Simon Lightwood MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Feb 2025 · Thameslink Train Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing the debate and providing this opportunity to discuss the performance of Thameslink services, and I thank the hon. Members who interjected to make points, which I will try to address in my response. The Government recognise the crucial role that the rail network plays in supporting economic development, housing and employment growth, tourism, and environmental benefits. That is why we have made fixing Britain’s railway our top transport priority. We need to improve services for passengers and deliver better value for money for the taxpayer. I recognise that performance on Thameslink, operated by Govia Thameslink Railway, has not been where we expect it to be, and passengers deserve better. Thameslink passengers have faced recent disruption caused by a variety of Network Rail infrastructure incidents, as well as a high level of cancellations due to train crew availability, particularly during the final few months of last year. I know that cancellations, especially those made close to the time of travel, can be very inconvenient for passengers, disrupting their lives and making it difficult for them to travel with confidence.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that investment in our transport infrastructure across the country is essential to our growth mission. I am aware of the investment zone bid involving Glasgow airport, and the aviation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), would be delighted to visit in the near future.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Ministers and officials are in regular contact with Northern Rail. We recognise that its performance is totally unacceptable, and with the challenges that Northern Rail faces, it will take time to become a stable and reliable service. I would be absolutely delighted to work with my hon. Friend.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As I have said before, growth is the priority mission of this Government, and we are committed to empowering local leaders. A regional transport strategy, and a strategic investment plan for the south-west, has been developed by the sub-national transport body Peninsula Transport.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I will certainly meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this matter.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The accessibility of all modes of transport is extremely important to this Government. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter further.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Local Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  The Government already invest £700 million in the national concessionary travel scheme in order to fund those bus passes, and at the last Budget we announced over £1 billion of funding to support buses. We changed the formula for BSIP—bus service improvement plans—away from the competitive “Hunger Games” style contests under the previous Government. The hon. Member’s local area will have received funding and it is able to use that funding to go above and beyond what is set on a national level.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Local Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member will be pleased to know that the bus services Bill includes the socially necessary local services measure. Under the new measure, local transport authorities operating under an enhanced partnership will need to identify local services which they consider socially necessary and put in place requirements that must be followed before such services can be changed or cancelled. They will also need to consider the alternative options that are available.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Local Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this issue and will know that this Government are acting quickly to respond to his concerns. As outlined in the “English Devolution” White Paper, we will empower strategic authorities to play a greater role in co-ordinating their local road networks. That includes removing unnecessary Secretary of State consent requirements for certain local highway decisions, potentially including lane rental schemes, which will speed up decision making.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Local Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Government know how important local bus services are in providing access to education and allowing young people to get around. Empowering local leaders to improve services is at the heart of our reforms, including through the introduction of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, so that bus services deliver for hard-working families and communities throughout the country.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Local Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are committed to delivering the better, more reliable bus services that passengers deserve. We have already made significant progress by introducing the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill to help local leaders get the powers they need, and by announcing investment of over £1 billion to support and improve bus services.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Local Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are determined to empower local leaders to make decisions about their local bus services. They can choose from a variety of options in that toolkit, including franchising, which is now open to all local transport authorities. We are lifting the ban on municipal bus companies and improving enhanced partnerships. It is for local leaders to make those decisions, and we are empowering them to do so.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Local Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is my constituency neighbour and I understand the challenges her constituents face. We know that local bus services are not currently delivering for people around the country. We are committed to changing that, and our bus services Bill will give local leaders the tools they need to deliver reliable bus services that truly meet the needs of local communities, including in rural areas.

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

  More

  It is an absolute pleasure to see a fellow sand dancer in the Chair today, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) on securing this debate on open access—a matter of importance to many in this House and their constituents. I also welcome the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) to his place on the Opposition Front Bench. I look forward to our sparring in future debates. Open access can open up new markets. We only need to look at Hull Trains, where the private sector identified opportunities that the Government had missed, to see how open access can benefit passengers and grow the market. However, it is also true that parts of our rail network are growing increasingly congested and, although open access operators can generate new income from the network, they can also abstract revenue from existing operators, including those funded by the taxpayer. We therefore need to ensure that there is a balance when we consider new open access applications. The Secretary of State was clear about that when she wrote to the Office of Rail and Road on 6 January. Some Members have raised concerns over the Secretary of State’s letter, so let me be clear: the letter did not signal that the door had been closed on open access. Indeed, the letter makes it clear that there remains a role for open access, but new applications will have to demonstrate that their benefits are sufficient to justify any money they abstract from Government-funded services or the negative impact that they could have on publicly funded infrastructure projects. They must also demonstrate that they will not damage performance by increasing the complexity of the running of the network. I am aware also that the Secretary of State’s letter caused some concern with freight operators, so let me again be clear that the letter related only to passenger open access. The benefits of open access to passengers on the east coast main line have been highlighted by hon. Members. I have already mentioned Hull Trains, but it would be remiss of me not to mention both Grand Central and Lumo, which also run on the east coast main line. Both those operators have increased choice for passengers. For example, Lumo now offers choice between short-haul flights and rail with its fast services between London and Edinburgh. Open access services will increase choice and provide benefits for passengers on other parts of the network. Services have already been approved to operate from London to Stirling on the west coast main line from later in 2025, and between London and Carmarthen from 2027. We are also aware of, and considering, a range of new applications that have been submitted by open access operators. These include proposals on the east coast main line and also more broadly across the country, including on the west coast main line. Whether these applications are successful is currently a matter for the Office of Rail and Road in its role as an independent regulator. Alongside a range of other stakeholders, the Department will provide views. The Office of Rail and Road will consider them alongside its statutory duties and will make decisions in due course. Both open access operators and the operators contracted by the Department deliver services to passengers, but there are key differences. Open access operators are not bound by public service obligations. Whereas an operator delivering services for the Department will be required to serve all stations on a particular route, an open access operator can choose which stations to serve. For that reason, it is not possible to simply replace the Department’s operators with open access operators. Were we to try to do so, we would risk depriving certain communities of any rail service at all. Although constrained to a degree by the availability and capacity on the network, the lack of public service obligations means that open access operators can design their timetables to maximise commercial opportunities. That means that open access operators can choose within wider operational constraints what time they wish to run their trains and at which stations their trains will stop. That freedom means that they can be more challenging for Network Rail in setting the timetable. We have seen delays in agreeing the timetable for the east coast main line precisely because there were so many competing demands, including open access operations. It is not just timetabling that is more complex. When Network Rail wants to undertake engineering works, it needs to ensure that the views of all operators are factored in. Obviously, where there are multiple operators with different operating models—for example, there are those with a greater focus on weekend and leisure travel rather than commuting—Network Rail will find it harder to keep everybody happy. That can reduce efficiency and increase journey costs, as Network Rail may have to close the network over a number of weekends and nights, rather than for a single block, to ensure that all operators are treated fairly. I have talked about possible operational challenges. I want to be clear: we expect, as does the regulator, that Network Rail will make all efforts to manage the network in the most efficient manner and in a way that will accommodate the optimum number of Government-funded services. Although open access operators can drive new revenue to Government-funded services, they can also abstract revenue. The Office of Rail and Road recognises this through its “not primarily abstractive” test. The test is not binary and failing it does not mean that open access operators will not get access to the network, but it does highlight the potential impact on the taxpayer. We have a responsibility to the taxpayer to move the railways on to a financially sustainable footing. Therefore, if we see applications that will abstract a significant amount from the Government’s operators, we need to carefully consider whether, when providing the Government’s view, we can support the application. Where there are wider socioeconomic benefits that arise from open access applications, we will, when we provide our views to the Office of Rail and Road, balance these against the abstraction, but we have to be honest about the financial pressures the railways face and factor them into our considerations. I appreciate that I have just talked at length about the challenges that open access can create as well as the benefits it can bring. I highlight the challenges not to say that open access is bad—there can be real benefits—but as a Government, we need to be mindful of the full implications of each new open access application. People have said that the move to public ownership means that the Government will seek to take open access off the network. I can categorically say that we have no intention to remove open access operators from the network. We were clear during the passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 that it only applied to operators contracted by the Government. I know that there has been speculation that we would look to bring open access operators into public ownership when their existing rights expire. Again, I reiterate that that is not our intention. Regarding our future plans for access to the network, we intend to bring forward a consultation on our proposed railways Bill shortly. That will provide Members with the opportunity to review, consider and respond to our proposals. I cannot pre-empt the consultation, and ask for Members’ understanding in this matter. I will now address some of the specific issues raised by Members today. We have talked about the complexity of timetable challenges. Obviously, open access can and does make that a little bit more complex and challenging at times. Regarding passenger growth on the east coast main line, although open access operators have opened up markets on that line, they are by no means the sole reason for passenger growth. The Department has invested heavily in infrastructure, leading to improvements in resilience and reliability, and has taken the lead on fare trials on LNER to simplify the passenger offer. Underpinning all that is the fact that demand was already present on the east coast main line, even before the intervention of either Government or open access operators. On charges, open access operators pay variable access charges, but do not fully cover the costs of fixed- track access charges towards long-term maintenance of the network. International comparisons were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). Although there are examples of open access competing with state-backed operators to offer choice to passengers in Europe, it needs to be noted that there are many differences between the British network and the rail networks in other countries. That makes it really difficult to make direct comparisons. For example, some countries operate completely separate rail networks for inner city and local services, creating a totally different environment for comparison than that here in Britain. In terms of additional services in her constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) talked about the potential for open access to step in. We are clear that where there are gaps and it can be accommodated, we will consider that positively. GBR will look at the entire network to ensure it is used as fully as possible. I am sure the Rail Minister will have heard the message from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) on the Leamside line. If not, I will make sure that I mention it to him. I thank her for her enthusiasm for public ownership and GBR. GBR will ensure the highest level of customer standards and operational performance as a directing mind for our railways. It will have a relentless focus on delivering for our passengers and, crucially, for freight as well. Some Members raised, quite rightly, the speed at which the ORR is making decisions. We recognise that it can take too long for decisions to be made by the ORR, and we are working with operators, including open access and Network Rail, and the regulator to improve that. I believe it was the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who raised new services for Cleethorpes and Grimsby. We are working with industry to understand the timetabling, financial, operational and infrastructure issues that need to be resolved. I recognise the frustration, but we are actively considering what can be done. Open access plays an important role on the network and it will continue to play an important role on the network. We look forward to considering and providing our views on new applications and to our continued work with open access operators. However, we must and will balance the benefits of new applications with the impacts that they have on both the taxpayer and the operational efficiency of the network, in line with the letter that the Secretary of State sent to the regulator. I am incredibly grateful to all hon. Members here for their contributions. They have given us further food for thought and a useful insight into the benefits of open access to their constituents.

• 29 Jan 2025 · A432 Badminton Road Bridge · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to respond to the important points raised by the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove). I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate for securing the debate on such an important matter: the replacement of the A432 Badminton Road M4 overbridge. Safety on our roads is of the upmost importance, which is why the Government have announced that we intend to publish a new road safety strategy, the first in over a decade. Work is already underway on that. The maintenance and renewal of vital structures on our roads is also of the utmost importance and contributes to the safety of everyone who uses the strategic road network. I note from the hon. Member’s efforts to secure a debate on this subject that she is indeed a strong advocate for her constituents, businesses and road users—as is my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke—and she has been campaigning extensively to see improvements and to see how quickly this vital structure over the M4 can be replaced with minimal impact on local people and businesses, and to protect the safety of everyone who uses it. Our strategic road network is the backbone of our country’s economy. With 4,500 miles of motorways and major A-roads, it connects people, builds communities, creates opportunities and helps the country to thrive. Although it makes up only 2.4% of England’s overall road network, it is the most heavily used and carries a third of all traffic and two thirds of all freight. Investment in our strategic road network is made through the road investment strategy process, which is focused on creating a road network that is safe, accessible and reliable for all road users, and which addresses its impacts on those who use it and live near it. We are committed to putting road transport at the heart of our mission-driven Government, transforming infrastructure so that it works for the whole country, unlocking growth, promoting social mobility and tackling regional inequality. The hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate may be aware that locally managed roads make up 98% of the road network, and that almost every journey starts and ends on a local road. We understand how critical it is to keep the local road network functioning as this promotes growth locally and nationally and has a daily impact on the lives of millions of people. Where these local roads interact with the strategic road network, we aim to ensure that that is seamless and there is minimal impact on local people and businesses, while recognising safety needs. The A432 M4 overbridge has been closed since July 2023, following a detailed structural survey conducted by National Highways. The survey identified accelerated deteriorations and cracking on the underside of the bridge. As the hon. Member will understand, the safety of all road users is paramount, and a decision was made to close the bridge to traffic while maintaining access for cyclists and pedestrians. I understand the concerns that the hon. Member may have due to the length of the closure, but I want to highlight that this is a complex scheme that has involved numerous specialists, including utility providers, in preparation for the demolition to begin. The demolition is planned for March this year, with a new bridge planned to open for motorists early next year. The hon. Member called for the work to be expedited and I can assure her that National Highways has already worked hard to accelerate many of the activities that support the replacement, to ensure that the bridge is available for the community as soon as possible. Indeed, I have been talking to National Highways and understand that normally a project of this scale would take about five years, whereas the period for this project is three years. My Department will continue to engage readily with National Highways as the project progresses. I am sure that the hon. Member will understand that National Highways has no intention of inconveniencing road users, but it accepts that, due to the nature of this type of work, and especially when road closures are necessary, some level of disruption is unavoidable. I understand the concern that there will be a period when no crossing of any kind is possible over the M4 on Badminton Road. As I mentioned, the hon. Member is a strong champion for local businesses in her constituency and has called for compensation due to the impact of traffic diversions. National Highways provides compensation as required by legislation across its projects and schemes. The compensation arrangements generally cover permanent adverse impacts, and the generally held principle is that the public purse does not compensate businesses for loss of earnings due to temporary road works. National Highways has worked with South Gloucestershire council on funding and implementing the traffic management it requires on its network. Mitigation provided includes significant volumes of static signing, variable electronic message signs and temporary traffic signals. The diversion routes used during the A432 closure have been agreed with the council and are the optimum routes available. The council will have considered the impact of the reassigned traffic, its implications and the limited alternatives available on its network. None the less, I understand the hon. Member’s views on the impact that increased traffic may have on local roads that are not designed for heavy traffic volumes. However, the strategic and local road networks use each other when diversion opportunities are for mutual benefit. I assure the hon. Member that National Highways will continue to work with South Gloucestershire council to ensure that works are completed efficiently and to mitigate, as much as is practically possible, the disruption caused by the closure of the bridge. That includes working with South Gloucestershire council to refine the traffic management arrangements on local roads. I want to take this opportunity to affirm that National Highways has a robust inspection regime, ensuring the delivery of a safe and reliable motorway and trunk road network in England. It has a programme of structural inspections, investigations and assessments to ensure that potentially vulnerable structures are identified, that safeguarding measures are adopted and that maintenance works are programmed and prioritised. National Highways inspects all its bridges and other structures in line with the published guidance in the design manual for roads and bridges. That includes a general visual inspection every two years and a more detailed principal inspection every six years, which identifies and records defects in reinforced concrete, steelwork and other construction materials. Where necessary, further investigations, which may include material tests, are undertaken to establish the extent, severity and specific causes of the defects. If maintenance works are required, they are prioritised and the necessary repairs are carried out to ensure that the structure remains safe and fit for purpose. National Highways applies any lessons learned on challenging projects across the organisation as standard practice. However, it is worth mentioning that inspection is based on standards set out in the design manual for roads and bridges. Protecting the safety of all road users will always be a priority of this Government. Road safety is a shared responsibility, and it is important that we all recognise the part we can play as it cannot be achieved in isolation. Disruption will occur when action must be taken to address safety issues on the network, but we also acknowledge that maintenance of our roads ultimately benefits the whole community. I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate once again not only for securing the debate, but for the important points she has raised and for her campaigning on behalf of her constituents. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke for her contribution. I reassure the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate that I take this matter seriously and will aim to continue the conversation to see what we can achieve to provide a positive outcome for road users in the short and long term. Question put and agreed to.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair for the very first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I also welcome the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) in her first outing on the Front Bench as the Opposition spokesman. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this debate on railway services in the south-west. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. On 11 December, I attended a debate on the future of rail services in Devon, and on 17 December, the Minister for the Future of Roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), attended a debate on the impact of Old Oak Common on rail services. The frequency of these debates demonstrates the importance that hon. Members and their constituents place on the rail network, and the crucial role it plays in supporting economic development, housing, employment growth and tourism. This Government recognise that too. That is why we have made fixing Britain’s railway our top transport priority. We need to improve services for passengers and deliver better value for money for the taxpayer. As I said in a previous debate, the south-west has seen a strong recovery in rail passenger numbers since the pandemic. Many services are now very busy indeed, particularly towards the end of the week and at weekends—including Thursdays. [ Laughter. ] To reduce crowding, funding has been authorised for 12 additional CrossCountry trains. Three are already in service; the rest are due to enter service in May. Local services around Devon are also experiencing some capacity issues, particularly on the Barnstaple line and on school services from Paignton and Exmouth, all of which run into Exeter. Officials and GWR are working on options to increase capacity on some local and regional services, but that will of course be subject to affordability. The Government continue to focus on restoring rail performance. We have been clear that rail services have been failing passengers, and the Rail Minister has now met GWR and CrossCountry, as well as Network Rail, to ensure they are delivering on their plans to address poor performance. A resilient railway is crucial to the economy, not just in the south-west but right across the country. That is why £165 million has been invested to date in the south-west resilience programme at Dawlish, delivering better journey reliability for rail travellers in the south-west and providing greater resilience for the coastal railway during several named storms, alluded to earlier, that have affected the south-west in recent years. We continue to work closely with Network Rail as it develops proposals for the fifth phase of the programme, between Parsons tunnel and Teignmouth. Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), have shown strong support for a number of potential rail projects across the region and the country. Ministers have been clear, however, that it will not be possible in the context of the financial situation the Government have inherited to afford to deliver all the proposed projects. The Secretary of State is conducting a thorough review of the previous Government’s plans, to ensure that our transport infrastructure portfolio drives economic growth and delivers value for taxpayers. Many Members have referenced Old Oak Common and the impact it will have on rail services to and from the south-west. The station will enable HS2 services to start operating, by providing a new interchange with the Elizabeth line. Without it, HS2 cannot open. As Members will appreciate, a project of the scale and significance of Old Oak Common cannot be delivered without some disruption to existing services. Our challenge to HS2 Ltd is to keep that disruption to a minimum and to support Network Rail and train operators to keep passengers moving. The most recent phase of the work took place over Christmas, and was delivered successfully. It required a three-day closure of Paddington station, in addition to Christmas day and Boxing day. The rail industry worked hard to prepare for that. Some long-distance Great Western services were diverted into Euston station to maintain a direct link into a London terminus, while others terminated at Ealing Broadway and Reading. We expect that to provide a model for any future closures of the railway into Paddington. As has been said, the next significant block of work had been due to take place in December 2026, but that has now been replanned to a later date by HS2 Ltd. Further details about the timings of future works will be shared as soon as they become available in the spring. The Rail Minister and I have heard from many colleagues about their constituents’ concerns about the future timetable and the potential impact on journey times. That was addressed in detail on 17 December by my hon. Friend the Minister for Future of Roads, and I refer hon. Members to Hansard for more information. As has been noted previously, the future timetable will be under development for many years to come. Officials are working with the industry to assess the options for calling patterns at Old Oak Common. Ministers are committed to ensuring that passenger interests are considered and that disruption is minimised for passengers, both during and after construction. I will close this part of my speech by confirming that the Government will continue to put passengers at the heart of what we do in delivering our railway, which we can be proud of once again in its 200th year. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South West Devon, talked about GWR Sunday services. The Government of course recognise that performance is not where it needs to be. That is due to a range of issues, including infrastructure and fleet reliability, as well as train crew availability, which has resulted in high levels of cancellations on Sundays in recent months. Officials and GWR are actively working to address this issue. A number of Members raised wi-fi connectivity. Free wi-fi is available on GWR services, but it is particularly poor on parts of the network. Ministers have asked officials to explore the feasibility of a range of technology options to improve passenger connectivity on the rail network. The Department is also conducting research to measure the strength of mobile signals along the network, to fully understand where interventions are needed and any potential impacts. Electrification was also mentioned. The most used part of the Great Western network—between London Paddington and Cardiff—has been electrified, and there are currently no plans to electrify further parts of it. A number of Members mentioned accessibility. Following the election, we are carefully considering the best approach to the Access for All programme. Department for Transport Ministers are not yet able to comment on the next steps regarding the project at specific stations, but hon. Members should be assured that we are committed to improving the accessibility of the railway and that we recognise the valuable social and economic benefits that that brings to our communities. The south west rail resilience programme was mentioned, and the Government recognise the importance of the rail route through Dawlish and the south-west region. To date, as I mentioned, £165 million has been invested through the programme to deliver improved resilience across the route. I would also echo again that no decision has been taken on which services will call at Old Oak Common and when; the future timetable is under development, and will be for many years to come. Members raised the issue of rail fares. We are committed to the biggest overhaul of our railways in a generation and to ensuring that people receive better services and have simpler ticketing. Our aim is to keep the price of rail travel at a point that is good for passengers and taxpayers. We are also committed to reviewing the overly complicated fares system. Many Members mentioned general performance. SWR performance on the west of England line has been challenging, and falls way below our expectations for passengers. The mostly single-line section between Salisbury and Exter has suffered multiple failures and has little resilience in the event of disruption. SWR and Network Rail have therefore dedicated a specific working group to looking at minimising the impact of delay and cancellation going forward. As regards CrossCountry, Members will be aware that, as a result of poor performance, it is subject to a remedial agreement that runs until March 2025. The Department will monitor outputs closely to ensure that CrossCountry is making sufficient progress. I welcome the comments by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) about the renationalisation of our rail. The Government are committed to ending years of poor service and fragmentation on our railways by creating a unified and simplified system through public ownership and the establishment of Great British Railways. All currently franchised services are expected to be in public ownership within the next three years. With that, I thank Members once again for their contributions.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Pokesdown Station · Hansard source

  More

  There are no current plans to introduce an express service between Bournemouth and London, but I will keep my hon. Friend updated on the future plans regarding South Western Railway, which will become the first operator to be taken back into public ownership in May.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Pokesdown Station · Hansard source

  More

  South Western Railway has been working closely with Network Rail and the local authority to provide a viable scheme that will result in the installation of new lifts at the station. To establish the likely cost of the scheme and assess affordability, detailed design works are under way and are expected to be finalised in 2025.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Rail Passenger Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  The Rail Minister has met MPs from both sides of the House to discuss this issue and has attended an industry programme board to ensure that passenger interests are considered and that disruption is minimised for passengers, both during and after construction.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Rail Passenger Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  The Department continues to work closely with the rail industry to minimise the disruption to passengers on the great western main line during the new station’s construction and operation. Our priority is to mitigate the impact on passengers, as far as possible, by investing £30 million for service continuity during periods of disruption.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Conservative Members had no plans or funding put aside to continue with the bus fare cap beyond 2024. We have secured £151 million to ensure that buses remain affordable for many. In some areas, without that intervention fares could have risen by as much as 80%.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his question. A total of £1 billion was announced in the Budget for bus services, which will be available to his local transport authority to invest in areas, including rural areas, to ensure that bus services are accessible, regular and affordable.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We know how important local bus services are to communities. Our reforms of the bus sector, combined with £1 billion of investment, will ensure that local leaders have the necessary tools to ensure that bus services truly reflect the needs of passengers.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Buses are of course the most commonly used mode of public transport in Britain, and the lifeblood of our communities. I will be more than happy to meet the hon. Member.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member will be aware that close to £100 million was announced in the recent Budget. We will work closely with Active Travel England to ensure that that money is put to good effect across the country.