Regional Transport Inequality

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

For rural areas such as South Norfolk, transport links are a lifeline. So I am delighted that this Government are doing what previous Governments failed to do: investing in South Norfolk’s infrastructure. Already I have secured a £200 million investment to upgrade the Thickthorn junction, shaving valuable, lifesaving minutes off journeys for ambulances to access the Norfolk and Norwich hospital, which will also benefit the constituency of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) directly. I have also secured £2.6 million for key cycle and footpath access across Norfolk, including the Hethersett to Norwich research park cycle route. But there is more to do.

Today I want to touch on three points: first, rural road safety; secondly, bus services in South Norfolk; and thirdly—the Minister will not be surprised to hear me mention this again—Wymondham train station.

On my first point, I am currently running a constituency-wide survey on rural road safety in South Norfolk. Once the survey has concluded, I will share my findings with Norfolk county council, the police and crime commissioner for Norfolk and the Roads Minister. What is already clear, however, is that Norfolk roads are simply not fit for purpose. They are unsafe and covered with potholes, despite our Labour Government increasing Norfolk county council’s budget for pothole repairs to £56 million.

On bus services, the situation is just as frustrating. For disabled and less mobile residents of estates like the Hampdens in Costessey, bus services are in effect non-existent. The whole of the Hampdens estate is without bus services—they deserve better than this enforced isolation.

I now turn to Wymondham train station. As the Department already knows from my many, many lobbying attempts, platform 2 southbound from Wymondham has no step-free access—it is a Victorian train station that is celebrating its 180th birthday—so anyone with a mobility issue wanting to travel south from Wymondham must first travel all the way north to Norwich, then turn around and travel all the way back down. That is completely inefficient, isolating and unjust.

Once again, the primary victims of poor transport provision are elderly and disabled people. Accessibility upgrades to Wymondham station are being considered by the Access for All scheme. I realise that the Minister will not be able to comment in any detail about Wymondham station, but I can think of no better way to prove the Government’s dedication to tackle regional transport inequality than to make it accessible for all.

Viewers of the BBC’s “Politics East” would expect all politicians from East Anglia to want to talk about another aspect of rail use: the Ely and Haughley junction upgrade. I will continue to lobby on this cross-party issue across the whole of East Anglia. The upgrade would shave off valuable minutes and increase freight haulage to Felixstowe, which would be a huge economic boost for our region, and I would get more services to Wymondham and Spooner Row, which would be a win for everyone. Again, I put that on the Minister’s to-do list.

To sum up: we need to hold Norfolk county council to account for failing to fix our roads, we need to continue making progress to improve access to bus services, and Wymondham station must finally be made accessible to all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am aware that my hon. Friend’s Bill does not make a call on the public purse, at least on the Treasury, and it is for local authorities to opt into the scheme should they wish to. It sounds like a very exciting project and one that should be developed further.

I mentioned the A12 in East Anglia, but there is also the A47 near Great Yarmouth. The Conservatives’ RIS2 included dualling to North Tuddenham, which is going on at the moment—I declare an interest as it is in my constituency—as is the dualling of the Brundall to Blofield stretch of the A47. Labour came into power and cancelled all further improvements.

[Ben Goldsborough]

The shadow Minister talks about the A47, which runs through my constituency. Would he agree that the £200 million being spent on the improvement of the Thickthorn junction in our area will make a huge difference, compared to the £50 million wasted by Norfolk county council, run by his party, on a road that has not had an inch of tarmac laid?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention gives me the opportunity to raise the proverbial eyebrow at his claiming credit for securing £200 million for the Thickthorn roundabout when that has been in process for many years before he was elected. As for the £50 million he mentions, I think he means the western link road, which would be a huge improvement. At the moment we have the equivalent of the M25 for Norwich, but it is missing one section of 3.9 miles. The Conservatives are squarely behind finishing it: I am surprised to hear that Labour does not support the residents of Norwich in a similar way.

I will move on to what Labour has done. It has cancelled the further improvements on the A47, particularly at the other end towards Peterborough. That is just another example of where East Anglia has been ignored by Labour. Buses are the most popular form of public transport and the most important one in areas of high deprivation. They are particularly important for poorer members of society, the young, elderly and disabled. The Conservatives recognise that—we recognise that price matters—so the last Government introduced the £2 bus fare cap, and our manifesto commitment at the last election was to maintain it throughout the course of this Parliament because we recognised how popular and useful it was in increasing bus ridership. When Labour came to power, it had a choice: it could back passengers or it could back the unions. One of its first—shameful—acts in government was to give a 15% pay rise to ASLEF train drivers, who are already the best paid in Europe, paid for by a 50% increase in bus fares for passengers around the country. That speaks to a wider truth: when it comes to it, Labour is the party of the unions and not of the people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I have no problem with the unions making demands—after all, they are representing the interests of their members. What I complain about is the Government giving way to them at the expense of the general public.

On trains, we have got the cancelled projects as well. The midland main line electrification has been cancelled, which has led to lay-offs and the loss of expertise. It is also causing problems for the procurement of new bi-mode trains, because we no longer have any certainty as to whether the line will be electrified. At Dawlish, the Conservative Government completed phases 1 to 4 of the improvements and reinforcement of the line. Phase 5 is all that remains. What have the Government done? They have kicked it into the long grass, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for which I give him credit.

Back in East Anglia, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) highlighted the need for the Ely junction and Haughley junction projects in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk to be advanced, yet they have been ignored by the Government.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will not, because I am running out of time. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

What is the big plan? It is one of nationalisation for railways. We must look at the Government’s motive—what do they think it is going to do? It is not about unifying track and train, because that was already in the Williams-Shapps review; that was going to happen without nationalisation. Is it about reducing fares? If so, it is backfiring, because nationalised train companies’ fares are rising above inflation. Is it about increasing efficiency? One would hope so, but through the Government’s nationalisation process they are decapitating the management teams that drive efficiency in the individual rail companies.

Is it about increasing passenger numbers? The inconvenient truth for Labour is that under privatisation passenger ridership on the railway doubled, because the companies were incentivised to chase ridership. That was driven by increased open access routes, yet the Government have opposed every single application for open access since the election. Is it to save money? If so, they are not doing a very good job. On South Western Railway—one of the first to be nationalised since the election—they wasted £250 million on infrastructure overspend with the rolling stock leasing companies due to Government negotiating incompetence.

The truth is that the Government are doing it because it is an article of Labour faith—faith in the big state—and also a key demand of the unions. How has it gone for them? As we have heard, ASLEF has already got a 15% pay rise, and the RMT is striking now. Next time, when GBR is finished, that strike will be national.

The Government are one year in. We have heard in the debate of cancelled scheme after cancelled scheme. We have also heard that prices have increased and that money has been diverted from passengers to union pay. That has done nothing for regional inequality, save for the industrial action that is spreading from London and engulfing the rest of the country. It is why passengers are so disappointed in Labour. They deserve better.