Government Support for Bus Services: West Dorset

Adam Dance Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

My constituency neighbour will know that in Somerset and Dorset, we get older models of buses no longer used elsewhere. At the same time, rural bus depots, such as the one in Yeovil, are closing. If a bus breaks down from Ilchester on the way to Dorchester, passengers have to wait over an hour for a replacement bus. Does my hon. Friend agree that if depots for repairs are going to be closed, we need newer buses in West Dorset and Yeovil?

[Edward Morello]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is right to raise the pertinent issues of older buses and the closing of depots, which are directly linked. I hope that has been heard by the Minister.

Across England, there were over 1 billion fewer passenger journeys in 2023 than in 2015. Bus service frequency in West Dorset has fallen by an astonishing 62%, and 10 of Dorset’s 14 towns are already transport deserts or at serious risk of becoming one. That creates barriers to employment, healthcare and independence. Patients miss hospital appointments, which contributes to the £1.2 billion annual cost of missed appointments for NHS England. Young people miss out on opportunities, older residents become isolated, and communities slowly lose confidence that public transport will ever return.

That is why simply maintaining today’s network cannot be considered a success; the scale of decline means that we must actively rebuild what has already been lost. Between 2026 and 2030, Dorset will receive £13.8 million in Government bus funding: the lowest allocation anywhere in the south-west. That is £10.9 million less than neighbouring Somerset receives and £7.5 million less than Wiltshire. Devon and Torbay alone will receive over three and a half times Dorset’s allocation and Hampshire will receive nearly four times as much. It is therefore unsurprising that neighbouring authorities can expand services, modernise fleets and increase frequency, while Dorset is often forced simply to maintain what it has left.

The Government deserve credit for recognising rurality, but rurality now needs to be given greater weighting within the funding formula. Serving dispersed populations inevitably costs more per passenger than operating in dense urban areas. There is a significant difference between increasing the frequency of an existing service and recreating a lost route from scratch. The latter requires considerably greater investment before passenger numbers can even begin to increase.

Every summer, West Dorset’s population increases by over 42% due to seasonal visitors. Around 4 million day visitors and 2 million overnight visitors place a huge additional demand on our transport networks, which were designed to serve a much smaller permanent population. Yet that seasonal pressure is barely recognised in the national funding allocations.

The Prime Minister in waiting takes great pride in the transformation of Manchester’s bus network. However, the Bee network demonstrates the scale of the investment required. Greater Manchester receives about £41.42 per resident, compared with approximately £4.84 per resident in Dorset—over eight times as much in funding per head.

Transport for Greater Manchester manages a budget exceeding £480 million and subsidises almost a quarter of the network. That level of investment has transformed services, and I want Dorset to have the same level of ambition. However, rebuilding transport across hundreds of square miles of villages, market towns and dispersed communities is significantly harder than doing so in a major urban area. If the Government truly wish to level up rural transport, the funding formula must recognise that restoring services in rural Britain costs more, not less, than maintaining them in our cities.

The consequences of poor bus services are perhaps felt most keenly by young people. The recent Milburn review identified transport as one of the main drivers of young people becoming detached from education, employment and training. The review found that in rural, deprived and coastal communities, transport itself had become a major barrier to opportunity for those without access to a car. The proportion of 17 to 20-year-olds holding a full driving licence has fallen to 29%, while for many families the cost of owning and insuring a car has simply become unaffordable.

At the same time, bus services have become less frequent and more expensive. Bus fares increased by 59% between 2015 and 2023. On average, young people are now 15% less likely to travel than they were just 15 years ago, which should concern every Member of this House. When the last bus leaves before a hospitality evening shift finishes, a young person cannot access that hospitality job; they have been presented with a challenge that they cannot overcome. That is why I was pleased to table amendments to the Bus Services Bill during its passage to improve connectivity for young people by providing free bus travel for 16 to 18-year-olds, to encourage better co-ordination between buses and trains, and to ensure that funding reflects the realities that rural communities face. Those amendments were not adopted, but I hope the Government will start to move in the positive direction that they indicated.

West Dorset has an ageing population, and many people rely on buses to reach GP surgeries, hospitals, pharmacies and shops. When the bus services disappear, independence disappears with them. Poor transport also increases pressure on the NHS, on social care and on local authorities—all these things are connected. That is why I believe we should return to a sort of “total place” thinking, which was first developed over a decade ago: looking across departmental boundaries, instead of operating within them. The Dorset total transport pilot brought together school transport, adult social care transport, public bus services and community transport.

With just £180,000 of funding, the pilot improved services in some areas while identifying longer-term efficiencies and introducing more flexible, demand-responsive transport. It also explored digital technology to better match transport supply with demand. Rather than allowing buses to sit empty after a school run or to return to depots, we should ask how those vehicles could transport patients home from hospitals, connect isolated villages or just provide additional journeys during the day.

We also need a more joined-up approach between different modes of transport. People should not wait 40 minutes for a bus because the train was three minutes late. We need a properly integrated local transport network with more regulated and co-ordinated bus services. In many rural communities, community transport is often the only reason people remain connected at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Dance]

My biggest concern is that we have no electric buses in Yeovil. There is nowhere to charge them because other depots have been shut down. How will we cope with an electric future if First Bus is closing depots?

[Simon Lightwood]

That will be a commercial decision for First Bus about whether to invest in those services. The option remains for local leaders to consider whether they want to pursue franchising and take greater control over that issue. They could also lift the ban on establishing new municipal bus companies. There are options there. I will continue to work across Government to ensure we get grid connections for future deployment of electric buses. Funding from local authority bus grants and other sources can be used to purchase electric buses.

In closing, I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for West Dorset for securing this debate, and to the other hon. Members for their interventions. Improving bus services, importantly in rural areas, is central to the Government’s mission to drive growth and opportunity across the country. We know there is more to do, but we are taking meaningful steps to ensure that wherever people live—in a city, rural area or small town—they have access to the reliable, accessible and affordable transport that they deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Railways Bill

Adam Dance Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

This is a very significant piece of legislation. I have tabled a number of amendments that I believe would strengthen it even further, but in the time available I will focus on the issue that is without doubt the top priority for my constituents when it comes to rail reform: cutting fares, through amendment 32.

Thirty years of the railways being run for shareholder profit has left British commuters with some of the highest fares in Europe and taxpayers shelling out more in subsidies than it cost to run a public service for the pleasure. It really was the worst of all worlds. When something basic that people need to live their daily lives, such as getting to work or school, visiting family or seeing a doctor, is treated as a commercial enterprise, what should be a service that facilitates our lives degenerates into a way of squeezing as much profit out of people as possible. When people are more or less turned into human cash machines just to get around, it is no wonder that extortionate fares put so many people off using the railways altogether, and I am sure that we have all seen the mind-numbingly bonkers stories of instances where it has been cheaper to fly to Europe than to get a train from London to one of our great northern cities.

This is what happens when essential public transport is handed over to private capital in a sector where real competition cannot function. For too long, our ability to get around reliably and affordably has come second to extracting profit for shareholders, and we see similarly infuriating failures with our water and energy, too. Taking back control of our railways means that we can rewrite the rules so that they work for ordinary people at long last.

I pay credit to the Labour Government for getting us here, but it is now vital that we grasp the opportunities presented by public ownership and use that control to make rail travel more efficient and accessible for all and, crucially—I turn here to my amendment 32—more affordable. Ultimately, we must always keep in mind that it will not wash to just tell the public that nationalisation has made our railways better; they need to feel it in their pocket. The good will for a different way of doing things is undeniable. The public overwhelmingly support the principle of public ownership, but that support will vanish if fares continue to rise.

My amendment proposes a Great British Railways railcard, our own version of the schemes in Germany, Switzerland and Belgium. Instead of a morass of wildly varying fares, discounts based specifically on age or other characteristics, and schemes that almost seem deliberately designed by some fiendish mind determined to catch passengers out with validity only on certain routes and at specific times, amendment 32 would give every resident in the UK the right to a railcard offering substantially reduced fares on all rail travel, whatever their age, whatever the route and whatever the time of day.

The best signal we could send to the public as we take over the railways is to use some of the savings from reduced waste and management costs and ending profit flowing out of the system to bring down fares. Seven in 10 Brits—a full 70%—say that the Government should wholly reinvest the savings from ending rail privatisation into cutting fares or opening new rail services.

For decades now, the cost of existence in this country has been killing off hope and the chance to embrace so much of what makes life worth living, with death by a thousand costs. Energy bills are too high, rents are out of control and council tax goes up and up. We have to pull every lever available to us across every part of Government to lift the weight of the cost of living crisis, so that everyone can afford the basics of daily life without facing the constant stress and struggle of scraping by. For a key worker who schlepps into work each day on a train, or for a disabled person or pensioner heading for multiple medical appointments a month, knocking 25% or even 50% off their travel costs would make a profound difference to ensuring that the sums added up at the end of the month.

Cheaper fares would benefit millions of people, from those at the sharpest end struggling to put food on the table to the squeezed middle who feel like the helping hand of Government is always reserved for someone else. Rail fares are a crucial way of showing that a Labour Government are on the side of all those people—a benefit to all and a loss to none. I believe that my amendment 32 is a chance to show tangibly, in a way that reaches across generations, geography and traditional political loyalties, that Labour values mean more money in your pocket.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for keeping us on time and on track—much better than some of the trains I have travelled on.

I will speak in favour of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), and amendment 55, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke). When the Government came into office with a promise to do something about the shocking state of our trains, people back in Yeovil all said, “Finally—it’s about time”, which happens also to be what they say if the train eventually shows up. There is a lot to welcome in the Bill, but it needs to go further if we are to address the problems with rail travel in Somerset.

Luckily enough, us pesky Liberal Democrats have some ideas that the Government can support today. Our passenger charter and our amendments would provide a range of guarantees that would address the challenges that people in Yeovil face when trying to get a train. They would back up those guarantees with a framework for compensation for failures to comply with the charter, such as delay repay. Our charter’s guarantee about value for money would mean that apprentices such as Gregg would not be priced out of rail travel. He worked out that currently it would cost him £5,200 for an annual train ticket to Exeter—a quarter of his salary—instead of £1,750 if he lift-shares with a friend. We can see why people do not use the trains at the moment.

Our charter guarantee of proper seating for any single part of a rail journey longer than 30 minutes will mean that something finally has to be done about the overcrowding on trains from Yeovil junction, which makes travel for people like Colin a nightmare, even when they get off their train and try to get the next one. Only the other day, I was chatting to a disabled passenger on the overcrowded train to London, and she told me that if she wants a seat, she has to fork out lots more money for first-class tickets to have the peace of mind that she will not have to stand. Our charter calls for proper services, including good wi-fi, clean toilets, and catering—and a few plugs would help. It would also mean that long journeys should not be an uncomfortable nightmare.

The charter guarantee on the reliability of services, and amendment 55’s requirements for better links between rail travel and onward transport, such as buses or active travel, will mean that people like Janine will be able to use Yeovil junction more reliably. At the minute, a lack of bus services means that when trains are late, people miss the bus and are forced to wait ages to get home, or they have to fork out for a pricey taxi. Hopefully, we will also get a safe active travel route to Yeovil junction.

Finally, our charter’s guarantee relates to improving the accessibility of trains, stations, the areas around stations and replacement services. It will force more action to support disabled passengers in rural areas because this is a real issue in Yeovil. Staff shortages and a lack of proper training have seen both Jack, a wheelchair user, and Kathy, who is visually impaired, suffer accidents at Yeovil Pen Mill. As Kathy points out, at the moment things are only getting worse, with staff retiring after years of service and GWR not hiring replacements beforehand. Jack even described to me how she was made to feel responsible for her accident, because she needed to use a ramp. That is not good enough and not acceptable at all.

Our charter makes it clear as day that accessibility is the responsibility of Great British Railways, not passengers. I hope the Government will listen and take on board our ideas, because we need this Bill to succeed if we are to get the trains working for people in Yeovil again.

Small Towns: Transport Links

Adam Dance Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered transport links for small towns.

It is a pleasure, Sir Roger, to serve under your firm chairship. I thank the Minister for attending today. He has been a keen advocate for small towns, and I am sure a lot of the issues we will talk about today will be familiar to him.

Connectivity is not a luxury; it is a necessity. It underpins economic growth, but it also shapes something far more immediate and personal: our health, our independence and a sense of belonging. For our small towns, the quality of connection sends a powerful message about whether we are seen, valued and included in our national story. It would be a mistake to think of this as a question simply of how towns connect to cities. It is about the everyday journeys that define people’s lives: how they get from their front door to work, to school, to the shop or to the doctor.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

To end the exemption for old buses that are not fully accessible under the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 will mean that kids from rural constituencies will not be able to get a place on a bus to sixth form anymore, due to the limited bus stock and funding. Will the hon. Member join me in urging the Government—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. The next ground rule is that we do not read interventions. I hope that is clear. An intervention is an intervention. It is not a pre-prepared speech to read into the record for the benefit of the local press. I call Andy MacNae.

Railways Bill

Adam Dance Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

As the Government move to create a publicly owned Great British Railways, I want to speak on behalf of several thousand rail passengers in my constituency, and to say what they have suffered in recent weeks. We all want a rail network that delivers a fantastic service, supports the economy and protects the environment. In 2026, the last thing we want is ever more cars crammed on to our roads. Last year, the North Devon Tarka line, which runs for 39 miles through my constituency and that of the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), recorded a record 1 million journeys for the first time. It is among the busiest branch lines anywhere in the south-west. Office of Road and Rail figures show that footfall at Barnstaple station, which is heavily used by young people and college students, has skyrocketed by 63% since 2019—by far the biggest surge at any station in Devon and Cornwall. The Tarka line has again set new records for passenger numbers nearly every month this year—until November, when that success came to a grinding halt.

On 17 November, heavy rain closed three bridges and ceased all rail traffic between Barnstaple and Exeter. Since then, our line has been shut three times. On Friday afternoon, it was closed again because of signal faults, leaving hundreds of passengers stranded in Exeter. The operator was issuing fresh warnings of likely cancellations just yesterday afternoon. If we were to ask those passengers what needs to be in the Bill, few would argue the merits of public versus private ownership. Instead, many in North Devon put up with immense overcrowding, or worry that their train may not even turn up. Back in 2017, Network Rail committed £2.9 million to improvements on the north Devon line, but that is only a tiny fraction of the capital investment in other parts of the country, and hundreds of thousands more passenger journeys now rely on that infrastructure.

Greater accountability to the public will be important for our railways. However, public ownership will be doomed to fail if the Government do not use this window of opportunity, and the extra powers in the Bill, to make lines in rural areas like mine more resilient for the future.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Too many rural railway stations are not accessible for disabled people. Without support staff, constituents in Yeovil have had serious accidents at railway stations. Although the Government’s accessibility priorities, which we are debating today, are welcome, does my hon. Friend agree that we need a strengthened access-for-all programme?

[Ian Roome]

I agree. Disabled access is absolutely necessary at all stations, particularly in rural areas. My hon. Friend is a big advocate for accessibility for disabled people in Yeovil who need it.

As the network and operator are brought together, we need joined-up planning for increased capacity, and against bad weather. My party has supported freezing rail fares after years of price hikes, but, as many of my constituents can attest, it is no good buying a ticket for a train that is not running. I urge the Government to resist declaring victory once public ownership is achieved—it is only the first stop. The long-term planning will be the important part of this Bill.

We must give passengers in North Devon, and many places like it, good reason to have faith in their railway. That will require more than a new flag painted on the side of a train. What does the Minister plan to do next to make rural railway lines, such as the Tarka line, ready for the 2030s?

Waterloo-Reading Line: Class 701 Trains

Adam Dance Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the introduction of Class 701 trains on the Waterloo-Reading line.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I am honoured to have secured this debate on a matter close to the hearts and frayed nerves of many in my Wokingham constituency.

Imagine, Ms Butler, that you are one of my constituents commuting to London or Reading. You spot your train on the horizon—the all-too-familiar blue face and red shell of the class 455 train, built in 1983 and rattling along for 42 years. That sight will produce an inevitable sigh of despair from all at the train station: it will not be a comfortable journey. Hon. Members might wonder what is so bad about that rolling relic. For starters, on a day like today, when we have 34 degrees of heat, if they step inside the train, they will be treated to a delightful 45°C sauna, courtesy of no air conditioning and poor ventilation.

Despite the journey from Wokingham to Waterloo taking an hour and 12 minutes, there are no toilet facilities on board. Speed restrictions apply exclusively to the 455 on the Waterloo to Reading route, which means slower journeys and greater delays. That is why the class 455 is being replaced by the new, sleek class 701, also known as the Arterio. The Arterio train will mean air conditioning, real-time passenger information, more seating and actual toilets. However, the journey to introduce the new trains has encountered unacceptable delays, setbacks and uncertainty that go unresolved to this very day, despite the fact that they were promised nearly eight years ago.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Many feel that the railway services in Yeovil are not good enough. Does my hon. Friend agree that in rural areas we need to replace the old trains that we rely on, some of which are more than 40 years old—a lot older than I am—and improve access and staffing at railway stations so that constituents with disabilities can use trains in a safe manner?

[Clive Jones]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend; we do need to improve rolling stock. Part of our problem on the South Western Railway line, Wokingham to Waterloo, is that it is old rolling stock, which is what this debate is about. He also mentioned better access for disabled people, and I 100% agree that that is absolutely needed.

Although I am aware of a few Arterio trains running on the South Western Railway network, that is still not the case on the Waterloo to Reading line, which my constituents use every day. Numerous promises have been made by South Western Railway and the Department for Transport, but almost all of them have been broken. In 2019, the Department for Transport claimed that in the coming months new trains would be introduced on the South Western Railway network, but what has happened? Nothing. In 2020, the Arterio was destined to be first rolled out on the Waterloo to Reading line. In 2022, the South Western Railway business plan stated that SWR would

“introduce the new Arterio fleet as soon as possible”.

Two years ago, the Department for Transport stated that the trains would be in service as soon as possible in 2023. Last year, SWR stated that the roll-out of the full fleet would take up to 18 months from January 2024, and I was informed that the trains would be ready for me to travel in to Parliament by June 2025. Now, in 2025, SWR still does not have a final timeline for when my constituents will get to benefit from the new trains. Every year promises have been made, and every year promises have been broken.

With SWR nationalised, the Department for Transport must scrutinise the project relentlessly until it is properly delivered. I ask the Minister: when will the Arterio trains be in service on the Waterloo to Reading line? I would also be grateful if he would set out in detail what steps are being taken to ensure that the Department for Transport does not allow the delays to be extended any further.

I remind Members that the previous Conservative Government were completely complacent on this matter. No contractual penalties were imposed on the owning company of SWR, despite its failure to deliver with taxpayers’ cash. Did the Department for Transport consider imposing penalties when Labour was elected in July 2024? If not, why not?

On 9 June 2025, in response to a written parliamentary question tabled on 30 May 2025, the Minister stated:

“The new Managing Director of SWR is now developing a detailed plan”

for introducing the Arterio fleet. Did such a plan not exist under the previous, privatised version of SWR? When can we expect the plan to be completed, and will it be available for scrutiny by Members of this House? Finally, will the Minister extend an invitation from me to meet the Minister of State for Rail to discuss these issues in more detail?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is of course a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on raising this issue.

The Department is keen to provide the significant improvements to the passenger experience and capacity that travellers on the South Western Railway network deserve, and we are working with SWR to ensure the continued roll-out of the 701 Arterio trains as soon as possible. The Government are determined to turn this situation around, but we inherited, frankly, an abject mess from the previous train operating company, which, over six years, failed to get the new fleet of trains into service.

SWR entered into the class 701 rolling stock lease contracts with Alstom in 2017, and the new class 701 fleet was due to be delivered between 2019 and 2021. The delays were initially caused by manufacturing and software issues, and later by the operator seeking to agree a safe plan for driver training and platform infrastructure readiness. Prior to transfer to public ownership, the Secretary of State invited FirstGroup and MTR, the then owning groups of SWR, to an urgent meeting to discuss the issues affecting the 701’s introduction, their plans to resolve the issues, the robustness of the roll-out plan and the factors that led to such a material delay in the introduction of the fleet. At the time, officials requested an urgent plan for SWR to resolve the issues, and held SWR to account for those plans to introduce further units as soon as possible.

SWR successfully transferred into public ownership on 25 May under the leadership of the new managing director, Lawrence Bowman. This was a watershed moment in our work to return the railways to the service of passengers. Mr Bowman has written to the hon. Member for Wokingham offering a meeting, and would welcome the opportunity to expand on his emerging plans and to hear the hon. Member’s concerns.

[Adam Dance]

Will the Minister and the Government agree that it is vital to try to get more electric trains across the south-west? After meeting with the railways, I know they are concerned that they will find it hard to replace the diesel stock with electric stock down in Somerset. Can we urge them to push and look at getting more investment into electric trains?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am sure that the Rail Minister will have heard that comment.

The new managing director of the publicly owned SWR has been tasked with producing a plan to introduce the 701 fleet as quickly as possible. The delays to its introduction have happened under what I would say is a flawed franchising system, not under public ownership. While there have been significant delays as a result of manufacturing and software issues, those long-standing issues are not related to public ownership.

Out of a total of 90 units, 11 are now running daily in passenger service, and the 12th service will be introduced in the week commencing 7 July. A total of 181 drivers have also been trained. Positively, since day one of public ownership, four further 701s have been brought into passenger service. That compares to only one additional unit being introduced in the six months prior to the transfer. Passengers on the Waterloo to Reading line should hope to see class 701s gradually entering service shortly.

The 701 fleet will significantly improve performance by reducing cancellations and short formations. Other benefits of the new fleet include a 50% increased capacity compared with the 455 fleet; accessible toilets—the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) quite rightly referenced accessibility—air conditioning, something that we can all appreciate today; charging points at every seat; real-time information screens; onboard wi-fi and walk-through carriages. Customer feedback on the 701s has been positive, with people welcoming improved on-train information screens—a 21% improved score—and a 22% improved score on cleanliness compared with the current 455 fleet in use.

The Government are pushing ahead with an ambitious programme of transfers into public ownership. Three operators’ services will have transferred by the end of 2025, at which point seven of the 14 operators for which the DFT is responsible will be publicly owned, and we expect all currently franchised services to have transferred by the end of 2027.

This Government’s bold vision for railways will see a unified and simplified rail system that relentlessly focuses on improved services for passengers and freight customers, and better value for money for taxpayers, ending years of fragmentation and waste. The Government will put passengers back at the heart of our railways and introduce new measures to protect their interests. That includes paving the way for a powerful new passenger watchdog, which will give passengers an independent voice and hold train operators to account.

The railways Bill will enable the biggest overhaul of the rail sector in a generation. It will streamline the current fragmented system by establishing Great British Railways—GBR—as a new directing mind for the industry, unifying track and train under a single public body to deliver better services for passengers and customers and, crucially, better value for money for taxpayers.

The Bill will also ensure that the benefits of a streamlined, integrated network are felt right across communities at a local level by establishing a new statutory role in governing, managing, planning and developing the rail network for devolved Governments and mayors. That means that local communities will be at the heart of decision making, ensuring that the railways work to meet their needs, connecting them to jobs and opportunities across the country.

I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham once again for securing this debate, and the hon. Member for Yeovil for attending in support.

Question put and agreed to.

<Railway Services: South-West>

Adam Dance Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered railway services in the South West.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. The south-west is hugely reliant on the mainline railway—it is an economic lifeline. As I am the MP for Newton Abbot, which includes Dawlish, Teignmouth and Kingsteignton—all towns with strong railway heritage—the railway is a fundamental part of my life and community.

Devon and Cornwall are notoriously underserved by transport: there is one motorway and just two national roads. The road network in Devon is largely minor roads full of potholes. The mainline railway is the key economic lifeline for the entire region. Getting from Exeter to Paddington in a couple of hours makes a huge difference and enables many people to work part in London and part in Devon—including myself, even before I was an MP.

The value of the railway to the economy was demonstrated during the 2014 Dawlish storm incident. From a Transport Committee record, we know that the storms on 4 February and 14 February 2014 caused a 100 metre breach in the sea wall at Dawlish and a 25,000 tonne landslip between Dawlish and Teignmouth, which was exacerbated by a further landslip on 5 March. The incident closed the line for eight weeks. An immediate repair cost of £35 million, including 300 engineers—the much-lauded “orange army”—got the line running again, but the interruption cost the local economy an estimated £1.2 billion. It is estimated that the Plymouth economy alone lost £600,000 each day the line was shut.

Since 2014 a lot has changed, but the dependence on the railway has, if anything, increased. Please do not think of tourism as the only industry in Devon: remote working has blossomed, and it is clear from Office of Road and Rail statistics that the overwhelming majority of rail journeys from Exeter and the other main stations are to and from London.

Why do we need a debate on the topic? The answer is that this vital railway link is again under threat from a number of different sources. After the 2014 storm, the then Prime Minister promised that money was no object and that the line would be made resilient. A five-phase plan was drawn up and work began. The new sea wall was built, and Dawlish railway station had a rebuilt sea defence as well. The first four phases of that plan have been done and are now in place. One massive benefit was the new bridge at Dawlish, which made both platforms accessible without steps—something that we still need in too many other stations, including Teignmouth.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Many railway stations across the south-west remain inaccessible. Disabled people, unable to get support, have had serious accidents at railway stations in constituencies such as Yeovil. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Government to improve the Access for All programme, as well as holding operations such as Great Western Railway to account when proper support is not in place for disabled railway passengers?

[Martin Wrigley]

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