Railways Bill

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for pushing me further on this issue. It is GBR’s responsibility to determine what constitutes best use of the railway in relation to its duties. The role of the ORR in that process is that decisions can be referred to it when it is the view of stakeholders—whether it be an open access operator or anybody else—that GBR has incorrectly applied the framework by which it needs to determine best use on the railway and has made a decision in a way that is irrational or unfair, prejudicing one stakeholder over the other. There are important and robust safeguards for the ORR to be able to determine whether the way in which GBR has determined best use is consistent with the framework that we have provided for it. I hope that provides him with reassurance.

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

rose—

[Keir Mather]

I would like to make some progress; I hope the right hon. Lady will forgive me.

I will use my first speech to speak about the Government amendments tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, which I commend to the House. I look forward to hearing about some of the amendments tabled by other hon. Members; I will respond to them at the conclusion of proceedings.

Let me begin with amendment 92. I believe that in this House we need to be honest: under previous Governments, the British people were promised real change only for it to be abandoned on first contact with political reality. Not this time. Labour promised to nationalise our railways—no ifs, no buts—and today that is exactly what we will do. We are acting in law so that Great British Railways—the people’s railway—is owned by the British people and run in their interests, not in the service of private profit. I know that might appal Opposition parties, but they should believe me that ordinary people in Britain will not ask why we are taking this bold step; they will be asking those who had the power to do so, “What took you so very long?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

We certainly hope that it will. On the specific issues that my hon. Friend raises, will he consider writing to either myself or the Rail Minister so that we can think about how we can better integrate those live concerns about people suffering from mental health crises and how we might better protect them on our railway? That is an incredibly important point. Just to conclude—

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Minister give way?

[Keir Mather]

For the final time, I give way.

[Wendy Morton]

The Minister mentioned devolution and what a difference that would make in terms of the mayors’ role. We have an issue in Aldridge, which I am sure he is well aware of and well rehearsed on, in that the current Labour mayor has taken the funding away. Will the Minister reassure me that GBR will work with Mayor Parker and with me to make sure that we deliver a railway station in Aldridge?

[Keir Mather]

The right hon. Lady is right to say that I am well aware of the specific measure that she speaks to. Having the relationship between GBR, the mayors and political representatives in Westminster, such as herself, is critical, and it is part of the purpose of GBR to better facilitate those conversations. I am sure that, through its establishment, she can take forward the debate on this particular matter with her usual passion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am interested in pragmatism. I am interested in what works for the taxpayer and for the user of the railways. If state companies want to operate as private businesses in the United Kingdom and bring benefits to the United Kingdom taxpayer and rail user, bring it on! What I do not want, and what is clearly wrong, is to impose nationalisation of the rail network across the board for political reasons, because it is going to bring some real problems, just like it did the last time Labour decided to have a go at this.

As I have said, what the Government are doing is a mistake, but if they insist on it, we need this Bill to direct the top to tell GBR what it is for and what to do. New clause 52—the “purpose” clause missing from the Bill—starts that process by making it clear what GBR is there to do. It is a non-exhaustive list, but it includes

“prioritising the needs of Great British Railways passengers…providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers…expanding and improving the network…modernising working practices”—

putting the customer’s needs above interests of the unions—

“ensuring fair and transparent treatment of open access, freight and devolved operators…integrating track and train…and…supporting multimodal integration”.

As track and train are integrated, this Bill should have been giving GBR the tools it needs to deliver the necessary dynamic management to undertake what is, in anyone’s book, a huge organisational change.

[Wendy Morton]

Is it not the truth that the Government were given an idea from our days in government, and that it was a golden opportunity to reform the railways of this country? But what has actually happened? Ideology has gotten in the way, and it has gotten in the way of the passengers first and foremost. They are going to be the real losers in this.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I quite agree with my right hon. Friend. It seems that the Government have insisted on going back to the future: back to the 1970s, with state control and a revamped British Railways. They have even chosen the same logo, which I think tells us a lot about their intentions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

The hon. Member describes the railway as it could be—and he tempts me to get on to Red Star Parcels, but that might be one for another day—but we must have regard to the railway as it is now and the fact is that the railway the Bill inherits sets up that binary choice all too often. I very much hope we can get more interaction between modes, as he describes.

The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said—I hope I do not misrepresent her—that the Bill carries forward, in a different form, an idea created by the previous Conservative Government, but I think that is really too short a horizon.

[Wendy Morton]

The point I was making was that the concept of Great British Railways and bringing track and train closer together came during our time in government, when Grant Shapps was the Transport Secretary and I was a rail Minister.

[Laurence Turner]

I hear what the right hon. Lady says, but it is contradicted by the record and our own experience. She says that integration of track and train is an idea that came from that review, but we were advancing that idea for railway reform on the Labour Benches in 2011 and 2012. The Bill is the culmination of all that reform effort over many, many years.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I rise to speak to new clause 17 and amendment 46, both of which stand in my name. I want to focus my remarks on a very simple principle. If Parliament is creating Great British Railways—we can argue away about any timeline—and we are concentrating more responsibility and decision making within a single national body, it is only right that there is appropriate accountability and local democratic oversight alongside it. As the Bill stands, it falls short in this regard.

New clause 17 does not seek to prevent decisions being made or create unnecessary bureaucracy. Rather, it ensures that where decisions relating to railway services or infrastructure have a significant impact on local communities and economies, Members of this House—elected to represent those communities—are consulted. Surely that it was local democracy and accountability is all about.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a very important point. My constituents are utterly shocked by ticket prices. If they wanted to travel between London and Stoke-on-Trent by train today, it would cost a minimum of £160. We need local democracy and decision making, because these prices are outrageous.

[Wendy Morton]

My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. I have found of late that, far from being a lot cheaper, as is often lauded, some of the ticket prices to Birmingham are absolutely eye-watering. I call on the Government to take a serious look at that. Rather than just saying, “Fares are all cheaper”, the Government must look right across the board, because some of them are far from affordable. That is also why I support the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) about a railcard for our veterans, which must be delivered.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) demonstrated, Members of Parliament are often the first port of call for constituents when problems arise with rail services or ticketing, or when communities are campaigning for investment. Whether it is constituents, businesses, community groups or local campaigners, they rightly expect their MP to be their voice and champion.

Local knowledge matters. Surely those who are elected to represent our communities should have a role in the decisions that affect them. I know from my own constituency just how important that can be. As the Minister knows, I have long campaigned for the restoration of a railway station in Aldridge—I see he is smiling. I make no apology for championing that case, and I will not be giving up any time soon. Members will have heard me raise this time and again for very good reason, because for too long communities like mine have been left behind by the railways. We hear talk of new passenger services such as Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway running through our village without stopping—that would be a huge missed opportunity. If we are serious about unlocking the economic growth that the Black Country so desperately needs, connectivity is key.

Throughout the debate, I have been interested by the contributions about the importance of putting passengers at the heart of our railway system. Of course, I agree with that, but surely it cannot be right that decisions with significant local impacts could be taken without speaking to the very Members elected to represent those communities. If we are to have Great British Railways, we should also have great British accountability. This is not an argument against the Government’s chosen direction, but greater centralisation must be accompanied by greater accountability. That seems a reasonable proposition, and one that I genuinely think Members right across the House would be able to support.

On accountability, amendment 46 would ensure that directions issued to Great British Railways are shared with the Transport Committee. That, again, is entirely sensible, because just as local communities deserve to have a voice through their Members of Parliament, Parliament itself should be able to exercise proper scrutiny. Transparency and accountability go hand in hand, and if Ministers are to have significant powers over Great British Railways, surely it is right that the House and its Select Committees can see how those powers are being exercised.

Ultimately, both my amendment and new clause are about striking the right balance between central direction and democratic accountability. Local communities deserve to have their voices heard, and Parliament should be able to exercise proper scrutiny. While I shall not press them to a vote, I really hope that the Minister will reflect on that, give the proposals serious consideration and respond to them when he wraps up the debate.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Bill. It is fantastic that the vast majority of residents—passengers—in the east of England are travelling on trains in public ownership. This is the next piece of the jigsaw.

I note that the amendment paper appears to be longer than the Bill, so as somebody who has contributed to that, I will turn to some of my amendments. New clause 20 is a simple amendment on promoting integration between trains and everything else—buses, coaches, trams, walking and cycling. I agree that there is nothing in the Bill that prevents that, but I feel there should be something to actively encourage it.

We will all have been at a station when the mainline train has been delayed and, helpfully, the connecting train has been held back for a little time. However, and interestingly, I recently asked somebody at the Transport Committee who ran a bus company whether he had ever come across a situation where the train had been held because his bus had been delayed, and the answer was absolutely not—and vice versa. In fact, there are lots of incentives to stop that happening within the transport system as a whole—after all, a bus company can get fined for having delayed buses. That is why we need something in the Bill that promotes active integration.

Amendments 39 to 42 are about devolution and consultation. Under the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State and GBR will consult with Scottish and Welsh Ministers. By contrast, elsewhere they will consult with mayoral strategic authorities. The difference is that in one place they are consulting with a person, and in the other they are consulting with an organisation. I strongly believe that consultation should take place with the mayor as the person with that democratic mandate to enable us to have stronger, quicker decision making and ensure that what is happening is clear.

I turn to new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), on the customer loyalty programme. I cannot say that I agree with the Secretary of State having to lay a report on that within a year—she probably has better things to do. However, the concept of a customer loyalty programme is something I have long called for, and I have had constructive discussions with the Minister on that. Encouraging passengers and would-be passengers to build a loyalty to our railways matters greatly. As has been said, that happens with air miles and with Tesco Clubcard. We could get all kinds of different benefits for passengers, and GBR could use such a programme to try to flex demand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank my right hon. Friend for reminding me of that important matter, and I would be glad to facilitate a meeting either with me, if that is most appropriate, or with the Rail Minister to take that conversation forward.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Minister give way?

[Keir Mather]

Oh, go on then. Why not?

[Wendy Morton]

I am conscious that the Minister is winding up, and I promise I will not ask about Aldridge train station. I want to ask about accountability. The Minister has spoken a lot about the transfer of powers and about devolution; I tabled an amendment, which I have decided not to press, on the need for clearer accountability and transparency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander]

I have always been clear that there is a role for open access operators on our network where they provide value for money.

If I may now turn to passengers, I am not ashamed of the fact that GBR will be obsessed with delivering for its customers. In fact, it will have a statutory duty to promote their interests. That starts with ticketing, which is currently a mind-bendingly complex system. I have said it before and I will say it again: buying a ticket should be effortless. Fares should be simple and consistent, and passengers should know they are always getting the best value—and under GBR, they will.

A new ticketing app and website will give passengers the ability to buy tickets, check train times and access a range of support all from the palm of their hands—no booking fees, no navigating lots of websites; just a 21^st-century way of paying for a service. If passengers are let down, if accessibility falls short or if performance is not up to scratch, they will have a powerful champion fighting their corner: a strengthened passenger watchdog.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Heidi Alexander]

I will not give way.

GBR will also manage access decisions in relation to track capacity, enabling us to unlock the full potential of the whole network. That also means unleashing the huge economic and environmental potential of freight. Rail remains the best way to send bulky goods long distance, which is why GBR will have a legal duty to promote rail freight in line with our 2050 target.

GBR represents a simpler, more transparent railway to do business with. No longer will suppliers need to make their case to multiple parts of the network. GBR will be the single decision maker, able to take a long-term view, giving the private sector the confidence and certainty it needs.

I finish by thanking all Members who have taken part in the debates on the Bill so far—particularly those on the Transport Committee for their diligent approach.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Heidi Alexander]

No. I am conscious of giving time to the shadow Secretary of State.

I thank all members of the Public Bill Committee for completing the painstaking task of line-by-line scrutiny. I also thank Members on the Front Bench, as well as those sat on the Back Benches, for their vital perspectives. I particularly thank the Minister for Aviation, Maritime and Decarbonisation for handling the passage of the Bill so dutifully and ably. I also thank my colleague in the other place, the Rail Minister, and give a huge thanks to all the officials in my Department who have worked so hard to get the Bill to this stage.

This Government promised to fix what was broken in our economy and reform what does not work. That is why the Bill matters. We will fix our broken railways. While I cannot promise it will be achieved overnight, I say this: will GBR put the needs of passengers and freight users above all else? Yes, absolutely. Will passengers soon see the difference in ticketing and reliability in a railway that is easier to use? Most definitely. Will GBR help to unlock economic growth, house building and opportunity across the country? Undoubtedly. The Bill draws a line under the decline and dysfunction of the past. Today, we are bringing hope back to our railways. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) and the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather) are going to do when they are not spending so much time together, week in, week out.

We are gathered here to witness this slowly-collapsing Government put passengers and taxpayers on the hook for, over time, more expensive fares and more subsidy—or both—for fewer trains, and for a service run in the best interests not of passengers but of the Labour party’s union paymasters.

Opposition Members all know, as perhaps do some on the Government Benches—perhaps even the Secretary of State, who has reportedly had some doubts about total state control—that the Bill is not the answer. If Labour really cared about passengers, wallets and purses, Labour Members would have backed our amendments on railcards to protect young people and our brave veterans. We know that “no plans” does not mean no: just ask farmers and small businesses up and down the country about the promises from this Labour Government.

That is the bigger story about the Government’s plan for state control. The Bill is not about bringing track and train together—something I think we can all agree on. This Labour Government have no qualms about concentrating power, no concern about removing independent challenge, and no thought for the taxpayers who will be asked to foot the bill if and when their experiment goes wrong.

Under the Bill, the organisation that runs the trains will also decide who else gets to run the trains. The organisation that sets the fares will also dominate selling the tickets. When something goes wrong, the Secretary of State will have nowhere to hide.

[Wendy Morton]

The shadow Secretary of State is willing to give way to a Back Bencher and listen to their perspective. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government are far from offering passengers hope, particularly when they will not even answer questions from Back Benchers about simple constituency matters?

[Mr Holden]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point.

If the Government truly believe in putting passengers first, why are they making life harder for the very operators that have delivered some of the lowest fares and highest levels of passenger satisfaction on the entire network? Why are they squeezing open access operators off the tracks? Why are they creating a system in which GBR will be both player and referee at the same time? It is just ridiculous. We were told that Great British Railways would be accountable, but accountable to whom? The regulator loses powers, competitors lose protections and the Secretary of State gains more control.

Labour came to power promising to change the railways for good; it has accomplished a Bill that will reduce passenger rights and, at the same time, lead to fewer services. By gutting the ORR and letting GBR be judge, jury and executioner, the Secretary of State is ensuring that on her watch, everyone but the unions will be worse off.

We tried to rectify this blatant power grab with our amendments, supported by the Liberal Democrats, to make it easier for others to appeal against the GBR overlords after removing the bizarre judicial review benchmark. To no one’s surprise, Labour Members—all of them—voted against every single one of the very sensible Opposition amendments. That is the problem that Labour MPs have: they were forced to sign up to an ideological experiment, and it is going against everything that their constituents and the country desire.

When the complaints start arriving, when the cheaper rail fares disappear, as they are doing already, when services are cut to make the statistics look better and when passengers discover that Great British Railways is more like “Little Britain Railways”, I hope the Secretary of State will appreciate that this is no way to run a railway.

The Opposition are voting against the Bill because state control is not the same thing as improvement, because bureaucracy is not the same thing as accountability and because putting major decisions in the hands of one giant state body is a retrograde step, not a positive move. When all is said and done—when the fares rise, the services shrink and the complaints pile up—the Secretary of State and the Labour party will have nobody but themselves to blame.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Small Towns: Transport Links

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing the debate. When listening to his remarks at the beginning, the need to fix, or at least start to seriously address, transport isolation really resonated with me.

It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I am going to talk about Aldridge train station. Mine is one a handful of constituencies that has a railway line but still does not have a train station. If we are serious about improving connectivity and the life chances of young people, we could improve so many things by simply getting on and delivering the train station.

I think the Minister knows the history, but I will gently remind him of it. Perhaps he can pass this on to the Rail Minister in the other place, because I have suggestions on how we can fix things. To take a step back, we have a track in place. The council has secured the land for the car park and some exploratory work is ongoing, which I am grateful for. A business case was approved to reopen the line from Aldridge to Walsall, which would give us the connections we need into Walsall and beyond. I am not even pushing for the completion of the rail hub; I just want the link into Walsall, please. Andy Street made the business case and everything was going swimmingly until, sadly, we lost the mayoral election. I appreciate that that is democracy, but it is sad that Mayor Parker, the new Labour mayor, diverted the funds, meaning there was no money to deliver the project for Aldridge.

Alongside that, we are waiting for a decision from the Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway about an open access line that would enable a direct train service from Wrexham to Euston, coming through Aldridge. I back that service, but it must stop at Aldridge. It is incomprehensible that that line could be approved without a stop at Aldridge—I will not be the only one protesting if that is the case.

Will the Minister urge the Rail Minister to work with me to deliver a railway station for Aldridge? It is not just about Aldridge; some people describe it as a village but it is actually a big village and a big community, and a station would serve a big area. I would like help in getting answers out of the mayor; the last time I wrote to him, he failed to respond. My ask to the Minister is simple: please work with me and let us get the train station delivered for the residents of Aldridge, as was promised a few years ago.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing the debate, and thank all Members for their insightful contributions. If I do not manage to get to all the individual points, I will follow them up with hon. Members.

My hon. Friend has spoken consistently about the importance of reliable and affordable transport connections for communities across Rossendale and Darwen. For too long, small towns have been held back by poor connectivity, whether because of limited bus services, unreliable rail links or the day-to-day frustrations of deteriorating local roads. We are determined to change that.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) talked about connectivity. Transport in this country has been fragmented for too long. Through the Better Connected strategy, we are changing that. We are setting out a national vision for an integrated, accessible and safe transport network that people can rely on to make the journeys they need to make easily, wherever they live across England. By taking a holistic approach to transport, we can make a real difference for communities through improved connectivity, integrated ticketing and improved cross-modal connections, so that even those without direct rail links are connected to the wider network. Transport should feel like a single joined-up system, not a series of disconnected parts.

Local leaders are key to delivering this vision. They know the transport challenges their areas face and are best placed to decide how to improve transport in their areas. We are backing local leaders in every local transport authority to make improvements by providing £21 billion of local transport funding through simplified multi-year funding settlements.

[Wendy Morton]

Picking up on the point I raised in my contribution, if the Government are working with mayors and local authorities to deliver transport, will the Minister commit to working with me to get some answers from Mayor Parker to deliver Aldridge train station? Yes or no?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am sure that the right hon. Lady is quite capable of representing her constituents directly with the Mayor of the West Midlands, and I gently remind her that she was Transport Secretary at one point, and could have done some of this work herself during that time.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will not—I have to make progress.

The majority of local transport funding is allocated by formula to give a fair share of funding for all areas. For example, our formulas take into account the length of roads, population size and rurality, so that funding reflects an area’s circumstances and need.

Rail Connections to London: Rural Towns

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I will keep this short, as I am conscious of time. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for allowing me to speak in her Adjournment debate on rail connectivity between London and what she refers to as rural towns. My constituency is not exactly rural—we are on the edge of the west midlands—but the rail line she talked about runs right through Aldridge-Brownhills, hence I am speaking in this debate. I was very fortunate to travel on a recent charter service that took in the whole of the line—a number of Members were able to travel on that train—but I had to hop on in Walsall. I will come shortly to the reason for that, because the service passed right through Aldridge in my constituency.

The proposed Wrexham, Shropshire and midlands railway line—the WSMR line, as we refer to it—should and could be a huge opportunity for communities such as mine in Aldridge-Brownhills. Finally reconnecting us to the rail network, it would unlock jobs, growth, investment, access to education and social links, some 60-odd years after the last passenger services left Aldridge. Sadly, however, we in Aldridge have no railway station at all, and we are at risk of missing such opportunity because of the Labour mayor.

We saw new stations open at Willenhall and Darlaston just last week—projects delivered thanks to the leadership and funding of the former mayor, Andy Street—but Aldridge, by contrast, is very much in the sidings at the moment, because the Labour mayor has stripped away the funding for our station. The project had been promised to my constituents and funding had been set aside by the previous mayor, Andy Street. I want to be clear about what that means: if WSMR goes ahead—and Members should be in no doubt that I sincerely hope it does so—we could soon see trains running from Wrexham to London, which would be great, and they would be going straight through Aldridge, but they would not be able to stop, all because of the decision not to build the railway station. The reality we face is passenger trains running through our village and our communities, but my constituents being left standing on the trackside watching them pass by, which would be a complete failure of priorities.

I cannot let this opportunity go without saying to the Minister that an open-access bid from WSMR is a great idea—this evening, we can show our support for it—so please will he back this line and the connectivity that our region needs? However, I challenge the decisions that risk leaving communities such as mine behind, because Aldridge does not need or want passenger services that simply run through the constituency; it needs a station where the train can actually stop.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will ensure that his request is put through to the Rail Minister.

Let me turn to the matter of direct services between Shrewsbury and London. I fully understand the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury for a direct connection to London. I reassure her and the community she represents that the Government are determined to improve rail services across her constituency and elsewhere. We will set out some of our ambitions in more detail in our forthcoming integrated national transport and long-term rail strategies later this year.

We have been clear that GBR must be a railway for everyone, and it will be required to engage widely with local leaders on delivering the best service for their area, supporting local growth in a way that is affordable, and supporting a high-performing railway for everyone. I welcome the advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury, and that of other Members, and I look forward to GBR working in partnership with them to reshape services so that they meet the needs of the communities they serve.

[Wendy Morton]

Is there definitely space for open access in GBR? The Wrexham, Shropshire and midlands railway, which the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) talked about, is an open-access bid.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her contribution. She has made similar ones about open access, and I fully agree about how important it is. We believe that when GBR manages capacity across the rail network, it might create more opportunity for open-access services when the railway is run in a more cohesive way. Open access can absolutely be part of the picture in a dynamic railway system.

The majority of passengers from Shrewsbury choose to go to Birmingham, or to other stations along the same route, and very few passengers used the Avanti service that was referenced. When Avanti withdrew its service, West Midlands Trains significantly improved its service by adding a new, limited-stop service to Birmingham, between WMT and Transport for Wales areas. Shrewsbury residents currently have three direct trains per hour to Birmingham. This is an improvement to the most popular services, and it also insulates local train service performance from issues that may occur further down the line. Since the direct service was withdrawn, Avanti has increased the number of fast services between London and Birmingham, improving interchange options for those travelling between London and Shrewsbury. I appreciate that that might not go far enough for my hon. Friend, and I am happy to take the conversation forward.

Such steps represent meaningful progress, and it is not just rail services that are being improved for local communities. We are consolidating and simplifying local transport funding for all local transport authorities. Shropshire county council will receive £8.7 million from the bus services fund, which the council can use however it wishes to deliver better bus services for local people. Shropshire county council will also receive £219 million in integrated transport fund allocations between 2026-27 and 2029-30.

I recognise my hon. Friend’s determination to pursue the open-access application from the Wrexham, Shropshire and midlands railway. The Department for Transport agrees that it would provide important connectivity for communities along the proposed route, including Shrewsbury. That is why we have provided conditional support for WSMR’s application, subject to the Office of Rail and Road and Network Rail being satisfied that services can be accommodated without compromising network performance, and without adversely affecting the rights of other operators. I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that under the current system, access to the rail network is a matter for the ORR, as the independent regulator for the rail industry. The Department for Transport is unable to direct the ORR’s decision making directly. However, capacity remains constrained on the west coast main line, and that was a major factor in the ORR’s rejection of WSMR’s original application. Improving capacity across our rail network is a long-term priority for this Government. We are establishing GBR precisely to put in place the strategic planning and sustained investment that is needed to secure better connectivity and opportunity for communities in every part of the country.

Once it receives Royal Assent, the Railways Bill will establish a new access framework. GBR will in future be responsible for decisions about access to its network, as the single directing mind for the railway. GBR will be required to determine the best use of the network in line with its statutory duties, which include promoting the interests of railway passengers, and delivering the social and economic benefits derived from railway services. Open access will continue to play a role in offering innovative solutions and improving connectivity where it represents best use of the network. The new capacity allocation framework will embed strategic planning, and under the infrastructure capacity plan, GBR will be able to provide greater clarity and long-term certainty for open-access operators in a way that the current system does not. The Government have committed to honouring all existing access rights under GBR, including for open-access operators, for the duration of those access agreements.

In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury for her thoughtful and constructive contributions on behalf of her constituents, and all other Members across the House who have raised the transport challenges in their constituency, have sought to hold the Department for Transport to account, and have asked how the Department can go further, faster, in delivering on its aspirations. I have listened to the points raised this evening, and I reassure my hon. Friend and other Members that the Government will reflect carefully on all of them.

Question put and agreed to.

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.