Dualling of the A21
Debate between Simon Lightwood and Kieran Mullan(4 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) for securing this important debate and for his continued advocacy alongside the work of the A21 reference group on what I know is an important issue for the communities they represent. I welcome the opportunity this evening to set out the Government’s position on the A21, its strategic importance and how it has been considered in our longer-term approach to investment in the strategic road network.
The A21 is a key route in the strategic road network, performing a vital role in connecting coastal communities in East Sussex and larger towns in Kent to the M25 and the wider national network. The road supports a wide range of journeys, such as commuters travelling to work, businesses moving goods and services, tourists visiting the coastal towns of Bexhill and Hastings, and people making everyday local trips. When the road falls short in terms of capacity and reliability, particularly on its single-carriageway sections, this can have a real impact on economic opportunities, journey times and quality of life.
Turning specifically to the southern section of the A21, National Highways recognises performance concerns, particularly around safety. It has invested over £20 million since 2021 to improve safety between Sevenoaks and Hastings. I recognise, however, that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle wants further investment. As the House will be aware, on 26 March, the Government published the third road investment strategy, committing a total of £27 billion to operate, maintain and improve England’s strategic road network over the next five years. That investment will ensure that the network remains safe and reliable while supporting economic growth and improving journeys for users across the country. RIS3 places a greater focus than ever before on the maintenance and renewal of our existing network, with a smaller number of enhancement schemes. Improvements to routes such as the A21 need to be considered in that wider context.
RIS3 will deliver tangible improvements through safer and smoother journeys for road users and through targeted programmes tackling key pinch points on the network. For the A21—as the hon. Member will be aware —one of the main pinch points can be found at the Kippings Cross roundabout, where the dual-carriageway section meets the single-carriageway section. That junction is being considered for improvement as part of one of the new national programmes in RIS3, and I encourage hon. Members to engage with National Highways over the months ahead as this work progresses and the schemes within the programme are prioritised for delivery.
As for dualling the remaining single-carriageway stretches of the A21, there are no plans to do so at the present time. It does not form part of the plans set out in RIS3, and it is not one of the schemes included in the pipeline of schemes for construction in the early 2030s. Dualling the A21 would carry a significant cost, and the delivery of such a scheme would be really challenging, given the local topography and the number of settlements that the route passes through. It would also have significant environmental impacts—I know that there are sites of significant environmental interest in the area, including ancient woodland—and would require, I think, at least three or four bypasses around villages.
Dr Mullan
First, will the Minister advise me on what to do if something is not even in the long pipeline? What does an MP have to do to get it put into the long pipeline? Secondly, if the Minister is not considering dualling, perhaps the next best thing in some of the villages that are particularly hard hit would be bypasses, so are there any plans separate from dualling—plans for some bypassing, even of the single lane? Land has been bought to do that in the past, and then it gets sold back and those plans are not delivered. Is there some light at the end of the tunnel in the form of some potential bypassing?
Simon Lightwood
This is not to say that dualling will never happen, and it is entirely right for the hon. Member and other hon. Members to continue to advocate and build the case for such major improvements. Where there is strong cross-party support from across the region, that sends a clear signal for potential future investment, and I encourage hon. Members to continue to engage with National Highways and other regional partners on what more can be done to improve the performance of the route for the communities it serves.
To touch on some other points, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) talked about other forms of transport connecting communities, and I know that she has made representations in favour of improving the speed and frequency of trains between Hastings and London. While that sits outside of my remit as the Minister for roads and buses, I obviously encourage her to continue pushing for those upgrades. I cannot commit to dualling the A21 at this stage, but I can make the commitment that National Highways will continue working with the hon. Gentleman and the A21 reference group to ensure that safety is prioritised on this route.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye spoke about overnight closures, and I commit to raising that personally with National Highways to see what we can do to improve those circumstances.
Dr Mullan
Even if the Government cannot commit to the funding, developing a business case and options in an updated form would not commit anybody to doing it or to saying that there will be funding, but it would be a starting point. On that point, can the Minister be a bit more helpful by saying that he thinks that National Highways should at least have an updated plan for delivering this proposal, if and when the funding appears?
Simon Lightwood
As I said, there are no current plans considering dualling, but National Highways routinely considers the performance of the strategic road network as part of its route strategies process. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance that the current performance and potential future investment needs of the A21 will continue to be assessed in that context to inform future road investment strategies. I have no doubt that he will continue to lobby and to engage with National Highways, along with the A21 reference group. As I have said, I will take away the issue of overnight closures.
In closing, I reiterate that the Government recognise the strategic importance of the A21 and the strength of feeling of Members and the communities affected by its current performance. While difficult decisions must be taken about investment priorities, we remain committed to working constructively with National Highways to deliver benefits for road users, and I welcome the continued engagement of Members in building that case. The concerns raised in this debate will be carefully considered as we look ahead to future investment opportunities on the strategic road network.
Question put and agreed to.
Bus Franchising
Debate between Simon Lightwood and Kieran Mullan(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement.
We on this side of the House are in full agreement that good local transport is something that everyone deserves access to, both for helping people to live their lives and for fulfilling the economic potential of all parts of the country. At the heart of our local transport services are buses. They are some of the most convenient, well-connected and accessible forms of public transport out there—crucially, not just in urban areas, but very often in under-connected rural areas. That is why, in government, we invested billions of pounds in the bus sector, including the vital support provided to maintain services during the pandemic. We rolled out thousands of new zero-emissions buses and introduced the “Get around for £2” scheme, saving millions of people money on their fares and helping to get passengers back on buses.
Those interventions worked. Bus passenger journeys in England increased by nearly a fifth in the year ending March 2023, and we welcome this Government’s desire to build on our progress in order to improve services further, to get more routes running at better frequency, and to make sure that as many people as possible have reliable services that get them where they need to go. I am genuinely interested in understanding how the Government feel that this set of measures will achieve that. We are worried about some of the significant risks, which the Government do not seem to have considered.
This legislation places greater responsibility in the hands of local authorities. We know that a number of local authorities face financial and organisational challenges, and although I do not doubt that there will be enthusiasm for making use of the new powers, running any form of public transport brings real challenges. Of course, as the Minister said in opposition, gaps in experience could be filled by support from the Department for Transport, but depending on the number of local authorities that choose to take up franchising, this could mean that significant central Government resources are required. Unless I have missed something, today’s announcement includes absolutely no funding to pay for increased capacity at the Department. What projections have the Government made of the costs, and how exactly do they expect them to be paid?
It is the same story with local government finances. Make no mistake about it: this is going to cost money. Many bus routes, especially rural services, are loss making, even before we account for the additional resources that local authorities will presumably need to operate them. In his statement, the Minister did not recognise the enormous challenges that have been created by changing travel patterns post covid. If this Government are committed to providing services at 1985 levels, as he seemed to imply, they will need to commit to enormous levels of subsidy.
I welcome the success stories in metropolitan areas that the Minister talked about, but such services operate in a fundamentally different space, because of the density of those areas’ populations. It means that if passenger numbers fall next year, the financial risk will be taken on not by a private company, but by the local council and, by definition, taxpayers. Again, given that there appears to be no funding attached to the policy, surely it can be funded only by increases to council tax or cuts to other local services.
It is the same story when it comes to responsibility for capital expenditure. Will this now be the responsibility of local authorities? How exactly are they expected to fund it? As we recently made clear when debating the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, it might be the Labour party’s priority to undertake ideological reforms to bring the transport sector further into the control of the state, but passengers’ priorities are the price, performance and reliability of services, not who is running them. We want to hear how the reforms will make a difference to passengers’ journeys and their accessibility, frequency and cost, and how they will help to restore the number of rural services and make journeys cheaper for passengers—and not just through the generic pledges we have heard today, but through concrete commitments on which the public can hold the Government to account. The Minister made absolutely no commitment to increase levels of services or miles travelled as part of the Government’s “revolution”.
There are some simple things that the Government could do for passengers, such as extending our “Get around for £2” scheme, which has been hugely positive for passengers and for the viability of services up and down the country. I am aware that the Chancellor is not Labour Members’ favourite person at the moment, but I encourage them to make the case for the cost-of-living benefits of the £2 scheme, as well as for the benefits of the winter fuel payment, in any hurriedly organised meetings today and tomorrow.
The Government have got the wrong priorities yet again. At the end of the day, passengers care about the preservation of existing services, the extension of routes, improvements in frequency and reliability, and cost. We on this side of the House are all ears when it comes to what difference this policy will make for them and—not to be forgotten—who is going to pay for it.
Simon Lightwood
Modernising our transport infrastructure and delivering better buses are at the heart of our plan to kick-start economic growth in every part of the country to get our country moving. This statutory instrument is just the start of a package of measures; the buses Bill will deliver further measures on issues such as funding. Despite the challenging financial circumstances we find ourselves in—inherited from the previous Government—we are determined to deliver better bus services, growing passenger numbers and driving opportunity to underserved regions. All funding is rightly being considered as part of the spending review.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach for buses within local transport authorities. Franchising is just one way that this can be explored; there are also enhanced partnerships and municipal ownership. We firmly believe that our priorities to deliver better buses across the country are the right priorities, and we have the mandate from the British people following the general election to do just that.