Paul Kohler MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Mar 2025 · Disabled People’s Access to Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for the report, which is most welcome. I will read it with interest. She referenced the Access for All programme, which hit the buffers during the previous Parliament with fewer than half the promised projects coming to fruition. She said much about what went wrong. How confident is she that we can avoid such problems happening in future?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q2. Many of my constituents have approached me about the inadequate treatment of young people with eating disorders. This year, despite a 30% increase in referrals, the majority of integrated care boards have cut real-terms funding. Currently, as I have seen in my own family and in my weekly surgeries, those who reach out for treatment are told, in effect, “Come back when you are thinner,” increasing both the human and financial cost of treatment. Does the Prime Minister agree that timely interventions are critical, and will he meet me to discuss how we fund them?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered step-free access at stations. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. We are here today to discuss an issue of great importance to many across the country. No one could accuse this Government of dragging their feet on reform of our public transport system. With the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill en route to the Commons from the Lords, the rail reform consultation and the call for ideas on an integrated transport strategy, big steps are under way. All that activity presents us with a real opportunity to put accessibility at the heart of our public transport system to deliver a network that will serve everyone—but the devil will be in the detail and it is incumbent on the Government to move on from lofty rhetoric to the hard reality of making our transport system accessible. More than 60 million people in the UK have a disability, or around a quarter of the total population. Those living with a disability take 28% fewer journeys than those who do not—a telling indictment of our current provision. There are issues on all forms of public transport, but arguably the greatest obstacles exist in rail services. According to a study by Transport for All, only 30% of disabled respondents said they used trains with confidence, and 10% said they do not use them at all. There are many reasons for this, including overcrowded trains and inadequate toilet provision. However, the biggest issue remains the absence of step-free access. Currently, only about a quarter of train stations are fully step-free from street to platform, making much of the rail network unusable for wheelchair users, and incredibly difficult for those with other mobility issues.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We absolutely need a commitment from the Government. That is what we are looking for today. Now where was I up to?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  Wimbledon Park tube station in my constituency had the highest number of incidents, with the lifts not working on a shocking 132 occasions. That was not always the case; in 2015 there were only 65 occasions across the whole year. Things deteriorated from that point, and in 2019 the Mayor of London told the London Assembly that he had been “clear with Transport for London…that these instances must be further reduced.” Sadly, that did not happen, and the situation has continued to deteriorate year on year. I appreciate that it is primarily a matter for the Mayor, but will the Government please raise that issue with him? Time is short, so I will finish up, but we must note that lifts are by no means the only issue. Even if individuals can reach the platform, boarding the train is often incredibly difficult, and 67% of station platforms are too narrow for wheelchair users to turn at the base of a ramp. It is estimated that just 2% of stations actually have level boarding between the train and the platform. That is simply not good enough.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  Like other hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman makes the point that this is an issue across the country. It absolutely needs to be addressed if we want to make our transport system fit for all residents. If a development is already taking place, surely that is the ideal time to ensure that the station is step-free, instead of causing disturbance at a future date. Wimbledon Chase, in my constituency, is about to undergo a major redevelopment, but step-free access is not being provided. That makes no sense. I understand that the previous Government conducted a consultation on potential changes to the regulations, so do the Government plan to move forward on this issue?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, indeed. Access for All stalled under the previous Government and we must give it new impetus. The hon. Member is absolutely correct.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely correct— I had got to exactly that point in my speech. Despite the successes, the Access for All scheme has failed to deliver on its potential, but hon. Members need not take my word for it. In May 2024, the current Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, then chair of Network Rail, said Access for All had “significantly underperformed” over the previous five years, having stalled under the previous Government. Of the 149 schemes due to be completed in that period, only 77 were—and, in what seems to be a first for a Government infrastructure project, there was an underspend of £99 million.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  Yes—that might be useful, while I look for my place.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  I agree entirely with the hon. Member. All those components have to come together. I must remember where I get to in my speech when I take an intervention. In an answer to a written question, I have been informed that an internal review into the shortcomings in the scheme has been conducted but has not been released. I therefore ask the Government to commit to doing so today. Many more stations have not even secured funding to begin the journey to step-free access. Stations in my constituency, including Malden Manor, South Merton and Morden South, are still waiting, with no prospect of anything happening any time soon. There are also problems with the requirements that govern station modernisation. Believe it or not, it is not a given that step-free access will be incorporated in any new scheme. The current regulations state that if development is taking place at a station that serves under 1,000 passengers a day and there is another step-free station within 50 km—yes, 50 km—no step-free access needs to be included in the scheme; rather, there needs just to be some form of provision to include it at a later date. We all appreciate the need to spread developments across the network, but do the Government really think that 50 km is a practical distance to travel to use an accessible station?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I agree. It is not just about the physical provision, but having staff available, which I will come on to later in my speech. As I was saying, accessibility is a problem not only for wheelchair users but for those with other mobility issues, including those with pushchairs or luggage, so we need to address the problem of step-free access. The Government have made some progress on this in recent years—though by no means enough—via the Access for All scheme. Since its inception in 2006, it has provided step-free access to around 300 stations, something that should be acknowledged. I was very proud to recently cut the ribbon at the new Motspur Park station, which is now fully step-free for the first time in its 100-year history. After a decade-long campaign by local Lib Dems and efforts by my predecessor, we finally achieved what local Tories in Wimbledon said was impossible: delivering a station of which all users could take advantage.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a good point; I got to the point in my speech entitled “Lifts out of action”, so I will start that now—how prescient of her. The issue is not only the lack of step-free access. Even where there is provision, it is often unreliable. It is clearly unacceptable that those who rely on step-free access to plan their journeys—based on the limited number of stations available—discover only on arrival that the lift is out of action. The Office of Road and Rail found that there were more than 5,000 lift faults on the network from April to October last year—an increase of 9% on the same period the previous year. Furthermore, there has been a deeply concerning increase in the number of entrapments. The number of entrapments went up by more than a fifth in the last six months, with almost 400 entrapment events from April to October 2024 and an increase of 42% on the number of entrapments of more than 75 minutes. The situation on the London underground last year was even more appalling. Only 92 out of 272 London underground stations are step-free, but those are often out of action, not just from faults, but due to a lack of staffing. A recent Lib Dem freedom of information request showed that there were 1,254 incidents last year, totalling 6,197 hours when the lifts were working perfectly well but train staff members were not there, meaning that those who rely on them cannot use the station.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has also shown how prescient she is, because I am about to reach that point in my conclusion. It is clear that the Government need to take urgent action on all this. There is a desperate need to get our economy growing, and ensuring that our infrastructure is accessible should play a key part in that. We hear today that the Government are reviewing the benefits system to get more people back to work. Surely they see that making public transport accessible is a crucial part of that endeavour. Accessibility is not just a good-to-have; it is vital to creating a more inclusive and productive country. I hope the Government are listening.

• 11 Mar 2025 · North Sea Vessel Collision · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The scenes we have all witnessed in news reports are very concerning, and our thoughts are with all those affected and with the family of the crew member who remains unaccounted for. This event reminds us of the risks and dangers faced by those who work in the maritime sector. These men and women often work long, challenging hours, keeping our country and economy going with little—if any—recognition, and we are hugely grateful to them. We are also indebted to the emergency services, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the coastguard for their tireless work through the night. I know they are doing all they can to limit the damage and the environmental impact, and have done so much to minimise the loss of life. While it will take time to establish what has taken place, it is clear that the Government need to take urgent steps to limit the damage and reassure local communities. I welcome the Government’s formation of the tactical co-ordination group and the work it is doing with other agencies. I appreciate that the situation is still unfolding and that many questions cannot be answered at this stage. However, will the Minister say first what immediate steps the Government are taking to protect the environment along the east coast? Secondly, what is he doing to keep shipping routes open and safe? Thirdly, what is the Government’s plan to support fishing and other businesses that rely on waters that might now be contaminated?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Political Finance Rules · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. As the Prime Minister declared last year, and as we see so graphically on the world stage now, the “fight for trust” will be “the battle that defines our political era.”— —[ Official Report , 17 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 56.] It is clear that if we MPs are to achieve the changes that people need most in their lives, we need a functioning democracy. If those we represent do not trust politicians to act in their best interest, we will not be an effective institution. Currently, it is simply not the case that they trust us. Both in the UK and across the globe, faith in politics and politicians is at an all-time low. In the UK, 76% of people have little to no trust in Members of this House—up from 54% a decade ago. I note with no great relish that this may not be surprising after years of a Conservative Government who were more concerned with their internal politics than the concerns of people around the country, but it should be a deep concern for us all. Rebuilding trust in politics is the goal, regardless of our political colour or persuasion. I am sure that all Members of the House can support that, but it will not happen overnight. Research from the Electoral Commission shows that only 15% of people agree that there is transparency around the money spent and received by parties and campaigners—down from over a third in 2011. We should be clear that political donations are not inherently wrong and are part of a vibrant democratic system. Individuals should be able to take part in the democratic process through political donations, which can help people to further the goals and ideals that they believe in. Banning any donations would entrench power, leaving new or smaller parties unable to campaign against incumbents. It would work against many of our democratic principles, but it is clear that although political donations are a good thing, we must have adequate transparency as to the source of the money. That is currently not the case. The legal framework for the political finance system is now over 25 years old, and though it was explicitly intended to ban foreign donations to UK political parties, there are clearly many loopholes. There is no doubt that foreign nations have an interest in altering our politics. Dictators such as Putin and Xi Jinping have made it perfectly clear that they do not believe in democracy and are willing to undermine our institutions, but our current system has built-in loopholes that allow foreign interests to channel money to our politics to shape it in their interest. At present, UK-registered companies are permitted to make donations using money raised overseas and, as has been said previously, unincorporated associations can legitimately make donations using funding from otherwise impermissible donors. It is not just foreign donations that should cause concern; the sheer amount of money coming from a small number of extremely wealthy donors is also worrying. Of the £85 million received in private donations in 2023 alone, two thirds came from just 19 donors. Money helps direct the political winds, and having that amount of money come from such a small number of powerful individuals risks bringing our democratic system into disrepute. We must introduce a cap on donations. No matter how noble the intention, no individual should be able to donate excessively, as large donations can at the very least give the impression that undue influence is being exercised over our democracy. This would not only be a positive step in cleaning up politics; it would be popular too. A recent YouGov poll found that more than two thirds of the British public support a limit on political donations. Personally, I also have concerns about the capacity of union barons to exercise what might appear to be undue influence via the vast amount of money accumulated through the political levy, which they can donate or withhold as they see fit. However, I acknowledge that the issue is complex. We are at a crucial juncture, and it is in everyone’s interests that the Government get a proper handle on this issue. We cannot enter the next general election with so many questions left unanswered.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to new clauses 7 and 8. As the MP for Wimbledon, I am proud to represent a constituency with such a rich and diverse educational offering, including fantastic primary and secondary schools in both the independent and state sectors. But recent Government decisions, including the increases in employer NI contributions on all schools, the removal of business rates relief and the imposition of VAT on school fees at independent schools, are pushing many in the state and private sectors to the brink. The changes to independent schools have caused considerable concern in my constituency, as can be clearly seen by the over 1,000 signatures from my constituents on the petition being debated today in Westminster Hall. It is my belief and that of my party, as Liberals, that education should not be taxed and individuals should be able to freely make choices about how their children are educated. The ambition should be to reach a point where the state offering for schools is so high that no parent feels particularly compelled to send their children to independent schools. However, these ideologically driven policies of taxing education are not the solution. They simply put further strain on the state sector while financially hitting those who make what they believe to be the best choice for their child. These policies are a piece of red meat to show that the red flag is still fluttering on the Labour Benches. Admittedly, the long-term impact that the changes will have on schools is still to be seen, but the early signs are not good. This academic year we have already seen a drop of 10,000 pupils at independent schools—three times higher than the Government estimated. Many believe that the change will not be a one-off event, but the start of a longer period, with more pupils expected to leave independent schools in the coming years, making any financial gains to improve the state sector illusory. It is important to note that the cost per pupil is likely larger than the national average due to the sheer number of students in the independent sector who have special educational needs. The Independent Schools Council estimates that over 130,000 pupils in independent schools have special educational needs, with 90,000 of them receiving special educational needs and disabilities support with no education, health and care plan. Independent schools in my constituency, such as the Hall school, Wimbledon high school and Donhead prep school, to name but three, do a huge amount to support children with special educational needs, and many parents choose to send their children there for that reason alone. I have spoken to many parents who have made tough financial sacrifices to send their children to those schools. They speak of the barriers to their children receiving the support they need in the state sector, including long waiting lists to receive an EHCP. The changes are already forcing many to reconsider their decision because they simply no longer can afford to use the private sector to relieve pressure on the state system. As is well documented, there are huge issues around the provision of SEND support in state schools, with many children waiting years for support and many schools not being able to provide the support they would like to due to budgetary restraints. At a time when the Government and local councils are already struggling to support schools with the money they need for SEND support, avoiding further strain on state schools is vital—these decisions do the opposite. Turning to new clause 8, I draw the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will speak about the impact the Bill will have on the wine industry, the night-time economy and hospitality in general. Under the current wine easement, 85% of all wine sold in the UK is subject to the same rate of duty. With the alcohol duty now set to be linked to the volume of alcohol in each bottle of wine, that will be replaced by 30—yes, 30—different rates of duty. While I understand the Government’s broader intentions, the new regime is simply not workable in the context of wine. It fails to account for the fundamental difference between wine and other more manufactured drinks. The alcohol by volume of wine cannot be predicted with precision before or during the wine-making process. The alcohol content is stable only at the point when the wine goes into the bottle. The ABV varies between different years and vats. Until bottling, we do not know the ABV of a particular bottle. It therefore creates huge uncertainty about price and profit margins for the industry if there are different rates of duty depending on the specific ABV, down to a gradation of 0.1%. That is particularly important with low-cost wines. This regime is utterly impractical for wine producers and merchants. Hal Wilson, co-founder of Cambridge Wine Merchants, told me: “In my business this feels like death by a thousand cuts, or even two thousand cuts. We sell over 2,000 different wines each year and from February will need to know the precise ABV of each and every one before being able to calculate their full cost. For each 0.1% ABV difference there is a different amount of tax to be paid.” I wrote to the Minister about the matter and received a long and detailed response, for which I am grateful. He made the point that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will change its practice and accept the ABV on the label of the bottle to the nearest 0.5%, but that is current practice; it is not in the legislation as I understand it. It is still far too complex and much of my criticism still holds. Secondly, the letter fundamentally misunderstands why people drink wine. Wine is consumed primarily for the taste, not the strength. The ABV affects the taste profile. Compare a light Beaujolais with a robust Rioja—it is all about taste, not whether it is stronger so one can get more drunk. That is not how people consume wine. Turning briefly to hospitality and the night-time economy, the industry faces an existential crisis owing to the cost of living crisis, rising energy prices, inflation, labour shortages following Brexit, changes to commuting patterns and the more than doubling of business rates. The increase in alcohol duties will be yet another burden. Every incremental cost makes survival more difficult, as I know myself, and the Bill shows that the Government are still not taking the dangers seriously.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Has the Minister actually spoken to people in the wine industry? They are absolutely at their wits’ end about this.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Town Centre Regeneration · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his answer. I am proud to have half of Morden town centre in my constituency. Morden is an area ripe for rejuvenation. It has fantastic transport links, but like many town centres across the country, it is struggling. As one Labour councillor recently noted in the council chamber, despite years of promising to regenerate Morden, Labour-run Merton council has failed to deliver. Just last week, it again put off doing anything—this time until at least 2027. Will the Minister meet me to discuss why the council has failed to begin rejuvenation over the last 30 years, and to discuss what support the Government can now give?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Town Centre Regeneration · Hansard source

  More

  13. What steps she is taking to support councils with town centre regeneration projects.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Women’s Health · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my former colleague on Merton council, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore), for securing this important debate. As the proud father of four daughters—the solitary man in a family of six—I am acutely aware of the inequalities between the sexes when it comes to health provision. The evidence is clear: our health system does not accord women equal priority to men. Their health issues are often ill researched and underfunded, with women more likely to be misdiagnosed and undertreated for pain, and have their symptoms dismissed. From a lack of research funding into women’s specific health conditions to medical textbooks using many more images of men, women’s health is often marginalised. Women regularly report feeling unheard by doctors. Surveys have found that over 80% of women report not feeling listened to by healthcare professionals, with their symptoms being dismissed. As a constituent recently told me, “Every woman I know has a story of their pain not being taken seriously.” That is simply not acceptable. As time is short, I will focus on two issues that I know are key for my constituents and my immediate family. My constituency of Wimbledon has a particular concern around the levels and availability of breast cancer screening. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in the UK, with one woman diagnosed every 10 minutes. Every year in the UK that leads to, on average, 11,500 deaths. It is, however, one of the most treatable cancers if caught in its early stages, as I saw with my wife Samantha, who was diagnosed and successfully treated almost a decade ago. Breast cancer is a disease where screening programmes work and are cost-effective. In Merton, however, where most of my constituency lies, there are genuine concerns about the effectiveness of the screening programme, with more than 40% of eligible women failing to attend when invited. That is partly due to the fact that Merton is one of the only boroughs in London not to have a specific breast screening cancer centre, despite its being recommended by NHS reports a number of times. I acknowledge that that is being worked on, as is the potential for using a mobile screening unit in the meantime, but there is still no firm commitment. Each day’s delay means more breast cancer going undiagnosed and women’s lives being jeopardised. Finally, as it is Eating Disorders Awareness Week, I would like to focus on how this terrible disease impacts women, as women, particularly young women, are at the highest risk. As my wife and I have seen in our own family, those who take the often difficult step of reaching out for help are too often told that nothing can be done—that they are not ill enough to be treated as the resources are not there—with an underlying message that they should starve themselves more and wait until they are thinner. They will not be taken seriously until their condition has deteriorated further, at which point it is of course more dangerous, more damaging, more difficult, and more doubtful whether they will ever recover, as eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of any mental illness. I have focused in my speech on the two aspects of women’s health in which my family has the most experience. In finishing, I want to emphasise the broader point with which I began. We have an unequal healthcare system in which women are treated as second best and often marginalised, and that simply must change.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Sri Lanka · Hansard source

  More

  It is over 15 years since the end of the bloody civil war in Sri Lanka, but those responsible for the many war crimes committed during that conflict, including the targeting of civilians and sexual violence, have still not been held accountable. In opposition, the Foreign Secretary called on the Government to follow the example of our allies, including the US and Canada, in imposing sanctions against individuals suspected of committing these appalling acts. Now he is in government, will he commit to finally doing so?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Sri Lanka · Hansard source

  More

  15. If he will take diplomatic steps to help ensure accountability for alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In her previous role as deputy London Mayor for transport, the Secretary of State stated she was “clear” in her opposition to a third runway at Heathrow. Is she still clear in her opposition, and if not, what has changed her mind?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Local Road Condition · Hansard source

  More

  Too many of Britain’s roads are in a shocking state of disrepair, as the Secretary of State says. In my constituency, Labour-run Merton council has the worst roads in London and the second worst in the country. Some 40% of our local roads are rated as poor by her Department. Although I welcome the coming year’s increase in funding, that is only a short-term measure and not based on need; Merton and others have received less than authorities whose roads are in a better condition. As Labour-run Merton has failed to maintain its roads and has not been bailed out by its friends in the Government, will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss what action can be taken?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Rail Services: Open Access Operators · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. We have heard lively contributions from across the House, and underlying all of them is a simple truth: in the UK, open access rail operators have a clear track record of improving services, increasing access and driving economic growth. However, the recent letter from the Secretary of State to the Office of Rail and Road makes it very clear that the future of open access services in this country is at risk. Although the Government’s position is just one of the issues that the ORR has a statutory duty to consider, the fact that the Government are asking the ORR to take a more cautious approach is clearly a concern. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s views on that point and any assurances that he can give. Although the Secretary of State might have legitimate concerns regarding capacity and abstraction, I fear there is an ideological element to her intervention. The Government are in danger of being led by doctrine rather than facts. Again, an assurance would be gratefully received. As we heard from the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham, the record of three open access operators—Lumo, Grand Central and Hull Trains—competing against the Government-owned franchise LNER on the east coast main line has shown how competition for passengers drives down fares and drives up passenger numbers. Research has shown new open access operators competing on the same routes as incumbents typically offer fare reductions of 20% to 60% in the long term. At a time when fares are sky high, competition helping to drive down costs for passengers should be encouraged, particularly when it is compensated for by a commensurate increase in passenger numbers to more than cover the revenue lost per customer. On the east coast main line, passenger numbers bounced back faster than in any other area after covid, due in no small part to the competition on that part of the network. Open access is not only good for passengers, but good for the planet. Cheaper tickets and better access to services, since Lumo has been running services from London to Edinburgh, have meant that rail’s market share, compared with air travel, grew from 35% in 2019 to 57% in 2022. That is not just a UK phenomenon. Unlike the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham, I am delighted to look to Europe for inspiration. In Italy, competition between the open access operator Italo Treno and the Italian state operator has driven a 90% increase in passenger numbers between Rome and Milan, while in Spain competition between Ouigo and Iryo on the Madrid-to-Valencia route has resulted in fares 50% lower than on routes with no competition. It is somewhat ironic that, while Europe is liberalising its railways and seeing positive results, we are potentially moving in the opposite direction. Open access rail can also play a vital part in increasing services to many of our other underserved communities. As we have heard from the hon. Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Brigg and Immingham about Cleethorpes, from the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) about Skipton, and from the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) about Scarborough, there are many towns and regions in this country where open access can make a real contribution to improving connectivity across the country. With an eye to revenue, private companies have found gaps in the timetable and delivered for residents where the Government have not. As we have seen in this debate, any changes to open access arrangements by the Government are likely to provoke ire from their Back Bench colleagues in Hull, Sunderland and elsewhere. The hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and for Scarborough and Whitby know the value of open access, and I am sure they will keep the Minister’s mind concentrated on its importance. The same will be true of MPs representing areas where open access is still in its infancy or gestation. In Somerset and Wiltshire, concerned residents are taking the lack of rail provision into their own hands, with the formation of Go-op, the first ever co-operatively owned railway operator, which plans to increase vital regional services in an often neglected area. Meanwhile, in north Wales, the proposed Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway will bring back direct services from London to Wrexham, helping to bring passengers and further growth to a town already on the up—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) noted, it has taken far too long to get through the bureaucracy and get the service approved. While we will hear from the Minister about concerns regarding capacity on the network, there are definitely areas with capacity for a greater number of services. Take the channel tunnel, for example: the French owners of the tunnel, Getlink, have said that it was designed for double the capacity, and an application for a new open access operator on the line to compete with Eurostar is with the regulator. Introducing welcome competition on the line will help to grow international train services to and from the UK and to reduce ticket prices. It is clear, therefore, that open access should have a part to play in the future of the rail network. While my party and I are agnostic regarding rail nationalisation, the Liberal Democrats firmly believe that the private sector should play a part where there are clear benefits for passengers. We should be led by evidence, which shows that open access operators have made a positive addition to the network, and that the regulator has been successful in addressing concerns about abstraction. The Government, in their upcoming Rail Reform Bill, must therefore ensure that a fully functioning, properly resourced regulator is maintained. As we move to a model where 75% of rail activity is under public ownership, we must ensure that that near-monopoly does not crowd out others, such as freight and open access. Not only is maintaining a competitive element on the railway good for passengers, but it will help the Government to guarantee that GBR is delivering the best outcomes, and—of course—grow the economy.