A1: North Northumberland

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Part of the reason why the Scottish Government have not invested in the route—I notice that none of the Scottish National party Members are present—is that they see it as a road going to England. Perhaps they make decisions to invest in other parts of the Scottish transport network—maybe not ferries or the A9—but routes going to England do not get the share of the resources that they require. This is undoubtedly a United Kingdom infrastructure project in which both Government should invest.

I conclude by urging the Government to reconsider their decision not to go ahead with these improvement works, to restore the Morpeth to Ellingham scheme and to work with the Scottish Government to set out a credible, long-term plan to upgrade the A1 through Northumberland and the Scottish Borders. Our communities have waited long enough. They deserve a road that is safe, reliable and fit for purpose.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Minister.

Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

I have already made a commitment to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) to keep the House fully informed about any next steps that are taken, but my hon. Friend raises a broader point about how CROs have been engaged throughout this process. There are some fundamental truths that I keep coming back to. One is that remuneration takes place because it allows CROs to carry out the work that they do. They do not do it for the money, but it allows them to carry out this vital public service. Another truth is that it is not always possible to reflect the scale of the contribution that CROs make. I was in Southampton the other day and spoke to around 15 CROs. They were talking about the system not recognising when they take the van for an MOT or douse down the equipment after somebody has been rescued from mud. Ultimately, it is about fairness and recognition, and that is what I want to do my level best to inject into this process.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this urgent question, and Mr Speaker on granting it. There is deep concern across the whole country about the Government’s decision, which particularly affects our coastal communities. That was demonstrated clearly by all Members in the Westminster Hall debate last week, during which the Minister said that he would reflect on what he had heard. He has repeated that today, but from the answers he has given so far, I suggest that he reflects a little harder and with more urgency.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for his tireless work in highlighting these issues. The problem is not speculative; the data revealed by The Times from the MCA survey is clear: this change will decimate the coastguard. The survey showed that across all regions, between 25% and 58% of those who responded said a volunteer model would lead them to quit or reduce their hours, including 56% in the south-east and southern England regions, which cover the busiest stretches of coastline in the UK. A decrease in the number of coastguard officers of this scale would put people’s lives at risk. It is that simple.

Despite knowing that this decision was coming for months, there appears to have been a complete failure by the Department to appreciate and anticipate its impact. Why is that? Why was the impression given that even though it was a tough decision, the coastguard would be able to carry on as normal and there was sufficient support for the changes? Can the Minister explain who within the Department and the MCA knew about the revelations in The Times this week? Why was the MCA allowed to share information with Members in what can only be described as a questionable manner? The data is the data; it is not part of some sort of package.

The first responsibility of Government is to protect the public, but in this matter I fear that they have failed. As we look ahead and approach the height of summer, protecting our waterways is critical, so will the Minister answer a simple question: what will he do urgently and immediately to solve the problem?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank my hon. Friend for her doggedly determined support for her CROs. She is absolutely right to do what she is doing. I would be pleased to engage with the evidence sessions that are taking place next week, and I look forward to seeing the findings from them. She is right to point to the fact that CROs have decades of experience. I spoke to a CRO in Southampton just the other day who had served, including through the MCA, for the best part of 50 years. We cannot afford for that experience to slip through the cracks. She also mentions that CROs often have to respond to the most tragic of circumstances, when unfortunately it has not been possible to save people. Remuneration does not obscure that fact or make it better, but it is a way of recognising the enormous contribution that CROs make. That point about fairness and due regard for the contribution that CROs make has to run through the centre of what comes next.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I sincerely thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for asking the urgent question. Highly skilled, experienced coastguard volunteers are being badly let down by the Government, and I cannot imagine other rescue service personnel being treated in the same way. No one could argue that £11 an hour was enriching these volunteers; it was merely enabling them to do their vital work. As one coastguard volunteer from my constituency put it,

“I make significant personal and financial sacrifices to be available for emergency callouts—and I didn’t join the service to get paid.”

Sadly, we did not need to get to this point.

Did the Minister even speak to any of the CROs to hear what impact the changes would have on them before this rushed decision was made? Will he commit himself to a full risk assessment of these damaging changes? Finally, will he confirm that the Government are considering viable alternatives, such as a statutory stipend system, passing legislation to exempt CROs from worker status, or even just embracing their worker status?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

The full impact on search and rescue capability and operational capacity has been considered through this process, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right to point to the fact that it is critical that we continue to interpret what CROs are telling us about what the impact will be, and that we rationalise that with how we project demand to flow over the summer and into September.

I missed something in the previous question. On the very serious issue of whistleblowing, may I ask the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) to please write to me about that specific instance? The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), who I am currently answering, is right to raise these very important issues.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for his answers this afternoon. I remind Members that large slogans are not appropriate and perhaps Members might do up their jacket so I cannot see any. If I had spotted the one he is wearing, I would not have called the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart).

East Midland Railway Collision

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the tragic collision between two passenger trains on Friday 19 June.

I realise that hon. Members will be aware of some of the details, but today I would like to set out the facts as we know them so far. At approximately 5.15 pm on Friday evening, two East Midlands Railway passenger trains collided at Elstow, near Bedford. The 16.40 service from Corby to London St Pancras struck the stationary 15.50 service from Nottingham to St Pancras. Within minutes, emergency services were on the scene. A joint response then followed, including fire and rescue services, the ambulance service, the national police air service, British Transport police, Bedfordshire police and railway staff. They evacuated passengers safely, provided medical assistance, secured the railway and began recovery operations. By 11 pm, all passengers were clear of the scene.

It deeply saddens me to confirm to the House that the driver of the Corby to London St Pancras train died in the collision. His family have asked for privacy at this horrendously difficult time, but I am sure I speak for the whole House when I offer them our deepest condolences.

According to the latest information I have from the BTP, at least 33 people were taken to hospital, with a third of those in a serious condition, and at least 56 other people were treated for injuries. A number of the injured remain in a critical condition today. We are thinking of all of them and their families.

All responders, to a person, acted quickly, professionally and bravely in the most challenging circumstances, which many of us will never experience or quite understand. Chief Constable Lucy D’Orsi of the British Transport police told me over the weekend that the teamwork between emergency services, railway staff and the rail accident investigation branch was the best she had ever seen. Let me take this opportunity to thank every single one of them. I also thank the NHS staff, who are still providing care to the injured as we speak.

Often, in the hours and days after events such as these, small acts of compassion and selflessness start to emerge, whether it was members of the local community, who lived near the stranded trains, providing bottles of water to stranded passengers; the Salvation Army’s food truck, which has been on the scene since the incident; or station staff along the route, who supported passengers amid the disruption. I was particularly moved to hear of a ticket inspector on the Corby train who, despite being injured, radioed in to close the rail line while checking that everyone else was okay. As I have said before, I truly believe the best of us show up in the worst of times, and that was the case here.

This is news that no Transport Secretary ever wants to deliver. Although I completely understand the strength of feeling out there and hear the clamour for answers and the need to understand the cause of this tragedy, I must ask everyone for some patience, as hard as I know that will be. I am determined that we get all the answers we are looking for and that lessons are learned. The rail accident investigation branch, whose inspectors were on the scene within hours, has already launched an independent investigation and confirmed that there will be an update in the coming days. It and it alone will identify the cause and will make recommendations, which I will consider with the utmost care and diligence. Meanwhile, I urge everyone to await its findings and to hold off on speculation.

Those most affected by this tragic incident will continue to receive the support they need. In addition to direct care provided by the emergency services, East Midlands Railway has a customer care and welfare support team to provide assistance to passengers. It has also set up a dedicated care line that anyone affected can contact. Throughout, my Department will remain in close contact with the British Transport police and local emergency services, Network Rail, East Midlands Railway, the rail accident investigation branch and the Office of Rail and Road.

The Rail Minister has already spoken to the general secretaries of the RMT and ASLEF, as well as to hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) and for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), and my hon. Friends the Members for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), for Wellingborough and Rushden (Gen Kitchen) and for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting).

Now that investigators have gathered evidence from the scene, Network Rail will recover the trains and restore the infrastructure. This will be a complex operation, involving lifting and removing damaged trains, repairing the rails and removing and replacing overhead lines. That is why the railway is expected to remain closed between Bedford and Luton for the rest of the week. However, services will be running between Luton and London St Pancras.

Rail replacement services were already in place along the midland main line, due to planned engineering works over the weekend. Those works were cancelled, but the replacement services continue to offer passengers alternative routes to travel. I have also instructed train operators to accept tickets from customers using alternative routes. However, my message to passengers who would normally use this route is that if their travel is not essential, they should please make alternative arrangements.

I realise that the following words may ring hollow to those affected by Friday’s events, but they remain important none the less. Britain has one of the safest railways in the world. Thankfully, incidents such as this are extremely rare and, when they do occur, they are taken very seriously. Safety remains the absolute priority across our rail network—of that, there should be no doubt. In addition to the railway’s own safety experts and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, we have an expert independent safety regulator. I expect all of them to be studying the investigation’s findings, and I will ensure that the right steps are then taken.

I would like to close by reassuring the House that we will provide updates as more information becomes available, and by offering my sympathies again to everyone affected and expressing my heartfelt thanks to those who responded so heroically in the aftermath. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for the tone in which he has expressed himself. I share in the condolences he has expressed to the driver of the Corby train, Shaun Burton—as I said in my opening remarks, the thoughts of the whole House are with his family at this awful time.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the RAIB needs to be given space to complete its investigations. It was on the scene within about an hour of the collision, and it has indicated to me that it will issue an update on its investigation in the coming days. He is right that the full investigation will take longer, but as facts emerge the RAIB will be sharing them with the public in the next few days. I agree with him that it would be wrong—and potentially unfair to all those involved—to speculate on the causes of this collision before all the evidence has been properly examined, and I am confident that the RAIB will establish what has happened and why. I also assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will act quickly on its recommendations. It is important that the RAIB independently assesses the facts of the matter and makes recommendations to me as the Secretary of State for Transport.

I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that our immediate priority is all those who have been affected. We are supporting those who have been injured and their families, and providing all the assistance that is needed to all those who have been caught up in this terrible incident.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I endorse, as I know does everyone in this House, the comments by the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden). He asked all the questions that I had lined up to ask. In particular, I thank those who responded so quickly after this terrible incident in support of those who were injured. Our thoughts are with all those who are so severely impacted. In addition to those other questions, will support be put in place for those who drive trains and work in other roles on that route when it reopens, because that could be fairly traumatic?

[Heidi Alexander]

I spoke yesterday to the managing director of East Midlands Railway, Will Rogers, and the Chair of the Transport Committee is completely right to say that support must also be provided to the staff who were caught up in this incident. One of the things that Will Rogers explained to me is that he is receiving support from other train operating companies. The whole of the railway family has come together to ensure that support is put in place for individuals who could have experienced significant trauma. That will obviously apply to passengers who were caught up in this terrible incident, but it will apply to the staff of EMR, too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

May I start by thanking the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement? I wholly associate myself with her remarks. Our thoughts have to be with the driver who lost his life and the many passengers who were injured, particularly those still in hospital, and all their families. From my past railway management experience, I know that the railway family as a whole will be in a state of shock. I pay tribute to the on-train staff, signalling centre staff and control centre staff in Network Rail and East Midlands Railway for their excellent initial response. That led to emergency services being on the scene within 10 minutes. I also pay tribute to the emergency services for their work and to investigatory staff, station staff, customer service personnel along the line of route, the community organisations and the Salvation Army, as the Secretary of State referenced.

I do not have a question for the Secretary of State; I think her statement was spot on, and I just want to reiterate what she said. It is so important that we do not succumb to the temptation to speculate, however well-intentioned that may be. We must give the investigatory teams and the site recovery teams the time and space that they need. I never had to deal with anything as horrible as this in in my railway career, but I know from that time that speculation is the most unhelpful thing that can be done.

Railways Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

The sheer number of amendments demonstrates that this remains a deeply flawed Bill based on a key error: preferring political ideology to practical solutions, state control to dynamic management. By doing so, I fear that the Government have wasted this generation’s best opportunity for effective rail reform.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to five amendments tabled in my name and those of other members of the Transport Committee, and other Members of the House. They focus on two issues—the long-term rail strategy, and the important issue of accessibility—and they stem from specific recommendations in the report of our inquiry into the Bill. The Committee recognises the need for structural change on the railways, and it supports the main purpose of the Bill, which is to establish Great British Railways as a single organisation overseeing both track and train, and capable of acting as a directing mind for the railway.

I thank the Government for their thorough and thoughtful response to our report, and for publishing yesterday, as promised, the list of documents and target publication timetables for the key policy documents and public consultations that will be required for GBR to be operational in 2027. I also thank them for the policy document on the draft GBR licence that was published a week or so ago.

Amendments 37 and 38 to clause 15 would require the long-term rail strategy to be placed before Parliament, as well as any revisions to it. I welcome that the Government have committed to publish a discussion document with more detail on what the LTRS will include during the Bill’s passage through the House. The Government told us that a requirement to lay the LTRS before the House is not necessary because the documents will be published, thus guaranteeing transparency, and they have committed to place that document in the Libraries and make a written ministerial statement. However, transparency was not the Committee’s only concern, as we also wanted a disincentive to change the long-term rail strategy too frequently or trivially. The commitment to make a written ministerial statement is welcome, but will that also apply to updates? It will not bind future Governments.

I now move to other amendments tabled in my name and those of members of the Committee, and by other Members of the House, including a number who are, and have always been, strong advocates for the needs of people with disabilities. The number of amendments tabled shows the strength of concern from Members across the House about the importance of accessibility, of getting it right in the Bill, and of making railways accessible to all. Whether for a long-term wheelchair user, someone who will always need support to buy tickets or navigate a large station, or anyone travelling with small children or luggage, accessible trains, stations, ticketing systems, and staff culture must benefit us all. When that is hardwired into the culture of the organisation, more people—all people—can feel confident in their ability to travel by train.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

The right hon. Member’s description of Katrina’s needs speak not only for her needs but for those of so many people. He described Katrina’s specific physical needs and need to have a seat, but it is important to recognise that every disabled person’s needs are different. The rail system—indeed, the whole transport system—must be able to adapt and ensure that those needs are met.

I welcome the sheer number of amendments tabled today that cover accessibility. New clause 39 makes a specific request:

“The Secretary of State must appoint a board of the Passengers’ Council.”

and it requires that board to include at least two disabled people. The Government told us that legislating for that recommendation is not needed because the Transport Focus board already has such representation, and general duties under clause 18 will apply when the board is appointed. While I welcome the offer to confirm that intention, why is there resistance to putting such a measure into legislation so that it is secured in the future? To say that Transport Focus currently has such representation, and that therefore the passengers’ council board will too, relies on custom. Clause 18(2)(a) refers to

“promoting…the needs of disabled passengers”

but it relies on a specific interpretation of a general clause, so neither of those measures are secure. In conclusion, I commend the amendments to the House, but I will not push them to a vote as I anticipate that they will attract a fair bit of attention in the other place when the Bill arrives there.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

As we said on Second Reading and in Committee, the Bill has the right goals: sorting out the convoluted and byzantine structure of our rail industry, and better aligning infrastructure with train operation. But the question before us is whether the Bill, as currently drafted, will achieve those very valid aims.

The Minister gave the impression in Committee that the Bill was beyond any possible reproach or improvement, on the basis that he rejected all Opposition amendments, but we have learned this afternoon that it is possible to improve it, of course, because the Government have tabled their own amendments. If I may begin in the spirit of generosity, I welcome Government amendments 106, 107 and 108, since, as I understand them, they seemingly clarify that GBR will not have powers to seek to take over privately owned infrastructure, such as freight. That will provide some reassurance to the sector, which is welcome.

However, the Bill remains flawed in many ways, so the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments in the spirit of wishing to remove some of those flaws. I will group our amendments by theme. New clauses 1 and 46 and amendment 1 are intended to provide much better value for the customer and focus on the customer’s journey experience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I commend my hon. Friend for her industry in the number of amendments she has tabled to the Bill. I hope the Government will listen and consider new clause 37, as they did with her new clause 36 regarding veterans.

New clauses 7 and 8 would make more explicit commitments for GBR to have greater environmental and carbon emissions reduction obligations than those currently drafted. Our amendments as a whole would increase GBR’s potential to avoid making the mistakes of the past. They would encourage it to take bold new steps on electrification and deliver truly joined-up journeys and integrated transport and timetables. They would encourage it to have a real, ambitious rail devolution agenda to bring decision making far closer to communities than is currently the case with Whitehall’s domination.

Our amendments would also avoid the total mess of projects led by the Department for Transport, such as the ongoing situation of having no trains between Oxford and Milton Keynes on East West Rail, despite the railway being commissioned 18 months ago. We have HS2—it goes without saying what a mess that is, and that has not been an endeavour led by the private sector. We also have the inter-city express programme for GWR and LNER, which was wildly expensive.

Let me move towards my conclusion. The key test is this: do the Railways Bill and the proposed creation of GBR make my key constituency asks more or less likely to happen? Simpler and better value fares on GWR, particularly during peak times; an end to five-car, overcrowded inter-city operations; a new station at Grove; full electrification between Didcot and Oxford, bringing Oxford into equality with Cambridge, which benefited from such electrification in 1986; an hourly service for Culham; accessibility improvements to Cholsey; and East West Rail actually happening, as I mentioned—only with our amendments do I feel that those things are likely to be within reach.

Although the Government are right about the need to better align track and train and to tackle the current dysfunctional industry structure, the Bill has too many flaws. Do not take that from me—the Transport Committee reached a similar conclusion, with most of the recommendations of its inquiry being rejected by the Government. Absent the Government embracing at least some of the Lib Dem amendments that I have spoken to, we risk creating a GBR that is mired in bureaucracy and overseen by a Department for Transport that is distracted by dubious GBR train colour schemes and somewhat gimmicky social media videos, rather than adopting good practices from other countries and truly transforming our railway. Absent the Government embracing some of our amendments or the House voting on them, the Bill is not fit to go forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call John McDonnell.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I thought that was coming.

I will speak to amendments 15 and 35, which stand in my name. Amendment 15 deals with the creation of an industry-wide travel scheme. One of the benefits of joining British Rail was that travel passes were extended to workers and their families. That was a real perk of the job, and I think it was protected under legislation on a cross-party basis for existing staff. However, that was only for existing staff, and as other companies took over, that benefit was lost. There was a range of different schemes.

All that amendment 15 would do is place a responsibility on GBR to bring together those schemes, so that there is one consistent scheme that will continue into the future for the benefit of the railways. We have written to the Secretary of State on this issue—in March, I think—and we are still seeking a meeting. I would welcome confirmation from the Minister that that will take place.

--- Later in debate ---

The last amendment that stands in my name is new clause 13, which concerns rural investment. The £445 million mainly concerns new stations in the east of Wales; rural communities, particularly in the west, have been overlooked for generations. In my constituency of Caerfyrddin, the case for reopening St Clears station is well established, as is the need to improve links towards Pembrokeshire, which I have been pressing for alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) and the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell). New clause 13 would require a clear plan to ensure projects such as these merit consideration and that rural Wales and, in particular, rural west Wales finally receive their fair share of funding.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

To ensure I get all colleagues in, I am introducing an immediate four-minute time limit.

[Navendu Mishra]

I thank all railway staff at stations across Stockport, not only in my constituency but in neighbouring constituencies. I also declare an interest—trade unions have made donations to my constituency Labour party.

The British Transport Police recorded a 5% increase in crime in the 12 months leading up to June 2025, including a rise in violence and sexual offences, leading to claims of an “epidemic of violence”. It is facing a funding shortfall of £8.5 million this financial year, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that we in this House have a duty to keep passengers and staff safe. As such, I urge the Government to ensure that proper, adequate funding is allocated to the BTP.

I also echo the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about outsourcing. Outsourcing is embedding systemic racism in parts of the railway network where outsourced workers are disproportionately from ethnic minority backgrounds. As I said earlier in an intervention, ethnic minority workers represent 25% of the directly employed train operating company workforce, but that figure rises to just under 60% for outsourced cleaners and caterers.

The outsourcing model is driven by employers taking on workers on precarious contracts and on poor terms and conditions, such as inadequate sick pay and pensions when compared with directly employed workers. Outsourced workers typically have no travel facilities, but many in the House will be aware that a chief executive of a private train company has excellent terms and conditions, benefits and travel facilities. GBR should tackle these outsourced contracts and the poor terms and conditions that people are on. Everyone deserves fair pay and treatment, as well as dignity at work.

Those who work for open-access railway companies do a great job, but open access injects unnecessary complexity and fragmentation into operations and operators cherry-pick the most profitable routes on our network. My view is that no further open-access contracts or extensions should be granted, and that existing services and jobs should be absorbed into GBR at the earliest opportunity.

Reddish South train station in my constituency has one train a week. That is not a joke. It is absolutely ridiculous. Proper passenger services must be restored at Reddish South train station. I pay tribute to the Friends of Reddish South Station, who do such important work in my patch. In the last reporting period, only 102 passengers used that train station in an entire year. We need to ensure that as we move on with modernising our railway system, Reddish South is not left behind and train stations have proper services.

I did support new clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden). It has now been withdrawn, but it would have required GBR to establish a department to look at options to increase services to underserved places. I invite the Minister to visit Reddish South. Lord Hendy made a visit to my constituency last year, but it was at short notice and he did not have a chance to go to Reddish South. I invite the Minister and Lord Hendy to come to my constituency specifically to meet the Friends of Reddish South.

I will make a quick point on disabled access. The Access for All scheme is a good scheme, but it is far too slow. Nathaniel Yates, a constituent of mine, has done so much work over the years to improve disabled access for all, but accessibility at train stations in the north is poor, with fewer than half of all stations having step-free access. We need to ensure that more people are not excluded from our railways, such as those with mobility issues, underlying health conditions or heavy luggage. I support amendments 29 and 33, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which would protect and promote the rights of disabled passengers.

I end on the point that since privatisation, rolling stock companies have been rinsing the taxpayer. Those companies should be brought in house, and Great British Railways should create its own rolling stock procurement team to stop taxpayers being taken advantage of.

High Speed 2 Reset

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)]

With permission, I will make a statement on High Speed 2.

Last summer, I stood at this Dispatch Box and promised that we would be straight with the British people not just about the appalling mess we inherited, but about how we would fundamentally reset the HS2 project. Today I am publishing the latest parliamentary report and the Lovegrove report—an assessment of what past failings in the delivery of HS2 mean for the civil service and the wider public sector. This was a Cabinet Secretary investigation commissioned by the Prime Minister last year. I will also take this opportunity to update hon. Members on the latest stage of the HS2 reset.

However, I will first remind the House of the litany of failures we inherited in July 2024. Costs soared by £37 billion under the previous Government alone, with billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money sunk into phase 2 work for the sections north of Birmingham before they were abruptly cancelled. Huge contracts were handed out without improvements in price, despite the Oakervee review’s recommendation to negotiate a better position.

Instead of signalling the country’s ambition, HS2 became a symbol of this country’s decline. After more than five years of construction and more than £40 billion spent, the country was no closer to having an operational HS2 railway than when construction first began. That is the shocking legacy of the previous Government, and I am afraid it gets worse: I can today confirm that the previous Government spent most of HS2’s budget without laying a single metre of its track. Today is about ending that era of neglect.

New chief executive officer Mark Wild and chair Mike Brown have an almost impossible task on their hands; as Mark put it to me recently, it is like changing the engine of an aeroplane mid-flight. However, the new leadership team at HS2 is turning things around, with six major construction milestones reached earlier than planned in the past year. The organisation is more focused on the things that matter, with 300 back-office roles removed. HS2 Ltd is reviewing its supply chain contracts and the incentives within them to ensure that we finish the job at the lowest reasonable cost, and it is managing those contractors properly now to ensure that supplier performance is up to scratch. Finally, we are seeing improved oversight, with HS2’s leadership now receiving real-time updates, helping to prevent delays and keep construction to time.

However, there is no getting away from the fact that the vast majority of HS2’s previous budget was blown on completing around a third of the entire project. Over the past year, Mark Wild and HS2 Ltd have worked closely with me and my Department to assess the remaining work to be done. They have now provided me with updated costs and timescales, which I can share with the House.

It gives me no pleasure to say that the expected cost of completing HS2 is now between £87.7 billion and £102.7 billion, priced in 2025. Two thirds of that increase is down to past misunderstanding of the work required, underestimation and inefficiency—issues within the control of HS2 Ltd, some of its suppliers and previous Governments. The remaining third is linked to inflation, which was not factored into previous cost estimates regularly enough.

On timings, I said last year that I could see no route by which trains could be running by 2033. We now expect the first services to run from Old Oak Common to Birmingham Curzon Street between May 2036 and October 2039. Where the previous Government could not say when the full HS2 scheme between Euston and Handsacre Junction would be delivered, I now expect it to happen between May 2040 and December 2043. Lessons have been learned from the Stewart review, meaning that HS2’s cost and schedules are now built on more solid foundations, with credible estimates published as ranges to ensure that they better stand the test of time.

Colleagues may feel that they have heard this all before; I understand that scepticism, but it is different this time. HS2 Ltd has now used the same experts and methods behind the successful Crossrail reset. It has priced future work against what we have learned so far, and its homework has been checked by an independent panel of experts.

However, if this seems like an obscene increase in time and costs, it is because it is. If it seems that I am angry, it is because I am. I am angry on behalf of taxpayers and affected communities who have been swindled by the failures of successive Conservative Governments; I am angry on behalf of the thousands of rail and construction workers who are giving their all on this project, and who do not deserve to have their industry tarnished in this way; and I am angry on behalf of passengers who continue to wait for the new services and new opportunities that they deserve.

Despite this sorry situation, we are determined to claw back as much time and money as possible. The Lovegrove report not only corroborates the Stewart review’s damning assessment of the decision-making environment under the previous Government, but talks about the original “gold plating” of HS2 and a focus on

“the highest possible speeds, resulting in bespoke and highly engineered design”.

To translate: it was a massively over-specced folly, with the prospect of the fastest trains anywhere in the world tickling the fancy of Conservative Ministers. If we were a country the size of China, I could understand it—but we are not. Passengers just want reliable trains that turn up when they are supposed to, more services and more seats. They want a common-sense approach that gets them the railway they deserve, not a vanity project with trains so fast that proper testing could not be done until track and railway systems were complete.

I therefore asked Mark Wild to remove the gold-plating and complexity from this project, and I have today accepted his recommendation to align HS2 with speeds already delivered on other European high-speed networks. That means we will still run some of the fastest trains in Europe, with speeds reaching 320 kph; but, crucially, it will lower the cost of testing and make delivering the project less risky. It could realise savings of up to £2.5 billion and save at least a year in delivery time.

I realise that there will be those who will say that this is all too much and that we should just cancel the whole thing. However, I can confirm today that it could cost almost as much to cancel the line as it would to finish it, while delivering none of the benefits, with half-finished structures strewn across the English countryside, a relic of what could have been.

This Labour Government are clear that we will deliver HS2 to completion, because this country can build big things; we just need competent people at the helm to deliver them. Prime Ministers Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I am sure that the Secretary of State did not mean to use the name of the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak).

[Heidi Alexander]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Previous Prime Ministers, in my view, created the world’s most expensive slow-motion car crash, and they barely batted an eyelid. This Government have rolled up our sleeves and done the hard yards, putting the right team in place and being honest about the scale of the challenge.

I understand that this statement today will be met with cynicism and anger, but I say with genuine pride and conviction that I believe we are finally starting to see real delivery. Tunnelling machines are currently working under Londoners’ feet to make HS2 to Euston a reality, and Birmingham’s skyline is changing before our eyes, with new film studios, a sports quarter and housing all being built around the new Curzon Street station. This is national renewal in action. When I last worked with Mark Wild and Mike Brown, we took the delayed and over-budget Crossrail project and turned it into the Elizabeth line, which has now served more than half a billion passengers. We have done it before, and we will do it again. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander]

I am grateful to the shadow Rail Minister for his questions and the tone in which he presented his case. He was not quite as bombastic at the Dispatch Box as he normally is, so I can only assume that perhaps he was considering making an apology for the dreadful mess that the previous Government left this project in. I did not hear one, but I accept the manner in which he made his points. I do question where the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), is today. This is not the first time that he has run scared from an oral statement, and I can only assume that it is because he is embarrassed by his party’s abject record on transport.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the appointment of the new CEO, Mark Wild, under the previous Government. I gently say to him that it is a bit like an arsonist demanding praise for calling the fire brigade. Let me quote what Mark Wild said about what he had inherited when he spoke to the Public Accounts Committee just days after he started in his job:

“we are in a completely unacceptable position…we have to acknowledge that HS2 has failed in its mission to control costs.”

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions, and I will answer them directly. He asks how reducing the speed to 320 kph will save money and ensure delivery. To be clear, that will mean that trains on HS2 are running as fast as bullet trains in Japan. We are making three scope changes in this announcement today: first, reducing the speed; secondly, reducing automatic train operation; and thirdly, ensuring that the signalling we put in on HS2 is aligned with the European train control system that is being rolled out on the trans-Pennine route upgrade and across the Network Rail system more broadly. We will depend on proven technologies; we are not taking a punt on world firsts. That is the way to reduce risk in the delivery of this programme and potentially reduce cost as well by up to £2.5 billion.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about bat tunnels. I can tell him that we are building no more bat tunnels on HS2 and that this Government have changed legislation through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which could mean a different approach to protected species in future. I gently ask him who was overseeing the project when HS2 took the decision to proceed with the bat tunnel. It was not this Government; it was his Government, and we have taken actions to ensure that regulations in future do not get in the way of building the homes and infrastructure that this country needs.

The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically whether the revised cost ranges include a number of different areas. I can confirm that there is provision within this range for the delivery of Euston, though we have also gone out to market to attract private investment, given that in the 10-year infrastructure strategy we set out our ambition to deliver the new HS2 station through a public-private partnership. The signalling costs are also included in those cost ranges.

The hon. Gentleman rightly asked me what action HS2 is taking to improve its performance on settling claims on land and property. I know that there are very many hon. Members in this House whose constituents will have experienced frustrations in that regard. In the letter I recently wrote to the chair of HS2 setting out his priorities for the year, I was clear that I wanted greater attention on this area.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about some of the minor changes that Avanti West Coast has made recently to its summer timetable. It came to me with a proposition to better optimise its service pattern to meet the demand in the summer months. If we can save money because we are not moving trains around the country with half-empty carriages, as a responsible Government I think it is reasonable for us to look at that. On the timetable introduced on Sunday, we have seen significant enhancements, including additional seats on London Northwestern services between London and Birmingham. We are seeing the most regular Mid Cornwall Metro service in 60 years. Where his Government failed to invest in Britain’s rail network, this Government are doing exactly the opposite and ensuring that people across the country have the trains they need and deserve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee is right that the problems of HS2 were born many years ago. The fact that the civil engineering was delayed for four years is not the product of decisions by this Government or the current management of HS2, but is, as she says, about overly optimistic cost estimates, construction starting before designs were mature, insufficiently controlled delivery, poor contractual arrangements, gold-plating, and constant changes in policy and scope. She is entirely right on that.

My hon. Friend asked me what lessons we are learning about the delivery of future transport infrastructure. On Northern Powerhouse Rail, we have worked closely with local leaders to agree scope, priorities and sequencing in advance, so that we know what elements of the overall programme will be delivered first. We have set an overall budget cap for that, and are securing local contributions to ensure that we maximise the economic and regeneration potential of the new transport infrastructure in those places. We are learning the lessons.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her candour on the scale of the HS2 disaster and for the specificity of the range of dates she provided. The Liberal Democrats certainly agree with her intent: we need to make the most of this shambles, and it would be better to do something with what has been built rather than scrap it and hope that doing so resets the past. It is also good news that the Secretary of State has outlined a commitment to proven technology, rather than the innovations of the future—warp drive and whatever else was being talked about before. In particular, the use of the ETCS for signalling is welcome.

We in this country know how to build high-speed lines, because we did it between London St Pancras and the channel tunnel at a reasonable cost. Of course, our French and Spanish allies also know how to do it. The high-speed line from Tours to Bordeaux in France took 15 years, including all the planning and construction. The Secretary of State highlighted Crossrail’s expertise on the expert panel, which is welcome, but is she sure that that expertise is the same as is needed in the more specialised case of high-speed rail construction? Is she confident that her expert panel has the specific high-speed rail construction and commissioning skills that we need, from either the UK or abroad, to turn the situation around?

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Members might be interested to know that we will come to the Front-Bench spokespeople at half-past 4. About 10 Members are standing, so you can work out that a time limit will not be needed, unless they talk for an excessive 10 minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

In the west midlands, the average waiting time for a driving test is 22 weeks—nearly six months, up from 12 weeks in October 2022. That often means that young people are unable to take a driving test before taking their A-levels or leaving home for university.

When I was growing up in Atherstone, getting my driving licence was a milestone for my independence. It meant I could see friends, share the driving with my parents when they picked me up at the end of term from university, and take up jobs that simply were not reachable by bus. And when I reached 21, driving the Leeds University night-time women’s minibus provided me with a good income and some great fun, and I was providing an excellent service. In fact, without learning to drive as a teenager and building up my confidence in driving, I would not have been able to drive a group of students from Leeds down to London, and also across to Manchester, to protest against section 28.

That is why I find it so frustrating that so many young people in North Warwickshire and Bedworth are now stuck on endless waiting lists for their driving tests. In a rural area with poor bus connections and unreliable timetables, a driving licence is not a luxury—it is crucial. It gives young people the independence and confidence to pursue education, training and work in neighbouring towns and cities.

I also want to talk about the freight and logistics industry. It is one of the largest employers in my constituency, offering excellent apprenticeships and training opportunities for school leavers ready to start their careers, but buses simply do not run frequently or at the right times for shifts at those hubs. My constituents who are waiting for driving tests are effectively locked out of those opportunities.

An elderly constituent called me because her driving licence was stuck with the DVLA, preventing her from being able to get around. My team and I contacted the DVLA and spoke to a member of the team, who reissued her driving licence fairly promptly. She told me how grateful she was and how much it would help her, but it should not take MPs getting involved to deal with these issues. For people like my constituent, a driving licence is a lifeline, allowing her to get to appointments, shops, and nearby villages and towns to see friends and stop being isolated. The DVLA must process requests in a timely manner to ensure that people are not left isolated in rural communities.

In 2021, the UK experienced a huge shortage of heavy goods vehicle drivers, which was compounded by the delays in tests for HGV licences. Luckily, that situation has improved, with current practical test wait times broadly acceptable at around three weeks; the real problem now is with the availability of theory tests for HGV drivers. As HGV candidates must sit multiple theory tests—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. It might be helpful if I highlight that driving tests are governed not by the DVLA, but by the DVSA—the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. The subject of this afternoon’s debate is very specifically the DVLA. Perhaps Members might take that as a point of information and constrain their remarks to the DVLA.

[Rachel Taylor]

My apologies. I think when most of our constituents think of the DVLA and the DVSA, they think of them as one and the same, but thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for correcting me on that point.

I think it is still fair to say that young people need access to their driving licence, and that the many people with health conditions who might have to hand in their licence are reliant on it coming back quickly. My own mum has to take my dad around for hospital appointments; she cannot get to her nearest shop or go out to see her friends. There are real impacts here for people who have suffered minor strokes, for example, and have not had their driving licence returned. It is a situation that the Government need to look at, and I would be grateful for anything that the Minister can tell us to inform the situation. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

As we have heard, the DVLA covers important aspects of work overseeing driving licences and people’s ability to drive safely. I pay tribute, as others have done, to the DVLA staff working to support my constituents. However, I also want to highlight some of the issues raised by a large number of my constituents over quite a period of time, which I know are similar to concerns raised by other hon. Members.

One of the most common issues relates to—surprise, surprise—medical applications, which we have heard time and again this afternoon. The crux of the issue seems to be that the system is paper-based and by post. Unfortunately, that adds further delays, not helped by issues with postal deliveries. There also seems to be a lack of co-ordination between the DVLA and clinicians.

Constituents have highlighted other concerns. No matter the outcome after their applications have been processed, there are significant delays in returning documents and, in some cases, licences, as well as delays in issuing medical letters. Six to seven months seems to be the average for cases that do not appear overly complex, but in the worst cases that I have dealt with, returns have taken in excess of seven months. It is clearly deeply unsatisfactory for things to take that long. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) said, many more people try to navigate these issues on their own, so MPs do not see the full extent of the problem.

I was pleased that the Government increased the number of additional staff being recruited to support the DVLA’s medical team. That is a fairly new development, but we all look forward to seeing that investment in the workforce, which will, I hope, help to reduce waiting times for decisions. That will, in turn, reduce the frustration felt by my constituents and many others across the country.

The DVLA’s medical licensing system is, as we know, a vital service for our constituents. For too long, my constituents have had to put up with long and unexpected delays. I acknowledge that the Government have unfortunately inherited this and a number of other long-standing issues from the previous Government, and that they recognise that there is much work to do, but will my hon. Friend the Minister set out what more can be done? The length of time that my constituents and others are waiting, and the frustration and inconvenience that it causes them, is just too much for them to put up with. Many of the constituents who have contacted me are armed forces veterans, public servants and people who are doing the right thing, but unfortunately the system is letting them down. I hope that the Minister will address that in his winding-up speech.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing a debate on this important topic, and the Backbench Business Committee for choosing it.

We have heard from many hon. Members the important reasons the DVLA needs to improve. I do not have time to mention all the excellent contributions, but I highlight that of the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), who certainly need not have apologised for not using notes. In fact, the passion and authenticity of his speech show the rest of us that having fewer notes can often lead to much better contributions—alas, I have not managed to do that this afternoon.

We have heard lots of reasons why a well-functioning DVLA really matters, including safety culture, which is so important for everybody on our roads. Only if the DVLA works, and if people have faith in it, will we be able to encourage everybody to do the right thing in relation to medical conditions that any of us could develop and which could affect our ability to drive safely. Faith in public institutions, and in the accountability of institutions with which we have an obligation to comply, is important. It is all the more important in the light of the 70 years of societal change—encouraged by Government policy—that have made the car an essential and almost inevitable form of transport for most in our country.

The Government have rightly set out an ambitious road safety strategy that will impose additional duties and expectations on the DLVA, so we will need a better DVLA if that strategy is to succeed. Like other Members, I have had many constituents get in touch with me about issues that affect their ability to access jobs and contribute to the economy, and the personal independence their cars give them. I have constituents who have had very long, unexplained waits for licence renewal. That is often the real frustration: the accountability and the communication from the DVLA just are not there in many cases. Another constituent had a circular and extremely confusing communication merry-go-round between himself, the DVLA and medical personnel. He turned to me and my excellent casework team for help with how to emerge from that incredibly frustrating communication merry-go-round, because he did not know how to get out of it, despite his best efforts to engage with the process.

We are in the midst of a vehicle technological revolution. Driverless taxis are being piloted in London, and electric vehicles are now commonplace. As these changes are felt on our roads, we need to have confidence in the regulator responsible for managing them. We need a dynamic organisation ready to adapt to the challenges that these changes will bring. Unfortunately, the DVLA has not given us confidence that it will be up to the task, and that is not just based on constituents’ experience; the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and a November 2024 Cabinet Office review have all found it wanting.

The well-documented delays in medical driving licences show a system struggling to cope with demand. The 2023 Public Accounts Committee report found that over 3 million people had experienced long delays, with some losing employment and income as a result. Improvements have been made, with the average time to process medical licence cases being 44 days in 2024-25, down from 54 days the year before, but that is clearly still far too long. The DVLA is only facing more and more demands for its services, with an ageing population and the Government’s plan to introduce mandatory eye tests for over-70s. Without structural reform, this problem is not likely to improve any time soon.

Equally, the DVLA’s capacity to administer an increasingly complex and rapidly changing vehicle excise duty regime is a concern. The current VED system is already complex and opaque, given that cars, heavy goods vehicles and motorbikes are all calculated according to different metrics. Shortly after the transition in April 2025, when electric vehicles began paying VED, the DVLA acknowledged issues with V5C vehicle logbooks displaying incorrect tax information. That understandably raised concerns about the robustness of the agency’s data and systems.

At the 2025 Budget, the Government announced electric vehicle excise duty—eVED—a new tax payable alongside the existing VED from April 2028; there are far too many acronyms here, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that electric vehicle registrations accounted for a record 19.6% market share in 2024, this will put further administrative pressure on a DVLA that is already making mistakes and struggling to cope with demand.

Finally, as driverless cars become more commonplace in the UK, the DVLA will play a central role in licensing, registration and data management for autonomous vehicles—a function for which the agency’s current legislative mandate and systems were not designed. The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) highlighted some of the existing problems with the administration of licence plates.

All these changes will place greater pressure on the agency, and confidence is low that it will be able to handle it, so the Government need to go faster in their reform of the DVLA. The 2024 report was a welcome start in identifying the structural problems. The Government now need to get on with the unglamorous but essential job of genuine and meaningful system reform, to ensure we have a regulator that is up to the job it faces. Although it is outside the scope of the debate, reform of the DVLA must go hand in hand with further reform of the DVSA to address the persistent backlog in practical driving tests. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Leagrave Station: Step-free Access

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Owen]

A rare occasion! I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and yes, he is right, that is far too long. Not only will I be grey, but I will be dead, so progress is far too slow—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Apologies, I was merely commenting that the hon. Lady might not be—longevity is increasing.

[Sarah Owen]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have good genes, but I would have to have extraordinarily good genes to see that to fruition. The hon. Gentleman makes a really good point. Progress is far too slow. For many people, train journeys are just completely out their reach, and that should not be the limit of our aspirations, quite frankly.

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion on the Select Committee:

That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill stands committed by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over):

1. The Committee is to have five members.

2. The members of the Committee are—

(a) those who are members of the Committee by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over), and

(b) two other members who are to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

3. Any alteration to the membership of the Committee shall be on the nomination of the Committee of Selection.

4. In carrying out its functions under paragraphs 2(b) and 3, the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the principle that—

(a) three members of the Select Committee are to be Members from the party represented in His Majesty’s Government, and

(b) two are to be Members from opposition parties.

[Heidi Alexander]

The motions we have before us today are vital for the delivery of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill. It is important that I am clear at the outset about what these motions do and what they do not do. This is categorically not about reinstating HS2 north of the west midlands, and neither are these motions about addressing the longer-term capacity constraints of the west coast main line between Manchester and Birmingham. Instead, the motions are simply focused on ensuring that the Government follow the speediest and most logical consenting route to progressing plans for a new rail line between Liverpool and Manchester—a line that will also call at Warrington and Manchester airport. This new line, which will connect two great cities in the north of England, is part of the second phase of Northern Powerhouse Rail, which this Government committed to last month.

Before turning to why it is important to maintain the Bill’s momentum via today’s motions, it may be helpful if I set out a brief history of the Bill’s passage. Hon. Members will recall that in His Majesty’s most Gracious Speech, this Government announced our commitment to carrying over this Bill from the previous Parliament. The Government recognise the importance of rail infrastructure in driving economic growth, enhancing productivity and unlocking opportunity in all parts of the country. The Bill itself is the mechanism by which planning consent for the eastern part of the new route between Liverpool and Manchester can be granted. Given our ambitions for the north of England, it is important that we crack on and get it done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander]

I will ensure that the organisations the hon. Gentleman has mentioned are appropriately consulted throughout this process. We as a Government are determined to work in partnership with all stakeholders —landowners, businesses and individuals—who are affected. The hybrid Bill Select Committee is of course a quasi-judicial process, but on behalf of my Department I undertake to make sure that all appropriate conversations are happening.

Alongside this Bill, we are undertaking development work for the connection to Liverpool via Warrington Bank Quay. We will work in partnership with local stakeholders throughout the development process, and the detailed route from Millington to Liverpool will be subject to future consultation. We will determine the consenting route for this part of the line in due course. We will ensure that work on both the eastern and western section of the new Liverpool to Manchester line is fully integrated, and that we do everything we can to ensure that the new line is open for use as soon as possible once phase 1 of Northern Powerhouse Rail in Yorkshire is completed.

Before I close, I would like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) and the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for their valuable work to date on the hybrid Bill Select Committee in the previous Parliament.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I echo the Secretary of State’s thanks for what must have seemed a very thankless task in the Select Committee.

This is a slightly odd legislative vehicle, but the motion is a practical mechanism used by the last Government to allow for continued progress on railway improvements to create Northern Powerhouse Rail, and it was moved across three Sessions of Parliament. The Conservative Government of the day decided to carry over this Bill to use it as a wrapper to support Northern Powerhouse Rail. The project was championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) during his Administration, so it is no surprise to me that the Government have followed his lead in their proposal to carry it over again.

Back in May 2024, Parliament reduced the scope of a much wider Bill to focus solely on NPR, so the issue now before this House is in fact a very narrow one: whether there is a collective will to progress development of a roughly 15-mile stretch of track as part of this Government’s plans to progress Northern Powerhouse Rail.

The House is also being asked to agree to the establishment of a new Select Committee. That obviously matters because the Bill is a hybrid Bill, and it is through the Select Committee process that outstanding petitions from those directly affected will be considered. It is also the structure through which any additional provisions brought forward by the Government to reshape the Bill will be scrutinised, and those newly affected, if there are any, by any proposal will be given the opportunity to be heard. If this Bill is to be properly repurposed, it clearly makes sense that the work of the associated Select Committee carries on.

The Opposition accept the rationale for allowing the current process to survive the end of this parliamentary Session to give the Government further time to continue their work. However, while we agree that they should continue with the Bill, it is with increasing concern that I look at the lack of progress they are actually making. We are a year and a half into the Labour Administration, and all we got a couple of weeks ago was a fanfare announcement that Labour would commission consultants’ reports on how Northern Powerhouse Rail could be built. There are not just a few reports, but £275 million of reports every year of this Parliament—£1.1 billion of them—but no sign of any significant building works.

Real progress has been kicked down the road, perhaps because the Secretary of State knows that she does not have the money to do what she has promised. His Majesty’s Treasury has capped Northern Powerhouse Rail at £45 billion, yet that was the claimed cost back in 2019. That was before covid, since when, as we all know, costs have soared. She knows that she does not have the money, so she distracts her Back Benchers with castle-in-the-air planning, with the taxpayer picking up the bill. I asked the Secretary of State a fortnight ago for clarity, transparency and even an indication of how the funds were to be reconciled, and she huffed and she puffed, and said she would not be lectured, but she did not answer the question. We are none the wiser as to how the Government expect to fill the gap. What cuts will she be forced to make, and are they to the high-speed section? Perhaps she could tell the House today.

It would have been better for the public to have had such clarity nearly three weeks ago than the spectacle of the Secretary of State signing bits of paper on her rail tour of northern cities. We want to see these schemes come in on budget and in a timely manner, and addressing local concerns so that communities are not just spoken to, but listened to. To get the best possible result for taxpayers, the Government need to avoid overly onerous environmental mitigations that impose huge costs for minimal benefit. They talk of deregulation to speed up the process, but where is the action to deregulate?

We need to see the Government choosing supply chains based on cost and performance, with value for money for the taxpayer right at the heart of their decision-making process, bringing costs down while speeding up construction. However, the Government are not doing this hard work, and we need a Government with sufficient backbone to be honest about what they can afford to achieve. There is no sign of that. It is on actual delivery that this Government will be judged—not just by me and by the Opposition, but by the public, who, right now, are being let down.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Grahame Morris.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in what I believe is a really important debate. I am delighted to support the Government’s motions, as we continue to invest in and transform our rail network after decades of hollow promises and mismanagement under the Conservatives.

The Bill will allow the Government the powers necessary to deliver on Northern Powerhouse Rail, therefore supporting our economy, creating better jobs, delivering new and much-needed opportunities right across the north-west of England. As a frequent user of rail services in the north of England, it is important to me and my constituents that the Government continue to focus on building capacity, reliability and resilience on one of the busiest rail corridors in the country. The importance of our rail network and infrastructure cannot be overstated. Indeed, its success will have a direct impact on economic growth and productivity.

I take the point about the need for or desirability of cross-party consensus, particularly when looking at such large infrastructure projects. On 14 January, the Government announced that Northern Powerhouse Rail represented the biggest investment in rail connectivity in the north for a generation—some £45 billion. More generally, I am pleased that the Government are looking at the three-phase approach. Its sequencing will ensure that our communities benefit as soon as possible. I note that in phase 1—beyond the scope of the Committee—in my own region in the north-east, work on the business case for the Leamside line is to be taken forward. This is a vital project for connectivity, creating new transport links and promoting wider access to the wider regional and national rail network. I also welcome the proposed upgrades to the lines east of the Pennines, focusing on electrification, an issue that was of great interest and importance during my time as a member of the Transport Committee.

I am pleased by the Government’s overall scale of ambition and real focus on regional rail services. The Bill represents an opportunity for new rail investment and infrastructure, delivering new stations and routes as well as major regeneration projects, leveraging private sector investment and creating better links across the north-west—not only north-south, but east-west.

After many years of raised hopes, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State assure the House that the Bill is the most effective means of delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail without any unnecessary delay? This is just a thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have been here a little while now and I have served on a number of Joint Committees, mostly pre-legislative Committees, with Members of the House of Lords. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised valid concerns about representations from the National Farmers Union and others in respect of the route. However, my experience, having served for a number of years on the previous Bill Committee, is that a hybrid Bill Committee, which this Parliament has adopted not just for HS2 but previously, is a very, very onerous and time-consuming method. It makes vast fortunes for the bureaucracy, the lawyers and the lobbyists. Then the whole process has to be repeated in the House of Lords. I just wonder—it is beyond my pay grade, Madam Deputy Speaker—whether someone further up the tree might give that some thought.

A couple of years ago, Members of the Transport Committee had the opportunity to go to Japan for five days. We saw the Shinkansen, the high-speed bullet train. The Bill for that was passed in the Japanese Parliament, the National Diet, in 1959, and was constructed by 1964, in time for the Tokyo Olympics. We cannot say that Japan is not a democracy, or that the country does not have problems of topography, earthquakes and so on, because it is and it does. There is a method that does not take 10 or 15 years.

We are approaching a period of transformational change in public transport, on the railways in particular. Increased capacity and an improved role for freight in taking heavy goods vehicles off our road network is really important. I fully support today’s motions to carry the Bill beyond the end of this parliamentary Session and to establish the Bill’s Select Committee, so we can get Northern Powerhouse Rail charging full steam ahead.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander]

We have been clear that we expect work to start on the Yorkshire package of improvements in this Parliament. We have also said that we expect work to start on the link between Manchester and Liverpool in the 2030s. The right hon. Lady will recall that Crossrail in London was granted consent back in 2007 and the line was opened in 2022—I make that 15 years. Railways are not built overnight.

To conclude, the Bill will provide the necessary powers to deliver the section of Northern Powerhouse Rail into Manchester. Progressing the Bill today is the most efficient approach as it makes use of the work that has already taken place. Today’s motions will allow the Bill to continue its passage through Parliament and will allow the invaluable work of the hybrid Bill Select Committee to recommence. This is a vital step in the delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail.

Question put.

A Division was called.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Division off.

Question agreed to.

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill if proceedings on the Bill have not been completed before the end of this Session or any subsequent Session of this Parliament (each a “qualifying Session”).

Suspension at end of qualifying Session

1. Further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which the qualifying Session in question ends until the Session that follows it (“the new Session”).

2. If a Bill is presented in the new Session in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in the qualifying Session in question—

(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the new Session;

(c) any resolution relating to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 that is passed by the House in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in the new Session;

(d) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—

(i) paragraph 3, if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended;

(ii) paragraph 4, if the Bill has been reported from the Select Committee but proceedings on the Bill in Public Bill Committee were not begun when proceedings on the Bill were suspended;

(iii) paragraph 5, if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended (and see also paragraph 9);

(iv) paragraph 6, if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended;

(v) paragraph 7, if the Bill was waiting for third reading when proceedings on it were suspended;

(vi) paragraph 8, if the Bill has been read the third time and sent to the House of Lords.

3. If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the qualifying Session;

(b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in the new Session;

(c) all petitions submitted in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the qualifying Session ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in the new Session in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in the new Session;

(d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall stand referred to the Committee in the new Session;

(e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in the new Session, shall stand referred to the Committee;

(f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in the new Session shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition;

(g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply;

(h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body;

(i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it;

(j) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time;

(k) three shall be the quorum of the Committee.

4. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.

5. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee in respect of those clauses and Schedules not ordered to stand part of the Bill in the qualifying Session.

6. If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.

7. If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.

8. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.

Other

9. If proceedings in Public Bill Committee are begun but not completed before the end of a qualifying Session, the chair of the Committee shall report the Bill to the House as so far amended and the Bill and any evidence received by the Committee shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.

10. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 above, each of the following is a relevant earlier Session—

(a) Session 2021-22;

(b) Session 2022-23;

(c) Session 2023-24;

(d) except where the qualifying Session is this Session, each Session of this Parliament before the qualifying Session;

(e) where the new Session is the first Session of the next Parliament, each qualifying Session

11. In paragraph 1 above, the reference to further proceedings does not include proceedings under Standing Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).

12. In paragraph 3 above, references to the submission of a petition are to its submission electronically, by post or in person.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Select Committee

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill stands committed by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over):

1. The Committee is to have five members.

2. The members of the Committee are—

(a) those who are members of the Committee by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over), and

(b) two other members who are to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

3. Any alteration to the membership of the Committee shall be on the nomination of the Committee of Selection.

4. In carrying out its functions under paragraphs 2(b) and 3, the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the principle that—

(a) three members of the Select Committee are to be Members from the party represented in His Majesty’s Government, and

(b) two are to be Members from opposition parties.—(Heidi Alexander.)

Railways Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Transport Committee on 26 November, on the Railways Bill, HC 1472; Written evidence to the Transport Committee, on the Railways Bill, reported to the House on 2 December, HC 1472; Correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales to the Transport Committee, on the Railways Bill, reported to the House on 2 December.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The reasoned amendment in the name of Mr Richard Holden has been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. There will be an immediate five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. I now call the shadow Secretary of State.

M6: Junction 38

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Mr Shannon, this is a very narrow debate, specifically on junction 38 of the M6. I seek an assurance that your intervention relates only to that.

[Jim Shannon]

It is more than that, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is about the main thoroughfare for lorries and traffic going to Stranraer and then to Larne. It is about that road and that junction. [Laughter.] No, it is a fact. I have talked to those who transport agrifood goods from Northern Ireland to the north of England and Scotland and back again. This debate is wide; its subject will impact not just the local area, but all the businesses in Northern Ireland that need lorries to bring their food in and take their food out. The agrifood sector will be impacted greatly.