Transport Connectivity: North-west England

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on raising the important topic of connectivity in the north-west—an area that was a cradle to so many transport innovations and is home to beautiful countryside and some of our greatest cities and towns. It is not quite Yorkshire, but it is still a pretty special place.

Kick-starting economic growth is the Government’s No. 1 mission, and the economic performance of the north-west is vital to successful delivery. It is essential that we deliver our plan for change to create more jobs, put more money in people’s pockets and help to rebuild Britain—but, as I am sure my hon. Friend recognises, we cannot have good growth without the transport connectivity to support it.

A truly connected transport network must be designed and built in collaboration with local leaders. That is why the English devolution White Paper published last year is so important. It is an opportunity to reset our relationship with local and sub-national government and to empower local leaders and mayors to make the right decisions for their communities. We are already seeing the benefits across mayoral areas with the introduction of the Bee network in Greater Manchester, alongside mayors in the Liverpool city region and West Yorkshire who are working towards taking back control of their buses. I will just put on the record how pleased I was to hear yesterday that South Yorkshire will also be taking back control of its buses.

The Government will be still more ambitious, however. First, we will make the process for taking buses back into public control faster and simpler through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill. Secondly, we will give mayors a statutory role in governing, managing and planning the rail network, working alongside Great British Railways. Thirdly, through the English devolution Bill, we will put the roles of mayors on a primary footing, setting out a clear and broad set of powers that will be available to mayors and local leaders.

Our transport network has seen decades of decay. Communities have been cut off and short-changed. Fragmented networks have hindered meaningful change, and the state of our local roads is a result of past under-investment. We are determined to reverse that. An uplift of £200 million was secured at the autumn spending review for city region sustainable transport settlement areas for 2025-26, which was welcomed by the mayoral combined authorities, including Greater Manchester and the Liverpool city region, which are receiving over £1.7 billion from the current CRSTS programme.

The autumn Budget announcement also included a commitment of over £650 million in local transport funding in 2025-26 to ensure that transport connections improve in towns, villages and rural areas, and a funding uplift of £500 million for 2025-26 for highways maintenance. Of that £500 million, the north-west region is receiving over £64.8 million in additional funding. In the Budget the Government confirmed investment of over £1 billion to support and improve bus services and keep fares affordable. Local transport authorities across the north-west have been allocated nearly £150 million for the 2025-26 financial year.

The Government are committed to improving transport across the north, including boosting rail connectivity from east to west. We are already taking forward the trans-Pennine route upgrade—TRU—which will improve rail performance and support growth and housing by reducing journey times and providing more passenger services on the line between Manchester and York. We are delivering the Manchester taskforce programme, which is central to the Government’s ambitious multibillion-pound rail investment across the north. As announced in the autumn Budget, we are maintaining momentum on Northern Powerhouse Rail by progressing planning and design works to support its future delivery.

On our strategic road network we are developing a five-year third road investment strategy that will cover 2026 to 2031. The RIS will be published before the end of 2025. Our vision is for a network that connects more people to more places, making our day-to-day journeys easier and simpler, and building a network that can attract investment, whether that is through boosting efficiency or unlocking land for development.

The integrated national transport strategy will be published this year and will set a long-term vision for transport in England, focusing on how transport should be designed, built and operated to better serve all the people who use it and enable them to live fulfilling lives. We will develop the strategy through collaborative and open engagement with our stakeholders and people who use transport.

It is impossible for me to cover every point raised today, but I will touch on a few. On Northern Rail, it has been made really clear to Northern’s management that the current performance is not acceptable. That is why Rail North Partnership, through which the Department for Transport and Transport for the North jointly manage Northern’s contract, issued it with a notice of breach of contract, which has required Northern to produce a detailed plan to improve its services.

On HS2, transport is an essential part of our mission to rebuild Britain, and I am committed to delivering infrastructure that works for the whole country and of course to improving rail connectivity across the midlands and the north. My ministerial colleagues and I are carefully reviewing the position we have inherited on HS2 and wider rail infrastructure.

On the previous Government’s commitments on investment, I will just remind the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) about the £22 billion black hole. They left this Government to pick up the pieces.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will not give way.

We acknowledge that rates of step-free access remain low across Great Britain, which is why the Access for All programme is working to address that. In the Greater Manchester area—

[Tim Farron]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will not give way, because I have a lot of points to make, but I am happy to have a conversation with Members afterwards. In the Greater Manchester area, about 50% of stations already have step-free access, approximately double the national average. We remain committed to improving the accessibility of the railways and recognise the valuable social and economic benefits that that brings to communities. However, the programme continues to be heavily oversubscribed, so we welcome opportunities for external funding to improve the accessibility of the network.

The objective of the Treasury’s review of the Green Book is to understand whether it is being used in a way that ensures fair, objective and transparent appraisals of proposals outside London and the south-east of England. DFT officials are working closely with the Treasury on that review and will take forward any relevant actions following its conclusion.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton very much for raising this important issue. I hope that I have been able to reassure her that the Government recognise the importance of transport connectivity across the north-west. That is why we are investing and that is why we are devolving to local leaders. I look forward to continuing to work with her and other hon. Members on this key issue.

Wickford Station

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on securing this debate and providing the opportunity to discuss the rebuilding of Wickford station. I also thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions today.

I recognise the right hon. Member’s concern and frustration at the length of time it has taken for the station rebuild to progress, but let me explain some of the background, with which I am sure he will be familiar. The original station building needed to be demolished to facilitate and enable the introduction of Greater Anglia’s brand-new, longer fleet of trains. Otherwise, the bay platform—the dead-end platform—at the station could not be extended to accommodate the new trains. Alternative options, such as extending the platform in the opposite direction, would have been far more expensive, as that would have required re-signalling, and there was no space to implement that particular option.

It is important to reiterate that, without carrying out the bay platform extension, the Southminster branch would have been the only part of the Greater Anglia network not to benefit from the £1.4 billion investment in new trains, which are now operating across the entire Greater Anglia network. The changes at Wickford station were therefore essential, and a scheme was developed both to extend the platform and to provide new station facilities in place of the old building.

With the approvals secured, the old station building was demolished, and the station became reliant on temporary facilities. The delivery of the Wickford station scheme was then delayed by covid-19 and the wider funding challenges facing the rail industry in its aftermath. Understandably, in a cost-constrained environment, where the industry’s revenue was vastly reduced for a couple of years, the introduction of the new trains was a key priority, as it affected millions of passenger journeys and would underpin the recovery of passenger numbers from the pandemic.

It is worth explaining a little more about the new train fleet programme. The new, longer trains required a significant investment programme at stations and depots across the Greater Anglia network. There has been significant investment in depots such as Ilford and Norwich Crown Point. Several stations on the West Anglia route needed platforms to be extended, and funding needed to be secured for those vital works to take place, in addition to the platform extension needed at Wickford station.

The fleet transformation programme has allowed Greater Anglia to introduce the new class 720 trains, which have addressed key customer priorities, with additional seating capacity, air conditioning, plug and USB points, and improved accessibility features. Furthermore, they are more reliable and resilient, improving operational performance on the network and therefore improving the service provided to passengers.

I am pleased to note that Greater Anglia is one of our highest-performing operators in quarter 2 of 2024-25, during which 85.6% of trains were classed as on time, leaving within one minute of schedule. When we compare data from before the introduction of the class 720s with more recent data, the improvement is clear. In 2019-20, on-time performance was 69.9% and 3.2% of services were cancelled. In 2023-24, on-time performance was 86.2% and cancellations had halved to 1.6%. In fact, Greater Anglia has consistently been one of the best-performing UK train operators since April 2023, and the new trains have been a key factor in that positive track record.

To return to the station project itself, a combination of the funding challenges facing the post-pandemic rail industry and the need to ensure that the new trains were all in service as soon as possible contributed to the delays in the scheme. However, despite those challenges, Greater Anglia continued to develop the design and concepts for the project. As a result of its work, Greater Anglia has planning approval for a new building and awarded the design and build contract to Walker Construction towards the end of last month. The contract has been signed. Detailed timescales for implementation are now being finalised and will be confirmed once agreed.

The Wickford station redevelopment project represents a landmark in UK rail infrastructure. As the first of its kind, this project uses the new and innovative Network Rail hub station modular design concept, which integrates sustainability, adaptability and community engagement into a cohesive, modern station blueprint. The hub design has been developed by Network Rail over several years, and this project is the first to use the modular design in practice. By combining innovative design elements such as modular pods, photovoltaic canopies and energy-efficient systems, as well as a highly cost-effective design and build methodology, the project establishes a new benchmark for railway stations nationwide. The new station will have features that improve the passenger experience, with a large canopy providing shelter for 70 seated and 345 standing passengers, a spacious waiting room, an accessible toilet and an integrated ticket office. Automatic ticket gates will also be a feature, enhancing security at the station, protecting industry revenue and managing passenger flows.

The Department will continue to seek further opportunities to improve rail accessibility, including taking advantage of the opportunities created by our rail reform programme. This includes the establishment of a powerful new passenger watchdog, which will champion passenger interests with a view to improving service performance and to ensure that GBR and other operators meet passenger expectations.

The Government are determined to clamp down on street works—referred to by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford—that cause unnecessary disruption in local areas, which is why we have announced increases to fixed penalty notices and extended overrun charges of up to £10,000 a day so that they also apply at the weekend. The Government also want to see the roll-out of lane rental schemes in England, which are a tool to help highway authorities to reduce the impact of works taking place on the busiest streets at the busiest times by charging utilities up to £2,500 a day for works on these roads. We have recently announced that at least half of the surpluses from lane rental should be spent on highway maintenance. Following publication of the “English Devolution” White Paper, a consultation is under way on devolving powers to approve new rental schemes from the Secretary of State to Mayors.

On accessibility, the plans for Wickford station improvements also make provision to allow for the future installation of lifts; any future funding would, of course, be subject to the ongoing spending review. This Government are committed to improving the accessibility of our railway and recognise the considerable social and economic benefits that it brings to communities.

In conclusion, there is positive news on the Wickford station upgrade scheme. With the design and build contract now awarded, I am pleased that this station project can proceed, and works will commence in 2025.

[Mr Francois]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is obviously coming to a conclusion. I want to thank him again for being here this afternoon and for the support that has been given to the station rebuild. As the constituency MP, I am very grateful. I wonder if he could give me some comfort on one further point. The works will be extensive, so is it still the intention to try to maintain train services through Wickford, as far as possible, while they take place?

[Simon Lightwood]

This Government are determined to put passengers at the very heart of our railway, so I am sure that every effort will be made to ensure that that is indeed the case.

As well as delivering a modern, welcoming experience for customers, the station will set the standard for future buildings, being the first of the new and innovative Network Rail hub stations. I am looking for colleagues at Greater Anglia to progress this important project at pace, to ensure that the permanent structure is put in place to serve the customers and constituents who use the station.

Question put and agreed to.

Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) for bringing this short but crucial Bill before the House. I commend him for delivering such a brilliant and informative speech and for managing to cling on for as long as he did; some would call him the “Rocket Man” of Parliament. I thank all other Members who have spoken in the debate. Speaking of stars, I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) a very happy birthday for yesterday; I hope he had a stellar time.

I am pleased to confirm that the Bill has the full support of the Government. Before I begin, let me outline some general observations about the UK and spaceflight. The UK’s approach to launch positions the UK as a leading international partner in the space sector, ensuring Europe’s independent access to space. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has responsibility for co-ordinating civil space policy, working closely with Departments across Government to ensure that space services can support their needs and that space science and research can act as an enabler across the economy, while building strong links with the wider science ecosystem. To achieve our ambition, Government have invested more than £57 million through the LaunchUK programme to grow new UK markets for small satellite launch and sub-orbital spaceflight.

The UK has one of the most advanced and trusted modern space regulatory frameworks in the world. On 8 October, the Secretary of State for DSIT announced the new Regulatory Innovation Office, to reduce the burden of red tape and speed up access to new technologies that improve our daily lives. The RIO has made space one of its top priorities, and we look forward to working with it on our wider regulatory reforms to enable innovation.

This Government are implementing a series of space regulatory reforms stemming from the recommendations published in the space regulatory review in May 2024. The Government have worked with the sector to determine a prioritised approach to the reforms, to maximise the growth and innovation potential for the sector.

One recommendation involves the implementation of a regulatory sandbox to stress-test the regulatory framework for enabling rendezvous proximity operations. The sandbox commenced in October 2024, with stage 1 due to be complete in March 2025, providing vital recommendations to enable the growth of these novel missions and to strengthen the UK’s capabilities.

We are also exploring financial tools, incentives and market access schemes that promote sustainable activities and encourage self-investment, inward investment and support a level playing field for UK companies. Alongside the regulatory reform package, work is under way to develop a range of new innovative regulatory measures to support the growth of the UK sector, new mission types and to incentivise the uptake of space sustainability measures.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East said, the Bill will amend two sections of the Space Industry Act 2018 to provide legal certainty that all spaceflight operator licences must include a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability to the Government under section 36 of the 2018 Act. This short, but crucial Bill will go “far, far away” to encourage much-needed investment into the sector.

Before I outline why the Government fully support the Bill, and boldly going where no man has gone before, I will briefly outline some of the UK’s achievements in spaceflight. On 9 January, the UK made history by conducting the first ever orbital launch attempt from UK soil through Virgin Orbit at Spaceport Cornwall, demonstrating the UK’s growing launch capability and position as a leading spacefaring nation. In December 2023, SaxaVord spaceport on the Shetland Islands became the UK’s first vertical launch site to receive a spaceport licence. In January 2025, Rocket Factory Augsburg became the UK’s first licensed vertical launch operator. The UK’s approach to launch positions the UK as a leading international partner in the space sector.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, Scotland makes a vital contribution to the wider UK space ecosystem. Scotland’s space sector is home to advanced satellite manufacturing capabilities, and has a fast-growing satellite launch market. In fact, Glasgow builds more small satellites than anywhere outside of California. The UK is now the second-most attractive destination for commercial space investment after the United States.

This Government have made clear that unlocking growth is vital to rebuilding the UK and supporting high-tech jobs, which unlocks investment and improves living standards across the country. We are capitalising on the UK’s excellence in science and innovation to ensure our world-class research translates to commercial success, rebalancing the system and setting up the financial services sector to innovate, grow and seize the opportunities for investment in business, infrastructure and clean energy across Britain.

The space sector is hugely valuable to the UK’s economy. It is worth more than £18.9 billion and directly employs more than 52,000 people. It supports more than 126,000 jobs across the supply chain and at least £346 billion of the UK’s GDP is supported by satellite services, such as navigation, metrology, communications and Earth observation. It is now possible to launch satellites from UK spaceports, rather than relying solely on overseas sites to launch UK-built satellites into orbit.

As I previously mentioned, in January 2023, Virgin Orbit conducted an historic first launch from the UK at Spaceport Cornwall. In December 2023, SaxaVord spaceport in the Shetland Islands became the first licensed vertical launch spaceport. This year, we hope to witness the UK’s first vertical launch by German company Rocket Factory Augsburg, with more to follow. Growing our launch capability is already creating high-skilled jobs and opportunities in communities right across the UK, as well as catalysing investment across the supply chain.

The Government are investing in new launch companies such as Orbex, which has built factories in Scotland, creating hundreds of new jobs, ready to take advantage of the new opportunities that the Government have created. SaxaVord spaceport anticipates that by 2025, the spaceport site could support a total of 650 jobs in Scotland, including 140 locally and 210 across the wider Shetland region. Other launch operators, such as Skyrora, a UK company based in Glasgow, are thriving. It has indicated that it will conduct its first sub-orbital launch from the UK in the near future.

The UK’s space industry already supports an industrial base of over 1,500 space companies. It provides high-skilled, high-quality jobs across the UK, with over 77% of employees holding at least a primary degree. Building on the success of the UK’s space sector, the Government will continue to support business through a stable policy environment, strengthening our economic institutions and giving investors the certainty they need to fuel growth. The Government recognise the important contribution that the space sector makes to ordinary people’s lives. Growth is the Government’s No. 1 mission, and the Bill has the potential to drive growth within the sector by encouraging further investment.

It is important that the UK builds on the successes of an already thriving and dynamic space sector. The Government are delivering our plan for change with investment and reform to deliver growth. We will ensure, through the measures that we are taking to deliver growth, that the UK becomes a leading provider of commercial small satellite launchers in Europe by 2030.

To achieve our ambition, the Government will continue to support spaceports and launch operators to grow new UK markets for small satellite launch and sub-orbital spaceflight. The Government are committed to making improvements to both the Space Industry Act 2018 and the space industry regulations to ensure that our legal framework and regulations remain effective and internationally competitive. The UK has one of the most advanced and trusted modern space regulatory frameworks in the world.

Let us explore for a moment what liabilities are covered by the 2018 Act. There are two types of liability covered. Section 34 places a strict liability for injury or damage caused to persons or property on land or water in the UK or in the territorial sea to the UK—or on an aircraft in flight over such land, water or sea—by a craft or space object being used by an operator carrying out spaceflight activities in the UK. The uninvolved general public suffering injury or damage can bring a claim against the operator without having to prove fault. Section 36 places a liability on the operator carrying out spaceflight activities to indemnify the UK Government, or a person or body listed in section 36(2), for any claims brought against them for loss or damage caused by those activities. Therefore, UK nationals have the same easy recourse to compensation and protections as foreign nationals have under the UN liability convention.

The Government recognise that the question of liability and insurance is of utmost concern to the space sector. In response to a consultation on the then draft space industry regulations in 2020 and a call for evidence to inform orbital liability and insurance policy in October 2021, the industry made it clear that holding unlimited liabilities will have an adverse effect on the UK’s spaceflight industry. The industry has advised that it is impossible to obtain insurance for an unlimited amount, and therefore impossible to obtain insurance that will provide full coverage of an operator’s liability to indemnify the Government and their liability to uninvolved third parties. Furthermore, potential liabilities for spaceflight are not easily quantifiable. If the Government did not limit a spaceflight operator’s liability, spaceflight companies and investors would instead look to more favourable regulatory regimes in other countries where Governments share the risks involved by limiting an operator’s liability or by offering state guarantees, such as in the United States or in France.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East explained, there are powers in the 2018 Act to limit a spaceflight operator’s liability when carrying out spaceflight activities from the UK. The Act enables commercial spaceflight activities, which include launching a spacecraft and operating a satellite in orbit, for example, or other activities such as the operation of a spacecraft and management of a range to be carried out under licence in the United Kingdom. The Act sets out the broad licensing and regulatory framework for carrying out such activities and is underpinned with more detailed provisions in the Space Industry Regulations 2021.

The 2018 Act currently provides powers for the regulator to specify a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability in the licence, but does not make it mandatory. Currently, section 12(2) provides that an operating licence may specify a limit on the amount of a licensee’s liability to indemnify under section 36. Current Government policy is that the regulator should use those powers to specify a limit on operator liability in the licence so that no operator will face unlimited liability.

The Government fully support the Bill and its further progress. It is consistent with our policy that all spaceflight licences should have a limit on liability, so it will not impose any more liability or risk on UK taxpayers than the current policy. The Government also recognise the value that industry ascribes to legislative certainty on this matter. The space sector continually expresses its concerns about the use of the word “may” in section 12(2 of the Act. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for the Bill, which, by amending section 12(2), will meet a key request from the sector.

As a the Member of Parliament for Wakefield and Rothwell, let me end by paying tribute to the proud Yorkshireman and inter-cosmic former captain of the USS Enterprise, Patrick Stewart—“Star Trek: The Next Generation” being far the best iteration in the Star Trek franchise. I will leave the House with this: “Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the UK Government. Our continuing missions: to kick-start economic growth and make Britain a clean energy superpower; to seek out and break down barriers to opportunity and take back our streets; and to boldly build an NHS fit for the future.” Make it so!

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

The Member in charge of the Military Action Bill gave instruction earlier today that he wishes to defer it until Friday 4 July.

Rail Interoperability

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

The Minister of State for Transport, my noble Friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, has made the following ministerial statement:

The Government will shortly publish updates to seven national technical specification notices (NTSNs) for Great Britain’s railway. This follows a comprehensive review aimed at improving standards for the safety, reliability, technical compatibility, accessibility and environmental protection of our railway.

NTSNs set mandatory technical requirements and procedures for the design, build, operation and maintenance of rail vehicles, infrastructure and components. NTSNs apply to both passenger rail and freight on both the conventional mainline and high-speed rail networks—i.e. HS1 and HS2—as well as the UK section of the channel tunnel.

NTSNs replaced EU regulations called technical specifications for interoperability (TSIs). Britain’s railways were built with significant technical differences from those of continental Europe, meaning that full alignment with TSIs was never possible. In several cases, while an EU member state, we had to make use of national specific cases and exemptions from TSI requirements, both of which are permitted within the EU framework.

The European Commission updated these regulations in 2023, prompting the UK to consider the benefits of adopting similar requirements or taking a different approach. This also presented an opportunity to fix many issues within the current NTSN requirements.

Department for Transport officials worked closely with industry through working groups and consultations facilitated by the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) to review the newly published TSIs, so that our decisions on NTSNs could be informed by those who will apply them. RSSB submitted recommendations for change in 2024, reflecting the balance of views of its industry members.

RSSB’s review found benefits in maintaining consistency with TSIs on technical requirements for the design and manufacture of rail products. This will be critical in ensuring that the rail industry continues to benefit from international supply chains and from the deployment of new rail technology being rolled out across Europe. Additionally, the review identified some areas where taking a different approach from TSIs would reduce or avoid costs, improve clarity, and deliver a safer, more interoperable and accessible railway in Great Britain.

The previous Government committed to informing Parliament through a written ministerial statement if they planned to diverge substantively from TSIs, and we intend to honour this commitment. However, it is in the interest of Britain’s rail industry that we retain the ability to act quickly to correct problems—for example, where requirements prove unworkable, where stakeholders find errors or where safety authorities identify an urgent need for change.

I should therefore clarify that, for the purpose of that commitment, we are now defining substantive divergence as any new difference between TSIs and NTSNs that could prevent a product from complying with both sets of standards. We understand that this was Parliament’s concern when this commitment was made, and that Parliament wished to avoid placing additional costs on manufacturers operating in both the UK and EU markets by requiring separate production lines for each market.

Five NTSN specifications will meet the definition of substantive divergence from EU TSIs. Two will maintain higher accessibility requirements for train doors and seats, and one will maintain a higher safety requirement for a key train driving component. This will mean that meeting the TSIs’ specifications will not necessarily mean that the NTSNs’ higher specifications are met. The other two changes will set more pragmatic requirements for freight wagon brakes and electric train pantographs, meaning that products meeting the NTSNs’ specifications will not necessarily meet the requirements in the TSI.

We will also make other changes that will differ from TSIs but do not meet our definition of substantive divergence. These changes mainly concern operational requirements, processes and responsibilities for building, enhancing and maintaining the GB mainline railway, or for integrating equipment within the rail system. Differing from the TSIs in these areas will reduce or avoid regulatory burdens and costs. They also concern areas where British technical requirements already differ from TSIs due to the distinct historical legacy of Britain’s railways, and take account of differences between the UK and EU regulatory frameworks—for example, by referring to UK rather than EU legislation and to UK bodies rather than EU institutions. These changes have unanimous support from the GB rail industry, including manufacturers.

We are satisfied from the evidence of the industry review and consultation that differing from TSIs in these areas will not increase costs and remains consistent with the essential requirements of Britain’s rail interoperability framework.

My officials have thoroughly assessed industry’s proposals in discussion with the RSSB, Network Rail and key industry bodies, and we intend to incorporate them within the updated NTSNs, with minor modifications to ensure that they work in practice and are legally robust. We have also revised the introductory sections to clarify their intended purpose and scope, to ensure that these standards are applied proportionately, effectively and as intended—for example, by clarifying the scope for alternative solutions where there may be better ways of achieving the same outcomes. My officials have prepared a de minimis assessment of the changes, which was cleared by the Government’s better regulation unit.

Our approach is fully compliant with our international obligations, which include the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, the convention concerning international carriage by rail (COTIF) and the Windsor framework, which requires continued application of TSIs in Northern Ireland. We are also assured that this approach is consistent with formal arrangements to ensure international rail traffic through the channel tunnel.

Publishing these updated NTSNs is an important first step in improving Britain’s rail standards framework, but there remains much more to be done. The public consultation that informed the NTSN revisions identified further areas for NTSN changes that could improve efficiency and reduce cost, including on rail electrification. We are keen to explore these and anticipate further updates to the NTSNs over the coming months and years. We are also considering options for reforming the rail technical standards framework itself to create a system fit for the improved railway that this Government will deliver through Great British Railways. We will consult on these options in due course.

[HCWS500]

Thameslink Train Services

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing the debate and providing this opportunity to discuss the performance of Thameslink services, and I thank the hon. Members who interjected to make points, which I will try to address in my response.

The Government recognise the crucial role that the rail network plays in supporting economic development, housing and employment growth, tourism, and environmental benefits. That is why we have made fixing Britain’s railway our top transport priority. We need to improve services for passengers and deliver better value for money for the taxpayer.

I recognise that performance on Thameslink, operated by Govia Thameslink Railway, has not been where we expect it to be, and passengers deserve better. Thameslink passengers have faced recent disruption caused by a variety of Network Rail infrastructure incidents, as well as a high level of cancellations due to train crew availability, particularly during the final few months of last year. I know that cancellations, especially those made close to the time of travel, can be very inconvenient for passengers, disrupting their lives and making it difficult for them to travel with confidence.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

Just this morning, commuters in Ashwell in North East Hertfordshire, which is also served by Thameslink, wrote to me about the challenges that they are experiencing because of a lack of reliability and expensive fares on the line, and how those challenges are increasingly cutting them off from work and education opportunities. Could my hon. Friend the Minister address what steps the Government will take to improve fares and reliability on those routes as they bring Thameslink into public ownership?

[Simon Lightwood]

We are rewiring Britain’s railways to end decades of poor service, waste and timetable chaos. A unified, simplified railway will put passengers first, raise living standards and boost growth, as part of our plan for change. We will hear more about that when the railways Bill comes before Parliament.

Disruption due to train crew availability remains a priority for my Department. The Department’s officials are closely monitoring train crew availability levels and the actions that GTR is taking to improve, which will provide greater resilience in this area. I am pleased that there has been some improved performance in that area this year, but that must be sustained and improved on further. The Department has also commissioned work to understand, in detail, the impact of train crew availability on performance. That will look at issues such as staffing levels, recruitment, training, overtime and planning efficiency. It will outline recommendations to address those issues in the short, medium and long term.

On disruption due to infrastructure incidents, GTR and Network Rail continue to work closely to improve the reliability of the infrastructure used by Thameslink services to help to reduce associated delays and cancellations. A programme is currently under way to upgrade the overhead wires on the midland main line, and the central London Thameslink core had most of its rails replaced over the Christmas break, which will help to prevent track faults.

The Government are focused on restoring rail performance. We have been clear that rail services have been failing our passengers. The Rail Minister has met GTR and Network Rail to ensure that they are delivering on their plans to address Thameslink’s poor performance. Department officials, the Rail Minister and I will continue to closely review Thameslink’s progress for a sustained recovery in performance to deliver the punctual, reliable services that passengers and taxpayers deserve.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I apologise for being an interloper from the west midlands. The Minister rightly and importantly mentioned passengers being failed, but the fragmentation of our network has meant that we have been failing not only passengers but businesses, particularly those that want to invest in constituencies such as Redditch. Improved services are improved not only for passengers but for businesses deciding where they may relocate and invest.

[Simon Lightwood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We must ensure that passengers are at the core of what we deliver, but the knock-on effect on businesses is also important. GBR will also focus on freight: how do we get some of the cargo transported by our roads on to our trains?

My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) talked about the need for more train crew. GTR is particularly vulnerable to the effect of train crew availability issues—the problem tends to be the availability, rather than the number, of train crew—and of all Thameslink’s cancellations, 50% are attributed to train crew. That is largely due to historical terms and conditions and legacy agreements that mean that there is a high level of reliance on rest-day working.

I will close by confirming that this Government will continue to put passengers at the heart of what we do and deliver a railway of which, in its 200th year, we can be proud once again. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire again and acknowledge the importance of this matter to him and his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)]

17. What steps she is taking to help improve local bus services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

The Government are committed to delivering the better, more reliable bus services that passengers deserve. We have already made significant progress by introducing the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill to help local leaders get the powers they need, and by announcing investment of over £1 billion to support and improve bus services.

[Sam Rushworth]

I thank the Minister for that answer. The cost of transport is a huge cost of living pressure for children and young people in my constituency who are trying to access education and social and leisure opportunities. What assurance can the Minister give me that the buses Bill will end a system in which bus services are controlled by ideology, and make it a system that puts them at the service of local people?

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Government know how important local bus services are in providing access to education and allowing young people to get around. Empowering local leaders to improve services is at the heart of our reforms, including through the introduction of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, so that bus services deliver for hard-working families and communities throughout the country.

[Michael Wheeler]

My constituents in Worsley and Eccles face high levels of congestion on our roads, especially during their rush-hour commute. We benefit from Greater Manchester’s Bee network, but it only takes a temporary set of traffic lights, roadworks or an accident to back things up. Will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to give the necessary powers and encouragement to our local communities and decision makers to create joined-up public and private transport networks that will alleviate congestion?

[Simon Lightwood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this issue and will know that this Government are acting quickly to respond to his concerns. As outlined in the “English Devolution” White Paper, we will empower strategic authorities to play a greater role in co-ordinating their local road networks. That includes removing unnecessary Secretary of State consent requirements for certain local highway decisions, potentially including lane rental schemes, which will speed up decision making.

[Jade Botterill]

So many people who live in rural towns across my constituency rely on bus services to go to work, school and hospital appointments, but too often buses are running late or never turn up at all. Last week I met local resident Nicola from Emley who told me that when she was unable to drive it was nearly impossible for her daughter Olivia to attend after-school clubs. Will the Minister advise me on how this Government will hold failing bus companies to account and will help improve services in our local areas?

[Simon Lightwood]

My hon. Friend is my constituency neighbour and I understand the challenges her constituents face. We know that local bus services are not currently delivering for people around the country. We are committed to changing that, and our bus services Bill will give local leaders the tools they need to deliver reliable bus services that truly meet the needs of local communities, including in rural areas.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

I know that the Minister is s truly passionate advocate for bus services, but if he were privileged enough to live in the beautiful village of Hixon in my constituency and wanted to get to the surgery in Great Haywood, he would have to travel into Stafford on a bus and then on a bus from Stafford to Great Hayward. Will he update the House on what additional help and support Staffordshire county council might look forward to receiving so that Hixon residents are able to get directly to Great Hayward?

[Simon Lightwood]

The Government are determined to empower local leaders to make decisions about their local bus services. They can choose from a variety of options in that toolkit, including franchising, which is now open to all local transport authorities. We are lifting the ban on municipal bus companies and improving enhanced partnerships. It is for local leaders to make those decisions, and we are empowering them to do so.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

Rural communities such as mine rely on bus services as a vital lifeline, but too often these services are limited and infrequent. Private operators dominate the market in my area, yet there is no minimum service requirement to ensure that people can get to work, school or medical appointments. Will the Government guarantee a minimum level of service so that rural communities are not left stranded?

[Simon Lightwood]

The hon. Member will be pleased to know that the bus services Bill includes the socially necessary local services measure. Under the new measure, local transport authorities operating under an enhanced partnership will need to identify local services which they consider socially necessary and put in place requirements that must be followed before such services can be changed or cancelled. They will also need to consider the alternative options that are available.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Last week I held a two-hour question and answer session with Disability Action Yorkshire. One issue that came up was the inability of disabled people to use their bus passes before 9 o’clock, limiting them in getting to work, accessing leisure opportunities or seeing family and friends. Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways to improve local bus access would be to be allow disabled people to use their passes before 9 o’clock?

[Simon Lightwood]

The Government already invest £700 million in the national concessionary travel scheme in order to fund those bus passes, and at the last Budget we announced over £1 billion of funding to support buses. We changed the formula for BSIP—bus service improvement plans—away from the competitive “Hunger Games” style contests under the previous Government. The hon. Member’s local area will have received funding and it is able to use that funding to go above and beyond what is set on a national level.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

4. What steps she is taking to maintain open access railway services.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

Ministers and officials are in regular contact with Northern Rail. We recognise that its performance is totally unacceptable, and with the challenges that Northern Rail faces, it will take time to become a stable and reliable service. I would be absolutely delighted to work with my hon. Friend.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T7. As you will know, Mr Speaker, I rarely, if ever, agree with the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. The Secretary of State has set out the position in relation to her change of heart, but will she commit to ensure that any proposal for a third runway at Heathrow will have a full impact assessment before it is approved or denied?

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State knows, the south-west peninsula already contributes significantly to the UK economy, including through life sciences and climate tech. We are, however, held back from reaching our full potential by under-investment in transport connectivity, which is made worse by upcoming works at Old Oak Common and the continuing bottleneck on the A303. Will the Minister commit to developing a strategic investment plan to ensure that the south-west peninsula has the transport infrastructure it needs to unlock further growth?

[Simon Lightwood]

As I have said before, growth is the priority mission of this Government, and we are committed to empowering local leaders. A regional transport strategy, and a strategic investment plan for the south-west, has been developed by the sub-national transport body Peninsula Transport.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

As well as being home to both GCHQ and NATO’s Allied Rapid Reaction Corps headquarters, Gloucestershire has the largest concentration of cyber-tech businesses and aerospace engineering firms outside London, but the county, and particularly Tewkesbury, is subject to slow, unreliable and grossly outdated rail services. It is also underserved by road transport links eastward. The Government recently announced that they will develop a silicon valley between Milton Keynes—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are on topicals—I think you need an Adjournment debate. Who is going to answer that?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will certainly meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this matter.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that achieving economic growth requires sustained investment in our transport infra- structure? Would she be willing to visit Glasgow International airport to learn more about how transport infrastructure can assist with the further development of the proposed investment zone in my constituency?

[Simon Lightwood]

I agree that investment in our transport infrastructure across the country is essential to our growth mission. I am aware of the investment zone bid involving Glasgow airport, and the aviation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), would be delighted to visit in the near future.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware that large swathes of British Airways flights between London and Scotland are automatically cancelled when there are serious weather or technical issues at Heathrow. British Airways says that if the Secretary of State’s officials, the Civil Aviation Authority, Heathrow and airlines worked together, the number of cancellations could be minimised, even in those circumstances, so will she facilitate those discussions?

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Access for disabled people was a condition of opening up planning for the York Central development. However, I hear that the condition will be bypassed, and that planning will go ahead without disabled access being put in place. That clearly impedes disabled people. Can we ensure that difficult engineering work is undertaken before planning permission is granted?

[Simon Lightwood]

The accessibility of all modes of transport is extremely important to this Government. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter further.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Despite my constituency being only a stone’s throw from Heathrow, we have no direct rail link to the country’s busiest airport. Last week, Heathrow Southern Railway submitted a business case to the Government. When will the Government consider it, to ensure that my constituents can get a train to Heathrow?

Rail Services: Open Access Operators

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is an absolute pleasure to see a fellow sand dancer in the Chair today, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) on securing this debate on open access—a matter of importance to many in this House and their constituents. I also welcome the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) to his place on the Opposition Front Bench. I look forward to our sparring in future debates.

Open access can open up new markets. We only need to look at Hull Trains, where the private sector identified opportunities that the Government had missed, to see how open access can benefit passengers and grow the market. However, it is also true that parts of our rail network are growing increasingly congested and, although open access operators can generate new income from the network, they can also abstract revenue from existing operators, including those funded by the taxpayer. We therefore need to ensure that there is a balance when we consider new open access applications. The Secretary of State was clear about that when she wrote to the Office of Rail and Road on 6 January.

Some Members have raised concerns over the Secretary of State’s letter, so let me be clear: the letter did not signal that the door had been closed on open access. Indeed, the letter makes it clear that there remains a role for open access, but new applications will have to demonstrate that their benefits are sufficient to justify any money they abstract from Government-funded services or the negative impact that they could have on publicly funded infrastructure projects. They must also demonstrate that they will not damage performance by increasing the complexity of the running of the network. I am aware also that the Secretary of State’s letter caused some concern with freight operators, so let me again be clear that the letter related only to passenger open access.

The benefits of open access to passengers on the east coast main line have been highlighted by hon. Members. I have already mentioned Hull Trains, but it would be remiss of me not to mention both Grand Central and Lumo, which also run on the east coast main line. Both those operators have increased choice for passengers. For example, Lumo now offers choice between short-haul flights and rail with its fast services between London and Edinburgh.

Open access services will increase choice and provide benefits for passengers on other parts of the network. Services have already been approved to operate from London to Stirling on the west coast main line from later in 2025, and between London and Carmarthen from 2027. We are also aware of, and considering, a range of new applications that have been submitted by open access operators. These include proposals on the east coast main line and also more broadly across the country, including on the west coast main line. Whether these applications are successful is currently a matter for the Office of Rail and Road in its role as an independent regulator. Alongside a range of other stakeholders, the Department will provide views. The Office of Rail and Road will consider them alongside its statutory duties and will make decisions in due course.

Both open access operators and the operators contracted by the Department deliver services to passengers, but there are key differences. Open access operators are not bound by public service obligations. Whereas an operator delivering services for the Department will be required to serve all stations on a particular route, an open access operator can choose which stations to serve. For that reason, it is not possible to simply replace the Department’s operators with open access operators. Were we to try to do so, we would risk depriving certain communities of any rail service at all.

Although constrained to a degree by the availability and capacity on the network, the lack of public service obligations means that open access operators can design their timetables to maximise commercial opportunities. That means that open access operators can choose within wider operational constraints what time they wish to run their trains and at which stations their trains will stop. That freedom means that they can be more challenging for Network Rail in setting the timetable. We have seen delays in agreeing the timetable for the east coast main line precisely because there were so many competing demands, including open access operations.

It is not just timetabling that is more complex. When Network Rail wants to undertake engineering works, it needs to ensure that the views of all operators are factored in. Obviously, where there are multiple operators with different operating models—for example, there are those with a greater focus on weekend and leisure travel rather than commuting—Network Rail will find it harder to keep everybody happy. That can reduce efficiency and increase journey costs, as Network Rail may have to close the network over a number of weekends and nights, rather than for a single block, to ensure that all operators are treated fairly.

I have talked about possible operational challenges. I want to be clear: we expect, as does the regulator, that Network Rail will make all efforts to manage the network in the most efficient manner and in a way that will accommodate the optimum number of Government-funded services. Although open access operators can drive new revenue to Government-funded services, they can also abstract revenue. The Office of Rail and Road recognises this through its “not primarily abstractive” test. The test is not binary and failing it does not mean that open access operators will not get access to the network, but it does highlight the potential impact on the taxpayer.

We have a responsibility to the taxpayer to move the railways on to a financially sustainable footing. Therefore, if we see applications that will abstract a significant amount from the Government’s operators, we need to carefully consider whether, when providing the Government’s view, we can support the application. Where there are wider socioeconomic benefits that arise from open access applications, we will, when we provide our views to the Office of Rail and Road, balance these against the abstraction, but we have to be honest about the financial pressures the railways face and factor them into our considerations.

I appreciate that I have just talked at length about the challenges that open access can create as well as the benefits it can bring. I highlight the challenges not to say that open access is bad—there can be real benefits—but as a Government, we need to be mindful of the full implications of each new open access application.

People have said that the move to public ownership means that the Government will seek to take open access off the network. I can categorically say that we have no intention to remove open access operators from the network. We were clear during the passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 that it only applied to operators contracted by the Government. I know that there has been speculation that we would look to bring open access operators into public ownership when their existing rights expire. Again, I reiterate that that is not our intention. Regarding our future plans for access to the network, we intend to bring forward a consultation on our proposed railways Bill shortly. That will provide Members with the opportunity to review, consider and respond to our proposals. I cannot pre-empt the consultation, and ask for Members’ understanding in this matter.

I will now address some of the specific issues raised by Members today. We have talked about the complexity of timetable challenges. Obviously, open access can and does make that a little bit more complex and challenging at times. Regarding passenger growth on the east coast main line, although open access operators have opened up markets on that line, they are by no means the sole reason for passenger growth. The Department has invested heavily in infrastructure, leading to improvements in resilience and reliability, and has taken the lead on fare trials on LNER to simplify the passenger offer. Underpinning all that is the fact that demand was already present on the east coast main line, even before the intervention of either Government or open access operators. On charges, open access operators pay variable access charges, but do not fully cover the costs of fixed- track access charges towards long-term maintenance of the network.

International comparisons were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). Although there are examples of open access competing with state-backed operators to offer choice to passengers in Europe, it needs to be noted that there are many differences between the British network and the rail networks in other countries. That makes it really difficult to make direct comparisons. For example, some countries operate completely separate rail networks for inner city and local services, creating a totally different environment for comparison than that here in Britain.

In terms of additional services in her constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) talked about the potential for open access to step in. We are clear that where there are gaps and it can be accommodated, we will consider that positively. GBR will look at the entire network to ensure it is used as fully as possible.

I am sure the Rail Minister will have heard the message from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) on the Leamside line. If not, I will make sure that I mention it to him. I thank her for her enthusiasm for public ownership and GBR. GBR will ensure the highest level of customer standards and operational performance as a directing mind for our railways. It will have a relentless focus on delivering for our passengers and, crucially, for freight as well.

Some Members raised, quite rightly, the speed at which the ORR is making decisions. We recognise that it can take too long for decisions to be made by the ORR, and we are working with operators, including open access and Network Rail, and the regulator to improve that. I believe it was the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who raised new services for Cleethorpes and Grimsby. We are working with industry to understand the timetabling, financial, operational and infrastructure issues that need to be resolved. I recognise the frustration, but we are actively considering what can be done.

Open access plays an important role on the network and it will continue to play an important role on the network. We look forward to considering and providing our views on new applications and to our continued work with open access operators. However, we must and will balance the benefits of new applications with the impacts that they have on both the taxpayer and the operational efficiency of the network, in line with the letter that the Secretary of State sent to the regulator. I am incredibly grateful to all hon. Members here for their contributions. They have given us further food for thought and a useful insight into the benefits of open access to their constituents.

A432 Badminton Road Bridge

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to respond to the important points raised by the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove). I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate for securing the debate on such an important matter: the replacement of the A432 Badminton Road M4 overbridge.

Safety on our roads is of the upmost importance, which is why the Government have announced that we intend to publish a new road safety strategy, the first in over a decade. Work is already underway on that. The maintenance and renewal of vital structures on our roads is also of the utmost importance and contributes to the safety of everyone who uses the strategic road network.

I note from the hon. Member’s efforts to secure a debate on this subject that she is indeed a strong advocate for her constituents, businesses and road users—as is my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke—and she has been campaigning extensively to see improvements and to see how quickly this vital structure over the M4 can be replaced with minimal impact on local people and businesses, and to protect the safety of everyone who uses it.

Our strategic road network is the backbone of our country’s economy. With 4,500 miles of motorways and major A-roads, it connects people, builds communities, creates opportunities and helps the country to thrive. Although it makes up only 2.4% of England’s overall road network, it is the most heavily used and carries a third of all traffic and two thirds of all freight.

Investment in our strategic road network is made through the road investment strategy process, which is focused on creating a road network that is safe, accessible and reliable for all road users, and which addresses its impacts on those who use it and live near it. We are committed to putting road transport at the heart of our mission-driven Government, transforming infrastructure so that it works for the whole country, unlocking growth, promoting social mobility and tackling regional inequality.

The hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate may be aware that locally managed roads make up 98% of the road network, and that almost every journey starts and ends on a local road. We understand how critical it is to keep the local road network functioning as this promotes growth locally and nationally and has a daily impact on the lives of millions of people. Where these local roads interact with the strategic road network, we aim to ensure that that is seamless and there is minimal impact on local people and businesses, while recognising safety needs.

The A432 M4 overbridge has been closed since July 2023, following a detailed structural survey conducted by National Highways. The survey identified accelerated deteriorations and cracking on the underside of the bridge. As the hon. Member will understand, the safety of all road users is paramount, and a decision was made to close the bridge to traffic while maintaining access for cyclists and pedestrians.

I understand the concerns that the hon. Member may have due to the length of the closure, but I want to highlight that this is a complex scheme that has involved numerous specialists, including utility providers, in preparation for the demolition to begin. The demolition is planned for March this year, with a new bridge planned to open for motorists early next year.

The hon. Member called for the work to be expedited and I can assure her that National Highways has already worked hard to accelerate many of the activities that support the replacement, to ensure that the bridge is available for the community as soon as possible. Indeed, I have been talking to National Highways and understand that normally a project of this scale would take about five years, whereas the period for this project is three years. My Department will continue to engage readily with National Highways as the project progresses.

I am sure that the hon. Member will understand that National Highways has no intention of inconveniencing road users, but it accepts that, due to the nature of this type of work, and especially when road closures are necessary, some level of disruption is unavoidable. I understand the concern that there will be a period when no crossing of any kind is possible over the M4 on Badminton Road.

As I mentioned, the hon. Member is a strong champion for local businesses in her constituency and has called for compensation due to the impact of traffic diversions. National Highways provides compensation as required by legislation across its projects and schemes. The compensation arrangements generally cover permanent adverse impacts, and the generally held principle is that the public purse does not compensate businesses for loss of earnings due to temporary road works.

National Highways has worked with South Gloucestershire council on funding and implementing the traffic management it requires on its network. Mitigation provided includes significant volumes of static signing, variable electronic message signs and temporary traffic signals. The diversion routes used during the A432 closure have been agreed with the council and are the optimum routes available. The council will have considered the impact of the reassigned traffic, its implications and the limited alternatives available on its network. None the less, I understand the hon. Member’s views on the impact that increased traffic may have on local roads that are not designed for heavy traffic volumes. However, the strategic and local road networks use each other when diversion opportunities are for mutual benefit.

I assure the hon. Member that National Highways will continue to work with South Gloucestershire council to ensure that works are completed efficiently and to mitigate, as much as is practically possible, the disruption caused by the closure of the bridge. That includes working with South Gloucestershire council to refine the traffic management arrangements on local roads.

I want to take this opportunity to affirm that National Highways has a robust inspection regime, ensuring the delivery of a safe and reliable motorway and trunk road network in England. It has a programme of structural inspections, investigations and assessments to ensure that potentially vulnerable structures are identified, that safeguarding measures are adopted and that maintenance works are programmed and prioritised. National Highways inspects all its bridges and other structures in line with the published guidance in the design manual for roads and bridges. That includes a general visual inspection every two years and a more detailed principal inspection every six years, which identifies and records defects in reinforced concrete, steelwork and other construction materials.

Where necessary, further investigations, which may include material tests, are undertaken to establish the extent, severity and specific causes of the defects. If maintenance works are required, they are prioritised and the necessary repairs are carried out to ensure that the structure remains safe and fit for purpose. National Highways applies any lessons learned on challenging projects across the organisation as standard practice. However, it is worth mentioning that inspection is based on standards set out in the design manual for roads and bridges.

Protecting the safety of all road users will always be a priority of this Government. Road safety is a shared responsibility, and it is important that we all recognise the part we can play as it cannot be achieved in isolation. Disruption will occur when action must be taken to address safety issues on the network, but we also acknowledge that maintenance of our roads ultimately benefits the whole community.

I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate once again not only for securing the debate, but for the important points she has raised and for her campaigning on behalf of her constituents. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke for her contribution. I reassure the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate that I take this matter seriously and will aim to continue the conversation to see what we can achieve to provide a positive outcome for road users in the short and long term.

Question put and agreed to.

<Railway Services: South-West>

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair for the very first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I also welcome the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) in her first outing on the Front Bench as the Opposition spokesman.

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this debate on railway services in the south-west. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

On 11 December, I attended a debate on the future of rail services in Devon, and on 17 December, the Minister for the Future of Roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), attended a debate on the impact of Old Oak Common on rail services. The frequency of these debates demonstrates the importance that hon. Members and their constituents place on the rail network, and the crucial role it plays in supporting economic development, housing, employment growth and tourism. This Government recognise that too. That is why we have made fixing Britain’s railway our top transport priority. We need to improve services for passengers and deliver better value for money for the taxpayer.

As I said in a previous debate, the south-west has seen a strong recovery in rail passenger numbers since the pandemic. Many services are now very busy indeed, particularly towards the end of the week and at weekends—including Thursdays. [Laughter.] To reduce crowding, funding has been authorised for 12 additional CrossCountry trains. Three are already in service; the rest are due to enter service in May.

Local services around Devon are also experiencing some capacity issues, particularly on the Barnstaple line and on school services from Paignton and Exmouth, all of which run into Exeter. Officials and GWR are working on options to increase capacity on some local and regional services, but that will of course be subject to affordability.

The Government continue to focus on restoring rail performance. We have been clear that rail services have been failing passengers, and the Rail Minister has now met GWR and CrossCountry, as well as Network Rail, to ensure they are delivering on their plans to address poor performance.

A resilient railway is crucial to the economy, not just in the south-west but right across the country. That is why £165 million has been invested to date in the south-west resilience programme at Dawlish, delivering better journey reliability for rail travellers in the south-west and providing greater resilience for the coastal railway during several named storms, alluded to earlier, that have affected the south-west in recent years. We continue to work closely with Network Rail as it develops proposals for the fifth phase of the programme, between Parsons tunnel and Teignmouth.

Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), have shown strong support for a number of potential rail projects across the region and the country. Ministers have been clear, however, that it will not be possible in the context of the financial situation the Government have inherited to afford to deliver all the proposed projects. The Secretary of State is conducting a thorough review of the previous Government’s plans, to ensure that our transport infrastructure portfolio drives economic growth and delivers value for taxpayers.

Many Members have referenced Old Oak Common and the impact it will have on rail services to and from the south-west. The station will enable HS2 services to start operating, by providing a new interchange with the Elizabeth line. Without it, HS2 cannot open. As Members will appreciate, a project of the scale and significance of Old Oak Common cannot be delivered without some disruption to existing services. Our challenge to HS2 Ltd is to keep that disruption to a minimum and to support Network Rail and train operators to keep passengers moving.

The most recent phase of the work took place over Christmas, and was delivered successfully. It required a three-day closure of Paddington station, in addition to Christmas day and Boxing day. The rail industry worked hard to prepare for that. Some long-distance Great Western services were diverted into Euston station to maintain a direct link into a London terminus, while others terminated at Ealing Broadway and Reading. We expect that to provide a model for any future closures of the railway into Paddington. As has been said, the next significant block of work had been due to take place in December 2026, but that has now been replanned to a later date by HS2 Ltd. Further details about the timings of future works will be shared as soon as they become available in the spring.

The Rail Minister and I have heard from many colleagues about their constituents’ concerns about the future timetable and the potential impact on journey times. That was addressed in detail on 17 December by my hon. Friend the Minister for Future of Roads, and I refer hon. Members to Hansard for more information.

As has been noted previously, the future timetable will be under development for many years to come. Officials are working with the industry to assess the options for calling patterns at Old Oak Common. Ministers are committed to ensuring that passenger interests are considered and that disruption is minimised for passengers, both during and after construction. I will close this part of my speech by confirming that the Government will continue to put passengers at the heart of what we do in delivering our railway, which we can be proud of once again in its 200th year.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South West Devon, talked about GWR Sunday services. The Government of course recognise that performance is not where it needs to be. That is due to a range of issues, including infrastructure and fleet reliability, as well as train crew availability, which has resulted in high levels of cancellations on Sundays in recent months. Officials and GWR are actively working to address this issue.

A number of Members raised wi-fi connectivity. Free wi-fi is available on GWR services, but it is particularly poor on parts of the network. Ministers have asked officials to explore the feasibility of a range of technology options to improve passenger connectivity on the rail network. The Department is also conducting research to measure the strength of mobile signals along the network, to fully understand where interventions are needed and any potential impacts.

Electrification was also mentioned. The most used part of the Great Western network—between London Paddington and Cardiff—has been electrified, and there are currently no plans to electrify further parts of it.

A number of Members mentioned accessibility. Following the election, we are carefully considering the best approach to the Access for All programme. Department for Transport Ministers are not yet able to comment on the next steps regarding the project at specific stations, but hon. Members should be assured that we are committed to improving the accessibility of the railway and that we recognise the valuable social and economic benefits that that brings to our communities.

The south west rail resilience programme was mentioned, and the Government recognise the importance of the rail route through Dawlish and the south-west region. To date, as I mentioned, £165 million has been invested through the programme to deliver improved resilience across the route. I would also echo again that no decision has been taken on which services will call at Old Oak Common and when; the future timetable is under development, and will be for many years to come.

Members raised the issue of rail fares. We are committed to the biggest overhaul of our railways in a generation and to ensuring that people receive better services and have simpler ticketing. Our aim is to keep the price of rail travel at a point that is good for passengers and taxpayers. We are also committed to reviewing the overly complicated fares system.

Many Members mentioned general performance. SWR performance on the west of England line has been challenging, and falls way below our expectations for passengers. The mostly single-line section between Salisbury and Exter has suffered multiple failures and has little resilience in the event of disruption. SWR and Network Rail have therefore dedicated a specific working group to looking at minimising the impact of delay and cancellation going forward. As regards CrossCountry, Members will be aware that, as a result of poor performance, it is subject to a remedial agreement that runs until March 2025. The Department will monitor outputs closely to ensure that CrossCountry is making sufficient progress.

I welcome the comments by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) about the renationalisation of our rail. The Government are committed to ending years of poor service and fragmentation on our railways by creating a unified and simplified system through public ownership and the establishment of Great British Railways. All currently franchised services are expected to be in public ownership within the next three years. With that, I thank Members once again for their contributions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to help improve the accessibility of public transport.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

We are working with industry to deliver a transport network that puts passengers and their needs at its heart. The new aviation accessibility task and finish group, for example, brings together industry and consumer advocates with first-hand experience to improve accessibility in air travel. The Government will take advantage of the benefits of a unified rail network to deliver a more reliable and consistent customer experience for everyone with accessibility needs, and our buses Bill will make bus travel more accessible and inclusive, including by extending the requirements for relevant bus staff to undertake disability training.

[Sarah Owen]

I thank the Minister for his response. Leagrave station in Luton was one of a number granted Access for All funding by the previous Government for long-overdue lifts. However, Network Rail now says that this money was never allocated and that it only qualifies for a business case, despite a feasibility study already being agreed and completed. Those who can make the nearly 2 million journeys from Leagrave station, including myself, are left with a crumbling footbridge that is not accessible for many. Will the Minister offer assurances that Access for All funding to Leagrave station will be honoured, and will he meet me and the Bedfordshire Rail Access Network to establish the quickest path to having lifts at Leagrave station?

[Simon Lightwood]

My hon. Friend is a formidable advocate for this, having raised it numerous times. The Rail Minister is carefully considering the decisions made by the previous Government in relation to the Access for All programme. My hon. Friend will be aware that Leagrave was one of 50 stations across Britain selected by the previous Government for further consideration of whether they could be made step-free between the entrance and all platforms. We will shortly update the House on our approach to Access for All, but let me assure her that we are committed to improving the accessibility of the rail network, recognising the social and economic benefits that that brings.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Like the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), I have stations in my constituency—in Hedge End and Swanwick—that were allocated money by the previous Government for accessibility lifts. Unlike her rail company, mine did accept that that money was allocated. Within the first week of this Government taking over, that was scrapped, and the Rail Minister wrote to me without any clear plan for when this Government will make an announcement on what will happen with the Access for All scheme. The Minister has just said that it will happen shortly. Can he be more clear for my constituents, who have been waiting for a very long time, so that disabled people and people with wheelchairs and pushchairs in my constituency can make the journeys they need to make? When will this Government make an announcement on Access for All?

[Simon Lightwood]

I can assure the hon. Member that as soon as I am in a position to do so, I will give him more information on the Access for All programme.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

Two of my friends, Ruth and Janet, are wheelchair users—one of them as a result of an accident just outside this place 25 years ago. They cannot travel together on our buses, as there is only ever one wheelchair space. They often book assistance at train stations, only for it not to turn up, leaving them stranded. Their handling on planes has led to not only bruising and pain, but loss of dignity and sometimes missed flights when assistance does not come in time. They are now reluctant to go on holiday if it means flying. Will the Secretary of State meet them and set up consultations with disabled passengers up and down the country, so that our public transport can meet their needs in every region? Will she require local authorities taking over bus services to consult disabled passengers and set minimum standards for delivery?

[Simon Lightwood]

We want a transport system for everyone, in which accessibility is designed as standard across the network so that we can make it easier for people to get on and off services, and build a safe and more secure network, particularly for women and girls. It is the Government’s ambition for disabled people to have equal access to transport, recognising the needs of people with visible and less visible conditions, and I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Leuchars train station in my constituency serves St Andrews and is well used by residents, students and tourists, but its wheelchair access is completely unacceptable. It feels as though we fall through the gaps between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on Access for All. Can the Minister confirm whether the Access for All review is looking at ensuring that those in the devolved nations do not miss out?

[Simon Lightwood]

I can assure the hon. Lady that I will raise this issue with the Rail Minister. I am quite confident that he has had these discussions with the devolved Governments.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

8. What steps she is taking to support the use and production of sustainable aviation fuels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

9. Whether she has made an assessment of the potential merits of compensation for rail passengers in Cheltenham due to the impact of the Old Oak Common station development.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

The Department continues to work closely with the rail industry to minimise the disruption to passengers on the great western main line during the new station’s construction and operation. Our priority is to mitigate the impact on passengers, as far as possible, by investing £30 million for service continuity during periods of disruption.

[Max Wilkinson]

The Secretary of State’s constituents will also be affected. Compensation comes in many forms. It may be in the form of better wi-fi on trains to improve the service for business users. It may be in the form of more rolling stock to end the bizarre practice of running half-length trains out of Paddington at peak times. And it may be in the form of an investigation into how we can reduce the ridiculous turnaround times at Gloucester station that delay Cheltenham passengers so much. I hope the Minister will confirm that all these things are being looked into for passengers in my constituency and the Secretary of State’s constituency.

[Simon Lightwood]

The Rail Minister has met MPs from both sides of the House to discuss this issue and has attended an industry programme board to ensure that passenger interests are considered and that disruption is minimised for passengers, both during and after construction.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

2025 is an exciting year for Derby, partly because of the progress on Great British Railways, which will be headquartered in Derby, and rightly so. Can we also make this the year that the British public fall in love again with rail travel, by giving GBR a strict timetable to simplify complicated ticketing and fares and to implement digital pay-as-you-go, as well as automatic compensation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

11. What steps she is taking to improve accessibility at Pokesdown railway station.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

South Western Railway has been working closely with Network Rail and the local authority to provide a viable scheme that will result in the installation of new lifts at the station. To establish the likely cost of the scheme and assess affordability, detailed design works are under way and are expected to be finalised in 2025.

[Tom Hayes]

I thank the Minister for that very helpful answer. The people of Pokesdown are certainly very keen for their lift, which they have been waiting a long time for. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, train services between Bournemouth and London Waterloo took the historically fastest time of 90 minutes. Will the Minister meet me and South Western Railway to discuss whether we can restore that fast time, as well as to discuss Pokesdown?

[Simon Lightwood]

There are no current plans to introduce an express service between Bournemouth and London, but I will keep my hon. Friend updated on the future plans regarding South Western Railway, which will become the first operator to be taken back into public ownership in May.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The residents of Wareham, just along the way from Bournemouth, have been waiting more than 20 years for electronic gates—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I can assure him that the report will be released in due course.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

T6. On the subject of buses, can the Secretary of State set out the steps her Department is taking to allow local communities to take back control through their elected representatives, so that NHS trusts, local authorities and private providers increase the frequency and improve the practicality of bus services to and between local hospitals? Does she agree that this will help elderly and vulnerable people and those without cars to better access the NHS, minimising stress and financial difficulties?

[Simon Lightwood]

We know how important local bus services are to communities. Our reforms of the bus sector, combined with £1 billion of investment, will ensure that local leaders have the necessary tools to ensure that bus services truly reflect the needs of passengers.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

T2. Over the past few weeks, I have seen at first hand how businesses on WhatsApp groups are using bots to buy up driving tests and then sell them at £250 or more. That is even after the Government’s changes that came into force on Monday this week. What further steps can the Secretary of State take to stop that practice?

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

Under the previous Government, bus services in rural areas were decimated. The number of bus journeys in the Derbyshire Dales declined by 55% between 2010 and 2023. What steps is the Minister taking to stop further cuts to bus services in rural areas like the Derbyshire Dales.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. A total of £1 billion was announced in the Budget for bus services, which will be available to his local transport authority to invest in areas, including rural areas, to ensure that bus services are accessible, regular and affordable.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

T5. A Thame to Haddenham cycleway would transform how residents of Thame get to the local railway station. However, active travel funding from central Government is essential to get such schemes off the ground. Will the Secretary of State commit to increasing the active travel budget beyond what has been announced to truly revolutionise rural cycling?

[Simon Lightwood]

The hon. Member will be aware that close to £100 million was announced in the recent Budget. We will work closely with Active Travel England to ensure that that money is put to good effect across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

In Hale and Badshot Lea, in the northernmost parts of my constituency, many residents can only get into Farnham town centre using the bus service. There is concern, given the increased amount of building, and future building under the new Government’s plans, that bus services will not be adequate. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the plans for north Farnham, and Badshot Lea and Hale?

[Simon Lightwood]

Buses are of course the most commonly used mode of public transport in Britain, and the lifeblood of our communities. I will be more than happy to meet the hon. Member.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

While welcoming rail renationalisation, may I ask what can be done to expedite investment in crucial rail infrastructure developments, such as the Haughley junction in my constituency, taking traffic off the A14 and possibly facilitating Bury St Edmunds to London trains? Was the previous Prime Minister’s promise to redeploy funds from the cancelled HS2 realistic?

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I am delighted to see that you are proudly wearing the newly formed Royal Army Medical Service tie, Mr Speaker.

In Solihull West and Shirley, the new year has been welcomed by increases in bus fares and reductions in services. In places such as Cheswick Green, people are faced with choosing between either more expensive and difficult journeys or not being able to get to work, the shops or college. Given the Government’s stated ambitions, what assessment has the Minister made of the economic impact of the policy?

[Simon Lightwood]

Conservative Members had no plans or funding put aside to continue with the bus fare cap beyond 2024. We have secured £151 million to ensure that buses remain affordable for many. In some areas, without that intervention fares could have risen by as much as 80%.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to her place. In my first public meeting after my election, residents in Knebworth called for more fast train services. We got some, but there has been poor reliability. Will she meet me to discuss those issues?