Gravesham: River Crossings
Lauren Sullivan Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to come to the House to discuss the importance of river crossings in my constituency of Gravesham. I am grateful to the Minister for giving up his time today to respond to the debate.
I wish to cover two crossings: one old and closed, which is the Gravesend to Tilbury ferry; and one planned and very expensive, which is the lower Thames crossing. For those who do not know, Gravesham constituency is a river community. We are bound by the River Thames, with all its history, just as we Members are here in the House, and we are only 20 miles apart. For much of the history of the borough, there have been river crossings, certainly since Roman times. According to one esteemed local historian, Christoph Bull, the right of long ferry was exclusively given to Gravesend watermen to provide a river service to and from London. This is a bit of a history lesson, but that was confirmed by the King in 1401 in a charter, the aim being to help rebuild the town after a fire in 1380.
Since then, there has been a river crossing in place between the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and mine. It has connected the two ancient kingdoms of Kent and Essex for eons, enabling travel for trade, leisure and tourism. Today, the Port of London Authority, which controls all travel of boats up and down the Thames, is based in my constituency, and I pay tribute to it. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution has a base on the river in Gravesend, and I know that the House would want to extend our thanks to it for the work it does across the country.
The people of Gravesham and of my hon. Friend’s constituency of Thurrock are river people. Many families, including mine, have links to the river. My late father-in-law, Trevor Mochrie, was a Gravesend tug seaman, who worked on the river early in his career, before working on the high seas. As the river is the main artery to and from London, Gravesham was and is strong on industry, and it is a source of employment in tourism and leisure. In particular, we have our Gravesend regatta, which is celebrating 179 years. It was running before that, but it was made official 179 years ago by the council, because of some very unparliamentary disputes that took place about who won a race. I place on record my tributes to the committee, its chair, Shane Cleaver, and all the volunteers for keeping this tradition going in a sportsmanlike fashion, and there have been no further disputes of that kind.
Given that extensive local history and heritage, it was to our dismay and that of residents, businesses and visitors from Thurrock and Gravesend that Thurrock council and Kent county council ceased funding the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry service last year. Since the ending of that service, local businesses have suffered significantly. They have told me that it has impacted on people’s ability to get to and from work, and that they have lost many people who cannot bear the thought of taking the Dartford crossing in order to get to work. On our high street, one particular business, Marie’s Tea Room, which used to cater for the passing trade from the large cruise ships that used to dock at Tilbury, has been impacted to the point that it can no longer employ a member of staff. These things have impacts, and I am sure it is the same across our high street.
I have been running a petition, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, and there have been others. My petition has garnered thousands of signatures—
Dr Sullivan
My petition, which has garnered thousands of signatures, calls for the return of the ferry service. It is clear that businesses and residents want their ferry back.
At present, there is a desire for people to travel by public transport, which I support. People should leave their cars at home, but they need options. Previously, the option was a 10-minute jump across the water. Now, the options are a train into London and back out again, or multiple buses to get through the Dartford crossing. All this is costing us precious time.
If we as a society want to support public transport, relieving congestion on the roads should be at the heart of everything we do. Take the example of the Woolwich ferry, which, by parliamentary statute, must be run and is not able to charge. I am not asking—tempting as it is—for that to be the case for the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry, but I am asking the local authority to protect these valuable transport routes.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
In the last 20 years, we have seen two new public transport options that my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford benefit from when crossing the river: the docklands light railway in Woolwich, and the Elizabeth line into Abbey Wood. But as my hon. Friend has said, there is no public transport option from Woolwich to the Kent coast that her and my constituents can benefit from. Will she join me in welcoming some exploration of river and other public transport options through south-east London and into Kent?
Dr Sullivan
I absolutely agree. The Thames Clipper is a remarkable service that is supported by Transport for London, but it needs to be subsidised. It is looking at expanding into the estuary. Taking on board the desire of my hon. Friend’s constituents and mine to be able to travel via the river, I think that is a very good proposal that we in this place should get behind.
I know from my past role as a councillor on Gravesham borough council that operators are very interested in introducing a ferry service. In fact, Gravesend pier was sold to Thames Clipper in order to make way for the exciting development of the new public transport route to London and beyond. However, Gravesham borough council is not a local highway authority, so it has neither the status nor the money to develop this kind of public transport and hold the contract. Given the local government reorganisation that is coming, the council is prepared to do it, but it cannot be left with no money, because that would be poor financial management. The ferry service could be a public-private partnership—if businesses are listening, perhaps we can come together with the Government and fund it through moneys that go down to local authorities.
I will speak briefly about the lower Thames crossing, which may not be the solution or the silver bullet. It sits within Gravesham and goes through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock. It is fair to say that we have been vocally opposed to it since the outset, particularly because of its significant impact on Gravesham. Quite rightly, Labour has promised that local residents will see the benefits of major infrastructure projects, and it is in this vein that I will ask the Minister some questions, which I hope he will be able to follow up. I would welcome a private meeting, if needed, to go through this issue with his Department for Transport colleagues.
The lower Thames crossing will have an impact on Gravesham. Option C was chosen nearly a decade ago under the Tories. It was the most expensive option compared with another bridge at Dartford. I do regret the loss of ancient woodland, the impact on air quality and the congestion of our local roads. The Conservatives took a “dither and delay” approach. Therefore, while a new bridge could have already been built had it been funded, we are still waiting.
Residents of Northfleet, Gravesend and the villages along the A227 in my constituency already suffer with congestion and gridlock when the Dartford crossing goes down or when the A2, which is a huge arterial road into London, has problems. Gravesham and Gravesend will be cut in half, yet sandwiched between the Dartford crossing and the proposed lower Thames crossing. The modelling data from National Highways show that congestion levels will be back to what they are now within four years of the opening of the lower Thames crossing.
Residents are worried about getting to Darent Valley hospital for urgent care when these problems occur on our roads at peak times or, sadly, when there are accidents. Giving people a choice of reliable public transport options would ease that congestion. If there are reliable public transport options—buses, river boats, river ferries—to take cars off the road, there would be greater capacity on the roads for when such unfortunate congestion events occur.
The wider impacts of the tunnel need to be considered. Currently, we fear that the A227 will be used as a rat run to access the M20. When the original plans for the lower Thames crossing were thought of, there was going to be an upgrade at Bluebell hill. Sadly, under the Conservatives, that was cut back and then cut back further. Unless that junction is improved, sadly, the villages in my constituency will be bearing the brunt of the hugely increased number of vehicles travelling to the M20.
I would like some assurances about the lower Thames crossing, and I have some questions to which I would like answers in the days to come. How will National Highways ensure that the years of construction and of delays will minimally impact Gravesham residents? How will the traffic get to and from the lower Thames crossing without impacting local roads? Indeed, there was talk of using the river for bringing in equipment and materials. What powers exist to ensure that local roads are not used as rat runs, and who will be held accountable for that?
Our local infrastructure, such as housing, will be impacted by the influx of workers. We would like a halt on people working on the lower Thames crossing moving into the area, because we already face a significant housing crisis in the area. Other things that could be affected include leisure and health services, so will such wider infrastructure projects be increased in the future? What accountability is there for the modelling data? As I have said, four years on, and the congestion will be at the same level, which will have a wider impact. Local residents have raised that concern with me, but who can I hold accountable?
We are all local MPs, and it is right that we ask the tough questions and make requests for our constituencies. So I kindly request the Minister to look at restoring the Gravesend to Tilbury ferry and sustainably maintained in perpetuity as a decent public transport option, and it could be subsidised and promoted from a small proportion of the tolls on the lower Thames crossing.
We want a guarantee, with accountability, that Gravesend businesses and residents are at the front and centre of the new jobs. We have deprived wards in Gravesham, which is among the top 10 most deprived areas, and we want those people to have access to such skills. I hope Members understand that Gravesham and Thurrock will be most impacted by this programme. It is only right that those residents see some of the benefits, especially as at the moment “local” is considered to be a local resident or a local person who is employed within a 20-mile radius. Now, that is half of London. I ask that we capture that information from a five-mile radius. I am not saying all of it should be local, but we need to ensure that local people and businesses are encouraged to apply and take up those jobs.
On the mitigations and accountability for the rat running that will ensue on the A227 based on the wider road modelling, there is the issue of proposed tolls. We are directly opposite the larger unitary authority of Thurrock. The residents of Thurrock enjoy a residents’ discount scheme. In Gravesham, however, such a scheme has not been promoted, yet very many of my residents use the Dartford crossing on a regular basis, especially now that the Tilbury crossing is down. I therefore ask the Minister if Gravesham could be included in the Dartford crossing scheme while the lower Thames crossing is being built and thereafter in perpetuity.
I want to raise mitigations for the environmental impact. We know the terrible air quality in Dartford and we do not want that in Gravesham. How can we improve both places and protect Gravesham residents? Finally, on housing, a vast array of our land that could have been developed for housing is now no longer available.
In conclusion, I thank the Minister in advance for his upcoming reply and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this Adjournment debate. Most of all, I would like to thank the residents, businesses and visitors of Gravesham. Gravesham has a long history on the river and we would really like to see the return of the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry crossing.
Mike Kane
No, we cannot use those moneys in that way, but that does not stop us talking in the future with Department officials and the private sector about the river to see what is the art of the possible. Let us hold that in abeyance, and I will say a little more about that at the end of my speech.
The Government are exploring all viable funding options for the lower Thames crossing. That includes private finance options, which would use public seed funding to unlock investment. A road users charge will help finance the lower Thames crossing and reduce the burden on the public purse for major infrastructure projects. The road user charging regime for the lower Thames crossing has not been set, so I urge my hon. Friends to make their representations to the Secretary of State, the Roads Minister and me on this matter as it pertains to their local constituencies.
Dr Sullivan
When we consider the private companies and contractors that may come forward, the ask here is whether we could extract a social value—a social good—from the funding for the Tilbury-Gravesend crossing.
Mike Kane
I recently met the chief executive of Thames Clippers, which I think owns the pier, and that model has been pursued in other parts of the country, so, again, it is worthy of exploration with me and my officials.
Across the financial period 2025-26, the Department has allocated Kent county council nearly £40 million to support its local highway network, over £23 million to support the improvement of bus services, and £5.7 million to support active travel improvements. That is a significant uplift under this Government. In the same financial period, the Department has allocated Thurrock council nearly £3 million to support its local highway network, £2 million to support the improvement of bus services and over £350,000 to support active travel improvements.
In addition, the Chancellor recently confirmed in the spending review that the £3 bus fare cap, which was expected to finish at the end of the year, will be extended until at least March 2027, benefiting both local authorities. However, there is limited revenue funding for the local authorities, and it will be for them to decide which services to prioritise. I urge all partners in the region and the Members of Parliament who have spoken eloquently here today to work together constructively to find appropriate local transport solutions, including river services. I have asked my officials at the Department for Transport to work closely with local partners to identify any funding opportunities that could become available to help support local plans.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock that I hope one day she will be able to visit the Three Daws public house once again. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham for securing this Adjournment debate and for being a doughty champion on this matter in her constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lauren Sullivan Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lilian Greenwood
I know that the global challenges facing the automotive industry have been significant over the past couple of months. During the ZEV mandate consultation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met 95% of the vehicle manufacturers. We are currently considering carefully the representations that they and others have made. We will make a further announcement later in the spring.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
This week we published our maritime decarbonisation strategy, setting decarbonisation goals, along with policy and regulatory measures, to support the sector through the net zero transition. The strategy provides clarity to the sector and will unlock investment in clean maritime technologies, ensuring that the sector is prepared for a zero-emission future.
Dr Sullivan
The lower Thames crossing announcement a couple of days ago was a disappointment to many of my constituents. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can use a small proportion of the tolls to support the maritime sector, particularly the Tilbury-Gravesend ferry, to reduce congestion and rat-running through the villages?
Mike Kane
I recently met my hon. Friend about her campaign to reinstate the local ferry. Local ferries are a matter for the competent local transport authority, and I call on Kent county council to help her in that campaign to re-establish the ferry. I know that she is working with maritime partners, but I am happy to meet her.
Bus Funding
Lauren Sullivan Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Louise Haigh
The way the formula has been designed explicitly benefits rural areas, because a third of the allocation is dependent on bus mileage; that is why a number of areas, including Somerset, have done much better out of today’s allocation than in previous years. We are removing the controls that were previously required. All the funding will have to be spent on buses, but we believe it is right that local transport authorities take those decisions themselves rather than being constrained by central diktat from Whitehall.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the £23 million for Kent county council. As a Kent county councillor—for a little bit longer—I have seen the ridiculous bidding wars and the hoops we have had to jump through for many, many years. Will the money be ringfenced for buses, while allowing Kent county council the flexibility to spend it on the KCC Travel Saver—a fantastic initiative to help kids get around Kent to local schools? Will the money facilitate that?
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important question. We have lifted controls on the funding from the Department. We think it is absolutely right that Kent county council should be able to decide where its bus money goes. The money will be ringfenced to ensure that it is spent on buses, but if areas want to spend it on providing concessions for younger people or care leavers, on buying new buses or on adding new services, that is entirely within its gift. It is right that Kent county council makes those decisions, rather than me.
Lower Thames Crossing
Lauren Sullivan Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Dickson
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is completely right. The project has the potential to really kick-start the growth in the Thames estuary that has started but needs extra investment in order to succeed. In addition to the points she makes, we should think about the Thames freeport in that context; it could generate £2.5 billion additional growth and attract £4.5 billion in public and private investment.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I want to focus on the merits of the lower Thames crossing for Gravesham, where one in five people have no qualifications and two in five live in relative poverty. Is my hon. Friend as outraged as I am by the announcement that the skills hub for the south part, in Kent, is to be in Maidstone, and not in Gravesham, where it could address some of those issues?
Jim Dickson
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. The skills element is absolutely critical. The skills hub will be in Maidstone, but will be available to everyone across the region. The further education sector has come together as a consortium to make sure that 16-plus residents across the region benefit. I have spoken to at least one major construction business today that has been looking to start a skills hub in my hon. Friend’s constituency and would be very happy to do so upon the announcement of the start of this programme. There are lots of opportunities, both in Maidstone and in her constituency, for new jobs and new skills opportunities for residents. That is an extremely important point.
The crossing has already been through the planning process and a delivery team is ready. That means that the project is shovel-ready and could be under construction shortly after decisions on planning and funding are made. We could be reaping the benefits very soon after a May 2025 decision.
Lilian Greenwood
I am afraid not. I am very short of time.
Decisions on development consent orders are made as quickly as possible, including ahead of any statutory deadline when appropriate. I recognise the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has made regarding congestion at Dartford and the very significant impacts on the lives of his constituents. I am aware of the incident that caused the closure of the Dartford tunnel on 20 and 21 October, and National Highways have assured the Department that a full investigation is continuing.
As my hon. Friend knows, I visited the Dartford crossings myself recently and I appreciate how quickly queues can build and the impact those have on local people and businesses. National Highways are clear that the purpose of the lower Thames crossing is to relieve demand on the existing Dartford crossings, to improve connectivity between our ports and the rest of the UK, and to provide development opportunities across the Thames estuary in Essex, Thurrock and Kent.
However, it is also important to acknowledge that large schemes such as this have the potential to impact on a significant number of people as well as on the environment. There will always be a wide variety of views, and I note the contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock). May they be assured that the final decision on the application will be based on a full consideration of the evidence presented by all parties.
While I am not involved in the decision on the development consent order for the scheme under focus, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has acknowledged, given the decision on the application is currently under consideration in the Department, I cannot take part in any discussion on the pros and cons of the proposal, however tempting that may be. That is to ensure the process is correctly followed and remains fair to all parties.
I note, however, that much focus has been given recently to the cost of delivering large-scale infrastructure projects. The planning system plays a vital role in ensuring the right scheme is delivered. The Government are absolutely committed to reforming the planning system to support the transformation of transport infrastructure to work for the whole country. Streamlining the delivery process, reforming compulsory purchase compensation rules, improving local decision making and increasing capacity in the system through the planning and infrastructure Bill will all help to accelerate the delivery of the critical transport infrastructure that this country needs.
I recognise the importance of the issues raised today and the request that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford made to discuss funding. I will certainly speak to my Treasury colleagues, and I hope I can help to facilitate the meeting that I know he would want.
Dr Sullivan
Gravesham is going to suffer from poor air quality, a lack of housing through workers coming into the area, increased congestion and loss of ancient woodland. Yet there is a lack of investment in training and skills in the area affected most by the crossing. Does the Minister agree with me that Gravesham residents deserve to be fully supported and the effects mitigated?
Lilian Greenwood
It is important that the views of my hon. Friend’s constituents are considered alongside those of all people in any decision about a scheme of this sort.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lauren Sullivan Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Lightwood
We are considering the benefits that have accrued as a result of the £2 bus fare and what steps we will take next. Of course, that will all form part of the spending review.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
While the lower Thames crossing is under review, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to promote river transport crossings such as river buses?
Lilian Greenwood
I will ask my officials to look into river buses, and I will write to my hon. Friend after today’s session.