Transport in the South-East

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes in the Chair]

14:30

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered transport in the south-east.

It is a pleasure to open this debate under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the many hon. Members here who hope to raise transport concerns with the Minister. I know from my experience that transport issues take up a significant proportion of our casework and inboxes. I also thank the constituents who have been in touch with me about transport since the election, particularly in the past few days when I was preparing for this debate.

How we move around our communities affects everybody. It is one of the most regular issues that comes up on doorsteps in and around Chichester. When done correctly, transport systems make people’s lives easier and support thriving local economies. When done badly, it is a noose around the neck of an area that has so much to offer. The south-east has much to be proud of with some impressive pieces of transport infrastructure, vital not only to our communities but to the nation more widely, whether it is the beautiful Ouse valley viaduct, our strategically important airports, the channel tunnel or the admittedly long overdue but now incredibly satisfying M25/A3 junction. I had the pleasure of driving through there at the weekend and enjoyed it immensely.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. As she may know, I have long championed the western rail link to Heathrow, which would enable speedy and sustainable surface access for the good people of the south-east—indeed, 20% of the UK population—without the need to go in and then out of London, getting people out of their cars. Does the hon. Member agree that, given that the Government prioritise investment in infrastructure, they should finally commit to that link, because it is the perfect example of a project that would deliver for people, the environment and the economy?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that he is much closer to the Government than I am and has a brilliant opportunity to have his concerns heard by the Minister. He is right to raise the nonsense of having to go in and then out of London to reach vital pieces of infrastructure.

I am sure many hon. Members across the House will wax lyrical about their transport woes today, but it will come as no surprise that the focus of my contribution will be the impact that poor transport infrastructure has on my constituency. The Minister knows that the A27 is one of the busiest trunk roads in the UK and the main arterial route for those travelling down to the coast all the way from Wiltshire in the west to East Sussex.

Months ago, I invited the Transport Secretary during Transport questions, to come and sit in traffic with me, and I have no idea why she declined. My point was that it did not matter when she came—what time of day or day of the week—I could guarantee we would be caught in congestion. The Transport Secretary did offer me a meeting with the Roads Minister, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood). I am grateful to him for sitting down with me so that I could explain the issue in more detail. If I were to pull up Apple Maps or Google Maps at this exact moment, there will almost certainly be a red ring round my city with traffic at a standstill.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this forward. I find myself in a similar, frustrating circumstance to the one she indicates. In my case, it is the proposed Ballynahinch bypass, which would breathe new life into the town. Like the project mentioned by hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), it has been postponed repeatedly since I was first elected in 2010. Does the hon. Lady agree that infrastructure projects, such as she seeks for her constituency, will have major local effects, boost the economy, clear up long waits in traffic and create jobs? They must never be relegated to a dusty shelf where they have clearly been for the last few years.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

It is almost as though the hon. Gentleman has read my speech in advance. I will go on to a lot of the things he has just raised. If it is bad today in my constituency, it is hard to imagine how much worse it is on a sunny day, when tourists for the Witterings queue for miles to reach our lovely sandy beach or Goodwood hosts an event that attracts visitors in their thousands.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

My hon. Friend talks about coastal roads. The A379, a glorious coastal road in my constituency, had already been damaged by storms in January, but last night huge chunks of it were literally washed into the sea. It is absolutely devastating, and I was shocked to be told by officials at the Department for Transport this morning that there is no national emergency fund for repairs to roads damaged by storms. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we see more intense and frequent storms caused by climate change, the Government need to ensure that they have funding ready to support communities like those around Torcross in South Devon that have been devastated by this damage?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend has shown me the photos of what has happened in her constituency, and I share her distress that a main road—an A road—has literally fallen into the sea. Our constituencies share the fact that we are low-lying coastal plains at the forefront of climate change. As we see more storm events, we are seeing the damage in our communities.

That brings me on to paying particular tribute to my residents living on the Manhood peninsula, who get completely trapped in the summer months because of congestion on the roads and are unable to get out of the area. Today, they are trapped because all the roads in and out of the Manhood are completely flooded. Georgia, a constituent of mine, left her job as a nurse because her commute was taking two hours, with one hour spent travelling just the handful of miles from Emsworth to Tangmere. Chris’s son has school transport, and has to leave an hour before school starts due to the traffic on the A259 on to the A27; again, he is only travelling a small number of miles.

Melanie is planning on packing up her successful mental health business because the gridlock is, perhaps ironically, negatively affecting her mental health. Shaun owns a funeral company, and he told me of the time he had to get out of the hearse to physically clear the traffic to get to the local crematorium on time. Daniel owns a home carers company, and he regularly reports that staff get stuck on the A27, which means that the people they care for in the community miss medicine times and hospital appointments, and the backlog means that people get seen later and later in the day.

I am in no doubt that the congestion on the A27 is strangling the city and putting off investment from businesses. It is stopping people shopping in the city or business parks and is impacting people’s daily lives. The A27 Chichester improvement scheme has a long history dating back to the 2000 south coast multi-modal study. Following several iterations, the scheme was included in the 2013 “Investing in Britain’s Future” White Paper and the 2014 road investment strategy. The scheme went to consultation in 2016, when 93% of respondents to a National Highways survey said that congestion was a problem on the A27.

However, in 2017 the Secretary of State removed the funding for any improvements along the Chichester stretch. There remains significant anger and frustration among residents that they were never given the opportunity to vote on a preferred model of road improvements, especially as the Chichester district has seen more than its fair share of house building over the past decade. If the Government expect areas such as ours to continue to sustain such an increased level of development, residents need to see the investment in infrastructure too. Instead, it seems that their local services, be it GPs, schools, roads or buses, are expected to manage the additional capacity with no extra resource.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for securing the debate and for the great speech she is making. She mentioned the role of buses. There tends to be an assumption made by people outside the south-east that we all have bus networks similar to those in London, but they would not have to go very far from London—to my constituency of Dartford, for instance—to find that the bus services become extremely limited, yet bus services can be such a driver of a better quality of life for people in getting to education and work or accessing other opportunities. Does the hon. Member agree that the extra money that the Government have given to county councils—in my instance, Kent county council has been given an extra £42 million to spend in the coming year on improved bus services—must be spent to provide better connectivity for all our residents, irrespective of whether they are in Kent, Sussex, Hampshire or other parts of the south-east?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

That intervention tested my legendary patience to its very limits, so just bear that in mind in the future.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank the hon. Member for his important intervention; he is right to mention that county councils should be using that money effectively to ensure that people across the constituencies that we represent can get to the places they need to. That is certainly not the case in my constituency, especially in more rural villages and hamlets.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I hope this will be a pithy intervention.

[Dr Chambers]

It will be. In the rural villages in my constituency such as Colden Common, people rely on the bus service to maintain their independence. If the bus service goes, they cannot get to hospital appointments and they cannot stay in the house they may have lived in for years. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is more than just an economic impact to having good transport; it actually allows people to live a full and independent life without relying on care?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Dr Chambers is showing how interventions should be done.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and he allows me the opportunity to thank organisations that offer community transport, such as the Selsey Venture Club in my constituency or Contact 88, which help people get to the places they need to go when transport infrastructure is lacking.

I have met representatives of National Highways on multiple occasions since being elected, and I know that the original proposals for the A27 still exist in a drawer somewhere ready to be brought back to the table to address a road that does not function and remains in the top 10 nationally for casualties. National Highways has agreed to fund a study into the Fishbourne roundabout, which desperately needs addressing. That is due to report in the spring and I hope the Government will be forthcoming with funding for the proposed improvements, as it is such a dangerous roundabout. I am one of many who have nearly been involved in an accident on that roundabout and I fear there will be a fatality before long.

The A27 Chichester bypass remains part of a future road investment scheme and the Roads Minister has met me to hear my plea to fund its improvement. It would be great if the Minister here today could provide reassurance that funding will be attached to the A27 for that future road investment scheme—something all my constituents will be desperate to hear. If she is unable to commit to the level of funding required, will she please meet me and National Highways to explore alternative schemes to address how people move around in my area?

The Government are keen to get more people on to public transport to reduce reliance on cars in particular, but the increase in fares from £2 to £3 has had a significant impact on constituents who are trying to do just that. Cristina’s children get the bus to school every day. She encourages public transport, but the cost is £26 for a seven-day child pass and the young people do not always get a seat—it is totally unacceptable. If Cristina chooses to take her three children into the city for the day, the cheapest option is a DayRider. That costs her £17 for two bus journeys that last approximately 10 minutes each way. All this makes travelling by car by far the easier and more sensible option. That is why we are calling for the reinstatement of the £2 bus fare cap and for fees to be halved for under-18s.

At the same time, bus routes are being amended to cover new housing developments without any additional services being added, so routes take longer than they did and cost more—a perfect cocktail to disincentivise bus use. What steps are the Government taking to encourage more people to use buses and to ensure that in places with major developments, such as Chichester, adequate work is being undertaken to make sure that bus services for current residents are not affected? Importantly, what steps are they taking to make sure that public transport is a material consideration on new developments, rather than an afterthought?

There are some great examples of active travel in my patch, particularly making the most of the disused railway lines along the Centurion Way into the South Downs. The issue that councils such as West Sussex county council face is that funding for those schemes is often linked to performance-related measures set by Active Travel England. That creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, with councils that are already delivering good provision being rewarded and provided with further funds, while those that struggle being left behind. Can the Minister say if the criteria linked to funding for active travel schemes will be reviewed by the Government so that areas like mine are not left behind with poor infrastructure because the county council has historically struggled to deliver them? There should not be a postcode lottery in active travel provision, and projects to create cycle lanes and footpaths take far too long from the ideas phase to the delivery phase.

I will briefly touch on rail. Chichester is not endowed with services that are quick, punctual and affordable. Last year, one in five Southern Railway trains arrived in Chichester late, despite an annual season ticket to London costing nearly £8,000. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a freeze in rail fares, so we were glad to see the Government provide that last year, but my residents are still paying well over the odds for the service that they receive, which is severely lacking. The service to London is dreadfully slow relative to services from cities that are similar to ours and at a comparable distance. That is partly due to infrastructure issues that have been ignored for years, such as the Croydon bottleneck, where the Arun Valley line joins the Brighton main line. Network Rail has said that that causes a ripple effect of delays across the system, prevents future expansion of the line and creates delays across the entire network when there is a failure in service much further up the line. It does not go down well in my constituency when people ask, “Why are there delays in Chichester?”, and I say, “Oh, because of something happening in Croydon.”

It is disappointing that there has not been a commitment to the relevant scheme, despite widespread campaigning by Members from across the House. Reliable services are vital if passengers are to see value for money and the benefits of choosing rail, but that is not currently being offered by Southern Railway. When the Government bring Southern Railway into public ownership, will they commit to reviewing a fast service for residents in Chichester and reconsider rail investment to deal with the Croydon bottleneck?

I hope the Minister has heard my plea today on behalf of my 120,000 constituents in the Chichester area and the south-east region, because they do not ask for much. They are playing their part in the Government’s growth agenda and seeing large-scale development in their area. All they ask is to move around their community safely and easily, which is becoming less of a reality every day. I do not expect a magic money pot to appear suddenly, or even in advance of the next funding round of the road investment scheme, but I do expect fairness. I hope that, when those decisions are being made, the Minister will remember that the previous Government promised something to my constituents and then took it away. That is simply not fair.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they need to bob, although I can see that they know that already.

14:46

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this very important debate. It would not be a debate about transport in our region if I did not use it to mention international rail services returning to Ashford International station. Last month was the 30th anniversary of the first ever international service calling at the station. For nearly a quarter of a century, daily services operated between the station and continental Europe, making it a vital link for residents and businesses in Kent, Sussex and the wider south-east to get to mainland Europe. Ashford was developed as an international hub, and its connectivity was a key factor in attracting businesses to my constituency and the wider area. However, during the covid pandemic, the decision was taken to suspend services to and from Ashford, and they have not restarted, despite the fact that they continue to pass through our station.

To mark the anniversary of the first service calling at Ashford International, I was delighted to join other local MPs, council leaders, business people and other local residents at the station in the latest part of our campaign to restore international services. The return of international services is much more than a transport issue. It is central to maximising our region’s economic potential and would be a major boost for jobs, businesses and economic growth. I know that the Government recognise that, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister, the Transport Secretary and the Rail Minister have all given their support to our campaign. The demand and support for international services are there, so I once again urge all operators that want to run services between the UK and continental Europe to work with local MPs, councillors, business representatives, the Government and other stakeholders, so that as soon as possible we can make Ashford International an international station again.

The perception is that because of our region’s close proximity to London, the south-east is prosperous and uniformly well off, but large parts of our region were forgotten about or ignored by the Conservatives when they were in power. The poor transport connectivity in the rural parts of my constituency is a good example of this. Poor connectivity contributes to economic underperformance by restricting access to jobs and causing increased reliance on private cars. That obviously has a disproportionate impact on those who do not have access to a car, such as young people, elderly residents, the disabled and those from lower-income households, especially in rural areas such as Hawkinge and the surrounding villages. Poor transport connectivity not only limits those people’s access to work opportunities, but impacts their ability to attend healthcare appointments or access local amenities.

That is why I have been prioritising the need for improved bus services across Ashford, Hawkinge and the villages. I recently had a good meeting with Stagecoach, which operates bus services locally. I was delighted to see the Government allocate £78.2 million in bus services funding in Kent over the next three years. The short-term funding cycle that has been in place until now has made it difficult for local authorities to make medium to long-term decisions about local transport infrastructure. It is good news that Kent county council can make funding decisions to give all my constituents an improved and more reliable bus service in both urban and rural areas.

One other area of transport infrastructure that Kent county council needs to act on is to urgently do more to deliver road improvements for residents. Potholes have been a blight on the roads in my constituency for far too long: they are another symbol of how the previous Government left things to decline. My constituents deserve to have road infrastructure that is fit for the 21st century, and I welcome that Kent county council has been allocated more than £274 million over the next three years. That record investment from the Labour Government gives KCC the long-term certainty it needs to save drivers in my constituency money on repairs to their cars and to make our roads safer.

I was concerned that, in the recently published ratings on how local authorities are maintaining their local roads, Kent county council received an amber rating. My constituents know that our roads need improving, and that rating confirms that the Reform administration at Kent county council has not delivered on my constituents’ needs.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about Hampshire county council’s amber rating? My constituents are extremely concerned about the money that repairs and accidents are costing them, and the traffic caused by this huge pothole problem. Like Kent county council, Hampshire also has an amber rating; is it not time that they used the extra money provided by the Labour Government to get on and fix potholes as a priority for our constituents?

[Sojan Joseph]

I was really pleased that our Government brought in the rating system so that we can hold local authorities accountable. I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

Since being elected, I have written on multiple occasions to the Reform administration at KCC, as well as to their Conservative predecessors, to ask that they take the issue of our local roads seriously and do the necessary work to fix them. It is clear from the road maintenance ratings that despite record funding from the Labour Government, they have so far failed to do so. My constituents expect and deserve better, and I look forward to seeing tangible improvements.

14:53

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this debate. I can vouch for everything she said about the ring road around Chichester, which I have spent more hours on than I would rather. I agree that it has an impact on the commercial health of the city—it is off-putting to go anywhere in that direction. I was formerly a county councillor serving in Chichester, so I had to go there many times.

I also echo what my hon. Friend said about the pressure of new house building; in Horsham we also have many new estates. The section 106 funding goes towards roads within the estate or access roads, but it does not remedy deficiencies in the network as a whole—that is not what it was designed to do, and it does not do it. We have more and more housing going up along the same roads. In Horsham we have one dual carriageway running north to south, and that is pretty much it. The A29 is single-track and is severely overloaded already—and it will only get worse. I empathise with all the things my hon. Friend said. Horsham is also impacted by the Croydon bottleneck that she referred to. We suffer from delayed and cancelled trains as well, so I thank her for raising that issue.

I want to concentrate mainly on public transport, particularly buses. In my time on the council I was on the transport committee, so that is an area I campaigned on in the past. I know the severe pressures of budgets, so what I am suggesting to the Minister is looking at a number of budgets to do with public transport and possibly combining them.

The home-to-school transport budget in West Sussex has grown by over 100% in recent years, and the Government’s decision to un-ringfence funding and increase the distance cap from 20 to 50 miles is a welcome recognition that existing rules simply did not allow councils to meet their statutory duties. That particularly applies to special educational needs and disabilities pupils. In West Sussex, around £33 million is now allocated for home-to-school transport. The vast majority of that is on SEND provision and it is ballooning. At present, 63% of pupils are travelling via private taxi or minibus services rather than the West Sussex county council internal fleet. That fleet currently includes over 500 vehicles and represents a long-term investment by the council. It supports not just home-to-school transport but adult social care and transport for older residents.

I fully recognise that many SEND pupils do require individualised transport to meet their needs but, wherever possible, we should look at whether that could be delivered through internal fleets rather than outsourced contracts. Reliance on private providers brings higher costs, hidden inefficiencies and less resilience, while direct investment allows councils to build capacity and plan for the long term. In the meantime, however, we cannot ignore the pressure facing those private providers that are keeping SEND transport running. Providers in Horsham have raised serious concerns with me about the impact of national insurance contribution rises on their running costs. Some are questioning whether they can continue to offer these vital services at all.

Andy Mahoney, chair of the Licensed Private Hire Car Association’s SEND Transport Operators Group—that is some acronym—has been clear about the risk. The increase in employer national insurance will substantially raise costs for SEND transport operators, pushing already tight contracts into loss. If providers are forced to walk away, local authorities will be left struggling to meet their statutory obligations. The industry has calculated that a ringfenced emergency SEND transport grant of around £40m for 2025-26 would cover the shortfall across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is a modest sum when set against the disruption that would be caused if services collapse. The Government’s claim that the £515 million announced to offset NI rises for councils will address this issue simply does not hold, because that does nothing to address indirect costs passed on by private suppliers. That is why the Government should look at exempting smaller vehicles—those with fewer than 10 seats—from VAT when they are used for transport provision. Removing VAT would lower costs for providers, reduce pressure on council budgets and support more flexible, community-based provision. Cost saving is vital in the context of stretched local government finances.

The national Government already recognise remoteness as a factor in adult social care funding and they must do the same across other funding streams. County councils face an uphill battle otherwise, with County Councils Network estimates suggesting that 98p of every pound will be funded by residents rather than by central Government, compared to just 58p in metropolitan areas.

Rural bus services in Horsham have faced significant challenges in recent years. In particular I have raised concerns both locally and in Westminster on behalf of residents in Slinfold and Partridge Green many times. The No. 63 and No. 17 bus services, which serve those villages, have both faced damaging cuts. In Slinfold, residents like Lynne relied on the No. 63 bus to access Horsham town centre and the rail network. Good public transport links were a key reason for moving to the village in the first place. That service has been rerouted and no longer serves the village at all. In Partridge Green, residents have raised concerns for years about declining services and their ability to reach essential destinations. The removal of direct services to Horsham has cut people off from health services, the high street and basic utilities. Students no longer have a bus taking them to school or college, undermining access to education. Workers cannot commute between villages in Horsham, limiting employment opportunities. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for rural business and the rural powerhouse, and that is one of the things we are looking at. It is a major reason why rural areas have lower productivity rates than urban areas, and it could be reversed.

At the Horsham District older people’s forum last year, one gentleman told me that the only way he could reach appointments in Horsham from Partridge Green was to walk over a mile to the neighbouring village on his crutches. What is most shocking in Horsham is that recent service cuts were made without consultation. Villages were given little or no warning. Community campaigns were strong, passionate and well organised, but of course the decision had already been made before anybody knew it was even being discussed.

The bus operator, Stagecoach, told us that there is no formal requirement to consult residents and that, where changes are driven by commercial necessity, consultation does not normally take place. However, there is nothing to stop West Sussex county council from consulting, particularly where amendments would result in the complete loss of a service for the community. Other county councils do that. That is why I tabled an amendment to the recent Bus Services Act 2025 to make consultation compulsory, and I regret that it was rejected by the Government—not least because residents, given the opportunity, can come up with alternative solutions that would work better for everyone.

This is part of a wider national picture. Back in 2012, only 59% of rural households had a bus stop within a 13-minute walk that had an hourly service. Since then, councils have been forced to make deep cuts, in some cases losing up to 43% of funding. Nationally, bus service provision has fallen by 28%. With economic inactivity almost 2.5% higher in rural areas, ensuring access to education and employment through public transport must be a priority. The Liberal Democrats are clear about what needs to happen. We want simpler funding streams for councils, a return to the £2 bus fare cap and the removal of VAT on smaller public transport vehicles. We need to look at co-ordinating all local transport needs and budgets, including schools, SEND, buses and community transport services. Yes, money is tight, but we can make the same money work harder.

Local councils face huge challenges. We must reduce reliance on private transport providers over time through sustained investment in internal fleets, but in the short term, we also need to work with private providers, offering tax relief where possible, and supporting them so they can continue to operate. We have to reverse the slow death of rural transport services.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

If Members speak for about six minutes each, everyone will get in. I am going to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 3.30 pm, so Members should work on that basis.

14:30

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

My speech is significantly shorter than six minutes, so we should be good. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for bringing us a debate that is really timely, particularly at this time of year, because I am going to focus my remarks on potholes.

In my constituency of Mid Sussex, potholes are a daily hazard. They make journeys unpleasant and dangerous, they damage vehicles and they are a symbol of a road network that has been allowed to crumble for far too long. One constituent wrote to me that after walking their dog in the pouring rain recently, a car hit a water-filled pothole at speed and they were sprayed not just with filthy water but with shards of broken road surface. They told me,

“our roads are dangerous—simply because they are not being looked after properly”.

Another constituent described how a pothole had burst their stepson’s tyre, leaving him more than £120 out of pocket through no fault of his own. West Sussex county council acknowledged that it knew about the pothole— it even repaired it—but the claim was rejected because the inspection time limit had technically been reached. As the constituent put it,

“how can this be right that hard-working people suffer, through no fault of their own?”

That question goes to the heart of this issue. Families in Mid Sussex pay road tax, council tax and income tax. They should not be left footing the bill for damage caused by neglected infrastructure, nor should pedestrians, cyclists or drivers feel unsafe on roads that are meant to connect our communities and support our local economy. The problem is only getting worse. Burgess Hill and the surrounding villages are seeing significant new housing, yet road maintenance has not kept pace. People are rightly asking, “How will our failing roads cope with thousands more vehicles?” We need more houses, but much like our water system, we need to know that we have the infrastructure to support them first. Under the former Conservative Government, our transport system was neglected; up and down the country, families and businesses are paying more for less, and semi-rural communities across Mid Sussex can see that the roads they rely on are neglected and left to crumble.

The Liberal Democrats have been clear that transport links are essential for our economy, for getting to work or school, for leisure and for exercise, which is why we campaigned in the general election for funding to fix 1.2 million potholes every year, and for long-term investment to stop the endless cycle of patch and repair. We welcome the Government’s £7.3 billion commitment in November’s Budget, but funding must be based on need. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) said last year, too many councils with the worst roads are receiving less funding than those with roads that are already in better condition. That simply makes no sense.

In Mid Sussex, we want safe roads, fair compensation when things go wrong and a transport system that works. I do not think that is unreasonable. Banging on about potholes is sometimes described as being peak Lib Dem, but it matters to folk every day and it is critical to safety and to our economy. I know that I and my colleagues will keep being peak Lib Dem by fighting until our roads are brought back to the standard that the public deserve.

15:06

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for bringing forward this important debate. As a fellow A27-suffering MP, I can attest to the constant traffic problems around Chichester, and I will touch on the impact they have on my constituency.

Over in East Sussex, transport is not a peripheral concern but the backbone of how communities earn a living, how people get to work, and how rural and coastal towns stay connected to the rest of the country. Right now, in a number of places in my constituency, that backbone is cracking. The A259 is the principal coastal route through East Sussex; it links Seaford to Eastbourne, serves Newhaven port, home of the excellent and valued daily ferry service to Dieppe, and connects two of the country’s key growth areas. It is an economic artery and it is under serious pressure.

The most serious bottleneck is the Exceat bridge. This is a single-lane bridge originally built in 1870, and it has been a known problem for years. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State confirmed the compulsory purchase order in October 2025, and that construction of a new two-lane replacement is planned to begin in the spring of 2026.

I will, however, be frank—the disruption that the work will cause will be very significant. The advisory diversions run through villages such as Litlington or Friston—with narrow lanes not designed for through traffic—and will be enormous. The official diversion is via the A27, but that is not credible. Particularly when traffic congestion reaches peak levels on the A27, traffic will divert through our small country lanes. We need a credible mitigation plan alongside a credible timetable, not one or the other.

Beyond the A259, the condition of East Sussex county council’s roads is a genuine concern. I do not want to get all peak Lib Dem here, but I hear constantly about potholes across my constituency, whether on some of our bigger roads or the C7 small road that stretches between Lewes and Newhaven, which is in a shocking condition, to the extent where it lost some of its surface during recent flooding.

Potholes, poor surfaces and patches that wash out within weeks of being laid all cost drivers money in vehicle damage and slow journeys, and on narrower roads create real safety risks, particularly when verges start to collapse, narrowing already narrow country lanes. Between 2022 and 2024, East Sussex county council paid out nearly £600,000 for vehicle damage caused by potholes. That cannot be a good use of taxpayers’ money.

I also note that the county council elections in East Sussex, originally due in May 2025, have now been postponed for a second year. The effect is that voters have not had the chance to hold their county councillors to account at the ballot box for over two years. Councillors serving seven-year terms is not democratic. On road maintenance—squarely a county council responsibility on almost all our roads—that matters.

I now turn to the A27, and I will be direct because lives are at stake. Just last week, on 28 January, a man was killed in a collision on the A27 near Falmer. Last September, an 18-year-old man died in a fatal crash near Wilmington. These are not isolated incidents; the A27 through this corridor sees frequent serious accidents, and the pattern is well established. I have spoken to Sussex police requesting a full breakdown of accident data on that stretch. I ask the Minister, does National Highways have a current safety review there, and if so, what is its timeline? Does the Minister plan to review the current up-to-two-year wait time for reports to be provided to National Highways following an incident by the police, which is causing a major lag in safety improvements, particularly where traffic conditions change—not least as they are affected by things such as housing developments? This delay creates a significant gap in the crucial data needed for road user safety.

That brings me to the issue of rail services, or lack thereof. There is currently no direct train from Seaford, the largest town in my constituency, to London. Every commuter, student or business traveller must change, typically at Lewes or Brighton. For a town of Seaford’s size, that is a significant barrier. I recently heard from a woman who lives in Seaford and works in London, like many of my constituents. She used to be able to get a direct train to Victoria station. However, that service was removed during covid and has still not been reinstated six years on. It can easily take three hours to get to London, due to delays and tight connections at Lewes. She told me that her colleagues in Manchester find it quicker and easier to get to their office than she does. That is unacceptable, and lets my constituents down on a daily basis. The Seaford to Victoria direct service must be reinstated immediately. Over time, this kind of friction drives people and businesses elsewhere. I ask the Minister to engage with Govia Thameslink Railway and Great British Railways as it develops, to make the case for a direct service.

I turn now to one of the most persistent issues during my time as an MP so far—parking in Polegate. The deeper problem is enforcement: Wealden district council has never decriminalised parking, so responsibility falls to Sussex police, who, understandably, have other priorities. The result is that pavement parking goes unchecked. That means that wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs are forced into the roads, pavements are damaged and the town centre feels less acceptable and less welcoming. That impinges on businesses and other road users, particularly cyclists and pedestrians.

Scotland and Northern Ireland have acted on this issue and Wales is moving, but England is stuck in limbo. I would welcome engagement from the Department for Transport on a deliverable plan for Polegate that includes clear signage and ticketing, sensible resident permits and proper local enforcement powers, because pavements are for people, not vehicles. Key to reducing traffic and congestion is getting people out of their cars and on to public transport. However, so often public transport is too expensive. That brings me on to buses.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

My constituents have got in touch about a significant fare increase that they are experiencing with Southern Railway. The Leatherhead to London Victoria single fare at 8.51 am has increased 39.4% from £12.70 to £17.70. That is because of the introduction of contactless by Transport for London, who determine prices for peak and off-peak trains differently. Does my hon Friend agree that such discrepancy over pricing erodes confidence in our railways and undermines Labour’s plans to make rail more affordable?

[James MacCleary]

Pricing is one of the biggest barriers to people using the railways. If we want people to use the railways and move out of their vehicles then we have to make it affordable for them. Speaking specifically about buses, for many families in my constituency they are not a lifestyle choice—they are the only way that a child can get to school or college. Yet, from Monday 16 February, East Sussex county council will increase the under-19 freedom weekly ticket from £15 to £20—a one-third hike in one go. For parents already juggling the cost of living, that is not a marginal change: it is the difference between a young person getting the bus and being priced off of it.

Affordability is only half the problem. Too often, the network is unreliable and poorly designed. That is why I have been campaigning for a direct bus from Eastbourne to Lewes along the A27.

None of this is a luxury. Rural and coastal communities cannot be treated as an afterthought in transport planning. Too often, the south-east has been neglected and forgotten when planning or improving transport infrastructure. In the Chancellor’s first Budget, every single major transport project in Sussex was cancelled. After London, the south-east is the most densely populated area of the country and its biggest economic driver. However, as we frequently get grouped together with London—who are rightly allotted a comparatively large amount of funding—our figure is augmented, and the south-east rarely gets the funding that we so desperately need.

The A259 is, unfortunately, a perfect example for the south-east as an overcrowded region with insufficient infrastructure. There is a clear plan to improve it, but the Government have so far declined to release the funding, so it remains a disaster. The Minister kindly met with me on the issue of the A259 after I met with the Prime Minister, and maybe she will have some good news for me today. Who knows?

Poor roads isolate people, unreliable rail makes it harder to keep and get a job, and unsafe roads cost lives. These are matters of public safety and economic fairness. I want to finish by extending an invitation to the Minister and her colleagues to come and visit my constituency. It is a very typical example of the transport challenges in the whole of the south-east—a primarily rural constituency with small and medium-sized towns and a collection of villages. There are lanes, railways and an international ferry service, and we are within striking distance of Gatwick airport; yet we remain poorly connected and served, and it is holding back growth in our area.

If the Minister comes by train, she will experience at first hand the joys of a journey that is too often overcrowded and sets back Lewes commuters nearly £6,000 a year for a season ticket. However, if she prefers to come in the ministerial car, she will meet the potholes soon enough.

15:15

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), not only for securing this debate but for the clarity with which she articulated the case for transport improvements across different modes, including both infrastructure and operational improvements.

I will focus on one particular infrastructure issue: CARS. Not the cars that the former Roads Minister is used to, but the Croydon area remodelling scheme—a train infrastructure project, as I am sure she will know. This is one of the most important commuter corridor projects not only in the south-east but in the whole country. It is a Network Rail-backed plan that is designed to add capacity, modernise a couple of key stations, improve track and signalling, and unclog the Croydon bottleneck, as was mentioned earlier.

What does that mean? Well, it centres on the so-called Selhurst triangle, in which so many trains running through to the south of England get caught up. Its inefficient layout bungs up the whole line, particularly for those who rely on the Brighton main line, but it also has a knock-on effect on other lines because trains are not able to get to stations on time, operators cannot get their stock back, and so on. This small bottleneck, with a radius of a couple of miles, causes cancellations, reduces frequency and leads to poor punctuality and slower journey times right across the south-east of England. When we think of what the Government are trying to do with their growth plan, and particularly things such as Gatwick airport expansion, it makes no sense not to invest in a project like CARS.

This needs to be put in context, because some of the infrastructure projects across the country that have been committed to cost tens of billions of pounds. We are talking hundreds of millions of pounds to get CARS off the ground and through phase 1, with a total lifetime project cost in the low billions. I know that will sound a lot to many people, but in the realm of infrastructure, this is really good value for money.

CARS has been raised for years as a project that should be invested in, and the last debate in the House was an Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons)—not to be confused with East Croydon station—in which she made an extremely strong case, just ahead of the spending review, but we saw nothing about it in that spending review.

When I think of the opportunities that the scheme would unlock, I have to wonder why it has not been chosen. On its merits, it should be pursued. I think the Government have not invested in the project because, like the last Government, they have a strange aversion to investment in London and the south-east. I understand that there are deep regional inequalities in this country that need to be addressed, and we all recognise that there has been severe under-investment in other parts of the country.

However, the political consensus in recent years has been to pit the regions against each other, and almost to neglect investment in the south-east and London at the expense of projects elsewhere—not because of the basis of those projects, but because it is politically convenient to do so. I think the Government need to look again at which projects can deliver maximum value, to ensure that we are not making the regions race against each other by selecting each project on its merits.

I have already explained how investment in this small area around Croydon would provide benefits across the south-east of England, but we would be naive not to think that it would also create benefits right across the country. Where would the suppliers come from? The project would create jobs and business revenue for companies across the country, and that is only the direct effect. It does not include the indirect effects from improving the commuter experience into London—the capital city of this country—and the wider economic benefits that would be felt by all.

It has been suggested to me that the second reason for the delay in investment in this project is to do with covid and how commuter patterns have changed. We are already starting to see a snapback to previous behaviours. If we look at passenger levels, they are almost back up to pre-covid levels, and the reduced frequency and reliability of services are stopping people going back into the workplace as often as they would like. I hear that from my wife, who goes in once a week at the moment. She wants to go in more to see her colleagues, but she does not because she cannot trust the train that she needs to catch, so there is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. If we really want to get people out of motor vehicles and using public transport more, we need to build those services so that people can use them.

The benefits of the Croydon area remodelling scheme are clear: we would have faster, more reliable, higher-capacity rail services across one of the highest-growth regions in the country. There would also be a particular benefit to my constituency. The London borough of Sutton is one of the most poorly served by Transport for London. We do not have a single tube station or the London Overground service. We have a couple of tram stops, but they are in the far corner of the borough and do not really serve our residents.

This project could unlock the potential of the London Overground and metro-like services that the rest of London benefits from. We are really excited by that prospect. I urge the Minister to look again at the true merits of the project, how many people would benefit from it and the potential for economic growth across the country. I look forward to her response.

15:20

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate. It was really interesting to hear her mention the M25/A3 junction 10, which is in my constituency. It has taken many years and has caused all sorts of challenges to my residents. As it comes close to completion, it is good to hear from colleagues—it is amazing how many MPs are interested in that project—and regular users about the difference that the upgrades are making. I hope it will show the potential for major long-term infrastructure improvements, but the learning points must be taken, because we need to recognise the disruption caused to residents and the significant financial problems caused to local businesses and the Royal Horticultural Society.

There are many issues in my constituency that I could raise, but I want to focus on Guildford town, which demonstrates the enormous opportunity and the significant strain facing transport networks across the south-east. Guildford is a thriving economic hub. It is home to a world-class university, a rapidly expanding research park, a major regional hospital and a highly productive local economy that continues to attract talent and investment, but that success has created real and growing pressure on our local infrastructure. Road usage is exceptionally high, and congestion continues to worsen. Some residents tell me that it takes them an hour and a half to travel the hundreds of metres between the research park and the hospital junction. Too many feel that, despite the congestion, they have no real alternative to relying on their car.

We have dual pressures. We have the strategically important A3 and A31—I imagine many Members have travelled down that major artery—and the concentration of employment, education and housing growth has not been matched by increasing public transport capacity. That is not just a local complaint or anecdote; the challenge is recognised at a national level. The Wessex Corridor study, commissioned by Network Rail, explicitly identifies the corridor between Reading, Guildford and the wider south-east as experiencing rising demand, constrained capacity and major unrealised potential. The study makes it clear that without targeted intervention, housing growth, employment expansion and limited rail capacity will lead to worsening congestion, increased car dependency—which we absolutely do not want—and a missed opportunity to shift journeys on to sustainable modes of transport.

That brings me to the long-standing case for Guildford West railway station, which would serve the research park, the Royal Surrey, the University of Surrey and the surrounding communities. The community has been waiting for it for well over a decade. It would demonstrably have an enormous impact on congestion, access to important services and our local economy, and it would make an environmental difference by shifting everyday travel patterns away from car dependency and towards sustainable transport.

I am committed to getting an answer on the scheme for local people and businesses. Just last week, I was pleased to bring together key delivery partners, including Guildford borough council, Network Rail and South Western Railway, to discuss the viability and next steps. Despite the overwhelming case for Guildford West station, delivery remains painfully difficult. Network Rail does not fund new stations, Department for Transport funding has become more restrictive and, although the Government have set ambitious housing targets, there is no dedicated centralised funding pot to deliver the transport infrastructure required to support the homes we are building. Local government finances are stretched to breaking point, and councils are being asked to plan for growth without the funding or power to deliver the infrastructure that it demands. No matter how much local need or enthusiasm there is, there is simply not enough money to deliver the projects that are needed.

Of course, we must remember that sustainable transport is not just about rail. Too many residents are forced to drive simply to reach the station because bus services, ticketing systems, cycle routes and secure bike storage remain fragmented or inadequate. We should also remember the disproportionate impact on disabled people, low-income residents, students and young people—anyone without access to a car.

I close by asking the Minister a couple of questions. What are the Government going to do to support communities such as Guildford that have been formally identified as critical growth corridors? Why is there no centralised funding mechanism to link mandated housing growth with the transport infrastructure needed to sustain it? How can areas like Surrey realistically unlock growth without clarity on governance, funding or long-term support? My Guildford constituency has great opportunity, but it needs Government help to unlock transport projects to support economic and community growth. I hope the Minister has heard my comments, and those of colleagues, and will respond positively to this request.

15:25

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing and leading this debate. She and I, with my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), got a train together 18 months ago to arrive in Parliament for the first time. From that day on, I knew my hon. Friend would be a strong advocate for Chichester, and for tackling her constituency’s transport problems in particular. She has certainly done that this afternoon.

I chair the APPG on South Western Railway, and I have spent a significant amount of time tackling issues on the South Western Railway network that affect the south-east so seriously. I have been particularly concerned about the network’s deterioration since nationalisation. I hope the Minister will comment on the fact that we want better transport connections, not worse, as we nationalise our railway companies. And better transport connections are not what my constituents in Woking and the wider south-east are receiving.

I am pleased that South Western Railway’s managing director and others have appeared before MPs to answer our questions, and particularly to listen to our constituents’ concerns. Their engagement has been positive, and I hope we can move forward together. However, an APPG should not be one of the only meaningful routes for parliamentary scrutiny of a nationalised operator. I hope the Minister will take action to ensure that MPs can hold our new public sector railway companies to account.

Moving on to the wider railway network, I will be visiting Woking’s signal box on Friday. I am worried that I will see the poor-quality infrastructure faced by commuters, which is why our trains into London Waterloo are constantly cancelled and delayed. The infrastructure and signalling equipment at Woking date from when I was born. It has not had any major updates since then, which is appalling. If we are to grow our economy and decarbonise our transport network, we need reliable public transport. I hope the Minister will agree investment for Woking’s signal box and its signal network—it is a regional hub for our railways.

Woking was founded on the railways, and it is a key commuter town into London. We are under 30 minutes from London Waterloo. Despite other Surrey towns having a contactless tap-in and tap-out system, Woking does not, and we deserve to be in the 21st century. I urge the Government to introduce tap-in and tap-out at Woking to stop hundreds of people a year being fined and caught out by tapping in at London Waterloo but being unable to tap out at Woking. That injustice is not acceptable any longer.

Regarding other parts of our public transport network, I have heard calls from many colleagues to reintroduce the £2 bus fare cap, to get people back on to buses that have struggled so much since covid. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I fully endorse them. The £2 bus fare cap was vital, and it should never have been increased so significantly by this Government.

My hon. Friends the Members for Horsham (John Milne) and for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) said that their areas have seen significant housing growth, yet bus routes have not kept up with demand. In my area, that is also true. In Old Woking, a new development was built, which was great. The developer agreed, following planning conditions, to invest in bus stops and infrastructure to support the development and its transport implications. In particular, it tried to decarbonise the development. It built bus stops, but since then, not a single bus has used them. We need joined-up thinking if we are to grow our economy, provide the housing we need and improve our transport network. I hope that the Minister ensures that buses finally use those bus stops, and that that never happens again in the south-east.

I will move on to the subject of our highway network. Unfortunately, my constituents have to cope with Surrey county council’s incompetence in managing our highway network. We have not had an election since 2021, because the Government postponed their elections this year. Since 2021, under the Conservatives’ watch, the number of complaints about potholes has gone up by 106%. The council now has to pay out almost £250,000 a year in compensation because it does not fix things, and it is endangering lives.

Thankfully, we are moving to a new local authority, which will give my constituents a chance to vote out the Conservatives, who have mismanaged my local highway network so badly. I hope that the Minister will meet the new West Surrey council to understand its concerns. I am very concerned that highway spending from central Government does not take fully into account how well used our roads are—whether that is by high-usage vehicles or others. Surrey and the south-east have a significant footprint. Our roads are well used, but that is not properly taken account of in the funding formula.

Like my colleagues, I am aware of the investment that has taken place in the M25/A3 junction, which is finally, eventually, coming to a conclusion. I recently visited Woking scouts at Birchmere scout camp, which is on the edge of the M25/A3 junction. They have had to put up with disruption for years, and now their quiet, secluded scout camp is surrounded by unreasonable and potentially unsafe noise. I have urged National Highways colleagues to support them to recover from what they have gone through, and to compensate them for that. I hope that the Minister agrees, and that she agrees to look into it.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

On my hon. Friend’s point about National Highways, the A21 runs through my constituency. It is the road between London and Hastings, and it is single track for most of the way, between halfway through my constituency and Hastings. That is a problem and a bad investment. It is a well-trafficked road. I wonder if it reflects my hon. Friend’s view of National Highways to say that there has been a staggering degree of incompetence around simple things such as cutting back the hedges so that the road remains safe on bends. That is not done to the standard or frequency required.

[Mr Forster]

I agree with my hon. Friend. National Highways is far too slow at tackling issues. Only this morning, I had to report a chunk of debris fly-tipped on National Highways land, which has been there for ages. It is far too slow to tackle simple things such as that, to invest in our highway network, which is so strategically important in the south-east, above all other areas.

The M25 runs through my constituency, and residents of Byfleet and West Byfleet have to cope with unbearable noise from the concrete surface of the M25 in that area. I have pressed National Highways to take action to reduce that noise, and I hope that the Minister will agree that it is about time it did so.

Liberal Democrat colleagues have spoken this afternoon about their transport issues in the south-east. I did not realise that the Liberal Democrats dominated the south-east as much as we do! We have had no Conservative Members speak at all; they clearly do not care about tackling our potholes or trying to make our roads safer and trains more reliable. I am pleased with, and proud of, the team around me who have pressed their constituencies’ issues this afternoon.

In the south-east, spending on public transport is roughly a third of that in the north-west. That is not acceptable. That unfair funding formula is why we are raising these issues, and I hope the Minister will agree to tackle that in the future. In particular, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), whose A road fell into the sea this morning and who found that there is no national emergency funding. One road in Surrey has a sinkhole that has closed that road for over a year now; it has cost the county council more than £2 million and has still not re-opened. We need emergency funding to step in in those rare, exceptional situations, and I hope the Minister will take that point away.

Whether it is for my constituents in Woking who deserve safer roads without potholes or my commuting constituents who deserve a reliable bus service and trains that get them there on time, I hope the Minister will listen to my pleas, and those of my colleagues, for investment in the south-east so that we can have our fair share of transport spending and grow our economy together.

15:36

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on introducing this important debate. I have a direct solution to her problem of traffic queueing up to access the wonderful beaches at the Witterings. There is an alternative: those road users could stay on the road to Southsea, jump on the hovercraft and visit the wonderful beaches in Ryde, Bembridge and Sandown on the Isle of Wight. She is welcome to put my offer to her constituents in her next newsletter.

The south-east is a great economic engine of the UK. It is home to 7.6 million people and 368,000 businesses, and contributes £228 billion in gross added value to the UK economy. If the south-east slows down, Britain slows down. Its connectivity is therefore essential to supporting the economic growth that the country needs, which has been so lacking in recent months. As we have heard, the region hosts some of the most strategically vital transport infrastructure in the country: Heathrow, Gatwick, Southend, the M25, the M4, the Eurostar, the channel tunnel and the ports of Dover and Southampton. The Dover strait alone is the busiest shipping lane in the world, with more than 500 vessels passing through every single day. Responsible for more than 60% of the UK’s trade with Europe, the south-east’s geography makes it fundamental to the success of British trade, too.

To ensure that we can maintain connectivity, the Government must reverse their approach of imposing ever increasing costs on our transport infrastructure. Those costs are inevitably passed on to passengers, like national insurance increases and business rates. Earlier today, a Delegated Legislation Committee approved the emissions trading scheme for the maritime sector, which will add costs to domestic ferry services to the Isle of Wight. Scottish islands will be exempted, but not our own island in the south-east of England. As we have heard, there has been a long-standing assumption that, because the south-east is perceived to be prosperous, it can somehow cope with less spending or, at least, tolerate greater disruption. That approach is misguided. As many Members from the south-east would acknowledge, that is often London-focused, ignoring the areas around Greater London.

We know that east-west connectivity across the south-east remains weak. Productivity suffers when journeys are slower, freight is delayed and supply chains are less reliable. Spending decisions should not be judged on crude, per-capita formulas but on whether they reduce congestion, cut journey times, increase productivity, support net zero and strengthen economic resilience. Nowhere is that clearer than on our roads, yet our road network is being allowed to deteriorate. The one-off cost to clear the national road maintenance backlog is estimated to be £16.8 billion, and would take 12 years to complete.

In 2024, the Department for Transport reported that 4% of local A roads, 7% of B and C roads, and 17% of unclassified roads that should have been maintained were not. New Road in Brading in my constituency is closed for one month, and buses will not visit the town, notwithstanding the fact that there is another road and viable route into it. That raises another issue many of our constituents experience: the frustration that when roads do get upgraded, closures are often badly planned and key transport, such as buses, which constituents, particularly those who need to access healthcare or have mobility issues, rely on, is not adequately catered for.

Instead of fixing the roads we already have, the Government’s instinct appears to be to make driving more difficult. Only recently, plans were quietly published on the Government website that encourage narrower roads, under guidance from Active Travel England. Narrower roads risk slowing traffic, increasing congestion, making overtaking more dangerous, delaying emergency services and inflaming tensions between motorists and cyclists. That is not pragmatic transport policy, and it risks costing the economy billions of pounds. As Edmund King of the AA rightly said, UK roads

“have evolved since Roman times”

and they

“require…give and take which can’t just be ironed out by regulations.”

Those plans come on top of decisions such as the introduction of charges at the Blackwall tunnel after nearly 130 years of free use, which is yet another example of the Mayor of London making it more expensive and difficult to drive, particularly affecting those with no realistic alternative. Motorists already feel heavily taxed, heavily restricted and increasingly ignored.

Turning to rail, East West Rail is a project that both Labour and the Conservative party have supported and funded in principle, but delivery has been painfully slow and deeply disappointing. Despite being completed in late 2024, services remain unused; East West Rail has admitted to the most basic of design failures. The Government have set out their support for East West Rail, but prospective passengers understandably want the service now. In October 2025, the answer the Department for Transport gave to a parliamentary question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) offered no clear timetable. Passenger services to Bedford are now not expected until 2030, with Oxford to Cambridge services delayed until the mid-2030s. That is not the progress that our constituents want and deserve.

I will again touch briefly on maritime transport. The Government have proposed that they support my constituents to access cheaper, more reliable ferry travel by setting up a local group with an independent chair appointed by the Department for Transport, which is progress, and which I welcome. However, at the same time, the Government are putting cost on to the Isle of Wight through their emissions trading scheme. That is not an example of the mission-led Government they claim to be, nor an example of joined-up Government. They have exempted ferries to Scottish islands from the scheme, and that is an example of the pervasive view that the south-east will somehow cope, where other parts of the United Kingdom should have a special exemption.

Ports and ferry routes in the south-east are critical national assets, yet ferry services remain uniquely under-regulated and expensive. Rail and bus operators face obligations on pricing, performance and transparency, but ferry operators do not. Cross-Solent ferry operators are unregulated and controlled by private equity interests that fund overseas pension funds. That would not be acceptable in any other form of public transport, and it should not acceptable in ferry transport. That imbalance harms communities and undermines connectivity.

Integration across road, rail and maritime transport is essential if we are serious about resilience and fairness, and I urge the Government to give the maximum possible powers to new mayoral combined authorities to ensure joined-up, integrated transport, regardless of whether that transport is currently regulated or not. The south-east does not need grand gestures or experiments in public transport. It needs practical spending and proper maintenance directed towards how people actually travel—fix the roads, stop penalising motorists, and deliver infrastructure properly, effectively and efficiently. That is how we will keep the south-east and the UK moving.

15:45

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this debate, and thank all hon. Members for giving us a tour of the south-east and of its residents’ concerns. I welcome this opportunity to highlight all the important work that this Government are doing and have already done to deliver transport improvements in the region.

Of course, we are aware of the importance of the region to the UK and how it helps to drive the country. It adds £200 billion annually to the economy, creates hundreds of thousands of jobs and is home to the nation’s two largest airports, vital port links and more than 300,000 businesses. That is why we have taken important steps to support and enhance transport in the region, backing airport expansion at Gatwick and Heathrow, and committing to deliver the vital lower Thames crossing—the most significant road building scheme in a generation.

I understand hon. Members’ disappointment that two major A27 schemes were cancelled in 2024, as both were rated poor value for money and unaffordable. As hon. Members know, the status of pipeline schemes, including the Chichester bypass, will be confirmed when road investment strategy 3 is published next month.

This Government will be investing over the coming years in major road schemes in the south-east that will bring real benefits to local people, including by unlocking housing, supporting economic growth and tackling local congestion pinch points, which many hon. Members have drawn attention to. We have approved funding for schemes, subject to the necessary business case approvals, in East Sussex, Brighton, north Thanet and Bognor Regis to Littlehampton. In addition, we are also shortly due to announce the outcome of our major road network programme review, which will provide clarity over other major road schemes in the south-east. The new structures fund is intended to deal with precisely the sort of unforeseen problems affecting the constituency of the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden).

The Government are also committed to ending years of poor service and fragmentation on the railways by creating a unified and simplified system that puts passengers first, rebuilding trust in the railways and, in doing so, helping to build up local economies. The new passenger watchdog, which is probably being debated at this very moment in the Railways Bill Committee upstairs, will be a powerful champion for rail users and will hold Great British Railways to account. Publicly owned Southeastern is driving forward a £2 million station improvement programme that benefited more than 100 stations between March 2024 and March 2025, and is investing a further £2 million in fleet improvements.

As the hon. Member for Chichester confirmed, the Government froze rail fares this year for the first time in 30 years. I am sure that the Rail Minister will be very familiar with the bottleneck in Croydon and will be happy to write to hon. Members to respond to the points raised, including by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). I am sure that the noble Lord the Rail Minister will also be happy to write to the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) on her station proposals.

This Government have recognised the importance of listening to what local government needs. We are simplifying local transport funding to bring decision making over local transport closer to the people who use it and to empower local leaders to drive change in their communities. We are providing all local transport authorities with multi-year consolidated funding settlements, delivering our commitment in the English devolution White Paper to simplify funding. Those consolidated local transport settlements will give those authorities greater freedom and flexibility to make the strategic decisions that best impact their areas.

I welcome the determination of the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) to bang on about potholes. Our roads matter to us all, whether we are drivers, bikers, cyclists or pedestrians, and the previous Government left our roads in a parlous state. That is precisely why the spending review settlement includes a record £7.3 billion investment in local highways maintenance funding over the next four years, including £1.5 billion in the south-east region.

Crucially, that four-year funding certainty gives councils the confidence to plan ahead, move away from costly short-term fixes and invest in proper, preventive treatments that stop potholes forming in the first place. That is a major step towards delivering smoother, safer roads for everyone who depends on them. As my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) and for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) noted, the Government’s rating system enables local people to hold their council to account and ensure that they are using the additional funding effectively to make a visible difference to all road users.

We also reaffirmed our commitment to invest in bus services for the long term, confirming more than £3 billion from 2026-27 to 2028-29—including £369 million in the south-east—to support local leaders and bus operators across the country in improving bus services for millions of passengers. We are giving local authorities the power and funding to address precisely the issues that hon. Members have raised: lost services and the need for new routes to serve housing growth.

The Government are also providing funding to investigate the use of franchising in rural areas. That will be combined with our recently announced active travel grant of £626 million across the UK, with more than £133 million going to the south-east; our record investment in the local transport grant, which sees all south-eastern authorities’ funding increase year on year; and electric vehicle infrastructure funding to create a large funding pot for all local transport authorities so they can decide what to spend it on in line with their priorities.

Active Travel England, which the hon. Member for Chichester mentioned, works to support local authorities to improve their capabilities and benefit from the additional funding that we are investing. The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) said that pavements are for people, and I could not agree more. That is why this Government have acted where the previous one failed to. On 8 January, we announced that we will give local councils new powers to crack down on antisocial pavement parking. I remember, alongside a former Chair of the Transport Committee, looking at some of the problems in his area and on the south coast where parking was not properly enforced.

I also want to pick up on the important concerns about SEND transport raised by the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne). I am sure he knows that the Department for Education, which leads on that point, is currently carrying out a review of home-to-school transport along with their wider review of SEND. He is right that we need to work across Government to ensure that we make the best use of the funding available.

In conclusion, this has been a wide-ranging debate; I have taken so many notes, and I am trying to pick up as many points as I can, but I am conscious that I will not have addressed every issue raised by hon. Members. I hope I have been able to demonstrate that south-east authorities have been given record amounts of funding to deal with their local transport issues and they have the flexibility to direct that funding towards the things that local people are most concerned about. To help to bring all that together in a coherent approach that sets out our ambitions for transport in the UK, we will shortly be publishing our integrated transport strategy.

I will also mention our recently published road safety strategy. In 2024, 192 people were killed and 4,754 were seriously injured on roads in the south-east. Our ambitious target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads by 65% by 2035 will aim to drive that number down. We want to work in partnership with all authorities and stakeholders in the region. I extend my thanks to the chief constable for Sussex, Jo Shiner, who is also the National Police Chiefs Council lead for roads policing, for her work in enhancing road safety to keep those in the south-east and across Great Britain safe on our roads.

I finish by thanking the hon. Member for Chichester for giving me the opportunity to discuss transport in the south-east region. I apologise that, as the Minister for Local Transport, I am no longer the Minister for Roads—that is my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood)—but I am sure he will be interested to read this afternoon’s debate and respond to any points that I have missed. He, I, and my ministerial colleagues are always happy to receive invitations to visit hon. Members’ constituencies, and I look forward to future opportunities to see more of this vital and very beautiful region.

15:55

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive comments at the end of this debate. I also thank Members from across the House for contributing to a wide-ranging debate on all the topics that touch on transport in the south-east. I am especially glad that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) was here to talk about ferries; if I am ever in a room with him and he does not mention ferries, something does not feel quite right. I am glad that he had the opportunity to raise his specific concerns relating to the Isle of Wight.

I reflect on how, when they talk about their frustrations, residents are often told that this Government are investing additional money. They talk in large figures that sound incredibly impressive, but when residents cannot see that investment—when they are still sat in traffic, day in, day out; when they are not seeing their local bus services improve or their county council deliver investment into active travel strategies—it leaves a bitter taste in their mouths. All those figures mean nothing when they still cannot travel from A to B and see their mum who lives on the other side of the constituency, get to work or drive their kids to school. When we talk about these transport issues, the figures can sometimes make us lose sight of the impact on people struggling day to day.

Local authorities getting additional money is all well and good. However, we see councils such as West Sussex county council deciding to cling on to power with their very fingertips, cancelling elections twice—two years in a row—meaning that its cabinet will end up serving a seven-year term—that is incredibly frustrating for people in my local area, who do not get the opportunity to hold it to account when it has failed us in addressing the potholes crisis and active travel.

Finally, the Minister mentioned that she would happily visit any constituency, so I extend an invitation to her and the new Roads Minister to come and sit in traffic with me around Chichester. She can come any day: I guarantee I will be able to find us some congestion so that she can see the impact it has on my constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered transport in the South East.