E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing the debate.

I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective. A senior doctor in the Belfast trust has aptly described the number of children being injured by e-scooters as an “epidemic”. It is an epidemic, not just in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom. More than 120 children within the Belfast trust area have been treated for injuries sustained in accidents involving e-bikes and e-scooters in the past 24 months. A similar picture is emerging in England, where a study estimates that nearly 500 children have been injured in e-scooter accidents since 2019.

Sadly, those figures do not surprise me. In my Strangford constituency, I regularly see e-scooters practically flying past the window along the footpath in front of my office, with pedestrians jumping aside to avoid being injured in a collision. Across the UK, 59 deaths involving e-scooters have been reported, 10 of which involved people under 18. We cannot wait for another child or older person to be hit and suffer life-altering injuries or worse. We must do everything we can to prevent a 60th death.

I welcome the Minister to his place; it is good to see him back in harness again, so to speak. Pedestrians are not the only ones at risk; riders are vulnerable to serious injury. Research into major trauma cases highlights the potential for devastating head injuries and damage to internal organs, yet reports suggest that less than 6% of e-scooter riders in Northern Ireland wear a helmet; in England that figure is estimated to be below 2%. Again, the threshold for a long-lasting injury—

[Anna Dixon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

No, I am on a two and a half minute time limit, so it would not be fair to everybody else.

This is a serious issue that demands immediate attention. I commend the Police Service of Northern Ireland for the work it has done and continues to do in raising awareness that it is currently illegal to use e-scooters on public roads and footpaths. The Ards police in my constituency have seized several e-scooters—some 20 that were being driven illegally have been seized so far, to give hon. Members an idea of the problems that we have in our territory. However, it is clear further legislation is needed to address the scale of this issue.

Can the Minister give us an idea of any legislative changes being considered and what engagement there will be with the Assembly and the PSNI? I call on the Minister to take stronger action to regulate e-scooter use and to consider more appropriate age restrictions and a mandatory helmet requirement. E-scooters may seem like a more convenient mode of transport for many, but they are a danger to the general public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

As my hon. Friend will hear in the rest of my speech, we will be going further in a number of areas. I absolutely recognise his concerns.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justin Madders]

This will be the last intervention; we have a lot to fit in.

[Jim Shannon]

While we all look for legislative change, there has to be something within the system for the purchase of e-bikes to ensure that young people do not injure themselves. The Belfast health trust has had more than 100 people who have been injured, and it is young people driving them. Is it not important to have some sort of regulation and guidance for those people who perhaps do not want to break the law but end up doing so and injuring themselves?

[Justin Madders]

There is an awful lot we need to be looking at in terms of the retail element, which I will come to shortly.

We have heard contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds); from my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), for Carlisle, for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), for Rushcliffe (James Naish), for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and for Shipley (Anna Dixon); and from the hon. Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for Yeovil (Adam Dance), for Witney (Charlie Maynard), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). This is clearly a nationwide issue that Members throughout the House are particularly interested in. I will not be able to address every single comment, but I will pick out a few that I can address now. We will respond in writing—either me or the relevant Minister—to issues that we are not able to pick up.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden has campaigned on this issue for a long time. She mentioned e-bike fires, which I am well aware of as I was the Minister responsible for the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025. I have met Sofia Duarte’s mother and I absolutely agree that it is important that we introduce regulations. I will address that in due course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark probably shared a little too much information about his body shape, but he asked an important question about the national licensing framework. I can confirm that the consultation on that will begin imminently.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington mentioned the tragic circumstances of her constituent Gloria. I absolutely hear what her daughter Julie has said, and reassure her that we will act on that. My hon. Friend mentioned a review of the dirt bike licensing regime; I will come back to her on that in writing. She was right, as were my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife and the hon. Member for Witney, along with several others, about the responsibility of retailers. It is not good enough to put in small print that these vehicles are for use only on private land. That is not the action of a responsible retailer. Let me be clear: we expect retailers to clean up their act, and if they are not able to do that, more levers are available for us to deal with that.

It might help if I briefly set out the current legislative framework. The Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 set out the parameters for what is legal and what is not. The power of the electric motor on a legal e-bike cannot exceed 250 watts, and the maximum assisted speed cannot exceed 15.5 mph. Anything faster or more powerful is an electric motorbike and should therefore be approved and registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, taxed and insured. In addition, the rider must wear a safety helmet and hold a driving licence. A vehicle that is too fast or too powerful and not properly registered as an electric motorbike is illegal for use on public roads. We absolutely need to restate that.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned concerns that the police do not have enough powers. I think it is fair to say, as a number of Members recognised, that the Government have made it easier for the police to act thanks to measures in the Crime and Policing Act 2026—I am afraid the shadow Minister forgot to mention that his party voted against it on Third Reading. The police can now seize vehicles without first having to issue a warrant.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central said, police forces use a range of different tactics; we are keen to learn from experiences up and down the country. I am pleased to report that there is a lot of cracking down in different forces, tackling the issue from London to Liverpool. Merseyside police’s Operation Gears seized 500 illegal electric motorbikes and e-scooters in 2025. Only last week, the local constabulary in my Ellesmere Port constituency seized around 13 illegal vehicles, supported by one of my local councillors, Katie Kendrick. The issue really matters to people, because we all see it on the streets. If people are wearing balaclavas on bikes, it is criminality hiding in plain sight. It is equivalent to the dodgy vape shop. It is important that we support the police to use the powers they have, and look at whether more powers are needed to deal with the issue.

Of course, that is only one side of the problem. As we have discussed, it is far too easy to get hold of these vehicles, which means we must look at doing more at the point of sale. This is about not just the bikes but the e-bike conversion kits which, as we have heard, have the potential to pose real harm to cyclists and others. E-bike batteries can be dangerous if they are not properly installed, and they must be properly regulated to keep people safe.

As Members will be aware, over the summer the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade consulted on a range of updates to the product safety framework, including clear duties for online marketplaces to take due care to identify, prevent and remove from their sites unsafe products such as unsafe or non-compliant batteries and their use in e-bikes and conversion kits. That consultation has now closed. BIST officials are considering the responses as part of drafting the Government’s response. As the Minister who introduced the enabling legislation, I am keener than most to ensure that we make the best use of it. I remind the shadow Minister yet again that his party voted against that particular set of laws.

Let me turn briefly to e-scooters. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell told us about the tragic death of Jacob Calland, and my sympathies are with his family; I understand that they met my predecessor, and I am keen to continue that dialogue. As Members have pointed out, private e-scooters are illegal for use on public roads. They can be legally used only through the Government’s trials, which have been extended to May 2028. The trial system was implemented back in 2020 but has never been placed on a statutory footing. We are making a firm commitment that we will legislate to define e-scooters in law, which will provide the certainty that we currently do not have. People will know what is legal and what is not, and what can be enforced against.

UK Coach Industry

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Coaches do even more than the hon. Lady mentions. They take my Orange lodge in Northern Ireland, my Royal Black Preceptory and the Apprentice Boys to the 12 July parade. For Northern Ireland, coaches are the glue that keeps the community and our Orange lodges going.

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions need to be short.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you very much, Mr Turner. It is always a pleasure to be called, and to be called first is almost unique. In the Chamber I am usually last, but the last shall be first and the first shall be last, so in this case I am well ahead. I thank the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for raising the issue of the coach sector. I will speak about two significant coach companies in my constituency, what they do and what it means to the community.

Across the United Kingdom, some 2,500 coach operators have faced a 46% increase in diesel prices since February this year. For many industries, the question is no longer how to turn a profit but how to stay afloat. Some 38% of coach companies say they are likely to withdraw from home-to-school transport contracts due to the rising operating costs, which have not been matched by the rates they receive.

I am aware that colleagues on the Opposition Benches have some comments, and I look forward to hearing them, but the companies that I talk to tell me they are under pressure to try to deliver a contract that has been agreed, while diesel prices go through the roof. The pressures today are immense, and the consequences will be deeply felt by families and parents who face additional stress and the expense of finding alternative arrangements. In the rural community where I live, the buses and particularly the coaches are under incredible pressure because of some of the contracts. The challenges facing coach services will extend beyond the industry itself, as the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard said.

Of course, fuel costs are not the only challenge. The proportion of unfilled coach driver positions stands at 12.4%—again, the hon. Lady referred to that. A community group in my constituency has done some excellent work in introducing men to the opportunity—very rarely is it a woman who takes on the job, at least in my constituency. It is mostly men, but the opportunity is there and people are encouraged.

We must look again at scrapping the outdated restrictions on younger coach drivers. For instance, qualified 18 and 19-year-olds can drive HGVs without the same distance restrictions that apply to younger coach drivers. It is difficult to justify maintaining such restrictions when coach operators face a national recruitment shortage. Combined with an ageing workforce, the restrictions make the shortage even worse.

We must support the economic contribution of the coach sector, which supports some 81,000 jobs and generates £6.4 billion in economic value. Allowing our coach services to fail would put people out of work and undermine local economies.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be greater recognition of excellent companies such as Hutchison Engineering and Wrightbus in Northern Ireland, which frequently hold fantastic exhibitions to demonstrate their expertise? We need more recognition of and support for coach builders.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is brilliant to see that locally.

I will mention two companies in particular. Coach Connections in Portaferry is doing so well from its hub in my constituency. Adrian and the team do a fantastic job keeping community members, schoolchildren and sports teams moving safely and reliably right across the country. Managing a top-class fleet alongside a dedicated team of more than 15 local staff is no small feat. They have a brilliant line-up of vehicles, from highly accessible 19 to 33-seater mini-coaches, which are perfect for community groups, right up to the flagship 53-seater Mercedes-Benz Tourismo luxury tri-axle coaches. Now, if that is not a good encouragement for a business in my constituency, I do not know what is.

Seeing the expansion of Coach Connections this year, alongside its taking on the excellent Volvo and Plaxton touring vehicles from McAvoys, which it brought over, is a massive testament to the hard work and dedication of its staff. We are incredibly lucky to have such a brilliant and dependable service operating right on our doorstep.

Of course, the strength of our local transport network does not stop there. We also have a fantastic team at Giles Tours. Since 1981, Neil and Patricia’s award-winning family business has been a household name for quality travel. Their wonderful drivers, including Josh, Dave and Andrew, constantly go the extra mile to look after passengers with unmatched hospitality. Whether it is on an executive private hire or on the company’s famous luxury coach holidays across the United Kingdom, Ireland and Europe, Giles Tours provides a first-class service that makes the entire constituency of Strangford proud. I am very proud to be the MP for Strangford and to have such companies locally. It is is encouraging. Our local travel needs are in the safest possible hands.

The Translink bus group is under considerable financial pressure, saying that it faces a £46.6 million loss in the upcoming year. Translink has some 160 coaches in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] I am going to conclude—

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. We need to stick to the time limit to allow Members to get in, if we don’t mind.

[Jim Shannon]

Okay. I urge the Government to consider short-term support for coach operators to help them to keep services on the road.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

Later in my speech, I will reflect more on the steps that we are taking to support the coach sector, especially in building the longer-term resilience that we believe can be achieved through the benefits that can be accrued from decarbonisation. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of rising fuel prices, which concerns the Government and on which we work on in close collaboration with the sector. He will, of course, understand that ahead of the Budget I cannot say much more about the exact issue that he raised.

I turn next to the issue of transport connectivity and the indispensable role of coaches as part of an integrated transport network. Earlier this year, the Department published “Better Connected”, the Government’s strategy for integrated transport in England. It sets out a clear national vision for all partners across the transport system to create integrated networks that work well for people and are safe, reliable, affordable and accessible, so that people can make their journeys easily. Its principles of putting people first, creating well-connected places and working in partnership apply across all forms of transport, but perhaps no more than in relation to coaches, which have a critical role to play as part of an integrated picture, particularly in connecting people to education and visitor destinations, but also in connecting rural communities and supporting elderly residents, as was raised by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). Better information, well-designed interchanges and closer co-ordination with rail, bus and local transport can make journeys easier, and we will continue working with local leaders to ensure that coach travel is properly considered in local transport plans.

I will also just touch briefly on an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) about working more closely with local authorities to break through planning challenges. Currently, there are obligations for local authorities to have regard to land use and land need for myriad factors that do not pertain to driver welfare stops as they relate to critical national infrastructure on the strategic road network. There is more work for the Department of Transport to do in order to work more closely with local authorities to make them more aware of just how critical it is to have proper freight and coach connectivity to every part of the United Kingdom.

I turn next to zero emission coaches. Coaches already provide an efficient form of mass transport, but we recognise the need to support the sector to go further in a way that makes good business sense. The transition to zero emission coaches presents particular challenges that I am very cognisant of: journeys can be long and variable, vehicles may spend extended periods away from their depot and operators need confidence that suitable charging will be available. The Government’s £170 million multi-year depot charging scheme supports zero emission HGVs, vans and coaches by part-funding charging infrastructure at fleet depots. Its first 2026 funding window offered support for up to 70% of eligible charge points and civil engineering costs of up to £1 million per organisation.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is right to underline the issue of energy efficiency, but when it comes to ensuring that companies across the United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and here in the mainland—could work together, does he agree that the Government need to push energy efficiency through all the companies so that they can all gain?

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Member raises a really important point about ensuring that where the Government are encouraging decarbonisation and the resilience benefits that that can bring for the long term, it has to be done in a sustainable way, recognising the particular challenges faced by the coach sector in meeting that challenge. That applies in every part of the United Kingdom, but especially in Northern Ireland and the sort of area that he represents, where the tourist economy is so essential. Coach connectivity is critical to ensuring that his local economy continues to thrive, so that is an important point well made.

Depot charging will meet many operating needs, but as Members have raised today, longer-distance journeys will also require appropriate charging facilities at destinations and strategic locations. The Government’s forthcoming zero emission HGV and coach infrastructure strategy will provide clearer national direction—a road map, some might say—for how that infrastructure will develop, and we will continue engaging coach operators, charge point providers and motorway service area operators as the network expands. We understand that ultimately the transition must be practical, commercially viable and shaped by real operating patterns.

To touch briefly on accessibility, coaches provide vital connectivity for many people with disabilities. It is essential that they are able to travel safely, confidently and with dignity. That is just as important when they travel on leisure, rail replacement and home-to-school services as it is when they make long-distance journeys. Accessibility should be considered at all stages of the passenger journey, from finding information and planning trips though accessing coach stations and stops, and boarding, alighting and travelling on the vehicle. Accessible information is vital for giving disabled passengers the confidence to use services, and from 1 October, all coaches operating services that are subject to the accessible information regulations, which are largely rail replacement, must be compliant unless they are covered by an exemption. That is part of the broader work we are doing to ensure a more accessible transport network.

I will draw my remarks to a close by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard again for securing this critically important debate, and all the Members who have contributed and shared their personal and constituency-level experiences of the phenomenal contribution that the coach sector makes to our economy. I hope I have demonstrated that the Government recognise coaches as a vital part of the transport system—not just something that is lumped in with HGVs and other modes, but that deserves cognisance of the challenges coaches face and the enormous opportunities and benefits that they bring to communities across the United Kingdom in supporting growth, widening opportunity, strengthening tourism and connecting communities. We will continue working with the sector to support its progress and tackle some of those barriers together, including on growth and integration with the wider transport network, strengthening the workforce, increasing investment and progressing towards decarbonisation. Our aim is clear: we want a thriving, inclusive and sustainable coach industry that passengers can rely on for years to come, and I think that hon. Members from across the House have pushed us further in that direction today.

Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. The Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme—BREP—is a niche topic for Westminster Hall. I am here because Bromsgrove is suffering under the chaos of BREP and the mismanagement of its delivery.

To provide some background, Bromsgrove is a busy commuter town in the West Midlands with two motorways, the M42 and the M5, running through it. That is crucial for context because, when the M5 is congested and snarled up, the A38 running through Bromsgrove—the route affected by BREP—becomes a pressure release valve. As a result, Bromsgrove suffers additional congestion once all that traffic is displaced from the motorway and running around the town.

I would argue that the A38 running through Bromsgrove is a part of our key national infrastructure, given the role that it plays in alleviating pressure on the M5. Bromsgrove is currently seeing investment to the tune of tens of millions of pounds into BREP, but the reality is the delivery of acute disruption to the local economy, businesses, schools and residents.

Any road project will inevitably bring some degree of disruption. The folk of Bromsgrove are reasonable and expect disruption when investment takes place, but the scale is beyond anything envisaged by those living and working in the town. Crucially, it is beyond anything that Worcestershire county council appears to acknowledge in its engagement with me or local residents.

Accepting that work has to take place does not mean accepting endless delays, lack of accountability, poor communication and date slipping, which are characteristics of the BREP work. The impact is profound, including safety concerns. Losses for businesses are particularly profound. I routinely meet and speak with businesses that quote BREP and the compounded effect of roadworks in Bromsgrove as one reason why their businesses are suffering. I note that when the BBC, ITV or other media outlets speak to local businesses, the congestion caused by BREP and other roadworks is routinely quoted. The result is severe reputational impact for Bromsgrove, which should have a vibrant economy, given its location, relative affluence of the hinterland and the connectivity the town previously enjoyed.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman, who is right to bring this forward. When millions of pounds of public money are committed to corridor schemes such as the Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme, we need stricter oversight to prevent administrative paralysis. The same thing happened in Northern Ireland. The Court of Appeal had to step in to greenlight the £1.7 billion A5 upgrade, a vital project that was trapped for 20 years in a web of legal and bureaucratic challenges. Is it not time that the Government ensure that when infrastructure funding is approved, red tape does not stand in the way of safety, economic growth and local commuters?

[Bradley Thomas]

I feel that the presence of the hon. Member vindicates this debate, not because of the worthiness of the point being discussed but because he is attending a debate about something happening in Bromsgrove. He is correct and I will touch on that point shortly.

The impact of the BREP works in Bromsgrove is profound. There are safety concerns, the losses for businesses that I have already spoken about, endless delays for people on routine trips, and the reputational damage to the town that I mentioned. Let us think about it—who is going about their lives in any town? There are parents wanting to take their children to school, workers driving to work, businesses reliant on deliveries and on trade, carers, and other people going about their lives, such as those needing to get to appointments, GPs or hospitals. I read a statistic that the average UK driver spends 62 hours a year stuck in traffic. Well, I can guarantee anyone who wants to listen that the figure will be a hell of a lot higher in Bromsgrove because of the BREP roadworks.

Air Traffic Control Disruption

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

Let me use this opportunity to restate my thanks to workers across UK airports who have responded to this disruption. I am concerned to hear about the case that the hon. Member raises, and if he writes to me with more detail, I can ensure that the appropriate action is taken.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for those answers. This has happened three times in three years. Normally, on the third strike, you are out. Instead, the chief executive gets an £871,000 bonus. For people in Northern Ireland, a flight to Great Britain is a basic utility. When NATS crashed, my constituents were entirely cut off. What specific resilience measures is the Minister’s Department implementing to guarantee that Northern Ireland air bridges are prioritised during system recovery? Hard-working families in my constituency who suffered this week are told that they will not get a penny of compensation because the NATS failure counts as an extraordinary circumstance. If such incidents are avoidable, why on earth are passengers carrying the financial burden while NATS avoids accountability?

[Keir Mather]

That is a very fair challenge. Our response to ensure that his constituents get the protections they need is threefold. First, we need to learn the lessons of what has happened, the nature of the technical fault, and to fix it to minimise the chance of it ever happening again. Secondly, there is a broader resilience question about air connectivity from Northern Ireland. I would like to work with him and other Members to think about how that can be strengthened further, but I reassure him that resilience work on that matter is widespread across the Department for Transport and is at the forefront of our minds. Thirdly, there is the question of residents in Northern Ireland being able to benefit from the measures in the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill that are specifically designed to strengthen consumer protections, enhance air passenger rights and make our system of aviation safety more streamlined. I look forward to working with him and other hon. Members on those important issues.

Bus Stops

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Mayer]

My hon. Friend has a very snazzy station these days. Cambridge station has much improved over the period he has been the Member of Parliament. Having integrated transport matters. The Government’s strategy, Better Connected, talks to the fact that people use more than one form of public transport, so getting from the train to the bus matters greatly, which I will slightly address later.

The Bus Services Act and accompanying guidance tend to focus on accessibility, which is very important.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. It might be her first Westminster Hall debate but it will certainly not be her last—there is another on 2 November and more to come. I congratulate her on addressing the importance of improving the accessibility of bus stops. We need to ensure that older people continue to feel confident in using public transport, with adequate resources to encourage usage, because loneliness is increasingly recognised as a public health issue for older people. Does the hon. Lady agree that more must be done to ensure that older people remain independent and continue to access public transport, with the provision of suitable seating and without the barrier of having to stand for prolonged periods?

[Alex Mayer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I want to encourage as many people as possible to use our bus stops and buses. Seating is important because waiting in comfort makes it more likely that people will choose to use a bus. I am concerned about accessibility, but I also want to ask another question. I want to move beyond, “Can I use the bus stop?” to “Would I like to or choose to use the bus stop?”

I said in my maiden speech that bus stops were the window to the soul of buses—[Laughter.] I know: I am strange like that. But at least I keep to a theme. Each bus stop should give a promise of the journey ahead. I believe, therefore, that we should have national standards for bus stops. Whenever I suggest anything like national standards, Ministers tell me that local people are best placed to decide. I absolutely agree that Ministers should not be deciding whether one’s bus stop is here on the road or 25 yards further along, but national standards do reduce duplication. That is one of the issues that many local councils and transport authorities talk to me about.

Portsmouth is often mentioned as an example of a place with very good bus stops. They have 579 bus stops, and they decided to do a 72-point audit of them. They checked them all and decided that they were going to improve them in four different ways. Interestingly, their transport lead says that they would have welcomed national standards, because they spent a quarter of their time and budget on developing their own local standards. They would much rather have ploughed that into actually making bus stops better. So even they believe that we should have national standards.

I am not saying that one size fits all. It is obvious that a different kind of bus stop will be needed for a small rural area as opposed to a large hospital. Again, people have already done some of this work. Portsmouth has come up with six different varieties of bus stop. The Campaign for Better Transport has four. Norfolk county council has split its bus stops into bronze, silver, gold and platinum. A lot of that work has been done and could be implemented into some national standards.

What do I think should be in those standards? The very first thing is: “Can I find the bus?” That is the first question passengers ask. The modern bus stop really came into being in London in the 1820s. The first buses were in Manchester, but the first bus stops that we would understand were in London with a pole and a flag. Yet over a century later, it is sometimes still quite difficult to find the bus stop, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said.

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.