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?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for businesses in her constituency. We recognise the important role that smaller local bus operators can provide in delivering high-quality bus services; they know their customers and their communities. In addition to the requirement to consider SMEs as part of the franchising process, this Government’s reforms to the bus system are designed to give more options to local communities to deliver local bus services. Our transformative buses Bill will seek to give local areas the choice of pursuing bus franchising, high-quality partnerships with the private sector or local authority-owned bus companies and, once in law, will provide more opportunities for all operators, including SMEs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for that answer, which is incredibly helpful. To support the participation of small and medium-sized local bus companies in bus franchising schemes, they also want to be energy-efficient. That enables them to apply for the franchises and do better. How can the Minister help those small and medium-sized bus companies to be energy efficient—with hydrogen buses, for example—and thereby gain the franchises and contracts?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Transport matters are devolved in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, of course, but putting buses at the heart of our policies and wanting to increase ridership provides brilliant opportunities for local manufacturers of buses to take part and supports local manufacturers and operators.

Bus Funding

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

My hon. Friend is a true champion for the people of Kent, and this is a record investment in them and their bus services. The area was badly underfunded by the previous Government and Kent lost out repeatedly in the bus service improvement process. The funding will help to deliver better bus services, but if Kent county council chooses to avail itself of the powers that will come its way as a result of next month’s better buses Bill, then that will be the moment when it can deliver a public transport network and better bus services that serve all Kent constituents.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome today’s statement. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that funding will go to UK-based bus manufacturers, such as Wrightbus in Northern Ireland, which are reliable and efficient, and whose clean-energy buses meet the needs of customers as well as our environmental obligations? How will she ensure that we support the best of British?

[Louise Haigh]

I was delighted to announce half a billion pounds of investment in Wrightbus just a few weeks ago. Those buses will make their way around the country and are fully electric—cleaner, greener, and providing a better service for passengers. We will announce some measures shortly to encourage investment in UK-manufactured buses. We have already announced the establishment of an expert panel in order to ensure that buses ordered in this country are built in this country.

Transport Infrastructure Projects: Elizabeth Line

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) on setting the scene and thank him for giving us an opportunity to participate. I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective on where we are. My method of getting here is to travel from London Heathrow or London City airport. Coming into Heathrow, I get the Elizabeth line or the Heathrow Express, depending on time. It is obviously important for us as commuters and for my constituents. I have to mention them because it is not about me; it is about the importance for them.

Thank you for giving me the chance to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. It is a pleasure to add some thoughts on how infrastructure can work better. Others have contributed on the real importance for their constituents. I may not have a piece of the Elizabeth line, or even a train line, in my constituency, but I am incredibly interested in connectivity throughout the United Kingdom. This time last week we had a debate on flight cancellations and connectivity. I want to give perspective on the importance of airline flight connections and of the Elizabeth line.

I can remember before the Elizabeth line was upgraded. To be fair, sometimes the service was not always dependable. That was a fact of life, so commuters would not take the Elizabeth line if they felt it would not arrive on time or be late setting off, whatever the reason. They would take the Heathrow Express instead. There were occasions when it did work well. When the new Elizabeth line came in, it was much improved. It is important to put on record our thanks for that.

There are many things to boast about in London, such as the global seat of democracy at Westminster, the royal family home of Buckingham Palace, a rich history and successful city ventures. One of the many things in favour of this envy of the world is a rail and underground system that gets travellers where they want to be quickly.

I live in the countryside, where there are no bus connections, and have a diesel vehicle as my method of transport. In the city, tube trains, especially the Elizabeth line, and the Heathrow Express, are my main ways of connecting with my job, as they are for others. Does anyone need a car in London? If I lived here, no I would not, because tube trains are so handy, once someone gets into the way of it. When I first came here, I found it quite hard to fathom how tubes worked. It is no secret that I am a country boy. Before I was an MP, I think I had come to London four times in my life. Coming to the big city was almost like a holiday, in that I was somewhere different from back home.

My point is that we get used to the tube and understand how it works and its connectivity, and the Elizabeth line is part of that. Enhanced connectivity is what everyone here wants: they want people to be able to get where they need to go in a cost-effective and timely way.

Connectivity needs to go further than the London underground; it must be everywhere in the United Kingdom. I know that is not the Minister’s responsibility, but it is tied to the connectivity of the Elizabeth line, the tube and the Heathrow Express, which is important to people like me and my constituents who come into Heathrow then into the city centre. Connectivity must relate to all parts of the infrastructure, because people fly in and then use the trains to get here.

I will give some examples that relate to my constituents. Last week, the planes from Northern Ireland to London were cancelled; we had an urgent question about it last Tuesday. I am not sure if British Airways has learned its lesson because, although it agreed to a meeting, on my way home on Thursday—guess what?—the plane was cancelled. It is at the stage where I phone the ladies in my office to say, “Will you check to make sure that the flight is on?”

If we do not have flights, and their connectivity with trains, we do not have a system that works. On behalf of all the tourists on planes from Belfast, Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, I say to the Minister: if the planes do not work, it does not really matter if the train works. It must be right for those who are coming for appointments, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) referred to, and for disabled people, with wheelchair access on the tube.

We have so much to offer as a nation—there is so much investment from other countries—but our connectivity needs to be dependable, whether that is taking the tube between Paddington and Westminster or hopping on a flight from Belfast to London and then on to the tube. We must do better and put it all together: flying and the trains.

Rail Performance

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing my hon. Friend to ask a question. I thought he would mention the ferries as well—he also texts me often about the ferries. I am grateful for his point. The new model will deliver not only better services for passengers but a far better settlement for taxpayers, who have been ripped off under the previous model for far too long.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State very much for her statement. She has been clear that transparency for passengers will be achieved by displaying performance data. How do the Government intend to ensure that, as well as knowing whether their local line is not doing well, passengers know that their taxes are being used not simply to pay rail staff higher wages, but to get trains to reach their destinations in a time-effective and cost-effective way?

[Louise Haigh]

The purpose of displaying performance data at stations is to give passengers certainty and transparency about the state of the railways, but Great British Railways will also be far more accountable than under the current system. At the moment, to hold the railways to account, there is a complicated mix of responsibility between Network Rail, the train operating companies and the Department for Transport. Great British Railways will provide a single point of access to the railways for politicians and for communities, and we will be able to ensure that the organisation is single-mindedly delivering for passengers.

Flight Cancellations

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will make a statement on the ongoing connectivity issues caused by belatedly announced cancellations of flights, such as those between Belfast and London.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for an opportunity to talk about these important issues. It is unusual that we are doing so in an urgent question, not in an Adjournment debate, which is the debate in which he normally intervenes.

[Mike Kane]

I know that the issue of connectivity across the UK is of great interest to the hon. Gentleman and many of his constituents, as connectivity strengthens the bond between our communities. Cancellations affect passengers and businesses, who rely on punctual services and connections, and have an impact on confidence. It is the responsibility of airlines and airports to work together to minimise delays and cancellations. Connectivity across our country is vital; the Government jointly fund three public service obligation routes to London, including from Derry/Londonderry.

However, the UK aviation market operates predominantly in the private sector, and it is for airports to invest in their infrastructure and for airlines to determine the routes that they operate. I recognise the importance of Belfast City and Belfast International airports for local communities and businesses. The Department for Transport is actively engaging with regional airports, including those in Northern Ireland, to understand how the Government can support and unlock opportunities for growth.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We would not have a United Kingdom without her, and Members in this Chamber would be a lot poorer for the lack of Northern Ireland. We are thankful to be a part of these British isles, and have fought hard to remain so. However, being a part constitutionally and being a part practically are very different things, and the fact is that people need to take a plane or a boat to come across to the mainland. Three million passengers travelled on scheduled domestic flights in the UK between July and September 2021, and the third and fourth most popular routes were between Belfast and London. We have a huge share of domestic routes, and the reason is clear: people in these parts of the United Kingdom have such strong links, and such a strong need to go between them.

Yesterday, a cancellation text was sent to passengers booked on a flight from Belfast City airport to London City airport. The passengers on that flight were not simply frustrated businessmen and women; they included a disabled person who had arranged special assistance, a person on their way to a health appointment in London, and a family getting a connecting flight to their holiday destination. We understand that bad weather can affect flight patterns, and sometimes these things are unavoidable, but my understanding is that yesterday’s flight was cancelled back in September. It is the flight that never was. They took our money, took our boarding passes and let us through security, but the plane was not there. It is quite unbelievable.

The person going to the London hospital was booked on a flight seven hours later, completely missing their appointment. For the business people, their day was gone. The holidaymakers’ connection had flown. Those attending Great Ormond Street children’s hospital or other hospitals missed appointments, as did businessmen and businesswomen—the whole thing was unbelievable. There were no announcements in Belfast City airport, although we were all waiting for the flight that never was—100 people from across Northern Ireland.

I could understand if this were an anomaly, but it is fast becoming a norm—one that will affect business investment and tourism in Northern Ireland. Procedures need to be urgently reviewed. There is to be additional air passenger duty; I hope that some of the additional money raised from people travelling within the UK can be used to ensure that airlines live up to their responsibilities and maintain connectivity as a priority. Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister as well.

[Mr Speaker]

The limit is normally two minutes. I know you are making up for that flight yesterday, and of course the House missed you—that is why you got the UQ.