International Rail Services: Ashford

Polly Billington Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I can see France from my constituency on a clear day, and yet my constituents cannot get there easily or affordably for work or pleasure. Last week, I was speaking with one of my friends about her plans to go to Paris for the Christmas markets. A quick overnight stay for shopping and fun with a couple of friends was the kind of thing that less than a decade ago people from across Kent and Sussex did easily and affordably. Now it is practically impossible.

That might sound like what is known as a high-quality problem. After all, across the country people are struggling with the cost of living, and holidays, even short ones, are out of reach. But what is particularly galling about the situation in east Kent is that we are close to Europe and yet more cut off than ever. Although we have infrastructure specifically designed to connect us to France, Belgium and beyond, it lies unused and empty—paid for by the taxpayer and left abandoned.

A single ticket from Margate to St Pancras International station early enough in the morning to change to the Eurostar to Paris is £60, and the journey takes almost two hours. That is too expensive and inconvenient, so it stops people being able to do what they would like to. Because Ashford International station remains closed to European services, my constituents are forced to travel into central London, with the high costs that come with that. They do not have the unfortunate experience of the constituents of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), who must literally pass through Ashford—back and forth. However, that drive, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) mentioned, is counterproductive for the environment and bad for the capital, as well as for my constituents.

In its expansion plans, Eurostar still refuses to consider reopening international services at Ashford, and £80 million of public infrastructure remains unused and wasted, despite its potential. That means people in Kent and Sussex will continue to miss out on fast, convenient and cheaper connections to Europe, and on the tourism boost they would bring to our coastal towns. Reopening international services at Ashford is about more than just making it easier to go on holiday; it is about driving economic and social revival in deprived parts of the south-east.

Members across Parliament, although not in this Chamber, perhaps think of the south-east as leafy, wealthy places such as Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells. However, there are pockets of acute deprivation across the south-east and, for the most part, they are on the coast. We have so much to offer and so much potential. Margate, for example, is home to a globally recognised art gallery, the Turner Contemporary; Broadstairs has the history of being home to a world-famous author, Charles Dickens; and Ramsgate has the heritage to tell the story of our links to the rest of the world—from the arrival of the Vikings to the Romans and St Augustine, some of the most important and exciting changes to our country have started in Thanet. That has left a rich and vibrant history and a legacy of creativity and ideas that the rest of the world could benefit from, if only they could get there.

[Helena Dollimore]

My hon. Friend, like me, represents a constituency that the Sutton Trust has ranked one of the lowest for social mobility and opportunity. Does she agree that reopening the link would provide a massive boost to young people and opportunities for them in our area?

[Ms Billington]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Despite significant investment under a Labour Government in High Speed 1, which benefits my community, it often feels as though many people are still cut off from those opportunities. We need to break down barriers to opportunity, and the restoration of international services at Ashford would do precisely that.

The recent report from the Good Growth Foundation, which hon. Members from both sides of the House have referred to, highlighted the potential economic benefits of reopening those services. It found that doing so would lead to a £2.5 billion boost to the visitor economy over five years. Making it easier for constituents in East Thanet to visit Europe works both ways; it would also make it much easier for Europeans to visit our wonderful cultural sites, such as the Turner Contemporary gallery or our beautiful beaches.

I recently met VisitBritain, which told me that one of its target markets is France because of the potential tourism we can bring in via Eurostar. The Good Growth Foundation report found that reopening international services at Ashford would cut two hours from the trip from Paris to Thanet. That might not sound like a huge amount of time, but two hours is a big difference when it comes to making sure that people enjoy their holiday. Anything that makes it easier for tourists to visit will help to drive our local economies and revitalise our towns.

This debate is not just about exhorting Eurostar to restore those services; it has clearly made a business decision not to. Instead, it is about using the levers of Government, particularly the Office of Rail and Road, to ensure that future operators must make some commitment. Making sure that regulation drives growth, and particularly that it benefits people who have been left out of economic prosperity by previous decisions, is the role of the active state. Reopening international services is about showing people who feel ignored or let down by politics that Government can improve things—that a Labour Government can improve things—and that the Government recognise the importance of coastal towns and are committed to tackling the issues that blight us. It is time to make Ashford international again.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you very much, Sir Desmond, for chairing us today; you are the serial winner of the best dressed Chair competition.

As a Kentish man—I was brought up as a Kentish man—I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this debate. I am glad that I was not part of the negotiations with the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), who probably put forward serial applications for a similar debate.

It is important to have this debate, building on the legacy of the former Member of Parliament for Ashford, Damian Green. My former colleague understood the significance of the impact on international services at Ashford and Ebbsfleet. He had an Adjournment debate back in October 2023, and, having read that debate in Hansard, it is remarkable how many of the arguments have been rehearsed in this very Chamber before. I suspect the speech of the then Rail Minister, Huw Merriman, will have more than a passing resemblance to that of the current occupant.

It is clear from the contributions that we heard way back in 2023 and today from all Members that reintroducing services at Ashford International would be welcomed by residents across Kent and the whole south-east—and it turns out, also those in Strangford and York Outer. The economic case has been set out most recently by the Good Growth Foundation, which has argued that reintroducing services would deliver significant benefits to the region. I intended to go through all the various data it put forward to support its case in its report, but various Members have already done that job for me, so I will avoid the temptation to repeat all those numbers.

It is so far, so good, as we are all furiously agreeing with each other. We agree, as did the last Government, that Eurostar—with a private business and ambitions to grow from 19 million passengers to 30 million passengers across Europe—should reopen its services to Ashford International and/or to Ebbsfleet. If it is looking to grow, why ignore a profitable potential market? Its business plan is obviously up to it as a private business, but it currently appears that Eurostar is content to focus on a more profitable route direct to London. It can do that because, without any direct rail competition, some have suggested that it has become complacent. That is what happens in the absence of competition: the same is good enough, there is no incentive for dynamic development, nor the creation of new products, the defence of one’s markets or the pushing of the boundaries. There is no drive either to cut costs to maximise efficiency.

I speak with personal experience of this; before coming into Parliament, I was the managing director of a decent-sized business. I hated competition, because competition in a market forced us to sharpen our pencil, both financially and in the services that we provided. I recognised that it was good for our business in the abstract, but in the day-to-day, people want to avoid it. I am therefore pleased that four challenger brands have seen additional opportunities for the tunnel and HS1, which we should now call—I learned to call it—London St Pancras Highspeed, since February this year. Eurostar uses just 50% of its capacity of the tunnel, and the ORR is currently considering the availability of depot space at Temple Mills.

Lord Hendy, the Rail Minister, appears to agree. In his letter to the ORR, he argues that

“the arrival of competition will benefit users of international rail services by expanding the number of stations served (including new markets), encouraging greater differentiation in service provision and promoting competitive prices.”

How right he is. Competition leads to improved services, increased efficiency and the development of new markets, so why will the Government not apply the same logic when it comes to domestic rail? If Lord Hendy believes what he said to the ORR, why are his Government doggedly pursing their nationalisation agenda, designing competition out of the UK railways? This is important, and it was referred to positively by Labour Members: why is he planning to remove the crucial role of the independent economic regulator from the ORR, making Great British Railways both the player and the referee in the new version of the railways? Surely, that is like giving Eurostar the job of deciding if there is room for more competition on HS1.

[Ms Billington]

The case the hon. Member is making may have some valid points, but is he prepared to take responsibility for the fact that the British Government do not have a say in what Eurostar does because a previous Administration—run by the Conservatives with their then allies, the Liberal Democrats—ended up without the British Government having a say in how Eurostar runs itself? That was a failed opportunity to be an enabling state.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Lady and I come from different perspectives. I think competition drives good economic behaviour, not the state directing individual companies on what they can do, whether profitable or unprofitable. That is a genuine difference of approach. In this instance, I agree with Lord Hendy, the Rail Minister, that it is competition in this market that will drive benefits to consumers and the taxpayer. We have to remember that Labour left office in 2010 when there was “no money left” and Governments have to take difficult decisions, as the current Government are learning to their cost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

Of course there is open access ability through these international rail links, which is an important thing to point to. What I find challenging about the assertions that the hon. Member made in his winding-up speech is the notion that some sort of perfect free market competition existed in our rail system prior to the Labour Government taking office. There was enormous dysfunction, which arose from an overly deregulated system.

[Ms Billington]

On competition and the former Conservative Government, I remind Members that they were the ones who brought Southeastern, which serves my constituency, into public ownership, because of the failures of the commercial process.

[Keir Mather]

I think the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, was right to say that competitive practices, where they work, should be encouraged, and that has been the focus of this debate. But the broader perspective, which came out in the debate around the Government in 2015 selling their stake in the operation of Eurostar, is that we lack the nimbleness to direct rail operations in a way that benefits passengers and local economies and ensures resilience. That is what the Government are striving to do in creating balance throughout our rail system.

I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and other colleagues for their continued and tireless campaigning on this matter. Their hard work has genuinely been instrumental in keeping the case for reinstatement firmly on the agenda, and their constituents benefit enormously from having MPs who are so determined to bring economic and travel opportunities to their part of the United Kingdom.

The Government support the reinstatement of international rail services at Kent stations as soon as it is practical for operators to do so. We support the growth of international rail, and we will continue to work constructively with all partners, be they local, national or international, to make that vision a reality. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye for raising this important matter, and commend everyone who has taken the time to take part in this important debate.