Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We have to watch out: we are tabling questions but then trying to shoehorn in others. We have seen that with the last two questions. We have to stick to the original question, to help me, because then the follow-up questions take us even further away from where we started. I call Jim Shannon, who will set a good example by bringing us back to the question.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I will focus on the decarbonisation of the transport sector. I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. She will know that we in Northern Ireland want to be part of decarbonisation; Wrightbus in Ballymena is an example of that. What has been done to ensure that we can be part of that future?

[Heidi Alexander]

I am delighted to hear of the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for decarbonisation. He is right to support the excellent Wrightbus, which manufactures electric buses in Northern Ireland. Through the bus expert manufacturing panel, which is chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), who has responsibility for roads and buses, we are working with mayors to find ways of supporting the UK manufacture of electric vehicles, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman and Wrightbus on that.

Government Support for Bus Services: West Dorset

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for bus services in West Dorset constituency.

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. It is my privilege to bring this debate to the House.

This issue may seem niche, but it matters a great deal to my residents. It has generated a huge number of queries, social media comments, emails and constituency casework since I became an MP, reflecting just how deeply it affects people’s daily lives. Buses determine whether my constituents can get to work, reach college, attend a hospital appointment, visit the high street or simply remain independent. When services are reduced or withdrawn, it can cause real anxiety for those who rely on them and, as I recently saw through casework, their families, too. That is especially true when it comes to reaching vital hospital appointments or when there are further cuts to essential routes, as we saw when the X53 and X51 services were significantly reduced due to last-minute increases in the subsidies demanded by the bus company, which the council could not afford to meet, when changing to a winter timetable.

In the spirit of constructive opposition, I welcome the direction that the Government have taken. I welcome the introduction of the new local authority bus grant, bringing together previous funding streams into a single multi-year settlement. I welcome the recognition of rurality in the funding model, as well as the extra funding that has been provided to local authorities. Long-term funding provides certainty. It allows authorities to plan strategically and move away from the stop-start cycle of short-term funding announcements that has characterised this area for too long.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. As he is well aware, West Dorset is similar to my constituency, with market towns and many townlands rather than towns, and the profitability of public transport can be questionable. However, does he agree that the bottom line is not the ledger, but connectivity and the end of rural isolation in an affordable fashion? Does he agree that we are not getting the balance right for our rural constituencies, which are the backbone of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Edward Morello]

The hon. Member rightly touches on a lot of the issues that I will come to, all of which I know are as pressing in his part of the United Kingdom as they are in mine.

I thank the Minister for the constructive meeting we had on these issues. For the first time, the funding formula explicitly recognises rurality. That is an important step forward, and one that I and many other rural Members have called for from our first days in the House. However, recognising rurality and adequately funding rurality are two different things. The scale of the challenge in rural areas is immense, requiring a sustained and significant effort to rebuild networks that have been hollowed out over many years. Rural bus services fell by 52% between 2008 and 2023.

Carlisle-Settle Railway: 150th Anniversary

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the 150th anniversary of the Carlisle-Settle Railway.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, as we celebrate a remarkable milestone in the history of one of Britain’s great railways. This year marks 150 years since passenger services first ran along the Carlisle-Settle railway, linking Carlisle with communities across Cumbria, the Yorkshire dales and beyond. A hundred and fifty years on, it remains a railway of national significance, renowned for its engineering, celebrated for its scenery and cherished by the communities it serves.

For Carlisle, this railway is far more than a transport link. It is part of our city’s history and identity. It has helped to connect our city to the wider north for generations, bringing people, ideas, commerce and opportunity. Today, it is fitting that we come together to celebrate not only its past, but the people who ensured that it would have a future.

The story of the Carlisle-Settle railway began in the great age of Victorian railway building. It was one of the last great railways constructed in Britain and was undoubtedly one of the most ambitious. Building it required extraordinary determination. More than 6,000 navvies worked along the route, enduring isolation, appalling weather and dangerous working conditions to carve a railway through some of the most challenging terrain in England.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Some of the navvies who helped to build that railway would have come from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I congratulate the hon. Lady on her assiduous commitment to her constituents: she is making a good name for herself in this House. Well done to her; I wish her well.

Will the hon. Lady join me in urging the Government to ensure that the Department for Transport actively applies the invaluable infrastructure and community-led preservation lessons learned from the Settle and Carlisle Railway Trust to protect our vital regional connectivity and heritage lines across all the nations of the United Kingdom, including the heritage links in Northern Ireland?

[Ms Minns]

It is always a pleasure to be intervened on by the hon. Member. As I will go on to say, there are many lessons from the history of the railway line that we can apply to the challenges that community groups across the country raise when they are campaigning for their local railways. We can learn a lot from the Carlisle-Settle railway.

Entire settlements were established to house the workforce, who founded many of the villages along the line today. Their story is an important part of the railway’s heritage and deserves to be remembered alongside the engineering achievements for which the line is famous. The engineer responsible for the project was John Crossley. As Cumbrian ramblers will testify, the terrain over which he engineered the line is not forgiving. Construction was frequently halted by snow, flooding and frozen ground. One contractor withdrew altogether after underestimating the severity of the landscape and weather conditions. Despite those challenges, the line was completed and open for passenger services in 1876, just 11 years after Parliament had passed the enabling Act. I am sure the Minister wishes he had a few John Crossleys on hand for some of our rail projects today.

The railway required the construction of 14 tunnels and 22 viaducts. The most famous, the Ribblehead viaduct, stands 104 feet high and comprises 24 magnificent arches stretching across the north-west landscape. Soon after crossing Ribblehead, trains enter Blea Moor tunnel, which is driven deep beneath the moors for more than a mile and a half. The line also travels to Ais Gill summit, the highest point reached by any mainline railway in England. There are fascinating stories along the route. In Lazonby, local legend tells us that the tunnel was constructed at the request of a local vicar who did not wish the railway to pass directly in front of his vicarage. One hundred and fifty years later, the structures remain, as a testament to Victorian ingenuity, determination and ambition.

Despite its engineering significance and strategic importance, the future of the Carlisle-Settle railway became increasingly uncertain during the second half of the 20th century. In 1963, the Beeching report recommended the withdrawal of passenger services from the line. Although those proposals were not immediately implemented, station closures and service reductions followed. By 1970, all stations apart from Settle and Appleby had been closed and passenger services had been reduced to just two trains a day in each direction. In the 1970s, the railway suffered years of under-investment. Freight traffic was diverted on to the electrified west coast main line, ageing infrastructure deteriorated and viaducts and tunnels were allowed to fall into disrepair. By the early 1980s, British Rail was arguing that the cost of maintaining the railway could no longer be justified, and proposals were made to close it entirely.

What followed was one of the most inspiring grassroots campaigns in British railway history. In June 1981, before closure had even been formally announced, the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Line held their inaugural meeting in Settle town hall. They recognised the threat and they acted. Soon, they were joined by local authorities, rail users, railway development groups, environmental campaigners and communities along the route.

When closure notices appeared in 1984, the campaign intensified. Campaigners challenged BR’s assumptions and highlighted the railway’s wider value. They argued that its tourism potential had been overlooked. They argued that its role as a strategic diversionary route had been underestimated. They argued that closure would damage the communities who depended on the railway. They were right. The campaign also exposed what many regarded as a policy of closure by stealth: reduced services, diverted traffic and inflated repair estimates, all to justify closure.

The publicity surrounding the campaign encouraged people to start using the railway in unprecedented numbers. The number of passenger journeys rose dramatically, from 93,000 in 1983 to 450,000 by 1989. In 2025, almost 1 million journeys were made along the Carlisle-Settle railway.

Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for once again speaking up for coastal communities. I speak today on behalf of the brave, dedicated and selfless coastguard rescue officers not just in my beautiful constituency of Strangford, but right across the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

We should remember that this change will have an effect across all the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. A Northern Ireland coastguard rescue officer contacted me to say:

“I am not writing out of personal financial interest”

but

“because I care deeply about the future of a service that has protected lives for generations”.

Does the hon. Member agree that their voices need to be heard?

[Jim Shannon]

That is the whole reason why we are here. We are their voice in this place for them.

From Portavogie down to Ballywalter, all around the shores of Strangford lough and the Irish sea, the people of Strangford know the dangers of the sea. Our volunteers put themselves directly in harm’s way to protect complete strangers. They are the very pinnacle of noble public service. I have been contacted by a number of constituents who frankly feel insulted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s decision to strip away their remuneration completely, following the recent Court of Appeal ruling. The removal of the remuneration sends a devastatingly wrong message to those who give up their time, often at a moment’s notice and in the dead of night, to respond to life and death emergencies. They balance their lifesaving responsibilities alongside their regular day jobs, family commitments and community involvement. Remuneration provided by the MCA was never, ever viewed as a luxury. My fear is that the heavy-handed withdrawal of payments will absolutely decimate morale. What will it do to recruitment? What will it do to retention, when our coastguard teams are already stretched to their limit safeguarding lives?

I have great respect for the Minister and this is in no way a personal attack, but I do have some questions. With the greatest respect, what assessment has his Department made of the impact that this policy change will have on volunteer recruitment? Will it just wait until a station cannot turn out to an emergency because it cannot retain staff? What alternative mechanisms are being looked at to ensure that these officers continue to receive appropriate recognition and support for their vital work? We need solutions. We look to the Minister to give us those solutions. We seek nothing less for our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution and for the points he made earlier, which I will address. I am pleased to say that I have met the GMB and spoken to it about the increase in its membership resulting from this decision, and I am happy to work with it on an ongoing basis. The right hon. Member’s suggestion speaks to a recognition of worker status. I will identify later what I believe are some drawbacks of that approach, but he is welcome to intervene again at that point to address anything else.

I want to address some of the specific points that have been made. First, let me pick up on what the right hon. Member said about not being allowed to meet in his coastguard centre, which I find very concerning. That was echoed in a couple of comments by hon. Members across the Chamber, and I would be grateful if they could share those instances with me so that I can form a fuller picture of those experiences when they occur.

The right hon. Member spoke specifically about the impact on his rural and island constituency—a point that was made eloquently by many Members of Parliament who represent Scottish constituencies. A CRO in this country volunteers an average of three and a half hours a month, but many will volunteer 35 hours a month, especially in rural or island constituencies where they have to respond to the frequent call-outs that the right hon. Member described. I am very cognisant of that disparity, but also of the differences in experience that underpin how CROs are approaching this matter.

The right hon. Member raised serious points about consultation and engagement from the MCA. We take complaints incredibly seriously and have well-established processes and policies in place to review and investigate concerns. He mentioned sharing some anonymous testimony with me, and I would be grateful if he did so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) mentioned death in service and injury benefit. The CRS injury benefit compensation scheme is for volunteers. It provides and, importantly, will continue to provide compensation for loss of earnings where a volunteer member of the CRS is injured or develops an illness or disease as a result of an authorised duty. That includes provision for compensation for dependants in the event of death. I am glad that my hon. Friend has allowed me to put that point on the record.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) asked a specific question about HMRC disturbance allowances. I am happy to take that away and write to her on the specifics. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) is right to point to the fact that, although CROs work on a volunteer operating model, these are people responding to emergency situations who wear the badge of a Government agency and do phenomenal work, and they should be perceived as such. In that sense, she is right to say that it does not do justice to the scale of their contribution.

A number of points were made about how the retained firefighter model could map on to CRO status. The work of retained firefighters has a number of characteristics that might cause severe complications for CROs were the model to be mapped across, which hon. Members should be cognisant of. Retained fire service people are employees; it is important to bear in mind that they have contractual limitations, such as to live a certain distance from the station. They also have to respond within five to seven minutes, depending on the station, to an emergency. That would create very a different system around mutuality of obligation for the CRS. Those are important considerations to bear in mind.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked specifically what engagements have taken place, so I will list them for him. I know that there has been a debate about whether the engagement goes far enough, and about the character of the consultation, but for the benefit of the record, there have been two town halls, a virtual meeting, a recorded video and five updates on CRS online, alongside a pattern of regular engagement on other issues such as equipment assurance, training, exercising and post-incident follow-up.

Another important issue that was raised is the modelling of the potential impacts. An impact assessment combined incident demand, CRS survey data, demographic and employment information, and financial analysis to identify where potential reductions in CRO availability are most likely to occur.

[Jim Shannon]

I know that the Minister is responsive to our requests, so will he take the time to speak to the regions, particularly Northern Ireland? We have the same issues, but we sometimes feel at a distance.

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about CROs across the United Kingdom feeling that their voice is heard. I will take that point away and ensure that it informs my engagement going forward, but, for the benefit of the House, I want to speak a little more about the modelling of potential impacts.

The risk assessment also focused on which workforce groups may be most affected and where any resulting loss of capacity would pose the greatest risk to operational resource and service delivery. The individual circumstances of CROs are diverse, and it would not be possible to model all the possible ways that 3,000 people could respond to the changes. Since the announcement was made, 29 CROs have left the service. Three of them stated that they did so because of the change, although that is not to say that others did not do so, nor that they have not reported it—I would not want to argue that. I hope that that information is useful.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and others made broader points about operational resilience. I reassure them that His Majesty’s Coastguard has contingency plans and measures in place and continues to draw on the full UK search and rescue system, including aviation assets, the RNLI and independent lifeboats.

Turning back to the situation we face today, as many Members will know, on 14 January the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment that changed the status of CROs. For many years, the MCA provided the option of hourly remuneration to recognise the impact of such important work. I note that such an arrangement was not, and is not, typical for the voluntary sector. Although not all CROs chose to claim that remuneration, because the MCA had provided regular payments to CROs following call outs and because the remuneration was beyond reimbursement for their expenses, the court deemed them to be workers under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

That judgment has fundamentally changed the nature of the role of CROs. Those who had signed up on the basis that they were volunteers and could be a CRO alongside their primary employment are now suddenly classed as workers, meaning that they could be subject to liabilities and responsibilities that they did not sign up for. To be clear on what the change could mean, worker designation could push CROs into new tax brackets or put them in breach of primary employment contracts, if they are not allowed to undertake other paid work. We have worked hard and expressly to avoid those threats to people continuing to work as CROs. The judgment clarified the law, which must now be upheld.

Ports and Port Connectivity

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I want to say a special thank you to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for highlighting this important topic.

The title of this debate is “Ports and Port Connectivity”, but from Northern Ireland’s point of view, perhaps it should be “Ports and Port Non-connectivity”, and I will explain why. There is no port as such in my constituency, but we are on the outskirts of Belfast and the thriving agrifood sector in my constituency uses its port to ship all over the world. The Belfast port is incredibly important for my constituency and our agrifoods sector. We also have our harbours that bring in the fishing catches in Portavogie, although that is a different type of port.

As a representative of Northern Ireland, I am particularly concerned by the problems that the Windsor framework has created for those trading across our borders and between ports. I will explain what the difficulties are, and then perhaps the Minister can give us some answers. I welcome the Minister to his place and wish him well in this debate and in his job. I look forward to his answers to all my, hopefully, searching questions—well, even better answers would be better. I will also talk about Belfast port and some of the things that it is doing, because we should be greatly encouraged by some of the things that are happening there.

The Windsor framework continues to create friction at ports used for trading between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Businesses report increased costs, administrative burdens or blunders, disruption to supply chains, delays and expanded inspections. Just last year, Logistics UK’s head of trade and devolved policy, Nichola Mallon, who is a former MLA at the Assembly and a lady of great knowledge, outlined that there is

“a lack of awareness over the practicalities of the Framework, and also a reluctance among some GB businesses”

to trade goods in Northern Ireland due to the extra requirements. We have almost unique difficulties. There was a statement about steel tariffs in the Chamber earlier, and I asked the Minister for Trade a question on a similar issue. He said that he had umpteen pages on the Windsor framework and was well aware of the issue—perhaps the Minister who is here can get us some of the way through the process.

Brexit created the challenge of how to maintain the integrity of both the UK internal market and the EU single market, given the unique position of the Northern Ireland borders. The aim of the Windsor framework was to ensure smooth trade between ports. There was much expectation, but we certainly did not get the Brexit that the rest of the United Kingdom got; we got one that is tied up in bureaucracy.

To some extent, the aim of smooth trade was oversold and created a misperception that the challenges faced by Northern Ireland over the Northern Ireland protocol could be removed—but that has not been the case. There continue to be significant new processes, and business owners continue to report frustration with the significant restrictions placed on them that drain their time, effort and money. When it comes to the ports and connectivity, we are not having the same connectivity as everybody else.

There is a significant basis for concern that Northern Ireland businesses may be placed at a competitive disadvantage with GB-based retailers in their own market. There is substantial evidence to prove that there is an issue, and I know that the Minister will be aware of some of that. I appreciate him acknowledging some of the problems.

Northern Ireland firms report higher costs on imports from GB, and there is frustration about the difficulties that third-country firms have faced when trying to sell to Northern Ireland. Those issues with smooth trading are disproportionately affecting small businesses in Northern Ireland, with many companies criticising the assistance available to them from Government. Again, if it is easy to make it simpler to trade, we should try very hard to do that.

More must be done to support vulnerable enterprises, 58% of which state that, almost 10 years on from Brexit, they are facing moderate to significant challenges in trading—10 years later and things have not improved. My goodness, that is quite unbelievable. Of businesses surveyed, 34% say they have simply ceased trading to Northern Ireland, rather than meet the demands of the framework. The paperwork is so laborious, complex and repetitive that it puts people off.

That clearly demonstrates that market access from Northern Ireland is compromised. Small business owners within Northern Ireland have been forced to adapt, and those retailing shorter shelf life products are now largely limited to trading within Northern Ireland, simply because it is not possible to do otherwise with short-life products. Other small businesses face increased export charges, which is another issue that they need to address. Some even report having to travel to England themselves as hauliers—as some of my constituents in Newtownards do every fortnight or every month—because hauliers are now reluctant to deliver due to the paperwork required.

There remains a need to restore Northern Ireland’s full place within the UK’s internal market, as it continues to be subject to certain EU rules while GB is not. It is essential that Northern Irish stakeholders play a meaningful role in improving trading problems to ensure trading operates effectively. The first issue that I have laid out is the protocol; it might have been a bit laborious, but it is complicated and I want to have it on the record.

There is still hope, however, as I, along with my right hon. Friends the Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), found in the recent announcement outlining Belfast harbour's ambitious 25-year masterplan. It includes a £1.3 billion investment to expand port capacity, support the green energy transition and regenerate the waterfront. The port handles roughly 70% of Northern Ireland seaborne trade and is scaling up to meet the rising demand and the capacity restraints elsewhere.

Northern Ireland is fortunate to have a large number of cruise ships; I have been informed that the figure is between 140 and 150. Cruise ships must be bigger than I thought they were, but if these figures are correct, some 350,000 people come off those cruise ships—I suppose they are absolutely massive. They bring tourism and spending to my Strangford constituency, which is not too far from Belfast. Tourists go to the National Trust-run Mount Stewart, the Greyabbey Cistercian monastery and Harrisons, my neighbourhood café-restaurant, which is just between Greyabbey and Kircubbin. That is a spin-off of being near Belfast.

I am coming to an end; I get the indication that might be a good idea. There is a real drive to enable Northern Ireland to be the hub it is designed to be. I welcome Belfast harbour’s ambition and belief. It is the turn of this House to have some ambition as well—to believe in the people of Northern Ireland and renegotiate with the EU to remove the needless restrictions and allow us all to prosper. Now is the time to make that difference.

I respectfully and honestly ask the Minister—because that is my way of doing things—to step in. We are going to have a change of Prime Minister, but we do not know whether there will be a change of Minister. I wish the Minister well and ask that he endeavours to help us in Northern Ireland to overcome some of our issues.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Although only a few hon. Members want to speak, I wonder if we could limit speeches to around five minutes to get everybody in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

I know my hon. Friend is producing a report on this critical matter and I would be very glad to meet her to discuss its findings. We ought to take every opportunity to ensure that people understand the impact of UV on their skin health, so I look forward to meeting her to discuss those findings further.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for that answer and the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for bringing this issue forward. She always brings forward incredible issues for us all to be aware of. The figures for skin cancer in Northern Ireland are rising, and she has brought UV index alerts to the Minister’s attention. It is important that he takes action after discussing the matter with the hon. Lady, but after that meeting will he convey his thoughts to the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that Ministers there do the same thing that the hon. Lady wants? If she wants it, then, in my opinion, we should support her.

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Member is right to say that skin cancer affects people across the United Kingdom and we need to work as one United Kingdom to deal with it. I will certainly take what I learn from my meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East and reflect it through to colleagues in both the Department of Health and Social Care and the devolved Administrations, including in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Much easier—just ask to meet the Minister, and save time.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The previous Government set aside a designated fund to address the issue of coastal erosion. On the A20 in my constituency, coastal erosion happens with ferocity every winter and every spring. Will the Minister consider setting aside a designated fund for coastal erosion for all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as the Government did in the past?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is Transport questions—there must be a link somewhere. Good luck, Minister.

Small Towns: Transport Links

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for giving us a chance to debate this issue. He can fairly draw a crowd—well done. The issue is important to us all.

As the MP for Strangford, I am frequently contacted about transport issues. There is a significant and growing disparity between urban and rural areas when it comes to transport provision. This affects access to key services such as health care, education and work, as well as access to social activities. There has been a wrongful assumption that focusing transport investment on urban areas will eventually lead to improvements in rural regions through a trickle-down effect. It just does not happen.

Research from 2025 demonstrated that almost a fifth of all rural bus routes in England alone had disappeared over the previous five years. As a result, many people have become reliant on their cars and it has left us in a so-called transport desert.

[Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)]

I met the Friends of Denton Station, who have spent two decades campaigning; despite that, we still have only two trains a week that stop at the station. The passengers and the infrastructure are there, but we remain cut off from Manchester and beyond in terms of rail access. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that towns like Denton deserve the same ambition for connectivity as communities in the south of the country?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do. I commend the hon. Lady for her election and for bringing forward important issues that she has heard on the doorstep, and for taking the chance to come to Westminster Hall and put them forward.

The evidence from my Strangford constituency and across the UK indicates that social exclusion further compounds mental health issues and decreases the general wellbeing of citizens, with reports of reduced access to employment, education and healthcare. Many people are forced to rely on taxis, which is highly unsustainable, with people losing almost as much as they earn in a day’s work. Employment should be encouraged and not hindered by lack of access to public transport.

As the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen clearly indicated, the consequences have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups such as the elderly, children and lower-income households. Given that rural areas often have an older population, access to transport is even more essential. Without support for public transport systems in small towns, a cycle of decline will continue, with reduced public transport usage due to its unreliableness or inefficiency. That will be used as justification for further service cuts, reinforce dependency on cars and weaken the entire transport system.

As the MP for Strangford, I am frequently contacted by constituents concerned about the lack of accessible transport in small towns. There is no rail network and there is a heavy reliance on what bus service there is. Buses can be infrequent and the connections between smaller towns are poor. We have the Strangford ferry, but if the weather is bad, it does not sail. That means that many people, including those taking children to school and those commuting for work, are forced to drive the 50-mile road alternative, putting pressure on the A20.

I believe these issues are really important, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I know he does not have responsibility for my constituency, but the issues that I have put forward are similar elsewhere. We need to ensure a lifeline and it must be strengthened.

High Speed 2 Reset

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I will gently correct the hon. Member. When it comes to HS2, we may be talking about tens of billions, but we are not talking about hundreds of billions. He makes a fair point about the importance of investment in walking and cycling. The Government are due to launch the third iteration of the cycling and walking strategy, and we are backing that with £600 million-worth of investment. We realise the benefits that active travel—people walking and cycling more, and using public transport —can have not just for people’s own health, but for the environment and the economy. It is something that the local transport Minister and I care deeply about and will ensure that we make progress on.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, for her positivity and for trying to make matters better. She talked about maximising international standards and reshaping governance to find efficiencies, yet my constituents in Northern Ireland are facing critical infrastructure deficits of their own. If the fundamental reset is truly about driving economic growth and maximising value across the United Kingdom, will the Secretary of State please, very genuinely, explicitly outline how the billions clawed back from streamlining HS2 will be used to support Union connectivity and in particular air passenger duty, which hampers connectivity within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Heidi Alexander]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on levering in a question on air passenger duty into a statement on HS2.

Hammersmith Bridge

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of Hammersmith Bridge.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being here for this debate. I also thank everyone who attended my recent action event at Hammersmith bridge to campaign for its reopening, and all the constituents—so many constituents—who emailed me in advance of the debate. I know that many will be watching right now.

This month marks seven years since Hammersmith bridge was closed—seven years of disruption, frustration and avoidable hardship for residents across west London. The anniversary on 10 April was not a milestone that anyone wanted to reach, but it is a stark reminder of how long communities have been waiting for decisive action and how urgently a fully funded plan is needed to restore this vital crossing. Seven years, 2,566 days, 366 weeks or 84 months—that is how long this situation has been allowed to continue, and those of us in Putney and Roehampton have felt every single one of those days.

It is a national disgrace that this issue is not being rectified, but I am genuinely pleased to see the Minister in his place. I am grateful for the many opportunities that we have had to meet since the election and for his engagement on the issue, so I am genuinely looking forward to what he has to say at the end of the debate and to continuing to work together towards replacing the bridge and rectifying this infrastructure failure. I am also grateful to be able to set out clearly the human, social, economic and environmental impacts of the bridge’s closure to ensure that the Minister is under no doubt about the effect that the closure is having.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for her patience—the Bible refers to the patience of Job, which I think she has—and for her campaign. She will be aware that when routes such as Hammersmith bridge are closed, the pressure on surrounding infrastructure is greatly enhanced. That is similar to the pressure in my constituency in Ballynahinch, where there is no bypass and we have been waiting almost 30 years for one. Does she agree that the Government must follow through on promises to deliver such infrastructure projects and not simply wait for a time when we have more money? We will never have enough in the coffers, but the time comes for promises made to be prioritised. That is really the issue: people have waited far too long and they can wait no more.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for his acknowledgment of the many years that I have been campaigning on this issue and that he has seen me raising it in the Chamber. I agree that there is no time to wait, because the longer we wait, the more the bill goes up, as well as the hardship continuing for us.

Built in 1887, Hammersmith bridge is one of the world’s oldest suspension bridges. It is a grade II listed structure made of wood and wrought iron; its suspension system rests on cast-iron pedestals. It is not just a piece of infrastructure, but part of Britain’s engineering heritage and a national landmark.

However, this is not just about history; it is about people. Hammersmith bridge has always been a lifeline, a critical connection across the Thames used by thousands of cars, people and cyclists—and six bus routes. For seven years, that connection has been broken. The bridge was closed in 2019 on public safety grounds after microfractures were identified in the now 138-year-old structure. It later reopened to pedestrians and cyclists, and in April 2025 the carriageway reopened to pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users and e-scooter users, but not to any vehicles or those buses. That ongoing closure continues to have profound and far-reaching consequences for my constituents, especially in Roehampton, which is directly south of the bridge, and in Putney, which has the alternative bridge if people are going east.

The impact on daily life has been severe, sustained and deeply felt. Residents in Putney, Barnes, Richmond and Hammersmith have endured years of longer journeys, unreliable transport and constant congestion. I conducted a survey of residents and found that 90% of respondents described the closure as “extremely disruptive”. That comes as no surprise to anyone living locally. This is the issue that comes up all the time, at every event that I go to and almost every door I knock on.

Before the closure, around 22,000 vehicles crossed the bridge each day. Those journeys have not disappeared; they have simply been forced on to other routes, creating daily gridlock across neighbouring areas such as Putney. The latest snapshot data from the Department for Transport shows that, between 2020 and 2023, the overall number of motor vehicles on Putney bridge increased by 16%. Bus services were among the first and hardest hit. Six major routes, including the 209, were withdrawn, and have still not been reinstated. Others, such as the 533, have been diverted, leaving services overcrowded, delayed and unreliable.

Congestion in Putney has now become so severe that in January last year I called together the bus services, Transport for London, the council and the utility services to say, “Look, there’s a real problem here in Putney.” Transport for London officials replied, “Yes, there is. We look across the whole of London, and Putney is especially congested.” In their opinion, part of the reason for that is the closure of Hammersmith bridge.

Rail Prices: Contactless Payments

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of contactless roll out at railway stations on ticket prices.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I appreciate the Minister’s attendance, and I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is important to my constituents who rely on the rail network.

I welcome the move to contactless payments at railway stations. It is a transformational innovation that makes travel much quicker and easier. It allows those of us who like to cut it fine to just tap in without having to queue for a ticket or hurriedly navigate the ticket machine. The Government’s case for the roll-out is that it should make rail travel more convenient, accessible and flexible, and I agree that those are the right ambitions.

Reigate station was one of the stations brought into the latest expansion of contactless in December 2025. This was part of a wider scheme to roll out contactless ticketing across the south-east of England. Stations in neighbouring constituencies, such as Dorking, Leatherhead and Ashtead, were also included. The concern I want to put to the Minister is that, for my constituents, this roll-out has introduced not simply a new way for people to pay but a change in what they pay, when they can travel, which discounts they can access and whether long-established local arrangements still apply.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for introducing this debate on an incredibly important issue. Does she not agree that contactless roll-out may be beneficial for some, but for others, the higher prices, restricted off-peak hours and complex new ticketing structures will be incredible off-putting, and that there must be a return to the customer-first policy across our public rail network throughout the United Kingdom?

[Rebecca Paul]

It is like the hon. Gentleman has read my mind—or even my speech. I completely agree with his point, and I will go into a number of those issues in some detail.