Roadworks: Journey Times

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) on securing this debate on the impact of roadworks on journey times, and I thank all Members who have contributed to what has been an informative and interesting discussion.

People use our roads to make journeys every day, and how we manage them has a direct impact on everyone’s lives. The frustration caused by congestion and the poor condition of our roads are recurring themes that my Department and I are focused on. I am sure that we all, as Members of Parliament, hear the concerns that have been exposed today every time we knock on a door, frankly.

I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne about growing traffic congestion. That is one reason why the Government are acting to enable more people to choose public transport or active travel. We need to tackle that congestion and to think about it in the round. We are determined to deliver a transport network that works for all road users, whether they are drivers, bikers, cyclists, bus passengers, pedestrians or horse riders.

The challenge of congestion will only grow, given that over the coming years the number of roadworks will increase because of new housing developments, the continued roll-out of broadband and the need to meet our targets for installing electric vehicle charge point infrastructure to deliver the Government’s commitment to net zero. We also all need the services provided by utility companies, and we want them to maintain and improve their infrastructure. More than 2.2 million works take place in England each year, and the congestion created costs around £4 billion.

In addition, the Government are determined to tackle the problem of potholes and other road defects on our networks. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne will know, we have a manifesto commitment to fix 1 million more potholes a year, every year of this Parliament. I am pleased to say that we have already made a start by announcing, in today’s Budget, a £500 million funding increase for local authorities in 2025-26, which is an increase of almost 50% from 2024-25 levels. I am more than aware that authorities and Members alike will be interested to know how their areas and communities will benefit from that funding, and specific allocations will be announced in due course.

In total, the Department for Transport will invest about £1.6 billion in local highway maintenance in the next year. That includes additional funding on top of that already provided to city mayors through the city region sustainable transport settlements, to help local councils to maintain and renew their local highway network. Future capital investment in our infrastructure, including roads, rail and other things, will of course come in the spending review in the spring.

I enjoyed the contribution from the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), and I hope that the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Transport enjoyed it, too, as that is a matter for her and the Scottish Government.

The pressure on our road networks caused by works is not going away. However, we want to find the right balance between allowing necessary works to go ahead and minimising the disruption for everyone using our roads.

[Mr Francois]

The Minister’s opposite number in the previous Government kindly granted me a meeting about my Bill, which unfortunately ran out of parliamentary time. As I have 10 minutes to fill next week, will she allow me as part of my speech to say that we have discussed this today and that she has kindly agreed to meet me to discuss the merits of my Bill and whether the Government might be prepared to adopt it in whole or in part?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The appropriate thing for me to do is to listen to the right hon. Member’s speech next week and to the arguments that he makes. I am sure that we will find an opportunity to discuss it in the future.

I assure the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) that National Highways always works closely with Network Rail to ensure that works on our national networks are co-ordinated. If that does not happen, I hope that he would draw it to my attention, and I would certainly seek to raise those issues with them.

There is already a great deal of scope for works to be planned, managed and co-ordinated more effectively—as the hon. Member for Broxbourne called for—and, importantly, for the public to be told when works are happening and to be warned about the impact that those might have on their journeys. The responsibility of the local highways authority is to co-ordinate any works taking place on their roads, including their own works. In doing so, councils must take account of the needs of everyone using the road, consider the implications of works for their network and that of neighbouring authorities, and act to minimise or prevent problems. Utility companies also have a duty to co-operate with the authority.

Street works permit schemes are now in use by all but one local authority. They provide councils with the proactive tools to improve the management of all works in the street, as well as offering incentives to minimise disruption. To support the transition to permits, the Department for Transport set up Street Manager, which is our online service for planning and managing road and street works in England. Since 2020, all local authorities, utility companies and their contractors, have had a single view of the street, with visibility of the whole network to help them plan and co-ordinate works for the benefit of road users. It enables better forward planning and more joint works. We also stream open data about live and planned works that apps and websites make available to the public. We have a commitment to continue improving the service to ensure that it meets users’ needs.

As the hon. Member for Broxbourne highlighted, lane rental is another tool to help local highways authorities to reduce the impact of works taking place on the busiest roads at the busiest times. Such schemes allow authorities to charge utilities up to £2,500 a day for works on those roads. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) expressed the hope that roadworks would be planned for periods when they cause least disruption. Such issues are devolved in Northern Ireland, but his point is well made.

Lane rental charges act as an incentive to encourage those who plan works to complete them as quickly as possible, to carry out their works outside peak periods, or to consider alternative locations to minimise disruption. Lane rental schemes also encourage joint works, as that can attract discounts or charges can be waived. Any surplus revenue can be spent by the council on ways to reduce the impact of works on congestion.

Highways authorities that want to set up schemes can bid to the Secretary of State for approval, and we have provided bidding guidance on how they can do that. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne said, four lane rental schemes are in operation: on Transport for London’s network in London, and in Kent, Surrey and West Sussex. The Secretary of State has recently approved a scheme in East Sussex, which is due to begin in 2025. Many more local councils are developing schemes and this Government want to support them. We want to make the lane rental scheme application process as easy as possible for local authorities, and I am reviewing the application and approval process with my Department to see what improvements can be made.

On the issue of fines and penalties, local authorities can already issue overrun charges of up to £10,000 per day for works that exceed the duration agreed as part of the permit. For a range of offences such as breaching permit conditions or working without a permit, fixed penalty notices can also be issued. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) said, these powers can and should be used to improve the daily lives of our constituents, who rely on the roads. As I grew up in his constituency, many of those roads are very familiar to me.

As has been said several times, the Department for Transport consulted earlier this year on proposals to apply overrun charges at weekends and to increase fixed penalty notice charges. I am fully aware that the Department’s response to that consultation is eagerly awaited. I am considering the proposals, and we will publish our response shortly. As I said, I look forward to listening closely to the comments from the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) about his forthcoming ten-minute rule Bill.

In addition to the existing range of powers available for use by authorities to manage roads on their network, I hope and expect that we will all see improvements in how utility companies carry out their works as more authorities operate lane rental schemes. My Department is determined to put people at the heart of everything that we do, so as we continue our work, we will constantly look at how we regulate roadworks to see if further improvements can be made for the benefit of everyone who uses our roads—drivers, bikers, cyclists, pedestrians, and so on. We plan, for example, to look at how urgent or emergency works, which I recognise cause particular difficulties, can be planned and co-ordinated more effectively, especially when they affect traffic and cause disruption, including for buses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) set out clearly how roadworks can affect the punctuality of the bus services that our constituents rely on. My constituents in Nottingham will very much recognise that, as we have some major roadworks in our city centre. While I am on the subject of buses, which are important road users, I gently point out to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), that the previous Government funded their bus fare cap only until the end of the year. We are extending the cap and investing in better bus services across England. I am also surprised that he did not mention the fuel duty freeze, but there we go.

I thank the hon. Member for Broxbourne for raising these important issues, which affect the daily lives of our constituents and all of us. I am determined to keep people moving and to deliver the cleaner, greener, smoother and less congested roads that all our constituents want to travel on.

Draft Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

The purpose of this statutory instrument is to introduce an alternative route for renewal of the driver certificate of professional competence, or DCPC, that will be recognised across all four nations of the United Kingdom and will offer more flexible courses than the current system, with an accelerated pathway for drivers to return to the profession. The existing process for demonstrating competence, which is recognised across Europe, will remain for drivers who operate within the European Union, and indeed Switzerland and the European economic area, and will remain valid when driving in the UK.

We are amending the existing Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) Regulations 2007 under powers conferred by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. The regulations transposed EU directive 2003/59/EC and were last amended in 2020. We are amending the regulations to increase the choice and flexibility available to drivers when they renew.

Members may remember that, back in 2021, there was an acute shortage of lorry, bus and coach drivers, which caused significant disruption to critical supply chains. As part of its response, in 2021 the Department launched a review of DCPC that involved the industry, seeking views on ways to improve processes to increase recruitment and retention. Many felt that the current renewal process is inflexible and unnecessarily burdensome —in particular, the time and cost burdens of the periodic training required for the renewal of qualifications. Drivers must currently do 35 hours of training under a rigid structure, with courses being a minimum of seven hours and most being trainer led. It was identified that that contributed to drivers leaving the profession. In the 2021 review, drivers and former drivers stated that the burden of renewing the certificate of professional competence acted as a barrier to those considering joining or looking to renew their qualification, leading to people leaving the sector.

A public consultation was launched in early 2023, suggesting options for possible changes to the ways of demonstrating professional competence. That consultation, along with regular industry engagement, has informed the reforms we are proposing today to give drivers more options and greater flexibility during the renewal process, and to assist the industry in retaining and recruiting drivers. As I said, drivers currently renew their DCPC every five years in order to drive in the UK or the EU by doing 35 hours of training through a rigid system of courses, each of which is a minimum of seven hours long, with little option for e-learning. We are introducing a national qualification to sit alongside the existing international qualification. The national qualification, which will be valid across the UK, will still require 35 hours of training every five years, but courses can be shorter, with a minimum of three and a half hours, and there will be more e-learning available, with the introduction of new stand-alone e-learning courses. This flexibility was requested by many in the industry, particularly by drivers.

We are also introducing an accelerated pathway to allow drivers to return to the workforce. If a driver’s DCPC has lapsed by more than 60 days but less than two years, the driver can take a seven-hour bespoke return to driving course to gain a one-year national DCPC. That window of time was chosen to avoid drivers deliberately allowing their DCPC to lapse in order to take the accelerated return pathway, and to avoid drivers who have been out of the profession for a prolonged time from rejoining without adequate retraining. Within the 12-month validity period of their national DCPC, the driver can then do the remaining 28 hours of training to gain a full five-year national or international DCPC.

I am aware that some in the industry would have liked to abolish the DCPC entirely, and although I have some sympathy with drivers who see it as a burden based on time and cost to renew, I do believe that it is necessary for road safety and driver professionalism; overall, that was supported in the consultation. Additionally, due to the requirements of the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU, and other international obligations, the DCPC must be kept for most commercial international road transport.

The reforms will make renewing or regaining a DCPC much easier and more flexible for operators, particularly drivers, easing the impact on work-life balance while not reducing the quality of the education drivers receive to ensure we maintain a safe and highly professional workforce in the road freight and passenger transport sectors.

The draft regulations will make changes to the driver certificate professional competence regulations by making the renewal process more flexible for drivers operating solely in the UK, and they may help to reduce the chances of future driver shortages. We listened to stakeholders in all four nations while developing the amendments, and we expect these regulations to support the industry while ensuring a professional and safe workforce throughout the UK and beyond. To help the industry understand the more flexible training route, the Driver Vehicle Standards Agency in Great Britain and the Driver and Vehicle Agency in Northern Ireland will issue guidance to the industry.

I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire—and the hon. Member for West Dorset for their thoughtful contributions, and I welcome the shadow Minister’s support for the regulations.

As I set out in my opening comments, the Department conducted a review that ended in 2022; there is no question that this instrument continues work that started under the previous Government. If one wished to play political games, I suppose one might query why it has taken such a long time for the regulations to appear in front of a Committee—it is this Government who have ensured that they have been considered in in good time.

We continue to work closely with the haulage sector, which we are determined to support. We have already recognised the importance of freight and logistics, with new wording in the draft national planning policy framework that recognises the importance of the industry. The shadow Minister may have missed it, but in recent weeks I have also announced further funding to support improved heavy goods vehicle parking and driver welfare, and further support for the freight transport sector through the freight innovation fund. However, I am straying off the point of today’s debate.

Let me answer the question about the quality of e-learning. I am pleased that Liberal Democrats colleagues have welcomed the flexibilities introduced by this legislation. I reassure them that the Department considers 3.5 hours for stand-alone e-learning courses to be the right balance, providing increased flexibility for drivers taking their training while ensuring that the course is long enough to be meaningful. There will be an audit process and the DVSA will still approve all courses to make sure that they are of suitable quality. I raised particular concerns about how we will ensure that people are participating fully in the e-learning; I am reassured that there will be a start and end time, so drivers will not be able to scoot through the courses quickly, and that courses may include quizzes to ensure engagement and test that learning has taken place, although there are no mandatory course assessments. All courses are audited by the DVSA to check records and we will make sure that they deliver the safe standards that we want to see.

The shadow Minister asked who will undertake the international DCPC. As I am sure he will be aware, a majority of freight drivers—possibly as many as 90%—operate only within the UK, so they may well choose to do the national DCPC. Many hauliers, though, also drive across the European Union, as those routes are very important for our supply chains and for getting exports out to Europe, including the EEA and Switzerland; of course, those drivers will want to continue to do the international DCPC. Flexibility exists within the courses, so if a driver completes a seven-hour course, it will count towards either the national or international DCPC—they can easily upgrade their national DCPC to an international DCPC depending on the courses they choose to undertake to make up the 35 hours. I hope that provides the hon. Member with reassurance that this provision will continue to be available for British drivers who need to operate internationally.

These reforms to the way in which professional drivers renew their driver certificate of professional competence will provide increased flexibility to those in the sector while maintaining the original purpose of the qualification: to improve road safety and driver professionalism. To abolish the qualification would be counter to those aims, although I am interested that no one has mentioned doing so today. We did consider that possibility but decided to keep the 35 hours of training because 60% of consultation respondents supported keeping the process as it is or reforming it—and it is really important for road safety and maintaining professional skills and standards in the industry.

I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Zero Emission Vans

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Efford, and so soon as well. I am delighted to respond to this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) recently passed her first anniversary in this House, and she is proving a great champion for the people of Tamworth. I congratulate her on securing the debate and on setting out the challenges of the transition to zero emission vehicles so succinctly. I also thank other hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken and made important contributions.

I will summarise the actions that this Government are taking to address some of the issues that have been raised. The transition to electric vehicles is crucial to achieving the UK’s net zero target by 2050. As well as the environmental benefits, including lower carbon emissions, better air quality and reduced noise, the transition will help us to kick-start the economy and make Britain a clean energy superpower. Transport remains the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK. The domestic transport sector produced a staggering 28% of the UK’s total emissions in 2022. Road transport is responsible for 89% of those emissions, and vans are responsible for 19% of road transport emissions.

The challenge of eliminating that carbon and shifting to clean, green vehicles is immense, but it is also a huge opportunity for British manufacturers. Zero emission vans will be at the heart of the global economy, and making them in Britain will deliver well-paid green jobs for generations to come. To achieve that, we must ensure that there is certainty for industry and consumers, so that manufacturers have the confidence to invest and build vehicles here in the UK and consumers have the confidence to switch. When I talk about consumers, I mean not just individual drivers, but fleets and operators.

To provide certainty, we have stated our intention to phase out the sale of new cars solely powered by internal combustion engines by 2030, and we will set out further details on reducing emissions from vans in due course. All new cars and vans will need to be zero emission by 2035 and, of course, that is no change from the plan under the previous Government. There is a clear plan to get us from where we are today to where we need to be in a decade’s time.

The zero emission vehicle mandate sets annual targets for vehicle manufacturers for the registration of new zero emission cars and vans. Those targets provide a clear investment signal to vehicle manufacturers and the charge point industry. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, will be aware that the mandate is being extended to also cover Northern Ireland.

The targets for vans rise annually from 10% this year to 70% in 2030, and were determined in close consultation with vehicle manufacturers. The Government recognise that the ZEV mandate targets are particularly challenging for vans. Industry figures for the year to September suggest that zero emission vans account for 6.2% of sales, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth that they have remained steady at around 5% across 2023 and 2024. Clearly, we have further to go. That is why vans receive additional flexibilities under the ZEV mandate compared with cars.

Van manufacturers in 2024 can defer 90% of the target for this year to later years, meaning they can choose to sell fewer zero emission vans this year in exchange for selling more in future years as demand reaches critical mass, more models are available and prices potentially—hopefully—come down. Manufacturers can also use the carbon dioxide conversion flexibility, which allows them to sell fewer zero emission vans in exchange for reducing average emissions across their new non-zero emission vans, producing ICE vans that are less polluting. Vehicle manufacturers can therefore meet the requirements of the mandate without incurring fines, even if they do not achieve 10% of new van sales this year. However, we want to help industry to reach those targets, which is why the Government provide incentives to support the uptake of zero emission vans and trucks.

The plug-in vehicle grants, which help to reduce the up-front purchase cost of vans and trucks, have supported more than 110,000 vans and heavy goods vehicles across the UK since 2012. Although the plug-in grants are kept under review, and the Government have been clear that they will eventually end, I am constantly looking at the matter to ensure we can achieve our aspirations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth also mentioned HGVs. The phase-out date for new non-zero emission trucks is 2035 for vehicles up to 26 tonnes and 2040 for those above. The Government remain technology neutral, investing in both hydrogen and battery electrification, which is why we are providing up to £200 million as part of the zero emission HGV and infrastructure demonstrator programme. The programme will build sector confidence in the capabilities of the heaviest HGVs—40 to 44 tonnes—by supporting hundreds of battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell HGVs and kickstarting the deployment of the charging and fuelling sites. I got to ride in a battery electric HGV on a recent visit to Scania—these vehicles are here. They are not in a test phase; they are very real and available for deployment. My driver was very enthusiastic about the experience of driving an electric HGV, which, as anyone who has driven an electric vehicle will know, can accelerate really well, which is important for safety when pulling on and off roads.

We are already acting to make it as easy as possible for operators to make the switch to zero emission vans, and flexibilities are already in place on driver and operator licensing to align regulations for heavier electric vans with their petrol and diesel equivalents; as my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth said, they look exactly the same. Standard licence holders can already drive alternatively fuelled goods vehicles up to 4.25 tonnes, rather than the usual 3.5 tonnes, provided the driver has completed five hours of additional training.

Alternatively fuelled vehicles up to 4.25 tonnes are also exempt from the need for operator licences, which place additional operational requirements on organisations operating vehicles above 3.5 tonnes. As the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) said, a previous consultation sought views on the removal of the additional requirements for alternatively fuelled vehicles to access the driving licence flexibility, which included the additional five hours of training, the types of vehicles eligible for the flexibility and the towing allowance. The consultation also sought views on limiting the flexibility to zero emission vehicles only. Responses were mostly in favour of the changes, and the Government are now considering options to make it easier for both drivers and operators to move to zero emission vans. We are continuing the work of the previous Government in that respect, and reviewing options for amending roadworthiness or MOT testing, as well as drivers’ hours, tachograph and speed limiter rules for those heavier zero emission vans. The Government take road safety very seriously, and reducing the number of those killed or seriously injured on our roads is a key priority. Road safety is therefore a primary consideration in assessing any changes to regulatory weight thresholds.

Let me turn to the issues about charging infrastructure. We recognise that van and fleet drivers are likely to rely on public charging infrastructure. Their needs can differ from those of private drivers because of several factors, including shift work, long journeys and the need for flexibility—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth said, some of the vans require refrigeration units too. There are already 70,000 publicly available charging devices in the UK, which is a 42% year-on-year increase. The challenge is to continue to deliver at that rate.

For drivers who park near their home, the local electric vehicle infrastructure fund is delivering over £380 million in capital and resource funding to support local authorities to deliver the roll-out of tens of thousands of local charge points. They will support van and fleet drivers without off-street parking, helping them to charge close to home. The local authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth has been allocated more than £5 million of local electric vehicle infrastructure funding. That will help Staffordshire to work with industry to transform the availability of charging infrastructure for their residents without off-street parking, including those who need to charge a van outside their home.

Cross-pavement solutions also provide a permanent option to safely charge an EV on the street outside a driver’s home. We are looking at how we can support local authorities to help people access these solutions. Eligible van and fleet drivers who wish to install a cross-pavement solution can benefit from the Government’s electric vehicle charge point grant. To pick up on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) about charging spaces not being appropriately set out for vans, we are continuing to communicate with charging providers about the importance of their being accessible for van drivers. Our work with the British Standards Institute on accessible charging infrastructure will also support larger bays.

Charge point provision along the strategic road network—our motorways and A roads—has significantly improved in recent years. Those charge points are essential to support drivers making long-distance journeys. There are now more than 960 open-access rapid and ultra-rapid charge points at motorway service areas across England and many more on or close to our key A roads.

The quality of charge points is also improving. The Public Charge Point Regulations 2023 were introduced in November last year, and already require all charge points to provide clear and consistent information to enable customers to compare prices easily. Additional requirements from the end of November of this year will enable van drivers and all consumers to get free up-to-date information about charge point availability, access a 24/7 free helpline and expect 99% reliability across each rapid charging network. The contactless payment requirement will simplify payments at many public charge points, including all rapid charge points, eliminating the need for drivers to use multiple apps. The regulations will improve the charging experience for all drivers, particularly commercial drivers, who spend the most time out on the roads.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth asked about the workplace charging scheme grant. That continues to provide support for businesses, charities and public sector organisations to install charge points. Since 2016 it has supported over 55,000 workplaces and offers up to £350—capped at 75%, as she said—towards the purchase and installation of charge point sockets. However, the Government know that in order to give the public confidence in making the switch to electric vans, they need to feel confident in their ability to charge those vehicles, whether at home or depot or on the road. We recognise that more needs to be done and that is why we have committed to accelerating the roll-out of charging infrastructure. We are currently considering the most effective way to do this, and we will have more to say in due course.

We recognise that grid connections continue to be a major obstacle for those wishing to make the switch to electric vehicles. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth illustrated the challenge by giving the example of a business in her constituency. We know there is a need for significant reform to the grid connections process, which is why we are working with Ofgem and the network companies to make it easier. Of course, there is also a need to increase electricity generation more broadly.

The Government have a plan to deliver the UK’s transition to zero emission vans by maintaining our ambitious but achievable ZEV mandate targets, reviewing measures to make zero emission vans as accessible as possible, and accelerating the roll-out of charging infrastructure. We will continue to work closely with fleet operators, individual organisations and their trade associations to understand the barriers to their uptake of zero emission vans and identify solutions to help overcome them.

I once again thank my hon. Friend for leading this important debate and I also thank the other hon. Members who contributed.

Lower Thames Crossing

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Mr Efford. It is always a pleasure to see you in the chair. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) on securing this debate on an issue which I am well aware is of great importance and interest to him and his constituents.

It is great to see quite a number of those constituents here today, to see other hon. Members, and to see very many people in the freight and logistics sector too, on whose behalf my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has spoken with great passion. I would also like to thank him and other hon. Members here today for their engagement on this matter so far, including my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna). I know that they are working very hard on behalf of their constituents.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has written to my Department several times on the issue of congestion at Dartford, as well as on progress on the application for a development consent order for the lower Thames crossing, a nationally significant infrastructure project connecting Essex, Thurrock and Kent.

The application for the lower Thames crossing development consent order was made under the Planning Act 2008 by National Highways, submitted to the planning inspectorate in October 2022, and accepted in November 2022. The appointed examining authority began its examination in June 2023 and concluded it in December 2023. The Secretary of State received the examining authority’s recommendation report on 20 March this year, with a statutory deadline of 20 June for a decision. Following a written Ministerial statement in May, the statutory deadline was extended to 4 October due to the general election. The deadline has since been further extended, to 23 May 2025, to allow more time for the application to be considered, including any decisions made as part of the spending review.

As with all nationally significant infrastructure projects, this is a complex scheme. There can be detailed matters that need to be worked through even after an examination has closed to ensure a legally robust decision is made. The Government recognise that transport infrastructure is vital for growth and acknowledge the critical role that roads play in our national transport system, facilitating the movement of people and goods that underpin the UK economy.

[James McMurdock]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

[James McMurdock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will, very briefly.

[James McMurdock]

I recognise the points being made and I do not want to speak against them for the sake of it. However, I am conscious that with nearly 15 years of planning, five years of construction and, with the Minister’s numbers, another five years until we have a 14% reduction at best, which would still put us over capacity, is that not a quarter of a century of wasted opportunity? Given the scale and cost, does she agree with me that we have to get this right?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I certainly agree that we have to get this right, and that is the purpose of the process, which I know is a frustratingly long one.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that we also need to look out for businesses in my constituency of Bexleyheath and Crayford? Currently, when there is congestion, they end up travelling 28 miles—instead of six miles—to the Blackwall tunnel and back again, and a 10-minute journey ends up taking them an hour. We therefore need to look at options for river crossings through both south London and Kent as we move forward.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend has very effectively put the views of his constituents on the record.

Finally, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford is reassured that my Department fully appreciates the importance of the proposal to his constituency and that it is being thoroughly considered. I thank him for securing an opportunity to discuss the issue and all hon. Members who have participated in today’s debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Driving Test Availability

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) on securing this debate and setting out so clearly the challenges his constituents face; I also thank all hon. Members who have contributed on behalf of learners and driving instructors in their constituencies. We heard compelling contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore), Reading Central (Matt Rodda), Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), Kettering (Rosie Wrighting), Telford (Shaun Davies), Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna), Carlisle (Ms Minns), the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith).

A full driving licence can give the holder so many opportunities. Drivers can access education and jobs. I recognise that being unable to book a test can hold people back, and that is unacceptable because we want to boost growth and opportunities. Driving gives freedoms to so many people up and down the country, although I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) that we need much better public transport, too, to give young people a choice of transport options. Not everyone is able to drive.

Nearly everyone who has a full driving licence will have a story about when they learned to drive and took their test. It is part of our culture and a rite of passage. However, the current situation for many learners in this country is simply unacceptable. That includes Molly, the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, and many others who have been referenced in this debate. Some have to travel long distances for a test or pay extra to try to get to the front of the queue. It takes far too long for those who are ready to take their driving test to book that practical test appointment. Drivers who are ready to pass should be able to take a test quickly and easily without paying more or travelling far. This issue is a priority that the Secretary of State and I take seriously. Members will recall that the Secretary of State made visiting DVSA in Bristol to discuss solutions an early priority. Work is ongoing and, yes, we are determined to solve it.

Practical test waiting times remain high because of increased demand. That demand has translated into the longest waiting times for driving tests in many years despite the DVSA making available a near-record 2 million tests last year. That pent-up demand has also led to a change in customer behaviour: the scramble for bookings often leads to undesirable outcomes. People book tests miles away from where they live just to get a test on the system in the hope of changing it for one closer to home at a later date. They cannot always do that, and sometimes they end up taking a test a long way from home, as hon. Friends have described. This change in booking behaviour prevents those ready to take their test from booking at their nearest test centre, where waiting times have gone up. As well as being inconvenient, so-called test tourism has an environmental impact.

An even bigger issue is learners taking a test before they are ready to pass. That seriously reduces their chances of passing, so they need to take a second and maybe even a third or fourth test. That creates extra demand and adds to the issue that DVSA is working so hard to resolve. It also creates potentially unacceptable additional risks for driving examiners and the public. Longer waiting times for a driving test also result in learners paying significantly more than the test fee to unscrupulous opportunists who are preying on them and taking advantage of their need to take a test as soon as they can.

In January 2023, DVSA changed its booking service terms and conditions to prevent anyone selling tests at a profit. Since then, DVSA has issued 313 warnings, 766 suspensions and closed 705 business accounts for misuse of its booking service. But there is more to do. All the while, that leaves people who are ready to pass with fewer options and a longer wait. We want learners who are ready to pass to be able to take their test quickly and easily at a convenient location. We do not want them to feel the need to make difficult decisions and compromises when taking a practical test.

We need concrete measures that will make a real difference. That is why we have asked the DVSA to look at how its tests are booked and managed. We want a test booking system that supports learners to plan the learning-to-drive process properly, that gives them the confidence that they will be able to get a test when they need one, that is easy to use and protects them from being ripped off.

We are working hard on all those measures. In the meantime, DVSA has been working hard to make more tests available. At any given time, around half a million tests are booked on the system. As a result of DVSA efforts to increase capacity, around 90,000 tests are available within a 24-week booking window, but more needs to be done. DVSA has recruited and is training 250 new driving examiners this year, and is working to recruit and train another 200, focusing on areas where demand is highest. Of course, we also need to retain those driving examiners. Previous poor industrial relations will not have helped in that regard.

If we are successful in recruiting those 450, that will be 20% more examiners overall, and a much-needed boost to test capacity for those learning to drive. I can update my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell on driving examiner numbers in his nearest test centres. In Slough, there are currently six. Based on our latest recruitment campaign, we are aiming to recruit four, to take that to 10. In Reading, there are two. There is one new entrant driving examiner awaiting a training course. The aim is to recruit a further five. In Farnborough, there are nine; the DVSA is aiming to recruit a further three to take that to 12. If we are successful in doing that, it will obviously make a big difference.

On top of that, the DVSA is continuing to conduct tests outside regular hours, including at weekends and on public holidays, and buying back annual leave from driving examiners. I cannot remember which hon. Friend asked me, but driving examiners do travel to other test centres with higher waiting times, to try to bring them down. Of course, I recognise that is not the long-term answer.

DVSA’s Ready to Pass? campaign supports learner drivers by offering free resources to assess their test readiness and encourage them to take more lessons, if required. When the pass rate is less than 50%, we know that too many people are taking the test a bit too speculatively, when they should be doing it when they are ready. I completely understand how this has come about, with people booking a test before they have even started taking any lessons. We also know that learners who undertake a mock test are far more likely to pass their test, so I urge hon. Members to direct their constituents to the Ready to Pass? campaign and its very useful advice.

It is probably outside the scope of today’s debate, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle would like to pass on the details of her constituent who is facing a delay in renewing their licence and is waiting for medical tests, I will happily look into it.

[Jim Shannon]

I had a question about whether the Minister has had contact with the Minister for Infrastructure in the Northern Ireland Assembly to exchange ideas on how best to address these things together.

[Lilian Greenwood]

No debate would be complete without an intervention from the hon. Member. I have not yet had the opportunity to meet his colleague to discuss this issue, but I would be very willing to do so.

That reminds me that I wanted to respond to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central. The DVSA is aware that the landlord of the current driving test centre in Reading has been granted planning permission to redevelop the site, which he referred to. The DVSA has identified a new location. It is in the early stages of negotiations, but it will confirm the new location as soon as it is able. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to raise this point in my regular meetings with the chief executive of the DVSA.

In conclusion, the Department for Transport and the DVSA recognise the impact that long driving test waiting times are having on learner drivers and driving instructors. It is our priority to reduce driving test waiting times while upholding road safety standards. We want everyone to enjoy a lifetime of safe, sustainable driving. Finally, I wish Molly, the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, very best wishes when she gets the opportunity to take her test. I am sure we all hope that she passes the second time.

Essex Highways Funding

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing today’s debate on funding for Essex Highways; I thank her for the many points she made and questions she asked. I am not sure that I will be able to answer them all to her satisfaction, but I remain open to a continuing dialogue. Having read her correspondence on these issues over the past three months, I know that she is a long-standing campaigner for investment in transport infrastructure, both in her constituency and across Essex. She is rightly proud of the contribution that her county makes to the UK economy and its strong international trading links.

Rebuilding Britain means modernising our transport infrastructure. As the right hon. Lady recognises, our road network is plagued by long-promised projects that have not been delivered. The potholes cratering our roads are a very visible sign of decline. This Government will maintain and renew our road network and ensure that it serves all users, remains safe and tackles congestion. I know that that is what her constituents and businesses want.

However, the financial inheritance that this Government have received is extremely challenging. The previous Administration left us a £22 billion public spending gap in this year alone, of which £2.9 billion is unfunded transport commitments. Those are things that were promised to which there was no funding stream attached. I can see that communities up and down the country have been given hope for new transport infrastructure, where there were no plans or funds to deliver them. I say here today that this Government will not make that mistake. We have to rebuild our economic foundations while restoring transparency and public trust.

[Priti Patel]

If I may respectfully say so, we are not here to do partisan politics. Importantly, these schemes were funded by the previous Government. They have been under development for more than 10 years. They are subject to planning and, effectively, judicial review, particularly on the A12. It is not good enough to say that there is a black hole. Within the Department, these schemes were funded. There was investment, and these schemes are shovel-ready.

The question is what is going to happen to these future schemes. If the Government want to cancel them, they should just tell us that they will be cancelled. The reality is that all the work has been done in the Department. I say respectfully that it would be really useful, although it might not happen today, to get a proper update on the status of the A12 and A120 projects, even from officials.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My point was to set out the context within which I will comment on some of the specifics that the right hon. Lady asks about. Looking across the Department at the commitments the previous Government made on roads and rail, there were undoubtedly over-commitments. Promises were given that could not be fulfilled. That is why we are having to look again, and it is why on 30 July the Secretary of State for Transport said that she was commissioning a review of the Department’s capital spend portfolio. That review, which will look across the totality of our capital schemes on rail and road, will support the development of our new long-term strategy for transport: developing a modern and integrated network with people at its heart, ensuring that transport infrastructure can be delivered efficiently and on time.

Measured by length, local roads form the majority of our country’s road network. This Government take the condition of local roads very seriously and are committed to maintaining and renewing the local road network. The Department allocates funding, which is not ringfenced, to local highways authorities so that they can prioritise spend based on their local knowledge and circumstances.

The Department for Transport will provide Essex county council with £34.5 million during the 2024-25 financial year to enable it to carry out its maintenance responsibilities for local roads in the area. I would love to be able to give the right hon. Lady a commitment, but funding for future years is a matter for the spending review, as she knows. However, I understand the importance of ensuring that local roads are well maintained.

In addition, we will provide local authorities with funding to help them to fix up to 1 million additional potholes across England in each year of this Parliament; we have made that commitment. My officials are in regular contact with the council to help it to develop and manage its schemes within the major road network and large local majors programme. The Department is currently assessing the full business case for the A127/A130 Fairglen interchange scheme and is reviewing the strategic outline case for the A127 corridor improvements, on which we have asked for further information to help with our assessment. We also stand ready to provide assistance, as and when needed, as the council develops a full business case for the Army and Navy sustainable transport package. Of course, all future decisions on the major road network schemes are subject to the current spending review and the Department’s capital review.

The strategic road network of our motorways and main A roads encompasses the roads that are most important for people to get around the country. Within the east of England, the A12 is one of the busiest roads and provides the strategic road network with its main south-west/north-east road through Essex and Suffolk, connecting Ipswich and places in the right hon. Lady’s constituency to London and the M25. It provides a strategic connection for the ports of Harwich and Felixstowe and nearby Stansted airport, which is important for both passengers and freight, as she says.

The section between the Boreham interchange in Chelmsford at junction 19 and the Marks Tey interchange at junction 25 carries high volumes of traffic, with up to 90,000 vehicles every day. Because of the important freight connections, especially to Felixstowe and Harwich, heavy goods vehicles make up between 9% and 12% of the traffic on this section—almost double the national figure of 5% on most routes. That section of the A12 is also an important commuter route, so I understand why the right hon. Lady is so passionate about the improvements that she seeks.

The resulting congestion leads to delays and means that a driver’s average speed during the morning commute is particularly slow in both directions for a dual-carriageway A road of its kind. To tackle that, the A12 Chelmsford to A120 road improvement scheme was announced in the second road investment strategy published in March 2020. The scheme proposes to widen the A12 to three lanes between junction 19 north of Chelmsford and the junction 25 A120 interchange with the aim of improving safety, reducing congestion and providing safer alternative routes away from the A12 for cyclists, walkers and horse riders.

I recognise the level of support for this scheme and its importance to the right hon. Lady’s constituents and those of her colleagues. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) rightly highlighted her own concerns. However, as I noted earlier, the financial inheritance that the Government have received is extremely challenging. The A12 Chelmsford to A120 scheme alongside other future road projects is being considered as part of the Department’s capital review, which will inform the upcoming spending review. As the right hon. Member for Witham knows, major investment decisions are a matter for the spending review, and at this stage I am not in a position to give assurances about individual schemes. I know that that is frustrating for her—it is somewhat frustrating for me—but I do understand the arguments that she puts forward.

The A120 is also an important strategic route in the east of England. Commuters, freight, residents and businesses currently suffer daily lengthy delays on this single-carriageway road. Proposals for improving this stretch of road were initially developed by Essex county council, and a scheme to improve the A120 between Braintree and the A12 was identified in the second road investment strategy as part of a pipeline of schemes considered for possible delivery in the third road investment strategy. However, in March 2023, the then Secretary of State for Transport announced that, owing to financial headwinds, schemes originally earmarked as potential candidates for the third road investment strategy would be considered for inclusion in the fourth road investment strategy, which is beyond 2030. I know that that will not have been welcome news; nevertheless, those schemes remain in development for possible future funding.

The right hon. Lady touched on issues around the lower Thames crossing, but as there is a live planning application, she will know that it would not be appropriate for me to comment. The deadline for the decision has been extended to allow time for the application to be considered further, including any decisions made as part of the upcoming spending review.

Despite the difficult financial inheritance, I can assure the right hon. Member and her colleagues that my Department is committed to putting transport at the heart of mission-driven government. As she understands, growth is vital. Transport is a vital enabler, not just for growth but for our wider ambitions, including health, road safety and better links. I am determined that we will build transport infrastructure that drives economic growth, improves opportunities in every part of the country and delivers value for money for taxpayers. I am sure that I have the right hon. Member’s support in that ambition, which requires a fundamental reset in how we approach capital projects. We need public trust, industry confidence and Government integrity at the heart of it; we do not want to make promises that we cannot keep.

I thank the right hon. Member again for securing this debate. As she recognises, transport is a vital enabler of jobs, housing and opportunities for growth. I am sure that we share the desire to see those things for Witham, for Essex and indeed for the whole country.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

4. If she will meet stakeholders in the midlands to discuss plans to build the midlands rail hub.

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

As the hon. Member will know, Network Rail is in the process of procuring design for the delivery of the western phase of the midlands rail hub scheme. While a business case is being developed for later phases, we would of course be happy to meet the hon. Member and stakeholders to discuss progress on the programme.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I very much appreciate that response. I would appreciate it as well if the Minister could give us some idea of the timing of this really important investment for the region, which will add considerably to the economic prospects of the west midlands.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I appreciate how important it is to improve rail infrastructure in the midlands. The next major decision on the first phase will be to consider the release of delivery funding in around four years’ time, but in the meantime we are expecting a business case for the subsequent phases of the programme to inform next steps, which will be ready next year.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

5. What steps she is taking to support proposals for a tram system in Leeds and West Yorkshire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

8. What recent progress has been made on the electrification of the midland main line.

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

Electrification is progressing on the midland main line, with the new overhead line equipment from Kettering to Wigston, just south of Leicester, now installed and energised. That, together with enhancements to overhead line equipment south of Bedford, will enable new bi-mode trains to run electric from St Pancras to Wigston from 2025.

[Catherine Atkinson]

The full electrification of the midland main line would significantly reduce railway operating costs and cut 42,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. Current work on the line will finish soon. Moving ahead with the rest of the project would retain the multidisciplinary skills and supply chain needed for rail electrification in the UK. The Department has already given us so much good news for rail, so can the Minister give us some more good news on this very important question?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I commend my hon. Friend’s support for this scheme, and for being such a champion of the railways and her constituents. I assure her that delivering greener transport is one of the Secretary of State’s priorities for our Department. The extension of the electrification from Wigston to Nottingham, and to Sheffield via Derby, is in development and is planned to be completed by the early 2030s, subject to business case approvals and affordability considerations.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is not electrified, Mr Speaker, but the west midlands railway line from Birmingham to Hereford has seen a dramatic deterioration in its performance since the Secretary of State agreed the no-conditions, inflation-busting pay rise with the strikers. Will the Minister agree to meet the management of West Midlands Railway to see what steps could be taken to improve the performance on that important line?

[Lilian Greenwood]

There have already been improvements in performance and a reduction in cancellations on the railway. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is working extremely hard to hold operators to account and to ensure that all our constituents enjoy a quality service from the railway. It is essential that we put passengers at the heart of it for the first time in a very long time.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

9. If she will meet authorities in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly to discuss transport needs in those areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jen Craft]

What steps will the Secretary of State take to consider cross-river public transport?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and completely understand the concerns that she raises about congestion in the area. The outlined business case submitted by KenEx, to which she refers, was unfortunately unable to progress further after its submission in 2022, as it lacked critical detail. Should alternatives be brought forward, I am sure that they will be considered.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

T3. Dangerous driving is a major concern, particularly following a serious crash in my constituency last week. With West Midlands police committed to Vision Zero, what additional support is the Department for Transport providing to help local enforcement and campaigns to tackle speeding and other dangerous driving behaviours?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that vital question. Every death on our roads is a tragedy. We expect drivers to observe the speed limit, and, of course, enforcement is a matter for the police. Last week, I met Richard Parker, the Mayor of the west midlands, to discuss our shared determination to improve road safety.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

T4. The A12 is the major artery between London and the east coast, yet it is already busier than most motorways and suffers from horrendous congestion and delays. Will the Minister therefore press ahead with the widening scheme, which is at an advanced stage, and without which the Government’s projected growth targets and housing targets simply will not be met?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I understand the pressures in relation to the A12, but as the right hon. Member will know, the Secretary of State has announced a review of our Department’s capital portfolio that will support the development of our long-term strategy for transport, and of course there is a Budget and a spending review coming up.

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

T8. Eurostar services have not called at Ashford or Ebbsfleet international rail stations since the pandemic, with Eurostar stating that it will not resume services for some years. That is having a really detrimental impact on businesses and residents in my constituency, and more broadly across Medway and Kent. Will the Secretary of State meet me, other interested MPs and representatives from the Kent and Medway economic partnership to discuss options to restore this vital rail service and help to boost economic growth in the region?

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

T5. Government allocations to local highway authorities for road maintenance have been frozen since 2016, with no funding for new roads since 2012. My constituency has lost over half its funding. Will the Minister urgently investigate how road maintenance funding for local authorities can be restored?

[Lilian Greenwood]

There is no greater sign of the failure of the previous Government than the appalling state of our roads. That is why this Government have already committed to supporting local authorities across England to fix up to 1 million extra potholes every year. We will have more to say on this in due course.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

T9. Exeter has a good and well used rail system that is vital for the economic and social success of our city; however, two of our stations—St Thomas and Polsloe Bridge—are accessible only to people who can climb flights of stairs. Will the Minister please update the House on the work that the Government are undertaking to ensure that our rail network is accessible to everyone?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important issue of accessibility. We are carefully considering the best approach to the Access for All programme. I am afraid that we are not yet able to comment on next steps regarding projects at specific stations; however, ensuring that the rail network is accessible to absolutely everyone is at the heart of our passenger-focused approach, and I will speak to him about it further.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

T6. Has the Minister’s capital portfolio review properly considered the health, social and equalities aspects of value for money, and will it therefore recommend cancelling more road building schemes from the previous Government in favour of a real long-term boost to local authority active travel funding?

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

The deployment of Operation Brock to queue freight lorries heading to Dover on the M20 caused huge disruption and inconvenience for residents and businesses throughout my Ashford constituency. Ahead of the introduction of the new EU entry/exit system, will the Government work with the French Government, local authorities, the port of Dover, and Eurotunnel to minimise delays and ensure that Operation Brock is used only as a measure of last resort?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Both the Secretary of State and I have visited Kent a number of times in recent weeks and months. We meet regularly with our colleagues in the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to discuss the impacts of the new EU entry/exit system, and we will intensify those discussions as we approach the implementation date.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The previous Minister promised me and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) that he had instructed LNER and Network Rail to ensure that we get our through train from Grimsby to London. Will the Minister confirm that she will continue those firm instructions and, above all, ensure that this train stops? If it does not stop in Market Rasen, I am going to lie down on the line and stop it that way.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I do hope that the right hon. Member will not put himself in such danger. We are working with industry to address timetabling, financial, operational and infrastructure issues that need to be resolved before a service between Cleethorpes and London via Market Rasen could be introduced, once the east coast main line timetable change has been implemented. We will consider any proposals put forward, with approval subject to funding and a thorough business case process.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

One of the final acts of the last Tory Government was to cancel Access for All funding for Battersea Park station in my constituency, despite there being a costed plan in place with the local authority. The funding has been promised for more than a decade. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can get the project back on track and finally make Battersea Park station step-free?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The A36 is a critical route between Southampton and Bath/Bristol. A study was completed several months ago. Given the decision on the A303 tunnel just north of Salisbury, will the appropriate Minister meet me so that we can discuss connectivity and remove the pinch-point on the Southampton Road south of Salisbury on the A36?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I would be very happy to meet the right hon. Member to discuss that.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the “Rights on Flights” campaign for the work that it is doing to improve accessibility, particularly for wheelchair users. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to improve aviation accessibility for disabled people?

Oswestry to Gobowen Railway Line

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing today’s debate on the Oswestry to Gobowen project, and I thank her for the thoughtful and important points that she made both today and in her previous campaigning work on the issue. I have read her correspondence with my noble Friend the Minister for Rail and with previous Ministers in the Department.

I understand the hon. Lady’s argument about the problems with connectivity between Oswestry and Gobowen, particularly for those who have no access to private vehicles or do not wish to drive. I appreciate the importance of good public transport connections in the area, including for patients, staff and visitors travelling to the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital, whether from the local area or from further afield. We want to ensure that people can access the public services they need, and they should not need private transport to do so.

My Department is committed to putting transport at the heart of mission-driven government. We aim to support economic growth by transforming infrastructure so that it works for the whole country, and we aim to improve connectivity to promote social mobility, as the hon. Lady said, and tackle regional inequality, particularly in terms of access to healthcare, jobs and homes. She described the difficulties that her constituents face in reaching the places where they can obtain opportunities for work, wider opportunities for study and education, and, indeed, enjoy leisure and culture activities. That is why transport is so important—because of the opportunities that it opens up for people, including to improve their wellbeing.

However, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in her speech to the House on 29 July, the Government have been forced to address the economic inheritance that we have been left by the last Government, which includes that £22 billion black hole in the country’s finances this year alone. That includes £2.9 billion of transport projects that were committed to despite the last Government knowing, full well, that they were unaffordable. I completely understand that the announcement of the difficult decision to close the restoring your railway programme has caused disappointment. I assure the hon. Member that that decision was not taken lightly.

As the Chancellor set out, individual restoring your railway projects will be considered as part of preparations for the spending review and wider spending decisions for the Department. But as the hon. Member will know from her correspondence with my noble Friend the Minister for Rail, it will not be possible for all transport projects, particularly those not yet in delivery, to continue. I am afraid that that is the difficult reality of the position that we find ourselves in, and I wish that it was not so.

The restoring your railway programme attracted considerable interest when it was launched by the last Government in January 2020, and the Department for Transport received more than 140 individual applications for funding to help to support the development of early-stage business cases. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) that new services can be very popular and successful; there is a real appetite in communities up and down the country for new public transport services, in order to better connect people to the places that they want and need to go to. At the close of the final funding round in September 2021, the programme was heavily oversubscribed.

In the case of the Oswestry to Gobowen project, the previous Government announced, under their Network North initiative, that the project would proceed to delivery, subject to successful business cases. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has previously set out, there was a clear gap between promised projects and the money available to deliver them. The previous Government should have been up-front and frank about this, and they absolutely were not.

I want, of course, to thank all hon. Members who sponsored and campaigned for individual former restoring your railway projects for their patience and efforts over the years. I completely appreciate the frustration expressed about the lack of news on next steps—and that is reflected in the hon. Member for North Shropshire’s previous correspondence with the Department under the previous Government—because, undoubtedly, it felt incredibly slow at times. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ordered a review of the Department’s capital spend portfolio. That will move quickly to produce recommendations about current and future schemes and end the uncertainty that the previous Government created.

We also need to be clear that this Government’s approach to how transport projects can be funded is based on local leaders and local transport authorities knowing best what projects to pursue in order to further the needs of their constituents. It is absolutely crucial that local stakeholders work together to provide affordable and reliable services for the communities they serve, and that should include better integration between different modes of transport. The hon. Member highlighted the potential of an integrated transport hub and the desire for better walking and cycling provision, which of course would provide not only transport benefits but health and wellbeing benefits. I hope that her local authority can explore those options further.

The hon. Member made strong points about the quality—or rather, the lack of quality—of bus service provision in her area. As we both know, under the last Government thousands of bus services saw reduced frequency or were cut altogether, leaving many towns and villages without adequate, reliable and affordable public transport. We recognise that situation and are determined to do something about it.

I was really pleased to hear the hon. Member’s welcome for the Government’s pledge to deliver better bus services for passengers, which includes making franchising easier and quicker, removing the ideological ban on new municipal bus companies, and reforming funding for bus services to give more control and flexibility to local leaders to deliver their local priorities. I understand what she said about the Conservative-led county council and its appetite for such change, but I am sure that she and her constituents will make their point very clearly to those who seek to represent them at that level.

[Helen Morgan]

Bearing in mind that local councils are a hair’s breadth away from issuing section 114 notices and are only likely to deliver statutory services in their area, what kind of additional funding will be available from the Government for them to be able to franchise their own bus services? I ask that because it seems to me that it is all very well councils having the power to deliver such services, but unless they have the funding to do so, it will not bring about the results that we would like to see.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Member for her question and of course she is absolutely right to highlight the very difficult position that many local authorities find themselves in after 14 years of Conservative Governments. That is precisely why growing the economy and the ability to improve our public services is one of this Government’s key missions. To achieve that, we need to make sure that the foundations are strong, and setting our economy on the right track is the first part of that process.

However, we will of course say more about support for transport as part of the spending review and we will work with local authorities to understand what is needed to improve and grow their bus networks, learning from their experiences and building on their successes to ensure that local networks can meet the needs of the communities who rely on them.

As we undertake vital reforms to the sector, including through the introduction of the Buses Bill, we will ensure that stakeholders are properly engaged with the proposals, and I look forward to the hon. Member participating in the debates about how we can do that as we go forward.

I thank the hon. Member again for securing this debate and offer her my support and that of my ministerial colleagues to work with her to improve the transport network in her constituency, and right across the country. As she recognised, transport is a vital enabler of jobs, opportunities and growth, and I am sure that we share the desire to see that for North Shropshire and indeed the whole country.

Question put and agreed to.

Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on securing today’s debate. I would also like to thank him and others for their engagement on this matter. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is temporarily not in the room. I am aware that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire wrote to my Department and has previously tabled other debates to express concerns about this scheme, which is a nationally significant rail freight interchange infrastructure project, located partly in his constituency in Leicestershire.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I should let the Minister know that the Member concerned did apologise that he had to leave urgently.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Absolutely. I have also noted the relevant contributions made by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire in the King’s Speech debate on planning, the green belt and rural affairs on 19 July this year and on the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill debate on 29 July. I am also aware that the hon. Member participated in the examination of the application as an interested party. I thank him for the contributions he has made in that respect.

The concerns that the hon. Member has raised include the impact due to the proximity of the application site on the local Fosse villages of Elmesthorpe, Stoney Stanton, Sapcote, Sharnford, Aston Flamville, Potters Marston, Croft, Huncote, Thurlaston and Wigston Parva; impacts from an increase in heavy goods vehicles on the local road network; the lack of a national strategy for the location of logistics parks; the proximity of other rail freight interchanges; public engagement on the application; the impact and delays at Narborough railway station and level crossing; impacts on Burbage common and woods nature reserve, located in the neighbouring Hinckley and Bosworth constituency; and the impact on local amenities as a result of increased job opportunities. I am also aware of the petition which the hon. Member presented to Parliament in October last year on behalf of local residents of the constituency of South Leicestershire. Both he and the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth have again represented their constituents’ concerns very effectively today.

The application for the Hinckley national rail freight interchange development consent order was made under the Planning Act 2008. Under that Act, the Secretary of State for Transport has a quasi-judicial role in issuing decisions of applications for development consent orders for strategic rail freight interchanges, provided that they meet certain threshold conditions set out in the Act. Following the examination of the application by the Planning Inspectorate’s examining authority, the Secretary of State received the report containing its recommendation on 10 June this year. As the hon. Member for South Leicestershire acknowledged, the Secretary of State issued a “minded to refuse” letter this morning, having carefully considered the examining authority’s report. Her letter sets out that, while she is minded to agree with the examining authority’s recommendation to refuse the application, she first wishes to gather further information on certain matters. The Secretary of State requires further information on the safety concerns raised in respect of M1 junction 21 and M69 junction 3, and the lack of adequate transport modelling at that junction; the increased highway safety risk at Sapcote identified by the examining authority; the concerns raised by the examining authority on the impact on Narborough level crossing, particularly on people who might find using a stepped footbridge difficult; and any measures that might avoid or mitigate the potential harm identified by the examining authority to the occupiers of the Aston Firs Travellers’ site.

The Secretary of State’s letter also invites comments on the revised sustainable transport strategy, the suggested amendments to the heavy goods vehicles route and the management plan strategy, and specific submissions in respect of noise impacts referred to in her letter. As the hon. Member for South Leicestershire said, a written ministerial statement was laid in Parliament this morning to extend the statutory deadline for a decision on this application to 10 March 2025. I appreciate that the extension is unwelcome to him and his constituents, but my understanding is that this is not particularly unusual.

The extension to the deadline is required to allow for the submission of further information on the issues I have just mentioned before the Secretary of State takes a final decision on the application. The extension will also allow time for all interested parties to comment on that further information. The final decision will be taken as soon as possible, but it is important to allow time for those issues to be properly considered by all parties. The extension of the deadline means that the application remains a live planning application. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire understands that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits or otherwise of the application while it remains live.

It would also not be appropriate at this time for me to elaborate on or add to the reasons set out by the Secretary of State in her letter. That is because, as the hon. Member for South Leicestershire acknowledged, the decisions by the Secretary of State on applications for development consent orders are quasi-judicial, and the decision is a matter for the Secretary of State alone. It would not be appropriate for me to take part in any discussion of the pros and cons of the proposal. I know the hon. Member understands that we must ensure that the process is correctly followed and remains fair to all parties.

The examining authority’s recommendation report, which was published today alongside the letter from the Secretary of State, covers many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, and I encourage him and his constituents to read the report alongside the letter from the Secretary of State—I am sure he has already done so. Should he or his constituents have any further issues they would like to raise, I encourage them to write formally to the Department when invited, as part of the next-steps process for the application. The process going forward is outlined in the letter from the Secretary of State. I am loth to decline a meeting with hon. Members, but it could be perceived as bias if the Department meets objectors, but not the applicant and supporters. I understand that we have declined requests for other meetings.

I highlight the need for nationally significant strategic rail freight projects more generally. The Government’s view is that the economic and environmental potential of rail freight is significant, and they are fully committed to supporting its growth. Under its plans to deliver the biggest overhaul of the railways in a generation, Great British Railways will have a duty and target to grow the movement of freight on our railways. I am sure it will be interested in the comments that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire made on ways that might be done.

The Government support the development of an expanded network of SRFIs to facilitate the modal shift of freight from road to rail. Rail freight offers substantial economic and environmental benefits, as well as helping to reduce congestion on our roads and cost to industry. Strategic rail freight interchange projects are a key element in reducing the costs of moving more freight by rail, enabling goods to be efficiently transferred between transport modes, which is important because many rail freight movements cannot provide a full end-to-end journey.

The sector also delivers economic and social benefits through cost savings to industry, creating employment and reducing congestion. Industry estimates that a single rail freight service can remove up to 129 heavy goods vehicle movements from our roads. Moving goods by rail results in about 7 million fewer lorry journeys each year. In 2018-19, it is estimated that rail freight contributed £2.45 billion in economic and social benefits to the country, 90% of which were likely to accrue to freight customers and wider society outside London and the south-east.

Rail freight also offers benefits to the environment. A diesel-hauled rail freight service produces 76% less carbon dioxide per tonne of kilometre moved compared with road. Recent improvements using longer, heavier trains and alternative low-carbon fuels such as hydrotreated vegetable oil are reducing rail freight’s carbon footprint even further, making it one of the most carbon-efficient ways to move goods over long distances.

Having said all that, it is of course important that every application for a new strategic rail freight interchange is carefully assessed to ensure that its benefits outweigh its impacts, including those on the local environment that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire described. I know, however, from his contributions to the debates on the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill that he does not oppose rail freight interchanges per se. He made that point again today in calling for a national strategy.

Finally, I take the opportunity to reassure the hon. Member that the Secretary of State, in making a decision, will take into consideration the content of the examining authority’s report, the relevant policies, responses to her consultations and any representations received after the close of the examination. I assure the hon. Member that she will listen to the views of him and his constituents. I thank him and the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth for the opportunity to debate this matter today.

Question put and agreed to.

Rail and Road Connectivity: Northern Lincolnshire

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on securing today’s debate and on returning to these Benches. I know she will represent her constituents wonderfully well, as she always did, and speak passionately, as we have just heard, about issues in her constituency and across northern Lincolnshire—an area she is rightly proud of and ambitious for. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss transport in this region today.

There were certainly some attempts to broaden out the debate beyond north Lincolnshire. I understand the desire to talk about Lincolnshire, but I will perhaps stay clear of Northern Ireland, where transport is a devolved matter. Nevertheless, I am impressed with the determination of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) to speak for his constituents. Let me assure hon. Members that the Government understand the importance of transport to the people, communities and businesses powering local economies across the country, including on the south bank of the Humber.

I will begin with the A180. I am very aware that my hon. Friend and her Labour predecessor have previously raised the issue of road noise on this vital road for those travelling to and from her constituency. Assessments of road noise on the A180 have been undertaken by National Highways. Those assessments were carried out near Stallingborough—I hope I have pronounced that correctly—in May 2024, ahead of proposed concrete repairs. The noise levels recorded were between 65.9 and 82 dB, which I understand is reasonably loud for a driver over a sustained journey. However, I am afraid that they are also consistent with the expected amount of noise to be generated, given the volume of traffic the A180 supports. The age of the road is also an important consideration here, as wear and tear increases the level of noise generated. That being said, I fully understand the frustration that can be caused by sustained road noise for both drivers and those living near the road.

In the last year, National Highways has carried out three road surface improvements on the A180, with a fourth planned to commence this October—in just a few weeks’ time. Those works have and will reduce noise and improve road safety. Subject to confirmation of funding, additional surface treatment work is planned for the third roads investment strategy period and, when finished, it should substantially reduce noise levels along the route. The works will be of significant benefit to the lives of my hon. Friend’s constituents, and those of other hon. Members, both those living close to the A180 and those who regularly drive along the road. I completely understand my hon. Friend’s desire to make the journey to her coastal community as smooth and pleasant as possible, both for her constituents and for those making the important business journeys that she described.

Let me turn to the introduction of a direct train to London from Cleethorpes and Grimsby. The benefits of having direct links to the capital are clear: that is why we are working with industry to address the timetabling, financial, operational and infrastructure issues that need to be resolved before a service to Cleethorpes can be introduced—all of that once the east coast main line timetable change has been implemented. Assessments made by LNER and Network Rail have confirmed that LNER services can call at Cleethorpes and Grimsby, but in order for LNER trains to serve Market Rasen station, significant changes to platform length and height are required, as well as a new foot crossing to allow safe access to platforms.

My noble Friend Lord Hendy, the Minister for Rail, will consider the proposals that have been made, with final approval subject to funding and a thorough business case process. That was the case before the general election, and it is still the case now. The previous Rail Minister talked of an ambition to introduce the service, but I am sure that my hon. Friend and other Members understand that an ambition is not the same as a promise. In the meantime, addressing the performance of rail services in the region in advance of any decision on direct services between London and Cleethorpes and Grimsby will significantly improve journeys and reduce delays. My hon. Friend painted a picture, very effectively, of the impact on rail travellers when the integration between services is not working properly.

I am pleased that TransPennine has improved its service significantly over the last year, but it is clear that there is still room for improvement, and, as my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has wasted no time in holding train operators to account for poor performance. In her first month in the job, she met the managing director of TransPennine Express and Network Rail representatives to demand action. Between 21 July and 17 August, only about 50% of all trains on the route ran to time, with fewer than 80% arriving within three minutes of timetable. During that period cancellations stood at 3.4%, with an increase attributed to problems with the Keadby swing bridge on 1 and 5 August, along with several Network Rail incidents. I will say more in a moment about how bringing track and train together under Great British Railways can help to drive improvements, because they are very much needed.

Northern’s performance over the last few months has been unacceptable. Between 17 July and 21 August, trains on the Doncaster-Scunthorpe route arrived on time only 78% of the time. The proportion of total cancellations was about 4%, although, depending on the day and conditions of travel, passengers may have experienced a better or worse service than that. In July, the Rail North Partnership, through which my Department and Transport for the North jointly manage Northern’s contract, served it with a breach notice which compels it to produce a formal recovery plan. It will be required to explain how it will tackle the underlying issues that are holding back performance, resulting in the current unreliable service. The plan will be scrutinised by my Department and by Northern leaders through Transport for the North’s Rail North Committee. We will ensure that the needs and expectations of passengers, including those in north and north-east Lincolnshire, are put at the heart of Northern’s recovery and development.

Let me now address the daily—well, five days a week—Sheffield-Cleethorpes service. I remember when the Brigg line service ran only on Saturdays, and I am probably among a select group who have actually travelled on the service; but the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) already knows that, because we took the trip together and stopped for a cuppa in Cleethorpes. The service is primarily intended to maintain route knowledge on the Brigg line in case of diversions. Although I appreciate the appetite for services to spend more time in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, Northern’s turnaround at Cleethorpes is necessitated by other demands on the network, including from freight services, and by crew rostering. Adding an additional service on the route could create clashes and would cost between £400,000 and £900,000 a year, depending on staff and rolling stock demands.

Naturally, the Department requires operators to match their services to demand. Demand remains low on the existing services from Sheffield to Cleethorpes, which reach only about 30% of their capacity even during the busiest times. Most of the demand on the service is driven by passengers joining at Worksop and Retford for Sheffield, or by Northern’s competitive leisure pricing between Sheffield and Cleethorpes, although TransPennine trains also offer services over a similar route. Demand on the route is also very seasonal; I know from my Nottingham constituency how much city residents enjoy a trip to the east coast in the heights of summer, but they find it less appealing on wet and windy days in the winter.

[Martin Vickers]

I take the Minister’s point about the small number of passengers on the route, but that is partly because there is only one service a day. If there were a regular service that people knew was there—even every three hours, shall we say—they could spend the day in Cleethorpes. It would encourage more passengers on to the route.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Member makes an important point that we will certainly look at, but I am sure he understands that, given the capacity and given the other ways in which people can travel, it is challenging.

Indicative modelling of an additional service suggests an industry revenue uplift of approximately £35,000 a year, although most of that is achieved by improving the service between Worksop and Retford and Sheffield. It would increase Northern’s subsidy requirement and would therefore raise costs significantly. This money is not available in Northern’s current budget.

This Government have been clear that performance on the railways must improve, and we are committed to delivering a unified and simplified rail system that focuses on improved services for passengers and better value for taxpayers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes knows, just this week the House of Commons passed a Bill to bring passenger services back into public ownership. By ending years of fragmentation and waste, we will ensure that the railway serves the needs of passengers and the taxpayer, rather than lining the pockets of private sector operators.

Bringing train operations into public ownership is just the first step in the Government’s plan to improve the railways for passengers and taxpayers. We will bring forward further legislation to create Great British Railways, a new arm’s length body that will act as a directing mind for the railways. This will ensure the highest standards of customer service and operational performance, with a relentless focus on delivering for passengers and freight customers. To achieve our goals, rail must become part of a reliable and efficient integrated transport network, including in the region that hon. Members here represent.

Improving bus services is also a top priority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been clear that buses are the lifeblood of our communities. We have not discussed them much today, but they can improve access to education, jobs and leisure opportunities, as well as connect us with our friends and family. As the Government strive to kick-start the economy, buses will be central in addressing regional inequalities and delivering growth. That is why we have set out an action plan to deliver better bus services, grow passenger numbers and drive opportunity to underserved regions. A core part of the plan is passing the better buses Bill, which will be introduced in this Session.

Am I running short of time?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

indicated assent.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will cut to the chase. The Bill will give local leaders the tools to deliver better bus services and will ensure that networks meet the needs of the communities who rely on them. However, I need to say that this Government, as the Chancellor has clearly set out, have inherited an extremely challenging financial situation, with a £22 billion public spending gap left by the previous Administration in this year alone. The gap between promised schemes and the money available to deliver them has been abundantly clear.

I know that this is not the first time that these issues have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes has made a strong argument on behalf of her constituents. I reassure her that this Government have heard clearly the case that she and other hon. Members have made, and that we will continue taking action to address the issues that have been debated today.

Question put and agreed to.