Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab) I beg to move, That this House
has considered future transport infrastructure projects and the
Elizabeth line. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Mr Vickers. I declare an interest as a local MP who has received
donations from two rail unions, ASLEF and the National Union of
Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Also, I am a season ticket
holder and in the past was involved in the Paddington rail crash. I
secured...Request free trial
(Reading Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered future transport infrastructure
projects and the Elizabeth line.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I
declare an interest as a local MP who has received donations from
two rail unions, ASLEF and the National Union of Rail, Maritime
and Transport Workers. Also, I am a season ticket holder and in
the past was involved in the Paddington rail crash. I secured
this debate to celebrate the great success of the Elizabeth line,
which I travel on almost every day. I was moved by the Royal
Institute of British Architects's tribute, and its award of the
Stirling prize, to the Elizabeth line—nominated for its
outstanding architecture.
In today's debate I hope we can discuss the importance of rail
investment and the need for long-term planning. I hope to
highlight the Elizabeth line as a national achievement and
possibly a model for further investments around the country. I
also hope the Minister will be able to provide further details of
future investments in other parts of England. I am conscious that
I am likely to talk a lot about Berkshire, my own county, and the
nearby parts of London that it is so intimately connected with.
Two years on is an excellent point at which to reflect on the
Elizabeth line and its wonderful benefits to our community.
I hope Members will indulge me this morning, because I have to
say my family banned me from going on about the Elizabeth line. I
was told by my wife to stop talking about it. I am very lucky to
live near London and can travel home to Reading every day
—apologies to colleagues who are not able to get home in the
evening—but I was admonished by my wife, who told me, “Stop going
on about the Elizabeth line. I don't want to hear any more about
it.” However, she and my son and daughter all changed their tune
as soon as they had benefited from it; Sarah was able to get back
from a show in the west end to a cup of tea in our kitchen in
Reading in 50 minutes one evening, and that stopped her ever
criticising it again. Now she is as big a convert as I am to that
wonderful piece of engineering.
I have my “Matt Rodda's pub quiz” section of this speech, in
which I want to mention a few fun facts about the Elizabeth line.
To sum up the scale of what the country has achieved, £19 billion
has been invested in this piece of railway, but it has already,
in just two years, generated £42 billion of benefits to the
economy. There are some 700,000 journeys a day. Every day, the
equivalent of the whole population of Berkshire, a reasonably
large English county, travels on the line. To put it another way,
4.8 million people travel on it every week—more than half the
population of London travel on that one railway line every week.
It has generated 8,000 jobs and about 55,000 homes have been
built along the line. I want to mention that later in my speech,
because the connection between investment in rail, the economy,
jobs, housing and growth and the clustering of new industries
near railway stations is a really important topic in this
debate.
The Mayor of London described the line as a “game changer” for
London and the surrounding area, where we have seen 8% growth
year on year in passenger numbers. The best way to understand
this amazing piece of railway is to ride on it and look out of
the window, or to get out of the station underground and soak up
what we are passing through. Getting off the mainline train at
Paddington—I do not travel on the Elizabeth line all the way to
Reading every day—and going on to the Elizabeth line is quite a
stunning change of scene. I go into a huge box station, down two
sets of escalators and into an enormous modern station, rather
like being inside an airport building. It is absolutely huge,
several times greater than any normal tube station, with enormous
capacity built in for extra passenger numbers. Already, even on
the busiest days, the line is soaking up huge numbers of people.
The crowds above ground are suddenly distributed below ground and
there is a train every 2.5 minutes.
I travel to Bond Street, where, wonderfully, there is a little
sign that says “Trains to Reading”—something that seems
completely incongruous to anybody who lives outside London. I
then move swiftly on to another tube. Looking at the view coming
into Reading station the other way, there is now an equally
stunning sight that we would not see in many medium-sized English
cities or large towns. We are starting to see a significant
number of tall buildings, and all those buildings represent a
rise in land values, an increase in jobs and new businesses
locating near the station, creating jobs, wealth and growth
through investment and infrastructure. That is driving the
economy of the area and leading to significant migration into
Reading from around the UK and around the world, with businesses
also relocating.
I saw one example of why that relocation is taking place with my
visit to the Ericsson office, in Thames Tower next to the
station. This illustrates the employer's point of view, which is
important. Senior managers at Ericsson explained that they moved
from a business estate in Surrey to Reading because they wanted
access to a much wider pool of workers. The transport
connectivity meant they could get much better access to a much
wider range of people with qualifications in telecoms, electronic
engineering and other related skills they needed in their
business by being in Reading. Staff can connect more easily to
the midlands, east to London, west to Bristol and south too. I
stress that rail connectivity, and the benefits it brings to
employers, as an important part of this debate.
At a local level, PepsiCo, whose office is in Green Park near the
M4 motorway, is moving to Reading town centre. That movement of
businesses into Reading from out-of-town industrial estates could
also apply to other areas where there is due to be a significant
amount of rail investment—for example on the Oxford to Cambridge
line or in the north of England. I hope that is the story when
investment and infrastructure are brought together.
It is also worth mentioning the huge environmental benefit. We do
not have much capacity in our major towns and cities to build
extra roads and getting extra road space is incredibly difficult.
There are more people and more vehicles in the country, and all
those vehicles on the road at the same time can cause gridlock.
Rail offers the ability to generate large numbers of journeys and
move huge numbers of people quickly and effectively from one
place to another. That can be seen in Berkshire and west London;
in fact, the section of the Elizabeth line between Reading and
Hayes shows the fastest growth in passenger numbers.
Interestingly, it straddles two regional boundaries, where there
was previously a stopping service that was nowhere near as
effective at getting people from A to B—it was not as fast or as
regular—as the Elizabeth line.
(Ealing Southall)
(Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate.
The Elizabeth line has been a game changer for my constituency of
Ealing Southall, and Southall station in particular is very well
used. However, two other stations, West Ealing and Hanwell,
suffer from a less frequent service than Southall, and that is in
the context of increasing development, particularly in West
Ealing. There are also more delays and cancellations on the line
than would be expected with new rail infrastructure. Does my hon.
Friend agree that not only is it important that the Elizabeth
line is extended to constituencies such as his, but that the
reliability and frequency of the line is improved?
My hon. Friend makes a good point about further enhancements and
improvements to the line. I will discuss that later in my speech
and I hope the Minister will also have a word to say on that.
On the wider context of the British economy and national
achievements in recent years, it is fair to say that we are all
proud of Great British sporting achievements, such as securing
the Olympics and the performance of Team GB or our achievements
in football and other major sports. I believe that the building
and the growing success of the Elizabeth line are also an
achievement in line with our achievements in sport or science and
technology, and we ought to pay heed to that, learn from it and
use it to fuel other investments, whether by learning the lessons
on planning and infrastructure development or in other ways.
I also want to comment on some of the political lessons learned,
on a cross-party basis: once again, it is important to focus on
the crucial number of £42 billion of economic growth in just two
years. That is a significant number, and we want to see more of
that, not just in my region of the south-east of England, but
across the country, in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the
north of England.
To reflect on what went well and learn some lessons, I would like
to go back a bit—you will be pleased to know, Mr Vickers, that I
do not want to go right back to 1840, when the Regent's Canal
company, which was very far sighted, first talked about a
cross-London route, but I will go back to the 1990s to reflect,
in simple outline terms, on the things we got right and the
themes that come up when we talk to the people involved. For
example, I spoke to the former Member for Greenwich and Woolwich,
, who was a Transport
Minister. The lessons seem to be that it is important that the
Government have a vision, and plan and invest for the long term.
They must listen to businesses and work closely with them in deep
partnership, and they must do the same with local and regional
government. Both the Mayor of London and local government across
the south-east were crucial to this project—the Minister may want
to comment on that later.
I must thank several people, or I will never live it down. In
particular, I thank MPs from Berkshire: I want to single out the
former Member for Maidenhead, now Baroness May of Maidenhead, who
played a very important role in this project and was an
incredibly important constituency neighbour when she was in this
place. I also thank and other MPs from the Thames
valley, including the former Labour MPs for Reading West and
Slough, among others. I thank the lead members for transport on
Reading Borough council, including Councillor Tony Page and
Councillor John Howarth, and leaders of Reading Borough council
Liz Terry, Jo Lovelock and David Sutton.
I thank the local business community, including investors from
outside our immediate area who have done so much to regenerate
areas near the station—for example, the team investing in Station
Hill are playing a really important role—and many others, such as
the two corporates that are moving into the area near the
station. I would particularly like to mention Nigel Horton-Baker,
who brought the business community together, and I thank the
various local enterprise partnerships and chambers of commerce
that cover the Thames valley.
I also highlight the importance of the business and civic
community in the wider region. When the Elizabeth line was
envisaged—this is a bit of a detour down a branch line, but it is
very important for Berkshire—there was no guarantee that it would
come to Reading. The original plan was for it to go as far west
as Maidenhead, but Reading borough council built a coalition of
local authorities across the three counties of Berks, Bucks and
Oxon. I see that the hon. Member for Wokingham () is here, and I am sure he
agrees; he may want to speak about the importance of local
government collegiality across the Thames valley. That
cross-party group of local authorities, led by all three main UK
parties, wanted Reading to be the western terminus. It was so
important that they agreed and worked together. I obviously have
a vested interest as the MP for Reading Central, but the idea of
Reading's being the western terminus made complete transport
sense, as it is a major transport hub and a point at which the
railway divides north and south, to the south coast and the
midlands, and a key point at which it splays out westwards, to
the far south-west, Wales and the midlands.
I am proud to be the MP for Reading Central, and it is wonderful
to be able to commend the work that has been done locally. In the
time that I have left, I have some questions for the Minister
from me, our local business community and other stakeholders. I
particularly want to explore the notion of further
electrification. One of the benefits of the Elizabeth line is
that it is fully electric, which saves huge amounts of money in
the long run, although there is obviously an up-front cost. Under
the previous Government, there was a reduction in the amount of
electrification from what was originally planned. I have had
requests for more north-south improvements in electrification in
our area, between the south coast and Oxford. There has also been
some interest in introducing more semi-fast services on the
Elizabeth line—in other words, trains that do not stop at every
station but move more quickly between the major stations. Some
people have raised further station development.
A western rail link is an important adjunct to the arguments
about the Elizabeth line. The line has created a lot of
connectivity and an east-west corridor between Berkshire, Essex
and Kent, but people going to Heathrow have to approach London
and go out again. Many colleagues from Wales and the west
country—particularly south Wales, Bristol and further west—have,
with me and other colleagues, lobbied for extra connectivity that
would allow people to get on a train at Cardiff or Bristol and go
straight to Heathrow, reducing surface transport and pollution
near the airport, and freeing up local roads. It would also bring
huge flexibility for commuters working at the airport,
particularly residents of Slough and west London, where many
airport staff live, although some live as far away as
Reading.
The other point I would like the Minister to comment on—I realise
it is an ongoing discussion—is the work to smooth the transition
relating to the development of Old Oak Common. I am pleased the
Government are committed to investing in the link between Old Oak
Common and Euston; that is an important milestone and a national
priority for all of us. However, in my area, and particularly to
the west of London, in Wales and the west country, there is a
great deal of concern about the blockading of Paddington to allow
work to take place at Old Oak Common. That starts at Christmas
time, and I hope the Minister can say some reassuring words about
it. I know he is interested in those matters and wants that work
carried out in the smoothest way possible.
It has been a pleasure to speak this morning; I am grateful for
your indulgence, Mr Vickers, in allowing me to commend some of my
local government colleagues and others in the business community.
I hope the Minister will be able to answer some of my questions.
I also thank colleagues for attending in such large numbers and
from such a wide range of political parties, and I look forward
to hearing everybody's speeches.
(in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called
in the debate. If Members restrict themselves to speaking for
about five minutes, we should be able to accommodate
everyone.
9.46am
Dr (Surrey Heath) (LD)
It is a pleasure, Mr Vickers, to serve under your chairmanship,
and I extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Reading
Central () on securing this crucial
debate.
I would like to focus on two pressing issues relating to the
current and future state of transport infrastructure in my
constituency of Surrey Heath. First, and keeping it local, there
are fragmented internal transport links between towns and
villages in my infrastructurally left-behind constituency. Bus
services, which are vital to some of my most vulnerable
constituents, including children and the elderly, are thin on the
ground and poorly scheduled. As a result, many people miss rail
connections, arrive late at work or school, and struggle to make
hospital appointments. Residents report having to spend more than
£50 to make it on time for a 9 am hospital appointment, due to
the lack of a public transport option. For residents in villages
such as Chobham, the problem is particularly acute. They lack any
bus services at all. There is no direct bus route connecting
railway stations in Sunningdale or Blackwater to key hubs such as
Camberley or Frimley.
That lack of integrated public transport has made car dependency
the norm in Surrey Heath. Over 56% of households own two or more
cars, and 60% of trips under 10 km are made by private vehicles.
That is not, I would contend, out of choice but out of necessity.
There is simply no viable alternative. That dependency creates
severe congestion on major roads such as the A322. If anyone
listens to the traffic reports in the morning, they will have
heard that letter and those numbers mentioned all too often.
With the national planning policy framework placing a 250%
increase on new housing targets in Surrey Heath, that
infrastructural challenge will only become more severe, but it is
one that our current transport funding and planning mechanisms
seem inadequate to address. If we want new homes, which we surely
do, and if we want business and economic growth, we simply cannot
react to transport deserts and congestion after the fact. We need
to anticipate better, look ahead and think proactively.
That brings me to my second point, which concerns transport links
between Surrey Heath and London. Frankly, in Surrey Heath we pray
for something like the Elizabeth line. Camberley, the largest
market town in my constituency, is hugely underutilised by
commuters, despite being only 28 miles from the centre of the
capital. Camberley station served just 789 passengers daily in
2022-23—not, I would argue, because of a lack of demand for a
high-quality commuter service, but because the slow, fragmented
service on offer forces residents to access the rail system from
outside our borough altogether. It is a sad reality that, in
2024, the journey to central London from Camberley now takes one
hour and 15 minutes, involving at least one change. That is
longer than the same journey in the 1920s, a century ago.
Most residents, including me, find it more practical to drive
many miles to rail stations outside Surrey Heath, such as
Farnborough, Brookwood or Woking, to access the faster, more
direct routes to the city. Surrey Heath's transport system is
failing its residents, keeping children out of school, and
stifling local economic growth, and it is now unable to keep up
with the demands placed on it by new house building targets.
Like many other infrastructurally left-behind places in the UK,
Surrey Heath urgently needs investment in fast, efficient and
direct rail links to London, synchronised bus schedules and
better rural transport options. Those improvements have the
potential to tackle congestion, lower emissions and support
sustainable development, while enhancing the environment and the
quality of life for residents. Just as importantly for a
Government with a focus on economic growth, improved
infrastructure can act as the oil in the engine of economic
growth, and I hope this Government see that as an investment
worth making for our shared future prosperity. Surrey Heath
businesses want and deserve access to game-changing
infrastructure such as the Elizabeth line, and Surrey Heath
residents would, I am certain, make for hugely vocal converts and
give the hon. Member for Reading Central a run for his
money.9.51am
(Bexleyheath and Crayford)
(Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I
thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central () for securing today's
debate.
I had the pleasure of serving as the cabinet member for transport
in the London borough of Bexley from 2003 to 2006. During that
period, the route for what was then called Crossrail was agreed.
The Queen's Speech of November 2004 confirmed that a Bill would
be introduced to authorise the construction of Crossrail.
Although the announcement confirmed that a southern spur would
terminate at Abbey Wood rather than Ebbsfleet, people with long
memories like me recall discussions at the time about terminating
that spur at Canary Wharf or Custom House. I was quoted at the
time, regarding the benefits for residents in Bexley, as
saying:
“The most important achievement is getting Crossrail south of the
river. If it had stopped at the Isle of Dogs, there would have
been no benefit at all.”
My council lobbied to have that section reinstated, but it was
not included in the final scheme, although the safeguarding
directions for the associated land were retained.
As things stand, the southern spur of the Elizabeth line
terminates at Abbey Wood station where, uniquely, the ticket
office is located in the London borough of Bexley while the
platforms are located in the royal borough of Greenwich. Although
the station is located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the
Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), it is within
three quarters of a mile of my constituency of Bexleyheath and
Crayford. The route has therefore brought many benefits to my
constituents—particularly in the western part of the
constituency—providing much faster journey times through to
Canary Wharf, the City, the west end and Heathrow. It has also
brought benefits for my constituents interchanging at Abbey Wood
via Southeastern and Thameslink services from Slade Green. Sadly,
the previous Government cut the majority of direct services from
Crayford to Abbey Wood, making it difficult to interchange
directly. I will continue to campaign for better services by
train and bus to reach Abbey Wood from Crayford.
Passengers interchanging from Slade Green and other stations to
its east have to rely on less frequent services to undertake this
change. There remains a strong case to extend the Elizabeth line
to Ebbsfleet in order to serve residents in the thousands of new
homes built there, in order to interchange with high-speed
services and hopefully, in the future, with reinstated services
to mainland Europe.
The Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet corridor covers the local authorities
of Bexley and Gravesham and that of my hon. Friend the Member for
Dartford (). The corridor has the
potential to build on its existing strengths and diversify its
economy, but it needs to improve transport links to make that
happen. Although the corridor has large areas of underutilised
brownfield sites, many sites are complex and cannot be brought
forward for housing by the market alone, because of viability
challenges, in part caused by poor transport connections, which
limit land values. Significant evidence has been assembled to
show how additional housing can be delivered by transport
investment making the local area more attractive. An extension is
also expected to support jobs growth due to enhanced connectivity
and additional commercial floor space and through jobs to support
the new population, which would support the regeneration of both
Crayford and Slade Green.
The C2E Partnership was formed in 2016 as an informal group of
authorities to promote an extension of the Elizabeth line beyond
its planned terminus at Abbey Wood and towards Ebbsfleet. It
comprises stakeholders representing local communities in the
area, including the London borough of Bexley, Dartford and
Gravesham borough councils, the Ebbsfleet Development
Corporation, Kent county council, the Greater London Authority
and the Greater North Kent Partnership. The partnership has
lobbied since its inception for funding to develop scheme
options. It was successful in securing funding from Government
for the development of a strategic outline business case, which
was submitted to the previous Government in October 2021.
Despite that, there has still not been a formal response to that
business case. The project continues to form a key element of the
transport strategy for growth of the London borough of Bexley,
being referenced in the Bexley growth strategy and the recently
adopted local plan. That is echoed in the policy documents of the
wider partnership, as well as regional partners, such as the
Thames Estuary Growth Board and Transport for the South East.
The partnership's ask is for further resource to refine the
options presented in the business case and identify a preferred
scheme for development to detailed design, and the securing of
appropriate powers for delivery. The case for such investment is
considered to be stronger than ever, in the context of housing
and economic development imperatives. I shall continue to call
for this extension to be delivered in the years ahead. I look
forward to hearing the Minister's response.
9.56am
(Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading Central () on setting the scene and thank
him for giving us an opportunity to participate. I want to give a
Northern Ireland perspective on where we are. My method of
getting here is to travel from London Heathrow or London City
airport. Coming into Heathrow, I get the Elizabeth line or the
Heathrow Express, depending on time. It is obviously important
for us as commuters and for my constituents. I have to mention
them because it is not about me; it is about the importance for
them.
Thank you for giving me the chance to serve under your chairship,
Mr Vickers. It is a pleasure to add some thoughts on how
infrastructure can work better. Others have contributed on the
real importance for their constituents. I may not have a piece of
the Elizabeth line, or even a train line, in my constituency, but
I am incredibly interested in connectivity throughout the United
Kingdom. This time last week we had a debate on flight
cancellations and connectivity. I want to give perspective on the
importance of airline flight connections and of the Elizabeth
line.
I can remember before the Elizabeth line was upgraded. To be
fair, sometimes the service was not always dependable. That was a
fact of life, so commuters would not take the Elizabeth line if
they felt it would not arrive on time or be late setting off,
whatever the reason. They would take the Heathrow Express
instead. There were occasions when it did work well. When the new
Elizabeth line came in, it was much improved. It is important to
put on record our thanks for that.
There are many things to boast about in London, such as the
global seat of democracy at Westminster, the royal family home of
Buckingham Palace, a rich history and successful city ventures.
One of the many things in favour of this envy of the world is a
rail and underground system that gets travellers where they want
to be quickly.
I live in the countryside, where there are no bus connections,
and have a diesel vehicle as my method of transport. In the city,
tube trains, especially the Elizabeth line, and the Heathrow
Express, are my main ways of connecting with my job, as they are
for others. Does anyone need a car in London? If I lived here, no
I would not, because tube trains are so handy, once someone gets
into the way of it. When I first came here, I found it quite hard
to fathom how tubes worked. It is no secret that I am a country
boy. Before I was an MP, I think I had come to London four times
in my life. Coming to the big city was almost like a holiday, in
that I was somewhere different from back home.
My point is that we get used to the tube and understand how it
works and its connectivity, and the Elizabeth line is part of
that. Enhanced connectivity is what everyone here wants: they
want people to be able to get where they need to go in a
cost-effective and timely way.
Connectivity needs to go further than the London underground; it
must be everywhere in the United Kingdom. I know that is not the
Minister's responsibility, but it is tied to the connectivity of
the Elizabeth line, the tube and the Heathrow Express, which is
important to people like me and my constituents who come into
Heathrow then into the city centre. Connectivity must relate to
all parts of the infrastructure, because people fly in and then
use the trains to get here.
I will give some examples that relate to my constituents. Last
week, the planes from Northern Ireland to London were cancelled;
we had an urgent question about it last Tuesday. I am not sure if
British Airways has learned its lesson because, although it
agreed to a meeting, on my way home on Thursday—guess what?—the
plane was cancelled. It is at the stage where I phone the ladies
in my office to say, “Will you check to make sure that the flight
is on?”
If we do not have flights, and their connectivity with trains, we
do not have a system that works. On behalf of all the tourists on
planes from Belfast, Scotland and elsewhere in the United
Kingdom, I say to the Minister: if the planes do not work, it
does not really matter if the train works. It must be right for
those who are coming for appointments, as the hon. Member for
Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) referred to, and for disabled people,
with wheelchair access on the tube.
We have so much to offer as a nation—there is so much investment
from other countries—but our connectivity needs to be dependable,
whether that is taking the tube between Paddington and
Westminster or hopping on a flight from Belfast to London and
then on to the tube. We must do better and put it all together:
flying and the trains.10.02am
(Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers, and I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central
() on securing this important
debate. We may be at different ends of the Elizabeth line, but we
have a shared interest in getting the most out of it for our
constituents.
My Dartford constituency is one of the fastest-growing
communities in the country, with the population of the local
authority increasing by 20% between 2011 and 2021, and likely by
significantly more in the three years since 2021. Ebbsfleet in
particular has grown by over 5,000 homes, with another 10,000
planned over the next decade. Yet the Elizabeth line stops at
Abbey Wood, rather than reaching Ebbsfleet as was originally
envisaged in the 2003 and 2004 consultations on Crossrail, as it
was then known. When my hon. Friend settles down at Christmas for
his Elizabeth line quiz, perhaps he could add a question: where
was the intended final south-east station in the original
Crossrail plans? The answer is, of course, Ebbsfleet. A quick
look at the map shows the discrepancy, with services north of the
river reaching all the way out to Shenfield but south of the
river only as far as Abbey Wood.
I warmly welcome the fact that new residents are being attracted
to live in Dartford thanks to the amazing development that is
taking place, with many young families looking for comparably
more affordable homes and often commuting into London. Despite
not being a London constituency, we are dependent on transport
links into the capital, which are crucial to economic growth in
Dartford and across the Thames estuary, which could be an engine
of growth for the new Labour Government.
Five years ago, in 2019, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and
Local Government provided funding for the C2E Partnership—an
informal group of interested local authorities—to undertake a
comprehensive study into options for improving transport
connectivity between Abbey Wood, Ebbsfleet and Gravesend, to
support new housing and employment along that growth corridor. In
2021, those options were refined to just three: first, an
extension of the Elizabeth line to Northfleet, Ebbsfleet and
Gravesend, sharing existing tracks with National Rail services;
secondly, extending the Elizabeth line to Dartford with the
construction of new tracks; or thirdly, improving the frequency
of National Rail services, and a new rapid bus transit service
from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet. Given the challenges with traffic
that my constituency already experiences, I am somewhat sceptical
about the third option, and there are significant challenges to
sharing track with the existing National Rail services, making
the first option difficult.
Unfortunately, since that narrowing of options in late 2021 when
the business case was submitted to the last Conservative
Government, we have seen little progress. The idea was revived
earlier this year by Local London, a collection of nine local
authorities in north-east and south-east London, which included
it in research it commissioned on the region's long-term
transportation needs. The London borough of Bexley and my hon.
Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford () are keen to see the work
progress, as he so ably and articulately set out.
I urge the Minister and his colleagues across Government to look
at how we can get on and finish the Elizabeth line as originally
intended to grow the economy, boost productivity and improve
lives across our region. That means extending it to Ebbsfleet,
where the links with high-speed and international services would
create an ideal interchange. That must be a priority when
considering the future of the Elizabeth line.
10.06am
(Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I
thank my fellow Berkshire MP, the hon. Member for Reading Central
(), because many of the trains
that pass through my constituency land in his, so it is something
that we need to have regular discussions about. Our constituents
want us to get this right.
Wokingham is well served with choices to get to London, and many
commuters take the journey every day. To provide a brief tour,
residents in Winnersh and Wokingham are slowly taken by South
Western Railway through a suburban route via Waterloo to the
Reading line. In the north, Twyford is on the Great Western main
line into Paddington, carried by the Elizabeth line and Great
Western Railway. It is a blessing that all 8.8 million Londoners
are merely 33 minutes away from the many beautiful villages in
Wokingham.
The Elizabeth line is a great addition to London and its route
through Berkshire, helping to promote a shift from private
vehicles and in turn reducing carbon emissions and particulate
pollution. However, Wokingham has one of the highest levels of
car dependency in England, and the quality of our railways likely
explains why that is the case. Our railway services are
unreliable and they do not work for passengers.
I thank the House of Commons Library for the following data. Only
66.6% of GWR services arrive on time, below the UK average of
67.5%. South Western is marginally better, on 66.8%, but still
below the national average. With that perspective, I must give
credit to the Elizabeth line, because 81% of its services arrive
on time. In addition, 4.8% of all GWR services are
cancelled—again, above the national average. That might not sound
too bad on the face of it, but if I forgot my house keys 4.8% of
the time, I would be locked out of my house 18 days every
year.
For someone travelling on a Great Western service on Monday 28
October, 55 services were cancelled and 301 trains were late. How
can we expect people to travel by train if passengers are not
getting to where they need to be at the right time and for a
reasonable price? As the Government begin a process of
nationalising the railways, we need to seriously reflect on how
we got here in the first place and how we can ensure that we are
never here again, because people in Wokingham will continue to
use cars if trains are not working for them.
I ask the Minister this: how do the Government intend to increase
the reliability of service on the Great Western main line, and
will he explain the role better infrastructure plays in that?
What particular attention has been given to improving the
reliability and speed of the Waterloo to Reading line? When can
my constituents expect genuine change from Great British
Railways? Finally, I support the proposal to build a western rail
link to Heathrow airport. Heathrow airport, the Thames Valley
chamber of commerce, local MPs and many other organisations have
backed the proposal, so Network Rail should get on and build it.
Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State's
infrastructure review will include considering a western link to
Heathrow airport, and will the Minister for Rail meet with me to
discuss the proposal?
10.11am
(Derby North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central () for securing this key debate. I
come to the debate as an interloper from the east midlands,
although my constituency is not quite as far away as the hon.
Member for Strangford () in Northern Ireland, who made some powerful points
about the importance of connectivity.
My connection to the Elizabeth line is that its trains were built
at Alstom in Derby. Derby has been building trains since 1840.
The most recent order of 10 additional Elizabeth line trains to
address capacity issues helped train building in Derby, which had
been grinding to a halt because of a gap in train orders. I am
grateful for the opportunity to speak about the importance of
rail infrastructure in the mission to drive economic growth—some
hon. Members may have heard me speak about it once or twice
before. This debate is an opportunity for us to highlight the
importance of infrastructure in bolstering not just our local
economies but, in its ripples, the broader economy; in providing
jobs and opportunities for skills growth; and in improving
physical and social mobility.
There is a future infrastructure project that runs right through
Derby: the midland main line, which is the backbone of our rail
system. I have long supported plans to continue its
electrification, and I was reassured by the answer from the
Minister for future of roads, my hon. Friend the Member for
Nottingham South (), that the project will go
ahead,
“subject to business case approvals and affordability
considerations.”[—[Official Report, 10 October 2024; Vol. 754, c.
438.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=754&ColumnNumber=438&House=1&ExternalId=548C4311-6653-487F-B47D-AFBCA76F012E)
The benefits are enormous: significant decarbonisation and faster
and quieter trains through one of the most densely populated
lines in the country.
I was recently invited to speak at an event hosted by the High
Speed Rail Group, which was launching its report, “Driving
Investment in Rail Infrastructure”. The report called for rail
infrastructure to be viewed as
“strategic long-term investments that drive sustainable
development”,
and I agree. As the Institution of Civil Engineers has said,
decision making needs to give weight to the benefits of
infrastructure investment.
Rail infrastructure is about more than just the tracks that the
trains run on. It is the rolling stock that carries the
passengers or the freight. It is about the skills of the
workforce who build the tunnels, wire the overhead lines and
guide multi-million—often billion—pound projects from conception
to the big business case review through to line energisation. It
is also about the train drivers, cleaners and ticket booth
operators; the impact it has on stations and the surrounding
areas; and our efforts towards decarbonisation, taking cars off
our roads and cleaning our air.
The decisions we take on how money is invested , which projects
go ahead and how infrastructure is put in place must be taken
with a long-term view because it impacts everyone. After so many
years of stop and start and boom and bust, the industry is in
desperate need of stability and clarity. Investors need to feel
that there is support for projects, the businesses in the supply
chain need to be able to anticipate work and retain skills, and
workers need to know that they have jobs for the future. That
forward planning builds sustainable growth and development.
Rolling stock manufacturers such as Alstom are key examples of
the need for stability. As I mentioned, Alstom builds trains in
Derby and is a major employer in our city, but thousands of jobs
at Alstom and in its supply chain were lost because of the
production gap earlier this year, which was in part due to the
HS2 delays. We had a day where 1,000 years of welding experience
walked out the door.
The additional Elizabeth line trains are a huge relief.
Businesses such as Alstom and other manufacturers need an ongoing
pipeline of work, new train orders and network upgrades to bring
the growth, jobs and skills that our country so desperately
needs.
10.16am
(Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Vickers. It is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship. Today is an important opportunity to highlight how
Wales is losing out when it comes to transport, infrastructure
projects and funding. To be blunt, we can only dream of having a
£19 billion investment in Wales. We would love that money to come
across the border. The unfair Barnett formula means that Wales is
missing out on billions of pounds of transport funding. The
autumn Budget announced that Wales's Barnett comparability factor
for transport had fallen yet again to 33.5%—it was 80.9% in 2015.
That is due to HS2 and Network Rail being included in the
calculations for Wales, which is eroding the funding available to
us over time. That is not the case in other parts of the UK.
Academics from Cardiff University note:
“At 95.6% Scotland and Northern Ireland continue to benefit from
full Barnett population shares for transport funding that can be
used for electrification, opening new lines, or to meet any other
spending demand. This is a funding inequity that has long-term
consequences yet continues to be ignored at the UK level”.
I remind hon. Members that the Barnett comparability factor for
Wales is 33.5%, yet for Scotland and Northern Ireland it is
95.6%. Given that Wales receives roughly 5% of the spending that
England does, the fall in our comparability factor means that we
are now effectively receiving a third of a fifth of what is spent
on transport in England. Does the Minister believe that is a fair
way for Wales to be funded? The Government are set to renegotiate
the fiscal framework with the Welsh Government. Will that include
looking at improving Wales's transport comparability factor?
While the erosion of Wales's comparability factor may be new, the
lack of investment is a historic problem. It is estimated that
Wales has received approximately 1% to 2% of rail enhancement
investment, despite the fact that the Welsh route makes up
approximately 10% of the UK rail network. Professor Mark Barry of
Cardiff University estimates:
“In terms of rail enhancement, in the period from 2001 through
2029…that the current constitutional arrangements have cost Wales
a minimum of £3Bn in Barnett consequentials”.
Those sums could be transformational for our infrastructure in
Wales. They could fund a programme of electrification and build
new lines north to south, finally connecting our nation, rather
than commuters having to travel hundreds of additional miles via
Shrewsbury or Crewe. To add insult to injury, at the recent
Budget the Chancellor announced several electrification and rail
infrastructure projects across England, such as the trans-Pennine
route upgrade and the Oxford-Cambridge rail, and she confirmed
that High Speed 2 will end at Euston. Meanwhile, there was
nothing for Wales, and no commitment of the £4 billion that we
are owed for HS2.
The Welsh Labour Government have argued for the full devolution
of rail; as has been noted here today, there is a strong
financial case for rail infrastructure along the lines of the
Scottish model, to address the broken funding for Welsh rail.
What discussions have the UK Labour Government had with the Welsh
Labour Government on the devolution of rail? Does the Minister
agree with his Labour colleagues in Cardiff that rail should be
devolved? The Government cannot continue to ignore this issue. As
everyone knows, Plaid Cymru will continue to push for fair
funding for our railways and the full devolution of rail for
Wales. Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd.
10.21am
(Tamworth) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I
thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central () for securing such an important
debate; we have heard many important points already. My
constituency may not sit on the Elizabeth line, but it forms a
part of that wider rail connectivity that many of us are
interested in, and it makes a huge contribution to that network
as well. My constituency of Tamworth is a rail hub for that
connectivity, with direct trains right across the country, but
much more needs to be done to improve those connections.
There have been some recent improvements. Avanti West Coast
services through Tamworth and neighbouring constituencies will
see some additional services added from 15 December, as well as a
phased increase of hourly services that will serve the lines
between Liverpool and London, which stop at Tamworth. This week,
Avanti West Coast has also launched its all-electric train fleet,
which is a great move towards electrification and greatly
contributes to our goal to reach net zero. I welcome those
improvements, but we have to do more to widen the connections
from the midlands to other regions.
Many of my constituents have raised concerns about travel between
Tamworth and Birmingham, including by both bus and train.
Birmingham is a key connectivity point for Tamworth residents;
many use it for commuting, work and leisure, but poor services
have left many of my constituents frustrated. Transport projects
often have a focus on distance or reach, but it is vital that we
ensure that those smaller commutes are efficient, effective and
reliable. I welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State
for Transport yesterday and the steps that this Government took
to implement a remedial plan to deal with the cross-country
services, reduce their cancellations and get services back on
track. That is very important to my constituents in Tamworth.
The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin () just mentioned HS2, which of
course goes through my constituency. It brings huge
infrastructure improvement, which has been discussed already,
particularly with the Elizabeth line, through both its
architecture and its contribution. However, building it has
plagued my constituency with traffic problems, and as many of my
constituents do not feel that they will ever travel on that line,
it comes with a slightly negative tinge.
However, the HS2 growth strategy, published by the Constellation
Partnership covering Cheshire and Staffordshire, included
ambitions for 100,000 new homes and 120,000 new jobs, all by
2040. That is spurred by the connectivity that HS2 aimed to
create. It is also predicted that £6.4 billion will be
contributed to the economy, so I am very interested that the
Elizabeth line has contributed £42 billion in just two years
since opening. That is a positive thing to potentially be looking
forward to once HS2 is complete. During its construction, HS2 is
expected to deliver a £10 billion economic uplift, and that is
before trains even begin to run.
The Government have started to put foundations in place to
support successful transport infrastructure projects. The
introduction of Great British Energy will provide this country
with a stable supply of clean energy, which is important as we
look to the electrification of trains and other transport modes.
However, there are still barriers that we need to overcome. I
welcome the Minister's thoughts on interventions that I am sure
his team will be bringing forward and what contribution rail
infrastructure can make to net zero.
10.25am
Mr (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I
thank the hon. Member for Reading Central () for securing this important
debate.
Despite some genuine issues, it is clear that the Elizabeth line
has been a tremendous success. It was an engineering marvel, and
one of the biggest infrastructure projects in Europe. Crossrail
dug out 42 km of new tunnels in the centre of one of the biggest
cities in Europe, weaving around existing underground tunnels,
cable ducts, gas pipes and other utilities. The result? Economic
growth and revitalised communities along the length of the line.
Since opening, 60% of employment growth in Greater London has
taken place within 1 km of an Elizabeth line station, as the hon.
Member for Dartford () said. The line has increased
the capacity of the London underground by 10%, which is why
passenger numbers on the underground have bucked the national
trend by recovering to post-pandemic levels. Such success shows
what happens when we are ambitious and invest in rail.
It is not just in London where the impact has been felt. As we
have heard, towns in Essex and Berkshire now have direct links to
central London and Heathrow, promoting investment and creating
new opportunities from Reading to Romford. The construction of
the Elizabeth line has also increased employment across the
country. Crossrail awarded 62% of its contracts to firms outside
of London, creating 55,000 new jobs, 1,000 apprenticeships and
helping to keep rolling stock manufacturing in Derby, as so
articulately described by the hon. Member for Derby North ().
While the Elizabeth line shows the best of what transport
infrastructure can do, it also shows some of the pitfalls.
Management issues led to overspending and delays—something we
have sadly become all too accustomed to with infrastructure
projects in this country. In 2010, the project was forecast to
cost £14.8 billion. By the end it had ballooned to £18.8
billion—clearly not in the same league as HS2, but still
representing a 28% overspend. At a time when public finances are
tight, it is simply not acceptable.
Like many rail projects, Crossrail showed a flexibility towards
deadlines that would make even the most laid-back of my former
students blush. I appreciate that rail passengers have become all
too accustomed to delays, but waiting three-and-a-half years for
a train is probably pushing it. As we embark on new
infrastructure projects, it is vital that we understand what
causes delays and cost overruns and learn lessons for the
future.
In March this year, the Department for Transport and the
Infrastructure and Projects Authority published their joint
report into the lessons learned from Crossrail. The new
Government must take heed of the recommendations to avoid another
HS2. With talk of greater devolution and new public-private
partnerships, the Government must take particular note of what
the report says about the issues that arise from joint
sponsorship of projects. Making sure that we get this right will
be vital to ensuring that we build the infrastructure our country
needs in years to come. The ongoing saga with HS2 has undermined
public confidence in the UK's ability to successfully complete
infrastructure projects. If we are to get the full benefit of
development, we must rebuild public trust and show that lessons
have been learned—not just in transport, but in all
infrastructure projects.
With many of our current lines at maximum capacity, we
desperately need investment in our rail network to encourage rail
freight, improve consumer choice and push forward the transition
to net zero. We also need to replace existing infrastructure that
has reached the end of its useful life. The District line in my
constituency of Wimbledon is notorious for breakdowns,
cancellations and delays. It needs investment urgently.
The key lesson from Crossrail is that when we invest and put
spades in the ground, the impact can be transformative.
Disappointingly, however, that lesson does not appear to have
been fully learned by the current Government, although I suspect
the Minister here today agrees with what I said in the main
Chamber last week: if this Government are serious about economic
growth, why did the Chancellor cut the transport budget?
Transport should be the engine of our economy. After years of
neglect by the Conservative Government, the time has come to make
the targeted investment that will make a difference to people's
lives. Yes, costs must be controlled—what happened with HS2, as
the Secretary of State for Transport conceded in the main Chamber
yesterday, is unacceptable. If we are to get this country moving
again, we must learn from the Elizabeth line and give the
transport network the infrastructure it needs.10.30am
(Broadland and Fakenham)
(Con)
It is reassuring to have a friendly, if entirely impartial, face
in the Chair, Mr Vickers, surrounded as I am by Members who are
my opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Reading Central
() for securing the debate and for
the tone in which he led it, including his generous sharing of
congratulations for the work behind the creation of the Elizabeth
line. There have been excellent contributions, which I will leave
the Minister to highlight because that is his role and not
mine.
There is lots to celebrate in our transport network, but we need
to go further to increase connectivity and to react to
demographic changes and changing work practices. That is
something the Conservative Government tackled head-on. People may
not have realised it from the tone of some of the contributions
today, but over the last period more than £100 billion was
invested in our railways, and under the Conservative and
Conservative-led Governments some 1,265 miles of line was
electrified. I will spare the blushes of the hon. Member for
Reading Central, but were he to ask at his Christmas quiz how
many miles were electrified under the previous 13 years of Labour
Government, the answer would be not 1,265, nor even 65, but 63.
There has clearly been a step in the right direction over the
last decade.
There has also been investment in the midlands rail hub, Northern
Powerhouse Rail and the Access for All programme—I will talk
about some of those in further detail later—but we are here
primarily to celebrate the Elizabeth line, which has been a huge
success. It was a courageous, large-scale project that has
actually delivered and continues to deliver, and I hope it will
continue to deliver for many years to come, not just for the
residents of London, but for the south-east more generally and
for UK plc.
I mention in passing that the Elizabeth line did not have to be
over time and over budget. When it was managed by the previous
Conservative Mayor of London, he left it on time and on budget,
and if the project no longer followed that path, perhaps we
should ask about the quality of his project
management. Nevertheless, the Elizabeth line has created, as the
hon. Member for Reading Central said, £42 billion of economic
benefit in just two years, creating 8,000 jobs and leading to the
building of 55,000 homes. That is unequivocally a success story
for London and the greater region.
The next project for London and the south-east is the lower
Thames crossing. We have huge bottlenecks at the Dartford
crossing. The previous Government had been progressing with the
crossing, but the current Government have now kicked it into the
long grass. That is a genuine cause for concern regarding
connectivity in the south-east, and I fear that it may lead to
the next step, which is cancellation. Will the Minister take this
opportunity to reassure the House, and the many people who are no
doubt watching this debate, that the lower Thames crossing is
still very much on course and part of the Government's
projections for infrastructure development in the south-east?
It is not just in the south where the new Government are
generating delay and doubt. Labour is potentially failing in the
north as well, because Network North funding is now in doubt as
we wait for the Government's infrastructure strategy. People may
ask themselves what the Network North funding is. Well, it is
£19.8 billion of investment in Bradford's new station, and in a
mass transport transit system for Leeds and west Yorkshire; it is
£12 billion of investment in stronger connections between
Manchester and Liverpool; and it is £9.6 billion of investment in
the midlands rail hub and in improving 50 stations in the
midlands.
It is not just in rail where doubt is creeping into our
infrastructure development projects, for the Government have
already cancelled major road improvements in their first few
months, including the A5036 Princess way scheme; the A358 Taunton
to Southfields scheme; the A47 Great Yarmouth Vauxhall
roundabout, close to my home; and the A1 Morpeth to Ellingham
scheme. The restoring your railway programme has been cancelled.
That is a terrible start in just a few months.
Is it the Minister's intention to follow the example of his
colleagues in Wales? Is it the Government's intention to
deprioritise road infrastructure? Is it the Minister's intention
to have a “no new roads” policy? It is beginning to sound like
it. If that is not the policy, will he explain why that would be
a bad idea, both in England and in Wales? Will he move against
the imposition of 20 mph speed limits without local consultation?
Will he put in place the updated guidance, which has already been
drafted, on how such schemes should be introduced? It was
prepared by the previous Government and is ready to go. If the
Minister will not introduce it, will he explain why not?
On the record so far, St Francis of Assisi could have said—he
probably did not—that Labour brings doubt where there was
direction, indecision where there was investment and delay where
there was dynamism. What have we got instead? We have
inflation-busting pay rises with no working practice reforms to
the unions. Paid for how? By debt? Yes. By increased taxes on
poor pensioners? Certainly. By jacking up bus fares by 50%? That
is true, too. And by delaying critical infrastructure.
The Government need to think again. This excellent debate, which
I again congratulate the hon. Member for Reading Central on
securing, has given the Minister the opportunity to provide
clarity, to focus on transport users rather than just the unions,
and to recommit to key transport infrastructure investments
throughout the country.
10.37am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport ()
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I
thank all Members for their contributions to the debate, and I
thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central () for securing it. I appreciate
the transformational impact that the full opening of the
Elizabeth line has had on my hon. Friend's constituents. The
Government fully recognise the importance of investing in
infrastructure to support economic growth, promote social
mobility and tackle regional inequality.
The Government recently delivered to the House their first
Budget, which set out significant investment in transport to
support everyday journeys and address poor connectivity in towns
and cities across the country. That includes capital investment,
such as £485 million for Transport for London's capital renewals
programme, including funding for rolling stock on the Piccadilly
and Elizabeth lines; funding of more than £650 million for local
transport to ensure that transport connections improve in towns,
villages and rural areas, as well as in major cities; a £500
million increase in 2025-26 compared with 2024-25, for local road
maintenance; an additional £200 million for city region
sustainable transport settlements, bringing local transport
spending for Metro Mayors in 2025-26 to £1.3 billion; an
investment of an additional £100 million in cycling and walking
infrastructure in 2025-26, to support local authorities to
install cycling infrastructure and upgrade pavements and paths;
and over £200 million in 2025-26 to accelerate the roll-out of
electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Let me turn to the Elizabeth line. This fantastic east-west rail
link through central London has revolutionised travel in the city
and beyond. Since it opened in 2022, it has enabled more than 400
million passenger journeys. It has dramatically improved
connectivity—particularly for areas that previously had poor
accessibility—and reduced crowding and cut journey times. Indeed,
it has proven so popular that, with Government support, TfL has
ordered 10 additional trains. They will be produced by Alstom in
Derby, with the first train scheduled to be delivered to TfL in
2026. That will not only further improve the service capability
on the line, but enhance supply chain capability throughout the
country.
There have also been challenges, of course. I am sure that my
hon. Friend is concerned about the issues regarding the overhead
electrification on the Great Western main line. I am advised that
many of those failures are due to dated equipment installed in
the 1990s. Network Rail plans to renew the outdated equipment
during the next five years to improve reliability for passengers.
Furthermore, some delivery challenges arose due to the
relationship between the Department for Transport and Transport
for London having grown strained at times. I am pleased to say
that that has been reset under this Government, and both
organisations are working together to continue to deliver the
full benefit of the Elizabeth line.
The benefits of the Elizabeth line will continue to grow. My
Department is working closely with the wider industry, in
particular TfL, to integrate existing Elizabeth line services
effectively into the new station at Old Oak Common. The
interchange between High Speed 2 and Great Western main line
services at Old Oak Common will provide significantly enhanced
connectivity with the west of England, Cornwall and south Wales.
Old Oak Common will operate as the London terminus for HS2 until
construction of the link into Euston. Onward connectivity to
central London will be provided via an interchange with the
Elizabeth line, with journey times of about 14 minutes to
Heathrow airport, 15 minutes to the west end, 20 minutes to the
City and 25 minutes to Canary Wharf.
My Department is working with the rail industry to minimise
disruption during the construction of Old Oak Common station. We
have allocated £30 million to enable services to continue to
operate during construction. That includes electrification of the
“Poplars” line, which will enable Elizabeth line trains operating
west of Ealing Broadway to get into their maintenance depot.
I will now reflect on some other items raised by hon. Members. I
will take part in my hon. Friend's quiz and say that the
Elizabeth line is the most significant addition to London's
transport network in a generation. As I said, journey times have
been slashed and new journey opportunities created, while
crowding on other routes has declined. Crossrail and its supply
chain have supported the equivalent of 55,000 full-time jobs
across the country and have created more than 1,000
apprenticeship opportunities. Crossrail was an ambitious,
multi-decade £19 billion infrastructure project to build the
Elizabeth line, a new, world-class, high-frequency 73-mile
railway across central London and beyond, jointly sponsored by
the DFT and TfL.
I can tell the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) that
transport will of course play a central role in our mission-led
Government. We have already seen the introduction of Bills on
buses and on the public ownership of our railways. We are
absolutely determined to ensure that public transport is
improved.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford () and for Dartford () asked about the extension to
Ebbsfleet. Transport for London is responsible for the operation
of the Elizabeth line. Currently, there are no plans to extend
the line from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet International, although the
route is still safeguarded. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends
will continue to lobby TfL on that issue.
Turning to the hon. Member for Strangford (), of course connectivity is critical. He will be
pleased to know that work has already commenced on our integrated
transport strategy, which will be an important part of our work
in Government.
The hon. Member for Wokingham () talked about railways. The
starting gun has already been fired on reform of our railways. In
fact, the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill was
the first Bill I stood at the Government Dispatch Box to take
through the House. I will ensure that the Rail Minister writes to
the hon. Member about his other points.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North () that increasing infra-
structure investment is a vital part of delivering on our No. 1
mission of growing the economy and creating jobs. We are serious
about ending the cycle of under-investment that has plagued our
infrastructure systems for more than a decade.
I will pass the comments from the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin
() on to the Rail Minister, but
needless to say, we are looking at our infrastructure investment
as part of the review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth () mentioned net zero. As well
as placing passengers at the heart of our railway, ensuring that
we maximise our potential for freight will go a long way towards
achieving that.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) mentioned the
overspend. Over the years, the cost for phase 1 of HS2 soared due
to poor project management, inflation and poor performance from
the supply chain, with a failure to deliver to budget. On 20
October, the Transport Secretary announced a series of urgent
measures to control the cost of HS2 and bring that back on
track.
Looking ahead, the next spending review will focus on the
Government's mission and manifesto commitments through growth and
public service improvements over the long term. It is important
that opportunities presented to invest in complementary
infrastructure west of London are considered fully in the context
of the forthcoming second phase of the spending review and the
need to drive economic growth. The Government will continue to
work closely with local communities, local leaders and industry
to continue to deliver transport infrastructure projects that
ensure that transport remains at the heart of our mission-led
Government.
10.46am
It is a pleasure to have secured today's debate—thank you for
your wise chairship, Mr Vickers. I found the positive mood and
spirit in which colleagues conducted the debate wonderful and
quite inspirational. It is hugely important to recognise when we
do achieve something as a country, and this really was, and is, a
national achievement. I just wish it could go all the way to
mid-Wales and Northern Ireland—perhaps one day.
I thank the Minister—indeed, the shadow Minister hinted at
this—for taking part in my Christmas quiz and repeating the key
line that I hope we will all take home: this is £42 billion in
just two years, so imagine what it could do over the longer term.
Indeed, some of the studies on the economic benefits are yet to
be fully updated, and I look forward to further benefits being
discovered, including on connectivity just beyond the line. The
points from my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford () and for Bexleyheath and
Crayford () about the relationship to
the area just beyond the Elizabeth line are well made, and
indeed, places west of Reading and my area have benefited as
well. I would like to thank the House again, and you Mr Vickers,
for today's opportunity to speak.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered future transport infrastructure
projects and the Elizabeth line.
|
