Diesel Vehicles: Defeat Devices

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of defeat devices in diesel vehicles.

It is a true pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

It was over a decade ago that the automotive industry, and indeed the world, was rocked by dieselgate, the Volkswagen emissions scandal. The public were horrified to learn about how the trusted German car giant Volkswagen—the one that gave us the “Herbie” kids film franchise and those iconic circular badges that were so beloved of the Beastie Boys—had knowingly faked vehicle emissions tests via defeat devices. Those devices are software designed to alter a vehicle’s performance, falsify results and limit emissions during the regulatory testing period, only to switch to their true polluting selves when they are driven on open roads.

VW’s range of diesel compact cars had been marketed as a green alternative to petrol, but it was found that it had been knowingly cooking the books to the point that the US Environmental Protection Agency found VW’s top people guilty of conspiracy to defraud customers. Confidence was shattered, share prices nosedived, reputational damage was done, vehicles were recalled, fines were paid, heads rolled at the managerial level, and the once-encouraged diesel became discredited—its fate in London was finally sealed by the ultra low emission zone.

We were assured that lessons would be learned, yet despite the outlawing of defeat devices, the problem seems to be wider than originally thought. “Dieselgate 2: The Sequel” is proceeding very slowly through the courts. I think there are several cases. Multiple models and manufacturers are accused of the same thing: spewing out dangerous and excessive emissions due to cheat technology. Companies have been knowingly deceiving drivers. It feels a bit like match fixing to those of us of a certain age—Bruce Grobbelaar comes to mind. Consumers have been conned once again into believing that they were driving greener, cleaner diesel cars. Results have been rigged. It feels almost as if I cannot go on the internet now without some sort of pop-up advert rearing its head—“Have you driven a Mercedes, a Ford, a Nissan, a Renault, a Citroën or a Peugeot between X and Y years? If so, click here to see how much compensation you could get.” It is all a little bit like ambulance chasing, is it not?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for bringing us this debate. She is right to say that this does not just happen in England; it happens across all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Vehicles registered in Northern Ireland in 2015 were among those fitted with illegal software during the Volkswagen emissions scandal. Enforcement action uncovered diesel lorries operating in Northern Ireland with illegal emissions-cheating hardware deliberately disabling pollution controls. For 17 years, our MOT system in Northern Ireland failed to test diesel emissions properly, allowing such vehicles to operate undetected for too long while damaging air quality and undermining trust in regulations. Does the hon. Lady agree that more must be done to close regulatory gaps, strengthen enforcement and ensure that defeat devices are fully eliminated from all our roads throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Gentleman makes such an excellent point as he always does. It is an honour to be intervened on by him. As he said, this was done with intent all over the British Isles, in all our nations. He mentioned the VW scandal. As I say, there could be worse round the corner. Despite the outlawing of these defeat devices, VW could just be the tip of a very murky iceberg. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, this is not just about the men in white coats in the laboratory getting their technical results. This is not a fringe issue: it affects all our constituents and has real life consequences. Air pollution is one of our most pressing environmental challenges. Noxious nitrogen oxide emissions can cause respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease and childhood asthma—even premature deaths, which have been quantified.

In London, the city where we are now and where I am an MP, the devastating human impact was tragically illustrated by the desperately sad case of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah: dead at just nine years old. Hers was the first ever case in which the cause of death on the certificate was “pollution”. The family had lived by the south circular; the north circular is in my seat. Ella’s mum, Rosamund, has been such a tireless campaigner in pushing for Ella’s law. Mums for Lungs has also done great work, while Parent Power had a breakfast event this morning on the other side of the building.

Clean air is not a “nice to have”, but an essential. We would not force a kid to drink dirty water, yet we expect them to breathe toxic air. Sadiq Khan’s ultra low emission zone in this city has helped to clean London of dirty diesel, but we know that children in vulnerable communities are the most susceptible.

These cars were bought in good faith. Remember Gordon Brown’s 2001 Budget: in those days, buying a diesel vehicle was incentivised. It was seen as environmentally superior to petrol because of the miles per gallon; in those days, people were not looking at NOx, but more at carbon dioxide. In that year’s Budget, I think, the road tax—and certain things for company fleets—actually encouraged diesel.

The VW scandal was a genuine scandal, just like the others I have seen since I have been here such as the contaminated blood and Post Office scandals. In its aftermath, the market share of diesels in this country has fallen from 50% in 2014 to just 5% now. But the bigger dieselgate 2 is on the horizon. If defeat devices have dishonestly been fitted to vehicles and emitted pollutants at levels way beyond what is legal and what consumers were led to believe, that leaves huge holes in Government enforcement and regulatory credibility. This will have been poisoning people.

I have a range of questions for the Minister. Although these vehicles are not being sold new any more, figures from Mums for Lungs show that 7.5 million diesel cars—a quarter of all UK cars—are still on our roads. They are responsible for 30% of total NOx emissions. There are also the vans, buses, the HGVS—if we add all those up, we see that action must occur.

In autumn 2024, the Department for Transport confirmed that it is investigating the possible use of defeat device trickery by several manufacturers. Rather than delve into the lengthy legal proceedings today, I want to raise questions about that Government inquiry, which is at best sketchy and is bound up in public health and consumer protection. It all seems to be shrouded in secrecy. There is the prospect, here, of illegally high emissions and asthma being in the equation, so every moment the results are delayed puts more children’s lungs at risk. At a time when everyone wants growth, Mums for Lungs has calculated that the UK economy is losing: action on dieselgate is expected to cost our economy £36 billion in the next 14 years. There are many reasons why we should address this issue.

I am asking the Minister—my good, hon. Friend—to step up a gear. The sheer number of potential claimants in dieselgate 2—1.8 million cars, potentially—dwarfs the settlement that eventually came out of VWgate; that 2022 settlement compensated only 91,000 consumers. This latest issue affects every constituency in the nation—including yours, Ms Lewell.

I have some questions: what is the status of the Department’s investigation? What is the timeline for its commencement? Where is it now? When will it conclude? What teeth does it have—i.e. what are the enforcement powers that the Department is prepared to deploy in cases of non-compliance? The Environment Act 2021 strengthened the Government’s ability to require manufacturers to recall vehicles where there are reasonable grounds to believe that they do not meet applicable environmental standards. Is the Department prepared to use those powers when appropriate? Where does the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency fit into that process? What happens to vehicles currently on UK roads if they are found to be emitting unlawfully high levels of pollutants? Will the Government consider requiring their temporary suspension from use until they are brought into compliance? Could they have a little bit of tinkering and be okay?

According to one report from an international climate think-tank, excess emissions may already lead to 16,000 premature deaths in the UK and 30,000 new cases of childhood asthma. Overnight, Mums for Lungs sent me a whole load of new figures that I have not entirely processed, but which I can pass on to the Minister. If manufacturers are found to have breached the rules, who bears the financial burden of remedial action? Surely not the consumers who bought these vehicles in good faith. They thought that they were doing the right thing and believed that they were compliant. How do the Government intend to safeguard public health in the interim?

In 2016, the Tory Government launched an inquiry into the use of defeat devices by VW, but ultimately, they did not prosecute. The Transport Committee at the time expressed concerns about the Department for Transport’s “ambivalence” towards VW’s use of defeat devices. It described the Department as being

“too slow to assess the use of its powers”.

In other words, it was asleep at the wheel. This Minister is different from that former Minister, and I am sure that he will not repeat the mistakes of the last Tory Government.

There is now a second chance. The DFT should clearly prioritise the interests of the public and consumers in its current investigation. A decade after we were duped over diesel in the first emissions scandal, the public should not be left wondering whether enforcement powers will be used if wrongdoing is found. Court proceedings can take forever, but we must have assurances of urgency, transparency and consequence in the Government’s investigation, which is within their control.

Communities deserve clean air and consumers deserve honesty and protection. I am no Jeremy Clarkson. I cycle more than I drive, but I do both, and I take public transport every weekday. I find that it is difficult to know what is best and it can be bewildering—what is up or down and what is happening. The goalposts are constantly changing. What is it that is demonised? First it was petrol, then it was diesel. Now they have both been overtaken by electric, which is what we should all be using. I am pleased to see the roll-out of the Enviro400 and Enviro500 buses in London. However, for the average consumer it can be bewildering when the advice keeps changing and it can then feel a bit punitive.

Environmental standards must mean what they say. If they are breached there must be proportionate and decisive action. For far too long, motor manufacturers in the UK have victimised the public. They have misled consumers about pollution emitted by diesel engines, and they have put millions of citizens at risk simply because they live or work near roads. VW recovered its reputation to some extent. Certainly, on the Nextdoor app, people are still complaining that its badges are being nicked from the front of their cars. Whoever is doing that, can they stop? It is completely unnecessary to remove the circular VW logo.

These companies should come clean and make things right with those who they have harmed. The Government should do everything in their power to ensure that the public are in the driving seat. We should not have to wait for dieselgate 3.

Local Transport: Planning Developments

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of planning developments on local transport.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Let me start by making something clear: the local people of Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring, Redbourn, Sandridge and the surrounding villages are no nimbys. They are not against housing. They are raising the alarm against top-down national planning that does not serve local housing needs; that leaves local services bursting at the seams without adequate investment, or with investment that is delivered far too late; that fails to deliver the transport infrastructure that communities actually need; and that is eroding precious landscapes, some of which are home to rare chalk streams found nowhere else in the world. Some of those people have joined us in the Public Gallery, and I thank them.

This debate is about the impact of planning on transport infrastructure, and to understand that, we need to see the big picture. The towns and villages in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, including Tring, Redbourn, Wheathampstead, Sandridge and Markyate, are steeped in history. The beautiful Chilterns national landscape can be found around Tring, Berkhamsted and Aldbury. Four rare chalk streams thread through the constituency, alongside the Grand Union canal. Settlements that appear in the Domesday Book can be found, and the old Watling Street runs through the centre of Redbourn. There is also Berkhamsted castle, where the English throne was surrendered to William the Conqueror.

But there are also towns in the constituency that were originally designed for horse-drawn traffic and are now gridlocked with commuter cars. The M1 cuts right through the middle of the constituency, and every time there is an accident, it causes further gridlock on country lanes. The capacity of Luton airport, which is just seven miles away, is nearly doubling, going from 19 million to 32 million passengers a year. That will add roughly a million passengers per month, many of whom will travel on the same routes as local people.

On Thameslink and London Northwestern services, rammed trains are cancelled almost daily—indeed, a group from the Probus club in Harpenden arrived after their train was cancelled today—and bus services have been decimated. That is before we even talk about the impossibility of finding an NHS dentist, the pressures on GPs and the desperate need for additional school places, particularly for children with special educational needs. These old towns and villages are not built for growth of such scale.

We must, then, look at the Government’s approach to planning. Labour has continued the top-down numbers legacy that the Conservatives left behind and, in some cases, made it significantly worse. From top-down targets to grey-belt land, developers are literally having a field day, using loopholes to get unplanned development through. This matters. Giving developers the green light leaves us with an unco-ordinated approach, and infrastructure and communities are coming last.

The new methodology for calculating housing supply has hit St Albans council particularly hard. Its targets have almost doubled, from 855 to 1,660 homes per year, and the numbers in Dacorum have gone from 1,016 to 1,380 homes per year. Both those increased figures will have to be dealt with in further local plans, because they do not even include the massive housing development that we are seeing now.

The changes have left us facing substantial housing sites, such as the 1,400 homes in the Marshcroft development east of Tring, the 850 homes at South Berkhamsted and the more than 700 proposed homes in north-east Harpenden. The Marshcroft development alone would increase the population of Tring by a potential 40%. As Lucy from Tring says:

“It makes no sense…our roads can’t handle it.”

The town got its market charter over 700 years ago, and it has the roads to match. It is also buttressed against the Chilterns national landscape.

I warned the Government from the outset that their plans for development on grey-belt land would hand the advantage to developers rather than communities, which is exactly what has happened. The unclear definition of the grey belt creates a wide-open door for developers, not for communities. Crucially, by focusing protections on towns, the guidance leaves villages, which often have fewer services and weaker infrastructure, far more vulnerable to unplanned development. In Berkhamsted, developers have used the grey-belt back door to push applications adjacent to allocated sites. For example, the grey-belt back door was used in the Haresfoot farm application to get permission to build on green-belt land.

The situation in Redbourn is even more alarming. The latest proposal is a 1,000-home development that is not in the local plan but claims grey-belt status. If that is combined with other sites, Redbourn faces a pipeline of development that could see its population grow by over 70%. As Jen from Redbourn says:

“I am hugely concerned that there is no local democracy that allows villages to stop disproportionate housing development.”

Catherine from Redbourn is equally clear:

“When it comes to measuring green belt, brown belt and grey belt land, villages should not be measured in the same way as a town. This is green-belt land with rare chalk streams, water vole and flora that you don’t find in Europe—it should be protected.”

Redbourn is precisely the kind of village with less infrastructure that has been left more exposed by grey-belt development. Will the Minister speak with colleagues from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to address the top-down practices that take powers and critical infrastructure away from communities?

Although the previous Conservative administrations left Dacorum and St Albans without adopted local plans, which left our area ripe for speculative development, Liberal Democrat councils in the area have worked hard to finally get local plans to the examination stage, but while the plans remain in inspectors’ hands, the Government give no protection from unplanned development. Despite continuous calls on the Government to help to protect us, we have been left exposed.

All that is before we even consider the wider pressures bearing down on local councils, which leave the looming threat of Government takeover when too many appeals are overturned. Nor have we covered the lack of teeth for neighbourhood plans, or the proposals in the planning legislation to make it easier to build near train stations. All these rules put the power in developers’ hands and take it away from communities—so no wonder developers are popping up across the constituency. Does the Minister agree that tackling unplanned development and giving communities more power is vital when preparing transport infrastructure?

Underlying all this is a structural failure in how infrastructure can be planned. The speculative and unplanned development I have outlined sits entirely outside of planned growth modelling. That means that unplanned sites are assessed site by site, in isolation, and with no cumulative way of seeing what they mean together for the roads, buses, rail, cycling, schools, GPs or dentists that communities need. It is wholly inadequate, fragmented and reactive.

Local plans cannot account for national infrastructure decisions, either. The Luton airport expansion, the Universal Studios theme park, and even a rail freight development, approved by the Government, have taken the place of thousands of potential homes elsewhere, and cannot be accounted for. When councils do secure investment for infrastructure with section 106 money or the community infrastructure levy, the current viability criteria mean they can often get out of building more affordable homes, or limit that investment.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this topic to the House. We have similar problems back home in Northern Ireland. From listening to her, it seems that whenever a new development goes up, it relies on private cars, because there is no public transport out in the countryside, so the pressure is always on people to provide their own transport, which affects the local roads and infrastructure. It also seems like private developers are not following the rules that require a detailed traffic and transport impact assessment for all major developments. If that has not been done when the rules indicate it should have, should the councils, Government or local bodies not take enforcement action to ensure that what is required actually happens, rather than sitting back and doing nothing?

[Victoria Collins]

I agree with parts of the hon. Member’s intervention. The developers have armies of legal teams and, as I will come on to, the national legislation is open to interpretation when it comes to roads. Councils are essentially left powerless to enforce the legislation, because developers find the loopholes. They have the money and the power to push past.

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I constantly speak to my counterpart in the Welsh Government, Ken Skates, and we have a very good collaborative working relationship. I simply remind the hon. Lady that this Government committed £445 million to Welsh rail in last year’s spending review. That is a very significant investment, which is going to result in improved stations and in more reliable and more frequent services for the people of Wales. It addresses the historical lack of investment seen in Wales.

I was explaining why it is so important that we agree to these motions and maintain momentum in gaining planning consent for a new rail route between Liverpool and Manchester. We need to reconstitute the hybrid Bill Select Committee, with its membership determined in the usual way, and we need to provide for the carry-over of the Bill between Sessions.

This Bill was first introduced in Parliament in January 2022. Since then, its purpose has been refined. It was initially intended to provide powers for both HS2 from Crewe to Manchester and for the section of the NPR route that would deliver east-west connectivity. The previous Government’s Network North announcement in October 2023 cancelled high-speed rail north of the west midlands, so the HS2 element of the Bill was no longer required. With the support of local leaders, in May 2024—just before the last general election—this House passed an instruction that the Bill should be adapted to focus on delivering the section of Northern Powerhouse Rail into Manchester. That is the Bill now before us.

All elements of the Bill that pertain to sections of the route south of Millington will be removed. It is the Government’s intention to table an amendment to remove these powers formally during the Select Committee’s proceedings. The Bill will, however, have the necessary powers to deliver the section of Northern Powerhouse Rail into Manchester via Manchester airport, including new stations at Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester airport itself. We are now seeking to progress the Bill to make the best use of the significant progress it has already made.

This Government are investing up to £45 billion to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail, transforming inter-city rail in the north and driving economic growth. Northern Powerhouse Rail will ensure that the people of the north no longer have to tolerate second-rate rail infrastructure. We are delivering a turn-up-and-go railway on which missing one train no longer means waiting an hour for the next. That means more frequent and reliable commuter services will be the norm. This will help more people access good jobs, lead to more housing and offer greater opportunities for businesses to expand.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I welcome the Government setting out the plan, the Bill’s purpose and the economic boost it will bring, which nobody here is going to say is wrong, but I am concerned about the acquisition of land. Both the National Farmers Union and farmers and landowners through the Country Land and Business Association have concerns about the acquisition of land to enable this project to go ahead. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association, which represent a great many people and whose members’ land may have to be used for this purpose, are consulted and given the right money for the land they are giving up for this railway, and that everything is in order for them?

Ivanhoe Line: Restoration

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered restoration of the Ivanhoe Line.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey.

I am pleased that colleagues have joined me for what I believe is the first ever debate solely about the Ivanhoe line—a train line that would reopen a direct passenger link between Leicester and Burton upon Trent. The line has a long history. Before the 1830s, Coalville did not exist; it was known as Long Lane and included the four medieval parishes of Whitwick, Hugglescote, Snibston and Swannington. When William Stenson, the proprietor of coalmines in Whitwick, returned from a trip on the Stockton and Darlington railway, he carefully studied the land between Long Lane and Leicester. Taking into account the mines in Ibstock and Bagworth, he planned the line of a possible railway.

Stenson enlisted the help of George Stephenson, “the father of railways”, who delegated the construction of the Swannington-to-Leicester railway to his son, Robert. It became the sixth steam railway in the country, linking Leicester and Long Lane so that coal could easily be transported between the two. Some estimate that around the same time the town became known as Coalville. The line traditionally transported coal before it was opened to passengers.

Fast forward to the 1960s, when what was then called the Ivanhoe line was closed during the infamous Beeching cuts of 7 September 1964. Since then, there have been many campaigns to get it fully back up and running, especially as it remained open to freight traffic until only recently.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing forward this matter. I spoke to her before the debate, and I now rise to support and encourage her.

I hail from a rural constituency that once had a railway line but now has none whatsoever. Sometimes the bottom line is not the financial one, and sometimes obligations need to extend to more than profit margins. Does the hon. Lady agree that there must be an obligation —if necessary, a statutory obligation—to provide a rail service in isolated areas?

[Amanda Hack]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Later in my speech, I will talk about how we can connect our communities, which is really important.

Lack of maintenance on the Ivanhoe line led to the gradual withdrawal of freight services, although the private section, from Bardon Hill quarry to the rail network, is still operational; in fact, the quarry has recently extended its lease. There was an opportunity to get the line up and running in the 1990s, but any hope of doing so was thwarted by the break-up of British Rail when it was privatised. Throughout all this change, there has been continuous local pressure to deliver a passenger rail service for my constituents. The most recent business case was supported under stage 1 of the restoring your railway fund, of which Lord Hendy, the Minister of State for Rail, was the chair.

The project originated from a successful bid by the Campaign to Reopen the Ivanhoe Line, or CRIL, and was one of the 12 projects nationally to receive restoring your railway development funding. I want to take a moment to thank everybody from CRIL for all their hard work to get to this stage.

The project, which was in phase 1 of restoring your railways, was for a partial reopening from Coalville to Burton upon Trent, with stations at Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Castle Gresley and Coalville. That would have finally reconnected two of the largest towns not connected to the rail network: Coalville and Swadlincote. Those two towns have also seen the highest growth in homes and employment in the last decade. The east midlands has grown by 8%, yet my constituency of North West Leicestershire has grown by 12% and South Derbyshire has grown by 13%.

UK Bus Manufacturing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, as always, Dr Murrison, and I say a special thank you to the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for highlighting this topic and securing the debate. There is a potential for UK-wide investment, which will pay UK-wide dividends. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, and I wish him well in his role. I know that he will give very confident and positive answers to our questions.

The constituency of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim encompasses Ballymena and is strongly linked to buses. He will be aware that I have supported and cheered on Wrightbus for many years and will continue to do so because, as he rightly said, bus manufacturing is a UK-wide project, which Strangford plays her part in. While primary assembly is done in Ballymena, the Northern Irish manufacturing sector is highly integrated. It is common for precision engineering firms in the Strangford constituency to act as tier 2 or tier 3 suppliers, providing specific components such as metal fabrications or electronic systems to larger manufacturers. As Members in this Chamber know, we need the small cogs as well as the big ones for the engine to power up, so there is a role for us all to play across many of our constituencies in relation to that.

The fact is that the reputation for Northern Ireland crafted vehicles is top class; it is no exaggeration to say that we are world leaders in the field. The hon. Member for Falkirk said that his bus companies are leaders in the field, and they are. It is a collective goal that we are trying to achieve. That we are world leaders is undoubtedly down to the investment and support of local bus makers such as Wrightbus. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim set the scene in relation to Wrightbus. He set out how it has advanced to where it is today, and told us of the key role that it plays. Its submission to the Business and Trade Committee made it abundantly clear how supporting the manufacturing sector can help others in the United Kingdom.

I find it so interesting that the global bus market is worth around $21 billion and that some 3 million buses are used for public transport. To meet global net zero goals, all buses—or at least the vast majority of them—will need to switch to zero emission alternatives by 2050. There is a great desire for the new, green-friendly electric buses. If a bus is going to last for 15 years, that commitment needs to be made now, so maybe the Minister can give us some idea of what is going to happen in relation to that.

As Members may know, the average lifespan of a bus is 15 years, which means that bus operators and local authorities are now making investments in the decarbonisation of their fleets. According to those projections, global sales of zero emission buses are due to rise from 112,000 in 2022 to 670,000 in 2027. That is massive—it would be a growth of six times in a period of five years. As a result, there is a major export opportunity for the UK bus manufacturers to sell zero emission buses in a growing global market.

To do that, Wrightbus needs Government support, not simply financially but promotionally. The Government must ensure that firms throughout Europe can order with confidence from this very niche but very successful firm. I believe that more can and must be done by the Government to provide that security, and that begins with investment in the facility. I am confident that every investment of time and money will pay dividends throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I thank hon. Members for the motion and give my wholehearted support once again, knowing that a rising tide lifts all ships. Northern Ireland has historically carried out high-level manufacturing in the air, in the sea and on land, and each of those industries has potential for so much more. I hope that, from today, we begin to realise that potential.

Airport Drop-off Charges

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, Ms Vaz, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for leading today’s debate on this matter. It is an important issue, as others have said and will say after me.

Back home, this has been a topic of conversation with my constituents. Air travel has become much more usable and cheaper than it has been in the past, but that means that many people travel through Belfast City airport, Belfast International airport and City of Derry airport—they are all used. I have heard numerous complaints from constituents about changes to pick-ups and drop-offs at airports in Northern Ireland, so it is important for me to be here and to get our perspective across.

I share other Members’ concerns about drop-off charges. They seem a little drastic and unfair, and many people have complaints about them. The traffic wardens in Newtownards are very zealous—even evangelical—and they get their money. We get complaints about parking tickets on private land, and by and large we have been able to fight them, but people cannot fight the CCTV at Belfast City airport or Belfast International airport.

I fly out of Belfast City airport on Mondays to come here, and I go back on Thursdays. It is a great airport and has had some recent updates; it covers mostly regional flights, but some are international. According to my constituents, the drop-off area has a minimum price of £4 for up to 10 minutes. It used to be that there was no charge at all. Is it a revenue earner for the airport? I suspect it is, but the staff may tell me differently. If people stay longer, the charges increase as follows: it is £6 for 10 to 20 minutes, £20 for 21 to 30 minutes, and £25 for 30 to 60 minutes. If people’s planes are delayed, they had better not forget their cards, because they will be digging deep that night.

Similarly, at Belfast International airport, it costs up to £3 for 10 minutes. If someone’s car stalls on the way round, they are in trouble, because the price will increase. Airports have CCTV everywhere, and people cannot get away with dropping somebody off, because the airport has them on CCTV. They can expect a £60 fine. If someone thinks they can do it the sharp way—perhaps the car is still moving as they jump out—it does not matter, because they will be fined

One thing that annoys me greatly at the airport is flight delays and cancellations. What happens to the person who thinks, “I’m just going to pick them up,” and then looks at the screen and says, “Oh, it’s 15 minutes late”? Guess what? They owe more money.

[Adam Jogee]

Further to the hon. Gentleman’s description of the situation at Belfast City airport, I found out on Sunday, when my mother-in-law dropped me off from the long-stay car park, that it is free for the first 10 minutes. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) made about accessibility is important, because the long-stay car park is further away and there is no canopy. We all know about the liquid sunshine for which Ulster is well known. [Interruption.] Liquid sunshine, not rain. If someone is not as able-bodied as others, or if they have children, bags and all the rest, it is more difficult for them to get into the terminal. The accessibility point extends not just to the east midlands, but right across the United Kingdom.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing his experiences of Belfast City. It is a good airport, by the way. I am just saying, “Follow the rules, and make sure the timings are right.” The planes are sometimes cancelled, and more often than not they are delayed, which seems to be a fact of life now. Some may say that the clue is in the name: “drop-off”. The plan is not to be there for long, but we all know that it takes a little time for people to get their cases, say goodbye to loved ones or pay taxis. It has been argued that the first 10 minutes should be free, which is fair. If drop-offs and pick-ups are made financially inaccessible for people, they will double-park and potentially cause congestion, which poses a safety risk.

One thing that strikes me is that Belfast international airport has a 15-minute free drop-off in the long-stay car park. It is only a short walk to the terminal, but it does not suit everybody. There is £3 to £5 fee for less than 10 minutes. There is certainly a case for the fees to be regulated, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. Sometimes we can use compassion and understand that it is not always easy for someone to drop people off and get on their way. To give an example, one of my constituents moved to Scotland for university when she was 18. She has been living there for nine years now and is working as a nurse. It is always lovely when she comes home, but saying goodbye is the hardest. She tells me that she wants to say goodbye—she wants to give people a hug and a kiss, and to say cheerio—but guess what? The clock is ticking, and that long goodbye could be a very costly one.

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

My hon. Friend mentions compassion and understanding —and the lack of it. He reminds me that many years ago, when I was on the Transport Committee, we met a certain chief executive of Ryanair who is not noted for his compassion and understanding. He made it absolutely clear to us MPs that he did not care—I will not use the expletive—if passengers had to crawl over broken glass to get to the airport. Compassion and understanding need to be shown by the airport operators, because they certainly will not be shown by Ryanair.

[Jim Shannon]

Absolutely.

The moral of the story involving the young lady, who happens to come from Newtownards, is: “Don’t get too emotional at the airport, because the clock is ticking.” People might find that £3 or £5 has become £10 or £20. If they reach for a hanky and cannot find one, they are in deep trouble.

Airport drop-off fees are increasingly becoming a burden on ordinary passengers, taxi drivers and local residents, and that is not to mention the extortionate air fees. When flying from Belfast to the mainland, we pay the highest flight charges in the whole of the United Kingdom. We might be on the periphery of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we are an integral part of it, and we should be shown fairness when it comes to prices.

We recognise that airports need to manage congestion and maintain facilities—I understand that—but the charges must be fair and transparent. There are calls to look at them again, and I look to the Minister for a positive response that will encourage not only us regular travellers but, more importantly, constituents of mine who are regular travellers, who tell me about the airport charges all the time. It is time to address them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

The Bus Services Act empowers local leaders to choose the model that works best for their area. It includes a measure on socially necessary local services. Under that new measure, local transport authorities with an enhanced partnership will be required to identify local services that are considered socially necessary. They will need to put in place requirements that must be followed before any services can be changed or cancelled.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

There is room for one more on the bus. I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his answers to the seven questions on the Order Paper about buses. The Holy Bible refers to seven as the perfect number. If we are to improve local bus services, we need to improve the type of buses that are manufactured, make them energy efficient, and provide an hourly service. What discussions has the Minister had with Wrightbus in Northern Ireland about the production of more electric buses? Will he acknowledge the superior quality of those buses, and the company’s capacity to deliver high-quality buses, which are best of British, at a good price?

[Simon Lightwood]

There are 14 questions now, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I launched the bus manufacturers expert panel, which is working with mayoral combined authorities, manufacturers and operators to ensure that British manufacturers have the best possible chance of success in the United Kingdom and abroad.

Network Rail Timetable Changes: Rural Communities

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Many rural communities depend on train services, bus services and public transport links because there are no alternatives. If the timetables, trains and services do not run on time, they have an even greater impact because there is no alternative compared with what happens in larger towns and big cities where, if one service does not turn up, people can jump on alternatives without too much trouble. For our constituencies—I think my constituency might be marginally bigger than the hon. Lady’s—it has a disproportionate impact.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If there is a change in the rail service and how it works, there has to be something to take its place, at least in the short term in the rural communities that he and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) represent, and in those that I represent as well. There must be a bus service that can fill the gap and at least help to get people from A to B. I think in particular of those who have health appointments and those who have to get somewhere by a certain time. If the bus service is not there, that is a problem for those of us who live in rural areas and do not have a car. We really need to have a bus service to fill the gap.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Gentleman makes another excellent point. The argument put forward by Network Rail and LNER is that there will be alternative services, but it involves connecting to other trains. As I will go on to describe, if someone is disabled or an older person, the idea of making a connection is in itself sometimes daunting, and if they miss the connection the consequences can be far greater compared with the consequences for those of us who are perhaps more frequent travellers.

I use Berwick-upon-Tweed station regularly to travel to Westminster. The trains are well used and busy, so the decision to reduce services and make travel more complex does not make sense. Since the final timetable was published in September, I have been pleased to work cross-party with the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), whom I am pleased to see in his place. We met with Network Rail and LNER in September, so that they could explain why they had taken the decision to cut the number of services, on which our constituents rely.

I would like to thank Councillor Rosemary Mackenzie of Berwick-upon-Tweed town council for her campaigning on this issue, and Councillor Carol Hamilton from the Scottish Borders council and Councillor Richard Wearmouth from Northumberland county council for their work.

M6: Junction 38

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a great privilege to secure a debate on a matter that is causing immense anxiety across Westmorland and beyond. National Highways is planning to close and replace seven bridges that carry the M6 motorway over the Lune gorge in Cumbria. Those S-joint bridges are reaching the end of their lifespan and we recognise that this work has to be done.

The wider Lune gorge project proposes bridge replacements, overnight closures, weekend shutdowns and contraflow systems operating at sometimes as little as 30 mph. Crucially, the plan also entails the closure of the southbound junction at Tebay for 18 months, followed by the closure of the northbound junction for a subsequent 18 months. We argue that the junction 38 closures are not necessary, that there are clear alternatives such as temporary slip roads, and that insufficient attention has been paid to those alternatives. All the while, National Highways intends to keep heavy traffic moving through rural diversion routes and has, astonishingly, not produced a full impact assessment for the project—no assessment of the impact on the road network and no assessment of the impact on the wider community.

I do not think it is just parochial hyperbole when I say that the Lune gorge is without doubt the most spectacular and beautiful stretch of the UK’s motorway network, so I suspect that when the Department for Transport and National Highways looked at that stretch of the M6 while weighing up the project in its early days, they were struck more by the scenery and far less by the very significant population that depends on junction 38 and therefore did not give them very much serious consideration at all. Local communities rely on junction 38 for access to work, school, health services, business and the operation of the local economy.

The current plan will devastate local businesses—whose model is often completely reliant on proximity to the M6 and the junctions north and south—effectively isolating the community from the motorway for three years within a wider programme of four to six years of ongoing disruption. It also puts the safety of my constituents at risk, given that emergency services’ access to our communities will be severely curtailed for years on end. I recently spent time with our wonderful ambulance crews, who were keen that I should emphasise this point especially.

The impact on our communities will be enormous. The key effects are first and foremost on the village of Tebay itself, but there will also be an impact on a much wider area. Seven bridges carry the M6 itself, and they need replacing—I get that. The eighth bridge, across the M6, which also requires replacement, carries the A685 connecting Tebay with Kendal, 12 miles away, and is the only remaining link between the two when the M6 junction is closed. As a community, we campaigned hard to persuade National Highways not to close this bridge at the same time as the other seven, and we are grateful that National Highways has changed its mind on this point. I thank everyone who campaigned hard with us to achieve this success, which means that Tebay, Orton, Ravenstonedale, Kirkby Stephen and other villages will now at least have one connecting road to Kendal; otherwise, residents taking their children to school, and commuters, would have faced an additional 250 miles a week for an 18-month period.

Having said that, the A685 is a winding, narrow, single carriageway running for 12 miles from Tebay to Kendal, and for 18 months, all local traffic will be dependent on it, meaning a huge increase in traffic going through Tebay, Grayrigg and Kendal in particular. My first ask of the Minister is to ensure that this traffic is managed along the whole of this route and that the A685 Lawtland House bridge is strengthened and kept safe through this time, when this already weakened bridge will be facing massively increased usage, carrying an enormous volume of traffic displaced from the M6. The towns of Kirkby Stephen and Kendal are already at capacity and breaking point when it comes to traffic management and cannot withstand a motorway’s worth of displaced traffic; they cannot withstand it at all, but they certainly cannot withstand it regularly and for years on end.

Westmorland and Furness council is set to lose £39 million a year due to the new, ironically-titled fairer funding 2.0 settlement—a staggering 13% cut to its budget. It will therefore not have the funds to expand traffic management in consideration of the volume of traffic to keep those roads safe and flowing securely. Incidentally, this is a financial settlement that puts at risk the council’s crucial investment in the town of Barrow, which is critical to the UK’s defence capability, including our nuclear deterrent. I would be grateful if the Minister took this matter up separately with his colleagues the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Housing, Communities and Local Government. This cut would be a colossal strategic own goal for the Government—one they would rightly get the blame for—but there is still time to reverse it.

For this debate, though, the key point I want the Minister to focus on is that the closure of junction 38 southbound and then northbound, for three years in total, will be catastrophic for our communities. It can and must be avoided.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Mr Shannon, this is a very narrow debate, specifically on junction 38 of the M6. I seek an assurance that your intervention relates only to that.

[Jim Shannon]

It is more than that, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is about the main thoroughfare for lorries and traffic going to Stranraer and then to Larne. It is about that road and that junction. [Laughter.] No, it is a fact. I have talked to those who transport agrifood goods from Northern Ireland to the north of England and Scotland and back again. This debate is wide; its subject will impact not just the local area, but all the businesses in Northern Ireland that need lorries to bring their food in and take their food out. The agrifood sector will be impacted greatly.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Gentleman is a world-standard crowbar applier in this place, but that was not a crowbar—that was very relevant. England’s connectivity with Ireland via Stranraer is utterly affected by what is happening at junction 38. He is absolutely on the money, and I am very grateful for his point.

We must avoid the closures of these junctions. Let us start with one group who are mentioned regularly and helped rarely: at a time when they are already facing so many threats and pressures, the closures will be a logistical nightmare for our farmers, who will face rising fuel costs, some land being made inaccessible to them, and threats to animal welfare as they have to make more arduous journeys throughout this three-year period.

Secondly, given the Government’s priority of seeking economic growth, the junction closures are also a huge risk to our multibillion-pound tourism economy. Tailbacks north and south and the junction closures will mean that some of the 20 million visitors we have each year will vote with their feet, putting many of the 60,000 hospitality and tourism jobs in our county at risk, and further damaging the UK’s fiscal position.

Local businesses will be hit by the closures, including—I do not think this is parochial hyperbole either—Britain’s finest service station, Westmorland services at Tebay—

Grove Park Railway Station

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I am grateful for this Adjournment debate on the merits of upgrading Grove Park train station, a historical station that has served the local community for 150 years. Originally opened in 1871 to serve rural communities and local farmers, the station helped to kickstart the development of the thriving neighbourhood that we know today. At the turn of the century, the area gained fame through its connection to Edith Nesbit’s beloved novel “The Railway Children”, which drew inspiration from the surrounding landscape. I remember watching the film adaptation as a child, as a teenager and as an adult. I am delighted that the film has this amazing link to my constituency.

Grove Park station has grown to meet the community’s changing needs. From its origins as a small rural station, it has become a vital transport hub with five platforms, connecting local residents to central London and the wider south-east. However, the station has been left to deteriorate and requires significant investment if it is to continue serving the community that has grown and developed around it. I am sorry to say that the station feels grubby and dirty. There is what appears to be a makeshift roof along most of the inside walkway. Weeds have been known to grow inside the walkway. There is no style, no pattern and no one colour to the walls of the station. Frankly, it is unpleasant, and I know that Southeastern can do much better.

My residents and local businesses deserve better. I have spoken to many of them, including a local hairdressers, the local nail salon, the café next door, the Harris chemist and the other café, the Filling Station Café. These are the people who, along with me, have been driving this campaign. I thank the over 100 constituents who signed the petition that I submitted to Parliament, calling for an upgrade to the station.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this issue forward. She is right to highlight the condition of the station. It was great when it was first built because it suited the times, but today’s times are different. I spoke to her beforehand about this issue. My concern is that many stations across the nation require passengers to climb stairs, or place unavoidable barriers in the way of disabled people, anyone with a mobility difficulty and parents with prams. I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving accessibility, but does she agree that the Minister and the Department for Transport must commit more time to reviewing this particular case, and all cases across the nation in which there are accessibility issues, and people cannot even get into a station?

[Janet Daby]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. I am just about to go into the additional accessibility options for Grove Park and many other stations. This is an issue that we need to keep raising, because we need improvements for our constituents.

Grove Park station needs additional accessibility options. It has three steep ramps to each set of platforms, which makes access difficult for people with a mobility impairment, such as those in a mobility chair or using an aid to walk with. It is also challenging for parents who have pushchairs and small children to navigate the ramps. There is a separate bridge connecting the platforms, but it is not served by lifts, and there is also only one set of toilets. Imagine a parent who has a child who needs to go to the toilet, and who happens to be on the wrong platform. They have to go up and down a ramp to get to the toilet, and then make the long journey back. I think we can all agree—Members and constituents—that further options need to be considered in a wider consultation.