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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

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

Open access operators will continue to have a place in our reformed Great British railways. We have supported new proposals from Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway, and existing track access rights will be honoured. Open access can provide benefits, but it must not come at the cost of better services for passengers and better value for taxpayers.

[Wendy Morton]

In her recent letter to the Office of Rail and Road, the Transport Secretary appeared to push against open access agreements, yet last week, as she has mentioned today, the Government signalled their intention to support the request to license the Wrexham to London Euston line, which will come through Aldridge in my constituency. Will the Transport Secretary clarify her position on the Wrexham to Euston line, particularly in regard to the inclusion of Aldridge train station? As she will be aware, thanks to the Labour mayor, the funding for that station has been raided and put into his pet projects.

[Heidi Alexander]

I appreciate the right hon. Lady’s commitment to making the case for a new station at Aldridge, but I gently point out to her that in the 14 years of her party’s Government, including her own stint in the Department for Transport, the station failed to materialise. The West Midlands combined authority has had to prioritise the delivery of schemes that are in construction. That seems to me to be a reasonable approach, but I appreciate that she will continue to make the case for her own station.

Aldridge Train Station

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of Aldridge train station.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the proposed development of a new train station in my Aldridge-Brownhills constituency and its funding through the city region sustainable transport settlement, known as CRSTS, which is less of a mouthful.

I will start with a little background about Aldridge-Brownhills and where we have got to with the development of a train station. Currently Aldridge-Brownhills is one of only 49 constituencies in this country that do not have a passenger train station and one of three in the West Midlands combined authority area. That is worth remembering. As in so many other areas, we lost our station in Aldridge due to the 1960s Beeching cuts. The last passenger train left Aldridge in 1965. Although we still have a freight line with freight trains operating on it, we do not have passenger services, but what we do have is a vision and determination to once again see passenger train services stopping at and running through Aldridge.

Things began to change in 2017. Following the first West Midlands mayoral election and the establishment of the West Midlands combined authority under Andy Street, the mayor laid down a bold and ambitious transport plan for the West Midlands region up until 2040.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady for securing this debate. I suppose her ambition will be not just for the train station, because in this day and age there is definitely a need to ensure that those with disabilities can have access to all the train stations. I know the Government are committed to making those changes, but in the new build that the right hon. Lady is asking for, is it not possible to have disabled access there at the beginning so that everyone has the right to travel in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. New trains stations must have disabled-friendly access, and also access for those who might have a pram, a pushchair or bags that are hard to carry up the stairs. That is really important. I am conscious that across the rail network, as the Minister will be aware, we have a lot of older train stations and heritage buildings. I know there is a programme to bring those up to speed. Perhaps she will say a little more about that.

I am passionate about a train station for Aldridge because I want to make sure that my constituents have opportunities to go into Walsall, Birmingham and beyond. I want young people to have the opportunity to get the train to go to study, to university, and of course to access employment—so, yes, I am ambitious for Aldridge. When Andy Street was the mayor, part of his ambition was to bring a train station back to Aldridge. In fact, I remember the day he launched the plan and it almost looked like a smaller version of the London Underground map with all the different lines linking together and taking passengers into New Street. Such maps probably get the Department for Transport thinking about a mass transit system and the ability to move people around an area.

A city region such as the West Midlands combined authority needs an integrated transport plan. In Aldridge we have the train line. All we need is a station and then we will be part of that integrated plan. Throughout the intervening period since 2017 a huge amount of work was undertaken by the West Midlands combined authority and Transport for West Midlands. The gamechanger came in February 2021, when Andy Street, on behalf of the combined authority, purchased land from the NHS for car parking. That was a clear demonstration of intent to reopen a station in Aldridge.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Aldridge station is projected to have 40 new car parking spaces, but Twyford station in my constituency is having some resurfacing and relining that will see the number of spots decline. That is despite half a million people now using the station, mainly because of the Elizabeth line, leading to a nightmare for commuters in my constituency. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the Minister should bring Network Rail, Transport for London, Great Western Railway, and the Department together to find a solution that delivers more car park spaces for stations such as Twyford?

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. As train users, we all know that the availability of car parking is important, and it is disappointing when a car park is upgraded or resurfaced and the upshot is fewer spaces rather than more. For Aldridge station, the purchase of the land is critical as part of the plans, but I am conscious that that will need to go through planning and so on. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Let us hope that the Minister might have heard his comments, and if she does not respond in this debate, perhaps she will respond to him another time.

Let us return to Aldridge station and the journey to where we are today. By June 2022, the strategic outline business case for the scheme was assessed, and given ministerial approval by the Department for Transport. Further funding was provided from the Restoring Your Railway programme. The outline business case demonstrated that the proposal to reopen a station in Aldridge presented the potential to improve connectivity for the residents of Aldridge, and reduce existing congestion by providing a more convenient public transport route, with greater access to job opportunities. Demand modelling for the proposed station shows the potential for 237,000 passenger journeys per year. That would help to reduce pressure at existing stations nearby, most notably at Blake Street and Four Oaks in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is not here today, as well as at Tame Bridge in the West Bromwich constituency.

On 20 February this year, the green light for the project was given, and the budget of £30 million was secured from the Government. Transport for West Midlands and the West Midlands Rail Executive were working with Network Rail to get the station built and open, with a project end date of 2027. Imagine how excited we all were when we heard the news. For the avoidance of doubt, it was stated on the West Midlands combined authority website that the budget for Aldridge station was secured. Aldridge station would initially offer a half hourly service to Walsall town centre, where passengers would be offered an easy interchange with services to Birmingham, as well as the opportunity to connect to wider regional and national services. In addition, there were active discussions for further opportunities to improve and increase services at Aldridge. Those included the possibility that if the open access request was granted by DFT Ministers for services between Euston and Wrexham, the Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands railway could provide services through Aldridge directly to London five times a day. What a game changer that would be for my constituents.

It therefore came as a big surprise to me and my constituents when, no sooner was the newly elected mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, in place, than he announced in July a review into the future of Aldridge station. Not only that, but having said that he would look into all transport projects, he then singled out only three projects to be reviewed. Those included, of course, our proposed station in Aldridge. The question is: why? Then, having secured the £30 million of funding through the CRSTS, it came as a further shock to learn that, as an outcome of its review, Arup, the independent assessor, was under the misapprehension that there was a budget of only some £3.6 million, and therefore it seemed to believe that it was not a fully funded project. That is of course wrong, but that is the narrative that the mayor now wants people to believe, somehow conjuring up an illusion that the project has no funding and therefore could easily be pulled.

Mayor Parker knows that is completely wrong. In fact, he made an application to the Secretary of State for Transport to move over £26 million of that funding to other areas within the budget. I was informed by the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), in a letter on 21 November that she had agreed to move the ringfence funding for the project on the advice of the mayor. Can the Minister confirm today when Mayor Parker made his application? Where has he sought to direct that funding to? I can only presume that it is to part of his wider transport budget, but which part, and where? My constituents are left wondering whether their funding is now being used to fund an unaffordable bus nationalisation scheme that everyone told Mayor Parker, before the election, could not be delivered on the budget he had planned, which was only £25 million.

On that basis, call me cynical, but an additional £26 million from the Aldridge project would prove to be very handy for the elected mayor to push forward with his pet project. I am not anti-buses at all, but I am against money that was earmarked and ringfenced for Aldridge being moved somewhere else. That is why, given that the Secretary of State gave approval to vire this money, it is important that we fully understand where it has gone. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to tell me today, as the mayor is trying to have his cake and eat it. First, there was a review, and that review then became all about Aldridge station being deferred until future years. Now this week he is saying:

“What is pretty clear is the funding wasn’t in place but more importantly that project has not currently met the business case requirements that it would need for that investment to take place”.

To me and my constituents, this all sounds rather like the whole project is slowly being pulled into the sidings, awaiting derailment by the mayor. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister confirmed what intention Mayor Parker has signalled to the Department for Transport.

I simply cannot, and will not, accept the comments from the mayor on funding. I would like the Minister to confirm: first, this was a fully funded project through the CRSTS and the funding allocation was awarded to the West Midlands combined authority and Transport for West Midlands; secondly, it was also detailed on the West Midlands Rail Executive website; and thirdly, this was a political decision and a political choice by the elected mayor to change his political priorities to move that money, and he sought approval from the Secretary of State to do so. Once and for all, I believe that it is time to call out the elected mayor. My constituents and wider public transport users in the West Midlands deserve better, and it is time to admit that this was not his political inheritance, nor his predecessor’s, and it was not any failure of the previous Government to fund a new station in Aldridge. It is his decision, and his alone, to deny the people of Aldridge their funding for their new station.

Turning to the so-called review, I would like to ask the Minister some questions—sorry about all my questions today. When did the former Secretary of State give her approval to move the money? I am concerned that the basis of the Arup review was seriously flawed, as the independent adviser to the mayor was under the impression either that approval to move the money had been given, or that the project had only a fraction of the budget, when the opposite was true. The residents of Aldridge deserve to be treated with respect, fairly and equitably, yet the manner in which the new mayor has handled the whole matter does a disservice to politics. Now we find that the mayor, having created his own hole, continues to dig himself in by repeating in his statements that the project was not funded and that the case for a station in Aldridge was not properly made, which is simply not the case.

The new Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), said just yesterday that better rail services

“put the needs of local people first”.

I could not agree with her more. Ensuring that transport services are joined up, meet local needs and drive economic growth is exactly what Aldridge station is all about. It is time that the mayor apologised to the people of Aldridge for the whole review. I hope that the Minister will clear up the facts for my constituents today—that she will confirm that the project was fully funded and that by one means or another, the people of Aldridge have been seriously shortchanged, and the mayor has put their proposed new station at risk.

I will conclude by repeating that the residents of Aldridge deserve better than the treatment they have been given, and it is incumbent on the Minister today to be clear with all of them about why the Government have backed the decision. She needs to give them, and me, the answers to those very basic questions. Aldridge deserves its train station, and it expects its train station.

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this debate about the future of Aldridge train station. I also congratulate the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who used the opportunity to raise important issues pertinent to their constituencies. I know that the hon. Member for Wokingham would like my thoughts about extra car parking spaces at Twyford station; I regret that I shall have to ask my colleagues in the Department and perhaps my officials to write to him about that, as I had not prepared notes on Twyford for today's debate.

I share the right hon. Lady’s enthusiasm for the delivery of new rail infrastructure enhancements such as a new station at Aldridge, and I recognise the wide array of transformative benefits that they can bring. Railways can create jobs, spur economic growth, promote decarbonisation via a modal shift from road to rail, and generally enhance people's quality of life by helping them to get easily from A to B. The magnificent new University station in Birmingham, which opened at the start of the year, has already facilitated millions of journeys and is a shining example of how infrastructure can transform lives and stimulate growth. That is backed by early passenger survey results, which show that nearly 90% of passengers rate the new station as “good” or “excellent”, and nearly 20% would have taken their journey by car if the new station was not there. I am sure she agrees that those are worthy goals, and she is right to advocate for the delivery of similar schemes in her constituency that can unlock such benefits.

I completely understand the right hon. Lady’s vision for passenger train services serving her constituency for the first time in a long time. However, it is in that spirit of wanting to complete transformative transport enhancements that difficult decisions have been made. As she knows, in 2022 the Conservative Government allocated £1.05 billion of city region sustainable transport settlement funding to the West Midlands combined authority, or the WMCA. The money was devolved to the WMCA, led by then metro mayor Andy Street, to spend on its local transport priorities. The WMCA set out its priorities for a programme of investment, which the Department for Transport supported and which included an allocation of £30 million towards delivery of a new railway station at Aldridge.

Time passed, and in July 2024 the West Midlands combined authority presented a paper to the Department outlining cost pressures across its portfolio of projects. As the right hon. Member knows, there has been significant inflation since 2022, and it is not unique to the West Midlands combined authority that cost pressures have arisen in the delivery of infrastructure projects. The cost gap presented a material risk that schemes already in construction would be left unfinished. The combined authority proposed reallocating funding that was allocated but not ringfenced from schemes not in construction, including Aldridge railway station, to those in delivery to ensure that they were completed.

I am happy to share with the right hon. Member which schemes have been prioritised. The schemes that have been assisted with the funding, reallocated as she described, include Rail Package 2, which is delivering three new stations—Moseley, Kings Heath and Pineapple Road—on the Camp Hill line between Kings Norton and Birmingham New Street; the Wednesbury metro depot; certain sections of the Sprint phase two priority bus corridor; the Dudley Interchange, which is a new bus station at Dudley; and the Wednesbury to Brierley Hill metro extension and a further extension on to Merry Hill. Also included is the Birmingham Eastside metro extension, which serves Digbeth and will serve the HS2 Curzon Street station.

A number of other programmes have been deferred as a result of those schemes needing to be prioritised. I can assure the right hon. Lady that while improving bus services is an important issue, including in the West Midlands, the funds are not being redirected and used for the purpose that she suggests might be the case.

The West Midlands combined authority proposed retaining £3.6 million to complete important ongoing design and business case development work for Aldridge station. As the right hon. Lady knows, projects need to go through a process to secure final funding and move to delivery. At present, work is being done using that development funding to produce an outline business case for Aldridge railway station; then, a final business case will be needed. In any case, these are crucial steps to securing a decision to deliver. Work can still continue with that important development funding.

[Wendy Morton]

I hear what the Minister is saying, and I still hope she will answer some of my questions, but on that ongoing work, that money was part of the £30 million for Aldridge station. The Department and the mayor always fall back on the argument that the station is not under construction, but the work had started and it is ongoing. There is £3.6 million to do the preparatory work and ground work. I have spoken to Network Rail, and it is all teed up to do all of this. The Government have allocated £3.6 million, but I would still argue that that is part of the £30 million. I still do not understand why Aldridge train station was the one singled out to be pulled from all the projects.

[Lilian Greenwood]

A number of projects are in construction, and I have spelled out precisely which ones. The West Midlands combined authority wanted to ensure that those projects would be completed and opened, as significant spending had already been put into taking those into construction. As I have set out, Aldridge railway station has not yet reached an outline business case. It is not in construction, but that development funding—the £3.6 million—will be used to develop the work and ensure that it can go forward in the future. It is not the only project that has been deferred.

[Wendy Morton]

I will not make too many more interventions, but on the specific point about the project moving to the next phase and then into construction, does the Minister not accept that because the mayor and the Department for Transport have vired the money elsewhere, the money for the station’s construction is now gone?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I accept that the West Midlands combined authority had cost pressures and that it does not have sufficient funding to complete all the projects that were set out in its original plan to the timetable that was envisaged. The right hon. Lady is correct that the money has been reprogrammed to be used on other projects, but that does not mean that the railway station cannot be delivered in the future. Other deferred programmes include part of Sprint phase 2, the Hagley Road rapid transit development and the cross-city bus programme. I know that will be unwelcome news.

The request was made in July this year, and in September my Department approved the West Midlands combined authority’s recommendation. I stand by that decision, although I understand the right hon. Lady’s disappointment that schemes not yet in construction, including Aldridge railway station, will not be delivered to the timescale originally planned. The £1.05 billion originally allocated by the Conservative Government to the West Midlands combined authority has not been reduced; the West Midlands combined authority has, with our approval, reallocated the way that the money is being spent so that it can finish the job on schemes that are in flight. I am confident that we are aligned on the benefits that transport enhancement can bring, and that is why we cannot afford to leave schemes unfinished. I understand the right hon. Lady’s concerns, but that is the decision that the West Midlands combined authority sought for us to take, and we have allowed it to proceed in that way.

As the right hon. Lady says, the West Midlands combined authority’s portfolio of transport enhancement schemes was established and signed off under the previous West Midlands mayor and under a Conservative Government. However, cost escalations and delays to the programme also occurred during Mayor Street’s tenure, and under a Conservative Government. I am committed to ensuring that the schemes in delivery, which were named in the previous mayor’s manifesto, and which the right hon. Lady campaigned for, are delivered. I believe that with her advocacy and the leadership of the current metro mayor, Richard Parker, who I know is ambitious for the West Midlands and its transport network, the future remains bright for Aldridge railway station. With its £3.6 million of development funding, design work and business case development continue at pace.

My Department is undertaking a review of the previous Administration’s spending plans, and once that is complete, we will confirm future funding allocations. By carrying out that essential pre-delivery business case and design work, the West Midlands combined authority is ensuring that Aldridge station is well placed for delivery funding, as and when more money becomes available. The right hon. Lady’s work with the West Midlands combined authority and her constituents to advocate for the scheme is the best way of ensuring that there is a strong local consensus behind it and increasing the chances of it being funded in the future, as and when funds become available. If and when Aldridge does get delivered, in combination with the new stations being built at Willenhall and Darlaston, we could see the number of stations in the Walsall area double from three to six, which is a hugely exciting prospect for her constituency and the wider region.

I am ambitious for the future of Aldridge and the West Midlands, and I urge the right hon. Lady and the West Midlands combined authority to continue developing plans to ensure that we deliver better transport infrastructure, which supports economic growth, jobs, decarbonisation and improved quality of life for the travelling public of the West Midlands.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

My hon. Friend is a champion for her constituency. We confirmed significant investment in rail enhancements across the country in the Budget, but as we look to the second phase of the spending review we will be setting out the long-term infrastructure strategy. On Fleetwood in particular, I am sure the local transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this particular transport need in her constituency.

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

At the last Transport questions on 10 October, I asked the Transport Secretary to confirm the status of the ringfenced funding for Aldridge train station. She promised to reply in writing. I followed this up with a letter. To date, I have received no response. The people of Aldridge deserve to know what has happened to the £30 million awarded to us for our new train station: can the Secretary of State tell us where it is, please?

[Louise Haigh]

I sincerely apologise to the right hon. Lady and will make sure she receives that letter today.

Flight Cancellations

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Come on, that is not even linked to flights. It is about trains. [Interruption.] No, let us not kid each other—there is no point wasting time. Let’s have someone else who will ask the right question. I call Wendy Morton.

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

As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted, reliable regional connectivity matters. When the Minister is looking at public service obligation routes, will he consider also looking at the transparency of the data coming out of those routes, at reliability, and at penalties for failure? It cannot be right that somebody gets the additional stress of a cancelled flight when they are trying to get to a hospital appointment.

[Mike Kane]

People should not be missing hospital appointments because of cancelled planes in the aviation sector. Yes, I agree with the right hon. Member: it is a considered question, and when contracts come up for renewal we must consider them in the round to see how best they can serve the needs of the travelling public.