Gravesham: River Crossings

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Keir Mather.)

16:56:00

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to come to the House to discuss the importance of river crossings in my constituency of Gravesham. I am grateful to the Minister for giving up his time today to respond to the debate. I wish to cover two crossings: one old and closed, which is the Gravesend to Tilbury ferry; and one planned and very expensive, which is the lower Thames crossing. For those who do not know, Gravesham constituency is a river community. We are bound by the River Thames, with all its history, just as we Members are here in the House, and we are only 20 miles apart. For much of the history of the borough, there have been river crossings, certainly since Roman times. According to one esteemed local historian, Christoph Bull, the right of long ferry was exclusively given to Gravesend watermen to provide a river service to and from London. This is a bit of a history lesson, but that was confirmed by the King in 1401 in a charter, the aim being to help rebuild the town after a fire in 1380. Since then, there has been a river crossing in place between the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and mine. It has connected the two ancient kingdoms of Kent and Essex for eons, enabling travel for trade, leisure and tourism. Today, the Port of London Authority, which controls all travel of boats up and down the Thames, is based in my constituency, and I pay tribute to it. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution has a base on the river in Gravesend, and I know that the House would want to extend our thanks to it for the work it does across the country. The people of Gravesham and of my hon. Friend’s constituency of Thurrock are river people. Many families, including mine, have links to the river. My late father-in-law, Trevor Mochrie, was a Gravesend tug seaman, who worked on the river early in his career, before working on the high seas. As the river is the main artery to and from London, Gravesham was and is strong on industry, and it is a source of employment in tourism and leisure. In particular, we have our Gravesend regatta, which is celebrating 179 years. It was running before that, but it was made official 179 years ago by the council, because of some very unparliamentary disputes that took place about who won a race. I place on record my tributes to the committee, its chair, Shane Cleaver, and all the volunteers for keeping this tradition going in a sportsmanlike fashion, and there have been no further disputes of that kind. Given that extensive local history and heritage, it was to our dismay and that of residents, businesses and visitors from Thurrock and Gravesend that Thurrock council and Kent county council ceased funding the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry service last year. Since the ending of that service, local businesses have suffered significantly. They have told me that it has impacted on people’s ability to get to and from work, and that they have lost many people who cannot bear the thought of taking the Dartford crossing in order to get to work. On our high street, one particular business, Marie’s Tea Room, which used to cater for the passing trade from the large cruise ships that used to dock at Tilbury, has been impacted to the point that it can no longer employ a member of staff. These things have impacts, and I am sure it is the same across our high street. I have been running a petition, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, and there have been others. Our petitions have garnered thousands of signatures—

17:00:00

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Keir Mather.)

Our petitions, which have garnered thousands of signatures, call for the return of the ferry service. It is clear that businesses and residents want their ferry back. At present, there is a desire for people to travel by public transport, which I support. People should leave their cars at home, but they need options. Previously, the option was a 10-minute jump across the water. Now, the options are a train into London and back out again, or multiple buses to get through the Dartford crossing. All this is costing us precious time. If we as a society want to support public transport, relieving congestion on the roads should be at the heart of everything we do. Take the example of the Woolwich ferry, which, by parliamentary statute, must be run and is not able to charge. I am not asking—tempting as it is—for that to be the case for the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry, but I am asking the local authority to protect these valuable transport routes.

In the last 20 years, we have seen two new public transport options that my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford benefit from when crossing the river: the docklands light railway in Woolwich, and the Elizabeth line into Abbey Wood. But as my hon. Friend has said, there is no public transport option from Woolwich to the Kent coast that her and my constituents can benefit from. Will she join me in welcoming some exploration of river and other public transport options through south-east London and into Kent?

I absolutely agree. The Thames Clipper is a remarkable service that is supported by Transport for London, but it needs to be subsidised. It is looking at expanding into the estuary. Taking on board the desire of my hon. Friend’s constituents and mine to be able to travel via the river, I think that is a very good proposal that we in this place should get behind. I know from my past role as a councillor on Gravesham borough council that operators are very interested in introducing a ferry service. In fact, Gravesend pier was sold to Thames Clipper in order to make way for the exciting development of the new public transport route to London and beyond. However, Gravesham borough council is not a local highway authority, so it has neither the status nor the money to develop this kind of public transport and hold the contract. Given the local government reorganisation that is coming, the council is prepared to do it, but it cannot be left with no money, because that would be poor financial management. The ferry service could be a public-private partnership—if businesses are listening, perhaps we can come together with the Government and fund it through moneys that go down to local authorities. I will speak briefly about the lower Thames crossing, which may not be the solution or the silver bullet. It sits within Gravesham and goes through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock. It is fair to say that we have been vocally opposed to it since the outset, particularly because of its significant impact on Gravesham. Quite rightly, Labour has promised that local residents will see the benefits of major infrastructure projects, and it is in this vein that I will ask the Minister some questions, which I hope he will be able to follow up. I would welcome a private meeting, if needed, to go through this issue with his Department for Transport colleagues. The lower Thames crossing will have an impact on Gravesham. Option C was chosen nearly a decade ago under the Tories. It was the most expensive option compared with another bridge at Dartford. I do regret the loss of ancient woodland, the impact on air quality and the congestion of our local roads. The Conservatives took a “dither and delay” approach. Therefore, while a new bridge could have already been built had it been funded, we are still waiting. Residents of Northfleet, Gravesend and the villages along the A227 in my constituency already suffer with congestion and gridlock when the Dartford crossing goes down or when the A2, which is a huge arterial road into London, has problems. Gravesham and Gravesend will be cut in half, yet sandwiched between the Dartford crossing and the proposed lower Thames crossing. The modelling data from National Highways show that congestion levels will be back to what they are now within four years of the opening of the lower Thames crossing. Residents are worried about getting to Darent Valley hospital for urgent care when these problems occur on our roads at peak times or, sadly, when there are accidents. Giving people a choice of reliable public transport options would ease that congestion. If there are reliable public transport options—buses, river boats, river ferries—to take cars off the road, there would be greater capacity on the roads for when such unfortunate congestion events occur. The wider impacts of the tunnel need to be considered. Currently, we fear that the A227 will be used as a rat run to access the M20. When the original plans for the lower Thames crossing were thought of, there was going to be an upgrade at Bluebell hill. Sadly, under the Conservatives, that was cut back and then cut back further. Unless that junction is improved, sadly, the villages in my constituency will be bearing the brunt of the hugely increased number of vehicles travelling to the M20. I would like some assurances about the lower Thames crossing, and I have some questions to which I would like answers in the days to come. How will National Highways ensure that the years of construction and of delays will minimally impact Gravesham residents? How will the traffic get to and from the lower Thames crossing without impacting local roads? Indeed, there was talk of using the river for bringing in equipment and materials. What powers exist to ensure that local roads are not used as rat runs, and who will be held accountable for that? Our local infrastructure, such as housing, will be impacted by the influx of workers. We would like a halt on people working on the lower Thames crossing moving into the area, because we already face a significant housing crisis in the area. Other things that could be affected include leisure and health services, so will such wider infrastructure projects be increased in the future? What accountability is there for the modelling data? As I have said, four years on, and the congestion will be at the same level, which will have a wider impact. Local residents have raised that concern with me, but who can I hold accountable? We are all local MPs, and it is right that we ask the tough questions and make requests for our constituencies. So I kindly request the Minister to look at restoring the Gravesend to Tilbury ferry and sustainably maintained in perpetuity as a decent public transport option, and it could be subsidised and promoted from a small proportion of the tolls on the lower Thames crossing. We want a guarantee, with accountability, that Gravesend businesses and residents are at the front and centre of the new jobs. We have deprived wards in Gravesham, which is among the top 10 most deprived areas, and we want those people to have access to such skills. I hope Members understand that Gravesham and Thurrock will be most impacted by this programme. It is only right that those residents see some of the benefits, especially as at the moment “local” is considered to be a local resident or a local person who is employed within a 20-mile radius. Now, that is half of London. I ask that we capture that information from a five-mile radius. I am not saying all of it should be local, but we need to ensure that local people and businesses are encouraged to apply and take up those jobs. On the mitigations and accountability for the rat running that will ensue on the A227 based on the wider road modelling, there is the issue of proposed tolls. We are directly opposite the larger unitary authority of Thurrock. The residents of Thurrock enjoy a residents’ discount scheme. In Gravesham, however, such a scheme has not been promoted, yet very many of my residents use the Dartford crossing on a regular basis, especially now that the Tilbury crossing is down. I therefore ask the Minister if Gravesham could be included in the Dartford crossing scheme while the lower Thames crossing is being built and thereafter in perpetuity. I want to raise mitigations for the environmental impact. We know the terrible air quality in Dartford and we do not want that in Gravesham. How can we improve both places and protect Gravesham residents? Finally, on housing, a vast array of our land that could have been developed for housing is now no longer available. In conclusion, I thank the Minister in advance for his upcoming reply and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this Adjournment debate. Most of all, I would like to thank the residents, businesses and visitors of Gravesham. Gravesham has a long history on the river and we would really like to see the return of the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry crossing.

17:11:00

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) for securing this debate. We call each other our sisters across the river, as we are separated by a small stretch of the River Thames. I want to very briefly add my contribution on the importance of the Tilbury ferry, as we call it on my side of the river. My hon. Friend has spoken at length about the history of the Tilbury ferry, and it does have a long and proud history. We always refer to it as having been granted to us by Henry VIII. It ran continuously for the best part of 500 years until bankruptcy by a Tory council in Thurrock took it out. I am really determined to see its return. The ferry is personal and special for me. I have many childhood memories of taking the Tilbury ferry across the river to Gravesend to spend a delightful day on my hon. Friend’s side of the river going to the cafes and there is a lovely shop that sells boardgames—in case hon. Members cannot tell, I have a penchant for geekery and boardgames are very much up my alley. There is a lovely pub called the Three Daws, where I have spent many a happy time. Sadly, we are no longer able to visit, because it would mean a 45-minute to an hour trip over the Dartford crossing and around. Indeed, there is congestion daily on the Dartford crossing. When there are more severe issues, as there are today—my husband rang me to say he had to get my daughter from school as her bus cannot pick her up due to traffic backing up right into my constituency—it is a huge issue for us. Many of my constituents will tonight be sat about 10 minutes from their house, unable to get there because of the issues with congestion. Clearly, that needs to be addressed. My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about why we do not feel that the lower Thames crossing is necessarily the way to answer the problem of congestion, but I would like to add my voice to say that the Tilbury ferry provided a public transport alternative to using the roads. That is the direction of travel we should be looking at: making public transport open, accessible and easier to use. When the Minister rises, he may say that the Government are not in the habit of funding boat and river services. My answer would be that we should perhaps explore the art of the possible, and look at what it is possible to do and how we can restore this service. The ferry was not only something wonderful, cultural and historic; it was actually a key part of public transport infrastructure in my part of the world. We share a lot of health services, so people would take the ferry over the river for that; I used to see my orthodontist in Gravesend when I was a teenager, which was something I looked forward to less than day trips out and visiting the cafés, shall we say. However, it was important. Some of my constituents commute over to go to the grammar schools in Kent. We also have quite a lot of people who take the river to travel to work; I understand that the Port of London actually puts on a small boat for their staff who live either side of the river. Indeed, my brother lived for a time over the river, just a short hop on the ferry away—again, that is no longer possible. It is really quite upsetting and sad for a lot of us. Within about a week of starting a petition to try to bring back the Tilbury ferry, I had received 500 signatures; it now stands at a little over a thousand. We asked people to share their memories and share why they want to bring the ferry back. If we are looking at someone coming on board—a potential private partner—we want to show that there is an appetite for the ferry and that it will be used, because it was always used. There was never an empty ferry when it was running; it was always busy throughout the day, any day of the week that it was running. People have shared things like wanting to go on the ferry one more time before they die—things that are really quite moving. They have shared memories of taking their grandchildren and great-grandchildren on it and going on day trips out, as well as travelling for work. Someone said, “We don’t have lots of nice things in our part of the world—the things that we do have, we want to keep, and the things that we did have, we want back.” It was absolutely delightful. Coincidentally, the Tilbury ferry is exactly the right amount of time that any child can spend on a boat before going mad and getting bored: five minutes. They see the boat, get on the boat, and are excited; then they want to leave the boat, but by then the boat is at Gravesend—brilliant. It is a fantastic day out. My plea to the Minister is to consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham has said, particularly in relation to using some of the money that will be generated by the lower Thames crossing; a minuscule proportion could fund the running of this service in perpetuity. It would alleviate that congestion—the congestion that will still exist after about five years of the lower Thames crossing’s operation. In the meantime, the Government should look at other ways to support the return of this absolutely vital, crucial service for my constituents and those of my hon. Friend.

17:17:00

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) for securing this important Adjournment debate on the impacts of river crossings on her Gravesham constituency. She said that the charter for the river and her town was from 1401—I think it was Henry IV, having taken over from Richard II. The whole Shakespeare play was about rebellion, and I feel rebellion on the Back Benches at the moment because of how important this subject is to both my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham and for Thurrock (Jen Craft). My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham has been a true champion in this field. She has made a number of representations to me, as she has mentioned, and to other ministerial colleagues calling for the reinstatement of the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry services, which ended in March 2024 due to a lack of funding. I appreciate the efforts and passion that my hon. Friend and her sister across the river, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock —fearsome sisters, I would say—have displayed in supporting these services, which can provide a quick link between Kent and Essex across the Thames estuary, in particular providing an alternative when there are problems on the Dartford crossing, as has been pointed out. I recognise that the ferry provided a useful link across the estuary and was very popular with regular users. It was particularly useful to those travelling to their respective workplaces, and provided an alternative to car journeys via Dartford. As my hon. Friend well knows, there are a number of key industries and employment sites in north Kent and south Essex that play an important role in both regional and national economies. We know that the Thames gateway is going to be a massive driver for economic growth in the UK, with both the Amazon plant and CLdN there. We have other ambitions for the estuary in terms of becoming a clean energy superpower and driving growth in the maritime sector. I thank my hon. Friends for their work with the maritime sector as it affects their constituencies. I am sure that they will acknowledge that ferry services run on a private sector basis to meet commercial demand. Any decisions to provide funding for local ferry services is ultimately a matter for local partners. Where local ferry services form part of local transport options, it is for the local transport authorities to consider such decisions in line with devolution. It is for local authorities to decide their transport priorities and where to allocate budgets. There have been successful examples of ferry services receiving local funding, including Mersey Ferries in Liverpool and Woolwich Ferry in London, which are both funded and operated by the local transport authority. To support local transport authorities, the Government have been clear on their transport priorities, with capital funding to support local bus services, improvements to active travel and the maintenance of local roads.

On that specific point, my hon. Friend and I have asked in the past whether it would be possible to use some of the bus funding, which has received an uplift, to fund the Tilbury ferry. The answer has been that it would not be possible, because it is not a bus—it is fairly obvious that it is not a bus. Will the Minister perhaps consider reclassifying the Tilbury ferry as a river bus?

No, we cannot use those moneys in that way, but that does not stop us talking in the future with Department officials and the private sector about the river to see what is the art of the possible. Let us hold that in abeyance, and I will say a little more about that at the end of my speech. The Government are exploring all viable funding options for the lower Thames crossing. That includes private finance options, which would use public seed funding to unlock investment. A road users charge will help finance the lower Thames crossing and reduce the burden on the public purse for major infrastructure projects. The road user charging regime for the lower Thames crossing has not been set, so I urge my hon. Friends to make their representations to the Secretary of State, the Roads Minister and me on this matter as it pertains to their local constituencies.

When we consider the private companies and contractors that may come forward, the ask here is whether we could extract a social value—a social good—from the funding for the Tilbury-Gravesend crossing.

I recently met the chief executive of Thames Clippers, which I think owns the pier, and that model has been pursued in other parts of the country, so, again, it is worthy of exploration with me and my officials. Across the financial period 2025-26, the Department has allocated Kent county council nearly £40 million to support its local highway network, over £23 million to support the improvement of bus services, and £5.7 million to support active travel improvements. That is a significant uplift under this Government. In the same financial period, the Department has allocated Thurrock council nearly £3 million to support its local highway network, £2 million to support the improvement of bus services and over £350,000 to support active travel improvements. In addition, the Chancellor recently confirmed in the spending review that the £3 bus fare cap, which was expected to finish at the end of the year, will be extended until at least March 2027, benefiting both local authorities. However, there is limited revenue funding for the local authorities, and it will be for them to decide which services to prioritise. I urge all partners in the region and the Members of Parliament who have spoken eloquently here today to work together constructively to find appropriate local transport solutions, including river services. I have asked my officials at the Department for Transport to work closely with local partners to identify any funding opportunities that could become available to help support local plans. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock that I hope one day she will be able to visit the Three Daws public house once again. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham for securing this Adjournment debate and for being a doughty champion on this matter in her constituency. Question put and agreed to.

17:24:00