ensuring that our ports have the grid connections to enable fleets to purchase new vessels, so that we can get carbon emissions down on the seas, as well as elsewhere in our economy. I would be very happy to talk to her further about what more we can do to champion that important work.
Both Grand Central and Hull Trains have seen their passenger numbers increase dramatically since the pandemic, by more than 50% and 20% respectively. That is a significant increase compared with other operators. Why does the right hon. Lady think that might be?
If the hon. Gentleman wants to trade statistics on the rail network, I can tell him that we have seen a massive increase in passenger numbers on TransPennine Express and LNER. In fact, last year we had a 7% overall increase in passenger journeys and passenger revenue overall went up from £10.6 billion to £11.5 billion, which is good news for the taxpayer and a clear sign that people want to come back and use our railways.
I was not hoping to trade statistics— I was hoping that the right hon. Lady would answer the question. I will provide the answer: it is because they are open access operators. They have to compete for passengers by providing a service that passengers want at a price they are prepared to pay, and it is clearly working. Why have the Government indicated to the industry that they are not supportive of open access by stating their opposition to eight of the nine proposals submitted in February?
I have said repeatedly at this Dispatch Box that we see a role for open access operators when they open up new markets and add value. We have to balance that against the revenue that they abstract from the public sector operator. We cannot have a situation in which we import too much congestion on to the rail network, because there is constrained and finite capacity. I am keen to see a mixed model of delivery going forward, but I need to reduce the taxpayer subsidy going into the rail network at the moment. We are supporting—
I met taxi drivers in Derby, at a meeting organised by the GMB, who are proud of the work they do. They want high standards across the board; what actions is the Minister taking to review taxi licensing, so that everyone can have confidence that the taxi and private hire industry is reliable, sustainable, and safe for passengers and the drivers themselves?
I assure my hon. Friend that we are taking this issue very seriously. We are reviewing licensing authorities’ compliance with existing guidance, and we will hold those who do not follow that guidance to account. We will go further following the publication of Baroness Casey’s review, and we have committed to taking legislative action to close the loopholes in the current licensing regime to achieve higher standards of safety across the board.
The Dawlish sea wall collapsed in 2014, causing a devastating loss to the south-west’s economy of about £1.2 billion. It was not the break in the sea wall that closed the railway for eight weeks; it was the collapse of the cliffs. Will the Minister prioritise the project to secure those cliffs, which is yet to be carried out, or will she meet me? Perhaps she could even visit Dawlish to see how important this fix is going to be.
Baroness Casey has rightly brought this issue into sharp focus, and as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), we are committed to addressing it. We will work as quickly as possible and consider all options, including out-of-area working, national standards and enforcement, in seeking the best overall outcome for passenger safety.
The Minister may be aware that the outline business case for improvements to the A31 at Hickley’s Corner in Farnham will come before her in a couple of months’ time. While I understand that she cannot make any promises now, will she at least agree to look kindly on that application and meet me to discuss it?
As the Secretary of State knows, I welcome the £445 million being invested in Welsh rail over the next five years, but will she help me to secure a meeting with the Rail Minister, so that we can discuss the need to start off building the Burns stations with the Magor and Undy station in Monmouthshire?
My hon. Friend has been a fearsome champion for this rail investment, and I am delighted that over the next 10 years we will be spending more than £445 million on rail enhancements in Wales. I will certainly help her to secure the meeting that she requests.
(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Written CorrectionsI also thank the Secretary of State for the decisive action she has taken to address the causes of HS2’s cost overruns. We look forward to having Mark Wild and the Rail Minister at our Committee very shortly.
I actually want to celebrate something that HS2’s leadership should be proud of: the work they have done on skills and workforce innovation. They have provided best-practice work that the construction industry and transport projects can learn from, and in fact are learning from. However, I urge the Secretary of State to get her Department to learn from countries such as France and Spain, which have managed to deliver extensive high-speed rail projects to time and at a fraction of the cost of HS2 here in the UK.
I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for her comments. She is right to recognise the excellent work that HS2 has done on skills and the workforce. We have over 300,000 people working on this project at the moment, and I think that HS2 has done good work on opening up opportunities, whether through apprenticeships for the next generation or through the supply chain. I will heed my hon. Friend’s advice about learning from the speed and ease with which other countries deliver infrastructure projects.
[Official Report, 18 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 382.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander):
I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for her comments. She is right to recognise the excellent work that HS2 has done on skills and the workforce. We have over 30,000 people working on this project at the moment, and I think that HS2 has done good work on opening up opportunities, whether through apprenticeships for the next generation or through the supply chain. I will heed my hon. Friend’s advice about learning from the speed and ease with which other countries deliver infrastructure projects.
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberWith permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on HS2.
As a London councillor over 15 years ago, I remember hearing the then Labour Government’s bold plans for high-speed rail to link our major cities, address the capacity needs of the future and, in the words of then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to join
“the high-speed revolution sweeping the world.”
It was a vision of a confident nation and a clear signal: our great towns and cities in the midlands and the north, with potential that had been untapped at best and ignored at worst, could be places of opportunity and aspiration again. That was the promise of HS2.
But after a decade and a half of Tory timelines planned then delayed, routes drawn up then cancelled, budgets calculated then blown and promises made then broken, we inherited a project that had lost the trust of the public, that created an image of a Britain woefully unable to deliver big infrastructure projects and that had been axed from swathes of the country it was originally meant to serve. Phase 1 could end up becoming one of the most expensive railway lines in the world, with projected costs soaring by £37 billion under previous Conservative Governments, and £2 billion of taxpayers’ money was sunk into phase 2 work before it was cancelled by the previous Government.
There was also clear evidence of poor management. Despite the 2020 Oakervee review advising that Government halt construction contracts pending improvements in price and simpler engineering, they pressed ahead regardless. It has been no less than a litany of failure and today I am drawing a line in the sand, calling time on years of mismanagement, flawed reporting and ineffective oversight. It means this Government will get the job done between Birmingham and London. We will not reinstate cancelled sections we cannot afford, but we will do the hard but necessary work to rebuild public trust, and we have not wasted any time.
Since July we have appointed new leadership of HS2 Ltd to turn this project around. We have made clear to the new chief executive, Mark Wild, that the priority is building the rest of the railway safely at the lowest reasonable cost even if this takes longer. We have started the year-long task of fundamentally resetting the project, including commissioning infrastructure expert James Stewart to lead a review into governance and oversight. As part of that reset, we have reduced financial delegations to HS2 Ltd, placing a lid on spiralling costs until the reset is complete and we regain confidence, and we have supported Mark Wild’s review of the size and cost of HS2 as an organisation.
But today we are going further. I can confirm we have published the landmark James Stewart review and the Department’s response. The review, commissioned in October last year by my predecessor, was a tough, independent look at how the Department for Transport and Government deliver major projects. The Government not only welcome the review, but have accepted all the recommendations, and my Department is already delivering on these, specifically across five key areas.
First, on the lack of oversight and scrutiny, quite simply there have been too many dark corners for failure to hide in. The ministerial taskforce set up to provide oversight of HS2 had inconsistent attendance from key Ministers, including the then Transport Secretary and the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Government have re-established the taskforce with full senior attendance per the review’s recommendations. A new performance programme and shareholder boards will offer much-needed oversight and accountability.
Secondly, the report highlights HS2 could cost the taxpayer millions more than planned. We will stop this spiralling any further by delivering all the recommendations on cost control. That starts with HS2 fundamentally changing its approach to estimating costs. It includes certainty over funding, which the spending review has given. It also means HS2 working with suppliers so that their contracts incentivise saving costs for taxpayers; as far as I am concerned, suppliers should make a better return the more taxpayer money they save.
Thirdly, the review identified a deficit in capability and skills, with a fundamental lack of trust between my Department and HS2 Ltd. I am clear that both capability and cultural issues within HS2 must be addressed. The new chief executive is already strengthening the organisation, including by filling critical gaps in areas such as commercial expertise, and he will be backed by Mike Brown, announced today as the new chair. This is a new era of leadership that the project desperately needs, with Mike bringing significant experience as a former Transport for London commissioner. Mark and Mike were part of the team, with me, that turned Crossrail into the Elizabeth line; we have done it before and we will do it again.
Fourthly, between 2019 and 2023 HS2 Ltd provided initial designs for Euston station coming in almost £2 billion over budget. When asked for a more affordable option, it offered one costing £400 million more than the first attempt. The word “affordable” was clearly not part of the HS2 lexicon. The combined cost for those two failed designs, which has now been written off, was more than a quarter of a billion pounds.
What is more, the previous Government announced a Euston ministerial taskforce. Unbelievably, the taskforce never met. This Government recognise Euston’s huge potential. We have already committed funding to start the tunnelling from Old Oak Common to Euston, and we will set out more details in our 10-year infrastructure strategy.
We will use James Stewart’s findings to transform infrastructure delivery across Government. Implementing real change in how we deliver infrastructure is not just for the Department for Transport. This Government are committed to implementing these recommendations and adopting a new approach to delivering infrastructure, as will be set out in our upcoming 10-year infrastructure strategy. In that spirit, the Prime Minister has also asked the Cabinet Secretary to consider the implications for the civil service and the wider public sector of the issues raised in the report, including whether further action or investigation is warranted.
We are wasting no time in delivering on this review. I will update Parliament on our progress through my six-monthly reports, even if the information is uncomfortable, because for a Government who last week pledged billions in capital investment for new major projects, and who believe in the power of transport infrastructure to improve lives and deliver on our plan for change, that level of failure cannot stand. We will learn the lessons of the past 15 years and restore our reputation for delivering world-class infrastructure projects.
I have spoken about our inheritance and James Stewart’s review, so let me finally turn to Mark Wild’s initial assessment, which lays bare the shocking mismanagement of the project under previous Governments—I will place a copy of his interim findings in the Library. He stated, in no uncertain terms, that the overall project, with respect to cost, schedule and scope, is unsustainable. Based on his advice, I see no route by which trains can be running by 2033 as planned. He reveals that costs will continue to increase if not taken in hand, further outstripping the budget set by the previous Government, and he cannot be certain that all cost pressures have yet been identified.
It gives me no pleasure to deliver news like this. Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been wasted by constant scope changes, ineffective contracts and bad management. There are also allegations that parts of the supply chain have been defrauding taxpayers, and I have been clear that those need to be investigated rapidly and rigorously. If fraud is proven, the consequences will be felt by all involved.
I have to be honest: this is an appalling mess, but it is one that we will sort out. We need to set targets that we can confidently deliver and that the public can trust, and that will take time, but rest assured that where there are inefficiencies, we will root them out; and where further ministerial interventions are needed, I will make them without fear or favour. HS2 will finally start delivering on our watch.
Years of mismanagement and neglect have turned HS2 into a shadow of that vision put forward 15 years ago, but this Government were elected on a mandate to restore trust to our politics, and that is why we will not shirk away from this challenge and why today we turn the page on infrastructure failures. I can think of no better mission than delivering new economic opportunities, new homes, commercial regeneration and an upskilled supply chain, all of which HS2 can still unlock, but no one should underestimate the scale of the reset required. Passengers and taxpayers deserve new railways that the country can be proud of. The work to get HS2 back on track is firmly under way under this Government, and I commend this statement to the House.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for updating the House on the initial findings of the HS2 reviews. I also thank her for advance notice and a copy of her statement.
On the substance of the Secretary of State’s statement, I believe there is a broad consensus in this House on the central point that mistakes were made in the delivery of HS2. As she noted, costs more than doubled, the project has been repeatedly delayed, and the pandemic completely changed travel patterns. It undercut the assumptions that guided the original plans and caused construction costs to rise sharply across the world—by up to 40% in some cases—as a result of supply chain shortages as the world emerged from the crisis.
It has long been apparent that HS2 was not going according to plan. In my first two years as a Member of this House, I sat on the Public Accounts Committee, then chaired by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). In the summer of 2021, we published a report on HS2 that raised serious concerns in a number of areas and contained recommendations for how to improve the project.
In 2023, the previous Government conceded that HS2 was not going to plan and made fundamental changes to it. The result was the cancellation of the northern leg of HS2 and the creation of the Network North plan. Under that plan, £36 billion was to be diverted from the northern leg of HS2 to a multitude of transport projects that would benefit more people in more places and more quickly than the then Government believed the delivery of HS2 could. However, we also recognise that the path we took to reach that point was not perfect—far from it. I will not today pretend that the Network North plan was not a product of mistakes we made in the handling of HS2, because it clearly was. As a country, we must learn from those mistakes and we must not repeat them.
On that note, and with your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to express my gratitude to Mark Wild, the chief executive officer of HS2, for his continued efforts to support the delivery of the project. Recognising his leadership in rescuing the Crossrail project in London, it was the noble Lord Harper—then Secretary of State for Transport—who appointed him to lead HS2 in May 2024. We are all encouraged to see him playing a leading role in overseeing the correction and completion of the project, because his experience will be invaluable in helping to get it back on track. I also welcome the appointment of Mike Brown as the new chairman of HS2 Ltd. Like the Secretary of State, I know him from my years in London politics, when he was commissioner of Transport for London. He is a very capable man, and I wish him well in his new role.
The Secretary of State has informed the House of her intention to accept 89 recommendations of the independent review into HS2. I have not yet seen a copy of that report, which I believe is being released today. Although we will need to study those proposals carefully before confirming our support for them, I can assure the Secretary of State if they offer better value for taxpayers, we will back them. The Secretary of State has also raised very serious concerns that taxpayers may have been defrauded by subcontractors. I assure her that if that proves to be the case, I will share her anger, and will support whatever action is necessary to get to the bottom of those allegations. I would request that she keeps the House informed as the investigations by HS2 and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs progress.
Before I close, I would like to press the Secretary of State on a number of matters. In recent weeks the Government have announced several projects that either are funded by Network North or align with its commitments. However, we have yet to see a clear Government commitment to either fully support the Network North plan or scale it back. Can the Secretary of State now provide a definitive update on which elements will proceed and which will be abandoned? It has been reported that officials are considering a plan, backed by the Mayor of Greater Manchester, to build an “HS2-lite” track between Birmingham and Crewe. Will she confirm whether those reports are true?
I will conclude by turning to the planning system more generally. The whole House will recall that HS2 grappled with legal challenges, High Court proceedings and judicial reviews, all of which added delay and cost. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the extent to which legal challenges and judicial reviews delayed the delivery of HS2? How can future infrastructure projects be protected from excessive or politically motivated litigation, and does the Secretary of State believe that sufficient action has been taken to prevent some of the more spurious concerns about such things as bats and newts obstructing future vital infrastructure projects?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response, and indeed for the tone with which he made his comments. I was pleased to hear him acknowledge that mistakes had been made on HS2 by the previous Government. I think he described the path as not having been perfect—I would go so far as to say that it has been a shambolic mess. He struck a sombre note in his remarks, and I would ask him to consider going further, once he has had the opportunity to read the full James Stewart report, because an apology on the part of the Conservative party for the mess in which it left this infrastructure scheme is undoubtedly warranted. I also thank him for his comments on the action that HS2 is taking with regard to alleged fraud within the supply chain. I can assure him that I will provide appropriate updates to the House on the progress of the HMRC investigation that is now under way.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to set out our plans for investment in transport in the midlands and the north. The Conservative party took the decision to cancel HS2 north of Birmingham, and made wild promises about what it would do with the money it claimed it was saving. He is kidding himself if he thinks that that money ever existed. In last week’s spending review, this Government set out £15.6 billion to be invested in local transport schemes across the country, whether in Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds or Newcastle. The hon. Gentleman’s approach was a fantasy—he promised the moon on a stick and had absolutely no means to deliver. He asked me to set out the Government’s plans for further enhancing rail connectivity in the midlands and the north. I can assure him that further announcements will be made, both as part of the Government’s 10-year national infrastructure strategy and beyond that in the weeks and months ahead.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me to opine on the extent to which litigation has caused delays in the delivery of infrastructure projects. He will know that, through this Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we are tackling this issue by limiting the number of judicial reviews and legal challenges that can be brought. Unlike his party, this Government are serious about delivering infrastructure, and about providing the stable leadership that this country needs when it comes to infrastructure.
Before coming to the Chamber today, I looked up the number of Rail Ministers in the Department under his Government—it was 18 in 12 years. It is no wonder that projects such as HS2 were left in such a state of disarray. Just as this Government have returned stability to the nation’s economy, so will we return common sense and stable leadership to the delivery of the nation’s infrastructure.
I also thank the Secretary of State for the decisive action she has taken to address the causes of HS2’s cost overruns. We look forward to having Mark Wild and the Rail Minister at our Committee very shortly.
I actually want to celebrate something that HS2’s leadership should be proud of: the work they have done on skills and workforce innovation. They have provided best-practice work that the construction industry and transport projects can learn from, and in fact are learning from. However, I urge the Secretary of State to get her Department to learn from countries such as France and Spain, which have managed to deliver extensive high-speed rail projects to time and at a fraction of the cost of HS2 here in the UK.
I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for her comments. She is right to recognise the excellent work that HS2 has done on skills and the workforce. We have over 300,000 people working on this project at the moment, and I think that HS2 has done good work on opening up opportunities, whether through apprenticeships for the next generation or through the supply chain. I will heed my hon. Friend’s advice about learning from the speed and ease with which other countries deliver infrastructure projects.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for advance sight of it. What we have heard today is clearly a damning indictment of Conservative mismanagement. Connecting our largest cities with high-speed rail was meant to help boost economic growth and spread opportunity. The original idea—a high-speed rail network connecting London to Manchester and Leeds—was clearly the right one, but what we have ended up with is years of delay and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being poured down the drain, with no end in sight. The litany of errors that the Secretary of State has outlined is truly shocking and shows that the Conservatives were comatose at the wheel. A lack of oversight, trust and planning has left us with a high-speed railway drastically reduced in scale and inflated in price. The shocking allegations of fraud by a subcontractor are emblematic of the Tories’ lack of oversight and interest in properly safeguarding the public interest and public money, as we saw with the scandal of personal protective equipment procurement during covid. We must now make sure that any money lost to fraud is clawed back as soon as possible.
May I ask the Secretary of State three things? First, can she guarantee that, if any fraud has taken place, any money lost will be returned to the Government and her Department as soon as possible, and that the police will be provided with the necessary resources to investigate the matter fully? Secondly, the Secretary of State has said that the ministerial taskforce set up to provide oversight on HS2 had inconsistent attendance from the then Transport Secretary and Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Does the Secretary of State agree that those right hon. Members should apologise for those particularly damning lapses? Thirdly, we share the Secretary of State’s confidence in Mark Wild and Mike Brown, but can she say when she expects to be able to give the House an accurate assessment of the scheme’s full costs and of when HS2 will finally be up and running?
The hon. Gentleman raises three fair issues, and I agree with his assessment that the previous Government were not just asleep but comatose at the wheel. He asks whether the alleged fraud in the supply chain will be fully investigated, and whether moneys will be returned to the taxpayer. I can assure him that no stone will be left unturned in getting to the bottom of this matter. He is also right to highlight the question of poor and inconsistent attendance by individuals who held my role, the Rail Minister’s role and Treasury roles. It is imperative that politicians who have oversight of these infrastructure schemes stay close to the detail of what is happening, both through their own officials and directly with the executive and non-executive leadership of the project. That is certainly what I intend to do. I know the Rail Minister has a monthly meeting with the new chief executive. We have already held a meeting of the ministerial taskforce, and there is another one due soon. I have had multiple one-to-one conversations with the leadership team at HS2.
The hon. Gentleman asks when I will be in a position to provide a full update on costs and schedule. Mark Wild has told me that he will require until the end of this year to do that full piece of work. I am not prepared to get ahead of that, because that is how we have got into problems previously. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that as soon as I have more information, in addition to the six-monthly report that I provide to Parliament, I will come back to this House.
This is the latest national scandal to arise in our attempts to bring in infrastructure schemes on budget and on time, but the taxpayer is not the only victim of the failure of this project so far; there are also the people of the north of England. HS2 was originally a scheme intended to help the economies of the north-west and Yorkshire and those communities on the way, so there is a complete failure there. What we will be left with is an extension to the London underground system, and that will not help people in Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Sheffield and elsewhere. Will the Secretary of State consider safeguarding the original routes so that when we get our infrastructure plans in place, we can build something that this country can be proud of?
I gently say to my hon. Friend that the Mayor of the West Midlands might have something to say about his great city being seen as the end of an extension to the London underground line. It is completely right that our two great cities—Birmingham and London—are connected with high-quality rail services. Although this is a difficult day in exposing the state of the project, I have no doubt that in time it will be a railway we can be proud of.
I also say to my hon. Friend that I am aware of forecast capacity constraints between Birmingham and Manchester and in other parts of the country. We are investing, through things such as the trans-Pennine route upgrade, in improving connectivity to other great cities in the north of England. We are determined to ensure that everyone, no matter where they live in the country, has an excellent public transport system that they can rely upon.
My constituency has been devastated by roughly 26 miles of HS2, and I have consistently warned this House—during the previous Parliament and this—through the lens of the miserable experience on the ground in Buckinghamshire, about the reasons for the cost overruns, poor governance and everything else that the Secretary of State has highlighted in her statement today. If she must persist with this wrong project with a new delay, will she give a commitment to my constituents and the rest of the county of Buckinghamshire on how much longer they will have to live in misery as part of a building site? More importantly, will she look urgently at unlocking some of the mitigation funds that we are finding incredibly hard to access and get spent on the ground? That would be of some small, tiny comfort to my constituents who are living in misery.
It is essential that we proceed as quickly as possible with the remaining civil engineering works that will have affected the hon. Member’s constituents to date. If he wishes to write to me with details of the problem he has experienced with accessing mitigation funds, I will raise that for him with the chief executive of HS2.
The Conservatives announced that they were scrapping the northern leg of HS2 in a former railway station, summing up their attitude to the railway and sending shockwaves through the industry, including in Derby, a rail city that will be building the HS2 trains. Will the Transport Secretary ensure certainty and timeliness going forward, so that the industry can have confidence that we will not see further delays, which have already been so damaging for the supply chain?
My hon. Friend is right that certainty is critical for the rail supply chain. It will be a number of months before I am in a position to confirm with any certainty the schedule and estimated final cost. As soon as the new chief executive, Mark Wild, has provided that information to me and my Department, I will be updating the House.
The Secretary of State knows that HS2 runs through my constituency, and she will accept that what makes my constituents particularly angry about what she has described is that HS2 has pinched every penny in compensating someone unfortunate enough to find themselves in the path of this railway, yet wasted millions elsewhere. Can she assure us that as part of the reset, line-drawing or page-turning—however she describes it—she will look at how people are compensated when affected by such major infrastructure projects? Does she accept that it would be sensible to consider how Parliament could look again at this project, whose budget and timescale have ballooned, and decide whether we still think it is a worthwhile use of taxpayers’ money?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to point out that we have some form as a country in seeking to gold-plate infrastructure projects. The last Government talked about this railway being the fastest and the best in the world. Frankly, I would like this country to do things well and properly. The point he raises about compensation is one that any Government should keep under review, while bearing in mind the need to provide value for money to the taxpayer. I can assure him that I will make sure on any infrastructure project I oversee in this role that the House is appropriately updated and that we proceed with transparency on the costs and benefits of the schemes.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and the candidness with which she has delivered it. The villages I represent in north Buckinghamshire, be they Turweston, Westbury, Quainton or North Marston—I know the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) will be familiar with those communities—have for too long faced chaos and disruption from HS2 and its contractors. News that there will be yet more delay will cause them significant distress. Will the Secretary of State update the House and explain what additional practical support, financial or otherwise, her Department plans to give rural communities such as mine over the years ahead?
I think the biggest reassurance that I could give my hon. Friend is my cast-iron commitment to ensure that we proceed as rapidly as possible with the completion of the remaining construction works, which I know will have had an impact on his constituents. While I cannot commit myself to the provision of further compensation from the Dispatch Box today, if they are experiencing particular problems he should not hesitate to bring them to my attention and that of my Department.
I welcome the statement, and I do not disagree with a word of the Secretary of State’s analysis of what has gone wrong in the past.
The Public Accounts Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, has produced eight comprehensive reports over the 13 years of this project, and there are some common themes throughout those reports. First, the Secretary of State’s Department—I am not in any way blaming her, because this is what went on in the past—did not have the right mix of skills to be able to challenge the assertions of those in HS2 Ltd: project managers, engineers, people who really know how to build a railway. Secondly, as we said in our report published on 28 February, we found that there was considerable disagreement between HS2 and the Department about the cost of the railway—the highest estimate was the top range of HS2, which was £66 billion in 2019 prices and more than £80 billion in today’s prices—and I think we need an assurance fairly soon about what it is going to cost. Thirdly, I am not at all surprised that the Secretary of State has had to delay the completion date, but this is the second reset in five years, so we really want to see it work. I think that the people of this country will be very keen to know, when her half-yearly report is published and if possible before, when the project is likely to be completed.
I thank the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee for the work that they have done on this over so many years. He is right to highlight the need for skills within the Government so that they can act as a strong client of HS2 Ltd. We also need to ensure that we have the right commercial acumen in HS2, and I know that the chief executive officer is working on that. I must, however, disappoint the hon. Gentleman, because I think it unlikely that in my next report to Parliament, which I believe is due before the summer recess, I will be able to provide any concrete information about a new schedule window and a new cost envelope. I think that the work will take the chief executive towards the end of the year before we are in a position to make that information public.
My constituents know more than most about the daily misery of HS2 construction, particularly in the villages of Water Orton and Kingsbury and the town of Coleshill, and they will welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I met the new chief executive officer, Mark Wild, on Monday to discuss the reset, and I am delighted that he accepted my invitation to come to the Spud Club in Water Orton and talk to residents there. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that it is time we ended the failures of oversight, the scandalous overspends and the suggested fraud, and it is time the dust settled on this project rather than settling on my constituents’ clean washing, clean cars and clean windows?
My hon. Friend has painted a graphic picture. I understand that when large infrastructure works are taking place those who live closest to them will often experience disruption in their daily lives, and I want to put on record my thanks to the residents of Kingsbury, Coleshill and Water Orton for their patience. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that we need, once and for all, to put an end to this cycle of overspends, delays and waste, and get on and build a railway that is fit for the 21st century.
The disastrous decision by the last Conservative Government to stop the works at Euston station dented investor and commuter confidence in our railways and in major infrastructure delivery. Their failure to keep costs under control and to manage the basics of the project—simple things such as turning up to meetings—has created the quagmire in which HS2 finds itself today, and I do not envy the Secretary of State the task that confronts her. I am glad to hear that the Government see the huge potential of a comprehensive redevelopment of Euston station, but can the Secretary of State reassure me that we will not end up with a cut-price station that does not realise the potential of the project?
I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity not only to re-provide the existing Euston station—which, I am sure, will frustrate many Members and their constituents at times—but to provide the new HS2 station there and to unlock land around it. That will enable new homes to be delivered, but is also a massive commercial opportunity for regeneration in the heart of London. It is a very exciting opportunity—one that we will be saying more about in the coming weeks.
Delays to HS2 have blighted parts of west London around the main site at Old Oak Common. Benefits, when they finally arrive, will include a major interchange with Great Western Railway and the Elizabeth line. Will the Secretary of State consider opening the Elizabeth line station at Old Oak Common as soon as is feasible rather than waiting for HS2 to begin operating, and will she reclaim some of the good will of the people of west London by directing a tiny fraction of the costs of HS2 to the repair of Hammersmith bridge?
My hon. Friend has asked about the possibility of opening an Elizabeth line station at Old Oak Common before the opening of the HS2 station. I will certainly speak to the Rail Minister, in the other place, and explore what the opportunities might be. If I may, I will then write to my hon. Friend. He may have heard the Chancellor announce last week, during her statement on the spending review, that we are opening and financing a structures fund to enable local authorities with assets that are costly to repair to bid to the Government for help with repairing dilapidated bridges, tunnels and so on. I will say more in due course about how the fund will operate, and I am sure that we will be talking about Hammersmith bridge again, as we have for many years.
I thank the Secretary of State for the clarity of her statement. Vast swathes of Staffordshire are currently owned by HS2—a third of the village of Hopton is under HS2 ownership—and this has an enormous impact on farmers and people who live along the route where so many empty houses sit. Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that that farmland and those houses will be returned to the farmers and to the people who actually want to live in those communities?
I will be saying more about the safeguarded land and the directions that apply to it in due course.
I thank the Secretary of State for the actions that she has taken today. They were clearly necessary, and it sounds like we are on a better track. However, HS2 provides little or nothing for rail users in the south-west, other than ongoing delays during the construction and operation of Old Oak Common. Will the Secretary of State consider funding, or prioritising the funding for, the critical final phase of the Dawlish rail resilience work that will help businesses and rail users in Devon and Cornwall—and perhaps even in Swindon?
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to talk about the Dawlish scheme. I must admit that it is a topic I will need to take up with the Rail Minister, and I will be happy to give the hon. Gentleman a response in writing in respect of the merits of the scheme.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her honesty as she set out this latest reset, necessitated by the mess that the Tories left. Old Oak Common is part of my constituency, and this week eight associations across two boroughs have banded together to create the Old Oak Alliance, with the purpose of fighting for compensation and mitigation in the current circumstances. They will be bitterly disappointed by the news of even more prolonged disruption. Will my right hon. Friend meet me—or, better still, come on a site visit to meet them and see what they are putting up with? We are dealing with a company whose idea of engagement is jam tomorrow and death by PowerPoint.
I am sure the leadership of HS2 would be very concerned to hear that description of the way that the project is engaging with local people. That is not what I expect of an infrastructure company, and I am sure it is not what the chief executive of HS2 Ltd would want either. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend.
The previous Government cancelled phase 2 of HS2, and from what the Secretary of State has said today, my understanding is that it remains cancelled and that phase 2 will not be reinstated. That being the case, can she let me know when the HS2’s safeguarding of land, particularly in the mid-Cheshire section, will be lifted?
I am afraid I cannot give the right hon. Lady a date today, but I can assure her that I am fully cognisant of this issue. We need to look at whether there is any requirement for any future schemes. As soon as we are in a position to provide updates, I will come back to this House and be sure to provide hon. Members will all the relevant information.
The HS2 line runs down the west side of Aylesbury. It will bring no benefits at all to my constituency, yet my residents have suffered years of noise, disruption, flooding, loss of access to the countryside and the destruction of their natural environment as a result of its construction. I am pleased that the Government are getting a grip on this issue, and I commend the Secretary of State for her honesty and focus, but my constituents will understandably be concerned by the news of further delays and potential further disruption. Can the Secretary of State confirm that she will do everything in her power to hold HS2 and its contractors to account in order to minimise the ongoing disruption for my long-suffering residents?
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to see the main works civil engineering contracts completed as soon as possible. That is the element of construction that generally creates most disturbance for local communities, and we are pretty much at peak construction now. I thank her constituents for their patience while we continue to deliver this vital new piece of rail infrastructure.
I have campaigned against this HS2 project ever since 2010, up and down the line. I never believed the original £35 billion price tag. Furthermore, it would have benefited only rich businessmen and driven businesses from the north of England to London—it would have had the opposite of the intended effect. Rather than having another reset, has the moment not come to recognise that this is a failure? Let us scrap HS2, use the tens of billions of pounds that we can save in the next decade to upgrade railway lines across the entirety of the United Kingdom to the benefit of many millions, and spend the rest on other national priorities in these financially straitened times. Surely the time has come to scrap the entirety of the project and to recognise that we have got it wrong.
We are not going to be a country that spends over £30 billion on rail infrastructure but then never sees a train running on it. We have already seen too much waste, and I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman is advocating more. We also have significant capacity constraints between Birmingham and London. He seems not to want to do anything about that, but I think those two great cities deserve a railway that is fit for the 21st century; I am just sorry that he does not.
My constituency is the only one in the country that has HS2 phase 1, phase 2a and phase 2b. It is not true to say that the line will not continue north of Birmingham, because it will cut through miles of Staffordshire, through my constituency, until it rejoins the main line at Handsacre. The failings of HS2 Ltd have been clear to my constituents for years and, frankly, it is shocking to hear about the dereliction of oversight by the previous Government, although it is what we have always suspected. People across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages will, quite rightly, be furious.
Farmers, landowners and businesses in my constituency have been fighting tooth and nail with HS2 for years to get it to do the job right. We have seen compulsory purchases that have never been paid, temporary possessions that come with a multitude of exchanges—back and forth, and back and forth again—with land agents taking massive fees for things that should have been sorted years ago, crop loss payments that never come and many, many more issues. People in Streethay have had to deal with ongoing roadworks around a junction that has become far too overcomplicated by HS2 trying to put a railway underneath it, and that has seen the village almost cut off at times.
People are absolutely sick of HS2. The failings of that organisation are multitudinous, and the failings of the Conservatives to fully hold it to account should be an embarrassment to them and an embarrassment to this country. I really do welcome a reset, but it has to lead to meaningful change. Can the Secretary of State give me and my constituents any assurances that it will be delivered as quickly as it possibly can be, and with as little disruption as we can get away with? Can she finally give us a timeline for when the safeguarded land will be returned to landowners? This has been going on for far too long.
I share my hon. Friend’s anger. He is a powerful advocate for his constituents, who have endured disruption, and I agree entirely that the way this project was handled was a dereliction of duty on the part of the previous Government. That is why we have appointed new leadership, why we are accepting all the recommendations of the James Stewart review, and why we are going through this fundamental reset. As soon as I have received advice from the new chief executive about the revised cost and schedule, I will update my hon. Friend and other hon. Members.
As a south-west region MP, does the Secretary of State agree that the west country has for decades been the poor country cousin of our rail network, and that money spent on HS2 is money not spent elsewhere? Will she do all in her power to ensure that the relatively small changes that are necessary on the network in the south-west to make life a lot easier go ahead, and will she look particularly at the absolutely woeful west of England line?
There are challenges across the rail network, and I readily accept that improvements are needed in many parts of the country. I do not necessarily accept that the south-west is the poor cousin of the rail network, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of my determination to make sure that everyone, no matter where they live in this country, has a better rail service at the end of this Parliament than they did at the beginning of it.
The Transport Secretary will know that my constituents have endured years of disruption, and of drawn-out and poorly managed roadworks, as they drive past Lichfield on the A38. Given that billions of pounds were squandered by the previous Government and the disruption continues, can she say more about how she will get a grip on this project to ensure that we have vigorous oversight, and that it is delivered effectively and on time for our constituents?
We have appointed new leadership. We are establishing new governance. We are looking at the incentives contained in the contracts on the civil engineering works. We will make sure that no stone is left unturned in providing value for money for the taxpayer on HS2, because this country is making a very significant investment and we need to ensure that every penny is wisely spent.
The cost of HS2 has now spiralled to over £100 billion. Welsh taxpayers are paying dearly for this appalling mess, even though we get no benefits whatsoever. Wales is now owed at least £5 billion. This is not going to go away—so when will we get our fair share?
The right hon. Lady may have heard the Chancellor announce in the spending review over £400 million of investment in the Welsh railways over 10 years. That will enable work to take place on the Burns stations in south Wales, and at Padeswood sidings on the north Wales line. It is a significant investment in Welsh railways, the like of which has not been seen for many, many years.
As shadow Transport Secretary for four years, I was wholly supportive of this concept. I just want to correct the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who completely misunderstands its basis. As I am sure the Secretary of State agrees, the purpose was to deliver capacity for the north of England—“speed” was a misnomer—but that opportunity has now been lost. Can she give me some assurance that through the trans-Pennine upgrade, skills and expertise will be rolled out across the entire north of England—not just to the north-west and Yorkshire, but to the north-east, including through the continuing rolling programme of electrification? I am thinking specifically of the stretch from Northallerton to Middlesbrough and beyond, because that is where we get the gross value added and the economic growth from. Can we have some assurance that those ambitions will not be fettered one jot by this damning indictment of the past 15 years of failure?
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government 100% recognise the need to improve rail connectivity in the midlands and the north. He is also right to highlight the need for a stable pipeline of investment, so that the supply chain can plan, and so that we do not lose skills. The Government have an ambitious rail programme; there is East West Rail, the trans-Pennine route upgrade and HS2. I am determined to build on this country’s proud railway heritage and ensure that we have railways fit for the modern day.
The Devon and Cornwall rail network is only one severe storm away from being decapitated at Dawlish. Phase 5 of the south-west rail resilience network is desperately needed. When will the Minister visit the line to see how desperately needed it is?
Dawlish is a very beautiful part of the country, so I am very tempted to take the hon. Gentleman up on his invitation. This is the second time in this statement that the Dawlish programme has been raised. I gave the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) an undertaking that I would speak to the Rail Minister on that subject and then write to him; I will come back to the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) in writing at the same time.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. HS2 has been an abject failure when it comes to the political accountability of the previous Administration. On transport efficiencies, will she press on with reforms to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, so that we can fix the driving test system and keep our country moving?
We have a really important programme of work across all arms-length bodies of the Department for Transport, including the DVSA. It is really important that we provide public services in an efficient and effective way. I am conscious that my hon. Friend’s constituents and others may be very keen for rapid progress on driving test wait times. I can assure him that the issue is a focus of discussions that I am having with the DVSA.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I too served on the Public Accounts Committee, so I know that while HS2 is by far the largest civil infrastructure programme in the United Kingdom, the second largest is the lower Thames crossing from Tilbury to Gravesend, for which about £10 billion is currently budgeted. If her tighter approach to HS2 produces savings, is there any way that some of them might be vired to pay for the lower Thames crossing? If not, exactly which private-sector companies will pay for it? So far, I am afraid the Government have been rather vague on that point.
We are exploring finance options for the lower Thames crossing. On Monday we announced that there would be £590 million of public funding this year to take forward utility works and some land purchases. I will say more to this House in future about the private finance arrangements that we are exploring.
I commend my right hon. Friend for the swift actions she has taken to try to put right this disastrous situation, created by the previous Government. The parallels with the fast-track contracts for personal protective equipment cannot be ignored. I understand that contracts were signed when appropriate decisions had not been made. Will the people who signed those contracts be interviewed? Will they have to explain why they decided to take those decisions, against advice? Will we get any of that money back?
As I said in my statement, the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Secretary to investigate whether the James Stewart report raises any questions for the civil service or the wider public sector. My hon. Friend is completely right to highlight the point about contracts being signed with construction companies even before the scope of the works had been agreed. It is little wonder that the country has ended up paying more. We signed a contract with a company to deliver works, yet there was no clarity whatever about what work the Government wanted them to do. This is a dreadful and woeful failure of oversight by previous Government Ministers, and I will not allow that to happen on my watch.
Before I was elected to this place, I was a member of HS2’s independent panel for the community and environment fund and business and local economy fund. The Secretary of State’s statement makes for pretty shocking reading. There is talk of fraud and shambolic mismanagement—things that should bring shame on everybody involved.
One of the problems with HS2 was always the name, which put the focus on speed, rather than capacity. My Hazel Grove constituents use the west coast main line, and they talk to me about the capacity problems that remain. Indeed, I see them every week when I come up and down to work. The Secretary of State says that she is not reinstating the line north of Birmingham. She also says that trans-Pennine work is under way. What specific work is being undertaken by her Department on capacity on the west coast main line north of Birmingham?
I am aware that the Mayor of the West Midlands and the Mayor of Greater Manchester have put proposals to the Government on this issue. In the mid-2030s, we are likely to see severe capacity constraints between Birmingham and Manchester. We are reviewing those proposals, and I hope to be able to say more on them in the months ahead.
I thank the Secretary of State for the honesty with which she has addressed these very difficult issues. May I ask her to say a little more about the lessons that can be learned from the success of the Elizabeth line—both the far superior leadership and management of the programme, and the economic benefits generated? The £18 billion invested in capital yielded £42 billion in benefits in just the first three years of this amazing piece of infrastructure.
While the delivery of the Elizabeth line was one of my proudest achievements as deputy mayor for transport in London, I must admit that it was not without its challenges. The trust between Transport for London and the delivery project, and the transparency and honesty between different parts of the system, were among the finer aspects of how we got the project over the line. It was one of my proudest days when Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth opened the Elizabeth line at Paddington shortly before she passed away. There is a lot of learning that we need to take from Crossrail. We are doing that, and we are determined to get on and see this railway opened.
East West Rail is due to travel through my constituency, on the historic Marston Vale line. How will the Secretary of State ensure that the mistakes made on HS2—we have heard some shocking stories today—will not also be made on East West Rail? I am afraid that there is very little confidence in the East West Rail Company. It is important that my communities are listened to, that we deliver this infrastructure faster and at lower cost, and that people who are impacted are properly compensated.
East West Rail is fundamentally different from the construction of HS2. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is being delivered in three phases, and that it is only the latter phase, between Bedford and Cambridge, that will necessitate the construction of new track. The chief executive of East West Rail, David Hughes, is determined to deliver the scheme rapidly, offer good value for money to the taxpayer, and properly engage with communities. If there are any particular issues the hon. Gentleman is concerned about, he should raise them with me, and I will gladly speak with the leadership there.
On the Public Accounts Committee, I asked HS2 bosses what I thought was a relatively simple question: how much are they spending on newt mitigation? However, they could not give an answer. Similarly, I can confirm to the House that I have information suggesting that the cost of the so-called bat tunnel is well north of the purported £100 million. I commend the Secretary of State for the leadership that she has shown today. Will she hold HS2 accountable for some of these bat-shed crazy costs?
I can assure my hon. Friend that the estimated cost of the bat structure is £95 million in 2019 prices. I agree that we cannot have an environmental mitigations regime that allows this sort of thing to happen. The Government have put forward significant reforms in this space, and we will continue to monitor the need for further changes, so that we can deliver infrastructure in a better way.
I thank the Secretary of State for giving a candid and transparent statement to this House. On Birmingham—I am the only Birmingham MP present, which surprises me—it is disappointing that there will be delay and additional costs, but every cloud has a silver lining. My constituency has one of the highest levels of unemployment at 17%—four times the national average. In addition, we have seen the closure of a number of local stations; it would improve the network if they were reopened. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can get my constituents into jobs, and the possibility of opening three stations: Handsworth Wood, Soho Road and City Health Campus?
I would be very happy to ask the Rail Minister to meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about the stations in Birmingham that he mentions.
I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State. May I speak today of the east of England? The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) famously promised a dividend when he cancelled HS2 North, so might we expect some of that to be used to replace the crucial Haughley and Ely junctions, in order to finally sort out the rail connections in the east of England?
I understand the importance of the Ely area scheme in terms of rail infrastructure, and I hope to say more about rail investment in the weeks before the summer recess.
Will the Secretary of State set out the steps she is taking to ensure that infrastructure like the £100 million bat tunnel will not be included in future projects, such as East West Rail?
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill includes proposals to reform species and habitats protection. The proposals for environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund enable a shift to protecting the whole population of a species, rather than focusing on purely local considerations. That will ensure better outcomes for nature, without causing us to incur unreasonable costs, as happened with the HS2 bat mitigation structure.
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on capacity on the west coast main line. Stockport is the one place where it is at full capacity, and HS2 was meant to solve that; however, because of the cancellation of the northern leg of HS2, we face HS2 trains going through Stockport’s already packed lines. I welcome the response to the plan put forward by the Mayors of the West Midlands and Greater Manchester, but will the Secretary of State commit to engaging with Stockport council on those plans? We need to find a solution to this capacity issue, because it could hold my borough back for decades.
I am very conscious of the need to invest in and improve public transport in Stockport, and if the council would like to write to me with any relevant information, I will gladly consider it. I also point out that our investment in transport for city regions, announced a couple of weeks, is good news for Stockport; Metrolink will be extended to the town. I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome that as good news for his constituents.
It may surprise the Secretary of State, but I actually have some sympathy for her for inheriting the HS2 nightmare. When she receives the updated budget and timeframe, will there be a cost and a timeline at which point she will say, “Enough is enough—it’s better to stop,” or is it an open-ended cheque book?
If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to read the spending review last week, he would have seen that the Government have committed £25 billion over the next four years, which enables work to be taken forward. As I have said a number of times today, I will be updating the House when I have further information available about both the overall cost envelope, the estimated final cost at completion and the anticipated schedule.
With a decade of delay, costs spiralling to eye-watering sums of anywhere between £60 billion and £100 billion and now credible allegations of fraud in the supply chain, will the Secretary of State say what steps the Government will take to recover hard-working taxpayers’ money from fraudsters, hold those responsible to account and announce a final stop to wasting money?
I have said on a number of occasions that billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been wasted by constant scope changes, ineffective contracts and bad management. That is what this reset of HS2 is all about—it is why we have appointed the new leadership, and it is why we are fundamentally changing the governance structures. As I said in answer to previous questions, the matter of potential fraud in the supply chain is being investigated by HMRC, and we will be providing updates to the House as and when further information is available.
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberI beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
On the day when the Chancellor has set out this Government’s determination to deliver a decade of national renewal, I am proud to stand before this House to make good on our promise to deliver a sustainable aviation sector. If we are once again to be an outward, confident trading nation that is connected to the world and leading the way on innovation, we must run as fast as we can towards a greener, cleaner future for flying. The Bill before us today will enable us to do precisely that. We do not have time to waste.
Does the Secretary of State agree that this Bill has a missing half, which could cut aviation emissions by demand management, and that at the very least, if there is to be public money spent setting up this system, it should be raised from the most frequent flyers and private jets?
I think the hon. Lady and I fundamentally differ on the issue of demand management, because demand for air travel is only going one way, and it is therefore our moral responsibility, if we are going to have more people in the skies, to reduce the carbon emissions associated with that.
As I said, we have no time to waste. That is why, when it comes to aviation, this Government have rolled up their sleeves and got on with the job, putting an end to the dither and delay of the past. In less than a year, we have approved the expansion of Luton airport and invited plans for a new runway at Heathrow, and I will be making a final decision on Gatwick expansion as soon as possible. We have invested in the future of aviation, not just with the help we have given to reopen Doncaster Sheffield airport or the work we are doing to strengthen connectivity around Liverpool John Lennon, but also by putting £1 billion towards aerospace technology. We have introduced the sustainable aviation fuel mandate and provided £63 million to the advanced fuels fund, helping the industry prepare for a sustainable future. Just last week, we kick-started the largest redesign of UK airspace since the 1950s, paving the way for cleaner flights, fewer delays and more direct routes. This is what governing for growth looks like.
I really welcome the Bill and the creation of a mechanism to increase the supply of sustainable aviation fuel. Can I add that, as we look towards airspace modernisation, we will have not only cleaner and quicker but quieter flights?
My hon. Friend is completely right to highlight the benefits of cracking on and delivering airspace modernisation. It could mean not only more direct flights and therefore less use of carbon, but noise benefits for communities close to airports.
We are determined to make rapid progress on this issue because we have an iron-clad belief that our success as an island nation rests on our international connectivity. The flow of trade, exporting British expertise and the movement of people for business and leisure all depend on aviation continuing to grow and thrive. We could put our head in the sand and pretend that people do not want to fly, that the sector does not support hundreds of thousands of jobs, that people do not look forward to foreign holidays or family reunions and that air freight is not a significant part of our trade by value, but we would be on the wrong side of both reality and public aspiration.
The truth is that demand for flight is only going in one direction. According to the Civil Aviation Authority, passenger levels were 7% higher in 2024 than in the previous year. If we do not respond and if we do not set aviation up for long-term success, we do not just make ourselves poorer today, we kiss goodbye to the growth and opportunity this country needs in the decades to come.
I want a future where more passengers can take to the skies, not fewer. But like the rest of our economy, that must mean emitting less carbon, not more. This Bill will help secure that future. It builds on the fantastic work across Government and industry, led by my hon. Friend the Aviation Minister, which saw the SAF mandate come into effect earlier this year. As we run towards a future of green flight, we know that sustainable aviation fuel is one of the biggest levers we can pull. It emits 70% less greenhouse gases on average than fossil fuels. It can be used in existing infrastructure and aircraft engines, and it is now backed by a mandate that is rightly ambitious: 10% SAF in the fuel mix by 2030 and 22% by 2040. I want as much as possible to be made in the UK.
The mandate, which we welcome, calls for only 22% sustainable jet fuel usage by 2040, while the Chancellor has said that she wants a third runway in use at Heathrow by 2035. That would mean more aviation-related health hazards to my constituents. Does the Minister agree that we should not pursue Heathrow expansion until we can turbocharge the SAF mandate and bring non-sustainable fuel usage down further?
The Government have been clear that we will permit airport expansion only when it is consistent with our legally binding climate change targets. SAF is one way in which we can clean up aviation, but the work we are doing on the development of new aircraft technologies, alongside the work we are doing on airspace modernisation, is all connected to how we bring those emissions down. I point out to the hon. Lady that the expansion of Heathrow has already been modelled in relation to the sixth carbon budget.
We have been clear that the mandate alone is not enough. Creating the demand for SAF but not the supply does not get us where we want to be. We have heard the industry’s concerns around risk and uncertainty for investment, and that is why we are acting today. The Bill creates a revenue certainty mechanism that will boost SAF production by giving investors confidence to choose the UK.
I declare an interest as a pilot. In this context, I spoke to one of the would-be producers—I think it is called Zero—and its primary concern with respect to the strike price mechanism that the right hon. Lady talks about is how that will be set and what input producers will have. Will she address that when she talks through the mechanism?
There is more detailed design work to do on all that, and we will work alongside industry to ensure that we have a workable proposition.
The mechanism boosts SAF production and gives investors confidence in the UK by addressing one of the biggest barriers to investment: the lack of a clear, predictable market price for SAF. That starts with a guaranteed strike price agreed between a Government-owned counterparty and the SAF producer. If SAF is sold for under that price, the counterparty will pay the difference to the producer. If SAF is sold for above that price, the producer will pay the difference to the counterparty.
The revenue certainty mechanism will be funded by industry, specifically through a levy on aviation fuel suppliers. That makes sense for two reasons. First, it is the industry that will benefit from more and cheaper SAF production, so it is only right that industry, and not the taxpayer, should fund it. Secondly, placing the levy higher up the supply chain spreads costs across the sector and is the least burdensome option. It is important to note that the revenue certainty mechanism will not be indefinite. It will be targeted and time-limited, helping to get first-of-a-kind UK projects off the ground. The Bill’s sunset clause means that we can offer contracts only for 10 years, unless it is extended via the affirmative procedure. We will have a firm grip on costs throughout. We will decide the number and duration of contracts, limit support to a predetermined volume of SAF and negotiate acceptable strike prices. There is no obligation on the Government to enter into a defined number of contracts or to agree contracts at any cost.
I know that some hon. Members may be concerned about the impact on passengers, so let me reassure them: none of this will limit people’s ability to fly. We expect minimal changes to fares, with an average ticket increasing or decreasing by up to £1.50 a year. I am pleased to say that this is a product of many months of consultation with the industry. Airlines are calling for it, airports are calling for it, SAF producers are calling for it, environmental organisations are calling for it, and the Government are therefore getting on with delivering it.
I am sure that we wish the Government well in what they are trying to do. I gather that the International Air Transport Association highlighted only last week that, at the moment, sustainable aviation fuels cost approximately five times as much as conventional jet fuel. Will she explain how the measures in the Bill will bridge that gap to make it economical?
Supply is constrained at the moment; the UK has one commercial production facility, in Immingham. We need to build investor confidence to commercialise some of the sustainable aviation fuel demonstration projects around the country. More supply and lower prices are good for the aviation sector and, ultimately, good for those who wish to fly.
I think it is worth taking a moment to reiterate what is at stake. When UK production of low-carbon fuels is up and running, it could support up to 15,000 green jobs, contribute £5 billion a year to our economy, and deliver clean and secure energy. What is more, fulfilling the SAF mandate could save up to 2.7 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent a year by 2030. Seizing those opportunities will ensure that we deliver on our bold plan for change and that the UK and our world-class aviation sector are leading the way in the race towards sustainable flight.
This country cannot be open for business, open to investment and open to growth yet have a closed mind when it comes to international connectivity. The Bill is a clear signal that we will not accept false trade-offs that pit aviation’s growth against our commitments to net zero. We can and must do both. We have the opportunity of a lifetime and, I believe, a moral mission to future-proof aviation. When the sector succeeds, it is not only a source of growth, through trade, business and tourism, but a source of joy, aspiration and opportunity. It is as vital today as it will be for future generations. Their need to fly, explore the world and do business requires us to act now. That is what the Bill does, and I commend it to the House.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberI beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I start by thanking my friend, the Minister of State for Rail, for being an excellent advocate and custodian of the Bill as it made its way through the other place. As someone who started his career on London’s world-famous red buses, there was no better person in the country than the noble Lord Hendy to kick-start the Government’s bus reform journey. I am proud to call him my friend, and I am grateful every day for his wise counsel, frank advice and gentle good humour.
What we saw in the other place, and what I hope we may be able to secure in this House, is constructive cross-party support. We all recognise how buses connect us to the things that matter most: work and school, friends and family, essential services and the weekly shop. The billions of bus journeys each year—equivalent to over 100 every second of every day—are the difference between vibrant communities and boarded up high streets, between aspiration and isolation, and between getting on and being forced to give up.
The Bill represents years of work in opposition and now in government to discard the failed 40-year model of deregulation in favour of putting passenger needs, reliable services and local accountability at the heart of the industry.
I wholeheartedly agree with the Secretary of State on the importance of buses for connectivity. I note that the Bill talks about “socially necessary” services, but it would be helpful to have a better understanding of the definition of what they are beyond my own interpretation. For example, if a constituency does not have a train station, can we therefore have a greater assurance that we will see no loss in our bus services?
Through the Bill, we will be giving local transport authorities the power to determine socially necessary local services. That relates to access to employment, jobs, things like health facilities, and education. That power will lie with local authorities and it will be for them to determine.
I will make some progress.
Before I come to the Bill’s key measures, I will briefly set out the context. Although it may be tempting for me to lay the blame for the current state of buses entirely at the feet of the last Government, that would be neither right nor fair. They too inherited a broken, deregulated system that forced passengers to navigate multiple operators on similar routes, but with different tickets. They, too, faced declining patronage, with 1.8 billion fewer journeys outside London last year than in 1986, and, to their credit, they tried to fix that. The national bus strategy, bus service improvement plans and greater powers for mayors were all steps in the right direction to improve services for passengers.
I am going to make some progress.
However, in some areas such as franchising, the last Government did not go far enough, so this Bill will not only build on previous reforms but go further—much further—in fixing the faults that are still holding the industry back from meeting the needs of local people. I hope that Members in all parts of the House will see the merits of the approach that we are taking. After all, we have all heard from constituents about jobs not taken and opportunities missed because bus services are too unreliable, or do not operate on Sundays, or do not cater for night-time shifts.
In London we have benefited for a long time from bus services that are better than those in the rest of the country, and I wholeheartedly welcome my right hon. Friend’s desire to level that up, but in London we also have floating bus stops. I know that matching the needs of cyclists, of whom I am one, with those of others involves a delicate balance, but for someone who is blind, visually impaired or encumbered by, for instance, a buggy, getting off a bus at a floating bus stop is very dangerous. What plans has my right hon. Friend to tackle the issue across the country?
My hon. Friend may know that in the Bill we commit ourselves to producing design guidance for local authorities so that they can look at what is best practice. She may also know that in the other place the Rail Minister said we were committing ourselves to a non-statutory pause on the type of floating bus stop that requires a passenger to alight directly on a cycle lane. I hope that that gives her some reassurance.
I thank the Secretary of State for the work that she is doing in this regard. I am pleased to hear that the Bill requires guidance to be produced to enable authorities to make floating bus stops safe and accessible, but many blind and partially sighted people, including me, have experienced problems with them. Could a proper assessment of their safety be carried out to ensure that no passenger who uses a bus, whether it is to go to work or to attend a health appointment, will experience the challenges that so many people currently experience when trying to navigate them?
We will be looking carefully at this issue. I am very conscious of the needs of the visually impaired community, but I am also very conscious of the need to protect cyclists and pedestrians on our roads, so I am keen for us to look at the issue in the round.
I am going to make a little more progress, but I shall be happy to take interventions later.
I was talking about the problems caused by bus services that are unreliable, do not operate at weekends or, perhaps, do not cater for individuals working night shifts. We all know that each of those stories is the story of a life frustrated, but, taken together, they constitute an anthology of wasted potential, of living standards and growth held back. That is why improving bus services underpins our plan for change, and it is why, despite difficult choices made across Government, we confirmed more than £1 billion in funding in the last Budget to protect vital routes and keep fares down.
I am not going to give way again to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). I will give way to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.
Does the Secretary of State recognise that rural constituencies such as mine have particular needs, and that the funding needs to reflect the extra costs associated with rurality, as well as the demographic demands? Young people, older people and people on low incomes rely on buses more than others. Will those factors be taken into account in the funding mechanisms for bus services?
I can reassure the hon. Lady that we have taken those issues into account in our allocation of this year’s funding.
Let me now explain our approach. Funding, even record funding, without reform means throwing good money after bad, and that brings me to the Bill. Our reforms are not ideological. Regardless of what some may say, this is not about public ownership versus private enterprise. It is about enabling more people to use buses, about ensuring that those services are safer, more reliable and more accessible, and about harnessing the best of devolution.
I thank my right hon. Friend for introducing the Bill. Sarah, one of my constituents, is here today. Her work with the National Federation of the Blind of the UK and its street access campaign has demonstrated the difficulty that blind and partially sighted people experience in accessing buses. They cannot make the choice that others make to pass their driving tests as soon as they reach the age of 17 so that they can travel to their local colleges, schools or hospital appointments. I want to draw attention to that fantastic campaign, and to ask for the Bill to make clear to local authorities that they must work to ensure that all buses are accessible—not just to people with sight impairments but to those who need to access a bus in a wheelchair, like my friends who cannot travel together and are often whizzed past by the driver, and have to wait longer than the rest of us.
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point so powerfully. I can reassure her that the Bill will introduce a duty for local transport authorities to consult disabled passengers and disability organisations before initiating a franchise scheme. It will standardise the current disability training requirements that operators will need to fulfil, and it will give the Government new powers to require operators to record data on that training. I think that, taken together, those measures should represent a positive improvement in the way in which the bus network is designed to ensure that everyone can use it.
As I was saying, the Bill was designed to harness the best of devolution. That means transferring power away from central Government and operators, and towards local leaders—those who know their areas best—and giving them the tools to deliver buses on which communities can rely. Whether we are talking about the franchising that has worked so well in London or Jersey, about the local authority bus companies that have thrived in Nottingham and Reading or about the excellent examples of enhanced partnerships in Brighton and Norfolk, it is clear to me that one size does not fit all. The Bill will expand the options available to local authorities so that each area has the bus service that is right for it, while also safeguarding the needs of passengers, particularly the most vulnerable.
I know that the Secretary of State is committed to ensuring that buses are environmentally friendly and meet the net zero targets that we all want to be met. Wrightbus in Ballymena, in Northern Ireland, is a leading producer of hydrogen buses, which provide safe, reliable, cost-effective transport. Has the Secretary of State been able to have any discussions with Wrightbus—which supplies buses in London and elsewhere in the UK—with a view to ensuring that everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can take advantage of that innovative technology?
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the innovative technology developed by Wrightbus. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), has not only met representatives of Wrightbus but visited its facility.
Let me now explain how we are going about fixing the broken franchising process.
It cannot be right that it took Mayor Andy Burnham years to bring just one bus under public control, after being frustrated at every turn. With bus services in Greater Manchester now part of the Bee Network, usage is up by 14%, and revenues and punctuality are also moving in the right direction. However, franchising remains too complex. Proposed schemes need to jump through myriad hoops, and they still require my consent to proceed—which is odd, to say the least. The idea that I understand what passengers in Leicestershire or Cornwall need better than their local leaders do is for the birds. In December, we opened up franchising to every local authority. Through this Bill, we will further streamline the process, making it simpler for franchise schemes to be granted and assessed.
The Secretary of State referred earlier to placing certain statutory duties on county councils. When she considers that, will she consider including in those duties the maintenance of companion bus passes for people with learning difficulties who cannot travel on their own? It is not much good for them to have a free bus pass if they cannot take a companion with them.
Will the Secretary of State join me in expressing our sadness and commiseration over the recent passing of Mr Andrew Wickham, who spent more than 40 years in the transport industry and over a decade as managing director of Go South Coast, which operates Bluestar buses in New Forest East? I always found him to be a marvellously attentive correspondent, and he was someone who worked until almost the very end.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and he gives me the opportunity to place on record my thanks to Andrew Wickham. I have the privilege of representing the constituency of Swindon South, and he ran Swindon’s Bus Company. He was the epitome of professionalism and kindness to me—not only as a Member of a Parliament, but when I was a candidate—and I pass on my condolences to his family, his friends and his colleagues.
The right hon. Gentleman raises a fair point about the importance of companion travel for individuals with disabilities. He will know that the decision to add extras to the English national concessionary fare scheme is taken by local authorities.
I was talking about our desire to make the franchising system simpler. Of course, the model will not work everywhere, which is why this Bill also strengthens enhanced partnerships and removes the ideological ban on establishing new local authority bus companies. Furthermore, by giving local authorities the power to design and pay bus operator grants in their area, the Bill gives greater protections for socially necessary local services, securing the lifeline routes that keep communities connected.
In our communities we have nearly full employment, but a lot of people are on extremely low wages. Before the bus fare cap came in, the bus fare from Kendal to Ambleside was the second highest in the entire country, costing people a quarter of their salary to get to work. As the Secretary of State makes sure that devolution happens and that franchising is done in a way that is fit for purpose in each different area, will she ensure that she does not abdicate her responsibility to fully fund the bus fare cap, so that people like my constituents can actually afford to get to work?
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a spending review under way, but I can confirm that I fully appreciate the importance of having an affordable and accessible bus route. He will be aware that zero funding was allocated to fund the bus fare cap beyond the end of last year, and this Government stepped in with our commitment to the £3 fare. Although it applies to only one in six journeys—because a number of people who travel regularly will use a travelcard for a week or a month—I am aware of the importance that his constituents and others attach to the cap.
I congratulate the Secretary of State and her team, including the Minister in the other place, on bringing this Bill before the House. Since 2010, we have seen 2 million fewer bus miles ridden in Hampshire. In Oakley, Chineham, Black Dam and South Ham, I have heard stories of missed appointments, work shifts and social engagements as a result of poor service. Can she confirm that this Bill will give every part of England the opportunity to take back control of its bus services? Can she explain what will happen with the devolution process and whether the powers will pass to the new unitary authorities or mayoral authorities, or has that yet to be decided?
My hon. Friend is a fearsome advocate for his constituents, and I know the importance that he places on local bus services. Under the new devolution arrangements, local transport authorities will be the part of local government where the new powers lie. It is for local transport authorities to decide whether franchising or an enhanced partnership is the route for them to deliver the services that their communities need.
Running buses should always be about serving passengers, and I want to say something about safety and what we are doing, through this Bill, to put the needs of passengers first. We want to keep passengers safe at any time of day or night, and at any point in their journey, be it waiting at bus stops or when on board. That is why this Bill includes powers for local transport authorities to crack down on fare dodgers and tackle antisocial behaviour; requirements for drivers of school services to pass enhanced criminal record checks, closing an existing loophole; and mandatory training for bus staff to help tackle crime where it is safe for them to do so.
I want to return briefly to the socially necessary services that the Secretary of State mentioned. Two issues in my constituency are of great importance: the first relates to the fact that school-only buses are often more expensive than regular services; and the second relates to operators, who tell me that the current SEND transport model is unsustainable and that children with special educational needs and disabilities are being left with a poorer service. Will the Bill seek to address those concerns?
There are not specific criteria and provisions in this Bill, but I can assure my hon. Friend that my ministerial colleagues and I are very aware of those issues. Although school-only bus provision is provided in a slightly different way, I would be happy to talk to him about the particular issues in his constituency.
I want to say something about accessibility. For many, buses are a route to a better, more independent life, yet the current patchwork quilt of standards and regulations can further disable passengers, rather than enable them. That will change through this Bill, because local authorities will be required to produce a bus network accessibility plan and to consult disability organisations on changes to services, as I said earlier. New statutory guidance will make stopping places more accessible, including floating bus stops, which came up earlier. However, after listening to concerns, we will press pause on those that are perceived to be poorly designed.
Part of the issue with bus stops in Harlow has been caused by the redevelopment of sustainable transport corridors, which we absolutely welcome. Bus stops are being forced to move, making them less accessible. Is that something that the Bill takes into account? Even if it is a temporary bus stop or bus station, we need to ensure that it fits the criteria.
The Bill will improve the ability of local transport authorities to deal with precisely that sort of situation.
I will make some progress. I am conscious that a number of Members want to speak, and I would like to allow as many people as possible to make contributions.
I want to say something about our commitment to meeting our net zero targets. This Bill will restrict new non-zero emission buses on most local services in England from no earlier than January 2030, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Transport is already speaking to the industry—not just about securing an orderly transition, but about the opportunity for British bus manufacturers to meet new demand both at home and abroad.
Finally, several non-Government amendments were added to the Bill during its passage in the other place, which is why I was unable to make a statement of compatibility with the European convention on human rights. That was the result of clause 40, which was not tabled by the Government. It requires recording violent behaviour on buses and sharing that data with the local transport authority, and it also requires consulting trade unions on staff safety. The personal data requirements are incompatible with ECHR obligations; as such, the Government will seek to address this matter as the Bill progresses.
The Secretary of State mentioned that the Minister for Local Transport is taking responsibility for the net zero side, and I was delighted to welcome him to my constituency to see the work of Wrightbus, which is repurposing diesel buses with its new powertrains. Could she provide reassurance that buses repurposed as net zero buses will also be eligible for Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government funding for decarbonisation of the bus fleet in the future?
If I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm that point, but I understand why he is keen to raise it.
In conclusion, I would say that for too long and in too many places a degraded bus network has been symbolic of wider national decline, with each poor service reinforcing a sense of things not working as they should. That ends now. This Bill represents a brighter future for bus travel. For the first time in 40 years, we are taking back control of our buses, transferring power from operators to local leaders and from Whitehall to the town hall, where it belongs. I truly believe that the transport needs of my constituents in Swindon are different from those of passengers in Scunthorpe or Southend. That is why buses will rightly look and feel different across the country, reflecting the identity and priorities of local areas.
This Bill is just the start of the journey. Throughout its passage and following Royal Assent, we will continue to work with the bus industry, passenger groups and colleagues in both Houses as we set out further regulations on the standards that we and millions of daily passengers expect. Better buses are around the corner, with increased reliability, greater accountability and services that passengers can finally depend on. I commend this Bill to the House.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsFollowing my statement in December last year, I can confirm to the House that on Sunday 25 May 2025, South Western Railway’s services will transfer into public ownership.
South Western Railway’s services are the first to transfer to public ownership under the Passenger Railways Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, a landmark piece of legislation passed by Parliament in November. From Sunday, operations will be run by a new public sector operator—South Western Railway Ltd. For now, this will be a subsidiary of the public corporation DfT Operator Ltd, which will eventually transfer into Great British Railways, once established.
C2C’s services will be next to transfer into public ownership on 20 July 2025, and as previously announced, I have issued an expiry notice to Greater Anglia, confirming that their contract with the Department will now expire on 12 October 2025. Greater Anglia’s services will transfer into public ownership on this date.
Sunday marks a watershed moment in the Government’s plan to return the railways to the service of passengers and reform our broken railways, ending 30 years of fragmentation. It delivers on our manifesto commitment to bring passenger services back into public control and put passengers firmly at the heart of the railways.
Public ownership will ensure services are run in the interests of passengers, not shareholders, and is a vital step in enabling the Government to bring track and train together. But public ownership alone is not a silver bullet and will not fix the structural problems hindering the railways currently. That will take time.
Under this Government’s plan to unify track and train under one organisation, GBR will be the single “directing mind” for the railway, putting passengers and customers first, rebuilding trust in the railway and simplifying the industry.
In February, the Government’s consultation on the Railways Bill outlined plans to establish GBR, which will consolidate the 14 different train operating companies, Network Rail and DfTO into a single organisation. The Railways Bill will be laid before Parliament in this parliamentary Session, and I expect GBR to be operational around 12 months after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
[HCWS666]
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberEconomic growth is this Government’s top priority, and a reliable, well-connected transport network is critical to driving prosperity. That means delivering local priorities in places such as Huddersfield and Hyndburn, including through West Yorkshire’s £830 million city region sustainable transport settlement and the local transport grant for Lancashire combined county authority.
The Government have rightly prioritised rail as a key factor in the future viability of our transport infrastructure. There exists in Hyndburn an outstanding opportunity to create a freight rail terminal that would fit with the Department for Transport’s targets for increasing rail freight capacity by 75%. The proposal also adds value in increasing east-west rail freight capacity, which must currently pass through Manchester. Sadly, no progress was made on this under the last Government. Does the Secretary of State agree that a north-west freight strategy should be a priority, and will she meet me to explore the potential of this as a priority project in the north-west?
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of rail freight, and I am clear that with a reformed railway, we must do more to shift freight from the roads to rail. I am keen that Network Rail works collaboratively with industry to develop terminals where there is either current demand or the potential for future growth. If there is viable interest in developing this land, my officials and Network Rail would be happy to engage with interested parties.
I welcome the funding commitments for transport in Huddersfield, including rail upgrades to the Penistone line and the trans-Pennine route, which are very much needed. However, during a coffee morning with residents last week, the main issue discussed was the reliability of bus services and the need for integrated transport. Can the Minister outline how she is supporting our West Yorkshire Mayor in ensuring that transport-led economic growth includes bus services and is felt across all neighbourhoods and communities in Huddersfield?
I am not surprised to hear that buses are top of the agenda for my hon. Friend’s constituents. Reliable, affordable bus services will be essential for so many of those she represents, and I was particularly delighted to see the successful launch this week of Mayor Tracy Brabin’s Weaver bus network. The Government are investing £36 million in West Yorkshire’s buses. That is in addition to the £830 million we are spending in the region to improve local transport infrastructure and the rail investment we are making as part of the trans-Pennine route upgrade.
The Secretary of State knows that High Speed 2’s central purpose is to deliver economic growth, but she knows, too, that it is taking far longer and costing far more to deliver than anyone expected. Given that projects of the scale of HS2 require parliamentary approval, is it not important that Parliament has accurate estimates of how much the project will cost and how long it will take to deliver? Will she commission a properly independent and thorough review of why the budget for HS2 has increased so often and the timetable has expanded so often?
I will be providing updates to the House on the emerging cost position and opening window. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, this Government have appointed a new chief executive of HS2, Mark Wild, who is conducting an ongoing review. We have also reintroduced ministerial oversight, which was sorely lacking under the Conservative party’s leadership. I recognise that this is an important issue, and we are doing all we can to deliver the rest of this railway at the lowest reasonable cost to the taxpayer, so that people can enjoy excellent rail services in the future.
The Transport Secretary recently refused to commit to keeping the £3 cap on bus fares outside London beyond the end of this year, leaving many in rural areas worried about how much more they will end up having to pay to get to work. Residents across my constituency have already seen vital routes scrapped or scaled back, holding back economic growth. Can the Transport Secretary explain what support will be made available to not only keep rural fares down but restore lost services?
The hon. Lady will know that this Government stepped in to prevent soaring bus fare increases, given the last Government’s decision to only fund a bus fare cap until the end of last year. [Interruption.] Opposition Members can chunter, but the truth of the matter is that it was fantasy money, and the money was not allocated to fund that bus fare cap. We are in an ongoing process, through the spending review. I appreciate the importance of affordable, reliable bus services, and we will do all we can to ensure that people can continue to enjoy the bus network that they need.
Greater Anglia supports economic growth in the east of England with modern, quiet, fast trains, paid for by £2 billion of private sector investment. Its service is the most punctual in the country, it is popular with its passengers, and it is run so efficiently that instead of costing the taxpayer, it pays money into the Treasury. It is currently train operator of the year. Greater Anglia knows that nationalisation is coming, and it has offered to extend its operations to allow the Government to focus on the worst performing operators first. Why did the Government refuse? Is the Secretary of State focused on improving the lives of passengers, or is it an ideological determination to put the unions back in charge of the railways?
I really do not know how many times I have to say this to the hon. Gentleman. I met him a couple of days ago, and I explained that our process for bringing train operating companies into public ownership is designed to offer best value for money to the taxpayer. We will not be buying out failing private sector operators by breaking contracts early. He is right to say that Greater Anglia provides an excellent service, and I am confident we will build on that when it comes into public ownership in October.
Perhaps the Secretary of State did not understand the nature of the offer from Greater Anglia. It was not expecting to be bought out; it was offering to continue its current arrangements for a couple of years.
In a previous answer, the Secretary of State said to me that the benefit of rail nationalisation will be the £150 million of efficiency savings. Let’s see how that is going. Her first nationalisation will be South Western Railway in two weeks’ time. That new service will need trains, yet The Telegraph has revealed that inept contract negotiations by her Department, where there was no effective competition, mean that the cost of re-leasing the same trains is increasing by £250 million over five years. Are those the efficiency savings she had in mind?
The up to £150 million of savings that the taxpayer can enjoy as a result of train operating companies coming back into public ownership are the saved management fees that we are currently paying to private sector operators, and efficiencies will be delivered on top of that.
On the substantive issue that the hon. Gentleman raises about South Western Railway, the cost of renewing rolling stock leases has been fully and properly budgeted for, with successful commercial negotiations recently concluded. The franchising process under his Government saw some “buy now, pay later” deals done on rolling stock, where costs were always expected to increase. I think that approach was deeply dubious, but that was the short-termist, ill-thought-through approach of his Government, and we are now having to clear up that mess.
A skilled workforce is key to delivering the railways that passengers need, and I am working closely with colleagues across Government to ensure that we train up the right people in the right way for the jobs of the future. As my hon. Friend will know from our visit to Derby last week, we are also taking action to ensure that we attract younger talent into the industry, by lowering the age at which someone can become a train driver to 18.
Derby is the centre of the largest rail cluster in Europe—an east midlands cluster employing 45,000 people. There is an incredible range of roles in the sector, from engineering to driving, digital to welding, advanced manufacturing to customer services, and many more. However, with a third of workers in the rail sector aged 50 or over, it faces a significant shortage of rail skills in the future. What role can Great British Railways, with its headquarters in Derby, play in ensuring that we have the skills we need for the future?
Developing an industry workforce plan will be a key priority for Great British Railways, and I am confident that we will be making the most of the expertise that already exists in places such as Derby. The fact that Derby will soon become the new national headquarters of GBR will mean more high-skilled jobs for a city that is already brimming with rail industry talent. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and local leaders on maximising the opportunities that the creation of GBR presents.
Despite recent improvements, the performance of Avanti West Coast’s services in north Wales is still not good enough. Poor Network Rail infrastructure reliability also remains an issue. North Wales and its surrounding regions have such huge potential, so I am actively engaged with the Welsh Government on plans to create a transport system that meets the needs of all our communities and delivers economic growth.
Rail plays a vital role in the north Wales economy, so I welcome the recent announcement of 12 additional services per week between Holyhead and London. However, that remains a shadow of the pre-covid timetable, which saw up to 14 daily direct services. The north Wales line regularly sees more cancellations and poorer reliability than other parts of the west coast franchise. It is vital that with economic growth, tourism and access to employment across north Wales and beyond, we see a return to a more frequent and reliable service pattern. What measures is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that that happens?
The uplift in service levels between London and Holyhead from this Sunday is indeed welcome, and I agree that a reliable service being delivered for the passengers of north Wales is vital for economic growth. I recognise that Wales has not seen its fair share of funding historically, and I am committed to continued rail infrastructure investment in Wales to release capacity and improve reliability.
The midlands rail hub was backed by the previous Government. It will unlock and drive economic growth across the west midlands and beyond, including into Wales, and improve the performance of existing rail services. When will the Secretary of State make an announcement in her review of that project, or is this just another example of the Treasury reversing or holding up investment in our region?
I can see that Mr Speaker is smiling; I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her ingenuity in working in a question about the midlands. She is right to talk about the benefits of the midlands rail hub. She will be aware that a spending review process is under way, and I anticipate being able to say more on that project in due course.
In March, we took the decision to approve National Highways’ planning application for the lower Thames crossing, which is a big step forward for the project and ends decades of inaction by previous Governments. Ahead of construction, my officials and National Highways are exploring all funding options, including private finance. As with all capital projects, spending decisions are subject to the spending review process.
I welcome that response, the certainty the decision has provided to people living in the Thames estuary, and the visit yesterday to supply-chain businesses by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Will the Secretary of State for Transport confirm that she will meet me and a delegation of Kent and south-east London MPs to discuss how we can ensure that investment and skills are secured for local supply chains and the development of further education colleges?
I would be very happy to have that meeting with my hon. Friend and his colleagues.
After years of dither and delay, we are taking bold action to take the brakes off growth, create jobs and get Britain moving. Last week, we announced a lower minimum age for train drivers to future-proof our railways and prevent frustrating cancellations, and we have granted planning permission for the lower Thames crossing, a strategic freight route between the south-east and the rest of the country.
We are also strengthening our aviation industry. Planning approval has been given for the expansion of Luton airport, a final decision on Gatwick will be made as soon as possible, following the airport’s submission of further information, and we look forward to receiving proposals for a third runway at Heathrow later this summer. Finally, we introduced the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill yesterday, giving confidence to the industry as it charts a green future.
These measures show how we are delivering on our plan for change: driving opportunity, creating better journeys and improving living standards up and down the country.
I thank the Secretary of State for setting out those positive opportunities for the future. Air passenger duty adversely impacts economic opportunity for companies in Northern Ireland. To continue the positivity from the Secretary of State, would she commit to asking Cabinet colleagues to adjust the block grant for Northern Ireland to allow a reduction in APD in order to enhance connectivity within this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
I appreciate the importance of aviation to the Northern Ireland economy and thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest in this matter. As the Minister responsible for aviation, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) said in answer to substantive questions, airports are currently seeing their busiest times ever. This Government feel that our approach to APD is proportionate given the fantastic demand we are seeing.
At the last transport questions, on 27 March, in the context of the Secretary of State saying on television that some strikes are “necessary”, I pointed out that the trade unions have welcomed her rail reform plans and said that
“a just transition to nationalisation would mean the levelling up of pay and conditions for rail workers.”
The cost of that to the taxpayer would be considerable. When I asked the Secretary of State whether she would
“consider a strike over harmonising pay and conditions to be a necessary strike”,—[Official Report, 27 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 1099.]
she avoided answering the question, which was uncharacteristic of her. I will give her another chance now: would that be a necessary strike?
The answer I gave to the shadow Secretary of State’s previous question was that if, as an operator of the railway, we felt it was necessary to take a strike on grounds of safety, we would, of course, put the safety of the travelling public first—that will always be the case. On the harmonisation of terms and conditions, we need to bring legislation forward to establish Great British Railways. We will have many discussions with our trade union colleagues in a constructive way while ensuring that we provide value for money for the taxpayer.
Following the fire at North Hyde substation that closed Heathrow a few weeks ago, various lines on the London Underground were brought to a standstill by another power outage this week. It is clear that we need to do more to improve the resilience of our transport energy infrastructure, so will the Secretary of State commit to a full review to ensure that these incidents do not keep happening?
A review is being conducted by the National Energy System Operator on the Heathrow substation fire. The interim report has been published, and we expect the full report in June. The Heathrow report is expected to go to its board in May. My Department and I work very closely with all transport operators to ensure that they have robust resilience plans in place. The Government are conducting a review of critical national infrastructure to address the broader question.
The hon. Lady mentioned this to me a couple of days ago when I bumped into her, but I regret to inform her that the Department does not currently have any plans to take forward a development link between Bishops Lydeard and Taunton. I have, however, asked officials to reach out to those at the local authority to discuss the merits of the scheme.
In the ’60s, North West Leicestershire lost its only passenger rail service, the Ivanhoe line. In 2025, my constituents still have no direct access to the rail line. Increasing connectivity of railways is crucial to securing economic growth. Will the Minister share the Department’s plans to improve access to passenger rail for communities with no current access?
The 7.58 am train from Sunbury to Shepperton is used by a lot of schoolchildren in my constituency to get to school, but it was cancelled for four days during a recent six-day period, which meant that children were late for school. That appears on their attendance register, which follows them throughout life. The Secretary of State will own South Western Railway by the end of the month. Will she commit to improving the reliability and punctuality of that section of the line?
With the transfer of South Western trains into public ownership in 10 days’ time, the Government are determined to turn this situation around, but I have to say that we have inherited an abject mess from the train operating company, which over six years has failed to get the new fleet of Arterio 701 trains into service.
I am aware that feasibility studies have been done on 50 Access for All stations, and we are reviewing the outcomes of those studies. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not knowing whether that station in his constituency is one of those 50. I promise him that I will talk to officials about the matter.
In Chorley’s case, work started but it has still not been finished. It was abandoned halfway through.
Will the Secretary of State accept my warm invitation to visit my constituency and sit in traffic with me so she can experience what my constituents experience morning, noon and night on the A27, which is strangling economic growth in the area and preventing investment?
As tempting as the hon. Lady’s invitation is, I regret that I will not be able to do that, and I will not commit the Roads Minister to it either, but we will look at the matters she raises and write to her with an update on the action we think could be taken to improve the situation.
Economic growth requires people to be able to get to work. This morning, yet another road traffic accident happened on the stretch of M6 motorway that goes through my constituency and yours, Mr Speaker. This has a hugely disruptive impact on the mainly small roads around it in my constituency. Yet again, my residents in Longridge, Grimsargh and all the surrounding areas woke up to the prospect of another journey to work that takes two hours instead of 20 minutes, and that is becoming a monthly—if not weekly—occurrence. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what can be done?
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsSustainable aviation fuel is integral to reaching net zero aviation by 2050. It reduces greenhouse gas emissions by around 70% on average over the lifecycle of its production and use when replacing fossil kerosene. It is also an enabler of growth, and can provide good, skilled jobs across the UK.
That is why this Government has taken rapid action to support SAF. Just weeks into office, we reiterated our commitment to the SAF mandate. In November, we signed it into law, and it has been in place since January.
The SAF mandate is the UK’s key policy mechanism to secure demand for SAF. It delivers GHG emission savings by encouraging the use of SAF within the aviation industry. It does this by setting a legal obligation on fuel suppliers in the UK to supply an increasing proportion of SAF over time. Suppliers receive certificates for the SAF they supply. Certificates are issued in proportion to the level of GHG emission reductions that the fuel delivers—that is, the greater the savings, the greater the number of certificates they receive. The SAF mandate started at 2% of total UK jet fuel demand in 2025 and increases linearly to 10% in 2030 and then to 22% in 2040. It could deliver up to 6.3 million tonnes of carbon savings per year by 2040.
We are also committed to developing the UK SAF industry to secure a UK supply of SAF, attract investment and create good green jobs across the UK.
In January, we announced an additional £63 million of funding for the advanced fuels fund, our grant funding programme for UK SAF production, extending the programme for another year.
We are also introducing a revenue certainty mechanism to help attract investment into UK SAF production. Under the SAF revenue certainty mechanism, SAF producers will enter into a private law contract with a Government-backed counterparty. These contracts will set a strike price for SAF. If producers sell their SAF for below the strike price, the counterparty makes payments of the difference; if the SAF is sold for above the strike price, the producer makes payments of the difference to the counterparty. This addresses the most significant constraint on investment in SAF production and sends a clear signal to investors: that this is a serious UK investment opportunity.
This Government have made significant progress towards delivering the revenue certainty mechanism. We announced in the King’s speech that we will be introducing a revenue certainty mechanism Bill in the first Session of this Parliament and will have the legislation in place by the end of 2026 at the very latest.
In 2050, up to 15,000 jobs and £5 billion gross value added in the UK could be supported with future low-carbon fuel production for the domestic and international markets. The revenue certainty mechanism, along with the Government’s modern industrial strategy, will provide a launchpad for this sector to drive growth and investment.
[HCWS608]
(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberI beg to move,
That this House has considered road maintenance.
For too long, Britain has been plagued by potholes. Too many people in too many parts of the country have had their everyday journeys turned into frustrating obstacle courses by our pockmarked roads. It is worse than that, however, because cratered roads can be dangerous, can make our trips longer and more stressful, and can consume the hard-earned cash of ordinary families. With the average vehicle repair costing a staggering £600, it is little wonder that the AA tells us that this issue is a priority for 96% of drivers. It is not just motorists who are suffering; damaged roads cause problems for cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians, and dodgy pavements are infuriating for those pushing a pram or using a wheelchair.
My right hon. Friend reminds me of the road on which I live, where drivers trying to avoid a pothole in the road went on to the pavement, which led to the pavement being damaged. Does she agree that fixing potholes quickly wills save pavements as well?
At my constituency surgery on Friday, my constituent Helen came to see me because she has had a terrible fall on a badly maintained pavement, and she has really been struggling to find out who is responsible for maintaining the pavement. Does anything in the funding brought forward by this Government enable quick and easy repairs to pavements, so that people like Helen do not have terrible accidents?
Local authorities are free to use the money as they see fit, as long as they are using it in a way that represents value for money for the taxpayer. The money can be used for work on roads, pavements or structures. On the issue of responsibility raised by my hon. Friend’s constituent, that will be for the local highways authority.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I thought I would get in before she gets back into her stride. Can she throw some light on an issue that has puzzled me for some time in my New Forest East constituency? A stretch of road—Southampton Road—is often used as a short cut by very heavy goods vehicles, rather than using the appropriate section of the M27 motorway. These are often very large petrol bowsers, tankers—you name it—and surprise, surprise, the roadway is constantly getting broken up and potholes appear, with all the consequences she describes. Whenever we have raised this with any of the companies to which these heavy vehicles belong, they say, “Well, it’s a public highway, and we’re entitled to drive these vehicles where we want.” Is there any obligation on companies not to do that?
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has raised the matter with the local highways authority. I believe there may be the ability to apply a weight restriction on roads or to curtail the movement of large heavy goods vehicles. That might be something he wishes to raise with the appropriate authority.
I was describing the frustrating state of our roads and pavements. Most importantly, the country’s broken roads have become, sadly, a symbol of the national decline presided over by the previous Government. Our roads have compounded the feeling that nothing works in this country. They tell a story of a country left in a woeful state of disrepair after 14 long years of the previous Government. Roads are the backbone of our transport system; they are the concrete arteries of our local and regional economies. Yet too often they fall way short of the standards we should expect in the 21st century. That is why this Government are taking decisive action to deliver the renewal of our roads.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you might not be aware that there is such a thing as the RAC pothole index. It shows that something like four out of 10 incidents of damage to cars happen as a result of potholes. The owners of vehicles are paying road tax and fuel duty, but they do not have the road infrastructure to support them. I welcome the Government’s support for filling potholes, but can we ensure that the motorist is looked after under this Government?
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. That is why we have ploughed a record £1.6 billion into roads maintenance, including a £500 million uplift on last year. That is on top of the £200 million or so we are putting in the hands of local leaders in the big city regions, empowering mayoral combined authorities to mend the roads in their communities.
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I want to raise a question that I am often asked. We have spoken about quick fixes. The problem is that we fix a few potholes, but the disrepair reappears. Does she agree that we should focus on resurfacing our roads?
My hon. Friend is completely right. In some cases, preventive comprehensive road resurfacing will be the appropriate action to take.
In total, we are investing around £1.8 billion in fixing our local roads this year.
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and for the record investment of this Labour Government in fixing potholes. I particularly welcome the £21 million for East Sussex to fix our roads. Does she share my frustration at the fact that Conservative-run East Sussex county council has told me that it will have a lower highways budget this year than last year, even with that record injection from the Labour Government? We need to track how it is spending that money. I welcome the Government’s commitment to making councils publish reports on how the extra pothole money is spent. I hope it will include a geographical breakdown, so I can make sure that Hastings, Rye and the villages are getting their fair share.
We are asking local authorities to publish a report on their websites by June this year. We are tipping more money into highways maintenance and it is absolutely right that people should see visible results on their roads. And it is right that my hon. Friend is holding her local Conservative council to account.
Our investment in highways maintenance is not a sticking-plaster solution; it is a vital investment that could see councils fixing an extra 7 million potholes next year. That is just the beginning. As I said, for the first time we have asked councils to prove that they are using their funding wisely. By June, they will be asked—as I have just said—to report on how many potholes they have filled and provide an update on the condition of their roads. If we are not satisfied that they are delivering value for money, councils risk losing up to a quarter of their funding uplift.
Surrey has 70,000 potholes—5% of all the nation’s potholes and the most in the country—so I welcome the extra money for potholes, but given the recklessness of the Conservatives in Surrey, how will that help my constituents?
The wider transparency and accountability measures we have announced, whereby we are withholding a quarter of the funding uplift until such time as the local authority has demonstrated how it is using that money, will hopefully be of assistance to both the hon. Lady and her constituents.
It is only right that taxpayers can see how their money is being spent. This new era of accountability and transparency will see their cash being put to good use, and road users will see the results.
Will the Secretary of State give way?
I will just make a little bit of progress. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
The Government will end decades of decay on our roads. We will lift the lid on how taxpayers’ money gets spent. We think that is a crucial part of the solution. I am pleased that this move has been positively received, with the RAC, National Highways, Logistics UK and so many more coming out in support. In fact, Edmund King, president of the AA, described it as
“a…concerted attack on the plague of potholes”.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I could not have put it better myself. It is great to see councils broadly welcoming our approach, too. As Councillor Adam Hug, transport spokesperson for the Local Government Association, put it:
“it’s in everyone’s interests to ensure that public money is well spent.”
From one Adam to another. When I was a child, my late grandmother used to say that you could always tell a drunk person in Harare, because they drove in a straight line. One of my constituents said to me recently that, “In the United Kingdom, we are meant to drive on the left-hand side of the road, but in Newcastle-under-Lyme many people drive on what’s left of the road.” [Laughter.] They are very wise people in north Staffordshire, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State is making an excellent speech. What would her two messages be, first to the good people of Newcastle-under-Lyme as we approach Thursday 1 May, and secondly, to the current Conservative leadership of Staffordshire county council?
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituents on an excellent sense of humour and perceptiveness in describing the state of the roads in their community. I would say simply to his local authority that it has no excuse. It has the money—get on and fix it.
As much as we want to see councils go full steam ahead on road repairs, I also know that roadworks can be disruptive. We have all felt the frustration of being stuck at temporary traffic lights or by the sound of a pneumatic drill on a Sunday morning. That is why we are clamping down on companies that fail to comply with the rules by doubling a range of fixed-penalty notices, with the worst offences now facing £1,000 fines. Plus, we are extending charges for street works that run into the weekend.
This is not about patching up the problem, either. We want to see repairs that are made to last, so we do not see the same bits of road being dug up over and over again. That means getting it right first time around, championing the best materials and techniques, ensuring contractors are properly managed, and embracing the innovation and new technology that will help us to get the job done while getting proper bang for our buck.
It would be churlish of anybody in this Chamber not to welcome all the money the right hon. Lady says she will spend on roads. It is welcome. I understand there is new technology for a better and more modern way of fixing potholes. I understand it does the job better and is cheaper. If that is the case, I met a manager in my constituency last Friday who told me he would be very interested in that scheme but he does not know about it. Will the Secretary of State share this new way of fixing potholes? If so, everybody in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland could benefit from it.
We are running a number of Live Labs projects to look at how we can best make use of AI and new technology to ensure we get good value for money in delivering roads maintenance. Over the next year, we will be working with the UK Roads Leadership Group to update the code of practice on well-maintained highways. I would be happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman further about what has been learnt.
The important work that we are doing will help to set clear expectations for local authorities up and down the country, meaning cleaner, greener and better roads delivered with the needs of local people in mind.
Laurence, Eileen and the residents of St Quivox have been campaigning for 10 years to cut the speed on the B743 in my constituency. At this weekend’s public meeting, 45 people were delighted to hear that Sergeant Slaven of Police Scotland and South Ayrshire council’s director Kevin Braidwood support their campaign to cut the speed on this dangerous road, which has seen almost 30 accidents in the past decade. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Ayrshire Roads Alliance and South Ayrshire council need to urgently reduce the speed limit on this road and work with residents to introduce other traffic calming measures?
Decisions on the appropriate speed limits on their roads are decisions for local highways authorities. I will not pretend to know the detail of what my hon. Friend is talking about, but I will say that safety is an absolute priority for this Government, and that any local highway authority should be taking appropriate decisions to limit the number of people being injured on our roads and, ideally, to eradicate death and serious injury.
This Government’s ambition for road users stretches far beyond local roads. Just last week, we announced £4.8 billion for National Highways to deliver critical road schemes alongside maintaining motorways and major A roads. With this bold investment, which is higher than the average annual funding from the last multi-year settlement, we can get on with vital schemes in construction, such as the A57 Greater Manchester link road, the A428 Black Cat scheme in Cambridgeshire, the A47 Thickthorn scheme near Norwich, unlocking 3,000 new homes—
I hear appreciation from the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench.
Those works will also include the M3 junction 9 scheme in Hampshire, which will support 2,000 more homes. By raising living standards, creating high-quality jobs and kick-starting economic growth, these projects will drive this Government’s plan for change.
We are committed to delivering the road infrastructure that this country needs today, tomorrow and far into the future, and we are already working on the next multi-year road investment strategy to do just that. This is part of our mission to secure the future of Britain’s infrastructure. We are building better roads, creating safer streets and unlocking more efficient transport systems to help businesses to thrive and make life easier for all.
When the right hon. Lady leaves South Swindon and goes into Wiltshire, she will be pleased to note that the £20.7 million the Government have given to Wiltshire has been added to with £22 million put aside by Wiltshire council to maximise the impact. Could she say something about the connectivity between Bristol and Southampton? I was grateful for the meeting with her colleague, the Minister for Future of Roads, but does the Secretary of State recognise that now the A303 scheme is not happening, we need greater investment on north-south connectivity in Wiltshire?
I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman met with my hon. Friend, the Minister for Future of Roads, and I understand that as a follow-up to that meeting, National Highways is looking into the very issue that he describes.
On the point of road safety, after the previous Conservative Government singularly failed to dual the A1 in my constituency, attention must now turn to the safety of that road. Will the Secretary of State and the Roads Minister join me in my constituency to hear the conversations I have been having with National Highways about how we can improve the A1?
I know that the Minister for Future of Roads would be very happy to visit my hon. Friend in his constituency. While we cannot reopen the decision on dualling the A1, we are happy to look at whether smaller-scale schemes could address specific issues around safety and congestion on that very important road.
The public are tired of seeing roads left to deteriorate with no accountability for how maintenance money is spent. This Government are laying the foundations for change, and this is just the beginning. There is so much more to do as we restore our transport system so that people across the country can fulfil their potential in a Britain where everyday journeys are smoother and safer, families are not shelling out for expensive and unexpected repairs, and hard-working people have more money in their pockets—a Britain not defined by disrepair and disarray, but where improved infrastructure becomes a symbol of our national renewal.
Improving connectivity will unlock jobs, growth and opportunities across the country. By fixing our roads, building better infrastructure and ensuring that transport works for all, this Government are securing Britain’s future.