Vehicle Headlight Glare Standards

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I commend the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for setting the scene so very well. This is an important issue as road safety is important to us all. Keeping ourselves, as well as other motorists safe, is part of that. There have been reports of concerns from across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland about the impact of vehicle headlight glare. Indeed, just this week BBC Breakfast had a story on this very issue.

I recently read a news article back home about how the Fermanagh and Omagh district council on the west of the Province wrote to the Committee for Infrastructure at the Northern Ireland Assembly raising concerns that vehicle headlights are becoming an increasingly distressing and potentially dangerous aspect of driving at night. It has also been noted that the intensity and resulting glare from headlights are not currently tested. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley), who spoke before me, referred to the MOT test. We really need to include this as part of that.

I know, from my experience living in rural areas, that there are safety concerns regarding vehicle glare. For example, on the roads leading down to my house, there are minor and major dips and hills. I live in the Ards Peninsula in a very rural part of Strangford. I know that some, on these country roads at night flash their main beam on, but perhaps do not turn it off when other cars approach. There is no doubt that that has a significant impact on public safety, and that is not to mention the fact that streetlight provision is next to nothing on these types of roads, so the spotlight glare of a headlight does not in any way increase safety. Indeed, it has the very opposite effect.

A more general UK survey found that 61% of drivers who suffer headlight glare say the problem has worsened in the past year, and I believe it has as well—certainly based on the evidence I have seen. Some 26% say that they try to reduce night-time driving because of bright headlights. If someone is not sure of being safe on the road, that would be the right thing to do. I would argue that the actual number is much higher; that figure is based purely on personal reports and anecdotes, and not on the many motorists who experience this issue daily.

It is evident that the issue affects many constituencies, but the narrow and unlit roads in rural areas, such as my constituency of Strangford, mean that beams and headlight glare stand out even more. As the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) asked, are people safe on the road during the 30 seconds or 50 seconds afterwards, as their eyes try to adjust again? That is a question I ask as well. There is space for human consideration, too: we certainly can be more mindful of where we are driving and the impact we will have on others.

I understand that the Department for Transport’s research into glare for 2024-25 is studying how to incorporate practical glare tests into annual inspections. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the Government are intending to bring about. Future MOT guidance may include brightness and levelling checks.

I happen to have a four-wheel drive—it does not make me better than anybody else, but we are high up off the road. If someone lives in the countryside, they probably have one, but they have it because they use it, not because it is a status symbol. I look forward to seeing what more the Government can do to improve road safety collectively throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the near future. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response. He is doing his business this week, yesterday and today—two days running. Well done.

Connected and Automated Vehicles

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is as always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. It is nice to see you again and catch up. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for leading today’s debate and I congratulate her for doing well. I am not a petrolhead but I love a gear stick—I love going through the gears, one to six. I love the smell of the car and the roar of a diesel engine.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich is right to bring this matter to the House for consideration, but I am afraid I will never get an electric car. That is just me. A driverless car? I like to be in charge of the steering wheel. I am not sure I could sit in a car like the one Arnold Schwarzenegger sits in in that film, where a wee model thing, with a head that spins round, tells him where he is going. I do not think I could ever do that, but the hon. Lady is right to bring this to us for consideration.

There is a need for technology and a need to move forward. My son, who has an electric car and is not afraid of the future—unlike his dad, perhaps—is willing to consider the technology that there will be. Someday there will be driverless cars; I am sure of that. One thing that I would love to see in the future—this is not about cars—is something like the device in “Star Trek” where they say, “Beam me up, Scotty.” The day they do that will be the day I would be convinced that is the right way to go, because I could be in my office at 9 o’clock on a Tuesday morning, and then be over here at five past 9—

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Be careful what you wish for!

[Jim Shannon]

Now, will that ever happen? Who knows? But we are talking about driverless cars.

I want to refer to Northern Ireland, of course. First, the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 does not apply to Northern Ireland and, furthermore, there is as of yet no comprehensive legislative framework in Northern Ireland for automated vehicles. I believe it will come, because technology is moving on, the future is moving on, and people will want to be part of that.

That situation means that there is some confusion about the use of a self-driving vehicle authorised under the GB regime in Northern Ireland; the hon. Member for West Bromwich is right about that. There would also be implications for those coming across the border from the Republic of Ireland, as the vehicle would be operating without clear legal responsibility. It is always a joy to see the Minister in his place, and we look forward to some clarification on what it would mean if a self-driving vehicle from the mainland or the Republic of Ireland came to Northern Ireland, where we do not have any legislation in place. If it works, it has to work everywhere, so my question to the Minister would be about how that might happen.

Some pilot schemes are emerging back home. For example, there was an eight-seater Harlander shuttle bus operating in the Titanic quarter in Belfast. There was always a safety operator, of course, but it did give a little taste of the future of driverless vehicles in Northern Ireland. Sometimes it is a step into the unknown that people are a wee bit concerned about. A recent survey carried out by CompareNI highlighted that out of 800 motorists, some 75% would not feel safe travelling in a driverless vehicle—I am probably one of that 75%. I am in the majority, by the way; at least in Northern Ireland. The lack of public trust must be looked at. If this is the future, more must be done to instil public trust as that could be a barrier to progression.

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

On the question of trust in automated vehicles, does my hon. Friend agree that one issue that people will be concerned about is the cost of car insurance? When we are consulted and approached by constituents and we write to insurance companies, we usually hear that the number of accidents occurring is increasing insurance costs. Does he agree that it would be right to be somewhat sceptical? If there is going to be a significant reduction in accidents—I think there will be—we would like to see a significant reduction in the cost of car insurance, but I will not hold my breath.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend always brings pertinent points to the debate. Insurance in Northern Ireland is more expensive than it is anywhere else in the United Kingdom, so we would love to see those advantages.

The big question that many people have about insurance is who would be liable in the case of a crash or a road traffic accident? Would it be the driver, manufacturer or software provider? One of the three has to be accountable. On the other hand, human error causes a large percentage of road traffic accidents. Although I have said I like to be in charge of the steering wheel, if there is driver error or something goes wrong, it is the driver at the wheel who is to blame, and perhaps with a driverless car, the chances of an accident will be reduced dramatically. I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) was referring to that, and the stats probably do as well. However, there is just the unknown question of where we are moving to. Whether it is about ill-judgment, drink driving, fatigue or distraction, there is perhaps an argument for the introduction of driverless cars on the grounds that it will be safer but, personally, I think it is the loss of control that worries people. How do we instil confidence into those who, like me, want to ensure that it is completely safe to drive a car?

There have also been reports that the introduction of driverless cars will be pivotal in transforming mobility for elderly people and the disabled. That is obviously a plus factor as well. It could give people who have been prohibited from driving manually, or are unable to obtain a driving licence because of their disability, the independence, flexibility and opportunity to have a life outside of the home. I see the advantages of that, and I hope the Minister will reply on that point. It will be interesting to see how this progresses over time, and whether we can do more to support it.

As Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom look to the future of transport, driverless vehicles present both a challenge and an opportunity. It is only fair for me to give my opinion, but there is an opportunity—and I am not against opportunity or technology moving forward. It may not be what I want to do, but the opportunity has to be there for everyone else.

We do not yet have a dedicated legal framework for automated vehicles, which is the big question for the Minister. I asked him at the beginning, but I will ask him again: will the Minister ensure that when we move forward, all the regions come together? There are implications for drivers from the Republic of Ireland coming across the border, so will the Minister ensure that we are all on the same page? Although it could create uncertainty, it also gives us the chance to design a system that reflects our needs. The hon. Member for West Bromwich passionately put that case forward. I look forward to engaging on this issue further in the future, and I hope that the views of the general public can also be taken into consideration. Once again, I say well done to the hon. Member for West Bromwich.

Heathrow: National Airports Review

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

The ANPS will provide the policy framework against which any future planning application is assessed. As I have said to other hon. Members, when a planning application comes forward, a thorough consideration process will be associated with that before any decision is taken. Clear conditions will be set out on any planning decision relating to surface access.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement—her positive words are encouraging. This is an economic advantage for everyone, and I thank her for that. The fact that Heathrow’s numbers look set to surpass last year’s numbers, with 8 million passengers in August 2025 alone, demonstrates abundantly clearly the need for expansion. A fit-for-purpose airport can only increase revenue through tourism and connectivity for business. How can she ensure that the extension will secure regional airport connectivity and enhancement and a streamlined domestic service, as well as international increases? How can she ensure that Northern Ireland contractors can be part of the building of the new third runway?

[Heidi Alexander]

We are at the start of this process, and I am as ambitious for the whole UK as the hon. Gentleman is. We will look at the economic impact through the ANPS review. If a scheme comes forward and gets planning consent during this Parliament, all Government Departments and I are absolutely clear that we must make the most of this incredible economic opportunity.

A50/A500 Corridor

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Collier]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There will be a £24 million benefit to Stoke-on-Trent, a £30 million boost to Uttoxeter and east Staffordshire, and an £11 million benefit to Newcastle-under-Lyme, which demonstrates the importance of investing in this corridor.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Jacob Collier]

I will.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Jim Shannon, on the subject of the A50/A500 corridor.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing this debate before the House. He is an assiduous Member, and he is doing extremely well in bringing forward his constituents’ issues. Does he agree that the Government must also look at the impact that long-term work will have on the motorists who rely on this road and, in particular, the emergency services? Does he agree that if any improvements are to happen, proper consideration must be given to the impact they will have on the day-to-day lives of the hundreds of his constituents who rely on this road daily, whether for employment or education, or, indeed, at times of emergency?

[Jacob Collier]

I was not sure whether the people of Northern Ireland use the A50, but I am grateful for that intervention. I am going to come on to safety concerns, which are a key part of this debate.

We have the full backing of 50 local business leaders and the Staffordshire chambers of commerce, who wrote with me to the Chancellor to urge investment in this vital corridor. That is a clear demonstration of the support we have from the business community.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

No piece of legislation can deal with all the emissions that we are facing through challenges in the aviation sector. That is why we have this comprehensive package of measures to make decarbonising aviation while allowing passengers to fly at an affordable rate a reality.

The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) spoke with his usual fervent passion in support of his constituents. The National Wealth Fund stands ready to encourage investors to join us in finding a long-term industrial future for Grangemouth, standing ready to invest £200 million once an investable proposition has been identified.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) raised the unfortunate closure of Vivergo. The Government have been working with the plant to understand the financial challenges that it has faced over the last decade, but I would like to reassure her that we do not anticipate supply issues in bioethanol provision. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester for his decided and confident support for the measures in the Bill.

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) said that the market was too nascent, but I encourage him to look at the detail of the Bill. He will see that that is exactly the problem we are seeking to solve through this legislation, by allowing SAF producers to scale at pace and pursue those innovative technologies. He also spoke about Britain as an aviation leader. The RCM is a first-of-its-kind global initiative to allow SAF producers to produce the fuels we so desperately need. He also encouraged me to sort out decarbonisation challenges in maritime. I draw his attention to the fact that the UK Government announced £448 million of funding to decarbonise the maritime sector only a fortnight ago.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) has Jaguar Land Rover within his constituency and is a passionate advocate for both the automotive and aviation sectors there. He spoke about the urgent need to encourage people to fly—to enable them to access the rest of the world, to see their families and to pursue business opportunities. That is something that we are passionate about championing through the Bill.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) was pleased to see that the Bill was supported across the House. I can only hope that he is correct in his prediction. We shall see. I note that there are no representatives from the Green party here today to focus on these important measures to decarbonise aviation. Hon. Members from across the House can take from that what they will. The hon. Gentleman was right to outline the broader work that is required to decarbonise aviation, including airspace modernisation, but also to talk up our fantastic UK aviation sector and the hard work that it is undertaking to pursue decarbonisation.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) pointed to the very important fact that we are endowed with key infrastructure, such as pipelines, pioneered by firms like Exolum, the research facilities in his constituency to which he pointed and the pioneering work of Bristol airport. We need to develop a market to facilitate that infrastructure further. The 70% cut in emissions through SAF is an exciting proposition indeed.

There are a number of Government amendments that I would like hon. Members to consider. Government amendment 6 allows for levy regulations to require the Secretary of State to assist the designated counterparty by collecting information and sharing it with the designated counterparty. It will also allow for the regulations to be used to impose requirements on a person to provide information to the Secretary of State. It is a technical amendment that will ensure that the information required to calculate individual levy contributions is provided at sufficient frequency, while not creating additional administrative burdens for industry.

Government amendment 1 allows the Secretary of State to direct a Government-owned company to provide assistance for the purpose of identifying to whom revenue certainty contracts should be allocated. The allocation process for RCM contracts will be fair and transparent to give confidence to any applicants. In other renewable schemes, contract allocation is often carried out through an auction process. The allocation process for contracts for difference for renewable electricity is carried out through the National Energy System Operator, or NESO, which is an operationally independent, publicly owned body.

That type of approach to allocation may also be suitable for RCM contracts, so the amendment will allow the Secretary of State to direct a body like NESO to support in the allocation process. The final decision on allocation, however, remains with the Secretary of State. Without the amendment, the same allocation process could be pursued, but that would need to be done on a contractual basis through a procurement process, which would add unnecessary cost and complexity to the process. The amendment avoids those unnecessary impacts. I therefore commend it and all other Government amendments to the House.

I would ask that new clauses 1 to 3, which were tabled by the Liberal Democrats, be withdrawn. They were introduced in identical form in Committee, and my remarks will closely reflect the points my predecessor made then. The amendments seek a review of the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism within the next 12 months. I am afraid that that is not reasonable, as the revenue certainty mechanism triggers only once SAF is being produced, and even at pace, that is some years off. It will take time to build SAF plants, initially starting with a contract allocation round with SAF producers. Therefore, we will not see sufficient developments in the next 12 months to warrant a review of the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism. I agree, however, that it is important to have parliamentary scrutiny to measure the impact of the Act and to propose actions if necessary. The SAF mandate already includes a review clause to assess the impact of the statutory instrument, with the first review scheduled within five years. That is in line with comparable schemes.

With regard to new clause 1, I can reassure the House that work is being carried out at pace across Government on the future of our refineries. Commissioning a separate report, as the new clause proposes, risks a delay to future decisions and any subsequent benefits that may be realised. Overall, we expect low-carbon fuel production to support up to 15,000 jobs across the country and to make a contribution to the economy of up to £5 billion by 2050.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the Minister, and wish him well in his new role and in all that he does. The legislation extends to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so what discussions have been taking place with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we can see its benefits—to both employment and the wider economy—in Northern Ireland?

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Member raises a very important point. We need to ensure that the benefits of the Act are felt across the length and breadth of our United Kingdom, and that includes engaging with our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I turn to new clause 2. We do not anticipate a substantial impact on SAF production in the event of a decline in UK bioethanol production. The bioethanol market is a global one, and we do not currently foresee any supply issues. Furthermore, the recommendations in new clause 2 are already under way and duplicate measures can already be found in the SAF mandate. In July, a total of £63 million was awarded to 17 projects via the advanced fuels fund. That includes projects that use bioethanol, municipal solid waste and green hydrogen as feedstocks, among other sources. The Chancellor also announced in the spending review 2025 that we will continue to support SAF production throughout the spending review period. The SAF mandate also includes a formal review mechanism embedded in its legislation, with the first review scheduled to take place within five years.

New clause 3 would also duplicate measures that already exist in the SAF mandate. The mandate awards more certificates per litre to SAF with higher greenhouse gas savings, which will encourage SAF developers to continuously improve on their greenhouse gas savings. This will be monitored through the formal review mechanism, with the possibility to update legislation as required.

I hope that this reassures the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that, in many respects, the concerns he outlines are allayed by existing measures in the Bill. I therefore urge him not to push his new clauses.

New clause 6, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the economic impact of the legislation within a year of it being passed. Such a report would not show the full economic impact of these measures. Contracts will need to be negotiated, signed, plants built and SAF produced and sold before economic impacts are released. Transparency on reporting in relation to the Act’s economic impact can be achieved through regular updates to the House. Therefore, I do not see the new clause as being effectual, if he wishes to evaluate the economic impact of the RCM. I therefore ask him not to move his new clause.

New clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), would require the Secretary of State to introduce a regulation requiring airlines to make an annual report on their use of SAF, both in absolute volumes and as a percentage of overall fuel used. I welcome transparency on carbon emissions to help consumers make informed choices. However, we will be providing data on the supply of SAF under the mandate, including what proportion of the total aviation fuel supply is SAF. Furthermore, many airlines already provide public information on their decarbonisation efforts, and I therefore do not believe this new clause is necessary and ask the hon. Member not to move it.

New clauses 4 and 7, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dorset and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) respectively, relate to power-to-liquid obligations. On new clause 4, the Government have already committed to keep mandate targets under review. The existing legislation enables the Secretary of State to amend obligations under the SAF mandate, subject to consultation with those affected and scrutiny by Parliament. Allowing amendments to the obligations without consulting appropriate parties could be detrimental to our shared ambition of increasing the use of SAF. On new clause 7, the legislation that gave effect to the SAF mandate already makes provision for a review no later than 2030. Given that the mandate has been in place for less than 12 months and the PtL obligation does not come into effect until 2028, it would not be helpful to review earlier than planned. I therefore ask the hon. Members not to move their new clauses.

Amendment 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, would put a requirement on the counterparty to report on the effect of the introduction of the RCM on air travel prices. This was spoken to by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). The Government are committed to delivering value for money in the RCM scheme by controlling the scale and number of contracts entered into, and through the prices negotiated in each contract. The impact on air fares are likely to rise or fall by less than the cost of a cup of coffee. The costs of the scheme and the impact on ticket prices will be kept under continual review. Passengers should also benefit from the lower prices generated from the lower project risk and reduced cost of capital for SAF producers. Therefore, the Bill and the measures in it will not limit people’s ability to fly. Given that, I ask the right hon. Member not to move the amendment.

I turn to amendments 9 and 10, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, and to amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley. The decisions on the specifics of contract allocation will be made during the contract allocation process. There will be a fair and transparent allocation process that evaluates the key costs, benefits and risks of each project. That will be developed over the coming months and will be subject to consultation with stakeholders. These amendments would reduce the Government leverage in negotiations by setting criteria in advance and would likely reduce value for money in the contracts signed, which I am sure all of us would seek to avoid. I therefore ask that these amendments are not moved.

Finally, I turn to amendment 11, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay. In May 2025, the Government published the response to the consultation on funding the SAF revenue certainty mechanism. It confirmed that a variable levy on aviation fuel suppliers would be introduced, and this was included in the contents of the Bill. The Government plan to consult imminently on the detailed design of the levy, but this amendment would pre-empt stakeholder responses, which will be considered in any design decisions. I therefore ask the right hon. Member not to press the amendment.

I hope that my responses have provided the explanations and reassurances that colleagues were seeking. The Bill is a crucial step towards establishing a SAF industry in the UK and driving investment, growth and jobs across our great country. Once again, I urge the House to give the Bill its full support.

International Rail Services: Ashford

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of returning international rail services to Ashford. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. When the channel tunnel first opened in 1994, it was rightly celebrated as a triumph of engineering and ambition. It showed that Britain was open for business, and our communities in Sussex and Kent continued their centuries-old role as gateways to Europe in a new modern form. When the international rail terminal was built two years later, Ashford became a hub of opportunity, with trains running directly to Paris—including to Disneyland—Brussels and beyond. One of my earliest memories when I was about five years old is boarding the Eurostar to France from Ashford International. I loved going on what I then called the “yellow-nosed train” and having a whole continent on our doorstep.

Today, however, Ashford International is a ghost station. During the pandemic, Eurostar decided that its trains would no longer stop at Ashford between London and Paris—or anywhere else for that matter—making the service much less accessible for those of us halfway along the track, like my constituents down on the south coast and the constituents of many other Members who are here with us today. The terminal at Ashford has been completely abandoned. The announcements and signs when people go through the station may still say “international”, but the two international platforms stand completely unused and empty. It was strange to be back in the terminal this summer, with the abandoned check-in desks and the seats wrapped in plastic, but what struck me was that everything is still there—ready to go. It is an absolute no-brainer to get Ashford back into use.

Earlier this year, I, along with many Members in this room from both sides of the House, met the chief executive of Eurostar to stress the importance of her company returning international services to Ashford. I reminded her that Ashford International terminal was opened with significant taxpayer investment, and that Eurostar has not only a business case to return these services, but a moral responsibility to the areas that it promises to serve. Her answers were lacking, and the truth is that Eurostar used covid as an excuse, having run down the service at Ashford International for years before the pandemic, with fewer trains stopping there.

It was clear from our conversation that Eurostar has failed to do any kind of serious business assessment of Ashford’s potential, and it instead prefers to pile passengers into an already-packed St Pancras terminal. Anyone who has taken the train from St Pancras recently can tell us how chaotic the check-in is. Why add more passengers to a terminal that is already stretched to its limits, as Eurostar says it plans to do?

For our constituents in Sussex and Kent, using the Eurostar now takes much longer than it used to, and it costs more. My constituents in Hastings, Rye and the villages have to travel up to St Pancras from Ashford, only to come back down the same line. It is particularly depressing to pass through the deserted terminal just before entering the channel tunnel—sometimes people even see their car that they parked there earlier. A one hour 50 minute journey from Ashford to Paris now takes upwards of four hours for my constituents, and even longer if they are coming from Hastings or Rye. The cost of the journey has doubled, and for some it has tripled or quadrupled, because they have to factor in the cost of an overnight stay in London for an early morning train. It is expensive, it takes longer, and it does not make any sense.

Local residents and businesses also understand that international services from Ashford were more than just a transport link; those services meant a huge amount to our local economy, our connectivity and our identity as a region. Many local businesses in my constituency of Hastings and Rye have raised with me the lost link at Ashford International. One local hotel owner said she has seen fewer guests coming from Europe since losing the link. Another business that trades extensively with Europe finds it harder to do those deals without the clear connection from Ashford. It has a real impact on our local economy. As another local company said to me,

“when the trains stopped, so did a lot of our business.”

The now abandoned terminal was once a gateway between Britain and Europe, full of promise for investment, tourism and stronger ties with our closest European neighbours. It is now a symbol of decline and neglect, leaving tens of millions of taxpayers’ pounds sitting idle. It is communities such as the ones I represent in Hastings, Rye and the villages that have suffered the consequence of that decision. The visitor economy has been slower to recover from the pandemic than in other areas, and the indefinite cut-off from international rail has hit tourism.

We do not have to accept that decline. A recent report by leading think-tank, the Good Growth Foundation, found that reopening the station could bring in an extra half a million visitors a year to Sussex and Kent. That would bring in more than £2.5 billion to our local regional economy over the next five years. It would cut hours off a trip from Hastings to Paris or Paris to Hastings, and provide a massive boost to our region.

The Labour Government are serious about delivering for our area. We are building prosperity in towns and cities that have been starved of investment for too long. The Labour Government will not allow our communities in Sussex and Kent to fall behind any longer. Eurostar should not have a monopoly on this track, which is why I have urged the rail regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, to allow rival operators to run on the line. The Government have been clear with potential new operators that this neglect cannot continue, and their willingness to restore services at Ashford will weigh heavily on how the regulator views the decision.

Just this weekend, Italian train operator FS—Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane—publicly affirmed its commitment to reopening Ashford International station, a ringing endorsement of our area and of Britain as a place to invest. Other operators have left the door open to bringing back trains to Ashford International. I urge them to make the same firm public commitment as FS in their plans.

In response to the prospect of competition, Eurostar has argued to the Office of Rail and Road that there is no space in the depot to accommodate other operators. It is clear those objections are less about capacity and more about protecting an unfair monopoly. I urge the regulator to grasp this opportunity for growth; its decision will be a key test of whether regulators can live up to our Labour Government’s call for a pro-growth regulatory regime.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate and I wish her well in her campaign. Although this issue obviously does not affect my constituents in Strangford, I am here to offer my support to ensure that she achieves her goals, and I am sure the Minister is standing by to give her the green light. Does she agree that the soaring cost of air travel is a factor precluding many from visiting other cities and towns? Does she also agree it is imperative to have strong rail services to allow people to visit our constituencies and see the historical, retail and environmental beauties they have to offer? That cannot happen without a decent service to all areas, in particular to the hon. Lady’s constituency of Hastings and Rye.

[Helena Dollimore]

I totally agree that having good, international rail travel is important, not just because it is often cheaper and easier, but because it is better for the environment. At a time when we need to consider climate change, we must have more options for people to travel to our closest European neighbours. Since Eurostar stopped the service at Ashford International, many people in our constituencies are not making the journey to St Pancras because it takes too long and costs too much. They are instead driving and taking the channel tunnel, or parking at Gatwick and taking a flight. We know it will be better for the environment to have services restored at Ashford International.

There is also an important point about resilience. The hon. Member said that the issue under discussion might not affect his constituents too much, but actually we are in a time when air travel could be disrupted—we saw the ash cloud interruption a decade ago, which caused huge disruption—and we do need back-up options for travelling internationally. We have recently seen a number of incidents in the channel tunnel in which unexploded world war two bombs have caused massive disruption, and the fact that we have only two places on the line—the Gare du Nord and St Pancras—where passengers can be decanted during major interruptions is a significant risk to the line’s resilience. Opening up Ashford and providing more resilience on the European line would also improve services and resilience for our country.

As I said, I urge the regulator to grasp the opportunity to support ending Eurostar’s monopoly when it makes its decision. That is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss. In Hastings, Rye and the villages, we know how much our area has to offer and how much we could gain from the restoration of international service. Thousands of my constituents have signed my petition calling for that vital link to be opened again, and I will keep working with the Labour Government and train operators to push for that to happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

I convened an extraordinary meeting of the UK bus manufacturing expert panel on 28 July, attended by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Transport, metro mayors and mayoral combined authorities, to accelerate the panel’s key priorities of establishing a bus order pipeline and strengthening local value within public sector procurement. I will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government on the issue. I know my hon. Friend has worked absolutely tirelessly for his constituents in this area.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill passed yesterday, with many of the good things that we all wish to see happening here in the mainland, especially improving the frequency of bus services and addressing social inclusion for those who cannot get buses. Will the Minister share the good things that the Government are doing here with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, so that we in Northern Ireland can get some of the advantages that people have here?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will continue to have active engagement through the interministerial group and will be delighted to share the excellent work this Government are doing to re-empower local areas and their bus services.

Accessibility of Railway Stations: Dulwich and West Norwood

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for all his work on this important set of issues. He is absolutely right to say that full accessibility is about more than simply level access, and also that information about accessibility at different rail stations is vital to whether travellers will be able to travel, particularly if they are visiting somewhere outside their home area. I support his campaign for better information.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Mr Jim Shannon to speak on the accessibility of railway stations in the Dulwich and West Norwood constituency.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) is right to bring this topic forward; I spoke to her beforehand. I believe that the Government need to provide what she is trying to achieve for her constituency in every constituency, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), clearly outlined. There is something wrong when rail staff cannot be in place to help with accessibility without people having to ring 24 hours ahead. Does the hon. Lady further agree that this has to form part of our rail obligations, wherever that may be in the United Kingdom? What is right for her constituents in Dulwich and West Norwood is right for everywhere else, including my constituency. Does she agree that the Government must focus on a strategy that gives equality to those who are disabled in our communities?

[Helen Hayes]

I am honoured to be intervened on in an Adjournment debate by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I thank him for his intervention. He is right that adequate staffing at railway stations is a really important part of making stations accessible. All too often, disabled passengers have to endure unacceptably long waits when there is a failure in communication. The railway operating companies need to continue to improve their service so that not only the stations but rail travel itself is fully accessible and disabled passengers can get the support to which they are entitled.

All our stations should be accessible, and it is therefore important that the Government work to increase the funding available and make changes to the criteria for Access for All funding. Currently, the Access for All programme prioritises stations with high levels of footfall and the availability of third-party funding—usually through local development—as well as proximity to a hospital or major interchange and non-specific rail industry priorities. The majority of the 10 stations in my constituency are busy but would not rank among the highest footfall locations in the country. They do not have significant development sites in close proximity or other third-party sources of funding available. They are not next to a hospital and we cannot account for non-specific rail industry priorities.

Pavement Parking

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I commend the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing the debate.

Pavement parking is a nationwide issue that impacts constituencies across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Every week I receive numerous complaints regarding people parking irresponsibly. To give a quick local perspective, people are often permitted to park on the pavement unless specific restrictions apply or unless doing so causes an obstruction—that is how it is done back home. If people do the wrong thing, they get an £80 ticket; if they pay it within three days, it is £45.

I quickly want to make the case for those who have guide dogs. I did a walk with one of the guide dog people some time ago, with a mask across my eyes, and it was very difficult to understand what was happening.

In Northern Ireland, we have had a “think before you park” campaign to raise awareness of the risks of pavement parking and the impact it can have on people with disabilities, those with mobility issues and parents with prams. That is why road markings and signage are important. Perhaps the Minister could do more to encourage local councils to ensure they are displayed clearly so that people can understand them.

There is much to be done on this issue. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister can do to persuade other regional and devolved Administrations—including my own—to ensure that pavement parking is addressed for everyone across the United Kingdom.

Pony and Trap Racing: Regulation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the regulation of pony and trap racing on public roads.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The debate is about the regulation of pony and trap racing on public roads but, to be more specific, there is no regulation and it is sorely needed. If someone wants to organise a cycling competition or road race in the UK using the main roads, there are regulations to follow. There are licences they need to get and authorities they have to consult, which means that cycling races are routinely organised safely and with minimum disruption to the community hosting a race. None of that is true for pony and trap racing. I suggest that the Government need to introduce regulations for pony and trap racing along the same lines, primarily because of road safety, but also because of the significant policing resource that these unofficial races eat up.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this issue forward. She is right to highlight it. The reason is quite simple: there is no doubt that there are significant safety risks that come along with it, especially for young drivers. As an example, in 2023 on the Antrim Road in Belfast, Northern Ireland, a teen lost control of what is referred to as a sulky cart, resulting in a collision with a car and causing serious injury. Does the hon. Lady agree that for the safety of drivers, pedestrians and indeed the animals themselves, there must be greater discussion with the devolved nations on guidance for pony and trap racing, especially on our public roads?

[Sarah Green]

I agree. These races happen in my constituency on a fairly regular basis and I have similar stories to share. One such race took place this weekend. Residents of Chalfont St Peter and Gerrards Cross have their weekends disrupted by pony and trap racing events, also known as sulky racing, far too often. During these events, the A413, a stretch of busy dual carriageway, becomes an unauthorised racetrack. The races attract not just competitors and their support vehicles, but spectators who gather to watch them and place bets on the outcome.

To be clear about what I am referring to, pony and trap racing is a form of horseracing where two-wheeled carts are pulled by a single pony that thunders down a stretch of public road. These events can involve multiple traps racing each other or a single vehicle completing a time trial. Those taking part in these races in my community gather at a section of the A413 and run a series of races along the straight stretch of dual carriageway. The immediate danger is posed to those already using the dual carriageway. While the races are taking place, support vehicles follow the ponies and traps. Those are larger vehicles, usually 4x4s or pick-up trucks, which sometimes have a horse box with them. They drive next to each other and block both lanes of the carriageway, creating an illegal rolling roadblock to allow the race to take place.