Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I share my hon. Friend’s concerns regarding recent safety incidents on the A69 at Warwick Bridge. National Highways is considering in detail with local partners the case for detrunking the A69 and trunking the A689. That is a complex process, and I will ask National Highways to update her when more information is available.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

The Secretary of State appears to think it is scaremongering to suggest that, with effect from this weekend, passenger and freight traffic using the channel tunnel and the port of Dover will be disrupted as a result of the European entry and exit system. I do not want the grievance; I want the solution, and I want it before the event, not after it. What is the Secretary of State going to do to achieve an agreement with the European Commission and the French to suspend this ridiculous system until it works properly?

[Keir Mather]

With enormous respect to the right hon. Gentleman, we are taking proactive action to prepare for any potential EES disruption. We have spoken with our French and European counterparts about using the full range of easements, but most importantly, we have provided funding to the juxtaposed controls so that they can prepare for any disruption before it occurs.

Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising those points, and for enabling me to reflect on a question that has been raised by a number of Members: the question of about how engagement is to take place from now on. Let me make it absolutely clear that my expectation is for all engagement with CROs, whether through the MCA or meetings with Members of Parliament, to be conducted as openly and transparently as possible. I want CROs to feel able to share their views openly in all their complexity—and I found some of the allegations made last week by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about CROs being made to feel uncomfortable about sharing their views deeply concerning.

Let me reiterate that I will be making it clear to the MCA’s leadership that that is how I want them to approach this engagement. It includes ensuring that MPs and trade unions play their full role, and I hope that my hon. Friend can do so.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

This House has the capacity to criticise, but it also has the capacity to be fair. The Minister probably finds himself between a rock and a cliff face in a situation that he did not make himself. That does not absolve the MCA from the criticism that has rightly been levelled at it earlier today.

Mine is one of those peculiar constituencies that have both a north coast and a south coast. Those two coastlines are served by dedicated volunteers who go out in all weathers to save lives, and I have heard from some of them. It is quite clear that unless this situation is resolved swiftly, those people will be lost—and if they are lost, they will not come back. Obviously I cannot speak for others on these Benches, but I will back whatever measure the Minister seeks to take in order to ensure that there is a timely resolution to this issue, so that we do not lose good people.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I share his view that we cannot afford to lose the level of experience that we have within the MCA and the CRO community. I, too, heard the scale of concern that he so ably references and has experienced among his own coastguard volunteers. It is critical to recognise all the work that CROs undertake that lies outside the call-outs they receive. They do an enormous amount of work, which is not fully recognised and needs to be. On treating them with due respect and esteem, it is essential that we figure out a way forward that allows us to do so. The right hon. Gentleman has picked up the necessity to do that, and it is certainly my intention that that will inform whatever comes next in this process.

Small Towns: Transport Links

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. As you can see, a significant number of Members wish to participate. After the opening speech there will be an immediate time limit of three minutes per person. To discourage added minutes through interventions, I am not going to allow an added minute for any intervention. That does not mean you cannot intervene—you can—but the person speaking needs to know that they are not getting extra time as a result. I hope that is clear. I call Andy MacNae to move the motion.

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered transport links for small towns.

It is a pleasure, Sir Roger, to serve under your firm chairship. I thank the Minister for attending today. He has been a keen advocate for small towns, and I am sure a lot of the issues we will talk about today will be familiar to him.

Connectivity is not a luxury; it is a necessity. It underpins economic growth, but it also shapes something far more immediate and personal: our health, our independence and a sense of belonging. For our small towns, the quality of connection sends a powerful message about whether we are seen, valued and included in our national story. It would be a mistake to think of this as a question simply of how towns connect to cities. It is about the everyday journeys that define people’s lives: how they get from their front door to work, to school, to the shop or to the doctor.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

To end the exemption for old buses that are not fully accessible under the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 will mean that kids from rural constituencies will not be able to get a place on a bus to sixth form anymore, due to the limited bus stock and funding. Will the hon. Member join me in urging the Government—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. The next ground rule is that we do not read interventions. I hope that is clear. An intervention is an intervention. It is not a pre-prepared speech to read into the record for the benefit of the local press. I call Andy MacNae.

[Andy MacNae]

Thank you, Sir Roger. There will be an extensive section on buses—pages 75 to 300—so I am sure we will cover a lot of that sort of ground. Connectivity really matters for connecting communities. Ultimately, it is about how easily and affordably we can move through the place that we call home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

One of my constituents had a stroke last year. While he jumped through all the hoops required by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to get his driving licence restored, he was stranded in a rural village with no bus service, struggling to get to shops, medical appointments and so on. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that both DVLA delays and the lack of rural bus services need to be addressed by the Government?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. It is quite clear that a number of Members who are not on the speakers’ list are seeking to intervene. That is fine, but please understand that you are expected to remain in the Chamber to hear the winding-up speeches.

[Andy MacNae]

Thank you, Sir Roger.

The lack of buses disproportionately impacts people in small towns and villages, so it is crucial that we get this right. Fundamentally, we need to recognise that buses are a public service, not a commercial enterprise. I am pleased and proud that this Government have fully recognised that right from the start. The retention of the £3 bus fare cap and investment of £1 billion a year to support bus routes will benefit thousands of my constituents.

Looking forward, the Government’s commitment to empower local communities to take control of bus services, along with the requirement on local government to identify “socially necessary” routes, has the potential to deliver the joined-up services we need. But our reforms will only succeed if we address the practical barriers to delivering the day-to-day changes that our communities require. To give one example, in Edgworth near Darwen in my constituency, residents rely on healthcare, shops and schools in Bolton, yet over the years, bus services have been occasional and short-lived. This transport isolation is the single biggest issue raised with me by the community. When I spoke to a group of teenagers, they were clear that the best thing we could do to improve things for them would be simply to offer a bus into Bolton. Older residents say the same, so why have we not got one?

While there is a need for a subsidy, the fundamental issue seems to be that Bolton is in Greater Manchester, so the route would cross local authority boundaries. For years, no one seemed to want to take responsibility. Greater Manchester said it could not fund the route because residents of Blackburn with Darwen would be the beneficiaries, and Blackburn was unwilling to fund it because residents were going to spend their money in Greater Manchester—not exactly a joined-up system.

Things are changing, and I am pleased to say that a study commissioned by Blackburn with Darwen has finally recommended that the council get behind a new bus route. That is exactly the sort of thing that Government bus funding is supposed to enable; we just need to make it actually happen.

This cross-border issue is one that we face across Rossendale and Darwen. Its impact is compounded by the fact that so many of our crucial services are in other local authority areas, and that is true of so many other small towns. Solving this is a crucial test for the implementation of bus improvement policy, and I argue that it should be incumbent on existing mayoral authorities to work proactively with neighbouring councils to eliminate cross-border transport inequity.

Thirdly, I want to touch briefly on roads. Roads are an obvious and crucial connector. Many small towns are built around one or two key roads. Unlike in a city, where there are lots of options, when these roads are closed or disrupted by street works, the entire community feels it. For instance, in both Rossendale and Darwen, we have one main road that runs through the whole valley. When it is blocked or the traffic is severe, it is not just an inconvenience; it has serious impacts on local businesses and residents. Indeed, several well-established local businesses have told me they are considering leaving the area unless action is taken on congestion.

Unco-ordinated, overrunning roadworks are a constraint on small towns and must be treated as such. Councils need the powers to properly police contractors and incentivise quick completion. I welcome the Government’s support for continuing the roll-out of lane rental schemes, which are proven to reduce congestion on the busiest roads. I will call on all local authorities, including Lancashire county council, to work with the Government and act with urgency to tackle this blight on our towns.

Finally, we come to rail. For so many small towns this is a crucial connection, yet services are often patchy and unreliable—if they exist at all. There are still far too many towns without an accessible rail link, leaving them on the edges of opportunity, not through a lack of ambition but through a lack of connection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy MacNae]

The hon. Lady raises a range of complex points, which the Minister will probably deal with in detail. I do not agree with her about buses, because there is plenty of local flexibility to allow that. When it comes to the Green Book, it is the misuse of the financial case—its prioritisation over the strategic case—that is the fundamental issue. The strategic case should always take priority.

The investment projects that the Government have brought forward—infrastructure projects and policy pathfinders—overwhelmingly focus on mayoral strategic authorities, which are big-city-focused. That needs to change. We need to recognise the moral, economic, social and political imperative of joined-up policy that enables all our towns to reach their potential, with connectivity at the heart of that ambition. That means not just one solution but a joined-up approach, with better rail links, bus services, roads that can be relied upon and safe, reliable access routes for cycling and walking.

It is not an either/or. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) said, we should not see the big transport infrastructure projects in the pipeline in isolation or just as city connectors; rather, they are enablers of connectivity and growth along the whole route. In the north, we have Northern Powerhouse Rail, which is a huge opportunity for our region, but if small town connectivity is not addressed, places such as Rossendale and Darwen will feel little benefit and the opportunity will be missed. With that in mind, I ask the Minister to meet me and colleagues to discuss how to make big infrastructure projects such as Northern Powerhouse Rail a catalyst in delivering connectivity and opportunity to the small towns and communities that need it most.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I call the Father of the House, who has three minutes.

Road Safety Powers: Parish and Town Councils

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has done tremendously well tonight, and he has been so generous with his time.

I am fortunate enough to represent two parish councils, one town council and numerous residents’ groups. Across my constituency, I have got dozens of councillors in Gildersome, Drighlington and Morley who obviously have the expert knowledge—the street-by-street knowledge, and in some cases the house-by-house knowledge—to make these decisions for themselves. My hon. Friend agrees that those councils should have the power to change speed limits in their area, so perhaps he would like to comment on the mean average speed tests that are often used to restrict speeding limits on certain roads? Maybe when she sums up, the Minister would also like to comment on that issue. I am tired, as are my residents, of being told that the mean average speed is too low to change things, even though people on those roads know through their lived experience that the outliers are causing all the problems. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Before we proceed, I think I am right in saying that every Member present who is likely to want to intervene has done so; well done. I would not wish hon. Members to believe that ordinarily they are likely to get away with the length of interventions that they have got away with tonight. I understand that this is an important issue, and that there are constituency matters that need to be raised and placed on the record, but do not take the lenience of the Chair for granted. Members should bear in mind, as one hon. Lady has not, that if they intervene, they are expected to stay till the end of the debate to hear the Minister’s response.

Department for Transport

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

When we talk about national renewal and about building a fairer country, that promise must be visible in places such as Cornwall. I am speaking today not just as the Member of Parliament for St Austell and Newquay and the clay country, but on behalf of a nation and region that has for too long been overlooked when it comes to transport infrastructure. While urban areas receive wave after wave of capital funding, Cornwall—despite its strategic economic potential—has to fight for anything more than basic improvements.

The Mid Cornwall Metro was billed as a flagship rail project for regional regeneration, but this summer we face the real possibility of reduced services, delays in driver training, and a fractured promise to towns such as Newquay that rely on connectivity to survive and thrive. That is not fairness; it is failure. We must move beyond piecemeal, incremental improvements. A “real” Mid Cornwall Metro would link St Austell to Newquay via the western clay country, and is about as shovel-ready as is possible with a major project of that scale in Cornwall. It is backed by rigorous analysis and an albeit outdated feasibility study, and has a cost-benefit ratio of 2.3. It would connect our critical minerals industry with global opportunity, it would help our young people gain access to jobs and training, and it would breathe life into some of the most under-invested communities in the south-west.

We know there are still announcements to come, but Cornwall cannot sit at the back of the queue any longer. Over the period covered by the spending review, the south-west will receive £201 million in local transport grant funding. I think that is about a quadrupling of the present amount, which is extremely welcome, but just £24.4 million of it is allocated to Cornwall. In the same period, the West of England combined authority, despite its similar population, will receive £752 million. We should like to see the same progress on investment in transport as we have seen in so many other areas, such as local government—with its fair funding—and health, given today’s announcement about the Carr-Hill formula. What we need is a Department for Transport that works with us in Cornwall, not around us. We need proper devolved authority over our local rail system to optimise transport integration and to serve forgotten communities such as Foxhole, Nanpean, Treviscoe and St Dennis, where our track turns to trackbed; we need investment that reflects our economic and industrial ambition; and we need decisions that are based on public good, not on postcodes.

The Green Book review, in proposing place-based approaches to investment, sets our Government a clear challenge. Cornwall is ready to step up to that challenge. Much of the shadow of what we now see as our infrastructure was cast in the last industrial revolution, but with the right investment in Cornwall, we can lead in the next.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon]

No, I suspect it will not be the last time I hear it.

There will be occasions when Labour Members fail to read the previous Government’s announcements, so for their benefit let me point out how the funding sums promised to authorities by the previous Government have been closely replicated, in some cases identically replicated, by those promised in this Government’s spending review announcements. For example, for West Yorkshire, £2.115 billion was promised in 2023, and £2.115 billion in 2025; for Greater Manchester, £2.47 billion was promised in 2023, and £2.47 billion in 2025; for the Liverpool city region, £1.58 billion was promised in 2023, and £1.58 billion in 2025; and for West Midlands, £2.65 billion was promised in 2023, and £2.4 billion in 2025. I could go on, but Members will recognise the point. The estimates and the spending review are not new and they are not innovative.

Turning to the substance of the Government’s plans, I want to take this opportunity to examine some of the assumptions underpinning this spending review. I am afraid those assumptions are flawed. The first relates to the supposed benefits of nationalisation. The spending review anticipates that the Department for Transport’s resource departmental expenditure limits, which is its day-to-day revenue spending, will fall by 5% in real terms during the next three years. I do not dispute that it is possible to make savings in the Department for Transport, but I do question the means by which the Government expect to deliver those savings. The spending review claims:

“Resource DEL funding falls in real terms over the period, primarily driven by a declining rail passenger services subsidy as passenger ridership and revenue continue to recover post COVID-19 and efficiencies and savings are made through public ownership.”

This is another entry in the ever-growing list of benefits that Labour claims nationalisation will deliver—lower fares, no strikes, better services and now lower spending.

Let us be clear: this is political daydreaming, not economic reality. The first train operating company to be brought into public ownership by the Government was South Western Railway, and we have already seen unexpected costs with its rolling stock. Credible reports show that mistakes made by the Government will cost the taxpayer an anticipated £250 million more. The Transport Secretary herself has admitted that nationalisation is not a silver bullet. She is right, but the narrative presented in the spending review and these estimates continues to rely on assumptions that remain unproven.

Labour’s ideological plan to nationalise even the best performing rail operators will benefit neither passengers nor taxpayers. Beyond the loss of private sector investment, nationalisation also poses a deep structural risk, because under a single nationalised employer, there will be enormous pressure to harmonise terms and conditions across the entire railway workforce. That may sound harmless or even desirable, but in practice it means the trade unions openly calling for levelling up pay, benefits and working practices to the most generous standards currently found in the system, and they have wasted no time in doing that. I am sure that their members will be delighted by that, but for the Government, the taxpayer and the fare payer, that has one inevitable outcome: rising costs, almost certainly with no corresponding rises in productivity. Far from delivering savings, this sets the stage for spiralling costs, renewed industrial action and even poorer services for passengers.

Turning to the wider economic picture, the Government claim their infrastructure plans are

“creating the conditions for sustainable economic growth in communities throughout the UK.”

However, the truth is that the greatest barrier to growth in this country is not a lack of spending. How could it be when current levels of spending are just about the highest in our entire peacetime history? No, the greatest barrier to growth is the economic mismanagement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and this Labour Government.

We know that to fund this increased spending, Labour has not got control of the welfare bill, or reduced the size of the state, but simply changed the fiscal rules to allow billions more in borrowing. More borrowing is certainly not the long-term answer—this is not free money. Britain already spends almost £106 billion a year just to service its debt. For context, those payments outweigh what we spend to protect our country not just from foreign threats, but from crime at home, because our debt-servicing payments exceed the combined amounts allocated in the spending review to the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. That is not just unsustainable, but irresponsible.

Higher spending and higher borrowing fuels inflation. It undermines growth and it blows a hole in the public finances. Of course, we all know how Labour plans to fill that hole—with higher taxes. Will the Transport Secretary urge the Chancellor to restore discipline to the public finances? I hope she does. Will she set a credible strategy to deliver efficiencies within the Department for Transport? I hope she does, so that come autumn we are not hit with yet another round of tax hikes.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this estimates debate, exploring their priorities for Government spending, including those Members who presented a vision with which I might disagree. We must acknowledge that the Government continue to offer more questions than solutions. In transport, we are presented with legislation to change bus policy without the funding that we know will be required to implement it properly. We await pipeline plans, railway reform papers and road investment strategies. When I was appointed shadow Secretary of State, I was initially faced by the former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), who constantly declared that she wanted

“to move fast and fix things.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 446.]

But nearly a year into this Government, it feels as though things are moving at the speed of a canal boat in reverse—very slowly and taking the country backwards.

The problem is not the current Transport Secretary, or the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who is responding to the debate today. The problem emanates from No. 10 and No. 11 Downing Street, because when the captain and the first officer of the ship have no ideas of their own, refuse to scan the horizon and see it for what it is, rather than what they would wish it to be, the journey ends up lost and directionless. For the good of the country, I hope that the Government will come to understand that real change means supporting British business and backing the everyday commuter. In the meantime, I fear these estimates are indicative of a Government who are not listening, failing to heed the warnings and will continue steering the ship of state straight towards the iceberg.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

Under this Government, Active Travel England gets settlements that go forward. I have to say that I thought the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip—the former Prime Minister—was actually very good in this space, but the announcements he made were then all pared back. Local authorities need to have long-term continuing investment to connect routes and get people walking, wheeling and cycling. My constituents die of type 2 diabetes, hypertension and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—all things that can be fixed by more of us walking, wheeling and cycling. Active travel is key to the Government’s health mission as well as to our transport mission.



I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for his contribution. He mentioned that the settlements for West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and the west midlands were similar to those from 2023. Yes, they are, but this Government are delivering on these settlements. We had so many promises from the last Administration, but we are delivering.

We will take no lessons from the Opposition on the costs of Great British Rail, which I think the nation is proud of, given that we were left to clear up the debacle of the overrun costs of HS2—a project that was cut by the previous Prime Minister while he was at the Tory party conference in Manchester. It was the most astonishing decision, and the most astonishing place to announce it. As a proud trade union member, I am glad that the trade unions have come to the table this past year. After years of industrial strife, we are solving the disputes, particularly in the railway industry, and services are beginning to improve.

On long-term investment, I gently remind the shadow Minister that he voted for Prime Minister Liz Truss’s Budget, which left us with a £22 billion black hole. We have been tackling that as well as setting out our ambition for the future. We are fixing the foundations of our transport system to deliver the Government’s priorities. Our funding settlement for 2025-26 enables us to press ahead with reforming our bus and rail services, to get to grips with the maintenance backlog, to empower local leaders to deliver, and to build transformative new routes for the country. The settlement announced earlier this month will build on that; it will drive progress on the Government’s missions, and improve transport for people and businesses across the country.

I thank hon. Members for contributing to the debate. I am grateful for the important work of the Transport Committee, and look forward to continuing to work with it. I commend the estimates to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call Ruth Cadbury to wind up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

This Government want to see the UK maximise the benefits of the future of flight technologies, including flying taxis, both for the economy and for communities. We recently announced over £20 million of Government funding for the Civil Aviation Authority and the future flight challenge to deliver the future flight programme this year. That joint programme between industry, Government and the CAA will enhance drone capability by 2027, with flying taxis in the UK’s skies by 2028. I would be delighted to visit Norwich and the airport in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

As the Minister is well aware, the Government have supported and signed off on the development consent order for Manston airport in my constituency. It is hoped and expected that the final private funding for that package will be in place and that work will start in the very near future. Will the Minister now reaffirm his support for the contribution that Manston can and will make to freight and growth in the United Kingdom, and can he also seek to expedite the necessary licences at the appropriate time?

[Mike Kane]

I was delighted to spend my Easter holiday in the right hon. Member’s constituency, cycling the Cantii way. I stopped and took a look at Manston airport—and a sip of water from my bottle, because it was a hot day. I am looking forward to the outcome of the talks and the funding, and at that point I will be happy to look at the proposals from Manston and sit down with the right hon. Member to unlock that capacity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

I acknowledge that my hon. Friend is a great champion for the airport near his constituency. We engage with airports to understand their plans. Stansted has committed to creating over 5,000 jobs from its £1.1 billion expansion, and it has established an employment skills academy in the Aerozone to boost careers and deliver STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—outreach. I encourage him to carry on engaging as he has been doing.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I know that the Aviation Minister will understand the need for a major diversion field in the south-east of England. With that in mind and in the light of my question to the Prime Minister yesterday, will he welcome the potential reopening of Manston airport in Kent in October 2028, and the huge investment and growth potential that will create?

[Mike Kane]

The right hon. Member, who raised this with me while I was in opposition and has now done so while I am in government, is a doughty champion for this campaign. Manston needs to come forward with its plans, which will be subject to a development consent order, and we will then make a judgment about what is in our best interests.

Airport Expansion

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

For too long and on too many issues, this nation just has not made the tough decisions. When it comes to airport expansion, our world-class aviation sector, admired across the world, and decarbonising our sector, we are making huge progress—more in the past six months than in 14 years under the Tories. We will continue on our mission of renewing the national airport strategy, and will look at development consent orders as they become live. That is a quasi-judicial matter, and I cannot comment on Luton and Gatwick, as Members know. We will wait to see whether Heathrow or a related party brings forward a development consent order.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Manston airport in Kent in my constituency has been fallow and the subject of legal action for far too long, but that is happily now behind us. We hope and expect that within the next few weeks, there will be announcements on funding that will lead to the development of a state-of-the-art net zero airport in Kent. Manston does not appear to feature in the Government’s plans. Can the Minister assure me that his eye is on that ball, and that Manston will become part of the growth programme?

[Mike Kane]

I have spoken to the right hon. Member about Manston in opposition and in government. We wait to see what will be brought forward there, but it could be an exciting opportunity, particularly for cargo; we could have zero emission vessels shipping content into the port of London. We will wait and see whether the airport comes with a development consent order, and we will judge that on its merits.

Roadworks: Journey Times

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Roger, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) on securing this very important debate.

Tonight, drivers in my constituency of Dumfries and Galloway will set what I think is a record. At the stroke of 8 pm, traffic cones will close the A75 road to motorists and force them to undertake a 96-mile—yes, 96-mile—diversion. That must surely be among the longest diversions ever forced on drivers. The overnight closure between Newtown Stewart and Castle Douglas is not a one-off; it is just the latest in a round of closures that will continue into November. A journey that normally takes 40 minutes will become a two and a half hour epic.

Although transport is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, I raise this issue in this Chamber because the A75, which is grandly titled the “Euro route” although it is often more akin to a cart-track, has significance for every one of our constituents. Sir Peter Hendy’s Union connectivity review identified the A75 as the key link between Northern Ireland, Scotland and England, as it serves the busy ferry port of Cairnryan in my constituency. It is of UK-wide importance. Estimates vary, but perhaps as much as 60% of Northern Ireland’s trade grinds along that road. Maintenance, as we have heard, is welcome and vital, but diversions such as the one I mentioned treat the public with contempt. Surely we can do better.

The other road that services the port of Cairnryan is the A77. It too could be a record breaker, for it had, according to the A77 action group, three closures for road accidents and 161 for works—and that is only between January and September of this year. It was shut on Monday and again on Tuesday; once for a lorry on fire and once for a lorry off the road. Further, the A77 still hangs by a thread in Glen App, where literally years of roadworks have failed to cure a landslip risk.

Scotland’s First Minister has agreed to visit Galloway to discuss roads from hell, which are screaming out for investment beyond mere patch-ups, and the £5 million in today’s Budget for the A75 is a start. I have invited the Secretary of State for Scotland to drive the A75 and the A77 too. He says his busy schedule will not allow it, but might someone from the Department for Transport make time to see how awful those unenviable record-breaking roads are? We hear boasts that Labour has reset relations with the SNP, so perhaps they could share a car with the First Minister.

Finally, I want to make an early plea that should anyone suggest a traffic cone tsar, we should instead call the position the cone arranger.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

That was terrible.

Driving Test Availability

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Before we proceed, let me first point out that I am going to call those who have submitted letters. Not every Member present and not every Member rising has written in. I have to give priority to those who have submitted an application to participate in the debate first. The second point I have to make, sadly, is that this debate is very time limited indeed. I am going to have to impose a time limit of three minutes and I may have to reduce that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for enabling the debate to happen, and everyone who has raised issues today. I will not add too much to the detail of what people have said already, but I will talk a bit about the impacts on my constituents.

I also need to declare an interest. I have reached 50 years of age without learning to drive, but changes to my circumstances at the start of July mean that there is now good reason and a strong imperative to do so. When I researched it over the summer for myself and for my husband, it became very clear that it was not an easy and immediate option for either of us. That was not a surprise, however, given the amount of messages already in my inbox.

By way of an example, a constituent of mine, Jai, came to my surgery on behalf of his daughter, who is desperate to start a career as a police officer—a career that we deeply need in constituencies across the country. She cannot start the job because she needs to be able to drive; she will be working in shifts. All she could find was a driving test months down the line in Birmingham, which is 150 miles away. She is one of the luckier constituents, in that she could actually find one.

My constituency has some significant areas of deprivation. I do not know, Sir Roger, whether you have been looking at the data packs produced by the Thames Estuary growth board this week, but they show some significant transport blackspots in my constituency and in yours. They are often associated with the areas of deepest deprivation, where it takes hours to get to centres for employment. Although we need to improve public transport and accessibility routes, it will take time. Furthermore, in constituencies with rural areas such as mine and those of many others in the room, we will always need to drive cars—it is fundamental.

There have been improvements to the capacity and number of tests and of people carrying them out, but I want to know how sustainable that is and what the plan is for sustainability. I want to know what has been learned to see how we could do things differently in the future to make sure that we do not get into this mess again. There is also the issue of blatant and obvious ticket touting. The technology now available with bots and other online grifters is turning a public service into a way to make money in a piratical way. What are the lessons for other implementations of digital services by the Government as, increasingly, that is the way services will be delivered?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Jas Athwal, you are on the list but you are not rising. Do you not wish to speak?

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Roger. I cannot speak because I have not made my maiden speech. I will make an intervention very shortly, thank you.