Network Rail Timetable Changes: Rural Communities

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of Network Rail timetable changes on rural communities.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. This year marks the 200th anniversary of the first passenger railway services in our country. Railways have transformed transport and trade, connecting towns and cities and accelerating economic and social change in our country. Our railways are often the subject of fierce debate. Of course, the Labour Government have taken the decision to nationalise them. We can debate the rights and wrongs of that decision, but there is one thing that is undoubtedly now true: decisions made about our railways will now be the responsibility of the Labour Government and them alone. They will need to account for their decisions.

In five days’ time a new Network Rail timetable comes into force. London North Eastern Railway claims that the timetable will “provide more trains” and “thousands more seats”. I am afraid that for my constituents it does the exact opposite. It will have a terrible impact on our rural communities, such as those I represent.

Berwick-upon-Tweed station sits just outside the Scottish Borders, but it serves thousands of the people who live there, as well as those in North Northumberland who rely on train services for work and pleasure. The timetable change means that the number of LNER services from Berwick-upon-Tweed will be dramatically cut to just one every two hours. Services from the station connect the Scottish Borders and North Northumberland to our key cities: Edinburgh, Aberdeen, York, London and many other parts of our United Kingdom. Berwick-upon-Tweed is in the top 30% most used stations, used by thousands of passengers every single day.

Many areas will benefit from the change. Newcastle station, for example, has seen a dramatic increase in its number of trains. Peterborough will see its number of trains to London surge, as will York. So what are we witnessing? Rural communities and small towns are losing out for the benefit of large cities. Indeed, it has been a stated aim of the Government that the timetable changes are about securing more high-speed train services between London and Edinburgh. Those cities already have good train services and other public transport options. It is simply not fair or acceptable that my constituents should see a service that they have come to rely on cut in such a way.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Just one Network Rail station, Tiverton Parkway, lies in my very large constituency. Like many other rural parts of the country, we are dogged by totally insufficient transport. Does the hon. Member share my view that if proper, predictable timetabling in rural areas is a lever for social mobility, unpredictability is very much a barrier?

[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.

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

The Largs to Glasgow line is a well-used service, especially in the more rural parts of my constituency. I have recently received many complaints from constituents on a range of issues: serious disruption with trains running late, being severely delayed, signalling issues and loss of power to the track. Does the hon. Member agree that that is just not good enough from the SNP Government, and that ScotRail and Network Rail must work together to ensure a timely and accessible service for all passengers, with a reliable timetable?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. She will know that I am familiar with her part of the world, having been brought up there. I know that beautiful stretch of railway particularly well, with a view of Arran and Millport, up to the west of Scotland. Her key point is the catastrophic failure the SNP is making of Scotland’s railways. ScotRail is run by the Scottish Government and is not doing a good job. When we are trying to encourage people to make that modal shift on to public transport, if the train does not turn up or turns up late, they will not want to make that shift again. The hon. Lady makes an important point and highlights why the SNP is letting Scotland down so badly.

To make matters worse, LNER’s punctuality at Berwick-upon-Tweed station is far from outstanding. In the latest performance period, just 65.6% of services there arrived on time. We now face a number of services being dramatically cut, and existing services turning up late a third of the time.

I particularly want to raise the impact on those who are disabled or older, as I mentioned in response to an earlier intervention. Having to change trains halfway through a journey can be frustrating for all of us, as we are on edge waiting to see whether we will make our connection. But as one of my constituents, Elizabeth Johnston, said, for disabled passengers direct services are not simply a convenience; they are often the only practical and dignified way to travel long distances.

Wheelchair spaces on trains are also extremely limited. These changes will further limit disabled passengers’ choice. They could be forced to wait several hours for the next available service. Just one missed connection can leave a wheelchair user stranded without accessible facilities. I do not find that situation acceptable. A significant number of my constituents travel by train for work.

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

I represent a rural constituency in Wiltshire. Our local college has had to reduce the timetable for its 16 to 18-year-olds, given that they can no longer rely on trains that are constantly delayed. That causes issues related to deprivation, which was highlighted in recent Government statistics as being caused by lack of access to work and skills.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Talk of social mobility often focuses on urban and city areas, but those of us who represent rural constituencies know that social mobility is a big problem. Arguably it is even greater in our areas because, as the hon. Lady highlighted, if the bus or train does not turn up, it is not just a matter of waiting for the next one; it is a matter of not being able to get to work or access an important college course that opens up many other opportunities.

One of the strengths of the east coast main line is that it makes travel through our key cities relatively easy and time efficient. Today one can travel from Berwick-upon-Tweed to London in just over three and a half hours. Under the new timetable, services will take longer and be less frequent. Trains will inevitably be busier. In the Borders, we are trying to attract more young families to live in our communities. Regular, reliable train services are an essential part of making the Borders an even more fantastic place to live.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. He mentioned Berwick train station, which is in my constituency. Although the initial timetable change began in 2021, it is true that it has been brought in now.

I want to highlight more regional travel. It is good to be working cross-border and cross-party on this issue. Does he agree that, at a review point hopefully coming up in the next few months, we should focus on Berwick’s burgeoning and developing night-time economy as well, and that it would be a shame to miss that opportunity for later evening and weekend trains?

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to my neighbour for his contribution and for the cross-party, cross-border working we have secured on this issue. He is right that the consultation took place back in 2021. There was great opposition at that point and then there was a further, much smaller, consultation. I think a lot of people assumed the views they had submitted in the earlier discussion about the timetable changes were in some way captured. I do not think many of our respective constituents understood that whole timetable change was possibly going to happen again. There was not much awareness that these changes were back on the table.

The night-time economy is an important issue not just for Berwick, but for all our constituents who enjoy going to Edinburgh—and Newcastle—particularly around festival time in Edinburgh. I know that a lot of my constituents enjoy going to Edinburgh in August when the festival and fringe are on, and to be fair to the train companies they often put on additional services for people coming back. However, that should not be a once-a-year occasion. We should recognise that such travel is happening much more often, and people should be encouraged to do that through much more frequent late night services.

We currently have a Labour Government that seem totally and utterly obsessed with net zero at all costs. These timetable changes could make people more likely to opt to fly from Edinburgh or Newcastle because that service is more frequent, more reliable and quicker. That makes the changes even more nonsensical at a time when the Government say they want to encourage more people to use our railways.

There is also the impact on tourism. People come to the Scottish Borders from far and wide. We have some of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom there. The changes will inevitably affect tourism in the Borders. Day trips will become harder. People may choose alternative destinations. That will make it even more difficult for our local tourism and hospitality businesses, which are already suffering thanks to the decisions of this Labour Government.

We have seen progress on improving rail connectivity in the Scottish Borders over the last decade. The Borders Railway connecting Tweedbank and Galashiels with Scotland’s capital has been a success, but we need that to go further to connect with Hawick, Newcastleton and on to Carlisle. We have also seen the reopening of Reston station in Berwickshire on the east coast main line, which continues to grow in success. That has all been part of a joined-up approach to improve rail connectivity right across the Borders. The timetable changes stall that progress. In fact, we will go backwards.

I was struck by the fact that the Secretary of State said last month that she wants a railway that is fit for the future,

“one that rebuilds the trust of… its passengers”

and regenerates its communities and restores reliability. These timetable changes will not do anything to achieve the Secretary of State’s ambitions.

I will now consider solutions. Last week, I met the Rail Minister Lord Hendy. It was a productive and considered meeting and I thank him for that. He undertook important work on behalf of the last Government in relation to the Union connectivity review, so I know he is a man of great experience and is a good appointment to his role. As he said to me, any timetable is never the final one. We need to see changes to the timetable to get more services to stop at Berwick-upon-Tweed. I will not stop fighting for better rail services for my constituents and for the thousands who cross the border to use Berwick-upon-Tweed station.

Working with residents, local councillors and others, we will demonstrate the real-world negative impact that these changes will have and why it matters for local people in our rural communities to have good quality, reliable public transport. I am sure that—as we have already—we will hear examples from hon. Members from across the UK of how their communities will be negatively impacted by timetable changes or unreliable train services. For connectivity, for economic growth, and for our communities, this is bad news for the Borders. It should not have happened in the first place, and we need to focus all our efforts on restoring services so that residents in rural communities have access to the public services that they deserve.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon. We have demonstrated the importance of rail services to the rural communities that we collectively represent.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I have two points of concern. We again heard from the Minister about the importance of the inter-city connection—the London to Edinburgh service. That may well be an admirable aim of the Government, but they need to be clear that the consequence is that the rural communities in between are being left behind. That includes Berwick-upon-Tweed and many other places, which will be sacrificed for that high-speed connection. We can debate the worth of that link between London and Edinburgh and elsewhere, but that is the direct consequence of the policy.

Secondly, I think the Minister said that 147,000 passengers used the Berwick station, compared with 250,000 that use Harrogate. We need to remember that Harrogate is a much bigger centre of population than Berwick. It is a bigger town in itself and the catchment area for those who use the station is significantly bigger in population terms. The 147,000 people using Berwick travel much further to get to that station—it is a much bigger catchment area and a focal point for a much wider area. People will travel from Hawick in the south of my constituency all the way to Berwick to use that service. The figure of 147,000 is much more significant than 250,000 in a relatively big place in Yorkshire.

I will continue this campaign to persuade the Government and Network Rail that we need to get services back to where they were at Berwick. I am sure I will have the support of others; I certainly will have the support the community. I know how strongly the constituents I represent feel about this issue. I know how strongly people feel in Berwick-upon-Tweed and in North Northumberland. The fight will go on.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of Network Rail timetable changes on rural communities.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Last week, London North Eastern Railway announced huge cuts to rail services from Berwick-upon-Tweed station, which serves not only the town of Berwick but my constituents in the Scottish Borders and North Northumberland. The Government promised more trains, but this is the opposite. LNER is now owned by the Government, so will the Secretary of State meet me and local residents, so that we can explain the impact that the cuts will have on local communities?

[Heidi Alexander]

Passengers on LNER will benefit from the new December timetable, which will bring an overall improvement in reliability and capacity, but I would be very happy to ask the Rail Minister to speak to the hon. Gentleman about the particular issues at Berwick-upon-Tweed.

Road Maintenance

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Roads are crucial to life in the Scottish Borders. They are a lifeline. My constituency stretches from Cockburnspath in the north all the way down to Newcastleton, just north of Carlisle. It takes the best part of two and a half hours to drive from one end of it to the other. Excluding trunk roads, in the Scottish Borders there are 1,857 miles of local roads that the council are responsible for. In addition, there are many more miles of trunk roads, which the Scottish Government’s Transport Scotland is responsible for. Looking around the Chamber, I ask whether any other Member present can challenge that figure of 1,857 miles of local roads that the council is responsible for; it is a uniquely high figure.

Roads are essential for people in the Borders to get around, see friends, go to school, get to work and go to hospital appointments. It is crucial that we have good-quality roads to just exist, never mind enjoy any of the luxuries in life. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that I receive so much casework from constituents expressing concern about the quality of some of the roads and the lack of investment, which I will come on to. Also, when I do surveys and knock on doors each week, doing my residents doorstep surgeries, consistently potholes will be the No. 1 issue that local residents raise with me.

I do not think any other Member has yet paid tribute to the hard-working council employees who do a very good job of fixing the roads under very difficult circumstances. They might not have the resources or all the equipment that they need, but they are doing the best they can in very challenging circumstances to make the roads as good as they can be. They often go above and beyond what is their job to ensure that the roads, which are often in the communities that they live in themselves, are maintained to the best possible standard.

Very often, what makes such employees’ life even more difficult is the fact that electricity, gas or broadband companies come into their communities and dig up the roads. The council employees might come and fix a road one week, then discover that a few days or weeks later, a utility company will come through and dig up the road again. Much more needs to be done, both by the UK Government and the Scottish Government, who are responsible for this policy area in Scotland, to ensure that these types of utility companies are under a much tougher obligation to restore roads to the standard that they were in prior to the work being carried out, or indeed bring them up to an even better standard. If they choose to do the work, they need to invest in the road so that it is brought up to a good standard once they have completed it.

My council, Scottish Borders council, has invested in the JCB Pothole Pro equipment, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) mentioned. Amid growing concerns about the state of the roads in the Borders, the council felt that it was a good investment. They bought one, and have now hired a second. This machine carried out 1,889 road repairs between April and the end of December last year, which resulted in a significant improvement in the local road network. There is still a huge backlog of road repairs, thanks largely to the lack of investment by the SNP Government; I will come to that shortly. Scottish Borders council has also set up a new interactive map on its website of the whole council area. People can identify roads and provide evidence of potholes that need to be fixed.

As a consequence of that investment, a recent freedom of information request to all United Kingdom councils showed that Scottish Borders council has spent millions of pounds on fixing potholes across the Borders. In 2020-21, it invested £2.5 million; in 2021-22, it invested £3.2 million; and in 2022-23, it invested £3.8 million, totalling over £9.6 million over three years. I commend my Conservative-controlled council for making this level of investment. But on the other side of the equation, it has had to pay out more than £17 million in compensation to road users and car drivers because of damage caused by potholes. Although the council has achieved a lot, there is much work still to do. I pay tribute to my Conservative colleagues on Scottish Borders council for what they have done.

Like many other councils in Scotland, Scottish Borders council is under severe financial pressure because the Scottish nationalist Government in Edinburgh are not investing in local councils, particularly rural councils like mine in the borders. The Scottish Government often ignore the needs of rural communities across Scotland and invest instead in the central belt.

Indeed, the cuts that the Scottish Government have imposed on local authorities, including my own, were recently described as “brutal” and “savage” cuts on local authorities, resulting in many, if not all, councils across Scotland having to make very difficult choices between investment and supporting vital local services.

Although a few Labour Members representing Scottish constituencies are present for this debate on road maintenance, it is telling that SNP colleagues representing rural constituencies like my own are not here to talk about the very challenging road networks in their constituencies. The fact they are not here to defend the Scottish Government’s decision to cut road investment—their Benches are empty—says a lot.

[Robbie Moore]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just north of the border that these cuts are being made? South of the border, we have seen this new Labour Government cut the local service delivery grant by over £100 million. The grant is specifically allocated to assist rural councils in providing much-needed services, such as pothole maintenance, where the cost of delivery is much higher in rural areas. Does he agree that was the wrong decision for this Labour Government to make?

[John Lamont]

I do agree, and I will develop that point. My concern is that policymakers, whether here in Westminster or in Edinburgh, have an urban outlook to transport. They assume that people have access to buses and trains, but those of us living in rural communities do not, so roads and cars become much more important.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I have to point out that Edinburgh is Scotland’s lowest funded local authority, looking at the block grant allocation. In preparing for this debate, I checked what the Scottish Government have been saying about the pothole crisis in Scotland, and I found that they have said absolutely nothing. Has the hon. Gentleman been able to find anything from them on this issue?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Scottish Borders council would be very grateful to receive the level of funding that Edinburgh council receives. Notwithstanding that, it is a problem that the Scottish Government do not invest in roads in the way we would expect.

The hon. Member will be fully aware of the scandal surrounding the A9, which does not affect my constituency or, indeed, his, but the delays and the broken promises that the SNP has made to upgrade that vital road linking the north of Scotland with the rest of Scotland—and the rest of the UK, for that matter—have caused huge frustrations to the rural communities it serves.

My criticism is not only directed at the SNP Government. As Labour Members will realise, the Labour Government are not immune from criticism either. The previous Conservative Government promised to invest in upgrading the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham, and this Government’s decision to cancel that upgrade has caused great upset not just in my constituency but in Northumberland.

The A1 is a vital road for the local economy in the Scottish Borders, and it is also a vital road in Northumberland. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) is no longer in his place, but that road supports local jobs and the local economy. Savagely cutting that funding and scrapping the investment to improve that road will undoubtedly cause economic hardship for the communities that rely on that road.

[Robbie Moore]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this causes inconvenience not only to the many commuters who use the A1, who want better connectivity north of the border, but to the landowners who have been moved around in the negotiations for years? This Labour Government’s decision to scrap the funding allocated for the A1 upgrade not only affects local businesses in Alnwick and the safety of the crossings in Felton and Ellingham, and the like, but affects people who own land either side of the A1 who have been put through huge uncertainty.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and the local press in Northumberland is full of stories of people who are effectively trapped.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Lamont]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman—patience. The local press is full of stories of people who are trapped as a consequence of this Labour Government’s choice not to invest in the A1.

I will now happily give way to the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who will perhaps explain why he supports the cancelling of the A1 upgrade.

[Joe Morris]

I remind the hon. Members for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) that Northumberland now has four Labour MPs as a result of the neglect and contempt in which the county was held by the last Conservative Government. I also remind them that the Government in which they served were very much responsible for misleading the people of Northumberland by promising the A1 dualling without providing any money for it. Is that contempt not at the heart of why they lost Northumberland in such spectacular fashion?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member for North Northumberland is no longer in his place, but he made an intervention earlier. He was very clear in his election leaflets that he was absolutely committed to upgrading and dualling the A1—a promise that has now been ripped up. I suspect the people of Northumberland will remember that when the next election day comes.

That A1 is crucial to North Northumberland and to my constituents. Its road safety is terrible. Forget the economic arguments; the safety arguments make it all the more important. [Interruption.] Labour Members can shake their heads all they want, but it is a choice that this Labour Government made, that Labour Members made, having told the electorate the complete opposite before the election.

My concern is that this Government and the SNP Government in Edinburgh sadly assume that everybody lives in a big city or a big town. They assume that people have access to buses or trains. For those of us living in Coldstream in my constituency, it is 14 miles to the nearest station, and the regular bus—the busy bus—comes every two or three hours. Unless we have access to a car and a good-quality road network, we are stuck.

It is regrettable that this Government are not prioritising the A1, which supports my constituency to a certain extent. More importantly from my perspective, it is regrettable that the SNP Scottish Government are not investing in the roads of the Scottish Borders in the way they should—and I remind the House that SNP Members are not in the Chamber today to stand up for their communities who want investment in their roads.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of this investment to her constituency. The rail upgrade will double the number of seats between Huddersfield and Manchester, and will increase the number by 30% between Huddersfield and Leeds. Service reliability will also improve. Moreover, 60% of the workforce will be employed within 25 miles of the route and 66% of spending will be within the local supply chain, which will lead to local growth and jobs—so it is good news all round.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I want to improve rail performance in my constituency, and the extension of the Borders Railway from Tweedbank to Hawick and Newcastleton and on to Carlisle has strong local and cross-party support. Has the UK Government’s share of the funding for the feasibility study—secured as part of the Borderlands growth deal—been confirmed, and will it be released to Scottish Borders Council imminently?

[Heidi Alexander]

I understand that officials in my Department are speaking to Scottish colleagues, and I hope to be in a position to say more about that soon, potentially as part of the spending review.

Rail Services: Open Access Operators

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers]

My Member of Parliament makes an excellent point. There are indeed other examples, up and down the country, where modest improvements have been made at minimal cost. It needs the Secretary of State to realise the economic benefits to the area, and she will surely see that this is an easy win to deliver on the Government’s growth agenda.

The establishment of Great British Railways represents the biggest change in the way we run the railways since privatisation 30 years ago. We must keep and improve what clearly works, and we must not weaken or undermine key roles, such as that of the rail regulator, so that we can make GBR fit for purpose, alongside open access, and deliver the best services for passengers across the country.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is speaking very well about the usefulness and benefit of having a good rail system. He will be aware of the new timetable that the national rail operators are proposing. For my constituency, Berwick-upon-Tweed is the most important station, although it is in England. It will be losing services to London, and the journey time will be increased to allow greater capacity for links to Edinburgh and Newcastle. Does he agree that we need to ensure that small towns across the UK do not lose rail connectivity for the benefit of larger hubs?

[Martin Vickers]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the key arguments in favour of introducing more open access operators, which have widened the number of destinations served.

If we drill into the latest passenger and financial figures, we see that there is a key lesson for those who are designing and planning GBR. We can all agree that we need better trains serving more places, with more reliability and competitive fares. But there is a huge caveat. This hinges on Ministers choosing to copy the east coast operating model, which, as I mentioned, has proven such a success; there are evidence-based statistics to show that. The Chancellor and the new Transport Secretary must take note of that model if they want to avoid a future of soaring subsidies and flatlining passenger numbers. It should now be encouraged and rolled out across Britain’s railway network, including, of course, northern Lincolnshire. Office of Rail and Road statistics show that where inter-city trains do not compete for passengers, services are expensive, require big subsidies, have struggled to get their finances and passengers back since covid, and endure poor passenger satisfaction. Importantly, the east coast main line has seen the fastest post-pandemic recovery on the network, enjoys the highest passenger satisfaction as LNER’s subsidy continues to fall, and could soon be subsidy-free.

The Minister will know personally about the benefits of open access competition, because Grand Central connects Wakefield with London, in competition with LNER. Those services provide valuable choice and competition for his constituents, who can choose between operators when they travel. The services also help to deliver inward investment, growth and regeneration, as direct rail services are invaluable when investors look at locations outside London.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the concerns of his constituents. Local authorities have a vital role to play; they are responsible for introducing road safety measures appropriate to their areas. Of course, the Department is responsible for legislation and the guidance to help them to do so. I continue to engage with local authorities to ensure we are providing them with the support they need to make our roads safer.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to help maintain roads.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

7. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the condition of local roads.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)]

The Government are determined to help local authorities in England to tackle the highways maintenance backlog that is the result of a decade of under-investment by the previous Government. We are making an immediate start by providing an extra £500 million next year—an increase of nearly 50% compared with the current financial year.

[John Lamont]

The A1 is a vital road link for the Scottish Borders and Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom, and Labour’s decision to scrap much-needed improvements will harm the local economy and stop businesses investing in jobs. The local Labour MP, the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), has said he was “disappointed and frustrated” by the decision of his Labour colleagues. What do the Labour Government have against car drivers and truck users on roads in rural Scotland?

[Heidi Alexander]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have nothing against car drivers and truck users. We appreciate the long-standing local desire for dualling the A1 from Morpeth to Ellingham, but I am sorry to say that in the assessment we carried out post the general election, it represented poor value for money. There have been several delays to the development consent order decision and the contractors were decommissioned more than two years ago. In that time, scheme costs have risen significantly, making the scheme even less affordable and further worsening the value for money. Having said that, I recognise that there are safety issues on the existing route, which we will need to look at carefully, as we would with any other part of the network. However, that alone does not warrant the dualling scheme.