Isles of Scilly: Transport

David Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who leads me on to my next point. Although he says that we are all in the same boat—if you will pardon the pun, Madam Deputy Speaker—the fact is that we are not. Services in Scotland are very heavily subsidised, as I will explain. When we look for parity and comparability, the services offered for the Isles of Scilly and for Scottish islands are significantly different.

Of course, the Isles of Scilly have the additional challenge of being some 40 miles off the coast. I do not know how many miles the Isle of Wight is off the coast—is it 1.5, 2 or 3 miles? It is certainly a very short journey. In addition, because of the numbers of passengers going in that direction, the costs are obviously significantly less than for those on the Isles of Scilly.

The costs and prices for passenger transport, freight and indeed air transport for the Scottish islands are, in most cases, very heavily subsidised. I know that the UK Government are not responsible for the practices of the Scottish Government, but it was their responsibility prior to devolution, and indeed that is when the policy was established. The Minister may attempt to distance himself from something that is not the responsibility of the UK Government and hide behind that, but it was their responsibility originally, and that left a legacy that has given Scotland significant advantages.

There is no equivalent of the £3 bus fare for the Isles of Scilly—it is a £120 return, as we have just heard. There is no subsidised air travel, either. The entire economy depends very much on tourism, and tourism depends on travel. In those circumstances, we hope that the Isles of Scilly will be treated fairly.

There are very high freight costs, and the costs of getting food and other essential services to the islands are therefore very significant. My ask of the Minister is that he works with me, the council, transport providers and others to alleviate these pressures by finding an agreeable way to provide support to reduce these costs of living.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman bringing this important debate to the Chamber. Exeter airport, which is one of the key transport nodes for the Isles of Scilly, is based in my constituency. My grandparents and great-grandparents on my dad’s side really enjoyed going down there on holiday, adding to that tourism economy. I have seen the price of travel to the Scilly Isles increase in recent years, which means fewer people are able to enjoy that. I would like to offer my support to the hon. Gentleman; if there is any way I can add in Exeter airport and work with him on some of these problems, I would be very happy to do so.

[Andrew George]

I am pleased that the hon. Member and his family have strong connections with the islands, but I caution him against describing them as the Scilly Isles—he will not be well received on the islands if he uses that particular nomenclature—but, certainly, if he continues to call them the Isles of Scilly, I am sure that he will be very well received. His offer of working with me and the islanders—the Scillonians—will also be well received, and I am very grateful to him for it.

Transport Scotland, an agency of the Scottish Government, subsidises most routes to islands in the Hebrides through a contract with Caledonian MacBrayne —CalMac—which is owned by the Scottish Government. The islands are also served by several other routes, some of which are subsidised by local authorities, and a handful are served without subsidy by private operators. The Scottish Government have supported the sector since the 1960s. They have been obliged to tender for services since the late 1990s, to comply with state aid regulations. That has altered the ownership structures of what remains a state owned and operated set of services.

Approximately 70% of CalMac’s revenues come from the Scottish Government. It is often said that for every pound paid by a ferry user, another £2 of public subsidy is required. By contrast, passenger services between the mainland and the Isles of Scilly have always been operated on a commercial basis, with the exception of during the covid pandemic, when, like all companies around the country, it was subsidised. Certainly, this was seen as a lifeline service by the Government.

The Isles of Scilly Steamship Group, the primary operator of the transport services to the Isles of Scilly, operates Scillonian III, which is now in its 49th year and will be replaced next year by the Scillonian IV. Indeed, it was purchased in the 1960s with a Government loan of £1 million during the period when Harold Wilson, who was a resident of St Mary’s, was Prime Minister. That did help the company purchase that vessel at that time. As the Minister will know, Harold Wilson is buried on St Mary’s, and his love and affection for the islands are well known. The ISSG operates that important lifeline link to the Isles of Scilly, but only during the summer months; it cannot operate during the winter because of the inclement conditions.

The ISSG offers concessionary fares for islanders through its “travel club”, as it calls it, which is a way of building and rewarding loyalty. However, it is seen by others that somehow this service is being subsidised by visitors to the islands. We do not want to get into a situation where we discourage visitors to the islands. However, it is worth pointing out—I checked this online today—that if we were to book a return fare on the ferry from Penzance to the Isles of Scilly, which is a three-hour journey, more or less, on a 40 mile trip, that would cost around £220. If we were to catch a ferry from Mallaig to Canna, approximately 30 miles in Scotland, that journey would cost £14.20. If we were to go from Kennacraig to Port Askaig—Isla—the two-hour journey would cost £18. The comparison is something on which we need to reflect.

It is worth saying that most ferry services in England, such as the ferries to the Isle of Wight, are operated by private operators, just as they are on the Isles of Scilly, and receive no central Government grant or funding. There are other examples of publicly owned ferries in the UK, and between the UK and the Isle of Man. On Merseyside, Mersey Ferries is effectively owned by the local transport authority, Liverpool City Region combined authority. In 2018, the Government of the Isle of Man brought into public ownership the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, which operates ferries between the Isle of Man, the UK and Ireland. The Isle of Man Government do not control the day-to-day running of the company’s ferries, but they do own a 100% stake in its parent company.

I have referred already to inter-island transport and the costs and made comparisons with the subsidies available to local authorities and passengers elsewhere. As I say, there is not an equivalent to the £3 bus fare, nor is there free transport for older people. This means that islanders have a significantly increased cost of living.

While the Isles of Scilly council is responsible for transport and the economic strategy as a member of the Isles of Scilly transport board, which also includes representatives of the transport providers and business groups, the council’s strategic economic plan—“Island Futures”—includes a core aim to

“improve transport connectivity across the islands and to the mainland”.

In relation to connectivity, the strategy aims to secure

“resilient, year-round transport services to Cornwall and further afield”.

It recognises that improving transport connectivity is a “major challenge”—that is an understatement—and aims to make the islands more self-sufficient and resilient to future changes, including in relation to transport connectivity and between the islands.

There are other matters that complicate and worsen the situation for the Isles of Scilly. Its council is responsible for running the airport. It is a very small council, with a budget of £8.8 million, but it has to run a fully regulated airport, which is a lifeline service. I understand that its landing fees are due to increase 18% this year simply to meet the pure costs of the regulatory challenges. The transport operators are complaining about this, and understandably so—it is a great expense.

When I was last in Parliament, the European geostationary navigation overlay service system—Europe’s satellite-based augmentation system that ensures safe use of the services—was in operation. One of the many so-called Brexit benefits is that we can no longer use the European safe satellite system. It has been withdrawn, so the services have become less resilient and more weather-dependent than they were just 10 years ago. So even where a system is in operation, it is struggling.

The Minister will also know that the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company has expressed concern about the expansion of the emissions trading scheme. While we want to have cleaner atmospheres, the question is about the proportionate impact this scheme is likely to have. Initially, it will apply to vessels with a gross tonnage of over 5,000 from 1 June this year, and then to vessels with a gross tonnage of over 400 from 2028, which will add cost to the service. It would be helpful if the Minister talked to the steamship company, but I know that he is addressing this issue, which is very helpful—I do appreciate that.

Help has been provided. As part of the previous Government’s levelling-up programme, £48.4 million was offered to create a new vessel. Indeed, when I was elected other subsidies were available, but unfortunately it was not always possible to get the operator of the service—the steamship company—to agree to use those funds in the way that they were offered.

I know that the Minister has responded, in correspondence and in meetings, about how the English national concessionary travel scheme is supposed to operate, but we do not have buses between the off-islands and the main island, so it is absurd to attempt to apply mainland, landlocked transport policies to a maritime environment such as the Isles of Scilly. I urge him to look at that again. He goes on to tell me that the local authority can provide concessions, but the council of the Isles of Scilly is struggling to survive, let alone being able to provide additional concessions for its transport services. I hope that the Minister will look again at these matters.

The recommended policies that we ask the Minister to consider are: extending the powers under the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007 to classify inter-island boating as eligible public passenger transport; beginning a pilot scheme with the Isles of Scilly, perhaps during next winter; and seeing how we get on and evaluate it after a 12-month period. We could create an islands transport mechanism, equivalent to the Scottish air discount scheme or ferry support services, and establish a statutory footing for island-appropriate subsidy powers. We could provide emissions trading scheme transitional relief for lifeline routes and describe the service to the Isles of Scilly as such a route to prevent fare spikes when the ETS comes into force. We could also support harbour electrification for Penzance and St Mary’s.

I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the issues that I have raised previously and I hope that he will take on board the issues that I have raised today. I am delighted to say that the chair of the council of the Isles of Scilly, Councillor Robert Francis, is in the Public Gallery watching this debate, and he will be as keen as I am to continue the conversation with the Minister after the debate, as it is desperately important that we address the very serious transport challenges that Scillonians face.

Transport

David Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from Transport questions on 26 June 2025.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

A blind resident in my constituency, Marilyn, relies on her guide dog and the local bus network to live independently. However, changes under the Government’s £1.7 million active travel grant, including floating bus stops on Rifford Road in my constituency, force her to cross fast, bidirectional cycle lanes just to board a bus. That goes against safety advice from the Guide Dogs organisation and the Royal National Institute of Blind People and is causing real distress. Does the Secretary of State agree that Government-funded infrastructure must be safe and accessible for everyone, and will she commit to reviewing active travel guidance to consider the role of floating bus stops that put blind and visually impaired people at risk?

[Simon Lightwood]

During the passage of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill in the other place, we committed to writing to all local transport authorities asking them to pause the installation of a specific kind of floating bus stop, where passengers get off the bus straight into a cycle lane or an island. That is because they have been identified through research as problematic for people, particularly those with vision issues.

[Official Report, 26 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 1230.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood):

Oral Answers to Questions

David Reed Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

I completely understand the challenges, particularly in rural areas. That is why the package of measures in the Bill to give local areas the powers that they need to take control of those buses is so important. I already mentioned socially necessary bus routes. In the Budget, we confirmed £1 billion in support to improve bus services and keep fares affordable, including in rural areas. That funding has been devolved down to local leaders to decide how to spend that in any way they see fit. That will improve bus services in their area, including in rural areas.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

A blind resident in my constituency, Marilyn, relies on her guide dog and the local bus network to live independently. However, changes under the Government’s £1.7 million active travel grant, including floating bus stops on Rifford Road in my constituency, force her to cross fast, bidirectional cycle lanes just to board a bus. That goes against safety advice from the Guide Dogs organisation and the Royal National Institute of Blind People and is causing real distress. Does the Secretary of State agree that Government-funded infrastructure must be safe and accessible for everyone, and will she commit to reviewing active travel guidance to consider the role of floating bus stops that put blind and visually impaired people at risk?

Old Oak Common Station

David Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

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.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

The key theme set out by hon. Members from across Wales and the south-west is that we are all being kept in the dark. What will the Minister do to engage with MPs from across the region and tell us what plans for mitigation are being put in place in our constituencies for the planned works at Old Oak Common?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I will use the rest of my speech to do just that. My colleague the Minister for Rail has already had a meeting with a large number of MPs to discuss these issues, and he will continue to engage on precisely those points.

As you will appreciate, Mr Efford, a project of the scale and significance of Old Oak Common cannot be delivered without some disruption to existing services. Our challenge to HS2 Ltd is to keep the disruption to a minimum and to support Network Rail and train operators to keep passengers moving. The next phase of work takes place this Christmas, with changes made to Great Western Railway services from 27 to 29 December. The rail industry has been working hard to prepare for the work and has invested £30 million to mitigate its impact and keep passengers moving.

I will set out some of the things that that money has paid for. While some of the interventions are close to London, they are designed specifically to allow Great Western Railway passenger services during Old Oak Common works, such as electrification of the Poplars railway, which connects the Great Western main line and the west London line. That allows services to access their maintenance depot and for more Great Western Railway trains to terminate at Ealing Broadway. Investment has been made in Ealing Broadway and Reading stations so that they can provide better information to connecting passengers; in facilities at Euston to allow for the terminating Great Western Railway long-distance services, including the Penzance sleeper services; in alternative stabling for the Hitachi trains that serve Great Western Railway; and in other, similar provisions that are designed to help Great Western Railway services to continue operating during the period of disruption.

During these days, some inter-city services will divert to London Euston and some will terminate at Reading or Ealing Broadway. Extensive mitigations have been progressed behind the scenes so that trains continue to be maintained and can provide services again after the works. Passenger communications are happening now to enable people to make choices about how and when they travel. I recognise the importance of providing timely passenger information to enable people to do that. The next significant blockade had been due to take place in December 2026, but this is now being re-planned to a later date by HS2 Ltd. Further detail on the future works plan will be shared as soon as it is available in the spring.

Old Oak Common station is being built to enable all Great Western main line and relief line services to call at the station. This is important for future-proofing, but while all trains will be able to call, the future timetable will be under development for many years, so it is still too early to say with any certainty which trains will call there or from when, but I will come back to that in a moment. We know that many passengers from Wales and the west of England value the faster journeys into London, and will have other options, not via HS2, to travel north. The Rail Minister and I have heard from many colleagues about the concerns of their constituents, and officials are working with the industry to assess the options for calling patterns at Old Oak Common.

Rail Services: Devon

David Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Steve Race]

It is a pleasure to continue serving under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.

The third reason why the Exeter-Barnstaple line would be of benefit to Exeter and Devon is that it would double the hourly service to two trains per hour between Barnstaple and Exeter, and would provide three trains per hour for Crediton. It would deliver huge economic and growth benefits for north Devon, connecting the towns to Exeter so that commuters, small businesses and tourists have better access to opportunities across the county.

Two of my stations, Exeter St Thomas and Polsloe Bridge, have no accessibility arrangements. People can use them only by lugging themselves up significant flights of steps, which is an impossible task for the elderly or infirm, the disabled, and mothers and fathers with young children and buggies. Another station in my constituency, St James Park, has accessibility at only one side, so wheelchair users can get off the train but they cannot get back on to it to go whence they came, because there are steps on one side. That is clearly unacceptable, so I would welcome the Minister’s comments on the outstanding Access for All fund.

I accept the rail infrastructure investment difficulties that the Government inherited at the general election; I know that a lot of the funds were mere public relations press releases and did not really have any funding attached to them.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend—I will call him that, as he is my neighbour from Exeter—for securing this important debate. I want to take the politics out of all this. I know he is not raising this issue, but Old Oak Common will cause significant disruption to our county of Devon and the wider region. It is imperative that we work together to offset those issues as quickly as possible. He has spoken about the storms that we have every year. It is a cycle: we get cut off every year. I really fear, as I am sure that he does, that High Speed 2 and Old Oak Common will further compound those issues. Does he agree that we need to work together to get the best deal for Devon and the wider south-west?

[Steve Race]

I absolutely agree that we have a good working relationship across Devon on strategic issues, including dentistry, railways and pharmacies, and I hope that that continues, but we live in the world in which we live so we have to be pragmatic about what we can achieve. Acknowledging where we are starting from is important, but the Government are changing the way the railways operate. I welcome their focus not just on the bus system but on making our railways the pride of Britain again.

Devon and the wider south-west have huge economic potential. We have the skills and institutions that can help the Government succeed across all their missions, and yet the south-west received the second lowest spending on transport per capita of any region or nation, at £429 per head. Only the east midlands is lower, at £368 per head. London has £1,313 per head—more than three times as much as the south-west.

Ensuring that we have a resilient and growing rail network is good for Exeter, good for Devon and good for the country. I would welcome the opportunity to work with the Minister and alongside my colleagues from across Devon and the south-west to identify funding to progress some, if not all, of these projects, so that we can also play our part in the economic growth and success of this country.