Hammersmith Bridge

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of Hammersmith Bridge.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being here for this debate. I also thank everyone who attended my recent action event at Hammersmith bridge to campaign for its reopening, and all the constituents—so many constituents—who emailed me in advance of the debate. I know that many will be watching right now.

This month marks seven years since Hammersmith bridge was closed—seven years of disruption, frustration and avoidable hardship for residents across west London. The anniversary on 10 April was not a milestone that anyone wanted to reach, but it is a stark reminder of how long communities have been waiting for decisive action and how urgently a fully funded plan is needed to restore this vital crossing. Seven years, 2,566 days, 366 weeks or 84 months—that is how long this situation has been allowed to continue, and those of us in Putney and Roehampton have felt every single one of those days.

It is a national disgrace that this issue is not being rectified, but I am genuinely pleased to see the Minister in his place. I am grateful for the many opportunities that we have had to meet since the election and for his engagement on the issue, so I am genuinely looking forward to what he has to say at the end of the debate and to continuing to work together towards replacing the bridge and rectifying this infrastructure failure. I am also grateful to be able to set out clearly the human, social, economic and environmental impacts of the bridge’s closure to ensure that the Minister is under no doubt about the effect that the closure is having.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for her patience—the Bible refers to the patience of Job, which I think she has—and for her campaign. She will be aware that when routes such as Hammersmith bridge are closed, the pressure on surrounding infrastructure is greatly enhanced. That is similar to the pressure in my constituency in Ballynahinch, where there is no bypass and we have been waiting almost 30 years for one. Does she agree that the Government must follow through on promises to deliver such infrastructure projects and not simply wait for a time when we have more money? We will never have enough in the coffers, but the time comes for promises made to be prioritised. That is really the issue: people have waited far too long and they can wait no more.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for his acknowledgment of the many years that I have been campaigning on this issue and that he has seen me raising it in the Chamber. I agree that there is no time to wait, because the longer we wait, the more the bill goes up, as well as the hardship continuing for us.

Built in 1887, Hammersmith bridge is one of the world’s oldest suspension bridges. It is a grade II listed structure made of wood and wrought iron; its suspension system rests on cast-iron pedestals. It is not just a piece of infrastructure, but part of Britain’s engineering heritage and a national landmark.

However, this is not just about history; it is about people. Hammersmith bridge has always been a lifeline, a critical connection across the Thames used by thousands of cars, people and cyclists—and six bus routes. For seven years, that connection has been broken. The bridge was closed in 2019 on public safety grounds after microfractures were identified in the now 138-year-old structure. It later reopened to pedestrians and cyclists, and in April 2025 the carriageway reopened to pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users and e-scooter users, but not to any vehicles or those buses. That ongoing closure continues to have profound and far-reaching consequences for my constituents, especially in Roehampton, which is directly south of the bridge, and in Putney, which has the alternative bridge if people are going east.

The impact on daily life has been severe, sustained and deeply felt. Residents in Putney, Barnes, Richmond and Hammersmith have endured years of longer journeys, unreliable transport and constant congestion. I conducted a survey of residents and found that 90% of respondents described the closure as “extremely disruptive”. That comes as no surprise to anyone living locally. This is the issue that comes up all the time, at every event that I go to and almost every door I knock on.

Before the closure, around 22,000 vehicles crossed the bridge each day. Those journeys have not disappeared; they have simply been forced on to other routes, creating daily gridlock across neighbouring areas such as Putney. The latest snapshot data from the Department for Transport shows that, between 2020 and 2023, the overall number of motor vehicles on Putney bridge increased by 16%. Bus services were among the first and hardest hit. Six major routes, including the 209, were withdrawn, and have still not been reinstated. Others, such as the 533, have been diverted, leaving services overcrowded, delayed and unreliable.

Congestion in Putney has now become so severe that in January last year I called together the bus services, Transport for London, the council and the utility services to say, “Look, there’s a real problem here in Putney.” Transport for London officials replied, “Yes, there is. We look across the whole of London, and Putney is especially congested.” In their opinion, part of the reason for that is the closure of Hammersmith bridge.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

On that point, how does the hon. Lady feel about the funding that TfL offered for the reopening of the bridge? To my mind, as a former member of the London Assembly, it has not been sufficient over the last 10 years.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for that question; I will ask the Minister the same thing. Where is that funding? Has agreement been reached between the three bodies, Transport for London, Hammersmith and Fulham council and the Department for Transport? That was the agreement, but where is the agreement now? I am not sure where it is or what funding is on the table, so I am hoping to hear from the Minister later.

The bus taskforce that I mentioned has had to meet monthly since then and is still meeting. It is really good and we are getting a lot done—we are making changes to try to get the traffic moving—but we still have the constant background of the closure of Hammersmith bridge, which in effect makes transport, particularly on the roads in my constituency and those surrounding, less resilient. When one thing happens, there is a knock-on effect that significantly clogs up the roads.

Seven years on, residents, commuters and businesses in Putney are still paying the price. For many residents in Putney and Roehampton, it is not a minor inconvenience or something we could have just got over in the last seven years; it is a fundamental barrier to daily life. The majority of households in the London borough of Wandsworth do not have a car. They rely on buses to get to work, school and medical appointments, as well as to see family. The loss of these connections has made everyday life significantly harder.

Behind the statistics are real people, real stories and real consequences. Ana is a constituent from west Putney who came along to my recent action event at the bridge. She has a 12-year-old son, Santiago, who has Down’s syndrome and complex needs. He attends a specialist school in Hammersmith on the other side of the bridge, which is the nearest school equipped to support him. Before the closure, their journey was straightforward and manageable. Since then, it has become an exhausting and unpredictable ordeal, often taking well over an hour each way.

On one occasion, Ana allowed two full hours to take Santiago from school in Hammersmith back to a medical appointment at St George’s hospital. The journey took nearly three hours and they missed the appointment entirely. Even when the hospital kindly rescheduled, the same journey the following week still took two and a half hours. It should take nowhere near that and certainly would not if the bridge were reopened to vehicles. That is not just an inconvenience; it is missed healthcare.

Furthermore, the closure has cut Santiago off from important social opportunities. He used to attend weekly football sessions for children with Down’s syndrome in Shepherd’s Bush, which supported his physical health, confidence and social development, but the journey became so long and exhausting that he would fall asleep in the car. Eventually, he had to stop attending altogether, missing out on three years of those vital physical activities. I have spoken about Ana’s experience at length because it highlights something we must not overlook: although the closure affects everyone, disabled children and their families are hardest hit. Public transport is not always a viable option, and the long diversions that currently exist place enormous strain on already complex routines.

I have heard countless more stories from constituents before and since I told them about this debate. Caroline, another resident, drives to visit her 92-year-old mother for dinner on Fridays. What used to be a 40-minute journey before the bridge closure now takes up to two hours. Paula told me that her heart sinks every time she gets into her car to visit her daughter and family in Hammersmith. With only one viable route left via Fulham Palace Road, what was once a straightforward journey now often takes twice as long with no certainty about the delays she will face. These are the quiet, cumulative losses—a loss of time with loved ones, missed moments and added stress—that rarely make the headlines, but define people’s daily lives.

I have also heard from residents whose cancer treatments have been disrupted, from separated parents struggling to maintain contact with their children, and from students cut off from study opportunities. Some of the words my constituents have used to describe the reality of living with the bridge’s continued closure are: “nightmare”, “miserable”, “unsafe”, “disastrous”, “absurd” and “national scandal”. That is the human cost of inaction on the bridge.

The consequences are not just limited to individuals; they extend across the local economy as well. More than 75% of local businesses report moderate or severe negative impacts as a result of the closure. Reduced footfall in shops, delayed deliveries and staff struggling to get to work have all taken their toll. Small businesses in Putney have been hit hard. Customers are deterred by the congestion. Journeys that should take minutes take far longer. Deliveries are delayed and more expensive. The closure has created a drag on economic activity across Putney, Barnes, Hammersmith and beyond. At a time when local high streets are already under pressure, it is an added burden they can ill afford.

There is also a clear environmental cost. Thousands of additional vehicles are now being diverted through already congested roads, especially Putney High Street, because we can only go along to the next bridge—we do not have all the options that there would otherwise be in a different area. This has led to increased air pollution, higher noise levels and more dangerous conditions for road users. Cyclists are put off cycling through Putney because of the higher congestion and heavier traffic, making it feel more unsafe. I really am worried about potential cyclists—the people we want to get out of their cars and on to the roads using more active travel—because many in Putney are put off. Bus journeys, as I have said, are further delayed as well. The overall effect is a transport network that is less efficient, less safe and less sustainable, and that is not good for our environment.

The situation has now become even more acute. On the other side of us, the closure of Albert bridge in February 2026, again due to structural issues, is expected to last up to a year, and we do not know how much longer. That has placed even greater strain on the remaining crossings and has intensified congestion across south-west London. Albert bridge carried 20,000 vehicles a day before the February closure. With two key bridges affected, residents are effectively being cut off from travelling north of the river in a reasonable and reliable way. Of course they can travel, but it is the extra time and the unreliability that people tell me about. For a global city like London, that is not sustainable.

Connectivity is not a luxury. It is essential for economic growth, access to services, and the functioning of daily life. Since being elected in 2019, I have consistently campaigned for the full reopening of Hammersmith bridge to vehicles, including buses. I have raised the issue 26 times in Parliament. I have secured debates and led action days and public meetings in Putney. I have worked closely with residents and with Wandsworth borough council, which is also fully engaged and supportive of the restoring of the bridge. I have also worked with campaigners, including the Putney Action Group and Putney Society. I have raised the matter directly with the Prime Minister and pressed for leadership and urgency, and I have raised it with the Mayor of London.

Since April 2019, Hammersmith and Fulham council has spent nearly £54 million simply to make Hammersmith bridge safe. To put that into perspective, all London councils combined spent just £100 million between 2010 and 2021 on maintaining and repairing every road and river bridge across the capital, and even then much of that cost was ultimately picked up by Transport for London or central Government. The impact on Hammersmith and Fulham council’s budget is disproportionate. Thanks to the council’s action, Hammersmith bridge is no longer in danger of collapsing into the Thames, but it still costs the council around £2 million a year just to maintain its current restricted state. That money does not deliver a permanent solution; it merely postpones failure.

Hammersmith and Fulham council cannot afford to fund further repair works. Continuing to spend millions of pounds on temporary fixes is financially unsustainable and fundamentally unfair. The current approach is not viable and cannot continue. It is wholly unreasonable to expect Hammersmith and Fulham council to shoulder sole responsibility for a nationally significant, grade II listed heritage bridge. The unfair cost share must be addressed. In contrast to the Albert bridge, where funding is shared 75% by Transport for London and 25% by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, responsibility for Hammersmith bridge falls disproportionately on Hammersmith and Fulham council, which is expected to fund around 33% of the enormous cost.

Where are we now? Years of stalemate have produced an internationally embarrassing situation and daily frustration for residents, businesses and commuters. That cannot be allowed to continue. I am glad that the new Government and the Minister have taken a much more active role, as the previous Government were so dismissive. The Minister has brought together key stakeholders for the taskforce. A meeting was held at the Department for Transport in January 2025, which I attended along with the key bodies, including the Department for Transport, Transport for London, Hammersmith and Fulham council, Richmond council, Wandsworth council, the deputy mayor for transport, Historic England and the Port of London Authority.

The taskforce considered six options, which I know really well because I get asked about them all the time on the doorstep; people want to know what the options were, what is happening and what will happen next.

Option zero, which is the one that is kind of on the table, is the Foster and Partners and COWI proposal to deliver a temporary double-deck crossing within the existing structure of Hammersmith bridge, allowing pedestrians, cyclists, buses and cars to use the bridge while the full repair and restoration works are carried out around it using barges.

Option one was bridge closure with no access allowed; the structure would remain a beautiful monument, but no more than that. Option two was bridge repair and restoration sufficient to allow for active travel by pedestrians, cyclists and two single-decker buses. That would restore the bridge to how it was before the closure.

Option three was bridge repair and restoration sufficient for active travel only. Option four was a replacement bridge with a 44-tonne weight limit—to just get rid of the bridge and build a new one. I cannot tell Members how many Putney residents are in favour of that one. Option five was an offline replacement bridge—one somewhere else—with the existing structure remaining in place either around it or next to it.

I really appreciate that the Minister took a back-to-basics approach at the meeting to assess all the options and to see where we are now. In the meeting, option zero—the Foster and Partners and COWI one—remained on the table, and options one, four and five were ruled out on cost grounds. At that meeting, the Minister was also clear that leaving the bridge as it is “is not an option”. Officials were tasked with properly costing the restoration, and Historic England agreed in the meeting to look at revisiting its requirements, which is an important step that could help reduce the previously estimated £240 million cost.

I welcome the confirmation since then that funding may be available through the national structures fund and the Minister’s recent statement that Hammersmith bridge would be a strong candidate for investment from that fund. More broadly, the continuing impasse exposes a deeper structural problem. Now is the time to review the ownership and responsibility for all the bridges in London. These strategic assets should sit under a single authority with responsibility for maintenance, repairs and long-term investment. They should be taken out of the responsibility of local councils and put in the responsibility of one single body.

In conclusion, Minister, what concrete actions have been taken since the last taskforce meeting in January 2025? Is the Foster and Partners and COWI option still being assessed and considered? What is the current estimated cost—the updated figure—of fully restoring Hammersmith bridge? Have there been meetings, with decisions made, between Hammersmith and Fulham council, Transport for London and the Department for Transport, and has a viable agreed plan been reached between those three bodies? Has an application been made under the structures fund? If not, when will it be made? Either way, when will a decision about the structures fund funding be made? When will the taskforce next meet—I hope it will be soon—and will a firm timetable be shared with it? Finally, has any assessment been made in consultation with the Mayor of London on transferring responsibility for all bridges to one London body?

Let me be clear: action must be taken now. Potential funding is not the same as secured funding, discussions are not the same as decisions and processes cannot become excuses for further delays. Residents have waited for seven long years—seven years of severed communities, gridlocked roads, lost bus routes and daily hardship. That is not acceptable for a major transport route in our capital city. It is not acceptable for families trying to get to school or hospital appointments. It is not acceptable for businesses trying to survive. It is not acceptable for the many residents who rely on public transport simply to live their daily lives. The social, economic and environmental costs are too high. The human impact is too great.

What is needed now is clear and urgent: a fully funded plan, a clear and credible timetable, and decisive action to begin—and then end—restoration without further delay. The bridge has stood since 1887; it has served generations of Londoners. Now is the time to restore it and to reconnect the communities who depend on it.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

I see two hon. Members who want to speak. I shall call the Front Benchers at 5.08 pm. I will not be setting a time limit, but I am sure Members will consider each other.

16:51

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. Although I heartily congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this debate and on her excellent opening speech, I know she shares with me the sincere wish that, before the end of our parliamentary careers, we may one day be able to stop talking about Hammersmith bridge. I fully acknowledge the severe consequences that the closure of the bridge has had on the hon. Lady’s constituents in Putney, but, obviously, my constituents in Richmond Park, where the bridge lands on the southern bank, have also faced extreme disruption and reduced opportunities as a result of the closure.

It was seven years ago this month that Hammersmith bridge closed to traffic, and it has not reopened since. That means that for seven years buses have not been able to cross the bridge; emergency ambulance journeys from Barnes, in my constituency, to Charing Cross hospital, on the northern bank of the Thames, have taken significantly longer; and local businesses and families have suffered. Since 2019, Hammersmith and Fulham council has spent nearly £50 million just to maintain the bridge, while successive Governments have failed to act. That is disgraceful. The failure to repair Hammersmith bridge has become a matter of national embarrassment.

In the lead-up to the 2019 general election, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, said about the bridge:

“The next Conservative Government will not allow this just to remain closed.”

I imagine that that comment was made with the intention of supporting the Conservative candidate’s bid for re-election in my constituency of Richmond Park, but nothing then happened. The Conservatives had five years to take action, but the business case for fixing the bridge sat on their desks for years without being picked up, and they did not even bother to reconvene the taskforce during their last three years in office.

All the while, the estimated costs of repairing the bridge doubled. In 2022, after the bridge had to be wrapped in tin foil to prevent it from collapsing, I pleaded with the Conservative Government to release the funds for the bridge’s repairs. At that point, the repairs were estimated at £140 million. Now, estimates put the cost of repairs at £250 million. If the Conservatives had kept their promise, they could have saved the taxpayer more than £100 million.

The failure of the Conservatives to act has had real-life impacts: Hammersmith fire station still officially serves Barnes, despite it taking 25 minutes to attend a fire in Castelnau. Even the temporary bus routes put in place to connect Barnes and Hammersmith have been cut, and many women and students feel unsafe walking over the bridge in the dark on their return from work or school in the winter months. Barnes residents deserve better.

The last Conservative Government were characterised by lies, scandals and a complete disregard for the public; their contempt for the public was evident, whether they were partying while people could not visit sick relatives in hospital or crashing our economy. It is hardly surprising that breaking their promise to fix Hammersmith bridge was merely a footnote.

Labour has now had a chance to right this wrong, but I have been disappointed by the Government’s lack of engagement on this matter. Despite my cautious optimism following the reconvening of the taskforce in January 2025, there has been almost radio silence on plans to fix the bridge. That was until two months ago, when the Local Transport Minister remarked that Hammersmith bridge would be an excellent candidate for funding via the Government’s structures fund. The sceptic in me worries that that is lip service to residents prior to the local elections, but I am choosing to be hopeful. I believe that this Government are serious about fixing a problem that impacts my constituents in Barnes, East Sheen and Mortlake every day.

In the past year, I have written to the Department for Transport five times to request a meeting, and each time, my request has been refused. I say to the Minister today: I do not want to play politics with Hammersmith bridge. Reopening it to emergency vehicles and buses is what my residents want, and like everyone else in the room, I was elected to serve my constituents.

Local activists have joined me in protests and succeeded in keeping the repair of the bridge on the agenda. It is my duty as their MP to amplify their voices and to ensure that they remain up to date with the Government’s latest plans, but I cannot keep local residents informed about developments if the Department for Transport does not engage with me. Transparency is a key tenet of governance, and I am extremely disappointed that local residents have not been afforded it for over seven years. They need answers about the Government’s plans.

When will the Hammersmith bridge taskforce reconvene? What criteria are the Government using to assess candidates for the structures fund? Have funding agreements been reached among Hammersmith and Fulham council, Transport for London and the Department for Transport? When will the Government announce whether funding will be provided for Hammersmith bridge via the structures fund? The list goes on, and so, for the sixth time, I request a meeting with the Minister to discuss the future of Hammersmith’s bridge.

16:56

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Alec, not least because you have allowed me the privilege of speaking although I was a couple of minutes late. I was chairing the Justice Committee, but I did not want to miss this debate. Fortunately, I can be reasonably brief because my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and my friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) have covered most of the bases on this issue; I will not repeat what they said.

I welcome the Minister to his place. I will say something complimentary about him in a moment, which will perhaps convince him to spend some money on the bridge. I will also take the unusual step of welcoming the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who knows as much about this as any of us, because he was the deputy leader and then leader of the opposition in Hammersmith and Fulham—we all know where the bodies are buried, even at the high water mark.

Hammersmith bridge is a unique structure. Before people start shouting “Albert bridge”, I will come on to why that is different in a moment. Hammersmith is a beautiful bridge across the Thames—I am prejudiced, but I would say it is the most beautiful—but it has unique challenges. Whether through bomb damage or the corrosion of the materials that make it up, the bridge has reached a state of catastrophic failure. At one stage, it had to be closed in its entirety, even to pedestrian and cycle traffic. That is fortunately not the case now, but I think it is accepted on all sides—people sometimes say, “Oh this could be done cheaply”, by which they mean for a few million pounds, but it cannot—that restoring Hammersmith bridge to its former tolerances would require the replacement of most of the elements of the bridge. It would effectively be a new bridge, albeit looking like the old one. That has particular, unique implications. It is right that this Minister and this Government have taken a far more proactive view than the previous Government—they could not take a less proactive view than the previous Government, who did not answer my letters for three years.

The taskforce has met since this Government came in, and it has defined the issues and pointed the way to next steps. In my view, there are three issues. One is: let us define clearly what the costs are. There is the clear preferred option, which is the Foster and COWI scheme; it is very expensive, but other schemes are less efficient and more expensive. What will the cost of that be and what are the opportunities for funding it? My hon. Friend the Member for Putney mentioned the application to the structures fund, and I welcome what the Minister said about that. I notice that the guidelines for grant funding were published last week, so I do not imagine that an application has gone in yet, though I am sure that one will go in quite shortly. It is still an extremely expensive project.

In addition to the costs and sources of funds, there is the thorny issue of traffic loading. I have seen many different figures for traffic displacement to other bridges, including Putney and Wandsworth bridges and Chiswick bridge, which is also in my constituency. There are serious concerns about that, but we must have sets of figures that we can all rely on—I hope the Minister will say that he now has those figures—because otherwise it is pointless if we are going to not agree on those matters. Those are the essential ingredients, from my point of view. The taskforce met last year.

To be full and frank, it is also right to acknowledge that there is a strong lobby against opening the bridge to motor traffic. I know that from my inbox. I have always said that the presumption should be that the bridge goes back to its previous tolerances, which requires a major reconstruction. This has gone on so long that we need certainty and an answer now.

The other thing—I am grateful to the hon. Members who spoke about this—is the acknowledgment of where Hammersmith council is in all this. I think it is right to say that the council has spent over £50 million on preventing the collapse of the bridge, restoring it to make it a walking and cycling bridge and continuing to maintain it. To put that into perspective, that is half the sum spent on repair and maintenance for all bridges over the Thames in the decade between 2010 and 2020.

That local authority, like most local authorities these days, is cash strapped. It prides itself on running a very tight ship, has the third lowest council tax in the country and provides extremely innovative—and, in some cases, unique—services, such as free social care and free breakfast clubs in all its schools. Those are the priorities that its electorate set out for it, and, I think, will again when it is re-elected in two weeks’ time. I did not believe it was feasible to add the £50 million in there. Hammersmith and Fulham council deserves a huge amount of credit for that, but the idea that it will make another substantive contribution towards the bridge is for the birds. The money is just not there. If we are saying that, we are saying the bridge will never reopen. We need a little bit of honesty here.

The comparison was made with Albert bridge. It is very unfortunate that another bridge needs repair. Yes, it is another Victorian suspension bridge with some, shall we say, challenging materials, such as its cast iron structure. But there the similarities end, even though, or partly because, Kensington and Chelsea council is only a minority shareholder, if I can put it that way, but more so because, although Albert bridge will take at least a year and cost £8.5 million on the current estimate—and I am sure that that will grow—Hammersmith council has already spent six times that just on the maintenance of Hammersmith bridge at its current standards.

Let us try to move this forward. I do not want to say anything more today other than that a conclusion has to be reached as a matter of urgency. Decisions have to be made. Not everyone will be happy with those decisions one way or the other, but so long as they are made based on a sound mathematical basis and classic surveys, the finances are there and we are not just wishing for money that does not exist, and we have a secure model for replacement of the bridge, we can go forward in that way. At the moment, we have the worst of all worlds: nothing is happening while everybody is putting forward their own version of reality or events. Whatever side of the coin they are on, my constituents want that to end.

17:04

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on consecutive days, Sir Alec. I commend the proposer, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for articulately outlining the long-running saga of the closure of Hammersmith bridge, and a saga it is: the closure of this bridge has outlasted a pandemic and accompanied our departure from the European Union. Hopefully, the Government will take action so that not many other national or global events are added to the list of things that this bridge has witnessed.

It was agreed under the previous Conservative Government that the £250 million cost of fixing the bridge would be split evenly between the Department for Transport, Transport for London and Hammersmith and Fulham council. The current Labour Government have yet to find a way to honour that agreement or find another solution. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) articulately said, the ongoing cost to Hammersmith and Fulham council, with nearly £50 million already spent just to maintain the bridge, shows that the bill will continue to mount, absent a permanent solution. In our country, the failure to take long-term decisions to reach a conclusion often means that we spend a comparable amount of money maintaining an inadequate status quo in the meantime.

London is one of the most congested cities in Europe, and the bridges crossing the Thames are the central arteries for traffic of all kinds through the city. It should be unthinkable that a bridge is sitting underused with no clear action being taken. Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament and councillors in west London have consistently held the Government’s feet to the fire on this issue and will continue to do so. As well as the long campaign on this issue by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) in relation to its impact on Richmond borough, the hon. Member for Putney is correct to highlight the impact of the closure of Hammersmith bridge on Putney, where long traffic jams on Lower Richmond Road, Putney Bridge Road and Putney High Street, combined with a sub-optimally designed junction at Putney bridge, hit residents on a daily basis.

Last weekend, while visiting the area, I learned of local Liberal Democrats campaigning hard for Wandsworth council to play a greater role, alongside the two most directly affected boroughs, to improve the current situation. I declare an interest as a former Wandsworth resident, and my recent visit showed how little had changed for public transport and active travel since I lived in that area. In addition to the closure of the bridge, that is why there is significant car traffic and a lot of congestion, including in areas well away from the two bridges that we have discussed. South-west London is being let down by the failure to get a grip of this issue, and that points to the struggle to be competent about infrastructure in many areas of the UK.

The costs to rectify Hammersmith bridge are small compared with those, for example, of the proposed lower Thames crossing, which this Labour Government have not hesitated to back. As has been said, the Hammersmith bridge issue speaks to a structural problem for London infrastructure, in that the relationship between Transport for London and councils is not always best placed to ensure that planning and decision making on significant infrastructure happens on an effective cross-borough or cross-city basis.

Not unusually, the previous Conservative Government failed to get a grip of this mess. In the lead-up to the 2019 general election, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, stated that the Conservative Government would “not allow this” bridge “to remain closed”. The Conservatives then sat on the business case for repairing the bridge for years. If the Conservatives had kept their promise, the repairs could have been completed by now for £100 million less than the current estimated price tag. We all hope that the Minister will commit to resolving the issue and give us hope that this Government will end the embarrassing inertia and decision-making paralysis.

A minimum key ask is that we increase the usefulness of the bridge by restoring it to enable cross-river bus services and emergency service vehicle access. Even if the bridge were to reopen to motor traffic, we need to go much further and think more boldly about the chronic congestion in London suburbs. One option is a massive road-building programme, such as that attempted in the ’60s and ’70s as part of the London ringways programme, which was dropped because it was deeply unpopular. The only alternative is to transform public transport, walking and cycling. TfL is showing some leadership on the former, with proposals for the west London orbital between Hounslow and Hendon, although that does not specifically help with the cross-river issue.

My earlier brief and amateurish study of maps shows that the density of river crossings in London is markedly different from that in Paris, with Paris having almost double the number of river crossings on a 20 km section to the west of the city comparable to London. If the Labour Government can find £10 billion for the lower Thames crossing—admittedly with some private financing, but they have already committed at least £3 billion to that—they should surely be able to find the price tag needed to do the right thing for communities in south-west London by fixing Hammersmith bridge. I hope that this Government can seize the opportunity to do the right thing.

17:09

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

For the second time this afternoon, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this debate. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) has suggested, it is a bit of a blast from the past for me, having previously served on Hammersmith and Fulham council both as deputy leader and then latterly as leader of the opposition. If only my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), the right hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) or the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) were here, we could go some way to recreating the Hammersmith town hall council chamber in Westminster Hall this afternoon. Back in 2014, when I was leader of the opposition on Hammersmith and Fulham council, the bridge had restricted access but was not yet fully closed; I think one bus at a time was allowed on at that point, which raised significant concerns. It is very disappointing that, across multiple Governments, we have not been able to resolve the challenges on Hammersmith bridge since then.

I note that the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick was quick to boast about Hammersmith and Fulham having the third lowest council tax in the country—if only I knew how it got to that point! It could possibly have been the period between 2006 and 2014 when, under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, we cut council tax by 20%, taking Hammersmith and Fulham from mid-pack to third lowest in the country, rivalled only by Wandsworth and Westminster at that time. However, since then, Hammersmith and Fulham council has increased council tax on their residents by hundreds of pounds.

More gallingly, under Sadiq Khan, the amount claimed by the Mayor of London has increased by over 70%, and what do the residents of Hammersmith and Fulham get for all those increases? A bridge that cars and buses cannot cross. Under a Labour council, a Labour mayor and a Labour Government, the speed of action is slower than a cyclist with a punctured tyre. Ironically, that cyclist would be one of the few people who could actually make use of the bridge in its current state.

In January, the Minister stated in a written answer that the taskforce would meet soon. We now understand that it is waiting for submissions to the structures fund. The primary mechanism to bring all the stakeholders together and unblock the problem has not met for a year. Of course, as we have heard eloquently from the hon. Member for Putney and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), this failure extends beyond Hammersmith and Fulham. It affects the boroughs of Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Hounslow, and it has displaced traffic to areas such as Ealing. Given the Labour party’s control over various forms of Government, it needs to give pause for thought as to what it is actually doing.

Of course, Hammersmith and Fulham council—there is no getting around this point—holds the statutory duty to maintain the highway, which makes it even more important that it demonstrates visible leadership and urgency in advancing a funded, deliverable plan for the strengthening phase and full reopening. However, that has not been forthcoming, and the 2026 business plan from TfL makes no mention of Hammersmith bridge.

Over the past decade, the costs imposed on motorists in our capital city have grown significantly, with those both inside and outside London facing costs because of decisions made by the Mayor of London: expansions of the ultra low emission zone, increases in the cash cow known as the congestion charge and innovations to find new methods of fining drivers. The least those motorists could expect is infrastructure that works. In addition, when they are unable to use their cars, they should be able to use public transport. However, the closure of the bridge has had a massive impact, curtailing many bus routes, notwithstanding the tube strikes we are enduring today.

I would like to be charitable, but I am afraid that it is hardly surprising that the Government have been so slow to act when their recent strategy for integrated transport has little to say about cars in urban areas beyond commenting that

“Promoting car and lift sharing should be used to manage congestion”,

and that those cars should be electric vehicles, which few people actually want to buy. That attitude does little to help people in Hammersmith and Fulham or those other London boroughs south of the river who need their vehicles in the capital.

In contrast to that inaction, Conservative councillors in Hammersmith and Fulham have put forward a temporary solution to the problem. The Secretary of State was the previous deputy Mayor of London for transport, and it is preposterous that a team led by someone with such a background has not convened people to get a plan in place. It must be either that Labour authorities do not want to fix it, or negligence.

This problem is not abstract; it is impacting people’s lives. The centre director of Castlenau community centre in Barnes recently told the Evening Standard that

“There are lots of people who need to go to Charing Cross Hospital, who are having to undergo stressful journeys and potentially risk not making their appointment in time”,

and earlier in the debate, we heard a similar example of people struggling to reach St George’s hospital. We need the Government to bring together those in their party who are responsible to put forward a plan. Sadly, I am afraid that, without the will of the local authority and Transport for London, the bridge will remain closed off for most people.

17:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing the debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), who I have worked with extensively since taking up my post, for their contributions. I listened carefully to the remarks my hon. Friend the Member for Putney made about the future of Hammersmith bridge, which I appreciate is of particular interest to the constituents of all three Members that I mentioned, as well as the people in other constituencies across south and west London.

As my hon. Friend is aware, Hammersmith bridge is an historic, grade II listed suspension bridge. It opened in 1887, and was built on the foundations of an earlier bridge that opened in 1827. As has been said, the bridge is owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, with which the responsibility for maintaining and making decisions about the repair of the bridge ultimately lies. This unique wrought iron structure has served generations of Londoners for nearly 140 years, and although it is deeply unfortunate that it has been closed to motor vehicles since 2020, the safety of those using it is, of course, the utmost priority.

My Department has worked closely with the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and Transport for London to help to ensure the ongoing safety and stability of Hammersmith bridge. In March 2025, my Department provided the borough with £4.7 million for crucial repairs to Hammersmith bridge hangers. That funding has allowed the continued use of the historic structure by pedestrians and cyclists, and brought the total amount of Government funding for the bridge to £17 million to date. Furthermore, my Department has reconvened the Hammersmith bridge taskforce, which had been on hiatus for several years. That was instrumental in providing a forum in which interested stakeholders could discuss the next steps, go back to basics and look at all viable engineering solutions for the future of Hammersmith bridge.

Last year, my Department reached a spending review settlement with the Treasury, which provided the overall capital envelope for transport investment. As part of the settlement, we secured funding to create a structures fund. It was not about paying lip service for local elections, as suggested by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, but was established back in SR 25. It will inject urgently needed funds into repairing run-down bridges, decaying flyovers and worn-out tunnels across the country, making everyday journeys safer, smoother and more dependable.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his work in setting up the structures fund, which is also important for a bridge in my constituency. That bridge is also grade II listed, but is older than Hammersmith bridge and is the largest cast iron bridge in the country. The Minister will be awaiting an application to that fund from Staffordshire county council. In response to comments made by the Opposition spokesperson, the council, which is under Conservative control, did not approach me before the spending review, meaning that we are having to go through the structures fund. I look forward to seeing the Department’s reply to that hopefully successful application once it goes in.

[Simon Lightwood]

I have felt strangely popular all of a sudden, since last week’s announcement opening the fund to applications from councils across England, which can apply for funding to repair or replace key transport structures that are failing, and that they cannot afford to fix alone. That is part of a £1 billion package to enhance England’s road network. The fund will target England’s most critical road structures and give councillors direct access to funding for proper, lasting fixes that make journeys safer and communities proud of the infrastructure that they depend on. For too long councils have known which bridges and flyovers need fixing, but they have not had the funding to do it properly. The structures fund will put funds directly into the hands of councils to fix those structures for good. That will allow people to get safely to where they need to be on infrastructure of which they can be genuinely proud.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney will be aware, my Department considers Hammersmith bridge a good candidate for investment from the structures fund. We intend to consider the viability of future funding for the next stage of works through that route. However, to ensure absolute fairness, any funding for Hammersmith bridge will be subject to the same controls and eligibility criteria as other schemes funded through the structures fund. In addition, any funding for Hammersmith bridge will be contingent on identifying a cost-effective engineering solution within a reasonable timescale. It is important that any chosen engineering solution must be affordable within the constraints of the structures fund. It is also an expectation of the Government that the local contribution toward the cost of any future repairs for Hammersmith bridge is provided. That is the case for all projects being assessed for funding through the structures fund. Although at present there are no plans to specify a minimum level of contribution, my Department intends to assess higher contributions and additional third-party contributions favourably. Some hon. Members mentioned a historical agreement to split the funding into a third, a third and a third. Obviously that was under a different Administration; I just know where we are today.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney continues to call for a further meeting of the taskforce. Indeed, I think we have had many exchanges on that question. Following the previous meeting of the forum, my officials continued their work with key stakeholders to progress viable engineering solutions for the next stage of the works on Hammersmith bridge. A final decision on those solutions will now be made via the structures fund. I assure my hon. Friend—and my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Chiswick and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson)—that when we are in a position to hold a further taskforce meeting, it will discuss issues of significance to the project and ensure that it remains a good use of stakeholders’ time. As such, I intend to convene a further meeting of the taskforce to discuss next steps once funding awards are made through the structures fund and agreed. My officials will be in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Putney to arrange the specifics of that meeting in due course.

I will remark briefly on the comments of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). It is a shame that he chose to make his response to this issue an overtly party-political broadcast. All I would say is that nobody is buying what he is selling in this instance. People have seen the history. They remember the history. They remember the inaction of the previous Government. We have a structures fund that will help to restore structures across our country. We are taking action; we are not just leaving it there on the desk with inaction.

In closing, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for her continued dedication to highlighting the issues of the closure of the bridge to motor vehicles, and the issues that causes to her constituents and others in the surrounding area. I assure her that my Department will provide appropriate support to LBHF for the Hammersmith bridge restoration project as it looks to progress the next stage of repairs through the structures fund.

11:58

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the Minister for his response. I am obviously disappointed that he did not suddenly announce when the taskforce will be, when the funding will be given, when the funding will be reconsidered and when the restoration will happen. I live in hope. I am disappointed not to have an update on the viability of the different options discussed by the taskforce and to have no timetable ahead, but I have hope. I am really glad to hear about the spending review settlement with the Treasury. I congratulate him for achieving that. I understand that it is no mean feat to get that money out of the Treasury and to have that money in the structures fund, for which Hammersmith bridge is a good candidate. I am glad that there are not too many other hon. Members in this Chamber vying for the same pot of money. We are good to go with who we have in the room—that will be fine.

I am also heartened to hear that the structures fund opened last week. That is the starting pistol and I hope to follow up from this debate with a meeting with the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, the Department for Transport and Transport for London to learn when they will apply to that fund. I am also heartened to hear that the third-third-third funding structure is being reconsidered. It is not necessarily the structure on the table, but I hope that the one that will get this over the line is the one on the table in the end.

I will keep coming back. I am sure that the Minister understands that I will continue to lobby on behalf of my constituents not only about the opening of Hammersmith bridge, but about the District line, about the roads, for more active travel and for the ability of cyclists and pedestrians in Putney to enjoy our roads and get where they need to go on time. I look forward to continue to work with the Minister and other hon. Members. I thank hon. Members who contributed to this debate. We work together very much on this issue for the good of our constituents. I look forward to more answers in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of Hammersmith Bridge.

17:25

Sitting adjourned.