Transport

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the Second Reading debate on the Railways Bill on 9 December 2025.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way—she knows I am a huge fan. In that spirit of solidarity, will she join me in supporting the Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway company’s bid to the Office of Rail and Road for a new service into Shropshire, stopping at important market towns such as Wellington in my constituency? Does she accept that it is not just the big cities and urban centres but rural market towns that need to be included on timetables?

[Heidi Alexander]

Decisions about open access services, under the current model, are for the Office of Rail and Road to take. Network Rail supported the service that the right hon. Gentleman mentions, but the Office of Rail and Road took a different decision.

[Official Report, 9 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 207.]

Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander):

Railways Bill

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I will make some progress.

The Government have already begun the work of change. We passed the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act last November, which began the process of simplifying an industry fractured into over a dozen different bodies. Seven operators are already in public hands, with seven more to follow. We are a step closer to saving up to £150 million a year in management fees, which previously went to private companies but can now be reinvested in our services.

I have said it before and I will say it again: like most of the public, I do not care who runs the railways; I just want them to work. Despite what some might claim, Labour Members are not possessed by some sort of ideological fever dream when it comes to rail. Instead, we are led by the facts and by what our constituents are telling us, and it is beyond doubt that the current model has failed passengers time and again. While public ownership alone cannot deliver the reform we need, let us be clear that reform would be hamstrung without public ownership.

We could wait for the wheels of legislation to turn before driving improvements, but I do not believe that passengers should wait any longer. That is why, last month, this Government froze rail fares for the first time in 30 years. That is an historic shot in the arm for millions of passengers, many of whom are struggling with the cost of living and could now save hundreds of pounds a year.

That is not all. We have expanded pay-as-you-go contactless ticketing in the south-east, with plans to launch further schemes in the west midlands and Greater Manchester. We are currently trialling digital pay-as-you-go in the east midlands and Yorkshire. Combined, this means that millions of journeys will benefit from a best price promise.

Finally, integrated leadership teams are in place on Southeastern and coming to South Western and Greater Anglia. One person will ultimately be in charge of both the tracks and the trains in those areas. That is a step closer to better decision making on our railways, and a move away from everyone blaming everyone else when things go wrong.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way—she knows I am a huge fan. In that spirit of solidarity, will she join me in supporting the Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway company’s bid to the Office of Rail and Road for a new service into Shropshire, stopping at important market towns such as Wellington in my constituency? Does she accept that it is not just the big cities and urban centres but rural market towns that need to be included on timetables?

[Heidi Alexander]

Decisions about open access services, under the current model, are for the Office of Rail and Road to take. Network Rail supported the service that the right hon. Gentleman mentions, but the Office of Rail and Road took a different decision. If a new proposal comes forward, I am sure that Network Rail will look at it closely. We are keen to improve connectivity wherever we can. We are bringing forward this legislation because Great British Railways needs to take the track access decisions, so that we can ensure that decisions are taken in the best interests of passengers overall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

The previous Government did a huge amount to improve access to stations throughout the country. I would like to see more of that.

[Mark Pritchard]

Whether it is in the private sector or the public sector, and whether it was under the last Government or this Government—by the way, the current Government have been in power for 18 months, so all that is wearing a bit thin—passengers, and particularly disabled passengers, just want a railway that works. On that I agree with the Secretary of State.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done on step-free access? There is currently very little in the Bill that suggests that more will be done, particularly for rural stations such as Cosford, Shifnal or Albrighton in Shropshire. If it cannot be done at every station, and there is no money for that, there at least needs to be step-free access and improved disability access somewhere along inter-county railway lines.

[Mr Holden]

I totally agree with my right hon. Friend on that issue. Earlier, he made the important point that people want to see through-trains running, because there is nothing that benefits disabled passengers more than the through-train services such as from his constituency, which would be available with open access. I believe that the Department for Transport has opposed that for the service he mentioned. The Transport Secretary can correct me if she wishes, but it comes to something when this Government are actively working against new routes across the country. This Bill actively works against open access, which, if she gets her way, will be left wholly and, I suspect, deliberately vulnerable. GBR is mimicking some statist salami-style tactic that will cut it slice by slice until open access is dead.

Above all, this Bill does not put passengers or taxpayers first. Having been watered down beyond recognition, the passengers’ council is a far cry from what the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) envisaged. What remains is no watchdog at all, but a dog with no teeth or, as it has no enforcement powers, a dog that can barely bite. Even in the Government’s own factsheet, this so-called watchdog is confined to advising and reporting. GBR must “listen”, but nowhere does it have to comply. This is not accountability; it is blatant window dressing behind triple glazing.

If the council is not to be toothless, there have to be standards that GBR is expected to adhere to, so I ask the Secretary of State: where are the rigorous performance standards and the key performance indicators for the network that, in answer to parliamentary question after parliamentary question, she and her Ministers have promised will be released? She has taken operators into state control, but refuses to set out by which standards they should be judged. Does she have no standards—or perhaps she would rather let performance slip and then claim credit for any tiny improvements she can spin down the line?

We must contend instead with insufficient protections for ticket retailers, so passengers who use apps such as Trainline, which is incredibly popular, TrainPal or Uber will no doubt have to pay more for a shoddier service, as the Government push these growing businesses to the brink, as they are doing. From these depths, one inescapable conclusion emerges: the people who will benefit from this Bill are not passengers or taxpayers. The only ones who will benefit are the Secretary of State’s union paymasters, who stand to cash in, with no commitments to modernisation, to increasing efficiency or to abolishing outdated working practices. Every possible incentive for increasing efficiency has been ignored or abandoned on the altar of ideology.

Disruption at Heathrow

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

My right hon. Friend raises a fair point. I will ensure that we provide that information to him once we have reviewed the different reports that are going to be published over the next couple of months.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The Secretary of State mentioned consumer rights. Not only were Heathrow customers delayed and disrupted, but they were ripped off, with huge hikes for alternative flights, car hire and hotels. Is it not time that the Government brought forward robust anti-price-gouging legislation? In fairness to the Secretary of State and Labour Front Benchers, I also asked the previous Government, who did absolutely zero on this issue as well. [Laughter.] It is true, and I think we saw the result of that in many other ways. On behalf of the British consumer and international consumers, many of whom have been ripped off through no fault of their own as a result of this incident, is it not time that for new legislation? Should we not also carry out a wider review of the monopoly held by the operators of hotels at Heathrow and the lack of competition among airlines coming into Heathrow?

[Heidi Alexander]

I can categorically say that it would not be right for anyone or any business to capitalise on this disruption. Whether airlines or hotels, I would expect organisations to be doing everything they can to support travellers who have been disrupted by this incident.

Rail Services: Devon

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Steve Race]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. Some hon. Members joined me and others at a recent meeting with the rail Minister Lord Hendy to discuss the impact of the works at Old Oak Common associated with HS2. I will not go into that too much in this speech, as it is a big topic. I am in favour of HS2 going ahead, and feel what has happened to that project over the years has been disgraceful. In the south-west we need to see effective management of that project to ensure that disruption is minimised. We also need to see investment in our local railway lines to ensure that we see the benefit of public transport, as well as the rest of the country.

Speaking of the Exeter-Barnstaple line, potential improvement outcomes of the project include significantly improved punctuality and reliability for both Barnstaple and Okehampton train services, with reduced knock-on delays to other parts of the national network. It would deliver materially faster typical journey times, with a fastest journey between Barnstaple and Exeter St Davids of no more than 55 minutes, with potential further material time journey savings. It would also double train service frequency from hourly to two per hour—[Interruption.]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I will suspend the sitting for Divisions in the House. We expect three votes; 15 minutes are allowed for the first one and 10 minutes for subsequent votes. There may be two or three. If Members get back as quickly as possible, and the mover of the motion and the Minister are in their place, we will commence the debate. That is an encouragement for others to make it back tout de suite from the second or third Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and I am delighted to follow my colleagues from across Devon; I know that some others will be speaking shortly. Hon. Members who listened to my maiden speech will have noticed that I have committed to fighting for railway and transport in the south-west, so when I saw that there would be a debate today, I thought, “Well, I’ve got to come along and make sure I play my part.” Sadly, there will be no mentions of Kylie Minogue’s “The Loco-Motion” today, but if hon. Members want to read my maiden speech, they are welcome to.

What is clear in all things to do with the railway in the south-west, and particularly in Devon, is that we are looking for parity with the rest of the country. That has been alluded to particularly in the context of HS2. I know that HS2 has historically had cross-party support, but right from the beginning, I thought, “Hang on a minute, what about the south-west? Journey times that are a few minutes shorter on an already easy transport route from London to the midlands, versus what we get in the south-west?” I have never completely followed the argument, but we are where we are today.

It is important to acknowledge what the previous Government did in terms of taking responsibility for the south-west. We must not forget that £165 million was invested in the south-west rail resilience programme, and that got us almost to where we are today. We just need the final piece of the jigsaw to ensure that the line that takes us down into the south-west is secure. We must give credit where credit is due.

It is important to remember that, as I talked about in my maiden speech, the south-west is not just a tourist attraction. People live there and there is an enormous opportunity for even further growth. We are an incredibly vibrant economy: the blue and green economies are growing, and we are keen to grow, but without an adequate rail service into the south-west, that is massively hindered. Like Exeter, my constituency of South West Devon has a joint local plan that is already being delivered, but infrastructure is key, and I will touch briefly on that towards the end of my speech. My main question for the Minister is: what difference will public ownership of the railway make for the south-west? That is the big question overarching everything else.

I want to touch briefly on Old Oak Common, the Tavistock railway and Ivybridge, which is in my constituency. I want to touch on Old Oak Common because the recent helpful letter from the Rail Minister talks about a pot of £30 million for capital investments to mitigate the impact of disruption, which begs the question: what will it be spent on? It would be interesting to hear some detail. I think we can all make pitches for what that should cover: wi-fi has been touched on; and I will mention the Plymouth to Tavistock line—a nice project that would cost a fraction of the £30 million. We also have some challenges with platform lengths that prevent certain trains from stopping in my constituency.

At the moment, the benefits outlined in that letter, which says that we will be able to get connections to the north and the midlands, do not pass the “So what?” test, because we can already get to the midlands and the north from the south-west directly without having to go across to London in a triangle. Although it will help some connectivity, it does not stack up for constituents in Devon to know that they could go to London to get to Birmingham, when they could go straight to Birmingham from Plymouth or Exeter. I acknowledge that the easier access to Heathrow may be helpful, but again, it is of limited value.

That leads me to rebuilding Britain’s railway. The rail Minister provided a helpful answer that said that the Department is

“reviewing individual former RYR projects, including the Tavistock to Plymouth line.”

The ask has now been scaled back: they are asking for just 1% of the RYR budget, which is the seed money to finalise the business plan so that we can get to a point where we are shovel-ready for 2028. The hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) has already highlighted the appetite that we can see from the Okehampton line. It is also worth saying that it makes us more resilient, because we can ultimately create a circle that will go from Exeter all the way round to Plymouth and back, and that does not require Dawlish. In the next 10 or 15 years, that will be part of building rail resilience.

The project is just looking for 1%, which is less than £1.5 million and could be part of that £30 million capital—I do not know whether it counts as capital or revenue, but the question is when the decision can be expected and when the Department will feed back on whether that line is one of those that will be considered. That point links up, again, to the joint local plan. We have a metro rail plan for Plymouth that includes a station at Plympton in my constituency, which would be part of that circle that goes round to Ivybridge and up.

I wanted to mention Ivybridge, which is also in my constituency. At the moment, only 16 Great Western trains stop there a day. There are 29 CrossCountry services that go through the station but do not stop, and at the moment CrossCountry is refusing to do that. In light of the nationalisation plans, I would be interested to know what measures the Department might be able to take to put pressure on CrossCountry, so that 16 becomes 45 weekday services that my constituents could use to access the wider area.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

We come now to the Front-Bench speeches: five minutes for the Liberal Democrats, five minutes for the official Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to see you in your position, Mr Pritchard. You remain an ornament of the Bench.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) on securing the debate. I have learned a lot about the rail possibilities in Devon. A huge number of issues were raised, including both threats and opportunities for the area. I will read just a handful of those I have written down: the Dawlish sea wall works; the success story of the reopening of the redundant Exeter to Okehampton line; Old Oak Common, which I will talk a little about; accessibility challenges at stations; platform lengths, and the cancellation of the restoring your railway plan. However, that was all mentioned within the framework of the hon. Member’s initial assessment that rail is an enormous success in the area, and that is overwhelmingly due to the benefits of privatisation.

From the heyday of the railway, which is generally considered to be the early 1950s, participation trended inexorably downwards—people voted with their feet; the direction of travel was a straight line downwards—until privatisation, when it reversed. That is because of the enormous investment that privatisation allowed to be brought into the railway, and passenger numbers have doubled as a result. I therefore question what the Government’s position on renationalisation will do for passenger numbers and who will stand up for the passenger under the new system—but most of that is for another day.

I will touch on two of the issues that were raised, the first of which is Old Oak Common. There is deep concern in the region about the impact on GWR services, with diversion of services from the south-west, reduced track operations, closure of access to London Paddington, occasional redirection to London Euston—but when, and will it be predictable?—longer journeys and a reduced quality of service. I am sure the Minister recognises that, and the need for disruption is understood. My question is whether people will have to pay similar prices for a noticeably worse and disrupted service, and when they will have certainty about the timetable—not just a printed timetable, but one in which they can have confidence sufficient to book and rely on the service being delivered.

The other issue with GWR is Sunday performance, which is reliant on voluntary overtime from unionised drivers and other train operators. That is an extraordinary position to be in. I recognise that this is a long-standing issue, so I am not having a particular go, but how can we possibly have a mandated schedule that is reliant on people volunteering to staff it? I look for a Government response on that. Early signs are not particularly encouraging. The no strings attached £9,000 pay rise to ASLEF train drivers, with no Sunday working agreements or any productivity enhancing characteristics, is not a good start. I fear that nationalisation of the service as a whole will only make it worse. My question to Minister is: when the system is nationalised, and there is no incentive to go after extra customers, who will stand up for the customer experience? When the Minister for Rail—the noble Lord, Lord Hendy—says that he continues to press for resolution of the Sunday working issue, I ask the Minister how. We all wish it, but what active steps will the Government take?

Secondly, in my last 30 seconds, I want to talk about restoring your railway. The first thing the Government did in July was cancel it. It was an enormously popular project and we have seen how effective it was from Exeter to Okehampton. The Tavistock to Plymouth service is just as important. However, in his letter yesterday, Lord Hendy is now saying that the Department is looking at it again. Is that a U-turn? If they needed time to stop and think, why did the Government not do that, rather than take the precipitate decision to cancel the entire project back in July? If their answer is “Well, there was no money”, that is not correct. There was the entire £150 million of funding for that project, which was coming from the cancellation of the second leg of HS2—[Interruption.] If that has been gobbled up by something else, perhaps the Minister can tell us what has happened to the money.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I just remind Parliamentary Private Secretaries that they do not usually intervene, either officially or unofficially, if they do not mind my saying so.

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I will call Stephen Hammond to move the motion, and then I will call the Minister to respond. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in 30-minute debates he does not get a one-minute wind-up at the end.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. We had an important hour and a half debate on electric vehicle charging in this place less than two weeks ago, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine). It was a wide-ranging debate and we touched on a number of issues, but today I want to define it slightly more tightly and look at a couple of issues in a bit more detail. I recognise that there is a risk of repetition, but this is an extraordinarily important matter for this country to get right.

Although the country and the Government are making huge progress—the Government are leading the world, to a great extent, with the UK’s net zero target of 2050 and the phasing out of the internal combustion engine by the beginning of the 2030s—it is hugely important that they set aspirations and lead other nations.

Silsden and Steeton Bridge

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I call Robbie Moore to move the motion, and then I will call the Minister to respond. As hon. Members know, there is no opportunity for the mover of the motion to wind up in a 30-minute debate.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered construction of a Silsden and Steeton bridge.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am delighted to have secured my own personal time in the House of Commons to raise an important local issue: my campaign to get the Silsden to Steeton pedestrian bridge built over the busy A629 dual carriageway.

Before I get into the detail, it is important to outline why this campaign is so important. Silsden is a town with a population of around 8,000, including myself; perhaps I should declare that as an interest, because I would like to benefit from this bridge. Silsden is connected to Steeton—a slightly smaller settlement—by the A6034, otherwise known as Keighley Road, which then goes on to become Station Road. It is a distance of less than 1,000 metres.

Steeton has a busy and well-utilised railway station, with direct links to Skipton, Bradford and Leeds. Many of my constituents living in Silsden benefit from that station, but getting there is a treacherous journey on foot. What separates the two settlements is a very busy dual carriageway. The A629 is a busy trunk road going east to west between Skipton and Keighley, and beyond. It takes a huge amount of heavy traffic every day and into the night.

On the junction between the busy dual carriageway and the two roads connecting Silsden and Steeton is a two-lane roundabout. There is no ideal crossing point for a pedestrian to get across the roundabout and the busy dual carriageway from Silsden to Steeton. For a resident living in Silsden with children, or a young person who is wanting to walk from Silsden to Steeton, the connection to get to the roundabout is not easy in itself. The pavements are very narrow on either side of the road.

If a person is walking from Silsden in the direction of Steeton, once they get to the bridge that goes over the Aire river, the pavement disappears on one side and they have to cross over to the other side. They then have to make their way up to the busy roundabout and take their life into their hands to cross it before making their way on to Steeton. That is just not good enough. We must get a pedestrian bridge built as a matter of urgency, because many people use the crossing.

What action has been taken to date? Kris Hopkins, who was the previous Conservative MP for Keighley, first lobbied on the issue. He got a petition going that was signed by many residents living in Silsden and Steeton who had to use the crossing on a day-to-day basis. As the MP for Keighley, and Ilkley at the time, he was successful in securing £700,000 from our Conversative Government for a feasibility study, which was awarded to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority. In turn, it instructed Bradford Council to undertake a feasibility study and build a business case so more funds could be drawn down to get the pedestrian bridge built.

That money was awarded way back in late 2016, and it took until 2020 for the Labour-run Bradford Council and the Labour-run West Yorkshire Combined Authority to even get the feasibility study done. Almost four years! What on earth were they doing in that period to build a business case? It was only after I lobbied, after getting elected in 2019, that Bradford Council and West Yorkshire Combined Authority produced this feasibility study, and—surprise, surprise—what do we think it said? We need a bridge to cross this busy dual carriageway. Unbelievable! They spent £700,000 on determining that, but we could all have said that it needed to be done.

The feasibility study said that it was going to cost £3.6 million to construct the bridge—a hefty sum. Of course, detail is important, and I appreciate that it can take some time to build up the feasibility and business cases to draw down funds. But, looking at the figures, it would seem that West Yorkshire Combined Authority, a Labour-run administration controlled by a Labour Mayor, and the Labour administration at Bradford Council could not even get their figures right. In 2020, they told us, and my constituents, that it was going to cost £3.6 million to build the bridge. In June 2021, they then told us it was going to cost £5.5 million, and then—surprise, surprise—we get to August 2022 and the figure has gone up dramatically to £10.3 million.

All we want is a pedestrian bridge across a dual carriageway, and they are now telling us that it is going to cost £10.3 million. That is an increase of £6.7 million since the first figure of £3.6 million from the feasibility study that took them almost four years to do. What on earth have they been doing during the last four years, and what on earth was the previous Labour MP doing to get any traction on this project? Nothing!

I can only assume that those figures have been exaggerated to try to kick the project into the long grass because they are not interested in building the bridge. Well, let me tell you, Mr Pritchard: I absolutely am. Since I have been elected as the Conservative MP, we have been successful in securing the funds to deliver this project. Those funds have been awarded by this Conservative Government to West Yorkshire Combined Authority via an £830 million fund that is ringfenced for transport and infrastructure-related projects.

The money is there; we have secured that, and now it moves on to deliverability. Back in 2022, when the announcement was made that we had been successful and secured the money, what did Labour-run Bradford Council and Labour-run West Yorkshire Combined Authority tell us? “Oh well, it is going to take until 2026 for this bridge to be built.” I cannot get my head around how much time it takes to get a project off the ground. All we want is a safe crossing so that my constituents can get from Silsden to Steeton without having to take their lives into their hands by crossing a busy dual carriageway.

The incompetence at the council is unbelievable. Look at how long it takes to get major infrastructure projects off the ground. The Queensferry crossing, connecting Edinburgh to Fife, took six years to build, yet the council are saying that a pedestrian bridge is going to take another four years to get off the ground. That is simply not good enough. The feedback that I am getting is that the ground conditions are complex—well, let’s get it sorted out and do our research so that we can get the bridge built. I know that planning issues can be complex. Compulsory purchase powers may need to be implemented because I assume that land take will be required, as the council will not own all of the land. Let us get this project going.

I will continue to bang the drum for driving economic growth and ensuring that we have a safe crossing for my constituents, but we must get the council and West Yorkshire Combined Authority moving because I am getting impatient and I will not stop banging the drum on this issue for my constituents. All we want is a safe pedestrian crossing over a busy dual carriageway. I want to crack on and get it built now, so that a parent living in Silsden does not have to drive their child almost 1 km to drop them off at the station in Steeton or take their life into their hands when crossing the dual carriageway. I am getting fed up with the sluggish approach of our council and of West Yorkshire Combined Authority. As I say, let us get this bridge built.

Will the Minister use all his efforts to put pressure on the Labour West Yorkshire Mayor, who is dragging her feet on this issue, and on Labour-run Bradford Council, to get this project delivered with urgency? Will he write to those two organisations to put pressure on them to get the bridge built? Will he come to see me and meet some of my residents in Silsden and Steeton, so that we can get this project off the ground? All we want to do is get the bridge built.

Covid-19: Aviation

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I like the hon. Lady’s optimism for beer and sandwiches. I personally do not drink beer, so that would not necessarily be of benefit to me. Wine is more to my taste. But I should say that we remain committed as a Government to do what we need to do and align the policies in order to get planes up in the air. The aviation sector is so important for the UK economy and it will remain so, particularly with our regional connectivity. We will work through this crisis with the aviation sector in mind, working on what we can do to mitigate its impact.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Will the Minister continue to press the Home Office on introducing a flexible quarantine rather than a blanket quarantine, so that countries with high infection rates can be targeted rather than every country, including those with low infection rates? While she has the opportunity, given that some extensions have been given to review periods, will she give a commitment to the House that any review, post 29 June, will be for three weeks and three weeks only and will not be extended to four weeks or further?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that any quarantine review period needs to be understood by the sector. As I have already outlined, we are working with the sector and we are investigating air bridges. There is a lot of work going on internationally as well, with other international organisations, and that is quite right because this is not something that purely affects the UK. In relation to quarantine, a number of countries are following suit or have already implemented measures at this time. The Home Secretary will be making a statement immediately after this in relation to the policy, and I obviously do not want to pre-empt anything that she might say.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

When I took on this sale, I ensured—in the work we did to prepare for the sale and with potential buyers—that additional safeguards were put in place for those tenants. Whether the arches had remained in the public sector or been sold, it would always have been right to ensure that a market rent was charged. There is no expectation of rent increases out of line with market rents. In the public sector, it would not have been proper use of public money to provide subsidised rents for businesses.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On airport security, given the stresses and strains on many police forces, not least the Met police and Sussex police, what further consideration has the Transport Secretary given to allowing the British Transport police to have responsibility for the security of British airports?

[Chris Grayling]

That suggestion has been put to me on a couple of occasions. At the moment, because of the nature of the threat around our airports and the fact that so much airport security—particularly at our principal airports—is done through the Metropolitan police, who co-ordinate anti-terror work nationally, I am not yet convinced that it would be the right thing to do, but I am always open to considering change if it will deliver improvement.

National Policy Statement: Airports

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

This project, including the development hub concept that Heathrow has been promoting, will make a contribution to the economy of all parts of the United Kingdom. I know the hon. Gentleman has a keen eye on making sure that the hub goes to Ballymena; I cannot make any promises to the airport on the plan, but I know the hon. Gentleman will carry on making that argument very robustly.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Whether it is pre or post Brexit, does the Secretary of State accept that, to be an open, liberal, market economy, we need an airport that can compete against the likes of Paris, Schiphol, Istanbul, Dubai and Doha? On the issue of the regions, does he accept that Birmingham airport also has a part to play over the skies of the UK?

[Chris Grayling]

rose—

Train Services: Telford and Birmingham

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered train services between Telford and Birmingham.

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It is also a great privilege to be able to come to this place and raise the concerns of the residents I represent, and to have a Minister come and listen to them. In this place, as we have just seen, we often debate issues of great national and global importance, and sometimes we forget to focus on the issues that have the greatest impact on the day-to-day lives of those we serve.

Telford, my constituency, is a vibrant, thriving and rapidly growing new town set in the heart of rural Shropshire, and this year it is celebrating its 50th anniversary. It has a unique identity and a proud industrial heritage as the birthplace of the industrial revolution. It is a shining example of what a successful new town can be. When Telford was designed half a century ago, it was intended to be self-sufficient, with all services, shopping and jobs provided locally. At that time, people were moving to Telford to get out of Birmingham, to live a better quality of life. However, the design of Telford in that way has meant that in many ways we are now cut off and somewhat isolated. Fifty years on, that self-sufficient model is not a model for a successful business centre, which requires excellent connectivity by both road and rail in order to thrive.

Telford has become a significant population centre and a very important business centre in the heart of the west midlands. It has inward investment, enterprise, commerce, advanced manufacturing and all sorts of hi-tech and new businesses coming to the area. Unemployment has halved and apprenticeships have doubled since 2010. With that, we should be experiencing good transport connectivity and rail networks fit for our growing new town, but sadly that is not the case.

Despite being surrounded by a rural hinterland of gorgeous Shropshire countryside, Telford is only 27 miles west of Birmingham, so we should be perfectly positioned for commuting to or leisure activities in Birmingham. We are next to the UK’s second largest city and should be able to capitalise on that opportunity, yet it takes us 47 minutes to get from Telford to Birmingham by train. We have only two trains an hour, and they are spaced so that if we miss the one at eight minutes past the hour, we have to wait 45 minutes for the next train. The issue is not just the spacing. Once we are on the train, the service is slow. It is a stopping service. The train chugs along reluctantly, stopping at every little Shropshire village that it passes along the way, and often it has only two carriages, which will inevitably be full to bursting at peak times.

As Telford has grown, more and more people have chosen to come and build their lives there, and more and more people want to travel to Birmingham for both leisure and work, so overcrowding is all too common, with people often standing for the whole of the 47-minute journey.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Lucy Allan]

I shall be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour.

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. Friend rightly highlights the issues of the track and the capacity of the trains. Does she agree that, in addition, companies such as West Midlands Trains, which won the new franchise, need to look at stations—in particular, Albrighton and access to it, and Wellington, which has 750,000 passengers a year but where there is leaking at platform 1 and no toilet facilities outside opening hours? Some of those basic passenger experiences also need to be looked at—experiences on platforms as well as on the tracks and in the carriages.

[Lucy Allan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right. There is a great deal more work to be done and I feel that we have been somewhat neglected over the years in Telford and the surrounding areas. It is important that we address this now for the future of our area. That is why I have come to this place this afternoon.

The journey to Birmingham from London is one hour and 27 minutes or thereabouts, but trying to go on to Telford is a throwback to a completely different era. There is this slow, crowded stopping service, which takes 47 minutes, as I mentioned, and that is enough to move any commuter on to the road. The infrastructure investment has lagged behind our rapid population growth and our growth as a business centre. As you can imagine, Mr Hollobone, residents are regularly in contact with me to tell me about their struggles and their frustrations on a daily basis, so I want to give a voice to their experiences.

The train service between Telford and Birmingham simply does not meet the needs of a modern, thriving new town. In fact, Telford is the fastest growing new town in the country and the fastest growing town in the west midlands, yet we have had the same train service for as long as I and many others can remember, and it is not moving forward.