Simon Lightwood MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Participants in the bus fare cap are only able to increase bus fares by inflation, so if the hon. Gentleman wants to speak to me outside the Chamber, I would be happy to take that matter up for him.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that question. I am studying the APPG’s report in detail. Illegal e-bikes are clearly dangerous and have no place on our roads. I would be happy to meet her to discuss it further.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to hear about the impact that that is having on Dorothy. As my hon. Friend will know, bus services are a devolved matter in Scotland. In England, we are taking action to put power over buses into the hands of local leaders through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I think I speak for the majority of Committee members in saying that, as this is my first Bill Committee, I will be guided by your experience and that of the Clerks. This clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Bill, namely the improved performance, quality and accessibility of bus passenger services in Great Britain. The clause was inserted into the Bill via a non-Government amendment in the other place. I will take this opportunity to outline the Government’s objectives for buses, which extend well beyond the Bill and explain why the clause is not necessary. The Government know that for far too long, buses have not been delivering for passengers. Long-term service decline has undermined confidence and contributed to falling patronage. Efforts to buck that trend have not gone far enough. The Government’s vision is for better bus services across the country. We seek to grow passenger numbers and drive opportunity to underserved regions. That means enabling local areas to shape services that connect people to the places where they need to go; that can be counted on as a reliable, affordable, inclusive and better integrated part of the transport network; and that offer bus passengers, in particular women and girls, safety throughout their journeys. Passengers should also be able to access accurate, accessible and timely information about when and where buses will run. The Bill is an important part of delivering that vision. Local leaders will be given powers to decide how best to design bus services in their areas, whether that is through bus franchising or strengthened enhanced partnerships. The Government are taking steps to ensure that essential services, including those in rural areas, are protected, that safety is improved, and that services are more accessible. Legislative change alone, however, is not enough. In addition, the Government have published updated franchising guidance. Reforms to how bus services are funded are also being implemented, with the bus service improvement plan and the bus service operators grant funding being combined into a single bus grant. Furthermore, at the spending review, the Government committed £900 million each year to maintain and improve vital bus services; extended the £3 fare cap until March 2027; and announced franchising pilots in York and North Yorkshire, and Cheshire West and Chester. The clause, therefore, does not account for the full scope of the Government’s ambition. It cannot do so, because our ambitious reform package extends beyond the structural changes that the Bill makes. The clause would also amend the Bill to limit its outcomes to specific aims, which would not take into account the other outcomes that the Government seek to achieve, such as improved safety. I hope that my comments demonstrate to Members the Government’s objectives for buses. For those reasons, the Government will oppose the clause remaining part of the Bill. I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk for tabling new clause 22. I have explained that the Bill is about empowering local leaders across the country to shape better bus services for their communities. Beyond the Bill, the Department for Transport allocated more than £700 million of bus grant funding to local transport authorities in 2025-26. That included additional funding for local transport authorities to boost their capability, so that they can make the most of the opportunities that the Bill gives them. I have already spoken about the announcements at the recent spending review, including the extension of the £3 bus fare cap to March ’27. Work is already under way to ensure that the Government provide active support to local transport authorities, such as those interested in franchising. The Bill is about giving local areas choice, and with that comes trust. That is consistent with what the Government seek to achieve through devolution. My view is that authorities and operators want to promote bus services in their local areas, which will help their communities to thrive and create growth. New clause 22, however, would place additional requirements and reporting burdens on local authorities and local transport authorities. That would lead to additional pressures on authorities already under resource constraints. That is not the Government’s intention. We want authorities to be focused on delivering better buses and, as I said, we want to give them the tools to get on and do precisely that. The new clause has the potential to compel authorities to divert funding from essential services to other activities. For those reasons, the Government cannot support it and I ask that the new clause not be moved.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clause enhances the flexibility of franchising in terms of the areas that can be brought into such a scheme. The Government understand that there is a lack of clarity about whether a franchising scheme may specify more than one non-contiguous area. The clause therefore clarifies that that is permissible, meaning that franchising authorities may be flexible in the areas that they can bring into a franchising scheme. For example, it will allow rural authorities to focus on franchising in individual towns and villages if they so wish. I thank the hon. Members for North Norfolk and for Wimbledon for tabling amendment 70 that would allow rural bus hubs to be included in the specification of a franchising scheme. The franchised services that a franchising scheme will provide must be specified or formally set out and published. This ensures that the scheme will deliver in a transparent way. The amendment would make it explicit that franchised services could be specified by reference to the rural bus hubs that they might serve. The amendment is unnecessary because the Bill already allows franchising authorities to specify places that franchised services will serve. Places can include rural bus hubs. Alongside clause 3, clause 4 also enhances flexibility for franchising authorities by clarifying how franchised services may be specified in the scheme. This ensures that franchising authorities can more easily make minor changes to franchised services. For example, the clause will give a franchising authority scope to specify services by listing specific places to be served, or by specifying places by the purpose they serve. Purposes could include connecting students to school or employees to work. The clause allows franchising authorities to combine approaches to specifying services. This will allow adaptability and ensure that franchising authorities can develop franchising schemes that meet the needs of different communities, such as those in urban and rural areas. The clause also has transitional provisions for authorities that have started the process of franchising prior to the Bill becoming law.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thought the Liberal Democrats were the party of devolution, but they have a strange habit of wanting to tell local areas what to do and how to do it. Rural bus hubs are not yet widespread and the available data on their impact is limited. I have already outlined that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to improving buses. Local transport authorities in rural areas better understand the needs of their local communities, so it is right that they are given the opportunity to determine what is right for their areas. I have already spoken about the different models for bus franchising, such as the Jersey model. The pilots will explore the models that may suit rural areas over metropolitan areas. In a rural setting, bus franchising could provide the opportunity to integrate demand-responsive transport into the network, ensuring that it links rural areas to key locations and access to onward travel options. The Government are also supporting local transport authorities to improve the viability and sustainability of demand-responsive transport. That may be the most viable option in rural areas. The Government are gathering insights from the rural mobility fund pilots and are developing best practice guidance—a comprehensive resource for setting up and managing DRT schemes. Beyond that, the Department’s support programme includes a focus on rural-specific challenges, such as the dedicated Bus Centre of Excellence’s conference on quality bus services in July and our plans for franchising pilots. The Department understands that there are barriers to SMEs accessing franchise networks. That is why we are listening to the sector about ways to ensure that disproportionate paperwork requirements do not hinder SMEs bidding for franchising contracts.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I concede that, at the moment, it tends to be city regions that are looking at franchising, which is why we are doing the pilots to ensure that we have the template approach. We will learn the lessons from the various different franchising models that could be used. As we announced at the spending review, York and North Yorkshire is one of the areas that would be ideally suited to demonstrate the effectiveness of franchising in a rural setting. There was a comment about coastal communities, so let me just put this on the record: this South Shields-born, not SW1-postcoded MP knows full well the importance of buses to coastal and rural communities. In fact, I am the son of a bus driver as well. [Interruption.] I have ticked all the boxes—he was not a toolmaker, though. Let me touch on Manchester. The figures quoted on franchising costs in Manchester refer to the level of investment being made to improve Greater Manchester’s bus network, supporting economic growth, greater productivity, access to homes and so on. In 2024-25, the cost of operating the franchised bus network was about £151 million, but it would be misleading to compare that with the £226 million in an attempt to argue that costs have inflated year on year. Greater Manchester was only partway through the three-phase transition to franchising during ’24-25, so the cost was accordingly lower. Transport for Greater Manchester was operating only half of the full network for the majority—nine months—of ’24-25. There is very little additional cost resulting from the adoption of franchising in Greater Manchester, and evidence to date shows that this model is more efficient and effective at delivering value for money. Bus depots in Greater Manchester were required to ensure a level playing field when procuring franchised operators; otherwise, there would be an inherent advantage, of course, to incumbent operators. Depot acquisition also recognises the importance of investing to bring infrastructure up to modern standards to deliver a quality service and electrification of the fleet. Turning to local authority bus companies—LABCos or municipal bus companies—there is a level playing field for arm’s length LABCos, which the existing ones in England are, and for private operators. There is existing legislation and regulations around local authority bus companies. There will be different ways that LTAs can franchise. Rural areas, for example, could look to integrate demand-responsive transport into the network. It is right to recognise the successes that there have been in Jersey. When I visited in April, I saw at first hand the benefits of franchising and what it has delivered for passengers. A small team have successfully introduced franchising in rural areas. Although that offers useful lessons for rural and suburban communities in England, Jersey offers just one model, and there will be particular local transport challenges and opportunities in other places. Far from stipulating the one-size-fits-all Greater Manchester model, we are exploring and working with local transport authorities throughout the country to demonstrate different forms of franchising to make that a success. Question put and agreed to. Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 Specification of areas Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As I said in my opening remarks, clause 1 does not account for the full scope of the Government’s ambition. The shadow Minister talked about incentives; I think the incentives for local authorities are really clear, if not the clearest. They know what is best for their local areas. They are driven by the desire to tackle the social and economic challenges within their areas, and I do not agree that the clause would add anything to that. The shadow Minister’s reading of “quality” to include safety is subjective. I do not think it is as clear as he made out. The franchising guidance states that an LTA must “explain how far it will deliver improvements” if it franchises. The guidance also has a chapter to ensure that an LTA articulates how it is putting people at the heart of franchising assessments. Although it is not in the legislation, the guidance is clear about driving improvements. New clause 22 would create an additional reporting burden on local authorities and local transport authorities, which are already operating under resource constraints, while potentially undermining their devolved powers to determine transport priorities in line with their local transport plans. I am not able to support it. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will try not to repeat the comments that I have made already, but I will say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, that yes, the Conservative Government did put franchising in place. They also ensured that it was near impossible to achieve, as there were so many barriers. Instead of playing party politics about Manchester, what the Conservatives should be saying to Andy Burnham is, “Thank you for your vision. Despite all the barriers that we placed before you, you still managed to achieve franchising and improve bus services throughout Greater Manchester.” The shadow Minister also talked about the primacy of passengers—but excuse me if I judge the previous Government on their actions, not just their words, because from 2010 to 2024, 300 million fewer miles were travelled on buses.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  What the shadow Minister failed to hear in my previous remarks is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to buses. This could be done through franchising; it could be done through municipal bus companies or local authority-operated bus companies; or it could be done through strengthened enhanced partnerships. Let me touch on franchising, because the shadow Minister talks about Manchester as the full-fat model. A huge number of alternative franchising arrangements are available, including the Jersey model, which I will go into in a moment. Within franchising assessments, there will be a detailed investigation that is then checked robustly for assurance purposes. Obviously, the process as it stands does not provide an effective check on local transport authority plans, because it happens before a franchising assessment is produced. On the Secretary of State’s consent, as I have said, it is not effective because it is at the beginning of the franchising process. The assessment must look at the finances of the proposed scheme and then be independently assured. Different areas will also have different circumstances when pursuing franchising; the Secretary of State is not in a position to scrutinise them all. On funding and LTA support, £1 billion of funding was announced for 2025-26, £700 million of which was for local authorities to improve bus services. That is not for franchising per se; as I said, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. The Government are opening up options to local transport authorities. No LTA is being forced to franchise. No LTA has been forced to franchise through the Greater Manchester model, in fact. The Government are looking at how best to support LTAs, including through franchising pilots, which will include elements of rural communities as well. Funding is provided through the bus allocations for LTAs to decide how to spend. The franchising pilots will look at alternative models, one of which could be a joint venture model like the one in Jersey.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 2 removes the requirement for local transport authorities that are not mayoral combined authorities or mayoral combined county authorities to gain the Secretary of State’s consent to start the franchising process. The measure puts all local transport authorities on a level playing field. It also removes from the process an administrative step that does not provide an effective check on local transport authorities’ plans, given that it occurs before a franchising assessment is produced. I am confident that the measure will make franchising more attractive to local transport authorities by speeding up the overall process. New clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, would require authorities to publish a statement that outlines their objectives, reasons and supporting evidence for deciding whether franchising is the best option to achieve their aims, before they initiate the formal process. The Department for Transport has established franchising guidance; to require local authorities to provide an up-front statement during an exploratory stage would be premature. The franchising scheme assessment also provides a robust way to present the evidence and rationale behind a decision to franchise. Although local authorities might choose to develop a feasibility assessment to investigate the right bus model for their area, this should remain optional to allow them the flexibility to adopt the approach that best suits their needs. The new clause would also make the franchising process slower and undermine the Government’s ambition to streamline franchising, making it faster and more cost-effective. New clause 18 would require local authorities to publish the costs associated with franchised bus services operated by local authority-owned bus companies. Authorities are already subject to statutory requirements to publish detailed information on their spending and financial performance. Under the 2015 local government transparency code, they must regularly publish data on all expenditure over £500, and are required to produce and make publicly available their annual statements of accounts, which are subject to external audit and public scrutiny. The framework ensures a high level of financial transparency and public accountability, making such an additional burden on authorities unnecessary. New clause 30 would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local transport authorities on the development of franchising schemes that includes specific information on rural and suburban areas and coastal communities. The Department for Transport has published franchising guidance, including on the consideration of neighbouring authorities and on the requirement to consult affected areas. The Department continuously refines the franchising guidance, and plans to undertake comprehensive updates after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The introduction of piecemeal additions without considering the guidance in its entirety would risk reducing its effectiveness. In addition to the guidance, the Department supports LTAs through the franchising and bus reform pilot. The ambition is to explore alternative models that may suit a local area and help to provide evidence for the decision. Lessons learned, tools, templates and best practice will be shared throughout the pilot programme. New clause 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), would require franchising authorities to establish a forum of stakeholders to address staffing and employment issues in the franchising area. It seeks to increase accountability in areas that choose to adopt franchising. I am sympathetic to the new clause’s aims, but it is not the role of central Government to prescribe how local transport authorities run their services. Franchising guidance that covers driver welfare already exists, giving the franchising authority scope to decide what forums it wants to put in place to support the delivery of its bus services. The new clause is therefore unnecessary and I hope it will be withdrawn.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Members for their participation in today’s lively debate, spanning across the House. I do not intend to take interventions due to time, and out of courtesy to Members who have spoken already, I intend to respond as best as I can. I would like, first of all, to wish my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) a very happy birthday. This Bill was indeed a birthday surprise just for her! My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out why the Government have introduced this important Bill. Buses are the country’s most popular form of public transport, making up to 58% of all public transport trips in England in 2023. They connect people to opportunities and to jobs they would not otherwise be able to take, and they give freedom to those otherwise facing isolation. Yet despite all this, many communities have experienced the familiar pattern of bus services being cut and fares going up, with the deregulation of buses in the 1980s leaving local areas with few options. We understand that local leaders are best placed to make decisions about how to improve bus services in their areas, and through this Bill we are giving them the tools to do so. We have engaged with stakeholders in developing these measures, and implementation will give us a further opportunity to engage on the detail of implementation. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) and the hon. Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) and for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) spoke about franchising. To make decisions effectively, local leaders need all possible options on the table, and that includes bus franchising. Franchising allows local transport authorities to take control of bus services by determining the routes, service specification and performance targets for operators. Greater Manchester, the first area in England outside of London to franchise, has seen notable successes so far with punctuality and patronage up across the network, but I recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to franchising. Different models, such as the Jersey model, may suit rural areas better. The Government are determined to put power over local services back in the hands of local leaders across England. That is why the Department recently allocated over £700 million of bus grants to local transport authorities in 2025-26. I want to address the comments made about the cost of franchising for Greater Manchester. According to data from Transport for Greater Manchester, franchising was delivered on time and to the agreed budget of £134.5 million. That included the whole process, including the acquisition of assets like bus depots. Let us be clear: without the changes made in Greater Manchester under franchising, the bus network would be smaller, less attractive to passengers and more expensive to run and use. A number of hon. Members referred to socially necessary local services and rural services. Transport authorities that provide their services under an enhanced partnership agreement will need to identify socially necessary local services in their area and include them in their enhanced partnership. Local transport authorities will need to consider the alternative options that are available to mitigate the negative impact on bus users, including demand responsive bus services and community transport, which may work better for rural areas. By increasing the level of transparency around decision making on route changes and requiring consideration of alternative arrangements, the impact of any changes to bus networks will be fully assessed. The issue of rural services is an important one. As I mentioned before, no one-size-fits-all solution exists. Local transport authorities in rural areas better understand the needs of their local communities, and it is right that they are given the opportunity to determine what is right for their area. The hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Orpington and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) referred to the fare cap. The Secretary of State set out that the Government have confirmed over £1 billion of funding to support and improve bus services in England and to keep fares affordable. We also took the first step towards consolidating bus funding by bringing together funding for bus service improvements and supporting services under one authority bus grant for the first time. My officials will work with stakeholders to develop and implement a new bus grant allocation for future funding. I ultimately want to create a fairer and simpler formula for bus funding that takes into account local needs. A number of hon. Members raised important points about accessibility and floating bus stops. The Government are committed to safe and accessible bus transport. The matter was debated in great detail in the other place, and the Government fully appreciate the concerns raised about the accessibility of floating bus stops. The goal is to ensure that all passengers can travel with confidence that bus stations and stops will meet their access needs and that design features will be incorporated that promote their personal safety. We know more needs to be done to make these installations accessible for all. The Department is working with Active Travel England and Transport for London to provide further guidance and undertake research to address gaps in the evidence base. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) mentioned the innovative zero emission buses being produced here in the UK. This Government are supportive of the efforts and innovation of UK manufacturers, from which about 60% of zero emission bus regional area—ZEBRA—funded buses are typically procured. In March, I chaired the first UK bus manufacturing expert panel, which brings together industry experts and local leaders to ensure that the UK remains a leader in bus manufacturing. Moreover, the Government are supportive of bus repowering as a viable and sustainable option to help the transition to zero emission buses. I commit to write to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock on the eligibility of those buses for the MHCLG funding that he mentioned. This Bill is about choice—choice for local leaders to decide how their bus networks can best serve local people. It is a passenger-first approach. I think a picture paints 1,000 words, and the picture of the Conservatives tells me that they do not really care about buses. The Bill is a critical part of the Government’s bus reform agenda. I thank all those who contributed to today’s debate, which has been wide-ranging and a useful opportunity to discuss the important issues. I look forward to continuing the discussion in Committee—perhaps with a few more Opposition Members. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Programme) Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)), That the following provisions shall apply to the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ]: Committal (1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee. Proceedings in Public Bill Committee (2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 8 July 2025. (3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets. Consideration and Third Reading (4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to aconclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced. (5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day. (6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading. Other proceedings (7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.— ( Vicky Foxcroft .) Question agreed to. Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Money) King’s recommendation signified. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)), That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.— ( Vicky Foxcroft .) Question agreed to.

• 16 May 2025 · Stockport Railway Station · Hansard source

  More

  We obviously want to see growth in every corner of the country, and we are awaiting the spending review outcomes, as is everybody else. We are aware that our partners will have their own priorities for the future of railways in their areas, and we are open to engaging with them directly on their plans. The core aim of the Stockport station redevelopment scheme is to support future increases in rail patronage and green travel and to drive clean and sustainable economic growth. It will improve the accessibility, attractiveness and useability of Stockport station and reduce town centre severance. There is an opportunity to leverage a package of works through the Greater Manchester authority’s sustainable transport settlement funding for delivery by March 2027, which would include a refurbishment of platform buildings, with a focus on platforms 1 and 2. Stockport council, Network Rail and Avanti are meeting today to further scope out that work. Avanti West Coast has funds available for the current financial year to undertake works at the station, which will focus on staff facilities that need upgrading and some accessibility enhancements. We will share further information as those plans are developed. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for her intervention, and I will touch on Passenger Assist. Avanti has seen a significant increase in passenger assistance over the last 12 months, and it is now reviewing its Passenger Assist process so that it can meet the needs of passengers on that service.

• 16 May 2025 · Stockport Railway Station · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is quite right, and I hear what he says, but it is important that we point out the wider investment in the rail system there, including the £1.1 million to refurnish the iconic Stockport viaduct, which was built back in 1840. Let me move on to the issue of step-free access at Brinnington, Heaton Chapel and Reddish South stations, which I know my hon. Friend is interested in. Since its launch in 2006, the Access for All programme has delivered step-free access at more than 260 stations across Great Britain. Only about half of the stations in Great Britain have step-free access to and between all platforms. However, around 75% of journeys on the GB rail network are through step-free stations, compared with 50% in 2005. I recommend that my hon. Friend and his constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, engage with the local authority and Northern Trains to propose that Brinnington, Heaton Chapel and Reddish South are a priority in any future funding rounds, as none of those stations were nominated for the last round. In the meantime, the Department will continue to seek further opportunities to improve rail accessibility, and if the industry installs, replaces or renews infrastructure at the stations, that will need to comply with current accessibility standards. On the services provided at Reddish South station, the Department expects operators to match the capacity and frequency of their services to demand, although they must also be operationally sustainable and deliver value for taxpayers. The Rail North partnership, through which the Department and Transport for the North jointly manage the contract with Northern Trains, which serves Reddish South, will assess any business case that is put forward. The analysis must balance the economic and social benefits of any enhancement with the performance of existing services and the financial impact of a taxpayer subsidy. I turn to the direct service from Stockport to Manchester airport—an issue I know my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport is keen on. The Sheffield-Manchester airport service, which offered direct services between Stockport and the airport, was withdrawn in December 2022 as part of the timetable developed by the Manchester taskforce, which includes the DFT, the train operators, Network Rail, Transport for Greater Manchester and Transport for the North. We see improved connectivity as an important factor in growing the northern and national economies and would hope that new infrastructure would allow direct services from Stockport to the airport, although I must stress that other towns and cities could make a case for their pre-2022 direct connections to be restored as well. I thank my hon. Friend again for the debate, at which we have discussed a number of important issues affecting rail services in his constituency. He rightly pointed out that I have visited his constituency not once but twice. I hope he does not take it personally that on each occasion it was a sitting day. I will do my utmost to return to Stockport—as long as he can guarantee that the sun is shining. Question put and agreed to.

• 16 May 2025 · Stockport Railway Station · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) on securing the debate and providing the opportunity to discuss Stockport railway station. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) for their interventions. Let me start by talking a little bit about this important train station. Stockport station is a vital transport interchange in south Greater Manchester. Sitting on the west coast main line approach to Manchester Piccadilly, it provides access and connectivity across the country to commuters, leisure travel and freight. On average, 501 passenger and freight trains pass through the station per day. That is 10,000 paying passengers a day, with 5,000 to 6,000 passing through the station. The industry is working collaboratively to engage with local stakeholders who have concerns and a vision for the station. Network Rail’s engagement with local stakeholders is fundamental to shaping plans for the future of the station, and it will continue to welcome input and to be transparent about timescales and issues as they arise. The Stockport corridor is critical for a range of express, regional and local passenger services and freight. It supports some very important flows nationally as well as offering a key destination in the interchange hub at Stockport station itself. The route from Stockport into Manchester is very constrained, which means that it is extremely difficult to plan any additional services through it reliably. While other interfacing schemes might increase capacity and capability elsewhere on the network, the constraints at Stockport act as a bottleneck when trying to uplift service frequencies overall. Network Rail and the industry are working through the options to address capability and capacity, working with mayors and transport authorities on what future plans there could be for the Stockport corridor.

• 16 May 2025 · Stockport Railway Station · Hansard source

  More

  I want to see a railway and a transport system across the country that are accessible to everybody. I will take away my hon. Friend’s comments on this individual case and discuss it further with the Rail Minister. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. I am happy to meet with her to discuss the accessibility challenges that she has raised. I also look forward to meeting with Nathaniel Yates, who my hon. Friend quite rightly highlighted for his work on accessibility. I will talk a little about some of the other major works carried out by Network Rail in and around Stockport. Network Rail is delivering a £20 million project to rebuild the Greek Street bridge, which carries a major road junction over the Manchester spur of the west coast main line in Stockport. Throughout the work, Network Rail has kept the local community informed with regular drop-in events, which have been well attended, and has received no complaints about the work since the closure of the road. The project team has an excellent presence on site, regularly checking in with neighbours, local businesses, schools and colleges in the area to reduce the impact of the works as much as possible.

• 15 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I have to say, I really enjoyed my appearance at the Select Committee yesterday. Ultimately, we want people to choose to take the bus because it provides better connections in every part of the country to get people where they need be. It is a more reliable, more affordable, faster and more integrated form of transport, and I hope to see that in debates with Members across the House as the buses Bill proceeds.

• 15 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Southeastern plans services to meet passenger demand while ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. Timetables are kept under review and can be adjusted to reflect fluctuations in demand. I am pleased to say that four additional weekday evening services will be introduced on the route in December.

• 15 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I hope the Tees Valley Mayor is looking at the great work that Labour mayors are already doing across the country to transform public transport in their regions.

• 15 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.

• 15 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Chiltern Railways faces challenges with ageing trains and is engaged in commercial negotiations to replace its oldest Mark 3 carriages. The Department is collaborating with Chiltern to ensure that the procurement delivers long-term passenger benefits. Separately, the Chiltern Class 168 fleet is undergoing significant refurbishment, including to its interiors, and improvements to reliability.

• 15 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Improving bus connectivity in rural areas is vital for kick-starting growth. Our Bus Services (No. 2) Bill will give local leaders the powers they need for their communities, including in Northumberland, which as part of the North East combined authority was allocated £23 million in 2025-26 to improve services.

• 15 May 2025 · Rail Access: Grimsby and Cleethorpes · Hansard source

  More

  As I said, a decision is ultimately a matter for the regulator. Open access can provide benefits such as improved connectivity and choice for passengers, but it can also increase costs to taxpayers and create additional performance pressures on an already constrained network. The Department will always look at applications on a case-by-case basis and feed into the regulator’s decision.

• 15 May 2025 · Rail Access: Grimsby and Cleethorpes · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is a huge advocate for her constituency. Any additional services will be dependent on funding from the spending review. The Rail Minister will meet my hon. Friend to discuss the proposals further, following the conclusion of the spending review. The Department continues to review the application from Grand Central to introduce open-access services between London and Cleethorpes, and will provide its views to the regulator in due course. Access to the rail network, however, is ultimately a decision for the regulator.

• 15 May 2025 · Rail Access: Grimsby and Cleethorpes · Hansard source

  More

  Subject to final industry planning, East Midlands Railway plans to introduce an all-day direct Nottingham-Cleethorpes service in December, improving connections at Lincoln for journeys to London. The Rail Minister has been looking closely into possible direct trains between London and Cleethorpes, and looks forward to discussing that with my hon. Friend at their upcoming meeting.