Crewe Railway Station

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Connor Naismith]

It is fair to say that the opportunities that opening the station of Middlewich would present to the country and to Cheshire are exciting.

Crewe station is a genuine strategic asset for local and national infrastructure.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. Does he not agree that to meet carbon targets, connectivity is essential, and rail is needed as an integrated part of that plan? That, as well as subsequent upgrades to existing stations and frequent bus links to rail stations, all must be part of the net zero conversation.

[Connor Naismith]

It would not be an Adjournment debate in this place without an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, and he is correct. I will go on to say a little more about the importance of rail to our climate objectives.

The significance of Crewe train station goes beyond its enormous benefit to the rail network. It provides and has provided in its lifetime critical economic benefits.

<Railway Services: South-West>

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Wrigley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Accessible, step-free stations are vitally important across Devon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He is right to highlight the contact between the south-west and London in particular. It is disappointing that, even in London, almost two thirds of tube and other stations have no access for disabled people. If the Government are going to make improvements to railway movement for passengers, then accessibility for disabled people—and access to work for them—is key to that moving forward.

[Martin Wrigley]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

When I met Network Rail in the autumn, it said that the design team for the fifth and final phase of the work would be reassigned if the funding was not forthcoming soon. That would put the project back, and significant extra funds would be required to get it back up to speed.

A few months ago, I asked the then Transport Secretary about the funding for the critical final phase of the Dawlish rail resilience programme, which is the largest piece of work. It deals with the landslips that caused the line to be closed long beyond the short time it took to repair the sea wall breach. She looked shocked to learn that the funding was not already there. Although she did not promise the funds, she indicated that the project would be a high priority.

The line has been closed on a number of occasions over the past years. The previous large cliff collapse was in the winter of 2000-01, according to the “West of Exeter Route Resilience Study”. I ask the Minister to reassure Network Rail and my constituents that that vital project will not be quietly forgotten, but will be completed to protect the economic wellbeing of the south-west and my constituents’ access to rail services.

However, there are other threats too. The Great Western main line not only runs from Paddington to Exeter, Plymouth, Penzance and the far west of Cornwall, but covers Swindon, Bristol, Cheltenham and Gloucester, to name but a few, not forgetting Cardiff, Swansea and south Wales.

Coastguard Helicopter Services

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Is this your first time chairing?

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

Yes.

[Jim Shannon]

Then I wish you well in your new role. I am sure that you and I and others will meet on a number of occasions—

[Jim Allister]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Jim Shannon]

I am happy to give way.

[Jim Allister]

While we are on statistics, can the hon. Member tell us how many times he has spoken in this Chamber?

[Jim Shannon]

I am unable to answer that. I say only that I make sure that the constituency of Strangford is named every time I am here. That is the important point, because it is the people who put me here.

It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). In all honesty, there probably is not a debate where I do not find myself alongside the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is on fishing issues, coastguard issues, farming or whatever it may be. These are all things that he and I, along with others, have a deep interest in, and we come to Westminster Hall to put forward the case on behalf of our constituents.

[Mr Carmichael]

I do not know whether this is really necessary, but given that I mentioned the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), I should put on the record, in case there were any doubt about it, that when we last debated this issue in November 2023, the hon. Member for Strangford was in the Chamber too.

[Jim Shannon]

It is the subject matter that motivates us, of course—that is why we are here.

I am really pleased to see the Minister in his place, and I wish him well in his role. He and I have been friends for many years, and I am very pleased to see him in that position. I know he will give the job the necessary energy and commitment. It is also good to see the shadow Minister in his place. I wish him well in his new role.

The core responsibility of His Majesty’s Coastguard and the helicopter service is to search, rescue and save. Those services are of major importance to society and take steps every single day to protect us; it is great to be here to discuss how we can preserve and protect them for the future. I know the Minister will reassure us and give us confidence that what we have, we can hold, and that they will continue to save lives. All Members who have intervened have mentioned saving lives—that is the thrust of what we are trying to achieve.

In my Strangford constituency, lifeboats and the coastguard, including lifeboats from Portaferry and Donaghadee, are called out almost every other week, and they do a massive good job in saving lives.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the by-products of this magnificent and timely debate is that it allows us to pay tribute to the volunteers, as he is doing? They include the likes of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland and onshore charitable organisations such as Community Rescue Service in Coleraine and Foyle Search and Rescue in Londonderry. We pay tribute to those people, and hopefully we can get them an additional revenue stream to ensure they can do the job of saving lives.

[Jim Shannon]

I think my hon. Friend may have been at the debate that I attended. He is on the record praising the good work of those volunteers. Every one of us knows the contribution that they make in saving lives. First and foremost, they are volunteers who have a commitment to do well.

Thinking about the helicopter search and rescue made me remember a story. It happened a long time ago, but it has always stuck in my mind. One Boxing day, I was out duck hunting on the pond on my farm, but out across Strangford lough a real tragedy was taking place. Six young men from Kircubbin—I live between Greyabbey and Kircubbin—went across to Daft Eddy’s, the pub on the far side, and on the way back they got into difficulties and were all drownded. I remember visiting all the families to express my deep sympathy to them. The point I want to make is that the helicopters were out—we could see their lights all over Strangford lough, going side to side everywhere as they tried to find the bodies and to reassure the families. The work that they did that night was incredible.

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Gentleman is laying bare the sentiment and bravery of the crews that operate these helicopters. They do whatever they can hopefully to bring safety and security, if not comfort, to people in coastal communities right around the British Isles.

I may be the only rotary wing aircraft engineer in Parliament—I certainly like to think I am, anyway. Helicopters are inherently expensive, and it is incumbent on the Government to acknowledge that. That expense brings with it tremendous value. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, this is about the future? We are where we are, and relatively content we are too, but in future negotiations with contractors for this service the Government have to understand that, in their pursuit of value for money in Government services, there are many, many places to look before they look here.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend—he is a friend—for that intervention. That is my feeling, ensconced in those few paragraphs. He is right that when it comes to saving money, there are some things that we cannot scrimp and save on.

Unfortunately, that night helicopters were not successful in saving lives, but they were successful in retrieving bodies and giving them to their families, so that they could suitably grieve with the loved ones they had a great fondness for.

HM Coastguard was formally brought into existence almost 203 years ago, and has been working to keep people safe by the coast and at sea ever since. It is a world-class leader in maritime safety, available to be called 24/7, to help anyone in difficulty around the coast. It is similar to our helicopter service, which goes above and beyond to provide care and help those who require it. I do not often get the chance to watch telly, but Sunday afternoon is the one time I do. I enjoy the westerns that are on then, which shows how old I am. In the breaks there are adverts for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, showing examples of its work and seeking donations of £2 a week. On occasions, it is not able to do the total job and helicopters will be part of the rescue.

Back home, HM Coastguard oversees maritime search and rescue operations, including helicopter services to ensure safety. Those operations are co-ordinated through a network of maritime rescue centres across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with a joint rescue co-ordination centre in Hampshire serving as a central hub. HM Coastguard’s helicopter fleet operates from 10 strategically located bases throughout the United Kingdom, providing rapid response capabilities at sea, along the coast and in certain inland areas.

In Northern Ireland, those services are supported by local teams, such as Bangor Coastguard Rescue Team in the neighbouring constituency of North Down, which specialises in water rescue, mud rescue and missing person searches. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) told us about the north coast. Many will be aware that I represent an even better and more beautiful constituency in Strangford, which is part coastal. The Newtownards peninsula consists of numerous villages and hamlets along the coastline. In addition, the Bangor Coastguard Rescue Team lies in the constituency of North Down, our neighbouring area, so knowing that extra support is there for residents is always reassuring. It is always a team effort, with councillors working together with MPs and other bodies to ensure that everything happens.

In July 2022, Robert Courts, then Minister for Maritime and Aviation, announced a new contract that would be awarded to secure helicopter fleets for the next 10 years to serve HM Coastguard and helicopter search. The new contract means that the UK search and rescue region will benefit from innovation and advances in technology. It is important that all those involved in the work have those advances in technology to reach people more quickly and save their lives. That provides an opportunity to build a future coastguard aviation capability that can keep pace with the growing demand on coastguard and aviation services across the United Kingdom.

I met the then Minister two or three years ago to discuss provision for Northern Ireland. The commitment I got at that time was that it would be covered by Prestwick, which I appreciated, but we need to continue. There have been extreme circumstances when we have had to call on the Republic of Ireland, which also makes its helicopters available for the search. That is all part of doing a good job.

Living on the edge of Strangford lough, we are aware of night-time searches, some of which have been successful in saving lives. On other occasions, they have unfortunately not been successful. Sometimes, despite their best efforts, all those involved, such as the helicopters, police, ambulance and fire services and hundreds of volunteers, have not been able to find those missing people—often troubled youngsters. Thankfully, they are successful sometimes.

In conclusion, I believe that it is of the utmost importance that we do all we can, as parliamentarians, to properly fund, protect and preserve our coastguard and aviation teams. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said, Air Ambulance Northern Ireland is funded through charitable donations. There is not a week, back in my constituency—and probably in everybody else’s, to be honest—when some group is not doing some fundraising for the Air Ambulance NI, or the air ambulance wherever they may be. Whether it be road traffic accidents, saving people in emergencies or helping people who just take ill, the air ambulance can be there in a few minutes, and those people can be taken to hospital.

Busy roads on the Ards peninsula, where I live, are usually narrow with lots of corners, and that restricts the ambulance service’s ability to get to places in time. That is a fact of life. However, the air ambulance makes that situation better. I thank all those who have made ongoing fundraising efforts to maintain and enhance its operations. The community support and contributions are essential to sustain lifesaving services. There is a responsibility in Government to ensure that those services do not falter for mainland England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales.

This great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is always better together—my friend, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), knows that.

[Dave Doogan]

I doubt that!

[Jim Shannon]

I say that as personal opinion, of course. The point I am making is that we can be better together, and we can do it better together. Our people deserve that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a huge campaigner for Grangemouth. We have committed to bringing forward the revenue certainty mechanism. We have already legislated for a 2% fuel mix in the SAF mandate, which came into force on 1 January this year, and we look forward to the Bill coming before the House when parliamentary time allows.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answer. I know that he has a deep interest in Northern Ireland, so may I ask a similar question? Northern Ireland wants to provide the necessary aviation fuels and has the ability to do so. What progress has he made in his discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we can be part of the future of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is always better together?

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Member is a doughty champion of air travel and SAF in Northern Ireland. Through the advanced fuels fund, we have 13 projects and we are currently investing well over £100 million across the UK to see what comes forward in the market, and I hope that Northern Ireland will be integral to that process.

Road Safety

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

Happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the chance to have this debate, and I thank the Minister for her attendance and for her work on tackling this issue, including through the upcoming road safety strategy.

I requested the debate because our current approach to road safety is in desperate need of overhaul. Although a few local authorities have robust and innovative approaches to road safety, too many lack the resources or political will to implement proactive safety measures, which is increasingly making road safety a postcode lottery. Too often, safety interventions come as a response to collisions, rather than as proactive measures to prevent them. We do not listen to our communities and have failed to invest and to learn from international best practice. As a result, progress in reducing road deaths has largely plateaued in recent years. The UK has passed a grim and shaming milestone: 500,000 people have died on the roads in Great Britain since records began in 1926. That is more than the number of UK citizens killed as a result of warfare in the same period, including in the second world war.

I am well aware that this is a complex and multi-dimensional issue to which we cannot do justice in such a short debate, so rather than trying to address every aspect of road safety, I will instead focus on a couple of linked aspects that are of particular concern to my Rossendale and Darwen constituents—specifically, speeding and issues related to large commercial vehicles. Rossendale and Darwen is a constituency of A roads running down valleys, with relatively few alternative routes, and most residential and commercial development extends along those lines. I live off Burnley Road in Bacup, and the lived experience of residents along that road serves to highlight most of the issues I want to raise today. Ask anyone who lives on Burnley Road and they will tell you that speeding is endemic. There have been serious injuries and fatalities, but more fundamentally, residents will cite numerous close calls and the fear they generate.

For example, one house on a bend in the road has now been hit by speeding vehicles three times. In one case, a vehicle impacted on a spot where a pedestrian had been standing just seconds before, and when we lived on the main road, a car judged to be speeding at over 100 mph hit my wife’s car with such force that it was lifted up and landed on mine—that was in a 30 mph zone. There are many more stories like those; indeed, just this morning, constituents contacted me about a particularly serious close call, which I cannot detail now because it may go to court. To compound this, the road is very heavily used by large commercial vehicles.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy MacNae]

I will—it would be a pleasure.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. I spoke to him beforehand—through two or three different people, but I got to him eventually. I was intrigued by the title of the debate, “Prevention-based road safety and community involvement”, simply because in my constituency, back in October of last year, we had a double-decker bus taking children from school. It was travelling along the Ballyblack Road outside Carrowdore, going towards Bangor and Newtownards, and it fell over. Thank goodness, nobody was killed, but some children were injured.

The point I wanted to make, which I think is important and fits with the theme of the hon. Gentleman’s debate, is that while we must have ongoing road safety and infrastructure projects in place, we also need community involvement in safety. It was the community who responded to the incident—the nurses and doctors on the road and the farmers who came across the fields. Community involvement is really important; if we want to improve safety, we must have the community tied in.

[Andy MacNae]

I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman—indeed, that is the main subject that I will try to focus on today. It is hugely important that we listen to our communities, because in the end, not only do our communities know best, but they are the ones who experience the consequences of these decisions.

Burnley Road is very heavily used by large commercial vehicles, and there have been numerous close calls with those vehicles as well. Residents see them speeding or travelling in convoy, too often with their driver on a mobile phone. This is a massive concern around the local primary school, which—like many in Rossendale and Darwen—is sited directly on the main road. Last year, two big wagons managed to crash into each other just outside the school. Narrow pavements and a lack of safe crossing areas further increase the risk, and it is hardly a surprise that many parents are reluctant to let their kids walk even a short distance to school. I cannot think of anyone who rides a bike there.

Gatwick Airspace Modernisation Review

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential impact of the Gatwick airspace modernisation review on local communities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. My constituency of Horsham lies to the west and south of Gatwick airport. I have brought today’s debate in order to represent growing concerns from residents regarding the airspace modernisation process around Gatwick, which is part of the future airspace strategy implementation south, known as FASI-S.

Before I start, I would like to make it clear that I wholly support the modernisation process in principle. It is a vital step if we are to improve the efficiency of civil aviation, cut flight times and reduce carbon emissions. What I do question, however, is how we will get there. The process as it stands involves a significant conflict of interest. I would also like to emphasise that the airspace modernisation process is entirely separate from the second runway application at Gatwick, although it is going on at the same time and naturally gets confused in the public mind. The airspace modernisation process will go ahead whether or not Gatwick obtains permission to expand and is in fact part of a national process also being conducted at 19 other airports across the UK.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I hope I can help him and the Minister as well. For all airport modernisation reviews, the issue of sound is always of extreme importance. For example, both major airports in Northern Ireland, Belfast International and Belfast City, have residential areas nearby. Provisions must be in place to tackle excessive noise at certain times. So does the hon. Member agree that any airspace modernisation review must make the matter of noise a top priority to ensure that local communities are not negatively impacted by airspace expansion?

[John Milne]

Indeed, as I will come on to, noise is the primary issue at stake here. Gatwick Airport Ltd, referred to as GAL, is a private company. As the operator at Gatwick, it has been tasked with masterminding the airspace review process. It is subject to oversight from a public body, the Civil Aviation Authority. Similarly, Heathrow and other airports across the country are carrying out their own strategy implementation consultation processes for their own areas. The assumption is that each airport knows its own patch better than anyone else, so they are the best qualified to do the job. However, in the case of Gatwick, serious concerns have been raised. Now that we have reached stage three, which is the public consultation phase, many of my constituents and parish councils are concerned. They are worried about the impacts the proposals will have on public health, the objectivity of the process itself and whether the three shortlisted choices actually represent any kind of choice at all.

The proposed changes all involve using a new, previously not overflown flight path. Currently, planes taking off to the west climb for about 6k out before turning south to the coast. But the new route makes a much earlier turn south at about 2k out. The net effect of this change is to separate the western and southern route paths much earlier than currently, which enables a reduction in the interval between flights from two minutes down to 60 seconds. That in turn would enable the airport operator to build significantly more take-off slots into their schedules. The value of that increase in capacity is enormous, potentially hundreds of millions of pounds over the long term.

Why should the change in flight path matter so much to my constituents? Because the sharper turns mean that thousands of flights a year will henceforth directly overfly the villages of Rusper, Warnham and Slinfold at a relatively low height, radically increasing noise pollution, loss of sleep and other negatives.

Aldridge Train Station

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of Aldridge train station.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the proposed development of a new train station in my Aldridge-Brownhills constituency and its funding through the city region sustainable transport settlement, known as CRSTS, which is less of a mouthful.

I will start with a little background about Aldridge-Brownhills and where we have got to with the development of a train station. Currently Aldridge-Brownhills is one of only 49 constituencies in this country that do not have a passenger train station and one of three in the West Midlands combined authority area. That is worth remembering. As in so many other areas, we lost our station in Aldridge due to the 1960s Beeching cuts. The last passenger train left Aldridge in 1965. Although we still have a freight line with freight trains operating on it, we do not have passenger services, but what we do have is a vision and determination to once again see passenger train services stopping at and running through Aldridge.

Things began to change in 2017. Following the first West Midlands mayoral election and the establishment of the West Midlands combined authority under Andy Street, the mayor laid down a bold and ambitious transport plan for the West Midlands region up until 2040.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady for securing this debate. I suppose her ambition will be not just for the train station, because in this day and age there is definitely a need to ensure that those with disabilities can have access to all the train stations. I know the Government are committed to making those changes, but in the new build that the right hon. Lady is asking for, is it not possible to have disabled access there at the beginning so that everyone has the right to travel in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. New trains stations must have disabled-friendly access, and also access for those who might have a pram, a pushchair or bags that are hard to carry up the stairs. That is really important. I am conscious that across the rail network, as the Minister will be aware, we have a lot of older train stations and heritage buildings. I know there is a programme to bring those up to speed. Perhaps she will say a little more about that.

I am passionate about a train station for Aldridge because I want to make sure that my constituents have opportunities to go into Walsall, Birmingham and beyond. I want young people to have the opportunity to get the train to go to study, to university, and of course to access employment—so, yes, I am ambitious for Aldridge. When Andy Street was the mayor, part of his ambition was to bring a train station back to Aldridge. In fact, I remember the day he launched the plan and it almost looked like a smaller version of the London Underground map with all the different lines linking together and taking passengers into New Street. Such maps probably get the Department for Transport thinking about a mass transit system and the ability to move people around an area.

A city region such as the West Midlands combined authority needs an integrated transport plan. In Aldridge we have the train line. All we need is a station and then we will be part of that integrated plan. Throughout the intervening period since 2017 a huge amount of work was undertaken by the West Midlands combined authority and Transport for West Midlands. The gamechanger came in February 2021, when Andy Street, on behalf of the combined authority, purchased land from the NHS for car parking. That was a clear demonstration of intent to reopen a station in Aldridge.

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and Local Road Networks

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Calum Miller]

My hon. Friend illustrates rather well that, as I suspected, this topic is of interest to a number of Members. He makes his points extremely well.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Calum Miller]

I will take one more intervention, and then I will make some progress.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate before the House—I spoke to him beforehand, and other Members have added their input as well. While the planning system in Northern Ireland is devolved and operates very differently from that on the mainland, he will know that significant infrastructure projects can take years of planning to-ing and fro-ing and do not always involve communities in the way that they should. Does he agree that community involvement and streamlining the process of delivering necessary projects are important, in order to take in and encapsulate the entirety of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Calum Miller]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I am glad to have given him the opportunity to speak at the beginning of a debate, rather than at the end. His points about community involvement are very well made, and I will elaborate on them a bit in my own remarks.

To turn back to Bicester, the East West Rail project to connect Oxford to Cambridge is an ambitious infrastructure project that will provide a connection between some of the UK’s most dynamic centres of innovation and research. It will pass through my constituency of Bicester and Woodstock, and many constituents have contacted me to highlight how the project will impact them. They include Carol, who lives in a care home south of the rail crossing and tells me that she moved there because it was a short mobility scooter ride from Market Square on a flat route—he would be cut off. They include a volunteer firefighter at Bicester fire station on the north side of the crossing, who lives on the south side and is worried that without access via London Road, he may be delayed when he is called to join an emergency crew—he would be cut off. They include Claire, who cycles with her two sons into town from her home on the south-east of the town. They cannot use the busy A road to get into town if London Road is closed—they would be cut off. Those constituents, and many like them, are worried about the delays that they will face to these regular journeys. All those journeys will be disrupted by this planned closure.

To put this issue in some context, Oxfordshire county council maintains an automated traffic monitor on London Road by the level crossing. That traffic monitor shows that in 2017, there were 9,000 journeys per day on the road. That number fell during the pandemic, but has consistently risen since, with 7,700 journeys in 2023.

The threat of closing London Road is imminent, but it should not come as any surprise to those in government or the rail industry. Importantly, there was a road there long before there was a railway; back in 1795, a coach service ran six days a week from Banbury to London through Bicester, making use of London Road. The railway came to Bicester in 1850, crossing London Road for the first time. Those horse-drawn coaches have been replaced by motor cars, as well as buses and lorries, and with that has come the growth of the town. Over the century to 1930, Bicester was a town of around 3,000 inhabitants. The war period was followed by expansion, and the town’s population nearly doubled by 1961, before growing rapidly to 20,000 by 1981 and 37,000 by 2021. It is forecast to grow to over 50,000 by 2031.

Through all of this, there has remained just one road from the centre of Bicester out to the south: London Road, which is still crossed by the railway line. In 2008, Chiltern Railways announced a proposal to connect Oxford to London Marylebone by instating new track just east of London Road. This was linked to the proposal for the new East West Rail link that had been made in the early 2000s by a consortium of local authorities. Back in 2006, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister stated its support for the west part of the line, from Bletchley to Oxford. That support was finally backed with money in the 2011 autumn statement and a subsequent announcement made by the Transport Secretary in July 2012.

The Chiltern Railways proposal went to planning inspection, with a hearing held in 2012. At that point, more than 12 years ago, various Bicester residents pointed out the implications of a new line and the disruption that frequent downtime of the level crossing would cause. Chiltern Railways argued, however, that there was uncertainty about East West Rail going ahead, and therefore it would be premature to act. The inspector agreed. As a result, when the railway was closed for a full 20 months between February 2014 and October 2015, a huge opportunity was missed to provide a viable solution for the future. Worse, the redesign and expansion of the station—including a large two-storey car park to serve Bicester Village retail park—took up space that could have been part of a solution to the rail crossing. It therefore took almost a decade from the announcement of Department for Transport support for the route between Bletchley and Oxford to be formally approved by the Transport Secretary in February 2020.

That approval followed another planning inspectorate hearing. Residents including Carole Hetherington, who is the chair of the Langford Village Community Association and is in the Gallery today, and the Bicester Traffic Action Group, represented today by Rachel Mallows, again pointed out the need for a solution for London Road. Again, this did not happen.

In 2021, East West Rail consulted residents on its ideas for the line between Bletchley and Oxford, including for London Road. It offered six alternatives, of which option 1 was the full closure of the road with no mitigation. Local residents were appalled by this suggestion. A petition that I launched, as a county council candidate, garnered over 1,500 signatures opposing the road closure. In March 2023, Oxfordshire county council unanimously approved a motion that I proposed as a councillor, stating that the council would work with East West Rail to secure

“a sustainable, funded solution that continues to provide suitable rail crossings for cars, cycles and pedestrians”.

A similar motion was brought to Cherwell district council by Liberal Democrat councillors, who are represented in the Gallery today by Councillor Frank Ideh. The policy of both local authorities is therefore to keep London Road open.

Local residents and I were very frustrated to have to wait over two years for East West Rail’s response to the 2021 consultation. Despite repeated indications that it would publish a response, this was serially delayed. I have some sympathy with East West Rail—under the last Government, it saw five Rail Ministers between 2019 and the 2024 general election, as well as four Prime Ministers and five Chancellors. It was not easy for a major infrastructure project to get steady engagement from the last Government. Finally, in July 2023 East West Rail brought forward feedback on the consultation. This was done through an informal feedback session with a limited amount of published material. Many people were disappointed that, after two further years, there were no specific proposals on the table.

Does the Minister share my frustration and that of my constituents that a project first endorsed by the then Deputy Prime Minister under the last Labour Government in 2006 has only in the last month brought forward detailed proposals for London Road, even though residents have been highlighting concerns for over a decade? Does she also agree that it is deeply regrettable that a short-term approach meant that much more cost-effective opportunities to address this issue were missed when the railway was closed and station rebuilt in 2014-15?

People in Bicester had to wait for the announcement of the proposed East West Rail route in November 2024 to hear what is now being proposed for our town. Let me start with a positive. It is welcome that there is now a commitment to provide a suitably accessible crossing for pedestrians and cyclists. That is a material improvement on the proposals in 2021, which were either to close London Road or to provide only a basic footbridge that would have been totally unsuitable for anyone with a disability, parents with buggies or cyclists.

This reflects sustained community pressure, including from Claire, whom I mentioned earlier, and from the members of the Bicester bike users group, who have been strong champions of a suitable underpass. There is strong support for an underpass rather than a bridge. It would require much less clearance since the land already sits 2 metres below the height of the railway. However, it must be well designed to ensure the safety of users, which, among other things, means adopting best design principles to discourage loitering and maximise visibility for all users.

However, the very bad news for Bicester residents is that East West Rail is proposing to close London Road to car users and offer no alternative. In its consultation document, it says:

“Our preferred solution is for traffic to be diverted using existing roads.”

The strength of community feeling about this is very clear to me in my postbag and my inbox. Nearly 400 people have signed a new petition in the last month objecting to this closure.

The technical document that accompanied the conclusion makes it clear that only preliminary analysis of the journey times has been conducted. It is unclear from this whether the projected growth in Bicester, of both new homes and employment sites, has been factored into the analysis. The document talks about potential improvements to journey times from junction improvements and signalling changes. Local residents and I are very sceptical that this can compensate in any meaningful way for closing this arterial road.

When the Rail Minister courteously called me last month in advance of the announcement of this route, I shared these concerns with him and welcomed his assurance that this would be a genuine consultation. May I therefore take this opportunity in the House to ask the Minister to confirm that the Government remain open-minded on this proposal? Can she confirm that the Government will listen to the consultation feedback, and will she agree that either she or the Rail Minister will meet me and local representatives before submitting any final proposal for planning approval?

Many residents in Bicester see the benefit of increasing the capacity for rail travel across our region, and see that it may bring economic benefits to the UK by joining up some of the most innovative areas, yet all residents agree that the national benefits will come at a cost to Bicester. The core issue here is one of fairness. Local people can support a project that has wider benefits so long as they are not asked to bear concentrated costs without mitigation. In this case, car users are being asked to make materially longer journeys without any alleviation.

The situation is akin to a compulsory purchase order. The railway has, in this case, determined that it will compulsorily close the road at the level crossing, but instead of fully compensating the community for the loss of the road, the current proposal is to give them a limited underpass. East West Rail and the Government need to do better.

I note that the Government are proposing that for nationally significant infrastructure projects in energy, such as new pylons, there should be direct compensation for affected communities. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) recently led a debate on community benefit from renewable energy, which had strong participation from across the House. There is clear support for accepting that local communities should be compensated when asked to bear the brunt of the effects of national projects. Do the Government agree with the principle that there should be compensation for loss from these nationally significant planning decisions?

Money, of course, is key. It has been suggested to me by East West Rail that a core reason for not providing a new road crossing is a cost-benefit evaluation, yet that misses the point. This is not about greenfield project appraisal; it is about compensating the community in Bicester for what is being taken away from them. When land is compulsorily purchased, a market value is paid in compensation. The Government cannot give the landowner a cheaper plot of land and tell them to make the best of it. Since the railway is, in effect, compulsorily seizing the road, it should provide direct compensation to the community. Does the Minister agree that residents in Bicester deserve direct compensation for the closure of London Road in the form of a new road crossing?

Over the past decade, many residents have provided potential options for a crossing, and one of their deep frustrations has been that so little detailed work has been done on those options. Residents are sharing ideas with me now. They include a crossing for light vehicles only, or a signal-controlled crossing that would be cheaper as it would only require one lane across the railway. They have asked whether the proposed underpass could be repurposed for light vehicles at limited additional cost. But it is hard for people to engage meaningfully with alternatives when the Government and East West Rail have been so secretive about the funding available for this project. As final proposals are developed next year, will the Minister undertake to provide a cash value of the preferred options that the Department for Transport is set to approve?

Finally, I want to stress the urgency of action. East West Rail has already run test trains on the track between Oxford and Bletchley, and it intends to start that service in 2025. When that happens, the downtime of the level crossing will double, creating immediate inconvenience and delay for Bicester residents. After all the delays my constituents have already experienced, they must not be made to wait until services start between Oxford and Cambridge after 2030. I appreciate that there are other challenges at the eastern end of the line before the line is completed, but nothing will change between now and then for the western end of the project that affects London Road. Will the Minister please commit that, once options are submitted and approved under a development consent order, funds will be provided and East West Rail will proceed immediately with works to provide crossings at London Road?

This is an issue of fairness. As a national infrastructure project, East West Rail brings many national benefits, yet it brings very specific local costs to my constituents in Bicester. After more than a decade of delay and missed opportunities, we are asking the Government to do the right thing and provide compensation for the direct harm of closing London Road. I hope the Minister will agree to my requests, and I look forward to working with her, her colleague the Rail Minister, and the leadership of East West Rail to ensure that the right solutions are developed for pedestrians, cyclists, and car users, and that Bicester is not cut in two by the new railway.

Rail Services: Devon

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for highlighting this issue. At Christmas, rail and bus services are a massive problem. The alternative is extortionate prices for taxis, which are just not sustainable for the ordinary man or woman on the street. Does he agree that there is more the Government could do, alongside the rail and bus companies, to improve public transport services for those who depend on them late at night, for their employment or for leisure activities?

[Steve Race]

I absolutely agree that for many people in the lowest-paid jobs or who work night shifts, the lack of transport over the Christmas holidays and at regular times is a real challenge.

Research commissioned by the Rail Delivery Group shows that the rail industry generated £1.1 billion in economic, environmental and social benefits to the south-west over the previous year, and that rail customers contributed £2.7 billion through spending in local communities. If we secure 40% rail growth by 2035 by delivering improvements to our network, that could bring an additional £700 million in benefits to the south-west. Greenhouse gas emissions locally would decrease by 1,200 tonnes; congestion, which blights my city, would be reduced by 8 million hours; and 72 road traffic accidents would be prevented.

At the moment, according to projections by the Railway Industry Association, rail travel is expected to grow by an average of 1.6% annually over the next three decades. That would equate to a 20% increase in rail usage by 2035, potentially raising the industry’s contribution to regional benefits to about £1.5 billion. So, an increase of 40% might seem like a stretch, but it is not beyond our capabilities if we get things right in Devon. I hear those present asking, “How could we deliver such an increase?” As Members from Devon who are present will know, there are a significant number of projects at various stages of readiness that could be initiated to achieve that 40% increase.

First of all, there are the Dawlish sea wall works. Alongside considering expansion, we must consider the resilience of our current rail network, keeping the gains that we have already made. When the devastating storm of 2014 hit, the sea wall at Dawlish collapsed. Alongside the cliff wall collapses, that meant that the only rail line west of Exeter, Brunel’s magnificent main line into Devon and Cornwall, was severed, cutting off the majority of our peninsula from the rest of the rail network.

The south west rail resilience programme was enacted across five phases to repair and enhance the sea wall, repair the cliff walls and enhance the line. Phase 5 runs from Parson’s Tunnel to Teignmouth and is focused on stabilising the cliff face, so that it does not fall on the railway line again. It is a vital part of the project that is yet to be signed off. In the south-west, we are well aware that ever more numerous and ever more devastating storms are sweeping across our peninsula every year, so resilience must be prioritised to protect the rail system.

Secondly, improving our rail resilience in Devon and across the south-west means reducing total reliance on the Brunel line. We have an alternative that we can build upon—the partial restoration of the Exeter-Plymouth line north of Dartmoor via Okehampton and Tavistock. The reopening of the Exeter-Okehampton line has been an enormous success, opening up and connecting communities along the way. The previously mothballed rail line that runs between Okehampton and Exeter was restored in just nine months and delivered at £10 million under its £50 million budget. It opened in November 2021 and in the three years since it reopened, 775,000 journeys have been made on that line, far exceeding the expectations ahead of its reopening. Indeed, October 2024 saw 40,000 journeys to and from Okehampton on that line, which is a new monthly record. The appetite for rail journeys is clearly there in Devon.

Improving Public Transport

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Claire Young]

You mentioned infrastructure—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister! The Minister!

[Claire Young]

What did I say? [Hon. Members: “You said ‘you’”.] Did I? Sorry! The Minister mentioned infrastructure. We have seen significant delays on the line from the west country in the last few weeks owing to flooding. In particular, trains are having to divert between Bristol Parkway and Swindon and having to go via Bath and Chippenham. Local residents fear that the work to try to stop flooding on that length of the line, which is very prone to flooding, may have led to their houses being flooded. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the infrastructure issues on that section of the railway?