Disruption at Heathrow

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that commitment.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that what happened on Thursday and Friday is a complete national embarrassment and should never have happened? Will she do an assessment of our remaining airports to ensure not only that they also have multiple supply points for electricity, but that they do not rely on the illusion, as plainly happened at Heathrow, that those multiple supply points made it completely reliable as a hub airport? That appears at first glance to have been the case for Heathrow, and it is not adequate.

[Heidi Alexander]

Perhaps the right hon. Member was not listening when I responded to questions from this side of the Chamber. There were multiple power supply points to the airport, but Heathrow took the decision that it needed to reconfigure the supply in the airport, as terminals 2 and 4 were very badly affected. It decided to put the safety and security of the travelling public first. It powered down all those systems and then powered them up again. I was not in the room when those decisions were taken. Heathrow is a private company, and it took decisions about what it thought was best for the travelling public. I, as Transport Secretary, am not going to second-guess those, but I will ensure that we do very thorough reviews. I will interrogate those reviews very carefully and ensure that any lessons we need to learn are acted upon.

Transport Connectivity: North-west England

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

It would be good if other contributions could be similarly brief, to allow as many colleagues as possible to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing this crucial debate on transport connectivity in the north-west—an issue that impacts the day-to-day lives of many of my constituents and people across the whole region.

Our region has historically been neglected when it comes to transport, but I want to begin with a positive: I reiterate my wholehearted support for the electrification of the Bolton to Wigan train line, properly funded under this Labour Government. I also welcome the extension of the excellent Greater Manchester Bee network out towards my constituency.

Given that other Members have spoken so eloquently about planes, trains and automobiles, I will focus on a particular issue in my Bolton West constituency: the Hulton Park housing development. Hulton Park is a significant development, but it suffers from a critical oversight: a complete lack of sustainable transport options. Local public transport links are virtually non-existent. That will force future residents to rely almost entirely on cars and will snarl up the already overly congested roads for my constituents.

I am sure colleagues agree that we should not rubber-stamp major housing projects without properly considering how people will get to work and school and access sustainable essential services locally in a convenient manner. In Bolton West, we already have severe congestion at Four Lane Ends in Hulton, where traffic bottlenecks daily and pedestrian facilities are extremely limited. The recent proposal for two additional housing developments in Leigh, one of which is particularly large, will only compound the issue.

To be clear, I wholeheartedly support the Government’s housing plans, which are necessary given that the previous Tory Government sat on their hands for 14 years. We have built 4.3 million fewer homes than comparable countries since the second world war, and house prices are now 8.3 times the average income, pricing many of my constituents out of home ownership, but we must strive to deliver those new homes in a way that does not force residents into car dependency and exacerbate existing congestion issues. For me, the Hulton Park development is emblematic of a broader failure to link transport planning, house building and, crucially, economic growth.

We must ensure that new developments are served by cycle, pedestrian, bus, rail and tram networks from the outset, rather than as an afterthought. We should be planning how to mitigate existing congestion before spades are in the ground. This is about more than convenience; it is about the future of our towns and our cities. It is about delivering economic growth by ensuring connectivity between new developments and workplaces. It is about reducing emissions, improving air quality and ensuring that everyone has fair access to transport. I urge the Minister: let us not only build the homes that we need but build them with the infrastructure they deserve.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Well done, everybody; all Members have got in. I call the Lib Dem spokesman, Tim Farron.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

May I point out that there were many more railway lines then, and therefore more trains to be slow? It was also mostly pre-electricity—so there we go. I am grateful for the hon. Member’s point.

The industrial capability of the west coast of Cumbria—not in my constituency—is significant to the economy of the whole country, and includes BAE at Barrow and Sellafield on the west coast. The railway line that serves them—the Furness line—saw a derailment a year ago and a flooding-related near disaster just a few weeks ago. We need to pay special attention to keeping the Furness line open, upgrading it and electrifying it if possible. I also want to make a case, on behalf of all my Cumbrian colleagues, for the Cumbria coastal line, which needs significant investment.

It is great to hear colleagues from metropolitan parts of the north-west talk about keeping the £2 bus fare cap, but for many of us in areas that are far less well funded, and where devolution has not really happened, such as Cumbria, we are stuck with the £3 cap, and we are worried about that being got rid of altogether. Before the cap came in, the most expensive bus journey in the United Kingdom was Kendal to Ambleside, which cost more than an hour’s wage for somebody working in the hospitality sector. Will the Minister confirm that the £3 cap will not be raised or got rid of any time soon?

It is my great privilege to represent a very rural area, but that means that even when the £3 cap exists, it is of no good whatsoever. It does a fat lot of good if we do not have any buses. Giving our local authority, Westmorland and Furness council, the ability to run its own buses is key to meeting the needs of many rural communities. I am honoured to chair an outfit called Cumbria Better Connected, to which all these issues are regularly fed in. One of the most important issues is connectivity and integration between bus and rail, but it is no—

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the shadow Minister, Jerome Mayhew.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Their concerns were wrong. I had a minor position in the Treasury at the time, and I can assure the hon. Lady that that was genuine redirection of funds, albeit over a period, as one would expect, with the release of funds associated with the development of HS2 in the northern sector.

To conclude the list, we had £3.3 billion for road improvements and an additional £11.5 billion for Northern Powerhouse Rail from Manchester to Liverpool. The question that is easy to miss in opposition but impossible to avoid in government is this: where do the Government want money to be spent? That money could be used for those widespread improvements or be rediverted to a northern branch of a version of HS2, but it is impossible to spend the same money twice. If the Minister wants to do both, where is the money going to come from?

Finally, many hon. Members referred to the seeming disconnect between investment decisions in London and the south-east and elsewhere in the country, the north-west in particular. The hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton used a good phrase:

“Growth goes where the growth already is.”

The previous Government at least took the first step in tackling an injustice in the Green Book analysis. That was undertaken to unlock some of the levelling-up investment that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) referred to. I am concerned that the new Government—certainly the new Treasury—are reverting to type. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer had her growth panic a few weeks ago—

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the Minister.

North Sea Vessel Collision

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Member makes an important point about how interconnected our coastal communities are when it comes to this type of incident. Our officials are monitoring where the pollution is going; we are looking at wind direction. I am grateful for the fact that his local resilience team is stood up, and I am happy to keep all Members informed of the ongoing situation, when required.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Automatic identification systems and radar should mean that these sorts of things do not happen, even in dense fog, which is why many of us thought initially that this could well be a maritime 9/11-type event, or that a malign state actor could be involved. Fortunately, that appears not to be the case, but the event has exposed a vulnerability, and ships like the Stena Immaculate could be said to be sitting ducks. What audit will the Minister do of that vulnerability? Will he put in place what is practically necessary to prevent such occurrences?

[Mike Kane]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a very good question. In addition to having maritime responsibilities, I am the security Minister for the Department of Transport. We will learn any maritime security lessons from this incident, in terms of malign actors, and we will implement any recommendations.

Airport Expansion

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

Sustainable aviation fuel is vital to meeting our climate targets. I commend Manchester Airports Group, which includes Stansted and East Midlands, and Manchester in my own constituency, on its work to decarbonise. It is ahead of the game. It flies one in six people in and out of the UK. When it gets it right, that represents a huge emissions reduction.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that one of the many benefits of a third runway at Heathrow is that it would require the removal of one of the largest waste incinerators in the country? When this matter comes before him, will he ensure that there is no reprovisioning of this monster in a densely populated area, but that we see its deletion altogether so that we deal with waste in a truly sustainable way?

Rail Performance

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The strikes were costing us £20 million a day in lost revenue. That is aside from the economic impact of people coming off the railways and not making journeys to work, to see friends and family or to visit other towns and cities. Settling the pay disputes that were pervading our railways has already paid for itself.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

What lessons has the Secretary of State drawn from rail networks in other countries about rail performance and safety, given that many of them are now automated? Will she make herself a heroine in the south-west by dealing at long last with the notorious Tisbury loop, west of Salisbury, which has added inestimable time to rail journeys to the far south-west? The situation could be resolved at very little cost.

[Louise Haigh]

I will look into the issue for the right hon. Gentleman. It may be that the Rail Minister has to make himself a hero; I will ask him to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

Mr Deputy Speaker—sorry, Mr Speaker. Three strikes and I will be out. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is a matter for the Welsh Government. I have had a meeting with him, and I am more than happy to have another meeting with him, but it is time that the Welsh Government put some money forward.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Minister and I have met to discuss the notorious Tisbury loop arrangement before. Can she update the House on what she proposes to do about this, since for the expenditure of very little money, she could dramatically improve services between Waterloo and Exeter?

[Wendy Morton]

I know that my right hon. Friend has raised this matter before, and I will be happy to give him a written update on the Tisbury loop.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Courts]

I will ask the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) to respond in detail to the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised as soon as possible.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister update the House on where we are with improving connectivity between the south coast and the M4? Is the study in his Department on track to report in September? Will it include an upgrade to the A350 as it rumbles through Westbury and Yarnbrook in my constituency? Can he give any commitment at all to a relief road that will, after so many years, bring some relief to my constituents in the town of Westbury?

[Robert Courts]

My right hon. Friend has raised the question of Westbury and the difficulties his constituents are facing. I have heard that very clearly, and I will ensure that he gets a detailed response from the roads Minister, Baroness Vere, on the progress.

Russia’s Grand Strategy

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I will not comment on that particular suggestion, but I will be coming to the question of gas.

This ultimatum is, in fact, Russian blackmail, directed at both the Americans and the Europeans. If the west does to accept the Russian ultimatum, they will have to face what Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko calls

“a military and technical alternative”.

What does he mean by that? Let me quote him further:

“The Europeans must also think about whether they want to avoid making their continent the scene of a military confrontation. They have a choice. Either they take seriously what is put on the table, or they face a military-technical alternative.”

After the publication of the draft treaty, the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against NATO targets—similar to those that Israel inflicted on Iran—was confirmed by the Deputy Minister of Defence, Andrei Kartapolov. He said:

“Our partners must understand that the longer they drag out the examination of our proposals and the adoption of real measures to create these guarantees, the greater the likelihood that they will suffer a pre-emptive strike.”

Apparently to make things clear, Russia fired a “salvo” of Zircon hypersonic missiles on 24 December, after which Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, commented:

“Well, I hope that the notes”—

of 17 December—

“will be more convincing”.

We should be clear that Russia’s development of hypersonic weapons is already a unilateral escalation in a new arms race which is outside any existing arms limitation agreements. The Russian editorialist Vladimir Mozhegov commented:

“The Zircon simply does its job: it methodically shoots huge, clumsy aircraft carriers like a gun at cans.”

An article in the digital newspaper Svpressa was eloquently titled “Putin’s ultimatum: Russia, if you will, will bury all of Europe and two-thirds of the United States in 30 minutes”.

How have we reached this crisis, with the west in general, and NATO in particular, so ill prepared to face down such provocation, when Putin’s malign intent has been evident in his actions for a decade and a half? Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the west has too easily dismissed today’s Russia as a mere shadow of the former Soviet Union. Yes, it has an economy no greater than Italy’s; it has no ideological equivalent of communism, which so dominated left-wing thinking throughout most of the 20th century; it has very few if any real allies; and much of the rhetoric that emerges is bluster, reflecting weakness rather than strength. Nevertheless, we should not dismiss what Russia has done since 2008 and what Russia is capable of doing with its vast arsenal of new weaponry, and nor should we take a complacent view of Russia’s future intentions. After all, just months after the Bucharest summit in 2008, where he was welcomed as a guest, Putin seized Georgian sovereign territory in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In 2014 he illegally annexed the Crimea. His aggression was rewarded, because we have tolerated these illegal invasions.

Many western leaders, and the bulk of the western public, have failed to understand that Ukraine is merely a component of a long-running hybrid warfare campaign against the west. They fail to appreciate the extent and nature of Russia’s campaign or the range of weapons used.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am following carefully what my hon. Friend has to say and agree with so much of it. Does he agree that the current Russian intervention in Kazakhstan is part of a piece? This is Putin running true to form. Although theoretically it is at the invitation of a Government that this country recognises, nevertheless it is likely to be classic Putin and expand into a long-term intervention, on the flimsy pretext that that country has a significant ethnic Russian population or one that speaks Russian.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Indeed, and I will be explaining how these apparently disparate events are integrated in Russia’s grand strategy.

Beneath the cloak of this military noise and aggressive disinformation, in recent months—Kazakhstan is another example—Russia has been testing the west’s response with a succession of lower-level provocations, and I am afraid that we have signally failed to convince the Russians that we mind very much or are going to do very much about them. They have rigged the elections in Belarus, continued cyber-attacks on NATO allies, particularly in the Baltic states, and demonstrated the ability to destroy a satellite in orbit with a missile, bringing space into the arms race. They continue to develop whole new ranges of military equipment, including tanks with intelligent armour, fleets of ice breakers, new generations of submarines, including a new class of ballistic missile submarine, and the first hypersonic missiles.

They have carried out targeted assassinations and attempted assassinations in NATO countries using illegal chemical weapons, provoked a migration crisis in Belarus to destabilise Ukraine, and brought Armenia back under Russian control, snuffing out the democratic movement there. They have claimed sovereignty over 1.2 million square miles of Arctic seabed, including the north pole, which together contain huge oil and gas and mineral reserves. This followed the reopening of the northern sea route, with Chinese co-operation and support from France and Germany, which also hope to benefit. Meanwhile, the UK has expressed no intention of getting involved.

Integrated Rail Plan: North and Midlands

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

It might have been lost in translation, but Liverpool to York is a core part of the NPR programme. As I have said before, it will be electrified and have some high-speed lines, too. None of this prevents further electrification. There are new plans to stretch beyond Hull to Newcastle and more. Obviously, no Government can do this in a single go. The plans I have announced today accelerate dramatically the advantages that constituents will get across the north, because it will now happen in this decade—starting from Christmas. This speeds up a lot of that, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say it does not prejudice anything else happening in the future.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that not every city, town and village will benefit from this plan, but one thing is for sure, which is that they will all be paying for it and there are opportunity costs. Does he understand the disquiet of my constituents about HS2 and now this plan, given that he has limited bandwidth and what he is spending on one project is not being spent on upgrading services elsewhere? Will he throw my constituents a small crumb by delaying the planned closure of services from Bristol Temple Meads to Waterloo via Trowbridge and Salisbury, pending a proper consultation that will show very clearly that the Great Western Railway service he thinks duplicates services run by South Western Railway is over capacity now and certainly will be once he closes the GWR service?

[Grant Shapps]

My right hon. Friend is right that every decision has a trade-off, which is why it is important that we think about the country as a whole. He will be pleased to hear that I was down in the south-west yesterday using South Western Railway, and I appreciate the importance of that service. I will ensure that he meets the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), to discuss his specific concerns.

HGV Driver Shortages

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here, because what we have done does not increase workers’ hours. It provides flexibility without changing the hours. If the hon. Member is accusing me of being in favour of the worker and on the side of people earning more money for a decent day’s work when they deliver the goods to our shops, guilty as charged. I hope he will join me on the frontline.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The British Army is one of the biggest employers of HGV drivers; it has about 2,000. What discussion has the Secretary of State had with our right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary about the use of some of those drivers to preserve critical supply chains were that to be necessary, and also about the impact of this crisis on retention? At the moment, supermarket chains are paying upwards of £60,000 to drivers, which is a very powerful inducement for people to leave the Army.

[Grant Shapps]

It is of course absolutely true that, with salaries increasing, more people are being encouraged to come into the sector. That means that there may be an impact overall where people are paid more in different professions. We have seen an increase in the number of drivers coming in—I know this from the DVSA booking figures—which shows that there is a solution on the horizon. My hon. Friend is also right to question whether the Army could deliver some of the goods and services. At the moment, that is not being considered. Of course, the Government as a whole keep a very close eye on this issue and have contingency plans in place, but it is absolutely not something that at the moment the Government are looking at.