Martin Wrigley MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jan 2025 · Local Post Offices · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. The distinction between Crown post offices and franchised post offices cannot be drawn heavily enough. In my constituency, we lost Crown post offices in Newton Abbot and in Dawlish, and the one in Teignmouth—which I believe is the last in my constituency; all the rest are franchises—is now under threat. Does he agree that the franchise system can provide a useful service but is absolutely no substitute for the full Crown post office service, which must remain?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 20 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House’s attention to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. At Teignbridge district council, I oversaw the commencement of council house building for the first time in 30 years. Will the Secretary of State meet me and others to discuss what can be done to make it easier for other councils to build more council homes?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Talking of localism, district councils provided a useful amount of local accountability. How will the Minister ensure that local accountability continues when the regional identity may be different? May I also ask about the future of towns and parishes, which are not mentioned at all, and neither are national park authorities? How will those be empowered to have more local responsibility?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Railway Services: South-West · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is even harder for those down in Cornwall than it is for those in Devon. Both of these significant impacts are examples of the historic lack of investment in the railways in the south-west. In the south-west, we can often feel like second-class travellers—watching our services get worse so that other services can be made better. Local rail services in Devon are few and far between. Rather than a few minutes between services—as we enjoy here in London—we are lucky if we have one or two trains an hour. Trains are often made up of fewer carriages than planned due to faults or breakdowns. Schoolchildren travelling locally between towns have been unable to get on to services because they are too full, due to their having only half the expected number of carriages. A constituent told me that her young daughter was left in tears, having been denied access to a train with her group, which triggered an anxiety attack. On the London services, mobile phone coverage is barely useable for much of the journey. While for some that may be a blessed relief, it means that wi-fi connections are not reliable—a huge issue in a world where so many people rely on good connections to usefully work on the train. I consider myself fortunate, going to Devon. If I were to continue the journey in Cornwall, the train speed would slow down considerably—as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) just mentioned. Journey times could be significantly reduced by even partial electrification, as hybrid trains on the line could speed up faster and climb some of the hills quicker. I am sure my Cornish colleagues could elaborate. I ask the Minister to consider what might be done to show my constituents, and the population of the wider south-west, that they have not been ignored. I am asking for us to receive some benefits from new investment, not just delays to accommodate fast access for others to the midlands and the north. I am specifically asking for more train carriages for more local services; full metro services with no greater than half an hour between scheduled trains; monitoring and accelerating the roll-out of the Access for All programme; reliable wifi across the entire route; electrification to improve journey times to Cornwall; fast trains from Wales to the west to the south-west not stopping at Old Oak Common; and commitment to complete the Dawlish rail resilience programme.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Railway Services: South-West · Hansard source

  More

  I agree entirely that the impact of Old Oak Common is immense, and will not be just during the construction phase. The six or seven years of delays and cancellations at weekends and Christmases have been covered in this Chamber before, so I will not repeat the list of weeks and weeks of diversions to Euston and significantly reduced services. I have already started to receive complaints from my constituents about the inability of Euston station to cope with the volume of passengers when the trains cannot complete their journeys to Paddington. But the piece of the plan that adds insult to injury for the millions of passengers from the south-west, is the idea that every Great Western Railway train will stop at Old Oak Common, even after construction is completed. It has been somewhat unclear—some misleading averages have been quoted—but having met with GWR and Network Rail, I understand that stopping at Old Oak Common will add some five to 15 minutes to every single journey. Adding 15 minutes on to the fast train—of around two hours—from Exeter to London is significant, and even more so on the quicker trains from Cheltenham or Bristol. Travel to Birmingham is already available via Bristol. Looking at journey times, it will usually be faster to go to Birmingham via Bristol, unless users are further east than Swindon or Westbury. Stopping at Old Oak Common will bring little or no benefit to the majority of the long-distance rail users of the west, south-west and Wales. Can the Minister confirm that fast trains from the south-west should be able to go through Old Oak Common without stopping?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Railway Services: South-West · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a good point. Accessible, step-free stations are vitally important across Devon.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Railway Services: South-West · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered railway services in the South West. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. The south-west is hugely reliant on the mainline railway—it is an economic lifeline. As I am the MP for Newton Abbot, which includes Dawlish, Teignmouth and Kingsteignton—all towns with strong railway heritage—the railway is a fundamental part of my life and community. Devon and Cornwall are notoriously underserved by transport: there is one motorway and just two national roads. The road network in Devon is largely minor roads full of potholes. The mainline railway is the key economic lifeline for the entire region. Getting from Exeter to Paddington in a couple of hours makes a huge difference and enables many people to work part in London and part in Devon—including myself, even before I was an MP. The value of the railway to the economy was demonstrated during the 2014 Dawlish storm incident. From a Transport Committee record, we know that the storms on 4 February and 14 February 2014 caused a 100 metre breach in the sea wall at Dawlish and a 25,000 tonne landslip between Dawlish and Teignmouth, which was exacerbated by a further landslip on 5 March. The incident closed the line for eight weeks. An immediate repair cost of £35 million, including 300 engineers—the much-lauded “orange army”—got the line running again, but the interruption cost the local economy an estimated £1.2 billion. It is estimated that the Plymouth economy alone lost £600,000 each day the line was shut. Since 2014 a lot has changed, but the dependence on the railway has, if anything, increased. Please do not think of tourism as the only industry in Devon: remote working has blossomed, and it is clear from Office of Road and Rail statistics that the overwhelming majority of rail journeys from Exeter and the other main stations are to and from London. Why do we need a debate on the topic? The answer is that this vital railway link is again under threat from a number of different sources. After the 2014 storm, the then Prime Minister promised that money was no object and that the line would be made resilient. A five-phase plan was drawn up and work began. The new sea wall was built, and Dawlish railway station had a rebuilt sea defence as well. The first four phases of that plan have been done and are now in place. One massive benefit was the new bridge at Dawlish, which made both platforms accessible without steps—something that we still need in too many other stations, including Teignmouth.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Railway Services: South-West · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we need more services on all these lines to support our constituents. However, everything I have outlined will be interrupted by the creation of the HS2 link to Old Oak Common. High-speed rail is a welcome improvement to our nation’s infrastructure, but the implementation of that project has been handled poorly in the past. It has ignored the largest benefit—connections within the northern powerhouse—and the focus on delivering faster rail between London and Birmingham has delivered unwanted side effects. The decision to terminate the HS2 services at Old Oak Common, three miles west of Paddington, was quickly overturned by the incoming Government. Their announcement of a resumption of the project to tunnel to Euston is to be welcomed, but the 14-platform station at Old Oak Common—eight platforms on the surface and six for HS2 underground—will impact south-west rail services for another six or seven years as it is constructed.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Railway Services: South-West · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable point. He is absolutely right that Wales has been seen off, in terms of funding.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Railway Services: South-West · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When I met Network Rail in the autumn, it said that the design team for the fifth and final phase of the work would be reassigned if the funding was not forthcoming soon. That would put the project back, and significant extra funds would be required to get it back up to speed. A few months ago, I asked the then Transport Secretary about the funding for the critical final phase of the Dawlish rail resilience programme, which is the largest piece of work. It deals with the landslips that caused the line to be closed long beyond the short time it took to repair the sea wall breach. She looked shocked to learn that the funding was not already there. Although she did not promise the funds, she indicated that the project would be a high priority. The line has been closed on a number of occasions over the past years. The previous large cliff collapse was in the winter of 2000-01, according to the “West of Exeter Route Resilience Study”. I ask the Minister to reassure Network Rail and my constituents that that vital project will not be quietly forgotten, but will be completed to protect the economic wellbeing of the south-west and my constituents’ access to rail services. However, there are other threats too. The Great Western main line not only runs from Paddington to Exeter, Plymouth, Penzance and the far west of Cornwall, but covers Swindon, Bristol, Cheltenham and Gloucester, to name but a few, not forgetting Cardiff, Swansea and south Wales.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Railway Services: South-West · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to have this debate, and I thank colleagues from across the House for participating. We have heard some fairly clear messages, and I thank the Minister for responding to some of them. There is certainly some hope in some of the responses that have been given. It is clear that the south-west and Wales have been disadvantaged over a long period through lack of investment in the railways. Although large sums have been talked about, they have clearly not been used down in the south-west. I thank the Minister for recognising the importance of the rail network and for the news about increasing some of the capacity on local services, which is most welcome. The Minister said that a resilient railway is crucial, and that is exactly right. Parsons tunnel to Teignmouth— I am afraid it is pronounced “Tinmuth”, and not like Tynemouth, which is somewhere else; it is very confusing because Teignbridge is pronounced “Teenbridge”, so the pronunciation is most unique—is absolutely vital. It was the collapse of that section that closed the railway for eight weeks; it was not the breach of the sea wall that closed it. It had happened 15 years before, and it will happen again; those cliffs are not protected. Without the fifth phase, the resilience work that has been done to date will be wasted. What Network Rail needs is not funding today but the promise of funding in the future, to ensure that the design team is there and ready to go when funding is available. We all understand that we cannot fund everything at once—I do not think that anyone is asking for that—so I understand it when the Minister says he cannot fund everything now. What I want is a promise that this work will be funded in the future, when money is available, so that we can make sure that it is progressed and not forgotten. That is absolutely vital. On HS2 disruption, it was interesting to hear that the purpose of Old Oak Common is to transfer passengers from HS2 to the Elizabeth line. That is a clear focus, and it shows that no real interaction is intended with GWR’s south-west and Wales services. On the idea of stopping trains, again, I do not think we expect a complete timetable at this stage; we would just like the confirmed option that some trains will not stop. That option has been ruled out in some of the conversations I have had, and I like the fact that it is now open. Having that as a commitment, even without the full timetable, will reassure my constituents that fast trains will still be able to go through to London. The £165 million Dawlish investment is also very much welcomed. I refer back to the £1.2 billion cost of the closure. So it is £165 million versus £1.2 billion. To me, it is obvious that that investment needs to be continued. I end by thanking you, Dr Allin-Khan, and congratulating you on chairing your first Westminster Hall debate. I also thank everybody else who was present for the debate, and I look forward to having more conversations with Rail Ministers about the future of railways in the south-west, because we are only just beginning this journey. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered railway services in the South West.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Old Oak Common Station · Hansard source

  More

  Following the failures of the last Government on HS2, Old Oak Common might have made sense as a terminus to HS2 from the north. It is no longer that and now does not make any sense at all. A 14-platform station that duplicates connections from Paddington and Euston is neither wanted nor needed. We know that the trains can go to Euston; we have already seen that at weekends. The new tunnel will make that faster, no doubt. I do understand that the station is being built—it is likely too late to redesign it—but after a period of six years of construction delay, it is adding insult to injury to then have a delay of between five to 15 minutes on every train on the GWR network going into and out of London. Yes, there is a choke part of the lines going into Paddington, but HS2 will be going to Euston, via tunnel, and the Elizabeth line is already going to Paddington, so we gain no benefit. I understand that the ongoing plan for all trains to stop at Old Oak Common has been under discussion, so surely it is now time to revise that decision and stop this bizarre plan in its tracks. There is an alternative. Fast trains should not stop at Old Oak Common. In addition, the south-west must see benefits, and not just be second class to midlands traffic. At the very least, we need a commitment to complete the Dawlish resilience works, and to have other schemes, including partial electrification on the route to Cornwall, to speed up the line to Penzance.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Old Oak Common Station · Hansard source

  More

  I was listening very carefully, and I think the Minister just said that not all trains will necessarily stop at Old Oak Common. Could she confirm that, please?

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 29, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”. This amendment would add manufacturing businesses to the types of business that could qualify for use of the lower multiplier.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We have tabled this amendment to explore the possibility of including manufacturing businesses. Manufacturing is important, and we know that it is struggling. By adding manufacturing businesses, we might be able to help them in the same way as we intend to help hospitality, retail and leisure. Manufacturing is a vital area that we have lost too much of in the past however many years. This relief would be a small help to enable manufacturing businesses to recover. That is why we would like to add the category of manufacturing to the provision.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to new clause 1. I thank the Minister for his words. It is, as we are discovering, an incredibly complex and arcane way of creating taxes that will have an impact on many high street businesses. While the Treasury analysis will tell us how the multipliers have hit, and the numbers that are done from a taxation point of view, it will not answer whether the Bill has achieved what it set out to do, which is to provide the necessary relief. New clause 1 looks more at the impact on the businesses and whether the provisions had a measurable impact on economic growth. That is not the same as an analysis from the Treasury of the changes in the bills that are being presented to people; it is looking at the effect and impact, to see whether the Bill is achieving the desired outcome. That is why we would like to see the measurement included. As an engineer and a scientist, I believe in a feedback mechanism: something that measures what has been achieved against what has been required. We believe that was missing in the Bill, and we would like to see it, which is why we have asked for new clause 1 to be considered. The work is there and will be beneficial to one and all. I do not see it as a significant barrier to the Bill progressing, but as a positive feedback mechanism that will enable us to determine the effectiveness of the support on the desired areas and businesses, including high streets, which are so important. Question put and agreed to. Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This has been my first Bill Committee experience, and it has been interesting and delightfully short. I am delighted to see it executed so effectively and efficiently. I thank the Minister for all his thoughtful and thorough explanations of the different bits and pieces, and I really hope that the legislation will provide good support to our high streets, which desperately need surety about their situation. I thank everybody involved, and I particularly thank the Clerks for their help in explaining to me how the process would work and helping us through it.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am a little reassured by the Government’s intentions to support the manufacturing industry and look forward to their efforts to do so. I am certainly reassured by the support for the high street, which is very important to all. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Apologies for being late; I got caught in traffic behind a tractor. I thank the panel for their evidence. I am a coastal Devon MP, and within my constituency are Dawlish and Teignmouth. We have some major holiday sites in that area that I am fairly sure will fall into the upper brackets. What is your feeling on the changing situation? As I understand it, we have the 75% reduction right now, we are going to the 40% reduction, and then we are going to the multiplier system. Will it cause problems to be chopping and changing every year? Kate Nicholls: I think the line of sight and the longer change going forward is really helpful to have set out at this Budget. The rates, we understand, will have to be set when you know what the multiplier is going forward. If you had the maximum 20p discount from the current multiplier, that is broadly equivalent to 40%. That is if the multiplier stays the same; it could actually reduce. It remains to be seen, however, what happens when we come to the end of 2025-26 towards ’26-27 and the longer term. It could look as though it is broadly the same. Regarding the 40% now, any relief is better than nothing at this point in time—we were facing a major cliff edge. We should, however, be in no doubt that those businesses eligible for relief—given there was a cap, it is the smaller businesses—are facing a significant increase in their business rates bills from April. For the sector as a whole, it is an extra £0.5 billion of tax. If you look at the Budget measures as a whole, we are facing £3.4 billion as a sector: the cumulative impact of the reduction in relief and an increase in bills. On top of everything else, they will have a big chunk of money to pay out additionally going forward. Although 40% is better than nothing, as Steve said, it is less than 75%. I would just say that when Wales reduced relief to 40% last year, closures in Wales were a third higher than they were in England. Scotland reduced it to zero and failures in Scotland were significantly higher in the hospitality sector as a result. It does have real-world impacts. You cannot take it away from the overall context of the tax situation we are facing as a result of the Budget coming into effect in April, and there is the combined effect of all that happening at the same time. It should, however, smooth out after that. There is longer-term certainty and, crucially, the new multipliers will apply to each and every premises—there is no state aid threshold or cap. Previously, that has been limited, where the effects of the relief were effectively limited to businesses that had two or three sites. Multi-site businesses and those with larger premises will now benefit going forward, so the industry as a whole will be on a much more sustainable footing, longer term.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Reforming business rates is very welcome. We always like that—they are not a particularly good tax—but I fear the measure is making them more complicated. Forgive me if it is a naive question, but I do not see anywhere in the Bill, other than it starting in April 2026, any commitment to forward notice of changes or the forward ability to see changes. One presumes they come once a year in the Budget, but I am not sure it is actually mandated that that is the case. Is there a mechanism in the Bill that prevents future Governments from changing these rates more frequently, or is there anything that we can put in it that gives local authorities sufficient time to implement such things? You say that the provisional settlement is due next week. I say once again, as a former council leader, that that is very late. You are forgiven—it is the first year, so there are extenuating circumstances—but councils need time to set their budgets, set their systems and do all that. I am looking for lead times, implementation times and guarantees of multiple years’ rates for consistency. Jim McMahon: That is precisely why we have phased the approach. The permanent relief will come in at 40% in 2026-27, but we have included a transition period. [ Official Report, 4 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 6WC.] (Correction) That will continue the £110,000 cap, but it will bring in the 40% relief. The relief will be out the door immediately, but it will give time for a number of things in the system to catch up, the revaluation being a very important part of that. This is a part of the wider issue of local funding. There are measures in the Bill that will see additional business rate funding to councils, because some of that is retained business rates in the system. We are going a long way and, without getting ahead of next week’s provisional settlement, it is a good settlement. There is £4 billion to £5 billion of new, clean money going into local government for all the issues that you as a former council leader will know are the absolute pressure points: social care, children’s services and temporary accommodation. All those issues are being addressed through the Budget and the provisional settlement. Importantly, deprivation is being brought back as a key indicator of demand in driving many of those services in local communities. We are going a long way towards that, and we are making sure that councils are given the certainty and capacity. We accept that the settlement this year is coming down to the wire, and it would have been nice to get it sooner, but getting it right is important. Our intention is, as we move further, to go to multi-year settlements so that councils have long-term stability and that certainty is built into the business rate system.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you for coming today. The Co-op is a vital element of many of the communities in my area in south Devon. It is a mainstay of many communities. In the Bill I am interested in the jump between the small business rates and the large business rates based on a rateable value of £51,000. Is that an issue for you in terms of deterring expansion and improvement of stores, or is that not something that you worry about? Paul Gerrard: As I think I said in an answer to an earlier question, it is one of the factors that we will bear in mind. I do not think it would necessarily be the deciding factor to either open or keep open a store. There will be other things that we would take into account, such as crime or a change in demographic and footfall. It is a factor, but I am not sure that it is the determining factor.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Planning Committees: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Speaking as—until recently—the leader of a district council and a long-term member of our planning committee, I do not recognise the issues that the Minister is citing. A lot of the things he says relate to the absence of a local plan. I fully agree with that. My council has just put in place a new local plan, which is hopefully being approved right now. A better way to get more affordable housing would be to look at the way local authorities can finance the building of those houses and fix that. It would be better to allow local authorities to charge appropriate amounts to cover the costs of the planning, so that they can get the necessary planning officers, and far better to look at how many councils already do mandatory training. I hear from Liberal Democrat colleagues that they all had to do mandatory training, as I did in my council, so that is in place. I would like to see a list of how many councils do not do that. We also need to make water companies statutory consultees so that we do not hit flooding problems. Those changes will help. The problem is not in the planning process. More than 1 million applications have been allowed but not built—

• 4 Dec 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q10. The major GP practice groups in my constituency have written to me, detailing their precarious finances. They are considering their options as they plan for the year ahead, including redundancies, handing back their contracts or bankruptcy, and they have stopped recruiting GPs, resulting in fewer patient appointments. The Health Secretary has promised an increased funding allocation but has yet to say when we will know how much it will be. Will the Prime Minister release the funding information and meet me and the GPs to hear at first hand about the pressures they are facing?

• 21 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The storm in 2014 broke the Dawlish sea wall, collapsed cliffs and blocked the south-west main line for months. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the crucial rail resilience programme final phase will be funded so that Network Rail keeps the project alive, rather than halting it in its tracks?