Blackpool Airport: Public Service Obligation Funding

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making extremely powerful points. The House will know that I was Aviation Minister until the summer, and I was lucky enough to visit his outstanding airport and meet the energetic team there. I can see how important it is to his area.

He mentioned a couple of points that also have national importance, particularly that of PSO policy connecting not just with London but between regions. PSOs traditionally rely on subsidy—

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions must be brief.

[Robert Courts]

I beg your pardon, Mr Gray. Has my hon. Friend considered the role that targeted air passenger duty relief—not a direct subsidy, but targeted APD relief —could play on routes that are non-operational or marginal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

That clarification is very helpful. There is a way of thinking with open PSOs that is not just tied to APD, but I will come back to the question of PSOs in general.

We have some support for administered connectivity through domestic APD. We are continuing to explore alternative routes and are seeing whether there are other ways to address this. In the context of PSOs, I will lay a slightly different emphasis from my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde. It is important to recognise that the PSO policy as it presently is set up is designed to support not new flight—that is the question being raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney—but routes that have previously been operated commercially or are now at risk of being lost.

The question of new routes is somewhat different. The routes that are funded at the moment, at least across the UK, are modest. There are three public service obligations: from Londonderry/Derry to Stansted, Newquay to London Gatwick, and Dundee to London City. An additional 17 PSOs connect the highlands and islands of Scotland, which are wholly within the borders of Scotland. The administration and funding of those, by agreement with the Department for Transport, is the responsibility of the Scottish Government.

We operate within a context of existing policy. To the point about the stance of the local authority, as raised by colleagues, it is important to say that my officials have so far received no requests from the local authority to discuss the need for any PSO routes from Blackpool airport—I will leave local colleagues to decide how they want to interpret that. Of course, if there was going to be PSO support, it would have to be initiated and agreed with the local authority, and the fact that we have heard nothing from them is not helpful to the cause being promoted.

As I say, PSOs are considered in the context of commercial services that either are at risk of being lost or have recently—generally speaking, within the past two years—been lost. The loss referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde goes outside that remit and therefore does not fit within the existing policy. If and when it did apply, which would undoubtedly be part of the same process as the consideration of any new routes in the future, which I will come on to shortly, it would be through a business case, warmly and widely agreed locally, in which the local authority would play a leading role. That is very important. Hon. Friends will be aware that levelling up works effectively only when everyone is lined up in the same way. When business, the local authority, local Members of Parliament and other key stakeholders are so lined up, it can be enormously effective and successful.

As a reminder to all, eligible routes should be ones in which there are historically no viable alternative modes of travel and where it is deemed and demonstrated to be vital to the social and economic development of the region.

It is important to say that if and when a PSO is granted under the current policy, there must then be a procurement exercise to find an airline, which, in turn, needs to be a full and open tender for selection. The subsidy provided is based on the airline’s operating losses on that route, which it must submit as part of a tender bid. It is a very context-dependent decision. Of course, those things would be independently assessed, as any new approach would have to decide how, where there had not been a prior existing commercial flight, a non-distortive method of subsidy and support could be provided.

Let me pick up a couple of points relating to the Union connectivity review that were rightly raised by colleagues. As hon. Members will recall, in November 2021, Sir Peter Hendy published an independent review designed to explore how improvements to transport connectivity between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England could boost not just economic growth but access to opportunities, everyday connection and social integration. The review identified the key importance of airports and air connectivity by providing connectivity both into London and in and between peripheral regions, which gets to the points raised by colleagues today.

As hon. Members might imagine, the Government are considering our response to the Union connectivity review, and my colleague Baroness Vere leads on the issue of aviation. Our response will be Department-wide, because it is a multimodal strategic review in nature. As part of that, we are exploring further opportunities to utilise PSOs in order to support regional connectivity and the levelling-up agenda.

My officials have already been actively considering how airport slots are allocated in the UK. Now that the UK has left the EU, there is an opportunity for the Government to legislate to improve the slots system to ensure it provides the connectivity that UK passengers need. That can be expected to have knock-on effects on economic growth around the country.

Regional airports play an important role in levelling up. It is important to recognise that that is not just about the foundation of the wider UK aviation sector; it is also about the business opportunities that can be directly generated as a result of the supply chains and other enterprise engagement. Members will recall that the Government published a strategy on the future of aviation, “Flightpath to the future”, which sets out a vision for the sector over the next 10 years. It includes not just connectivity, which we have discussed, but workforce, skills, innovation and decarbonisation.

We expect a naturally low-carbon approach to the regeneration of any new airports for all the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde set out. That is a potential source of advantage if it is properly handled. It is our goal that UK domestic flights should be net zero by 2040, and airport operations, which are an important potential ancillary contributor to carbon emissions, should be zero emission by 2040. We are providing significant support for that, not just for sustainable aviation fuels but for the commercialisation of those plants and other research and development co-investment —in particular, through the Aerospace Technology Institute. Alongside that, the levelling-up agenda, jet zero and net zero provide the context within which there can be diversification, a deepening and broadening, and a very significant boost to the activity conducted in and around airports.

I want to give my hon. Friend a moment to respond—

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

No, you don’t. Not in a half-hour debate.

[Jesse Norman]

In any case, I will not abuse the privilege by speaking further. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde very much for his comments, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Witney and for Blackpool South for their interventions and the interest they have shown in this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Great British Railways Headquarters: Swindon’s Bid

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Swindon’s bid to host Great British Railways’ headquarters.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and to see the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), in her place. I am grateful to the House for allowing me the opportunity to address it on a matter of significant importance to the town I have the honour of representing. I speak today as the Member for South Swindon. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) is on paternity leave—he recently had the good news of a second daughter, so he is well and truly outnumbered in his house. He strongly supports not only this debate but the bid that Swindon has made to be the headquarters of Great British Railways. I am grateful that the bid is also supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), in her constituency capacity, and by my hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and for Devizes (Danny Kruger)—all constituencies near to or bordering Swindon.

My hon. Friend the Minister will have spent the past several months fielding increasingly plaintive and perhaps strident requests from a large number of parliamentary colleagues and others, extolling the relative virtues of their local bids. I thought I would start not with the merits of Swindon’s bid, but with what it is that we are bidding for. For me and those who think like me, this is more than just an argument about where to cite a cadre of civil servants. It is more than deciding which building to use or what configuration things will take. It is more than something that looks little different from the existing Network Rail. In short, this is not Network Rail with a rebranding. The business model that governs railway service delivery is—I think by common consent—a flawed one.

We are at 72% of pre-covid passenger levels, but something has changed forever. Saturday is now the busiest passenger travel day, followed by Sunday and then Friday. Commuters are still travelling for business purposes, but the era of the annual season ticket is almost completely dead. Why, in the light of this newly acquired knowledge, do we persist with engineering works on weekends and holidays? That is one question that the new body will have to answer. It will also have to build on the work of the Williams-Shapps report. In my strong opinion, a complete and fair review is needed.

A system where the rest of the country, including Swindon, subsidises fares in the south-east is neither fair nor sustainable. A system where a peak-hour ticket from Swindon to London is one of the most expensive tickets in Europe is certainly not fair or sustainable. That is why we need not just a building, but a hothouse of innovation, designing the railway network of tomorrow: its installations, equipment, people, systems and structures. That is the very first of the core goals set out by the Secretary of State in the Department for Transport’s framework document: changing the culture of the railways, rather than merely replicating Network Rail. I put it firmly on the record that we in Swindon understand that better than anybody.

The second core goal is to think like customers and put them first. With thousands of rail users coming through Swindon every day, that is frankly our default position. We have no choice but to think like them and think as them. The third goal is to grow the network and get more people travelling, and the fourth goal is to make the railways easier to use, and I will go on to address those issues.

The fifth goal—an important one—is to have greater accountability, to drive down costs and to increase efficiency. No. 6 is to have a can-do, not a can’t do, culture—again, something that is in the blood of what we are about in Swindon. Then, there is harnessing the best of the private sector, and I will enlarge on that. Finally, there is the critical role to be played in the shift to net zero. In summary, it is Swindon that encapsulates all those core goals.

Let us take the private sector. For a long period now, we have enjoyed the presence of major engineering firms, such as Atkins, Amey and Hochtief, all of which are based in our town. That immediately provides the potential headquarters with excellent proximity to partnership opportunities that will not exist elsewhere.

The net zero commitment has been exemplified by the electrification project that has transformed the Great Western Railway in our region and seen Swindon play a key role not only in the construction of that new electrified railway but in training—through the training centre that we have—to ensure that electrification was a success, and it is a success, with rail journeys to London now being reduced by an average of five to 10 minutes.

As I have said, in everything we do in Swindon we are a can-do economy. We find solutions to problems, we get on with the job and we often work so hard that we do not really signal our own qualities as well as we might do. Well, today, and in this bid, there is a chance for those qualities to be recognised.

Let me turn to the six selection criteria set out by the Government. I would argue that Swindon matches up magnificently to them all. First, there is:

“Alignment to Levelling Up objectives”.

Levelling up is not about simple geography; it is not about north, south, east and west. It is about disparities of income, disparities of opportunity and disparities in the quality of life. The Government have already acknowledged, through the towns fund initiative and the future high street initiative, which is benefiting Swindon, that the regeneration of our town centre is a key national priority. Siting the new Great British Railways headquarters right in the heart of the town, next to the railway and in buildings owned by Network Rail or the local authority, would entirely align with that objective. Moreover, it would align with the skills objective that is a key part of levelling up.

Recently, the Government made Swindon an education investment area, which means that we will get extra support to address the skills gap and the need to equip our young people for the jobs of the future. We are addressing those challenges by really focusing on science, technology, engineering and maths—STEM subjects—and technical education. The £21 million Swindon Institute of Technology, based in the town, provides technical qualifications and now offers higher apprenticeships for technical and digital roles. Right next to where the new headquarters could be is a university technical college, which was set up 10 years ago to provide youngsters from 14 to 19 with STEM skills and which provides particular apprenticeships to Network Rail. That is already happening, so we have a supply line of the talented young people that GBR will need if it is to survive.

I have mentioned training. We already have the £10 million state-of-the-art Network Rail Electrification Training Centre right next to the station in Swindon. There is so much going on—so much potential—and so much more to be done.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend and to the House for being a few minutes late at the beginning of the debate. I am very sorry. May I assure him that the talent that will be required for this great new headquarters could come from not only Swindon but the rest of the county of Wiltshire as well? May I also assure him that he has strong support not only from myself and the people of North Wiltshire but from our hon. Friends the Members for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), for Salisbury (John Glen) and for Devizes (Danny Kruger), and our right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan)? Indeed, he has the unanimous support of all the Wiltshire MPs for his bid, and we very much hope it is successful.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend; with his powerful words, he has exemplified the point that boundaries are not important here; it is the talent that we want to encourage. As a hub of excellence and economic activity, Swindon is so important to the regional economy and—I would say—the national economy as well.

The second criterion for a successful bid is connectivity. It must be:

“Connected and easy to get to”.

Swindon’s key position on the Great Western Railway is self-explanatory; we are an hour from London, Cardiff, Birmingham and Southampton. We have the M4 corridor, and the A34 is nearby. We have the A419 and A417 corridor —soon to be further improved by Government investment. All those make our connectivity in Swindon second to none.

The third criterion is about the opportunities for Great British Railways and how the location can enhance engagement with customers, the private sector and the wider rail industry. I have already outlined some of the outstanding engineering firms that are based in Swindon, but the proposal set out in the document that has been lodged by the bid outlines a very exciting opportunity for the new headquarters to be located in a railway works building right at the heart of the Swindon railway conservation area. This building—what we call the Workshed—is already a seedbed of innovation and new technologies. It is an incubator of new ideas.

Frankly, I cannot think of anywhere better for Great British Railways’ headquarters to be sited than in an historic environment with strong links to Brunel’s wonderful railway and with all that potential for the future. The situation in Swindon will not require complicated land acquisitions. As I have alluded to, the land is already either in the possession or ownership of Network Rail or the local authority, Swindon Borough Council, which wants to work constructively with Network Rail to provide a complete package. We already have an almost tailor-made site for the headquarters.

The fourth criterion is about railway heritage and links to the network. Where do I begin? We have the outstanding STEAM museum—the Museum of the Great Western Railway. It is a shrine to Isambard Kingdom Brunel and, most importantly, the great locomotives of the past and the history of the railways in Swindon. Some supporters, in particular the Alfred Williams Heritage Society, have described the railways as being as important to Swindon as, for example, shipbuilding was to Belfast. They were the reason the small market town of Swindon grew in the 19th century to become the major centre that it is now. Without the railways, Swindon would be a very different place. It would have a completely different quality. I believe it would have been diminished, because the railways made Swindon the powerhouse that it is today. We are all proud of that connection and continuing link.

The network does not just go from east to west. The Kemble line, dualled by this Government some 10 years ago as a result of a campaign by me, my hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and others demonstrates the importance of north-south links as well as the links down to Chippenham and the south of the county. These links make Swindon an important and integral part of the railway network.

The fifth criterion is value for money. As I have already said, there is no need for difficult land acquisitions that cause delay to major projects. There is no need for negotiations with rapacious land agents. This is an opportunity that will provide outstanding value for money for the Government.

The final criterion is public support. The Swindon community enthusiastically backs this bid.

There has been mass activity on social media and from a wide range of major local organisations, including Wiltshire Council and Cotswold District Council, as well as major private and public sector organisations within the local area. Some 30 or 31 major local organisations—I will not list them here—have all signalled their support in writing. That support is backed up by a letter signed today by hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, which will be sent immediately to the Secretary of State.

The online survey launched by Swindon Borough Council in March has received nearly 3,000 responses. Just under 95% of those respondents have shown their support for the bid, and there have been some excellent comments of support. One reads:

“My grandparents and great-grandparents worked on the railway. There is a historic passion that has been passed down through the generations”.

Another said:

“Swindon is a dynamic, forward-thinking place with a rich railway heritage”.

One respondent said:

“Swindon is the home of the Great Western Railway. It was Brunel’s choice. If it was good enough for him, it is good enough…plain and simple.”

Another respondent wrote that Swindon is:

“The Railway Town! Without the railway, there would be no Swindon.”

Finally, one person wrote:

“What better place to be situated than in the town that was once home to one of the largest railway engineering complexes in the world.”

It employs tens of thousands of people creating the completed article: locomotive, right through to carriage and beyond.

I do not stand here today in dreamy nostalgia but am hard-headed and clear-eyed about the future. Inevitably, Brunel’s name will come up many times, but as I have said, it was no accident that the greatest engineer and innovator of his age chose Swindon to be the home, heart and hub of the Great Western Railway 180 years ago. He was not wrong then and this bid is not wrong now. Swindon is the railways, past, present and future, and that future must, I strongly submit, include the headquarters of Great British Railways.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Wendy Morton)]

It is a privilege and honour to be in Westminster Hall today. I want to start by thanking my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) for securing the debate. I note the support from my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), who has also reiterated the point that this particular bid, like so many, comes with the support of many neighbours and colleagues. In this instance, we have my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) and my hon. Friends the Members for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and for Salisbury (John Glen). I think they were the ones mentioned.

[James Gray]

Also, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison).

[Wendy Morton]

I thank my hon. Friend for that correction. Just last month, I was here in Westminster Hall to debate the merits of Derby as a potential location for the Great British Railways headquarters. Indeed, this is the sixth debate on the subject, with the previous ones for Crewe, Darlington, York and Carnforth. Not only has it been heartening to see how hon. Members up and down the country have engaged on this important conversation about the future of our railways, and in doing so been able to highlight and support their bids for their towns and cities, it has also felt like we have had a tour of a little of the heritage of the railways across this country.

As I have said on previous occasions, and at the risk of repeating myself, the railways are close to my heart. Both my paternal grandfathers worked on the railways, one in Wensleydale and the other in County Durham. Not long after I had been appointed as the Minister for rail, I discovered that my dad was born in a railway cottage, so I would like to think I have a little railway stock and heritage in my blood. I certainly understand the importance of the industry and this country’s amazing heritage.

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon has set out, Swindon has a proud rail heritage. When Great Western Railway transformed a greenfield site into one of the largest railway engineering complexes in the world in the 1840s, Swindon’s railway heritage was solidified. Swindon became one of the most important manufacturing centres for the railways through the famous Swindon works, which we heard about this afternoon. Like many other historical railway sites, the influence of the works has not been lost, with it becoming the home of STEAM, the museum of the Great Western Railway, in 2000. From the earliest days of the railways to the modern day, Swindon has played and will continue to play an important role and, no doubt, continue to have an impact on rail innovation.

My mailbox provides great evidence that there are many other towns and cities across the country that have played an important part in our proud rail heritage and I know hon. Members are proud to represent them. The response to the competition has been positive and I am pleased to say that, by the time it closed on 16 March, we had received an amazing 42 applications.

Hon. Members will be well aware that the Williams-Shapps plan for rail, which was published in May 2021, set out the path to a truly passenger-focused railway, underpinned by new contracts that prioritise punctual and reliable services, the rapid delivery of a ticketing revolution with new flexible and convenient tickets, and long-term proposals to build a modern, greener and accessible network. Central to the Williams-Shapps plan for rail is the establishment of the new rail body, Great British Railways, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred. It will provide a single familiar brand and strong unified leadership right across the network. It will be responsible for delivering better value and flexible fares, and the punctual and reliable services that passengers want and deserve. It will bring ownership of the infrastructure, fares, timetables and network planning under one roof, and will bring today’s fragmented railways under a single point of operational accountability. It will ensure the focus is on delivering for passengers and freight customers.

Great British Railways will be a new organisation with a commercial mindset and a strong customer focus. It will have a different culture from that of the current infrastructure owner, Network Rail, and very different incentives from the beginning. It will have responsibility for the whole railway system, with a modest national headquarters and several regional divisions. The national headquarters will be based outside London, and will bring the railway closer to the people and communities it serves, ensuring that skilled jobs and economic benefits are focused beyond the capital, in line with the Government’s commitment to levelling up.

The Secretary of State launched the competition for the headquarters on 5 February 2022, and it closed for applications on 16 March. The GBR transition team has analysed the 42 submissions we received from towns and cities across Great Britain against a set of criteria for the national headquarters. As my right hon. and learned Friend said—he has clearly been doing his research, but I would expect nothing less—the criteria are: alignment to levelling-up objectives; connected and easy to get to; opportunities for GBR; railway heritage and links to the network; value for money; and public support. The GBR transition team will recommend a shortlist of the most suitable locations, which will go forward to a consultative public vote. Ministers will make a final decision on the headquarters’ location based on all the information gathered.

I have been so pleased by the number and high quality of the bids we received. I am sure that, wherever we choose, the headquarters will go somewhere truly deserving. We will announce the shortlist early next month, so Members will have to wait just a little longer to find out who has been successful.

Alongside a new national headquarters, GBR will have regional divisions that are responsible and accountable for the railway in local areas, ensuring that decisions about the railway are brought closer to the passengers and communities they serve. GBR will be made up of powerful regional divisions and will be organised in line with the regions established in Network Rail’s “Putting passengers first” programme, which reflects how passengers and freight move across the network today.

Cities and regions in England will have greater influence over local ticketing, services and stations through new partnerships between regional divisions and local and regional government. Initial conversations are starting with local stakeholders about how those partnerships can best work together.

The reforms proposed under the Williams-Shapps plan for rail will transform the railways for the better and strengthen and secure them for the next generation. They will make the sector more accountable to taxpayers and the Government. They will provide a bold new offer to passengers and freight customers of punctual and reliable services, simpler tickets, and a modern, green and innovative railway that meets the needs of the nation. Although transformation on that scale cannot happen overnight, the Government and the sector are committed to ensuring the benefits for passengers and freight customers are brought forward as quickly as possible. We have already sold over 250,000 of our new national flexi season tickets, offering commuters savings as they return to the railways, and to help passengers facing the rising cost of living, our Great British rail sale offered up to 50% off more than 1 million tickets on journeys across Britain. It is the biggest sale of its kind, with over 1.3 million tickets being sold—added together, that is equivalent to 128 million miles of journey, which I am reliably told would get a passenger all the way to the sun and beyond.

The transition from the emergency recovery measures agreements to national rail contracts is also under way, providing more flexible contracts that incentivise operators to deliver for passengers. GBR will be an organisation that works alongside the local communities it serves. Integrated teams within GBR’s regional divisions will push forward design and delivery for their partners, supported by new incentives that encourage innovation, partnership and collaboration. It will be designed as, and will have the structure to become, yet another example of this Government’s historic commitment to levelling up the regions across the nation. We have often talked about the heritage of the railways; we often talk about the future of the railways, too.

Both the Government and the GBR transition team welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s interest and his advocacy of his city and area, and welcome his participation in the competition for GBR’s headquarters, so that together we can deliver the change that is required. We look forward to building this new vision for Britain’s railways in collaboration with the sector and communities, and the GBR headquarters is one of many steps we are taking to achieve that.

To conclude, I again thank my right hon. Friend for having secured this afternoon’s debate.

Question put and agreed to.

HS2

James Gray Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Taiwo Owatemi]

Due to the time constraints, I will proceed quickly and then I will give way later on.

As I was saying, there are no guarantees that the cost of this project will not continue to rise and I am deeply concerned that taxpayers will not receive the promised returns on their investment if the cost continues to climb. The taxpayer has already seen a diminished expectation on that return. Indeed, in 2011 the initial economic case presented a benefit-cost ratio for the full train network that was nearly twice the current estimated return. The cost and benefit to the taxpayer must be at the forefront of our minds during this debate.

Separately, there is the very legitimate concern about the cost of constructing HS2, and I will also talk briefly about the cost of using HS2. One of the main reasons why I originally had some hope for the construction of HS2 was the understanding that a high-speed rail link such as HS2 would not only provide better mobility for commuters, but improve social mobility. However, if the only people who are able to take HS2 are the wealthiest among us, I cannot see how it will be used as a tool to boost social mobility—

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Mundell. There is a Division in the House.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Mr Gray, for pointing that out. I will now suspend the sitting for 15 minutes.

Transport: North East Bedfordshire

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Would those hon. Members who took part in the previous debate leave the Chamber swiftly and quietly, please? [Interruption.] Fewer conversations on the way out might be helpful. If Members who are leaving would please do so—[Interruption.] Order. Will Members please leave the Chamber quietly? You are delaying this debate. It is thoroughly bad manners.

Stonehenge: Proposed Road Alterations

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alex Burghart]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point. There is no doubt that a tunnel under part of the site will protect that very part. Notwithstanding the concerns that have been raised about toxic gases that could be released by tunnelling through chalk—not something I am fit to comment on—I believe that part of the site will be preserved by digging deep down for a tunnel. However, regarding the tunnels, the widening of roads into dual carriageways and particularly the flyover on the eastern end of the site, I seek reassurance that at the very least we are doing everything in our power to ensure that we do not damage this precious environment and that, if we find we are doing so, we take other steps.

I wish to make three points in connection with the issues I have raised. The first is about the academic, archaeological response that has been made to the consultation, which it is only right to put on record. The second is the response of UNESCO and the International Council on Monuments and Sites to the proposals as they stand. The third is about the relationship we have with world heritage sites and how we might seek to develop that relationship in the future.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I, too, am a medieval historian, so I welcome my hon. Friend’s presence. I welcome the interest he has shown and some of the fascinating things he is saying about the stones. As well as considering those three reports, will he also consider the interests of the people of Wiltshire, Somerset and neighbouring areas who have for many years spent large parts of their time in a traffic jam alongside the stones? It has become entirely intolerable. Will he also consider the question of the way in which the stones are ruined by the presence of vast quantities of traffic above ground? Although we have, of course, listened to what he has to say about archaeology, surely we have to find a way of easing the traffic for local people and improving the environment of the stones.

[Alex Burghart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I am one of those people who have sat on the A303 on a hot summer’s day in stationary traffic with an agitated child in the back and a wife looking at me as though to say, “We should have taken a different route.” The last time I went on the A303 in summer, we were in stationary traffic for two hours because the President of the United States had decided he would visit Stonehenge that day. The security forces of the United Kingdom and the USA had bilaterally decided to stop everything going east and west without telling us what was going on. I fully acknowledge that there is a traffic problem on the A303 and that local residents have a right to ask for that problem to be solved. I am an Essex MP; I do not wish to go into alternative routes. I am seeking assurances from the Government that, whatever decision is made about where the road does or does not go, we have foremost in our minds a determination to preserve this completely unique environment.

First, I turn to the comments made by the group of 22 experts who have worked at Stonehenge over the past 10 years. They have raised particular concerns that the

“creation of new sections of dual carriageway and slip roads at each end of the tunnel, within the boundary of the WHS, would set a dangerous precedent by allowing large-scale destructive development within a WHS”.

I will turn to that point again in a moment. They also said:

“The construction of the portal at the west end…and new sections of road in its vicinity, would damage an area with an unusual and nationally important concentration of long barrows”

belonging to the millennium prior to Stonehenge. They said:

“The proposed new road would cut across the site of a settlement from the time of Stonehenge’s construction, perhaps where the builders of its Bronze-Age phase once lived…At the tunnel’s eastern end, construction of its portal may affect groundwater conditions which could harm nationally important Mesolithic remains at the site of Blick Mead.”

The 22 archaeologists are employed by UK universities. Many were employees of various universities or English Heritage when doing research at Stonehenge. Seven of them are members of the A303 Scientific Committee at Stonehenge. It is a very good thing, which was set up to ensure that the process gets good advice on limiting the damage of the current proposals. However, its remit does not extend to looking beyond that; those are the terms of engagement. Seven members of the scientific committee were sufficiently concerned to make their own submission to the consultation.

I do not know the best way of doing this, as I do not wish to read out all 22 names, but I hope they can be in some way included in the Official Report. [Interruption.] I am being told to read them into the record. They are: Professor Mike Parker Pearson, University College London; Dr Umberto Albarella, University of Sheffield; Dr Mike Allen, Allen Environmental Associates; Dr Barry Bishop, University of Buckingham; Professor Nick Branch, University of Reading; Dr Christopher Chippindale, University of Cambridge; Professor Oliver Craig, University of York; Dr David Field, formerly of English Heritage; Professor Charly French, University of Cambridge; Professor Vince Gaffney, University of Bradford; Paul Garwood, University of Birmingham; Professor David Jacques, University of Buckingham; Dr Nicholas James, University of Cambridge; Dr Joshua Pollard, University of Southampton; Professor Colin Richards, University of the Highlands and Islands; Dr David Robinson, University of Central Lancashire; Professor Peter Rowley-Conwy, University of Durham; Professor Clive Ruggles, University of Leicester; Dr Colin Shell, University of Cambridge; Professor Julian Thomas, University of Manchester; Professor Christopher Tilley, University College London; and Professor Kate Welham, University of Bournemouth.

They have concerns, and further concerns have been raised by a different body that worked on the Blick Mead archaeological site in the east. The principal concern there is about the water table, since the deoxygenated environment, as I have explained, is extremely helpful in preserving organic matter from a long time ago. They are concerned about two aspects of the proposed route: that the extension of dual carriageway could create additional weight on the road, squeezing water out of the site; and that the weight of the flyover could squeeze the soil down, again pushing water out.

Such concerns are understandable from a professional viewpoint, given that in 2000, an extraordinarily important Mesolithic site in North Yorkshire called Star Carr was damaged when drainage ditches—which, I believe, had been approved by heritage organisations—were cut through. That has caused irreparable damage to a truly remarkable site. For the record, the academic paper charting what happened at Star Carr can be found in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, November 2017, “Lessons from Star Carr on the vulnerability of organic archaeological remains to environmental change”. Within a short period from the changes being made to the Star Carr environment, irreparable and irreversible damage was done to its archaeology.

I was pleased to see in chapter 11 of the Highways England preliminary environmental information report that the potential impacts of the construction of the scheme at the eastern end—over the Countess roundabout—were being looked at. Some opportunities to avoid or mitigate the impacts by influencing the design of the proposed scheme were noted. However, from the information given in that document, it is very difficult to see exactly how Highways England has reached its conclusions. There is no account of what it envisages the weight of the road being, or the weight of the flyover. It is very difficult—indeed, impossible—to tell what minimisation looks like in this context. Does minimisation mean an absolutely negligible impact? I sincerely hope so. Either way, we deserve to have that information, so that we can ascertain whether the conclusion that the

“proposed scheme would have no likely significant permanent adverse effects”

is true, and if so, the extent to which it is true.

[Alex Burghart]

I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) a moment ago, I fully understand the need for some form of road improvement in the area. All I am asking for is an assurance that we are doing everything in our power to protect the archaeological environment.

[James Gray]

I am so sorry to interrupt once again. It really is the most interesting speech, and we are learning a great deal. My hon. Friend says in passing that some form of road improvement might be necessary. That matter has concerned the road traffic authorities and the people of Wiltshire for two or three generations. It goes right back to the first world war—that was the first time people started talking about what we were going to do about Stonehenge. Therefore, simply to say, “Oh, I’m very worried about the archaeology, and if we can’t save it we must find some other way of doing it,” is not enough. If he does not like the flyover at the Countess roundabout, what else does he propose?

[Alex Burghart]

I think I made it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) that I am not a road engineer. I am a simple Member of Parliament with a historical and archaeological bent. The experts should find a means of answering such questions. It may be, for all I know, that they have already done so, but from the information that I have seen and that has been made available to the public, my concerns have not been allayed. Clearly, the archaeological community and international community have not had their concerns allayed either.

UNESCO and its sister group in the UK, the International Council on Monuments and Sites, have said on a number of occasions that the current proposals are not what they would wish. To quote UNESCO from earlier this year, the project is

“not adequate to protect the authenticity, integrity and Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property.”

In April of this year, ICOMOS said:

“ICOMOS-UK wishes to register a strong objection to these proposals in view of the substantial negative and irreversible impact we believe that the dual carriageways at both ends of the tunnel would have on the attributes of OUV of the WHS of Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites.”

Unless we can allay those fears, there is a danger that the status of the world heritage site will be affected. That would be extremely bad for us all, and is something that I am sure none of us wants, although I acknowledge that local MPs and local constituents will want improvements in the area.

I must put on the record the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) is here. As a Minister, he is unable to speak. I am very sorry he is in that position, because I know that he would want to raise a lot of issues on behalf of his constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Graham, for calling me. My intention was not to speak in the debate at all, not least because I am the MP for North Wiltshire, which is some 20 or 30 miles away from Stonehenge. My constituency therefore does not face the direct impact that will be suffered by, for example, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen). He is, of course, prevented from speaking because of his rank as a Minister. Sadly, that rank has never come my way, although there is plenty of time left. One can never tell—it could be on its way.

I enjoyed immensely listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) introduce the debate. Even having studied Stonehenge for 20 years as an MP, and as a medieval historian for a great deal of time before that, I learned an enormous amount from his speech, and I congratulate him on it. There was a huge amount of interesting information there that I, for one, simply did not know, and he made some incredibly important points.

I think my hon. Friend spoke for the people as a whole, and for everyone who is concerned about the issue. Of course, I suspect that hardly anyone wants to destroy or damage the archaeology around Stonehenge. We all want to do everything that we can to preserve it; there is no question about that. We do not want one blade of grass that is of historic interest to be damaged by the proposal, and of course we must do everything that we can to preserve the site. That is why so many experts have been involved in the project for so many years.

I think my hon. Friend has missed two things. First, we have to do something. He mentioned that he has been down to Cornwall on holiday on a couple of occasions, and was once stuck in traffic thanks to President Obama. From listening to BBC Radio Wiltshire, I can tell hon. Members that the A303 at Stonehenge is chock-a-block, morning, noon and night, seven days a week. It is the most extraordinary piece of traffic congestion in the country. That does not only affect local people and tourists trying to get down to the south-west—I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) that it is an important traffic link to the south-west—but the stones themselves.

Secondly, of course it is right that a UNESCO world heritage site should be preserved in the way my hon. Friend describes—no one denies that, but I find it hard to imagine that UNESCO could allow a site such as Stonehenge, one of the finest sites in the world, to have a traffic jam through the middle of it. Quite rightly, we decided to close the branch road that goes up towards Devizes. That road was closed because it damaged the site; it went right through the middle of it. Closing that road has actually made the traffic problems worse, but the A303 is within a yard or two of the heel stone. We are talking about the most appalling traffic jam right beside the stones. We may have traffic jams here, outside the Tower of London or Westminster Abbey, but what we see at Stonehenge is significantly worse than that. I cannot imagine why, from a heritage standpoint, anybody could do anything other than welcome the fact that this road is going to be moved. It has to be moved. It is an absolute bunion—a carbuncle, in the words of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. It is an appalling sight and we have to do something about it.

My third point was missing from the speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, which was extremely well thought through. Of course we have to preserve the archaeology, but we have to do so in a way that modern people can appreciate, and in such a way that they can live their lives. At the moment, that is not happening.

Something has to happen and people have been considering the matter for generations now. The proposal we have come up with seems to me to be the least bad of the options available to us. Of course, there may be some downsides and a bit of impact from the weight of the flyover and one or two other things, which we will try to make better, but we have got to do something. In reply to an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar said that that was not a matter for him—he comes from Essex and does not know anything about road engineering. He knows about wetlands and things of that kind, but he does not understand the realities of the place itself. He does not understand the misery that local people and tourists to the west country are currently going through.

In considering my hon. Friend’s very fine and important archaeological points, it is also necessary to consider at the same time how those things can be sustainably maintained—in other words, kept in their pristine condition in a way that allows modern people to live their modern lives.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[James Gray]

Of course, I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend from Essex.

[Tim Loughton]

Or indeed, Sussex. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that everyone here would agree that the imperative is to make sure that when he inevitably gets his ministerial car, it can speed without any encumbrance across the A303 to his constituency. Will he acknowledge that the Stonehenge UNESCO world heritage site was in place almost 5,000 years before the invention of the internal combustion engine? While we absolutely need to make sure that modern life can be compatible with its preservation, will he acknowledge that the problem with the scheme is that it does not sufficiently take account of the heritage value of the site? The site is not just the stones themselves. It is a much wider area that is of significant archaeological importance, as recognised in the wider UNESCO world heritage site—one of only 31 such sites in this country.

[James Gray]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I must correct him on two small points. It shows how little he knows of the geography of the area. If someone were to travel in their ministerial limo from north Wiltshire to London, they would not go anywhere near Stonehenge—they would be some 30 miles away from it. One of the first things he ought to do is to take a glance at a map of Wiltshire and find out exactly what is affected by this proposal.

Secondly, when he says that the UNESCO world heritage site was in place 5,000 years ago, I suspect that UNESCO was not around 5,000 years ago. None the less, that is a small oversight on his part.

Of course, we are all ad idem. We are in agreement. All of us in this room are in agreement on these matters, and it is quite wrong to try to make it into an argument. We are all in agreement. There is no question about that. Of course we must do absolutely everything in our power to preserve the archaeology, the heritage, the wildlife and the biodiversity of the area. It is an incredibly important area. We in Wiltshire are more proud of Stonehenge than almost anything else, apart from perhaps Salisbury Cathedral and Malmesbury Abbey—just to throw them in. Of course we must do those things, but we must do them at the same time as allowing modern people to live their lives.

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful and well thought out speech. Does he agree that we have got to come to a balanced position, where we balance preservation against progress, and protecting the past against allowing the future to take place? The one option we cannot allow is doing nothing. Something has to be done, but it has to be done in a balanced way that embraces both sides of the argument.

[James Gray]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good summary of my points. He is absolutely right that this must be balanced.

I hope that the Minister will take account of the important points that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar made in his speech. Of course we must take account of every single archaeological detail. We must do what we can to preserve this hugely important site, and we must improve the UNESCO world heritage site by removing the traffic from the middle of it. Of course all those things are true, but we must also find a way of allowing people in Wiltshire and throughout the west country to enjoy their way of life.

I personally believe that the conclusion we have come to with regard to the tunnel and the approaches to it is the least bad of the options available. Nothing is great and there are problems with it, but I think we have taken account of most of the issues as best we can. I very much hope that those who are responsible for these matters will have listened very carefully to the important points made by my hon. Friend, and where improvements can be made, I am certain that they will be, but I would be extremely concerned if those kinds of concerns were to cause the delay or, even worse, the failure of the scheme as a whole.

[Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that we need to move to the wind-up speeches by 10 past 5. I call Dr Murrison. If you would exercise a little restraint, that would be welcome.

Luton Airport Expansion

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Bim Afolami]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. Perhaps it is because I am new—perhaps I am optimistic and generous—but I do agree with him that trust is crucial. Trust between the citizen and Government, both local and national, is one of the most fundamental underpinnings of our or any democracy. Many of my constituents have lost trust in recent borough council management of the expansion of Luton airport over recent years, as my right hon. Friend describes, and one reason for that is the highly unusual situation whereby Luton Borough Council owns Luton airport and at the same time is the planning authority currently responsible for approving its expansion. I must make it clear for the record that I am not accusing Luton Borough Council of any legal or procedural impropriety. However, there is a significant conflict of interest.

In 2015 the highly esteemed National Audit Office—esteemed not only by the Government and the House; as a member of the Public Accounts Committee I work with its civil servants frequently and they are incredibly capable people—published a report on managing conflicts of interest in the public sector. The report states:

“A failure to recognise a conflict of interest can give the impression that the organisation...is not acting in the public interest and can damage...confidence in government.”

Luton Borough Council’s ownership of Luton airport, which generated a net profit of roughly £47 million in the last financial year, coupled with the huge increase in flight noise for many thousands of my constituents and across Hertfordshire, as I have already demonstrated, as well as with the huge increase in passenger numbers, leaves many of my constituents feeling that Luton Borough Council has one real interest: growing passenger numbers and therefore revenue for its airport. That interest has been pursued without any real consideration for the significant negative impacts on the people of Hertfordshire that I have outlined here today. As one of my constituents put it to me, Bedfordshire gets the gain, and Hertfordshire gets the pain.

So, what shall be done? I propose that the Minister responds to the following points in his response. First, bearing in mind the huge growth proposed at the airport, will the Government confirm that the plans for any future expansion must be approved as a nationally significant infrastructure project submission to the Planning Inspectorate, with the decision therefore no longer being made by Luton Borough Council? Secondly, will the Government act not to allow any further expansion of passenger numbers beyond 18 million without the imposition of much greater conditions around noise concerns, flight route changes, and a much tougher limit on night flights, so that Luton is finally treated like other London airports? Thirdly, will the Government call on Luton Borough Council to provide detailed plans for the necessary infrastructural improvements, particularly on local roads, that will be necessary in Hertfordshire even based on existing passenger numbers, as well as in Bedfordshire, and explain how they propose to fund it?

Finally, will the Government call on Luton Borough Council and Luton airport to work much harder to gain the trust and partnership of Hertfordshire residents, as mentioned earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), not only for any expansion of passenger numbers in future, and actively keep future growth in step with mitigation measures and constrain that future growth if necessary?

I thank the House for being so patient with me in my first Westminster Hall debate. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main).

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

You are not giving way. You have completed your remarks.

[Bim Afolami]

Forgive me.

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

I was about to say that by agreement with the hon. Gentleman and the Minister, both of whom have been informed, I call—the hon. Gentleman does not—Mrs Anne Main.

Monarch Airlines

James Gray Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

James Gray.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Yes, Mr Speaker. I join my friends in congratulating the Secretary of State, the CAA and others on a magnificent operation to repatriate so many people who would otherwise be marooned overseas. However, I remain concerned, because I have a number of constituents who had booked holidays but not yet travelled. Will they be covered under the ATOL scheme, or under credit card insurance schemes, and how many people have been affected in that way?

Great Western Line: Electrification

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered electrification of the Great Western line.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. This is a debate that I never wanted to have to bring to the House and I am sure that many other Members felt the same. In doing so, I acknowledge that the Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard)—is relatively new to his post and that many of the problems I am highlighting will be ones that he has inherited. I also acknowledge that he has been and remains a formidable constituency MP, as well as now being a great Minister, so I hope that he will forgive many of us for expressing passionately the views and interests of our constituents. That goes to the heart of why I called for this debate, because I am sure that there are those somewhere who will say, “What is an MP for Bristol North West doing having this debate?” Neither Bristol Parkway nor Bristol Temple Meads are in my constituency, so some will say, “Well, she’s not affected by this.” However, anyone who says that an MP such as me is not affected by this issue misunderstands fundamentally the nature of transport and the nature of our railways in particular.

Our railways are not simply stretches of iron rail in the location where they are constituted; they are the circulation system, if you will, of our regions, our communities and indeed our entire nation. If something happens to one part of that circulation system, it has wide-reaching effects and impacts on the body as a whole.

I applied for this debate because of deep concern about the recent Government announcement of the deferral of electrification, which yet again appears to leave the south-west region trailing behind other parts of the country in terms of transport infrastructure investment.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am sorry to interrupt her so very early in her speech. I know that most of the speeches in the Chamber this afternoon will be about the problems and the deferral of electrification. However, would it not be gracious to say that 10 years ago there was no prospect whatever of electrification anywhere to the west of London? We should be glad that this Conservative Government have delivered electrification as far as Chippenham—in my constituency, or just outside it—and that we have quite a few things to be grateful for, albeit that we also have a few problems.

[Charlotte Leslie]

It is always a profound joy to give way to my hon. Friend. If he had waited for a small amount of time before intervening, I would have come to that point. However, since he has made that case, I can skip over some of my speech, because it is a very valid point. We do not want to let the best become the enemy of the good and I want to acknowledge where we are.

Road Routes to the South-West

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. We are keen to hear from the Minister exactly how the spending is going and when we are likely to see diggers arriving to construct the roads, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) said earlier. We look forward to that answer.

Additionally, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire) reminded me, the A30 is a stretch of road that runs past Exeter airport and that by no means constitutes low noise. He is particularly keen for the concrete motorway to be quietened—I suspect he tried that when the Minister came down the A30. It is definitely dualled, of which I am jealous, but there is an argument about the noise caused by the road. The village of Clyst in the East Devon constituency is hit by the double whammy of noise from the airport and from the roads.

Furthermore, the A30 is the main carriageway for motorists travelling westwards towards the Exeter and East Devon growth point, which is also in the East Devon constituency. The growth point, as my right hon. Friend pointed out to me, includes the brand-new and fast-growing town of Cranbrook, the science park, the business park, Skypark and, as mentioned previously, Exeter airport. The Minister was in Cranbrook just last week for the opening of a new train station, and he will have seen at first hand that improvements to the A30 would be a big boost to the growth point and therefore the wider economic area. The only way to achieve those figures is to upgrade the whole A303/A30—I may possibly have mentioned that before. That second arterial route into the west country would create a natural flow of traffic, as much of the London traffic would be dealt with, thereby creating the sensible and logical division of traffic that we need.

I ask the Minister for assurances that all those projects will be given the go-ahead. Please show the same confidence in the south-west that all of us here today share and recognise. We have been given a brilliant opportunity to develop as part of the long-term economic plan not just for the west country but for the whole country. Will he encourage Highways England to work with Devon County Council on the design of the roads through Honiton and Monkton, all the way through the Blackdown hills to Ilminster? Devon County Council has done a lot of work on that. Finally, we say to the Chancellor: please may we have these funds? They have been promised, and we look forward to seeing them.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, I note that at least five hon. Members, perhaps more, are seeking to catch my eye. I intend to call the first Front Bench spokesperson at 10 minutes past 5, which gives 18 minutes between five speakers. An average of three or four minutes each would be courteous to each other.

Great Western Railway Routes

James Gray Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing with the House his superb knowledge of the vegetation on the Great Western main line in Devon and Cornwall. His point absolutely rams home the message that a tree falling over, a cow breaking out of a field, or a small amount of earth moving at a critical point can close huge parts of the network. That is why it is so important to hold this debate about resilience. In addition, the cross-country services have been cancelled at Dawlish again today. I must say that that is not due to the line but to a fault with the trains, but that again brings home to us the vulnerability of some key routes and networks on which many people depend.

I hope that this debate will not be about being negative and having a moan. We could all spend the next few hours whingeing and sharing our stories about various poor train journeys. One that sticks in my mind was when I and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) got on a train that had what was charmingly described as a “toilet spill”, which was particularly interesting. Being negative will not achieve anything: it may make us feel a bit better to get a dreadful journey off our chests, but it will not actually make a difference.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am sorry to bring a disagreeable note into what has, so far, been an extremely agreeable debate. Of course we all love to moan and groan about our rail journeys, but I have travelled with First Great Western twice a week for 20 years and I find it extraordinarily good. We have criticisms of some things—the catering, the toilets and one or two other matters need to be sorted out—but overall, the punctuality and the service are extremely good.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is right that there are many positive stories to be told. Let us be blunt that a key one is the amazing legacy of innovative engineering we have been left by the Victorians. The Royal Albert bridge was built using innovative techniques and was a feat of engineering at the time. It created the link between Plymouth and Cornwall that exists to this day and carries trains far heavier than it was ever designed for. Box tunnel is now one of the most well-used tunnels. It was so innovative when it was built that there had to be a station at both ends, because some Victorian travellers were rather frightened of going through a tunnel, so there was the option of getting off the train, taking a horse and carriage ride around it and getting back on a train at the other end.

[Mr Gray]

rose—

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

I think my hon. Friend was there.

[Kevin Foster]

That is very ungentlemanly of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) again.

[Mr Gray]

My hon. Friend is being very generous. Box tunnel is, of course, in my constituency. He will know that the only time one can see from one end of the tunnel to the other is once a year on Brunel’s birthday. [Interruption.] The Minister says that it is not true, but we believe it is true—I have seen it myself. More importantly, we think that we are close to reopening an important station at Corsham, which is at one end of Box tunnel. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that opening such stations along the route is extremely important.

[Kevin Foster]

Absolutely. I do not want to get involved in a cross-Wiltshire debate about tunnel openings and people’s birthdays, but it is important to think about the communities along the route. One reason why the theme of resilience is so important is that having a station is great, but if a train does not run at certain times, people do not have the service they want.

Let us be candid: this is the positive story of a network that stretches from London to Swansea, that runs through Cheltenham and Bristol, and that goes down to Penzance. It revolutionised a whole region that had been fairly isolated until the trains went through.

Over the past few years, we have seen huge growth in rail travel across our region, with many branch lines, particularly in Cornwall, seeing passenger levels that have not been seen for decades. All that is being delivered with the well-known limitations of the network in the area: the relatively old rolling stock, some of which has seen better days, and issues with the network in terms of resilience, signalling and other things that I will come to in a minute.

The point of this debate is not to share jokes or reminisce about poor train journeys, but to say that there could be an even more positive story in the future that would boost productivity and deliver more jobs and investment.