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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to her new position. My party knows her well from her hard work on London’s transport network. We look forward to continuing the constructive relationship we had with her then and with her predecessor in this House.

May I take this opportunity to express my sadness at the passing of my Liberal Democrat transport colleague, Baroness Jenny Randerson? Jenny was a force of nature, intelligent, kind, hard-working and principled, with a mischievous wit and love of life. I learned a huge amount from her in the few months we worked together, and will miss her deeply.

Improving transport links to Wales was an issue close to Baroness Randerson’s heart, and one she regularly pressed in the other House. Will the Secretary of State review the Tories’ decision to class HS2 as an England and Wales project, thus depriving Wales of billions of pounds of Barnett formula funding, and will she commit to a high-speed rail link from Birmingham to Crewe to ensure that mid and north Wales can at least share the benefits of HS2?

[Heidi Alexander]

May I extend my condolences and those of the Government to the family of Baroness Randerson? I know she was a deeply loved and highly respected colleague to many.

On the hon. Gentleman’s substantive question, I have already met Ken Skates, the Welsh Minister for Transport, and I am working closely with the Secretary of State for Wales to ensure that we bring public transport improvements to Wales, which I hope will be Baroness Randerson’s lasting legacy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Last week, the Government ramped up bus fares by 50%. The previous Government commissioned a full impact assessment, which was completed last year, on the abolition of the £2 bus fare cap. In November, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood) promised the House that he would release the report, but nothing has appeared. I ask the Secretary of State, what is her Minister hiding and when will the report be released?

Old Oak Common Station

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for securing this debate. As we have heard from cross-party colleagues, there is understandable worry and concern about current and upcoming work. This is an important issue; the disruption is impacting the lives of millions of people, and it is good that we can shine a spotlight on it today.

I start by outlining why, however, this is clearly a positive in many ways. After years of neglect by the Conservatives, it is clear that our public transport is not in a fit state, and nowhere is that more keenly felt than our railways. Therefore, notwithstanding what we have heard, and the overspending and mismanagement, HS2 and the associated work at Old Oak Common are an increasing but welcomed rarity. A new rail project of that size is needed and should be lauded for building the vital infrastructure that we need. The new station, when built, will provide a vital interchange that west London is currently lacking. Old Oak Common is vital for us to achieve the full range of economic benefits of HS2 and it will form a vital transport hub for millions of journeys, including those for future passengers from the west of Wales.

The impacts that the project will have on people’s lives and the economy in the meantime should not be overlooked, and we have heard the real concerns of hon. Friends, particularly those representing constituencies in the south-west and Wales. My hon. Friends the Members for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), for Cheltenham and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) talked about the widespread disruption. That is a real issue and we need the Government to see what they can do to address it. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) spoke about the effect on tourism in Glastonbury and on the economy. How are we going to mitigate those things? My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) spoke about the resentment out there at the failure to invest for many years in the south-west and in Wales. We must address the inadequate service and the failure to invest. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) spoke about the inadequacy of the mitigation fund—£30 million is not enough. Can more be put there, and can more be done with it?

My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) spoke about the failure to carry out electrification. We need to electrify more of those rail lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) and the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) talked about the failure to invest in railways in Wales. That is a problem that has gone on for years and years—a constant failure to invest in Welsh railways. We need to do more.

The Department for Transport must keep a very close eye on this project, for all those reasons. With work taking place in such a vital part of the Great Western Railway mainline, we cannot afford greater disruption than is already planned. In fact, we need to minimise it. While we all accept that disruptions caused by the construction are inevitable, it is essential that the Government show us that they doing all they can to minimise them. To ease disruption, changes need to be clearly communicated with the full arsenal of resources, from noticeboards to social media. We as MPs, and other elected officials, have communication channels of our own. We should play our part in ensuring that constituents know when disruption will occur. That requires the Government and the Department for Transport to talk to us, and communicate in good time all the things that will happen and the delays that will occur.

As the hon. Member for South West Devon said, we must strengthen the delay repay scheme to compensate for disruptions, while also ensuring that ticket prices reflect the disruption to services. Customers should not have to pay the same price for a journey that has been impacted by these works. Given the disruption, it is important to maximise the utility of Old Oak Common station by ensuring that it connects to Chiltern main line services, and on to the newly named Mildmay line. As the hon. Member said, we must maximise the potential of Old Oak Common and ensure that it is fully exploited, particularly in connections with London.

There is a lot to be done and, to mix my metaphors horribly, it will not all be plain sailing. Public confidence in this project has been undermined by various management mishaps and overspends, and the planning mistakes that were so articulately mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). But as he said, we are where we are. The loss of confidence now extends well beyond HS2, with widespread public scepticism about the UK’s ability to manage any infrastructure projects. I feel that that will only get worse unless the industry uses this opportunity to prove itself.

Ensuring that this project is well managed, on time and clearly communicated is key not only to minimising disruption and reducing the economic impact, but to rebuilding public trust in large-scale infrastructure projects across the UK. We must begin tackling other failings in our transport network, including the unacceptably poor provision of transport in Wales and the west. That is why it is critical that the open access rights that FirstGroup recently purchased for Carmarthen to London Paddington services are protected under rail nationalisation, and why the Government must invest in other railway schemes in the south-west, the midlands railways hub, and the north Wales main line.

Let us be clear: the Liberal Democrats and I support building infrastructure, ensuring that our railways receive the vital investment they need. However, we must remember that these projects are ultimately for passengers, who should always be at the centre of the decision-making process. Disruption is inevitable, but passengers and politicians must be convinced that it is being kept to a minimum.

Improving Public Transport

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I commend the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) on her excellent maiden speech, and congratulate her on having the oldest road in her constituency—and doubtless, the oldest potholes as well.

I also commend my hon. Friends the Members for Horsham (John Milne), for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and the hon. Members for Swindon North (Will Stone), for Stroud (Dr Opher), for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards), for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) and for East Thanet (Ms Billington), who spoke with one voice on the dire state of public transport in many of our rural areas. I agree with my friend, the hon. Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons): before becoming transport spokesman, I did not realise how lucky we were in London. Although our constituents have legitimate complaints at times, we do not know how lucky we are. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), and I echo her question to the Minister regarding the disruption to commuters from the south-west caused by the HS2 works on Old Oak Common. What can be done to minimise that disruption?

As we have heard from colleagues across the House, the current state of public transport simply is not good enough. Ticket prices are too high, services are too unreliable, infrastructure is too old and capacity is too meagre—and that is just for those who have access to public transport. Too many parts of our country have no meaningful access to public transport whatsoever. After years of routes being cut and timetables being foreshortened, many people no longer have access to a regular bus service despite living many miles distant from any rail network. This is hampering our economy, holding back local communities and damaging our high streets. Our public transport system should be the engine of growth and opportunity, not an impediment to them. If we are to reach the Government targets on economic growth and net zero we must take rapid and urgent steps to improve our public transport provision. We simply do not have time to tarry.

Let me be clear: my party and I have huge sympathy for the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Government. Everyone knows they inherited a mess from the previous regime’s chaos and missed opportunities. Years of under-investment, chopping, changing and rudderless leadership have left our public transport in turmoil, and I appreciate and publicly acknowledge the new Government’s worthy intentions and evident desire to improve the situation.

My party consequently welcomes the Government’s commitment to long overdue rail reform. I am glad to see the first green shoots of positive change. Ensuring HS2 reaches Euston in the first phase of the project is critical to achieving tangible benefits from what was in danger of becoming an expensive folly, while recent talk of an integrated national transport strategy shows that this Government appreciate that something needs to change.

We welcome the recent announcements on buses, too; as we have heard today from so many colleagues, they are critical to many areas—we know you get it. As hon. Friends so eloquently argued, despite buses being the most utilised form of public transport in the country, they are regularly not given the attention or funding they deserve, so thank you for that.

So far so good, then. However—there is always a “however”—although the Department for Transport is onside, I am not so sure that the Chancellor is, with her real-terms cuts to the Department’s day-to-day and capital budgets. If she is serious about growing the economy, she needs to be serious about properly funding the transport system on which it is built, rather than cutting budgets and making up the shortfall by hiking bus fares by up to 50% and an above-inflation increase in the cost of travel by train.

[Ms Billington]

The hon. Gentleman was not in his place at the time, and indeed neither was I, but it is worthwhile looking at the verdict of another transport nerd, a journalist from the Transport Times, back in 2015, who looked at exactly what happened when the Liberal Democrats did have an opportunity to do something about rural buses:

In county after county, cuts in rural bus service support have been severe. City deals may have been welcomed, but the idea that local government might be trusted to raise its own funding and decide on priorities has slipped further into the mists of history.

I just think it is worth reminding the House of that fact.

[Mr Kohler]

We are talking about now, and we are talking about the fact that you have reduced the bus fare cap.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order—[Interruption.] Order. Just a quick reminder that when I am on my feet, Members should not be.

That is third time the hon. Gentleman has said “you”; perhaps he will be a bit more careful in the rest of his speech.

[Mr Kohler]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We are talking about now, and we are talking about the hike in the bus fare cap to £3. It would cost only £150 million to keep it at £2 according to the House of Commons Library. I thank the Minister for writing to me this week to confirm that a full monitoring and evaluation report has been completed by his Department and will be published in due course, but why is it not being published now? If it is there, we want to see it—what does it say?

I do not doubt the battles the Minister and his colleagues are having with their colleagues in the Treasury. I know the Department for Transport recognises there are fundamental problems across our public transport system. However, there is still vanishingly little detail on which to form a judgment as to whether it has hit on the right solutions.

On the railways, for example, yesterday came the long-awaited announcement of the first three train operating companies to be brought back into public ownership. South Western Railway, which I used in my journey this morning, will come into public ownership next May. That much is known. However, what is not known is how that in itself will improve the customer experience and the service offered. As Great British Railways will still not formally exist by then, South Western Railway will, at least temporarily, be left in the hands of the Government’s operator of last resort, which surely needs more than a name change as it assumes responsibility for millions of extra journeys without a clear mission or purpose, without the necessary resource or expertise, without an effective passenger watchdog and without meaningful reform of our broken fares system. Even when Great British Railways arrives at the station, we still have no understanding of how—or even if—this new behemoth will proceed smoothly along the track.

Uncertainty also shrouds many other public transport plans. Too many local authorities are waiting to know what funds and schemes will be maintained and what will be scrapped, stifling investment and leaving too many areas and communities adrift, as we can see with the lack of certainty over the northern powerhouse, the electrification of north Wales rail, levelling up and active travel. That is why we welcome talk of an integrated national transport plan, as it is clear that the current piecemeal approach is letting down communities and local economies. But the devil will be in the detail, which we need to see sooner rather than later.

Uncertainty likewise surrounds the Government’s approach to rebuilding our decaying infrastructure. To improve our public transport, we need to get spades into the ground, invest money and effort into electrification and, most importantly, build new infrastructure. While there is widespread public disquiet regarding our current public transport provision, there is also deep scepticism about, and often outright opposition to, the major infrastructure projects necessary to achieve real improvement.

HS2’s repeated cost overspends and missed deadlines have contributed to an environment in which the public are rightly sceptical about the UK’s ability to deliver infrastructure on time and within budget. We need to get real. While Bruce Wayne might be rich enough to spend £100 million on a bat shed, the British taxpayer is not. The UK does not have the time or resource required to put every rail line in a tunnel.

Politicians across the political spectrum need to promote a more mature dialogue to improve public understanding of the trade-offs necessary to improve public transport. As we have seen with other large-scale infrastructure projects, once they are built, the public reception is overwhelmingly positive, as it was with Crossrail 1. The benefits of the Elizabeth line are already being lauded from Reading to Romford, with protests long forgotten. A host of neighbouring MPs called for its extension to their constituencies in a recent Westminster Hall debate that I attended.

So let us be honest about what needs to be done and what the Government have learned from these projects. Let us maintain a steady pipeline of new projects to ensure that the billions spent acquiring that knowledge, along with the supply chains and skilled workforce we have built up, are not lost.

Too much time has been wasted, and we do not have time to waste. Public transport is vital to our economy, to widening opportunity and our transition to net zero. As a Londoner, I realise that I am blessed by the public transport system that we have in the capital. Despite sometimes justified criticism of Transport for London, it stands as an exemplar of what can be achieved via a co-ordinated transport strategy and a non-ideological approach to ownership, working with both public and private providers to create an integrated transport network. As we heard from colleagues across the House, the situation is very different across much of the country. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Chancellor are both listening.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.