Potholes: Suffolk

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) for securing this debate.

I would like to invite all Members to take a journey along the A143 between Ixworth and Stanton in my constituency. I would recommend a sturdy vehicle with good suspension and at least one spare tyre. This summer, the road made headlines all over the world, because it was literally melting. After months of closures, disruptions, repairs and long diversions, residents might reasonably have expected a road they could drive on, but I am sad to say that the potholes are already back. There are slices of Swiss cheese with fewer holes than the A143. Sadly, convention in this place does not allow me to show the drone video created by my assistant Mr Tom Howard, but it is available on all good social media channels. I urge hon. Members to take a look.

The Reform administration at Suffolk county council came into office promising a war on potholes. Several months into the war, I have to report that the potholes are winning convincingly. How frustrating is that? The Labour Government delivered a record £7.3 billion for local road maintenance for four years, giving councils the funding and certainty to deliver lasting improvements. The money is being provided and the tools are there, yet in Reform-run Suffolk we still see the same roads being repaired again and again. Residents do not care much for party politics or party political slogans when they are dodging potholes on the school run. They simply want safe roads, lasting repairs and value for money.

I wrote directly to the leader of Suffolk county council asking for answers and a permanent solution. We need to know why the repairs have failed so quickly and who is accountable. Is Suffolk county council demanding compensation from the contractor? The people of Suffolk are not asking for gold-plated roads. They are simply asking for roads where the tarmac stays down and the potholes stay filled.

Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Q It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I have two questions. First, the Bill looks specifically at the crossing, but there are other infrastructure upgrades—as an MP in north Kent, my example is the A229 Blue Bell Hill upgrade. There are key junctions where congestion is a problem. In your view, does the Bill take into account the other, wider infrastructure upgrades that might be necessary?

Secondly, this week, the Public Accounts Committee, which I sit on, released a report on the RAB model for Sizewell, which there are concerns about. Do you have a view on that model? I appreciate that you have indicated that the model will not be used elsewhere, but is there an educated view on whether an alternative model might have worked better?

Steve Gooding: On the first point, the Bill is not specific even to the Dartford crossing or the lower Thames crossing, so I do not think that it takes account of the other schemes we have talked about per se, other than in the general duty for the Secretary of State and ORR to consider the network as a whole. That has already been raised, but the Committee might want to probe it a bit further.

As for the RAB model, I can certainly see the logic, but one has to start with a decision that the Chancellor does not wish to borrow the money himself. If that is the case, in these circumstances, given where National Highways has got to already with contracting for the construction of the tunnel, this appears to be a sensible model, provided that lessons are learnt from past RAB projects. One of those is about the ability and capability of the regulator to do what it is being relied on to do.

Edmund King: One of the features of the RAB model that is quite hard to get your head around is that it is open ended. There is no finish date. On the M6 toll I know that it is a different private finance model, but it was given a 53-year concession. Under this model, in effect, the concession could be 100 or 120 years unless the licence is revoked. That is quite difficult to get your head around at first, because when you look at the Dartford crossing and the tolls going to the Treasury, this is totally changing the model. We have to be sure that the safeguards are there and built into the model. That is why I think toughening up and strengthening the Office of Rail and Road and bringing in a greater degree of independence is increasingly vital.

[Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Q I am the MP for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket in Suffolk, where we have a lot of problems with our roads and no motorways. I think the general public are anxious about the price and what it is going to cost for them to take their vehicles through this new tunnel. On what you said earlier about there being very little choice—people will use this tunnel if it is there—there is a fear that the public will be held to ransom. That is the problem. How are we going to deal with that? What do you anticipate the price of taking my car through this tunnel will be when it opens?

Steve Gooding: I hesitate to say what the price is going to be. I suspect it is going to be whatever it costs today to go across the Dartford crossing and some more. Given the anxiety that people quite rightly feel at the moment when looking at the cost of the lower Thames crossing, there must be a question whether it has to cost quite that much. Whatever further pressure can be applied, everything is going to flow from that initial estimate. How the RAB is valued over time will flow from the question of what it costs to build this thing. That is why it is so important at the outset that as much pressure is put on National Highways to keep the costs under control and preferably drive them down. That is what will affect things. Subsequently, some quite big bills will come in for the refurbishment and renewal of the existing bridge and tunnels. Keeping pressure on those is important and that is why, as we keep saying, the pressure from the regulator to press for the efficient cost is so important to the structure working.

[Dr Prinsley]

Q And you would like to see that written into the Bill?

Steve Gooding: It is very hard to write it into the Bill. However, there is absolutely the need to keep the pressure up. That is why we have the independent regulator—some entity that is effectively saying, “You can tell me whatever you like about the cost of this, but in my opinion, the efficient cost of it is x.”

In this model, particularly if we are talking about the lower Thames crossing, that first estimate will be derived from the National Highways model, obviously with ORR involvement, but it will not be quite the same as subsequent reviews where it will be entirely down to the ORR.

Edmund King: Currently the cost at Dartford is £3.50 for cars and £8.40 for heavy goods vehicles. It brings in about £130 million a year. If you do some back-of-the-envelope calculations, on a 120-year concession, that would bring in £15.6 billion. It is estimated that the scheme might cost £11 billion now. People accept that the £3.50 and it is affordable. I think it should be based on that figure with limits built in, whether linked to inflation or something else. It is vital that it is to be affordable for people, not just fair and transparent.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions to this panel. On behalf of the Committee I thank our witnesses for their evidence.

Examination of Witnesses

Ben Garratt, Declan Pang and Michael Whelan gave evidence.

Highways (Financing) Bill

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

The bottom line is that the previous Government committed to far more schemes than there was funding for, so we had to evaluate which were the least value for money and the least advanced. It is nothing more than that. The right hon. Member may be frustrated, but perhaps the previous Government should not have made promises that could not be delivered.

Demand will only go in one direction. Road vehicle mileage is set to rise on the strategic road network by 12% over the nine years to 2035. Climate change continues to bare its teeth across our transport infrastructure, and our strategic roads are no exception. All those challenges bear down on a network that holds up our economy every day. That is why I am proud that the Government published the third road investment strategy earlier this year. It committed not only £27 billion to future-proofing our roads, and to resurfacing a quarter of our entire network, but to three major enhancement schemes in the north of England, on which it will work even closer with local leaders. It proved to MPs like me that road investment can address regional inequalities, and is compatible with our promise of greater devolution. When we talk about growth and power in every postcode, that is exactly what we mean.

That is the context in which I present the Bill. I have mentioned what we have already delivered, but in truth, much more needs to be done. Delivering the roads this country needs to connect our ports, our major cities and our communities requires substantial investment over many years, and across several Parliaments. Public investment will, of course, continue to play a vital role, but we can go further when private investment is harnessed to meet public goals. When Government and the private sector come together in partnership, and when we balance certainty for private investors with safeguards for the public interest, we give ourselves more tools to build the modern infrastructure that Britain needs. The Bill creates such a tool, and does so in two ways.

[Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I welcome the measures in the Bill to invest in our road system, but will the Minister comment on the technological advances to vehicles over the next decades? Most vehicles will eventually become self-driving. That will mean much less congestion, and vehicles will communicate with each other, so there will be much simpler junctions and fewer accidents. What account are the Government taking of the technical changes to vehicles?

[Justin Madders]

We are working on projections and what we know about the road network now, and overcapacity at Dartford in particular needs to be addressed. On whether automated vehicles reduce congestion, we need to see what happens in practice.

The regulated asset base model will be applied to trunk roads in England. That model is not new—it was used to fund the Thames tideway tunnel and Sizewell C—but this is the first time it will be used on a road network. For our roads, it starts by granting a licence for a specific highway project to a private investor. The framework for that licence is set in this Parliament. The framework starts with construction and goes through to operation and maintenance. Any infrastructure project under this model will therefore start as it should, with a sound legal and regulatory foundation.

The Office of Rail and Road will then act as the independent economic regulator. It will have a wide range of powers in the public interest, including monitoring performance, obtaining information, issuing penalties and, if necessary, taking enforcement action and revoking a licence. These public interest safeguards are vital and will never be compromised. There can also be no disparity between the operation of a privately funded highway and one managed by National Highways, so I can assure the House that the Bill means that roads operated under the new licensing regime can be held to the same standards as the rest of the strategic road network. Even when difficulties arise, the framework ensures that road users are protected and there is continuity of service on the network.

Finally, the Bill allows a private operator to make a regulated return on their investment. Any charges or tolls will be levied under strict conditions set out by the Office of Rail and Road, which will be required to consider the interests of road users. Let me be crystal clear: the Bill is not and will never be national road pricing by the back door, and it is not and will never be a way to charge motorists across the wider network. The provisions in the Bill apply only to roads brought in under the financial and legal framework that we are debating today.

Let me be clear: that framework is not open ended. Licences may only be issued for new road projects, capacity enhancing improvements or the continued operation of a previously licensed road, and any road specified in a licence must be a trunk road in England. This is about strategically important routes, not minor improvements to the road network. Government policy is that tolling will normally be used only for costly river and estuarial crossings, and nothing in the Bill is set to change that.

I will now turn to the second major feature of the Bill. Some of the legislation governing toll collection dates back to the 18th century. It is high time that was updated, so that we can unleash the benefits of modern technology on our roads. Many of us have at some point experienced long queues at toll booths. It adds unnecessary delay to journeys, and drivers will rightly wonder when regulations will catch up with technology. Free-flowing tolling systems do not require vehicles to stop at traditional booths, and by allowing payment after use, they ease congestion and shorten journey times. The Bill does not mandate a certain approach to toll collection, but simply allows new technologies to be adopted and creates a modern statutory framework for enforcement practices. I have little doubt that drivers will welcome measures that can remove friction from their journeys.

It is no secret that our desire to push forward with this legislation stems from the lower Thames crossing. That crossing will almost double road capacity across the Thames to the east of London. It will improve journey times and it will tackle chronic congestion at Dartford, which is bursting at the seams. Its 2.6-mile dual tunnels under the Thames will be the longest road tunnels in the country, and the largest in Europe by diameter, and it will set the standard for carbon-neutral construction. In short, it is exactly the sort of ambitious and world-leading infrastructure project that Britain should be building.

We have been clear that the regulated asset base model is our preferred financial approach for the lower Thames crossing, but the Bill is not about the lower Thames crossing’s design, nor does it grant development consent. That work has already been done. It simply creates the financial framework that can deliver the lower Thames crossing, as well as appropriate future road projects.

I finish by reminding colleagues what lies at the heart of the Bill: recognition that too many people, in too many places, remain held back by poor connectivity, and a recognition that each congested road and every delayed journey stifle productivity. The Bill does not ask the House to choose between public and private finance as a matter of ideology, but it puts another tool at our disposal for delivering the infrastructure that Britain needs. This financial model will not be used in every case, but it does set out one practical approach, guided by a financial framework set by Government. There will be a compliance regime enforced by an independent regulator. Private capital is provided by investors, and public safeguards are protected at every stage. That is the balanced model that this Bill will deliver, and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

The last Government fought tooth and nail through the courts to deliver the scheme and get the planning consents all the way through. I think the hon. Member should take note of that. This is not something that this Government have dreamed up overnight and delivered. They are ramming costs right into the heart of the scheme, and it is his constituents who will pay for it in the years to come, because of the way in which it will be constructed.

This is neither the time nor the place for one of Baldrick’s cunning plans. Does the Minister know how much this scheme is going to cost? If not, why not? Why on earth will any private sector company look at investing in the scheme if it has an open-ended cost? The Government say that they want to deliver growth, but instead they spend their days screwing over motorists, cancelling road schemes and calling Heathrow expansion a “hypothetical” or “a matter for London”.

Labour is not a serious party intent on delivering growth. They are only fit to whack up the welfare budget and leave the rest of us to pay for it. My party has set out a clear plan to tackle some of the costs of infrastructure, including leaving the Aarhus convention, which we discussed at the Conservative party conference.

[Dr Prinsley]

Is the shadow Secretary of State opposed in principle to the concept of tolls for any of these projects?

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

1. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the renationalisation of the railways on rail users in the east of England.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)]

On behalf of the Government, may I associate myself with your remarks about David Winnick and extend our condolences to his family?

Bringing Greater Anglia and other east of England train operators into public ownership will put passengers first. Since coming into public ownership in 2025, both Greater Anglia and c2c are delivering some of the lowest cancellation rates in the country, while new stations and upgrades across the region are improving reliability and accessibility as we move towards an integrated, passenger-focused rail network.

[Peter Prinsley]

I am grateful for that answer. Greater Anglia has consistently been at the top of the performance scale for our railway operators, but could the Secretary of State tell me whether the nationalisation of the railway will lead to the increased likelihood of a much better commuter service between Bury St Edmunds and Cambridge, which is presently only an hourly service, and what the prospect is of a direct train line from Bury St Edmunds to London?

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

By law, theory tests certificates are valid for two years, for road safety reasons, to ensure that road safety knowledge and hazard perception skills are up to date when the individual takes their practical test. The Government have no plans to change that. My focus remains on driving down test waiting times once and for all, so that we are never in this situation.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I am delighted to inform the Secretary of State that the long-awaited footbridge with lifts has finally been installed at Stowmarket station and is due to be commissioned very soon—

[Mr Speaker]

But!

[Peter Prinsley]

But indeed. [Laughter.] There remain several hazardous crossings on the busy east-west line between Ipswich and Cambridge, including at Thurston, where pedestrians are obliged to walk across the track. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must support all initiatives to improve the safety of such crossings?

[Heidi Alexander]

I do agree. I am pleased to hear that progress has been made in one location, but our ambition to improve safety in and around the rail network does not stop there.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

5. What steps she is taking to help improve local bus services.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are clear that everyone should have access to high-quality, accessible bus services. Responsibility for services in London sits with the mayor, and 96% of Londoners live within 400 metres of a bus stop. To expand the progress made under London’s Labour mayor, we will be developing a new national strategy of stopping place guidance to support inclusive bus stop provision throughout England.

[Peter Prinsley]

At a lively church hall meeting in Barningham, which is a quintessential Suffolk village, a number of my constituents raised concerns about the state of rural bus provision. They highlighted not only the infrequency of the services, but the fact that the buses are larger than demand requires; many seats are unused. Does the Minister agree that a more flexible approach, including the use of smaller, more frequent buses, potentially powered by electric motors, would be preferable in rural areas?

[Simon Lightwood]

I agree with my hon. Friend that everyone should have access to reliable and frequent bus services. While it is for operators to manage their fleets, our ambitious bus reforms are giving local leaders the tools to deliver buses on which communities can rely, including by using flexible service models.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander]

If the electric car grant scheme is so unpopular, why have 30,000 people availed themselves of it since its launch in the summer? I am clear that the transition to electric vehicles is a key plank of this Government’s agenda, because of the good jobs it can create and the need to clean up the way we travel.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

T7.   At a recent church hall meeting in Elmswell—yet another quintessential Suffolk village—a number of my constituents raised concerns about the local railway crossing. This rapidly growing village relies on an outdated level crossing, creating enormous hold-ups that are inconvenient at best and dangerous at worst. In nearby Thurston, passengers can only access the platform by walking across the tracks. Although I welcome Mid Suffolk district council’s recent decision to invest, what action are the Government taking to improve safety and reduce disruption at rural railway crossings?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am enjoying the tour of village halls this morning. Level crossings can be a significant safety risk. Network Rail, the owner of that level crossing, has legal responsibility to reduce risk so that it is as low as practically possible. The Rail Minister would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the specifics of the crossing.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I will speak mainly to new clauses 32 and 33 in my name.

There is a lot to like in the Bill, but it is at its weakest where it touches on rural areas. That is a great shame, because if we could solve transport, we could also solve the rural productivity problem. Economic inactivity is nearly two-and-a-half times higher in rural areas than it is in urban areas, and that is directly related to transport issues. If we could boost rural productivity to urban levels, it would fix the Chancellor’s Budget deficit in one go.

The key freedom that the Bill brings is to support local authorities that want to establish a bus franchise or to set up their own municipal service. If we stand back to look at the scale of the challenge, however, do we really think that that will be enough to reverse the long-term decline in rural areas? The answer must be no. Given how cash-strapped and under-resourced most local authorities are, it is clear that most will be unable to take advantage of that freedom without additional support.

In my previous life as a West Sussex county councillor, I served on a committee considering a bus improvement plan, but the measures we were given to look at were all small and tactical. No one on that committee believed that the plan would change the curve. Too many local authorities long ago surrendered to a tacit acceptance of managed decline. That has to change—hence my new clause 33, which would set out a new duty actively to promote and increase bus usage.

The key paradox that must be solved is why, if public demand for bus services is so high, usage is always dropping. Clearly, price is one issue, but the service has also become increasingly mismatched with local need. In West Sussex, a 2021 survey found that 80% of residents had stopped using buses because of a lack of a suitable route or infrequency of service—that is a huge percentage of the potential market to give away. The problem, especially in rural areas, is that what we have left today is a legacy service—the ghostly outline of routes and frequencies that existed years ago. We have fought a long defensive war of attrition, and we have been losing. Individual routes have been salami-sliced to destruction. That is why I have tabled new clause 32 to require local authorities to consult in advance on significant service changes.

In my constituency of Horsham, residents of Partridge Green discovered they were losing their direct No. 17 service to town only when they saw the new timetable. In Slinfold, the No. 63 was removed altogether, also without any warning. The county council says that the changes are nothing to do with them, and they are the responsibility of the commercial operator, but the operator says that they are up to the council. There is simply no one left at the wheel of our local bus service.

When I looked at the huge public reaction as villagers fought to save their services after the axe had already fallen, I could not help but wonder what might have been. What might have happened if we could have harnessed that enthusiasm to create a service that met people’s transport needs? We have been beaten down, over many years, into accepting that it is impossible to fix the problem, yet Switzerland, Austria and Germany, in areas with far lower population densities than many areas of the UK, are providing all-day, every-hour services, seven days a week. We can do that too, if we have the will.

It is good to see bus services getting legislative attention, and I appreciate that, but I hope that the Government do not think that this Bill will be nearly enough by itself. I urge the Government to make a special study of the needs of rural areas, which have been a recurring theme during the debate, and work out what it would take to genuinely reverse decline.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I support new clause 22, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), who is temporarily not in his place. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the minimum bus service standards required for communities in England.

What Members notice when they come to London from rural constituencies, such as my constituency in Suffolk, are all the red buses, all over the place. Routes run from early in the morning until late into the evening, in no small part because of the years of excellent Labour administration that Londoners have enjoyed. Out in Suffolk, we certainly do not have a fully integrated bus service. For a start, there are simply not enough buses. From 2010, a decade of declining public funding left the interwoven jumble of local bus maps looking decisively threadbare. From 2018 to 2024, 18% of bus services in my county council area simply vanished.

In Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, I have been supporting residents fighting to save local bus routes, and I am sure that many hon. Members will have been doing exactly the same in their areas. In Bury St Edmunds, we managed to get the 73 and 73A bus routes retained, which are essential for getting children to school at the Thurston community college. At Marham Park, where residents were in danger of being fully cut off, we did the same, thanks to £8 million of funding from the Government. In the years to come, we will further undo the loss of bus services: some 17 new or improved bus routes are rolling out just this month across Suffolk.

If people are lucky enough to live on a route that survived the last 15 years, the problem is that they will be hard pressed to find a bus that goes anywhere after 5 o’clock in the afternoon. Imagine a lady from the village of Honington, in my constituency, who has to attend a 4.30 pm appointment at the West Suffolk hospital about her dodgy knee. The 332 bus runs from Honington to Bury St Edmunds four times a day, so she catches the 2.40 pm bus and arrives in Bury St Edmunds with an hour to spare. She has her appointment and she gets out of the hospital after an hour, so at 5.30 pm she is standing outside the hospital and she cannot get home. She has missed the last bus and she is stuck in Bury St Edmunds. She cannot march 10 miles home, because she has a dodgy knee, and she has no friends, so she gets a taxi. A taxi is £35, but our imaginary lady has no choice—she has to pay that £35.

We capped the cost of a bus fare at £3, but we all know that for lots of real people in rural areas, inadequate bus service means that transport costs easily spiral out of control. That is why we need to critically examine the minimum bus service standards required across communities in England. Many Members have spoken about CPRE, which has mentioned that some countries such as Switzerland legally mandate public transport frequencies for communities of different sizes. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire —who still has not returned to the Chamber—will ensure that progress is made towards undoing some of the inequalities that have built up in transport, and will move us much closer to the unified transport model that we all know we need.

HS2 Reset

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I would be very happy to ask the Rail Minister to meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about the stations in Birmingham that he mentions.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State. May I speak today of the east of England? The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) famously promised a dividend when he cancelled HS2 North, so might we expect some of that to be used to replace the crucial Haughley and Ely junctions, in order to finally sort out the rail connections in the east of England?

[Heidi Alexander]

I understand the importance of the Ely area scheme in terms of rail infrastructure, and I hope to say more about rail investment in the weeks before the summer recess.

Road Maintenance

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

People in Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket must navigate pockmarked and pimpled streets—how depressing and frustrating! People are forced to accept a fear of damage or even injury as a precondition of using our roads, and they are locked in extended battles for compensation with the council and their insurers. We all know about this problem.

Only 36% of local roads in the east of England are in good structural condition. People talk about the effects of potholes on motorists, and quite rightly—they are dangerous, damaging to cars and a daily irritant for many of us. However, it is not just car owners who are affected by our roads, and many people know a horror story. It is no surprise to me, having sat in this debate, that my son, a student at Keele University in Stoke-on-Trent, was involved in a horrendous bicycle crash as he came down a steep hill and went head over heels when his front wheel landed in a pothole.

Cyclists know all about potholes. The evidence suggests that between 2017 and 2023, one person per week was killed or seriously injured while cycling, so potholes cause deaths. This is a trend that has not shown any sign of abating. Bus drivers and taxi operators cannot do their job safely when the roads underneath them simply do not work, and our emergency services cannot help us if they are expected to use crumbling roads. I have heard of paramedics whose ambulances have been damaged, to the point of being undriveable, by hitting a pothole on the way to a call-out. Better, smoother roads will support our local economies, improve transport and, most importantly, limit the number of accidents, so it is wonderful to hear that the Government are at last doing something after more than a decade in which our local roads were simply ignored under the Tories.

In Suffolk, the effect of the decline in highway spending—last year, it was down by almost 25% compared with 2015—can be easily seen, but that is already changing. Potholes are getting fixed more quickly, because our local authorities are getting a much-needed injection of cash from this Labour Government. In Suffolk, they are getting an extra £11.7 million this year for that purpose.

This Labour Government are taking this issue seriously and delivering for the people of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, and I am glad to see that they are not simply papering over the cracks. They will use the latest tech to ensure that public money is spent as effectively as possible on lasting repairs so that our roads do not split up again. Brilliant new pothole-filling machines and surfacing technologies will save us money, and it was great to hear about the advances in technology from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner).

Ministers have taken the decisive action that the previous Government put off for too long, and I hope the rest of the House can join me in congratulating them on that.

Road Safety: Young Drivers

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Once a person has passed their driving test in this country, they are simply released on to the roads. This new Parliament must act to change that.

On Boxing day 2017, a 17-year-old from Suffolk crashed his Ford Fiesta, his first car. His friends William Smedley and Jake Paxton, just 18 years old, both from Bury St Edmunds, died.

Men who have recently learned to drive are at high risk of accidents. Graduated drivers licences have been adopted in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden and Australia. They work so well at reducing accidents that they are being expanded all over the place and states are progressively adopting stricter rules. From December 2024, Western Australia, which previously had the most lenient system of licensing in the country, placed limits on the number of passengers that someone could carry. The legislation is known as Tom’s law, in reference to Tom Saffioti, a 15-year-old boy who died in a crash while a passenger in a car driven by a new driver.

In the UK, drivers can display a P plate after passing the test, but those come with no additional rules. Let us graduate the licence for drivers in the UK. That is not the nanny state; it is simply good government. Everyone in room seems to agree, so let us make it happen.