Lilian Greenwood MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Jun 2025 · Driving Test Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  I know that many learners are still struggling to book a driving test. We are working hard to reduce driving test wait times and help more people get on the road. In April, the Secretary of State announced further measures, including doubling examiner training capacity and offering overtime pay incentives. In May, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency launched a consultation on improving car driving test booking rules, which currently has over 30,000 responses. Over 630,000 learners now have a test booked. That number will rise as the DVSA increases test availability.

• 15 May 2025 · Vehicle Registration: Compliance · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is a great campaigner, and she is right to continue to highlight this issue. It is already illegal to sell and display that type of number plate, but I recognise that there is more to do. The DVLA is working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Home Office, various police forces and trading standards on the supply and use of these illegal number plates, and implementing stricter penalties and fines will be considered as part of our work on the new road safety strategy.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Road Safety and Active Travel to School · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend highlights the fantastic work that many local authorities are doing, and I welcome the evidence that she shared. Since Active Travel England was created, we have seen a fivefold improvement in schemes meeting minimum quality standards, ensuring that what is being built is of a higher quality, enhancing safety and increasing uptake while reducing collisions. That represents a significant improvement, considering that 70% of people cite safety as the main barrier preventing them from walking, wheeling or cycling. The work of Active Travel England is key to delivering high quality and value for money improvements to our roads and the public realm. That includes rural areas. As a number of hon. Members rightly highlighted, this is about not only safety, but extending opportunities for young people and others who cannot or do not want to drive. As part of its role, Active Travel England is improving connections with new housing developments. That is vital for places experiencing housing growth, as a number of hon. Members mentioned. Where roads and public services, including new schools or health centres, are being built, it should be the perfect opportunity to build in active travel infrastructure from the start, which is much cheaper and easier than trying to retrofit it later.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point, and people can see for themselves which party is on the side of motorists and road users. We have provided an extra £500 million in the current financial year, on top of the previous Government’s funding baseline and the Network North money for 2024-25. It is a huge increase. For most authorities, it means around 36% or 37% more than last year, and of course it is just the start. As many hon. Members have observed today, a one-off uplift will not fix all the problems—it was never going to. However, through the spending review, we are determined to secure a long-term funding settlement to allow local highway authorities to plan ahead with confidence. Strangely, the only time the previous Government promised long-term funding was nine months before the general election, knowing full well that they had not put any cash aside to pay for it. We are determined to ensure that the extra funding we are providing genuinely leads to extra spending by local authorities, rather than simply allowing them to put less of their own funding into highway maintenance. That is exactly why we are introducing the extra reporting requirements that the Secretary of State set out. The information that councils publish in June will shine a spotlight on this issue in a way that has not happened before. It will allow local people to see for themselves what repairs and resurfacing their council is planning, and how this compares with other local authorities. It will help the Department and the public to understand matters such as which authorities are putting their own funding into the pot, and which are doing the most to prepare their networks for the wetter winters that we are already seeing.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Supporting Electric Vehicle Usage · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are accelerating the roll-out of charging infrastructure: it was up 32% in the 12 months to 1 March this year. We are engaging with industry to improve consumers’ experience, including with contactless payments and design standards. Electric vehicles also receive favourable tax rates, with targeted grants supporting electric vans, taxis and wheelchair-accessible vehicles.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to raise these concerns on behalf of learner drivers. On 18 December, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency set out a seven-point plan that recognises the need to fix the driving test booking system, so that we can get new drivers on the road. I will hold it to account for delivery of that plan and the changes that my hon. Friend and his constituents need to see.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Electric Vehicles · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that one in three used electric cars are now under £20,000, and data suggests that owners should expect an EV to last just as long as an internal combustion engine car. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe has developed a new global technical regulation, which would set standards for the lifespan of an EV battery and its minimum durability. We are analysing options for the implementation of such regulations in the UK.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Old Oak Common Station · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on securing this debate on the impact of Old Oak Common on rail services to Wales and the west of England. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. This Government understand the important role the rail network plays in providing connectivity to support economic development, housing and employment growth, as well as access to jobs, public services and leisure. That is why we have made fixing Britain's railways one of our top transport priorities. We have been clear that rail services have been failing passengers for too long. Cancellations are at a 10-year high and punctuality is inconsistent across the network, so I will take no lectures from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). We need to improve services for passengers and deliver better value for money for the taxpayer. We have taken immediate action, such as bringing an end to the long-running pay dispute with train drivers, and Ministers continue to meet managing directors of train operators and their Network Rail counterparts to address poor performance and demand immediate action to raise standards. If the shadow Minister’s Government were in power, we would still see drivers out on strike. Just last week, the Minister for Rail met again with Great Western Railway and Network Rail to ensure that they are progressing their plans to restore reliability on the route. I will respond to the questions from the hon. Member for Cheltenham in a little while. First, I will address the subject of the debate. Old Oak Common station is a crucial enabler for the Government's growth mission. It will be not just a connection to HS2 for Birmingham and the north, but a destination in its own right, providing access to work and housing development alongside better connections to other services, including the Elizabeth line through central London, and to Heathrow airport. However, I recognise hon. Members’ concerns about the impact of the station and the construction works on rail services from Wales and the west.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and Local Road Networks · Hansard source

  More

  I had forgotten that would happen at 7 pm. The introduction of four East West Rail passenger trains per hour on top of existing passenger and freight services would represent a significant uplift in the rail traffic passing over the level crossing. On one level, that is a benefit, including to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, who will have those new options for connectivity and the choices that brings in jobs, education or just getting about. That is a huge advantage not just to his area, but to the country. However, I understand that it does have less welcome impacts, and he has described the severance issue in his constituency in Bicester. Indeed, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who is not in his place, took the opportunity to highlight the importance of listening to the concerns of local communities when developing national infrastructure projects and working with them to mitigate any adverse impacts. I understand the importance of trying to do that. Turning back to London Road and the level crossing, the level crossing barriers are currently closed for around 10 minutes every hour, but the closure time is expected to regularly exceed 32 minutes in the hour once all East West Rail services are operational, and the barriers could be closed for up to 12 and a half minutes of continuous downtime at a time. The impact of that would be queues half a mile long in either direction. That would have a huge impact not only on those stuck in the queue, but on air quality and broader congestion. It would cause the significant traffic disruption that the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock is rightly keen to avoid, creating long tailbacks, potentially through the centre of town, on a daily basis. In addition to the traffic issues that would be caused by retention of the crossing, we also have to consider the personal safety of crossing users, whether they are crossing on foot, on bicycles or other non-motorised means. Analysis undertaken by the East West Railway Company determined that the risk of collision between a train and a road user, whether through misuse of the level crossing or an accident, was simply too high with the uplift in East West Rail services. We know that level crossings are a point of vulnerability on the rail network, and safety has to be a top priority. In the view of the East West Railway Company and Network Rail, no further steps could be taken to improve the safety of the level crossing without undertaking its closure. I understand how disappointing that is to members of the hon. Gentleman’s local community. The East West Railway Company has reviewed all the possible options for the crossing, having consulted on them in 2021. Those options include a road bridge over the crossing and a road tunnel underneath it. As the East West Railway Company set out in its 2023 route upgrade announcement, providing an overbridge or an underpass presented insurmountable design, constructability and affordability challenges, and those options were not progressed. I recognise, as the hon. Gentleman said, that when the area around the station was redeveloped, I think back in 2014, there might have been an opportunity to look at different ways the crossing could have been done, but at the time there was no East West Railway Company, and perhaps there was a lack of join-up that could have been provided at that time. However, I am afraid we are 10 years on from that. The East West Railway Company did undertake to explore options to leave the road open to local traffic and develop options to retain connectivity for pedestrians, cyclists and other non-vehicle users, which would of course include mobility scooter users such as the constituent that the hon. Member referred to. Ensuring accessibility for those groups is extremely important. Since 2023, the East West Railway Company has also considered providing new road bridges crossing the railway at other locations in Bicester. I am afraid that the modelling work undertaken on the downtime of the level crossing barriers produced the results that I set out for the extended closure period, so it is deemed not appropriate to retain the level crossing for local use only. Providing road bridges in other locations in Bicester has also been ruled out on the grounds of affordability and constructability. East West Rail has provided further details of its analysis that led to those conclusions in the technical report accompanying the current non-statutory consultation. I am sure that the hon. Member is aware of that, and that his constituents and those watching either will have read that or will now go and seek it out. The options currently out for consultation of a pedestrian footbridge or underpass—they would of course be built to suitable accessibility standards to provide opportunities for cyclists and those using mobility scooters—alongside local road diversions, aim to provide the best possible balance between affordability and constructability and the needs of the local community in the hon. Member’s constituency. Both the footbridge and the underpass have been developed in the light of feedback received at and since the 2021 consultation. I assure him that there are opportunities for further design refinements to ensure that the solution meets the community’s need. I note the hon. Member’s comments about the issues that he would like to see addressed and what he believes the majority of his constituents would prefer. I assure him that the Government are listening and that I and my colleague the Rail Minister will be happy to keep in touch with him. I am sure there will be opportunity for further discussion as things progress.

• 30 Oct 2024 · Roadworks: Journey Times · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) on securing this debate on the impact of roadworks on journey times, and I thank all Members who have contributed to what has been an informative and interesting discussion. People use our roads to make journeys every day, and how we manage them has a direct impact on everyone’s lives. The frustration caused by congestion and the poor condition of our roads are recurring themes that my Department and I are focused on. I am sure that we all, as Members of Parliament, hear the concerns that have been exposed today every time we knock on a door, frankly. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne about growing traffic congestion. That is one reason why the Government are acting to enable more people to choose public transport or active travel. We need to tackle that congestion and to think about it in the round. We are determined to deliver a transport network that works for all road users, whether they are drivers, bikers, cyclists, bus passengers, pedestrians or horse riders. The challenge of congestion will only grow, given that over the coming years the number of roadworks will increase because of new housing developments, the continued roll-out of broadband and the need to meet our targets for installing electric vehicle charge point infrastructure to deliver the Government’s commitment to net zero. We also all need the services provided by utility companies, and we want them to maintain and improve their infrastructure. More than 2.2 million works take place in England each year, and the congestion created costs around £4 billion. In addition, the Government are determined to tackle the problem of potholes and other road defects on our networks. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne will know, we have a manifesto commitment to fix 1 million more potholes a year, every year of this Parliament. I am pleased to say that we have already made a start by announcing, in today’s Budget, a £500 million funding increase for local authorities in 2025-26, which is an increase of almost 50% from 2024-25 levels. I am more than aware that authorities and Members alike will be interested to know how their areas and communities will benefit from that funding, and specific allocations will be announced in due course. In total, the Department for Transport will invest about £1.6 billion in local highway maintenance in the next year. That includes additional funding on top of that already provided to city mayors through the city region sustainable transport settlements, to help local councils to maintain and renew their local highway network. Future capital investment in our infrastructure, including roads, rail and other things, will of course come in the spending review in the spring. I enjoyed the contribution from the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), and I hope that the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Transport enjoyed it, too, as that is a matter for her and the Scottish Government. The pressure on our road networks caused by works is not going away. However, we want to find the right balance between allowing necessary works to go ahead and minimising the disruption for everyone using our roads.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Lower Thames Crossing · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Efford. It is always a pleasure to see you in the chair. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) on securing this debate on an issue which I am well aware is of great importance and interest to him and his constituents. It is great to see quite a number of those constituents here today, to see other hon. Members, and to see very many people in the freight and logistics sector too, on whose behalf my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has spoken with great passion. I would also like to thank him and other hon. Members here today for their engagement on this matter so far, including my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna). I know that they are working very hard on behalf of their constituents. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has written to my Department several times on the issue of congestion at Dartford, as well as on progress on the application for a development consent order for the lower Thames crossing, a nationally significant infrastructure project connecting Essex, Thurrock and Kent. The application for the lower Thames crossing development consent order was made under the Planning Act 2008 by National Highways, submitted to the planning inspectorate in October 2022, and accepted in November 2022. The appointed examining authority began its examination in June 2023 and concluded it in December 2023. The Secretary of State received the examining authority’s recommendation report on 20 March this year, with a statutory deadline of 20 June for a decision. Following a written Ministerial statement in May, the statutory deadline was extended to 4 October due to the general election. The deadline has since been further extended, to 23 May 2025, to allow more time for the application to be considered, including any decisions made as part of the spending review. As with all nationally significant infrastructure projects, this is a complex scheme. There can be detailed matters that need to be worked through even after an examination has closed to ensure a legally robust decision is made. The Government recognise that transport infrastructure is vital for growth and acknowledge the critical role that roads play in our national transport system, facilitating the movement of people and goods that underpin the UK economy.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Draft Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire—and the hon. Member for West Dorset for their thoughtful contributions, and I welcome the shadow Minister’s support for the regulations. As I set out in my opening comments, the Department conducted a review that ended in 2022; there is no question that this instrument continues work that started under the previous Government. If one wished to play political games, I suppose one might query why it has taken such a long time for the regulations to appear in front of a Committee—it is this Government who have ensured that they have been considered in in good time. We continue to work closely with the haulage sector, which we are determined to support. We have already recognised the importance of freight and logistics, with new wording in the draft national planning policy framework that recognises the importance of the industry. The shadow Minister may have missed it, but in recent weeks I have also announced further funding to support improved heavy goods vehicle parking and driver welfare, and further support for the freight transport sector through the freight innovation fund. However, I am straying off the point of today’s debate. Let me answer the question about the quality of e-learning. I am pleased that Liberal Democrats colleagues have welcomed the flexibilities introduced by this legislation. I reassure them that the Department considers 3.5 hours for stand-alone e-learning courses to be the right balance, providing increased flexibility for drivers taking their training while ensuring that the course is long enough to be meaningful. There will be an audit process and the DVSA will still approve all courses to make sure that they are of suitable quality. I raised particular concerns about how we will ensure that people are participating fully in the e-learning; I am reassured that there will be a start and end time, so drivers will not be able to scoot through the courses quickly, and that courses may include quizzes to ensure engagement and test that learning has taken place, although there are no mandatory course assessments. All courses are audited by the DVSA to check records and we will make sure that they deliver the safe standards that we want to see. The shadow Minister asked who will undertake the international DCPC. As I am sure he will be aware, a majority of freight drivers—possibly as many as 90%—operate only within the UK, so they may well choose to do the national DCPC. Many hauliers, though, also drive across the European Union, as those routes are very important for our supply chains and for getting exports out to Europe, including the EEA and Switzerland; of course, those drivers will want to continue to do the international DCPC. Flexibility exists within the courses, so if a driver completes a seven-hour course, it will count towards either the national or international DCPC—they can easily upgrade their national DCPC to an international DCPC depending on the courses they choose to undertake to make up the 35 hours. I hope that provides the hon. Member with reassurance that this provision will continue to be available for British drivers who need to operate internationally. These reforms to the way in which professional drivers renew their driver certificate of professional competence will provide increased flexibility to those in the sector while maintaining the original purpose of the qualification: to improve road safety and driver professionalism. To abolish the qualification would be counter to those aims, although I am interested that no one has mentioned doing so today. We did consider that possibility but decided to keep the 35 hours of training because 60% of consultation respondents supported keeping the process as it is or reforming it—and it is really important for road safety and maintaining professional skills and standards in the industry. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to .

• 29 Oct 2024 · Draft Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) (Amendment) Regulations 2024. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The purpose of this statutory instrument is to introduce an alternative route for renewal of the driver certificate of professional competence, or DCPC, that will be recognised across all four nations of the United Kingdom and will offer more flexible courses than the current system, with an accelerated pathway for drivers to return to the profession. The existing process for demonstrating competence, which is recognised across Europe, will remain for drivers who operate within the European Union, and indeed Switzerland and the European economic area, and will remain valid when driving in the UK. We are amending the existing Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) Regulations 2007 under powers conferred by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. The regulations transposed EU directive 2003/59/EC and were last amended in 2020. We are amending the regulations to increase the choice and flexibility available to drivers when they renew. Members may remember that, back in 2021, there was an acute shortage of lorry, bus and coach drivers, which caused significant disruption to critical supply chains. As part of its response, in 2021 the Department launched a review of DCPC that involved the industry, seeking views on ways to improve processes to increase recruitment and retention. Many felt that the current renewal process is inflexible and unnecessarily burdensome —in particular, the time and cost burdens of the periodic training required for the renewal of qualifications. Drivers must currently do 35 hours of training under a rigid structure, with courses being a minimum of seven hours and most being trainer led. It was identified that that contributed to drivers leaving the profession. In the 2021 review, drivers and former drivers stated that the burden of renewing the certificate of professional competence acted as a barrier to those considering joining or looking to renew their qualification, leading to people leaving the sector. A public consultation was launched in early 2023, suggesting options for possible changes to the ways of demonstrating professional competence. That consultation, along with regular industry engagement, has informed the reforms we are proposing today to give drivers more options and greater flexibility during the renewal process, and to assist the industry in retaining and recruiting drivers. As I said, drivers currently renew their DCPC every five years in order to drive in the UK or the EU by doing 35 hours of training through a rigid system of courses, each of which is a minimum of seven hours long, with little option for e-learning. We are introducing a national qualification to sit alongside the existing international qualification. The national qualification, which will be valid across the UK, will still require 35 hours of training every five years, but courses can be shorter, with a minimum of three and a half hours, and there will be more e-learning available, with the introduction of new stand-alone e-learning courses. This flexibility was requested by many in the industry, particularly by drivers. We are also introducing an accelerated pathway to allow drivers to return to the workforce. If a driver’s DCPC has lapsed by more than 60 days but less than two years, the driver can take a seven-hour bespoke return to driving course to gain a one-year national DCPC. That window of time was chosen to avoid drivers deliberately allowing their DCPC to lapse in order to take the accelerated return pathway, and to avoid drivers who have been out of the profession for a prolonged time from rejoining without adequate retraining. Within the 12-month validity period of their national DCPC, the driver can then do the remaining 28 hours of training to gain a full five-year national or international DCPC. I am aware that some in the industry would have liked to abolish the DCPC entirely, and although I have some sympathy with drivers who see it as a burden based on time and cost to renew, I do believe that it is necessary for road safety and driver professionalism; overall, that was supported in the consultation. Additionally, due to the requirements of the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU, and other international obligations, the DCPC must be kept for most commercial international road transport. The reforms will make renewing or regaining a DCPC much easier and more flexible for operators, particularly drivers, easing the impact on work-life balance while not reducing the quality of the education drivers receive to ensure we maintain a safe and highly professional workforce in the road freight and passenger transport sectors. The draft regulations will make changes to the driver certificate professional competence regulations by making the renewal process more flexible for drivers operating solely in the UK, and they may help to reduce the chances of future driver shortages. We listened to stakeholders in all four nations while developing the amendments, and we expect these regulations to support the industry while ensuring a professional and safe workforce throughout the UK and beyond. To help the industry understand the more flexible training route, the Driver Vehicle Standards Agency in Great Britain and the Driver and Vehicle Agency in Northern Ireland will issue guidance to the industry. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

• 16 Oct 2024 · Driving Test Availability · Hansard source

  More

  No debate would be complete without an intervention from the hon. Member. I have not yet had the opportunity to meet his colleague to discuss this issue, but I would be very willing to do so. That reminds me that I wanted to respond to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central. The DVSA is aware that the landlord of the current driving test centre in Reading has been granted planning permission to redevelop the site, which he referred to. The DVSA has identified a new location. It is in the early stages of negotiations, but it will confirm the new location as soon as it is able. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to raise this point in my regular meetings with the chief executive of the DVSA. In conclusion, the Department for Transport and the DVSA recognise the impact that long driving test waiting times are having on learner drivers and driving instructors. It is our priority to reduce driving test waiting times while upholding road safety standards. We want everyone to enjoy a lifetime of safe, sustainable driving. Finally, I wish Molly, the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, very best wishes when she gets the opportunity to take her test. I am sure we all hope that she passes the second time.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I have also noted the relevant contributions made by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire in the King’s Speech debate on planning, the green belt and rural affairs on 19 July this year and on the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill debate on 29 July. I am also aware that the hon. Member participated in the examination of the application as an interested party. I thank him for the contributions he has made in that respect. The concerns that the hon. Member has raised include the impact due to the proximity of the application site on the local Fosse villages of Elmesthorpe, Stoney Stanton, Sapcote, Sharnford, Aston Flamville, Potters Marston, Croft, Huncote, Thurlaston and Wigston Parva; impacts from an increase in heavy goods vehicles on the local road network; the lack of a national strategy for the location of logistics parks; the proximity of other rail freight interchanges; public engagement on the application; the impact and delays at Narborough railway station and level crossing; impacts on Burbage common and woods nature reserve, located in the neighbouring Hinckley and Bosworth constituency; and the impact on local amenities as a result of increased job opportunities. I am also aware of the petition which the hon. Member presented to Parliament in October last year on behalf of local residents of the constituency of South Leicestershire. Both he and the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth have again represented their constituents’ concerns very effectively today. The application for the Hinckley national rail freight interchange development consent order was made under the Planning Act 2008. Under that Act, the Secretary of State for Transport has a quasi-judicial role in issuing decisions of applications for development consent orders for strategic rail freight interchanges, provided that they meet certain threshold conditions set out in the Act. Following the examination of the application by the Planning Inspectorate’s examining authority, the Secretary of State received the report containing its recommendation on 10 June this year. As the hon. Member for South Leicestershire acknowledged, the Secretary of State issued a “minded to refuse” letter this morning, having carefully considered the examining authority’s report. Her letter sets out that, while she is minded to agree with the examining authority’s recommendation to refuse the application, she first wishes to gather further information on certain matters. The Secretary of State requires further information on the safety concerns raised in respect of M1 junction 21 and M69 junction 3, and the lack of adequate transport modelling at that junction; the increased highway safety risk at Sapcote identified by the examining authority; the concerns raised by the examining authority on the impact on Narborough level crossing, particularly on people who might find using a stepped footbridge difficult; and any measures that might avoid or mitigate the potential harm identified by the examining authority to the occupiers of the Aston Firs Travellers’ site. The Secretary of State’s letter also invites comments on the revised sustainable transport strategy, the suggested amendments to the heavy goods vehicles route and the management plan strategy, and specific submissions in respect of noise impacts referred to in her letter. As the hon. Member for South Leicestershire said, a written ministerial statement was laid in Parliament this morning to extend the statutory deadline for a decision on this application to 10 March 2025. I appreciate that the extension is unwelcome to him and his constituents, but my understanding is that this is not particularly unusual. The extension to the deadline is required to allow for the submission of further information on the issues I have just mentioned before the Secretary of State takes a final decision on the application. The extension will also allow time for all interested parties to comment on that further information. The final decision will be taken as soon as possible, but it is important to allow time for those issues to be properly considered by all parties. The extension of the deadline means that the application remains a live planning application. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire understands that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits or otherwise of the application while it remains live. It would also not be appropriate at this time for me to elaborate on or add to the reasons set out by the Secretary of State in her letter. That is because, as the hon. Member for South Leicestershire acknowledged, the decisions by the Secretary of State on applications for development consent orders are quasi-judicial, and the decision is a matter for the Secretary of State alone. It would not be appropriate for me to take part in any discussion of the pros and cons of the proposal. I know the hon. Member understands that we must ensure that the process is correctly followed and remains fair to all parties. The examining authority’s recommendation report, which was published today alongside the letter from the Secretary of State, covers many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, and I encourage him and his constituents to read the report alongside the letter from the Secretary of State—I am sure he has already done so. Should he or his constituents have any further issues they would like to raise, I encourage them to write formally to the Department when invited, as part of the next-steps process for the application. The process going forward is outlined in the letter from the Secretary of State. I am loth to decline a meeting with hon. Members, but it could be perceived as bias if the Department meets objectors, but not the applicant and supporters. I understand that we have declined requests for other meetings. I highlight the need for nationally significant strategic rail freight projects more generally. The Government’s view is that the economic and environmental potential of rail freight is significant, and they are fully committed to supporting its growth. Under its plans to deliver the biggest overhaul of the railways in a generation, Great British Railways will have a duty and target to grow the movement of freight on our railways. I am sure it will be interested in the comments that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire made on ways that might be done. The Government support the development of an expanded network of SRFIs to facilitate the modal shift of freight from road to rail. Rail freight offers substantial economic and environmental benefits, as well as helping to reduce congestion on our roads and cost to industry. Strategic rail freight interchange projects are a key element in reducing the costs of moving more freight by rail, enabling goods to be efficiently transferred between transport modes, which is important because many rail freight movements cannot provide a full end-to-end journey. The sector also delivers economic and social benefits through cost savings to industry, creating employment and reducing congestion. Industry estimates that a single rail freight service can remove up to 129 heavy goods vehicle movements from our roads. Moving goods by rail results in about 7 million fewer lorry journeys each year. In 2018-19, it is estimated that rail freight contributed £2.45 billion in economic and social benefits to the country, 90% of which were likely to accrue to freight customers and wider society outside London and the south-east. Rail freight also offers benefits to the environment. A diesel-hauled rail freight service produces 76% less carbon dioxide per tonne of kilometre moved compared with road. Recent improvements using longer, heavier trains and alternative low-carbon fuels such as hydrotreated vegetable oil are reducing rail freight’s carbon footprint even further, making it one of the most carbon-efficient ways to move goods over long distances. Having said all that, it is of course important that every application for a new strategic rail freight interchange is carefully assessed to ensure that its benefits outweigh its impacts, including those on the local environment that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire described. I know, however, from his contributions to the debates on the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill that he does not oppose rail freight interchanges per se. He made that point again today in calling for a national strategy. Finally, I take the opportunity to reassure the hon. Member that the Secretary of State, in making a decision, will take into consideration the content of the examining authority’s report, the relevant policies, responses to her consultations and any representations received after the close of the examination. I assure the hon. Member that she will listen to the views of him and his constituents. I thank him and the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth for the opportunity to debate this matter today. Question put and agreed to.