Aldridge Train Station

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this debate about the future of Aldridge train station. I also congratulate the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who used the opportunity to raise important issues pertinent to their constituencies. I know that the hon. Member for Wokingham would like my thoughts about extra car parking spaces at Twyford station; I regret that I shall have to ask my colleagues in the Department and perhaps my officials to write to him about that, as I had not prepared notes on Twyford for today's debate.

I share the right hon. Lady’s enthusiasm for the delivery of new rail infrastructure enhancements such as a new station at Aldridge, and I recognise the wide array of transformative benefits that they can bring. Railways can create jobs, spur economic growth, promote decarbonisation via a modal shift from road to rail, and generally enhance people's quality of life by helping them to get easily from A to B. The magnificent new University station in Birmingham, which opened at the start of the year, has already facilitated millions of journeys and is a shining example of how infrastructure can transform lives and stimulate growth. That is backed by early passenger survey results, which show that nearly 90% of passengers rate the new station as “good” or “excellent”, and nearly 20% would have taken their journey by car if the new station was not there. I am sure she agrees that those are worthy goals, and she is right to advocate for the delivery of similar schemes in her constituency that can unlock such benefits.

I completely understand the right hon. Lady’s vision for passenger train services serving her constituency for the first time in a long time. However, it is in that spirit of wanting to complete transformative transport enhancements that difficult decisions have been made. As she knows, in 2022 the Conservative Government allocated £1.05 billion of city region sustainable transport settlement funding to the West Midlands combined authority, or the WMCA. The money was devolved to the WMCA, led by then metro mayor Andy Street, to spend on its local transport priorities. The WMCA set out its priorities for a programme of investment, which the Department for Transport supported and which included an allocation of £30 million towards delivery of a new railway station at Aldridge.

Time passed, and in July 2024 the West Midlands combined authority presented a paper to the Department outlining cost pressures across its portfolio of projects. As the right hon. Member knows, there has been significant inflation since 2022, and it is not unique to the West Midlands combined authority that cost pressures have arisen in the delivery of infrastructure projects. The cost gap presented a material risk that schemes already in construction would be left unfinished. The combined authority proposed reallocating funding that was allocated but not ringfenced from schemes not in construction, including Aldridge railway station, to those in delivery to ensure that they were completed.

I am happy to share with the right hon. Member which schemes have been prioritised. The schemes that have been assisted with the funding, reallocated as she described, include Rail Package 2, which is delivering three new stations—Moseley, Kings Heath and Pineapple Road—on the Camp Hill line between Kings Norton and Birmingham New Street; the Wednesbury metro depot; certain sections of the Sprint phase two priority bus corridor; the Dudley Interchange, which is a new bus station at Dudley; and the Wednesbury to Brierley Hill metro extension and a further extension on to Merry Hill. Also included is the Birmingham Eastside metro extension, which serves Digbeth and will serve the HS2 Curzon Street station.

A number of other programmes have been deferred as a result of those schemes needing to be prioritised. I can assure the right hon. Lady that while improving bus services is an important issue, including in the West Midlands, the funds are not being redirected and used for the purpose that she suggests might be the case.

The West Midlands combined authority proposed retaining £3.6 million to complete important ongoing design and business case development work for Aldridge station. As the right hon. Lady knows, projects need to go through a process to secure final funding and move to delivery. At present, work is being done using that development funding to produce an outline business case for Aldridge railway station; then, a final business case will be needed. In any case, these are crucial steps to securing a decision to deliver. Work can still continue with that important development funding.

[Wendy Morton]

I hear what the Minister is saying, and I still hope she will answer some of my questions, but on that ongoing work, that money was part of the £30 million for Aldridge station. The Department and the mayor always fall back on the argument that the station is not under construction, but the work had started and it is ongoing. There is £3.6 million to do the preparatory work and ground work. I have spoken to Network Rail, and it is all teed up to do all of this. The Government have allocated £3.6 million, but I would still argue that that is part of the £30 million. I still do not understand why Aldridge train station was the one singled out to be pulled from all the projects.

[Lilian Greenwood]

A number of projects are in construction, and I have spelled out precisely which ones. The West Midlands combined authority wanted to ensure that those projects would be completed and opened, as significant spending had already been put into taking those into construction. As I have set out, Aldridge railway station has not yet reached an outline business case. It is not in construction, but that development funding—the £3.6 million—will be used to develop the work and ensure that it can go forward in the future. It is not the only project that has been deferred.

[Wendy Morton]

I will not make too many more interventions, but on the specific point about the project moving to the next phase and then into construction, does the Minister not accept that because the mayor and the Department for Transport have vired the money elsewhere, the money for the station’s construction is now gone?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I accept that the West Midlands combined authority had cost pressures and that it does not have sufficient funding to complete all the projects that were set out in its original plan to the timetable that was envisaged. The right hon. Lady is correct that the money has been reprogrammed to be used on other projects, but that does not mean that the railway station cannot be delivered in the future. Other deferred programmes include part of Sprint phase 2, the Hagley Road rapid transit development and the cross-city bus programme. I know that will be unwelcome news.

The request was made in July this year, and in September my Department approved the West Midlands combined authority’s recommendation. I stand by that decision, although I understand the right hon. Lady’s disappointment that schemes not yet in construction, including Aldridge railway station, will not be delivered to the timescale originally planned. The £1.05 billion originally allocated by the Conservative Government to the West Midlands combined authority has not been reduced; the West Midlands combined authority has, with our approval, reallocated the way that the money is being spent so that it can finish the job on schemes that are in flight. I am confident that we are aligned on the benefits that transport enhancement can bring, and that is why we cannot afford to leave schemes unfinished. I understand the right hon. Lady’s concerns, but that is the decision that the West Midlands combined authority sought for us to take, and we have allowed it to proceed in that way.

As the right hon. Lady says, the West Midlands combined authority’s portfolio of transport enhancement schemes was established and signed off under the previous West Midlands mayor and under a Conservative Government. However, cost escalations and delays to the programme also occurred during Mayor Street’s tenure, and under a Conservative Government. I am committed to ensuring that the schemes in delivery, which were named in the previous mayor’s manifesto, and which the right hon. Lady campaigned for, are delivered. I believe that with her advocacy and the leadership of the current metro mayor, Richard Parker, who I know is ambitious for the West Midlands and its transport network, the future remains bright for Aldridge railway station. With its £3.6 million of development funding, design work and business case development continue at pace.

My Department is undertaking a review of the previous Administration’s spending plans, and once that is complete, we will confirm future funding allocations. By carrying out that essential pre-delivery business case and design work, the West Midlands combined authority is ensuring that Aldridge station is well placed for delivery funding, as and when more money becomes available. The right hon. Lady’s work with the West Midlands combined authority and her constituents to advocate for the scheme is the best way of ensuring that there is a strong local consensus behind it and increasing the chances of it being funded in the future, as and when funds become available. If and when Aldridge does get delivered, in combination with the new stations being built at Willenhall and Darlaston, we could see the number of stations in the Walsall area double from three to six, which is a hugely exciting prospect for her constituency and the wider region.

I am ambitious for the future of Aldridge and the West Midlands, and I urge the right hon. Lady and the West Midlands combined authority to continue developing plans to ensure that we deliver better transport infrastructure, which supports economic growth, jobs, decarbonisation and improved quality of life for the travelling public of the West Midlands.

Question put and agreed to.

Old Oak Common Station

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on securing this debate on the impact of Old Oak Common on rail services to Wales and the west of England. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

This Government understand the important role the rail network plays in providing connectivity to support economic development, housing and employment growth, as well as access to jobs, public services and leisure. That is why we have made fixing Britain's railways one of our top transport priorities. We have been clear that rail services have been failing passengers for too long. Cancellations are at a 10-year high and punctuality is inconsistent across the network, so I will take no lectures from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew).

We need to improve services for passengers and deliver better value for money for the taxpayer. We have taken immediate action, such as bringing an end to the long-running pay dispute with train drivers, and Ministers continue to meet managing directors of train operators and their Network Rail counterparts to address poor performance and demand immediate action to raise standards. If the shadow Minister’s Government were in power, we would still see drivers out on strike. Just last week, the Minister for Rail met again with Great Western Railway and Network Rail to ensure that they are progressing their plans to restore reliability on the route.

I will respond to the questions from the hon. Member for Cheltenham in a little while. First, I will address the subject of the debate. Old Oak Common station is a crucial enabler for the Government's growth mission. It will be not just a connection to HS2 for Birmingham and the north, but a destination in its own right, providing access to work and housing development alongside better connections to other services, including the Elizabeth line through central London, and to Heathrow airport. However, I recognise hon. Members’ concerns about the impact of the station and the construction works on rail services from Wales and the west.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

The key theme set out by hon. Members from across Wales and the south-west is that we are all being kept in the dark. What will the Minister do to engage with MPs from across the region and tell us what plans for mitigation are being put in place in our constituencies for the planned works at Old Oak Common?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I will use the rest of my speech to do just that. My colleague the Minister for Rail has already had a meeting with a large number of MPs to discuss these issues, and he will continue to engage on precisely those points.

As you will appreciate, Mr Efford, a project of the scale and significance of Old Oak Common cannot be delivered without some disruption to existing services. Our challenge to HS2 Ltd is to keep the disruption to a minimum and to support Network Rail and train operators to keep passengers moving. The next phase of work takes place this Christmas, with changes made to Great Western Railway services from 27 to 29 December. The rail industry has been working hard to prepare for the work and has invested £30 million to mitigate its impact and keep passengers moving.

I will set out some of the things that that money has paid for. While some of the interventions are close to London, they are designed specifically to allow Great Western Railway passenger services during Old Oak Common works, such as electrification of the Poplars railway, which connects the Great Western main line and the west London line. That allows services to access their maintenance depot and for more Great Western Railway trains to terminate at Ealing Broadway. Investment has been made in Ealing Broadway and Reading stations so that they can provide better information to connecting passengers; in facilities at Euston to allow for the terminating Great Western Railway long-distance services, including the Penzance sleeper services; in alternative stabling for the Hitachi trains that serve Great Western Railway; and in other, similar provisions that are designed to help Great Western Railway services to continue operating during the period of disruption.

During these days, some inter-city services will divert to London Euston and some will terminate at Reading or Ealing Broadway. Extensive mitigations have been progressed behind the scenes so that trains continue to be maintained and can provide services again after the works. Passenger communications are happening now to enable people to make choices about how and when they travel. I recognise the importance of providing timely passenger information to enable people to do that. The next significant blockade had been due to take place in December 2026, but this is now being re-planned to a later date by HS2 Ltd. Further detail on the future works plan will be shared as soon as it is available in the spring.

Old Oak Common station is being built to enable all Great Western main line and relief line services to call at the station. This is important for future-proofing, but while all trains will be able to call, the future timetable will be under development for many years, so it is still too early to say with any certainty which trains will call there or from when, but I will come back to that in a moment. We know that many passengers from Wales and the west of England value the faster journeys into London, and will have other options, not via HS2, to travel north. The Rail Minister and I have heard from many colleagues about the concerns of their constituents, and officials are working with the industry to assess the options for calling patterns at Old Oak Common.

[Martin Wrigley]

I was listening very carefully, and I think the Minister just said that not all trains will necessarily stop at Old Oak Common. Could she confirm that, please?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I can confirm that the station is being constructed to allow all Great Western services to call, but no decision has been made on the future timetable.

None the less, building the station requires realignment of the Great Western main line to curve around new platforms. Unfortunately, that means that even trains that do not stop at the station will have a small increase in journey times. I know the Rail Minister has already asked industry partners to review current plans to ensure the impact of this is minimised. I will come back to this when I answer questions from hon. Members. I also recognise that this disruption comes on top of several years of poor performance on this route. The Government are determined to reverse that trend, improve punctuality and reliability, and rebuild a railway we can once again be proud of.

I do not think I can answer all of the questions that were posed during the debate, but I shall attempt to respond to a few of them. I know that my colleague the Rail Minister has met with many hon. Members to listen to their concerns, and that he is committed to finding the best possible solution that minimises disruption to services to constituencies in Wales and the west. He will continue to engage with hon. Members on this issue. A number of Members asked whether Great Western Railway services will stop at Old Oak Common and raised concerns about the impact on journey times. There will be a small but permanent journey time impact for all services passing through Old Oak Common without stopping. I recognise that that is a disbenefit to hon. Members’ constituents, and the Rail Minister has asked what more can be done to get that down from the estimated 90 seconds.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham asked about increasing running through the station from 60 mph to 80 mph, and Network Rail has already begun to develop proposals. They were discussed at the last Old Oak Common programme board, which the Rail Minister attended. If some or all services are to stop at Old Oak Common—as I said, no decision has been made yet on future timetables; that is some way off—it will, of course, add further to journey times. Four to seven minutes added to journey times has been suggested. That would slow down those services but would allow for potential interchange with the Elizabeth line and access to parts of London via the Elizabeth line and the London Overground. The London Overground does not connect directly, but work has begun on Old Oak Common connectivity and a range of options are under consideration, from improved walking routes through to more material interventions.

Various periods of blockade were discussed. The programme is currently under review, but there will be periods of disruption, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham set out, and those are likely to of the duration that he described or longer. As has been noted, there will be diversions to Euston when the blockades are in place, which will allow services to continue directly into central London for the many constituencies represented here today when the line between Ealing Broadway and Paddington is closed. That will add perhaps 15 to 20 minutes on to journey times.

The hon. Gentleman and others asked about short-form trains. He described clearly the impact on people’s journey experience, which is totally unsatisfactory. I know that the availability of sufficient fleet is vital. I recognise the inadequacy of the situation when the trains are over capacity and I know that the Minister for Rail is working to address this.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned wi-fi. Free wi-fi is available on Great Western Railway services, but I know from my own travels that there are connectivity issues on part of the network. The Rail Minister has asked officials to explore the feasibility of a range of technology options to improve passenger connectivity on the rail network. The Department is conducting research to measure the strength of mobile phone signals along the network to fully understand where interventions are needed and the potential impacts.

The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the issues of Sunday timetables and cancellations. Problems with infrastructure, fleet reliability, and train crew availability have resulted in high levels of cancellations on Sundays in recent months, and I agree that that is unacceptable. We know these issues must be addressed. They were not addressed by the previous Government and we are working to do so.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned progress on the extension to the Honeybourne line active travel route in Cheltenham. I know it well, and I agree with his assessment that it would be a valuable extension. I understand that Great Western Railway, Network Rail, and Gloucestershire county council are working to progress the project, and if there is more we can do to hurry it along, I am sure the Rail Minister will be happy to do so.

[Max Wilkinson]

I am aware that I get another chance to speak shortly, but the reason I raised Network Rail’s blocking of that scheme is because of the way it has been done: by extending contract negotiations over years, to the point when a bit of cycle path is costing tens of thousands of pounds per metre because Network Rail demands ever greater levels of infrastructure to be inserted. I have raised this with Ministers and all sorts of people, but it is clear that Network Rail just wanted to kick it into the long grass by making it uneconomic. I know that the Minister is an advocate for active travel, so if she could intervene with Network Rail and just say, “Get it done,” I would be grateful.

[Lilian Greenwood]

As the hon. Gentleman says, this Government are committed to increasing the number of people who walk and cycle for short journeys. If there is something that my colleagues in the Department and I can do to unblock things and get them moving, we will do it.

Questions were asked about investment in Welsh railways. I assure hon. Members that the Wales Rail Board meets regularly and provides a forum for the UK and Welsh Governments to discuss matters of mutual interest. I understand the new Secretary of State is meeting the Secretary of State for Wales and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, Ken Skates, imminently to discuss transport in Wales. Transport Ministers regularly meet our counterparts in the devolved Governments.

I will close by taking this opportunity to confirm again that the Rail Minister is working with all partners to ensure minimum disruption to travellers on the Great Western main line, both during the construction of Old Oak Common station and when it is in operation. I recognise that these are difficult issues, which hon. Members are right to raise on behalf of their constituents. I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham and all hon. Members for their participation in this debate. I fully acknowledge and appreciate the importance of the issue to him and his constituents, and indeed to all hon. Members’ constituents. We will work to come up with a viable solution.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

We have 14 minutes left, but that is not an invitation for a long speech from Max Wilkinson. I call him to sum up.

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and Local Road Networks

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) on securing this debate, and I thank him for continuing to raise the issue of the London Road level crossing in his constituency. I recognise the concerns that he raises on behalf of local residents, and I appreciate the strength of those concerns—indeed, that was demonstrated by the presence of a number of his constituents today.

As the hon. Member is well aware, East West Rail launched a non-statutory consultation on 14 November on its proposals for the construction of a new railway that would provide a direct service between Oxford and Cambridge for the first time since the 1960s. That will provide billions in economic growth, which can be reinvested into the economy nationally. The upshot of that is that, as he says, East West Rail is proposing the closure of the London Road level crossing in Bicester. The possibility of that was noted in the non-statutory consultation that took place in 2021. I appreciate that for constituents facing these sorts of challenges it is difficult to have that uncertainty over a long period, when they know something is coming but it is some way off and they do not know exactly how it will impact on them.

The introduction of four East West Rail passenger trains per hour on top of existing passenger and freight services would represent—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I had forgotten that would happen at 7 pm.

The introduction of four East West Rail passenger trains per hour on top of existing passenger and freight services would represent a significant uplift in the rail traffic passing over the level crossing. On one level, that is a benefit, including to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, who will have those new options for connectivity and the choices that brings in jobs, education or just getting about. That is a huge advantage not just to his area, but to the country. However, I understand that it does have less welcome impacts, and he has described the severance issue in his constituency in Bicester. Indeed, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who is not in his place, took the opportunity to highlight the importance of listening to the concerns of local communities when developing national infrastructure projects and working with them to mitigate any adverse impacts. I understand the importance of trying to do that.

Turning back to London Road and the level crossing, the level crossing barriers are currently closed for around 10 minutes every hour, but the closure time is expected to regularly exceed 32 minutes in the hour once all East West Rail services are operational, and the barriers could be closed for up to 12 and a half minutes of continuous downtime at a time. The impact of that would be queues half a mile long in either direction. That would have a huge impact not only on those stuck in the queue, but on air quality and broader congestion. It would cause the significant traffic disruption that the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock is rightly keen to avoid, creating long tailbacks, potentially through the centre of town, on a daily basis.

In addition to the traffic issues that would be caused by retention of the crossing, we also have to consider the personal safety of crossing users, whether they are crossing on foot, on bicycles or other non-motorised means. Analysis undertaken by the East West Railway Company determined that the risk of collision between a train and a road user, whether through misuse of the level crossing or an accident, was simply too high with the uplift in East West Rail services. We know that level crossings are a point of vulnerability on the rail network, and safety has to be a top priority.

In the view of the East West Railway Company and Network Rail, no further steps could be taken to improve the safety of the level crossing without undertaking its closure. I understand how disappointing that is to members of the hon. Gentleman’s local community. The East West Railway Company has reviewed all the possible options for the crossing, having consulted on them in 2021. Those options include a road bridge over the crossing and a road tunnel underneath it. As the East West Railway Company set out in its 2023 route upgrade announcement, providing an overbridge or an underpass presented insurmountable design, constructability and affordability challenges, and those options were not progressed.

I recognise, as the hon. Gentleman said, that when the area around the station was redeveloped, I think back in 2014, there might have been an opportunity to look at different ways the crossing could have been done, but at the time there was no East West Railway Company, and perhaps there was a lack of join-up that could have been provided at that time. However, I am afraid we are 10 years on from that.

The East West Railway Company did undertake to explore options to leave the road open to local traffic and develop options to retain connectivity for pedestrians, cyclists and other non-vehicle users, which would of course include mobility scooter users such as the constituent that the hon. Member referred to. Ensuring accessibility for those groups is extremely important.

Since 2023, the East West Railway Company has also considered providing new road bridges crossing the railway at other locations in Bicester. I am afraid that the modelling work undertaken on the downtime of the level crossing barriers produced the results that I set out for the extended closure period, so it is deemed not appropriate to retain the level crossing for local use only. Providing road bridges in other locations in Bicester has also been ruled out on the grounds of affordability and constructability. East West Rail has provided further details of its analysis that led to those conclusions in the technical report accompanying the current non-statutory consultation. I am sure that the hon. Member is aware of that, and that his constituents and those watching either will have read that or will now go and seek it out.

The options currently out for consultation of a pedestrian footbridge or underpass—they would of course be built to suitable accessibility standards to provide opportunities for cyclists and those using mobility scooters—alongside local road diversions, aim to provide the best possible balance between affordability and constructability and the needs of the local community in the hon. Member’s constituency. Both the footbridge and the underpass have been developed in the light of feedback received at and since the 2021 consultation. I assure him that there are opportunities for further design refinements to ensure that the solution meets the community’s need.

I note the hon. Member’s comments about the issues that he would like to see addressed and what he believes the majority of his constituents would prefer. I assure him that the Government are listening and that I and my colleague the Rail Minister will be happy to keep in touch with him. I am sure there will be opportunity for further discussion as things progress.

[Calum Miller]

I very much appreciate the Minister’s fulsome response. There is one point that I want to press her on slightly. East West Rail’s own analysis has demonstrated that there is still a lot of technical work to be done—as I highlighted, some of the traffic modelling has not yet been done—so given that the information is not fully there and we have no public figure on how much money could be spent on a solution, will she accept that there should be openness to suggestions that might come from the community and not a closing down on the relatively limited range of options that East West Rail has so far provided? The Rail Minister gave me that assurance when I spoke to him, and I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that there is openness to considering other options if they can be demonstrated to be technically and financially feasible.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am happy to give the hon. Member that assurance, and I certainly would not disagree with the Rail Minister. I can also assure him that the proposed road diversions and any further enhancements required to minimise the impact of these diversions will be funded as part of the East West Rail project and that the local authority will not be expected to foot the bill. I have heard the representations about the importance of protecting the hon. Member’s constituents, and I know that my noble Friend Lord Hendy will have done as well.

I understand that having to travel to the centre of Bicester by an alternative route is unwelcome, but initial traffic modelling has demonstrated that any journey lengthening caused by vehicle traffic taking the alternative route proposed in the consultation will still be considerably shorter than the journey time extension caused by sitting in a traffic jam at the crossing for 10 minutes and upwards.

In closing, I signpost the ongoing consultation, and I invite all those with views, including the hon. Member’s constituents, to contact the East West Rail Company through the published channels before the closing date of 24 January 2025. It is so important that we listen to local people’s views and that we try to take them into account as we develop further mitigation. As I said, no final decision has been taken on which option to choose for the level crossing and future access for the local community. Feedback from the public will play a part in influencing the outcome. I would be pleased to keep in touch with the hon. Member as the position on the level crossing develops, and once again I congratulate him on securing this important debate, ensuring that his constituents’ concerns are heard in this place.

Question put and agreed to.

Rail Connectivity: Oxfordshire

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) on securing this debate on railway connectivity between Witney, Carterton, Eynsham and Oxford. It is clear that he has been a passionate advocate for restoring the rail link, and I thank him for the important points that he has made and other hon. Members for their contributions.

The Government recognise the significance of Oxfordshire and the wider Oxford economic region. It is a global centre for research, learning and healthcare, and one of the most productive economic regions in the UK, so continuing to invest in the region and work with those who represent it is vital. Its transport network is clearly important for providing the connectivity to support economic development, as well as planned housing and employment growth. That is why significant investments are being made in road, rail and sustainable transport improvements. As the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) made clear, housing and transport connectivity must go hand in hand. It is vital that the local transport authority, which knows its local area, can develop and prioritise transport investment projects that support those aspirations.

The Government’s housing infrastructure fund has approved £126 million to Oxfordshire county council for its A40 smart corridor scheme, which will provide infrastructure for better bus travel, and safer walking and cycling along the A40 route between Eynsham park and ride and Oxford. That kind of multimodal approach will be really important. In addition, since 2014, £118.4 million from the Government’s local growth fund has been used by the Oxfordshire local enterprise partnership to invest in the transport network. That included £35 million to deliver the second phase of the A40 Oxford science transit scheme, demonstrating Government’s commitment to investing in this key corridor. I agree that public transport has a vital role to play in improving connectivity and relieving congestion on our road network, and the hon. Member for Witney quite rightly points out future projections and the importance of thinking for the long term to ensure we can cope with rising population in the area, and with the demand for more housing and more growth.

A strategic vision for rail investment in the county was set out in the Oxfordshire rail corridor study report, which was published in 2021. It brought together the views of local stakeholders and the rail industry to assess the impacts of planned growth in Oxfordshire, and identified key investments in the rail network to deliver economic growth and meet the changing needs of the county. An early output from the rail corridor study has been the Oxford station project, which will undertake a series of investments to support new rail services into Oxford, and enable faster passenger and freight journeys.

An early deliverable of the project is to widen the rail bridge over Botley Road, which has been closed since 2023 to enable a series of utilities diversions. I expect that hon. Members will be aware that Network Rail has experienced significant difficulties in delivering those works, which have had an unacceptable impact on the residents and businesses in the area—and on Members’ constituents who commute into the city, no doubt. I can only offer my sincere apologies to those affected. Network Rail has been tasked with developing a plan that enables the reopening of Botley Road, and the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, will be meeting stakeholders and local representatives to discuss that in due course.

The Oxfordshire area also benefits from connectivity through the East West Rail programme, although I appreciate that that is to the east of the city rather than to the west. At the autumn Budget, the Chancellor committed Government support to accelerate works on the Marston Vale line to deliver services between Oxford and Bedford from 2030.

Let me turn to the specific subject of today’s debate: a reopening of the line linking Carterton, Witney and Eynsham to Oxford. I welcome Oxfordshire county council’s recent publication of the feasibility study into reopening the line, and recognise the local and regional benefits it sets out. It is a really good example of why this Government’s approach to how transport projects can be funded is based on local leaders and local transport authorities knowing best which projects to pursue; these bodies are best placed to decide on and take forward transport schemes that will most benefit their local areas.

There are a number of significant challenges associated with the proposed reopening, the most significant of which is funding the estimated costs of £700 million to £900 million. I appreciate that the proposed scheme is described as a long-term project, but it is dependent on other projects that have not yet been funded or delivered; given the associated costs, other options for increasing connectivity in the area may present better value for money. I am sure that the hon. Member is in conversation with the county council about thinking in that way.

[Charlie Maynard]

Just one small correction: from Oxford to Carterton North is £600 million only—we do not need to build out to Carterton West necessarily; that would just be a nice-to-have—and, of that, land value capture would allow something like £300 million. That is the broader scheme of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Member for that clarification. However, he will appreciate that £600 million —even with a significant private sector contribution —is not an insignificant amount. I understand that delivering the scheme would require funding from central Government—I guess that is the purpose of his debate—but he will also know that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in her speech to the House on 29 July, the Government have been forced to look again at the economic inheritance left by the last Government.

The Secretary of State has announced her intention to conduct a thorough review—indeed, it is ongoing—of the previous Government’s transport plans, to ensure that our transport infrastructure portfolio drives economic growth and delivers value for money for taxpayers. We are having to look at a number of schemes that are closer to deliverability within that portfolio. Decisions about individual projects will be informed by the review process and confirmed in due course.

I encourage the hon. Member for Witney to continue to work with his local authorities and stakeholders to develop the proposal further. I commend his work to pursue alternative funding sources and to think in the round about how best to meet the aspirations that his constituents rightly have to improve connectivity.

I again thank the hon. Member for securing this debate on rail connectivity between Witney, Carterton, Eynsham and Oxford. I fully acknowledge and appreciate the importance of the matter to him, to his constituency and his many constituents, and to those in the wider West Oxfordshire area; this Government recognise the requirement for connectivity in the region, and we stand ready to work with them to meet their aspirations. I hope that I have been able to provide some clarity on the Government’s position on being able to fund the development of such proposals currently, but I am sure we stand ready to have further discussions in the months and years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Transport

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Written Corrections

[Gareth Bacon]

… On Monday, in her statement on bus funding, the Secretary of State said that a formula was being used to allocate funding. She said that the formula will allocate funding

“based on local need, population, the distance that buses travel, and levels of deprivation…This formula and the funding allocated is a fair arrangement, ensuring that every area of the country gets the service levels it needs”.—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 43-45.]

The formula, including the weighting given to the various factors by the right hon. Lady, has not been published. When will it be?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question. We are proud of the work that we have done to ensure that every part of the country benefits from additional funding for their buses, and we will publish that later today.

[Official Report, 21 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 352.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood):

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question. We are proud of the work that we have done to ensure that every part of the country benefits from additional funding for their buses, and we will provide further details in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

3. What recent estimate she has made of when electrification of the midland main line will be complete.

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

The electrification of the remainder of the route to Nottingham and Sheffield via Derby—the midland main line electrification programme—is in development, and currently it is planned to be completed by the early 2030s, subject to business case approvals and wider affordability considerations.

[Neil O’Brien]

It is marvellous that we now have the electric lines energised up through Market Harborough to Wigston, and we are looking forward to our electric trains arriving next year. Even better, we have Spion Kop bridge staying open. Will the Rail Minister meet me to ensure that we avoid any risk that future electrification works lead to a further withdrawal of late and early services to Market Harborough? The last train back from London is already far too early, so we need to avoid the works having any further damaging impact.

[Lilian Greenwood]

We are all concerned about the impact of works on services. I know that the Rail Minister is aware of that and would welcome the opportunity to visit, alongside Network Rail, to see the work being done to mitigate the impact on the hon. Gentleman’s constituents as that work continues.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

4. Whether she is taking steps to support the participation of small and medium-sized local bus operators in bus franchising schemes.

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

This Government are empowering every community to take back control of their local bus services. Legislation on bus franchising requires local authorities to consider small and medium-sized enterprises as part of the franchising process. We are working with those interested in pursuing franchising to develop different models, including smaller-scale models, which require less financial commitment and provide more opportunities for small and medium-sized bus operators to participate.

[Jayne Kirkham]

I am pleased to hear that this is part of the consultation on updating the bus franchising guidance. We have some strong local SMEs in Falmouth that provide a knowledgeable, local and flexible bus service, along with community bus services too. Will the Minister please confirm that she will be supportive of that kind of model when going through the guidance?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for businesses in her constituency. We recognise the important role that smaller local bus operators can provide in delivering high-quality bus services; they know their customers and their communities. In addition to the requirement to consider SMEs as part of the franchising process, this Government’s reforms to the bus system are designed to give more options to local communities to deliver local bus services. Our transformative buses Bill will seek to give local areas the choice of pursuing bus franchising, high-quality partnerships with the private sector or local authority-owned bus companies and, once in law, will provide more opportunities for all operators, including SMEs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for that answer, which is incredibly helpful. To support the participation of small and medium-sized local bus companies in bus franchising schemes, they also want to be energy-efficient. That enables them to apply for the franchises and do better. How can the Minister help those small and medium-sized bus companies to be energy efficient—with hydrogen buses, for example—and thereby gain the franchises and contracts?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Transport matters are devolved in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, of course, but putting buses at the heart of our policies and wanting to increase ridership provides brilliant opportunities for local manufacturers of buses to take part and supports local manufacturers and operators.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

On behalf of the Opposition Front Bench, I too offer my sincere sympathies to the family of the late Lord Prescott on his passing.

On Monday, in her statement on bus funding, the Secretary of State said that a formula was being used to allocate funding. She said that the formula will allocate funding

“based on local need, population, the distance that buses travel, and levels of deprivation…This formula and the funding allocated is a fair arrangement, ensuring that every area of the country gets the service levels it needs”.—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 43-45.]

The formula, including the weighting given to the various factors by the right hon. Lady, has not been published. When will it be?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question. We are proud of the work that we have done to ensure that every part of the country benefits from additional funding for their buses, and we will publish that later today.

[Gareth Bacon]

The Secretary of State also said in her statement:

“Councils such as Leicester, the Isle of Wight, Torbay and Cambridgeshire will see unprecedented levels of funding for services.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 42.]

What levels of subsidy does she believe that bus services in those areas will require?

[Lilian Greenwood]

It is incredibly important that decisions about local services are taken by those who are operating them. That is why not only have we provided substantial levels of funding—£1 billion announced in the Budget and the allocations set out on Monday—but we are providing local transport authorities with the powers they need to provide the services that local communities want and deserve.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

5. If she will make an assessment of the effectiveness of local bus services in enabling children’s travel to school.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

11. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of bus services in rural areas.

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

Fourteen years of decline in local bus services under the previous Administration has hit communities across the country hard, especially in rural areas. This Government know that buses are a lifeline, and through our upcoming buses Bill, we will give all local leaders the powers that they need to design networks that meet the needs of their communities, including measures to ensure that vital services for passengers remain running.

[Claire Young]

Many of my Thornbury and Yate constituents have been impacted by the loss of the 84/85 bus. I am told that funding is made more difficult because that bus is a cross-border service between Gloucestershire and the west of England. Does the Minister agree that the rules need clarifying, so that they do not get in the way of ensuring that we keep important bus services running?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I absolutely recognise the concern that arises when vital bus services are lost, which the hon. Lady mentioned. That is why, in the forthcoming buses Bill, we will explore a local network management measure that will give local transport authorities the power to ensure that cuts to local networks are made only when absolutely necessary, thus protecting people like her constituents, who relied on that vital bus service.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Bloore.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for recognising my half-bob. My thoughts are with Lord Prescott’s family; he was one of the first politicians I met as a young student, and he certainly made an impression.

May I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister on the £9.3 million investment in buses in Worcestershire? I represent a rural constituency where people have not been able to get to work, access health services or stay connected with friends and family. This investment may well make a real difference to their lives.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak up for his constituents in Worcestershire, and about the difference that will be made by the funding that this Government are providing. It will ensure that his constituents have the connections that were cut off for too long under the previous Government.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

12. What steps she is taking to improve the accessibility of railway stations for disabled people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

14. If she will take steps to help reduce overcrowding on Chiltern Railways services.

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

The Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Hendy and officials continue to work closely with Chiltern Railways to support delivery of an improved passenger experience. To reduce crowding, Chiltern periodically adjusts its timetable, responding to passenger demand. It is exploring options for procuring additional trains, in order to relieve crowding while ensuring value for money for the taxpayer.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Haddenham and Thame Parkway train station is a key transport hub for my residents who commute regularly to London. However, constituents face overcrowded trains; some even report fainting on hot, stuffy trains. I understand that Chiltern Railways has an active business case with the Department for Transport. Will the Minister approve, as a matter of priority, the replacement trains and carriages that it is requesting?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question on behalf of those people who travel on Chiltern Railways. The Rail Minister has assured me that the cascaded rolling stock is under active consideration in the Department, and we will complete the process as soon as possible.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

15. If she will take steps to help ensure that the Tyne Bridge is restored in time for its centenary in 2028.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for that question —she is a great champion for her city. It is the responsibility of Newcastle city council to manage the bridge restoration project, but we encourage the council to do all it can to ensure that the restoration of this iconic bridge is completed in time for its centenary celebrations.

[Chi Onwurah]

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on jazz, I want to add to the many tributes paid to the great Lord Prescott by saying that he was a champion of jazz and a jazz lover as well.

I do hope that the Minister will be able to join us on the restored Tyne bridge for its centenary celebrations in 2028. However, she may be aware that an uplift to the funding announced under the previous Government for the restoration has not yet materialised, and inflation and issues uncovered during the project have led to a rise in costs. Could she confirm to me that the difficult decisions this Government have made mean that the uplift in funding will be available for the fully restored Tyne bridge?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for that fantastic invitation on 2028. This Government’s manifesto was clear that we want to forge ahead with infrastructure improvements as part of our mission to kick-start economic growth. As with all schemes in the major road network programme, the Department’s contribution is fixed once the scheme is approved, and Newcastle city council was awarded over £35 million towards the total cost of the scheme. However, I absolutely commend her for championing this important project. As she says, it is one of the world’s most iconic bridges, and we are happy to keep this in mind in the context of the spending review.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

17. What steps she is taking to decarbonise the transport sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

T3. John Prescott was a good friend, and condolences go to his wife Pauline and his family and friends. Northumberland’s biggest town, Blyth, is in desperate need of a relief road. It was much promised by the previous Government, and the plan was submitted before the general election in 2024. Can the Minister update the House on that plan’s progress?

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

Like my hon. Friend, we are all thinking of Lord Prescott and his family today.

My officials have had meetings with Northumberland county council, which is working to strengthen the case and provide further analytical work before the scheme can be fully appraised. I would be happy to update my hon. Friend on those discussions when I can do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

T5. The last Government and Surrey county council were working on progressing junction improvements with the A31 at Hickley’s Corner in Farnham. Can the Minister confirm that that improvement will go ahead? In addition, the pressure on the A325 through Wrecclesham is becoming intolerable. Will she work with local authorities to provide a Wrecclesham bypass, which is so sought by my constituents?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I would be happy to get my officials to write to the hon. Gentleman to provide an update on discussions around those important schemes.

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

T6.   The key to improved rail performance in my constituency is the reinstatement of rail infrastructure, notably the Burscough curves, alongside improved services to Manchester, where my constituents are also continually let down by Northern Rail. Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways to achieve the high growth that the country needs is to improve those transport connections? Will she meet me to discuss that further?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

T9.   Branston bridge in my constituency, a main route in and out of Burton and Branston, is falling down. It was confirmed yesterday that it will be closed to vehicles for safety reasons, which is causing significant distress to residents, local businesses and commuters. Will the Minister work further with me and others so that we can solve this problem?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Of course, I recognise that Branston bridge is a vital part of Staffordshire county council’s road network, linking communities and businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency. In addition to the £500 million of maintenance funding that the Chancellor announced in the Budget, there is also £650 million of transport funding outside city regions next year. Full detail on how that funding will be allocated will be confirmed in due course.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Several key roads in my constituency are either closed or partially closed for roadworks, which are being done by utility companies who are increasingly getting around road permits by declaring an emergency. Will the Minister look into that to ensure that utility companies use emergency powers only when absolutely necessary?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Member raises a really important point about the disruption of roadworks. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that we mitigate those problems and deal with them exactly as he said.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the comments about Lord Prescott, a true working-class hero.

Constituents regularly tell me that the No. 57 bus that connects Stocksbridge to Sheffield is often delayed and does not always stop, even when bus stops are busy. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the funding she announced this week will provide reliable and affordable bus routes connecting our rural and urban communities in Penistone and Stocksbridge?

DVLA and VCA Business Plans 2024-25

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce the publication of the 2024-25 business plans for two of the Department for Transport’s motoring agencies: the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Vehicle Certification Agency.

Each agency’s business plans sets out:

The key business priorities that each agency will deliver and any significant changes they plan to make to their services, and;

The key performance indicators, by which their performance will be assessed.

These plans allow service users and members of the public to understand the agencies’ plans for delivering their key services and managing their finances.

The business plans will be available electronically on gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency 2024-25 business plan will be published separately as we continue to work with them on measures to drive down practical driving test waiting times.

[HCWS183]

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.