Cullompton and Wellington Stations

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of reopening Cullompton and Wellington railway stations.

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. The Minister may have heard some of these arguments before, but there have been developments in recent months that he should hear before any decisions are made in relation to Cullompton and Wellington stations.

The south-west has suffered from chronic under-investment in transport infrastructure—a legacy of the Beeching cuts in the 1960s, when communities were cut off as many stations across the country, including Cullompton and Wellington, lost their rail services. The campaign to bring back those stations commenced almost as soon as they were lost. In 1996, Devon county council commissioned a preliminary design for a new station at Cullompton, and by 2013 the metro board had been established, bringing together MPs, local councils, the rail industry and enterprise partnerships.

Since then the metro board has met more than 30 times, co-chaired in recent months by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and me. The studies have culminated in the submission of a final business case to the Department for Transport in May 2024. Later that summer, my colleague and I received letters from the Chancellor pulling the plug on Restoring Your Railway funding. That was a gut punch for communities across the country with less well-established programmes, but I am pleased to say that Restoring Your Railway had already done a lot of the hard work relating to Cullompton and Wellington stations.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Somerton and Langport is the largest area without a station between London and Penzance; it represents a 28-mile gap between Taunton and Castle Cary. I have worked hard with constituents in the area, who indeed put together a robust business plan and applied for the Restoring Your Railway fund, only to find that all their work had been turned down, scuppering their plans to build a station in the area. Does my hon. Friend agree that that decision denies my constituents the economic and social opportunities that the connectivity of a station would provide, which would enable them to bring business and new homes into the area?

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning economic and social opportunities. I too have been contacted by constituents about how they think a station in their town would provide those. Neil Perry, a resident of Cullompton who commutes daily to Exeter for his job as a teacher, told me that he spends nearly 10 full days each year stuck in Cullompton traffic—time lost to him simply because there is no local rail option. He leaves the house at 7.30 am to beat the worst of the congestion, and must leave work at 2.30 pm to avoid a 25-minute journey turning into an hour-long ordeal. The train from Tiverton Parkway to Exeter takes just 11 minutes, and we could see a journey of a similar time from Cullompton. Neil estimates he would save over £2,000 a year in parking, fuel, and car maintenance and points out that Cullompton would become an up-and-coming and much more prosperous town, which would help to drive growth.

This Labour Government are very keen on economic growth, particularly the role that development and housing infrastructure plays in it. They have set an ambitious target to build 1.5 million homes by 2029, and its success hinges on delivering the necessary infrastructure to support those homes. I hear time and again from the people I represent in Devon that they do not want to, and cannot, see the homes built in advance of infrastructure that just does not arrive.

Nowhere is that more evident that in the Culm Garden Village project. Located just east of junction 28 of the M5, the proposed development would bring over 5,000 new homes to Cullompton. Without a railway station, those new residents would be reliant on the motorway. That motorway is already under severe pressure; junction 28 sees queues on to the inside lane, making it already a very unsafe motorway approach road to use. Residents welcomed the recent news of funding for the Cullompton town centre relief road. It is a step forward but, on its own, that relief road will not be enough. We have already seen the consequences of building homes without the right infrastructure: gridlocked roads, overstretched public services and growing frustration among residents. We cannot see that mistake made again in Cullompton.

Another of the people I represent from Cullompton, Tim Pethick, has worked in mental health services at Torbay hospital for 20 years. He was recently diagnosed as unfit to drive due to epilepsy, and now faces a 34-mile journey to work using public transport. Cullompton has no direct rail link. He has looked into using a bus pass, but that is not possible because bus passes cannot be used before 9.30 in the morning and the bus journey takes more than two hours. Here is somebody who has worked solidly for the NHS for the last couple of decades and whose career might be over if he cannot get good public access through the train. Those are just two examples, but my concern is that they are just two of many people who feel isolated and forced out of the workforce because of the lack of rail infrastructure in Cullompton.

Thinking more broadly, the south-west as a whole is a region where social mobility is a challenge. The South-West Social Mobility Commission’s 2024 report confirms that our region is one of the worst performing in England for disadvantaged young people. By age 19, 34% of disadvantaged young people in our region have achieved a level 3 qualification, compared with 42% nationally. We can see that the south-west has quite a high proportion of disadvantaged students, but a low proportion of disadvantaged students who progress to higher education. The University of Exeter commissioned a 2019 report called “Social Mobility in the South West”, which revealed that only 17% of disadvantaged pupils in the region went on to university—the lowest rate among all regions in England.

A major contributor to that poor performance is transport infrastructure. Young people in rural towns and villages—places such as Cullompton and Wellington—often struggle to access college, sixth form and any sort of further or higher education. For young people without access to a car, getting to college or university is not just difficult; it is impossible.

The reopening of Cullompton station would be transformative, as would the reopening of Wellington station in Somerset. It would open up opportunities to get to Exeter college, the University of Exeter and FE establishments further afield, and would be fantastic for generating new apprenticeship opportunities. As the Labour Government have said, if we want to get Britain working, apprenticeships will be an aspect to that.

Just two weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington and I met the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, and 30 local residents who had travelled to London to lobby him. Together, we made the case directly that reopening the railway stations would not just be a transport upgrade; it would be life-changing for our communities.

A single journey by rail produces up to 75% fewer carbon emissions per passenger than the same journey by car. We know that transportation as a whole accounts for 27% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, so the railway stations would support and bolster the Labour Government’s climate change mitigation aims. The reopening of Wellington and Cullompton stations is not just some idea that will benefit a few people in the south-west of England; it is very much thought through, supported on a cross-party basis, economically sound and environmentally responsible, and it could be socially transformative.

Road Safety and Active Travel to School

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. Across mid and east Devon, I have heard time and again from young people who want safer ways to get to school by foot and by wheeling. Students at Sidmouth college have been asking for something very simple: a cycle path between Sidford and Sidbury. Right now, the main road between those two villages is narrow, winding and dangerous, especially for schoolchildren walking or cycling. When there is a bus, cost is a barrier. Without a dedicated path, young people are missing out on after-school clubs, social time or extra help with learning. A safe cycle path would give those young people real independence; it would help them to stay active and healthy, and it would cut down on car use.

We have a separate problem in Ottery St Mary. Coleridge bridge was built back in 2011 but was damaged over a year ago by a storm. Parents are now driving their children to school where previously they went over that footbridge. The bridge repair is being held up by environmental permits, and I have asked Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs to find a better balance. Of course, protecting our biodiversity and our rivers is vital, but so is the safety of our children. We are having children risk their lives in the dark hours during wintertime by going on very narrow pavements and into the road.

The third example that I want to speak on is the King’s school in Ottery, which proposes a multi-use path from Feniton to Sidmouth along an old railway line. A survey by the Otter Trail group found that 73% of local people currently felt unsafe cycling in the Otter valley.

To recap, the Sidbury-Sidford cycle path, the Coleridge bridge and the Otter trail are all practical, community-backed projects that Devon county council really ought to get behind. The Westminster Government have a role to play in getting behind rural local authorities to enable them to make more safe routes to school.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend highlights the fantastic work that many local authorities are doing, and I welcome the evidence that she shared.

Since Active Travel England was created, we have seen a fivefold improvement in schemes meeting minimum quality standards, ensuring that what is being built is of a higher quality, enhancing safety and increasing uptake while reducing collisions. That represents a significant improvement, considering that 70% of people cite safety as the main barrier preventing them from walking, wheeling or cycling. The work of Active Travel England is key to delivering high quality and value for money improvements to our roads and the public realm. That includes rural areas.

As a number of hon. Members rightly highlighted, this is about not only safety, but extending opportunities for young people and others who cannot or do not want to drive. As part of its role, Active Travel England is improving connections with new housing developments. That is vital for places experiencing housing growth, as a number of hon. Members mentioned. Where roads and public services, including new schools or health centres, are being built, it should be the perfect opportunity to build in active travel infrastructure from the start, which is much cheaper and easier than trying to retrofit it later.

[Richard Foord]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will not, because I am very conscious of the time.

If we want to encourage modal shift and improve health through transport, we absolutely must improve safety on the roads. People will only change their travel behaviour if they feel that it is safe for them and their families. As has been mentioned repeatedly, too many people, including children, are killed and seriously injured on our roads. That is precisely why this Government, alongside investing in active travel, are developing the first road safety strategy in more than a decade.

I wholeheartedly agree that we can and should do better than a decade of stagnation when it comes to road deaths. The Department is considering a variety of road safety measures for inclusion. As we develop the strategy, I am committed to continuing to engage with hon. Members, stakeholders and road safety organisations. I very much welcome the many suggestions made this evening, and I look forward to publishing the strategy in due course—I hope that that will be sooner rather than later.

One issue often mentioned by members of the public that can have a significant impact on the school run, and in particular on more vulnerable road users, is pavement parking. Many hon. Members have raised it in this debate. Interestingly, by coincidence, I met Guide Dogs, Living Streets, Sustrans and Transport for All just this afternoon to discuss the issue. The Department intends to publish a formal response to the 2020 consultation and to set out next steps on this policy area in due course. In the meantime, highway authorities can of course introduce and enforce specific local pavement parking restrictions if they so wish.

Road Safety: Schools

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), not just for securing this debate, but for speaking powerfully and sensitively on this delicate subject; I offer my condolences to the family who she represents.

If only the incident that the hon. Lady described was unique, but it is not—it is sadly multiplied many times across the country. According to the charity Brake, five children are seriously injured or killed on UK roads every day. In south-west England, 442 children were injured on roads near schools in just one year—an utterly unacceptable situation. I will use my limited time today to talk about prevention and one town that I represent, Ottery St Mary, where a small intervention, through infrastructure and regulation, could help to prevent accidents and awful consequences in future.

In Ottery St Mary, there is a pedestrian bridge, Coleridge bridge, where many schoolchildren can avoid the roads and cross the river—at least, they could. Last year, a tree blew on to the bridge and made it impassable for pedestrians. I looked into why the repair work on that bridge is so slow and discovered that one reason is the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016: priority is being given to the salmon spawning season on the River Otter over the safety children going to and from school.

I appreciate that the Minister is answering for the Department for Transport and not for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but she should know that I have written to DEFRA about the issue and had a most unsatisfactory reply about the regulations. I am seeking an exception to the regulations on salmon spawning where the safety of children and vulnerable people is at stake.

Coleridge bridge is just one example of a rigid policy designed for another public policy imperative having unintended but serious consequences for public safety. As one Ottery resident put it to me in an email,

“do we have to wait for there to be a serious incident involving a child or an elderly resident for prompt action?”

It has been over a year, and I understand that no work will begin until at least next summer. Given that our local authority, Devon county council, has the money and is ready to do the work, I urge that we in this place do our job to make the regulations more flexible to look after the safety of young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) on securing this debate, and thank her for raising the vitally important issue of road safety around schools. She spoke powerfully and movingly on behalf of her constituents.

I thank the hon. Member for sharing the devastating story of the fatal collision outside the King’s school in her constituency. My sympathies go out to the family of the young person who lost his life, and to his friends, everyone at the school and the wider community. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who is here, has also met the family, who are her constituents, and is working with them and with her neighbour, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury—on a cross-party basis, which is wonderful to see—to ensure that local partners work together to improve safety on the Wrexham Road.

I too have met many families with tragic stories of loved ones being killed and seriously injured in road traffic collisions. It is a position that no family should find themselves in: every death on our roads could and should be avoided. Every child has the right to be safe on their journey to and from school, and their parents should know that they will come home safely every day. That is why improving road safety, including the safety of children, is one of the highest priorities of my Department, and we intend to act to prevent road deaths and serious injuries.

A number of hon. Members talked about action to reduce speed, such as lowering speed limits and enforcing speed limits, including with speed cameras. The enforcement of road traffic law and deployment of available police resources are responsibilities of individual chief constables and police and crime commissioners, who take into account the specific local problems and demands that they face.

Local government is the main delivery body for road safety. Under section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, local authorities have a statutory duty to take steps to both reduce and prevent collisions, and they have the power to set speed limits on their roads, including 20 mph limits and 20 mph zones. It is for them to determine what measures are appropriate in individual cases because they have local knowledge of their roads, but any authority that wishes to install such schemes has my Department’s full backing.

I understand that resources for local authorities are finite, and it is right that they focus on the areas of highest risk, which may be where fatal collisions have occurred, but there is nothing to stop them implementing road safety measures elsewhere, including places about which local communities have raised concerns, or where there have been near misses. My hon. Friends the hon. Members for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) rightly highlighted that point.

Local authorities also have the tools to improve safety outside schools, including reduced speed limits, traffic calming measures or, where appropriate, a school street. I welcome the support expressed by hon. Members today and agree that sharing good practice can be very helpful. I will certainly look at what more my Department can do, perhaps with the Local Government Association and others. Local councils want to make decisions about local implementation, in consultation with local communities and the local police. They know their roads best, and I simply cannot and should not dictate to them from Westminster. However, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury made a powerful case for lower speed limits outside schools. Both she and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) noted that we all make mistakes, and that collisions at higher speeds are much more likely to have tragic outcomes.

I agree that partnerships are essential, and that they should be looking at local-level interventions to make our roads safer. While local authorities are free to make their own decisions about the design of the streets under their care, provided they take account of the relevant legislation and guidance, they are rightly accountable to local people for those decisions. The Department will look at what more we can do to support them, and we stand ready to work with all those working to improve road safety at the local level.

On the tragic collision involving the young constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston, the Department is aware that Cheshire West and Chester council has already indicated that it has commissioned an independent review of Wrexham Road close to King’s school, and I am sure that it will listen to today’s debate and take note of the community’s petition.

Let me turn to some of the wider issues around road safety and schools. This Government are setting our sights high on active travel, whether that means walking, wheeling or cycling. We are committed to promoting greener journeys, no matter how people choose to travel. It is key to improving public health; by preventing illness, rather than just treating it, we can make a real difference. The biggest gains come from helping inactive people to get moving, which is why we are focused on breaking down barriers for those who need it most and do not have options, such as older people, disabled people and children.

For children, early habits matter. That is why, in November 2024, Active Travel England and the Department published school streets guidance. As hon. Members have noted, these schemes do not just make school runs safer; they build lifelong habits of active travel.

[Richard Foord]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am afraid not, just because I am so short of time.

Turning to the role of education, alongside delivering paid behaviour change campaigns to support a lifelong learning approach to road safety education, THINK! has a suite of road safety teaching resources for children of all ages. Road casualty data shows that the number of child pedestrian casualties doubles between the ages of nine and 11—no doubt when they are first allowed to walk to school on their own—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) noted, incidents are more likely to happen during school drop-off and pick-up times.

Following research with parents, the 2024 influencer-led THINK! Safe Adventures campaign aims to encourage parents across the country to help their children adopt safe road behaviours as they prepare for independent travel—often when they move to secondary school. I very much agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford and for Rugby (John Slinger) on the importance of parents also behaving safely when they are dropping children off at school. I am sure that all of us have seen some dangerous behaviours in that regard.

The THINK! activity I have just described focuses on the top three risky behaviours, based on the top contributory factors assigned to child pedestrian casualties: failing to look and distractions, finding a safe place to cross, and being in a hurry. I want to draw attention to our THINK! resources. The popular “Tales of the Road” resource is an interactive PDF—downloadable and printable—aimed at children aged three to 12, and it conveys information about how to cross the road safely, the green cross code, and level-crossing advice from National Rail. I was pleased to hear about other local education programmes, including the one highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris).

As I said, I have heard too many heartbreaking stories of loss and serious injury, including those raised today. I want to assure hon. Members that the Government treat road safety with the utmost seriousness, and we are committed to reducing the numbers of those killed and injured on our roads. That is why the Department is developing our road safety strategy—the first in over a decade. We will set out more details in due course.

I thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate. Even if I have not had the chance to take interventions or respond directly, all of their ideas and suggestions will help to inform our thinking. It is clear that there is a real appetite for change. People want safer roads. I will be pleased to keep in touch with the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury and other Members, and I congratulate her again on securing today’s important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered road safety around schools.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

A number of options are outlined in the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which had its Second Reading in the other place yesterday, including franchising options, enhanced local bus partnerships and municipal ownership of bus companies. While my hon. Friend’s suggestion is not currently in the Bill, I gently point out to him that there would have to be an authority to let contracts, including with private providers. While I am happy to explore options, we need to think through the practicalities of suggestions such as his.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Cullompton and Wellington railway stations were two of the most advanced of all the programmes in the restoring your railway fund. The existing local transport authorities have already invested in getting us to the stage of a full business case, with a high benefit-cost ratio of 3.67. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this programme is in no way disadvantaged compared with those transport authorities in urban areas that have mayors?

[Heidi Alexander]

We consider business cases for rail enhancements fairly, and no undue advantage would be given to the areas that the hon. Gentleman suggested. I was fortunate in my first couple of weeks in this job to visit the opening of the Northumberland line, which provides services up to Ashington. I know what an invaluable difference the improved connectivity on the rail network can provide. I would be happy to talk to him about his schemes.

Old Oak Common Station

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. The south-west is a region with enormous untapped economic potential. We already have a brilliant clean energy industry, which is growing. We have a fantastic defence industry, with lots of small and medium-sized enterprises. We have a thriving agricultural sector and a flourishing food sector. We have a tourism industry that welcomes more than 20 million visitors per year. Our economy depends very heavily, with all these things, on reliable transport links.

We in Devon are bucking the trend nationally. Since 2019, the proportion of rail journeys taken across the country has fallen by 6%, but in Devon, it has increased by 9%. Time and again, however, we have seen the west country miss out on rail investment, which has been concentrated in other parts of the country—in the midlands, the north of England and, of course, London. The south-west is left grappling with an underfunded and unreliable rail network.

The construction of Old Oak Common will exacerbate some of those challenges. Over the next decade, passengers travelling on mainline inter-city services serving the south-west will face severe disruption. Planned works will reduce the number of available seats on trains that are already crowded and have slow journey times. We will see a fall in the number of direct services to London Paddington. Last month, the Government pointed to a £30-million mitigation package. That is woefully inadequate. Compare it with the £6.5-billion cost of Old Oak Common —by contrast, £30 million is a pittance. Worryingly, that £30 million has already been committed to operational adjustments such as depot changes and electrification in London, with little or no regard for the south-west.

The Tories’ catastrophic management—or rather, mismanagement—of the rail system was exemplified by the two-year industrial dispute that cost taxpayers an eye-watering £25 million per strike day, and led to reforms that have saddled the public with hundreds of millions of pounds in additional cost. Nowhere is the previous Government’s legacy of transport failure more apparent than in relation to High Speed 2, where flip-flopping over the last 15 or 20 years has led to ballooning costs, neglected communities and misery for passengers.

I want to point out how that has affected people in some west-country communities. It might be supposed that it is only HS2 communities—people in the midlands and the north—who have been affected by some of the cost overruns and the indecision, but that is not so. When we saw the cancellation of HS2 by the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), there was then some big announcement about Network North, and we were promised that HS2 money was therefore going to be ploughed into stations and the redevelopment of stations across the country.

In the constituency I represent, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton came to visit. He hired a community room in a farm shop—a sort of farm shop conference centre. He and other Conservative activists held up British Rail placards with the word “Cullompton” underneath, as if to encourage people that somehow there was money from HS2 that could be invested in our local rail transport. That was absolutely not the case, as has since been revealed. Now we can see that those were all empty promises.

Old Oak Common is one more step in this misadventure, with an additional 20 minutes that it adds to a journey from Paddington to the south-west. That could be enough to influence holidaymakers to choose other destinations overseas, which would be a tragedy for the south-west economy. I really hope that the Government look kindly on proper mitigation.

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case, as did our hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). Of course, his constituency of Honiton and Sidmouth is three and a half hours away from Penzance, so a 20-minute delay for people at Penzance is not necessarily the issue. It is the disruption, the uncertainty and all the other factors on the route that make the current service completely inadequate. That is really why we want to see investment in improvement, to bring the service up.

[Richard Foord]

I recognise the particular plight of my hon. Friend’s constituents, who are as far south-west as one can go in England. My time is up, but I plead with the Minister to think again about the £30-million mitigation fund and whether it really offsets the costs that south-west residents will bear.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I call Ann Davies.

Rail Services: Devon

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) on securing this debate.

I want to reflect on some of the things that hon. Members have said. It is plain that Exeter is a real hub for Devon and, as the hon. Member for Exeter pointed out, there are 500,000 residents in the travel-to-work area. That includes a large number of people who live in the Honiton and Sidmouth area that I represent, and I know they are eager to see the full development of this so-called metro rail project.

“Metro rail” makes it sound as though it is something like the Elizabeth line here in London, but we will not kid ourselves. It is about trying to ease the journeys into Exeter for those many people who are left waiting at cold stations on winter’s nights or early mornings like these in December, and trying to improve the reliability, punctuality and frequency of services. That is true for Axminster, Feniton and Honiton in the patch I represent on the south-west rail line, and it is also true for Cullompton, which desperately needs the restoration of a railway station that was closed under the Beeching cuts in the 1960s.

I want to go over those two points in more detail. The hon. Gentleman is exactly right that we need the construction of a passing loop near Feniton, Honiton and Wimborne. That loop would make all the difference to the reliability of services on the Exeter-London Waterloo line. Often people find themselves stuck at stations along that route because of the single track, which does not allow trains to pass one another. Anecdotally, when I talked to the guy who runs the Railway Kitchen, a station café at Axminster, a few weeks ago, he told me that business is booming; hon. Members might think that that is a positive thing, and for his café it is, but it is not for the passengers who find their train delayed and hence use that hostelry.

I said that I would also talk about Cullompton station. Cullompton is part of a pair of stations that are very fit for development—Cullompton in Devon and Wellington in Somerset. The Wellington-Cullompton programme is very high on the list for Lord Hendy, the rail Minister, because of its brilliant benefit-cost ratio. That ratio of 3.67 is the highest in the country and it is reckoned that one reason for that is the economic activity that it will afford, specifically the proposed new town—Culm Garden Village, as it is called—at Cullompton. With so much new housing proposed, it is desperately important that there is a railway station to go with it and that we do not simply see housing without infrastructure.

Other hon. Members made some very good points. The hon. Members for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) and for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) talked about Old Oak Common. We will have a separate debate on that next week, so I will not expand on it now. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) for talking up the importance of the final step—the fifth phase—of the south-west rail resilience programme in creating resilience on the Exeter to Newton Abbot line. We saw an eight-week closure of that line in 2014, which sent to Cornwall and a chunk of Devon the message “You don’t matter.” The region was completely isolated. We just would not allow that in other parts of the country, and we should not allow it in the south-west.

There was an appeal to put aside party politics, and on Old Oak Common I agree. I cannot help remembering, though, that the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) came to my constituency and talked about funding for Cullompton station. We know that funding did not exist, but now we need to see it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

One hundred and fifty parishes in Devon wrote to Devon county council last year asking for 20 mph zones, but only six were successful. Those that were not successful were told that they could pursue the measure through so-called “community self-delivery.” My constituents think, “But this is what we pay our council tax for.” Does the Secretary of State understand that?

[Louise Haigh]

I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. It is absolutely my position that if local residents want to design and support local measures around speeding and road safety, they should be supported to do so by their local authorities.

Bus Services: England

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

It is an honour, Ms Vaz, to serve with you in the Chair. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) not only for securing this debate but for sticking up for his constituents by talking about the reasons why they need bus transport.

Let me read from an email that I received in October 2022, shortly after I was first elected to the House. It was a very pleasant read, and begins:

“I would like to invite you to brunch at Greendale Farm cafe on Sunday morning. My treat. The only stipulation is that we both travel there on public transport.”

I was obviously quite keen to take up that invitation, until I looked into it a bit further and found that Donna from Seaton was entirely right to predict that I would not be able to meet her at Greendale Farm café that Sunday morning for her treat. She knew all too well that buses do not travel there on a Sunday morning, because her son had started using that route. He had shown the get-up-and-go to get himself a part-time job over the summer, but unfortunately the bus route was withdrawn by the network provider partway through the tourist season. Donna went on to say:

“The government has a responsibility to provide a public transport system that is fit for purpose and it is failing.”

I will return to Donna at the end of my speech.

Outside London, almost a quarter of bus routes have been cut in the last 10 years, yet buses are the easiest form of public transport to flex. The service can be introduced, improved and expanded very readily, but of course that also means that it can be reduced or withdrawn just as quickly. For many people living in cities or other urban areas, buses are something that they can depend on. They are always there; they can be taken for granted. People living in urban areas probably do not pay too much attention to buses, because they know that if they miss one there will be another one along shortly. However, for the people I represent in rural mid and east Devon, not only are buses an essential part of daily life, but they are so infrequent that even a single delay or no-show can have a huge impact on someone’s journey.

Most of the villages and towns that I represent are served by a bus company called Stagecoach. Although that name might conjure up in the mind the idea of an 18th-century horse and a gilded mail-coach that rapidly gets the post from rural Devon to London, that is simply not the sort of image that bus users in Devon have today. In fact, it more probably brings to mind the potholes that the stagecoaches of the 1800s had to negotiate.

In recent years, bus routes in my constituency have been increasingly scaled back often with very little public consultation. Since I was elected in 2022, we have seen changes to the No. 1 service between Cullompton and Exeter, to the No. 55 service between Tiverton and Exeter, to the No. 9A, which connects Seaton and Exeter, and to several other routes that plug people into our towns, or at least used to.

As a regular bus user, I know it is not uncommon to have to wait up to half an hour after the allotted time for the bus to round the corner. That would not be such a big issue if it were a consistent bus that could be depended on, but it is not. I will give an example from about 18 months ago, when I was waiting at a bus stop in Uffculme to get to the railway station at Tiverton Parkway, to come here. I was waiting with a young lad who told me he was going into Exeter to sit his driving theory test.

We waited as the bus was 15 minutes late, then 20 minutes late. I could see he was getting anxious and jittery about missing his theory test. In the end, I gave up and called a taxi. I knew that Colin round the corner was reliable and would get us there. We gave this young lad a lift and he made it to his theory test on time. It occurred to me that we cannot depend on the bus, and should not have to depend on other bus users to call a taxi to get to an onward connection on time.

As this is a rural area, not only the buses but the trains are infrequent. If we miss our connection, we can be delayed for more than an hour, maybe for two. Young people trying to get to college, for example, are forced either to wait for those long periods or to depend on family, perhaps their parents, to run them into the city. That is affecting people’s working days. There is a material effect, as people have to leave their working from home jobs or perhaps take time out of their working day to run young people to college.

I imagine we might hear from the Minister about the benefits of the bus fare cap. I admit that that has been a welcome measure for regular bus users, but capping fares does not mean much if the bus does not arrive in the first place. A couple of years ago, the west country was right at the bottom of the league table for bus delays for the whole of England. Since then, the appointment of a new managing director, Peter Knight, has been welcome. I have met him several times and he has certainly improved the service from two years ago. He pointed out to me that an area such as Devon has a large population of older people, who have concessionary fares or may travel on free bus passes. That has a material effect on the bus company trying to operate the contract in the area. Making a bus route profitable can be tremendously difficult in an area where lots of people use concessionary fares or pay nothing for the service.

In conclusion, I come back to the original correspondence I had from Donna. She had a practical suggestion, on which I am keen to hear the Minister’s take. She writes:

“The country networks should be divided into routes, and their associated profitability, and then these routes combined into baskets, which group both profitable and non-profitable routes together. The Government determines the timetable”—

or perhaps local authorities could do that—

“The provider must deliver on that timetable, taking the good with the bad.”

Instead, we have the correspondence I received from a Government Minister, Baroness Vere of Norbiton, who wrote to me in October 2022. She said that since deregulation in 1985, bus services have been on a commercial footing, so I should write not to a Minister but to the bus company about my concerns, as that would be the most appropriate action. Listening to the concerns of constituents who cannot get to work on time, I am struck that this is not only a matter for private companies. It also needs to be a concern for Government.

Tamar Crossings

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)]

It is an honour and a privilege to respond to my esteemed colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray). She has once again made the case for her constituents with her usual assiduity, verve and passion, and I salute her for that. This is not the first time she has raised this matter in the House, and nor, I suspect, will it be the last; and it is not the first time I have received correspondence from her. Indeed, I receive it on a virtually bi-monthly basis, but I salute her for that as well. What she is doing is standing up for her constituents, and this is an issue that dates back quite some time.

I shall have to choose my words slightly carefully, for reasons that my hon. Friend will understand. An application for a toll revision, received on 2 May, will be considered by the Secretary of State in accordance with the Transport Charges &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954, and that will constitute a quasi-judicial decision that I do not want to prejudice in any way. However, I want to give my hon. Friend as many answers as I can, in as much detail as I can. I am also aware that a petition dated 23 March has been presented by, among others, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), my hon. Friend herself, my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) and for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). It is to their credit that they have made the case, as indeed have thousands of residents of the local area, and it is to their credit that they have been able to come to the House and be heard in an appropriate way.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

I am so sorry, but not going to give way at this stage.

I am of course conscious of a detailed file of correspondence dating back some considerable time. As the hon. Lady will know, there are a number of bridges and tunnels on local public roads up and down the country that are operated either by the local highway authority or by private companies. Tolls continue to help repay the costs of the construction and continued maintenance of those crossings. I do not want to go into the nuts and bolts of the Tamar Bridge Act 1957, because I think I would fail to speak with the same eloquence as my hon. Friend, who is clearly acquainted with the Act and the consequential secondary provisions, the schedules and all matters pertaining, and has probably read the Committee notes in great detail as well.

The Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry are tied together under the 1957 Act, which ensures that proceeds from the crossings are ringfenced and expenditure is limited to the operation, maintenance and improvements of the crossings. Crucially, it also limits any unjustified accumulation of reserves. The bridge and the ferry are jointly owned and operated by Cornwall Council and Plymouth City Council, but, as my hon. Friend said, they constitute a vital piece of infrastructure, carrying some 18 million vehicles a year. She rightly made the point on behalf of her constituents, but the freight industry benefits massively—today I met representatives of the RHA, who were passionate about making that point.

The money that is needed to operate, maintain and improve the two crossings currently comes from toll charges, with no specific funding from the Government or the owners of the two crossings. However, some money is contributed indirectly. National Highways makes an operational contribution each year, which enables the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry joint committee to monitor the Saltash tunnel tidal flow system. As was announced recently, there is funding for the A38 Manadon interchange transport scheme, promoted by the city council, amounting to about £132 million, with an outline business case stage of £156 million. Communications on that will be issued shortly. Welcome announcements have also been made about the A374, A386 and A3064 Plymouth improvements schemes, amounting to £42 million, with a total estimate of £49 million at the OBC stage.

My hon. Friend will also be aware that the Government have, on the back of the increased settlement at the last Budget in 2023, and by reason of the decisions on the second leg of High Speed 2, provided enhanced funding arising from the £8.3 billion that is shared out around the local authorities, but with a £36 million total for 2024-25 for Cornwall, and an increased total in relation to Plymouth, as I understand it.

In relation to the specifics, on 8 February, in response to my hon. Friend’s parliamentary question, and in subsequent correspondence, I have set out the position in relation to river and estuarial crossings. They will usually be funded by tolls, recognising the extra cost of their construction and maintenance, as well as the substantial benefits for users. The Prime Minister then also answered my hon. Friend at Prime Minister’s questions on 20 March, when he was pleased to indicate that the Transport Minister would address the matter shortly, and I was of course delighted to receive that instruction. I will not go into Hansard in detail, but he explained that any application for a toll revision, whereby the responsible authorities can seek a change, would need to be considered by the Secretary of State for Transport, who is my boss.

I can confirm that, since that exchange, a toll revision application in respect of the Tamar crossings was received on 2 May. The next step in the process is that an application for a toll increase will be advertised in the local press with details of the proposal to users of the crossings. There is then a 42-day objection period. If any objections to the proposed revisions—whether from individuals or collective bodies—are not subsequently withdrawn, a public inquiry is held. Where such an inquiry is held, the Secretary of State must have regard to its findings when deciding whether to revise the toll. I cannot address the findings of the Secretary of State, but clearly all representations made on these issues are considered, and clearly my hon. Friend will make many representations—I think that is a given.

[Richard Foord]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

I will not give way; I will echo the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall.

It is the responsibility of the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry joint committee to work to find efficiencies in the operating costs so that the crossings are run as cost- effectively as possible. I would also like to raise an important initiative that is being taken forward locally: the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry joint committee has agreed its new “Tamar 50” approach. I cast no aspersions on whether it is a good or bad approach—it would not be appropriate for me to do so—but it is important that I put on the record that the Government are aware of the approach.

Clearly, the nine-point plan that the committee has set out provides users of the crossings with a more stable and certain future. Ideally, there is a degree of confidence on the way ahead, and people can see visible improvements to the structure. Critical safety works and the operational necessities that apply need to be seen. As I understand it, the plan includes work to look at the feasibility of free-flow tolling. That could be considered when a suitable funding source becomes available. My hon. Friend has addressed that, and I take her points with due seriousness.

As the Prime Minister outlined on 20 March, this is a real opportunity for key stakeholders to make their views about the crossings heard, and I encourage all colleagues and constituents—not just the thousands with strongly held views who have submitted the petition, and not just my hon. Friend with her many letters—to come forward with their views.

Transport Infrastructure: Devon and Somerset

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

I am incredibly grateful to the Minister, as always. He is right, and I was going to come on to HS2. I know that he sympathises with this, because he has a huge rural constituency, bigger than any in Devon. The road system up there is challenging, as I know—I used to live in it—not least because he has got the military running all over a part of his constituency.

The Minister is right: we have got to embrace that money. If nothing else, the message I give today to all colleagues is that Devon, Somerset and other counties need to get together, to start buying very expensive but very clever machines. There are ways to do that, and the Minister is right that the Prime Minister has led the way with this windfall, thank the Lord. It is marvellous to have it, and we should use every penny we can.

There is no secret that in Somerset we have a financial crisis. It is very difficult at the moment. We have managed to get through this year—we are fine—but next year is not looking so good. We have a lot of work to do, and if we do not do the work on roads, they just get worse. Then more money is required, and it a self-fulfilling prophecy. We have to help places that do not have the money—the same goes for Buckinghamshire and other counties that have the same problem. Devon is not in the same position, as my hon. Friend has already said—the county has been extremely generous and has got extra money out of its own resources, as we are all aware, which is tremendous—but we do need a better system.

One thing that has always struck me is that it is up to us—not just MPs, but county councillors—to ensure we work to try to resolve this. All of us walk or drive round our areas. How many times have we been down potholes? I quite often end up in hedgerows with punctures—as you can well imagine, Mr Streeter, knowing that my driving does not bear much scrutiny. It is infuriating but, if we do not say where the potholes are, we cause a problem for ourselves.

One of the biggest problems we all face is the size of tractors, which has increased enormously since we were young, dare I say. Tractors are now lane-filling. Devon and Somerset roads were never designed for that size of tractors, big lorries or some big cars. The weight of tractors has gone through the roof. What they now haul is hugely heavier than it used to be. That is one of the biggest problems we face, because they cause more and more damage. As one drives around both counties, it is the structure of the sides of the roads that is causing the problems. We have to be much more aware that farming damages roads, but there is nothing we can do about it. The farmers have every right to be there and need to be, but we need to cover that up.

This is my last point before I sit down and give way to the Minister, who I know has a lot to say on this. I am really disappointed about certain parts of Devon, which I am beginning to learn about, and especially Mid Devon District Council, which I find iniquitous. It should be scrutinising this, as should everyone else. I know it happens in Somerset and Devon counties. We would not have got the money if it had not. That is the point: they should scrutinise. To learn that the head of scrutiny has now legged it because it all got a bit tough and hard is pathetic. We need proper scrutiny.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

In a minute.

I find it ridiculous that we cannot get this sorted. That is a ridiculous position for us to find ourselves in. Some people need to start thinking about what they are there for. MPs have a responsibility, which can be seen every day in newspapers, and we know what we suffer. I just wish a few of the councillors who are meant to represent their areas would do the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and commend him for securing this debate. Devon County Council is the local authority responsible for roads in Devon and the leader of Devon County Council, John Hart, said last year:

“They gave us £9.5 million and I hate to say it but £7 million of that went in inflation”.

He also said of that £9.5 million that it

“is a drop in the ocean.”

Does the hon. Member agree that the county council is responsible for roads and that the potholes we see are ultimately the responsibility of central Government?

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

I can see why the hon. Member was in the education corps. Where does one start? I think I will start with a sigh. That is better; I now feel fresh to go on.

John Hart, who I knew nearly 30 years ago, has led a council and has made massive differences. He has just announced that he will stand down after a very long period and I respect that. He has made £10 million available. He has taken his responsibility for roads in Devon deadly seriously. His achievement is remarkable, given that Devon has more roads than Belgium—am I right, Mr Streeter? I think that is right. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon has made it quite clear that Devon has stepped up to the mark.

As for the hon. Member for the education corps—God help us!—scrutiny should be scrutiny. You can scrutinise anything you want—that is the point. I have always found that the best way to scrutinise is to take scrutiny down to a local level, because we live with those potholes in our areas. We live with them, not just as MPs, but as constituents and members of district councils. I therefore find the hon. Gentleman’s question iniquitously ridiculous.

On that happy note, Mr Streeter, I sit down. Thank you.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. Obviously, I accept and acknowledge that, when you have served your constituents in the south-west for so long, you will be exceptionally interested in a debate such as this one, which has been secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger). I also genuinely acknowledge the passion and the fervour that my hon. Friend has brought, as always, to this particular issue. I commend him for the tone of his speech and for the fact that he is sticking up for his constituents, as he has done so very well for many a year.

This issue is clearly something that we all care about. There is no doubt whatsoever that all our constituents are passionately concerned about the state of the roads that they have to utilise, whether that is as a driver, as a farmer, as someone who does logistics and deliveries as part of a business, or as someone trying to engage regularly in active travel. All those activities are affected by the state of our roads and we are all conscious of that.

One must look at the consequential decisions that the Government have made over the last year in particular to address some of those problems, because if I look back at the situation approximately 16 or 18 months ago and compare it with the situation now, I see that it has been utterly transformed. That has happened in three ways. The core base budget that both local authorities had was substantial and had been going up periodically, but there is no doubt that it was a struggle; we all acknowledge that. To a lesser or greater degree, that is true of different local authorities up and down the country.

Clearly, the first thing that happened was the spring Budget of 2023, which saw a significant uplift to both local authorities: just under £5 million to Somerset and £9 million to Devon. Subsequently, the decision of the Prime Minister in October 2023 in relation to HS2 utterly transformed the funding increase, because there is a base increase of funding ultimately of 30% in the case of both local authorities. That is transformational funding—there is no question whatsoever about that.

[Richard Foord]

The Minister refers to “transformational funding”, but I think that expression would jar with the experience of constituents in Devon who I talk to. In total, 966 claims were made for compensation by Devon residents, amounting to £1.1 million, between April and December last year. Would he like to comment on this disjuncture between, on the one hand, the “transformational” change that he talks about and, on the other hand, the day-to-day experience of my constituents?

[Guy Opperman]

I have answered such questions repeatedly since the debate on 19 December and at other times. Simply put, the situation is this: if one has a business or statutory undertaking, and one increases the budget to address a problem by over 30%, there is no other part of the Government infrastructure that has been increased in that way. There is no local authority in the country that has had the benefit of that in other parts of its portfolio. The reality is that the transport budget for highways maintenance has been dramatically addressed. No one is diminishing the impact of what has happened in the past and the day-to-day vicissitudes that people have to face, whether those are on the Somerset levels or the Slapton line, which I debated in the House barely a month ago. There are clearly instances where those things need to be addressed, and frankly the Prime Minister has taken a very bold decision to address the problem specifically, which is massively to his credit.

Obviously, that is on top of record amounts of bus funding. There has been a significant increase in bus funding, such as the £2 bus fare, the bus service improvement plans money and the active travel budget, which has seen considerable enhancements to Devon of over £6 million and to Somerset of over £3 million since 2020. There is massively increased support for all forms of cycling and walking. Also, the rail station infrastructure has increased, whether that is in Cullompton—which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport have visited—or elsewhere. A huge amount of investment is going on.