West Coast Main Line

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, for the first time. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) on securing the debate. Hon. Members will know that I am not the usual face to respond to a debate that sits with the transport team, but colleagues are busy discussing sustainable aviation fuel this afternoon, so I stepped into the breach. It has been an informative debate and I highlight the contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth).

The line that we are debating passes through my constituency. Hatch End station, although not served by high-speed trains, provides an opportunity for my constituents to see them go past and wish that they had access. I am familiar with the line, having travelled on it a great deal in my working life before Parliament.

Hon. Members, sharing the pain that we have all experienced when stuck on a long-distance railway journey, set out a number of important and detailed points. I am sure that Ministers will consider those as they look for improvements while addressing the points made powerfully by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including how to ensure a high degree of integration between the line and the important population centres, economic development centres and other transport nodes that lie along the route.

If the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) were here, I am sure he would highlight that the west coast main line is also an opportunity for those wishing to travel in the direction of Northern Ireland, and Strangford in particular, because of connections to lines across north Wales and over to Anglesey. Indeed, as an MP whose constituency not only includes that line but the HS2 line, I empathise with the points about why we did not start HS2 in the north and build it down in the direction of the south. That is a sentiment that my constituents would wholeheartedly agree with, because they are very much of the view that rail connectivity is about benefiting the whole country. Improving and investing in connectivity, including in the north and the midlands, is therefore vital, not only for improving standards of living and quality of life in those places but for taking some of the development pressure off London and the south.

I will address a couple of points that were highlighted. It is striking to me, as a spokesman for the Opposition, that there is a high degree of consensus about the issues that exist around the west coast main line and about their possible solutions.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made specific references to stations in her constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury talked about her constituents’ need to access the west coast main line and all the routes it leads to via effective and affordable local public transport. Under the previous Government and now under the new Government, the concept of Great British Railways has been a key part of the strategy to begin to create a sense of coherence and integration and to make sure that the connectivity highlighted by a number of hon. Members is delivered in practice.

Many hon. Members have spoken about the growth in rail demand. We know that our country’s population is increasing. The levelling-up agenda started under the previous Government, but it has been committed to— perhaps more in spirit than in word—by the new Government. There is also demand for increased rail freight capacity, which has been spoken about in the context of the work being done on the west coast main line. Having travelled on the line just last week to go to the Local Government Association’s conference in Liverpool, I know that, in striking comparison with some other rail lines, it is very visible infrastructure and it makes a considerable contribution to removing freight traffic, in particular heavy lorries, from the already busy motorway network. As I say, there seems to be a high degree of consensus about the investment required for stations, the public benefits that would be delivered through that investment, and the role that such investment would play in the economic development and opportunities that people across and adjacent to the west coast main line route can expect to benefit from.

As an outer-London Member of Parliament, I am very conscious of how good-quality and reliable commuter routes are valued and the economic contribution they make, and therefore the extent to which the absence of such routes in parts of our suburbs acts as a drag on opportunity. That is not purely confined to the north of England or the midlands; it is an issue that affects all of us. We need to make sure that is properly considered as the Government look at the rail system and transport in the round.

I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members—particularly those who served as Transport Ministers in previous Governments—would want me to draw attention to the fact that the sense of priority around the railways is reflected in the numbers. For example, maintenance spending on our railway network has gone up on average 3% every year since 2010. Previous Governments—both the coalition Government and Conservative Governments —therefore recognised that rail maintenance was a high priority.

At the end of the last Labour Government, there was £7.4 billion of rail spending. In the last full year for which we have accounts, which was when the last Conservative Government left office, that figure had risen to £26.8 billion. Although there will always be some disagreement about whether the delivery was what it should have been, and about whether the optimal priorities were selected, there is no doubt that all political parties represented in this House have a strong sense that improving and upgrading our rail network is critical, alongside improvements to motorways and local transport, and that we need to see it being delivered.

I will close by making two final points. The first is the value of learning—a number of hon. Members referred to the importance of open access—from the improvements that have been delivered in recent years. Not everything has been a success. In particular, we know that the impact of people working from home during the covid years on our rail network, including on the revenue gained from ticket sales and ridership, was absolutely catastrophic. The consequences for the system that we had in place at the time were very significant and we know that the Government acted by nationalising some railway lines to ensure that the travelling public could access what they needed to access.

There have also been strengths, however, such as the model on the east coast with Grand Central, which is often referred to positively, including by colleagues who use it to come to Parliament. We need to make sure that we do not simply assume that everything was a disaster and that we recognise those real strengths—not just the priorities for investment, but the things that have improved the quality of the service and that we can learn from and apply in the new model of Great British Railways.

The second point is the need to enhance integration. It is clear that the UK is a very politically centralised country, so transport projects tend to be delivered and funded by central Government rather than in a decentralised manner. The devolution White Paper has landed with Parliament, so we will be considering the roles that the Government envisage within that for elected mayors and regional authorities in developing and improving the transport network, but it is striking how many hon. Members in this debate talked about the need for additional scope so that their constituents could benefit from the speed and capacity that exists on the west coast main line, or the need to invest in other forms of local transport, including affordable public transport, to make that process more straightforward.

Coming back to HS2, it is striking that a huge quantity of the available investment has been sunk into very large national projects that are slow in materialising their potential benefits and that are creating huge cost overruns. All of the evidence appears to suggest that it is investment in locally-led transport—in the systems that make it possible for those who need to access trunk routes such as the west coast main line to do so—that produce the biggest economic benefit. That is something that many hon. Members have articulated, and I hope the Government will consider that as they look at their overall strategy for the United Kingdom, so that everybody can benefit from the additional investment that has been spoken of today.

Airport Expansion

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

What a terrific question. [Interruption.] Well, it is. It hits the mark, in that there is a trade-off between noise, carbon and growing our economy for our people. Airports create high-paid, trade-unionised jobs, not just because of the aircraft that come in and out, but because of the ground handling services. We know that aviation communities are much better off because of the jobs that are created, and we have to balance the trade-off in the years ahead as we make tough decisions to grow our economy.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I remind the Minister that sustainable aviation fuel is not an answer to poor air quality, which is the main reason why attempted expansion at Heathrow has failed in the past. It is also the reason for the Chancellor’s trenchant opposition to the expansion of Leeds Bradford airport, which would affect her constituency. Having been around since the days of the terminal 5 planning inquiry, I find it clear that the business case for Heathrow expansion rests on significant costs being imposed on taxpayers. They would be expected to foot the bill for the impact on the M4 and the M25, and for the loss of a waste incinerator that provides energy for many local authorities. Can the Minister assure the House that any DCO for Heathrow that comes forward will be subject to no less rigour and no less consultation than those brought forward in the past?

[Mike Kane]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. SAF was stuck in the muck under the last Government; we waited years for announcements, and we have done more on that in six months than Tory Administrations did in 14 years. We are investing in cleaning up aviation fuel and funding technology on contrails, so that the air people breathe is always as clean as we can make it.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

We will be making an announcement soon on that expansion.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Louise Haigh)]

I pledged to move fast and fix things, and that is exactly what my Department is doing. Not only have we ended the longest ever national strike on our railways, saving the taxpayer millions and boosting our economy, we have passed a landmark Bill through this House to bring rail services back into public hands after decades of failure and fragmentation. We are taking back control of buses by providing new powers to deliver control to every community in England. We have taken a step closer to greener flights, with a new sustainable aviation fuel mandate. Just yesterday, I announced new measures to strengthen working rights at sea and prevent a repeat of the P&O Ferries scandal ever happening again.

Transport is powering the crucial work of repair and renewal. It underpins each of our national missions, from economic growth to clean energy, and under this Government it will serve working people, wherever they live.

[David Simmonds]

My constituent, Frederick Cooksley, was sent a fine by the Mayor of London for breaching the ultra low emission zone rules, despite driving on a road where the ULEZ does not apply, which provides access to a very important hospital in my constituency. Will she prevail upon her colleague the Mayor of London to ensure, unlike Mr Cooksley, who had to challenge at great length to get his money back, that everyone who has been issued a fine in error for driving on a road where the rules do not apply is automatically refunded?

[Louise Haigh]

I am sure the Mayor of London will have heard that question. We will pass on issues around fining on roads where the ULEZ does not apply.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that question. In fact, I met representatives of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations just yesterday to talk through the issue in some detail. We will be able to make some announcements on policy very shortly. Obviously, I will keep the federation informed, as I will Members of the House.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

My constituents very much value access to the travelcard scheme, which in particular enables visitors, friends and family to make the most of a trip to London. They were concerned to hear the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, announce his plans to abolish the travelcard. They were equally puzzled to hear that the Mayor has now apparently intervened to save the scheme from his own plans. Can my right hon. Friend help me explain that conundrum to my constituents?

[Mr Harper]

Like my hon. Friend, I was surprised that, having proposed to cancel the travelcard scheme in the first place, the Mayor of London is now trying to take credit for cancelling his own cancellation. From my point of view, those hon. Members who so stridently raised concerns about the Mayor of London’s latest plans to increase costs for the travelling public and the Department of Transport officials who worked with Transport for London to find an alternative deserve the lion’s share of any credit.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Holden]

I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady. I met recently with the West of England metro Mayor, who has had £21 million in BSIP funding, which we have made more flexible. To date, he has looked at schemes including the birthday month travel scheme. I can see that she might not be as interested in that as some of her hon. Friends, but I would be delighted to meet her to discuss what more flexibility we could introduce to preserve buses in her constituency.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Following his recent meeting with Transport for London about its finances, can my hon. Friend update me on what financial modelling it has done on the impact of extending the ultra low emission zone and what account it has taken of the impact should that not go ahead?

[Mr Holden]

I met the acting chief financial officer and Seb Dance, the deputy Mayor for transport, yesterday. They informed me that the Mayor of London, in anticipation of falling revenues from ULEZ in the next few years, had asked them to investigate the technicalities of introducing road charging across London in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 8th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

I congratulate Luton Town. As the hon. Lady knows, my family are big supporters; they have been there through the bad times and they will be there in the good ones as well. I also thank her for showing me around Luton station. I am committed to ensuring that Access for All is delivered at that station on time; any attempts to push back will not get signed off by me. On her campaign on the leaky roof on platforms 1 and 2, which she showed me, the work will start in August and complete in early 2024—I thank her for that.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

T6. I have heard concerns from many constituents who are business users of Heathrow airport that it is now by some margin the most expensive airport in the world. Will my right hon. Friend consider looking at the regulatory model, bringing it more into line with other airports in the United Kingdom to ensure that its charges become much more competitive in future?

[Mr Harper]

Recognising Heathrow’s significant market power, it is economically regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority, including capping Heathrow’s charges. The CAA published its 2022 to 2026 settlement decision in March. The Competition and Markets Authority is considering appeals against that decision and I hope my hon. Friend will recognise that I cannot comment on that ongoing process. Separately, the Department aims to publish the independent review of the CAA by the summer and will consider any economic regulation-related recommendations at that time.

Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hosie. I join colleagues in commending my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing this debate.

Like most Conservative Members of Parliament in Westminster Hall today, my surgery has been inundated with constituents who tell a very consistent story: that they are dependent on their vehicles, mainly due to ill health or the need to support disabled family members in accessing medical care. They have older vehicles, which have often been extremely well maintained, and which they have had for many years, but the prohibitive cost of change now means that face a really serious negative impact on their quality of life and that of their dependants. As my constituency has the highest per capita vehicle ownership in London, we might expect to see many people like that coming forward.

Around 70% of Londoners do not own a car so, understandably, the Mayor of London has seen the ULEZ expansion as something that will not negatively impact on a great many constituents of his in central London. However, for those of us in the suburbs—my constituency essentially consists of eight villages, one of which has no access to a tube or train station and only very limited access to buses—dependency on cars and other private vehicles is much higher.

When we look at a map of London, and particularly at the north-west, we see routes such as Hill End Road in Harefield, which is barely the width of a car, but which is one of the routes that takes people out of our capital and into the surrounding counties, as well as Park Lane, Dene Road and Eastbury Road in Northwood, and the A4008 in Hatch End. All of these roads change from being in Greater London to being outside Greater London partway along, so people who depend on a car— particularly if they are disabled or in ill health—to come and shop in their local high street, access their GP practice or get to their local public transport network will have to pay £12.50 every time they do any of those things, simply to go about their daily lives. What is iniquitous about this is that they do not have a choice.

My wife lived in Westminster when I first knew her, so I completely understand that, in many parts of central London, there is a very high density of access to the bus network and other kinds of public transport, such as trains and tubes, but out in the suburbs that is simply not the case.

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Member for speaking about the most vulnerable people. Does he agree that it is particularly difficult for people with disabilities because not all rates of disability living allowance, child disability payment or personal independence payment are exempt from the scheme? Many people will still be adversely impacted, even from 2023. They are contacting me, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, and asking that more be done to support their particular needs.

[David Simmonds]

That is an incredibly important point, which my constituents have made to me. There are those who may have a blue badge because they have a serious health condition that requires them to attend regular medical treatment, but who are not registered disabled or covered by the exemptions that the scheme envisages.

[Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)]

I will mention this in my speech, so I hope you will forgive the duplication, Mr Hosie, but I was contacted by a charity that transports emergency blood, breast milk for premature babies, and urgent medical samples. It contacted the Mayor of London about whether it would be able to get an exemption, or even a discount, and it was told no. Does my hon. Friend agree that that seems morally wrong?

[David Simmonds]

That is characteristic of the Mayor’s response to the representations he has received: he simply does not want to take them into account.

Some constituents may be temporarily resident in my constituency—for example, because they are awaiting heart and lung transplants at Harefield Hospital. They are required to attend the hospital at short notice when a donor’s heart and lungs, or one or the other of those things, becomes available. That also has a significant impact. Again, the Mayor of London seems to have very little interest in that.

Those of us who have been interested in air quality for a long time recognise that, particularly in outer west London, the big source of pollution is Heathrow airport. This measure does nothing whatever to address the single biggest source of air pollution. It is very much a case of a Mayor pursuing the thing that makes money for the mayoral budget, rather than the thing that would actually improve air quality. There are no measures to improve local authority powers to tackle engine idling. There is nothing that addresses the impact of pollution coming from the M25 or from Heathrow airport, which are the things causing the significant air pollution that affects my constituents.

As this policy makes progress, we need to recognise that local authority powers under the Environment Act 1995, through which the Mayor is seeking to introduce this measure, should require there to be consent from local authorities. In that way, we can ensure that the people who are legally responsible—the local authorities—have a say on whether such measures will tackle the actual sources of air pollution in their area, as opposed to simply talking about them and raising money for an inner London zone 1 Mayor who clearly does not pay attention to the needs of his suburban constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing the debate. On ultra low emissions, we heard quite a few emissions from the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), but I am not sure that any of them were really relevant to the broader debate. He seemed to praise the Mayor of Greater Manchester for what he is up to. The Mayor stopped his ULEZ. I not sure that the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East are on the same page regarding the Mayor of Greater Manchester, given the Leader of the Opposition’s recent jokes at the Mayor’s expense.

The need to tackle air pollution is something on which I hope that Members on both sides of the House—and indeed the Government and the Mayor of London—agree, to answer the question from the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). Air pollution is a big environmental risk to human health, and the Government are determined to tackle it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) said, that is why we have invested more than £800 million to tackle air pollution in 64 local council areas. Much more can be done, although we can be proud that air pollution has reduced significantly since 2010, with emissions of particulate matter down by 18% and nitrogen oxides down by 44%, to their lowest level since records began.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) made very clear in a tour de force speech, ULEZ will have only a minor or negligible impact, as the Jacobs report has said. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) put forward various sensible solutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) also reflected some of the issues, particularly around accessibility of public transport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said, the expansion to the London boundary was not in the Mayor’s manifesto—a point reflected by my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), for Orpington, and for Watford (Dean Russell). It was against the Mayor’s manifesto and against his own consultation. Those are not political points, as some Opposition Members would like to suggest; they are facts, eloquently put forward by hon. Members.

[David Simmonds]

I commend the Minister on the work that he has been doing on buses. Does he agree that the fact that the Labour group in Hillingdon Council supports the Conservatives’ campaign against ULEZ is evidence that this is not a matter of party politics but one of people putting their constituents and residents first?

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Holden]

We are looking speedily at this important matter at the moment. The Seafarers’ Wages Bill is coming to this House within the next few weeks to address many of these issues that the Opposition spokesman raises.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

T5. During my recent visit to West Lodge Primary School in my constituency, I saw the excellent work the children were doing to deal with bad parking and, in particular, engine idling outside the school. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me, my many constituents, my local councils and even Hillingdon Council Labour group that we need effective measures to tackle air quality hotspots in the suburbs, rather than Mayor Khan’s one-size-fits-all ultra low emission zone scheme, which does nothing to address issues such as engine idling outside schools?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend raises some important issues. The important thing from the Government’s point of view is that we tackle air quality. He will know better than me that how we do that and which schemes are run is devolved to local government, so it is devolved to the Mayor of London. I know that the Mayor has recently consulted on proposals to extend the ULEZ and is expected to announce the outcome, but those are matters for him. I know my hon. Friend will continue to campaign vigorously on them.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson]

We hope to make more announcements on the latest round of funding very soon. Officials from the Department are working with representatives from the city regions, including Nexus and Transport North East, to establish options for integrated multimodal ticketing. We have of course already announced £5.7 billion for transport networks in the eight city regions, and the north-east, the North East Combined Authority and the North of Tyne Combined Authority will receive their share of the funding once appropriate governance is in place.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

12. If he will review the airports national policy statement 2018 following the development of his Department’s jet zero strategy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)]

We will not review the airports national policy statement at this time, but will consider the case again once the jet zero strategy has been finalised and there is more certainty about the longer-term impact of covid on aviation.

[David Simmonds]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on airport communities, I know that many colleagues would like to know whether, in the light of the jet zero strategy, we now have the opportunity to spread the benefits of cleaner air travel to a larger selection of airports across the United Kingdom.

[Robert Courts]

My hon. Friend is quite right that the jet zero strategy provides the opportunity to spread cleaner, greener air travel across all parts of the UK. For example, the UK sustainable aviation fuel industry could create up to 11,000 green jobs while helping to level up with production facilities across the UK. We will be looking at regional aviation in our forthcoming aviation strategy.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 29th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s get beyond next Thursday. Then it will be easier for all of us. [Laughter.]

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Whether his Department plans to review the Greater London boundary charge proposed by the Mayor of London.

[Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

Whether his Department plans to review the Greater London boundary charge proposed by the Mayor of London.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)]

The Government do not support a boundary charge. The Mayor of London cannot expect non-Londoners to clean up his mismanagement of Transport for London finances.

[David Simmonds [V]]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is precisely not the fresh start that TfL or London as a whole needs to see? The cost of the Mayor’s financial mismanagement should not be passed on to my constituents and other Londoners at precisely the time when we are trying to kickstart our economy after covid. Does he agree that this measure, if implemented, would be damaging particularly for high streets in outer London boroughs, and especially for the disabled and those who rely on their cars for personal reasons?

[Grant Shapps]

That is absolutely right. Let us be fair to the Mayor of London. No one could have predicted the coronavirus. This Government have generously backed TfL with more than £3 billion of support so far, but it is because of the Mayor’s mismanagement of that organisation, with years of being woefully unprepared, that he was not ready when this economic shock came. If London wants a real fresh start for TfL and does not want this boundary tax, it should consider voting for Shaun Bailey on 6 May.