Road Maintenance

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Government for holding this debate, and I assure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), that us Lib Dems are wonderfully bilingual and can travel in both kilometres and miles.

As a Liberal Democrat, this issue is of course close to my heart. Pothole photos are a staple of Lib Dem literature across the country. Although other parties may dismiss our focus on pothole politics, we understand that for millions, the state of our roads is no laughing matter. So I welcome this debate; it is vital that we bring renewed focus to an issue that was desperately neglected by the Conservatives for years.

This is not just a matter for drivers. Whether someone commutes by car, relies on public transport or cycles, their journey begins on local roads. The condition of those roads directly impacts the daily lives of countless individuals, and the truth is that we are facing a crisis. Despite the previous Government’s rhetoric about standing up for motorists, their actions fell woefully short.

The road condition index reveals that almost 25,000 miles—one in 10 miles of the road network in England and Wales—require urgent maintenance within the next year, while less than half our roads are reported to be in good structural condition. These are not abstract figures; they represent tangible burdens on everyday lives.

Data from the RAC shows that for anything more than a tyre puncture, drivers can expect to pay almost £500 for a pothole-related car repair. The number of pothole-related breakdowns attended by RAC patrols rose by nearly a fifth in the last three months of 2024, compared with the previous quarter.

While the debate about roads often centres on potholes, as the most visible symptom of neglect, the real issue is the underlying condition of our road network. Instead of talking about fixing potholes here and there, we must shift our focus to prevention, and not merely focus on reactive repairs. Although the Government’s recent injection of funds is a welcome acknowledgment of the problem, it fails to address the fact that our current road maintenance funding mechanism is simply not fit for purpose, and the backlog of repairs is simply too long to be fixed by short-term injections of cash. If the Government are serious about tackling this crisis, they must urgently reform the system and give councils the support they need to get on top of the crisis.

Local councils are responsible for managing 98% of our national road network and bear the brunt of the challenge. However, they are underfunded and face huge financial pressures. Analysis from the Local Government Association has confirmed that due to continuing inflation and wage pressures, English councils face a £6.2 billion shortfall in funding across the next two years. Given the challenges that councils face, from ballooning social care costs to the special educational needs and disabilities crisis, highway maintenance is often seen as something that can be postponed until finances improve, as we heard from the hon. Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan).

Roads require resurfacing roughly every 15 years. However, years of chronic underfunding have forced councils to defer that crucial maintenance, leading to the current pothole plague. That has led to a situation where the average frequency of resurfacing for all classes of road is now an appalling 93 years. When I recently spoke to a council’s highway lead, he put it aptly:

“Roads are like trousers. You can fix a hole here and there with a patch, but it reaches a point where this just simply won’t work. Roads in this country are at such a point where we don’t just need new trousers—we need a whole new wardrobe.”

Although local councils are responsible for most of their roads, much of the funding for road maintenance comes from central Government. However, the Department for Transport has acknowledged that the current funding model is inefficient and does not deliver good value for money. The annual funding cycle forces councils into reactive, short-term fixes, hindering long-term planning. A longer-term funding settlement would allow councils to plan ahead and move away from that reactive model.

Furthermore, the current funding formula, based solely on each local authority’s total road mileage, is woefully inadequate. It fails to account for the diverse needs and road usage in different regions, which demands a more nuanced approach. For example, Department for Transport data indicates that Merton, in which most of my constituency lies, has the second worst uncategorised and B and C roads in the country. Merton, however, received less funding than other areas with more, but better roads.

In a recent meeting with the Secretary of State, it was suggested by officials that Merton’s poor standing may be due to a data error in the figures submitted by the council. Regardless of the cause, that paints a troubling picture. Either Merton is failing to maintain our roads, or it is failing to accurately report their condition, neither of which is acceptable. Will the Minister write to me to clarify the situation?

The current formula also neglects active travel infrastructure. Although the Government have increased active travel funding, there is no provision for the maintenance of new cycle lanes. Similarly, on the doorstep in Wimbledon, I regularly hear complaints about the quality of pavements, which particularly affects those with mobility issues. If we are serious about promoting cycling and walking, we must ensure that cycle paths and pavements are properly maintained. Without dedicated funding, however, they will deteriorate, discouraging their use and the willingness of councils to provide more such infrastructure.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the Eastbourne seniors forum that the state of the pavement outside the Halifax—which is like the moon, causing lots of trips and falls—is a disgrace, and that East Sussex county council needs to get on top of that straightaway to give people confidence in using roads and pavements again?

[Mr Kohler]

How could I disagree with the Eastbourne seniors forum? Indeed, Eastbourne, Wimbledon and many other constituencies have the same problem with pavements; they are in a shocking condition.

Despite lofty talk about fixing the issues, the Government have cut the highways maintenance budget by 5% for the forthcoming year. The Government claim that that is a temporary measure, as it is a one-year funding settlement to cover National Highways until its next five-year funding period commences in 2026. Can the Minister please confirm today that the Government will make up for the shortfall in the funding settlement next year? Our motorways are key to keeping our country and economy moving. We cannot afford to cut costs on such a critical aspect of our infrastructure.

The Conservatives have led us down the fast lane to decay. There is no doubt that our roads are crumbling, and motorists, cyclists and bus passengers are paying the price. It is now up to the new Government to face up to the challenge. With more short-term injections of cash and a cut to the National Highways budget, their current approach is akin to pulling into a service station for a brief respite. It may delay the journey for a bit, but we remain en route to continuing deterioration.

If Labour are serious about fixing our roads, they must sort out the backlog in work that is needed to allow them to be proactively, not just reactively, managed. That requires the Government to relieve the pressure on local councils by sorting out social care and the SEND crisis, as well as implementing a long-term, needs-based funding model for road maintenance. Without meaningful action to support local councils properly, we will continue on our journey of managed decline.

Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for advance sight of it. Let me also congratulate the shadow Secretary of State on his birthday, and note that he is much younger than the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

It is clear that the Government must take urgent steps to help the car industry make the switch to electric vehicles. Although increasing flexibility in the mandate is welcome, voices across the industry have made it clear that we also need to bolster demand by lowering the barriers for individuals and businesses to purchase electric vehicles. As the Secretary of State knows, the recent surge in demand to which she referred was a result of significant discounting to promote sales. It is crucial that, as well as improving the charging network, we end the inequality between public and private charging by bringing the VAT rate for public charging into line with that for home charging, at 5% rather than 20%. Not only is the present system damaging demand, but it is wrong to penalise those who have no access to private charging. Ministers should also postpone the increase in vehicle tax on electric cars, and explore the possibility of reintroducing the plug-in car grant.

As the Secretary of State made clear on the media round this morning, the spectre of Trump’s tariffs also looms large over the industry. If the Government are serious about protecting car manufacturing in the UK, the Prime Minister must continue to work with our allies in Europe and around the world on a co-ordinated response. The only way to tackle Trump is to negotiate from a position of strength, and to show that the UK is not alone and will not be bullied.

May I ask the Secretary of State three questions? First, what conversations has she had with the Chancellor about lowering the public charging rate to 5%, and what other measures are the Government considering to strengthen EV demand? Secondly, can she confirm that the measures announced today are a response to the ZEV consultation that ended in February, and tell us what, if any, additional measures are being considered in respect of the tariffs that have since been announced? Thirdly, will the Government start negotiations with the EU about the formation of a UK-EU custom union, to cut red tape not only for vehicle manufacturers but for all UK industries?

[Heidi Alexander]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government keep the VAT variation between public and private charging under review. The 20% standard rate to which public charge points are subject applies to most goods and services, with very few exemptions. We are trying to give people low-cost and affordable options for public charging by investing £380 million to roll out overnight chargers, which are cheaper and will be installed to help those without a driveway. Today, Brighton & Hove City Council confirmed that it had signed the contracts to deliver 6,000 of those chargers, and in February Midlands Connect announced that it was rolling out more than 16,000 across the midlands, helping drivers to charge their vehicles for less.

The hon. Gentleman asked me whether today’s announcement was a response to the consultation that we launched at the end of December, which closed in February. It is indeed a Government response to that consultation. As for the discussions that we will have with European colleagues, we will continue those discussions. Although the hon. Gentleman tried to tempt me into giving him a commitment to rejoin an EU customs union, I am afraid that that is not a commitment I can give.

Driving Licences: Zero Emission Vehicles

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

We are pleased that the provision maintains the ability of those with category B driving licences to drive zero emission vehicles up to certain weight thresholds. As has been noted, the SI also reduces the scope of eligible vehicles, from alternatively fuelled to zero emission. Alternatively fuelled vehicles produce less carbon dioxide than petrol and diesel vehicles, but they still produce CO₂. As the vehicles do not, therefore, meet the cross-party consensus that all new cars and vans should be zero emission by 2035, we support the restriction to zero emission vehicles.

However, we again remind the Government that more needs to be done to ensure that EV charging infrastructure is in place. It is no good for people to be able to drive electric vehicles if they are unable to charge them. In addition to improving our EV charging infrastructure, we support other incentives such as restoring the plug-in grant. However, at this point we need convincing—not that we might not be convinced—that removing the five-hour training requirement, which is also contained within the SI, is a good idea. Incentives should not come at the cost of reduced safety and if a five-hour training requirement was thought necessary in 1999, I would like the Minister to explain why it is no longer required.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

In 2017, South Western Railway ordered 90 new Arterio trains to increase capacity on its rail network. They were meant to enter service in 2019. However, six years later, only five are in service—presumably not counting the empty one that sailed by a teeming and seething platform at Wimbledon this morning. With SWR set to be in Government hands in two months, what steps will be taken to ensure that those trains are finally brought into service?

[Heidi Alexander]

I know that the Rail Minister is seized of this issue. He has spoken to me about it, and I understand that it relates to issues with lighting on platforms, what can be seen from the CCTV cameras and the role of the guard. We are across the detail, and it is important that those issues are resolved before the trains are brought into public ownership on 25 May.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Yesterday, the Chancellor spoke about the importance of getting individuals back to work in order to grow our economy, but the uneven coverage, unreliability and inaccessibility of our transport network are key barriers that prevent many from doing so. Furthermore, the Chancellor maintained the decision she took in October to cut the Department for Transport’s budget. Does the Secretary of State believe that cutting the transport budget is a good way of increasing economic growth?

[Heidi Alexander]

I know that the Chancellor and her colleagues in the Treasury understand completely the importance of investing in our transport infrastructure to unlock the jobs, homes and opportunities of the future.

Disruption at Heathrow

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I echo her words and those of others in expressing my gratitude to the firefighters and other emergency workers who fought the fire and to the airport, airline and other staff for all their hard work in the face of this catastrophic systems failure.

What has happened is clearly a rare occurrence, but it raises a number of significant questions about the security and management of our critical national infrastructure. While I am pleased to hear that no foul play is currently suspected, the event has revealed vulnerabilities in our national security that may be exploited in future by terrorists and hostile state actors. It is consequently vital that lessons are learned to ensure that an incident like this does not happen again, and I welcome the announcement of a full investigation.

It is deeply concerning that the failure of a single piece of infrastructure has taken down the entire airport. Heathrow is connected to three substations, and while two were impacted, the third was running and had enough capacity—thought to be around 72 MW—to power the whole of Heathrow, which requires a little more than 40 MW. It is evident that Heathrow’s power set-up could not be swiftly reconfigured to allow the third substation to be used. We need to understand why that was, and whether it could be remedied in future. While Heathrow claims that it is normal for airports not to have sufficient back-up capacity to power all of their needs, other industries that require even more power than Heathrow—such as data centres—take more robust steps to ensure they have sufficient back-up systems to counter such failures. Should our key international transport hub not have the same safeguards?

We must also not forget those whose journeys were disrupted. It is estimated that over 200,000 passengers have been impacted by the event. However, under current regulations, most of those passengers will not be eligible for compensation. As such, I have three questions for the Secretary of State. First, what impact, if any, will this incident have on the Government’s plans for expansion at Heathrow? Can the national grid infrastructure cope with a third runway, or will the airport become more prone to failure? Secondly, does the Secretary of State believe that UK airports should be taking steps to increase their back-up capacity, in order to ensure that an incident like this does not happen again? Thirdly, does she believe that the current regulations around passenger compensation are sufficient?

[Heidi Alexander]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. The question of Heathrow expansion and this very rare—unprecedented—event are two entirely separate issues. He will be aware that the Government have invited Heathrow to bring forward proposals for a third runway, and we will review the airports national policy statement after that.

With regard to back-up capacity at airports, I am told that the back-up power systems at Heathrow operated as they should have done during this incident—they did not fail. I do not want to come to knee-jerk conclusions as a result of this unprecedented incident, but we will be looking very closely at the two reviews I mentioned in my statement. I have also worked with the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that passengers who have been affected by this disruption are aware of their rights.

North Sea Vessel Collision

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The scenes we have all witnessed in news reports are very concerning, and our thoughts are with all those affected and with the family of the crew member who remains unaccounted for.

This event reminds us of the risks and dangers faced by those who work in the maritime sector. These men and women often work long, challenging hours, keeping our country and economy going with little—if any—recognition, and we are hugely grateful to them. We are also indebted to the emergency services, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the coastguard for their tireless work through the night. I know they are doing all they can to limit the damage and the environmental impact, and have done so much to minimise the loss of life. While it will take time to establish what has taken place, it is clear that the Government need to take urgent steps to limit the damage and reassure local communities. I welcome the Government’s formation of the tactical co-ordination group and the work it is doing with other agencies.

I appreciate that the situation is still unfolding and that many questions cannot be answered at this stage. However, will the Minister say first what immediate steps the Government are taking to protect the environment along the east coast? Secondly, what is he doing to keep shipping routes open and safe? Thirdly, what is the Government’s plan to support fishing and other businesses that rely on waters that might now be contaminated?

[Mike Kane]

I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to maritime workers. Just as they kept us fed, fuelled and supplied all the way through covid, they keep our nation fed, fuelled and supplied every day of every week. I cannot commend them highly enough.

I also join with him in paying tribute to the emergency services. This is difficult, hard work and they are doing an exceptional job in the circumstances. As I have said, the MCA is standing by with marine and aerial counter-pollution measures in place. Once we get the fire on the Solong out, we will begin to assess the situation and deploy them. It is vital that we keep shipping lanes in the Humber estuary open as best we can as this continues, which is why we have placed a 1,000-metre exclusion zone around both ships. Outside that, maritime vessels can operate normally—as normally as is possible in this circumstance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Too many of Britain’s roads are in a shocking state of disrepair, as the Secretary of State says. In my constituency, Labour-run Merton council has the worst roads in London and the second worst in the country. Some 40% of our local roads are rated as poor by her Department. Although I welcome the coming year’s increase in funding, that is only a short-term measure and not based on need; Merton and others have received less than authorities whose roads are in a better condition. As Labour-run Merton has failed to maintain its roads and has not been bailed out by its friends in the Government, will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss what action can be taken?

[Heidi Alexander]

I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to ensure that roads in his constituency and across London are maintained to an adequate standard. The increase of £500 million in this year’s allocation to highways maintenance represents an average 40% increase for local authorities. It will be making the difference, and I would be happy to discuss this issue with him further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

In her previous role as deputy London Mayor for transport, the Secretary of State stated she was “clear” in her opposition to a third runway at Heathrow. Is she still clear in her opposition, and if not, what has changed her mind?

[Heidi Alexander]

When I was deputy Mayor for transport in London, I was speaking in that capacity at that time, reflecting the views of the Mayor of London and City Hall on a previous Heathrow expansion scheme. As Secretary of State, I will consider any airport expansion proposals on their merits and in line with existing processes. Balancing economic growth and our environmental obligations is central to all my work in this role, and I will always act in the national interest, doing what is right for the country as a whole.

Rail Services: Open Access Operators

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. We have heard lively contributions from across the House, and underlying all of them is a simple truth: in the UK, open access rail operators have a clear track record of improving services, increasing access and driving economic growth.

However, the recent letter from the Secretary of State to the Office of Rail and Road makes it very clear that the future of open access services in this country is at risk. Although the Government’s position is just one of the issues that the ORR has a statutory duty to consider, the fact that the Government are asking the ORR to take a more cautious approach is clearly a concern. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s views on that point and any assurances that he can give.

Although the Secretary of State might have legitimate concerns regarding capacity and abstraction, I fear there is an ideological element to her intervention. The Government are in danger of being led by doctrine rather than facts. Again, an assurance would be gratefully received.

As we heard from the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham, the record of three open access operators—Lumo, Grand Central and Hull Trains—competing against the Government-owned franchise LNER on the east coast main line has shown how competition for passengers drives down fares and drives up passenger numbers. Research has shown new open access operators competing on the same routes as incumbents typically offer fare reductions of 20% to 60% in the long term.

At a time when fares are sky high, competition helping to drive down costs for passengers should be encouraged, particularly when it is compensated for by a commensurate increase in passenger numbers to more than cover the revenue lost per customer. On the east coast main line, passenger numbers bounced back faster than in any other area after covid, due in no small part to the competition on that part of the network.

Open access is not only good for passengers, but good for the planet. Cheaper tickets and better access to services, since Lumo has been running services from London to Edinburgh, have meant that rail’s market share, compared with air travel, grew from 35% in 2019 to 57% in 2022.

That is not just a UK phenomenon. Unlike the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham, I am delighted to look to Europe for inspiration. In Italy, competition between the open access operator Italo Treno and the Italian state operator has driven a 90% increase in passenger numbers between Rome and Milan, while in Spain competition between Ouigo and Iryo on the Madrid-to-Valencia route has resulted in fares 50% lower than on routes with no competition. It is somewhat ironic that, while Europe is liberalising its railways and seeing positive results, we are potentially moving in the opposite direction.

Open access rail can also play a vital part in increasing services to many of our other underserved communities. As we have heard from the hon. Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Brigg and Immingham about Cleethorpes, from the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) about Skipton, and from the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) about Scarborough, there are many towns and regions in this country where open access can make a real contribution to improving connectivity across the country. With an eye to revenue, private companies have found gaps in the timetable and delivered for residents where the Government have not.

As we have seen in this debate, any changes to open access arrangements by the Government are likely to provoke ire from their Back Bench colleagues in Hull, Sunderland and elsewhere. The hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and for Scarborough and Whitby know the value of open access, and I am sure they will keep the Minister’s mind concentrated on its importance.

The same will be true of MPs representing areas where open access is still in its infancy or gestation. In Somerset and Wiltshire, concerned residents are taking the lack of rail provision into their own hands, with the formation of Go-op, the first ever co-operatively owned railway operator, which plans to increase vital regional services in an often neglected area. Meanwhile, in north Wales, the proposed Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway will bring back direct services from London to Wrexham, helping to bring passengers and further growth to a town already on the up—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) noted, it has taken far too long to get through the bureaucracy and get the service approved.

While we will hear from the Minister about concerns regarding capacity on the network, there are definitely areas with capacity for a greater number of services. Take the channel tunnel, for example: the French owners of the tunnel, Getlink, have said that it was designed for double the capacity, and an application for a new open access operator on the line to compete with Eurostar is with the regulator. Introducing welcome competition on the line will help to grow international train services to and from the UK and to reduce ticket prices.

It is clear, therefore, that open access should have a part to play in the future of the rail network. While my party and I are agnostic regarding rail nationalisation, the Liberal Democrats firmly believe that the private sector should play a part where there are clear benefits for passengers. We should be led by evidence, which shows that open access operators have made a positive addition to the network, and that the regulator has been successful in addressing concerns about abstraction. The Government, in their upcoming Rail Reform Bill, must therefore ensure that a fully functioning, properly resourced regulator is maintained.

As we move to a model where 75% of rail activity is under public ownership, we must ensure that that near-monopoly does not crowd out others, such as freight and open access. Not only is maintaining a competitive element on the railway good for passengers, but it will help the Government to guarantee that GBR is delivering the best outcomes, and—of course—grow the economy.

Airport Expansion

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

The Minister gave an admirably Delphic yet still disappointing answer. While we must grow the economy, we must not do so at the expense of the environment. Expanding Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports will drive, or even fly, a coach and horses through our climate commitments, adding 92 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to our carbon footprint by 2050. Do not just take my word for it: the Mayor of London; his previous deputy Mayor for transport, now the Transport Secretary; the Environment Secretary; the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; and the Prime Minister have all previously been opposed, as is the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Can I ask the Minister three questions? First, why has his boss, the former London deputy Mayor for transport, changed her mind? Secondly, how can the Government reconcile this massive growth in carbon emissions with our climate commitments? Thirdly, why, if the Government are looking to grow our economy, are they not re-engaging meaningfully with Europe by negotiating a customs union?

<Railway Services: South-West>

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for his work securing this debate, the Backbench Business Committee for granting it, and hon. Members from across the House for agreeing to speak.

As we have heard from everyone here today, it is clear that the railway network in the south-west needs urgent improvement. The failure of successive Conservative Governments has left the network in a terrible state. Ticket prices are too high and services too unreliable. Infrastructure is too old and capacity too meagre. That is true across the country, but nowhere more so than in the south-west. As we have heard from Members from across the House, businesses and individuals are highly reliant on the railways and Labour needs to take urgent action. If the Government are hoping to meet their targets on economic growth and housing, ensuring that that key region has a fully functioning rail system is vital. That requires action. The Government must ensure that the challenges faced by the railways in the south-west are met.

We have heard today about a number of the challenges. As my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Abbot and for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) eloquently explained, the rail services of those in the further reaches of our isles are uniquely vulnerable. As we saw when the sea wall fell at Dawlish, this can have catastrophic consequences for those further down the line, cutting them off from the rest of the country. We heard the figures earlier. We cannot afford for that to happen again, so it is vital that the new Government back the fifth stage of the project, to ensure that the line is protected from further disruption.

Members today have again raised a number of concerns about the building works at Old Oak Common. As has been said, there will be six years of disruption. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said, residents and constituents in the south-west will get all the pain but none of the gain. Anyone living west of Swindon and Westbury will simply get no real benefit from these connections. We need to compensate them by doing other things for the rail system and other transport in the south-west. We have had doubts about the current capacity of Euston and the overcrowding there during the building works, and we have the other issue about the trains stopping at Old Oak Common—the five to 15-minute delay. It sounds like a small thing, but it is important when we are talking about a fast train. Previously, the Minister’s colleague said that no decision had been made on whether every train would stop at Old Oak Common. May we have an update on that, please?

Although my party and I are highly supportive of the HS2 project, there are understandable concerns. We appreciate that Old Oak Common is a vital part of HS2 and will bring benefits to many. We must also accept, though, that the benefits of Old Oak Common and HS2 will be less keenly felt by those in the south-west. We will keep reiterating that, and we need to do something for them. The constituents of the south-west, including those represented today, must receive reassurances that the Government are listening and they are not being ignored. Their voice must be heard, and I hope that their patience will be rewarded by their finally receiving the oft-promised investment in the region that it so desperately needs and deserves. We heard about some of that today from colleagues, from my party and others.

The Access for All programme appeared to die under the Tories. We need access for all, not just in the south-west, of course, but across all regions and particularly in London, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. The Severn Tunnel closure is causing real problems for transport into the west and into Wales. I asked this question of the Secretary of State last Thursday in Transport questions: will Wales get more investment to compensate for the money going to HS2? HS2 is being treated as an England and Wales project. It is giving no great benefit to Wales. Wales needs some money in the same way as Scotland did, and it needs investment in the Welsh rail system.

We need proper services for Wiltshire. We need to address the fact that there are short trains; more train carriages need to be introduced. There are problems with mobile phone access. We hear that time and time again. We have to bring the rail system into the 21st century. The need to electrify sections of the line to speed up the trains is also important, and punctuality is a real issue, not to mention the exorbitant cost of rail travel to the south-west.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making some important points. Does he agree that the decision to renationalise South Western Railway a year before the Government have set up GB Rail will inevitably mean that investment in the kind of upgrades he is talking about will stagnate completely?

[Mr Kohler]

There is a real issue here, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. GB Rail exists as an idea, but we do not yet know what it will do, and we have real problems. The idea that nationalising rail will suddenly solve the problem is too simplistic. We are agnostic about ownership; we need to actually invest in our rail system. On that point, my party has been supportive of open access, which is why we supported the Go-Op co-operative and its ideas to bring rail systems to the south-west.

We are worried by what the Secretary of State said in a letter last week—she seems to be going cold on open access—so we would like more clarity on that. We are supportive of the Go-Op co-operative idea, and we want to see such ideas working. In fact, open access is the only bit of the rail system that is working quite well at the moment. Hull Trains, for example, has far better customer satisfaction than any other part of the rail system. The idea that we are now backing out of open access worries us, and Go-Op was a perfect idea to help a particular section of the south-west. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot for securing this debate; we would love some answers from the Minister.