Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered transport connectivity in the Midlands and North Wales.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, and to open this debate on a subject that goes to the heart of economic opportunity, social mobility and quality of life.

Connectivity determines whether people can easily get to work, get to school and get out and about. For communities such as mine in Aldridge-Brownhills, the state of our transport links will decide whether young people can access opportunities and whether businesses can grow. Reliable transport and good connectivity are not nice-to-have extras; they are fundamental to how well off and connected our region is. Right now, we must do so much better. Today, I will focus on three areas where I believe ambition has been promised but delivery is falling short: buses, rail infrastructure and our roads.

For many people, buses are the only form of public transport available, not least in my constituency, which still does not have a single railway station. Bus fares matter, particularly for young people. If we are serious about opportunity, we cannot price young people off the network. Other regions have recognised that and acted. In Tees Valley, the Conservative mayor, Ben Houchen, introduced a £1 bus fare for everyone aged 21 and under, and it has been a clear success. It has boosted ridership and helped young people get to work, college and their apprenticeships. Wales has followed suit by rolling out £1 single fares for 16 to 21-year-olds across the country, and there are plans to extend the scheme further.

My constituents are left asking a simple question: why not the Mayor of the West Midlands? Our Labour mayor so often talks about fairness and inclusion, yet young people in our region continue to face some of the highest bus fares in the country. While other areas are cutting fares to widen opportunity, young people in my constituency are still paying full price to get to work or education.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that the issue is not just fares but routes? Derbyshire had a 60% loss of bus routes in the 15 years up to 2023. Would she say that it is hugely disappointing that for such a long time, most of which was under her party’s Government, bus routes have been slashed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

What I would say is that, although I am not an expert on Derbyshire bus routes, I absolutely recognise the importance of good connectivity. In the west midlands, constituents regularly ask me, “Why has this bus route changed?” or, “Why has that bus route changed?” So it absolutely matters to our constituents.

On connectivity, the lack of fairness for young people is not inevitable. We have seen that targeted youth fares can work, but what is sadly missing in the west midlands is not evidence but political will. If fairness and inclusion really are priorities, a west midlands youth bus fare scheme should be delivered quickly.

Alongside that, our mayor has promised a transformation of the bus network through franchising. In principle, greater local control can offer integrated routes, reasonable fares and improved standards, but the mayor needs to be honest with us about the timetable and the cost. Franchising will not deliver meaningful change for many years, and the funding currently allocated is a fraction of what will ultimately be required to deliver the scheme. Greater Manchester’s experience shows that franchising takes times and significant investment.

In the meantime, our bus services remain unreliable and under-resourced. Once again, passengers are promised jam tomorrow. Transport users need buses that turn up and fares that they can afford, not more empty words.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady represents one part of the west midlands; I represent another part—the last seat in Staffordshire, which is on the Cheshire border. Many of the challenges that my constituents in Madeley, Audley, Wolstanton and Clayton have raised with me are related to the role that private companies, like D&G Bus and First Bus, play in delivering the bad or unreliable services to which she refers. Is it not the case that, as well as political will, we need those bus companies to step up and deliver?

[Wendy Morton]

I absolutely agree; there needs to be a wide approach to make this happen. I know from casework that we sometimes need to write to companies and ask them what is happening with a specific bus service. I just want a better bus service for my constituents, so that they can get to work or education. I remember growing up in a rural area—it was not in the west midlands—where we had one bus service a week. Young people in particular need access to good transport.

Going back to the issue of franchising, there is a long-term ambition, but interim action is essential. That means supporting new routes and the routes that we have now. Improving reliability is so important, as is addressing fares. We cannot pin all our hopes on reforms that are a decade away while services deteriorate in the present. The gap between promise and delivery regarding our buses must be closed as a matter of urgency.

That gap is even more stark when we turn to rail. The midlands rail hub is the single most important rail project for our region—

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

Hear, hear.

[Wendy Morton]

We agree on many things—alongside Aldridge train station, of course. The midlands rail hub would unlock capacity, allow more frequent services, and make new and reopened stations viable. However, when I ask Ministers whether the scheme is fully funded, the answer is always the same: £123 million has been allocated, not to deliver the project but merely to progress the next phase of development. The remainder, which is an estimated £1.75 billion, is still described as being

“subject to future funding decisions.”

We were told that the midlands rail hub would be delivered in full. The previous Conservative Government committed £1.75 billion in the 2023 Network North plan to deliver it. That funding has since been pulled by the Labour Government, leaving the full delivery of the project in limbo. I would be happy if the Minister could provide, in his response to this debate, the clarity that this project is fully funded to delivery, because it is critical to making sure that the west midlands, and the greater part of the region, keeps on moving, and we have that much-improved connectivity that enables new routes to be opened up and greater passenger capacity. The Government now talk about Northern Powerhouse Rail, but without the midlands rail hub there will be no midlands engine to power it. We need both, and we need them to be delivered.

There is the same uncertainty when Ministers are asked about passenger services on the Sutton Park line, which remains freight-only. Any future passenger use is said to depend on additional capacity, which is the very capacity that the midlands rail hub was meant to provide. There is no timetable, no commitment, and sadly no plan. This is policy paralysis; infrastructure is not funded and then a lack of infrastructure is used as the reason why nothing can progress. The midlands rail hub either will or will not be built, but indefinite reviews and partial funding help no one, least of all residents in my constituency and across the west midlands, and our local businesses.

That brings me to Aldridge train station. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I am raising this. Why? Because it matters. Aldridge is a major settlement of some 25,000 people, but it has been without a passenger railway station for decades, despite clear demand and a growing population. Under the previous Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, funding was identified, land was secured, and the project was moving towards delivery. Local people were given a timeline and told that a new station was coming. Then priorities changed. A review happened. Funding was redirected. The project was placed under review and Aldridge train station was pushed into the long grass—some might say, into the sidings. It did not fail a business case; it fell victim to political decisions, with the Government allowing the secured funding for the station to be moved to pet projects of the Labour Mayor of the West Midlands.

Rest assured, I will continue to raise this issue at every opportunity, as the Leader of the House is all too aware from Thursday business questions, because it matters. When pressed on rail expansion in the north and east of the west midlands, the answer is always the same—future funding, future capacity, under review. Aldridge is told to wait. Sutton Park is told to wait. But my constituents have waited for long enough.

I want to highlight the importance of open-access operators. Services such as the proposed Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway could bring new connectivity and competition, with trains running along the Sutton Park line through Aldridge—but because Aldridge still has no station, those trains will pass straight through. Open access has a role to play, but only if the infrastructure is delivered. Supporting open access must go hand in hand with delivering projects such as Aldridge station. I am hugely supportive of this project, but it must stop in Aldridge.

I have focused on public transport, but roads are equally critical. In Aldridge-Brownhills, our roads remain very much the backbone of local travel. Here too, our development needs are racing ahead of infrastructure. Large-scale housing proposals—another topic I regularly raise in this House—on green-belt land around Stonnall Road and Bosty Lane would add hundreds of new homes without the road upgrades needed to support them. Those roads already feed into Chester Road, which is sadly an accident blackspot, with a tragic history of serious injuries and fatalities.

[Dave Robertson]

The right hon. Member and I have both done some work on Chester Road—a place where one of my constituents lost their life a number of years ago. Is the right hon. Member able to update us on any conversations she has had with Walsall council about that area? I, and my constituents, would greatly appreciate that.

[Wendy Morton]

As the hon. Gentleman rightly indicates, this is an issue where we share an interest. He can rest assured that I do and will continue to raise it with Walsall council. It really does matter. I know the case that he refers to. What happened was a tragedy.

Local campaigners such as SCAR—Stonnall Campaign About Roads—have long called for action. I pay tribute to some of our local road safety campaigners—Jayne Preston, who will love having a mention in this place, even though it is in sad circumstances; and also Colin Roberts. They have done tremendous work and continue to raise the issue of road safety and that of the victims as well. Let me also take the opportunity to acknowledge the charity RoadPeace, a national charity for road crash victims, with which I have worked locally. For more than three decades, the charity supported bereaved families and campaigned for safer roads. Its recent closure as a charity is deeply saddening. It should remind us all of the human cost of what happens when we get road safety wrong.

While I welcome some recent funding for safety measures on Chester Road near this particular blackspot, residents are rightly asking where the wider plan is. We cannot add hundreds of homes without first investing in the roads and the junctions that residents rely on every day, even before any more homes are built. This will be development without infrastructure. If housing targets are imposed, which is very much what is happening in the west midlands in my area, infrastructure funding must be part of it. Roads, junctions, traffic management and public transport links must come before houses are occupied, not years afterwards.

The midlands and north Wales do not need more warm words or long-term plans that never quite materialise. We need transport that works at a price that people can afford. Across buses, rail and road, the pattern is the same: ambition without delivery; young people priced off the buses; rail schemes left half funded; towns told to wait; housing built without infrastructure. Things do not have to be this way. We know what works, but what is missing is action and delivery. I gently say to the Minister that if the Government want people to believe in their plans for growth, they must start matching ambition with delivery.

Our region is ready to play its part, but it cannot do so with stalled projects and permanent delay. Our communities have waited long enough. It is time to stop reviewing and deferring, and to start delivering the transport that actually works. I genuinely look forward to hearing from the Minister about how he intends to make this happen. I will happily meet with him to discuss Aldridge station, to see what more we can do to ensure that the Mayor of the West Midlands understands why this matters, why I keep banging on about it, and why I will keep doing so until it is delivered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate with you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I thank those who have already spoken.

I am here to talk about rail. I would love to talk about buses, but I do not think I will have time. Specifically, I would like to address the midlands rail hub, which the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) has already spoken about. The project was conceived under the previous Conservative Government, and I do not shy away from that. Unfortunately, it then sat on a shelf gathering dust, and there was no real movement on it until after the election, when this Labour Government came in.

[Wendy Morton]

I cannot resist. When we were in government, we committed to the midlands rail hub in the big Network North announcement made before the general election. We also committed the funding.

[Dave Robertson]

The right hon. Lady mentions the Network North money. It was a mythical project last seen leaving London, carried by Dick Whittington riding Shergar. The money simply did not exist. This Labour Government found the money for the project in the Budget, but it is not only the money. The alliance for delivery has already been appointed, and things are moving at pace. I very much hope to see spades in the ground this year, moving the project ahead, so that we can all start to benefit as soon as possible.

[Wendy Morton]

Can I come back quickly?

[Dave Robertson]

Yes, because it is you, Wendy.

[Wendy Morton]

Thanks very much. Again, on the point of funding, is the hon. Gentleman sure that his Government have fully committed all the moneys needed to deliver the midlands rail hub in full, not just one part of it?

[Dave Robertson]

The right hon. Lady drives at that point again, but what we are seeing is the difference between words from one side of this House and action from the other. We have seen that in large parts of my constituency over a number of years. However, I will now seek to make some progress rather than be sidetracked by the numerous failings of the previous Government.

The midlands rail hub is a huge boost to travel across our region. It will increase rail capacity in Birmingham, leading to 300 trains passing in and out of the nation’s second city every single day. The benefits will be felt across the east midlands, the west midlands and beyond, with extra services from the midlands to Wales forming part of the project.

For Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages in my constituency, the midlands rail hub will mean a doubling of the number of hourly trains on the cross-city line to Birmingham—the busiest commuter line in the country outside London. Services were slashed under the previous Government, and we need the midlands rail hub to get them back on a sustainable footing in the long term.

The rail hub is an important investment, but it cannot be the end of the story for the midlands. For far too long, there has been far too little investment in transport in our region and neighbouring regions. I am very aware that I am sitting next to an MP from the east midlands. London and the south-east enjoy a fantastic turn-up-and-go service that we in the midlands can only dream of. We are now seeing investment in the north with Northern Powerhouse Rail, and it is right that we have that rebalancing, but we cannot overlook the bit in between.

In my area, the next step is clear: the midlands rail hub. Following that, we need to look to reopen the Lichfield-Burton-Derby line—the South Staffordshire line—for passenger services. This existing train line already carries passengers; it just does not have stops. It is a diversion route that trains have to use, so drivers have maintained route knowledge. Previous scoping work for the project suggested it could deliver, at a minimum, a £7 million boost to our area’s economy.

The route would halve public transport journey times from Lichfield to Burton and cut journey times from Sutton Coldfield and Lichfield to Derby and Nottingham by up to a third. It would mean easier travel for work and leisure, and crucially, it would mean easy access from my constituency to the University of Derby. It would also take pressure off the heavily congested A38, which runs parallel to the railway. Reopening this line would open up the possibility of a new station in the village of Alrewas to serve the National Memorial Arboretum, which is a fantastic facility that I advise everybody to visit. Unfortunately, that is very difficult on public transport.

Our national centre for remembrance is shockingly underserved, and not only by train links. The only bus option from Tamworth is currently being rerouted on a miles-long detour because Chetwynd bridge, which crosses the River Tame next to the arboretum, is closed to heavy vehicles due to maintenance problems. Despite support for the project from my predecessor, the Conservatives never funded the business case for the South Staffordshire line. I want to see action on Chetwynd bridge and that business case coming forward, so that we can really start to drive improvement in rail connectivity not only within regions but between regions from the west midlands to the east midlands. The South Staffordshire line is a fantastic place to start on that.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate, and for her continued advocacy for her constituents in the wider west midlands.

Transport connectivity is not just an abstract policy issue; it shapes people’s daily lives. It is how they get to work, education and healthcare, and stay connected to their loved ones and communities. Connectivity sits at the heart of this Government’s mission to drive economic growth, unlock housing and tackle regional inequality. We are moving away from fragmented, short-term decision making, and towards an integrated, people-focused system. Our ambition is clear: a transport network that works for everyone, wherever they live.

The midlands has long been a national transport heartland, from historical canals and industrial-era railways, to engineering leadership in Birmingham, Derby, Coventry, Solihull and beyond. The region has always known that connectivity drives prosperity. That legacy continues today, with metro expansion, HS2 and innovations such as Coventry Very Light Rail, which I was very lucky to see myself, cementing the midlands as a historical engine of growth and a test bed for the next generation of connectivity.

In supporting new public transport connectivity across the West Midlands combined authority, we confirmed £15.6 billion for transport for city region settlements, including nearly £2.4 billion for the region up to 2032. That complements the £5.7 billion already allocated through the city region sustainable transport settlement. That long-term funding will deliver integrated transport at scale and end fragmented uncertainty.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I have a lot to get through, and I would really like to respond to the right hon. Member’s points in due course.

Exciting progress is already visible because this Government is backing Mayor Richard Parker’s plans. Metro extensions, new rail stations, the Dudley Interchange and a new active travel corridor are transforming connectivity for millions across the region. Connectivity, however, does not stop at mayoral boundaries. Through the consolidated transport fund, all local transport authorities will benefit from more predictable, flexible and aligned funding. More than £1.3 billion will be delivered across the west midlands by 2029-30 to strengthen the links between our towns, cities and rural areas.

To embed this investment, we will soon set out the integrated national transport strategy, mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). It is a people-centred approach that recognises that different regions face different challenges. It will focus on reliability, safety and accessibility, and closer alignment between transport, housing, healthcare and public services, ensuring that connectivity supports equality and opportunity for everyone.

We are the country that created the railways, and they are an iconic part of the heritage of the west midlands. Through Great British Railways, we are building a simpler, more unified railway that delivers reliable, safe and better-value journeys for local people, putting local priorities front and centre to deliver what communities actually need. In that context, the midlands rail hub is a clear example of how targeted rail investment underpins economic growth and housing delivery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

My hon. Friend jumps ahead of my next comment. The Department is providing all local transport authorities with a multi-year consolidated funding settlement, delivering on our commitments in the English Devolution White Paper to simplify funding. Leicestershire county council will be allocated £22.5 million in local authority bus grants over the next few years, in addition to the £8.2 million it received in 2025-26. It is then for her local authority, which I appreciate is a Reform council, to use that funding to the best effect. She touched on bus services. What I would politely say to her local authority is that it has the funding and the powers—it should get on with the job.

I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for her comments on Aldridge station. She is a former Minister of State in the Department for Transport. Mayor Andy Street failed to use the £1.05 billion allocated to him in 2022 to fully develop designs for Aldridge station when he had the chance. This Government have allocated a record £2.4 billion in transport for city regions funding for the West Midlands combined authority.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will finish my point.

Mayor Richard Parker is delivering on local priorities and taking forward schemes that are good value for taxpayers and will deliver real improvements. Perhaps the right hon. Lady would like to explain, when she intervenes, why the previous mayor did not use the money allocated to complete the design work on Aldridge station. There is £3.6 million allocated from the city region sustainable transport settlement funding for development from this mayor, with a report due later this year.

[Wendy Morton]

Let us be absolutely clear that Mayor Andy Street allocated the money for Aldridge station. I questioned both the Transport Secretary and the Treasury about that money, and I had a reply explaining that this Labour Government had moved the money out of the budget for Aldridge station. Had the mayor left the money in place, Aldridge station could have been funded and delivered by 2027. The only money that Mayor Parker has allocated to Aldridge is for doing some initial groundworks. The business case is already there. This is not about funding; it is about politics, I am sad to say.

[Simon Lightwood]

Mayor Andy Street failed to deliver a fully developed design for Aldridge station. When we promise to deliver something here, we will do it with a sound business case. [Interruption.] He did not have the designs, and he failed to deliver. There was £1.05 billion to deliver it, and he did not do that.

There is now £3.6 million, which this mayor has invested sensibly and pragmatically for a development report to do this properly, to make sure that we have value for taxpayers’ money and that we deliver the best possible solution. That report is due later this year.

[Wendy Morton]

Can I come back on that point?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am going to make progress.

This Government are backing Wales, the midlands and all our regions with long-term investment, local autonomy and an integrated approach across buses, rail, roads and active travel. We are building not an isolated scheme but a coherent, people-focused system that strengthens growth, opportunity and pride in place. Together, the midlands and Wales have long shaped the nation’s transport history and, with this programme, they will continue to drive national connectivity for decades to come.

[Wendy Morton]

First of all, I thank colleagues from across the House for joining the debate this afternoon. The hon. Members for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) showed that, whether they are from the east midlands, the west midlands or Staffordshire, transport connectivity absolutely matters, and absolutely matters to our communities. That is where there is a lot of cross-Chamber, cross-party consensus.

We know why this matters, and why Aldridge train station absolutely matters. I have had no more answers from the Minister than I typically get from Ministers at the Dispatch Box. At one point, I was not sure if he was even going to mention Aldridge train station. I am glad he did, but the facts of the matter remain. I set out the case: Aldridge deserves better. Aldridge will keep asking what has happened to fully funding our train station, and I will continue to campaign and bang on about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered transport connectivity in the Midlands and North Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

The community bus network does a fantastic job, and I join the right hon. Gentleman in commending the work of those organisations across the country.

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

Young people in my constituency have already seen the promised Aldridge train station scrapped by Labour, so will the Minister join me in calling on Mayor Parker to back young people by introducing a £1 bus fare cap for under 22s, like the one that Conservative Mayor Ben Houchen has already delivered in Teesside?

[Simon Lightwood]

As I have already mentioned, the Government have provided over £3 billion of funding across the country. Importantly, we are giving local leaders the power to take back control of their buses and decide how they operate, because they are closer to their communities and understand their needs better than someone here in Parliament.

Railways Bill

Wendy Morton Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Great British Railways is not an entirely new concept, but what the Government present as a “modernisation of our railways” is, when we strip away the glossy language, a centralising piece of legislation that advances Labour’s drive towards nationalisation. It risks creating a structure that is powerful, sprawling and unaccountable.

In Aldridge, in my constituency, we had secured funding to deliver a railway station under the former mayor, Andy Street, and residents were told, after decades of waiting, that the project would finally go ahead. However, the new Labour mayor chose to withdraw the funding in favour of his own pet projects. When questions are put to Ministers, every answer points back to the combined authority, with the vague suggestion that there would be funding “if the region chooses”. Well, Aldridge and the West Midlands Combined Authority did choose, and the funding was in place, but Labour removed it. Nothing in the Bill prevents such a unilateral political decision from being made again. It provides no guarantee of transparency, and no duty to consult affected communities.

As a former Rail Minister, I am very aware that we on this side of the House have long recognised that the old model needed updating. That is why, in government, we began the work for Great British Railways, through the Williams-Shapps plan. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but we set out the case for bringing track and train closer together, improving accountability, and delivering a more unified, passenger-focused system. We recognised the need for renewal of our railways, grounded in practicality and not in politics. What we have before us today, however, is something very different. This Bill offers too little detail, too little accountability, and far too many unanswered questions. It replaces a pragmatic, balanced approach with an ideological blueprint for nationalisation. Passengers across the country deserve better.

The Bill promises integration, but it delivers centralisation. It speaks of clarity, yet it blurs responsibilities. Great British Railways will control timetables, fares, access decisions, infrastructure planning and data, a concentration of authority that should concern anyone who believes in genuine public accountability.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

The east coast main line is a fantastic example of where privatisation has worked. Open access operators such as Hull Trains, Lumo and Grand Central are competing with the franchisee and keeping prices down and service levels up. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill does nothing to protect open access operators, and that there is a real danger that this centralised, Soviet-style monolith will squeeze them out in due course?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is worse is that time after time I cannot get a straight answer out of Ministers as to whether they will support open access.

The Bill also weakens the independence of the ORR. When a body that runs services also shapes the rules against which those services are judged, the House should be deeply concerned. The Bill puts competition and innovation at risk, alongside the future of open access, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) has highlighted, is incredibly uncertain. A railway that cannot accommodate competition is a railway that is destined to stagnate.

There is also the unresolved question of how GBR will interact with the Department for Transport. The Bill creates overlapping duties that risk friction and confusion. GBR will be required to consult, to produce strategies and to respond to ministerial direction, yet its operational independence is undefined. Will political priorities override operational judgment? Will GBR operate as an arm’s length body, or as an extension of the Department?

How will we, as elected Members, hold Great British Rail, Ministers and mayors to account? Local decision making will not be stronger under the Bill. Ministers may talk the talk about devolution, but the Bill provides little evidence of it. Requiring GBR merely to “have regard to” local transport plans is a notably weak obligation. The Bill does not require GBR to follow them, and offers no protection to communities, such as Aldridge, where projects risk simply being cast aside when the political wind changes. If the Government are serious about devolving power to local leaders, they must allow us, the elected Members, to hold them to account.

The House should not mistake this railway reorganisation for renewal—far from it. The Bill simply rearranges structures while failing to address the issues that matter most to passengers: cancelled trains, inconsistent performance, reduced competition and decisions made far away from the communities they affect. This is a Bill that gives Labour more control, not passengers better railways. It is not a credible plan for the future of our railways and the Government should think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

May I begin by saying what a pleasure it has been to listen to this debate? My response is centred on a strong belief that if somebody takes the time to say what they think about our railway, for whom it should be run and in whose interests, they should be listened to, because it is going to make clear whose side they are really on. This Government’s loyalties are clear. We are proud to be creating through this Bill a united Great British railway run for and by the British people. Our ambitions are clear for all to see. We want to end the miserable era of Tory disruption and delay and make travelling on our railway simpler and fairer.

What reactions have we produced? What passions have we stirred? Many colleagues across the Chamber have spoken in support of the Bill’s provisions but asked meaningful and searching questions that it is our responsibility to answer.

[Wendy Morton]

I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. On the specific point of answering our questions, can he give us clarity on accountability? Where does accountability lie? Where will we as Members of Parliament see accountability for the actions of Ministers and mayors?

[Keir Mather]

I carefully noted what the right hon. Lady said in her speech. I will come to accountability, and if she thinks that I do not cover her point, she is welcome to come in again.

I will start with accessibility, which 11 hon. Members across the House raised, including my hon. Friends the Members for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) and for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), for Yeovil (Adam Dance), for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) among others. The Bill sets out a passenger and accessibility duty, ensuring that GBR promotes the interests of passengers, including in particular the needs of disabled persons. I have heard the calls from colleagues across the House about the importance of the Access for All scheme. In our published accessibility road map, we commit to continuing that programme; work has already been completed to roll out step-free routes to 270 stations so far.

The Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) raised the important matter of the passenger watchdog. The watchdog will be in a unique position to understand the passenger experience through its research and investigation functions as well as its access to complaints and performance data. It will use that to advocate for passengers, set tough consumer standards for the railway and advise the Government and GBR.

Many hon. Members pointed to the critical importance of freight to UK growth. The Government are committed to supporting rail freight growth across the United Kingdom. Freight operators will benefit from a legal duty for GBR to promote freight. The sector will also be championed within GBR by a representative on its board with responsibility for freight. There is also a requirement for the Government to set a rail freight growth target for GBR, so insinuations and accusations from the Conservatives that freight does not sit at the heart of what GBR is designed to do are flatly wrong.

With Christmas coming, I am afraid that I need to turn to my naughty list. The Conservatives have painted a dystopian picture this afternoon: they have told us to imagine a railway where the needs of the passenger come last; one that is plagued by disruption and poor management, strikes and shutdowns. My answer could not be clearer: the British public do not need to imagine a rail service on its knees, because for 14 years they have been living with one.

Let me turn to the points raised by Opposition Members. First, on cost, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) asked whether we need to reduce the subsidy. Absolutely we do; hon. Members will not hear me say anything else. The way to do that is to ensure that somebody is finally in charge of running our railways in a cohesive and united nature, saving the £150 million that the public pay to private operators every single year. The cost of establishing GBR will account for just 1% to 2% of the operating budget for a single year. That, alongside the Government’s other rail reforms, could unlock up to £1 billion in efficiencies by the end of the decade, alongside the £600 million in savings for passengers in the fare freeze that is being introduced next year for the first time in 30 years.

The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) raised the important point of open access services, and a Back-Bench contribution noted that I get Hull Trains every single week to Selby. I know how important open access is, and I want to reassure the House that it will have a role as part of the establishment of GBR. The Government are not opposed to open access, and the idea that GBR is bad for open access is simply false. We believe that, under the right circumstances, GBR can in fact create more opportunity for all towns and all operators by reviewing the network holistically with a view to how it might work better under our new, reformed system with open access playing its part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

To be clear on accountability, how and where can a Member of Parliament hold a directly elected mayor to account for his or her decisions when it comes to railways?

[Keir Mather]

I have no doubt whatsoever that the right hon. Lady is perfectly capable of holding her elected mayor to account on rail infrastructure within her constituency, but she will also be able to do so through the passenger watchdog.

Time is short and I must address the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment, which I believe fundamentally misunderstands the Bill. It claims the Bill does not grow rail freight when in fact it contains two specific duties that require GBR to do so. It fails to engage with the reality that the Bill places the ORR at the centre of GBR’s functioning and allows open access to continue to play a vital role on our railway. The amendment is, frankly, as intellectually stunted as it is ideologically blinkered, and I urge Members across the House to reject it.

I am disappointed to say that we have received the news throughout this debate that the Conservative party will vote against Great British Railways and say no to its only chance to right the wrongs that it has committed. Let me therefore spell out to the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats that if they decide not to vote for the Bill tonight, they will be working against the interests of passengers across the country and their right to have the railway that they deserve. The Conservatives and their former coalition partners will have to look their constituents in the eye and explain why they want to continue the insanity, bureaucracy and waste of 17 different organisations running our railway instead of one united service; why they want to deny passengers a one-stop-shop app with timetables, tickets and accessibility support literally in the palm of their hand; and why they want to waste the opportunity of changing ticketing to take advantage of the first freeze in rail fares for 30 years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What steps she is taking to ensure that major transport infrastructure upgrades are delivered effectively.

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

The Department follows strong governance and planning frameworks, backed by rigorous value-for-money assessments, to make sure that upgrades are delivered effectively. That aligns with the Government’s 10-year infrastructure strategy and ensures that lessons, such as those from James Stewart’s review of High Speed 2, are applied across all projects.

[Wendy Morton]

The Secretary of State has recognised the value of the midlands rail hub and the investment that was needed there; it will create much needed capacity through central Birmingham. Given that, does she agree that now is exactly the moment to look at options such as the Sutton Park line, to enable the maximisation of rail traffic through more passenger services?

[Heidi Alexander]

I am keen that we look comprehensively at options for unlocking capacity that the midlands rail hub will provide. The right hon. Lady raises an important point about the Sutton Park line, and I am happy to talk to officials about whether that capacity could be unlocked as part of the scheme.

West Coast Main Line

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

rose—

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

rose—

[Connor Naismith]

I am spoilt for choice, but I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman first.

[Connor Naismith]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I do not often have to travel north to his constituency on the railway, but I have heard from several colleagues about the particular issues on that part of the line. He is absolutely right that although we should hold the operators to account, Network Rail needs to address key infrastructure issues.

[Wendy Morton]

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman having allowed the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) to intervene first, given that the latter is fortunate enough to have a train station on his patch!

You may wonder, Dr Murrison, why I am here for this debate when normally I am campaigning for Aldridge station, but connectivity is the point. We are talking about infrastructure and how we can make our railways much more reliable. We recently had the re-announcement of the funding for the midlands rail hub, which is welcome. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful now to fully understand the timeline for that, and whether the whole project will be fully funded? That will have a big impact on my constituency, as and when the Mayor allows us to have our train station in Aldridge—when he gives us the money—and we will see a much broader improvement in infrastructure, capacity and speed.

[Connor Naismith]

I am pleased to hear that we have cross-party support for the crucial improvements for the midlands rail hub that were announced at the spending review. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify some of the detail that the right hon. Member asked for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Connor Naismith]

I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s plan to bring our railway into public ownership, and hope to see the west coast main line brought into public ownership soon.

[Wendy Morton]

On nationalisation, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Connor Naismith]

I am going to make some progress.

The recent report “Research on Long-Term Passenger Demand Growth”, commissioned by the Railway Industry Association, illustrates that rail passenger volumes could grow by between at least 37% and by up to 97% by 2050. Under any scenario, rail demand in the UK will grow beyond today’s network, but capacity is not merely a future issue; it sits in our in-tray as a problem that needs solving today. As recently as 3 July, the Office of Rail and Road rejected three open access applications for the west coast main line, citing concerns about capacity.

I think the issues are generally well understood, but perhaps the elephant in the room in terms of the capacity challenges on the west coast main line—it has been touched on already—is the 2023 decision to cancel HS2 phase 2. As has been said, the primary benefit of HS2, despite its unfortunate name, was never speed; it was always about relieving capacity on the west coast main line. That single decision by the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), then Prime Minister, in a hotel room in Manchester, blew a hole in the UK’s approach to addressing future passenger demand on this key UK rail network artery. I urge the Government to make addressing that problem a priority.

The Government have been clear that they are reviewing options in this policy area. HS2 Ltd has a new chief executive, Mark Wild, who is charged with getting phase 1 of the project back on track. He is expected to report on those plans by the end of the year. If Mr Wild can demonstrate that he has addressed the company’s previous failings and that he has a credible plan to deliver phase 1 on time and on budget, the Government should reconsider extending the line north of Birmingham under that new leadership.

Alternatively, I again press the Government to look carefully at the proposals developed by the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham; the Mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker; and Arup and other stakeholders, namely the midlands-north west rail link. Their report estimates that the plan could deliver 85% of the benefits of HS2 phase 2 at approximately 60% to 75% of the cost, and that private finance could be leveraged to deliver the project. Crucially, the plan could save the taxpayer approximately £2 billion in costs from the HS2 phase 2 cancellation, through the reuse of much of the land, powers and design work that have already been secured through public investment.

A further option would be to look at remodelling existing stations and investing in infrastructure to relieve capacity problems. Crewe station, for example, causes one of the biggest bottlenecks on the west coast main line. It is recognised that the existing station infrastructure will not keep up with the forecast growth in passenger demand. Among its challenges is the fact that Crewe has a series of unevenly allocated platforms, many undersized for modern, 400-metre-long trains, because the station—which I remind colleagues is a key strategic hub on our rail network—has seen little investment since the 1980s. Yet plans for a new station were shelved with the loss of HS2 and the investment that was to come alongside it. They could be picked back up if the Government wished to do so. Indeed, Cheshire East council still owns the land that it purchased around the station to facilitate that development. A new station could also support wider employment, regeneration and housing needs. Overhauling Crewe station would provide more reliable services between the north-west and the south-west, while also providing more options into Wales.

It would be welcome if the Government committed to improving capacity on the west coast main line. The benefits of improving the route will be felt not only on our railways but on our motorways, in our carbon footprint and in our national growth. Something not always considered when talking about the need for better rail services is the knock-on for freight, car and air travel. Upgrading the main line would enable the Government to hit their target of 75% growth for rail freight. As a result of more freight on the main line, there will be less congestion on our motorways, making them greener and allowing for quicker journey times, while freeing up domestic air travel.

Failure to do anything is simply not an option, so I politely ask the Minister, what will the Government do to flesh out the options that they are considering? When will they produce a plan to tackle this problem? Something has to be done urgently. There is wide-ranging consensus, at least from the conversations that I have had with industry figures, rail operators, trade unions and experts, that doing nothing cannot be an option on the table. I urge the Minister once again to give the west coast main line the attention that it so clearly needs. Let us improve the main line, let us rebuild Crewe station, and let us show people across the north-west that this Government care about their future.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) on securing this debate. Unfortunately, I think my contribution will add to the long list of grievances I have against Avanti, but of course the west coast main line is used by other operators as well. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—in particular, donations from trade unions to my constituency Labour party.

My hon. Friend made the point about the state of Crewe station. The state of Stockport station is not much better. For the last reporting period, 3.8 million entries and exits were made at Stockport station, which makes it a major category B station. The infrastructure at the station is simply not good enough. Often the lift is broken, so people who are disabled or have mobility issues or health conditions are not able to use the services. The main door, which is frequently broken, has been replaced, but the general state of the station is not good enough. I am grateful to the staff members who work there. The facilities they have for their rest breaks or when they change shifts are simply not good enough. With such a high volume of passengers at Stockport station, we need to do better. I urge Network Rail, which owns the station, and Avanti, which manages it, to do far better.

The point has already been made about the private aspect of Avanti. Profits made by Avanti West Coast are turned into dividends for its parent companies, and ultimately their shareholders. In the latest declared accounts for the year to March 2024, Avanti declared that it paid a dividend of £8.1 million to the parent company, FirstGroup, in 2024, and a dividend of £11 million in 2023. That means that a total of £19.1 million has been paid in shareholder dividends in just the last two years, so the point about value for money is quite serious.

I did a little bit of research before coming to this debate. It is just under two hours from Stockport station to Euston if the train runs on time—which is quite rare, to be fair. If travelling from Stockport to Euston during peak hours, an anytime return ticket would cost £386 for an adult, which is ridiculous. The off-peak return is slightly less at £113. The current minimum wage for someone who is 21 or over is £12.21 per hour; for 18 to 20-year-olds it is £10 an hour; and for 16 to 17-year-olds it is £7.55 an hour. Unless someone is a business traveller or has a generous expense account, I am not sure how many people can pay £386 for a standard class ticket for a peak return from Stockport to Euston.

[Wendy Morton]

Even if someone can afford those prices, current statistics show that in 2024 only 40.6% of Avanti trains were on time, yet under the current Government plans, Avanti will be one of the last to be nationalised. Does the hon. Member agree that somewhere along the line—forgive the pun—we have to see improvement in Avanti’s service, for all our constituents?

[Navendu Mishra]

The data I have says 41.6%—the right hon. Lady is depriving Avanti of a crucial 1%. The service is simply not good enough. A lot of us were told that privatisation would mean more competitive pricing for tickets and greater choice, but what choice do I have if I want to go on a fast train from Stockport to Euston? The only choice I have is Avanti. This is a good opportunity to welcome the plan for Great British Rail that was in the Labour party manifesto last year. But we need to make sure that we learn from the mistakes of privatisation and do not repeat the errors that were made.

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[Navendu Mishra]

I will come back to the right hon. Lady in a minute. I will just make the point that reliability is far too poor. If we compare the annual performance for Avanti between April 2024 and March 2025, just 39.9% of Avanti trains were on time, which is a drop of 3.6% compared with the previous year. That is ridiculous. The more we look into the data for Avanti, the worse it gets.

We talk a lot about climate change and global warming. If we want people to use public transport, we need to make sure it is reliable and affordable, and that people can access facilities in cases of health or mobility issues. On the specific aspect of Stockport station, perhaps I should join my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich in his campaign to get his local station rebuilt. I would definitely want the Government to prioritise, with almost 4 million passengers, the Stockport station infrastructure.

I want to make a point about freight. Of course passenger services are important but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich pointed out, around 40% of all UK rail freight uses the west coast main line corridor. We need to think about freight services as well, because we need to take heavy goods lorries off our roads. We must ensure that the freight option is attractive and reliable.

The service known affectionately as the Thunderbird rescue service involves locomotives that sit at strategic locations on the west coast main line in case a train breaks down and they have to come out to shift it. On Friday, when we left the House of Commons after private Members’ Bills, I was on the train to Stockport while my colleague was on a different train to Cheshire that broke down because it overheated. That added two extra hours to her journey home. These are serious issues.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) made the point that when it comes to maintenance and reliability, Network Rail has let us down. Of course, 14 years of austerity have had an impact on its budget, but there needs to be some accountability for Network Rail. We all want a big stick when it comes to Avanti, but Network Rail bears some responsibility as well.

I could say so much more, but I know that many colleagues want to speak, so I will limit my frustrations to what I have said. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich.

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) for securing this important debate on a topic that very much affects my constituency.

My constituents in Warrington South are not asking for the moon. They are asking for trains that turn up on time, seats they can find, journeys that do not involve standing room only, and carriages with working air conditioning that does not buckle under the summer heat. Even the basics, like getting food or drink on a six-hour journey from London to Glasgow, are not guaranteed.

Warrington sits at the heart of the west coast main line, and we know the pressures on the network at first hand. The Office of Rail and Road has been crystal clear: the southern portion of the west coast main line has no room for new services. Virgin; Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway; and Lumo all had their applications rejected because performance on the line is already stretched to its limits. The Department for Transport estimates that the west coast main line will reach full capacity by the mid-2030s—just 10 years from now—and right now there is no plan.

Let us be honest: the current system is not built for the demand it is trying to serve, and without new, adequate infrastructure it will only get worse. HS2 was supposed to change things. It was meant to unlock capacity not just for shiny high-speed trains but for more local services, more freight and better reliability. Cancelling the northern stretch has not just cancelled a rail line; it has cancelled opportunity for towns like Warrington. It has pushed the bottleneck further north and left our communities behind once again. The Public Accounts Committee, on which I serve, has called this out.

The DFT still does not have a credible plan to manage capacity on the line post HS2, there is no clear strategy for the land now left dormant, and there is no timeline for improving resilience. This is not what good infrastructure delivery looks like and it is not what northern towns were promised. If the Government are serious about bringing growth to all parts of the country, this is where it starts. It means investing in the west coast main line and our rail network, not just patching it up; giving northern communities more than warm words and waiting rooms; and treating places like Warrington, Crewe, Liverpool and Manchester as the backbone of the country’s economy.

If the west coast main line fails, the north falls further behind. That is not just bad transport policy but bad economic policy. At the start of this month, I asked the Chancellor what steps her Department was taking to improve the oversight and delivery of major infrastructure projects. The response noted reforms, the streamlining of approvals, the strengthening of assurance and publishing business cases, all of which are welcome. But let us be clear: better paperwork does not build railways. Communities like Warrington need not just more transparency, but more capacity, and we need delivery—

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady is helping me when it comes to making my arguments about Aldridge train station. On improving capacity, she mentioned some open access lines; does she share my disappointment about the open access bid for a direct route from Wales into Euston? That would have been a game changer for many communities, and also helped with the issue of capacity.

[Sarah Hall]

We should exploit any opportunities to improve access wherever possible.

As I was saying, communities like Warrington do not just need more transparency. We need more capacity and we need delivery that lives up to the promises we have been given.

Road and Rail Projects

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point: stations need to be welcoming and attractive places. I am pleased that the accessibility improvements are happening at Luton station, and I would be very happy to meet her, as she requests.

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

However the Secretary of State dresses this up, her Labour Government, aided by Mayor Parker, are still leaving communities such as Aldridge behind by pushing our train station project into the sidings. Given her announcement—or reannouncement—of the midlands rail hub, can she confirm whether she is committed to fully funding the whole project, including all the chords, and when will it be delivered ?

[Heidi Alexander]

We will set out more detail on the midlands rail hub in due course. I simply observe that when the right hon. Lady was a Rail Minister, she was unfortunately unable to deliver the station for which she now advocates.

Department for Transport

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I agree with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on one thing, which is the importance of transport for connecting communities. I then diverge from her a little, because if this Government are serious about unlocking and delivering economic growth, particularly across the west midlands, they would be serious about funding transport.

This Government’s commitment to £10.2 billion for rail enhancement is welcome, but, as ever with the Government, it lacks detail and leaves unanswered questions. Take the example of the midlands rail hub, for which the previous Government not only committed to the initial £123 million, but pledged £1.7 billion to deliver the hub in full under Network North. However, today, through the spending review and responses to my written questions, it has become clear that the hub is funded not to delivery, but only to the next stage. I hope that, in his summing up, the Minister will clarify once and for all whether the new Government are committed to fully funding the delivery of this project. If so, when will it be completed? It is critical to the infrastructure of the west midlands and beyond.

Staying on the topic of trains, I cannot let this debate go without mentioning Aldridge train station. The city region sustainable transport settlements are also covered in these estimates. It was thanks to the hard work of the previous mayor, Andy Street, working with the then Conservative Government that we secured and set out a fully funded CRSTS programme. That included £30 million to deliver Aldridge train station in my constituency. The funding for the delivery of the station was earmarked for 2027, providing rail connectivity for the first time since the 1960s. Sadly, it was the decision of the Transport Secretary, together with the Chancellor, to approve Mayor Parker’s decision to convert the capital funding to revenue. The funding had been ringfenced for our station, but it has now been moved away from Aldridge train station—I suspect that it has been moved to fund the mayor’s vanity bus project.

The 2025 spending review also confirmed £15.6 billion in funding to provide transport for city region settlements for nine mayoral authorities, including £2.4 billion for the west midlands. The mayor could have chosen to get Aldridge station back on track, but no, he has chosen to keep it in the sidings. This is despite the Chief Secretary to the Treasury indicating in this House on 4 June that the mayor had not spent all his money, and even encouraging colleagues to lobby him on how he might wish to spend the rest. Suffice it to say, the Mayor of the West Midlands knows my views and he knows my ask, and I will continue asking.

Let me turn now to bus services, which are key to connectivity and to opportunity, particularly for communities such as mine which find themselves still without a train station. We have seen in the estimates that the national bus fare cap, which was increased from £2.50 to £3 in January 2025, is being extended to March 2027. That is fine, but the Transport Secretary claims that this is a measure to reduce the cost of everyday journeys for working people, yet for those of us in the west midlands, it is yet another hit on top of what we have already seen from the mayor, who has hiked fares and monthly and annual bus passes by more than 8%.

In the debate on the Bus Services (No, 2) Bill earlier this month, I asked the Transport Secretary about how the so-called “socially necessary” services referenced in the Bill would be protected and how they would be defined. She told me that it is down to individual local authorities to define what is socially necessary, but gave no assurances about how they would be supported to continue to provide these vital services. As we saw, £750 million per year announced in the spending review is to maintain and improve bus services. It would be really helpful to understand what allocation from the spending review will go to fund these services in the west midlands.

[Joe Robertson]

My right hon. Friend talks about the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which is now in Committee. Does she share my concern that the franchising arrangements that that Bill offers have little attraction for small local authorities such as mine on the Isle of Wight, because if it were minded to go down the route of franchising, it would take all the risk and could end up with a very large shortfall that perhaps metropolitan boroughs can swallow, but certainly smaller local authorities such as mine could not?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point on franchising. He is right to highlight the potential impact and the challenge for smaller authorities, but there are also challenges for the bigger authorities. My constituency is part of the West Midlands combined authority, and also part of Walsall metropolitan borough, but I am equally concerned about how this new model that our mayor is pushing will be sustainable. I fear that, in the future, my residents might find either a reduction in services, or increases in cost. For constituencies on the edge of a large combined authority, there is always that feeling that services are sucked into the centre and that we are left out on the periphery.

Transport is vital to people and communities, and it is vital in accessing employment and opportunity. From the Government’s plans, it is quite clear that they have simply used reviews to move money around to their pet projects, and they are not joining up communities—simply another missed opportunity. For as long as my constituents continue to raise with me the question of Aldridge station, I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will continue to raise it in this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

Although some projects in the Network North plan have been transferred over and continued, Aldridge train station was not one of them. It was funded through the city region sustainable transport settlement, so does my hon. Friend share my disappointment for my communities that it has been scrapped by Mayor Parker in the West Midlands?

[Gareth Bacon]

My right hon. Friend is a doughty champion for her Aldridge constituents. I share her disappointment. It is not the first time I have heard her raise that disappointment in this Chamber in the past few months and—

[Wendy Morton]

It will not be the last.

[Gareth Bacon]

No, I suspect it will not be the last time I hear it.

There will be occasions when Labour Members fail to read the previous Government’s announcements, so for their benefit let me point out how the funding sums promised to authorities by the previous Government have been closely replicated, in some cases identically replicated, by those promised in this Government’s spending review announcements. For example, for West Yorkshire, £2.115 billion was promised in 2023, and £2.115 billion in 2025; for Greater Manchester, £2.47 billion was promised in 2023, and £2.47 billion in 2025; for the Liverpool city region, £1.58 billion was promised in 2023, and £1.58 billion in 2025; and for West Midlands, £2.65 billion was promised in 2023, and £2.4 billion in 2025. I could go on, but Members will recognise the point. The estimates and the spending review are not new and they are not innovative.

Turning to the substance of the Government’s plans, I want to take this opportunity to examine some of the assumptions underpinning this spending review. I am afraid those assumptions are flawed. The first relates to the supposed benefits of nationalisation. The spending review anticipates that the Department for Transport’s resource departmental expenditure limits, which is its day-to-day revenue spending, will fall by 5% in real terms during the next three years. I do not dispute that it is possible to make savings in the Department for Transport, but I do question the means by which the Government expect to deliver those savings. The spending review claims:

“Resource DEL funding falls in real terms over the period, primarily driven by a declining rail passenger services subsidy as passenger ridership and revenue continue to recover post COVID-19 and efficiencies and savings are made through public ownership.”

This is another entry in the ever-growing list of benefits that Labour claims nationalisation will deliver—lower fares, no strikes, better services and now lower spending.

Let us be clear: this is political daydreaming, not economic reality. The first train operating company to be brought into public ownership by the Government was South Western Railway, and we have already seen unexpected costs with its rolling stock. Credible reports show that mistakes made by the Government will cost the taxpayer an anticipated £250 million more. The Transport Secretary herself has admitted that nationalisation is not a silver bullet. She is right, but the narrative presented in the spending review and these estimates continues to rely on assumptions that remain unproven.

Labour’s ideological plan to nationalise even the best performing rail operators will benefit neither passengers nor taxpayers. Beyond the loss of private sector investment, nationalisation also poses a deep structural risk, because under a single nationalised employer, there will be enormous pressure to harmonise terms and conditions across the entire railway workforce. That may sound harmless or even desirable, but in practice it means the trade unions openly calling for levelling up pay, benefits and working practices to the most generous standards currently found in the system, and they have wasted no time in doing that. I am sure that their members will be delighted by that, but for the Government, the taxpayer and the fare payer, that has one inevitable outcome: rising costs, almost certainly with no corresponding rises in productivity. Far from delivering savings, this sets the stage for spiralling costs, renewed industrial action and even poorer services for passengers.

Turning to the wider economic picture, the Government claim their infrastructure plans are

“creating the conditions for sustainable economic growth in communities throughout the UK.”

However, the truth is that the greatest barrier to growth in this country is not a lack of spending. How could it be when current levels of spending are just about the highest in our entire peacetime history? No, the greatest barrier to growth is the economic mismanagement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and this Labour Government.

We know that to fund this increased spending, Labour has not got control of the welfare bill, or reduced the size of the state, but simply changed the fiscal rules to allow billions more in borrowing. More borrowing is certainly not the long-term answer—this is not free money. Britain already spends almost £106 billion a year just to service its debt. For context, those payments outweigh what we spend to protect our country not just from foreign threats, but from crime at home, because our debt-servicing payments exceed the combined amounts allocated in the spending review to the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. That is not just unsustainable, but irresponsible.

Higher spending and higher borrowing fuels inflation. It undermines growth and it blows a hole in the public finances. Of course, we all know how Labour plans to fill that hole—with higher taxes. Will the Transport Secretary urge the Chancellor to restore discipline to the public finances? I hope she does. Will she set a credible strategy to deliver efficiencies within the Department for Transport? I hope she does, so that come autumn we are not hit with yet another round of tax hikes.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this estimates debate, exploring their priorities for Government spending, including those Members who presented a vision with which I might disagree. We must acknowledge that the Government continue to offer more questions than solutions. In transport, we are presented with legislation to change bus policy without the funding that we know will be required to implement it properly. We await pipeline plans, railway reform papers and road investment strategies. When I was appointed shadow Secretary of State, I was initially faced by the former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), who constantly declared that she wanted

“to move fast and fix things.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 446.]

But nearly a year into this Government, it feels as though things are moving at the speed of a canal boat in reverse—very slowly and taking the country backwards.

The problem is not the current Transport Secretary, or the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who is responding to the debate today. The problem emanates from No. 10 and No. 11 Downing Street, because when the captain and the first officer of the ship have no ideas of their own, refuse to scan the horizon and see it for what it is, rather than what they would wish it to be, the journey ends up lost and directionless. For the good of the country, I hope that the Government will come to understand that real change means supporting British business and backing the everyday commuter. In the meantime, I fear these estimates are indicative of a Government who are not listening, failing to heed the warnings and will continue steering the ship of state straight towards the iceberg.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you cannot speak from the Chair, may I say what a doughty champion you are for the reopening of Manston airport, in your constituency?

First, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing the debate and for the work they have done on the Transport Committee. I am grateful for all Members’ important, interested and varied contributions, and will try to address as many as humanly possible—there were an awful lot of questions in many of them. I know that Members are anxious for news on specific schemes in their local areas, but I will not be able to announce any new decisions today. We will make announcements in due course through the usual processes.

Let me address the comments made by the Transport Committee Chair about how spending is linked to the Department’s strategic objectives. Our spending is wholly orientated towards delivering this Government’s missions and our plan for change. At the heart of our approach is harnessing transport to drive growth, as better transport will connect people and opportunities and ensure that businesses can grow and thrive. That is why we are investing in vital public transport services, repairing our road networks, transforming our railways and providing unprecedented investment for local leaders to invest in their priorities. Five out of the first 10 Bills in this Session were on transport—we did not have five transport Bills in 14 years under the last Government. We are moving at pace.

In the financial year 2025-26 alone, we are delivering £1.6 billion for local road maintenance, £1.3 billion for local transport in our big city regions and over £1 billion for bus services. We are also providing more than £420 million for our smaller cities, towns and rural areas, as has been mentioned today. Our investments will help to drive growth in every part of the country and raise living standards for everyone.

We are supporting the transition to net zero and an economy powered by clean energy, with more than £200 million to accelerate the roll-out of electric vehicle charge points this year. We are investing in active travel infrastructure to improve the health of the nation, with an additional £150 million of investment in cycling and walking infrastructure in this financial year alone. We are supporting bus services and capping fares to connect people to jobs and to boost opportunity. We are also supporting safer streets by making public transport safer—including, most importantly, for women and girls. Across our work, we are making sure that every penny of taxpayers’ money is put to good use, from greater efficiency within the Department to getting to grips with the spiralling costs of HS2 and bringing that project back on track.

Although this debate concerns the estimates for 2025-26, I note that only two weeks ago, the Chancellor set out how our ambitions for the transport sector will last the whole of this Parliament. With the settlement we have received for 2026 onwards, we will deliver increased local transport investment in England’s towns and cities, prioritising funding in the north and the midlands and giving local areas more control over how the money is spent. We will improve everyday journeys across this country and invest in the critical national infrastructure needed to connect our cities and our towns in the long term, enabling economic growth. This will ensure that transport plays its part in delivering the plan for change and a decade of national renewal.

I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for her speech. She asked me a number of questions about when we will publish the outcome delivery plan. This will be done by all Departments, co-ordinated through the Cabinet Office, later this year. She asked about subsidiarity, and what happens if mayors do not use the money and new powers we have given them on the things that we want to do, citing active travel as an example. Even with subsidiarity, mayors have to deliver against Government outcomes and objectives, and we hope to work with them in a spirit of co-operation to ensure that that is done right.

My hon. Friend asked what our bus reform and £1 billion investment was meant to achieve. We introduced the new £3 fare cap on single bus fares in England outside London, which has had the cap for a long time, ensuring that millions of people have access to affordable fares and better opportunities to both go to college and work and to see friends and family.

With UK SHORE, we have moved fast with the decarbonisation plan, and the research and development funding for this will continue. We have worked internationally with the International Maritime Organisation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across our planet. We have also announced £185 million through safer roads funds to invest in the 99 most risky A roads, and we have made clear commitments on rail cost base and subsidy.

The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), the former Rail Minister, is a doughty champion for Aldridge station—well done to her for that. The money was reallocated by the current mayor to cover the costs of schemes implemented by the former mayor that did not have the funding. She also talked about buses; I have already mentioned the £1 billion that we have invested in better buses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), who cannot be in his seat at the moment, is an astonishing champion for Bradford. May I pay tribute to him and to Councillor Susan Hinchcliffe, the leader of Bradford city council, for their work in this area? The £2.1 billion train line and bus station investment is transformative. Some £35 million of Government money will see an additional five daily services to London, and we will be making announcements in the next few weeks regarding Northern Powerhouse Rail and how important it is to connect the cities of Leeds, Bradford, Manchester and Liverpool.

[Wendy Morton]

While the Minister is still talking about rail services, I just want to ask about Aldridge station to be absolutely clear about the situation. When the money for the station was allocated, it was ringfenced. It was his Government who decided to move the money from capital to revenue, so it is simply unfair to blame it all on Andy Street; it is not right.

[Mike Kane]

I thought the former mayor was quite a talented individual and he was succeeded by another talented individual, who has had to make tough choices around funds that were committed but never implemented under the previous Government. Promise after promise was made, but with no delivery whatsoever. None the less, the right hon. Member should carry on campaigning.

The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) rightly talked about buses. I have already mentioned the amount of funding that we are putting in there, and the £616 million for active travel, which has been mentioned by a number of Members, on top of the £300 million that was allocated last year. I had a great time last Easter cycling with my wife around the hon. Member’s constituency on Rebellion Way, which is a wonderful piece of Sustrans infrastructure.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Wendy Morton Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I start by thanking my friend, the Minister of State for Rail, for being an excellent advocate and custodian of the Bill as it made its way through the other place. As someone who started his career on London’s world-famous red buses, there was no better person in the country than the noble Lord Hendy to kick-start the Government’s bus reform journey. I am proud to call him my friend, and I am grateful every day for his wise counsel, frank advice and gentle good humour.

What we saw in the other place, and what I hope we may be able to secure in this House, is constructive cross-party support. We all recognise how buses connect us to the things that matter most: work and school, friends and family, essential services and the weekly shop. The billions of bus journeys each year—equivalent to over 100 every second of every day—are the difference between vibrant communities and boarded up high streets, between aspiration and isolation, and between getting on and being forced to give up.

The Bill represents years of work in opposition and now in government to discard the failed 40-year model of deregulation in favour of putting passenger needs, reliable services and local accountability at the heart of the industry.

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

I wholeheartedly agree with the Secretary of State on the importance of buses for connectivity. I note that the Bill talks about “socially necessary” services, but it would be helpful to have a better understanding of the definition of what they are beyond my own interpretation. For example, if a constituency does not have a train station, can we therefore have a greater assurance that we will see no loss in our bus services?

[Heidi Alexander]

Through the Bill, we will be giving local transport authorities the power to determine socially necessary local services. That relates to access to employment, jobs, things like health facilities, and education. That power will lie with local authorities and it will be for them to determine.

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[Heidi Alexander]

I will make some progress.

Before I come to the Bill’s key measures, I will briefly set out the context. Although it may be tempting for me to lay the blame for the current state of buses entirely at the feet of the last Government, that would be neither right nor fair. They too inherited a broken, deregulated system that forced passengers to navigate multiple operators on similar routes, but with different tickets. They, too, faced declining patronage, with 1.8 billion fewer journeys outside London last year than in 1986, and, to their credit, they tried to fix that. The national bus strategy, bus service improvement plans and greater powers for mayors were all steps in the right direction to improve services for passengers.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Heidi Alexander]

I am going to make some progress.

However, in some areas such as franchising, the last Government did not go far enough, so this Bill will not only build on previous reforms but go further—much further—in fixing the faults that are still holding the industry back from meeting the needs of local people. I hope that Members in all parts of the House will see the merits of the approach that we are taking. After all, we have all heard from constituents about jobs not taken and opportunities missed because bus services are too unreliable, or do not operate on Sundays, or do not cater for night-time shifts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander]

I am going to make a little more progress, but I shall be happy to take interventions later.

I was talking about the problems caused by bus services that are unreliable, do not operate at weekends or, perhaps, do not cater for individuals working night shifts. We all know that each of those stories is the story of a life frustrated, but, taken together, they constitute an anthology of wasted potential, of living standards and growth held back. That is why improving bus services underpins our plan for change, and it is why, despite difficult choices made across Government, we confirmed more than £1 billion in funding in the last Budget to protect vital routes and keep fares down.

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon]

It is because there is no Division later. It is not because nobody cares, but because there is not going to be a Division.

The previous Conservative Government recognised just how vital local bus services are to keeping communities connected. From 2020 to when we left office last summer, the previous Government committed £4.5 billion to support and enhance bus services, including more than £2 billion to help local authorities implement their bus service improvement plans. Perhaps most importantly, we also introduced the £2 bus fare cap.

[Wendy Morton]

Just to be absolutely clear, there are Conservative Members who wanted to ask questions of the Transport Secretary, but she seemed a little unwilling. On the specific point of fares and affordability, can my hon. Friend help to ensure that passengers, whom the Bill should focus on, see value for money from this Bill? In the west midlands, Mayor Parker, under his plan to take back control of our buses, is actually taking money from our pockets and increasing fares by 8.6%?

[Gareth Bacon]

Yes, indeed. We are very interested in doing that, which is why we inserted a purpose clause in the other place to ensure that the key focus of this Bill is solely on passengers.

By maintaining the £2 bus fare cap, we ensured that bus travel remained affordable and accessible to as many people as possible, while helping families manage the cost of living. We have voiced deep concerns in both this Chamber and the other place about the impact, particularly on the most vulnerable, of Labour’s decision to scrap the £2 cap and raise it to £3. Make no mistake: this is bad for those in work, who will be £3,500 worse off because of this Government’s jobs tax, and bad for pensioners, who have seen their winter fuel payments cut and their energy bills rise, despite repeated promises from Labour to cut their energy costs by £300.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon]

Yes, my hon. Friend is completely correct, and I will come to that a bit later in my speech.

While we do not oppose the franchising of bus services, we do oppose a particular assumption that underlines this legislation, which is that the public sector is the solution to everything. Some local authorities may have the expertise and resources to successfully franchise passenger bus services, but let us be clear that many do not. The very central premise of the Bill—giving every local authority the unchecked power to implement franchising, regardless of its resources or capacity—is not an act of empowerment; it is irresponsible. By removing the need for the Secretary of State to consent to franchising, as required under the previous Conservative Government, this Government are eliminating crucial safeguards.

[Wendy Morton]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Gareth Bacon]

With respect to my right hon. Friend, I will not, because I am conscious that lots of Members want to speak.

Those safeguards are designed to ensure that franchising serves the passengers who rely on our bus services and the taxpayers who pay for them. The expertise required to design, manage and operate franchised networks is not readily available in most councils. That is why the Bus Services Act 2017 limited franchising powers to mayoral combined authorities, which are bodies with the scale, resources and democratic mandate to take on such responsibilities.

Crucially, the legislation we enacted to pave the way for mayoral combined authorities to issue franchising models also required those authorities to demonstrate that franchising would deliver genuine benefits for passengers. The removal of that requirement by this Bill is concerning, and it betrays the view held by those on the Government side of the House that the public sector is inherently infallible. Members will not be shocked that I do not share that view, but they do not need to take my word for it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The midlands rail hub was backed by the previous Government. It will unlock and drive economic growth across the west midlands and beyond, including into Wales, and improve the performance of existing rail services. When will the Secretary of State make an announcement in her review of that project, or is this just another example of the Treasury reversing or holding up investment in our region?

[Heidi Alexander]

I can see that Mr Speaker is smiling; I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her ingenuity in working in a question about the midlands. She is right to talk about the benefits of the midlands rail hub. She will be aware that a spending review process is under way, and I anticipate being able to say more on that project in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I do agree that Government investment in new bi-mode trains and electrification on east midlands railways will result in lower energy costs, a reduction in noise emissions and a significant improvement to the railways.

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

As the Secretary of State will be aware, the Government moved the money earmarked for Aldridge train station on the whim of the Labour Mayor, sadly making Aldridge residents feel that they are no longer cared about. As the Government say that they are minded to grant open access from Wrexham to Euston, will they work with me to demonstrate to the people of Aldridge that they do actually care by working to deliver a train station by 2027, as planned and budgeted for by the Conservatives?

[Heidi Alexander]

I find it rather strange that every month I come to the Dispatch Box and answer the same question from the right hon. Lady, given that she was Rail Minister for a number of years. I am very happy to discuss the importance of Aldridge station with the Mayor of the West Midlands and to update the right hon. Lady further.