(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of returning international rail services to Ashford.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. When the channel tunnel first opened in 1994, it was rightly celebrated as a triumph of engineering and ambition. It showed that Britain was open for business, and our communities in Sussex and Kent continued their centuries-old role as gateways to Europe in a new modern form. When the international rail terminal was built two years later, Ashford became a hub of opportunity, with trains running directly to Paris—including to Disneyland—Brussels and beyond. One of my earliest memories when I was about five years old is boarding the Eurostar to France from Ashford International. I loved going on what I then called the “yellow-nosed train” and having a whole continent on our doorstep.
Today, however, Ashford International is a ghost station. During the pandemic, Eurostar decided that its trains would no longer stop at Ashford between London and Paris—or anywhere else for that matter—making the service much less accessible for those of us halfway along the track, like my constituents down on the south coast and the constituents of many other Members who are here with us today. The terminal at Ashford has been completely abandoned. The announcements and signs when people go through the station may still say “international”, but the two international platforms stand completely unused and empty. It was strange to be back in the terminal this summer, with the abandoned check-in desks and the seats wrapped in plastic, but what struck me was that everything is still there—ready to go. It is an absolute no-brainer to get Ashford back into use.
Earlier this year, I, along with many Members in this room from both sides of the House, met the chief executive of Eurostar to stress the importance of her company returning international services to Ashford. I reminded her that Ashford International terminal was opened with significant taxpayer investment, and that Eurostar has not only a business case to return these services, but a moral responsibility to the areas that it promises to serve. Her answers were lacking, and the truth is that Eurostar used covid as an excuse, having run down the service at Ashford International for years before the pandemic, with fewer trains stopping there.
It was clear from our conversation that Eurostar has failed to do any kind of serious business assessment of Ashford’s potential, and it instead prefers to pile passengers into an already-packed St Pancras terminal. Anyone who has taken the train from St Pancras recently can tell us how chaotic the check-in is. Why add more passengers to a terminal that is already stretched to its limits, as Eurostar says it plans to do?
For our constituents in Sussex and Kent, using the Eurostar now takes much longer than it used to, and it costs more. My constituents in Hastings, Rye and the villages have to travel up to St Pancras from Ashford, only to come back down the same line. It is particularly depressing to pass through the deserted terminal just before entering the channel tunnel—sometimes people even see their car that they parked there earlier. A one hour 50 minute journey from Ashford to Paris now takes upwards of four hours for my constituents, and even longer if they are coming from Hastings or Rye. The cost of the journey has doubled, and for some it has tripled or quadrupled, because they have to factor in the cost of an overnight stay in London for an early morning train. It is expensive, it takes longer, and it does not make any sense.
Local residents and businesses also understand that international services from Ashford were more than just a transport link; those services meant a huge amount to our local economy, our connectivity and our identity as a region. Many local businesses in my constituency of Hastings and Rye have raised with me the lost link at Ashford International. One local hotel owner said she has seen fewer guests coming from Europe since losing the link. Another business that trades extensively with Europe finds it harder to do those deals without the clear connection from Ashford. It has a real impact on our local economy. As another local company said to me,
“when the trains stopped, so did a lot of our business.”
The now abandoned terminal was once a gateway between Britain and Europe, full of promise for investment, tourism and stronger ties with our closest European neighbours. It is now a symbol of decline and neglect, leaving tens of millions of taxpayers’ pounds sitting idle. It is communities such as the ones I represent in Hastings, Rye and the villages that have suffered the consequence of that decision. The visitor economy has been slower to recover from the pandemic than in other areas, and the indefinite cut-off from international rail has hit tourism.
We do not have to accept that decline. A recent report by leading think-tank, the Good Growth Foundation, found that reopening the station could bring in an extra half a million visitors a year to Sussex and Kent. That would bring in more than £2.5 billion to our local regional economy over the next five years. It would cut hours off a trip from Hastings to Paris or Paris to Hastings, and provide a massive boost to our region.
The Labour Government are serious about delivering for our area. We are building prosperity in towns and cities that have been starved of investment for too long. The Labour Government will not allow our communities in Sussex and Kent to fall behind any longer. Eurostar should not have a monopoly on this track, which is why I have urged the rail regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, to allow rival operators to run on the line. The Government have been clear with potential new operators that this neglect cannot continue, and their willingness to restore services at Ashford will weigh heavily on how the regulator views the decision.
Just this weekend, Italian train operator FS—Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane—publicly affirmed its commitment to reopening Ashford International station, a ringing endorsement of our area and of Britain as a place to invest. Other operators have left the door open to bringing back trains to Ashford International. I urge them to make the same firm public commitment as FS in their plans.
In response to the prospect of competition, Eurostar has argued to the Office of Rail and Road that there is no space in the depot to accommodate other operators. It is clear those objections are less about capacity and more about protecting an unfair monopoly. I urge the regulator to grasp this opportunity for growth; its decision will be a key test of whether regulators can live up to our Labour Government’s call for a pro-growth regulatory regime.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate and I wish her well in her campaign. Although this issue obviously does not affect my constituents in Strangford, I am here to offer my support to ensure that she achieves her goals, and I am sure the Minister is standing by to give her the green light. Does she agree that the soaring cost of air travel is a factor precluding many from visiting other cities and towns? Does she also agree it is imperative to have strong rail services to allow people to visit our constituencies and see the historical, retail and environmental beauties they have to offer? That cannot happen without a decent service to all areas, in particular to the hon. Lady’s constituency of Hastings and Rye.
Helena Dollimore
I totally agree that having good, international rail travel is important, not just because it is often cheaper and easier, but because it is better for the environment. At a time when we need to consider climate change, we must have more options for people to travel to our closest European neighbours. Since Eurostar stopped the service at Ashford International, many people in our constituencies are not making the journey to St Pancras because it takes too long and costs too much. They are instead driving and taking the channel tunnel, or parking at Gatwick and taking a flight. We know it will be better for the environment to have services restored at Ashford International.
There is also an important point about resilience. The hon. Member said that the issue under discussion might not affect his constituents too much, but actually we are in a time when air travel could be disrupted—we saw the ash cloud interruption a decade ago, which caused huge disruption—and we do need back-up options for travelling internationally. We have recently seen a number of incidents in the channel tunnel in which unexploded world war two bombs have caused massive disruption, and the fact that we have only two places on the line—the Gare du Nord and St Pancras—where passengers can be decanted during major interruptions is a significant risk to the line’s resilience. Opening up Ashford and providing more resilience on the European line would also improve services and resilience for our country.
As I said, I urge the regulator to grasp the opportunity to support ending Eurostar’s monopoly when it makes its decision. That is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss. In Hastings, Rye and the villages, we know how much our area has to offer and how much we could gain from the restoration of international service. Thousands of my constituents have signed my petition calling for that vital link to be opened again, and I will keep working with the Labour Government and train operators to push for that to happen.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. I suggest a time limit of six minutes.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important debate and the work that she has done to bring us all together in Parliament to campaign on this issue. I am of course pleased to speak in favour of the return of international rail services to Ashford International. Many of my constituents have made it clear to me just how much they would like to see the station resume international services. I pay particular tribute to the local organisation, Bexhill Rail Action Group, which has done great work over the past few years to ensure that that remains on the agenda in my constituency.
Ashford International station was a fundamental part of international rail services from the UK mainland to the European continent from 1996 to 2020. Before services were halted in 2020, Ashford International’s typical service was three trains a day to Paris, one train to Brussels, a service to Disneyland Paris four to five days a week and seasonal services to the French Alps and the south of France. Sadly, as the hon. Member outlined, Eurostar announced in 2020 the suspension of services, citing low passenger numbers; and with the additional impact from a reduction in passenger numbers due to covid-19 and the later cited covid-related debt, Eurostar has annually rejected calls for resumption of the services. Yet the present situation is improved. In 2024, Eurostar successfully refinanced its existing €963 million bank debt, and by the end of that year it had reduced its total bank debt to €650 million. Eurostar stated that the successful refinancing was thanks to “strong cash generation” as the business recovered from covid-19, and several new loans and credit lines.
There has also been talk of massive expansion in London. Recently, Eurostar and London St Pancras Highspeed signed a letter of intent to expand services from St Pancras station, with the aim of delivering an uplift of 2,700 passengers per hour in the next three to four years. The long-term aims of that expansion include plans to launch a direct service from London to Germany and Switzerland, adding 50 new trains at a cost of well over £1 billion. That is great news for the UK, but given that scale of investment, why is Ashford International not also playing a role in the network’s expansion?
For my constituents and those living in south-east England more broadly, the resumption of international services to Ashford would mean significantly less money and time spent getting to St Pancras. Bexhill Rail Action Group has provided a great overview of the cost differentials. If international services from Ashford were accessed using Bexhill train station, people would need to pay only £18 for a peak return ticket on Southern railway. In one hour, they would be at the station, exactly where they needed to be to catch the train to Paris or Europe more widely.
In contrast, the current situation means that train tickets to St Pancras can cost £60 to £100 for a return, depending on the time of day. Furthermore, the quickest route to St Pancras means that passengers have to change trains at Ashford on to the High Speed 1 service. That takes them to St Pancras, where they have to double back on themselves, passing through Ashford once again. Hon. Members will understand the frustration for those living in the south-east when the reality of using Eurostar for a day trip to Paris has become so additionally expensive and inconvenient compared with the original options.
Making Sussex and Kent more accessible to Europe would also bring other benefits. My constituency and the surrounding area are home to several important tourist destinations, including Battle abbey, which is as much a part of the history of Europe as of the UK. We have a growing wine and vineyard tourist economy, which again, if it were made more accessible, would benefit local jobs. Currently, a family arriving in the UK from the continent have no choice but to arrive in London. Once there, it is much more difficult for them to travel back out to the tourist economy of the south-east. If there were a service available from Ashford accessing everything the south-east has to offer, including our beaches, towns, vineyards, historical sites and so on, it would be much more convenient for European tourists to travel straight there and would bring great economic benefits to the region.
In 2022, international visitors to the south-east spent £2.3 billion, averaging £639 per visitor. The Good Growth Foundation has provided estimates on the additional income that would come to the south-east should international services be restored. The conservative estimate is that it would bring an additional £126 million in annual visitor spending, but it could be as high as £350 million, depending on the level of services introduced.
The Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, has made it clear that the Government support the expansion of international services to more stations, including Ashford. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye did a great job of pitching the challenge to the Government to make good on their pledges to increase competition, increase investment in our railways and deliver economic growth. If Eurostar is not willing to expand its network of international stations in the UK, we should encourage and support other operators on that line to do just that.
Whichever way international services are resumed at Ashford, it is clear to me that the benefits would be substantial for the south-east and therefore for the country as a whole. Greater accessibility for local residents to international services through location and costs can only increase the use of those services. Meanwhile, easier access from the continent to all that the south-east has to offer will promote local investment, encourage job creation and boost the regional economy and overall growth. My message is: let us get back on track.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this debate. She is an excellent campaigner on behalf of her constituents. I know this issue is important to them and she feels passionately about it. In her excellent speech, she ably demonstrated that the benefits of returning international rail to Ashford International would be shared far beyond my constituency.
Nearly £80 million of taxpayers’ money was spent transforming Ashford International to accommodate international services. As well as developing services to accommodate international travellers, the infrastructure of the station was upgraded, and that included the addition of two new platforms. When international services started calling at Ashford for the first time in January 1996, Ashford became one of the UK’s first true international stations. From there, passengers could travel directly to cities in continental Europe, including Paris, Brussels and Lille. For nearly a quarter of a century, Ashford International saw dozens of daily Eurostar services, making it a vital link for residents and businesses in Kent, Sussex and the wider south-east to get to mainland Europe. Ashford was developed as an international hub and its connectivity was a key factor in attracting businesses.
Substantial investment came to the town and the surrounding area precisely because we had international services, making it easily accessible from mainland Europe. It was also highly convenient for residents, with the regular service from Ashford meaning they could get on a train in the morning, have lunch in Paris and be back home in time for bed.
In early 2020, during the covid pandemic, Eurostar suspended services to Ashford. Since then, people making the same journey have had to travel into London, which not only adds between two and three hours each way to their journey time, but costs considerably more. That decision was taken when travel restrictions were in place and Eurostar faced financial pressures, but more than five years on, those services have not returned. Part of the responsibility for that lies with the decision by the then Conservative and Lib Dem coalition to sell the UK Government’s 40% stake and preference share in Eurostar. That decision, which was driven by austerity, was short-sighted in the extreme and has been hugely detrimental to my constituency and the wider region.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Given what the hon. Gentleman says about the decision to sell off the stake in Eurostar, does he feel that his own party—now very much in government—should reverse it and directly invest in international rail services?
Sojan Joseph
I absolutely agree with that, and that is what we are working on. The Prime Minister and the Transport Secretary support the return of international travel to Ashford. We will continue the work, and I hope that this debate will help the Government to support that decision.
For more than five years, the previous Government’s decision has meant that Eurostar’s monopoly on running international services has prevented any movement on restarting services from Ashford. We now have four potential bidders looking to break that monopoly, giving fresh hope that services could return to Ashford. That is why the decision that the Office of Rail and Road will soon make on whether any of those bidders will be able to access the international depot at Temple Mills in east London is so important.
When it comes to a decision, the ORR has a number of duties to consider, including acting to protect railway service users’ interests, acting to promote the use and development of the railway network, and acting to promote competition for the benefit of those who travel on the railway. I am aware that in their letter to the ORR, the Government indicated that they believe that allowing competition will benefit the users of international rail services. I therefore ask the Minister if the Government will give a clear indication that they favour operators that will offer new services on the line, including to and from Ashford International. Will the Department for Transport ensure that the ORR considers the potential for economic growth, and that one of the central criteria is how proposals would serve the economic interests of Kent, Sussex and the wider south-east?
A clear signal that Ashford International will once again welcome international travellers would give a huge economic boost to my constituency and region. It would be warmly welcomed by local businesses, which recognise the opportunity that international services would bring. International services calling once again at Ashford would be key to driving economic growth locally. More businesses would likely locate to the area because they could easily do business with France, Belgium and elsewhere in continental Europe. As they did before, international services would help to attract businesses from mainland Europe that are looking to expand into the UK.
International services stopping at Ashford is much more than a transport issue; it is essential to maximising our region’s economic potential. The absence of services at Ashford has significantly undermined our region’s capacity to attract investment, skilled professionals and tourists. The Rail Minister, my noble friend Lord Hendy, has been in Ashford twice in recent months to visit the station, and I welcome his support for our campaign to see international services return. The Prime Minister, the Transport Secretary and local councils and businesses want those services to return. There is also overwhelming public support.
Four new operators are looking to launch services between the UK and mainland Europe. They include FS Italiane, which confirmed at the weekend that if its bid is successful, it will invest £1 billion in the UK economy—including an innovation hub in Ashford—and will have services calling at the station. We need to seize this excellent opportunity and ensure that Ashford International becomes an international station once again.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I can see France from my constituency on a clear day, and yet my constituents cannot get there easily or affordably for work or pleasure. Last week, I was speaking with one of my friends about her plans to go to Paris for the Christmas markets. A quick overnight stay for shopping and fun with a couple of friends was the kind of thing that less than a decade ago people from across Kent and Sussex did easily and affordably. Now it is practically impossible.
That might sound like what is known as a high-quality problem. After all, across the country people are struggling with the cost of living, and holidays, even short ones, are out of reach. But what is particularly galling about the situation in east Kent is that we are close to Europe and yet more cut off than ever. Although we have infrastructure specifically designed to connect us to France, Belgium and beyond, it lies unused and empty—paid for by the taxpayer and left abandoned.
A single ticket from Margate to St Pancras International station early enough in the morning to change to the Eurostar to Paris is £60, and the journey takes almost two hours. That is too expensive and inconvenient, so it stops people being able to do what they would like to. Because Ashford International station remains closed to European services, my constituents are forced to travel into central London, with the high costs that come with that. They do not have the unfortunate experience of the constituents of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), who must literally pass through Ashford—back and forth. However, that drive, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) mentioned, is counterproductive for the environment and bad for the capital, as well as for my constituents.
In its expansion plans, Eurostar still refuses to consider reopening international services at Ashford, and £80 million of public infrastructure remains unused and wasted, despite its potential. That means people in Kent and Sussex will continue to miss out on fast, convenient and cheaper connections to Europe, and on the tourism boost they would bring to our coastal towns. Reopening international services at Ashford is about more than just making it easier to go on holiday; it is about driving economic and social revival in deprived parts of the south-east.
Members across Parliament, although not in this Chamber, perhaps think of the south-east as leafy, wealthy places such as Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells. However, there are pockets of acute deprivation across the south-east and, for the most part, they are on the coast. We have so much to offer and so much potential. Margate, for example, is home to a globally recognised art gallery, the Turner Contemporary; Broadstairs has the history of being home to a world-famous author, Charles Dickens; and Ramsgate has the heritage to tell the story of our links to the rest of the world—from the arrival of the Vikings to the Romans and St Augustine, some of the most important and exciting changes to our country have started in Thanet. That has left a rich and vibrant history and a legacy of creativity and ideas that the rest of the world could benefit from, if only they could get there.
Helena Dollimore
My hon. Friend, like me, represents a constituency that the Sutton Trust has ranked one of the lowest for social mobility and opportunity. Does she agree that reopening the link would provide a massive boost to young people and opportunities for them in our area?
Ms Billington
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Despite significant investment under a Labour Government in High Speed 1, which benefits my community, it often feels as though many people are still cut off from those opportunities. We need to break down barriers to opportunity, and the restoration of international services at Ashford would do precisely that.
The recent report from the Good Growth Foundation, which hon. Members from both sides of the House have referred to, highlighted the potential economic benefits of reopening those services. It found that doing so would lead to a £2.5 billion boost to the visitor economy over five years. Making it easier for constituents in East Thanet to visit Europe works both ways; it would also make it much easier for Europeans to visit our wonderful cultural sites, such as the Turner Contemporary gallery or our beautiful beaches.
I recently met VisitBritain, which told me that one of its target markets is France because of the potential tourism we can bring in via Eurostar. The Good Growth Foundation report found that reopening international services at Ashford would cut two hours from the trip from Paris to Thanet. That might not sound like a huge amount of time, but two hours is a big difference when it comes to making sure that people enjoy their holiday. Anything that makes it easier for tourists to visit will help to drive our local economies and revitalise our towns.
This debate is not just about exhorting Eurostar to restore those services; it has clearly made a business decision not to. Instead, it is about using the levers of Government, particularly the Office of Rail and Road, to ensure that future operators must make some commitment. Making sure that regulation drives growth, and particularly that it benefits people who have been left out of economic prosperity by previous decisions, is the role of the active state. Reopening international services is about showing people who feel ignored or let down by politics that Government can improve things—that a Labour Government can improve things—and that the Government recognise the importance of coastal towns and are committed to tackling the issues that blight us. It is time to make Ashford international again.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this debate. I praise the ambition she has for her region, just as I have for mine. It is great to see my hon. Friend the Minister in his place. He is a good Yorkshire colleague, who I know will absolutely be interested in the ideas I have for our region.
There is growing interest in international rail in this country, with Eurostar exploring direct services to Geneva and Frankfurt and other operators looking to expand in the UK. I welcome recent research from the Good Growth Foundation on the potential of reopening Ashford’s international terminal for unlocking economic opportunity in the south-east, but you will not be surprised to hear, Sir Desmond, that as a proud Yorkshireman I would like my county in this conversation too.
I believe it is time to reimagine the future of rail, where we connect Yorkshire directly with the continent, and York and Leeds act as central hubs in a new European rail corridor. As part of that vision, I propose transformation of the disused High Speed 2 land near Leeds station. That site could one day become a dedicated European train terminal. York, with its rich rail heritage and scalable infrastructure, would then serve as a vital secondary node. This is not just about faster journeys; it is about unlocking economic potential—maybe even 10 years from now. I wrote to Eurostar about that, and I am very disappointed that they were not up for it. There was no foresight about the future spec of their rolling stock—more Eurostasis than Eurostar.
This week I am engaging with other rail operators and writing to them: Virgin Group, Uber-Gemini trains and Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane, which I am sure Members will acknowledge is bellissimo in my Yorkshire accent. I have asked them to consider what I call the Leeds to Lille route, because if Eurostar do not do it, maybe another operator will step up to the plate. I am sick of people writing things off as unfeasible or impossible. People said the channel tunnel could never be built. They called it an engineering fantasy, yet 30 years on it is a vital link that has transformed trade and travel. Are we to embrace ambition or defeatism for our country?
Under the Tories, Britain lost its imagination—14 years of incompetence; broken promises; failed infrastructure. We saw Network North’s non-delivery and HS2’s eye-watering costs—and Reform wants to scrap the lot. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has talked of an exciting ambition to link us up with Germany, which is brilliant—that is the leadership we get with a Labour Government. However, it would be great to see rail operators considering the push to parts of the country other than London, whether that is Kent or Yorkshire.
Labour Together and JP Spencer have been talking about mass transit networks across the UK and Europe. Leeds is one of the few cities without one, but that is soon to change thanks to Mayor Tracy Brabin’s trams. That would be an anchor for my humble but bold idea: in 10 or 20 years to have a Leeds to Lille service taking just three and a half hours. York would offer additional capacity to support connections, meaning that villages like Poppleton in my constituency could be five hours from Paris by rail. I want my new-born son Louis—just a few months old now—to grow up in a country that dares to dream big again. A country where, in 20 years, I could take him to Leeds station, stand on a new international platform and wave him off as he sets off for Europe—maybe to study, maybe to chase a dream, but carrying with him the confidence of a nation that believes in building again.
For too long, the north has been forgotten. These plans could act as a bold bridge to continental prosperity. As the MP for York Outer, I know that by running 50 services a week from Leeds to Europe we could bring in 2 million passenger journeys annually. That would supercharge the tourism economy in the north. While Reform would cut Britain off from Europe, the ideas we are talking about today could offer our regions a connected path to renewed prosperity and a gateway to new jobs and thriving towns.
Never forget that Labour developed High Speed 1, Crossrail and Heathrow terminal 5—projects that transformed Britain. Today, it is Labour MPs who are proposing similar ideas again. It is over to the rail operators to engage with all of us, which I hope they can. Together, we can set the wheels turning on a new chapter of British connectivity and transport innovation. Let us lay new international tracks as a nation that refuses to stop moving forward.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this important debate, and I agree with every word she said while opening it.
It is also a pleasure to speak on an issue on which there is broad political agreement, with MPs across Kent and the south-east united in saying that after five years, we need international rail services back in our county. It was wonderful to hear Members from other parts of the country also recognising the importance of international rail links. In particular, I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) who, since we were both elected last year, has done so much to shine a light on the issue, which is vital for the county’s economy and for the wider south-east region.
As has been said, it was more than five years ago, in the midst of the covid pandemic, that Eurostar services halted stops at Ashford and Ebbsfleet, which is in my constituency. Anyone who regularly uses Ebbsfleet International, as I do, will recognise the eerie feeling of a station designed for many more passengers than currently use it, with its substantial car parks largely empty. Ebbsfleet International was purpose-built to serve international trains and, along with Ashford International, it offers easy access to Europe for those living throughout Kent and the Thames estuary. It will also sit at the heart of a brand-new town of 15,000 homes when Ebbsfleet Garden City is completed.
Since the covid pandemic put a stop to the services, there has been an inexplicable reluctance from Eurostar to bring them back. It is welcome that other operators are now interested in running services on the line, which is currently running at only 50% capacity, and they will offer competition to Eurostar. Much will hinge on the Office of Rail and Road as to whether the Temple Mills international depot, currently used by Eurostar, can be opened up to multiple operators. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and a number of other colleagues who are present today, I visited the offices of the ORR to deliver a letter, urging them to open up Temple Mills, bring real competition to that line and accelerate a return of international rail to Kent.
Let us be clear: the return of international rail represents a transformative opportunity for Kent and the wider region. The services running through Ebbsfleet—with perhaps the innovative inclusion of Stratford International as a new departure point, attracting additional ridership from the northern part of the Thames estuary—will significantly enhance connectivity for residents, businesses and visitors. It will also relieve pressure on central London terminals and offer a further, more sustainable alternative to short-haul air travel. Resumption of the service helps support key infrastructure developments, including Ebbsfleet Garden City, the Elizabeth line and Bluewater shopping centre, which is also in my constituency.
We need the delivery of high-quality, competitively priced and frequent services, using newly designed rolling stock. Bringing that together with the new digital platform for seamless ticketing and journey planning, which is currently under development for Dartford and Gravesham, provides a huge opportunity for interconnectivity of these services with local transport options.
The economic, environmental and social case for restoring and expanding international rail links from Kent and east London is substantial and, in my view, unanswerable. The people of Kent, the south-east and the Thames estuary want it; London St Pancras Highspeed, the track operator, supports it; businesses and local government have argued strongly for it; and all the MPs in this room and across the region are desperate to see it.
I look forward to the ORR decision on depot capacity, which I hope will come this month, and following that, to further concrete plans from the interested parties. I also hope that the Minister, when he sums up, will take the opportunity to reaffirm the Government’s support for international rail returning to Kent, and the importance for the regional economy of the stops at Ebbsfleet and Ashford.
When I travel next month to Strasbourg on the Eurostar to see Crystal Palace play only their second-ever competitive away fixture in Europe, I should be getting on the train at Ebbsfleet, not St Pancras. Please, Government, ORR and train operators: make it happen for my fellow Crystal Palace fans and me in the future.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this debate, which is of huge importance to Kent, Sussex and the country as a whole, and I agree with everything that she has said today.
For years, the departure gate at Ashford International has sat abandoned. Coastal communities such as mine, of Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh, have been left wondering why such huge potential has been left gathering dust. As my hon. Friend said, businesses want it open. Businesses in my constituency have told me that tourists from Europe used to come, and that footfall in Folkestone and Hythe has massively reduced since then and not recovered. However, we are a coastal destination, crowned the best place to live in the south-east of England. We host an internationally renowned art festival, the Triennial, which ran for three months this summer. We have miles of beautiful coastline. We are a destination that people want to visit—if only we could create the avenues for them to do so.
The station in the 1990s saw 30 international trips a day, dropping to 12 by 2019, and now sees zero. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) said, the UK did have a 40% stake in Eurostar, which was sold in 2015. The UK thereby lost its seat on the Eurostar board and the ability to influence decisions such as where trains stop. Surprise, surprise: following that, the numbers decreased. It was 12 trips by 2019, so it was not a case of covid being the problem.
At the moment, hundreds of millions of pounds a year could be brought back into the local economy by bringing Ashford International and Ebbsfleet back into service. Journeys that once took under two hours from my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe now take at least double that. Kent’s connection to our European neighbours has been dealt a hammer blow from which we have not recovered.
Ashford International has the potential no longer to be a relic of decline. It can become a symbol of national renewal—a tangible example of new and improved relationships with Europe, driving greater productivity and connectivity for the south-east. Earlier this year, the Labour Government rightly announced their desire to pioneer a new era of European rail connectivity, with the determination to put Britain at the heart of a better-connected continent. That includes the Government’s exciting plans to establish a direct rail link between London and Berlin, and between the UK and Switzerland. Reopening Ashford is the first step towards that vision of a Britain with world-leading infrastructure and improved connections to our largest trading partner.
The report from the Good Growth Foundation clearly explains the enormous economic benefits that reopening international rail services at Ashford would bring to the wider area. The case for doing so is quite clearly, as this debate has shown, unanswerable. The issue is how we get there, which is the matter to which I will now turn.
International trains need to be maintained, and the only place they can currently be maintained is the Temple Mills depot in London. Currently, Eurostar is the only operator allowed to use that depot, but this month the Office of Rail and Road will decide whether to require Eurostar to allow other providers to use it. As others have said, just this week the Italian state-owned Ferrovie dello Stato confirmed its intent to invest £1 billion in our international rail services and to reopen Ashford International if it gets the green light to rival Eurostar. We also know that Virgin Trains is interested in running international rail services to compete with Eurostar. While the decision on Temple Mills is yet to be made, an independent report commissioned by the ORR this year found that the depot would be able to accommodate additional trains for alternative providers, so we have both the space and the providers who want to use Temple Mills.
The next challenge is who will be the provider with a fleet of trains compatible with the systems used on HS1 and the channel tunnel. Just yesterday, FS announced its intention to use its fleet of Frecciarossa 1000 trains if given the green light to operate there. Those trains are compliant with the signalling systems used on HS1 and the channel tunnel, which trainspotters here may note is called the TVM-430 system. Similarly, FS already holds the necessary accreditations for operating on the European continent. Its appetite to serve Ashford is matched by its ability to deliver.
The debate about Ashford International also raises the wider issue of how we can maximise the benefits of high-speed international rail beyond passenger travel. With the channel tunnel operating well below capacity, I am convinced that there must be an increased role for freight alongside increased passenger services. Residents of Folkestone, Hythe, Dover, Ashford and beyond will be acutely aware of the frustrations caused by Operation Brock—a traffic management scheme that too often converts the M20 motorway into a slow-moving, heavy-goods-vehicle lorry park—which increases delays and journey times.
Logistics UK has estimated that Brock costs the UK up to “£250 million a day”. A single freight train on HS1 could replace 70 of those HGVs, greatly reducing air pollution and the amount of traffic on the M20. Let us imagine the tangible effect scaling that up could have on the experiences of road users in east Kent. I will continue to press to shift international freight from road to rail, which is another no-brainer that industry and Government should grasp.
As a country, we must prove to ourselves that we are once more able to deliver large-scale infrastructure projects efficiently and effectively. Recently, rail projects in particular have come to symbolise a state that struggles to deliver bold, radical infrastructure. However, what we are calling for today is neither bold nor radical; the infrastructure already exists and the providers are willing and able to start running international rail services from Ashford.
Local public opinion is clear that Ashford International must be international, and there is strong political support from local MPs and Government. I pay tribute to Lord Hendy, the Minister for Rail, for his steadfast support for restoring international rail services to Ashford and his constant engagement with me and fellow Labour MPs in Kent and Sussex.
Finally, I urge the Office of Rail and Road to make the right decision for the people of Kent and the country, so that we can start to maximise the benefits of this incredible infrastructure, which is just waiting for the political will to bring it back to life.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important debate. She, along with nearly everybody in the room, rightly made clear the pride they take in Kent and East Sussex. She rightly highlighted the channel tunnel as an incredible civil engineering achievement—it has been deemed one of the great engineering wonders of the world—and she cited her childhood memories of the formerly direct trains to Disneyland.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) provided some useful detail—which, I must admit, I was not aware of—on Eurostar’s debt refinancing and the progress it has made there. That is very important context, and may be a useful argument for questioning some of Eurostar’s current decisions.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) rightly pointed out that it was previously possible to make day trips to Paris from both Kent and London; it is still possible from London, but from Kent it is much harder. It is interesting to hear that he would support direct Government intervention in international rail, which is something that I hope the Minister will elaborate on further.
The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) rightly said that Kent is so close and yet so far from continental Europe. She reminded us, helpfully, that while the south east of England is prosperous on average, it has great pockets of deprivation.
The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) made an attempt, perhaps, to rival the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in terms of interpreting the meaning of Kent. More seriously, he was right to point out that there is enormous potential for directly connecting other parts of the United Kingdom to France and beyond.
Indeed, there were proposals to do exactly that in the 1990s and regional Eurostar trains were even built. Factors such as the rise of budget airlines and the ongoing challenge of needing to have border infrastructure at every station that such trains call at are some of the reasons why that did not happen. However, the hon. Member is right to say that the idea is still pertinent. Perhaps, had HS2 continued towards the north-west and the north-east, it might have been easier.
The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) rightly reminded us that Ebbsfleet has also been affected by this, with the lack of service at Ebbsfleet International. He reminded us that one of the ideas behind the channel tunnel rail link, HS1 or, as it is now called, London St Pancras Highspeed—who knows what it will be called next?—was not just to reduce journey times between London and Paris and Brussels and reduce congestion on the existing Kent network, but to provide significant economic benefits to the south-east, which are now compromised by the ongoing failure to call there.
The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) was right to highlight the unrealised potential of the channel tunnel and the fact that freight is also being neglected in terms of the original design intentions for the tunnel. The introduction of direct passenger rail services between the UK and France and Belgium, and now the Netherlands too, has brought many benefits. It has made rail dominant in those markets for modal share compared with air, reduced carbon emissions as a result, and brought the three capitals of London, Paris and Brussels closer together. It is a convenient option for many people.
Helena Dollimore
I thank the hon. Member for making the case for international rail. Does he therefore agree with me that it is a great shame that the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition Government sold this country’s 40% stake in Eurostar in 2015, during their time in Government? As a result of that sale, we lost our seat at the table when Eurostar makes decisions about where it will stop. Looking back—I know it was a Government that he was not part of—does he also accept that his party made a mistake and will he apologise to our constituents for selling our country’s shares in Eurostar?
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. That was a time of very straitened Government finances, which is something the current Government, of her own party, also have to grapple with, and make unexpected and regrettable decisions—for example, significant national insurance contribution increases for employers.
Both Ebbsfleet International and Ashford International brought benefits to Kent for many years, until 2020. The service was stopped by Eurostar for a range of reasons. Some are to do with Eurostar’s financial difficulties, as has been discussed, but there was also a lack of UK Conservative Government support for Eurostar, which was a choice, as well as Brexit. Both those things were major contributing factors.
It is a matter of regret that, five years on, Eurostar still does not serve Kent. This is unhelpful for tourism and cultural links for Kent, and is a waste of the considerable station infrastructure on the London to the channel high-speed line, which was provided for that specific purpose. More than 81,000 people have signed a petition calling for restoration of the Kent station calls, and a report by the Good Growth Foundation, which has been cited by many hon. Members today, estimates that up to £534 million of benefits per year would result from the restoration of those station calls.
This issue is not just about Ashford, as we have already discussed today. For the vast majority of people in Kent and indeed in East Sussex, it is easier to travel to Ebbsfleet or Ashford to change trains than it is to trek all the way into London, which often requires paying expensive peak fares, as some Members have already mentioned.
Indeed, disquiet about this issue is widespread in the county of Kent. For many decades, we have been familiar with the phenomenon of “Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells”. My friend, who lives in Tunbridge Wells and who pretty much exclusively travels to Europe by train, is very much a modern-day manifestation of that phenomenon, because of this issue.
As well as applying further pressure on Eurostar, I hope that the Minister will explore other ideas to realise the potential of the London Saint Pancras high-speed route to boost Kent’s economy. Those ideas could include a regular passenger train service not just to Lille, Brussels or Paris, but serving Calais-Fréthun, which would realise the potential of more closely linking the economies of Kent and northern France.
In France, the high-speed line to Paris transformed Lille’s economy. Ashford and Kent are yet to benefit in the same way, not least because of some of the border challenges that exist and Eurostar’s decisions not to stop in Kent. However, this transformation can still happen. The Minister can help to restore an international rail service to Ashford by resolving the conundrum around depot capacity for international operators. Although we expect a ruling from the Office of Rail and Road towards the end of this month about who will be granted access to the Temple Mills depot in Stratford, modest state support or investment in a new and larger rolling stock depot somewhere else along the line, and there are plenty of brownfield sites along the line, would help to facilitate private sector investment and competition to Eurostar, which Eurostar’s decision not to service Ebbsfleet and Ashford shows is needed.
I appreciate that the Minister may be somewhat disinclined to listen to me on the case for direct state investment. Perhaps, however, he will listen to the hon. Member for Ashford, which would also reflect the Government’s wider enthusiasm for state ownership of and investment in railways.
The issue that we have been debating this morning is part of a wider story of under-utilisation of the channel tunnel and the accompanying high-speed line. The Liberal Democrats believe that more international rail services would have wider benefits, potentially including a reduction in the number of short-haul flights from Heathrow, which might even reduce the need for a third runway at Heathrow. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Thank you very much, Sir Desmond, for chairing us today; you are the serial winner of the best dressed Chair competition.
As a Kentish man—I was brought up as a Kentish man—I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this debate. I am glad that I was not part of the negotiations with the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), who probably put forward serial applications for a similar debate.
It is important to have this debate, building on the legacy of the former Member of Parliament for Ashford, Damian Green. My former colleague understood the significance of the impact on international services at Ashford and Ebbsfleet. He had an Adjournment debate back in October 2023, and, having read that debate in Hansard, it is remarkable how many of the arguments have been rehearsed in this very Chamber before. I suspect the speech of the then Rail Minister, Huw Merriman, will have more than a passing resemblance to that of the current occupant.
It is clear from the contributions that we heard way back in 2023 and today from all Members that reintroducing services at Ashford International would be welcomed by residents across Kent and the whole south-east—and it turns out, also those in Strangford and York Outer. The economic case has been set out most recently by the Good Growth Foundation, which has argued that reintroducing services would deliver significant benefits to the region. I intended to go through all the various data it put forward to support its case in its report, but various Members have already done that job for me, so I will avoid the temptation to repeat all those numbers.
It is so far, so good, as we are all furiously agreeing with each other. We agree, as did the last Government, that Eurostar—with a private business and ambitions to grow from 19 million passengers to 30 million passengers across Europe—should reopen its services to Ashford International and/or to Ebbsfleet. If it is looking to grow, why ignore a profitable potential market? Its business plan is obviously up to it as a private business, but it currently appears that Eurostar is content to focus on a more profitable route direct to London. It can do that because, without any direct rail competition, some have suggested that it has become complacent. That is what happens in the absence of competition: the same is good enough, there is no incentive for dynamic development, nor the creation of new products, the defence of one’s markets or the pushing of the boundaries. There is no drive either to cut costs to maximise efficiency.
I speak with personal experience of this; before coming into Parliament, I was the managing director of a decent-sized business. I hated competition, because competition in a market forced us to sharpen our pencil, both financially and in the services that we provided. I recognised that it was good for our business in the abstract, but in the day-to-day, people want to avoid it. I am therefore pleased that four challenger brands have seen additional opportunities for the tunnel and HS1, which we should now call—I learned to call it—London St Pancras Highspeed, since February this year. Eurostar uses just 50% of its capacity of the tunnel, and the ORR is currently considering the availability of depot space at Temple Mills.
Lord Hendy, the Rail Minister, appears to agree. In his letter to the ORR, he argues that
“the arrival of competition will benefit users of international rail services by expanding the number of stations served (including new markets), encouraging greater differentiation in service provision and promoting competitive prices.”
How right he is. Competition leads to improved services, increased efficiency and the development of new markets, so why will the Government not apply the same logic when it comes to domestic rail? If Lord Hendy believes what he said to the ORR, why are his Government doggedly pursing their nationalisation agenda, designing competition out of the UK railways? This is important, and it was referred to positively by Labour Members: why is he planning to remove the crucial role of the independent economic regulator from the ORR, making Great British Railways both the player and the referee in the new version of the railways? Surely, that is like giving Eurostar the job of deciding if there is room for more competition on HS1.
Ms Billington
The case the hon. Member is making may have some valid points, but is he prepared to take responsibility for the fact that the British Government do not have a say in what Eurostar does because a previous Administration—run by the Conservatives with their then allies, the Liberal Democrats—ended up without the British Government having a say in how Eurostar runs itself? That was a failed opportunity to be an enabling state.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Lady and I come from different perspectives. I think competition drives good economic behaviour, not the state directing individual companies on what they can do, whether profitable or unprofitable. That is a genuine difference of approach. In this instance, I agree with Lord Hendy, the Rail Minister, that it is competition in this market that will drive benefits to consumers and the taxpayer. We have to remember that Labour left office in 2010 when there was “no money left” and Governments have to take difficult decisions, as the current Government are learning to their cost.
Tony Vaughan
On competition, why did it take a Labour Government to press the Office of Rail and Road to revisit the question of access to Temple Mills, which is key to unlocking competition? Unless other operators use Temple Mills, there is no competition. Why did it take this Government to do that? The hon. Member referred to a debate some years ago after which nothing seemed to happen.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. and learned Member will be aware that the ORR is looking at Temple Mills because applications have been received under open access agreements. That is not a response to the Government; it is a response to applications from the private sector.
We can already see the direction of travel with domestic railways. The Government have argued against every single new open access application since coming to power. It seems they can support competition only when the competition is not against them. Who loses out? Just as at Ashford International, it is the passengers, with fewer routes, fewer services and fewer efficiencies leading to higher costs.
The Conservatives support any approach that encourages competition and grows the rail sector, whether domestically or internationally. We welcome the four applications requesting access to Temple Mills, at least one of which anticipates the use of Ebbsfleet and Ashford International. We welcome the Government’s conversion to the benefits of competition, at least on High Speed 1. We look forward to seeing that new-found belief in the private sector in their approach to rail nationalisation more widely. If not, I fear it will be passengers who pay the price.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important debate. I commend her for her thoughtful remarks and continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents and the south-east more widely. She argued powerfully that the return of international services goes far beyond the borders of Kent. The East Sussex residents she represents will be grateful for her championing their cause.
The Rail Minister recently had the opportunity to speak at an event at Ashford International, organised by Kent county council and other local stakeholders, and heard clearly the powerful local case for making Ashford and Ebbsfleet gateways to Europe once again. I am glad that we have been able to continue the debate today in a mostly collegiate fashion.
Ashford International and Ebbsfleet International stations, along with the HS1 line, form a vital piece of infrastructure. They connect communities, support tourism and offer a low-carbon route to the continent. The potential of those two stations is clear for all to see, and the Government recognise the importance of capturing it. International rail services bring significant benefits. The recent report from the Good Growth Foundation, alluded to by many hon. Members, estimates that restoring those services to Kent could unlock up to £500 million annually for the south-east’s visitor economy. That is a substantial figure, underlining why the issue deserves serious attention.
Passenger demand for international rail has rebounded strongly since the pandemic. Last year, more than 11 million people travelled via international rail, which was an all-time high. This year, once again, record numbers are travelling internationally by rail, with the summer period being the busiest on record, reflecting growing demand for sustainable connections to Europe.
Yet, although demand has continued to rise, we have seen those services contract since the pandemic. The Government are committed to supporting the international rail sector to reach its full potential. Our approach is focused on enabling competition, which the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), will be pleased to hear, and on working with industry to unlock growth. Several operators have expressed interest in serving Ashford, Ebbsfleet and Stratford International. That is encouraging, and my colleague the Rail Minister has invited them to engage with Kent stakeholders to explore viable solutions.
We welcome that new entrants are looking to challenge the status quo. Officials in the Department continue to engage regularly with those prospective new operators, and we believe that competition offers the best prospect for restoring services. It brings innovation, improves passenger experience and has the potential to drive down costs. The Department has made written representations to the independent regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, as part of its access application consultation for depot capacity, to express our support for competition and the benefits it could bring.
We have recently secured agreements with European partners, including Germany and Switzerland, to work together to explore new international routes between our countries, and to address barriers for operators launching those routes. The conversations are promising, and they reflect a shared commitment to sustainable cross-border travel.
However, to deliver on that ambition, we must also address the practical barriers, and multiple hon. Members have recognised that chief among those is depot capacity. Temple Mills depot in London is currently the only facility that is used for international passenger rail maintenance. The independent report commissioned by the regulator found that there is very limited spare capacity, which is a significant constraint on competition. Officials are working closely with industry partners to explore long-term solutions. It will take time, but it is a priority for the Government.
There are also challenges on border safety, and we recognise that they are unique to operating cross-channel rail services. Juxtaposed border and security controls are essential for safety and compliance, but they introduce complexity and cost. The Government stand ready to work with operators and stakeholders to explore pragmatic solutions to re-establishing border controls at Kent stations, balancing affordability for operators while maintaining border security. Officials are also continuing to work closely on the matter with colleagues in the Home Office and Border Force, and my officials stand ready to engage with Kent representatives, potentially as part of a working group, to explore it in further detail.
I now turn to some of the points raised in the debate, beginning with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and the villages, who raised the challenges and the opportunities. Those include the challenge of capacity at St Pancras station, but also Eurotunnel’s free capacity. Increased capacity from international stations could help to realise the benefits of that free capacity.
My hon. Friend also spoke powerfully of the exasperation faced by her constituents due to the increased travel time and the lost opportunities for business development, investment and better connections to attract international investment from northern Europe and the rest of the continent. She also spoke powerfully of the more intangible benefits of international rail services, including her personal experience of feeling a connection with the continent and our European partners due to those all-important rail links.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) spoke powerfully about not just his constituents’ ability to access Europe but Europe’s ability to access his constituency, and about the enormous cultural and historical assets it can offer people across the continent. That was a point well made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) asked me to consider how to encourage the ORR to welcome competition. I am pleased to confirm that the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, has already undertaken that, and he has strongly outlined to the ORR that the DFT believes that increased competition is fundamental to accessing extra capacity for those services, to unlocking more economic opportunity for Kent, and to our connections into northern Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) said that rail services into northern Europe may be a “high-quality problem”, but she ably argued the counterpoint that the existing system, as it stands, holds back access for people who deserve to have affordable access to the European continent for work opportunities, business, tourism and leisure, and to be connected culturally to an area that she can see from her constituency. Having economic equity through our rail services, so that more people can access the benefits they provide, is incredibly important to the Department.
I was pleased to hear the contribution of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), who spoke of the possibilities that greater international rail access could achieve for our entire country. It made me think of, back when I were a lad, when I got one of the first ever train services from my home city of Hull to London, and about the effect that had on my feeling of connection to the rest of the country. The possibility of giving those same opportunities, albeit enhanced, to young people from Yorkshire is very exciting.
My hon. Friend referenced Leeds to Lille. What about Harrogate to Hamburg or York to Ypres? The possibilities are endless. I am glad to see his ambition in fighting for God’s own county in these debates. Although there are significant operational challenges to realising some of his ambitions, I would encourage him to continue liaising with the Rail Minister.
Sojan Joseph
Does this debate show that it is not just an Ashford or Ebbsfleet issue? That was the presumption in the past, but it is much wider. The whole region benefits from international services returning to Ashford, at the same time as the rest of the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to address this important matter and grab the opportunity as soon as possible?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend’s point is very well made. What has struck me throughout this debate is the access opportunities for the constituents of every Member in the room. Members have also pointed to the importance of modal shift and the impact on freight and our decarbonisation ambitions. We have also heard about the impact on our international resilience and our ability to respond to the challenges in the channel with nimbleness and agility. These can all be enhanced by the prospect of increasing our international rail capacity, and those points have been very well made.
The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) gave us the welcome perspective of the case for Ebbsfleet, and he pointed ably to the unity of advocacy from Members of Parliament, businesses and local people. It would be remiss of us to forget Ebbsfleet’s role in this important debate.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) usefully outlined how, in this country, international rail thrived in the 1990s, and he provided a reasonable and ambitious perspective on how Ashford could facilitate its ability to thrive again.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), encouraged me to explore different opportunities to revitalise Kent’s economic connections to the economies of northern France. I would suggest that encouraging competitiveness between different potential providers in this space is exactly what will allow us to explore those opportunities, and to push and work constructively with them. That is why the DFT has been working hard to convene Kent county council, private providers and local residents to explore where those opportunities lie.
I am pleased to hear that the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, has a personal stake in this debate as a proud Kent man—
Keir Mather
Please forgive me. I learn something new every day in this role.
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention how many debates have landed on some of these themes over the years as we have wrangled with these questions. It is earnestly hoped, from the Government’s perspective, that facilitating competition and greater access in this space will allow us to solve what have formerly been incredibly knotty and intangible problems.
Keir Mather
Well, I think it is important to note that this Government are not fixated on ideological dogmatism in this space. Where competition works and can offer tangible benefits to local people in Kent and across the United Kingdom, we will of course proceed with it.
Jerome Mayhew
I am very grateful and encouraged to hear that point made from the Dispatch Box. If that is the case, can the Minister explain why the Government have written to the ORR advocating against every single open access application since coming into power? After all, open access is bringing additional competition to the wider network.
Keir Mather
Of course there is open access ability through these international rail links, which is an important thing to point to. What I find challenging about the assertions that the hon. Member made in his winding-up speech is the notion that some sort of perfect free market competition existed in our rail system prior to the Labour Government taking office. There was enormous dysfunction, which arose from an overly deregulated system.
Ms Billington
On competition and the former Conservative Government, I remind Members that they were the ones who brought Southeastern, which serves my constituency, into public ownership, because of the failures of the commercial process.
Keir Mather
I think the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, was right to say that competitive practices, where they work, should be encouraged, and that has been the focus of this debate. But the broader perspective, which came out in the debate around the Government in 2015 selling their stake in the operation of Eurostar, is that we lack the nimbleness to direct rail operations in a way that benefits passengers and local economies and ensures resilience. That is what the Government are striving to do in creating balance throughout our rail system.
I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and other colleagues for their continued and tireless campaigning on this matter. Their hard work has genuinely been instrumental in keeping the case for reinstatement firmly on the agenda, and their constituents benefit enormously from having MPs who are so determined to bring economic and travel opportunities to their part of the United Kingdom.
The Government support the reinstatement of international rail services at Kent stations as soon as it is practical for operators to do so. We support the growth of international rail, and we will continue to work constructively with all partners, be they local, national or international, to make that vision a reality. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye for raising this important matter, and commend everyone who has taken the time to take part in this important debate.
Helena Dollimore
Today we have heard huge support from across the House for restoring international rail services to Ashford. I thank the Minister for the Labour Government’s firm commitment to restoring international trains to Ashford International, which is music to the ears of the constituents we represent. I also congratulate him on speaking from the Dispatch Box in a Westminster Hall debate for the first time, and on doing it so ably.
We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), with whom I have worked closely on this campaign, about the huge impact that the loss of international trains has had on his constituents and local businesses, as well as the huge impact of bringing those trains back. His area has felt it perhaps most acutely, and we know its importance to his constituents.
We also heard from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) about how, when we discuss the issue and look at Eurostar’s decision, we must not forget that Eurostar ran down the service at Ashford International before the pandemic. He cited some helpful data on the number of trains stopping at Ashford International before the pandemic, and how it had gone down year on year.
If, like me, Members are fans of the TV series “Race Across the World”, they will know that in the first season one of the teams goes to Ashford—I think in 2019—and find, having got there at 5 pm, that the last service has already left. Again, that re-emphasises the point that while Eurostar cites covid as an excuse, if we look at the evidence and data, it does not stack up. It is just an excuse to continue a monopoly.
We heard some helpful remarks from my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), who pointed out that Eurostar is recovering financially and has massive expansion plans in London. Why does it want to put all its eggs in the London basket, particularly when St Pancras is unsustainably overcrowded at the moment? Again, Eurostar’s excuses simply do not add up; they are all about defending a monopoly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) made a powerful case about the role of the regulator. Together, a group of us went to the regulator to physically hand in the letter from our constituents urging them to pull their finger out and end this monopoly. I join my hon. Friend in calling for that. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) is really ambitious for the potential of international rail. Why stop at Ashford; why not go further? That was welcome to hear, as was his emphasis on how this could open up opportunities for his child and for young people in his constituency.
The point about opening up opportunities for young people and broadening horizons, increasing the relationship with our closest European neighbours, is absolutely key. It is a point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) also made. As we hear our Labour Government talking ambitiously—rightly so —about a youth mobility scheme with the EU, what better time is there to restore this international rail link? My hon. Friend also talked strongly about our arts and creative industries on the south coast. Her constituency, like mine, has a thriving creative industry, which is one of the fastest-growing parts of our economy. Improving those links with Europe would really open that up, as well as the opportunities for tourism.
My constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle also mentioned the huge tourism opportunity. He and I share the home of 1066, and we have a massive opportunity coming up next year to increase tourism with the return of the Bayeux tapestry to our region. With all the attention that that will grab, why not use it as an opportunity to encourage more tourists from Europe and France to come and visit the home of the Bayeux tapestry and the home of 1066, and hear about that history and that heritage? There is a massive tourism opportunity here more broadly.
I thank the Government for their firm commitment to restoring international trains to Ashford International. It is a great shame that the Conservative and Lib Dem Government sold our 40% stake in Eurostar, losing our constituents a seat at the table in making decisions. With the work we are doing, I hope that we can continue to keep the pressure up. It is great that we have had cross-party support today for restoring services to Ashford. We have even had support from across the country, as far as Northern Ireland and York. It is really welcome to see that, although I am disappointed that we have seen no Members from Reform or the Green party taking part in today’s debate on a cross-party basis and adding their voices to this call. We know that the issue has huge support from our constituents.
Thousands of my constituents have backed my own campaign; my constituency neighbours have run similar campaigns as well. People really miss that close link with our European neighbours, and we need to see it back. We know it will boost jobs, tourism and opportunities for young people. International rail travel is greener, cheaper and faster. Restoring the service is a complete no-brainer. All the infrastructure is sitting there ready to go at Ashford International. Let us not let it gather more dust; let us bring back international trains. I urge the train operators and the rail regulator to make it happen and bring back international trains to Ashford.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of returning international rail services to Ashford.